|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is something that Hallmark could put on a Valentines day card. I'd blush. And you know what, I dont mind opening wine bottles, or killing spiders (even though Im afraid of them). But finally a girl who appreciates the love between the sexes. I cry at movies, but I'm still afraid of Lesbiens (don't even like lesbien porn, I think women should be spending all their sexual energy on men, especially me). Maybe we should make a list of "nice" girls too. Names like Wendy McElroy, Christina Hoff Summers, Christine Stolba, Camilla Paglia, and my Mom, who still think boys are "Okay!".
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if I kill the spiders because I don't have the phobia of them.
However,
"I’ve stopped thinking that men who cut themselves shaving have menstrual envy (ME)."
She was joking, right? Right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I’ve stopped thinking that men who cut themselves shaving have menstrual envy (ME)."
She was joking, right? Right?
Yes, she most def. was joking!
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 25, @12:21AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
From hating to condescending. I suppose that's an improvement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"From hating to condescending. I suppose that's an improvement."
Thats the spirit!
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From hating to condescending. I suppose that's an improvement.
When I read the editorial I couldn't quite put my finger on why it seemed odd. The tone of condescention was exactly the reason it seemed odd.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I get the impression that she is just writing acrid satire.
So don't jump for joy at the conversion and repentance of an arch sinner just yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 25, @12:45AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. It seems like the old feminist rhetoric is dying, so they need another angle. Gosh, we're so cute and approval seeking. Who cares if she's going to learn the rules to football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll be happy if many women back off the overt, vicious, anti-male hatred and lying, though society will still have a long way to go. The legal system will have to be drastically changed; the academy will have to be overhauled to start seriously concerning itself with the education of males; the misandry of the media has to go...
There were some good statements in the essay, however. Some of my favorites:
It seems men have traded their masculinity or at least a big portion of it in return for what? Woman’s approval.
That's a sentiment I've seen expressed more than once on this board, particularly in reference to men in government.
You can flip through a magazine with a man and say ‘she’s got good breasts’ and the man will always agree.
No argument there. And,
They still look good when they lose their hair. What can I say, it's a personal favorite.
Like I say, there are a lot of battles to fight. And feminists will have to do more than apologize with a bit of humor to make amends for all the crimes they've committed for decades. Nevertheless, this essay struck me as a breath of fresh air, or, like the title to this thread says, a ray of delight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want the benefit of the doubt, give it to others. It would be uncharitable for any woman to respond in such a way to an "olive branch" article like that written by a man. You might even accuse her of hate. So relax, I think her intentions are absolutely good here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It would be uncharitable for any woman to respond in such a way to an "olive branch" article like that written by a man"
This article was written for women, by a woman. This is not an olive branch, its a racist realizing she's been a racist and has been questioning her racism and predjuduce with her friends alike. Or maybe she's just bored with her swatch and wants to start a new trend. (Cynicalness added for special effect)
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 25, @08:28AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know were the men she is talking about live. As for me and my friends, we are competent, successful, in control and not concerned about feminist proxy. We also respect women.
thanks for nothing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know were the men she is talking about live. As for me and my friends, we are competent, successful, in control and not concerned about feminist proxy. We also respect women.
thanks for nothing
What point are trying to make exactly? What does anything you posted have anything to do with the article? What's with the vagueness? What does "thanks for nothing" mean?
Confusing...
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 25, @09:19AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"So all you men who went into shock in the 70’s and early 80’s and stayed there, good news, the wars almost over, you can come on out now. We’re gonna be nice to you!"
My point is that the guys I know do not resemble this woman's vision of men....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly don't resemble her vision of a man, either. But then, so what? Thank goodness there are LOTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEN. That's kinda my problem with how men are represented, all men being judged by one or few bad examples. What is important here is not the exact details of which men she likes, but that she realized she was being harsh in her judgments and is attempting to reconcile. If you don't fit her ideal man image, don't date her. I'm sure she won't mind.
Credendo Vides
(By believing, one sees)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's "don't date her" supposed to mean?
Is this your idea of resistance to what she says?
So, the way that we are supposed to deal with any feminist hate in the future is not to date the women?
Yeah, it's good there's diversity in men, it's also good that there's diversity of opinion; it's just not so good when that diversity of opinion involves statements quite so stunningly dumb as suggesting "don't date her" will in anyway deal with anything.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 26, @04:30AM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's what the men's movement is all about getting a date with a women who doesn't hate you.
I have to keep reminding myself "It's all about dating, It's all about dating"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, such clarity of focus here, guys.
You know, I didn't say "If you don't like hateful women who cause harm to others, don't date them."
Nor did I state anywhere that dating was the issue.
The point was made that her views weren't good enough because they didn't fit one man's identity. The views she expressed were NOT harmful, didn't assume an "evil-man", and weren't insulting. But someone was refuting her based solely on the fact that they, as an individual, didn't fit her mold of a man.
My point was simply that not every man has to fit any particular mold of what a man "should be", "should want", or "should do". Nor does every woman have to desire the same thing.
To dismiss someone simply because they want someone different than yourself is an unfortunate stance.
Not everyone has to like everyone else. So, don't get all bent out of shape just because the man this one woman likes isn't anything like you. I know lots of men who fit her description. My basic point was simply that you don't have to associate with every single person.
Good lord. Are you really so filled with hate and anger that you can't see that?
Credendo Vides
(By believing, one sees)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worth a laugh, yes. And a refreshing change from the usual diet, even if only by contrast. Condescending, of course; secure in the knowledge of her own unassailable superiority, she can afford to toss a few dog biscuits.
But I'm not about to break out the champagne while more than 3000 baby boys are still being subjected by their mothers to brutal torture and crippling mutilation every day. I have yet to see anything from any prominent woman anywhere on the political spectrum calling this first great feminist male-improvement program into question. From NOW through Ellen Goodman and Dear Abby to Dr Laura, all the female big shots are firmly in favor of infant male circumcision. To mention only a part (though, I'm convinced, a cornerstone) of the feminist agenda.
In truth, this article points up the real, difficult paradox of gender relations, and especially of the female position. The two sexes are like sparring partners; we must strive with each other to keep each other strong, healthy, alert. However, the female, as the original creator of the male, actually holds all the power; the male is strong only as she allows him to be. So she's faced with a difficult conflict of interests: in the "battle of the sexes," if she "wins," she loses! A few women, such as this writer, are beginning to realize this, though they still don't understand what to do about it. I could almost feel sympathy for women faced with this fundamental conundrum, if I weren't so conscious of what their unconscious rage has cost me.
If women are oppressed, they are oppressed by their own creations. We are the front men, fall guys and whipping boys for the conflicted complexities of female psychology. As graphically illustrated in this woman's confusion.
So relax, I think her intentions are absolutely good here. Ah yes, those wonderful "good intentions" that, in the female/liberal mind, excuse anything and everything. Frankly, I don't care a whit what her "intentions" are, I care only what she (or anyone) actually does.
Might be interesting to see a similar article from this writer, or any other female, entitled "Restoring the Foreskin." Especially if it explored the history and psychology behind the circumcision program, and why hundreds of millions of women have seen nothing wrong with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Might be interesting to see a similar article from this writer, or any other female, entitled "Restoring the Foreskin." Especially if it explored the history and psychology behind the circumcision program, and why hundreds of millions of women have seen nothing wrong with it."""
You make it sound like they chopped off a little more than your forskin, guy. She's just a girl, and as far as I'm concerned men are just as responsible for allowing the feminutzis to gain control as they are. Where were we? Were we asleep when this all when down. NO! We were convenantly distracted with beer , strippers, football and the beleif that women were the main caregivers. We let it happen, we never stood our ground, we never spoke out, we never excercised the freedoms our fathers gave us. Shame on us! We assumed that those fights for freedom were over, but they are eternal. Let My People Go.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as far as I'm concerned men are just as responsible for allowing the feminutzis to gain control as they are. Where were we? Were we asleep when this all when down. NO! We were convenantly distracted with beer , strippers, football and the beleif that women were the main caregivers. We let it happen, we never stood our ground, we never spoke out
and
To blame women for radical feminism while shucking off blame ourselves as men is akin to saying that World War II was all Hitler's fault. It's just not accurate. Hitler wouldn't have gotten away with what occured had society at large simply said "no" in the beginning.
How true it is. This is why I like the author's statement, It seems men have traded their masculinity or at least a big portion of it in return for what? Woman’s approval.
There was, and still is, great cowardice, short sightedness, selfishness, and stupidity in the collaboration on the part of men with the evils of feminism.
When I encounter, more and more these days, the attitude expressed in "Restoring Testosterone" I tend to be cautious. No doubt it is, sometimes, an attempt to pacify men who have finally had enough. But if the sentiment is sincere, I welcome it, even if it does come from a woman who is complacent in her power. If she chooses to fight beside us, that is best. But even if she just chooses to be nice, and by that I mean she chooses not to oppose us any longer in our struggle for decent, fair treatment, that's fine with me. If she just gets the hell out of our way, so we can get our work done, then we will get our work done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was, and still is, great cowardice, short sightedness, selfishness, and stupidity in the collaboration on the part of men with the evils of feminism.
The word 'pussywhipped' comes to mind
"If she chooses to fight beside us, that is best. But even if she just chooses to be nice, and by that I mean she chooses not to oppose us any longer in our struggle for decent, fair treatment, that's fine with me. If she just gets the hell out of our way, so we can get our work done, then we will get our work done"
I was thinking that since 'birth control' and 'artifical insemination and wombs' children are really just a luxury arnt they, an individual choice, have them dont have them, buy a honda or ride a bike. There is no "team". In family, everything is lost, men will rule because men are the most practical and have the most burden of moral responsibility. Of course Im imagining a sci-fi fantasy world. Women dont need men , men dont need women, as far as offspring is concerned. The advancement of the artificial womb will change everything. No longer will men depend on women, no longer will love between the sexes be necessary. In the end was it all worth it?
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To blame women for radical feminism while shucking off blame ourselves as men is akin to saying that World War II was all Hitler's fault.
There is nothing wise or true about this statement. I suggest laying off the Hitler analogy, it just doesn't fit, and it makes men look ignorant. Further, men are not to blame for radical feminism. I reject such statements as ignorant. Men were never the force behind the formulation of their ideologies. Nor have men generally supported such ideologies.
So, please stop holding men responsible for something they never started or generally supported. Yea okay. Men may have failed to respond to the extremes of feminism, and the feminist destruction of traditional legal protections are catching thousands of men by surprise. However, that does not in any way mean that men support radical feminism, nor does it mean they are in any way responsible for the excesses of radical feminism.
Further, men have not tacitly consented to the ideals of radical feminism. To do such would require their being educated on the ideologies of radical feminism, and men would need to have been taught why their ideologies are wrong. That hasn't happened. We simply do not have a large portion of the population of men discussion radical feminist ideology.
Women on the other hand have been educated on such ideologies. This occurs when they attend university classes on feminism that have very few males in attendance. Further, women generally they fail to challenge the lies taught in those classes. This propaganda-based-education is followed by women talking among themselves and educating each other on such radical ideologies. Women are aware that they are having laws passed which are designed to convict men on little more than a rumor as proof. We have 10’s of thousands of men that have been convicted on such a basis. It is a major reason why our Nation has the highest incarceration rate in the civilized world.
Men in general have no idea this loss of rights has taken place. Nor have men consented to such. Men generally believe that traditional legal protections are still in place. There is very little crossover into men’s social groups on these topics. That is why men have not tacitly consented to radical feminism while women have. It is the job of the men’s movement to educate other men on this destruction of liberties and protections. If they consent after having been educated on such matters, they become responsible for radical feminism and not until then.
Warble.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing is quite so simple as "It's all their fault". For either side. Nor is anything as clear cut as "I'm always the victim". Those two statements together create a disorder known as a Persecution Complex. It's called a disorder for a reason.
The fact is that HUMANS, male and female alike, are capable of and responsible for, great errors in judgment. All errors have consequences. This is certainly easily seen when examining a single life. When viewed on a societal scale, we lose focus, but the principle is still there. To blame women for radical feminism while shucking off blame ourselves as men is akin to saying that World War II was all Hitler's fault. It's just not accurate. Hitler wouldn't have gotten away with what occured had society at large simply said "no" in the beginning. But, society as a whole instead created an environment where Hitler's ideals were accepted by millions at the cost of the destruction of millions.
The fact is our society as a whole is focused on gender so greatly that it overshadows more important things. It's not so one-sided as it might seem. Both parties, men and women, are so focused on their own personal issues that we are losing sight of the big picture.
We are all, men and women, responsible for an environment of hatred, sexism, victimization, and aggression. We are all responsible for the restitution of peace.
Certainly, aiming a dismissal and attack at someone who is attempting to begin such restitution on a personal level is not constructive. It is pointedly DEstructive and not in any way beneficial to the cause of equality, peace, or unity.
I'm glad this woman, this PERSON, saw something amiss in her own psychology, recognized it as a problem, and is going through the beginning of fixing it. We should learn from her, not downplay her effort.
Credendo Vides
(By believing, one sees)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 25, @12:31PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists are responsible for male circumcision now? Have you got some facts there to back-up your claim?
You also should read up on feminism. Dear Abby and Dr Laura are feminists? Not likely.
Like many woman-haters you don't know the difference between a feminist female and an anti-feminist female because you're not anti-feminist, you're anti-female.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know what my solution will be to the whole circumcision problem when and if I have a son? I plan to be there to prevent it. Plain and simple. And believe me, no feminist has even a whit of authority to force my hand on the issue. Waiting around for mothers to take the initiative on that is foolish. If men have a problem with it, which they ought to, then as fathers they have a responsibility to stop it.
If reality reflects anything like what you think it does, then women (as a group, somehow) have no interest in taking up the issue, and to be frank I'm not sure why in the hell they would. I can't claim to be a raging activist regarding female genital mutilation, and I think that's natural. It doesn't indicate a lack of sympathy, just a lack of empathy, and there's a difference. Ignorance, not some diabolical feminist scheme, is to blame for what is obviously a disturbing phenomenon to you.
And by the by, "female/liberal" is a sexist distortion. Does "male/conservative" actually mean anything that we see reflected in everyday reality? I don't think so. Would you be offended by such a use of collective labeling? I would. There is nothing intrinsic about one to the other.
I find your reaction both to my remarks and the article in question remarkably visceral. Sorry, but I enjoyed th article, in spite of what was definitely a condescending tone. Lighten up, everybody. And stay on topic, for God's sake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists are responsible for male circumcision now? Have you got some facts there to back-up your claim? I don't know what you would consider "facts," but here's some of the analysis behind my statements:
The Great Anglo-American Infant Male Circumcision Program was begun in the Victorian era, originally proposed as a "cure for masturbation," which was seen at the time as the cause of a vast and varied catalog of medical and social ills. Masturbation, of course, is almost entirely a male vice (girls, being naturally pure, would never do such a thing) and results from that great Victorian female bugaboo, Uncontrollable Male Lust. The "solution" to this terrible problem came out of the same northeastern/New England/White Anglo-Saxon Protestant/Puritan culture that produced a plethora of fanatic religious movements and cults, the "temperance" movement (another female campaign to "improve" men by force, which resulted in women's first great political success, alcohol prohibition), the women's suffrage movement, and, interestingly enough, American Feminism itself (which is widely considered to have officially begun with a meeting in upstate New York in 1848).
It seems to me worth asking just whose idea it was/is that there is something so seriously wrong with men as to require such drastic corrective measures. Would you seriously propose that this is an idea that men would have come up with entirely on our own? I don't think so. I think it was women, like my Victorian Grandmother, who considered boys "dirty," whose "visceral" attitudes are behind the now-established "tradition" of "cleaning up" American males by cutting off our "filthy" foreskins.
American males are circumcised at or shortly after birth, when Mother's authority rules. A circumcision cannot be performed without the mother's consent. Where the decision-making power is, there lies the responsibility.
Of course, as everyone will be quick to point out, it's mostly male doctors who perform circumcisions. But at whose behest? Who put out the contract? Who's paying for it? Why? The doctors are just hired hands, giving the women what they want. And what about the increasing numbers of female doctors doing the same? They don't seem to see any conflict with "First, do no harm" either. And they don't have the Please the Female imperative that drives male behavior in all sexual species.
You also should read up on feminism. Dear Abby and Dr Laura are feminists? Not likely. Didn't say they were. In fact, that's just my point: that all these women, who supposedly disagree on so many subjects, are united in their support for infant male circumcision. It doesn't really matter to me whether they're classified as "feminist" in current jargon or not; I know contempt and hatred when I see/hear it.
The attitude that men are imperfect and need improvement is pretty well universal in the female psyche. (You can see it running as a subtext through this entire "Restoring Testosterone" article.) And I wouldn't entirely disagree. We're all (even women!) imperfect and need improvement, but that doesn't give me the right to "improve" you by force just to fit my dislikes and prejudices. American women surgically alter their sons' genitalia like they clip the ears and tails of their lapdogs.
Like many woman-haters you don't know the difference between a feminist female and an anti-feminist female because you're not anti-feminist, you're anti-female. I'm not much anti-anything except hatred and cruelty, of which I've had more than enough. What I am is pro-truth. Because, like the man said, "the truth [and only the truth] will set [us] free." I have no problem at all with kind, truthful women, i.e. women who actually do exemplify the supposed "female" (and basic human) virtues. Most of my best friends, in fact, are women. I don't think they'd say I'm a "woman-hater," though I'm sometimes difficult because I challenge the flat-earth lies that "everyone knows."
And by the by, "female/liberal" is a sexist distortion. Does "male/conservative" actually mean anything that we see reflected in everyday reality? It's well-known among the politically aware that the majority of women vote left, and can be counted on to do so, along with the "sensitive" male class they control. Isn't it always "Republicans" who oppose feminist initiatives? The lines are clearly drawn. I'm neither "liberal" nor "conservative" in the conventional sense myself, so these questions don't much matter to me, but I do note that "conservatives" are more likely to be interested in real-world results, while "liberals" are always more concerned about "intentions" (i.e. feelings). If a political proposal sounds like its "heart is in the right place," they'll support it, regardless of whether it will work or not. Would I be "offended" by "collective labeling"? Feelings again. Feelings are important, sure, but more important to me is the truth. "Don't tell me the truth, you might hurt my feelings." Sorry, I don't have time for it. If you let your feelings rule your reason so that you live in a state of delusion, you'll get the life you deserve.
Two interesting coincidences: (1) The Infant Male Circumcision Program took off at the same time that women began exercising overt political power (i.e. the early decades of the 20th century). (2) Feminism took over the culture entirely just as the first universally-circumcised generation of American males, the frightened, confused, feminized boys of the 1960s (I was one) came of age.
It is my belief that the infant-circumcised male, his first experience of life in his mother's care having been one of overwhelming terror and pain, retains a lifelong unconscious fear of females that has serious consequences in all his relations with the opposite sex. Why did the author of this article (and tens of millions of other women) find it so easy to "berate [her] partner into a version of myself ... Something less, almost a new gender group" and put her "lovers strung out, flapping like nappies on a line and they were always wrong." I doubt my father, or his father, or your grandfather, would have been so easily cowed. Modern American men no longer know how, or why, to say No to a woman, no matter how outrageous her behavior. We're terrified. Was this just some historical accident? Or did something change in the mid-20th century? If so, what? When I look at the few men I know who escaped the knife, I find they have a basic level of inner calm that is simply lacking in all the circumcised males I know.
The encounter of the sexes is not, in Mao's words, "a dinner party." It's serious business, the origin of birth and death, a dance of creation/destruction between the two most dangerous predators on the planet. "How do porcupines mate? Very carefully." It's like sparring partners in a martial art: we keep each other strong, healthy, alert, we teach each other and check each other's excesses. In order for it to work, we need each other whole.
For the past century, American women have been using Mother's power to cripple their sons. The short-term results have been gratifying to short-sighted females like the author of this article, who appreciates the "independence" the feminist movement has given her. In truth, women are no more "independent" than they ever were, but because they've transferred the job of protecting and caring for them from the men they personally know to the State, they can pretend to themselves that they no longer need men. Modern women are as "independent" as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. All that's changed is that men, who still do all the dirty, dangerous jobs that must be done, and pay all the taxes and alimony and child-care payments, and fight the wars, etc. etc., that enable women to have the comfortable world they want, no longer get the respect we used to get in return. In the long run, this is a recipe for disaster. We may be stupid, but we're not harmless.
Women have always controlled men. It's the natural order. Ever notice how so many teenage girls have an affinity for horses? They're exercising the same set of skills: how to control a large, dangerous but very useful animal. Any girl who owns a horse will understand that treating the animal with respect is the best way to have a successful relationship. Unfortunately, many (most?) women do not seem to understand this basic fact in their relations with men. As Camille Paglia points out, the great tragedy of sexual relations is that women believe their own "defenseless victim" mythology. Delusion, as the Buddha says, leads to suffering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 25, @11:49PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh it's Gonzo again. Have you checked in with your psychiatrist lately?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone has a complex...
This is a case study on how to go on the offensive and lash out at everyone, every day, all the time. Catch him in a hypocritical stereotype, he'll just glibly dismiss your point and move on to a seven-page rant that no one will have the time or inclination to respond to. That's not "winning." that's just being obnoxious for its own sweet sake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amen, nazgul.
Credendo Vides
(By believing, one sees)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a case study on how to go on the offensive and lash out at everyone, every day, all the time.
I don't think so. While the arguments may sound radical Mayaman has some good points. For example, I believe that men are traumatized for life when they are chopped. That makes good sense to me. Why? I can remember having frequent nightmares as a child on being cut. I literally remembered how it felt. There is no question that I can remember such pain because of the experience.
Think about it. I know of a man that was cut at about 75 years old, and the doctors had all kinds of medical help to aid him in surviving the trauma. They were quick to use pain killers before and after the amputation. Infants on the other hand, are expected to tough it out with no such relief. That in itself is cruel and absurd. Yet mothers routinely insist that their children be abused in this way, and they refuse to provide relief for the pain afterwards.
If a female child can be traumatized for life by being molested why wouldn’t the same be true of a male child that suffers having a portion of the penis amputated? Oh. I forgot. The child is a male. Therefore, it cannot be traumatized by such an amputation.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uh, check your references, Warble.
I haven't made a single statement about circumscision. Not one.
So, there is no way I could have brought up any good points about trauma, etc..
But maybe you meant something else?
Credendo Vides
(By believing, one sees)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh it's Gonzo again. Have you checked in with your psychiatrist lately?
It has been kind of quite lately. Gonzo actually came up with some good arguments. He's a pretty smart dude. Feminist hate that kind of insight.
Warble.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WRONG AGAIN! I've been incommunicado in the wilds of the Great Smokey Mountains, engaged in politically incorrect and manly pursuits of living off the wild with nothing but my wits, a tent, a fishing pole, big knife, frying pan, and my peacemaker for the bears that reside there.
And have you checked with your parole officer lately? Have you stopped downloading kiddie porn? I guess those questions make about as much sense. Why should I deny you your response you so desperately crave, though? Especially since I have a life outside the internet and you don't.
No Problem, though. Back atcha, snookums! *Air kisses*
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are good reasons for circumcision (helps prevent infections) and no reasons why not to (aside from pain to the baby, and thats what we have local anesthetics for).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 25, @06:28PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're walking into a field of landmines here making that claim, scudsucker. It is well known and documented that circumcision causes a substantial decrease in men's sensitivity in that spot, and can even disrupt his sex life. You should head over to www.nocirc.org and do some reading.
As for preventing infections, learning how to wash an intact penius correctly is just as effective. We don't need to be cutting people up for such stupid reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scudsucker, I've been focusing on this issue for several years now, and I can confidently tell you that routine male genital mutilation has NO reliable medical benefits and DOES cause a serious amount of harm to a man's sexual sensitivity and satisfaction.
Additionally, it is one of the most blatant and egregious examples of bigoted, femelitist, anti-male sexism in north america -- as shown by the Federal Prohibition of FEMALE Genital Mutilation Act of 1995.
Potentially even better for getting informed than NOCIRC are the Circumcision Research and Information Pages at:
http://www.cirp.org.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT! (Keep On Tugging -- foreskin restoration signoff)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- but that also means you're half-wrong.
I do tell the fathers, and the male doctors. But I also tell the mothers who prefer, for example, to have their little boys genitally mutilated in order to save themselves the trouble of teaching them how to be cleanly young men -- and the female doctors who profit from this practice, as well.
Both men and women share the responsibility for the continuation of this barbaric violation of the innocent -- and the blatant sexism involved in its discriminatory criminalization for little girls alone.
And as far as that aspect goes, yes -- it's the femelitists who are primarily to blame.
Again we see that when the franchise issue is raised, the fact that 'practice X' -- in this case, child genital mutilation -- started long before neither women nor men had the vote, goes ignored.
As for your claim that it's men who are the most vocal about their preference for it for their sons, feel free to back it up with a reliable citation. Being an intactivist, I suspect I'm far better equipped to judge the relative rates between the genders in that area than you are, and my experienced assessment is that women definitely have the edge over men, if only because they're more involved with children's health matters.
I do have a life, thank you very much, and a very important and valuable part of it to me is working to end the genital mutilation of children in my native country. The sheer sexist bigotry involved in the fact that this has already been almost entirely accomplished in terms of little girls seems to have escaped you, however.
Nor is it a matter of 'trying to blame women for every problem on earth' -- because when it comes to the intersection between intactivism and wider gender issues, women's shared responsibility for the continuation of the routine genital mutilation of baby boys is most certainly an important aspect.
It's not a matter of who started it. It's a matter of who's continuing it -- and I have to say, I think your priorities are scrambled.
What's more important to you -- that little baby boys receive the same level of legal protection from sexual mutilation as their sisters, or that women are excused from any responsibiity for, again, the continuation of this senseless abomination?
As to the claim that blaming women for every problem on earth has been done to death over the last few thousand years and it's getting 'old', I hardly think you've been alive all that time yourself (nor has any woman alive today) -- so I'm not going to allow that it's a complaint with any real merit.
That we sexually mutilate little boys is not solely women's fault -- you're right about that -- but it most definitely is partly women's fault, and you're rather conspicuously ignoring that.
So the question is -- what are you trying to accomplish with your post? Finding a common ground on which to work with men's issues activists to create a better world for everybody --
-- or just trying to make yourself feel better by denying women's complicity in this brutality, and verbally abusing other people in the process?
Who now is at fault?
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- for misremembering your nick as 'Philathletes'. It's been a long and busy week, and I have a Goat in the shower to distract me.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Acksiom, I don't particularly mind your misspelling my "nick," but I really don't think it's me you're arguing with here, since (a) I more or less agree with everything you say, and (b) you seem to be responding to a post from "Anonymous User"--who is, I believe, the poster I was reponding to myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- and I'm glad to hear we're basically in agreement on the issue of shared responsibility for this violation.
My apology was a separate matter from my reponse to Anonymous User.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when women didn't even have the right to vote""
I love when women keep bringing this up, remember when no one had the right to vote???
And men sacrificed their lives to gain the right to vote????
YOu want the right to vote you have to earn it, otherwise if it werent for MEN you still wouldnt have the right to vote. But you are right on one thing, circumcision was a male ritual not only in, biblical tribes, but native tribes as well. But it was connected to their mating rights which brings the question of 'who really wanted it', but your argument is the strongest, but dont think for one second that women didnt have a say in all things because you do a great dis service by doing so. Because women didnt vote doesnt mean they didnt tell their husbands how to vote(or whose forskin to chop off), just because men worked outside the home and were the bread winners doesnt mean women werent the heads in many of the familys. Quit playing the victim it does you ane women as a whole no favours, you can only cry wolf for so long you know.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""by scudsucker on Thursday April 25, @07:09PM EDT (#25)"""
There is something interesting about someone named "scudsucker" promoting the now virtually discredited practice of prophylaxis circumcision. I just can't place it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 26, @01:29PM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
"There are good reasons for circumcision (helps prevent infections)"
This should never be a problem if one keeps clean.
But of course you know better than years of evolutionary change. We have a foreskin for a reason just as women have a clitoras for a reason, should we just routinely hack that off our children too.
"and no reasons why not to (aside from pain to the baby, and thats what we have local anesthetics for)"
In my mind the routine practice of circumcision is as abhorrant as the clitoral mutilations of women in Africa. Children die from complications arising from routine circumcision, fact.
All I know is that it sure feels good jerking off with my foreskin intact. No man should be denied that right because of a bad parental decision. How many men without a medical need, would opt for a voluntary circumcision? any takers? thought not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There are good reasons for circumcision (helps prevent infections)"
Just clean the penis up after changing the damn diaper and everything will be fine. My God! The things people will say to justify amputating a portion of the penis.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday May 13, @09:37AM EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
Given what we now know, anyone who performs or condones routine infant circumcision is morally no better than a paedophile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After 50 years of being trashed by feminist one woman says something nice. Lets all kiss and make up. Are you NUTS or something? So a few nice females say something nice now and then, how many thousands are in the background trying to continue destroying men.
It is easy to forget how many feminists continue to works in social services, family court and DV court. They have been brain washed by feminism to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My email:
Dear Barbara-
I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your article. I am a male attempting to shake off the exact effects you talk about and "rediscover my
maleness" (as goofy as that may sound). So I really appreciate it when a women talks about all that stuff thats always whirling around in my own head.
Thanks for speaking up!
Her response:
your welcome Jay - if you really get me going I can be much more scathing -
mainly about the way women have treated men and the way men have lain down
and taken it and the way they've ingested their anger and let it spill out
in all the wrong ways. And now it's all messed up and will take a couple of
generations to sort out.
Sounds right to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you really get me going I can be much more scathing - mainly about the way women have treated men and the way men have lain down and taken it and the way they've ingested their anger and let it spill out in all the wrong ways. And now it's all messed up and will take a couple of generations to sort out.
I agree except for the part about men letting their anger spill out in all the wrong ways. Much of men's justifiable anger is well directed, and there are many wrong ways in which men have not let their anger spill out. Not yet, at least.
As for the couple of generations to sort things out, that may be accurate. However, this mess developed because technology, largely created by males, freed women and made the primacy of lunatic-feminism possible. Things may never really get sorted out, because technology, particularly reproductive technology, continues to change the basis of male/female relations. And that change is occuring at an accelerating rate.
Another thing about men letting their anger spill out in wrong ways: We've only seen the beginning. It will take a long time to eliminate the institutionalized oppression of men and boys. In the meantime, their anger will grow. Before long, we may well be looking back on this time as halcyon days of male/female relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 26, @12:24AM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
I think one of the goals of the men's movement is that we should worry too much about women think--they either support us in *our* movement or they don't. We need to stop needing women's approval (politcally and generally). She addressed it in her column. We need women's approval like a fish needs a bicycle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 26, @12:50AM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't anybody get it? She wants us to tell her to shut up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't anybody get it? She wants us to tell her to shut up """
I think she needs a really good romping, and needs a REAL MAN to do it.
you have to read between the sheets to get it.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 27, @12:34AM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
So you've finally come to the realization that, after a twenty-five years of blind group-think and treating men as inherently violent, oppressive molesters, you and your peers wronged us. And hey, we can become back home, you'll let us back. Gee thanks, but you know, you're still the same people who, for most of my adult life, treated my gender as inherently evil, disparaged most everything we enjoyed, held us personally to blame as a group for the acts of any one demented individual, even called for male children to be sent to special re-education camps to guide us towards being less ourselves. Maybe I'm in no hurry to be welcomed back into your particular fold. Thanks again for the patronizing change of heart, but there were decent members of your gender who didn't buy into the propaganda and treated us as human beings. They're the ones deserving of men's gratitude, friendship and allegiance. I'll pass on your offer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- trying to make yourself feel better by denying women's complicity, and verbally abusing other people in the process.
In the short term, you may get a pleasant, egocentric rush from this kind of offensive and abusive behavior -- but in the middle to long term, as with any unhealthy addiction, it will turn on you and make you feel even worse about yourself and your life.
Is it possible that there's a better way?
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Anonymous,
It's really interesting that your working class friends have it harder than the description of your mother who was beaten with no where to go.
I mean obviously the ways in which they have it harder have nothing to do with them experiencing any form of gender discrimination in law.
I’d be pretty impressed to actually hear how your friends have it worse.
I can offer you innumerable examples of the many ways in which men have it worse.
I can even parallel the example you give of your beaten mother. The difference being the similar number of men and their children taking the beating, and just like your mother with no where to go.
Of course you don’t believe this do you. Well, that is to say whether you do or don’t you don’t care ‘cause they deserve it right!
You sit and type your hate and yet you claim to know the suffering that your mother felt. That same suffering that women and men and children suffer today; but you don’t see why those men who suffer should be helped.
Well, Anonymous, you’re the one now helping to persecute others. You resist any effort to support the many men and their children who will suffer tonight.
Stevenewton.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
I love that saying, I was working on one like, 'The truth is often the unpopular choice'
And I agree, thanks for telling anon off , but I think really that its they are missinformed about how men are abused. In my dispute resolution course, the women still believed that only women were ever assaulted and that they never assaulted their children. There were many teachers in the room and many of them were required to show films about how boys should treat girls, not the reverse mind you. And they believed it, like they believe that a man doesnt have the right to hit a woman back even if she hits him. They believe it because they dont have the otherside of the story. Its sad maybe latte' girl should put that in her article then anon can shove that same artcle up her ass. Lets get it out there, I want to give donations to SAFE in hopes that they will point out the violence against men in their campaigns to stop violence for everyone. They include everyone in thier efforts, thats why I support.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 26, @12:34PM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
Anon, I don't you and I probably agree on a lot of things. But I'm sorry to hear you experienced so much violence in your childhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get out of your uppity cafes for a while and try living in the real world you pampered pigs.
Female on female women bashing (WB). Wonder what Glenn would say. This has got to violate all kinds of rules. :)
Oh. I forgot. What was I thinking? Guess it's only WB'ing if it's male on female conflict. That is the lace-curtain rule.
(Warble just dies laughing at his own joke.)
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 27, @09:10AM EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
Here's Ms Burstyn's reply to my email. I doubt you'd find too many men with her attitude if the genders were reversed.
Thanks for your response. It may surprise you to know I am anything but pampered. Here's a thumb nail.
Abducted and pack raped before 18, married young, three children by 24, husband a useless sod, bought up kids on my own for 7 years on no money, got conned out of my hard earned tiny slice of the world by a man who walked away when I had a breakdown.
I could go on but I think you should think carefully about who you call a pig. I'm just trying in my small way to mend some of the holes in the world. and judging by the reams of angry, hurt, broken emails I've received from men since my article touched something.
They're not the enemy you know, just beat-up people like us.
If you get a chance, I'd advise a cup of tea and a lie down.
barb
P.O.V.
with
Barbara Sumner Burstyn
@
http://www.spectator.co.nz/POV
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
