|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 21, @04:46PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
> What on earth is going on in Canada?
Major pussy whipping.
The Madcap Misogynist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill 117, passed but not yet implemented, transfers the accused's money and property to the accuser without a trial.
And, thereby, renders it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for him to hire a good attorney.
Can you say, "Nazi Germany?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With these alarming developments in Canada why aren't the men rioting? What the heck is wrong with them? Are they simply uninformed and think they cannot face false allegations? Gees! Come on people! Canadian men cannot let this stand!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should create a list of the top 10 (at least) worst places in the world for men's rights. I'm thinking Canada might very well take the No. 1 spot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With these alarming developments in Canada why aren't the men rioting?
That would be violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason men don't complain about "laws" like this is because men are socialized to protect women at all costs. By this logic correcting or preventing any problem women feel they have in society is more important than any possible problem men might have as a result of protecting women. Feminist politics uses the very chilvary code they claim oppresses them to silence men. Men are supposed to remain stolicly silent about any miscarriage of justice. How often are any complaints by men brushed off by society as men "whining" or being a baby?
On another note I am glad that I am not male in Canada. If I was I would seriously think about sueing for sexual discrimination in this law and then I would claim abuse against a woman and see if they are treated in the same way.
Guilty until proven innocent what a society.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where are the men?
I live in Ontario, and I was about to submit this article as well. I am so f**king angry at the state of affairs, and the indifference of men and government officials.
I am totally pissed off with others -- especially my male friends -- who, when I show them stuff like this, make jokes or say it never can happen to them. Why won't they stand up for themselves? Because it might offend their girlfriends (I know someone like this)?
It makes me totally sick that even with the presence of a fathers' rights lawyer at the inquiry, a bunch of jurors (probably all chivalrous men) actually decided to recommend these things.
Quite honestly, I have little sympathy for men who are subject to the abuses in the article. You didn't care before, why should I care for you now?
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Star Trek fans (like me) will notice that Canada is becoming more and more like Cardassia -- where the verdict is in even before the trial begins. In fact, the trial is just a big performance to show off the wisdom and authority of the state in fighting dissent. There is one major difference, however: Canada is real, Cardassia is not.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 21, @08:05PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Quite honestly, I have little sympathy for men who are subject to the abuses in the article. You didn't care before, why should I care for you now?
You should care because they are ignorant. All the conditioning and propaganda also works against them without their awarness. Sometimes, it requires years of steady effort to overcome all that brainwashing. You should care because you love your fellow man (in a Biblical sense). :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With these alarming developments in Canada why aren't the men rioting?
That would be violence.
Yep. That it would be. Well, just goes to show you that life is so dear and peace is so sweet as to be purchased at the price of slavery and chains.
As of now, I'm ashamed to be next to Canada. And the stench of willing slaves reeks in my nostrils.
(What do you suggest they do, Gonzo?)
Resist. By whatever means necessary.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A powerful tool of an oppressive society is to vilianize and dehumanize the oppressed. The blacks in the US up until the civil rights movement, and the Indians under British rule are two good examples.
The oppressed class is portrayed as uncivilized, violent, hedonistic, and generally dangerous to the welfare of the "civilized" folk.
I feel that the best way to deal with this is in the manner of MLK and Gandhi. By being more civilized than your oppressor you can shatter the myths that your oppression rests upon.
Rioting hasn't helped the antiglobalization movement (actually has hurt it) and it won't help us either. Behaving in a way that reinforces the stereotypes that brought about these injustices will only elicit a more severe crackdown (Compare Seattle and Quebec) and alienate potential supporters.
One of the biggest problems we face right now is we don't appear to have even a large minority of men 'onside'. Many who are 'onside' don't care enough about the issues to raise a stink.
I'm not sure how to deal with this lack of support but I know that rioting isn't going to change that.
Matthew Kingston [Ottawa](613-266-0783)
"Satyagraha is a process of educating public opinion, such that it covers all the elements of the society and in the end makes itself irresistible." - M. K. Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel that the best way to deal with this is in the manner of MLK and Gandhi. By being more civilized than your oppressor you can shatter the myths that your oppression rests upon.
The problem is that people were aware of Gandhi's situation -- many eyes were on him and his followers.
In Canada, there are no eyes fixed upon men or fathers. Most men aren't even aware of or don't care enough about their rights.
I don't want to sit around and do nothing anymore. I'm sick of it. Things have got to change, and they've got to change now (yes Greg, I've sent it).
Just today I had read -- and submitted to this site -- a story from the National Post: It looks like Canadian men are facing another major setback. In particular, the Federal Government might be going back on its promise to overhaul the Divorce Act -- no doubt as a result of pressure from feminists. It is sickening when I hear government officials say that the only problem they are concerned with at the moment is child-support payments. How long do we need to ignore the problems that men face?
Another thing I am sick of is this same group of people attempting to cover up any injustice done to men by saying it is in the "best interests of the children." I agree that children need to be protected, but it seems like their best interests in Canadian society is whatever protects them and their mothers, and excludes the fathers.
I never thought I would say this, but I am ashamed to be Canadian.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another thing I am sick of is this same group of people attempting to cover up any injustice done to men by saying it is in the "best interests of the children." I agree that children need to be protected, but it seems like their best interests in Canadian society is whatever protects them and their mothers, and excludes the fathers.
"Not since the overthrow of the Weimar Republic have the leaders of a major democracy used their offices and the mass media to disseminate invective against millions of their own citizens. In fact it was Adolf Hitler who urged that “the state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people” and who explained, in the words of Rabbi Daniel Lapin, that “as long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty.” Using children to tug on our heartstrings may be not only a weakness of the sentimental. It also may be a ploy by those cynical and unscrupulous enough to exploit children for their own purposes. This is likely to be remembered as one of the most diabolical perversions of governmental power in our history, a time when we allowed children to be used and abused by fast-talking government officials and paid for it with our families, our social order and our constitutional rights.” - Stephen Baskerville
Anyone who clings to the historically untrue - and thoroughly immoral - doctrine 'that violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence - naked force - has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedom.
—Starship Troopers (by Robert A. Heinlein)
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 21, @09:37PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
It wasn't quite marches and singing by a campfire that won equality for blacks. It was the cities burning, death, destruction and bloodshed that caught the eye of the general public.
This is quite right. However, the feminists have played upon the chivalry of the older males to pass these laws. So, they have no real idea how these laws will impact the rising generation. They simply don’t know that so many women are greedy and corrupt.
So, if men riot, they will be seen as evil males that should be oppressed by the chivalrous males who passed the laws. What is necessary is to organize, put together a formal strategy, and execute...execute...execute. Whatever strategy evolves, it must cause the elites to suffer the same sort of harm that is currently being inflicted upon the general population of males. If at all possible, it must be legally, quietly, patiently, and persistently. That is the only way to make a real impact. One good suggestion is to organize and report a selected set of elite as being violent in public with their spouses.
Valid complaints can include raising their voice, shouting, and any other sort of questionable acts. If the spouses voice has any form of negative connotation dial 911 and report the DV incident. This is legal and will require a police response. Since the law is supposedly gender neutral, members of NOW can be easily targeted.
This should be a simple plan to execute. It is not hard to find such inappropriate behaviors that will cause a spouse to experience fear. All that will be happening is that we are protecting the elite from the DV of their spouces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It wasn't quite marches and singing by a campfire that won equality for blacks. It was the cities burning, death, destruction and bloodshed that caught the eye of the general public.
This is quite right.
Not exactly. The riots didn't start until the 60s. Martin Luther King Jr. was non-violent, and he and Rosa Parks practically launched the civil rights movement, winning civil rights for blacks in the racist town of Montgomery, Ala. in the 1950s. Riots may get attention, but they don't change minds.
You are correct, however, about how men will be viewed if we give in to riots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Riots happened thoughout the 20th century triggered mostly by the media's constant labeling of blacks as animals, rapist and killers. The same as men are portrayed today.
Despite civil rights legislation passing into law, many states and counties fought tooth and nail with local laws in order to continue the abuses against blacks.
Don't get me wrong, the work of Rosa Parks and MLK were instrumental in the big picture, but they alone were not the whole tamale. In order to have similar results, realize all the facts and implement them as needed to achieve our objective. We must not be afraid to face the fact that some lives will be lost, after all, it's for the benefit of our children.
Current federal law is grossly misinterpeted now much for the same reasons, so the States and Counties can turn a profit from their gross abuses.
Even if Federal Law is changed, which is not likely anytime in the near future, we still have a separate fight in each and every State and County in the U.S.
Family Law being a Milti-Billion dollar industy, it's not likely that they will be willing to turn loose of the reins without severe public outcry, and sadly, bloodshed.
Call me a radical, but the fact is, we face a battle against a huge industry plus swaying public opinion. Our battle is high stakes for all involved and more complex than the Civil rights battles of the sixties.
I am not a violent person and prefer this be settle logically, unfortunately, the opposition does not and will resist most attempt to change the system.
Dan Curry
DanCurry.Com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Riots may get attention, but they don't change minds.
You are so wrong here that I don't even know where you got this idea.
Riots changed a lot of minds. They made people fear for their own little, complacent safety, and they made people wonder why blacks were so enraged. The riots played a major role in bringing about not only civil rights legislation but also a deep rooted change in white folks' perceptions of blacks and their situation in society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas, you are such a radical. LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas, you are such a radical. LOL
"Those who forthrightly speak the truth are always radical." Thomas Walsh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 22, @01:59AM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Even if Federal Law is changed, which is not likely anytime in the near future, we still have a separate fight in each and every State and County in the U.S.
Unfortunately, this is true. The States are the most common source of civil liberties violations. That fact is true historically, and it is true today. It is therefore the individual states that are the worst Governmental enemy of men. So, let us focus the fight first against the local legislatures and members of NOW in each state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Riots changed a lot of minds. They made people fear for their own little, complacent safety, and they made people wonder why blacks were so enraged.
So did Hitler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not a violent person and prefer this be settle logically, unfortunately, the opposition does not and will resist most attempt to change the system.
I agree with this. Germaine Greer wrote that women should use their feminine wiles in pursuit of feminist goals. Specifically, women were advised take advantage of men's protective instincts towards them in pursuing the feminist agenda; women have done this.
Previously I've suggested, to the horror of some men in the movement, that symmetrically, men should use their power and their purported innate proclivity towards volence and destruction to achieve the ends of the men's movement. I was half serious then; today, I'll stand by that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You really can't compare the anitglobalization nuts with Mens Issues. People right in their own neighborhoods being oppressed, killed and enslaved is very different.
It's interesting that you perceive people in the antiglobalization movement as 'nuts'. I think that if you took the same approach as them then you would be honoured with the same title.
Matthew
"All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and the shortest means to accomplish it"
-Alexis de Tocqueville
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't disagree more. It wasn't quite marches and singing by a campfire that won equality for blacks. It was the cities burning, death, destruction and bloodshed that caught the eye of the general public.
Whether or not some people here want to believe it, this is the truth. I was there. Living in D.C. in the late 60s and early 70s, a philosophy major at Georgetown University and an active member of Students for a Democratic Society.
The rage terrified the complacent. "Oh my God, I might get hurt when I go downtown."
We are Niggers and Kikes. We have to fearlessly defend ourselves.
What do you say, Niggers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The rage terrified the complacent. "Oh my God, I might get hurt when I go downtown."
So you used fear, terror, and intimidation tactics to get what you wanted? That's not freedom, it is not justice, and it is certainly never going to be a method I support, no matter what the bloodthirsty say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""One of the biggest problems we face right now is we don't appear to have even a large minority of men 'onside'. Many who are 'onside' don't care enough about the issues to raise a stink."""
Unfortunately, this is too true.
There has got to be a way into "tricking" them into equating fighting misandry with playing ball games. Then maybe we will get somewhere in the men's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 23, @08:28AM EST (#83)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I guess I'm in the minority here, but I'm not offended by being accused of chivalry. I may be foolish, but I think that chivalry is not dead, though its breathing may be labored and its heart rate slow. The genfems WANT for chivalry to be dead because they think it degrades women. Many men want chivalry dead because they think it gives women the upper hand.
I found this definition of chivalry on the web:
1. the qualities of an ideal knight, such as gallentry, honor, courtesy, generosity, respect, protection of the weak, and skills in battle.
2. the way of life of knights during the Middle Ages.
So then what chivalry is, my friends, is a way of life for warriors. It is a code of behavior that distinguishes warriors from barbarians.
There's nothing in the definition that specifically applies to how WOMEN are treated. In this day and age, "protection of the weak" can be interpreted to exclude deferential or preferential treatment of women. I would suggest that our real fight here has nothing to do with chivalry and everything to do with equal treatment under the law. So if anyone here or at AUM thinks they are insulting me by calling me chivalrous, then I'd be honored to accept the "insult."
This thread has gotten WAAAYYYYY out of hand. I disagree with ALL of you, and all of you disagree not only with me, but with each other. So? We have common goals. We have a common opponent. I imagine the trolls are havng a good time laughing at this one. We should cut out the pissing contest or just meet in a central location and duke it out, once and for all.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread has gotten WAAAYYYYY out of hand. I disagree with ALL of you, and all of you disagree not only with me, but with each other. So? We have common goals. We have a common opponent. I imagine the trolls are havng a good time laughing at this one. We should cut out the pissing contest or just meet in a central location and duke it out, once and for all.
As I've said hundreds of times on this site, I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I HATE people attributing thougths and ideas about me or anyone else based upon one or two comments from other people on this site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 25, @02:22AM EST (#107)
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest that our real fight here has nothing to do with chivalry and everything to do with equal treatment under the law. So if anyone here or at AUM thinks they are insulting me by calling me chivalrous, then I'd be honored to accept the "insult."
So, now I have a few questions for you Frank.
1) Do you believe that a woman can be violent?
2) If so, to you believe that a man has the right to self-defense?
3) If a man’s act of self-defense results in physical harm to a female domestic partner, is that acceptable so long as the force is equal to the force used by the woman?
4) If a women is going to use deadly force, can a man can he kill her?
There is a correct set of answers to this set of questions. They are:
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
However, the correct set of answers according to CA State law is as follows:
1) No - NOW has defined women as incapable of violence. The State Legislatures, mostly chivalrous males, accept that lie. Is chivalry still valid in light of this fact?
2) No - NOW has been successful in changing the law. If a man uses self-defense, they become a primary aggressor even if the woman is the first aggressor. It is assumed that the male always has a superior use of force. Is chivalry still valid in light of this fact?
3) No - If a man uses any amount of force that results in harm to a woman (domestic partner) they will be arrested as a felon, and they will likely face felony charges. It doesn't matter why the harm to the female resulted. Is chivalry still valid in light of this fact?
4) No - A male does not have the right to self-defense that a female domestic partner does. The law turns the man into the primary aggressor and therefore the murderer no matter the reason. This is a result of the efforts of NOW and the chivalrous males legislatures. Is chivalry still valid in light of this fact?
Are you still not convinced? Consider the following scenario:
A wife overdoses on drugs, say sleeping pills, and experiences the side effects. The side affects are a loss of memory, extreme aggression, and violent behavior. You are unaware that your wife is behaving irrationally because of the overdose.
You only know that you are having objects hurled at you and that you are afraid because of the numerous times that objects have been thrown in the past. You have been to counseling and they have taught you to remove yourself at all costs. So, seeing the danger and finding yourself becoming angry you comply with the counseling.
Nevertheless, this time as you flea to the room, your wife aggressively pursues you with objects in her hands that may become a weapon at any instance. As a chivalrous male, you do not want to harm her for any reason. You are trying to enter the room and she grabs you from behind.
You know that she can throw those objects quite hard and harm you. It doesn’t matter that you are a big guy. If she hits you in the head, you will end up in the hospital. However, if you try to slam the bedroom door behind you she will get an injury from the force of the door slamming shut on her hands and arms. You know that she will try to get in because your wife has done this in the past.
So, believing that as a chivalrous male that you have the right of self defense, that you must protect your wife from the potential harm of the door slamming shut, you shove her back a bit to prevent her from harming herself.
Oh but wait. She is on drugs, not thinking rationally, unsteady, angry that you are leaving the room, and she stumbles. When she stumbles, she hits her head. She gets up and dials 911 to report the fierce attack. When the police arrive you try to explain what happened, but they call you a liar, demand that you be chivalrous, and take it like a man.
You have a problem Frank. As the chivalrous male, you are required to admit to a criminal offense. Will you confess to the felony and do a minimum of one year in jail? Do you still believe that chivalry is not outdated? Cannot believe this can happen to you? Think again. It can and the odds are very high that it might as the super-fems continue to brainwash our wives with their agenda, and it becomes increasingly likely as NOW continues to have laws passed by chivalrous men that want to protect the wives of violent men like yourself.
Think this is an exaggeration? Better think again. It is a real scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 25, @02:06PM EST (#112)
|
|
|
|
|
>> Oh but wait. She is on drugs, not thinking
>> rationally, unsteady, angry that you are
>> leaving the room, and she stumbles. When she
>> stumbles, she hits her head. She gets up and
>> dials 911 to report the fierce attack. When
>> the police arrive you try to explain what
>> happened, but they call you a liar, demand
>> that you be chivalrous, and take it like a
>> man.
>>
>> You have a problem Frank. As the chivalrous
>> male, you are required to admit to a criminal
>> offense. Will you confess to the felony ....
Dead on. Dead right. Preach it, Brother, Preach it!
I suggest people listen up and take notice. It is now >Illegal for you to defend yourself if a woman tries to kill you, and once accused you have the burden of proof on you to prove otherwise.Can you say second-class citizen? I knew you could.
So what are we going to do is the question? I'm looking at something here that alarms me mightily. Think about it, and think hard. How many men are going to say to themselves, "If I am going to do the time, I am going to do the crime?" Where I come from that is called a set-up.
Is the best suggestion going to be to roll over and take it? In the name of chivalry? Because we have to be better than that? I am afraid I'm going to have to go with the man who said that if there is no option to resist peaceably, it becomes a moot point on whether violent resistance occurs.
We can be all uppity and snooty about talk of violent resistance. I bet that long about '34 a lot of people were saying in Germany that it couldn't happen there. The question in my mind, though, is that there is two ways of dealing with that kind of talk. First, you could meet it head on, validate anger, and channel it into something useful. Second, though, you could get pissy,harumph, pontificate, condemn, and engage in all kinds of narcisscistic self-congratulatory moral superiority, drive people away from a discussion and place them a step further on being the next Tim McVeigh.
Unless of course, that is secretly what you want.
So I'm going to ask Dan, and TGK, and others who have been grumbling - you all say you don't want violence, so what are suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As the god of war, I'm openly in favor of violence, even before all other options have been exhausted. I'm a male, my femmunist sisters insist that I am violent, and it matters little to me that I might be playing into their hands by being violent. So what?
You had Germaine Greer telling women to take advantage of men's attitudes towards them in their struggle to achieve the feminist ideal; they have surpassed every expectation.
Symmetrically, I urge men to use their purported power [Warren Farrell shows this is largely a fiction] and their tendency towards violence to achieve the masculist ideal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I'm going to ask Dan, and TGK, and others who have been grumbling - you all say you don't want violence, so what are suggestions?
Simple. Step up the pressure, step up the rhetoric, stop rolling over, showing our bellies, and trying to please these psycho misandrists.
It's a lost cause. You can't reason with these types any more than a black guy could reason with a Klansman. They put one face on in public, but get them out of the public light and they stick it to us every time, every chance they get, and just for the sheer joy of doing it.
Recognize it. Look it in the face. Accept it. Hate it by all means, but see it for what it is and deal with it in an effective way.
Some people are just plain evil, and cannot be reformed. Pheminists are one of these types. They are a terrorrist hate movement, and once we put them in the category they belong, we will be able to deal with them as such.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 26, @04:39PM EST (#116)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's a lost cause. You can't reason with these types any more than a black guy could reason with a Klansman."
the klan, national socialists, feminists and the like represent forms of mass (collective) psychosis, reinforced by careful, conscious propaganda
as anyone who has worked with psychotics will tell you, psychotic thinking and behaviors can't be "fixed" by rational means
you can talk logically to them all the day long, you can have every point of reason on your side, and it means zilch -- they will remain fixated on, and obsessed with, their psychoses, and this remains their reality
when the mass psychosis is profitable, and serves the interests of privilege and power of large groups ... well ... you've got a true monster on your hands. In such cases, water is of little use -- it is, pardoxically, fire that puts out fire
"Some people are just plain evil, and cannot be reformed."
yes to the first, no to the second
la dildarama
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 26, @04:42PM EST (#117)
|
|
|
|
|
"You have a problem Frank. "
No, AU, I have no problem at all. First, I answered "yes" to all your questions, and even in doing so, I believe you're not really talking about chivalry. You're just trying to corner me into buying the same uncontrollably angry message that you profess to. Being chivalrous does NOT mean failing to defend yourself. And if I did something that someone else thought was a felony, if I went SO FAR as to commit a felony, then I would be willing to stand trial for it. Hiding from what I did, doing whatever I could to escape "justice" is not the answer. The answer is to stand up and be counted, take your actions deliberately and with a manner of pride in standing up for your rights.
You're being foolish in thinking that chivalry is exclusively a model for how one treats women. It's not and never was. Chivalry is a model for soldiers who've been trained to kill on how to behave off the battlefield, in "civilized society." It so happens that it includes the "proper" treatment of women, but that's not the largest part of it.
Your scenario is silly. Any man aware of what's going on in DV laws and enforcement would have called the cops as soon as he detected the first hurled object. And to do so would not violate any laws of chivalry. Your identification of elected legislators as "chivalrous" is ludicrous. They protect women solely because they have learned that the women's vote far outweighs the men's vote, and their very job security relies on attacting the most votes. So these manholes are NOT chivalrous because they have no honor. They're just whores for votes. The only way to fix this problem is for men to vote. It doesn't matter for whom; they just need to show up at the polls. When was the last time YOU voted?
And if you don't have the courage to put a unique name at the bottom of your posts, then don't bother insulting me with your scenarios. This one in particular was not relevant to the notion of chivalry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some people are just plain evil, and cannot be reformed.
Not true, and that is why we must keep trying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....don't bother insulting me with your scenarios...
Since when does a person insult another with realistic or real life scenarios? If it is real (it is) and backs you into a corner, then I suggest that you reconsider your position.
Like I said, "you have a problem Frank." They have arrested and unjustly criminalized your neighbor with totalitarian laws while you looked the other way.
Now it is just a matter of time till they come to get you. Make no mistake. They will come when you least expect the visit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 27, @01:40PM EST (#120)
|
|
|
|
|
"Since when does a person insult another with realistic or real life scenarios? "
Your assertion that the scenario you presented was relevant to the justification (or not) for chivalry, and your subsequent condemnation of my values is insulting.
"Like I said, "you have a problem Frank." They have arrested and unjustly criminalized your neighbor with totalitarian laws while you looked the other way."
It would appear to me that the one with the problem is you, because you have a difficulty with reading comprehension. Where exactly did I say that chivalry means to supplicate ones self to the feminists? That's an assumption YOU are making. I believe just the opposite. And I'm just about the last person you want to accuse of looking the other way while my neighbor gets carried off. There isn't a whole lot of use in getting out my 9mm and shooting the cops. They shoot me dead and my point never gets made. When the time comes, I won't be afraid to dust off the 9mm, but until then I will continue to: 1) vote; 2) speak out publicly against the injustice; 3) contribute what I can financially to the cause. Other than unnecessarily berating your co-conspirators here, what was it again that you're doing?
"Now it is just a matter of time till they come to get you. Make no mistake. They will come when you least expect the visit."
Oh, perhaps they'll come, but either I'll be gone or they'll find some very sharp teeth waiting for them. Fortunately, I'm reasonably good at controlling my anger, so they'll have to try pretty hard to justify locking me up. But one thing I don't take kindly to is being a random target for your rantings, or anyone else's for that matter. I come here and offer my support and my opinions and in that practice sometimes I expose my value system. It's mine. I've worked on it for 48 years and you and your condescending attitude are not going to stifle it or change it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your assertion that the scenario you presented was relevant to the justification (or not) for chivalry, and your subsequent condemnation of my values is insulting.
I am not condemning your values system. However, I am illustrating how it has been exploited by evil feminist to persuade a chivalrous legislature to pass totalitarian laws, and because of those laws, I am arguing that chivalry is problematic when not properly tempered. In the case of CA protection orders, DV laws, and child protection laws the lawmakers have clearly stepped way over the boundaries to eliminate normal due process protections. Like it or not the laws were passed in the name of chivalry.
Fortunately, I'm reasonably good at controlling my anger, so they'll have to try pretty hard to justify locking me up.
Well I have repeatedly posted snippets of CA Family Code (in several threads) and the legal references to demonstrate how you can be criminalized without ever becoming angry or expressing inappropriate anger. I suggest that you take a look around.
I come here and offer my support and my opinions and in that practice sometimes I expose my value system. It's mine. I've worked on it for 48 years and you and your condescending attitude are not going to stifle it or change it.
It is precisely this attitude and posture that the evil feminist are exploiting to pass laws that systematically and unreasonably criminalize males. Obviously, you have no interest in researching the code of chivalry so I’ll will post a few highlights. They follow:
1) Unswerving belief in the Church and obedience to her teachings.
2) A willingness to defend the church
3) Respect and pity for all weaknesses and steadfastness in defending them.
4) Love of country
5) Refusal to retreat before the enemy
6) Unceasing and merciless war against the infidel
7) Strict obedience to the feudal overlord, so long as these duties did not conflict with the duty to God.
8) Loyalty to truth and to the pledged word
9) Generosity in giving
10) Championship of the right and the good, against the forces of evil.
(Source) http://www.antir.sca.org/Pubs/ATH/7chivalry.html
(There are of course many other variations).
I should point out that some of these values are quite central to my being also. But the fact remains that laws have been systematically passed by feminist that exploit the chivalrous values of the male legislative members when they adhere to this system of values.
It is the third code that feminist systematically exploit to seek special protections and privileges under the color of chivalry. They are not ignorant of these codes like you seem to be. Another site rephrases this third code as follows:
“…his duties as a knight under the code of chivalry also included the administration of justice, the protection of the innocent, showing respect for women, exhibiting courage in word and action, and vanquishing evil.”
(Source) http://www.summerknights.com/Chivalry/Knight's%20R esponses/daniel_roque%20defines%20Chivalry.htm
The problems is that in today’s times we have powerful tools of propaganda, special interest groups, and a democracy that enacts legislation on behalf of the SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS which claim to represent the interest of their constituency. Yes they pay attention to the constituency directly, however, the constituency is manipulated by SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. The person who does not believe that these groups have special access to the legislatures and media to spread their propaganda is truly ignorant.
An example of the process involves the O.J. trials. At that time NOW seized the day and started publishing select facts and distortions. This tactic created a false crisis. If you check their sites, you will find that some of them claim that 98% of all families have battered women. Using positive assertion, they were able to convince the legislature that 98% of all married women need special protection under the law because of chivalrous code number three.
So, having this opportunity, they used a good cause to pass insidious laws. Nobody will argue that battered women should have solid protection under the law. But does the code of chivalry really demand that a man be criminalized if a couple of annoying phone calls were made to an x-wife? Yet that is the law that has been passed to protect the weak and innocent women of today using, in part, the value of chivalry as listed in code number three to justify their passage.
This is an example of passing a bad law that was specifically designed to criminalize a man. It was done simply because it seems good, in the name of chivalry, to protect the weak and innocent. For this reason, I argue that the code of chivalry is obsolete. It is being exploited by evil feminist to encourage ignorant legislatures to pass laws that systematically destroy men. No honest chivalrous man can deny this fact. Ironic isn’t it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reason should be the last recourse, resorted to only when all other avenues, e.g., violence, threats, force, fraud, coersion, manipulation, distortion, wilful omission, theft, wanton disregard for human dignity, and so on, have been exhausted.
So it appears, if you follow the femmunist example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @05:56PM EST (#123)
|
|
|
|
|
You know warble, after reading this post, I have the impression that you and I really don't disagree on much, that is w.r.t the men's movement. But the one thing I must point out is that in the ten points of chivalry you quoted, I did not see anything that specifies subservience to WOMEN.
So the thing I really can't figure out at this stage is why I found myself being the target of your...
posts.
My point is simple: chivalry is more than the treatment of women and it ought not to be discarded on the assumption that it is. I live in NJ. I'm not familiar with CA laws in detail, but I'll tell you that based on what I've read here and elsewhere they're no worse (or better) than I would have guessed.
So, can we put down our fists now? My arms are getting tired and I either gotta hit something or relax.
BTW, if you've been here very long and read some of the things I've posted, you'll know that I am not at all fond of the genfems, and that I've been supporting Scott, et al for awhile.
Ease up. I'm not the enemy.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, can we put down our fists now? My arms are getting tired and I either gotta hit something or relax.
Yea. It sounds like we are just approaching the same issue from different angles. lol.
What can I say? It was a male thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 24, @08:34PM EST (#106)
|
|
|
|
|
There has got to be a way into "tricking" them into equating fighting misandry with playing ball games. Then maybe we will get somewhere in the men's movement.
Actually there is and that technique is called positive assertion. We can combine the technique of positive assertion with creating conditioned responses and they will come. It will start slowly at first and then snowball as the effect picks up momentum.
These are the exact techniques that the feminist are using. Only they are telling lies to create the reaction. We can do the same thing without telling the lies. There are several tactics and strategies that have been scattered throughout this site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 21, @09:31PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
With these alarming developments in Canada why aren't the men rioting?
many men don't know about it and few of those that do understand the issue enough to care about it. too many are caught up in their own lives to see this as a larger issue that will, down the road, affect them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 21, @06:43PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I just looked up Bill 117. It appears to be available at http://www.ontla.on.ca/Documents/StatusofLegOUT/b1 17ra_e.htm
Of interest is the fact that sex is never mentioned. It applies to males and females alike. Of course, judge for yourselves the likelyhood that it would be applied favourably to a male.
Also of interest is the fact that luckily it only applies to people in some form of relationship. So you can't have all your stuff taken away by some random person on the street.
Having said this, it is still quite clearly rediculous. I'm wondering what would happen if, in protest, several thousand people attempted to take advantage of it (not for personal gain, just to bog the system and to make a statement). Of course, this would be counter to subsection 16(1), and would likely land you in jail.
Garth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also of interest is the fact that luckily it only applies to people in some form of relationship. So you can't have all your stuff taken away by some random person on the street.
That's not really lucky, Garth. If I remember right, even a girl you're just dating could do this to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 21, @08:01PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Also of interest is the fact that luckily it only applies to people in some form of relationship. So you can't have all your stuff taken away by some random person on the street.
Garth. All that is required for a woman to claim there is a relationship is intimacy. If she is at your home for one night, that is sufficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also of interest is the fact that luckily it only applies to people in some form of relationship. So you can't have all your stuff taken away by some random person on the street.
Garth. All that is required for a woman to claim there is a relationship is intimacy. If she is at your home for one night, that is sufficient.
I agree with you all that this bill is pretty sick and twisted, and that unfortunately there are all too many women out there who will take advantage of it.
Hell, there have already been far too many women who think that just because they're female and you're male, that somehow that entitles them to expect you will pay for everything, from the first date to the rest of their lives. And I say that as a woman who has been nearly totally self-supporting since about the age of 20.
What to do about it? I dunno. Canada is even worse off than we are in the States.
I have a fraternal twin sister who emigrated to Canada many years ago. We are estranged now, but I have to wonder if this is the kind of thing she supports. She loves socialism, and has probably only rarely held private-sector jobs up there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There will surely be some truly hellacious unintended consequences of this bill. I can just imagine the horror stories we'll be reading about soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 22, @01:54AM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
There will surely be some truly hellacious unintended consequences of this bill.
Oh how I wish that the consequences will be unintended. The intended consequence is to systematically criminalize men, and it will most certainly have that effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There will surely be some truly hellacious unintended consequences of this bill.
Oh how I wish that the consequences will be unintended. The intended consequence is to systematically criminalize men, and it will most certainly have that effect.
There will be both intended and unintended consequences of this bill. None of them will be pretty, nice, or even fair. There will undoubtedly be consequences, down the line somewhere, which we cannot even imagine right now (hence the term "unintended consequences").
Somehow I didn't automatically think Canadians were that, well, stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) For the purposes of this Act, domestic violence means the following acts or omissions committed against an applicant, an applicant’s relative or any child:
1. An assault that consists of the intentional application of force that causes the applicant to fear for his or her safety, but does not include any act committed in self-defence.
By this definition, working out + partner getting scared = domestic violence
2. An intentional or reckless act or omission that causes bodily harm or damage to property.
Garage door example that someone mentioned earlier
3. An act or omission or threatened act or omission that causes the applicant to fear for his or her safety.
Raising your voice...
4. Forced physical confinement, without lawful authority.
Poor S&M people...
5. Sexual assault, sexual exploitation or sexual molestation, or the threat of sexual assault, sexual exploitation or sexual molestation.
I guess "sending signals" will fall under this one...
6. A series of acts which collectively causes the applicant to fear for his or her safety, including following, contacting, communicating with, observing or recording any person.
Now we can't even tape record our arguments! There goes any mechanism to prevent he-said-she-said...
16. (1) No person shall, in making an application or motion under this Act, commit perjury or public mischief within the meaning of the Criminal Code (Canada).
Do they even bother to check for perjury?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 21, @07:02PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone from Ontario isn't surprised, I am sure. This is so sad. It is obvious now that things will get worse for men, much worse before they get better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I live in Ontario. It is both better than and worse than the view portrayed here. There is nothing surprising in Dave Brown's editorial or in the Harris government.
I might note that a few judges are starting to raise their eyebrows about the situation. A man who falsely accused his wife of DV was arrested recently. The judge asked "We have women falsely accuse their husband every day and I've never seen one arrested. Why?" It is a start, a truly tiny start...
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 22, @09:48AM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Something to cheer you guys up, just a little.
One judge are realizing the double standard that's employed in the court system.
Quote:
"In an unrelated case, police showed they have no gender bias when they locked up a woman overnight and charged her with assault after her male partner alleged abuse occurred weeks earlier. He said he was struck while in bed."
A small comfort. She now knows what it's like.
Also,
Quote:
"This is good news for all Canadians,"
Yeah, except for the people who have been wrongly convicted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I usually get agitated when I see men's rights at risk, but for some reason that article gave me an unsettling feeling in my stomach, as if a government body was actually thinking of putting an unconscienable plan like the one stated into action. This sexist tripe does not belong within a hundred miles of a place of government, and shame on the Canadian government for even wasting a single minute on such a frivolous issue.
WARNING to all men in Canada: do not give money to the government, or you could very well be purchasing your own shackles complete with their own Global Positioning Service.
This reminds me of that old George Lucas movie from the early 80's with Robert Duvall, THX 1... I forget the whole title. It was supposed to be a fictional future, but every day we creep closer and closer to that very scenario, and that may be the unsettling feeling I'm experiencing. Suppose I'll go don a white hospital gown and shave my head to prepare.
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's about all there is to say. Wow.
There's not much I can add that hasn't already been said. The threats are self-evident here. But it is a perfect reason to fear, and I mean fear, anyone who makes statements the likes of Catherine MacKinnon's (e.g.,"individual rights are overrated").
Anyone who thinks that such people are harmless quacks need look no further than a foot beyond the northern border. People, all people, are under seige from religious and secular zealots whose only loyalty is to their own self-serving agendas. Whether you call it political correctness or spiritual enlightenment or anything else, the notion that basic personal freedoms must be subsumed under the betterment of the collective (feminist) state must be watched and ferociously resisted.
And everybody, let's drop the violence debate. Stereotypes aside, it isn't the right answer. Not at this juncture or any forseeable one in the future, excepting of course extreme circumstances that do not occur to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And everybody, let's drop the violence debate. Stereotypes aside, it isn't the right answer. Not at this juncture or any forseeable one in the future, excepting of course extreme circumstances that do not occur to me.
Amen. If I am violently attacked, I will retaliate as such. Until then, there is no need for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for it.
This statement illustrates why the feminist movement is so evil and insidious. Men actually think they can still defend themselves. They cannot even imagine the right being suppressed by new laws.
Better rethink this strategy. The primary aggressor laws have defeated this right in the case where a former or current domestic partner is involved. A domestic partner is anybody with who you have ever had an intimate relation at any time, and with whom you have spend a night.
If you get violently attacked by a female domestic partner you have no right of self-defense. It is assumed that a male has superior strength and will always become the primary aggressor if attacked by a domestic partner.
So, if you defend yourself you will be arrested, charged, and convicted.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 22, @12:02PM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
Damn. I must say that, in response to proposing a PEACEFUL demonstration, I got exactly the opposite response to what I expected. And I am perplexed. We can:
1) do nothing, and therefore change nothing.
2) come here (or somewhere else) and talk, which isn't much different than choice 1 above,
3) we can do something proactive and peaceful (but possibly illegal),
4) we can do something violent.
I like choice number three, but so far, I see entirely too many people ready to settle for choice number 2, which will eventually and unfortunately lead to choice number 4.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn. I must say that, in response to proposing a PEACEFUL demonstration, I got exactly the opposite response to what I expected. And I am perplexed. We can:
1) do nothing, and therefore change nothing.
2) come here (or somewhere else) and talk, which isn't much different than choice 1 above,
3) we can do something proactive and peaceful (but possibly illegal),
4) we can do something violent.
I like choice number three, but so far, I see entirely too many people ready to settle for choice number 2, which will eventually and unfortunately lead to choice number 4.
Frank H
Well, Frank, I'm there, but then we can't do that because it would be unchivalrous, sinking to their level, actually effective rather than engaging in mental masturbation, or whatever other of the excuse du jours get floated around.
Good Lord in heaven - when will people ever realize that if you eliminate every method of peaceful resistance, the only choices INEVITABLY become chains or blood?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Frank, I'm there, but then we can't do that because it would be unchivalrous, sinking to their level, actually effective rather than engaging in mental masturbation, or whatever other of the excuse du jours get floated around.
Good Lord in heaven - when will people ever realize that if you eliminate every method of peaceful resistance, the only choices INEVITABLY become chains or blood?
The Million Man March was portrayed in the press as a means of rallying violent protest against whites by Farrakahn. A march or protest itself is not violent, but imitating Farrakahn's ideology isn't a good idea.
And once again TGK is attributing thoughts to people here that I, for one, have not expressed and do not harbor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it doesn't much matter to me that Farrakhan is not viewed positively, in as far as how it relates to what we might do here. I hold little respect for the man personally because I regard him as a racist. That being said, what he DID do was organize (even if he had a lot of help) one of the largest demonstations of men with a cause ever held. And I have to give him credit for that. Scott says in another thread that we'd be better off calling politicians than organizing a demonstration. I agree that contacting politicians is valuable. But that's all very private in the sense that if I call my Congressman's office, or write him a letter, no one but me and him/his staff know about that letter. Other men who might be on the fence wondering whether this is just another fart in the wind or a real movement might just get off the fence if they see how many of their neighbors felt this way. And, if such a demonstration was to be actively supported by first and second (and later) wives, and by daughters as well as sons, its power would multiply.
This movement needs to grow. It needs to engage men who have, heretofore, been shackled and blinded by the feminine wiles cited by Greer. Two ways to get their attention are:
1) get them before they marry (like in college),
2) Wake them up by letting them know that their lurking discomfort is valid and being asserted by other men.
You can't do either of these things with a letter to your Congressman. You MIGHT be able to do it with a Letter to the Editor of your local newspaper, but few people really read them. You'll do much better if you can get on the six o'clock news.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And once again TGK is attributing thoughts to people here that I, for one, have not expressed and do not harbor.
Has to be asked: What makes you think this was directed at you in particular? If that is nowhere near your position, then why bristle?
I read few posts up and I can see someone saying - no begging - for people to wait until the doors start getting kicked in before we respond; to react instead of proact.
In this very post, Nightmist, with all due respect, you are advocating that very thing - perhaps not in so many words, but the message you are sending is: "Don't march. Don't rally. They might think we're violent." Then what pray tell do we do? I called about the bill in California - but since I live in Indiana they told me in very diplomatic Bureaucratese to "Fuck off."
I can casually peruse a goodly number of the large threads here and find - and granted, not from you necessarily and per se - those exact words I wrote. "Unchivalrous" "Stooping to their level" "Being like them" And so on. And so forth.
Along with resounding "Hear, hears!"
Don't take my word for it. Go ahead and look for yourself.
You're shooting the messenger.
The whole thing is people are getting damn tired of being told to "go home and wait till we call you." Read between the lines here, and you'll find that's where the frustration is. We call. We vote. We write letters. We speak.
We get put on hold. We get ignored. We get called whiners. We have our websites pulled because a pheminist complains. We get chartering denied by universities. Our applications to set up booths are denied. Our applications FOR PERMISSION to exercise our allegedly inalienable right to assembly peacably are mysteriously lost until 3 days after the due date. Our letters to the editor are never printed. Our newsletters are taken and thrown in dumpsters. We're called up before "Sexual Harassment" Star Chambers and kangaroo courts, and put on double-secret probation for expressing our opinion. We're targeted as troublemakers by prosecutors when we speak to the newspaper and mysteriously "audited."
You, and Scott, and Nazgul, and many others can go ahead and get crappy at people for feeling frustrated for getting to do nothing, for feeling like we're supposed to be just cheerleaders and yes men, but I notice when the response site to UNH was set up, we were told to basically cool our heels, wait, and do nothing.
Yeah, people do things and nobody shows up. I wonder why. I'd love to be able to drop everything at the drop of a hat and take a plane across the country - and do what? Hand out leaflets that the "Pheminazi Action Team" a block behind me are going to collect and burn? And I tell my job and my creditors what? And pay for the plane ticket, and a hotel how?
You know, more help might be forthcoming if people who lived a distance away had some notice - but that would turn into a Farrakhanian mob? I'm seriously not being sarcastic. Is that the reason?
Men are not followers by nature, NM, they want to feel like they are DOING something. And people in general get squirmy when they feel like they are being told "Send in money. Shut up. Do as you're told. Have no opinion."
And I'll grant you - no, one better, because I know in my heart that is not the message that you want to be sent, but if you will cool down and read between the lines with a little objectivity instead of getting defensive you will see that is the message a lot of people feel they receive.
I'm not going to tippy-toe. That's the way it looks, and all over the place. And you can go ahead and get upset, and moderate or ban me or other people from the boards or whatever, but it is not going to make it go away, just go underground.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has to be asked: What makes you think this was directed at you in particular? If that is nowhere near your position, then why bristle?
Because you've directed such posts at me before, especially when I've supported Scott or someone else over you.
I read few posts up and I can see someone saying - no begging - for people to wait until the doors start getting kicked in before we respond; to react instead of proact.
Proact is protest. React is violence.
In this very post, Nightmist, with all due respect, you are advocating that very thing - perhaps not in so many words, but the message you are sending is: "Don't march. Don't rally. They might think we're violent." Then what pray tell do we do? I called about the bill in California - but since I live in Indiana they told me in very diplomatic Bureaucratese to "Fuck off."
I didn't say don't march, don't protest. I said DON'T IMITATE FARRAKHAN. Big difference. Farrakhan, as Frank pointed out, is a racist. If we march, I will march, but not if that march is punctuated by rallying cries for violence as Farrakhan's was.
I can casually peruse a goodly number of the large threads here and find - and granted, not from you necessarily and per se - those exact words I wrote. "Unchivalrous" "Stooping to their level" "Being like them" And so on. And so forth.
Geez, you haven't been reading this site very long, have you? You are quite the snap judgement -maker. I am completely against chivalry. Always have been. The ONLY person to use the word "chivalry" or "unchivlarous" on this site is you.
You, and Scott, and Nazgul, and many others can go ahead and get crappy at people for feeling frustrated for getting to do nothing, for feeling like we're supposed to be just cheerleaders and yes men, but I notice when the response site to UNH was set up, we were told to basically cool our heels, wait, and do nothing.
Fine, TGK. If you want to do something, then organize the protest. Better yet, Frank, YOU organize it. It was your idea, after all. I'll join you if I think it's worthwhile. I've got vacation time coming to me I can use for it. If you're just going to use it as an opportunity to rant for violence, though, I'm out.
Men are not followers by nature, NM, they want to feel like they are DOING something. And people in general get squirmy when they feel like they are being told "Send in money. Shut up. Do as you're told. Have no opinion."
No, shit. That's why I DO things about what I feel are injustices, and not just fantasize about violent revolution. Btw, the only SUCCESSFUL violent revolution in history was the American Revolution. All the others turned into tyrannies.
I'm not going to tippy-toe. That's the way it looks, and all over the place. And you can go ahead and get upset, and moderate or ban me or other people from the boards or whatever, but it is not going to make it go away, just go underground.
Go wherever you want. I've already told you that you can have whatever opinions you want, I'm just sick of you using them as personal attacks against people who believe differently than you, not to mention attributing opinions to us when did not express and do not have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm calling you on the mat.
Go wherever you want. I've already told you that you can have whatever opinions you want, I'm just sick of you using them as personal attacks against people who believe differently than you, not to mention attributing opinions to us when did not express and do not have.
You know, I don't agree with you on a lot of stuff. Maybe even most of it. But this is a load of hogwash.
Mister, Look in the mirror.
You know, if this place is about being able to come together and be able to dissagree a hundred and eighty degrees with each other, then I haven't done anything like what has been said in your post here. It's unwarranted, uncalled for, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
If this place isn't for civil disagreement, then let's hear it right now. If this is the "let's be all warm and fuzzy and find a consensus and never dare to hold an opinion contrary to what someone has said first" then come out with it.
I'll tell you what I told Nazgul. I'm hard. I'm blunt. I'm undiplomatic. I'm coarse, and do not mince words; I won't say "sexual intercourse" when I can say "Fuck."
But you bring out here where I have called you names - where I have said, "Nightmist, you are a ____________" You find me a place where I have named you by name and been directly insulting and unvil to you, on a personal basis. Matter of fact, you find an instance here where I have been anything LESS that civil to you.
(And for the record, finding that I don't agree, think you're reasoning is illogical, or think something is a load of crap is being honest. If honesty offends you ... well, what can I say? Your call there, me bucko.)
You can't.
I've not done anything to merit this out of you. You talk about personal attacks? The way you behave here, you act like any disagreement with your position is a personal attack. And that's just plain wrong, and in no uncertain terms.
And that is the name of that tune.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But you bring out here where I have called you names - where I have said, "Nightmist, you are a ____________" You find me a place where I have named you by name and been directly insulting and unvil to you, on a personal basis. Matter of fact, you find an instance here where I have been anything LESS that civil to you.
You insulted this entire site on AUM. Insult the site, you insult everyone who supports it.
I've not done anything to merit this out of you. You talk about personal attacks? The way you behave here, you act like any disagreement with your position is a personal attack. And that's just plain wrong, and in no uncertain terms.
Check your post on AUM. I'm also not claiming your position is an attack on me. I'm claiming you attributing unrelated opinions to me BECAUSE I hold a certain position is an attack on me.
That said, I'm done with you. Hang around if you like. Post what you like. Disagree with me if you want. I don't care, really, just be civil about it and I won't be uncivil back to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you on choice three, Frank. I, too, was surprised by some of the responses to your proposal for a demonstration. The enormous marches on D.C. led by, among others, Martin Luther King, were extremely effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In order to sway public opinion and offset the media bias, we must be on the news with our message daily. If it takes blowing the brains out of a few family law attorney's, judges or D.A.'s to do it, then so be it."
No. Never. This is so disappointing. You have the right to be angry and the right to think whatever you want, Mr. Curry, but advocating murder is just plain wrong. I will no longer visit your website. I won't listen to your show. And I'll always remember that quote when I read one of your posts on this site.
Scott Garman got angry, but he didn't kill anyone. He started this terrific site. Glenn Sacks got angry, and he found a way to start raising awareness. I don't do anything as big as these guys. I just try to reach out to men within the university community I work in. I try to be a good role model. I think young men need that.
It only takes a few people to start a riot. The mob will take over from there. And when it's all over, there will be lots of talk, and some residual fear that might motivate people to change somehow, but the mob will still be the mob, and the people in power will still be shaking their heads at "those awful people."
Loving people, even the ones who wrong you, is the only answer for me. If we just took the time to be a little kinder to people then we'd see more kindness in the world. It's not just some corny kumbaya pipe dream. It's the truth. If we could just put our insecurities aside and get on with the business of loving people we could move mountains. Instead we're shoveling shit into the tide.
Well, I'm throwing my shovel away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 22, @10:17AM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
Just to comment on my perspective w.r.t. the race riots of the sixties, whether we like to admit it or not, those riots, along with the less peaceful protests against the Vietnam War SUCCEEDED in getting everyone's attention. Previously to that, broadcast media did what it was told by its owners, the General Electric's of the world. And as angry as people like my father got, watching the destruction and outright hatred for whites, he was forced to realize that something had to change. The race riots and the riots in Chicago in 1968 got the attention of everyone who only got news from network TV, who wouldn't read past the front page, and many who lived far enough from the cities to feel safely isolated.
Someone, somewhere spoke of a one-day strike, where everyone sympathetic to the cause takes a vacation day or a sick day, or otherwise stays home from work on the Friday before Father's Day (U.S.). On the one hand, I'd be frightened that no one would notice, and I suspect that the genfems will say no one noticed WHATEVER the outcome. But I'll plan on taking that day off regardless of whether or not anyone follows me. Further, if this idea has anyone's support, I'd be happy to send an email to everyone I know who might be interested in participating.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 22, @10:29AM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
And has anyone considered the attention Farrakhan got with the Million Man March? Is there any interest in organizing a Million Fathers March the Saturday before Father's Day? I know there are marches and demonstrations ON Father's Day, but frankly, guys, I still have children who want to spend that day with me in some activity that's mutually enjoyable. I suspect that many married fathers are in the same situation, so demonstrations ON FD are not going to be well-supported by custodial fathers. BUT the day BEFORE Father's Day is open to me and as I say, probably many other fathers. So if anyone is in a position to organize such a demonstration, again, I'd be happy to participate and spread the word in my community.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And has anyone considered the attention Farrakhan got with the Million Man March? Is there any interest in organizing a Million Fathers March the Saturday before Father's Day?
You DO remember that the attention Farrakhan got for that march was largely negative, don't you? He didn't change anything. All he did was increase hostility toward himself.
Father's Day is meant to honor our fathers, not start a war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cross-burning also got attention from people at one time, but it was the wrong sort of advocacy. It's a no-win proposition. Violence is an unfortunate consequence, not a legitimate strategy. I'm sure you know that. It's just where I'm coming from.
On a different day, the march would be an excellent idea, and I don't doubt it could happen eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...but so is advocating "Peace at any price."
It's bloody rough to sit around on the one hand hoping for the day when they go too far, and the backlash comes, and praying that one of your friends in the movement isn't the one the iron fist comes down on.
I'm going to submit to you this: The source of the urges for violence is not coming from the "wimmyn's" movement. It's coming from within the men's movement. Every time yet another atrocity - yes, atrocity - is committed by a pheminist or a phem-boy Quisling against a man, and someone gets up pleading for "peace and understanding" somewhere, someone goes "Oh, what a load of horsecrap! This is too much! Are we going to wait UNTIL they come and kick the doors in?"
There is violence being commited against men, and because it takes the form of economic indenturement and legal terrorism instead of seeing blood, people go "Oh, no, no! We aren't at that point yet!" Hogwash. How do you think this is enforced? How do you think men have their livlihoods robbed, and their freedom taken from them? It's at the end of the barrel of a gun. Submit to being incarcerated or be shot. Hand over half your paycheck or be shot.
You can dress this up with any rationalizations and hogwash you want, but that is the stark and unvarnished truth of the matter. I've seen it. I've been there, when I was falsely accused (Curious, when I proved myself innocent - thought I was presumed? - she never got hauled up on filing a false report.) and for other men I've helped in what I've come to regard as a ministry. The state comes in, with a gun, and says "Do this. Or else."
If *I* did that to you, I bet you'd be willing to call me violent. I bet given half a chance you'd probably blow me away. And you'd be dead right to.
Yet it seems like the men's movement is too timid to stand up, point a terrible accusing finger, and say in a voice echoing with righteous rage, "This is wrong. And you are monstrous for doing it." Sure, we get on these boards and preach it - TO THE CHOIR. But where is the public expressions?
It's a neat little trap we're in, and for the life of me it seems like everyone purposely looks anywhere but at reality. Remember when you were a kid? Remember that little girl - and we all have one somewhere - she threw rocks at you, ripped your hair out, kicked your shins with her patent leater shoes until it bled, swung her toy into your croth, bit you and broke the skin - and then the day came when all you did was push her down and say "Leave me alone!" and the next thing you knew, these adults who could barely be bothered when you were bleeding gathered around and said "You little BEAST! You ... hit ... a ... GIRL!"
And she stood behind them sneering and smirking through her crocodile tears, because she knew that she would be excused for anything. Because you were her bitch. You were her butt-monkey.
Tell me Nazgul; we hear often about marches, and demonstrations, and the like. Why are they so effective? What made them so effective for the pheminazis? It's a rhetorical question, and I have the answer right here: It's because any gathering, any assembly has the threat of violence behind it. What, you think the riot control squads, shipped in from surrounding areas, at the 40K - er, "Million Mom March" was there to protect that crowd of "peaceful wimmyn" against a handful of demonstrators against it? Again a rhetorical question, as I would never accuse you of being so naive.
Is violence THE answer? I'm pretty radical, but I even say "Not yet." But it is AN answer, and one which should not be taken off the table in the pre-negotiation phase. We'd be fools to.
Let's say sometime, you're in a place, and some shitheel starts hassling your buddy, or brother, or whoever. Are you seriously going to walk over there, and say something on the order of "Look you big bully, I'm never going to lift a hand against you no matter what, but stop it right now! It's wrong!"
Do you seriously think said shitheel is going to get some look of dawning comprehension of his face and say, "Heavens me! Whatever was I doing?! Or horrors, horrors! May God have mercy on me for my acts! Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!"? Because if you do, please let me know so we can have a talk about some future beachfront property in Nevada I happen to have for sale, as soon as I print up the deeds!
NO! He's going to look at you, curl his lip, and say, "Or what? Whatchoo gonna do about it ... bitch?" This will be in the brief moment before that card in you wallet listing your next of kin becomes very important.
I'd love nothing better than to love people. Hang on - waving my magic wand - nope - nope - nope. Darn the luck! See, it takes two people to have a love affair. You can love me all you want. Bully for you. But if I hate you, and want to - jeez, it's like one of these trailer trash hill-jack stupid bitches with two black eyes, a broken nose, a fat lip, and her ribs taped up in court refusing to press charges against her alcoholic - thing, (He's no man) saying "But I Loooooooooooove him!" Fine! But he's going to KILL you! That kind of love is NOT healthy. It's ... wrong. Just wrong in so many ways.
Gaah. If you are going to draw a line anywhere, you had better be prepared to back it up. Or you're at best going to look like a fool when they cross it and say, "Now what, tuff guy?" At worst you'll be another statistic. And backing it up means fists clenched, sword loose in the scabbard, and a full clip, round in the chamber, and safety off.
Otherwise you might as well go ahead and get measured for the shackles.
And I tell you another thing - the mob is not a failure of the mob, it's a failure of the leadership for inaction. I can think of no mob, no riot, where there haven't been "leaders" standing around saying, "No. No. This isn't the way." But know what isn't coming out of those leader's mouths? Answers for what IS the way. Right before the shit hits the fan, they all look curiously like Neville Chamberlain waving a scrap of toilet paper saying, "We have achieved peace in our time!"
But of course, it's the "mob's" fault.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...but so is advocating "Peace at any price."
It's bloody rough to sit around on the one hand hoping for the day when they go too far, and the backlash comes, and praying that one of your friends in the movement isn't the one the iron fist comes down on.
I, for one, am not advocating "peace at any price." I can't speak for anyone else on that. I am advocating peace until provocation. You return violence with violence (call me a wishful thinker, if you like, but I hope it never comes to that), not violence with outrage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My stand on all of this is pretty straightforward. In the 60s and early 70s, I didn't support riots and I didn't support cop-killing. Instead I was active in organizing peaceful demonstrations in Washington, D.C. Those demonstrations, some of which involved peaceful, civil disobedience, went a long way to end the Vietnam War and helped promote racial equality for African-Americans.
Though I did not support any form of violence, I still saw that riots also promoted an end to discrimination against blacks (it's not gone yet) and an end to the Vietnam War. At one point, the German Nazis could have been stopped by relatively peaceful means. Nevertheless, once they had conquered much of Europe, violence was necessary to stop them.
At this point, I suspect that we can accomplish what we need without the use of violence. Nevertheless, I think that, whether or not I oppose it, violence is coming if things don't turn around soon. And if it comes, I will view it as the fault of the oppressors. People in power should realize that, if they continue in the direction that they have been going, violence will result. We, however, can continue to turn things around through non-violent means.
There are people who will think that I support the use of violence because of these statements. All I can do is shrug and tell them they're wrong. I don't support violence. I do, however, know that its use can serve to overthrow oppression and that it is coming if things don't turn around soon.
We need to continue our focus on non-violent means of stopping the oppression of men and boys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can think of no mob, no riot, where there haven't been "leaders" standing around saying, "No. No. This isn't the way."
It is sad to say that the Christian and Political leaders opposed Dr. King's civil disobedience as a mechanism to change during the civil rights era. When King would have his demonstrations, they would be condemned by most Christian and political leaders everywhere. I remember being taught by my own church leaders how evil and wrong Dr. King's actions were. They would claim the time for freedom is not yet and encourage more prayer.
Gees. Last I remember God never came out of heaven and liberated the Blacks. They had to liberate themselves by fighting against the government.
Well the time for prayer is at an end. Canada has passed one of the most oppressive and violent laws of all time against men. It is violent to make false accusations against a man and hall them away at gunpoint! That is extremely violent! The time for action is now. It is time to flood the systems with nonviolent actions. If those systematically fail then nothing else is left but to fight for our rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo, that's an awfully long post with a lot to respond to, so I'll just be brief.
Yes, I know the girl you're talking about, and I've been her victim. In fact, I was victimized in about as terrible a way as is possible by a woman when I was in kindergarten. My father was also denied fair access to me and a real say in my life because of a vindictive grandmother. That has been immeasurably devastating. My best friend was falsely accused of violence by his girlfriend as well. So I know the routine.
I keep and carry a 9mm Beretta, so I'm not a seventh day peacenick either. If someone tries to hurt me or my wife, they'll be eating a lead slug for their trouble. But that's "if". I'm not going into the public housing project near my house tomorrow for a little preemptive intervention.
But no one is directing violence at me now. There is no gun to my head, no blade to my throat. I define violence as physical force, and everyone has a right to respond IN KIND. Civil disobedience and more speech are the only effective tools for advocacy that we can legitimately use at this point. Women did not have the right to vote until 1920, or get a fair shake in rape trials for that matter. But they did not organize lynch mobs and terror cells to get their way. They overcame a seemingly insurmountable challenge through protest and activism. They did NOT bomb churches to legalize abortion. They ran illegal undrground services instead.
We can use these measures to great effect, if history has taught us anything. And threats of bloodshed will only discredit our cause. It always does. What do people remember about the Black Panthers? Violence. The KKK? Violence. These kinds of people find themselves publicly disavowed by the very groups they claim to speak for. So don't think the same won't happen to you when you carry a rifle onto the steps of Congress. We will all suffer for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But no one is directing violence at me now. There is no gun to my head, no blade to my throat. I define violence as physical force, and everyone has a right to respond IN KIND.
Yep. I am well-trained in the use of many types of firearms, by the way. My dad saw to that when I was only 8 years old, and I owe him a great debt for it. I'm also a highly skilled archer. Mess with me, I'll mess back, but I'm not going to provoke harm against another human being because I disagree with him or her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I keep and carry a 9mm Beretta, so I'm not a seventh day peacenick either. If someone tries to hurt me or my wife, they'll be eating a lead slug for their trouble. But that's "if". I'm not going into the public housing project near my house tomorrow for a little preemptive intervention.
I just snipped a little out of your post as representative in spirit, and to let you know from whence I am responding.
Now, You pack a baretta. And you are willing to use it, too?
Hence, it is logical to believe that at a certain point, you believe that violence is a logical - indeed, the only logical response? How narrowly YOU may define it, there is that point?
Hence, I can conclude that violence, at some time becomes legitimate, in your eyes.
I pack a 45. I have never so much as drawn it, in twenty years. Outside of the military, I've never shot at anyone.
But if it comes to that, I will. And if they come for me, I will.
There's a lot of guys, Nazgul, for whom that time has come. They have come for them. They have taken their property, their children, and their freedom. They have taken their lives. For them, they now live in what you hope never becomes your future.
I have been rubricized as advocating violence by Nightmist, because I dared to say that if some guy blew up a NOW building, or something, that I'd be inclined to sympathize with him any other facts absent. And if on a jury, I'd probably vote not guilty, at least unless presented with compelling evidence otherwise. And frankly, and attempt or success by the prosecution to squash any reasons would be pretty damning to the state's case in my eyes.
Why? Because if what had been done to him matched what we read about all the time, he'd be justified. NOW BEFORE YOU SHAKE YOUR HEAD - If violence is done to you, you would feel justified in responding in kind?
If you have this right, doesn't he?
If he doesn't have this right, then by what justification do you have that gun? Because by that reasoning, you can never justify using it. If someone on whom violence has been committed - upon whom an act of personal warfare has been done- has no right to defend himself, then neither do you.
Now, Naz, you've responded civilly. And while a bit stern, I've not responded cruelly, but have been straight with you. Brutally straight, but square and honest. But those are questions you might want to think hard about, because if you aren't willing to accord another a use of their gun - or equivalent thereof - you might be hesitant to use yours, and that would just be an excuse for them to shoot you - and later kick it on the floor, saying, "See, look what he had..."
Violence is a terrible thing. But it is either legitimate - OR NOT. This question is black and white.
The question I ask of people, is at what point is that critical mass going to be, that men will stop being hung seperately and start hanging together, rather than just looking out for number one?
And I don't think those are irrational or inappropriate questions to ask.
That ain't being mean, mis ami. It may very well not be being kind, but it ain't being mean.
Cheers. And think about it.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The question I ask of people, is at what point is that critical mass going to be, that men will stop being hung seperately and start hanging together, rather than just looking out for number one?
Being the individualist I am, I believe looking out for yourself is critically important. I also believe that groups (like the men's movement) can have individual goals and attain them. I ALSO believe, however, members of said groups are individuals and are going to have different opinions.
I (as well as *almost* everyone else) have already said that there are points at which violence becomes necessary. I think you are correct that it is safe to say we disagree on when those points occur. Just because we disagree on that DOES NOT mean that I am any less of an activist or any less inclined to do something about the state of affairs. I'll just do it a different way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 24, @08:21PM EST (#104)
|
|
|
|
|
I have been rubricized as advocating violence by Nightmist, because I dared to say that if some guy blew up a NOW building, or something, that I'd be inclined to sympathize with him any other facts absent.
Damn. That is the last thing the men's movement needs is some public terrorist act. If that happens, NOW will move in it's power without limitation to further criminalize men in the name of peace and safety. They will have laws that if a man goes to work unshaven or with an odor to have them arrested and prosecuted as a danger to society.
I have already listened to this type of psychobabble taught at work. They already teach that in order to avoid workplace violence we must ostracize men that have hygiene problems for any reason.
They consider that a certain sign that the man will turn a gun on his fellow employees. All they need is a law that allows them to arrest that man and charge him with attempted murder.
Gees. That means that if I pull a couple of all-nighters, look unshaven too often, have a little odor, and if that happens too frequently, they view me as a ticking bomb ready to kill the fellow employees.
There was an entire series taught by Pacific Care on this topic. It is no joke. How many of us have pulled overnighters to meet a deadline?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every day there is a man killed because of the courts system, EVERY DAY. And every day I b1tch and complain about it while most people sit on their fat asses and say nothing. So call me violent, claim I support murder, but realize, those that don't speak up when the system continually kills men, are supporting murder daily. So who's the advocate of violence sir?
Who are you accusing of sitting around and doing nothing? HOW long have you been visiting this site?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one here meets the criterica of "Most People" that I'm aware of.
Thanks for clarifying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Curry,
Since the tone of this posting area has gotten angry as of late, I just want to start by making sure that I state that I'm not trying to attack or shame you. I simply was trying to respond clearly and firmly to that part of your posting that I took issue with.
No, you didn't SAY "Go out and murder," but you did say "so be it," and when I posted a response that used your quote I don't feel like I used it out of context or manipulated it. I don't think I was stretching things at all to assert that you were advocating violence. I DID see your later post where you stated that you're not a violent person, but I just don't feel like it wipes away what you posted before that.
I tried to be thoughtful and clear when I wrote my post. I tried to avoid putting words in your mouth or making assertions about you beyond what you wrote. But what you wrote seemed pretty straightforward: you were advocating murder.
If others who have been reading this feel like I jumped ahead of things or assumed too much about what Mr. Curry wrote, I honestly would like to hear it. I'd like Mr. Curry to see it, too. He deserves that.
If that's not the case, then I hope, Mr. Curry, you would see it and that you would just take responsibility for what you wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Today, for the very first time in my life I was truly frightened. I overheard a private conversation after reading this page. The conversation between two men included the words "...need to raise an army. It'll be war."
Here we talk of many things and often our anger shows through. Many of us have every right to be angry: The government's position is a threat to all people by threatening the very lives of all males. Yet, there is here a touch of civility.
In civil war there is not civility. For those of us who have been in a firefight... There are not words to express those thoughts. I pray God that we find a peaceful way to force the government into seeing all people as worthy of human rights. Yet, I heard those words and the skin up and down my back still crawls.
Please I beg you: Think. Violence is the path of last resort when all other options including flight are gone. Flee first. Flee rather than fight for in war there is madness and that path must only be trod when all others are blocked. All other paths are not as of yet blocked. There is hope.
Yes, I know the hope is dim and distant. Yet it is there. There are people who see the problems and the size of the fight ahead to get all people raised to human status. We must fight with words and non-violent protest. March and strike: Not march and shoot.
Greg, in fear,
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please I beg you: Think. Violence is the path of last resort when all other options including flight are gone. Flee first. Flee rather than fight for in war there is madness and that path must only be trod when all others are blocked. All other paths are not as of yet blocked. There is hope.
A thought for you, Greg:
"Count Erskyll said nothing for a moment. He was opposed to the use of force. Force, he believed, was the last resort of incompetence; he had said so often enough since this operation had begun. Of course, he was absolutely right, though not in the way he meant. Only the incompetent wait until the last extremity to use force, and by then, it is usually too late to use anything, even prayer."
-- A Slave Is A Slave by H. Beam Piper
What, do you actually think any of us *LIKE* this idea?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting thing about oppression, and that is that the percieved power of an oppressing body is directly correlated to how much oppressive treatment it's victims will tolerate before attempting to fight it. This applies to everything from the size of the neighborhood bully, to how many nukes you think your government has stocked away.
The american colonists were never so badly treated by the King as men in Canada are today by their government, (or the men in today's US for that matter either). Yet they managed to organize a revolution over it, whereas it's hard to get the men of Canada to even utter a defiant word over the Ontario Domestic Violence Intervention Act. What differences exist between these two times that promote such a dichotemy in the actions of the underpriveledged?
For starters, the percieved power of the British to control the colonists was likely not as great as the percieved power of Canada today to control it's citizens. The people who made up the colonies had weapons of comparable power to their government, they outnumbered the British soldiers in America, Britian's military might appeared to be overstretched in other foriegn territories, and any backup troops Britian had were an ocean away. In short, they realized that if and when worse came to worst and they ended up in a war they had a fighting chance. It's because of this realization that they would riot if they felt they were being treated unfairly by even so much as the tax on tea. Indeed, the feeling that they had the power to defend themselves was blatently obvious in the oft heard quote of the day, "How can an island control a continent?" I've yet to hear of the citizens of any country who's military has the full scale of today's modern weoponry utter a sentiment such as this.
Of course other factors seem to exist which explains the difference in the actions of today's Canadian man and the 18th century American colonist. The colonist were never socialized to folow a code of chivalry towards the British elite. They didn't live in a world where they were constantly being told that they had oppressed the British upper class throughout all history. Nobody ever such felt guilt about being a colonist that they acted as if they had to prove their innocence of colonial sins, that they weren't like other colonists.
However, the situation with the British upperclass benefitting from the King's extortion of colonial property does not directly correlate with today's Canadian women benefitting from Ontario's lawmakers. The key difference is the King was not himself a colonist.
To the women of Ontario who want to see men's rights to their own property protected, I suggest you make yourselves some money and start dating these politicians. Any men here from Ontario who can help gather up some eyewitnesses for these women should they need them?
How long do you think it would take for these politicians to repeal this law once they were the victims of it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The conversation between two men included the words "...need to raise an army. It'll be war."
Greg. This is exactly the kind of talk that I heard just prior to the Rodney King riots in L.A. After learning of how the verdict was reached by a white jury I do not blame them for the riots. There was no other option left. It was outrageous for that all white jury to rule against Mr. King. So, what is left after the justice system systematically fails?
Even now I as a male am facing false charges of violence where there was none. The laws are so corrupt that I have little hope for justice. If I am able to prove my innocence, I may still be convicted due to the feminist lies that have been taught. Currently, nobody believes that a man has the right to defend themselves from violent drug-crazed females. If they do believe it the laws are so corrupt that they make you a criminal simply because you are a man.
Finally, I have been talking to many other men about these laws. They have many horror stories of re-education camps, false arrest, and false allegations. What is left when the justice system systematically fails?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 22, @02:10PM EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
flee first, you say. run, hide, all in the name of peace. you tell us that if we are not being heard, if nothing we do keeps our rights from being trampled on it is better to crawl away and lick our thick skins.
but what good are rights when they no longer exist? what good is freedom if it is only in a dream? resistance has held many faces over time. but if talk holds no recourse, action must be taken if there is to be any hope of equality.
peace is a wonderful thing that we must strive towards. and if we are sincere in our desire to pursue it we must protect our fundamental rights and freedoms as people, preferrably with words and and peaceful actions. but we should not back down from the necessary actions required to maintain these rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion about the use of violence is amazingly similar to discussions we had in Students for a Democratic Society. My attitude about the use of violence was the same then as it is now -- violence may speed the end of oppression, but we can, somewhat more slowly perhaps, accomplish the same peacefully. I preferred and prefer the peaceful route. Even though it's somewhat slower, I think we end up better off.
Eventually, SDS split into a politically somewhat centrist group involved in peaceful, civil disobedience and the extremist, violent Weathermen. For several years in their own ways, both continued their acts to stop racism and the war, though by the end the Weathermen struck me as simply a bunch of wackos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still interested in the direction this whole digression has taken. There's so much here to observe and think about. I'm okay with the dissonance that's been created here, as long as people learn something from it.
About this pissing contest...hey Nightmist, that's a nice arc, brotha'! ;) TGK, you may not care, but I feel like it's important to point out that Nightmist has really grown in terms of how he posts on this site. Nightmist doesn't know this, but I complained about him to Scott several months ago. Why? Because his postings back then were a lot like yours are now. They were angry and negative (not all the time) and that negativity made me not want to listen to him. I was concerned that it might be turning people away from the site, so I voiced this concern to Scott.
The readership here is considerably larger, now, so I don't worry about your postings having the same effect, TGK, but I would extend the same challenge to you. Can't you reduce the level of venom? I want you to feel like you can voice your anger, and I think you have something to offer people who visit here, but I question how you're combining the two things. You are not a worthless poster, but you could be so much more effective!
And it's NOT just talk, you guys. You're doing good things. What people read and learn about here raises awareness, and that's the first step. Then they can move along the continuum to action, and they're doing that, too. They're writing letters and calling and changing how they consume, and that's all stuff that can be done with a clean conscience. Don't downplay it.
Like I said in my first post on this thread, Scott, and Nightmist, and Glenn, and others have all gotten angry and channeled that anger into positive action. We all can do it somehow. Find your way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
About this pissing contest...hey Nightmist, that's a nice arc, brotha'! ;)
Lots of practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 22, @07:49PM EST (#79)
|
|
|
|
|
Any accusation by a female equals automatic shackling of males?
I LOVE IT!!
Coming to a nation near you soon.
I’m pleased our northern neighbors have finally begun to dispense with even the sham of “justice” for males.
I sincerely hope this bill passes, and that even more monstrous injustices are perpetrated by the matriarchy. The more and sooner, the better.
Let’s put the little dicks in cages right after birth, so they never taste freedom. We’ll only let ‘em out to fight our wars and do our dirty, dangerous work.
Like running into burning buildings when Towers go down.
And they will go down.
Methinks at last we are beginning to Get It.
Gonzo -- “There's a lot of guys, Nazgul, for whom that time has come. They have come for them. They have taken their property, their children, and their freedom. They have taken their lives. For them, they now live in what you hope never becomes your future.”
Yes indeed. And that’s the crux of this discussion. Most North American males are still sufficiently invested in – and protected by – the Machine. No matter how onerous and blatant the oppression of OTHER males, well, things aren’t really that bad, let’s all just cool out ‘cause my mortgage payment is due tommorrow and I’m hoping to get laid Saturday night.
Then there are the males who have already been crushed by the matriarchy, and have seen the innocent massacred everywhere around them. They have washed their hands of the foul monsters America and Canada have become. They will no longer work on Maggie’s Farm. They will not pay taxes, take jobs (already taken by females anyway), teach children, make nice at the grocery store, or attend the local street fair and pretend it’s all good.
It’s not a one-issue situation, whether of paternity or domestic violence or employment discrimination or circumcision or feminized judges. The rot is omnipresent, and the System is not going to change. Males are its food.
The misandry is systemic, pervasive and far too deep to reverse by polite requests. Write your congressman seeking justice and relief?? Jeezus K Rist! He (or she) is your KEEPER, not your advocate.
Nazgul – “There is no gun to my head, no blade to my throat.”
Maintain that illusion if you wish, but the most effective violence is that which carries full deniability. To use merely one example: at this very instant, if I am a North American woman or child, I can pick up the phone, and the chances are very high that within a couple months you will be handcuffed and trucked to prison. Rules of evidence and due process applicable to males diminishes with each passing day.
While in prison – as with tens of thousands of your brothers – you will be beaten, sodomized and tortured, routinely and with relish (maybe mustard too). When you get out – if you get out – I assure you that you will no longer need a gun held to your head to understand, quite viscerally, that you are subject to violence on an ongoing basis by the matriarchal State, at will of the matriarchal State.
War is already here. It is unilateral, and it has been made upon you, and others, for decades now. If you wish to believe otherwise, fine.
Nightmist – “You insulted this entire site on AUM. Insult the site, you insult everyone who supports it.”
Really? You are the Group, and the Group is you, Mist? Forgive me if I speak for myself. You are not the collective conscience of this site, and neither is young Scott. I’m very glad this site exists, and I support it in many ways, at my discretion. But I’m not in the least insulted by Gonzo’s opinions. Indeed, the weakness of this site is that it partakes too much of the group mentality and subtle shaming so favored by … well, you get the point.
The shackles have always been there, brothers – we just refused to see them. I want every male in North America to know his shackles better than his own name.
Let us be chained for all to witness, that wrath, when it comes, is not mistaken.
O Canada!! No longer do we stand on guard for thee. You are officially on your own. Not even heaven will help you now.
stormcrow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Really? You are the Group, and the Group is you, Mist?
Ummm, if you were actually reading my post, you'd see that he didn't insult ME personally on AUM, he insulted mensactivism.org. He suggested on AUM that the people here at mensactivism.org are "chivalrous," etc., etc. If you consider yourself a supporter of this site, then I would think that includes you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 23, @12:43AM EST (#81)
|
|
|
|
|
As previously posted, I don’t “consider” myself a supporter of this site -- I have demonstrated support in word and deed. Can provide evidence if you truly wish to pursue the point.
You wrote: “Insult the site, you insult everyone who supports it.”
That’s quite a universal statement. It assumes omniscience of the internal state of hundreds of posters to this site.
It is not only an authoritarian statement, suggesting that you are the site’s conscience, it's also rather totalitarian -- such criticism will not be tolerated, and will be met with a response of Group disapproval for the “insult,” by “everyone who supports [the site].”
That effectively isolates anyone crtitical of the site, placing them in … well, I’ll be damned … the position of the scapegoat.
Another poster’s criticisms of the site DO NOT automatically insult me. That is an enormous, and erroneous, assumptive leap, smacking of censorship by group pressure.
Stupid me, I thought that's what we were resisting.
I’m fully capable of defending myself from charges of “chivalry,” or anything else for that matter. I’d appreciate it if you allowed me to decide when, and if, I have been insulted.
Who knows, maybe other folks also would like to feel for themselves.
Ya think?
Ummm.
stormcrow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahem, stormcrow. What you *don't* understand is that TGK's post on AUM was itself a UNIVERSAL statement about people who visit and support mensactivism.org. I should have used that phrase instead of the word "insult," perhaps.
What I was defending, stormcrow, is the fact that PEOPLE HERE DO THINK FOR THEMSELVES! Geez, how hard is that to see? I'm not speaking for you or anybody else when I say that TGK's statement was a universal one. It was.
That said, this is the end of this discussion for me. If you want to continue it, you may argue with yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 24, @08:28PM EST (#105)
|
|
|
|
|
.....if I am a North American woman or child, I can pick up the phone, and the chances are very high that within a couple months you will be handcuffed and trucked to prison. Rules of evidence and due process applicable to males diminishes with each passing day....
This is exactly what most American males don't get. Their rights to due process are so diminished that they can be prosecuted without any supporting evidence on a mere accusation. There is no other more important message that the men's movement must communicate. This is it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was kind of hoping the posts would go just a little more, just to see the first thread ever to break the century mark. It's petty, but it's also a fun, small way of measuring how far this site has come. When I first started visiting here an item that got ten posts was a "hot topic." Now I routinely see threads get thirty or more. But 100?
I can just picture Scott, climbing over his piles of unfinished work and copies of Why Men Are the Way They Are, past his autographed framed picture of Tim "the Tool Man" Allen (c'mon Scott, I know you've got one somewhere) to graph this moment on the History of MANN timeline he's got on his wall.
Ok, so I made all that up. But it's gotta' make you chuckle a little...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 23, @11:07AM EST (#85)
|
|
|
|
|
Well Rams, it made me chuckle a little :)
Thanks
Remo the REMARKABLE who will remark soon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was kind of hoping the posts would go just a little more, just to see the first thread ever to break the century mark. It's petty, but it's also a fun, small way of measuring how far this site has come. When I first started visiting here an item that got ten posts was a "hot topic." Now I routinely see threads get thirty or more. But 100?
We've actually hit 100 (and beyond) before, but I don't recall which thread it was. Couldn't have been more than a couple of months ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This argument about the use of violence won't destroy the men's movement. It's a topic that will come up more frequently as the matriarchy more brutally oppresses men and little boys. As I said above, I've seen this argument before, in the anti-war and civil rights movement during the 60s and early 70s.
Violence by men in response to their vicious oppression is already widespread, but manifested primarily as suicide. It is, therefore, mostly ignored. This will probably change. When oppressed groups rise up, it's pretty normal for some to become violent, with their violence directed against others. We'll have to deal with this fact.
Personally, I don't expect to change my belief that non-violent protest is the best route. Though violence may speed reform, it also usually gets out of control, and it is a fearsome, ugly thing.
So let our oppressors, the genfems, laugh about this discussion. We just have to deal with their ceaseless lies as well as explosive outbursts by some men who undergo a breakdown as a result of being too horribly crushed for far too long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 23, @10:36PM EST (#87)
|
|
|
|
|
Remo: Very funny. One more REMARK like that and I’ll have to “moderate” ya.
Speak! Oh, I see your ploy now. You’re stalling until number 100, aren’t you? Scott’s giving away a toaster.
Frank H. : “This thread has gotten WAAAYYYYY out of hand ... we should cut out the pissing contest or just meet in a central location and duke it out, once and for all.”
Why is it WAAAYYYYY out of hand? Because someone dared criticize the site or admin? That's a pretty thin threshold of free speech.
I haven't seen any personal threats here -- aside from your "duke it out" suggestion.
Again, perhaps the problem is not so much with explosive extremists, but rather with the dissonance created in "moderate" folks who support the same System that smashes their brothers? The kneejerk reaction, rather than self-assessment, is to quash dialogue and barbecue a couple likely scapegoats.
One thing I learned in the military was never to offer to "duke it out" with folks who have nothing to lose.
Frank H.: “We have a common opponent. I imagine the trolls are havng a good time laughing at this one.”
That would be foolish in the extreme. Only the least perceptive among them are laughing. The others are starting to wonder just how long their bullyboys can wield the cage and whip. They are beginning to understand that resistance to the matriarchy is no longer a game, and that unilateral slaughter will not last forever.
Thomas: “We just have to deal with their ceaseless lies as well as explosive outbursts by some men who undergo a breakdown as a result of being too horribly crushed for far too long.”
I don’t see any breakdowns here. I feel o.k. about expressing my experiences and opinions with whatever level of passion seems warranted. Dunno about gonz, but somehow I don't picture him crumbling into a pile of fractured rhetoric.
Ever work with schizophrenics? I have. The ones you have to worry about are the calm, well-reasoned smilers. As soon as you turn around to open their door, the hairpin goes in your back.
La Dilda Bandana
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t see any breakdowns here.
Neither do I. I'm talking about the real thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 24, @01:19AM EST (#89)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Violence by men in response to their vicious oppression is already widespread, but manifested primarily as suicide. It is, therefore, mostly ignored. This will probably change. When oppressed groups rise up, it's pretty normal for some to become violent, with their violence directed against others. We'll have to deal with this fact.
All due respect, Thomas, I have to disagree that suicide is a manifestation of the type of violence we are discussing here. Having been suicidal myself a number of times, I can tell you that those feelings most often come out of hopelessness and despair, not out of rage and anger, both of which most often fuel violence against others.
Just a point I wanted to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can tell you that those feelings most often come out of hopelessness and despair, not out of rage and anger, both of which most often fuel violence against others.
I don't expect men to engage in large scale rioting in the near future, though we may see violent outbursts from otherwise peaceful demonstrations. I've seen that before. However, it may not be long before men, who have decided to end their suffering in this manner (suicide), start more frequently to take judges, attorneys, social workers and ex-wives along with them. Even that has started. A couple weeks ago there was an article in the Rocky Mountain News about an attorney who specialized in divorce, almost exclusively took on female clients and was very successful in getting extremely high financial settlements from ex-husbands as well as draconian custody rulings. The day before the article was printed, someone shot him in the face through an office window. The police immediately started looking at the ex-husbands of this attorney's clients as the most likely suspects. I don't know what's happened since then, because I read this just before I left for eight days and haven't read or heard anything about it since.
Despair that leads to suicide can lead to violence against others. I read a few months ago, a statement by a psychologist about the epidemic of suicide/murders by men and boys in this country. The psychologist pointed out that many people are worried about the associated murders and said, "Stop the suicides and you'll stop the murders." I think the change we may start seeing soon in the way that men and boys respond to their oppression and despair will be a decrease in the percentage of lone suicides and an increase in the percentage of murder/suicides.
And just for the record, again, I don't support or promote violence. I just think there's a good chance things will evolve more and more the way I just described.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 24, @01:26PM EST (#95)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, all:
Thanks for all your interesting posts and POV. I'll give you my take on all this. I'll try to make it short and sweet and to the point.
First, I agree with Thomas and quite a few others that violence of some sort or another is almost certainly coming in the next twenty years or so: esp. if nothing is done to reconcile the group divisions within our society, of which men are only the most general and second-largest of those groups.
Violence , of course, has both a good side and bad side: Sometimes it (or the threat of it) brings people to the negotiating table. And sometimes it spirals out of control as in the Rodney King riots (noticed, but even I don't get the point, and all the publicity was negative. Anything for $ I guess) or the Baltimore riots in the late sixties. These largely drove out the Baltimore Jewish community, who have been replaced with the Koreans, so what was accomplished? My city is , in almost every measurable way worse off than it was then.
I guess my larger point is that violence is inevitable if people get pushed too far, and that it can be positive or negative in terms of outcome.
Now in general there are a few conflicting currents in the general political atmosphere that I think the movement should be aware of at all times, lest we become like our oppressors:
A. The perversion of "civil rights" and civil-rights groups into group politics. This is partly aggrivated by our basic "open borders" policy, and the fact that people don't seem to realize that in order to secure rights to the citizens of your state, country, whatever, you have to control who can be a citizen and have some sort of common culture-- at least as to how the government should work!
B. The continuing psycholization and medicalization of everything.
C. The "victim" mentality of so many of todays women and men. Its one thing to be a temporary victim of circumstance or crime-- its another to base your identity and self-image on victimhood.
D. The fact that family law has been perverted in nearly every civilized country in the western world. In the US, it bears absolutely no resemblance to what it was even thirty years ago, and with "guilty until proven innocent" being the method of law, it turns US rights assumptions on their head and does handsprings.
E. Scientific advances are rapidly making humans redundant. Both the artificial intelligence fields, and the reproductive health fields pose enormous dangers to humans and human relations and human jobs.
F. There are few places to flee. Modern collectivist feminism has its tentacles in nearly every civilized country all around the world, from Japan to the Australian outback. Whats worse , is that, due to the fact that they never had RIGHTS for their citizens that weren't legislated into existence (unlike US rights which are assumed ) these other countries are farther along into making their citizens their slaves -- particularily their male citizens.
F. AND MOST IMPORTANT: Recognize that in nearly every large group movement of the last 100 years (mainstream feminism included) there has been ONE dominant philosophy in the background: Socialism, the system by where individuals are stripped of their rights and property, and these things given to the state or group. I'm not the first to say this even in this thread, but I'm begging you all (even the trolls) to consider it. Don't let our movement shift responsibility from ourselves for the choices we make. Try to make sure that whatever we do legislatively it fits in with the basic ideas of human dignity and freedom of choice.
I think this site has lots to offer the movement. It has inspired me to write a few letters, sign a few petitions, talk to other males, and now that my situation is better, I can start putting some money into good causes. I have faint hopes, but at least I have some hopes. And thats important-- to me, at least.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 24, @04:22PM EST (#96)
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist: “That said, this is the end of this discussion for me. If you want to continue it, you may argue with yourself.”
Arguing with myself. Alright! Finally, my area of expertise.
Again, thanks for permission to speak, and to decide for myself when a discussion is ended. It is a comfort to know that you are a principal moderator of this site.
“Ahem, stormcrow. What you *don't* understand is that TGK's post on AUM was itself a UNIVERSAL statement about people who visit and support mensactivism.org. I should have used that phrase instead of the word "insult," perhaps.”
Well, if we’re weighing those things I do understand against those I don’t, then I'm fucked. The latter category is fat, the former starved.
My comments to you were based on your manifest statements in this thread. Now you inform me that you really meant to say something else, and imply not only that I should have been aware of posts on AUM by one TGK -- whoever that is -- but that I also should have been aware of what you really meant to say, as opposed to what you did say.
By that logic, you should then also be aware of what I really mean to say, rather than what I do say. I may then call you to task for being unaware of what I really meant, in addition to your unconsciousness of other factors at third remove.
That’s kinda asking a lot, bro. I'll send ya a postcard when I achieve omniscience.
“Having been suicidal myself a number of times, I can tell you that those feelings most often come out of hopelessness and despair, not out of rage and anger, both of which most often fuel violence against others.”
Disagree. Rage and anger are internalized at mass levels in the modern Western male, and they are the chief contributors to skyrocketing suicide amongst same, as well as a cornucopia of other self-destructive behaviors.
Western cultures, and America in particular, not only promote internalization of rage in males, they carefully instill it, manipulate it, and then use it as a tool of control, power, and mass scapegoating.
Circumcision is a textbook case of how this is accomplished. As I’ve discussed these tactics in great detail elsewhere, I will spare the poor reader a reiteration.
Hopelessness and despair come later, after the rage has been suppressed for a sufficient length of time.
I'm not your enemy, Mist, much as it may seem so -- nor would you wish such a thing.
Remo: “There are few places to flee.”
It’s a closed-loop planet, ‘mo, ain’t nowhere to go. Either we bring heaven here, or we remain in this living hell.
Remo: “I have faint hopes, but at least I have some hopes.”
Hopelessness is merely another shackle of the Powers. They seek to wear you down through despair. I trust you will not permit that.
On my word, I promise you that you will be released, as will all your brothers, and no Power in the universe can delay that forever -- nor, indeed, much longer.
The short run will be ugly -- very ugly. Civilization will not loose its Nigger willingly.
The long run? Well, as they say in the Province of Shackles – eets a beauty, eh?
stormcrow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My comments to you were based on your manifest statements in this thread. Now you inform me that you really meant to say something else, and imply not only that I should have been aware of posts on AUM by one TGK -- whoever that is -- but that I also should have been aware of what you really meant to say, as opposed to what you did say.
TGK = The Gonzo Kid. My sincere apologies if your reading comprehension skills are below par. You attacked me not even knowing the full story. Considering my comments to TGK were related to comments he made on another site, and you were commenting on THOSE comments, it is not unreasonable for me to believe you made yourself aware of the full story. I suppose you didn't and were simply being antagonistic.
I'm not your enemy, Mist, much as it may seem so -- nor would you wish such a thing.
Now we're issuing threats?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 24, @05:10PM EST (#98)
|
|
|
|
|
La Dilda: "I'm not your enemy, Mist, much as it may seem so -- nor would you wish such a thing."
Nightmist: “Now we're issuing threats?”
I’m not a we, just a me -- nothing royal about it.
Pretty sloppy grammar for a journalist.
I’ll work on my reading comprehension, you work on your self-comprehension.
The threat is inside you.
Moderate that.
I’m not looking to kill myself, nor anyone else.
la dilda
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty sloppy grammar for a journalist.
Actually, "we" is perfectly acceptable there because I was discussing the conversation between two people (you and I, presuming La Dilda and stormcrow are one and the same). Want me to refer you to the specific page in Harbrace?
I’m not looking to kill myself, nor anyone else.
Well, then, perhaps you should've simply stayed out of the battle between me and TGK before you decided to turn threatening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 24, @05:39PM EST (#100)
|
|
|
|
|
I'll enter into battle at my own choosing.
Your continued portrayal of me as threatening remarkably mirrors the tactics feminism uses to silence dissent.
Someone doesn't agree with me? Someone challenges my statements, my website, my beliefs?
They're threatening me. Poor, helpless, innocent me.
Call the police and bring the shackles.
Scottie, help me!! He's being mean.
Stop looking for threats in others, and you will see the self-destruction in yourself.
la dilda
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your continued portrayal of me as threatening remarkably mirrors the tactics feminism uses to silence dissent.
YOU are the one who said that I shouldn't "wish to make an enemy" of you. How else shall I take that but as threat?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 24, @07:37PM EST (#102)
|
|
|
|
|
As a comfort, as it implies we are currently brothers-in-arms.
I wish you no ill will and respect your resolve and unflagging efforts, especially concerning the boys of this nation.
I came for the war-party. Those are my spots and calling them stripes changes nothing and aids no-one.
I learned something -- that's worth a bit of contention, no?
Where's my toaster?
See ya in electoheaven.
ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish you no ill will and respect your resolve and unflagging efforts, especially concerning the boys of this nation.
Very well, Ray. I suppose all I can do is accept your word on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Thomas that there may well be a relationship between suicide and rage. The unseen fuel for anger and rage is hurt and expectation. Deal with the hurt and expectation and the rage shifts as the rage shifts the depression can shift. Those who ignore their hurt will amplify their pain.
There are many who feel that suicide reflects our national shadow that has been projected onto our young boys and older men. I tend to agree with this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 25, @02:31AM EST (#108)
|
|
|
|
|
All due respect, Thomas, I have to disagree that suicide is a manifestation of the type of violence we are discussing here. Having been suicidal myself a number of times, I can tell you that those feelings most often come out of hopelessness and despair, not out of rage and anger, both of which most often fuel violence against others.
I am sorry Nightmist to hear that you experienced this struggle. This is a tough one and over the years I have come to understand it. I understand the diverse pressures that lead on such a choice. However, that is a matter for another topic.
I would dissagree with you on this matter. It is my belief that attempting to commit suicide is the simgle most violent act that an individual can inflict upon themselves. By its very nature it is an inheritly violent act. I know this by witnessing the results of the act.
Please forgive more for confronting you on this matter. I hope it will not offend you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People I hate to point out the simple fact that we are currently in the midst of a violent men's movement. As with most riots the problem is that the people who are most hurt by the violence are the very people who are being suppressed. The true victims in the black race riots were other blacks. The male riots are also hurting men not helping.
In addition the last thing we need is more violence that can be used by radical fems to show that men are animals.
The true change in any movement started in the colleges and universities around our nation. They are the places that we need to plant the seeds of the men's movement.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 25, @03:54AM EST (#110)
|
|
|
|
|
Ever wonder why women aand men are played against each other? Perhaps laws like this are meant to destroy intimacy and trust in a relationship. This relationship being the one that generally has the most of these two quatlities, over and above others. Then again mabye there really is no one egging us on.
Buck_Rogers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 25, @03:58AM EST (#111)
|
|
|
|
|
>"I'm not your enemy, Mist, much as it may seem so -- nor would I wish such a thing."
The non threatening way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
