PART TWO - The End Of Men....

PART TWO

A response to the July/August 2010 issue of The Atlantic’s flagship article, approved by the editor COWARD James Bennet:

THE END OF MEN, HOW WOMEN ARE TAKING CONTROL – OF EVERYTHING

I love and adore, but I reject unintelligent man-bashing arguments and will do so in my answer to The Atlantic with reason and social concern for accuracy and purity in reporting. And get this, I’ll do what I’m about to do without assigning blame to women for any difficulties that modern men may be facing, nor will I inspire men to be victims, which is a strategy recruited by so many who do all they can to keep oppression alive in their psyche.

If some women feel oppressed they blame men, if some women are successful they blame the downfall of men, and many cowardly men go along with it like a prison bitch. Yes James, I’m talking to you, so please pay attention. As this trio in The Atlantic have asserted, no matter what the issue, success or failure, it always comes gift wrapped with some mindless crusade to afflict men with crime and punishment, usually dispensed by the strategically placed anger of women.

Anger from women to get their way is an ancient strategy still in force today because of its continued results upon men who do not know how to respond to it. And yet paradoxically, while women still employ anger to get their way with men, they do not respect men that do not stand right back up to them. Actually, anger and bullying is a way that women use to test if a man is a real man, to see if his manhood is authentic, but sadly, most men fail at this test. But, men are accountable for this result, not women.

I wonder if this is the agenda behind The Atlantic’s mindless tirade, to test and see if there are men that will stand up to the unintelligence of ill found ‘poor me’ female aggression? If it is, consider this response a standing up to the bully in the playground.

The editor and writers of this story are shameless social criminals with malice aforethought to undermine, devalue, blame, reject, persecute and ridicule men and rape manhood of its authentic power.

The article, sidebar and the editor’s intro are all written by impersonal journalists focused on the cleverness of their words and the structure of their paragraphs, as opposed to involved participants who have at least some experience in win/win scenarios for that which they write.

The trio loosely gather information with many unsubstantiated conclusions taking wild stabs at the dark to reach for evidence and facts that don’t exist to support some version of a feminist war where women can only ascend in life if men are doing badly, never mind the idea that there are both men and women doing well in their own right.

Imagine if a man claimed that his success was the result of oppressing women? But this is what this article does, but in the opposite direction. It’s so high school, so ridiculous and there’s such a low level of authentic editorial oversight that the entire magazines credibility must be called into question in its supposed position as a respected social commentary medium.

It’s very simply a collection of words haphazardly pasted together with reckless abandon for broad social congruency, that one might be forgiven for asking if this entire magazine is making a stone faced attempt at satire, which has fallen on its face against the rise of intuitive and spontaneous heckling from this member of the audience.

Now to the article itself…

Imagine if a story featured in a major magazine posed the question in bold lettering: ARE MOTHERS NECESSARY? There would be widespread outcry, although half of it would be cooked in political correctness. But get this; this is exactly what is posed in the magazine, except the question in the big bold rude lettering is: ARE FATHERS NECESSARY?

I had to put the magazine down, stand up and walk away just at the sight of that abominable question that almost involuntarily filled the whites of my eyes with flowing blood like bending roads on a map. I knew then I had to respond, but we’ll get to that in a moment, because as it turns out that question was the basis of a side piece outside of the flow of the flagship article, but perhaps even more fiendish in its predictable answer.

I knew I’d have a hard time knowing where to start in writing my reply to this shambles of a contribution to human devolutionary ideas, I just knew I had to write something and see where it went.

But to thumb in more salt to the blistering wound, this issue of The Atlantic has the credibility annihilating pretentiousness of branding this issue THE IDEAS ISSUE, WITH THE 14 ¾ MOST POWERFUL IDEAS OF THE YEAR. I fully expect to see a story somewhere else in the magazine declaring that the world really is flat after all, but not along the same themes as Thomas L. Friedman’s.

So here I go making selections from these three fools and my commentary for each one.

On Saturday June 19th 2010 on my blog, I specifically condemned the words of introduction provided by the apparent editor James Bennet, so I won’t spend even more energy by going over that again. But suffice it to say, this man is wholly responsible and accountable for all the words in this magazine, and as such it is reasonable and equitable that he be thoughtfully declared as a COWARD. Although he is much more than this, certainly he is not less.

One cannot help but wonder if James has powerful friends that have inserted him into his current position that think much more of him that what is intellectually available to him. Such charity only diminishes these friends, calling their own intelligence into obvious question.

I’m still coming to terms that I am actually writing this response. I’ve never done anything like this before, but I am strangely emboldened, and yet if you ask anyone that knows me, they would read this and wonder why I have waited so long to get involved.

Though I may be criticized that my own writing is imperfect, I accept that. But I won’t accept any attempts to dismiss my positions because I am right winged, religious, chauvinist or in some other way not a gentleman, for no such accusations will stick.

PART THREE IS COMING...