|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
taken out of context, one can manipulate words to serve any purpose. goodness. these NOW people just don't stop, do they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @08:39AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
There's an old adage in Hollywood that goes somethihng like "I don't care what they say in the papers, as long as they get my name spelled right." NOW is legitimizing the men's movement by doing this and we ought to celebrate a little when this stuff happens, because I suspect there are a fair number of people who read the NOW web page who are not necesarily NOW supporters (as some of us do, here.) I look at this as a good thing :-)
Congratulations, Scott. The enemy has noticed.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott you devil, amoungst the big boys now. Keep up the good work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @09:22AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
This is good news. It means that your work isn't going unnoticed.
Keep up the good work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I, too, am glad that they've taken notice of you, Scott. Congratulations. As for NOW taking the statement out of context, that's just another form of lying. Expect more of it from them.
Q: What is the sound of one genfem speaking the truth?
A: Silence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @09:25AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I see this as a recognition that NOW sees you as a threat, and they're out to smear your image before you become well known like Warren Farrell or Mel Feit.
Watch out, Scott. They will use any means necessary to vilify you. Be on your guard, and don't get cocky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I see this as a recognition that NOW sees you as a threat, and they're out to smear your image before you become well known like Warren Farrell or Mel Feit."
hey scott, i'd buy your books.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your comments, Anon. I'm flattered to be associated with Farrell and Feit, and don't think it's deserved. But I will take your advice seriously.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your comments, Anon. I'm flattered to be associated with Farrell and Feit, and don't think it's deserved. But I will take your advice seriously.
Scott, you most certainly deserve to be associated with those in the men's movement who have made (and continue to make) a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Congrats Scott Falwell. ;)
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know the exact documentation for this quote: "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
I've seen it on a bunch of sites, but it always just says it's Robin Morgan. It never says where it came from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you have an organization that is a morally vacant as the National Organization for Women, any truth is scary.
If you speak the truth, you expose their lies and threaten their privilege. That scares them.
Welcome to the enemies club. Expect the vandalism, terrorism, and smear campaigns from them now.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Way to go Scott! You have NOW become one of the most hated men in America. As such, I believe that N.O.W. will target you for hate speech, lies, distortions of your quotes, and even possible legal action (frivolous suits) to silence you. I am quite familiar with these types of tactics, as I have seen them used by other powerful groups against me. Just be certain to qualify any strong characterization statements as belief and opinion. Then you should be fine.
Hum. It looks like they are listing or implying that you are the third most dangerous man in America. WHAT AN HONOR! I believe that if they did not consider you dangerous, they would not have made that posting and lied in the process.
I further believe that they consider you dangerous because of your well-measured responses to their systematic attacks on men’s rights. If you were not making a difference and having an impact, they would ignore you. Keep up the good work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @11:51AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
what you said:
"I see this as a recognition that NOW sees you as a threat, and they're out to smear your image before you become well known like Warren Farrell or Mel Feit."
what will appear on the NOW website:
"I see NOW as a threat, [let's] smear [their] image before [they] become well known..."
Garth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @12:04PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
More potential "before" and "after" quotes from NOW (after editing of supurfluous material, heh). Admittedly more non-sensical than the last one.
"I routinely monitor your hate site to keep a close eye on what you, the man-hating gender feminists, are up to. I strongly object to your sleazy attempt to disparage my friend, Mr. Scott Garman, by posting an out-of-context quotation and by labeling him a member of the "Radical Right." You know nothing of Mr. Garman's politics. How dare you paint him with such a broad and derogatory brush? Oh, I forgot--he dared to stand up for men's rights. A hate group like you just can't stomach it when we stand men up for ourselves, can you? Well, get used to it, because men all over the USA are standing up for their rights and will continue to do so."
"I hate you, the gender feminists. I strongly object to sleazy Mr. Scott Garman, a member of the "Radical Right." You know nothing of politics. How dare you, a broad? Oh, I forgot--he dared hate you when we stand up for ourselves? Well, get used to it, because men are right."
Garth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heh. Garth, I think you and I should work on some gender feminist translation software that'll convert quotes to genfem-speak automatically. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @01:55PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
N.O.W. Targets Garman as "Radical Right"
Click here to listen to Patricia Ireland getting her feathers in a ruffle over Scott.
Dealing with NOW is simply a matter of telling them in their own language to hop back in the poultry wagon, which is pronounced as "cluck you".
The Madcap Misogynist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To the Madcap Misogynist: Patricia Ireland is no longer the president of NOW. Keep up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are great. Please do not back down or let others try to destroy you. I myself have stood up against many things; one the company I worked for (Saint Gobain Corp. of France) one of the biggest Corps in this world. Kills many men. I have seen many CEO's destroyed by females that alleged these men sexually assault them for touching them on the shoulder at a Christmas Party or golf outing, or saying HI. I lost my job after 10 years as a MIS and Design engineer because I would not play by the corp. rules. I lost almost everything except my pride. Saint Gobain Corp can email me if they want to sue me at rbirou@qwest.net but they are pusses and will only threaten. Kiss my ass Saint Gobain Corp.
Love Ronn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have visited this site quite a bit and I don't believe Mr. Garman to be "radical right." If anything he more than any other posters seems to urge for equality among men and women, something definitely that we need.
I believe however that the wording of the quote was unfortunate. Until this century, men did have all the power. Women couldn't vote, didn't work, etc. ad nauseum. A woman was typically suject to the rule of her father first, then her husband (whom she often had little say in choosing). To that end, feminism was good for today's women. However, today's feminism goes beyond wanting equal rights for women. It ignores the strides that humanity has made toward equality and strives instead for some form of vengeance against their "oppressors."
Like the early feminists were vilified for their "unfemininity" for wanting equality for women, there is bound to be some antagonism among the status quo toward the figureheads of the earliest days of the Men's movement. But at least you can be assured that you are attracting notice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I believe however that the wording of the quote was unfortunate."
I agree, to some extent. This is a raging debate in the men's movement, whether men really were an oppressor class in the past. I tend to look at it in the terms Warren Farrell put it in The Myth of Male Power. Below is a paraphrase:
Power is about choice. If you have lots of choices, you have power. If you don't have many choices, you have little power. Throughout much of history, neither men nor women had many choices. The choices they had were different, but it's hard to say that men's choices were particularly better that women's choices. For example, women were often viewed as property, but men were expected to put their life on the line for their "property", both for their wives and to obtain more physical property for their families, etc.
It just so happens that men's choices mostly were in the public sphere, and women's were in the home. This division of roles was created for efficiency, to help ensure the survival of future generations in a hostile environment. Neither of these restrictions often led to the personal fulfillment of either men or women. When the Industrial Revolution occurred, men and women now had more choices available, and could now live lives based more on self-fulfillment than on survival.
Believe me, I'm not going to deny that women had it bad in the past. But I do think it's arguable that men had it equally as bad, and this is something that isn't acknowledged today.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @03:41PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Believe me, I'm not going to deny that women had it bad in the past. But I do think it's arguable that men had it equally as bad, and this is something that isn't acknowledged today.
It's not merely arguable, it's a fact. Only someone who willfully ignored the full impact of history and only selectively excerpted that which served to support a warped and one-sided hate agenda could claim otherwise. Restrictive social roles in history if anything, were more oppressive to men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not merely arguable, it's a fact. Only someone who willfully ignored the full impact of history and only selectively excerpted that which served to support a warped and one-sided hate agenda could claim otherwise
Well, people who have been brainwashed by years and years and years of gender feminist hate of men could accept it as fact as well, whether they have any knowledge of history. Most people who believe that men had it better are simply uneducated on the historical facts as a result of feminist history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @05:25PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
the notion that women, at any point in history or prehistory, were ever "powerless" is either ignorance or propaganda
if the former, please do the research before spreading further misinformation
if the latter, please do the research before spreading further disinformation
exactly the opposite is the case -- masculinity
evolved under the oppression of men BY women, and "patriarchy" is a thin shell indeed over the omnipotent egg
as for scottie, it's revealing that even the slightest challenge to the feminist hegemony -- one website and one upstart campus group -- strikes terror in the heart of big sister
what would they do if we REALLY stopped grovelling and got off our knees?
why don't we find out?
people who like this kind of thing will ...
oops, not my tag
The Madcap Misogynist
oops, nope, that's not me either
oh well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Restrictive social roles in history if anything, were more oppressive to men."
Ah, but since women could not vote or hold public office, the restrictive social roles that you say were oppressive to men, were designated to men BY men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Restrictive social roles in history if anything, were more oppressive to men."
Ah, but since women could not vote or hold public office, the restrictive social roles that you say were oppressive to men, were designated to men BY men.
I have a few degrees in History, and I am sure that a great many of the female rulers throughout history would object to this characterization of them with "no power."
The fact of the matter is that women had a great deal of influence in both secular and church politics from ancient days, into the Roman and Byzantine Empire, and throughout the middle ages, the Rennaisance, and into the modern era.
That is nothing but feminist propaganda which is categorically rejected by any serious and reputable scholar or historian. Women had both a great deal of power and privilege throughout recorded history.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed? Quick, name me a woman who signed the Declaration of Independence. Name me a woman who voted for the first 125 year's worth of US presidents. Name me a woman in Congress who voted to get us into the Civil War, World War I, or World War II. Name me the first female President of the United States. You can't.
I don't want to get into a battle of the sexes with you. I am merely presenting the criteria which NOW used to put Mr. Garman on their hit list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @08:10PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
you're right -- you don't want to enter into any kind of real battle, especially one of knowledge or wit
that would be war without weaponry
save the dekes, we've seen 'em all by now
i think your trolling motor just died
stuck out in the middle of the old wiccid lake
enjoy your swim!!
The Flying Monkey Chomper
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wiccid
1. You confuse the power that individuals have with that of the whole group!
2. And it is, as you point out, those MEN in power who have made the western woman the most priveleged group on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<I> Indeed? Quick, name me a woman who signed the Declaration of Independence. Name me a woman who voted for the first 125 year's worth of US presidents. Name me a woman in Congress who voted to get us into the Civil War, World War I, or World War II. Name me the first female President of the United States. You can't. </I>
Straw men, pheminist troll, straw men. If you are limiting the power and influence of females to voting sufferage in the United States, then you are shallow indeed, in addition to being sorrowfully parochial and astonishingly close minded. The list goes back to Hapsetshup, Nefertiti, Aahmes...
Here's some names and some links to educate yourself with (And this only scratches the surface, these are just the FAMOUS ones):
Arsinoe II , 316-271 BC (Greece, Egypt, Libya)
Cleopatra VII , c.69-30 BC (Egypt)
The Trung Sisters , died 42 AD (Vietnam)
Boudicca , died 62 AD (Britain)
Cartimandua , 1st Cent. AD (Britain)
Trieu Au or Trieu Thi Trinh , ca. A.D. 222-248 (Vietnam)
Zenobia , 3rd Cent. AD (Palmyra, now: Syria)
Theodora <http://www.galegroup.com/library/resrcs/womenh st/theodor.html>, c.500-548 (Byzantium, now: Turkey)
Queen Sondok <http://home.earthlink.net/~womenwhist/heroine7 .html>, ruled 632-647 (Korea)
Irene of Athens <http://www.galegroup.com/library/resrcs/womenh st/irene.html>, 752-803 (Greece)
Queen Chinsong <http://www.easc.indiana.edu/pages/easc/curricu lum/korea/1995/general/hand14_1.htp>, ruled 887-897 (Korea)
Melisende <http://home.earthlink.net/~womenwhist/heroine4 .html>, 1105-1160 (Jerusalem)
Eleanor of Aquitaine <http://home.earthlink.net/~womenwhist/heroine2 .html>, c.1122-1204 (France, England)
Raziyya Iltutmish d.1240 (India)
Shagrat al-Durr <http://home.earthlink.net/~womenwhist/heroine1 .html>, died 1259 (Egypt)
Margaret I , 1353-1412 (Denmark, Norway, Sweden)
Isabella I , 1451-1504 (Spain)
Mary I (Mary Tudor or "Bloody Mary") , 1516-1558 (England)
Catherine de Medicis , 1519-1589 (Italy, France)
Queen Elizabeth I <http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/EdRes/Topic/Wom ensStudies/ReadingRoom/History/Biographies/elizabe th-I>, 1533-1603 (England)
Lady Jane Grey <http://users.wantree.com.au/~halligan/ladyjane /index.html>, 1537-1554 (England)
Mary, Queen of Scots , 1542-1587 (Scotland)
Mumtaz Mahal <http://www.indiatime.com/women/mumtaz.htm>, 1593-1631 (India)
Anne , 1601-1666 (Austria)<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASI N/0814204295/distingwomenofpa> by Ruth Kleinman
Christina , 1626-1689 (Sweden)
Queen Anne , 1665-1714 (Great Britain and Ireland)
Catherine I , 1682?-1727 (Russia) Wilhelmina Caroline of Ansbach, 1683-1737 (Germany, Great Britain)
Isabella Farnese , 1692-1766 (Spain)
Anna Ivanovna , 1693-1740 (Russia)
Mary Musgrove (Cousaponokeesa) <musgrove-m.html>, 1700-1765 (Creek, North American Indian)
Another profile <http://www.gawomen.org/honorees/bosomworthm.ht m>
Elizabeth Petrovna , 1709-1762 (Russia)
Maria Theresa , 1717-1780 (Austria, Hungary, Bohemia)
Catherine the Great , 1729-1796 (Russia)
Nancy Ward <http://www.galegroup.com/library/resrcs/womenh st/ward.html>, c.1738-1824 (Cherokee, North American Indian)
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0932807 925/distingwomenofpa> by Charlotte Jane Ellington
Anna Amalia, 1739-1807 (Germany) Ahilyabai <http://www.ee.ualberta.ca/~naik/holkar.html> ;, ruled 1767 to 1795 (India)
Queen Victoria <http://kings.edu/~wmnhist/victoria.html>, 1819-1901 (Great Britain)
Rebecca Ann Latimer Felton , 1835-1930 (U.S.A.)
Another profile <http://www.gawomen.org/honorees/feltonr.htm> ;
Tz'u-hsi, 1835-1908 (China)
Elizabeth Garrett Anderson <http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Wanderson E.htm>, 1836-1917 (Great Britain)
Empress Elizabeth of Austria <eliz-austria.html>, 1837-1838
Queen Liliuokalani <liliuokalani.html>, 1838-1917 (Hawaii)
Victoria Claflin Woodhull , 1838-1927 (U.S.A.)
###Another profile (part 1) <http://americanhistory.miningco.com/library/we ekly/aa011099.htm>
###Another profile (part 2) <http://americanhistory.miningco.com/library/we ekly/aa012499.htm>
###The Woman Who Ran for President : The Many Lives of Victoria Woodhull <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140256 385/distingwomenofpa> by Lois Beachy Underhill, Gloria Steinem (Translator)
Catherine Breshkovsky , 1844-1934 (Russia)
Yaa Asantewaa <yaa-asantewaa.html>, c.1850-c.1920 (Asante, modern Ghana)
Katharine Bement Davis <http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/doc/html/kbd_1.ht ml>, 1860-1935 (U.S.A.)
Susanna Madora Salter <http://kloudbusters.org/ARGONIA/SALTER.HTM> , 1860- 1961 (U.S.A.)
Selina Cooper <http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Wcooper.h tm>, 1864-1946 (Great Britain)
Martha Munger Black <http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/digiproj/women/ewomen1a. htm>, 1866-1957 (Canada)
Miina Sillanpää <http://www.hel.fi/artmuseum/english/veisto/soi htu_miina_sillanpaa.htm>, 1866-1952 (Finland)
Gertrude Margaret Lowthian Bell , 1868-1934 (Great Britain)
Aleksandra Mikhaylovna Kollontai <http://www.encyclopedia.com/articles/07042.htm l>, 1878-1952 (Russia)
Margaret Bondfield <http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Wbondfiel d.htm>, 1873-1953 (Great Britain) Duchess of Atholl,
Katherine Marjory Murray, 1874-1960 (Great Britain)
Jessie Wallace Hughan <http://members.aol.com/taylorteri/hughan.html& gt;, 1875-1955 (U.S.A.)
Queen Marie of Romania <http://www.library.kent.edu/speccoll/women/mar ie.html>, 1875-1938 (England, Romania)
Rhoda Fox Graves <http://www.northnet.org/stlawrenceaauw/graves. htm>, 1877-1950 (U.S.A.)
Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor , 1879-1964 (U.S.A., Great Britain)
From Plymouth to Parliament : A Rhetorical History of Nancy Astor's 1919 Campaign <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312213 646/distingwomenofpa> by Karen J. Musolf
Jeannette Rankin <http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/EdRes/Topic/Wom ensStudies/ReadingRoom/History/Biographies/rankin- jeannette>, 1880-1973 (U.S.A.)
Edith Nourse Rogers <http://www.greatwomen.org/rogers.htm>, 1881-1960 (U.S.A.)
Margery Corbett-Ashby <http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Washby.ht m>, 1882-1981 (Great Britain)
Ruth Thompson <http://clerkweb.house.gov/womenbio/BIO/thompso n.htm>, 1887-1970 (U.S.A.)
Margaret Chase Smith , 1897-1995 (U.S.A.)
Golda Meir , 1898-1978 (Russia, U.S.A., Israel)
Lakshmi N. Menon <http://www.webcom.com/~prakash/experience/peop le/feahin19940715_00.html>, 1899- (India)
<I>I don't want to get into a battle of the sexes with you.</I>
It's a bloody good thing too. Because it's one you can't win.
<I> I am merely presenting the criteria which NOW used to put Mr. Garman on their hit list.</I>
No you're not. You're trolling. It's a typical female tactic to make a lame and weak little excuse at the end that is completely contrary to the tone and context of what you said. And you're getting called on it, missy.
You're making excuses for every pheminist obscenity you can, and either you're so brainwashed by their crap you can't think for yourself, or you just don't want to know.
You say you do want to know?
I know. And I'm telling you. Question is, do you want to listen and learn, or remain in your comforting web of preconcieved and untrue hogswallop?
There's some facts up there for you. And you can get snotty, run away, and be a victim further or you can listen to someone who has a little education and experience in the subject, pay attention, and dispel some of your preconcieved notions and lies you've been fed.
But if you're looking to have your "victimhood" validated and celebrated you've sought out the wrong people.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
***Name me a woman in Congress who voted to get us into the Civil War, World War I, or World War II. Name me the first female President of the United States. You can't.***
As I "vaguely" recall, there was a woman in the US Congress that voted against entry into WW 1 (1917) and WW 2 (1941). I believe she was a US Representative from Wyoming. Women had the vote in Wyoming and another western state BEFORE 1920 when universal women's suffrage was made part of the US Constitution by amendment.
Since more women vote in elections than men, you will have to ask your sisters why you and they did not elect the ticket of Fritz Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro (sp? Who Cares!) President and Vice President, respectively back in the 1980's.
Also, ask them why they have never made an issue of the "male only" mandatory draft registration requirement since they have the same political privileges men have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wiccid wrote:
>Name me a woman who voted for the first 125
>year's worth of US presidents.
Rochester Nov 5th 1872
Dear Mrs Stanton
Well I have been & gone & done it!!--positively voted the Republican
ticket--strait this a.m. at 7 Oclock--& swore my vote in at that--was
registered on Friday & 15 other women followed suit in this ward--then
on Sunday others some 20 or thirty other women tried to register, but
all save two were refused--all my three sisters voted--Roda De Garmo
too--Amy Post was rejected & she will immediately bring action for
that--similar to the Washington action--& Hon Henry R. Selden will be
our Counsel--he has read up the law & all of our arguments & is
satisfied that we our right & ditto the Old Judge Selden--his elder
brother. so we are in for a fine agitation in Rochester on the
question--I hope the morning's telegrams will tell of many women all
over the country trying to vote--It is splendid that without any
concert of action so many should have moved here so impromptu--
....Haven't we wedged ourselves into the work pretty fairly & fully--&
now that the Repubs have taken our votes--for it is the Republican
members of the Board--The Democratic paper is out against us strong &
that scared the Dem's on the registry board--How I wish you were here
to write up the funny things said & done--Rhoda De Garmo told them
that she wouldn't swear of affirm--"but would tell the truth"--& they
accepted that When the Democrat said my vote should not go in the
box--one Republican said to the other--What do you say Marsh!--I say
put it in!--So do I said Jones--and "we'll fight it out on this line
if it takes all winter"....If only now--all the women suffrage women
would work to this end of enforcing the existing
constitution--supremacy of national law over state law--what strides
we might make this winter--But I'm awful tired--for five days I have
been on the constant run--but to splendid purpose--So all right--I
hope you voted too.
Affectionately,
Susan B. Anthony
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from a review of the book "Mothers of Invention: Women of the Slaveholding South in the American Civil War," by Drew Gilpin Faust (University of North Carolina Press,) in the May 9th New York Review of Books:
"Faust begins her account by pointing out that once a consensus for secession had been reached, Southern women of the upper classes quickly added their voices to the clamor -- particularly in the Deep South. Idle young men could expect to find a petticoat placed in their living quarters with a note attached ordering them to volunteer at once or be stigmatized. The power of public mockery by women drove many young men to the recruiting office. Some women displayed a frightening ferocity for war ..."
Many Confederate women embraced an ideal of masculine honor and instilled it -- or forced it on -- their sons and brothers. They felt that a man's life was worth less than his honor. One Mississippi senator questioned some veterans on why they had fought so hard for a cause they knew was lost. "We were afraid to stop. ... Afraid of the women at home. They would have been ashamed of us."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 01, @02:11PM EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
i think there's a large difference between equality and quota.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here are the facts I couldn't remember offhand.
"Jeannette Rankin was a native of Missoula, Montana, and the first woman elected to the U.S. Congress. In 1917 she joined a handful of representatives who voted against entry into World War I and later in 1941 she was the only member of Congress to vote against entry into World War II."
"Along with Montana, Wyoming Territory in 1869, Utah Territory in 1870, and the states of Colorado in 1893 and Idaho in 1896 women had the right to vote."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @11:40PM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
livia, wife of augustus -- ye gods, don't forget her
i sure wouldn't
nor turn my back, nor drink my tea
as for institutional power at the "height" of "patriarchy" in rome, check out the lineage and connections of the vestals
in addition, in the domestic and social spheres, the matrons of rome ruled with iron and the whip, and to imagine otherwise is delusion
even the centurions feared them
as for world war one, the nurturing, peaceloving ladies of america HOUNDED and DERIDED men in the
streets who failed to enlist with quick step proper
"powerless" like an invisible typhoon
Mister Moose
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @11:55PM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
then again, wiccid might just be misguided and young
time will tell
m.m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that was one of the main reasons the ERA never got passed, a fair number of women were a tad worried it would imply women would be drafted. I could be wrong, however, my history classes remain a mixture of mother's and a small bit of college (I'm homeschooled).
I am reminded of an episode of Pepper Ann, who is getting ticked off at her mother's liberal ladies convention because A. her male friend can't go and B. her [brainiac] female friend refused to because "female-only or male-only events only serve to widen the chasm between the sexes." (paraphrased)
Towards the end of the convention, upon hearing "at our current liberation rate, we can have a female president in 200 years!" she bursts out "we don't HAVE to wait 200 years! We could have a female president next election if we supported one who ran! And yeah, sure, there are a few people out there that think men are better than women but we all know they're stupid - we don't have to act like we're better or something!"
This magically convinces all at the liberal ladies convention that they no longer have to teach their children about liberation, since equality has been achieved - or something along those lines - it's been awhile, too bad I didn't tape it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lady Jane Gray ruled for 9 days and was a puppet for the Anglicans, not a reigning queen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 01, @02:11PM EST (#66)
|
|
|
|
|
>the nurturing, peaceloving ladies of america HOUNDED and DERIDED men in the
>streets who failed to enlist with quick step proper
And patriots like Emma Goldman were rounded up and jailed as "communists" for their very vocal opposition to the draft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 01, @03:19PM EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
Lady Jane Gray ruled for 9 days and was a puppet for the Anglicans, not a reigning queen.
Looks like you find room to disagree with one. Pretty pathetic.
I pronounce your feminist ass "schooled."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a few degrees in History, and I am sure that a great many of the female rulers throughout history would object to this characterization of them with "no power."
I've been looking for someone to write the "women historical leaders that refute feminist oppression myths" section of our masculist anthology. I'd also like to compile a little handbook of the bloodiest matriarchs in history which we may quote from when feminists start spewing the "men are responsible for war and violence" crap.
Feel up to it? (Aside: there is no payment involved unless the book sells, but you maintain copyright on your work)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a few degrees in History, and I am sure that a great many of the female rulers throughout history would object to this characterization of them with "no power."
I've been looking for someone to write the "women historical leaders that refute feminist oppression myths" section of our masculist anthology. I'd also like to compile a little handbook of the bloodiest matriarchs in history which we may quote from when feminists start spewing the "men are responsible for war and violence" crap.
Feel up to it? (Aside: there is no payment involved unless the book sells, but you maintain copyright on your work)
Well, there's already a little start there, didn't see your post until after I got done with mine.
But - hell, let me check the site and see - It'd be cool as hell.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The claim that in the past women had no power and men had all the power is THE GREAT, FUNDAMENTAL, FEMINIST LIE.
Know it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gawd, just page through a few Uppity Women books. Please include that counterpart to ol' Vlad who bathed in "the blood of young women" to remain young forever - killing a total 618 young women? Or at the least Boudicca [probably spelled wrong, oh well]?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but since women could not vote or hold public office, the restrictive social roles that you say were oppressive to men, were designated to men BY men.
These here famminists like to ignore the tremendous importance of raising children and instilling them with their most fundamental values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always felt that "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" was always a little of a cop out answer. "I want to be able to vote and influence politics!" "but, but, you can teach your kids stuff! That's really important!" Sorry, as a non-mother I don't think I can accept child-rearing as my [futuristically] most important accomplishment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I always felt that "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" was always a little of a cop out answer. "I want to be able to vote and influence politics!" "but, but, you can teach your kids stuff! That's really important!" Sorry, as a non-mother I don't think I can accept child-rearing as my [futuristically] most important accomplishment."
Good answer! Good answer!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" was always a little of a cop out answer.
I hope you're not confused enough to be referring to what I wrote. There's a difference between ruling the world and the importance of raising children and instilling them with their most fundamental values. To claim that these are the same thing is to engage in an extreme distortion.
The fact is, ignoring the importance of raising children and instilling them with their most fundamental values is a copout. By fundamental values I mean such things as the belief that men have to support women and their children in order to be considered worthy of any respect and place in society and the belief that men should throw their lives away to provide for and protect women.
Women have always had tremendous influence in the building of society and the creation of society's values. To claim otherwise is to engage in a standard, feminist copout.
And never forget, today women are the majority of voters. Whether that majority employs men or women in government to do its bidding, women in fact are the real government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 01, @03:28PM EST (#75)
|
|
|
|
|
"I always felt that "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" was always a little of a cop out answer. "I want to be able to vote and influence politics!" "but, but, you can teach your kids stuff! That's really important!" Sorry, as a non-mother I don't think I can accept child-rearing as my [futuristically] most important accomplishment."
Good answer! Good answer!
As long as you are not liable to be drafted, put in a uniform, given a rifle and shipped out to be shot, in a country I never heard of, killing people I have no quarrel with, LIKE I AM you shouldn't be allowed to vote. So until we institute a policy of for the next two hundred years you women go and get killed for OUR freedom, what you want is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And never forget, today women are the majority of voters. Whether that majority employs men or women in government to do its bidding, women in fact are the real government.
In part this is true. However, this overlooks the tremendous influence of special interest groups, big business, and foreign national governments, which propose the legislation that our legislatures pass.
It has been a major strategy of feminists to organize into groups and networks to implement their tactics. If men do the same, they know it will be dangerous to their socialist agenda because we will stop the blanket acceptance of anti-male legislation currently sponsored by NOW.
This is also why they are attacking Scott personally. They know he is playing an important role by providing a medium for men to communicate worldwide. Don't think for an instant that NOW isn't reading every message on this site. They are scared out of their minds because they don’t believe that men can communicate in a sophisticated and intelligent manner. When we document the laws they are passing, expose their statistical lies, and shine the light of truth, they quake to the core of their soul.
The feminists know these facts about politicians, and that is why they are engaging in smear tactics. They see the current rise of the male special interest groups. They know it is in part motivated by the millions of wrongful convictions, false arrests, and damaged families for witch the feminist are responsible. They know that when men organize that our legislative proposals will be fair, just, centered in equality, and that it will not be ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 02, @12:27PM EST (#85)
|
|
|
|
|
"...for witch the feminist ..."
Hey warble, was this mis-spelling deliberate or Freudian? Either way, I like it.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women have always had tremendous influence in the building of society and the creation of society's values."
Agreed, I simply remember the quote from an early Pennslyvania editorial on "why women [here] do not need to vote" - the quote seems to imply that raising children is absolutely the most important thing a woman will ever do, and women shouldn't worry about doing anything else in society. It DOES shape society, which is very important, but the conjunction seems to be you cannot do anything else.
For some reason feminists still use it a lot.
I won't forget that, read my post about PepperAnn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>As long as you are not liable to be drafted, put >in a uniform, given a rifle and shipped out to be >shot, in a country I never heard of, killing >people I have no quarrel with, LIKE I AM you >shouldn't be allowed to vote. So until we >institute a policy of for the next two hundred >years you women go and get killed for OUR >freedom, what you want is irrelevant as far as I >am concerned
Nevermind that I'm against drafting anyone, or at the very least would want to see it equally applied. Nevermind there is no such thing as the right to be forced to fight or die. It is irrelevant, as long as I have not gone through the EXACT SAME THING as you, I cannot hold an opinion. At least in your eyes. I'll remind myself of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm opposed to the draft. I am opposed to war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not a feminist, and I am raising 3 children - two of whom are not my own. Fundamental values? That of course depends on your definition of "fundamental." They are bright and well mannered. But I certainly hope that they are not fundamentalists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 01, @02:15PM EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
I see. Anyone who doesn't agree 100% with you is a "famminist."
Tremendous importance of raising children MY ASS. Women who stay at home to raise children are called whores, prostitutes and golddiggers who steal money from emasculated husbands.
Antifeminists hate stay at home mothers just as much as the radical fems, and you suck just as much as they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone who doesn't agree 100% with you is a "famminist."
Never said that.
you suck just as much as they do.
Whee doggies! Someone forgot to take her medication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Antifeminists hate stay at home mothers just as much as the radical fems, and you suck just as much as they do."
You mean you're not a radical feminist?
www.mortiis.com
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C'mon guys. You all know that women have never had any power and that whenever any women do anything wrong it's because they're oppressed by the patriarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Believe me, I'm not going to deny that women had it bad in the past. But I do think it's arguable that men had it equally as bad, and this is something that isn't acknowledged today.
How convenient that NOW forgets the millions of men who have died to ensure their liberties, comforts, the survival of their families, and yes their well-being. Even today men sacrifice their lives to ensure the comfort of the cowards at NOW. Meanwhile women in general systematically fail to join the service and provide the same benefits to men; why because men are their oppressors and therefore evil.
Apparently, they believe they inherited all of these benefits without any sacrifice on the part of men. They are thankless and therefore an offence to all humanity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They [NOW] are thankless and therefore an offence to all humanity.
They aren't only thankless, they have a stupendous sense of entitlement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems you have been recognized as an official masculinist Scott, congratgulations! Take heart in that most women I have talked to take NOW propaganda as what it is propaganda. Men need a voice at college campuses that counters the feminist rhetoric.
As far as the rest of the comments I tend to agree women have had power in society but it was not publicized. (don't forget Elenor Roosevelt, it is pretty well accepted now that she actually ran the country for at least several months.)
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They [NOW] are thankless and therefore an offence to all humanity.
They aren't only thankless, they have a stupendous sense of entitlement.
Nice cut job. If that were N.O.W., we all know, because of their smear Scott campaign, that they would have turned that statement into a lie. They would manipulate it to claim that I am saying that all women are an offence to humanity.
Chortle :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering if you had the basic ideas of the "Stop Hating Men" campaign down yet? I was thinking that it would be a potential men's movement to start at schools around the nation.
I also wanted to share some comments made by women in my Communication and gender class (a web based class)
I want to applaud you on your post. I don't see many
men in this class standing up for what they believe in.
I appreciate your comments, and I am glad to hear a
refreshing point of view. I don't consider myself a
feminist at all. I want women to be equal, but I have
often struggled with those roles. I was born and raised
in the south, where more traditional roles are expected.
I AM TOTALLY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT!! It's classes like
these that sometimes make me feel wrong!! I am glad you
spoke out!!
Beth
(and this one)
Message no. 862 Posted by Christine Wilson on Thu Feb 28, 2002 10:39
I would like to applaud Anthony! Thank you! As a woman
I have thought this over and over in my women's studies,
family studies and history classes. Men get a very bad
reputation. I have always thought it was very funny
that you can find women's studies courses on almost any
campus across the US, but men's studies courses are much
harder to find.
I was very surprised when I had one of my first family
history classes. It was a class of about 50 people and
there were only about 5 guys in the class. Almost every
class, all term the class sat there and male bashed! It
was ridicules and I could not believe it was tolerated!
(there was more but it was related to the class)
there are women out there who challenge the gender feminist rhetoric but lack any place to turn to for information. "stop hating men" could be something that catches on.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They can't deny their overwhelming sense of entitlement, nor can they do much to distort this evident claim--no one would believe them.
It doesn't take much "interpretation" to conclude from NOW's statement,
Sometimes our opponents' words speak for themselves. Given the opportunity, public figures often reveal their motivations, agenda and prejudices all on their own. And NOW will be there to pass it along when they do.
which preceded an out-of-context quotation of Scott's, that they consider Scott one of their "opponents"; moreover, they are steadfastly against the cessation of man hating. Sometimes our opponents' words speak for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You forget, WSP, that what the quote really meant has nothing to do with how NOW wants to present it. They are only interested in what mileage they can get out of spinning the statement to their end. Nothing to do with truth; everything to do with perception.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't forget. When I say the wording was unfortunate, I meant that exactly what you said - that the words could be spun to their advantage. NOW is not the only association who selectively inteprets. Any political group does that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 28, @02:46PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Specifically that NOW has misquoted you out of context. So anyone visiting your Stop Hating Men site (they might since they might want to verify what you said) will know this.
And since they say "Stop Hating Men" is radical right, that means they really want to not "Stop Hating Men".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And since they say "Stop Hating Men" is radical right, that means they really want to not "Stop Hating Men".
This is an excellent point. Scott is way to the left of me, and I'm in the extreme right, incidentally, so I beg to differ with their characterization of Scott's politics.
Now this is a real turning point for the men's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 01, @07:35AM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think he's so much to the right or the left, more of a chronic complainer if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think he's so much to the right or the left, more of a chronic complainer if you ask me.
I certainly hope this isn't one of those "Women are heroines in the struggle against oppression, and males are whiners" posts.
That tired old double standard is getting tedious.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think he's so much to the right or the left, more of a chronic complainer if you ask me.
Oh great, Big Sister is back.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh great, Big Sister is back.
Ah, so it is yet another pheminist troll? Is she a pet of the board, or just a seagull troll - you know, fly in, drop crap all over the place, and leave?
Hello, Primate! *waves* Hi! Hi, Pheminist Troll! Monkey wanna peanut?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if whining equates to standing up for equality and whining is wrong, then dammit, i don't want to be right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if whining equates to standing up for equality and whining is wrong, then dammit, i don't want to be right.
Isn't there a country music song with that title? :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that would be quite a long title for a song.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only people who should be put down are the put-down artists, like you. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations on hitting the Big Time, Scott!
Great news. This is a very important step.
Be sure to check six, my friend. They'll stab you from behind if they can -- it's safe to assume they're already planning it.
Ragtime.
First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.
-- Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Congrates Scott! You are now officially an "public figure." The N.O.W. mob has stated such on their website where your statement was taken out of context and 'MS'quoted so it has to be true.
"""Given the opportunity, *public figures*(sic!) often reveal their motivations"""
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GO SCOTT!!!!
And I think you misinterpreted what she was trying to say. She was giving you insight into what and how genfems think, NOT what she thinks, so you can come up with more ammo. At least that's how I read it.
Again, congrats to Scott for making the NOW Hit List. LOL
-Rivka
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Scott,
Let me throw my two cents and say good going on being on NOW's hit list, but as many have already pointed out, watch your back, too.
But I do like the fact they couldn't even get the story straight, as in the case of where the statement was made, and in what context.
Anyway, best of luck, and again, great job.
Those who claim to be brutally honest, enjoy the brutality more than the honesty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday March 02, @03:03AM EST (#84)
|
|
|
|
|
scott has nothing to fear from the haters
they'll try, and fail
on a different note
"warble" is a slick nick
i mean ... warble warble warble
mr. jones
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
