|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test post - testing comments.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm as against pornography as the next red-blooded Canadian male.
This sounds as if it's dripping with irony. (Sorry to sound misandrist, but it's what I got from the article.)
I sympathize with the murderer, so I'm not going to wear a white ribbon. Somethines genfems, especially the lesbian-separatist variety drive me so insane that I'm likely to shoot.
The author makes some good points about cuurent and past female world leaders being as violent (or more so, as in the case of Bloody Mary [Queen of Scots]) as male leaders. :)
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 13, @10:24PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that someone here sympathizes with a person who killed so many females, simply because they were females, really sums this organization up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sympathy costs nothing.
Hatred and hostility cost a lot.
The more grown up you are, the more you realise this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that someone here sympathizes with a person who killed so many females, simply because they were females, really sums this organization up.
To what organization are you referring?
Also, judging an entire group by the opinion of one individual who posts here is bad reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 14, @12:11AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that someone here sympathizes with a person who killed so many females, simply because they were females, really sums this organization up.
Point of note: Marc Lepine killed the women because they were feminists, or he thought they were, not because they were women. Marc Lepine's mother was a staunch feminist. It is said that his anger towards feminism resulted from his mother's anti-male attitude towards him.
Shawn Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 14, @02:45AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
From The Myth of Male Power:
A man entered a classroom at the University of Montreal and killed female students. The incident made headlines throughout the world as an example of woman-hating. The Canadian government spent millions reeducating men in their attitudes toward women. At about the same time, a Chicago woman (Laurie Dann) shot five elementary school boys, poisoned food at two fraternities, burned down the Young Men's Jewish Council, burned two other boys in their basement, shot her own son, and justified her murder of an 8-year-old boy by claiming he was a rapist. Not a single headline or article summary in the index to the Chicago Tribune pointed out that every person killed or wounded by the Chicago woman was a boy. No government spent millions reeducating women on their attitudes toward men.
Shawn Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn, are you seriously suggesting we regard the murder of a boy as being on the same level, morally, legally and ethically, as the murder of a girl or woman? Men have been oppressing women since the formation of the first hydrogen atom, so it is only right that women should be able to kill a whole bunch of male persons if they feel like it. You should try to understand her feelings, and not be such a sexist patriarchal pig.
;-)
Sorry, I though I was in a women's studies class for a moment there. Yes, I've read that quote from 'The Myth Of Male Power' before and was as disgusted by the hypocrisy it exposes as I'm sure you are. I dare say there are feminists who would stoop so low as to find some excuse for Laurie Dann's actions, turning it around so it becomes the fault of the mythical 'patriarchy'. A typical feminist tactic for excusing abuse by women is to come up with a way of making the woman the primary victim of something, then those she harmed become the secondary victims of that something - with all that the word 'secondary' implies in terms of sympathy and focus of attention. For example, a woman systematically murders her five children by drowning them all one after the other in the bath. It looks like her children are the victims and she is the abuser, right? But now let's introduce a psychological condition called post-partum depression. Suddenly the woman becomes the primary victim - of PPD - and her murdered children go from being victims of her to being secondary victims of her PPD. If the woman's victim is a man we can be even more sneaky. A woman kills her husband by stabbing him to death in his sleep. It looks like he's the victim and she's the abuser, right? Aha, but what if we say she was suffering from battered woman syndrome? Now she becomes the primary victim - of BWS - and her murdered husband becomes the secondary victim of her BWS. Since the husband caused the 'battered woman syndrome' it 'logically' follows that he is a victim of himself, so we hardly need to have any sympathy for him.
I've suggested this before, but I think we should have a 'transparent ribbon' day to remind us of all the invisible victims of violence. There are a lot of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen, in a number of posts on other boards, feminists declaring that what Farrell wrote about Laurie Dann was a complete lie. They gave no evidence to support their contention (Laurie Dann never existed, she was defending herself, none of the alleged victims ever existed, whatever), but their declaration seemed to have been accepted at face value by a number of readers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well Warren seems to have the media convinced:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446360023/ atriumA/107-8387236-1115723
http://www.suntimes.com/century/m1988.html
This last is an excerpt from The Daily Camera (http://www.thedailycamera.com/shooting/28aglnc.ht ml)
Winnetka, Ill., May 20, 1988
A mentally ill woman named Laurie Dann steps into a second-grade classroom with two handguns and opens fire, killing a child and wounding five others. Dann flees the school and later kills herself.
San Diego, Calif, Jan. 16, 1979
Brenda Spencer, 16, waits outside the Cleveland Elementary School for the principal to open the school. For 20 minutes, she fired on arriving students and teachers. She killed the principal and school caretaker, and injured nine students between the ages of 6 and 12. She then went home and waited for police to arrive. ". . . I just did it for the fun of it. . . . ," Spencer told police. She was convicted on two counts of murder and is serving two 25-to-life sentences
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds as if it's dripping with irony. (Sorry to sound misandrist, but it's what I got from the article.)
I think it's more sarcasm than irony, but what's misandrist about suspecting a man of irony? It may be unAmerikan, but this guy's a Canuk.
I sympathize with the murderer, so I'm not going to wear a white ribbon. Somethines genfems, especially the lesbian-separatist variety drive me so insane that I'm likely to shoot.
Better watch what you say or NightMist will envelope you! (or does he only do that when a man says something out of line??)
Personally I don't feel like shooting when I hear les-seps sounding off... puking maybe.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Better watch what you say or NightMist will envelope you! (or does he only do that when a man says something out of line??)
Actually, I was going to say something about LadyRivka's post as well as all the posts on the 9-year-old girl, but then I thought, "Well, I really don't feel like putting up with Smoking Drive's asinine defamation accusations," so I didn't say anything.
I will say now, however, that this forum of late has become far too angry and violent for my personal tastes, and I think we're doing ourselves a great disservice by posting messages like that. It only makes us look to the world like the genfems look to us: radical and filled with hate.
Now aren't you glad I didn't say anything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist wrote: I will say now, however, that this forum of late has become far too angry and violent for my personal tastes, and I think we're doing ourselves a great disservice by posting messages like that. It only makes us look to the world like the genfems look to us: radical and filled with hate.
----
I have to agree. I'm all for being angry about the ways men are discriminated against, because anger is often a great motivator. The issue is how to make use of that energy.
We all have a set of goals for the men's movement, and I'm sure few people have the exact same expectations or reasons for being involved. But one thing we should all be able to agree upon is that being marginalied as a bunch of "angry, white males" or something similar is something we should try to avoid.
I'm not trying to single out LadyRivka here, but I do hope people will take some time to think about what they are going to post before they do so. Most people do this, and sometimes even the best-intentioned people will let something slip. I'm sure, for example, that LadyRivka was being tongue-in-cheek with her comment. But considering how determined gender feminists can be to demonize us, we need to hold the moral high ground.
I'm going to share part of a message I received from someone a few months ago about the web site. I respect this person as someone who cares about both men and women's problems, and he has successfully combined activism in each without "selling out" to either side:
"The first thing that turned me off about feminism was how angry many of the first feminists I was exposed to were. Their anger was an obstacle for me when it came to giving serious consideration to their views and thinking about whether I needed to change some of my attitudes toward women and our society's treatment of women. As a man who's invested in this movement, I don't want that same kind of thing to happen for us."
What do people think? Is it unreasonable to ask that participants refrain from this kind of lashing out? Can we acknowledge the anger of men (and women) who are upset about discrimination against men without alienating others from the movement?
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it unreasonable to ask that participants refrain from this kind of lashing out?
To some extent, yes, but we have to be careful not to fall into serious censorship.
Can we acknowledge the anger of men (and women) who are upset about discrimination against men without alienating others from the movement?
Not a chance. If we speak out and act, we will alienate people. It can't be avoided. Everyone will have their own limits and style. We need to censure extremism, perhaps only as individuals. But as far as genfems taking the post of one person and using it to spread more of their hateful distortions and lies ("This is what they say at MANN"), if no one with sympathy for the plight of men makes such a post, then the genfems will from time to time. Then they'll just quote their own posts and attribute them to men's activists. There's really no fighting this sort of thing, other than most of us speaking out against extremism. The genfems are furiously driven by their hatred of men. We know to expect dishonesty and distortions from them. We've just got to point them out and fight them when we encounter them and then keep up the struggle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To some extent, yes, but we have to be careful not to fall into serious censorship.
Hi Thomas,
I guess the question then becomes, who is the judge of what is reasonable and unreasonable censorship? I'm not perfect, nor is anyone else.
There is a message moderation system that Slash uses, but it's very complex, and I anticipate that few people would make use of it. Every registered user has some degree of moderation power, and those who have submitted news stories obtain more moderation power (called "karma points"). Moderators can then see a drop down menu that can moderate a post up or down in rating, from -1 to 5, and users get a default comment viewing threshold of 0. That means that troll posts or angry tirades could effectively be "moderated out" so that most people wouldn't see them, without deleting the comment itself.
This system could help, but it could also open up a can of worms by allowing people to use their agenda to moderate posts unfairly. In a sense, we could choose between the lesser of two evils - having a small handful of people who can delete or censor posts, or a large number of people with moderation power who can abuse it, but not with as extreme consequences on an individual basis. Which one is more acceptable?
Personally, I think the Slash system has worked well on sites such as Slashdot where there are hundreds of comments posted for each story. The question is how well would it fit our needs.
I'm very interested in hearing possible solutions to try. This has been concerning me for a while.
I'm going away for the evening but I'll be back tomorrow afternoon.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with the system here is that anyone who signs up for an account, then sits on it for awhile, suddenly has moderator privileges. A troll could sign up for an account, not use it, then come back a couple of months later and start moderating away.
If I were running this site, that would concern me greatly. There is no doubt in my mind that someone is going to do this eventually. It would be better if you had total, complete control over who has mod privileges and who doesn't. That way you could hand-pick people you trust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a difficult balance, one that I've seen even on the childfree boards. Ironically, just today I was reading a thread posted by someone who was offended by some of the language and venom on one particular CF board. I'll admit, to an outsider some of the posts probably would seem very shocking, even hateful. A few other people posted back and said something to the effect of, "Nobody here really hates children/parents. We're simply venting pent-up frustrations, some of which have been building up inside us for years."
A wildly different subject matter, but below the surface not at all dissimiliar to the situation right here.
IMO, letting people like that vent does serve a purpose. It's better to type angry messages on the Internet than to abuse drugs/alcohol, gamble compulsively, self-injure, beat on other people, or do a million other destructive things that people often do when they feel like they have no other release. Most of the time, when people come online to vent, it's because they don't have any place to do it IRL.
At the same time, posts like that can turn off casual lurkers who don't know the regs, can't tell when they're being serious and when they're using sarcasm or hyperbole, and overall are unfamiliar with the mores of the board.
I took a break from MANN over the weekend because I felt a great need to escape all the negativity for awhile. I've been online long enough to (usually) realize when I need to take a step back. Newbies, however, don't always realize this.
I'm afraid I don't have an answer, but those were my random thoughts.
Maybe the next chat should focus on this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the men's movement has been more than lenient concerning gender fems' war against mens' morality, concerning that we've been letting them degrade and abuse us for so long. I do not speak for everyone when I say this, but I have every right to be angry, and if I can't vent my frustrations here, where else can someone like me go?
Understandably, venting on a message board requires some thoughfulness and tact, but everyone's viewpoint should be heard. LadyRivka has her point of view, and I respect it, even though I don't totally agree with it. She has just as much of a right to be heard as anyone else.
I can remember when I was a sophmore in high school, waking up from my "political-correctness-induced" slumber and being REALLY angry about the way I was represented in commercials, and treated in real-life (if you want to call it that). My family consisted of (and still does) of a subservient father who couldn't stick up for himself if his life depended on it, a control-hungry mother who has been told what to think all her life, and as such, a perfect recipient of gender feminist political agendas, and a sister who blindly reiterated the gender feminists' motto "Damn the white man!" with myself and my father (both white) sitting back and taking it. I had to defend myself daily from women in my own family, because they were all told by radical feminists that I was going to grow up to be a rapist and abuser, and in school I had no choice but to shut up during political discussions or be disciplined as a racist and/or sexist pig for standing up for myself. At sixteen years of age nonetheless!
As you can see, I'm definitely angry for the way I've been treated for the past seven years, and I'm sure everyone who posts on this website has their own horror story, but you need to realize that some of us can't help but be angry! If you allow people to do some controlled venting, then I think you'll have some more level-headed people who can represent the men's movement better.
This is just a little controlled venting of my own. Thanks for listening if you got this far.
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you allow people to do some controlled venting, then I think you'll have some more level-headed people who can represent the men's movement better.
"Controlled" venting is *very* welcome, in my opinion. There's nothing wrong with that, nor is there anything wrong with being angry about mistreatment. I simply don't want to appear to condone actions which harm other people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Deacon! I must throw you a word of support here, even though I sit here and watch the femtrolls come here and bait us with snide little unsubstantiated one liners. I do take heed of the little warning sign Scott has up to 'not feed the trolls'. All they do with that is 'seed' a newsgroup, because they know people will respond, then they come in and harvest them, as if they were visiting aliens or something from a sci-fi movie.
Anyway, as for the anger you have about what you have gone through, don't let go of it completely. It will be that which fires you back up as this struggle starts really getting messy, and I believe it will get extremely messy before it gets better. But as a result of the social engineering you went through in school and in your family life, well, I can't do much about your family life other than say "I relate". I just found a bunch of old letters my mother had written to a sister. I didn't know what to call it when I was little, but she was a man-hating feminist. It was like reading the postings at soc.feminists newsgroup. As for academia in our country, or for that matter, all of western civilization, I propose something completely unorthodox. All men and boys should abandon the academic institutions of our lands completely and immediately, and form alternate home-schooling cooperatives. There will be some specializations that won't be covered, but if the male professers and k-12 teachers join the exiting masses, they would still get paid, but probably better, and they wouldn't have to teach the rest of men this drivel. I wonder how well some of them sleep? sheesh! Onwards into the future of our own education I say! Damn the liars! Damn them all!
Ok, I hope I wasn't to vehement, and I don't have any hatred for women. But if we don't give up, the ideology of marxist man-hating feminist hegemony will disappear, and our era will someday be studied in institutions of higher learning as 'the 2nd Dark Ages', when feminists walked the Earth!
Hang in, brother!
Adam Smith
lc4m Texas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as for the anger you have about what you have gone through, don't let go of it completely. It will be that which fires you
Very true. Cultivate and direct your anger. It can serve all that is good.
...as this struggle starts really getting messy, and I believe it will get extremely messy before it gets better...
Truer words have never been spoken. We must steel ourselves.
I just found a bunch of old letters my mother had written to a sister. I didn't know what to call it when I was little, but she was a man-hating feminist.
Feminism is the most insidious evil that humans have ever devised, precisely because feminism is the first hate-movement in which a group with tremendous power is raising its victims.
All men and boys should abandon the academic institutions of our lands completely and immediately, and form alternate home-schooling cooperatives.
I have a Ph.D. in physics, and I would be honored to teach in such a system. (We can work together in home schooling.)
our era will someday be studied in institutions of higher learning as 'the 2nd Dark Ages', when feminists walked the Earth!
We can hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas wrote:
I have a Ph.D. in physics, and I would be honored to teach in such a system. (We can work together in home schooling.)
>>>
Now, THAT is AWESOME! I would bet there are more professionl men between Texas and Canada willing to do the same, the ones without Ph.D.s at least on a vocational level, and those like you with Ph.D.s would insure and reinstate the once high standards we used to have in higher learning.
Thomas wrote:
We can hope.
>>>
Hope is the last to die. (old Russian proverb)
You made my night Thomas, thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All men and boys should abandon the academic institutions of our lands completely and immediately, and form alternate home-schooling cooperatives.
Very radical, but a really bad idea. If men are capable of organising such a system they are also capable of organising the reclaiming of the existing academic system, with all its resources and connections to the media, government and industry. The real question is how could such a reclamation be effected? I've noticed an interesting phenomenon in relation to various forms of activism mentioned on this site, namely that kicking up a stink about something often gets results. Most people don't seem to like conflict or bad publicity, favouring instead the easy life - which is understandable and also very useful. The exceptions to this are those driven by ideological beliefs, but I believe these are in a minority. There are far more people who pay lip service to feminist ideas than have any serious commitment to them. Writing, phoning, e-mailing and protesting to editiors of newspapers, company heads, TV stations, politicians, etc, can get results. Often these people aren't aware that facts have been ignored or misrepresented, or that something their organisation is doing is detrimental to men and/or boys. By continually bringing attention to this, by presenting the facts over and over and over again, by raising doubts and questions in the minds of all those who go along with feminism for the sake of an easy life, by humanising our issues with real examples of the harm feminism does and the lies it tells, we can start to turn things around. Working on this and creating some real leverage against manhating would be a much better strategy than retreating into our homes and trying to create some kind of parallel system with few resources and a hostile legal and social order. That would be a fear response - to flee - and the one thing men and boys really need to learn is not to be afraid anymore. We have to stand up for ourselves and each other. Let's force the manhaters into retreat and reclaim our strength and our pride and our place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Working on this and creating some real leverage against manhating would be a much better strategy than retreating into our homes and trying to create some kind of parallel system with few resources and a hostile legal and social order. That would be a fear response - to flee - and the one thing men and boys really need to learn is not to be afraid anymore. We have to stand up for ourselves and each other. Let's force the manhaters into retreat and reclaim our strength and our pride and our place.
I tend to agree with you on this one, Uberganger. I'd hate for the men's movement to start looking like the "moutain men's movement," the Branch-Davidians, or what-not, and that's what might happen if we decided to hole up in our homes (or wherever) and create our "own" system. We should, instead, be changing the system we share.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 15, @12:21PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to agree with you on this one, Uberganger. I'd hate for the men's movement to start looking like the "moutain men's movement," the Branch-Davidians, or what-not, and that's what might happen if we decided to hole up in our homes (or wherever) and create our "own" system. We should, instead, be changing the system we share.
I'm in favor of trying Nightmist. But really, we should keep some form of mild seperatism in mind as a backup. How many of us have forsworn marriage? How many of us have been forced, often against our hearts desire, to consider very seriously the prospect of not having children because of the financial, but much more important--legal, liabilities they are?
These are silent decisions that cause much personal pain. Perhaps if enough men do these things someone might notice our plight, and wonder if the current system is workable. One can hope. But the point is, these are forms of seperatism from women and children, even if only to a limited extent.
Something occured to me the other day. Not really a new thought, but a new way for me to put it, simplistically perhaps. This society, and the system its set up (I mean the western "democracies" in general) is engaged in eating its people. Where, for instance, is the group of lawyers who are interested in analyzing the legal impact of new laws on producers. Who represents the producers in this society?
There are three interlocking tiers that promote feminism/collectivism in this country. Group politics (with both legal and ILLEGAL immigrants a large part of this trend, as well as racial groups and of course, gen fems), money, and law. Because of the way the "intellectual elite" in our universities tend to be statists of one sort or another these structural problems do not get the attention they deserve. Indeed, unless you agree with everything a minority organization does, you are immediately suspected or accused of racism.
I have my limited hopes. Some reform of marriage laws is possible (despite the victim-fems and their divorce law attorney allies) because women want * by an overwhelming margin* to get married, and to be with men. Some reform of the "domestic violence" statutes is possible, though it seems hard to believe they will ever go away-- at least not until women are victimized as much as men by the lack of due process, etc.
But thats about it. I don't really see much hope in the long term, unless the Government itsself is reformed to value individual rights over group rights. So in the end, our only other hope short of violent revolution would be to peacably withdraw from the battlefield (along, perhaps, with some of the women we know and trust to understand that rights entail responsibilities)and forge our own vision of manhood.
Sometimes , I wish it was possible to set up another country and just start over. Heck, sometimes I think "Why not Antarctica"? A little space far north, perhaps,brought from the world, not so nice to live in. One can dream, even when you know the dream won't come true. No, we have no right to be "let alone", anymore.
And lets not even mention the demonization of the sex drive. Not just male, to be fair -- increasingly the female as well.
I'm sorry for the rant. I'll stay off the subjects of statism/socialism/victimology for awhile. I guess it just irks me to think of how easy some people think it will be to change the system in a positive manner.I'm not saying its hopeless, I am saying the odds are long, and that we better keep at least one other option open.
Sad Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I wish it was possible to set up another country and just start over. Heck, sometimes I think
>"Why not Antarctica"? A little space far north, perhaps,brought from the world, not so nice to
>live in.
It's not far north, it's far south. Antarctica is at the South Pole. There is no land at the North Pole, only water and ice.
>women want * by an overwhelming margin* to get married, and to be with men.
Men also want with by an overwhelming margin to get married. Though marriage rates have declined, the vast majority of the populace still marries. Humans are social animals, like horses.
Public education and state-sanctioned marriage should be abolished all together. There should be no such things as public schools. There should be no such thing as state-run marriage. If you want to get married, you should go to your church. If you want a divorce, you go back to the church that married you.
Do we have government baptisms and bar mitzvahs? NO, and we shouldn't have gov't marriages either.
>How many of us have been forced, often against our hearts desire, to consider very seriously the
>prospect of not having children because of the financial, but much more important--legal,
>liabilities they are?
I hate to break it to you, but even if Family Court is eliminated (which is what I want), children will STILL be financial and legal liabilities. Children cost money to take care of, and that money doesn't fall out of the sky. Children also open their parents up to legal liability all the time. If Bratley takes your car and plows it into a shopping center, guess who's going to get sued for damages? Not Bratley, because he's "just a chylde."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These are silent decisions that cause much personal pain. Perhaps if enough men do these things someone might notice our plight, and wonder if the current system is workable. One can hope. But the point is, these are forms of seperatism from women and children, even if only to a limited extent.
Indeed, they are forms of separatism. They are also individual choices. Many men in the men's movement are married and have children. Also, there have been several media reports about modern male reluctance to get married these days. So I think we are starting to create change.
But thats about it. I don't really see much hope in the long term, unless the Government itsself is reformed to value individual rights over group rights. So in the end, our only other hope short of violent revolution would be to peacably withdraw from the battlefield (along, perhaps, with some of the women we know and trust to understand that rights entail responsibilities)and forge our own vision of manhood.
Unfortunately we've won no battles and created no change if we take that last out. All we'll be doing is creating a new society which will be, eventually, overtaken by the same gender feminist forces which overtook Western society. To *really* make the world a better place for *all* people, we need to change what we already have, even if that meant chucking the current system completely and building from scratch, but not just for ourselves.
I'm sorry for the rant. I'll stay off the subjects of statism/socialism/victimology for awhile. I guess it just irks me to think of how easy some people think it will be to change the system in a positive manner.I'm not saying its hopeless, I am saying the odds are long, and that we better keep at least one other option open.
I certainly don't think it'll be easy. Quite honestly, I agree with you that it would probably be easier to just create a separate society. In the long run, though, I think we'll do neither ourselves nor society as a whole any good by cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world.
Yes, change is difficult. Revolution is an uphill battle. But I'm not giving up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 15, @01:25PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
LOL!
I hate to break it to you, but even if Family Court is eliminated (which is what I want), children will STILL be financial and legal liabilities. Children cost money to take care of, and that money doesn't fall out of the sky. Children also open their parents up to legal liability all the time. If Bratley takes your car and plows it into a shopping center, guess who's going to get sued for damages? Not Bratley, because he's "just a chylde."
Well, in the past you were allowed to discipline "Bratley", provided only that it was reasonable in terms of force. Nowadays, if pwecious little Bratley (God, I LOVE that name! :) ) has so much as a scratch, you could be interrogated by the Gestapo, er the Child Protective Services.
Anyway, damages caused by ones children are easy to understand and account for -- and it helps if you raise well-behaved ones. The problem now is the ever expanding definition of child abuse and sexual abuse, and how these allegations are easy to bring and hard to disprove. Thus, having a child places you at war with the system if it becomes aware of you.
So Claire, I don't think I'd worry to much about the US population. With the exception of the immigrants ( expected to add 50 to 100 million more Americans over the next fifty years), who are new here and don't know our laws, the birthrate has collapsed.
Indeed, the more we can export our version of "feminist law" to the rest of the world, the more world population will stablilize, thus making even the most stout "zero population growth" advocate very happy. GOOOOOOOOO GenFems!
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 15, @01:40PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"[Men] are also capable of organising the reclaiming of the existing academic system, with all its resources and connections to the media, government and industry. The real question is how could such a reclamation be effected?"
I'm not really going to answer that question, but you may be interested to know about two organizations that have already had some success in resisting political correctness (feminism, multiculturalism, etc.) in academia. One is the National Association of Scholars (http://www.nas.org/); the other is the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (http://www.thefire.org/). Both are well organized and intelligently run.
By the way, Roney's article about white ribbons, with which this thread began, has moved. It's now at (http://207.216.246.197/missed/roney.html).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iīm angry and proud of it. But I do think that pure hate will never solve this problem. You canīt fight hate with hate. And you sure as sugar canīt fight it with love either. If we loose our feelings we become empty and cold. That is not the way i want to be.
Itīs okay to feel angry about this society, but itīs wrong to harm other people because of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRC are the only men's group allowed access to Health Canada's publication system which is responsible for all anti-violence publication in Canada. Have you ever read the garbage published by Health Canada? Try going to http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/index.html and doing some exploration.
WRC is supported by the feminist & pro-feminist groups including Micheal Kimmel.
WRC believes that since almost all violence is by males, males must change and assume responsibility for their violence. Those hurt by females are to receive sympathy and nothing else in the WRC world.
This group, the White Ribbon Campaign, are dangerous bigots with the intent purpose of causing death and injury to people based only on their gender.
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As stated there are good reasons for you to not wear the white ribbon. However, I think we should cleanly avoid posts sympathizing with a mass murderer in jest or otherwise.
After all, the only state of mind that would allow this to happen is one of such psychosis that there is unlikely to be anything to relate to anyway.
The whole point of the men's movement is that we are truly egalitarian and the actions of this mindless individual have no relation to men or the mens movement.
The production of this murderer and his para-political use is where our efforts must focus.
Br, SteveNewton.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do understand your reasoning and for the most part agree with it. That said, to say "Lepine killed becasue he believed all women were feminists" is not the same as supporting him. Furthermore, the actions of Canadian gender feminists in using Lepine's actions to promote hatred of amles may well have killed more males than Lepine himself did: There is a good argument for that point of view.
Using one mass murderer (and piece of scum) to create another mass murder is hate and should be illegal: Which is the entire poitn in talking about the White Ribbon Campaign and its' sister organizations.
You do know that the Lepine murders where the cause of the Canadian government funding University level organizations to study violecne against women and children? These organizations still exist and stil study ONLY violecne against women and children: No group studies violecne agaisnt males. Sadly, that is almost illegal and cannot be funded by any government or government related funding body.
Therefore, it is valid to say that Lepine killed more men than women by promoting a violent hatred of all males which resulted in such sickening discrimination that men died.
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hated to flare up, but I have a rather unwelcome tendency to resort to violence, be it eiter physical or a mental scenario. I think it's b/c I tend to think everyone of a certain opinion that goes against mine is trying to attack ME personally. It's a long-term psychological problem which I've had a t least since fifth grade when I was physically abused my my [male chauvinist] teacher and the only way out was with my fists (or so I thought). I never wanted to sit in a corner and be a weepy victim. I'm lucky I got out and maintained my sense of dignity (i.e., didn't become a rabid man-hater).
So what I say about violence not being exclusively male comes from experience. I'm not a victim. And why did that (supposedly) woman criticize me?
All in all, I'm sorry.
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LadyRivka:
Keep workin' on it. We're all workin' on a hell of a lot.
Please stick with us.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
