|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The single most important issue is how to unify all (or at least many) of the disparate men's groups into an organisation with a common face and common goals, which can co-ordinate its activities and so become a true force to be reckoned with. This is the year the men's movement should achieve this. The primary goal of the movement should be the complete sytematic destruction of manhating within a set time period - say ten years. One of its founding principles must be that manhating is fundamentally wrong, period. No excuses, no exceptions. To disagree with this founding principle would in itself be an act of manhating. The definition of manhating is for the men's movement to decide, but I would suggest that it is any representation or interpretation of the male sex which locates negative attributes solely in the male gender, which generalises the bad behaviour of some men to all men, or which leads to legal, social or economic discrimination which directly harms men and/or boys or disadvantages them in any way whatsoever in comparison to females. The men's movement shouldn't take any crap from anyone. How to make this real, and how to make it real this year, should be the permanent topic of discussion until it is achieved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberganger: You get right to the core of matters. While it is extremely important to counter individual cases of misandry, such as anti-male advertisements, the culture-wide deepening hatred of males is the true pathogen that causes the social disease generally known as "feminism." While we've been working to counter specific examples of misandry, like the stickers at the Ames store and the severed penis display in the Boulder Public Library, I think we have been aware of the fundamental, underlying problem -- hatred of males.
The effort to unite disparate and independent men's rights organizations can be served in large part by focusing on this general, basic concern.
The primary goal of the movement should be the complete sytematic destruction of manhating within a set time period - say ten years. I'd vote for by the end of this decade.
One of its founding principles must be that manhating is fundamentally wrong, period. No excuses, no exceptions. To disagree with this founding principle would in itself be an act of manhating. I agree wholeheartedly.
The men's movement shouldn't take any crap from anyone. You've got that right. It's time we rose up with our fists in the air.
Unifying the men's movement should be a major issue this year. Another cause that I would add is bringing more young men, of college and high school age, into the movement. We will have to discuss how to make it attractive to them. Bringing them in will strengthen us directly, prepare them for the coming battles (that may, unfortunately, continue well beyond the end of this decade) and help them learn that, despite what their feminist teachers and this misandrist society teach them, they are not garbage just because they weren't born female.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 02, @02:47PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to both of you , but I'm going to have to disagree very strongly.
"Complete elimination of manhating within ten years"? Just what does this mean? Even if you can define "manhating" in a systematic and fair way, do you mean to eliminate it as a social pathogen or as an individual belief?
Your speaking the language of "zero tolerance", and zero tolerance doesn't really reduce hatreds or conflicts in any case. It just moves them under the surface, or into other outlets.
And good luck at "eliminating" misandrist individuals, assuming thats part of the plan.
What are my recommendations? Simple: A 3 pronged attack.
1. Activism where necessary particularily in areas of family and criminal law.
2. Education. Changing attitudes requires reasoned debates, not cries of "Kill the Infidels!"
3. Teach and show boys and young men that there are lives are valued and that they matter as men, no matter what others or society may tell them.
Just like racial hatreds and other bigotries misandry and misogony will never totally go away. But with education and activism -- changing hearts as much as changing laws -- their harmful affects can be minimized.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To disagree with this founding principle would in itself be an act of manhating.
I would refuse to participate in any movement which denied its members to voice dissention when they disagree with any policies or ideas set forth by that movement.
That said, I also think that trying to force people to take action only on one issue is not wise. The issues we present at MANN are suggestions for activism. No one here has ever said "If you believe in this, you MUST undertake some activism."
I speak out, but there are others who are as yet not brave enough to do so. It is for those that I believe your ideas are too broad, and much too zero tolerance to be effective. You are attempting to turn masculism into gender feminism here, and if there's one thing I'm proud of about the men's movement, it's the diversity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, I think we've gotten too touchy with respect to zero-tolerance gone mad.
The principle, to which Uberganger was referring, is that "manhating is fundamentally wrong." I think that the statement "manhating is not fundamentally wrong" is an act of manhating. People who don't believe that manhating is fundamentally wrong probably don't belong in the men's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The principle, to which Uberganger was referring, is that "manhating is fundamentally wrong." I think that the statement "manhating is not fundamentally wrong" is an act of manhating. People who don't believe that manhating is fundamentally wrong probably don't belong in the men's movement.
Perhaps not, but I, for one, believe in the right of any individual to hate me. They can hate me all they want, as long as their hate doesn't cause me to suffer.
No matter how much we try to unify this movement, you're never going to get everyone to agree, even on one minor point. We can't even agree on this site about which commercials are misandrist and which are not (look at the opposing comments frank h and I have made about the same commercials). Because Frank may think the Norelco commercials are not misandrist doesn't mean that I think he should be banned from the movement, or forced into action against those Norelco ads.
Sorry. I'm all for bringing as many people as we can to the men's movement, but the zero tolerance thing is not for me. Personally, I think we've made great progress in 2001, and I hate to see us derail it by trying to unify and organize everyone's thoughts and opinions on even one issue.
I think we're better off letting this movement develop naturally. As people speak out, more people will be drawn into the movement by what they hear, as has happened so much in 2001. I'd love to know the difference in the number of regular visitors to this site in January 2001 versus now, just as a microcosm of the general interest in the men's movement.
Anyway, we can discuss all this in the chat. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remo: Nowhere in my post or Uberganger's did anyone say anything about "eliminating" misandrist individuals or use the word "Kill." Take a breath, Dude, and quit believing that people have said things that they haven't said. You keep getting into arguments based on this type of fantasy and I, for one, won't let someone say or imply that I have stated something that I haven't stated and never would state. Your insinuation that either Uberganger or I wrote anything about eliminating or killing anyone is a dangerous, bald-faced lie. Knock it off!
As for an end to misandry, no, it won't ever happen. But we need to struggle for its destruction to place it in the general social consciousness alongside racism. We may well be able to accomplish that by the end of this decade. And, yes, Uberganger and I do speak the language of zero tolerance. I knew that would bother some people. Too bad. I have zero tolerance for hate.
An assault on the fundamental evil of misandry can be used to unite different men's groups that have their own particular focuses -- boys' education, divorce law, criminal "justice," whatever. It will be effective to keep this in mind and to make the battle against misandry itself a unifying focus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we could answer one question in tonites chat, I would propose that it should be "what is the uniting principle that is common to all or most of the men's movement?" I would propose, as I have before, that it is the need for equal treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment. The battle against misandry is a good possibility, too, except that eliminating misandry is a lofty goal, not any more acheivable than eliminating racism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that pushing for equality before the law in all things where the laws apply is probably our best bet. I agree that misandry (like misogyny and racism) is very nearly impossible to eliminate. However - when I was a child, racism was pretty normal and public in a lot of places all over the US. Now many people are embarassed and disgusted when encountering it. Misandry (and misogyny) can go the same way, and we can have the doing of it.
If we all work together and put as much as we each can into it, we might have actual equality before the law by the end of this decade. As for anti-male sexism ... by the end of this decade, we will have made a good beginning, no more.
Where do all the various men's/father's movments intersect? That would seem to me to be the place to start. Actual (as opposed to theoretical) equality before the law seems to me to me to be the common ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Struggling for equal protection under the law, i.e. enforcement of the 14th amendment, is very important. I do feel, though, that this is something of a particular. Many great problems would still remain, even if the 14th amendment were enforced. For instance, mainstream feminist-mothers might still teach their sons self-loathing. There could still be a plague of false accusations by women against men, if no false accusations are punished and men and women are, therefore, equally protected under the law.
The fundamental problem that we face is hatred of males. This is the common enemy of all males. All the men's/father's movements intersect in their struggles to deal with the particular problems that arise because of misandry. A unifying battle cry would be something along the lines of "Crush Misandry!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but I have to say this:
------------- BEGIN RANT ---------------------------
Personally, I'd rather laugh misandry out of existence - that and other techniques will be used, I am sure. I agree with you to a great extent - the fundamental problem we face is hatred. Not limited to males.
I specifically said "equality before the law in all things where the laws apply" with intent - lots of men's rights activists have nothing to do with the US Constitution, but the principal is the same everywhere in the First World, at least in principle.
Where laws exist, they should be applied equally regardless of sex. Once "Equality before the law regardless of sex" is more than just a slogan, especially in places like Family court, then the rest becomes more possible. I think that consistent application of the laws as they are written (and repeal and/or defeat of sex-specific legal structures like VAWA and Selective Service) would go a long way toward creating an environment where minimization of sexism is possible.
Advantages - the laws exist, there is a mechanism for redress, and (in many cases) the wording of the law is "gender neutral" which means that forcing the administrative authority to honor the wording and the spirit of the law would be easier than trying to prove discriminiation against men while feminists fill the air with victimology, junk science, and appeals to the sublimated sexuality of people in power. Good propaganda value in most countries - "Equality before the law" is a powerful phrase, hard to argue against.
Disadvantages - takes considerable time and effort, requires knowledge of the laws and how to use them, and lacks the mass appeal that other methods might have. Too much action has to take place in letter-writing campaigns, state legislatures and court rooms, not enough in the streets and the media eye.
I have my doubts about "Crush Misandry!" - sounds a lot like "to the stake with the blasphemer!", and I am touchy about calls to "crush" anything. Experience suggests civil rights get caught in the rolling presses along with whatever else is supposed to be "crushed". There were calls to "Crush Patriarchy!" a while back - look where that kind of stuff got us.
We need some kind of bumper-sticker size unifying slogan - probably more than one. We need the idea behind the slogan(s) to have impact, which means it has to resonate with a lot of people. I think if we base our slogans on exclusion, we create that which we are trying to eliminiate.
Whatever unifying principle is chosen, I think it is essential that it be applicable to everyone, regardless of sex (or "gender", if you prefer). Anything else leaves us very open to the risk of becoming another hate movement, no matter what our motives.
One more point - catch-phrases are originally used to summarize and bring to a point a body of thought. To a great many people who may not have the time or background to consider the body of thought, the catch-phrase becomes the philosophy - witness the shibboleths feminists hurl at us like rotten fruit. Come up with a good catch phrase, and you've just presented a thought to a lot of people who don't want to think it out for themselves. Offer unity, and the moral high ground is all yours in the eyes of a lot of those people.
------------- END RANT ---------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please note that in the following, I'm not trying to engage in an argument. I'm trying to productively discuss what we're writing about here.
You're probably right about "Crush Misandry!" but I think that a slogan should be forceful and unequivocal.
I think if we base our slogans on exclusion, we create that which we are trying to eliminiate. I'm not so sure about this. If we are attacking anti-male hatred, we will dilute, perhaps critically, our message if that message is something like "promote equality." (Though, ulimately, equality is the goal.) I've created, but have yet to print out, a bumper sticker that reads "Stop the Hate: Boys Are NOT Inferior." This is exclusive, in that it doesn't say something like "Stop the Hate: Boys and Girls Are Equal," but I think it brings home an important point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 02, @04:25PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Remo: Nowhere in my post or Uberganger's did anyone say anything about "eliminating" misandrist individuals or use the word "Kill."
I said:
"Complete elimination of manhating within ten years"? Just what does this mean? Even if you can define "manhating" in a systematic and fair way, do you mean to eliminate it as a social pathogen or as an individual belief?
Now if you can find anywhere in this paragraph where I quoted some particular individual as saying something, then you will surprise me. I asked a question, why do you see an accusation? And by the way, "complete,systematic destruction" is but another way to say "eliminate", or am I not allowed to paraphrase an UNATRRIBUTED comment?
As for the word "kill" I only used that in the context of my 3 suggestions as to how the mens movement could combat misandry. I never attributed "kill" to anyone , and I only used it as a metaphor for "zero tolerance" which often does have the attitude that one should destroy ( i.e. "kill") ones opponent whether physically, legally, or in some other way.
I'd prefer not to have a "personal" argument with anyone, and stick to the merits of individual ideas themselves. However , your decision to call me a liar called for a responce. I hope that if you reread my original comments you will see fit to make an appropriate retraction. It is quite obvious that misunderstandings do occur.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Complete elimination of manhating within ten years"?...Now if you can find anywhere in this paragraph where I quoted some particular individual as saying something, then you will surprise me.
I'm willing to let this drop if you are but first I am going to respond to your last post. You didn't just write of eliminating manhating, you also stated "eliminating" misandrist individuals. This is not a statement about eliminating beliefs. It is a statement about eliminating people and you clearly insinuated that Uberganger and I were advocating that action. (If you deny that you insinuated this, readers can make up their own minds by reading your post.) You also wrote Kill the Infidels! The dictionary definition of "infidel" refers to people, not ideas. Be careful if you imply that someone is advocating the elimination or killing of anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 02, @06:25PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas:
You didn't just write of eliminating manhating, you also stated "eliminating" misandrist individuals.
I asked a specific question about that. In any case Thomas , you are far too intelligent to not understand that my comment:
And good luck at "eliminating" misandrist individuals, assuming thats part of the plan.
neither referred to your or anyone's beliefs in particular, nor does "eliminating" misandrist individuals have to mean harming them. One could conceivably eliminate misandry through some type of religious conversion, for instance. I simply don't think its a realistic thing to expect to do anything to change attitudes in a major way via legislation, litigation, or boycotts.
You also say:
You also wrote Kill the Infidels! The dictionary definition of "infidel" refers to people, not ideas. Be careful if you imply that someone is advocating the elimination or killing of anyone.
And once again I was speaking figuratively, which should have been obvious from the context within my original post. However I will be more explicit:
You ARE advocating the elimination of people who hold a particular idea, or behave in some particular manner. Thats what "zero- tolerance" is. For some strange reason you seem to think I'm accusing you of advocating physical destruction of your fellow human beings. No, I am not. But you are advocating policies that will do economic/legal/social damage to people. Don't even bother denying that.
The fact that I'm on your side leads me to admit that I'm advocating the same thing , if necessary. I'd just prefer to try gentler methods and persuasion whenever possible.
Now, if you want to argue with me about the meaning of zero-tolerance, thats one thing. If you want to criticise my choice of metaphors, fine. But if your gonna hold to the view that I am accusing you of advocating physical murder, and, in addition , if you believe that I would twist your words, or put words in your mouth, then there is no need for farther communication between the two of us.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a distraction from our important work. I'm gonna drop it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I should have said, "Let's drop it."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I said that I would let this drop, but after re-reading Remo's post (#10) I feel that I have to respond. If this bothers anyone because it is heated, so be it. I will not let Remo's false claim, about what I wrote, stand without further argument.
Remo stated, "You ARE advocating the elimination of people who hold a particular idea, or behave in some particular manner." Remo's claim that I am advocating the elimination of people is a bald-faced, monstrous lie. I repeat, Remo's claim that I am advocating the elimination of people is a bald-faced, monstrous lie.
I generally won't allow people to say that I advocate things that I oppose, but when it comes to claiming on the Internet that I advocate eliminating people who do not share my opinion, I will fight the lie vigorously. I do not want people later claiming something like "even a man who posts regularly to mensactivism says that Thomas advocates the elimination of those who oppose his beliefs, and Thomas didn't deny it." I have never said that "people who hold a particular idea, or behave in some particular manner" should be eliminated, nor would I.
There is a huge difference, as we all know -- including Remo, between struggling to eliminate a hateful belief and struggling to eliminate individuals who hold that belief. I believe in the former, not the latter. Remo, don't EVER claim that I advocate eliminating people who don't share my beliefs. It is a LIE that I WILL NOT LET STAND.
Quit lying about me Remo. I won't let you get away with it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 03, @12:04PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
There is a huge difference, as we all know -- including Remo, between struggling to eliminate a hateful belief and struggling to eliminate individuals who hold that belief. I believe in the former, not the latter. Remo, don't EVER claim that I advocate eliminating people who don't share my beliefs. It is a LIE that I WILL NOT LET STAND.
Quit lying about me Remo. I won't let you get away with it!
Thomas:
I was replying to both YOUR post and Uberganger's orignal post. For some reason Uberganger didn't feel that I was twisting his words or lying about him or anything. For some reason you do. I submit that is YOUR problem, not mine. I've tried to solve it, by explaining both my intentions and meanings very clearly and patiently. I have explained what I meant, and I have invited fair criticism. Instead you keep coming at me, frothing at the mouth, about the choice of a few words- one in a paraphrase of an unattributed statement, one used as a metaphor ("kill") and used only by myself.
Logically, if you want to eliminate misandry, you have to eliminate misandrists. This is because the two words (misandry is something a misandrist has as a belief) are closely related, not because you murdered someone. "Eliminating" a belief does not have to involve killing the individuals involved.
Now, I've danced this silly dance enough with you. I take back nothing I said, I insist that I have neither lied, nor put words in your (nor anyone elses) mouths, and I insist that if you should ever wish to talk to me in the future, you try to ascertain my intentions and meanings before accusing me of "lying" about you. As for this particular silly argument, I'm done. As you pointed out in one of your posts before, this is just a waste of time.
Remo
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You ARE advocating the elimination of people who hold a particular idea, or behave in some particular manner
Let the record show, I have never advocated ANY such thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's be practical...
We all know that the discrimination we men are subject to in Family Law Courts is mostly due to stereotype and culture rather than to real hate. Only a small part of women hate men.
The cultural impact seems to be the major factor why our justice system is not gender blind.
While discussing my custody fight with other male friends, I have seen them turning around and understanding the total injustice by reversing the genders in my divorce story. They were not male heaters, but just victims too of our culture.
So how do we change cultural prejudices. By information, by education, by bringing attention to the issues. Let the big Media work for us.
Just VISUALIZE a Fathers strike across America on the Friday before Father's day. If you could only get 100,000 people to strike or call sick at work in 2002, and 250,000 in 2003, and 1,000,000 in 2004, then you would hit business, politicians, judges, and everybody else.
Strikes work very well in Europe. They can work here too.
With the help of the Internet and of Email, it could be possible to organize a small strike to start with. Once the media will notice it, it will be hard to stop!
I said, let's be practical right?
Please don't make fun of my letter, but just really think about it!
Nicola
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, guys, guys! Calm down, take a blue pill! I agree with some of the comments people have made about my original posting, both positive and negative. I'm not a big fan of 'zero-tolerance' either, but mainly because it's always zero-tolerance of someone else's behaviour rather than of the behaviour in itself. I do think that the men's movement needs something to crystallise itself around as a whole. That doesn't mean that every men's group has to tackle every men's issue, but rather that a community is created in which groups can benefit from that collective association.
It is true that the hatred of men can never be completely eliminated, just as racism will never be completely eliminated. There will always be someone somewhere who, for whatever reason, hates men. What can be eliminated, however, is the *acceptance* of manhating. At the moment, it seems, practically anything goes. This is not only evident in the entertainment and news media, but also in the legal system and government. People who wouldn't dream of calling a black person a nigger or a woman a bitch (unless she's Christina Hoff-Sommers) think nothing of referring to men as lazy pigs, wife-beaters and child molesters. Furthermore, they not only believe these things but also *feel* them to be true. When confronted with a negative idea about men - that all men are potential rapists, for instance - they will uncritically accept it because it accords with how they feel about the male sex. It is for this reason that sexual harrassment laws have become so warped and that billions of dollars are being pumped into the domestic violence industry. The flip side of this acceptance of manhating is the inability to accept negative ideas about women - that they might abuse children or batter men - and an inability to empathise with men when they suffer or are made to suffer by unfair legal and social systems. Ask yourself why there are any laws that treat men unfairly, either by the definition of the law or by its practical implementation. Surely if those creating and applying the law were fair-minded, considerate and honest there would be no discrimination against men or anyone else. That this is not the case is fundamentally unacceptable, no matter how much you believe in a person's freedom to hold this or that opinion. I don't mind there being some manhaters (he said through gritted teeth), but I don't want any of them to have any influence whatsoever in the legal system, government, education or the media.
To achieve real change, people in positions of power - in government, the media and business - must fear the negative consequences of misandry. If there are no negative consequences they will find it easiest to go along with attitudes and ideas that are misandrist, rather than stand up to them. If you don't like looking at it that way, consider this. There may be many people in government, the media, education, etc, who would speak out against manhating if they felt that there was something there to support them and supply the necessary pressure to prevent them getting ridiculed, rejected or even fired. This kind of support can best be supplied by an assertive, confident, organised national movement. Indeed, the men's movement has the potential to pull the rug out from under feminism by providing an alternative which doesn't rely on the kind of bullying, hysterics and pseudo-Marxist claptrap they use.
Wow! Just writing that has made me realise something. The best way for the men's movement to succeed is to be so many things the feminist movement isn't. Feminism is hateful. It creates in people feelings of hatred and resentment towards men, even within men themselves. It creates a total inability to appreciate men in any way whatsoever - notice NOW's resentment of the recognition the heroes of September 11th received. It is totally unsympathetic to the choices ordinary people wish to make - see Title IX's disaterous effects on men's sports, and the bullying of mothers back into the workplace. It callously ignores the practicalities and realities of various work environments and bullies into silence anyone who tries to speak out - see the military, fire service, police force, etc. In short, these people are thugs. They behave far worse than those they claim to hate. Even their humour and their art is no more than a re-expression of their thuggishness and hatefulness - see Hallmark's 'hilarious' man-bashing range of greetings cards, and the Boulder penises. Now, it's undoubtedly the case that some people go in for this kind of crap in a big way, but like all mental perversions it's not something most people really want to be around. At the moment most people can't see any alternative, any way out of the madhouse. Well, maybe the men's movement should provide that way out. A way to stop hating, to stop fearing, to stop resenting, to stop bullying, to stop the anxiety, the loathing, the loss of morale and the sense of alienation. The men's movement must come as a relief to the bulk of ordinary people, people who do not share gender feminists' manic, irrational imperative to reshape the whole of society into a warped version of a Marxist 'utopia'. I was wrong to title my first posting 'No More Mr Nice-Guy'. We must be the nice guys. We must be everything feminists most resent: the heroes, the knights in shining armour, the rescuers, the dragon-slayers, the voices of reason and order, the champions of fairness and justice, the cavalry, the protectors. The men's movement must appeal to everyone who is sick of living inside the monstrous outgrowths of ideologists and neo-bigots. But being nice doesn't mean being weak. The men's movement must have a real kick-ass strength if it's to really change things. The idea that ten years from now it'll still be just starting out is completely out of the question.
As someone who utterly loathes and detests all manhating, I naturally have a strong desire to see manhating as close to wiped out as possible - perhaps we can keep a few 'laboratory specimens' for further study. However, I concede that directly trying to eliminate manhating might not be the best way of doing it. There is always the danger of ideological thinking, and of reducing all issues to an issue of manhating, just as gender feminists are reducing all issues to the 'problem' of the 'male principle'. That would be truly terrible, and would further alienate the bulk of the population who seek mearly to get on with their lives. OK. But some kind of proper organisation is needed. It must have goals, it must kick-ass (nicely, but hard), and it must both embody and inspire confidence. Everything about it must be positive and welcoming, and we men should exploit millenia of positive ideas and images of men to appeal to people's desire for an end to the hectoring and bullying by self-appointed social engineers and their obsequious yea-sayers. The ideas of bravery and protectiveness reawakened on September 11th are archetypally male. Three decades of feminist hate-mongering may have put them in hibernation, but it did not - could not - eliminate them. They were hard-won by thousands of years of male effort and sacrifice - a side of history now too often overlooked because it distracts our attention from the eternal suffering of women. In essence, the men's movement needs to deflate the feminist ego, which has grown bloated on a continuous diet of victimology and moral one-upmanship. We should capitalise on any and every weariness with the current state of affairs, and seek ways of providing support to those who speak and act against it. The men's movement must become the light at the end of the tunnel.
Happy New Year,
Uberganger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We must be the nice guys. We must be everything feminists most resent: the heroes, the knights in shining armour, the rescuers, the dragon-slayers, the voices of reason and order, the champions of fairness and justice, the cavalry, the protectors. The men's movement must appeal to everyone who is sick of living inside the monstrous outgrowths of ideologists and neo-bigots. But being nice doesn't mean being weak. The men's movement must have a real kick-ass strength if it's to really change things. The idea that ten years from now it'll still be just starting out is completely out of the question.
Heh. You should've been in the chat last night, Uberganger. Some of your points here are what the discussion eventually boiled down to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, great minds think alike!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
