|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I do sincerely appreciate Glenn Sacks’ mention of me in his latest column, I’m not sure it was such a good idea to imply the NCFM is a nest of girl-bashers. While I haven’t seen their hard-copy publication, I’ve been all over their website and done a lot of e-mailing back and forth with some of their members.
In my opinion, the NCFM are the good guys. They do not (as I’m aware anyway) have a ‘little red book,’ that has ‘scientific proof’ of the failings of women, as another org does. And while I’m sure they really don’t need a little old lady from AZ to defend them, I will anyway. I can actually see where they’re coming from with that cartoon, because it’s a graphic illustration of something that happens all the time. I’ve seen girls I’ve known since childhood turn into self-serving, manipulative monsters once they had that ring on their finger, and know that there are men who think we’re all like that. They’re suspicious and distrustful of any woman, because they’ve been so damaged by their experiences with women. I recall reading in Phil Cook’s book about a man who had such distaste for women he couldn’t even stand to be alone on an elevator with one.
I’ve had my own encounters online with men who didn’t know how to behave themselves, and thought a personal attack on me would accomplish something. And sometimes I’ve seen the sweetest guys I know rant and rave, and say terrible things about women. But I know what’s behind it, where it’s coming from, so I don’t take it personally. I stay out of the places where I know they don’t want women around, because sometimes a guy just needs to say what’s on his mind at the moment and not have to concern himself with who’s listening. I don’t have to be in on everything, after all ;>)
In any movement there are going to be radicals. Sure, I’ve run across men and women both who think the best solution is to take all the opposite sex out in the desert and shoot ‘em down, but they are in the minority, and I really do not believe they have anything to do with the NCFM.
I remember back in the early ‘70s when women felt such a sense of freedom and were urged to say whatever was on their minds about men, and be as negative as possible. Most of us said what we had to say and got over it. Maybe it felt good at the time, for a minute, but then it wasn’t fun anymore. Those of us who were grounded in reality understood that we needed men as much as they needed us, and there really wasn’t any point in being too negative for too long. I see the same kind of thing happening here. Some people will nurse a grievance forever because it’s become so familiar they don’t know how to live any other way. That’s sad, too because in the end they only harm themselves.
And that’s my two cents’ worth for today.
T____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trudy - I enjoyed your post. I think you are right on the mark.
I am curious about your reference to a little red book. What's that about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday April 02, @09:15PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
the article was mostly more political maneuvering
get over this stuff, willya guys?
the birds are just beginning to sing, and now our biggest worry is “woman bashers,” complete with ten “characteristics” that frighten the little ladies?
are those "profiling" tools, glen, by which we might know this enemy within?
perhaps we should share them with the d.a. now, and bypass the legal technicalities?
methinks the boys are allowed at little vitriol after three decades of gags and iron cages
that said, i agree that a few sisters speak for us with justice in their hearts
but this ain't no time for apologizing for our anger
it's a time for expressing it loudly, righteously, and throughout the land
i’ve got no affiliation with the ncfm, but, hey, i remember logging onto them way before this site existed, and being comforted mightily that i wasn't alone
come on, dude, this is a movement that can’t muster a protest for a public display of severed ceramic penises, for god’s sake
let's not put out the fire before striking the match
sad sacks, very sad
ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"come on, dude, this is a movement that can’t muster a protest for a public display of severed ceramic penises, for god’s sake"
Which is exactly why trying to make anger a central point in the men's movement is a bad idea. We'll look just like the "angry, white male" image that feminists in power want people to see and we'll be brushed off as a bunch of vindictive idiots.
Articles such as this one by Sacks will help, in the long term, to ensure the success of the men's movement. When we can show examples of how the our movement isn't a radical ideology, that we are truly honest and fair, we can get the support of many people who would be turned off by us otherwise.
I'm not saying that anger doesn't have its place in the men's movement, but I've personally seen the effects of using anger to try to effect change. It hasn't worked once yet, and it almost cost us the recommendation of HB 587 from the NH Senate Internal Affairs Committee. It's clear to me that the anti-male feminists in power want to see us show our anger. It's an easy tool they will use to destroy us, if we let them. If you must be angry, learn to play the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Scott (preparing for the inevitable onslaught of flame posts)
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"come on, dude, this is a movement that can’t muster a protest for a public display of severed ceramic penises, for god’s sake"
I think Dr. Warren Farrell said something like, "you can always count on the men in the men's movement to NOT show up on the field during the battle of the sexes." Or something similar. The sentiment is the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you Ray that men deserve to rant after all the wrongdoings against us, but don't be quick to criticize Sacks just yet, although he does deserve a little criticizing for some poor analogies, but I'll get to that in a second.
What I got out of the article, besides a poor generalization of woman-bashing, was a warning for men in the men's movement to avoid alienating the opposite sex out of anger of what's happened to them. This is what feminists did (e.g.: "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."), and look at where it's gotten them after 30 years: an adult version of a "girls-only" clubhouse. This warning from Sacks seems more as a warning to the entire men's movement in general, as opposed to the individual man. I've heard some incredibly disturbing stories from men who post on this site, and the last thing I would do is tell them, "Gee, aren't you being a little hard on women?" People have a right to bitch and complain. Period.
The thing I disagree with concerning the article is the generalization of woman-bashing by Mr. Sacks, and then equating the NCFM with it. I couldn't detect any women-bashing in the cartoon mentioned in the article; in fact, I thought it was an accurate representation of the change women go through when they get married. I think it was just poor judgement on Sacks' part, but that's only my opinion.
It seems to me woman-bashing is something of an individual choice, but when you make it the basis of an entire movement whose main purpose is to secure mens' liberties, it puts the movement's maturity in question for some people. Gender feminism incorporated a male-bashing mantra, and now they're running around in circles as furiously as they can to avoid the final plunge into the drain, and as such they show their true maturity (e.g.: the troll in the previous discussion who posted a link to a grotesque picture).
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I express my anger all the time. But I direct it at the system, not at a birth group. I direct it at the county that resists the truth, the gen-fems who lie about the truth, etc. Directing it at women is bigoted.
If the system were as biased in favor of men as it is women, men would have the same incentives women have to lie in court, and they might very act on it in the same way.
When portions of the men's movement express anger at women, or present all women as evil, which is exactly what that cartoon did, then people like Glenn are absolutely right to speak up. That kind of junk only slows our progress and hurts our credibility.
No, this is not something that should reflect on all of NCFM. Most NCFM members opposed that cartoon and they responded to it accordingly. There was even a petition printed in the following issue of Transitions. Perhaps these things should have been mentioned in Glenn's article if it was to print outside of NCFM. But his points are correct. Hate is a cancer that will infiltrate and destroy the movement if it isn't actively identified and avoided.
Regardless of the cartoonist's or the editor's intent, the cartoon was a depiction of all women as evil. If directed at men, we would be up in arms about it. To support a cartoon like that but oppose it when it's directed at men is just plain hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regardless of the cartoonist's or the editor's intent, the cartoon was a depiction of all women as evil. If directed at men, we would be up in arms about it. To support a cartoon like that but oppose it when it's directed at men is just plain hypocrisy.
Well said, Marc. Unfortunately, all sides of this issue seem to simply run into a brick wall every time we try to discuss it. Nobody's budging on it, and I suspect no one will.
I will say, however, that this appears to be the most civil discussion about it I've seen thus far. Thanks, folks, for keeping it straight and narrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 03, @08:24PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
“I express my anger all the time. But I direct it at the system, not at a birth group. I direct it at the county that resists the truth, the gen-fems who lie about the truth, etc. Directing it at women is bigoted.”
then we fundamentally disagree, mr angelucci
for not only do i believe that it is appropriate for men, with just cause, to direct anger at women, i believe that it is currently imperative that strong, outraged men do just that
in addition, men should direct anger at those men who have sold them down the river -- and who continue to do so
scott would have us fold our hands in fear of dismissal on charges of being “angry white males”
but hey, that's exactly the line used to silence me for three decades
it ain't stopping me this time
further, to characterize the expression of anger by a male towards women as “bigoted” is the same jive i’ve been getting from western culture my entire life
in the country i put my ass on the line for, i’m a fourth-class citizen (behind women, children and household pets)
i've seen my brothers caged, sodomized, stomped and left for dead in the mud, and i have seen the same treatment bestowed on the sons of the nation
this irritates me, and i intend to make copious amounts of noise about it, mixed liberally with righteous anger, until i’m tuckered out
that is not bigotry, mr angelucci, that is necessity
i have not advocated any injury to women, nor to any woman in particular
i have merely expressed my ire
to date, i am still allowed to feel and express my anger -- at least until the profiles that mr sacks has kindly provided are adopted by law enforcement (tho largely they already are)
“If the system were as biased in favor of men as it is women, men would have the same incentives women have to lie in court, and they might very act on it in the same way.”
that is complete supposition on your part, and strange supposition from a men's activist specializing in domestic issues
i mean yeah, i "might" be bigfoot
at one time in this nation, before you were born, fathers had significant presumption of custody, especially in “marginal” or “unfit” cases
with inevitable exceptions, fathers DID NOT use children as a weapon of mass destruction against women -- as women have done for the past four decades
the proper response to that is anger and swift cessation
“When portions of the men's movement express anger at women, or present all women as evil, which is exactly what that cartoon did, then people like Glenn are absolutely right to speak up. That kind of junk only slows our progress and hurts our credibility.”
well, at least some common ground here
stereotyping – like rage without cause – is not only non-productive, it’s boring
a few women i know, for example, are far more conscious than the vast majority of men
and agreed, mr sacks was fine voicing disagreement with a cartoon
drawing up a “profiling” manifesto of ten “characteristics” of “women bashers,” however, is not fine
not even
that’s the kind of document i’d expect from n.o.w., or from our fake media, academy, and government -- not from perhaps the most visible “men’s activist” currently permitted voice by the matriarchy
“Regardless of the cartoonist's or the editor's intent, the cartoon was a depiction of all women as evil. If directed at men, we would be up in arms about it. To support a cartoon like that but oppose it when it's directed at men is just plain hypocrisy.”
agreed – but again, the cartoon indignation was only a very small part of mr sacks’ rant against “women bashers”
same ole scapegoat, different day
sorry guys, i’m agin ya on this one
i neither hate females nor wish them ill – but nobody's gonna "profile" any more males in this land without catching it from me
lose the politics, boys
ya’ll better huddle up again
ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"then we fundamentally disagree, mr angelucci"
You're right.
"for not only do i believe that it is appropriate for men, with just cause, to direct anger at women, i believe that it is currently imperative that strong, outraged men do just that"
Ok. There's where we disagree. To me, directing anger at an entire birth group is a form of bigotry. To you, it isn't. You're right. We disagree.
"In addition, men should dirct anger at those men who have sold them down the river -- and who continue to do so"
True. But now you're narrowing down the target to men who have done a certain thing. Such men, to me, are men who refuse to acknowledge the rights of men. This I agree with.
"scott would have us fold our hands in fear of dismissal on charges of being “angry white males”"
Scott would have us maintain credibility and avoid bigotry and hate. Angry white males or not.
"but hey, that's exactly the line used to silence me for three decades"
Another "censorship" argument. Irrelevant.
"it ain't stopping me this time"
I'm impressed.
"further, to characterize the expression of anger by a male towards women as “bigoted” is the same jive i’ve been getting from western culture my entire life"
And that refutes the claim? I'm still waiting for an explanation, rather than a bunch of rhetoric, about why expression of anger and hatred of a birth group is not an expression of bigotry toward them. When it's directed at men, is it not bigotry?
"in the country i put my ass on the line for, i’m a fourth-class citizen (behind women, children and household pets)"
In many ways this is probably true. And I attack the system for it. Not women. Lot's of women oppose the anti-male aspects of the system. And lots of men do nothing about it.
"i've seen my brothers caged, sodomized, stomped and left for dead in the mud, and i have seen the same treatment bestowed on the sons of the nation"
And it's the fault of all women.
"this irritates me, and i intend to make copious amounts of noise about it, mixed liberally with righteous anger, until i’m tuckered out"
And we're on the same side there. I'll direct my anger at the system and the misandrists and bigots, male or female, who support it. If you direct your anger at women as a whole, then that's your choice. I call it bigotry. You don't. I guess that settles it.
"that is not bigotry, mr angelucci, that is necessity"
How is attacking women as a whole a "necessity?" Lay still and compare your answer to the way other forms of bigotry are justified.
"i have not advocated any injury to women, nor to any woman in particular"
Nor do certain factions of the Klan advocate injury to blacks. It's irrelevant.
"i have merely expressed my ire"
If you were going to say "irritation," then I can understand it.
"to date, i am still allowed to feel and express my anger -- at least until the profiles that mr sacks has kindly provided are adopted by law enforcement (tho largely they already are)"
Again, this isn't about anger. It's about who it is best to direct it at. And Glenn is not suggested this be regulated by law any more than you are suggested his opinion should be regulated by law.
"This ('If the system were as biased in favor of men as it is women, men would have the same incentives women have to lie in court, and they might very act on it in the same way.' is complete supposition on your part, and strange supposition from a men's activist specializing in domestic issues"
I agree it's a supposition. And if you have facts to dispute it, please produce them. I don't find it "strange" at all coming from a men's activist on domestic issues. I advocate to get the truth out about the statistics showing women are as violent as men in relationships. I advocate to get the courts to stop being biased against men. This has nothing to do with believing that men are morally superior to women. I don't believe that. Nor do I believe women are morally superior to men. I believe when a system encourages one group to lie, that group will follow. As it is, the system encourages women to make false accusations. And many do. But most don't. And men lie too. What matters is irradicating the bias, not attacking women.
"i mean yeah, i "might" be bigfoot"
Lost you there. Bigfoot?
"at one time in this nation, before you were born, fathers had significant presumption of custody, especially in “marginal” or “unfit” cases" - with inevitable exceptions, fathers DID NOT use children as a weapon of mass destruction against women -- as women have done for the past four decades"
I'd love to see that evidence - both that fathers had presumption of custody and that they didn't use it to their advantage.
"the proper response to that is anger and swift cessation"
I agree. But I'll direct it to the perpetrators and to the system and the supporters of it. Not at women as a whole.
"stereotyping – like rage without cause – is not only non-productive, it’s boring"
Agreed.
"a few women i know, for example, are far more conscious than the vast majority of men"
Agreed.
"and agreed, mr sacks was fine voicing disagreement with a cartoon"
Ok.
"drawing up a “profiling” manifesto of ten “characteristics” of “women bashers,” however, is not fine"
Well, that approach may not be the best one. Or maybe it is given the space he had. I don't know. But I agree with his points and I think it is good he addressed it. In doing so he stuck his neck out. I appreciate it.
"that’s the kind of document i’d expect from n.o.w., or from our fake media, academy, and government -- not from perhaps the most visible “men’s activist” currently permitted voice by the matriarchy"
Well, I wouldn't expect NOW to write a document exposing and attacking male bashing within the women's movement, nor would I expect NOW to write a document exposing male bashing within the men's movement in a way that is supportive of the men's movement and in a way that recognizes the bashing as only a cancerous portion of the men's movement. I would instead expect NOW to write one that uses male bashing as an example of the entire men's movement to effectively shut the movement up or slow it down, which has been successful done in the past. That's exactly why I appreciate an article like Glenn's.
"agreed – but again, the cartoon indignation was only a very small part of mr sacks’ rant against “women bashers”"
Well, the cartoon was only a small sample of alot of other types of woman bashing in the movement. Glenn simply pointed that out.
"same ole scapegoat, different day"
Speaking out against counterproductive hate within the movement is not scapegoating.
"i neither hate females nor wish them ill – but nobody's gonna "profile" any more males in this land without catching it from me"
Fair enough. Although it sounds like you've just profiled those who will catch it from you. Same ole profile, different day.
"lose the politics, boys"
You too, brother.
"ya’ll better huddle up again
We've been huddled. It's just we've got untold millions of yards to go and we're going to have disagreement about how to get there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 03, @10:23PM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
"i have not advocated any injury to women, nor to any woman in particular"
> Nor do certain factions of the Klan advocate >injury to blacks. It's
>irrelevant.
no, it's exactly relevant, otherwise you would not have chosen those words
thank you, mr angelucci, for comparing me -- in a deniable, backhanded, non-actionable way, to be sure -- to the ku klux klan
it is very revealing of your methods
"for not only do i believe that it is appropriate for men, with just cause, to direct anger at women, i believe that it is currently imperative that strong, outraged men do just that"
>Ok. There's where we disagree. To me, directing anger at an entire birth >group is a form of bigotry. To you, it isn't. You're right. We disagree.
it is likewise revealing that you find need to expand my permission for men to express anger at women, into a generalized hatred of women, thence into the klan
this despite my statement to the exact contrary
nowhere in my statement did i say anything about “all women” or “an entire birth group”
those are YOUR assumptions, because they are indispensable to your argument and purpose, and because without which your position – and the position of certain others here – is indefensible
please insert neither words nor sentiments into my statements, mr angelucci, which i have not made
that is a despicable and foul tactic
“i've seen my brothers caged, sodomized, stomped and left for dead in the mud, and i have seen the same treatment bestowed on the sons of the nation"
>And it's the fault of all women.
again, mr angelucci, why must you attribute sentiments to me which I do not own, and have expressly disavowed?
if i had wanted to append that clumsy attempt at scapegoating to my statement, i would have
i criticize the corrupt aspects of the masculine at least as much as the feminine
why do you and others here find it so necessary to convince folks that i'm a misogynist?
are you guys still afraid of mommy, or what?
>This ('If the system were as biased in favor of men as it is women, men >would have the same incentives women have to lie in court, and they might >very act on it in the same way.' is complete supposition on your part, and >strange supposition from a men's activist specializing in domestic issues"
>I agree it's a supposition. And if you have facts to dispute it, please produce >them.
first you make a supposition, without a single supporting fact, imputing the integrity of males based on the dishonesty of women in court
then you admit it’s your supposition, and demand that I produce “facts” to support the supposition YOU made
dude, either back off the bong or go back to law school
or both
don’t ever associate me again with the klan
you have no idea what you’re saying
ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"no, it's exactly relevant, otherwise you would not have chosen those words. thank you, mr angelucci, for comparing me -- in a deniable, backhanded, non-actionable way, to be sure -- to the ku klux klan. It is very revealing of your methods"
You're welcome. And thank you for overextending an analogy. It's revealing of your own methods. The comparison is not one of you to a Klansman, but one that demonstrates the irrelevancy of whether one advocates injury or simply advocates hatred toward a group. Whether youd do so is also irrelevant. The argument you made was that if one only advocates anger at, but not injury toward, a birth group, then they're not bigots. My comparison was that many Klansmen say the same and are still bigots, regardlss of whether they advocate injury. You can take it as calling you a Klansman if you'd like. That's not what the comparison wast.
"it is likewise revealing that you find need to expand my permission for men to express anger at women, into a generalized hatred of women, thence into the klan"
it is also revealing that you distort what I said. You said "it is appropriate for men, with just cause, to direct anger at women" and that "it is currently imperative that strong, outraged men do just that". I responded that "to me, directing anger at an entire birth >group is a form of bigotry. To you, it isn't. You're right. We disagree." If a feminist group said it's is appropriate to direct anger at men, that would be bigotry, regardless of whether the anger was actually hatred or not. I haven't "generalized" anger into hatred. I have, on the other hand, generalized anger at women, in general, as a form of bigotry, just as anger at men is a form of bigotry.
"this despite my statement to the exact contrary"
I agreed with your contrary statement, and they seemed contradictory to me.
"nowhere in my statement did i say anything about “all women” or “an entire birth group”"
That's what this whole conversation is about. When you say "women" without clarifying which women, it is about all women, just as it is when one expresses anger at "men" without clarifying which.
"those are YOUR assumptions, because they are indispensable to your argument and purpose, and because without which your position – and the position of certain others here – is indefensible"
I see. So next time I see a feminist expressing anger at "men," I'll avoid the assumption that the feminist meant all men. Instead I'll assume the feminist meant only certain men. Then I won't find it offensive. Nice.
"please insert neither words nor sentiments into my statements, mr angelucci, which i have not made"
I won't. And I haven't. You did so with mine, above, about turning "anger" into "hatred."
"that is a despicable and foul tactic"
Sure is.
("And it's the fault of all women.") "again, mr angelucci, why must you attribute sentiments to me which I do not own, and have expressly disavowed?"
Simply because you were using this to justify "anger at women," which unless clarified means all women. Your comments that "disvow" this did not "clarify" it, they simply contradicted it. They never said "when I say 'women,' I mean only certain women."
"if i had wanted to append that clumsy attempt at scapegoating to my statement, i would have"
???
"i criticize the corrupt aspects of the masculine at least as much as the feminine"
Ok. And when a feminist expresses anger at men, do you justify it by saying she only means certain men, or justify it in whatever other way you seem to be justifying anger "at women"?
"why do you and others here find it so necessary to convince folks that i'm a misogynist?"
I couldn't care less if you're a misogynist or not. I don't even know you. I'm simply responding to your attack on my posting.
"are you guys still afraid of mommy, or what?"
Oh geeze.
"first you make a supposition, without a single supporting fact, imputing the integrity of males based on the dishonesty of women in court"
No. I make a supposition that I admit is a supposition, and you attack it fiercely, without facts, and act as though your disagreement is not a supposition. My supposition is based on an assumption that neither men nor women are more evil than the other. I can't prove that. I just assume it because I have seen good and bad in both. You can disagree. No problem. But when you disagree, either admit your disagreement is also a supposition, or provide facts that show it is not a supposition.
"then you admit it’s your supposition, and demand that I produce “facts” to support the supposition YOU made"
No. Read again. I admitted mine was a supposition. You disagreed, but acted like your supposition was a fact. That's why I asked for facts. Otherwise, your supposition is as good as mine.
"dude, either back off the bong or go back to law school or both"
Oooh, personal attacks. What a dignified man you are.
"don’t ever associate me again with the klan"
I didn't. I associated your argument with one that klansmen make.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"are you guys still afraid of mommy, or what?"
Oooh, personal attacks. What a dignified man you are.
Sigh. Well, so much for my civility comment. I suppose I spoke too soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd probably worry a lot more about the infighting in the men's movement except for all of the infighting in the feminist movement. Human nature, I guess.
I am still confident that we are stumbling forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your challenge to my civility may not be much different. But you're right, Night, I shouldn't challenge people's dignity. It's just been a bit upsetting seeing men's activists make silly personal attacks on Glenn after all the breakthroughs he brought us. I watched him get the same unfair reactionary treatment by feminists at UCLA for years. Now I'm seeing men's rights activists do the same, one of whom made several threats toward Glenn physically. There's more behind the scenes than what's on this site. Anyhow, my sincere apologies if I took a slip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now I'm seeing men's rights activists do the same, one of whom made several threats toward Glenn physically. There's more behind the scenes than what's on this site. Anyhow, my sincere apologies if I took a slip.
Don't worry about it. I wasn't speaking only of your post, btw. I get frustrated sometimes when I see potential for a productive thread and it gets side-tracked by a useless flame war. That's one reason I'm not posting here as much these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Trudy for that moment of reality. Its good to hear that women can be objective and can be concerned beyond the selfish scope of their own identity. I myself am guilty of getting pissed off, and find myself ranting and attacking the opposite sex. I was hurt, and nobody would listen, thats why I found this site. Its not that I want to get even, I just want to get fair. Trudy, with what you say it makes me feel that its possible. We will always have friction, which is good, it means we care, but when their is such an imbalance and unreasonable interests that effect the otherside, there is no choice but to stand up for yourself. The word is comprimise, not free-ride. And Trudy if more men and women were like you it would be extremely possible to have.
Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm convinced that, if you are attempting to establish a position for long-term gain, and you are at, say, -5 on a linear scale and ultimately you want to be at 0, then you have to shoot for, say, +3. To me, this means that, while AUTHORIZING a certain amount of "woman bashing" might not be in our best interest, we ought to TOLERATE it from within the movement. The feminists are going to accuse us of bashing anyway. So if we are to be accused regardless of guilt, then being somewhat guilty anyway will ultimately cost us little. On the other hand, acheiving a certain level of bashing in the public forums makes our porition unambiguous, and therefore it is necessary.
To quote John Adams: "This is a REVOLUTION dammitall! We're going to have to offend SOMEBODY!"
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday April 02, @11:19PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Well said Frank. We are going to be called WB's no matter how well we present ourselves. However, that doesn't justify the bigotry of some male's but we can expect that they will be in the wings.
We can't just put the men's movement on hold while we make certain it has a PC crowd. The undesirables will be there no matter what.
Crap man! We agree....
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And Trudy if more men and women were like you it would be extremely possible to have.
The key word here is "IF", Im willing to negociate a settlement.
Thats just what we want, isnt it????
I do believe in these propaganda wars it may be pertinate to fight fire with fire. To bring them to the tables so to speak. But telling people that women are as likely to commit crimes, such as domestic violence, is not woman bashing. Its making them accountable for there actions and not allowing them to use the justice system as a full out weapon whenever they feel like it. The police mentality and operations office are largely to blame, simply because women call the police more often. I was hoping to avoid a REVOLUTION and wanted to aim for the "stop, look and listen" campaign. I think most women would be willing to look for a solution given the facts. But then again maybe not. Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My only misgiving about Glen Sacks' article is that I wasn't identified a WB by name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too sound off at times due to anger / pain which comes from very real hurt. I do try to apologize.
Yet, I do think that Glen is far more right than wrong. Most women simply do not KNOW about men's troubles; if they did I think most would support us. Add in that there are a LOT of men in very strong opposition to ending any of the men's troubles and it seems clear that we have to get the women on our side by being polite but FIRM.
Does that make any sense?
Have YOU ever blown off steam and not really meant it?
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 03, @07:49AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
At risk of rehashing the lengthy discussion that took place among NCFMers after that cover came out, let me straighten some things out as someone who was there.
First, the cover was on Transitions, NCFM's member only publication. Transitions is *only* sent to paid members of NCFM and not offered as a separate subscription for free or any amount to any non-member. This was not any statement to the public at large, but a private publication.
That in no way means that I think the cover was a proper thing to print nor that it was accepted by the NCFM membership at large.
Secondly, almost immediately, heated discussion sprang up on both Transitions' letters to the editor column and NCFM's private email discussion group. I didn't keep an accurate count, but my "feel" is that those disapproving of the cover outnumbered those who approved 3 to 1.
It saddens me deeply to see NCFM painted with this misogynist brush. As I argued on the NCFM email list -- misandrist feminists go to great lengths to paint us as "women haters;" why the h#!l are we going out of our way to make it easy for them. And from an organization with a sizable female membership and a local chapter with a woman president nonetheless!
Hope that helps set the record straight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 03, @01:47PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Hope that helps set the record straight.
Your post does provide some much-needed insight onto the NCFM side of the issue, as some of us were not aware that Transitions is members-only and that the debate over the cartoon was completely internal to that.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is an old saying: "Bad people use bad means to obtain bad ends." This is the case for the Marxist-Leninist feminist movement. Feminism and the female elitist movement is much more organized and effective than the men's movement. It's primary goal is censorship,political correctness, such that views contrary to their unjust purposes are not forthcoming. To do so, it will level "ad hominem" attacks on advocates for men and use other Marxist-Leninist tactics to further the same. These tactics have been extremely effective in the past. Until men organize and establish themselves as a separate entity politically, socially, and economically, men will lack an adequate defense to the predations of Marxist-Leninist feminism and female elitists. This does not mean that they should adopt the same unethical tactics that women's movements use of "bad men use bad means to reach bad ends." It does mean that men must be much more organized and assertive in order to effectively combat the radical feminists and female elitists and, in fact, should use "ethical means, ethical men, in order to obtain ethical ends" which is the current antithesis of the women's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am the terrible, offending “woman bashing” editor of Transitions, the newsletter of the National Coalition of Free Men (“NCFM”).
Glen Sacks recent article about terrible women bashing within men’s groups was pure defamation. He neglected to tell you a few simple facts.
The issue of Transitions that offended Mr. Sacks did indeed feature the cartoon that he so objected to. What Mr. Sacks does not tell you is that two other articles about women appeared in that same issue. I wrote one, a tribute to my aunt Wilma who had died recently. The other, written by Francis Baumli, was an eloquent tribute to Dolly Parton. If you’d like to measure it that way, the volume of laudatory writing about women was approximately ten times greater than the material Sacks refers to as “women bashing.” Perhaps Mr. Sacks agrees with the feminist tenet that women like my aunt Wilma and Dolly Parton are not really women.
The issue here is not whether NCFM is engaged in women bashing. The issue is whether men have the right to criticize women at all. Mr. Sacks is a PC censor who feels that men simply do not have the right to criticize women.
Mr. Sacks has engaged in this defamation of Transitions because he is greedy for recognition and power. Only a few months into membership in NCFM, Mr. Sacks has attempted to purge those members who do not hew to his PC agenda. Mr. Sacks is an enemy of the individualist ideas embodied in IFeminist.
Mr. Sacks neglected to tell you a few things about me. I am married to a woman who has a professional career. I have raised two daughters, one of them a step-daughter. Both of my daughters are college-educated and self-reliant.
I do not believe in women bashing. Nor am I particularly opposed to it. I am an advocate of complete freedom of speech. Men and women should be able to say whatever they want to say. The fact that men say some things that are critical of women does not mean that those men are “women bashers.” Mr. Sacks is an enforcer of the PC code. Just as no person is allowed to criticize blacks without being defamed as a “racist,” Sacks would like to defame any man who dares to criticize women in any regard as a “woman basher.”
IFeminist has done a disservice to freedom of speech and reasonable debate by publishing this defamatory article about Transitions and NCFM. Mr. Sacks is a closet Stalinist who would like to purge any man who dares to criticize women from the ranks of men’s groups. He wants to do so to place a halo over his head and annoint himself as the only sainted leader of men.
Stephen Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Thomas: Do you have a link so that we can view the cartoon in question?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The issue of Transitions that offended Mr. Sacks did indeed feature the cartoon that he so objected to. What Mr. Sacks does not tell you is that two other articles about women appeared in that same issue. I wrote one, a tribute to my aunt Wilma who had died recently. The other, written by Francis Baumli, was an eloquent tribute to Dolly Parton."
This is irrelevant. If a feminist pub had 10 tributes to their grand daddies and one cartoon depicting men as evil, most men's activists would see it as hateful and male-bashing.
"The issue here is not whether NCFM is engaged in women bashing. The issue is whether men have the right to criticize women at all. Mr. Sacks is a PC censor who feels that men simply do not have the right to criticize women."
This is totally untrue. It is not about "rights" at all. For that matter any of us have a "right" to spread any hate we want to. Glenn was objecting to alot of hateful comments that were starting to seep onto NCFM material and that most NCFM members did not want to see on the material. Since Glenn's article was published outside NCFM he should have also explained that most, though not all, members disapproved of it and responded accordingly. But in no way does this have to do with whether men have a right to criticize women. It's about men's activists speaking out against it when they find the same hypocrisy and hate in a movement that opposes hypocrisy and hate.
"Mr. Sacks has engaged in this defamation of Transitions because he is greedy for recognition and power. Only a few months into membership in NCFM, Mr. Sacks has attempted to purge those members who do not hew to his PC agenda."
Nonsense. Glenn has published men's rights articles, often hard-hitting ones that anger and infuriated people, in major media and campus newspaers nationwide and has literally been all over the media, including CNN. He has no need to do this to get publicity. In fact, a certain particular man in NCFM responded to Glenn with physical threats, just like a child. Glenn didn't need to stick his neck out and face that kind of childish stupidity just to get attention. He wrote what he believes in. And it's ironic how some who claim to be so much against censorship react so furiously to Glenn freely speaking his mind.
"Mr. Sacks neglected to tell you a few things about me. I am married to a woman who has a professional career. I have raised two daughters, one of them a step-daughter. Both of my daughters are college-educated and self-reliant."
You and your personal life were never a topic of discussion in Glenn's article. It's good to hear these things about you. But what do they have to do with hate on the cover of Transitions?
"Men and women should be able to say whatever they want to say."
Everyone except Glenn?
"The fact that men say some things that are critical of women does not mean that those men are “women bashers.”"
Perhaps. And maybe the same could be said about women who are critical of men. But Glenn's point, again, and as I read it, is that attacking women as a whole, rather than attacking misandrism, fiminist bias, the system, etc., is both hypocritical and counterproductive to the men's movement.
"Mr. Sacks is an enforcer of the PC code. Just as no person is allowed to criticize blacks without being defamed as a “racist,” Sacks would like to defame any man who dares to criticize women in any regard as a “woman basher.”"
No. Glenn would like to point out that attacking women as a birth group is a counterproductive and hypocritical way to promote men's rights. His doing so is no more an enforcement of a "PC Code" than is your name-calling reactionism to his opinion.
"IFeminist has done a disservice to freedom of speech and reasonable debate by publishing this defamatory article about Transitions and NCFM."
Listen to Mr. anti-censor now.
"Mr. Sacks is a closet Stalinist who would like to purge any man who dares to criticize women from the ranks of men’s groups. He wants to do so to place a halo over his head and annoint himself as the only sainted leader of men."
Sounds more like you're the Stalinist who reacts with childish name-calling toward anyone who dares to express an opinion on this that you don't like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Marc:
Marc and Glenn are engaging in the most odious tactic now in the political space -- labelling others as bigots.
Marc and Glenn both know that this is not true. Marc has met me in person and had dinner with me. Marc is a preposterous asshole for calling me a bigot.
These tactics are repugnant and I am glad I am parting company with both Marc and Glenn. Both are dangerous demagogues who do not mind slandering other men to improve their own standing.
I am your enemy Marc. You are a socialist, another asshole lawyer who wants to invade the privacy of our families, our homes and our marriages. Marc wants to be a petty bureaucrat. He's the flip image of the ambulance chasers and fee swappers that now plague our communities and courts from the feminist side.
Yes, Marc and Glenn, you are enemies.
Assholes.
Stephen Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. Glenn simply described certain attitudes, labeled them, and explained why he opposes them. He did not give names, use silly name-calling like "asshole," "fools," and other stupidity like you did, not did he resort to physical threats like you did. Some who disagreed with Glenn did so like adults. You on the other hand showed your true childish nature.
Farewell Stephen, good sir.
Thine enemy.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think anyone here matches all of Sacks' criteria...
Personally, I think Sacks hit a very important issue squarely on the head. And at least some of these ideas have been expressed in this forum:
Characteristic #4: WBs believe that even those females who have helped us do so out of dubious motives.
Characteristic #5: WBs believe that for 30 years women have won at the expense of men and that men can only win now at the expense of women.
Characteristic #9: WBs believe that feminism has caused all of men's and fathers' current problems.
Characteristic #10: The WBs believe that their "radical" rhetoric and posture helps the men's movement achieve its goals, just as the radicalism of Malcolm X helped Martin Luther King achieve his moderate civil rights goals.
Of course, this is a semi-public forum, so there it's not possible to control for trolls and radfem provocateurs in disguise, and by wisely not responding to trolls, it may sometimes give the impression that there is consensus about their ideas. But I think that only accounts for a part of it.
There is a diversity of opinion here from people with a diversity of experience, and it is unreasonable to expect that everyone will be at the same level of ethical development on this very emotional issue that is still in its infancy. The feminist movement has its radfems, and we have our "radmen" (of course, the radfems are responsible feminism's decline and current total lack of popularity).
I don't think it is necessary to insist that everyone here reject "woman-bashing" with the same vigor or even at all. No one learns anything from censorship. But I think it's a pretty good issue to talk about, and my opinion is that this "woman-bashing" only delays the success of our movement.
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only trouble with this article is that the characteristics are blurbs, sound-bites, and sweeping statements. While this is a limitation of commentary in the media, it is easy for the intellectually lazy to use these as convenient rubrics to label and dismiss.
The danger here is not Mr. Sacks, whom I have corresponded via email on a couple of occasions, but on the segments of his readership who might do this. I do hoever take issue with some of the amphiboly allowed by his statements, to wit:
Characteristic #1: The woman-basher believes that all women, or virtually all women, are the problem.
Precisely why I endeavor to use quotation marks, and terms like "pheminist", "womyn," et. al. While fast typing doesn't always render this possible, such terms do serve to target the gen-phems for any attacks.
Characteristic #2: WBs believe that men don't ever really oppose woman-bashing or woman-blaming, but oppose it publicly only because they're forced to do so.
There are those who seek a Churchill as opposed to a Neville Chamberlain in the Men's movement, are those people now "WBs?" Is kowtowing to the sensibilities of Political Correctness now the thing to do?
Yeah, that's a "general" statement too. Point made.
Characteristic #3: WBs believe that women aren't worth the trouble
That is a personal decision that every man has the right to make, and I have to disagree foursquare. I know many men who just don't associate with women in anything but a casual and professional relationship, and are fine people. They just aren't interested in rolling the dice in divorce and family court. So long as the courts are the Star Chambers and inquisitions they are, this is arguably a smart move.
Characteristic #4: WBs believe that even those females who have helped us do so out of dubious motives.
There is a difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. "Show Me The Money" is prudence, not misogyny.
Characteristic #5: WBs believe that for 30 years women have won at the expense of men and that men can only win now at the expense of women.
Question is, what qualifies as "The Expense of Women?" I'll be blunt, as is my wont: Any person - male or female - who holds a job because of "Affirmitive Action" quotas does so at the expense of someone, and they should give it back, as it is an ill-gotten gain. Men who have been victims of paternity fraud need to be reimbursed in full by their defrauders, Men who have lost children or been hit with false accusations, imprisoned, and had their livlihoods taken away from them are entitled to seek redress of their grievances.
Honestly, I want no part of a movement that says "Suck it up, and we'll try to do better with the next poor schmuck."
Characteristic #6: WBs dismiss women's contributions to our movement because "it's often women who speak up for us only because Lace Curtain censorship doesn't allow men to do it."
I can't disagree enough here.
Stating the obvious is NOT dismissal. Years ago, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder stated an obvious truth on national TV, that the institution of slavery had brought blacks over here, and bred them as work animals. This made them stronger, possessing of great physical endurance, and quicker so as to work faster. Years later, they dominate athletics, as a result of this crude eugenics program.
DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This wasn't racist - this was mere fact. Mere fact also is that if many men said what Wendy MacElroy does, for example, they'd be crucified and pilloried by the pheminist media, assuming they were allowed to speak at all. Hurray for Wendy Mac and praise Jesus for her, by all means, but I don't notice Jim Hanback or Glenn Sacks having a photo byline on foxnews.com
Characteristic #7: WBs believe that when male-friendly women writers or activists show support for the mainstream feminist view of a gender issue, it is indicative of their bad intentions.
See #9 below and the commentary on chivalry, is this the excuse club now going to be used to silence those who are critical of a female writer's editorial stand of an issue?
I don't think I'm being knee-jerk at all. the reflex cry of "Misogynist!" to any criticism of a woman anywhere is empirically observable fact.
Characteristic #8: WBs use personal experience (having children stolen in a divorce, being the victim of false accusations or of domestic violence, etc.) to justify anti-female bigotry.
...So, suck it up guys, and get over it and quit whining about it, because here on out, if you mention it you're a WB?
Characteristic #9: WBs believe that feminism has caused all of men's and fathers' current problems.
WBs blame feminism but ignore an equally destructive force--men's chivalrous tendency...
I've left part of the commentary (Honestly, if anyone hasn't read the whole article, you're hopeless) to say "Bravo." With one caution - it doesn't make pheminism any less evil.
Part of chivalry is the "free pass" notion so common. In reality, I am all for chivalry, but like anything, when it becomes one sided it becomes useless at best and a tool of evil at worst. Society now places no value on the notion of chivalry - it is a tool the phems use to hide behind when you have had enough of the beatings - it's then that their lil' lips go aquiver and they say "You wouldn't hit a girl would you?" (I speak in metaphor, for the twits who would take this as an endorsement of hitting women.)
As a result of this, I say, "Suspend Chivalry." No longer, madam, can you hide behind PMS, "women's intuition," and your skirts. Step up. Where I call a man a stupid bastard, you're now a stupid bitch. Gone is your social immunity to coarse language, and vulgarity - grow up and deal. Hand me that hundred pound sack of cement - you can't lift it? Useless! You're fired. Sorry you have a PTA meeting, or soccer practice - job or family, choose, just like men have been doing for centuries. After that weekend he never called you? Well, you had a good time, so what's your problem? Pregnant? Sounds like a personal issue, but just have an abortion and it'll be okay.
Oh, you want your privilege back? I'll act like a gentleman then - but you have to act like a lady. Can't do the heavy work, and need to leave early - fine, but it has to be done, and if a man does it I pay him more, it's only fair. Don't want men to act like sluts? Sauce for the goose, my dear, as well. Want to have your motherhood supported - support fatherhood, then.
Characteristic #10: The WBs believe that their "radical" rhetoric and posture helps the men's movement achieve its goals, just as the radicalism of Malcolm X helped Martin Luther King achieve his moderate civil rights goals.
The only one's I have noticed at demonstrations, marches, and picket lines are the radicals, though. Early feminism marginalized their radicals, gave them no voice, and dismissed them.
Come years later, feminism is now pheminism and the radicals are in charge - because they were the ones in the streets, the ones on the camera, and the ones doing and effecting change.
Radicals may be led, but to do so, they must be LED. A radical is a radical precisely because they are out of patience, they are mad as hell, and tired of taking it. Counselling them to further patience is futile - it's plain silly. Do that, and they will walk away, and do as they please, every time, without fail. If they are effective, they will win the hearts and minds of the fence straddling majority - and thus you lose the movement.
Feminism lost its identity and pheminism today bears no resemblance to the goals and ideals of what it started as in the late 50's and early 60's of the 20th century, precisely because it lacked the courage to face that reality, however unpleasant it may be.
And you have to give them something real to do, too, not just busy work, because if you do that, when - not if, but when - they find you out, you will increase their resolve tenfold.
No, it's not pretty, but it's not about pretty.
Now, while I respect Glenn a lot, I really think he had the choke way too open on this one, and he can really do better. Try again, Glenn. You and we both deserve it.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism lost its identity and pheminism today bears no resemblance to the goals and ideals of what it started as in the late 50's and early 60's of the 20th century, precisely because it lacked the courage to face that reality, however unpleasant it may be.
True to an extent, but I think they've always been corrupt like that.
"The third women's rights convention in the United States was held 19-20 April 1850 at the Second Baptist Church in Salem, Ohio...the convention had a particular characteristic: it was officiated entirely by women. "Never did men so suffer. They implored just to say a word; but no; the President was inflexible--no man should be heard." The women leaders even refused men the right to vote or sit on the platform."
Women's Progress in America, by Elizabeth Frost-Knappman, @1994 ABC-CLIO, Inc., 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911, Santa Barbara, CA 93116-1911, ISBN 0-87436-667-4; pp. 265.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam is right; there has always been a deep, pervasive and powerful element of misandry in the feminist movement. And as for those who say that feminism has strayed since the second wave began in the 60s, they are being disingenuous to say the least. I lived in Washington, D.C., during the late 60s and early 70s. I was very involved in the anti-war and civil rights movements, and every outspoken feminist that I met was deranged by her hatred of males.
While I think Glenn Sacks is right to warn members of the men's movement against becoming misogynists the way feminists are misandrists, several people in this discussion have wisely taken exception to several of his points. If we go down the path indicated by Sacks' article, we run the risk of pandering to women and committing one of the mistakes that even he points out when he states, "The most vociferous attacks on Russell (and on me) came not from women, but from men, most of whom have deeply imbibed the 'always blame the man' ethic of our time." It seems he may have imbibed a bit too much of this seductive nectar himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 03, @01:50PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
but I don't notice Jim Hanback or Glenn Sacks having a photo byline on foxnews.com
Glenn is published in a wide variety of newspapers all over the country. James works for a newspaper and writes for it on a semi-regular basis. You are correct, though, that Wendy's viewpoints on men's issues are going to be taken much more seriously than a male writer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Mere fact also is that if many men said what Wendy MacElroy does, for example, they'd be crucified and pilloried by the pheminist media, assuming they were allowed to speak at all. Hurray for Wendy Mac and praise Jesus for her, by all means, but I don't notice Jim Hanback or Glenn Sacks having a photo byline on foxnews.com"
It looks like you missed Glenn's point here. He was not dismissing the reality that the Lace Curtain blocks men from saying the same things women have more freedom to say. Glenn was responding to those who use this fact to dismiss the contributions of those women who do speak out. His point was that even if women have an easier time speaking out about men's rights, we should still thank, rather than dismiss and criticize, those women among us who help get men's rights issues into the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am 45 yo and have had it with our liberal feminist loving press. Even NPR national public radio airs gay programs and panders feminist agendas now. We now live in a very sick world and if I where GOD it would be a good time for world war III as any.
I do not know how much time we have left to try to repair the damage done by the last 30 years of feminism. Not all women are feminist and our war is not against women but the feminist moment.
Do you want to live in a feminist world with gays, lesbians, homosexuals, and pedophiles spreading poison about how sick you are for not accepting their life style?
I live in an area with a 72% divorce rate so we have many victims of feminism here. We even have a gay day downtown in the central park (sick) with tents and speeches.
How much time is left to turn back the damage. Like anything the longer you let things go the harder the repair.
I feel this is a war for truth and not an on-sided pitty-party.
This is how feminists achieve their goals. They squawk, they screech, they threaten, and, eventually, the government and the justice system just cave in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 03, @01:35PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Umm, Ronn, have you looked around this website? There's a section here for news topics that deal with gay and bisexual men. I could be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but I believe that the proprietors of the site aren't anti-gay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 03, @01:39PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
No, Scott and Nightmist are the moderators of this website, and neither one of them are anti-gay. Notice that this thread was scored as "0: Flamebait."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well Anonymous why are you Anonymous .
Maybe 6% or less of this population is gay.
Then let then stay in the closet and not try
to cram it down my, or my children’s throat.
I do not wish to take my children down town
and have to hear a gay pride day going on with
loud speakers.
Then have to tell my 10 year old when she asked
dad what are gays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attitudes about homosexuality shouldn't be a part of the men's movement. The fact is, gay men suffer far more in our society than lesbians do.
If we men want to overcome the brutal oppression that we suffer, we have to bury the hatchets that we have used against each other for so long. Gay, black, white, heterosexual, old and young, whatever: We males need each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well that may be true. But I never said
"A woman needs a man like a fish needs the bicycle."
I just wish for true equal rights.
Not this crap us men now live with.
If men are all potential rapist then women
are all potential bitches and baby killers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 03, @04:21PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
What does any of this have to do with gays?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does any of this have to do with gays?
Unfortunately, the genfems have succeeded in portraying white, heterosexual males as the ultimate oppressors. While all men are vilified and despised by mainstream feminists, we are kept divided against ourselves by the very slick move of casting white, heterosexual men as the enemies of gay men and minority men. We need to tear down the walls that existed, to some extent, between us before feminism became the law of the land and that have been reinforced by feminism. Those walls that separate us may be the single greatest weapon of the anti-male bigots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday June 01, @01:11PM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but a man needs a feminazi like a duck needs an anchor around his neck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday June 01, @01:14PM EST (#69)
|
|
|
|
|
That's the truest thing posted in this thread...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then have to tell my 10 year old when she asked dad what are gays.
I fail to see the difficulty with explaining what homosexuals are to a 10-year-old. Of course explaining intolerant attitudes might be somewhat difficult.
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad they show gay programs. I work with a gay man who fully supports men's rights and is a powerful ally. By some in the movement cannot work with him because they are so insecure with their own sex lives that they have to take it out on others for their sexual choices. Sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's examine how many references he makes to NCFM
Characteristic #1: The woman-basher believes that all women, or virtually all women, are the problem.
For example, in a recent issue of Transitions, the publication of the National Coalition of Free Men, a front cover cartoon depicts a pretty bride (representing a woman on her wedding day), and then a hideous, multi-headed monster (representing a woman in divorce court, presumably because she has won custody of the children and driven the father out of his children's lives)..
That is reference number one. Let's see now. I should first note that I haven’t read the cartoon. However, I believe that Glenn is implying that if a person believes that women as a group have exercised power to oppress men, that person, according to Glenn is a WB.
The problem with this is that it ignores tacit consent on the part of women. Women for example, tacitly consent to a 30% paternity fraud rate by women (as do many men). This is done by the group in general. It is men’s groups that are fighting this practice. Yes, there are a few exceptions. But women as a group are arguably responsible for this practice and fail to correct the problem. In fact they are the first to oppose legislation to correct the problem.
So, according to Glenn, holding women as a group responsible for paternity fraud would be WB. Wrong Glenn. Telling the truth and being angry about it isn't WB. Women are well socialized in how to commit fraud against men. It is currently taking many forms and clearly involves the majority of the female population. Stating these facts isn’t WB.
Characteristic #2: WB’s believe that men don't ever really oppose woman-bashing or woman-blaming, but oppose it publicly only because they're forced to do so.
After the Transitions cover cartoon was published, I wrote a petition of protest and many local activists signed it. Many WB’s assumed that this was done because we were afraid of our wives' reproach or because we feared offending some by not being politically correct.
Well that is the second attack against the NCFM. Being PC is not going to win the war. Glenn will have to abandon that wish. Clearly, he seems angry because the cartoon was published against his wishes. However, I haven't seen the cartoon, so I will reserve comment. Nevertheless, this is a rather broad brush with which he is attacking the NCFM based on a single cartoon.
Glenn is going to have to come to terms with the fact that social pressures do influence others behaviors. There are indeed some men that, for political correctness reasons only, attack a group as women bashers (unjustly) to gain political advantage. Is that what Glenn is doing with to the NCFM? Humm.
Characteristic #3: WB’s believe that women aren't worth the trouble
In the most recent issue of Transitions, a WB writer relates "a tale I've heard from a number of friends. F--king women in the feminist era is so dangerous that it's not worth the effort, and, anyway, most women are so damned lousy in bed that they aren't worth the trouble."
That is attack number three against the NCFM. The issue of how risky it is to engage in social contact with women is a valid one. I now believe Glenn either denies or fails to realize the seriousness of the erosion of male rights. Dating women and becoming intimately involved entails significant and serious risks. There is in fact a point at which men should disengage until the laws and protections become more rational. Glenn appears to be in denial.
According to Glenn, no such limit exists. If a man, out of anger touches on the issue, that person is a WB. Glenn must be lacking in experience and therefore lacking in empathy.
Well that is three attacks out of ten. Fully 30% of the article is an outright attack against the NCFM. The rest of the examples seem to go on to strengthen his attacks against the NCFM. In the end, I believe Glenn seems to liken the NCFM to little more than a group of white racist. He does this in the following quip:
Some WBs justify or even celebrate woman-bashing by referring to the Civil Rights Movement model, whereby white racists knew that if they didn't give the moderate King what he wanted, they'd have to deal with the radical Malcolm.
(emphasis mine)
Well I am a member of the NCFM. I have not found the group to be a covert membership of white racist as Glenn implies. However, I am objective and will look a bit more closely at NCFM now. If it is little more than a group of white racists, I'll be the first to withdraw my membership. I will of course note that it is the NCFM that is actively working with the CA legislature in supporting a bill against paternity fraud. Glenn on the other hand, has done little other than bash the NCFM as a group of angry white males. Just what we need when preparing to go before the legislature.
Currently, it just seems Glenn is blowing off steam because a petition of his was rejected. Clearly, with the majority of the article aimed at NCFM, it is an attack against the NCFM. It may even be that he is doing this for the hope of political gain and influence.
I should note, the other 70% of the article can be broken down into 7 categories that each consume 10% of the total article. That is how I determine that the majority of the article is an attack against the NCFM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 03, @06:49PM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
Now Warble, I thought you were smarter than this. I have no grudge with NCFM, but I disagree with the policies of one of its former editors. I have no desire for power within NCFM or to be greatly involved in it, not because there's anything terrible about NCFM, buit because I see writing as my activism and don;t ant to take time away from it. I was offered the editorship of the NCFM publication TRansitions on several occassions and I turned it down each time becauise I wouldn't have time to do that and still be a pro-male, pro-father regular columnist.
My petition to the NCFM wasn't "rejected"--most of the people here in LA signed it as I asked them to, we sent it in, and (to the editor's credit) it was published in Transitions. Re: "white racists," you need to re-read that section. Radical WBs see themselves as Malcolm Xs, not as white racists, and my point was that Malcolm X style rhetoric from men at this stage is colunterproductive. I do not now nor have I ever heard of anything racist in the NCFM and I;ve never claimd to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 03, @06:59PM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
I pushed the button by accident--let me finish (and proofread) what I wrote:
Now Warble, I thought you were smarter than this. I have no grudge with NCFM, but I disagree with the policies of one of its former editors. I have no desire for power within NCFM or to be greatly involved in it, not because there's anything terrible about NCFM, but because I see writing as my activism and don't want to take time away from it. Anybody in the NCFM leadership could attest to this. I was offered the editorship of the NCFM publication Transitions on several occassions and I turned it down each time because I wouldn't have time to do that and still be a pro-male, pro-father regular columnist. Editing the publication takes a tremendous amount of time and in the past I have commended the past editor (with whom I disagreed on the cover cartoon) for his hard work on it.
My petition to the NCFM wasn't "rejected"--most of the people here in LA signed it as I asked them to, we sent it in, and (to the editor's credit) it was published in Transitions. Re: "white racists," you'll need to re-read that section. Radical WBs see themselves as Malcolm Xs, not as white racists, and my point was that Malcolm X style radical rhetoric from men at this stage is counterproductive. I do not now nor have I ever heard of anything racist in the NCFM and I've never claimed to.
The article is not an attack on NCFM since, as you admit, the NCFM-related parts were less than a third of the piece. I didn't want them all bunched up at the top but I couldn't get the piece to flow right any other way.
The point of the column is not to censor but to urge us to be the best we can be and not sink down into the swamp of bigotry that the feminists have sunk to.
As for what you call my lack of "empathy" for men's problems, my work (www.GlennSacks.com) speaks for itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article is not an attack on NCFM since, as you admit, the NCFM-related parts were less than a third of the piece. I didn't want them all bunched up at the top but I couldn't get the piece to flow right any other way.
I don't know Glenn. I can't see where other men's groups were named and singled out for a public example. To me it reads like the rest of the article seems to support why you believe the NCFM is a group of WB's.
As I think about the article, it becomes clear that you are attempting to create a profile for WB's. I just do not believe that this is a good idea because we are at war. It isn't a war against the WB's, and they will not stop the men’s movement. The men’s movement just isn't that fragile. If men want to be radicals let them. All that will happen is that they will make us look like saints. If they are silent then we appear to be evil and radical. Our existence by definition makes them look radical. So, I believe we should ignore them and not try to profile them.
The real war is against relativism, feminism, Marxist values, and a new trend of the U.S. & State Governments to exercise a totalitarian power. It is that power that is unjustly and systematically aimed against men by millions of women. This war is about using the laws for good or evil. It is about embracing and valuing all human characteristics, and not just the so-called feminine characteristics of boys while ignoring many virtuous and noble male attributes.
We shouldn't be spending allot of time worrying about the radical elements of the men's movement. They are not the foundation of the movement and they will not be the end of the movement. The foundation of the movement is men seeking justice after having been subjected to extreme injustices in the legal system. Its foundation is good men that recognize those bad laws, which have resulted in those injustices that are the result of evil designs. The foundation of the movement is the goodness in men and women that fight the evils of feminism and their tacit consenters who allow evil laws to represent their interest. And yes, in part the foundation of the movement is a few women that have the courage to seek justice on behalf of men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Radical WBs see themselves as Malcolm Xs, not as white racists, and my point was that Malcolm X style rhetoric from men at this stage is colunterproductive.
Perhaps it was a bad choice to use Malcolm X as an example for an analogy of how WB's view themselves. Unfortunately, Malcolm X was known to preach the coming of a day that would result in the extermination of all whites. This was literally a fundamental tenet that motivated him.
Invoking that name clearly brings that tone to the table. So, when that example was chosen, I naturally equated NCFM with white power like Malcolm X taught black power and the extermination of whites.
I believe that association is a fair and reasonable one. However, it may be that this isn't what Glenn intended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The WBs believe that their "radical" rhetoric and posture helps the men's movement achieve its goals, just as the radicalism of Malcolm X helped Martin Luther King achieve his moderate civil rights goals.
Okay. I have reread this statement. I believe it is a mistake to characterize Mr. King as a moderate. I have never heard that, and I don't know how this claim can be supported. Perhaps Glenn will explain how Mr. King was a moderate, or perhaps he means that King's agenda was moderate relative to Malcolm X's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 04, @12:06AM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
>Some WBs justify or even celebrate woman-bashing by referring to the Civil >Rights Movement model, whereby white racists knew that if they didn't give >the moderate King what he wanted, they'd have to deal with the radical >Malcolm.
>(emphasis mine)
>Well I am a member of the NCFM. I have not found the group to be a covert >membership of white racist as Glenn implies.
that’s fascinating, warble -- because just this evening, on a sub-thread of this discussion, i was associated by this board's most "moderate" commentator with the ku klux klan
>Currently, it just seems Glenn is blowing off steam because a petition of his >was rejected. Clearly, with the majority of the article aimed at NCFM, it is >an attack against the NCFM. It may even be that he is doing this for the >hope of political gain and influence.
and that is equally fascinating
as i stated in my initial posts above -- i smell the rot of political maneuvering all over this “issue”
for those of you new to politics: this is called “closing ranks”
don’t let the “offended moral tone” fool you
lest they steal the fire from your hearth
your way or the highway, huh boys?
problem is, your highway runs right thru my den
that’d be your problem – not mine
look carefully at what you’re becoming
ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 04, @11:12AM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
wow what a paranoid little dumbass
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd sure like to see the cartoon that has caused this tempest in a teapot. I wonder if it was an attack on all women or if it was an attempt to humorously portray the risks that men take when they associate with women in this society, especially when they marry women.
Remember, saying that involvement with women is risky behavior is no more saying that all women are evil than saying that unprotected sex with women is risky behavior is the same as saying that all women have STDs. The fact is, in this matriarchy, associations with women are extremely dangerous for men and men would be wise to take appropriate precautions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 03, @10:31PM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
Some people have interpreted "Confronting Woman-Bashing in the Men's Movement" as an attack on NCFM. It is not meant to be such in any way, shape or form. I was citing various examples of woman-bashing, not focusing fire on any one organization. However, since the first three examples of "woman-bashing" come from a NCFM publication, I now see that the misinterpretation is understandable. Originally I had 16 or 17 examples of "woman-bashing" from various places in the men's movement. I cut it down to 10 to make it readable. I tried to break up the three NCFM references but the article didn't flow right.
More importantly, the article does not reflect the fact that the vast majority of NCFM members opposed these incidents of woman-bashing. I didn't include this originally because the article was not about NCFM. However, since many people think it was, it's important to include it, and I am slightly altering the first part of the piece to reflect this.
Also, my article is not a call for censorship (as some have misinterpreted it to be), but is instead an appeal for us to be the best we can be and to not allow ourselves to sink down into the bigoted sewer that modern feminism has become. The overwhelmingly positive responses that have been received about the article from all over the men's and fathers' movement confirms for me that our movement is still headed in the right direction.
My views on "woman-bashing" remain unchanged.--Glenn Sacks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some people have interpreted "Confronting Woman-Bashing in the Men's Movement" as an attack on NCFM. It is not meant to be such in any way, shape or form.
Thanks for the clarification Glenn. I was really quite worried that I might have accidently jointed a seriously bigoted group.
I agree that we need to avoid behavior that is consistent with WB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday April 08, @09:24AM EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Sacks, but this is a pretty lame excuse. Whether you are consciously aware of it or not, your article does single out and attack NCFM pretty blatantly. Such a view by readers is not a "misinterpretation" as you put it, but a reasonable conclusion by any rational person.
As proof, consider this: Suppose a journalist was writing a column on yellow journalism. Suppose that columnist articulated 10 ways of identifying a "YJ". Suppose he starts out by saying,
Characteristic 1) Yellow Journalists tell only half of the truth. For example, journalist Glenn Sacks ... blah blah blah.
Characteristic 2) YJ-s only cover stories that address one side of the issues. For example, journalist Glenn Sacks, blah, blah, blah...
Characteristic 3) They deliberately interview morons from the side they oppose and well-spoken people for the side they support. For example, journalist Glenn Sacks.. blah, blah, blah....
Characteristic 4) blah blah blah
And so on.....with the other 7 examples naming only one other journalist, and a couple of newspapers.
Do you honestly mean to tell us that you don't think readers would conclude that Glenn Sacks (as well as the others mentioned in the article) is a Yellow Journalist? Would you believe the writer if he said, "Some people have interpreted my article as an attack on Glenn Sacks. It is not meant to be such in any way, shape or form. I was citing various examples of yellow journalism, not focusing fire on any one journalist. However, since the first three examples of "yellow journalism" come from articles by Glenn Sacks, I now see that the MISINTERPRETATION [my emphasis] is understandable."
What kind of reader would buy that? It's not a misinterpretation, it's a reasonable interpretation. The reader walks away with the impression that NCFM (and some others) are a bunch of woman-bashers.
Glenn, either you are a naive fool, or you are being deceitful here. Which is it?
Considering that you left out of your original piece some of the salient truths that you included in your revised version (which show NCFM in its true light - as a non woman-bashing, gender egalitarian organization), you really owe NCFM a public apology. And if you can't apologize, why don't you write an article on how men's rights organizations are fundamentally more noble and of higher character than virtually all women's rights organizations (placing special emphasis on NCFM as you did in your hatchet job on them). What do you say, got the humility to admit you were wrong, and the moral fiber to do this?
I doubt it, it seems your ego is too big for that.
PS - in case you haven't figured out the irony, there was a reason why my analogy chose the topic of yellow journalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday April 08, @12:41PM EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, chill!
Look, Sacks rewrote the article and NCFM doesn't look like a woman-bashing organization any more. So, what's the big deal? We all make mistakes. No need to rip him a new one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday April 08, @01:28PM EST (#66)
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like somebody doesn't understand the phrase "Yellow Journalism."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 18, @04:24PM EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
Some idiot wrote: "Looks like somebody doesn't understand the phrase "Yellow Journalism".
Better wipe that egg of your phase, fool. The dictionary defines "Yellow Journalism" as:
"Journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers."
The term was not used incorrectly.
It is quite reasonable to conclude that Sacks exploited and distorted the news in order to attract readers to his column.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 04, @02:25AM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
I love Glen Sacks' list of the women who have helped the mens' movement.
Bettina Arndt has never had a nice word to say about women in her whole life, Camille Paglia the kiddie porn advocate and Erin Pizzey (senile old cow). I'm glad I don't have friends like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 04, @11:22AM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
Bettina Arndt has never had a nice word to say about women in her whole life, Camille Paglia the kiddie porn advocate and Erin Pizzey (senile old cow). I'm glad I don't have friends like that.
We get lots of trollers posting lies and flamebate. So, this is a request for proof that Camille Paglie is a kiddie porn advocate.
The statement about Erin Pizzey, calling her senile, it simply hate speach against an elderly person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m having a lot of trouble replying to this.
Let me state a few things first.
I am not terribly interested in men being perfect gentlemen all the time.
I am not terribly interested in having every deficiency in the men’s movement pointed out.
I am interested in what will defeat feminism.
When you are a Jew in Nazi Germany it pretty much a moot point who is in the Nazi party. Most Germans are pretty patriotic, which effectively means pro-Nazi, although you might find an occasional Schindler.
In a sense one of the problems with the men’s movement is not men’s hatred of women, it’s actually their inability to hate women. Only two days ago, I caught a snippet on TV of a British man-hating comedienne I normally avoid, Jo Brand. Before I could change channels, I was treated to a string of such gems as “I don’t put down men – I think that’s a job for a qualified vet”, and you know what is the saddest thing about that? The men who were laughing at it. Men have been taught that they can’t or daren’t or shouldn’t even question such things and they should get a sense of humour. If I’d had access to a gun, I might not have a TV now, which would have inconvenienced Jo Brand not at all. What I want is something that inconveniences Jo Brand and others like her a lot. However, I feel I owe it to myself not to become a mirror image of Jo Brand, and I think it’s far too early to talk of “gender reconciliation” (I hate the word “gender” anyway).
Men who have been traumatised by an inhumane system can perhaps be forgiven for hating women in general, or at least for being very distrustful of them. It is clear that the enemy is feminists, female or male, and this should be pointed out to them, but when you admit women, before you know it you find you are arguing about the ludicrous idea that Russell Yates really did it, you are arguing with a women wants to be called a feminist, but a nice feminist (try the concept of a “nice Nazi”, to see what I think of that. Why can’t she be called a women’s activist or something instead?). I don’t think we should exclude them and I don’t think we should attack them, but I think we’re entitled to criticise them. I do think we should reserve the right to be men, to have a rant, to go off and decide for ourselves what we think fatherhood is or what rape is, without having a woman keep interrupting. Only when we’ve done that and when women in general are actually listening, do I think we can argue the case and get a relationship between the sexes that truly values the unique contribution of both sexes. In the meantime, I’d like to say that the enemy is out there, not in here, and that the last battle that involved only men behaving like gentlemen at all times was in the days of King Arthur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was treated to a string of such gems as “I don’t put down men – I think that’s a job for a qualified vet”
Reminds me of Whoopie Goldberg's quip at the Oscars (this may be a paraphrase, but it's at least very close to her exact words), "What woman hasn't at some point wanted to lock her husband in a cage with a Komodo dragon?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
some of the behaviour found in both gender movements remind me of groupthink.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
