|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it disgusting that the author of this strip believes that men who don't want to or CAN'T pay child support have low IQs. However, I would like to point out that this particular "joke" could have been landed against any particular group of people. I'm sure Hart picked so-called "deadbeat" dads because they are such a villified group of people in the mainstream media.
In other words, he was trying to be funny without any genuine knowledge of the subject about which he was joking.
Sigh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wait a minute. I'd suggest reading this cartoon again before you fly off the handle. The "IQ" in question is that of the letter writer, i.e. the woman who was idiot enough to get pregnant six times by a man who apparently doesn't live up to his responsibilities. Thus the cartoon points out that the woman has a responsibility too -- in fact the prior responsibility, to put a little care into choosing her mate. As females of other species do.
Some "deadbeat dads" really are deadbeats. But what about the women who mate with them -- sometimes repeatedly, apparently without any conscious thought? The cartoonist's point -- exactly the point forgotten/ignored by feminists -- is that it takes two to produce such a situation; the woman is not an "innocent victim."
"Compassion" for an idiot who fathers six children he can't support is no more appropriate than "compassion" for the featherbrained female who invited him to do it. This is pure feminism. Reclaiming/reasserting manhood in our feminized culture means presenting an alternative, in this case (as in many others) the idea that people should be held responsible for their acts.
When I saw this item on the site, I wondered about it, since this cartoonist is famous for being a traditionalist, born-again Christian (for which he's gotten no end of persecution) -- unlikely, I would expect, to hew to a politically-correct feminist line on anything. Take it easy, guys; you've misinterpreted him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take it easy, guys; you've misinterpreted him.
Now that I re-read it, I can see how it could be taken both ways. But I also think I agree with your assessment, Andrew. Thanks for pointing that out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good point, Andrew. I was a bit fuzzy on the real meaning of the strip, too. I'm more inclined to give Hart the benefit of the doubt and assume he's mocking the ex-wife as the main point of the strip. Still, Steve and others are entitled to their opinions, and I think they have reasonable interpretations as well.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't get the joke at all--guess you had to be there. ;>)
T___
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I'm not going to let this pass; tiny and inconsequential though it is, this is a perfect example of where we are at, and what we face.
I can see how it could be taken both ways.
Only if you're being lazy and dishonest with yourself.
I'm more inclined to give Hart the benefit of the doubt ... Steve and others are entitled to their opinions, and I think they have reasonable interpretations as well.
No "benefit of the doubt" is needed; just read the strip. Sure, anyone's "entitled" to be wrong, but why bother? Why invest in it? Only if your "feelings" are more important to you than the truth.
Read it again. First panel: The Fat Broad (it's been a while since I've followed "B.C.," but I believe that's her "name," or something similar), confident now that the Infant Male Circumcision Program (her prescription to "cure" What's Wrong With Men) is well underway and will henceforth run itself, has set herself up as a professional busybody -- her perfect, "self-fulfilling" career -- a Dear Abby, advice maven, "Miss Know-It-All." Anything familiar here?
She receives a letter, second panel: In a feminine hand, the writer informs Miss Know-It-All (and us) that she's borne six children by a man who apparently doesn't live up to his responsibilities (hint: don't read your own content into this, show the author the respect of taking it as he wrote it); but apparently she still "loves" him enough that she wants to give him something for Christmas. This cartoonist is an expert; in a few short words he has painted the picture of an entire culture: featherbrained/sentimental, dominant females bewildered when the "men" they keep as pets don't act like real men. The famous "Matriarchy" the feminists have graciously given us, which, we are told, must be the highest state of human development.
Maybe not; third panel: Miss Know-It-All gives the perfect advice: "Why don't you [the female writer of the letter in panel two] have your 'IQ' [the common measure of intelligence] notarized and just send him that!?" Not a word is said about the "deadbeat dad" except what the letter writer says in panel two. Sure, we may infer that he's a few hands short of a full deck; what, men can't be stupid too? But it's the woman's power to define the situation that is highlighted here.
What's to "interpret"? Like the Constitution, it's written in English. What's more, it's contemporary English, our native language, idiomatic and perfectly clear.
Can't you see it? You're talking like girls. The undeveloped female mind (and the male who hasn't yet accomplished his first task of separating from the female), perpetually obsessed with her "feelings," is gravely allergic to either/or choices. What if she's wrong? Her "feelings" might be hurt! Safer to insist that there is no "one truth," that everybody's "right"; that way no one will be "hurt."
But neither will we arrive at the truth. The truth is important; without it, we don't know where we're going. Of course, we all have the "right" to not care where we're going. Hey, this is the New World Order; it's Party Time! Sorry, I'm an "extremist"; I care.
"The world’s black and white, good and bad, no matter what you hear. The people who say it isn’t have already chosen black." -- Amos Walker
To be a man is to be what woman is not. That is the whole secret of "gender." Neither Mom nor Big Sister can show/tell us how to be men. It's been several generations now since Father was driven out of the American family, and understanding of how to be a man has been almost entirely lost; we're going to have to figure it out on our own. If we want to become men, at some point we're going to have to cut the cord, quit looking to Her for permission/approval every other minute, quit being "tolerant," "compassionate," et cetera ad nauseam, and stand forth for the truth. You can have only one first priority.
Lies may be infinite in number, but the Truth is One. And it is the truth, and only the truth -- as a man once said -- that will set us free. (Read his story: he was not unkind to women, but he was not ruled by them either. That's it in a nutshell: to be a man is to be ruled by oneself -- and/or the Creator of one's choice -- not by women, or one's "feelings.")
"Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth." Did a woman write this, or a man? (Hint: the writer's name was Gandhi. Mohandas or Indira? Your guess.)
One way to learn about how to be a man is to look back to before the Matriarchy, when the difference was recognized and men were in evidence. The Founders of this Republic were not "tolerant," they were "extremists": they pledged their "Lives ... Fortunes," and "sacred Honor" for the truth. Many lost their lives, most lost their fortunes; but none lost their Honor (however feminists and their academic lapdogs may deride) -- which is why we still have what little freedom we have today. Which freedom has been abused, betrayed and destroyed by the feminists/socialists as they have set up their "tolerant," "compassionate," fascist, mind-control Utopia.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine
Why are so many boys committing suicide (as noted in another thread)? Because they've been denied their birthright -- to become whole, developed men -- and they know it, if only unconsciously; what's left to live for? MTV? Even endless free nooky will not, ultimately, make up for this loss. Trust me.
"I didn't say it would be easy. I just said it would be the truth." -- Morpheus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 28, @09:36AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Nice response Andrew, well worth the reading.
Thanks,
D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only if you're being lazy and dishonest with yourself.
OK, now you're just being an ass.
When I first read that strip (prior to anyone posting it to MANN), I believed the author was was claiming that the mother of the children should lord her IQ over that of the "deadbeat" dad. That's how I read it. That was my opinion. When I read your alternate view, I re-read the strip and saw that, yes, you could be right. I completely admitted to that, but you then decided to become what I call an "opinion bully."
"If you don't see it the way I see it, then you can't possibly be anything but 'lazy and dishonest with yourself.'"
Sorry, Andrew. The world is made up of people with many diverse opinions. You're not always right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can't you see it? You're talking like girls.
And that line is pure hate and bigotry. I have every right to my opinion and to speak the way I want, regardless of what *you* think about it. I realize that you're one of those people who has a specific "women MUST think like this and men MUST think like that" belief system, but you're just plain wrong there.
Man or woman, we are all people, and some of us are going to share beliefs others don't. Sex has absolutely no bearing on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hint: don't read your own content into this, show the author the respect of taking it as he wrote it
And one more little thing on writers and writing... everything is open to interpretation. Ever read Keats' "Ode On a Grecian Urn?" There's been scholarly debate over the meaning of the word "on" in that poem for ages. Did Keats mean that his poem was an ode TO the grecian urn, or did he mean that the scene he describes ON the urn is the ode itself?
Granted, this B.C. thing doesn't compare to a Keats poem, but the principle that not everyone is going to see the point the same way you do still applies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, Andrew...this issue sure opened you up.
That was a pretty damning e-mail, it makes me wonder why you even come to this web site and post things. So why do you?
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I said "e-mail," but I meant posting. Andrew hasn't sent me any e-mails regarding this issue.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like the Constitution, it's written in English.
Does anyone else here agree that, in spite of the fact that the Constitution was written in English, it has, for years, been open to interpretation? Hell, that's what the Supreme Court of the United States does every day!
OK, end of rant from me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the cartoon as pretty pretty even handed overall. It did seem to me to be castigating the woman a little bit more .... to be stupid enough to have had 6 kids with a person she should have "known" well before kid #6 arrived was not going to be a responsible father. I think that's fair, but doesn't in my book mitigate the father's lack of intellligence either for his role in creating 6 kids he can't/won't support.
I think you could read it in several ways. One, that the author was putting the entire blame for stupidity on the woman because of the added bit about wanting to buy him a gift. On the other hand, you could read it as an indication that gullibility is separate from willful irresponsibility... the wife the former and the husband the later. It's hard to know from the scant wordage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say that, if Hart was trying to convey any message here, he did a pretty poor job of it. Might as well not worry about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, gee ...
You're not always right. To be sure. And when I'm not, I hope to learn better. "When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."
The world is made up of people with many diverse opinions. Certainly. And most of them are wrong. Sure, some like chocolate, others prefer vanilla. But: either "all men are rapists," or not all men are rapists. Only one of these statements is true (it is not true that both "could be" right), though anyone may hold either "opinion." Call me "insensitive," but I'm really not interested in "diverse opinions," except as sources of information, which it is my responsibility then to evaluate. My aim is the truth, not "diversity."
Yes, I can see where a careless, baggage-laden (looking for reasons to be "offended" about treatment of "deadbeat dads") perusal of this comic strip could come up with the rather tortured reading you describe (how could this loser's behavior indicate a "superior" IQ to be "lorded over" someone?). I expect I've done the same myself, one time or another. But, set aside the baggage and look again, and I believe it becomes obvious what the artist intended. Was Johnny Hart "father-bashing" (a fairly serious charge, especially in this forum) or not? I think not. If you disagree, then defend your position, don't tell me that either reading "could be right." I'm sorry, I call that intellectual laziness.
...you then decided to become what I call an "opinion bully." "Bully: A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people." (American Heritage Dictionary.) Expressing verbal disagreement, without the least possibility of physical (or any other) harm, makes me a bully? This is just what I've been talking about, here and elsewhere: "Don't tell me the truth, you'll hurt my feelings" is not a rejoinder worthy of an adult, of either sex -- but it has become the universal restraint on all public discourse. As it must, I am now convinced, in a "matriarchy" where "compassion" for "diversity" is more valued than the truth. Which is exactly why a "patriarchy" will prevail in a contest; those who face reality (even partially) will be stronger than the deliberately self-deluded.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley
Perhaps it is "kindest," in some situations, not to tell the truth to children; but adults deserve better -- unless, like the feminists and their friends, you really prefer a society of perpetual children, watched over by a "tolerant" Big Mother State.
And just how do you know that you (as the "victim" of an "opinion bully") are smaller or weaker than I? If you are confident of where you stand, how can a 120-lb, chronically-ill geezer "bully" you?
And that line is pure hate and bigotry. Whew. No, it's simple observation. I have every right to my opinion and to speak the way I want, regardless of what *you* think about it. Never said otherwise; it's a "free" country, for the moment, anyway. Why so upset?
I realize that you're one of those people who has a specific "women MUST think like this and men MUST think like that" belief system ... Where have I so stated? I make observations, yes, based on a lifetime of observation, during which I've gradually come to realize that what I, a member of the first thoroughly-feminized (or, more precisely, manhood-aborted) generation of American males, was indoctrinated to believe might not be the whole truth. Show me something I haven't taken into account, and I'll be happy to learn from you. So far, I'm sorry to have to say it, you're only proving my point.
Does anyone else here agree that, in spite of the fact that the Constitution was written in English, it has, for years, been open to interpretation? Hell, that's what the Supreme Court of the United States does every day! Probably most do agree with you on this point, more's the pity; which is why the feminists and their friends, who don't believe in any truth that's not subject to self-serving "interpretation," have all but won. Welcome to Paradise! Line up right over here for your ID tattoo.
The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to "interpret" the very law which created it; its job is to enforce that law, nothing more. The watchdog who was supposed to be guarding the hen house has turned into a fox who is feasting on the hens.
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go around repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence." -- Charles A. Beard, 1913
That was a pretty damning e-mail ... Well, okay, maybe blunt; but "damning?" Again, my point: if men cannot speak plainly among themselves, who can? ... it makes me wonder why you even come to this web site and post things. So why do you? Why not? Because (a) I have a concern for the issues discussed here, and (b) I don't see anyone else presenting the views I hold. Not lightly; as I've said, I was once a fairly typical 1960s-style "femboy" (great coinage from another thread), have had to go through a lot of pain and self-examination to begin to see the truth. I'm a sissy, I hate argument, it upsets my breathing and digestion; but I guess I'm starting to feel I'd better speak out while I still can. Whether anyone will hear is another question; but I don't want to face my Maker a complete coward.
Show me some new information -- especially if it's reason for hope -- and you will have my sincere gratitude. Unfortunately, though, it seems Ecclesiastes was right, at least on Big Picture.
I saw the cartoon as pretty even handed overall. ... Well, I suppose it does help to know that the cartoonist is a Christian, who, one may assume, still believes in marriage as a "union" of two souls. Since he's not involved in feminist dialectics, he probably wouldn't be agonizing over whether the man or the woman is responsible for the mess they created together. But here it's primarily about the woman, whose mating decision is determinative; the man is off-stage.
Tempest in a teapot? Sure. The cartoon itself isn't really the point; it's that the reactions to it demonstrate why the "men's movement" isn't being taken seriously (see "The Men's Movement Gets More Press"). It's not about playing "catch-up" with the "women's movement," because the latter has no real intellectual weight either. I really don't want to get into an ad hominem exchange (though I guess "now you're just being an ass" qualifies pretty well), but I do want to encourage anyone who may read these pages to think. There's a critical shortage, and we're dying of it.
"God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please; you can never have both." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Best wishes,
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 28, @05:32PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew, I'll stick to my previous comment, you wrote a great response that required thought to understand. Nightmist and others sometimes write as if they are magazine writers in training. Additionally, they often seem to be a little weak in their forcefulness about issues (unless it's a poster of high heels). Don't even waste time on Lorianne's babble--she's always undermining the issues. I know some will say that it's great to have another view, but then I can always go to the NOW site for that.
I was surprised though that Nightmist called you a name, seemed a little beneath him. Scott on the other hand is the always the voice of reason--my hero :)
D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew, I'll stick to my previous comment, you wrote a great response that required thought to understand. Nightmist and others sometimes write as if they are magazine writers in training.
Not in training, fella. I've been a journalist for many years.
Additionally, they often seem to be a little weak in their forcefulness about issues (unless it's a poster of high heels).
Oh, yeah? How many letters of complaint have you written to misandrists?
I was surprised though that Nightmist called you a name, seemed a little beneath him. Scott on the other hand is the always the voice of reason--my hero :)
I didn't call him a name. I said he's "being an ass."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 29, @08:31AM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
**Not in training, fella. I've been a journalist for many years.**
Nightmist, this just means you've been in training for many years. I'm a senior commercial pilot with many thousands of hours and years of flying, but I'm always in "training" learning new things.
**Oh, yeah? How many letters of complaint have you written to misandrists?**
I try not to confuse quantity with quality.
I wasn't trying to make you angry, only point out that if we are to succeed in the war for equality we must work together. Andrew had some goodpoints and some not so good, as do most of the folks who respond here. Scott does a good job of remaining even keeled in his responses, I only suggest that labeling someone an "ass" may not help him keep an open mind (or others who are forming opinions about the worthiness of this website's movement/purpose).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I only suggest that labeling someone an "ass" may not help him keep an open mind (or others who are forming opinions about the worthiness of this website's movement/purpose).
I understand your point of view, but I can also tell you that Andrew was visiting this site before I was, so his opinions of it are already in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew was visiting this site before I was
Really? I thought I'd seen your "handle" here since my first visit. "...opinions of it are already in place." "It" meaning the site, and/or its "movement/purpose"? Don't recall ever having posted any such; my posts are regarding subjects under discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Really? I thought I'd seen your "handle" here since my first visit.
No. I was an "anonymous user" here at first, and you were already posting. I didn't start posting here as "Nightmist" until late May or June.
"...opinions of it are already in place." "It" meaning the site, and/or its "movement/purpose"?
Yes, "it" meaning both. You can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, Andrew, but a majority of your posts seem to be less about the topic and more about "men shouldn't complain." That, to me, indicates that you'd prefer there were no such thing as action on the part of men. Again, you're free to correct me. I do not pretend to be able to read your mind and I'm only giving you my impressions of your posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 29, @04:55PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
**I understand your point of view, but I can also tell you that Andrew was visiting this site before I was, so his opinions of it are already in place.**
Nightmist,
OK, thanks, there may be more going on than I realized.
My apologies.
D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly. And most of them are wrong. Sure, some like chocolate, others prefer vanilla. But: either "all men are rapists," or not all men are rapists.
Christ, Andrew, you just made one of the biggest logical fallacies there is. You're comparing apples to oranges. No one here said anything about "all men are rapists" or "all men are not rapists." We're talking about interpreting the intentions of the author of a not-well-articulated comic strip. Again, I remind you of Keats' "Ode On a Grecian Urn" and the debate surrounding even just the word "On" in that title.
Yes, I can see where a careless, baggage-laden
Considering I am neither a father, husband, nor a deadbeat (have never even been married), your analysis of why I originally read BC the way I did is completely faulty and illogical. Obviously, I'm not looking for reasons to be offended. If you want someone looking for reasons to be offended, check out the comments on the "Boy dies saving family" thread.
I think not. If you disagree, then defend your position, don't tell me that either reading "could be right." I'm sorry, I call that intellectual laziness.
Likewise, I already admitted that I'm now inclined to agree with your point-of-view after further perusal of the strip, so what the hell are you arguing about? I also said that it could be taken either way. It could. Here's my defense: NOT EVERYONE THINKS THE SAME WAY YOU DO. Nor should they.
Expressing verbal disagreement, without the least possibility of physical (or any other) harm, makes me a bully?
You can express verbal disagreement all you want. Your accusation that I was "being lazy and dishonest with yourself" is where you fucked up and became a bully. Those accusations sounded cruel and bullyish to me.
I realize that you're one of those people who has a specific "women MUST think like this and men MUST think like that" belief system ... Where have I so stated?
Oh, please. You've written countless times in countless posts that "real men don't think like that." How about your comments about men and "feelings." You apparently believe that men aren't supposed to have them (or express having them), but women are. "You're thinking like girls" was another quote from you.
By the way "That was a pretty damning e-mail" was a quote from Scott's post about your posts, not mine. You should differentiate between them rather than trying to dump all your hate only one person replying to you.
I guess I'm starting to feel I'd better speak out while I still can.
Really? So, it's OK for you to speak what you think and FEEL, but the rest of us aren't "men" when we do it?
It's not about playing "catch-up" with the "women's movement," because the latter has no real intellectual weight either. I really don't want to get into an ad hominem exchange (though I guess "now you're just being an ass" qualifies pretty well), but I do want to encourage anyone who may read these pages to think. There's a critical shortage, and we're dying of it.
You don't really believe you're the only one thinking these thoughts, do you? No one here I know of wants the men's movement to become the next bearer of political correctness (Speak up, if you do. I'm interested in debating you about it). No one wants to go over the line complaining about male bashing where it doesn't exist (see my comments in the thread on the boy who died saving his relatives from a fire).
I think you're far too quick to judge those of us who do speak out when we see wrongs, though. And I don't think it's wise of you to attack people by calling them "lazy and dishonest" if you don't want the reciprocative "now you're being an ass." You started the ad hominem, friend, not me.
Reply if you like, but I'm done with your side of this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The cartoon was so poorly written as to be extremely ambiguous. Personally, I think Hart was trying to say that we'll be able to propel interstellar probes with warp drive once we gain a slightly better understanding of the relationship between negative energy and negative inertia.
On a serious note, some of the people who contribute to these discussions have earned a great deal of respect over time. That respect won't be lost because of this thread. If you feel you're in that group, rest assured that you can drop the discussion. You'll lose precious little by doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The cartoon was so poorly written as to be extremely ambiguous. Personally, I think Hart was trying to say that we'll be able to propel interstellar probes with warp drive once we gain a slightly better understanding of the relationship between negative energy and negative inertia.
Heh. :) Btw, Thomas, I can't find your e-mail address so I'm just going to post this: my nephew arrived here from Illinois earlier this week, so I haven't had an opportunity to sit down and write my rebuttal to Judy Mann. It's been total family/extended-family time since Christmas.
If we're all still interested in this, I'm still happy to write it, but it'll probably be New Year's Day before I can sit down to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist, you can write to me at mensrights01@yahoo.com. As for the rebuttal, I'd still like to see you write it, though that trail may be growing a bit cold. I guess if the Washington Post won't print it, Wendy might be willing to. It's up to you though. I certainly understand that you are extremely busy at any time of the year but especially around these holidays.
BTW: Happy New Year, all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas,
I agree. I don't think the interpretation of a cartoon should be turned into an intepretation of one's ability to reason or value truth. All I can say is that my goal here is to *try* to be objective and avoid turing Mensactivism.org into "Scott's political and social views.org." I don't think for a second that I am fully able to achieve this, but I do try. And part of that sometimes involves giving other people's views some leeway.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
