|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scott:
i could not locate this quote by mcelroy on her website -- "all attention seems to be focused..."
nor can i find her "newsletter"
can you help?
i did, however, find a recent column by her titled "arm the afghan women" that included these words: “Afghan women need to exercise the right of self-defense, including gun ownership ... the very existence of Afghan women who take up arms suggests 'a female population with more vitality and self-confidence than is immediately apparent' … armed resistance is emerging as a sub-theme of women in Islam.”
i also saw yer mugshot on her homepage ... drives the ladies wild, no doubt ... you dog
review the history of western civ -- amazons have been around a long time, tho in modern times they typically operate much more covertly than this
i advise against establishing further affiliation between mcelroy and MANN ... she is far more interested in increasing female power than in men's liberation
trudy schuett is your best bet in this regard -- she looks like the real deal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, Remarksman.
I disagree about Wendy. Both Scott and I have communicated with her at length about this partnership, and she really is interested in men's issues, although her primary focus is women.
In fact, Wendy recently took heat from some subscribers of her newsletter because she said she has warned her girlfriends about male bashing in her presence. She's asked them not to do it because when they do they're "talking about my husband and my father." She sounds interested in men's issues to me. :)
Anyway, I submit stories to both MANN and ifeminists.com, and I think I can vouch for Wendy's character. Yes, she is pro-armed-self-defense, but so am I, and that doesn't make me any less of a masculist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i stand very firmly behind my statement and recommendation
no offense, mist, but e-communications do not authorize anyone to vouch for another's character, nor motives
it's a shadowy world -- not only are things, and people, not always what they seem, often they are the opposite of what they seem
right wing/libertarian feminism will not free the male scapegoat, but only drive him deeper into exile
i am sorry also to learn that you think arms and violence is the solution to any problem, including that of gender
meanwhile, can anyone direct me to the mcelroy quote i was seeking in post number 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Remarksman,
You can subscribe to Wendy's newsletter at the bottom of the ifeminists.com main page. It reads, "Join the newsletter! Get free ifeminist insiderUpdates once a week by e-mail." I'm not sure if she archives the newsletters on the web site, though.
With regard to the affilliation between Mensactivism.org and ifeminism.com, details of the partnership can be found here:
/article.pl?sid=01/10/1 7/0025251&mode=flat
(Delete the space in the URL above if it doesn't work)
I believe that by extending goodwill and some efforts on joint goals with ifeminism.com, while retaining the independence and focus of Mensactivism.org as it is, we'll have the best of both worlds. The women's movement would never have gotten so far without the help of men, and likewise, I don't think the men's movement is going to go anywhere without the support of fair minded women.
Wendy has written many articles about men's rights, and I think she's proven her track record in favor of justice for both men and women. Just because she wrote a piece about women and guns doesn't detract from that, IMO.
You are welcome to disagree, of course, and I will hear you out.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i am sorry also to learn that you think arms and violence is the solution to any problem, including that of gender
An important distinction in this argument is that just because one supports the right of another to arm him or herself does not mean that one condones violence against others. I could choose to abhor guns and still favor/commit acts of violence (witness the 9/11 terrorist attacks... they used box cutters).
As a method of self-defense, though, I believe firearms are practical. And because this forum is for the debate of men's issues, and not guns, I'll simply leave my argument there. You are, of course, free to reply and to disagree.
As for Wendy, I stand firm in my belief that she is a great benefit to the men's movement, an important voice for equality, and a stand-up individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with this. Remember that one of the first things Hitler did was disarm the populace. It's far easier to oppress an unarmed people, which was evident in what happened when a group of ghetto-exiled Jews got hold of some guns.
I just posted about this on the iFeminists board.
Ifeminism is nothing more than an intersection of libertarianism, individualism and anarchism, none of which seek to oppress *anyone.* Yes, Wendy does focus on women's issues, but many men here are fond of saying, "Just because I'm a men's activist doesn't mean I hate women." That works both ways!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thank you
"I don't think the men's movement is going to go anywhere without the support of fair minded women"
agreed -- but which women is exactly the issue, especially when it comes to affiliations that may come back to haunt one
"I think she's proven her track record in favor of justice for both men and women. Just because she wrote a piece about women and guns doesn't detract from that, IMO."
arming afghan women for retaliation against afghan men will not further "justice for both men and women," any more than arming north american women with cultural weapons to fight their male "oppressors" has provided "justice" for males over the past four decades
again, review the differences in tone, temperament, and policy between, say, mcelroy and schuett
thank you for allowing me to disagree and hearing me out
be assured i will have much more to say about this shortly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>arming afghan women for retaliation against afghan men
She's not talking about arming them for retaliation against Afghan men, but resistance against *oppressive government.*
Big, big, BIG difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Libertarian feminism is NOT right-wing.
Nor is it left-wing.
Libertarians are not on the right or the left, even though too many people *insist* on putting us in one of those categories. I myself have many times been accused of being both conservative AND liberal. Libertarianism is a different species altogether. I didn't vote for Bush or Gore. I voted for Harry Browne.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Myself, I'm all for women being armed like commandos and highly trained in the martial arts to boot! In a world where women can aptly defend themselves against physical attacks, the greater physical stature of males becomes less of a liability which can be used to demonize us as menacing oppressors. I don't want women to be weak if it must then become men's shame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i quote directly from her article:
"The best defense against 'guys with guns' is women with guns."
please to not attempt to persuade me that what i have just read does not exist, no matter how it suits your libertarian, individualist, ararchic purpose, ms. liberty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remarksman,
Send me a stamped, self-adressed envellope ( or your email ) at cmro@hotmail.com and I'll send you the newsletter.
There is a archive of the ifeminist newsletter
(amongst others) on
http://www.free-market.net/features/list-archives/ feminism/maillist.html
(interesting site BTW )
This week's newsletter has not been added though.
zerostress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are very seriously overreacting to this editorial and finding bizarre connotations in it, something that, from reading your posts, I've noticed you're prone to do.
She's not advocating that Afghan women shoot their husbands and sons. She's advocating that they defend themselves against BAD GUYS. There is such a thing as a BAD GUY. Osama Bin Laden is a BAD GUY. The guys who run the Taliban are BAD GUYS, and in case you haven't noticed, they've done a good job committing atrocities against those womens' husbands as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 20, @08:54PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe. But when it comes to the essense of left/right politics (economics and the role of government), libertarians are very much on the right. The only way they significantly disagree with the right is with regard to individual rights (drugs, prostitution, pornography, etc.), where they side with progressives (for very different reasons). I don't think any of this is relevant to the issue of MANN's union with Ifeminists anyway, since Scott already said that the union will be strictly related to men's rights and not politics, guns, etc. MANN's common goal with Ifeminists has to do with exposing the myths that mainstream feminism has spread and to work toward balancing out the public forum on gender to include viewpoints that are sympathetic to males. As long as we clearly and explicity affirm our apolitical policy and disclaim any affirmation of Ifeminists' political position, then McElroy's libertarian leanings or her position on guns should not matter.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Wendy is going to be in the chat tomorrow night, so you and anyone else who wants to can question her directly about the meaning behind her words. I've given my interpretation, but since I didn't write this editorial, I feel presumptuous trying to explain it.
I won't be here. I'll be preparing part of what will be Thanksgiving dinner. Too bad. I kinda wanted to talk to El Dildo Bandido.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, Claire. Even if you can't make it to tomorrow's chat, I do hope you'll plan to drop in sometime. It can get quite interesting. If you do happen to find yourself with some downtime during your Thanksgiving preparation, please drop by. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thank you, zerostress – very kind – my e is remarksman@yahoo.com
i see, ms. liberty – so rather than respond to your misstatement, you choose instead to criticize my proneness to “bizarre overreacting” and my inability to distinguish “good” from “evil”
can we say “straw man”? can we say “red herring”?
now, like junior bush, ms. liberty authorizes herself to determine – as by divine fiat – who are and who are not the BAD GUYS
am i, in my omniscience, then designated to determine who are the BAD GIRLS – and take blood vengeance as i see fit?
no, for i am far less enlightened in moral judgement than is ms. liberty
diverting your response into the quicksand of whether libertarianism derives more from the political left or right was, and is, not my central point, though my opinion is that libertarianism is far more a creature of the right
as for anarchy – bring it on, baby -- chuck them thanksgiving turkeys offa the cliff
i will repeat my statement: “arming afghan women for retaliation against afghan men will not further ‘justice for both men and women,’ any more than arming north american women with cultural weapons to fight their male ‘oppressors’ has provided ‘justice’ for males over the past four decades”
i was then thus informed by ms. liberty: “She's [mcelroy] not talking about arming them for retaliation against Afghan men, but resistance against *oppressive government.*”
to which i replied quoting mcelroy: "The best defense against 'guys with guns' is women with guns."
"guys with guns" is not "oppressive government," unless "hula hoop" is "cornflakes"
i insist that despite mcelroy’s defenders, her statement is entirely inconsitent with the liberation of masculinity, and instead is consistent with emerging gynocracy under law of talion -- vengeance
right where we've always been
meet the new boss, same as the old boss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now you're twisting my words beyond all recognition, and putting new ones into my mouth. I've learned that when that happens, all chance of rational discourse ends.
You can put a horse in a garage and call it a car. You can scream at the poor thing until it's stark terrified, but no matter how loudly or how many times you scream at it, that horse will never be a car JUST BECAUSE you keep insisting it's a car.
Same thing with you insisting that I am things that I am not. You can think of me whatever you want. Your opinions of me have no effect on my beliefs, my relationships or the person I am. Likewise my posts speak for themselves.
Have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the invitation, Nightmist. I am usually quite busy around that time on weeknights, and especially so tomorrow night.
I will stop by sometime when I have a chance, and will drop in tomorrow if I have a spare moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ditch the offendedness and re-read the thread
it is you who made the misstatement, and now seek to cover yourself by accusing me of "twisting your words" - after, of course, impugning my character
my above post quotes you and mcelroy WORD FOR WORD, without alteration of a single letter
please point out which word i have altered, and i will promptly retract and apologize
i am very sorry that my opinions have no effect on your "beliefs" or the person you are
that, after all, used to be the point of dialogue, and your opinions and beliefs absolutely have an effect on both my beliefs and the person i am, and hope to be
if they do not, then my mind -- and more importantly my heart -- is shut and locked tighter than a prisoner's cell
the truth is that you do not have the courage to learn, nor the humility to admit error
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 20, @10:11PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"The best defense against 'guys with guns' is women with guns."
Taking that statement I can assume that the best defence against 'girls with guns' is men with guns. Either both of these statements offend you or nither do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I won’t be able to attend the chat tomorrow, so I’ll put my 2cents in here.
Any discussion of Wendy vs. me kind of misses the point. While certainly I’m pleased and heartened that I have managed to establish such trust, Wendy’s current focus is quite different from mine. I tend to approach the more emotional issues—DV, divorce, etc., and I don’t presume to comment on terrorist war or political issues since they’re not my area of expertise. I don’t have any public comment on the situation of women of other cultures, either, for much the same reasons.
My background is social services and activism, and that’s where I put my energies. I’m working for equal treatment for men in several areas, but I never lose sight of the original issues that got me into this gender war. I saw men were hurting and I wanted to help. That’s the reason for the strong man with the heart on my website. I’d like to be able to help men escape their demons and raise their children in peace, while retaining their dignity and self-respect.
We need women like Wendy to face the ‘nasty girls,’ because I simply can’t do it. Sure, I can laugh about my friends or me being called ‘Father’s Rights Whores’ and even take a bit of pride in being called the most dangerous woman in AZ. But that’s all in print or online, and I couldn’t take the vicious, ugly hatred that feminism has become in person. Wendy’s done that. She’s faced rooms full of ‘nasty girls’ and I see she’s still as determined as ever! She’s also I suspect, somewhat younger, and so can make the whole idea of ‘independent feminism' more palatable for the younger women who are just now learning how to lead their lives. Eventually maybe we won’t need that word anymore, as more women begin to understand it no longer stands for anything resembling its original meaning.
There are so many battles to be fought, so much territory to cover, that it shouldn’t be a question of Wendy OR Trudy; it should be a question of, “Well, we’ve got Wendy AND Trudy, now who else?”
Good night, Gentlemen;
Be safe.
T______
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taking that statement I can assume that the best defence against 'girls with guns' is men with guns. Either both of these statements offend you or nither do.
I vote neither.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trudy, you're an eloquent writer, a good-hearted individual, and a tremendous asset to the men's movement.
And you are absolutely right, of course. :-)
Be safe yourself. And have a great holiday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Nightmist. The men's movement needs friends like Trudy.
Collins
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Trudy. All the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to add that I've met Wendy, after a recent debate at the University of Colorado. At that debate she had what I suspect was an unusually supportive crowd. (We can hope and, I suspect, expect more of that as time goes by.) Nevertheless, she would go into a debate in front of a mob of students steeped and brainwashed in feminism, look out into their eyes and speak the truth. She is courageous indeed and she is a great asset to our movement.
Many heartfelt thanks to both Trudy and Wendy. We need you both. Now, who else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I almost never post on this website - I'm just a quiet guy...
but thanks, Trudy. Thanks for interjecting rational thought into what was a needlessly emotional argument.
"I'll preserve one last male thing in the museum of this world, if I can." -- D.H. Lawrence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never have agreed with Wendy on everything, nor have I ever agreed with Trudy on everything. But I agree with them enough, and I respect their offer of "complicity" enough to welcome their support.
As far as training women to defend themselves against men, I find that ideology to be highly questionable, and I disagree with our esteemed Anonymous user ("Taking that statement I can assume that the best defence against 'girls with guns' is men with guns. Either both of these statements offend you or nither do"). The notion that men and women need to defend themselves against each other with guns is in my opinion a pretty sickening thought. It leads right to the belief that men and women ought to be living in separate communities, isolated from one another, and that they ought to regard one another as enemies.
Women have been called upon to fight oppression, and in that light, women with guns is not a scary thought. But we have an entire movement devoted to the notion that masculinity equals oppression and that all oppression comes exclusively from men. I am definitely NOT in favor of arming those people, for I believe they will quickly become oppressors themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also disagreed with the Anonymous User. I think he missed the point, though I still think a lot of people are reading things into that editorial that simply aren't there. But, as I said earlier, I didn't write the editorial, Wendy did. Anyone who would like to take issue with it should debate it with her directly. She mentioned on the iFeminism board yesterday that she's coming to the chat tonight.
On a related note, I don't agree with *a lot* of things I see posted on this board, but to quote Larry Elder, "Alert, engaged minds are never in 100% agreement." Just because someone doesn't agree with me, or with anyone, that doesn't make them a communist, facist, socialist, collectivist, statist or weekend golfer.
That's one of the biggest problems in America today, and I'm not just talking about relations between men and women. There's no such thing as disagreeing anymore. Instead it's, "If you don't support the exact same things I do, that means you hate men/you hate women/you hate children/you hate blacks/you're a Nazi/you're a Communist/insert accusation here."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must disagree. There are many things the Right does that revolt me, such as Ashcroft's unwarranted, vicious attack on the terminally ill via his trying to overturn Oregon's Death With Dignity Act. I rabidly support Death With Dignity, which puts me at odds with the Right's opinion that, unlike dying animals that are humanely put down to spare them needless suffering, dying humans must be forced to suffer for as long as possible, even if the dying human desperately wants out.
But, as you said, the affiliation with iFeminism is going to be very narrow, concentrating on men's issues only. Guns, euthanasia, marijuana rights and other unrelated issues won't even come into the picture unless something comes up that directly involves men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You folks are moral and intellectual teachers and leaders in the best sense of the word. I'm glad that you don't insist on seamless agreement, or else I would think that really you are all the same person.
Thanks for all your efforts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I share remarksman's concerns. I am not completely comfortable with ifeminism. That ambivalence is no commentary on Ms. McElroy (whose work I basically respect); I am just not all that comfortable with parts of libertarianism, anarchism, and essentially unfettered possession of firearms.
My purpose here is not to engage in off-topic discussions of those ideologies. I write merely to complain about some of the unnecessary personal attacks on remarksman. He has not done anything wrong. He has merely dared to espouse and express a view that seems to be relatively unpopular here.
Peace to all,
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, Steve.
I agree that personal attacks have no place here. I disagree with remarksman's views about Wendy (and I've disagreed with him on other issues as well), but I bear him no ill will and he is welcome as far as I'm concerned to continue expressing himself in this forum. As Claire4Liberty said, we don't (and we shouldn't) agree 100% with each other 100% of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
