"Equal sexes before the law"

"If any good can come from this, maybe it's time let the pendulum swing back to equity between men and women under the law."

E-mail this morning from the luscious Lucy at the National Network to End Domestic Violence (http://www.nnedv.org/index.php) celebrates the additional-beyond-requested funds for VAWA 2008!

(Lucy Melvin) - "YOU DID IT AGAIN – THE SENATE SUCCESS CONTINUES! The Senate Appropriations Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) Subcommittee passed their bill yesterday with $34.4 million in increased funding for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) programs at the Department of Justice.
Thanks to your calls, emails, and lobby visits they increased funding for several key programs and added critical funding for new programs!
•The STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) Grant Program was funded at $163.5 million - an increase of $7.8 million over last year's funding!
•The Transitional Housing Program was increased to $17 million.
•The Legal Assistance to Victims Program was increased from $38.8 million to $46 million.
•Smaller increases were also included for Rural Grants and other important programs.
Desperately needed new VAWA programs were also funded!
•The Sexual Assault Services Program (SASP) received $10 million, to support direct services for victims of sexual violence.
•The new Services for Children Exposed to Violence and the Services for Youth Victims (STARY) programs each received $2 million.
•Two new Native programs were funded at $1 million each. One supports a baseline research study on violence against Native women, and another supports the creation of a Tribal protection order and sexual offender registry."

If you wish to see just how far away from gender equity in the law this Congress has gone, read the full report on how VAWA money is being used to criminalize men, destroy marriages, prosecute heterosexuality, and - most importantly - fund a massive feminist-fascist bureaucracy:

CAMPAIGN FOR FUNDING TO
END DOMESTIC AND
SEXUAL VIOLENCE

FY 2008
APPROPRIATIONS BRIEFING BOOK
Updated June 26, 2007

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND THE JUDICIARY BUDGET
A. CHART: STOP Formula Grants by State
B. Grants to Combat Violence Against Women
C. Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforce Protection Orders
D. Courts Improvement Program
E. Privacy Protections for Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Violence & Stalking
F. Center for Sex Offender Management
G. Sexual Assault Services Program
H. Rural Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking and Child Victimization Grants
I. Legal Assistance for Victims
J. Grants to Stop Abuse of Older or Disabled Individuals
K. Transitional Housing
L. Grants to Combat Violence Against Women in Public and Assisted Housing
M.National Resource Center on Workplace Responses to Assist Victims of Domestic & Sexual Violence
N Services to Advocate for and Respond to Youth (STARY)
O. Supporting Teens through Education and Protection (STEP Act)
P. Access to Justice for Youth
Q. Grants to Reduce Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus
R. Safe Havens/Supervised Visitation Centers
S. Strengthening Home Visitation Projects
T. Assisting Children and Youth Exposed to Violence
U. Engaging Men and Youth in Prevention Efforts
V. Research on and Tracking of Violence Against Indian Women
W.Provisions to Address the Needs of Communities of Color

III. VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT (VOCA
A. CHART: VOCA Formula Funding by State
B. Victims of Crime Act Fund (VOCA)

IV. LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND EDUCATION BUDGET
A. CHART: FVPSA Formula Grants by State
B. Family Violence Prevention and Services Act
C. The National Domestic Violence Hotline
D. Long-Term Stability/Housing for Victims
E. Training and Education of Health Professionals
F. Fostering Public Health Responses
G. Effective Interventions in Health Care Settings
H. Evaluating Violence Prevention and Intervention Efforts
I. CHART: Rape Prevention and Education Formula Grant by State
J. The Rape Prevention and Education Grant Program
K. Community Initiatives to Prevent Abuse (DELTA)
L. Training and Collaboration on the Intersection between Domestic Violence & Child Maltreatment

Full report link at -

http://nnedv.org/BriefingBook.pdf

And even though they've been exonerated, the Duke lacrosse players have been put through hell themselves.

Having been exonerated isn't enough for some feminists, such as the rabid Dr. Violet Socks. Further examples on the Huffington Post are available.

I maintain that sex workers are a luxury that come with the increased likelihood of false accusation, malicious prosecution, loss of reputation and substantial legal and medical expense. It was courting trouble for the Lacrosse players to have hired them in the first place. Let me not pull punches: it was incredibly stupid. That's not to say that there should be legal reform: there should be. But what did those imbeciles expect?

"But what did those imbeciles expect?"

I expect that they thought they would get very drunk, and watch a skank take her clothes off.

Nothing more.

And the fact that they had to PAY a female to do that surely suggests that these lacrosse studs were not thinking straight.

Or as studly as their reputation suggests.

I would bet that more than one player was trying to get Crystal Gale out of the house ASAP.

Funny that these athletes apparently had "no game."

I expect that they thought they would get very drunk, and watch a skank take her clothes off.

Nothing more.

Pretty naive of them. Aren't there less tawdry cases of false accusation on which to base arguments for legal reform? The derogatory word 'skank' hits their attitude exactly, but it discredits men's activists to use it, and it contributes to the continuing controversy over race, gender and class relations for which this case is a magnet, even after the players have been exonerated and a maverick prosecutor has been disbarred. Is it not possible to address the difficult question of false accusation per se, without a gratuitous sexual reference? Aren't the sexual references implicit in a false accusation enough?

Dr. Violent Socks (I mean, Dr. Violet Socks), reclusively deleted the non-feminist comments from her blog The Reclusive Leftist. I expected that would happen, and by coincidence, I had a browser tab open with the full comments before they were deleted. Google's cache contained only the first three comments, so I may have the sole surviving record of our heroic sacrifice on that cyber-front, before our voices were marginalized to nothing.

OpEd -- " The derogatory word 'skank' hits their attitude exactly, but it discredits men's activists to use it..."

I disagree, with repsect, and please reply with logic to tell me I am incorrect.

IMHO, men's activists need to use precise words to define women --

let me propose a few...

skank, whore, slut, concubine, hole, bitch, vampire, ball 'n chain, old lady, girlfriend, sperm depository, et. al. including the reviled C-word.

Language is power.

Women understand that.

Men?

Not so much....

I'm not banning them: use them at your own peril. In some contexts, such as literary contexts, they have their place.

In a political context, they seem counterproductive to me. It's a question of how much time one wants to wait for reform. If one wants to wait longer, use them. If one doesn't, don't use words that won't make it into the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. They aren't exemplars of lapidary precision either. And they give political opponents opportunities to seize on perceived hangups.

I don't see Glenn Sacks using them. Maybe not even the Gonzman, though I find him a little tedious. Look what happened to that blabbermouth Imus.

Marc Rudov is what I would call a bad example, for a different reason. He'd be OK if he would only stop talking about women.

In the case of the Duke Lacrosse players, the situation is already so radioactive that such language seems deliberately provocative. But, people have their own way.

Not to belabor the point, but the language of the Men's Rights Congress 2004 Booklet manages to present ten of the central issues of the men's rights movement without descending into ad hominem.

(Of course I excuse my own silliness; e.g., Dr. Violent Socks. The exception is justified on the aesthetic principle that wit transcends the ego of the intended target. ;)

From the article:

But how about the other side of that coin? How would you feel if your son were falsely accused of rape? In the Duke case, before it became clear that the accuser - a stripper - was lying, a familiar argument was made that "even a prostitute can be the victim of rape." True enough. But, conversely, you could say that even a previously convicted rapist can be falsely accused of rape. These are interesting abstractions, but the law shouldn't prejudge or play favorites, and each case should be decided on its merits.

Speaking of not playing favorites, defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. So if the accuser were to be tried on charges of false accusation, that would be a new case, and the defendant would be presumed innocent until proven guilty. If there were a trial, and the author of the article were somehow selected as a potential juror on the case, he would flunk the voir dir. If he wants the pendulum to swing in the direction of men's rights, then he has to cool his jets a little.

Your pretty words are meaningless in the context of actual PRACTICE of the law. You sound like a first year law student who thinks all these principles like innocent until proven guilty are actually the way the system operates.

Speaking from experience, sex crimes are handles under reverse onus. In other words defendants must prove they didn't do it. There is ZERO onus on the prosecuting attorney to prove that the accusing witness is telling the truth. Subsequently, the fact that the prosecutor has no responsibility for the truthfulness of the accusing witness, the police who generate the cases the prosecutors take to court make every effort in their power to specifically NOT investigate the truthfulness of a person who claims to be the victim of a sexual assault.

You may say while 'what about Duke? Nifong got hung out to dry for not investigating hte truthfulness of his complaining witness'

That's true, BUT, it was only because the defendants in that case had the financial means to do the investigation the police failed to do. The DEFENDANTS hired private investigators, paid HUGE sums of money (to the tune of 1 million dollars per defendant) to acquire phone, ATM and other records that proved unequivocally that it was beyond the realm of possibility that those boys could have been involved. This brings up the concept of two tiered justice. These boys overcame reverse onus by having lots and lots of money to pay for their own investigation. 100% of the people in prison, didn't have that.

If the standard was 'innocent until proven guilty' as you mistakenly believe, a defendant would have no need to conduct their own investigation to prove they were innocent.

The author of that piece also said absolutely nothing that would cause him to fail vior dir if he were selected as a potential juror in a sexual assault case. He merely said that a case should be judged on merit alone not on preconceived notions (which also is impossible in practice but a nice ideal to dream about). He conceded a whore can be raped, and he also conceded that a rapist can be victimized as well. Honestly, that's the first time I have ever seen in print anyone admit that a person convicted of rape could also be a victim of a future sex crime outside the context of prison rape. In my book that scores him big on his piece being balanced.

He doesn't need to cool his jets at all. He needs to keep right on saying what he is saying. You need to pull your head out of an out dated text book (as sexual assault cases are legally reverse onus cases in both many Western nations including Canada, USA, UK, and Australia) and look at actual current laws in this area and actual practice in the justice system regarding cases of a sexual nature. The crux of your argument is completely irrelevant and flat out wrong in the context of the article. A good place to start reading is your States rape shield laws.

(OpEd) -- "In a political context, they seem counterproductive to me. It's a question of how much time one wants to wait for reform. If one wants to wait longer, use them. If one doesn't, don't use words that won't make it into the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal."

Your argument seems to devolve into the quaint notion that men's rights would advance faster if only men's activists would be more POLITE?

That men need to be more mannered, constrained, and circumspect in the language they use to define the various violences of pervasive MISANDRY?

Because then the MSM will take up their cause, providing they are not too angry or too linguistically assertive?

Funny that the feminists never subscribed to this "be polite to advance" theory.

I would suggest that if you want to read really vulgar language describing men - then review the entire text of VAWA.

And, a woman who strips for a living and is clinically proven to have the semen of five men in her vagina .... may be very politely described as a "skank."

OpEd recommended the sanitizing language of the Men's Right Congress Booklet...

Here's a translation of its table of contents (MR Congress terms on the left of the = sign ... translation into MRA-speak on the right.)

MensHealth = Collateral Damage

Circumcision = Genital Mutilation

Domestic Violence = Call 911 to Erase Daddy

Paternity Fraud = Sperm Racketeering by Women

Selective Service = Disposable Gender System

Family Courts = Divorce Mills

Education = Misandrist Conditioning of Boys

Criminal Bias = Naïve Chauvinism

False Accusation = (see Criminal Bias above)

Reproductive Rights = Vaginamony

Wage Gap = Soccer Moms

----

(OpEd, you are a female, yes? Use of the phrase "my own silliness" is telling.)

Fine, that's your style, not mine. I don't see how it will help in the long run, but that's my opinion; if you think it will advance the men's rights agenda, by all means, proceed.

I don't believe that politeness could be defined merely as the avoidance of certain slurs, so I am not suggesting that men's rights advocates be polite by not using slurs that I cannot bring myself to use. I'm not even suggesting that they be polite. For me the trade-offs involved in using them aren't worth it.

I mentioned the men's rights congress booklet as something worth emulating, because the language reflects the thought and consideration that went into it. Not because it was sanitizing. That's a mistake. You're not in the business of defending the indefensible, so you don't need euphemism or sanitizing language.

The MRA code-word translations would be less useful to persons who hadn't read the booklet or who are unfamiliar with the men's rights movement.

For example, my translation of "Circumcision" would have been "Genital Terrorism" instead of "Genital Mutilation", but that would have the effect of alienating some people who might have been sympathetic, or it might give the impression of extremism.

The author of that piece also said absolutely nothing that would cause him to fail vior dir if he were selected as a potential juror in a sexual assault case. He merely said that a case should be judged on merit alone not on preconceived notions (which also is impossible in practice but a nice ideal to dream about).

I disagree, he said that it "...became apparent that the accuser -- a stripper -- was lying... ." So there is an example of a preconceived notion that could be reason to disqualify a potential juror in a case against the accuser for false accusation (the impracticality you mention notwithstanding). I agree that the accuser probably was lying, but you wouldn't say this during voir dir unless you wanted to get kicked off.

Moreover he said that it became apparent that the accuser was lying in the same paragraph where he attempts to give the impression of evenhandedness in the context of the law. If he is going to speak of judging a case on its merits (as impractical as that is), then he ought to respect presumption of innocence (as impractical as that is), and let the trial of the accuser unfold (if there were such a trial). He'd have to make it understood that he alleges the accuser made a false accusation and also pay lip service to the presumption of innocence, if he is going to pay lip service to judging a case on its merits. That would better convey a sense of legal evenhandedness.

I was making a rather narrow point. I think he made a rhetorical gaffe in an otherwise decent piece. I agree that the rape shield laws are less than impartial, to put it mildly--it would be better if no one's name were revealed.

(OpEd) -- "...but that would have the effect of alienating some people who might have been sympathetic, or it might give the impression of extremism."

You are such a real girl.

What DO you stand for, other than not offending people who might otherwise admire you?

You represent the bicycle that fish need to learn how to ride.

One can be extremely impolite and aggressive without using vulgar language. And it's much more effective this way.
I've once driven a feminist into flipping out and sending me an e-mail in all caps, only by calmly debunking the BS she was trying to support and placing some sarcastic comments here and there.

Also, we had a newsletter called Rote Männer (Red Men) here, by a group of socialist men. With no vulgar words but a lot of black humor, biting cynicism and sarcasm. Was quite a success, unfortunately they stopped publishing it at some point.

As for a few certain extremists here, they're something like a mirror image of the 1960s gang raped traumatized radical feminist. There might be a general problem with the self-conception of women today (no wonder with the barrage of bs from schools and media), but calling them all parasites and a lot of other nasty things only makes me wonder what happened to these men to slide down into such an irrational rage. I especially dislike that this supports the old stereotyping of the sexes and the allegation that they are completely different. This is currently used to malign men (women: nurturing, men: aggressive, women: cooperative, men: predatory, etc).

As we say, sometimes somebody needs to slam the fist on the table. But it must be done in the right way, otherwise you'll just break your hand. Vulgarity is very easy to counter.

I deal with hard facts some people perceive these hard facts as being "vulgar" or "offensive." So "the fuck" what? Facts aren't subject to someone's opinion of how they "should be" delivered. 2 plus 2 equals 4 regardless of how I say it. Moreover attempting to "be nice and cuddly" with someone that has nothing but the utmost hatred towards you is a losing battle.

The calling out of other men as "extremists" is also one of the shaming tactics male feminists and women use daily thus I put no stock in what these male vaginas who utilize such shady tactics have to say. Here is the excerpt:

Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) - The Brown Shirts Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint. Examples:

"You're one of those right-wing wackos."
"You're an extremist"
"You sound like the KKK."
"... more anti-feminist zaniness"

Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").

Most certainly.

Some of the so-called MRAs waste so much time trying not offend anybody that they rarely deal with the facts at hand. I often wonder what occurs with these posters that causes them to be so damn timid in the face of the violent matriarchy we live in. Moreover, no comparison can be made between males who are sick of women's bullshit and feminist women. Especially since the very foundation of feminist ideology is based on lies to begin with; they have little to nothing to BE upset over. Read SPIN SISTERS and see how lies, deception, and female narcississm is the fuel behind the women's misandry movement.

The men's movement is largely about justice whereas the feminist movement is simply about maintaining special privileges for women by way of lies amd revisionist history.

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

We were discussing the necessity and desirability of vulgar language.

Some consider it indispensable, and worry whether failure to use vulgar insults means they had succumbed to shaming and blaming somewhere along the line, which would be psychologically intolerable and might necessitate years of therapy to overcome. Institutionalization in those cases is indicated. Others deliver stern lectures on the necessity of vulgar language at all costs. Still others have no alternative. The most visionary, far-reaching perspective on all of this is the theory that hard facts cannot be adequately conveyed without spewing petulant slurs. The modest, take-it-or-leave-it suggestion to choose your slurs judiciously must be stridently condemned as shaming and blaming.

He is showing prior knowledge of the case, but he is not stating a decisive opinion, merely stating what he believes is apparent. In other words, what appears to be. He is not stating it is fact. That would raise a red flag to be sure in a hypothetical vior dir process but I doubt that would immediately disqualify him unless he were to further state something about his inability to be open minded if new facts were presented. That statement would lead to a qualifying question of the nature "Could you accept new facts that may not agree with appearances if they were presented to you?". If he said yes he'd be in the running.

(OpEd) -- "The most visionary, far-reaching perspective on all of this is the theory that hard facts cannot be adequately conveyed without spewing petulant slurs. The modest, take-it-or-leave-it suggestion to choose your slurs judiciously must be stridently condemned as shaming and blaming."

I really appreciate a chick who understands irony.

Yes, girl. You assuredly belong here.

(Subject header -- homage to FREE.)

Now I will actually listen to you.

Maybe not sucha good thing? ;-)

I understand that I'm skating on thin ice, but what tips the scale for me is the interjection "a stripper." If the author had omitted that, then I would tend to agree. There is a difference between, "...it became apparent that the accuser ... was lying..." and "...it became apparent that the accuser -- a stripper -- was lying." Now two possible sources of bias have to be addressed. Otherwise, what was the rhetorical point of making this interjection? The word apparent in the sense in which it occurred could mean "obvious," so this would have to be clarified.

Also, to give the impression of impartiality, the author could assert that the accusers testimony was a moving target, or was inconsistent, beyond venturing the stronger conclusion of lying--intentional or unintentional misidentification of a rape suspect is bad.

It would be as if a feminist commentator were to write (about some hypothetical case) "...it became apparent that the plaintiff -- a men's rights activist -- was lying..." instead of "...it became apparent that the plaintiff was lying." If the feminist were to pay lip service to judging the case on its merits after that, I imagine that at least some MRAs would be skeptical that this commentator was merely using the word apparent in the sense you would give it. More likely they would say that the commentator was full of it.

...here on the boards!

Roflmao!

Watch this: Kiss my ass bitches. Cry over that one.

Now....

The most visionary, far-reaching perspective on all of this is the theory that hard facts cannot be adequately conveyed without spewing petulant slurs.

The most visionary, far-fetching perspective on all of this is the theory that facts somehow become "vulgar" when they are conveyed in a manner the recipient does not approve of.

As stated before facts are facts regardless of how they are presented. If one chooses to curse when they deliver facts and insult that is their right to do so; I doubt the politically correct members here will be able to inject their control methods.

PC FACT: Five is wrong buddy. Let's sit down and have tea to discuss it, oh by the way I don't hate women just thought you should know that. I hope you'll still like me after this.

*Buys tea for both people--and free drinks for strippers--with own money*

Ok, Two plus two equals four my good fellow. Hope I did not "offend anyone."

HARD FACT: You must be stupid. Two plus two is four not five. Oh yeah I hate women.

Both of the above contain facts regardless of which deliverance is chosen.

The modest, take-it-or-leave-it suggestion to choose your slurs judiciously must be stridently condemned as shaming and blaming.

"As for a few certain extremists here, they're something like a mirror image of the 1960s gang raped traumatized radical feminist. There might be a general problem with the self-conception of women today (no wonder with the barrage of bs from schools and media), but calling them all parasites and a lot of other nasty things only makes me wonder what happened to these men to slide down into such an irrational rage."

You seem to be deficient in noting the difference between modesty and shaming tactics. The above is evidence of the latter as opposed to the former....bitch. LoL!

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

...that it is ridiculous.

On another thread a poster stated that the behavior here amongst some of the neutered men is why he's an "independent activist." He's right too.

It's a shame when other men start looking at men and saying damn do you even have a pair?

I see faggots here arguing back and forth with each other over not sounding "nice enough" when dealing with women while men are getting murdered all over the world. I see more whining and non-action here than anywhere; this place is full of a bunch of catty losers that are still hooked on giving women a free ride.

What the hell will sitting here with a dictionay next to you arguing amongst each other do for the men that suffer due to misandry? NOTHING.

Just as the members here have been doing for years...NOT A DAMN THING other than talk and moderate EACH OTHER. Meanwhile women get away with murder while the men on their periods here bash other men about not being NICE to women. Meanwhile these SAME WOMEN sit idly by while men get murdered by other women in the name of "women's rights." Fucking dummies....I swear.

Later!

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

"I see faggots here arguing back and forth with each other over not sounding "nice enough" when dealing with women while men are getting murdered all over the world. I see more whining and non-action here than anywhere; this place is full of a bunch of catty losers that are still hooked on giving women a free ride."

If you really think so, fuck off and find someplace that accepts your bleatings of racism and claims of violence. If not, stop complaining because nobody likes to see your stupid petty complaints all over the board. This is what polite society is like. Go find a ghetto if you don't like it.

http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com

Shaming tactics etc.. valid concepts but completely inapplicable to what we have here, yet quoted time after time. Like some broken record.

Anyway, some people think behaving like a bull in a china shop will help.
Fine. But history has shown there is a certain point where members of minority groups will have to start acting like adults to be taken seriously.
For example, the Green Party here has turned from some whacko hippies' party (early 80s) into a part of the current government. People should read up on how this happened.
However, the Partei Bibeltreuer Christen (Party of Christians Faithful to the Bible) and fortunately also the Feministische Partei "Die Frauen" ("The Women") will remain irrelevant indefinitely, because most consider them a bit whacky. Which is, deservedly so, precisely what happens to people who claim women *in general* to be parasites and murderers (especially funny, that - we're talking about a handful of isolated cases in a people of several hundred millions. Someone's completely driven by mass media here, similar to the politicians demanding tougher DV laws after some wife has been killed).

There's nothing inherently wrong with "bad language". I'm often laughing about the fact that English speaking countries produce age ratings of movies based on the type of language used in them. "Rated R for language" and rated 6+ here, has happened lots of times.
But it's ineffective to bring a message across. Martin Luther King didn't say "I have a dream. That dream is to roast those fucking white murderers....", and he knew why :).

I was amused by your antics before, but no more. I believe you are a pompous, dim witted, condescending asshole who believes that your opinion is the only good opinion. You seem to have made it your job to belittle and insult every single person here. Were I able to, I'd KoS you. As it is, I can only tell you to go to www. albinoblacksheep .com/flash/ you.html
(remove the spaces between . and albinoblacksheep, albinoblacksheep and ., and / and you

...that made me overlook the interjection of the word 'stripper' as I tend not to be overly trusting of or willing to associate my self with women in that particular profession.

So I do get your point.

You might want to check the gender genie. Ahem.

...what neutered, woman-serving men(not all here but a good portion) such as the PC crowd here thinks? Think again....bitches.

I now give you my ass to kiss. You're well practiced too being that you have been kissing women's ass for years all while they crack the whip on your backs. Slaves...

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm
*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy57

So you are a victim and thus should get reparations because your forefathers were slaves, and when you call us slaves, you are trying to shame and blame us for it?

It must make sense in your tiny little mind.

http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com

That must be humiliating. Jesus!

Nor do I recall saying my forefathers were slaves. The fact is I don't believe in outright monetary reparations nor do I believe--like you obviously do--that all blacks were slaves. Some were free. This however does not change the facts that nearly ANY black MALE is still seen as little more than a slave--and is demonized in the media--by racists, and sexists, whom are in positions of power in this country and others.

So regardless of whether I actually was a slave or not does not matter since I am not judged--through racism--by my history but by the color of my skin and my gender. I like how I have encountered white men here that are adamant about fighting against any kind of rights for black MEN(I bet they supported Oprah though before she started bashing white men too) when they should be worrying about their own women's bootprints on their necks.

This brings me to another reason as to why the men's movement will fail miserably. There is no real cohesion between the men within this movement. Numerous white men don't want to see black men on an equal footing. They would rather fight against black men than acknowledge and fight against the tyrannical rule their own women have put them under. Nothing really changes....this same thing happened so many years ago when white men fought black men due to claims of victimization made by unfaithful white women. Black men fought white men due to white racism and hatred inspired by black women. Who came out on top? Well, the truth is white men were already there(at the top); black women jumped to the top of the heap along with white females and black MEN were left at the bottom wondering what the fuck just happened to their movement and the rights they were promised.

Unlike women black MEN actually ARE victims in this country. That a few white men don't agree does not phase me....that's just racism rearing its head. They will deny black male suffering till their necks turn red; if they already aren't red that is.

Anyway, I thought I told you to stop coming around commenting to me since you are a moron and a bootlicker for women? Don't you have a whipping coming to you from your (ex)girlfriend?

Get that in your head Einstein, I don't want to talk to you....I know its hard to understand things while you are wearing that white sheet on your head and hanging people but at least try to comprehend this time.

Hitler is dead but his minions live on--in some MRAs--I see.

*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis/
*Site and Blog: http://www.freewebs.com/nofeminazis/index.htm

*"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy5