|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw that stupid cartoon as well, and thought it was an unimaginative, offensive and stereotypical portayal of men. I had thought that the Rocky Mountain News was more balanced than the Denver Post, but I guess that's not the case anymore.
Because of anti-male bias, I don't actually subscribe to either paper (I sneeked a peek at a coworker's paper when I saw that cartoon). Both newspapers call me up at frequent intervals in order to get me to subscribe. I usually have said that I don't like the paper waste that accumulates, but I may as well give the real reason next time they call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, eq62, it's long past time that we started expressing our "real" reasons
unfortunately, the attitude of mr. catbox is the norm in american "journalism"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I usually have said that I don't like the paper waste that accumulates, but I may as well give the real reason next time they call.
As a member of the media, equalitarian62, I can tell you that sometimes what you tell the telemarketers does, in fact, get back to the circulation department in a newspaper (not always, but sometimes). So, yes, you should tell the telemarketer the real reason.
If the telemarketer tells the circulation director, and the circulation director is in serious need to get his numbers up, he'll confront the editor with some of the reasons people aren't subscribing to the paper (this is particularly typical of small hometown newspapers not owned by the evil newspaper empire Gannett). He'll also relay those reasons to the publisher.
If the editor won't take the circulation director's word, he is likely to complain again to the publisher, as well as put the word out to salespeople that readership is slipping.
Naturally, salespeople cannot sell papers to advertisers (the REAL money) without readers, so the salespeople will complain to the publisher that readership is dropping, and that it's going to get harder to sell advertising.
Guess what? The publisher comes down on the editor because it's the news that gets the readership.
So, yes, I encourage ALL of you to speak your true feelings when the evil telemarketers call you and ask you to subscribe to a misandrist publication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another approach is to identify significant advertisers and advise them in no uncertain terms that you have no intention of doing business with them as long as they advertise in a given publication (or sponsor a given television program). There is a multiplier that says that, for every phone call, there are many more unhappy people that do not call, so it really doesn't take many callers to mount up some significant numbers. This multiplier is different from media to media, but I was told by, for example, an airline company that theirs was 17 to one.
Given the same multiplier for library users, then it would take ten bona fide users of the Boulder Public Library to turn in their cards and stop using the library to indicate 170 unhappy people. I do believe that would get their attention.
I wish I could prove that it worked, but consider the following. The Delaware Valley United Way had a PSA that included a young girl on the phone calling 911 in tears and panic to get help for her mom, who was being beaten by her father. I found the spot to be extraordinarily offensive, so the next day I called the DVUW to complain. I spoke with a woman who identified herself as a vice-president, of what capacity I do not recall, and I told her that I would be immediately stopping my contributions, which were being made by payroll deduction. I explained that I understood fully that many men were guilty of DV, but that the real research indicates women are just as guilty, and she said she understood and that there were other phone calls. Result: I have not seen that spot or anything like it since.
This is not a formal boycott, but it does get their attention, and I would recommend that everyone try it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have decided to cancel my subscription to the Rocky Mountain News, in part because of this cartoon. (They have shown their anti-male bias at other times as well.) When I cancel, I will tell them why I am doing it, and I will contact several departments about my decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've done some research on Aryan supremacists and looked at a number of their sites. Several have cartoons about Jews, blacks, Hispanics, etc. that are no more blatently hateful than the cartoon that we are discussing. To see how similar the Nazis and the radfems are, take a look at
http://www.resist.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
important point on the multiplier effect by frank h.
be assured that this mechanism indeed exists, not only in the marketplace, but in less material realms
it sounds naive and goofy, but not only can one person change the world, one must
never be discouraged or silenced by the odds against you -- consider it instead an irreplaceable opportunity to grow your soul
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 18, @03:13AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Ever checked out the way women have been depicted for years in the cartoons in Playboy and other magazines?
And as for women being just as guilty of domestic violence as men - someone should tell the children that because while I've met dozens of people who, as children, witnessed their fathers/stepfathers belting and terrorizing their mothers, I have not met ONE person who's claimed they witnessed their mother terrorizing their father (although there's probably a few cases).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok, let's get this in the sunlight where it belongs
1 -- the "aryan brotherhood" is a creature spawned by the american penal system
it arose from the very real need of incarcerated white males to protect themselves from rape and other forms of assault by black males
an ugly, uncomfortable fact, but a fact, and a lesson in how hatred cycles in closed-loop
this is a facet of american experience that no-one wants to tackle, but there is an attitude amongst some imprisoned black men that white men "deserve" to be "paid back" for slavery, etc.
notice i didn't say "african-americans"
why? because nobody tells me what words i can or cannot use
2 -- white males are the only demographic group in america who, by law, are denied first-class citizenship -- all other groups are afforded the status of "protected classes"
again -- ugly, uncomfortable, and extremely incorrect politically, but a fact
3 -- it is tempting for some white males, who have suffered real oppression in this culture, to respond by elevating their status by any means necessary
i understand this reaction, and i know this pain, because i have lived it
but supremacy based on race is as futile and regressive as supremacy based on gender
it's a road that goes nowhere
4 -- i am fully invested in freeing white males, especially of the lower classes, from their cultural shackles, which are real
i am also especially interested in annihilating the deplorable conditions of modern black males, which in my opinion are rooted in a degraded state of masculinity, only part of which is attributable to slavery -- the matriarchal welfare state is at least as culpable
ya want a country without black folks? ok, for starters that means no rock-and-roll, because rock grew out of gospel, blues, and jazz
no robert johnson, chuck berry, little richard, et. al -- no rock and roll
the contributions of black people to american culture is astonishing, especially given their historical conditions
white supremacists employing methods of violence and hatred inhibit their own cause of freedom -- by these methods, your oppressors are granted excuse to keep you enchained
i have faith that, in the end, oppressed white males will rise above their desire for vengeance, and will seek alternative means for exposing and correcting the injustices done them
finally, the tactics employed by modern feminism and the reich are disgustingly similar, especially as regards the use of agitational propaganda and that ancient tool of power, the scapegoat
the difference between the two supremacist systems is principally of scope and degree
and now i'm off to wash my sins in tonight's heavenly shower
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In fact, most of us have, AU, and many of us have also checked-out Good Housekeeping, Ladies Home Journal, Woman's Day, Cosmopolitan, Ms Magazine, and others. One difference between the "men's" magazines and these "fine" publications is that the men also lampoon themselves whereas milady's monthly gazettes seem only to ridicule men or boys. It's interesting to note that Playboy is now run by Hugh Hefner's daughter, and it's also interesting to note that, while Playboy advertises itself as a men's magazine, it's real audience is mostly interested in sex, as is true of Penthouse. Playboy has taken to it's own share of male-bashing lately, and I suspect that it has (or should have) cost them some readers. Further, I should mention that there is no men's magazine dedicated to female bashing while, on the other hand, Ms. Magazine has made a pretty brisk business of denigrating men.
As far as only knowing only women who were beaten, I suspect you never asked about anyone seeing their fathers beated by their mothers, and if the instance presented itself, you discarded it because it didn't fit your agenda. There are not many sons who would admit watching their mother beat their father, and even fewer men who would admit being beaten by their wives. But there's more than enough scientific research to prove that it happens and it happens far more frequently than you would like to acknowledge.
If you're at all willing to be educated (and I suspect you are not), then check out this website: [http://www.naplesfl.net/~bestself/Family-Violence .htm].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the contributions of black people to american culture is astonishing, especially given their historical conditions
How true. Not only rock 'n' roll, but country grew out of the blues as well. Likewise, look at the tremendous impact rap music had on American culture in the late 80s and early 90s (and continues to have to this day). I'm not a fan of pure rap, but the influences it had on other types of music and musicians is undeniable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
frank h: for a large number of years, Playboy's board of editors was also largely female. Likewise, the magazine opened up opportunities for women in publishing which did not exist prior to its launch in the 1950s. Also, to anonymous user, if you actually READ the editorial content of the magazine rather than judge it because it contains naked women, you'll find that the majority of the magazine's authors hold liberal feminists points of view. One author, Asa Baber, regularly writes from a generally men's/masculist's perspective, but he is generally the only one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 18, @12:26PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
No magazine dedicated to the denigration of women you say? Every porno magazine is dedicated to the denigration of women, as is porn in general, unless you think foreign object insertions and gangbangs along with degrading and violent text is good for women's self-esteem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This anonymous troll needs to learn a few facts rather than believing the hateful lies of radical feminists. Most psychologists who deal with violence in the home find that an early history of victimization is a clear indicator of a later history of victimizing. Women commit the overwhelming majority of physical child abuse, mostly against boys. Women commit the overwhelming majority of child murders, mostly against boys. In fact, the rate of murders of little boys by women is roughly twice the rate of murders of girls by women. This is far outside the range of random possibility. These are murderous hate crimes and should be treated as such.
If you want to stop domestic violence, then stop it at its root, violence by adults (overwhelmingly women) against children (overwhelmingly boys).
I write this for those who will read it and who aren't deranged with anti-male hatred. This troll is not about to learn anything, because truth doesn't serve her feminazi agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last time I checked, no woman who ever posed for Playboy or Penthouse or any American-published magazine ever did so with a gun to her head. In fact, as I recall, Playboy recruited at Princeton University for their "Women of the Ivy League" issue some years back, for which the particpation was MUCH higher than expected. There are several sites on the Internet where average women, married, single, soccer moms, lesbians display nude and sometimes explicit photographs FOR FREE. Most every major city on the United States, and possibly the world, has a strip club where women take off their clothes and prance around naked or nearly so collecting dollar bills in their cleavage and other places, EXPLOITING the men who go there looking for visual stimulation. No one holds a gun to their heads. In fact, I'm advised by more than one bouncer at several of these establishments that it's the dancers who need to be kept from breaking prostitution laws, not the patrons. There appears to me and many of the folks who visit here that there's a fair exchange going on: men pay a fee to see naked women and in that exchange the laws of supply and demand are satisfied. No one is enslaved and no one is ripped-off. Anonymous User here just doesn't like the price that's being offered and accepted by other women. And oh, by the way, why is it that so many women shop at Victoria's Secret? It's no secret. It's just that the women want control of sex so they can exact their price!
So, AU, what would you say the difference is between "erotica" and "pornography" ? To me, it's a matter of pictures versus words: the preference of men for pictures and of women for the written word. Which should be prohibited? Well, the feminists have no problem with erotica in Barnes & Noble or any other you'd find in your local shopping mall. But put Playboy or Penthouse in there and, by God, you'll have hell to pay. If you're insulted by these publications, that's your problem. But the real exploitation is of men, by women who accept money sexual favors, including modeling for these magazines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said, frank, although I would add that I don't believe the men are being exploited, either. I am free to subscribe or not subscribe to such publications of my own will. If I want to pay for sexual gratification like that, that's my choice. Yeah, women in that line of work will try to sex themselves up to entice me, but in the end, I control my penis, my penis does not control me. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
taking back our “appendages” goes much deeper than protests against gender supremacist “art” exhibits
disagree with you on this one, mist
although each man indeed is responsible for ensuring that he is not exploited sexually, we are conditioned very early as boys that our sexuality is a deficit, “one-down” condition, for which we must compensate females (“dating,” money, houses, “respect,” cars, etc.)
girls, conversely, are taught that they possess a “precious gift” that must be carefully doled out after the male has met certain requirements, often involving material compensation or psychological subjugation
there is no single area of male conditioning and behavior more important to the liberation of men than this – we are essentially sold touch, sexuality, and “love” in this culture, and it is overwhelmingly females who condition boys to this assumption
amazingly, the uses of sexuality amongst other primates is far more evolved than the vampirism of male libido that now passes for “love” in america
baboon females, for example, use sexuality to increase troop bonding, comfort injured members, soothe infants, and defuse internal squabbles, as well as for purposes of breeding selectivity/generation
profiting by sexuality is indeed exploitation, and magazines like playboy denigrate males, not females
the american advertising industry likewise rapes us subtly – if we buy their car, if we drink their beer, we’ll get laid and women will “love” us
absent coercion or commercialization, neither pornography nor any other aspect of sexuality is an offense
any american male seeking freedom might well begin with his own body, and we must begin to liberate ourselves in this area by taking back the instruction of boys from females, by teaching them that their bodies and emotions do not exist as tools of the state, nor as objects of enrichment for females
there are tens of thousands of american females who have quietly and anonymously retired by the age of twenty by exploiting the sexual needs of males – yet feminism tells us that this constitutes the “oppression” of females by males – truly amazing
bill clinton provides an excellent example – his sexual addiction, his slavery to feminine sexuality, is the inner reason why he failed and betrayed the masculine in america
overwhelmingly and increasingly, what takes place between masculine and feminine in america has little to do with “love,” and much to do with power and profit
the reconciliation of the genders centers around these issues – there will be no conuinctio until males release themselves, and one another, from tactile, emotional, and sexual bondage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand your point of view here, and I do not doubt it. Perhaps I am speaking from a different perspective because I am one man who developed relationships outside of the sexual bondage you describe.
What I mean by that is that more often than not the women I have dated have not used sex as a means of getting what they want from me. And, yes, I am aware that using sex to get what one wants isn't as simple as a woman saying "if I screw around with you, will you buy me this?" :-)While I cannot see into the minds of the women I date, I am certain that at no time since high school have my sexual desires been used that way.
Now, I *will* tell you that I have had male friends who were used in those ways (and continue to be). I will also say that I haven't dated very many women in my lifetime. In fact, I've had a total of four "serious" relationships since I was 17. I am now 30. Perhaps the reason there have been so few is that I am quite selective when it comes to companions. There must be a certain open-mindedness and a certain intellectual quality to my partner. Unfortunately, one doesn't find the particular qualities I seek among the vast majority.
All that is just to say that I see where you're coming from, and I can only really speak from my own experience here. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If magazines like Playboy and Penthouse truly wanted to insult women and women's sexuality, they would adorn their pages with photos of obese, hairy, ugly women and male models who look like Greek sculptures grimacing and gagging as they struggle to perform sexual relations with these ladies. (Though, as I say this, I suspect there probably are at least a handful of obscure porn mags that are like this - though probably not for misogynists but for men who have a fetish for obese, hairy, ugly women.)
In truth, pornography reveals men in a much deeper way than it reveals women - much like the act of sex itself. While I can understand where some women might feel that their dignity is threatened by a Playboy magazine as well as an erect penis, both these things threaten men's dignity by manifesting to the women who observe them a lot more about what's going on at the most primitive levels of the men's psyches than perhaps a lot of men who want to seem "civilized" would care to reveal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
interesting, hawth
i recall once trying to explain to an obese, middle-aged female, who was upset both personally and politically that i didn't find her attractive, that sexual response in males is not an intellectual matter
the appendage never lies -- it responds, or it does not, and all the codifications and cultural coercions on the planet cannot change that
as for you, mist, i would guess that your ability to clear this hurdle of refusing sexual exploitation relatively early in life helped enable you to liberate yourself in other areas, and to help other males do likewise
imagine, then, the effect should grade-school boys be freed from this aspect of oppression right away -- how strong and secure they might become if they know it is their right and duty to demand non-exploitative relationships with females
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then you live in a shelter world, or maybe you live in a shelter. I know countless men who have been terrorized by women. I know lots of people that where beaten, molested and destroyed by women. Your view of the world must be very limited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 19, @08:00PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
>why is it that so many women shop at Victoria's Secret? It's no secret. It's just that the women
>want control of sex so they can exact their price!
Excuse me, but I happen to enjoy dressing in nice things and looking attractive for my partner. I want to know why you equate doing something that I know pleases my partner with prostitution and control. Would it be less exploitative in your eyes if I instead gained 300 pounds, didn't shave, didn't even bathe anymore, and wore dirty, stained, torn, ill-fitting rags?
Hey, maybe it would just be better if I had a sex-change operation!
>the real exploitation is of men, by women who accept money sexual favors,
>including modeling for these magazines.
Unbelievable. Men are forced at gunpoint to buy porn? There are barbed wires, armed guards and rabid dogs surrounding strip joints? Or are you saying that men are primitive, knuckle-dragging apes who when in heat are totally out of control?
What a hateful, offensive post, not only to women but to men. Your views of the world are just as twisted as the nut you're responding to, and claiming to disagree with.
This is a great example of why so many people get turned off by the men's movement. I certainly have no desire to support a movement that labels me a WHORE if I dare put on a sexy negligee for my partner. I doubt my partner would want to be part of a movement that tells him he's some kind of sexually uncontrollable ape running around humping trees in desperation. I think most people would feel the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a great example of why so many people get turned off by the men's movement. I certainly have no desire to support a movement that labels me a WHORE if I dare put on a sexy negligee for my partner.
*Ahem* One shouldn't equate the opinions of one individual with the opinions of an entire movement, Anonymous. No offense, but I stated quite directly that I disagreed with frank's assessment that men are exploited by women who work in prostitution, strip clubs, and nudie mags, and I consider myself a masculist.
In other words, just as feminists have a variety of opinions about their movement, men in the men's movement are going to disagree on varying points.
Please do not lump us all into one belief system because we all support the same movement.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't quite know if this is the same Anonymous User or another one. I'll presume that it is the same person.
This part of the thread started out at post #8, which contains the following quote: "Ever checked out the way women have been depicted for years in the cartoons in Playboy and other magazines?" My point, as offered in post #10, is simply that women's publications attack, berate, and insult men at least as frequently and probably more frequently than men's publications do the same to women. As far as pornographic magazines are concerned, while some women find them objectionable, many do not. In either case, the point of those magazines is NOT the denigration of women, either tongue-in-cheek or in editorial content. However, magazines like Ms. have a clear agenda of ridiculing men and masculine behavior. Magazines like Ladies Home Journal, Women's Day, and Good Housekeeping are clearly not as aggressive but their editorial content clearly favors women and feminists. Your assertion that pornography benefits only men and insults all women is clearly wrong.
My point in post #15 is simply this: women engage in sexual behavior as frequently as men. Women's sexual behavior IS different than men's, but not much different.
Clearly this Anonymous User WANTS to be insulted by my post. That is unfortunate for her. I never intended to infer that stripping, in camera or in person was wrong, that posing for pictures was wrong, or that shopping at Victoria's Secret makes one a whore.
I should advise you, AU, that I found YOUR posts to be hateful, and I will not back down when such misandrist posts are offered such as were offered at posts #8 and #13.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having now convinced myself that there are two AU's in this thread, let me re-post a sentence from #15: "There appears to me and many of the folks who visit here that there's a fair exchange going on: men pay a fee to see naked women and in that exchange the laws of supply and demand are satisfied." In the end, neither party is exploited as long as either can walk away from it.
I suspect AU#2 may have read post #15 out of context, having not read thoroughly the earlier posts. I hope I have re-stated my position such that AU#2 is less insulted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 20, @07:48AM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
And look at the way males treat females who dole out their "precious gift" for free. I've had at least one girlfriend who had to leave high school after she foolishy had sex with several males without expecting a relationship or payment (although I know hookers are not treated much better).
After reading these comments, I think it's safe to say that you don't think much of females who stay with the one partner either. I very much doubt whether you would have anything positive to say about ANY female.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 20, @08:11AM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Excuse me but I do NOT like being referred to as a "twisted nut" just because I object to women being depicted in porn as being sluts, whores and bitches and having all manner of acts performed on them no matter how painful and degrading.
If you think there is nothing wrong with this depiction of women then it is YOU who is the "twisted nut".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I think we can refer to AU#1 as TwistedNut and AU#2 as ReasonableFemale. Apparently, I've touched a nerve with ReasonableFemale that I did not intend to. And TwistedNut is going to rant no matter what infusion of clear observation and common sense is offered.
There clearly are women who participate willingly in sexually explicit activities that TwistedNut finds so offensive. As long as all parties are consenting adults, then there is no harm and no foul.
Enough.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
