|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""Anyone know where one may write to Steinem so we may impart to her what a misandrous bigot she is?"""
That may be an exercise in futility. That is like telling a loathsome poisonous reptile it is a loathsome poisonous reptile. A "thing" like G.S. is what it is and always will be. Steinem knows she is a sinister pop culture gad fly pest and has known this for over 30 years.
She has made a life long career of peddling her particularly virulent strain of misandry. Too bad too many people still mistake her verbalized dog poop droppings for chocolate ice cream. Some of the more unfortunate sheeple even ask for more. And that is where the main problem is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...empathy, flexibility, patience and compassion. These so-called feminine qualities are present in men as much as women...
Well, I credit her for that acknowledgment. Certainly the men's movement with which present company identifies is motivated to show the world that men, indeed, are not significantly lacking these qualities relative to women.
Still, I'm not sure that Steinem didn't just pitch that line to seem congenial. I'm not sure she sees men as genuinely "equal" to women. Over a year ago, I read a full transcript of an address she gave at a university graduation, in which she somehow worked in a jab about how females are inherently so much healthier, longer-lived and "durable" than males. I can't quibble with the stats she gave (God knows they've been recited often enough among our own ranks) - however I am dubious of why Steinem, if she is not a completely sick and bigoted individual, would choose to wield them (with a palpable air of nee-ner, nee-ner, nee-ner) at a college graduation, upon a group of young men as they were about to embark on their lives.
And by the way, just because certain men are severely non-empathic, inflexible, impatient and dispassionate is not a sign that all men are. Nor is the lack of dramatic examples of women who are this way a sign that women generally are not. I can't think of many women who have written symphonies, either - but I wouldn't call that a sign that women are less musically talented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 26, @04:23PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Gloria Steinem's argument is very easy to refute. She says that only males are terrorists, yet two female suicide bombers have attacked Israel in the past few months, and there has been female involvement in school murders as well.
As far as the Catholic Church goes, if secularists feel able to comment on the sex scandal and how it relates to the church without reservation, I could easily make an argument that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia that isn't being examined as well...
Is it a church issue or a gay issue? (please debate elsewhere on this...)
Lastly, Steinem has only negativity to comment on about the opposite gender (she is sexist), if she were to talk about all the positive aspects the male gender has made in terms of every aspect of human civilization - she would not have had enough time in her speech to do so. So she went for maximum sexist impact by relating "maleness" to Hitler.
Steinem is a sexist twit... I wish that I was in the audience for this speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steinem is a sexist twit... I wish that I was in the audience for this speech.
Me, too. I think I would've played the "evil man" and heckled her.
I like Brad_R's response to this story on the ifeminists.com thread about it:
"Someday someone needs to tell Steinem about Brenda Spencer.
(Brenda Spencer was the 16-year old girl who, in 1979, opened fire with a rifle into an elementary school, killing two adults and injuring eight children. Her explanation? "I don't like Mondays.")"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She isn't terribly bright, even in her use of ordinary language. Take for example, her drivel that, "...These so-called feminine qualities are present in men as much as women, and it's a libel on men to say they're not." She means slander, not libel.
Like Judy Mann, she refers to a "Cult of Masculinity", which is responsible for all the evil in the world. Naturally, there's no reference to the "Cult of Femininity", which operates by having the "Cult of Masculinity" perpetrate whatever evil necessary to sustain the "Cult of Femininity" at the comfortable insular levels to which it feels entitled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She isn't terribly bright, even in her use of ordinary language. Take for example, her drivel that, "...These so-called feminine qualities are present in men as much as women, and it's a libel on men to say they're not." She means slander, not libel.
Indeed. That is a particularly damning sin, too, considering she's always thought of herself as a journalist. Any journalist who has spent a day either in school or in the field knows that you speak "slander" and you publish (write) "libel."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone else noticed Steinem is a jewish name? you know Betty Friedan's real name is Betty Goldstein? I've two very interesting quotes about Jews involved in feminism from two jewish authors, want me to post them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've two very interesting quotes about Jews involved in feminism from two jewish authors, want me to post them?
NO! Don't do it! It would be very stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"NO! Don't do it! It would be very stupid."
Easy man. But since we're talking about it, what would be your main reason for not posting it? apart the sacred cow status that is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. Usually, when there is a sign stating that there is wet paint, somebody always checks to see if the paint is really wet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 27, @09:54AM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
yes please post it.
Nothing is outside of debate here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 27, @11:36AM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing, you say? So about that local sports team...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 27, @01:43PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok two to one in favour, here it is:
"From the 1970s onward, Jews led or were influential in most, though not all, of the political reform, feminist, consumer rights, gay rights, environmentalist and other public interest groups and related foundations, study groups, and think tanks that came to dominate the Democratic party during the 1970s and continue to be the leading forces within that party today." (p. 137)
Benjamin Ginsberg "The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State"
Jewish author Dr. Joshua Halberstam notes that feminism was and is led by Jews, listing feminist leaders' names from different eras as being Jewish, in his book "Schmoozing" (Perigee,1997)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 28, @09:25AM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting...
Today's culture makes examining these types of connections behind the liberal/Jewish establishment difficult, as there has been much effort put into "branding" people as "anti-Semites" if they inquire too deeply about the Jewish political/social manipualtions.
I wonder what end is in mind if there is a connection between feminism and contemporary Jewish political efforts?
I had no idea major feminist leaders have been Jewish...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 26, @09:14PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"The cult of masculinity is the basis of every violent, fascist regime. … We need to raise our sons more like our daughters"
Why is it that she doesn't see that forcibly turning men into women are in its own right the actions of a fascist regime?
Now feminists want to save men from being victims of our own masculinity. How long will it be until a man who doesn't agree with feminists are declared legally insane?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 27, @03:26AM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Steinem is very politically influential; Tommy Daschle for one is a wholly owned subsidiary of the feminist movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But he's an excellent public speaker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would concede that he's an excellent story teller, since little of what he says is based in fact, especially when he's talking about the opposition.
He also happens to be an excellent parliamentarian, or has one working for him. His tactics in the Senate have clearly demonstrated that he knows very well how use procedure to obstruct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===============================
"How long will it be until a man who doesn't agree with feminists are declared legally insane?"
=================================
Not long. Unruly boys are already fed Ritalin. And I have seen a number of emails last several years on chat, in which men are angry with women. And the men are told in reply, that they need antipsychotics.
Men mostly, are already profiled, otherwise indiscriminately in public situations. I suppose it prevents a few mad bombers & dope runners. Yet fact remains no matter the reason, it's an authoritarian measure which has become pervasive across the board. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, when we all are fed the cure.
Fat people are coming under scrutiny I noticed on the government's PubMed medical base lately. Fat is a public health hazard, pointed out in the article, just like smoking.
The most recent ominous Big Bro move, is the law going into effect October 1st, to impose accuracy in data & statistics with environmental pollution health issues to begin with. Incorrect data will be expunged also. And like most government work, once underway, snowballs into other areas. Just like other Federal mandates soon applied to anyone, or instruction or state, receiving any Federal support or having authority over. And anytime (of all entities which become involved), significant information will become politically correct. Otherwise expunged.
As one expert in the article on this states,
"It's the information age," Mr. Tozzi said. "Now in the world's most powerful government you're going to have to issue information that's accurate."
The Data Quality Act:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/politics/21DATA. html
Hence, don't be surprised if eventually for the sake of our health & our society's health & safety, more expansive mandates are passed. Such as profiling for those who are not socially or mentally acceptable to society.
------------------------------------
"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty." Lord Hailsham, c. 1965.
======================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not trusting NewsMax as a fair and impartial source, I looked for a local paper to back up the article. Found one, palmbeachpost.com.
Pretty much checks out, except she didn't say "only males". She did say that serial killers tend to be males (not "only") and "almost all (terrorists) were males." Actually her comments regarding violence and how it relates to classism would be rather interesting, taken out of the context of the male/female thang.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/aims/
Yet, if her writings are to be believed, some of her goals seem to mirror that of the Men's Movement:
"We want to liberate men from those inhuman roles as well. We want to share the work and responsibility, and to have men share equal responsibility for the children. Probably the ultimate myth is that children must have fulltime mothers, and that liberated women make bad ones. The truth is that most American children seem to be suffering from too much mother and too little father.
Women now spend more time with their homes and families than in any other past or present society we know about. To get beck to the sanity of the agrarian or joint family system, we need free universal day care. With that aid, as in Scandinavian countries, and with laws that permit women equal work and equal pay, man will be relieved of his role as sole breadwinner and stranger to his own children."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women now spend more time with their homes and families than in any other past or present society we know about. To get beck to the sanity of the agrarian or joint family system, we need free universal day care. With that aid, as in Scandinavian countries, and with laws that permit women equal work and equal pay, man will be relieved of his role as sole breadwinner and stranger to his own children.
She *claims* to have goals similar to the men's movement because she knows her movement needs men to work.
Notice that she's *requiring* men to "be relieved" of their roles as breadwinners and *requiring* women to be "relieved" of their roles as full-time mothers. In no way will she allow families to choose for themselves who does what and in what way.
Also, you'll notice that she continually repeats the fallacy that women's "liberation" should be the sole focus because *women's* liberation will, as a side effect, liberate men.
Nah. She's a bigot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet, if her writings are to be believed, some of her goals seem to mirror that of the Men's Movement:
"We want to liberate men from those inhuman roles as well. We want to share the work and responsibility, and to have men share equal responsibility for the children. Probably the ultimate myth is that children must have fulltime mothers, and that liberated women make bad ones. The truth is that most American children seem to be suffering from too much mother and too little father.
Women now spend more time with their homes and families than in any other past or present society we know about. To get beck to the sanity of the agrarian or joint family system, we need free universal day care. With that aid, as in Scandinavian countries, and with laws that permit women equal work and equal pay, man will be relieved of his role as sole breadwinner and stranger to his own children."
How anybody can equate these plainly socialist/communist goals and ideals to the objectives of the men's movement is beyond me. In fact I find it absurd that somebody would even try to suggest such.
Perhaps wiccid would like to explain how the goals of a socialist system are compatible with the goals of the American strain of the men's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just adding my number to the list of men in the mens movement that see Steinem as a ^#$% biggot, and wiccid actually believes GS has goals common to that of the mens movement? My question to both of them would be "Where the *T$#!@!! have you been while we've been explaining what we want?"
SheeeeITT! They just don't get it!
The sad part of it is, until men do get to the point where there is at least equal representation for them under the law, both sexes will continue to make each others lives a neverending hell. Until that day comes, I promise to do my best on that one, from my corner of hell-on-earth. What any feminist wants to beleive I mean by that is totally up to her.
Adam Smith
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just adding my number to the list of men in the mens movement that see Steinem as a ^#$% biggot, and wiccid actually believes GS has goals common to that of the mens movement? My question to both of them would be "Where the *T$#!@!! have you been while we've been explaining what we want?"
There's the rub, Adam - pheminists like that want to talk the talk, and not walk the walk, and get credit for faint and half-hearted rhetoric while not being accountable for what they really do.
This comes from a reading and quoting of sound bites and professionally couched, weaselspeak press releases, and thius that is the be-all and end-all of the issue.
SheeeeITT! They just don't get it!
Au Comntraire, mon frere. They do. That's what's scary. Think about it.
The sad part of it is, until men do get to the point where there is at least equal representation for them under the law, both sexes will continue to make each others lives a neverending hell. Until that day comes, I promise to do my best on that one, from my corner of hell-on-earth. What any feminist wants to beleive I mean by that is totally up to her.
Amen to that, Brother.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodness, but people are feeling reactionary today. I've never even paid much attention to the former Playboy Bunny Gloria Steinem before. She's before my time. I was merely intrigued by the parallels between the two paragraphs Ms. Steinem wrote, and posts I have read on this site. Men here often complain of being worked to death and not getting to spend time with their families.
As a friend once said to me, you need a left AND a right wing to fly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodness, but people are feeling reactionary today.
When somebody equates socialist values and ideals with the men's movement it isn't reactionary to ask for clarification.
Once again wiccid dodges any accountability for her feminist/socialist views that she seeks to impose on men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I may be socialist, but never feminist. Too many men and boys in my life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I may be socialist, but never feminist. Too many men and boys in my life.
And thus we have another admission that wiccid has anti-capitalistic values, and that wiccid fails to recognize the socialist/Marxist influences that are the foundation of modern feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodness, but people are feeling reactionary today. I've never even paid much attention to the former Playboy Bunny Gloria Steinem before. She's before my time.
Wiccid has crossed over the line. She is equating socialist ideals and values with the values of the men’s movement. Prior to this final dodge, I was willing to give wiccid the benefit of the doubt, and I assumed that her intentions were honorable despite her misplaced ideals.
Now I believe that wiccid is in fact a feminist that plagues this site with no other goal other than to intentionally spread misinformation about the men’s movement. She does us no favors and she never takes a principled stand except where suits her purpose to appear male friendly to the men’s movement. This image is little more than a facade.
I have seen these tactics before, and they are expected. As the men’s movement increases its influence, these anti-male feminist attacks will continue to increase. Wiccid’s presence is a testament to the success of the men’s movement. It is an indisputable fact that as the men’s movement increases in its influence, that there will be a concomitant increase in opposition and attacks from the feminist.
In wiccids case her primary tactic involves presenting the appearance of neutrality, periods of partial agreement, then the intentional poisoning of a thread with anti-male attacks. Wiccid is clearly a feminist that employs this tactic. She has repeated this pattern on several occasions now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminist, schmeminist. If you can't handle parallels between what somebody you don't like writes and what you profess to believe, perhaps you should reassess what you believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminist, schmeminist. If you can't handle parallels between what somebody you don't like writes and what you profess to believe, perhaps you should reassess what you believe.
Wiccid, the problem you seem to have with posts on this site is you continue to refuse to look beyond anything but the surface. You think that because men want to be able to have the choice of doing what they want with their lives that it means they *don't* want to be breadwinners. You couldn't be more mistaken. It is up to the man himself what he wants to be, not any masculist, and not any feminist. It is up to the man himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am in agreement with you. However, many men on this site have complained that men, in their role of breadwinners, have missed out on opportunities with their kids. That is the parallel I noticed.
One of the absurd excuses my ex has given for not spending time with our daughter, is that he knows I fretted about having to work when she was a baby and he wants me to have more time with her. It's poppycock, of course, another of his lame excuses. But the point I make is, there is no conflict between wanting (or needing) to be the "breadwinner" and wanting more time with your kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am in agreement with you. However, many men on this site have complained that men, in their role of breadwinners, have missed out on opportunities with their kids. That is the parallel I noticed.
Well, there could be some truth to that. My point is, though, that men's rights isn't about forcing men to choose one role or another. It's about opening choices TO men to be what they want to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, exactly. What are we arguing about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps YOU are a misogynist who doesn't like women asking pertinent (or, as the case may sometimes be, impertinent) questions? That makes about as much sense as you accusing me, a total stranger, of sexism.
Unlike your wife, I do not throw things, hit, or emotionally abuse my husband. If we have matters to discuss, we take it to another room, away from the kids. I can use a variety of tools, and kill my own bugs; he can cook and sew. We love eachother's kids. We both get along fairly well with our ex's, and with eachother's ex's. I get along with my dad, my stepdad, and my fathers-in-law. I am fond of my male boss.
I don't have a need to hate men, because men have never either injured me nor have I been dependent upon them. You, however, have had issues with women (or at least your wife) that have perhaps tainted your view of all women.
Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps YOU are a misogynist who doesn't like women asking pertinent (or, as the case may sometimes be, impertinent) questions?
Interesting. I call wiccid on her bluff and now she goes on the attack. Wiccid was simply asked to explain her claims of similarity between socialist ideals and the ideals of the man's movement. For that simple reason, she is now equating me with being a misogynist. It's just typical feminist trickery. I have seen it all before. Really, this gets kind of old.
Unlike your wife, I do not throw things, hit, or emotionally abuse my husband....
Note that wiccid publicly admits that during periods of anger, she resorts to pounding her purse on a table. That is clearly a violent act. It belies this claim that she makes.
I don't have a need to hate men, because men have never either injured me nor have I been dependent upon them. You, however, have had issues with women (or at least your wife) that have perhaps tainted your view of all women.
Interesting. This is another typical hate strategy of feminist. They claim that when a male has a problem with a single woman that they suddenly have issues with all women. This is the composition fallacy.
I have never explained my problem with feminist. So, I will do it now. My primary objections to feminism are that I believe they intentionally use their power to create bias and bigotry against men via the well-known mechanism of a conditioned response. If they want to prove me wrong then they will stop spreading their lies and propaganda on DV. Immediately. But of course that won't happen because what I believe is the truth. So, yes, I believe that most feminists have membership is a group that is by definition evil. And yes, you are absolutely right that I have a problem with evil behavior and designs.
Further, I believe that you are telling lies about your membership in that group. Your repeated defenses of evil feminist leaders that are known to teach male-hatred supports that belief. If you want to change that belief, you will stop supporting their male-hate speeches and stop trying to equate their evil socialist values with those of the men’s movement.
I further believe that feminism is an evil group of women that has a primary goal of seeking to systematically criminalize men. We see objective evidence in this with their regular manipulation of statistics to teach lies to the public. We see objective evidence of this in their systematic attacks of a belief system that rejects their relativism. We see objective evidence of this in their denial of violent female behaviors. We see evidence of this whit America having the highest criminalization of men in the free world. This systematic criminalization of men directly corresponds with the rise of the feminist movement. We know that rates of DV are roughly equal, and yet we do not see equal rates of female criminalization. And the list goes on and on….
Finally, I have documented my facts and claims most every time that you have made a reasonable request for documentation. But as usual, there has never once been a single rational response on your behalf to those requests. The one time that you did provide a reference I believe that you plagiarized your response from a feminist male-hate oriented web site.
Therefore, it is my conclusion that you are a male-hating feminist. It is my belief that your sole objective is to interject socialist and feminist lies into this discussion board. I have called you on it repeatedly, and I will do it most every time that you use this tactic to poison the minds of innocent men who lack the education to realize what feminist are doing and how they launch their seemingly benign attacks against men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slamming a purse onto a table is not violent. In fact, psychologists and therapists often suggest punching a pillow, or other inanimate objects to get out stress and aggression. If my husband slams a door (and he does) I do not accuse him of being violent. I ask him what's wrong, if the occasion warrents it; or leave him alone if it is what he seems to need. Perhaps your views of violence differ from ours?
Thank you for your take on feminism. Here is mine.
There was a time, when women couldn't vote, were discouraged from working outside the home, couldn't select their own mates, that feminism was needed. Many early feminists also were abolitionists, which was another good benefit to current society.
In my view, modern American feminism for the benefit of American women's causes is outdated. We have the vote, we can work, we can marry whom we choose. We can bear children, when we choose or not at all. Feminist causes in countries like Afghanistan are another matter IMO.)
I have never "repeatedly" defended Feminist leaders. I drew one parallel between what one Feminist leader said and what I have read here. Not in defense of her, but because I found it interesting and wanted to see if it would stimulate debate (not accusations against me, but informative debate).
You however do not want to debate issues, but to insult me. As a female on this men's site, I provide you a convenient target I suppose. I imagine men on feminist sites get much the same reaction.
(The "plagiarized" response you refer to was neither plagiarized - as I clearly cited its source - nor from a male-hating website, but from an urban legends debunking site.)
I have never argued that women don't have the capacity for violence. Ever. You may not be aware that I have known and assisted abused men, including my ex-husband after our marriage, in getting out of their abusive relationships.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slamming a purse onto a table is not violent.
This is called denial.
In fact, psychologists and therapists often suggest punching a pillow, or other inanimate objects to get out stress and aggression.
There is no credible councilor that would recommend or justify such behavior while having an argument with a spouse. This type of behavior has been documented to be illegal, and it a basis for making a DV claim if the laws where applied equally between the genders. We have such laws because feminist went to each State legislature and had them created and passed. Once again you are twisting facts to suit your feminist agenda that you claim not to support.
If my husband slams a door (and he does) I do not accuse him of being violent.
For now you don’t. However, if you choose to divorce him, your attorney will advise you to use this fact against him in custody dispute. That means that you will claim he has slammed doors, that you are afraid, and that you require an ex-parte restraining order. It is standard operating procedure.
Your husband needs to get smart and stop slamming doors. From a legal perspective, that is widely considered DV by feminist, lawyers, and judges alike.
I have never "repeatedly" defended Feminist leaders.
I believe that this is an outright lie. There has in fact been more than one occasion where you have held the feminist party line. Further, several other posters have called you on this practice.
You however do not want to debate issues, but to insult me.
I have repeatedly asked you to provide credible documentation for your claims, and there have been polite request for explanations. None have come forth.
Your responses have been personal attacks, name-calling, the systematic support of male-hate icons, and a practice of ignoring any evidence that supports my views in favor of your own feminst ideals. At other times, you use bait and switch tactics to appear credible to the men's movement.
As a female on this men's site, I provide you a convenient target I suppose.
No wiccid. I believe that you are clearly a feminist. Now you are playing the role of the injured innocent victim. This tactic is well known in the men’s movement. It won’t work here.
What you are doing is making an emotional appeal to the more chauvinistic and conservative men in an attempt to regain credibility. This is exactly what feminist do to our legislatures when they encounter objections to laws that degrade the protection of men against false allegations by women. Unfortunately, it has proven highly effective. Now men have very few if any protection against false allegations by females.
I believe that you realize your bluff has been called, and you are engaging in damage control. Keep trying. It’ll probably actually work with some of the more conservative and chauvinistic men. But it won’t work with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you and your wife deserve eachother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slamming a purse onto a table is not violent.
Slamming a door is not violent. It can be an expression of anger taken out on an inanimate object rather than on a person. Or it can be simply carelessness.
My husband and I don't plan on divorcing anytime soon. But if we do - Unlike certain people I don't believe that divorce must be done in the most destructive manner possible. ESPECIALLY when children are involved. We live around the corner from my husband's ex and the boys. I attend funerals and other family events of my ex-husband's from time to time, to escort my daughter. Even my parents, who have been divorced, 20 years, are still on good enough terms that my dad stays with my mom and stepdad when he is in town. Normal, reasonable people don't throw accusations and restraining orders against eachother unwarranted. Even my ex, who is a drug addict and a manic depressive, knows this much.
What other feminist icon did I defend? I honestly don't recall it. I do recall defending Russel Yates quite a bit. He is a feminist icon now?
Credible documentation of what claims?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you and your wife deserve eachother
Wiccid, that is a horrible, horrible thing to say to anyone in an abusive relationship. Perhaps you could be a bit more sensitive to other people's circumstances?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slamming a purse onto a table is not violent.
Slamming a door is not violent. It can be an expression of anger taken out on an inanimate object rather than on a person. Or it can be simply carelessness.
More denials from a person that admits to violence. Really, this is getting old. The plain fact of the matter is that the laws in the States define these acts as violent. They are the basis for which a restraining order can be obtained. It is irrelevant whether you define them as violent or not. That has been done for you.
My husband and I don't plan on divorcing anytime soon.
Nobody goes into a marriage thinking they will get a divorce.
There is a very high potential for you to divorce especially if this is your second marriage. If that happens, your current husband may decide that it is in the best interest of the children to have primary custody, and it is a virtual certainty that you will dispute such a motion. It doesn’t matter what your parents have done or what your ex’s have done. Those divorce cases are irrelevant.
When custody arrangements are in dispute, it becomes logical to dig up old information that discredits the other spouse. I guarantee, that if you are rational, you will use your husbands door slamming to claim he is violent. If you don’t do it in court, you will use it to blackmail him privately by threatening him to reveal the events. Then you will claim it isn't in the best interest of the children for a violent parent to have primary custody. But go ahead and deny it all you want.
Further, if the court orders a psychological evaluation (which they might), the door slamming will most likely come out. It doesn't matter if you think the behavior is violent. It has already been defined legally and socially to be violent by the feminist, legislatures, sociologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, and many other ist.
Normal, reasonable people don't throw accusations and restraining orders against each other unwarranted. Even my ex, who is a drug addict and a manic depressive, knows this much.
First, a drug addict is far from a rational human. It is worse if he is a manic depressive. So, he cannot possibly know…whatever. Such people are incapable of making rational choices that involve children until they resolve their problem. This statement is idiotic and demonstrates wild irrationality on your part wiccid.
Secondly, this is an astonishing admission. I hope you aren’t allowing your ex-husband, who is a drug addict, visit the children (as you’ve indicated). That would clearly be unacceptable until he resolves his problem. Allowing a known drug addict unsupervised visitation, would clearly bring into question your fitness as a parent. It seems to me that you have admitted such in another thread.
Gees. You married a looser ex, and now you are married to a mildly violent man that slams doors when he is angry. Further, you deny the violence of your own behaviors. Clearly, there is a pattern is emerging. I wonder what the CPS in your State would have to say about these facts?
Gees! I wonder how many of your social circle is aware of these problems. Better hope somebody doesn’t choose to call the CPS anonymous hotline. On the other hand, if the children are visiting a drug addicted father who is psychologically ill, better HOPE somebody DOES CALL THE CPS. They are clearly in an unhealthy situation.
Personally, I don’t believe the State has any business getting involved except in extreme situations (like possibly yours). Unfortunately, the feminist have passed laws to grant the State with the institutional powers to force your husband to change. Obviously, they won’t touch you because you are female, and it is currently believed that women cannot be violent. You demonstrate that point each time you deny your own violent behavior.
Oh, better hope one of your children doesn’t get mad and dial 911 when your husband slams a door. There is a good probability that he will be arrested. The children are trained to make such calls by the public educational system.
Also, better hope you don't run into some male/female activist in public with one of your purse/door slamming events. If you do, they may choose to dial 911 and change your life for you. For the record, I would only do this to one of the elite’s like a legislature, psychologist, or card carrying N.O.W type of feminist. That is because I think they need to feel the impact of their draconian laws.
Next, you better pray a neighbor doesn’t hear you two arguing and slamming things. All that is necessary is for a neighbor to dial 911 to cause an arrest. They can overhear you any number of ways through open windows, at the door, or through the walls.
It won’t matter if you deny that there was DV. The police will examine/search you without a warrant, and if there is a fresh bruise, your husband will be arrested. It won’t matter what you say or where the bruise came from. The law defines you to be a DV victim. So, if you deny the violence, your testimony will be excluded and your husband will be prosecuted without you on the basis of hearsay. You have no power to withdraw the charges.
Don’t ask for legal the references because I have already provided them. But you don’t have to take my word for it. For $20, you can consult a criminal attorney who specializes in DV and confirm what I have told you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wiccid, that is a horrible, horrible thing to say to anyone in an abusive relationship. Perhaps you could be a bit more sensitive to other people's circumstances?
Gees. It is looking like wiccid is in a fairly situation herself. There were some astonishing admissions in that last post.
Also, I will admit to being quite hard on her. However, that doesn't justify her attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you and your wife deserve eachother
Wiccid, that is a horrible, horrible thing to say to anyone in an abusive relationship. Perhaps you could be a bit more sensitive to other people's circumstances?
Very revealing, ain't it though?
...sounds to me like you were asking to be...
Raped?
This is the underlying theme here, of course. And it is typical pheminist reasoning - since men have all the power, how can they be possibly abused unless there is something wrong with them. Suck it up. Be a man. Deal with it.
"Deal with it" of course, is that dare to ball up the fist and lash out, and fall into the trap.
Women know something that most men are too blinkered by social conditioning to see. Go out some week, and look for it. You can't miss it. You'll see five foot two, hundred and ten pound women smacking husbands/boyfriends/brothers with their purses, their fists, slapping them in public, screaming in their faces, insulting their manhood, their family, their earning ability.
Why?
It's the same thing that gives one o' me mates (I'll call him Billy) the ability to walk up to any man in any bar, spit on his shoes, knock his beer off the table, and heap all manner of abuse on him.
Billy is a midget. He's 4' 6" tall, and he knows - as does every other man in there - that if someone ever does stand up and step to him, two people will step between them, stick their fingers in the big guy's face, and say "Hey! PICK ON SOMEONE YOUR OWN SIZE!"
Now Billy doesn't do this normally, but we sat playing pool one night, it worked it's way into conversation, and he proved it there, and at the next two taverns we went to. Twice, out of three times, the other guy was asked to leave, and Billy and I continued playing.
Go on, you big pansy. Hit me. I dare you.
Because you can't win - the minute Billy - or any woman says this, you have lost. If you don't get up, you're a pussy. If you do, you're a bully. Because nobody will force their ass to cash the checks their mouth writes.
Here's an experiment for you. Go to any feminist board - no, wait. Go to Yahoo, or someplace like that. Find a discussion thread about rape - or racism, a cross burning. Say outright
Sounds like you and your (victimizer)deserve each other...
Say it outright. Say "The bitch deserved to be raped." "The spook deserved to have that cross burned in his yard." "That kike needed to have swastoikas painted on his house."
I suggest you use a disposable account to do so. I can practically guarantee that within 48 hours you'll lose it.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand your from Canada. Perhaps it's a Canadian thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He has been insulting me from the minute I showed up on this site. He assumes that my husband is violent, because he occasionally gets mad (what has been called around here, normal male anger) and that I am violent. He presumes that couples automatically swing punches at eachother and make false accusations and false restraining orders. Sorry, the man pi&&ed me off and I said something derisive to everything he has been accusing me. Whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A) My ex does not have unsupervised visitation. He visits periodically. He plays with his daughter a bit, and we feed him, clothe him, and send him on his way. He has problems I couldn't deal with; but he is still, in essence, family.
B) IF we divorce, which we won't, I have no say over what happens to my husband's boys. They are his, and their mother's. I am just the wiccid stepmother. But I love them as if they were mine. As far as violence and restraining orders, as I said, normal people don't do that sort of thing. You and your wife might, but you are far from normal.
C) Aside from my ex's problems, I have had all very normal, placid relationships. My boyfriends were always friends first, and I am still friends with some of them from junior high. I can't imagine what kind of life you must be leading to have so much venom against relationships.
D) You need therapy. Badly.
E) After this I'll just ignore your existence. No point in arguing with a brick wall. You don't know me, or anything about me, and are merely using me as a target for your hatred of your wife, women in general and feminists in particular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't know me, or anything about me, and are merely using me as a target for your hatred of your wife, women in general and feminists in particular.
Thar she blows! It's the female victim card again.
It's the you are a man and hate all women tripe again. She's done all of this before.
Waaaaaa!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, the man pi&&ed me off and I said something derisive to everything he has been accusing me. Whatever.
Wiccid, if you'll look back at all the threads between you and Warble you will find that *you* provoked this, not he.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He has been insulting me from the minute I showed up on this site.
P.S. I may be wrong here, but I don't think Warble was around when you first started visiting this site. You're one of the old-timers now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With all due respect to Warble and WSP, could you two please restrain yourselves a bit? I mean, each of you has a different viewpoint, and CLEARLY you are at odds with one another. Warble, I think everyone else here can read quite well what WSP's views are and judge for themselves. And Wiccid, you would do quite well to ignore Warble's comments (as you offered to do) if you find them offensive.
I look to some of the threads in which you two have gone off on one another and at first I think "Wow. This topic is really generating some good thoughts..." But then I go in further and see that most of the messages are nothing more than you two sniping at one another.
You don't have to like one another, or really even respect one another. But both of you have made your positions clear. Perpetuating an argument fails to close the issue, and silence does NOT indicate weakness or assent.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....the man pi&&ed me off and I said something derisive to everything he has been accusing me...
This proves exactly the point. The woman gets pissed and then she abuses just as I have been demonstrating.
I now believe that this woman clearly emotionally abuses men (intentionally) and then this woman uses violent actions (that she has described) to enforce her point.
This closet feminist needs to be arrested for her DV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(The "plagiarized" response you refer to was neither plagiarized - as I clearly cited its source - nor from a male-hating website, but from an urban legends debunking site.)
Oh brother. Now wiccid is in denial on her act of plagerism. If couple of sentances were used it would be a properly cited source. When nearly an entire article is copied and posted that is plagerism. But of course, for wiccid, copying entire sections of a work is fine if the source is sited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand your from Canada. Perhaps it's a Canadian thing.
Oh yes. Of course. The pattern continues.
She is given U.S. sources, as per her request, and now she tries to brush her denial off whith a bigoted slight against Canada.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, I think everyone else here can read quite well what WSP's views are and judge for themselves.
(Warble flips his hair in a mock female fashion and states)
Whhheeellll. I guess I must be having a bad hair day....
Oh...come on Frank. This stuff is really actually quite funny. Don't take this stuff too seriously.
All this sparring with our resident-feminist-in-denial is really quite skill promoting. It helps to keep the wits sharpened. Also, I get the benefit of having others use different tactics.
The experience comes in handy when we have a real life encounter with a card carrying variety of the N.O.W. feminist. These encounters help because we learn efficient and effective ways to nail the other person in their lies.
Of course, it also helps to develop (have) a thick skin for this stuff. : )
I’ve already had a couple of challenges from the feminist committee here at work. This board is the only place to get pre-sparring experience. I am constantly confronted with their lies from women in positions of power. You won't believe how much they have having a man that belongs to a men's group in their midst. They would literally make it illegal if they could.
Further, it helps to know what will set them off, and how to counter their false claims. It also helps to recognize that they will not be rational when arguing. Feminist do not play fair in a debate. They will use any tactic to win.
So, yeaaaaa Baby!!!! Bring it on! This is too much fun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh brother. Now wiccid is in denial on her act of plagerism. If couple of sentances were used it would be a properly cited source. When nearly an entire article is copied and posted that is plagerism. But of course, for wiccid, copying entire sections of a work is fine if the source is sited.
No offense, Warble, but that's once instance where Wiccid is correct. Copying the entire story isn't plagiarism as long as she doesn't take credit for it. It IS, however, a potential violation of copyright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No offense, Warble, but that's once instance where Wiccid is correct. Copying the entire story isn't plagiarism as long as she doesn't take credit for it. It IS, however, a potential violation of copyright.
Yea, I can see your point. However, I receintly took a University course that required turning in 11 papers that were 10-15 pages each (1 paper per week) with all of the bibliographies, tables, charts, documentation to support the arguments and conclusions, and etc.
In that context they defined plagiarism to be quoting a substantial portion of the text. Credit to the source was required using the standards of the APA. That included instances where a person paraphrased an author. If we had a unique idea or finding we had to be prepared to prove the idea represented our own work, and it could not be a derivative of somebody else’s research. One instance of this would result in expulsion. There were allot of students that got expelled. Happens every year. It is considered a very serious offence, and it simply isn't tolerated.
We consider this practice to be a major problem in many Universities Nationwide. So, when I see somebody, out of laziness, failing to put down their own thoughts, I am in the habit of labeling it as plagiarism.
I really do want to hear what wiccid has to say...in a rational format. Nevertheless, she apparently lacks the skills to perform comparison and contrast, analysis, expositions, and descriptions of ideas. I have politely asked for this at times, but such request are met with attacks.
Ironically, we have the same standards in my working environment. We would consider copy right violations to be a form or category of plagiarism. However, as I stated, I can see why you would call it a copy right violation. Many people still think its okay to copy substantial portions of a work so long as the author is cited. The Internet makes it even easier to do this with the cut-n-paste techniques. NOT.
Gees. I need to start using some of those one-liners. These posts are too long.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were allot of students that got expelled. Happens every year. It is considered a very serious offence, and it simply isn't tolerated.
Warble, did you cut and paste this from some document you have? I know I've read this exact sentence before. I don't know if it was from you or not. Definite deja vu here. Mind that I am not accusing you of plagiurism.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another problem is that the site is unmoderated. Do we have any greater duty to tolerate any distractions then Ms. boards?
CONTACT THE MEDIA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, the best way to do this would be to complain to the United Way and any other organization to the YWCA, including the YWCA directly. Tell them you will no longer tolerate this misandry and that they can go elsewhere for donations next year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"To create a hierarchy of authority and sanctity and then suppress sexuality as a natural form of expression and subject these men to total control, ..."
Gee, sort of sounds like the church has acquired a feminist agenda, according to Steinem. *Begin sarcasm* "Our Anti-Father, who art a member of NOW, hollow be thy speeches.." *end sarcasm*
I'm glad the men's movement does not degrade itself to the feminist level by flat-out insulting the other gender by equating it with Hitler and the 9/11 hijackers. I don't believe in an authoritative heirarchy when it comes to the genders, but I definitely believe that there is a heirarchy of sanctity, and masculists outclass the feminists by far (I also use these two terms loosely, for I also don't believe in the strict labelling of specific groups). My apologies if I sound overly sanctimonius (no pun intended).
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
True, sometimes.. on the flip-side:
Why reinvent the wheel daily?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 26, @11:24PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
> Anyone know where...
I smell her cooking.
(Or did someone get sick in the furnace vent?)
I shouldn't make fun of Gloria.
Her future, much like her weight, is now behind her.
The Madcap Misogynist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 27, @10:23AM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
For God's sake, grow up. This is the way to get the men's movement to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For God's sake, grow up. This is the way to get the men's movement to be taken seriously.
This guy is really funny. Lighten up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 27, @08:14PM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
> Fow God's sake, gwow up. Dis is de way
> to get de men's movement to be taken
> sewiouswy.
Nagging, much like Oprah's binging after a week of bad ratings, is enough to shrivel a man up like a three hour bath.
The Madcap Misogynist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a deal for Ms. Steinem.
Seriously.
What we can do is divide the continents amongst ourselves. Men can take the smaler share, since that would only be fair in the interest of redressing past injustice. In exchange, we'll donate a sizable sample of our sperm, and we can take with us a few of their eggs. Each will be left to figure out the rest for themselves, which shouldn't be too bad. We're practically there on a synthetic womb anyhow, and I have little doubt that the likes of Steinem would be more than willing to harvest male sperm in little concentration camps for the odd male that is bound to come along.
But here's the catch: each of our segregated societies gets to take with it the contributions that members of their sex have made to the world at large. That way, women will be free of all the terrors that come with our unfair, unfeeling male empiricism.
Which means men get to keep the cars, planes, computers, suspension bridges, birth control, genetic design, algebra, calculus, western philosophy, the printing press, modern agriculture, the Declaration of Independence, along with most of the world's vaccines, architecture, modern medical procedures...oh, and the Italian sonnet, the vast majority of the Greek intellectual heritage (we can copyright the idea of democracy), and anything else I might be forgetting.
Now, free of all the horrors wrought on the world by men, women will be free to enact a patriarchy-free, capitalism-free, essentially man-free utopia for themselves. The poisonous influence of men will be gone, along with everything we have so unjustly brought to the world in our mad dash to make up for our inherent sexual insecurity (a sad psychological result of our inability to bear children for ourselves).
Have fun in your little violence-free but plague-infested dirt farm commune, Gloria and company. We'll be over here, wherever that is, taking care of business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ummm...
Do we HAVE to take these things? I mean, I think I'd rather go off into the woods and create a new world, if you don't mind. Perhaps because I know we CAN. Let's leave all the existing inventions to the women. Eventaully, they'll break anyway, and the women won't be able to fix them, so it'll be as if we never gave them anything. \:-)
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just because gloria and her genfem hoodlums oppose misogyny and violence against women does not give them the right to promote misandry and violence against men!!!!
and also, she had some nerve saying hate slurs...at the YWCA, a christian organization!!! True there have been incidents of sexual abuse in the churches, as well as the 9/11 massacre!!
speaking of that, Gloria, did you not know that 3/4ths of the victims were male? And another thing, would you continue to disrespect and blame Russell Yates for his wife murdering of their 5 kids??? huh???
Gloria, before you go judging that men are evil, you'd better take a look at what your fellow females sins they've committed!!!!!
Emmanuel Matteer Jnr.
Emanslave@aol.com
*****MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND!!!!!*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
”A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known, and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims. He wears their face. He wears their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation. He works secretly, and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city. He infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is to be less feared."
Cicero 106 to 43BC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True your post, Cicero. Or his modern bro.
It's much easier to feel & see the sledgehammer, than the velvet fist. The mirror reflects the person standing before it, and not the reality beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
