|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
If you're inclined to write letters to the newspaper, I would like to ask you to refrain from doing so just yet. I have a couple of ideas about turning this tragedy into an opportunity for men on campus, and I'll release more details about this later in the week. In the meantime, it would be good to maintain a low profile.
Thanks,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're behind you, Scott. Let us know what we *can* do and when.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, Scott.
Those who claim to be brutally honest, enjoy the brutality more than the honesty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 05, @10:05AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to add a personal comment about UNH.
When I applied to UNH as a senior in high school, I had a 3.2 GPA, was enrolled in honor classes, I had good SAT scores, and I was on the wrestling team and involved with many other activities. UNH did not accept me.
I met a girl a year later and we dated over the summer, she had dropped out of high school in her junior year, got a GED, and she never took the SAT. She was enrolled as a full time student at UNH and was accepted as part of the incoming class for the year that I applied.
I ended up going to a school that I consider superior to UNH, but I have always been bothered by this fact, as UNH was one of my top choices.
UNH has a majority of female students. I think that this is by design, and that the administration may have sexist agenda.
I am glad my money went elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 05, @12:52PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I just found this:
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/036/region/Univers ity_officials_oppose_pl:.shtml
is says that there is a quota system implemented.
My assumption was correct after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding the Boston Globe link, could you try reposting that? I can't seem to find the story, even when removing the spaces and colon.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 05, @02:18PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""because DNA evidence exonerated one of the accused and was inconclusive about the second accused man"""
Just imagine if this happened 20 years ago. These two innocent men would be in serious jeopardy of being convicted and incarcerated on the testimony and identification of an alleged rape victim. Thank god for DNA testing! It should be mandatory in every case like this and be paid for at the state's expense if the accused can't afford it.
Also, the vandalism is disgusting. And I hope the perps are caught and charge with a hate crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the epitome of having to prove innocence because as a male there is the automatic assumption of guilt. The catch is that after being conclusively proven innocent, the super-fems still consider the male guilty!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 05, @10:35AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
The house was placed on disciplinary probation for a year by the Assistant to Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Anne Lawing and Pappjohn for "bystander responsibility" due to the preventative measures Sugma Nu members could have taken for allowing the "obviously intoxicated" student from entering their house and not contacting the police immediately.
"bystander responsibility"??? What type of new crime is this?
Seeing how the case has been dropped, the little twit girl who drinks too much sounds like she can't shoulder the responsibility of her own actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bystander responsibility isn't a "crime." It's a concept that is getting increased attention at UNH. The idea is that you do have some responsibility to intervene when a crime or breach of policy is taking place. It's important that you don't apply your life outside the bubble to our lives inside the bubble. Within the boundaries of this institution the university is within it's rights to create such a mandate, and quite frankly I think it's a good thing.
The Greek system here has a host of rules and structures that are supposed to help ensure that the men and women within the system are protected from all kinds of unfortunate things that can happen. When these young men chose to let that woman in their house they ignored those structures, and they have to be held accountable for that.
The director of Greek affairs at UNH is a good friend of mine, and he did what he did because it was the right thing to do, not as a political action. It's disappointing to hear such angry comments from some of you. Sometimes you guys sound an awful lot like the very radfems you despise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 05, @09:15PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Rams, I'm not quite sure who your comment was directed at because at this very moment, I don't have time to trace through the posts. But I take the position that this ought to be treated as a hate crime for two reasons: 1) A crime is a crime if the law defines it so, and the law MUST be applied equally. Males are "always" the perpetrator and never the victim of this crime, and while I don't relish the thought of being the victim, I know that if this law is only selectively enforced, then justice is abandoned. 2) Even if, at the end of the day, there is no investigation and no charges, the FBI and associated enforcement agencies MUST be put on notice that men are not willing to accept this abuse in "spirit" of altruism. We are as deserving as any other group of equal protection under the law, in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment. The daughter of an acquaintence of mine from several years ago was hauled up before a judge and carried off in handcuffs for painting a swastika in the street in front of the house of a Jewish family near her home. I understand the experience scared the hell out of her, and in my opinion, that's what she deserved. Compare the two incidents: spray painting a swastika on the pavement in the street versus spray painting a hateful expression in the wall of a dwelling. They sound pretty similar in magnitude to me.
Personally, I could get over a little bit of graffiti. But there isn't any reason that the law should expect me to just because I'm male. If the court decides that some bimbo freshman sorority chick who got a little too drunk for her own good just deserves a slap on the wrist, then so be it. But the UHN Administration ought to be aggressively investigating this, and the perp ought to be AT THE VERY LEAST suspended for a period healthy enough to send a clear message to her companions. (I assume that it's a female; I could be wrong, but I doubt it.)
I don't apologize for this position, and you can bet your sweet bippy that I'll be on the phone to the appropriate office of the FBI tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not so sure I would agree with the characterization of this clearly criminal act as a "hate crime", primarily because I see those words thrown around to describe ugly behavior so often that I have a distaste for the language of senstitivity in general.
BUT, what does interest me is one detail that in my view is of supreme significance. The University's own fact-finding committee (and I do use that term loosely) voted to hold the accused "not responsible". And yet, the fraternity was placed under disciplinary probation for an entire year. This was a reprimand for some complicity in some sort of wrong-doing. However, this assumes there was in fact wrong-doing, which their own verdict contradicts. This reflects the attitude so common in these proceedings that, "Even if we can't PROVE you did anything wrong, we know you did and we will see you punshed for it." That to me is the largest issue raised by the article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Nazgul,
I consider it a form of hate crime because it was directed at an institution consisting of a single demographic (men). For example, if this had happened to a black fraternity, or a religious group, it would quite clearly and immediately be labelled as a "hate crime" by the media. The target of the "We rape" slogan was obviously men, and the intention was to implicate all men of that fraternity, and even all men in general.
I think the reason that the fraternity leadership took action despite the apparent innocence of the accused was more political than anything else. You have no idea how close fraternities are to being banned at UNH. They have a very tenuous existence right now, and I don't doubt at all that the continuation of the lawsuit as a civil case is only intended to further attack fraternities in general.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 05, @11:59AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Scott, keep us posted. In the meantime, this is a crime that I think should be investigated by the FBI under federal hate crimes legislation.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand your sentiment, Scott. I agree fully also with your assertion that IF this had been directed at a statistical or political minority, no inhibitions would exist in labelling the vandalism a hate crime.
My contention is with the very concept of hate crimes as a legal principle. Vandalism is already a crime, as is murder, as is rape, without the added penalties sought under hate crime legislation. It criminalizes ugly ideas, in effect. A murder motivated by greed is no less a murder than one motivated by hate--a difficult accusation to prove in any event. If I were gunned down, for example, for my wallet, I would feel no consolation in the fact that "At least they didn't kill me because of my race". Such legislation, though, does seek to reflect our collective outrage over crimes motivated by such predjudices. But in the end they tend to favor narrow groups of people in the pursuit of justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps someone should spraypaint "We make false allegations of rape" on the door of your school's womyn's center, then we'll see the double-standard at work. How much time before that is investigated as a hate-crime? Not much, I bet.
You need your beets -- you recycle, recycle!
Don't eat your beets -- recycle, recycle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which of course begs the question of why the female was not charged for making false allegations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 05, @01:20PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
While I may agree or disagree with the very existence of hate crime laws, at this moment they exist. I could just as easily be prosecuted by them as anyone else. So I see no hypocracy in in enforcing the laws as written. If the law should not exist, then it is up to the defense to carry forth their position. In fact, if a law is enacted and never challenged, it will never be broken by constitutionality or other means, so in exercising a law and enforcing it as written, you give the defense an opportunity to challenge it in court.
VAWA I, for example, was challenged and over-turned. VAWA II was re-written to gerrymander the constitutional issues, so it will be harder to challenge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, Rob, that's a question of enormous ethical consequence.
Personally, I think the very reason we are in this sad shape is because women have taken the "fire with fire" tactic to its extreme. I propose we absolutely maintain principle in this and all other issues. To do other wise will only further endanger our freedom and those we love...perhaps not today, but surely someday.
My distatse for hate crime legislation is content-neutral, and I refuse to use it to my advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, hate crime legislation will be used specifically against white males at every opportunity unless those that create the legislation find themselves charged with a hate crime. These females need to learn that they will be charged as a natural consequence of their hateful acts and false allegations. Currently, they are viewed as victims even after they are proven to have lied. Therefore, their pattern of committing hateful acts and making criminal false allegations will continue unless these women are held responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 05, @05:40PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Hate crime legislation exists to intimidate and oppress white males. Period. It is a weapon of mass control, shaming and vengeance, aimed exclusively at one racial and gender group.
When the Nazi's tried it, we still had enough balls to call it the evil it is.
NOW it's called progress.
Hate crime legislation is as indefensible and unconstitutional as most everything else perpetrated by the nation against its male – especially white male -- citizens in the past four decades.
All this jabber of jurisprudence is wasted. This is not 1962 America, a land of checks-and-balances to power, of justice evolving under wisdom and strong leadership.
This is neo-matriarchal tyranny, totalitarianism by "minority." Today’s law is illegal. It does not evolve, it regresses, crushing the weak. It cannot be “reformed.” It doesn’t LIKE males, and eventually it will either neuter or devour them.
When the “law” is used to punish the powerless, fan and shit eventually meet.
If there were any men left in New Hampshire, they’d meet at high noon tomorrow at the Women’s Center at UNH. They’d clear the building and – just as they built it and the culture that surrounds it – they would take it apart, brick by drywall sheet by nail. Fuck letters to emasculated editors.
Yeah, womens' "law" would cage them. That's how liberty happens.
I am told to maintain a low profile. I am told to await Scott’s word on strategy and tactics, and whether to write letters to the newspapers.
Yo, bro, I thought you were the webmaster, not el capitano.
Policy is now channelled through you? Was there a battlefield promotion? I must have missed the memo. Or maybe I left my initiative and individuality in my other pants. The one’s the missus is wearing.
By all means, seize the reins. We can't be any more incompetent than the Boulder Library fiasco, can we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I am told to maintain a low profile. I am told to await Scott’s word on strategy and tactics, and whether to write letters to the newspapers.
Yo, bro, I thought you were the webmaster, not el capitano.
Policy is now channelled through you? Was there a battlefield promotion? I must have missed the memo. Or maybe I left my initiative and individuality in my other pants. The one’s the missus is wearing.
By all means, seize the reins. We can't be any more incompetent than the Boulder Library fiasco, can we?"
You'll note that I said "I would like to *ask* you to refrain from doing so just yet." As a personal favor to me.
I can't publicly go into what I have in mind just yet, as there are people who would like to undermine what I'm about to do who visit this web site. Suffice it to say I'm buidling the framework for a new student organization to counter male-bashing at UNH.
But if people flood the newspaper with attacks that come from people who aren't students (TNH almost never receives letters to the editor from non-students), my efforts will look more contrived, and this could have a negative effect.
Thanks,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, my request only applies to the UNH school newspaper. I just updated the story with an article from Foster's Daily Democrat, which responding to will have no effect on my efforts.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 05, @06:27PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Fairly spoken.
I will wait, then, and see what you can conjure.
May I suggest not waiting for Mr. Rowan on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May I suggest not waiting for Mr. Rowan on this one.
Would you happen to be remarksman reincarnated, anonymous? I thought you had abandoned us. :)
I say we write to Foster's while Scott is working on his University-specific plan. The last thing we want to do is undermine a genuine effort on his part, but Foster's seems like a fine alternative venue to air our views about this bigotry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 05, @08:16PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly guys, I think a shitload of phone calls and faxes to Congressmen and the FBI are in order. To hell with the newspapers.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have been giving this practice of sending letters, and making phone calls a great deal of thought lately. I cannot tell you how many times I have made a phone call to the legislature to illustrate the problem with a new law or issue.
What happens is that all intelligent reasoning is mostly ignored. My conclusion is that men need to unify with a different strategy.
Perhaps it would be better if we learn how to write and submit new laws. For example, we could write legislation that would make filing false accusations not only illegal, but subject to mandatory arrest and prosecution. We can use this example of hate speech as a justification for the law. It would not be hard to come up with statistics and rhetoric to inflame the public.
Currently, prosecution is optional and ignored as an option where a female is concerned. I know of all kinds of tricks the feminist use that can also be applied in this arena. Just read their web sites, and you can learn them also. We will of course need a lawyer to help with the language.
The other alternatives are protests, civil disobedience, and the messier solution of rioting. In my opinion, rioting is a last resort that is extreme and undesirable. Since we are men, the news media would only say there goes those violent morons again. Civil disobedience will also only make men appear more violent and uncivilized.
What do you guys think? Perhaps Scott can provide a special space where we could educate ourselves on how to submit new legislation. Anyway, it is an idea, and legalizm seems to be the only language the super-fems understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 06, @12:15AM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"abandon" is a long time, mist
investigate carefully -- it's not a plum like severed penises in a library, but it has potential -- especially if the local boys are tired of femintimidation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, my idea and take on this is civil disobedience, jury nullification whenever possible, and taking a page out of the pheminists book. Vote Male. Buy Male. Be Pro Male. And if you have to be anti-female to do it, the pheminists have made it necessary, and have had it coming. We've been declared war upon, gentlemen, and it's time we stopped being gentlemen. That's what I call one-sided chuivalry, and it's a load of horsecrap.
I've run out of cheeks to turn. If this were in my town, and somebody burned a womyn's center down or something, I'd do everything I could, trip every flag I knew of that said "Jury Pool" just to try to get on the jury and vote "Not Guilty" on sheer general principle.
I say make them completely disenfranchise us; force their hand, and have the moral high ground to commit acts of revolution of Biblical Proportions.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Well, my idea and take on this is civil disobedience, jury nullification whenever possible, and taking a page out of the pheminists book. Vote Male. Buy Male. Be Pro Male. And if you have to be anti-female to do it, the pheminists have made it necessary, and have had it coming."
Whether you decide to be anti-female or not is your own decision, but I'd just like to point out that Mensactivism.org is not intended to be anti-woman. The philosophy of this site is to help bring together men and women who are trying to affect positive change, not tear each other down.
I just wanted to take a moment to clarify the offical position of this site on this issue.
Thanks,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Been through the pheminist wringer at all? Ever been to a court where you are a second class citizen? Ever had to to try to explain to your 8 year old son why he can be kicked bloody by a group of girls chanting "Boys Drool, Girls Rule!" and he is suspended for pushing one aside to get away from them - because you can't hit a girl, because that's "abuse?"
Pheminism is Anti-Male. It's NOT egalatarian, it is a movement born of hatred, and fear. Read any feminist site and you will read diatribes full of such vilification and hate that all you you have to do is substitue the word "n*g*er" and you would think you are at the site of the Ku Klux Klan.
Any woman who would call herself a feminist, whether you, or I, or anyone else, would wish it otherwise is our Mortal Enemy.
They want the right to accuse us of crimes and have that be the end of the matter. Think it ain't so? Go to now.org and see for yourself.
They want to be able to name any man the "father" of a child, to NOT give him parenting, and for him to pay for it, and to NOT be questioned. Think it ain't so? Go to now.org and see for yourself.
They work against male contraception, because they want us to be at their mercy, and in economic identured servitude to them. Think it ain't so? Go to now.org and see for yourself.
Wake up. This is war. We are at war, war declared on our gender by the new Feminist Reich, and we don't need to wear gold stars. They fight dirty, and use every weapon at our disposal. And as long as we subscribe to the one-sided chivalry of old, we're going to wind up looking like the Poles that charged Panzer divisions on horseback.
Very "Noble." And very dead. (And by the way - it's what gave rise to "Polack Jokes," too.)
They've declared war. And any man interested in anything but unconditional surrender from a pheminist is fooling himself, at best.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 06, @08:11PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Gonzo, there are a lot of us here who actually AGREE with you, but we try to keep the tone of this website civilized. This is Scott's baby, and he sets the rules and we all try to abide by them so that our place in the sun remains a place in the sun.
Perhaps, in the interest of virtual self-preservation, you could tone it down just a little?
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 06, @08:53PM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
yah, well, like gonzo i left my civilized tone back down the road there thirty years or so ago, when we had a semi-sane civilization
fuck civilization if this is the best we can do
just to clarify "the official position" of MY site
however, what i suggested was that such an edifice of hatred first be vacated, and then taken apart screw by slab of sheetrock, in measured civil disobedience by those who built it -- once-free men
i agree that we not only should, but must, commit acts of civil disobedience against a tyrannical culture that oppresses its own sons
but i DO NOT advocate burning “a womyn’s center down”
i empathize, gonzo, i really do ... i have seen the whip fall many times and the innocent slaughtered
but the fire is better in your mouth than your hand
justice needs our aid, but vengeance does not … it is matriarchal violence and blood-lust that we oppose
be righteous and disobedient in your anger, but unless your wisdom is complete, leave the “acts of revolution of biblical proportions” to others
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
be righteous and disobedient in your anger, but unless your wisdom is complete, leave the “acts of revolution of biblical proportions” to others
Well said, anonymous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Civil disobedience. What is civil disobedience?
When questioned about something - No, I did not see. Womyn use police as a tool. Deny them this.
This man stands accused of - Not Guilty. They use the courts, kangaroo court start chambers against us. Deny them this.
I want an equal chance - there you go. And all the mandatory overtime a man could stomach. They claim they want egalatarianism, and hide behind this. Bring it out in the open that they want just "more stuff for women." Give them the good with the bad. Welcome to the man's world. They play the propaganda game. Deny them this.
They want to be free to not have to act like a lady - but you have to act like a gentleman. One sided chivalry. Deny them this.
They want to do away with alimony and not be thought alimony drones; then hammer us with onerous child support orders ("For the Chiiiiiiiiiiildren!") based on "potential income," constant review and raising - deny them this. Deny them back door alimony. Take your pay under the table. Pay a poor sap cash for casual labor today and cut him some slack - maybe he'll make rent for a month. Help a brother keep some of what he worked for, rather than feeding it to the pheminist vengeance machine.
Deny.
Deny.
Deny.
They want to frame the battle in their terms. They want to choose the battlefield and set the rules of engagement. They want you to walk, unarmed and unarmored into the meat grinder.
Read Sun Tzu. What does he say?
Deny them this.
Whenever you accede to pheminism, you put another brick in a prison of your own fashioning. Trust me. They laugh at your foolishness.
Next time you're eating lunch somewhere, listen to the conversation at the next table, at how they are "getting" their ex-husbands.
Deny them this. Fight back. Resist. Make the personal political - as they have done, and make it your mantra to say, "No more."
Or get used to the yoke.
Divide and conquer. Too many women like to say "I'm not a pheminist" and then reap all the benefits as their "due." Let them know - unless you're anti-pheminist, you're pro-pheminist.
They live in the land of lip service. Deny them this.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 05, @02:44PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
If the police ever identify the perpetrator of the vandalism and the libel, which seems unlikely without the offer of a reward for information leading to a convinction, I hope they convict the wrongdoer for vandalism and offer the maximum punishment in light of the hate-motivated intent.
If they can identify such a person, the fraternity house should then sue for the cost of damages, plus defamation, infliction of emotional distress, and the costs of restitution for the defamation.
Should there be hate crimes? It is a dangerous area for the law to tread because it threatens to punish people for their thoughts. Evidence of hatred might be properly used to show motive or intent, and perhaps judges should consider it in assessing how dangerous a defendant is when considering a sentence, but the notion that people's ideology should play a special role in criminal prosecution is repugnant. It shouldn't be illegal to hate groups of people even if the belief is wrong and irrational.
The danger is that political and philosophical comments which could be construed as "hatred" could be used against you in court in a non-substantive manner. If a man writes online commentary and calls Marxist Feminists "Feminazis" should that be used as evidence against him in a criminal trial for alleged date rape in an attempt to show "hatred" of women? Suppose someone writes commentary saying that affirmative action and multiculturalism are racist ideologies--should that be used against him in a trial claiming that he assaulted a racial minority in a bar room brawl?
The use of evidence of hatred in criminal trials and even civil trials should be carefully regulated and only admitted if it is relevant to show motive (or any "MIMIC" factor for those of you who are attorneys) or state of mind. Evidence statutes should also establish a rule that political and philosophical commentary is not "hate" unless it is blatantly hateful for evidentiary purposes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All this talk about calling the FBI and writing to Congress about this as a hate crime is beginning to concern me. It's Sigma Nu who has the choice of denouncing this and pursuing it as a hate crime, and I think people should try to get in touch with them and try to convince them to do something about this rather than taking it into their own hands. There could be legitimate reasons why SN is not doing this.
By all means, express your opinion in letters and let other people know about this, but contacting federal agencies on behalf of this fraternity could quite easily backfire on us if we don't have all the facts.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think people should try to get in touch with them (Sigma Nu).
Do you have contact information?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm currently trying to get an interview with the President of Sigma Nu, Ryan Mahoney. Ryan's e-mail address is rpm@cisunix.unh.edu, and I'm hesitant to give out his phone number in case it's his personal residence and not his office phone. However, the phone number for the Office of Greek Affairs at UNH is 603-862-1002 and I'm sure they can give you further information.
Scott
Note: If they get a lot of angry or impolite phone calls, I can assure you that my chances of getting this interview rapport with Ryan will be destroyed (hint, hint).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's also good to remind yourselves that this is not really a recent event for them. It's part of an ongoing sore that's been bleeding for a year. They're just an average group of college guys who are probably pretty tired of this whole thing. They've been dealing with people's questions and opinions and stereotypes for a while. Giving them some space to just be college kids might be nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, Rams.
College guys, methinks, are not what they put into movies like Animal House. I think all college kids are looking for action, getting drunk, saying screw-you and sayonara to their parents, etc. At a women's college I've noted this. Even today, I saw a girl who wouldn't go near the hot dogs because she said she was a lesbian and they scared her to death b/c of the phallic shape! I don't go near the hot dogs unless they're made out of tofu. The shape isn't a big deal, I just don't like eating dead animals.
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 07, @06:00PM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
gonz-o, let the right rage of the good doctor (retired) flashflood through you
preach on gonz
your brothers fear being labeled “angry white males,” but any man in america not outraged at our culture is a coward and traitor
i agree, gonzo -- our strength rests in omission, in denial of participation, not in commission
for the scapegoat, civil disobedience by commission must be measured and non-violent -- else the powers will gain more excuse to pummel us
confirmed in their misandry and moral superiority, they will gather us in their net, with the rest of the domestic terrorists, and under cover of “protection” the gender cleansing will continue
in civil disobedience, the scapegoat needs a dash of well-planned commission with a pound of conscious omission
get too uppity, and they’ll send their flying monkeys for you
we can’t kill the beast, but we can starve it to death
the masculine urge is toward pro- action, but the opposite serves us now
instead of cleansing with fire, think washing of hands
think refusal of jury duty and nullification, protest of conscription
think rejection of marriage and “romantic relationship,” of support and alimony rackets
think celibacy, brotherhood, and a-materialism
think refusal to teach in their schools, serve their corporations, support their churches, repeat their propaganda, move their mountains and mark their cards (apologies to bobs)
the withdrawal is about two decades old now – it is revolution by entropy
the scapegoat cannot force his freedom
our mistresses and masters rely on our rage turning to violence – and that we must not give them
anything we give them will be used to build our own cages
thus what we must give them is nothing
women and their state rely on male energy and genius, on the blessings of spirit
this relationship is hidden, but very real
when spiritus is withdrawn, whatever is false in the state will implode
eventually women and their servants will realize that having all the power, all the time, is not healthy for themselves, the nation, or the planet
if that realization fails, then there will be fire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
your brothers fear being labeled “angry white males,” but any man in america not outraged at our culture is a coward and traitor
Different people express their outrage in different ways. Some constructively. Some destructively. Gonzo's post seemed more related to destructive outrage (the burning down of a women's center) than civil disobedience and non-violence. I'm all for civil disobedience, and I suppose I'm all for jury nullification now that I've examined it, but if I were on that jury I would not set free a man who willfully destroyed lives to prove a point. THAT'S terrorism.
for the scapegoat, civil disobedience by commission must be measured and non-violent -- else the powers will gain more excuse to pummel us
Non-violence worked quite well for Martin Luther King Jr.
our mistresses and masters rely on our rage turning to violence – and that we must not give them
Yep. And hatred of them (or anyone else) only turns back on and devours us.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
