Weak Western Men
In quite a few submissions and comments here on Stickman lately I’ve read about an alleged weakness that is common among western (white) men nowadays, that it seems to have snuck up on us and that it has grown much worse rapidly. And that if we bring it to Thailand and react as weak towards a Thai woman as our PC societies would have us acting at home towards western women then we will lose any respect that our Thai woman had for us and our relationship with her will be doomed.
To discuss this we first need to determine if these allegations are indeed true. Are western men weakening? If so, why is this happening and how? Last we might discuss how this affects us in relations with women from different cultures, in this case Thai women. I have rather a strong opinion on these matters so I thought I’d give it a shot.
Myself I’m a white, western, heterosexual male so I admit straight away I’m subjective here. And I say that yes indeed we, as a collective but not always as individuals, are weakening; we’re going soft, too soft. The situation is of course different from country to country but I’d venture that what I will describe is valid, to varying degrees perhaps, in all of what we call the “western world”.
I know that men traditionally have been dominant compared to women and continue to be so in much of the world. Even in our western world women have quite recently gotten rights that men have had before them, such as being allowed to vote in elections for example. Then again, voting in elections is actually a fairly new right for most men as well, not that many generations old. But it’s clear that women have not always had the rights they should have had even in our countries. They have struggled to win these rights and have to a great degree done so and I applaud this. Women have been fighting justly for women’s rights and they have succeeded. This is a good thing. If I ever have a daughter I would want her to have every opportunity in life just like I would have wished for a son of mine to have.
But I’d like to make the case that there is another struggle taking place right now and that it’s not about equality but about assuming control, about taking over and to a degree about vengeance. This struggle is spearheaded by women in academic circles in behavioural “science” departments in our universities. Their starting point is that men are and have always been oppressors of women and also that since the world has seen so much horror on our watch we men can no longer be trusted to lead it. Radical feminists and various man-haters abound, these institutions spew such hate against one particular group of people that it would be a criminal offence save for one reason: the group is heterosexual white males, the one single group that you can verbally assault with impunity.
The stuff you hear from these “ladies” is quite astounding. To name a few examples from my country we’ve got the suggestion that all men are potential rapists. This is actually a common suggestion in these circles. All men would rape given the right (wrong) circumstances they say. And they mean it, they believe it. Some stretch this to include paedophilia even, claiming men can’t be trusted alone with children, even their own children.
Less nasty but equally insane is the assault on biology. The suggestion is that physical differences between men and women are actually not due to our natural genetic setup but due to “male power structures” keeping women from their true potential. There was even a scholar a while ago who suggested that women are physically as strong as men but that they have been somehow coerced into weakness by us men so we can control them. This debate came up during the Beijing Olympics when there was fierce criticism because men’s sports got more TV time and more general interest than did women’s sports. So this lady set out to convince people that it was because this evil male conspiracy kept women athletes from getting attention that these women could never reach their true physical potential which is, according to her, every bit as powerful as that of men’s. Genetics has apparently got nothing to do with anything. And we’re talking about a research “scientist” here, at university level.
Then we’re on to the stuff that’s so crazy it’s comical. We had one feminist/artist who was convinced that the fact that women have to sit down and pee is discriminatory since we men can stand up at urinals. Apparently toilets are constructed by men with the intent to force women to degrade themselves by sitting down while allowing men to stand up. This “artist” set about constructing a type of pants for women that had some sort of funnel in the crotch which supposedly allowed women to pee standing up. She then held courses talking about how “male power structures” are holding women back and summed them up with a standing peeing session for the participating gals, who walked away feeling much strengthened by the experience one must assume.
Now all of this wouldn’t actually be a problem if these fine ladies kept their insanity to themselves and got little or no attention in the real world. The problem is that these crazies serve as inspirational sources for more “moderate” feminists who take classes at these academic institutions as part of their education. When these women then start their careers as say family-advisors, journalists or lawyers or, worse still, politicians, judges or prosecutors they bring some of these ideas along and we’ve got a problem.
How do you win a custody battle if the judge is a woman who believes it’s possible that men, all men, are inherent rape risks towards their own children? How do you get a fair deal in a divorce settlement if members of the court have the idea that your “male power” has structurally held down and back your wife during your whole marriage? The answer is: you don’t. Precisely in legal cases this is a real threat, because here the hatred of the male collective can strike the individual man a terrible blow.
Where I’m from there’s been suggestions that since rape is a crime which is hard to prove, it’s often word against word, the burden of proof should be reversed. This would mean that for all other crimes the court must prove that the accused party is guilty but for rape alone it’s the accused (man) who must prove his innocence. Now, if you go home with a woman and have sex with her and she regrets it and cries “rape” then how in hell are you supposed to prove your innocence? Especially when it’s apparently enough if she changes her mind during – or even after – the act for the act to transform from sex to rape. This would be a very, very dangerous piece of legislation for any man practising sex with women. This hasn’t actually been made a law but it was very close to happening, it was supported by our male justice minister at the time, and it might happen next time around.
In a neighbouring western country they recently decided that prostitution is illegal for the man who buys sex but not for the prostitute who sells it. Furthermore men who buy sex are committing a crime even if the act takes place abroad in a country where it’s legal. So they can go to Amsterdam and smoke a joint but not go there and pay for sex. Both smoking a joint and paying for sex is illegal back home but permitted in Amsterdam, however just one of these acts is a crime if you partake in it abroad. Why? Because it’s perceived as a male crime against females, that’s why, and therefore more stringent rules must apparently apply.
The point of these examples I’m mentioning is that this is a reality and that it’s happening now. Legislation is being enacted in the west that is very much tilted against males and aimed precisely at the institutional weakening of men. Take divorce legislation for instance. Now in my own country it’s not yet as bad as it seems to be elsewhere but in, for example, the US it seems to have gone so far away from what is reasonable that I will soon start to question the mental health of American males who even considers entering into “holy” matrimony.
In my own country the feminist mob’s main focus are four specific areas. The first is the attempt to reverse the burden of proof in legal cases where a man stands against a woman, as I mentioned before. This is an area they use to inflame their audience and generate followers because sadly there are men out there who commit heinous acts towards women and can be made into perfect examples to serve the feminist agenda. They portray these cowardly lowlifes, rapists and wife beaters and the like, as typical men when in reality they are anything but that. And they portray male violence against women as rampant when in reality a man is far more likely than a woman to be the victim of a violent crime.
The second area is quotation, or affirmative action, in every area where it is deemed to benefit women. Even private corporations, they argue, must have an equal number of men and women on their boards of directors. So, as an example, a steel company owned since generations by one family and with 95% males in their workforce and a board of directors with a long history in the company would have to lay off half of these individuals if they are men, just so they can be replaced by women. Where’s the fairness in that I ask? And even if you could ration away fairness for a greater good, which IMO is questionable, is there such a greater good to be had here? Or is it just rampant insanity? I claim that it is insanity and the scary thing is that this is something that is well on the way to becoming a reality.
The third is a long term perspective where their stated aim is that all children should be raised in a gender neutral environment. There’s study after study demonizing things like the characters in children’s books where apparently boys are portrayed as adventurous and loud and girls as quiet and polite. This should all be banned of course, according to feminism. EVERYTHING must be equal. Boys must play with dolls just as much as the girls do. Kids must wear the same kind of clothes in the same colours of course. Everyone should keep in mind not to have gender in mind at all times (except to monitor and make sure that no gender patterns are expressed). Screw the natural development of the individual child, we’ve got bigger fish to fry here!
The forth is probably the one that is most responsible for western men actually weakening. Media control. If I counted the columnists in our most read daily tabloids I’d end up with at least two out of three being feminists, as in many other popular media outlets. They are indeed loud. It’s a constant drumbeat and a gender angle is applied to every topic that happens to be current news. The latest example: equating the bonus culture in the banking sector with a “male culture”. Not only need we force a dismantling of the bonus system but we must… you guessed it… replace a lot of the males in charge with women. Only then can we heal the damage done by these MEN. Or so they say.
In these attempts to control the public debate climate there’s some seriously Orwellian stuff included: thought crime. If you are a man and you happen to have an opinion conflicting with the feminist agenda you are simply evil. And since you’re a man you are also wrong. It doesn’t matter what qualifications you have or how much sense you make because you being a man disqualifies your opinions from the start. What you actually say is less important than what you “represent”. And you represent the “power structures” that is the old oppressor and the new public enemy so you can’t be allowed to be right.
Those that represent the power structures are defined, in order of importance, by the following characteristics:
* Being male
* Being white
* Being heterosexual
* Being middle aged
If you are all of these <And that would be 90% of the Stickman readership – Stick> then you are always wrong, no matter what because you are an oppressor of others by default. Since you are an oppressor and part of a “power structure” you must be assumed to be arguing to keep your power over others and therefore you must be opposed and contradicted. If just one or a few of the above characteristics apply to you then it depends on their respective importance.
You get the picture? I exaggerate here of course, there are no such clear cut rules in reality. But something along these lines is indeed the result of a PC society. The more you can claim the status of a minority and/or a victim the more leeway you’re given to express your opinion and assault others. And the more you’re perceived as a representative of the alleged traditional power structures the more careful you have to be not to step on anyone’s toes. Every word will be scrutinized and if you make a gaffe that can be interpreted as an insult to any “weaker” group or individual it can be turned against you in which case you’ll be character assassinated pronto.
So, has this weakened the western male? Yes it has. It has convinced him that he’s got some sort of a debt to pay back. That since men have traditionally been dominant over women and that because ever since “white” men led the industrial revolution they assumed the dominant role in the world, they now have a collective debt to pay. We western males have been getting our way for a long time and now we must step back in the name of justice and equality (and vengeance?).
Even if the individual man doesn’t really believe this he’s often too afraid, or careful, to voice his disbelief because the reply will be loud and fierce and his opinion will be interpreted as a desire to uphold an unjust status quo for personal gains. The result is an abundance of men who choose to play along with these radicals rather than take the heat that comes from standing up for what’s right. Like our sterling former justice minister who conspired to appease the ultra-feminist movement and reverse the burden of proof in rape cases, dismantling basic legal rights for half the population, the male half. A true Quisling, to say the least, and a good example of a very, very weak man!
And he’s not alone. To escape from vilification many men seem to go along with the PC mafia’s ideas. Taken to the extreme by some you see men proudly wearing T-shirts with the word “feminist” printed on them. You see men making a point of dressing their baby girl in blue and their baby boy in pink to break (actually it’s more to reverse than to break in many cases) “gender patterns”. You see men bending themselves over backwards to be politically correct at all times and appease the whims of the women around them so as to be accepted as modern, enlightened, equal men. I even saw a guy (and not a tranny) in a skirt the other day, I kid you not! They will be patted on the head by the feminists like good little serfs but of course they are never really accepted. They are men after all. I find them utterly repulsive.
Of course relatively few go to these extremes. Just like the rabid man-hating crazies are a small but loud minority in the general feminist movement so too are these self depraving amoebas a small but visible minority of the new, weaker western male collective. But the movement is there. The centre of gravity is in motion. Western men are getting weaker and are increasingly being, for lack of a better word, pussyfied.
I could rant on about this and I could go into what I feel should be done about this but then this submission would stray too far from the Thailand related topic I set out to discuss. But I feel I have presented my case to support my suggestion that western men are indeed weakening. So I will now move on to my opinion on how this change in the western male is impacting our relationships with Thai women.
What will happen quite early in most relationships is a testing of boundaries. This is, I would say, true in any relationship. But the overwhelming majority of relationships involve a man and a woman sharing culture and social “status”, and so the boundaries are pretty much commonly understood beforehand and the testing will likely be quite subtle. If one party gets way out of line and behaves in an unacceptable way then both parties are pretty much aware of this.
Not so when we have a relationship involving a western man and a Thai woman. Now we have two dramatically different cultures, often from very different socio-economic backgrounds and with different education levels (in reality even if not on paper). So the boundaries are largely unknown to both parties, they need to be established.
The man brings his values to the table and the woman brings hers. When there is a conflict and these two different sets of values conflict with each other this must be resolved and set straight. Consequently new shared values and rules are established as time goes on.
I would caution that during this testing period you, the man, are setting standards and that it is important, nay vital, that you don’t give way and accept behaviour or agree to demands that you’re not comfortable with in the long run. It’s easy to fall into the trap, in the beginning of a relationship when everything is exciting and you’re all tingly inside, to be overly accommodating to your darling sweetheart’s wishes or demands. But ground given up is not easily reclaimed, and your initial euphoria won’t last forever. It is therefore of utmost importance that you stand firm and establish ground rules that you feel comfortable with and that you stick to them.
She will inevitably test these boundaries. How will she do this? Well, the usual suspects would be: monetary demands, jealousy and possessiveness, temper fits and she might up the ante by crying and sobbing to make you feel guilty. There are more ways of course but many of us have come across these ones on occasion.
It depends on her level of sophistication and her general nature of course. If she’s a lady of the night you can pretty much count on all of the above and then some, and then some more. But even if she’s never hugged a chrome pole she will still, most likely, want to know what she can get away with. At least I’ve seen many examples of this. And in the few farang man / Thai woman relationships that I’ve seen work the guy has always laid down the law from the beginning. Not that these guys are cruel despots, they are just strong men who stand up for themselves. And it works, their women respect them.
Enter the weak man, the new western male prototype. What happens? His Thai woman tests him of course because women do this and in cross-culture relationships they do this even more. He wants to appear his best to his new love so he does what he knows is right: he bends over, he accommodates her whenever possible, he shows her that he’s a modern, enlightened man that will treat her as a strong individual. At least this is what he thinks he’s doing.
What she learns is that she gets away with basically anything. She can make demands and more often than not he will accommodate her and if not she can turn on the rage or the tears and he will be so freaked that he, the man, is seemingly hurting a woman that he will back down. Even when in his heart of hearts he knows her requests are unreasonable he will act against his basic instincts and try to see himself not as a pushover but as someone having a “good heart”, which she will assure him he has, when she gets her way.
I’ve seen this up close. It always ends in disaster. It’s a slippery slope this and once these standards are set they can’t be reversed. He might be able to take it for a while but will eventually get sick of it. When he tries to reverse things it’s too late, she’s dug in and sees his attempts as an assault on her rightful privileges. She might also have acquired better leverage over time, a child being the ultimate one.
He might think that bringing her back home will work better. After all, now that she’s not in Thailand he’s more in control, right? Wrong. What people need to realise is that it’s probably even worse back home for guys in this position. He’s got more to lose here. She might not know it from the start but will soon learn just how much our western society favours the woman and vilifies the man. And if he’s afraid of a temper fit in Thailand it’s nothing compared to having her screaming and crying in front of friends or family back home.
No, the only way to keep a woman’s respect is not to lose it in the first place. The guy who holds on to his basic principles and is not shy to let her know when she gets out of line, and who is prepared to, if forced, choose his principles over any woman, wins in the long run. That doesn’t mean he needs to be abusive, real men are not abusive, it just means he’s got to demand respect as well as give it. He’s got to stand up for himself. Western men need to stand up for themselves!
Spot on. Excellent analysis.
What concerns me is that weak Western men have given up so much to women in these parts already that many local women will push from the outset and if they don't get their way they will move on…and look for the next weak man – they know that there are so many weak pussy-shipped Western men who will almost ejaculate if she so much as puts her hand on his. The damage that has been done in the West is now causing problems here in the heart of South-East Asia – and frankly, while I don't wish to paint a gloomy picture, I think it is only going to get worse!