|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, BusterB - I've now fixed the link in the story blurb.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to compliment Andrew on his excellent introduction. He outlines exactly the line of thinking that slowly unfolded in my mind over a few years as I changed from ardent feminist (I could have joined NOMAS, pero no màs!) to masculist/equalitarian.
I, too, noticed that for all of the complaining that women do about their lives and for all the breath they spend blaming their problems on men or "the patriarchy," my life sucked too, and sometimes in the same ways. Sometimes and in some ways, my life was even worse than that of my female friends. So, if their problems were my fault and the fault of "my" gender (as if we all belong to the same club—bigotry, anyone?), then whose fault were my problems?
Amazing, isn't it, how one little nagging question can come to change your whole point of view on life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I deleted a comment here which I felt was not productive to the men's movement, in that it had a strong potential to alienate certain readers.
I would like to stress that as a movement, we need to focus on the positive to be successful. Creating divisions based on political, religious, etc. perspectives only diminishes our effectiveness. Mensactivism.org is not the place to debate the legitimacy of race issues, gay rights, religious rights, etc, and I will not hesitate to delete news submissions or postings that only serve to antagonize these divisions.
Thanks,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn. When I looked at this page this morning, I saw a very interesting comment, which seemed to have some Web links I wanted to look at. I had to rush out, didn't have time to check them out. This evening when I got home, before copying the comment and the links off the page, I reloaded the page to see if anything else had been added, only to find that you had deleted the comment.
Well, it's your site and you can delete whatever you want. As I recall, the offending comment appeared to offer some documentation to refute the politically-correct view that black people in America are perpetually worse off. This may be somewhat off-topic for Mensactivism, but I would suggest that before you get all hot and bothered about it you consider that Mensactivism itself exists precisely to collect and offer what is growing to be reams of documentation to refute another set of politically-correct "everyone knows" ideas, regarding relations between the genders.
For my part, my only allegiance is to the truth. While I don't go out of my way to "offend" anyone, at nearly sixty I've learned that no matter what I say, someone will be waiting to take offense. If I allow the "professionally aggrieved" to rule what I say and think, I'll end up unable to say or think anything.
It is my view that lies injure everyone, including the liar; and that a society whose web of social relationships is built on a foundation of lies - as ours presently is - is seriously ill and headed for collapse. The "divisions" were created by the liars, and not by accident: it's an old principle of governance, called "divide and rule." So long as the Ruling Elite can keep black people convicned that all their troubles are due to whites, and women that all their troubles are due to men, nobody will notice who really controls the society and profits from everyone's suffering.
I'm looking for people who are not afraid to speak - and hear - the truth, in open forum, because that's the only way we will learn and grow up. As I have become aware that nearly everything I've been told about everything all my life is a bunch of lies, I am interested in hearing the truth on any subject - not merely those subjects that are my particular interest. I make no distinction among sacred cows - they all deserved to be gored. To paraphrase the late Edward Abbey (a fearless truthspeaker and one of the few real men I have met), the truth needs no defense - only more defenders.
Andrew Main
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Andrew,
I'm not particularly proud of having deleted the message, but I did so to prevent what I see as an argument where there is never any winner - one in which both sides have such ardent and religious followers that the battle will never end. The controversies over whether racism still exists, whether homosexuality is acceptable, whether certain political institutions are better, whether one God is better than another - those are things that I feel men get too caught up on in such a way that it's hindering our ability to work together for things that we *do* agree on in the men's movement.
As was written in the Philosophy page:
"Mensactivism.org does not believe that political correctness, in and of itself, is a good thing. However, we do support the many issues that men of color and gay or bisexual men face, and want to encourage all men, regardless of their race or sexual orientation, to work together to improve men's lives and dignity. We will post news when it is related to the status of minority or gay men as men. General news stories about race issues or gay rights are unlikely to be posted unless they specifically relate to the rights of men. We do this to maintain the focus of The Men's Activism News Network, not to discourage people from participating in other civil rights causes."
In other words, I want to try to prevent promoting further division in the men's movement, and personally think that if we're going to make any progress, we've *got* to put aside our different beliefs on certain issues when we come together.
If we can't do that, we're done for.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This really isn't about being afraid to speak out on certain topics. It's about the overall topic of this Web site, which is MEN'S issues, not racial issues. I sincerely doubt Scott is afraid of offending anyone. I've seen more commentary here that would be considered "offensive" by the politically correct than the post Scott deleted. Obviously, he's attempting to keep things on-topic, and not censor opinion.
Take a peek at the Philosophy page on this site, Andrew. I will tell you straight out that I've had posts deleted by Scott before because they were too "off-topic." I'm not offended by it. Everybody needs an editor from time to time.
There are plenty of other Web sites where you may speak on race issues if you wish. As for me, I'm grateful that someone is willing to pull on the reins here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I concur with Scott and Nightmist. As a news center for the mens movement, it would be better for all men, regardless of race, to be able to find relevant news without having to be confronted by off-topic commentary that is offensive. Many of us saw the original posting, and some may agree with the message, but we must agree that it was off-topic, and I comment Scott for having the courage to take it down and withstand the resulting commentary.
I hope the author of the original comment remains with us. His name was familiar to me and his counsel was valued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your support, Nightmist and Frank. I am trying to work things out with the comment poster and things have been going fairly well. I think we both trust each other's intentions and that because of that, things should work out for the best.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott once held back on posting an article I submitted about how prostitutes in legal brothels are less likely to have STD's than the general population because they practice safe sex. I felt bothered by that because to me it had to do with men's health (the effectiveness of condoms even when sleeping with prostitutes, etc.). I even searched around to find inconsistencies in the postings. So I understand the frustration. But we tend to take Scott for granted. It's impossible to run a site like this with perfect consistency and it must be really hard to do it as consistently as he has. I think he's done a great job. Any inconsistencies I've seen are debatable. And, more importantly, they don't appear to be about left versus right or PC versus truth, but about the fact that there are gray areas in the topic of "men's issues." With a little spin we could make anything a men's issue. But some things are more clear than others. And I think this is one of them. I don't see how either debunking or supporing the belief in the prevalence of racism can fall under the topic of men's issues. It argubly has parallel characteristics, but it isn't the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To All,
Seeing how this matter is being discussed openly I hope
no one minds if the accused has a few words to say on
the subject. I mean, if someone were accused of something,
the evidence destroyed immediately, and the accused denied a
defense while the government presented only its own version of
things through its media organ that would not be considered
exactly fair would it?
I want to thank Mr. Andrew Main for his comments on this
subject; I am always relieved and pleased to learn that there
is at least one other grown man in these discussion groups.
Since it appears to me that most of you have great difficulty
in being objective I will point out some differences in Mr. Main's
post that are different from the ones of you who adopted the
position of the government. First, the post is noticeable longer
than the others and includes a reference, this suggests the poster
is more educated and has thought out his position better and is more
willing to make his case at length to you. In conjunction with
this you notice how the argument is made on principle, and that
lastly the man in question signs his full name. Educated, principled,
and courageous; are these not things that are revered in a man?
Is it any surprise that this is the lone individual who is able to
stand on his own two feet?
For the rest of you I have to tell you that I often feel embarrassed
in your company. I get the feeling that I am dealing with a bunch
of kids; a couple of you I have mistaken for girls, not women mind
you but girls. The author of the article in question writes; "Maybe if
we required men to be men, more of them would." Let it be known
then that this is what I require of you and that I would be letting you
down if I required less.
As for the article now I am not sure that any of you have a clue as to
what the author is doing and I can't say that I can tell exactly where
his misunderstanding ends and his B.S - ing begins. He seems to know
that the infantilization of our male population is not about racism as he writes:
"The theory he cites -- and explores uncritically -- is by Dr. Frances
Cress Welsing, a black psychiatrist who has espoused black supremacy.
According to one published account, she believes black men are
INADVERTENTLY emasculated by their mothers [capitals added] ...
Frankly, I know too many hard-working black men to believe the
``baby boy'' phenomenon is as widespread as Singleton seems to
suggest. To the degree it exists at all, there's something offensive
about his attempt to pin it upon racial animus. There's never been
a time that animus didn't exist .."
So it exists even in a racially homogeneous society and therefore
the implication is it is not primarily about race. This WOMAN psychiatrist
puts the blame on race and the author - Mr. Pitts, questions this. He
does not want to start a feud with a black woman and damage black
racial solidarity so he does not directly point his finger at WOMAN
but dances around the issue instead.
As for this off-topic business I could begin by pointing out that
according to the author's overt pronouncements it is about "Racism."
You notice I did not say that I thought it was about racism but that
the author said it was about "Racism." The underlying message is about
male and female relations and therefore without further ado I will say
that it is about both. Now if racism is off limits then an article that is
overly about race should be off limits. If it is half and half it should be
off limits. If it makes a single accusation against ANY racial group
it should be off limits. The standard procedure for dealing with
something that has introduced off limits is to permit a brief rebuttal
and then to close the subject. Because I thought the subject was divisive
I deliberately did not use a single word of my own but rather took
excerpts from the article and matched them up with sites containing
GOVERNMENT statistics. Despite that someone sent me a email
giving a rather derogatory characterization of my "comment." I must
have a rare talent indeed that if without saying a single word I am capable
of such inflammatory comments.
Like Mr. Main I am a lover of the truth. And for you whose love is
lacking let me point out some of the secular dogmatism of what is
commonly called "political correctness."
We are told "Sexism Exists", "Racism Exists", and "Thou Shall
Not Question." It is no surprise then when we read from the article;
" I'm not here to sell you some naive nonsense that racism no
longer exists. One has only to look around with open eyes to
see that it continues to diminish the fiscal, physical and
emotional health of African-American people."
As you can see it is "racism .. exists" and it is "nonsense"
to question. Even if such a statement were true at the point
uttered it would set the precedent of allowing people to make
uncontested statements, which would inevitably in time
lead to a lowering of the intellectual level and an unjust
treatment of those to whom the uncontested statements were
made against. Personally, I don't care to discuss how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin, nor do I care to be
discriminated against because of the color of my skin.
The same uncritical support you give to accusations of racism
against whites allows for the same kind of accusations against
men. In other words - you are shooting yourselves in the foot.
On that report I need to break off or I will be late for
work. If this discussion is to continue I ask only one thing;
either the matter be discussed openly or not all.
Tom Pollock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm far too busy tonight to read your entire comment, but as someone who has spent nearly 10 years of his life in the profession of observation, editorializing, argument, and rhetoric, I can tell you one thing: long-winded posts do not logically indicate intelligence on the part of the poster, nor do sources necessarily indicate anything except that the author reads works which support his own viewpoint. One can quote a source on anything.
But... if it is sources you want, I believe it was William Shakespeare who wrote "Brevity is the soul of wit...." You may look it up in "Hamlet." Polonius is the speaker. I'd give you the act and scene, but I don't have my "Complete Shakespeare" handy at the moment.
You are entitled to your opinions, but so am I. I will post them--brief and sourceless--regardless of your opinion of me or anyone else who posts in this forum.
What would be nice from you and Andrew is less regurgitative sourcing and more original thought. I almost never finish reading a post by either of you because I get bored with your constant quoting of other people and waiting for you to get to the meat of your matter.
As for printing full names... "What's in a name?"
Oh.. and by the way... it just occurred to me that I did reference a source in my post about your racism diatribe. I, like Scott, referenced this Web site's "Philosophy" page, which, really, is the only answer for why your comments were deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To All,
I was reluctant to respond at all, but silence over the internet
is a difficult thing to interpret so I thought I few words would
be appropriate. This indirect response though will be be my
last to the individual who styles himself "Nightmist."
For the rest of you, if you fail respond to messages
that end in "nanny nanny boo boo" or similar sentiments
I will understand - please do not feel the need to explain.
Since I want to get right to the point and be done with
this let me say that "Yes" this is someone I "mistook" as
a girl. I say "mistook" because whatever nominal biological
claims to masculinity "he" may have he still comes across as
more of a girl than a man. It is said the means are inseparable
from the ends; if we want to have a men's movement it must
necessarily be a masculine movement. This individual's comments
are everywhere and in a manner as to control the conversation; the
occasional references to being suicidal must I feel play upon your
sympathies and hold some of you in check from criticizing this
person - or at least from criticizing severely. These are methods
that belong to the other sex - they are not masculine methods.
In his criticism of my remarks - if we want to feign to call it true
criticism, you will see the petty vanity and vindictiveness of the
female sex. This person is peeved - "she" wants to salvage "her"
wounded little pride by telling us of 10 years of professional endeavors
in [sic] "observation, editorializing, argument, and rhetoric." This
person cannot argue their way out of a wet paper bag - I would not
trust "her" with my child's coloring book. Whether you agree with
me or not I think no one in their right mind would accuse me of lacking
in "original thought."
I point to the fact of someone signing their full name to provocative
statements as an indication of courage and am greeted with "What's
in a name?" Is it possible for a normal person to miss the point that
badly? And because it is so bad one has to wonder if there is not
deliberative deceit and manipulation at work, manipulation that is
aimed at seeing that masculine accomplishments amount for nothing -
accomplishments that this person lacks as is jealous of.
This person writes "I'm far too busy tonight to read your entire comment";
how long does it take to finish reading my message relative to the time it
took to write this response to it? Does this sound like a believable statement
to you? Or do you suppose this person is really saying my messages are not
worth reading in an attempt to get you not to read them? Further down "she"
writes "I almost never finish reading a post by either of you." Is it not pretty
obvious now what this person is really after?
This person further writes; " I did reference a source in my post about your
racism diatribe" which refers to my first post where I merely linked someone
else's words with government statistics without saying a word of my own.
Does this then quality as a "racism diatribe"?; is not this sort of like accusing
some of sexual harassment who has only pointed his finger in the direction
of the alleged victim?
The nearest thing to a credible argument is when this person writes:
" long-winded posts do not logically indicate intelligence" - and may
be we thankful "she" didn't go on any longer. Long arguments are
of course are no guarantee of intelligence but if you to compare the essays
of college students and those of 3rd graders I hope the college students have
more to say. When you get older you have learned more and are capable of
generating more original thought which hopefully translates into having more to say.
By putting down education this person is promoting ignorance and dishonestly.
Don't are opponents claim to have facts to support their case, but when facts
and authoritative statements are examined we often find they are faulty and biased?
I have gone on long enough. I will not tell you who I think you should or should
not associate with - I have to much respect for the concept of being a man than that.
Each one of you must decide for yourself what is right or what is wrong and I will
only lay my arguments out in open light of day for you to examine.
Sincerely,
Tom Pollock
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
