|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what does this mean? It means I won't be posting any new stories to MANN. Nightmist and Thomas are not in a position themselves to take over the site at this time, either, so the decision was made just to shut things down. It really pains me to do this, but I feel it was the best option available.
To avoid having the stories which are currently visible on the main index from cluttering up with tons of comment posts during the shutdown, I'll be temporarily disabling comment posting on those stories from May 1-18.
If you need to contact me, my e-mail address is scott@mensactivism.org. But be warned - there are people who have e-mailed me up to a month ago who haven't received a response yet. So please be patient, and don't be afraid to send me follow up messages if your query is time sensitive. One thing I intend to do is completely clear out my INBOX so I can start with a clean slate by the time May 18 rolls around.
Thanks in advance for your understanding.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott, I don't know if this means anything to you, but, I was lost before I found men's activism. Not everyone agrees on every issue, but we agree that men need progress. I promise you that this is an expanding venture. This has changed my life. I was wronged before and men's activism I feel can make it right. If you need to distribute moil, I hope things can be worked out. But we all need down time, and men's activism is making its greatest strides as we speak.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 27, @01:56AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
It has been great logging onto to your website and a great personal inspiration to myself and I am sure many other (brothers). I wish you all the best with your academic acheivements and hope to see/read you in the near future.
regards christian J
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't feel bad bro. We reach a crisis at times in our lives and need to make choices. Maybe you can send an email out to remind everyone when your back up? I will be checking back myself when school is out and we finish buying our house. Be safe brother and take care of yourself.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott,
How much time does it take to operate the site at a minimal level? What duties are involved on a daily basis?
I really believe we should avoid allowing this site to be offline for a short period.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How much time does it take to operate the site at a minimal level? What duties are involved on a daily basis?
If Scott is as busy as I think he is, he won't have the time to answer that question until after May 18th. Part of the point of being busy is that you don't have the leisure to explain to others how busy you are and why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Scott:
Thank you for all you have done so far with the running of Mensactivism. Here's best wishes for your exams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure that like me, your readers understand your decision. Most of us have dealt with time pressure at one time or another after all. You do excellent work with this site which is widely appreciated, good luck with your exams!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey scott, i think i speak for all of us here when i say we understand. no worries in the least. good luck on your finals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday April 28, @12:53PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Scott:
I'm away from my normal computer for a few days, but I just dropped in and saw this announcement. All the best on your finals. I look forward to your future endeavors, whatever they may be. You're a first-rate leader in the struggle for justice. All the best.
Thomas (I don't remember my scrambled password for MANN, so I had to sign in as anonymous.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A break in the action usually invigorates rather than retards the process. It is probably a good thing to recharge our batteries.
But things are really starting to get interesting!
We don't want to miss the fun. So hurry back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree a break will help.
I think it's a shame that some of the most vigourous men's sites are all the work of one man. A site like this one could do with a team, at least 3 or 4 people, then each could do part of it every day or each could do all of it some days of the week.
We need sites like this to continue, without burning out anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Raymond,
I should point out that the only reason this site has been able to go for so long is that it hasn't just been me running it. Nightmist, Adam, and Thomas all have made significant contributions to running it as well. Nightmist is now taking a break of his own, Thomas is going on a trip himself, and Adam's work makes the time he can contribute spotty at times so I find myself a bit more overwhelmed with things than usual.
I agree that I should be more aggressive in soliciting more help running this site, and I intend to do so when things return to normal. Warble and Dan, I'd be glad to help train you with this system, it's just now is not the time that I can start doing this. I'll defintely be getting in touch with you around mid-May, though.
Also, it's not just the technical nature of running this web site, but being a decent editor and having a good "feel" for what to post and when that has made MANN so popular and given it its own special character. Taking on new admins will thus be a slow process.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble and Dan, I'd be glad to help train you with this system, it's just now is not the time
-
Also, it's not just the technical nature of running this web site, but being a decent editor and having a good "feel" for what to post and when that has made MANN so popular and given it its own special character.
This is something I look forward to, Scott . I have been thinking of something called 'IMF' "International Men's forum". Coined from "Independant Women's Forum" 'IWF'
Our world is an island, and our voice should be heard from shore to shore it should be celebrated and vigorated.
Perhaps later on this idea will have a use. Take your time, we will wait! for you.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday May 05, @02:58PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Dan, Contact me ASAP!
Alan Carr
International Men's Network
www.mens-network.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....Warble and Dan, I'd be glad to help train you with this system, it's just now is not the time that I can start doing this. I'll defintely be getting in touch with you around mid-May, though.
Also, it's not just the technical nature of running this web site, but being a decent editor and having a good "feel" for what to post....
Yikes! For me technical stuff is a snap. Writing editorials is another matter.
Once, when I wrote an editorial, it had the effect of turning an entire collage campus on its ear for about 2-4 years. People remembered the editorial and spoke of it in the years that followed. When I heard them talking, I quickly learned to remain silent because of the threats and ill will that followed.
People were quite upset that I had the courage to express my views and opinions in such a persuasive manner. It bothered them because they were afraid that the leaders in power would adopt my views and suggestions.
I was taken by surprise because the strength of the reaction from the students wasn't one that I expected. By contrast, I expected the fellow students to be supportive of my views. Because of that experience, I know that editing is a MAJOR responsibility. It is one that I don’t mind saying scares the crap outta me.
I agree that a MANN editor needs to have a good feel for what to post. However, that will definitely take time and training on my part to learn that unique MANN feel.
Hopefully, with some help from my male activist friends, I'll develop that skill in the near future. For now, I have allot of lessons to learn.
I've already learned several lessons on this site from other activist like Glenn, Marc, Nightmist, and etc. .
Scott, I don't mind saying you are a tough act to follow. :)
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You could find someone to fill in
and take the load of yourself.
That would work.
Have a good day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You could find someone to fill in
and take the load of yourself.
That would work. "
I know for myself I want to become more involved, but I do not have the know how at present to operate the website. Which can't help anyone right now, but in future I'd be willing.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
who is Lori?
Lori, is a girl I know, I was explaining the signature function to her, and decided to tell her I love her, I think she gets it, how the function works anyways. Since this is the mens news network I felt like spreading the news,. I can't say enough good things about this site, it has helped me work out a great deal of many issues . I hope it continues to grow. I also believe there should be a forum for men's studies, I wish I new more about computers so that I could do more. I don't want to sound like a winey baby, but I really needed to talk to someone about what happened to me, and there wasnt anyone, they either didnt care or didnt understand. My alchol abuse was my only outlet, when I found men's activism and other men like me, I felt like I was doing something and that self helped my emotional burden be lifted. I was wrongfully convicted of Sexual Assault wrongfully accused by Candace Varga who simply put was caught cheating on her boyfriend. IN fact she touched me first and led me on, I am sexually permiscous so considering how many women I have slept with something like this was bound to happen. Her room mate and her boy friend testified for the defence, but Justice Brian Stead rejected the arguement on very flimsy grounds, the only conclusion I can come up with is I was descriminated against because I am male. The women's crises center coached Candace Varga's testimoney and did a number of other horrific crimes. I served 4 months in prison where my life was threatened every day, I was jumped by natives because I was talking to a black guy( the racism in prison in unbelievable). There is a great deal more to my story, and I'm sure others have their own story, but men's activism page helped me regain my confidence again. I hope it stays alive.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do what you hafta do, sweetie! Between Mike, angryharry and me we'll keep an eye on things!
Love&Light!
T___
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the plug, Scott. I, too, will be waiting anxiously for your return (and Nightmist too -- I miss you, James!)
While MND is not quite as targeted at MANN, it also appeals to a wider audience- social conservatives, military retirees, the religious wing, second wives, and so forth and so on. And really, that's the idea. My own core issues are addressed everyday on MANN, but my approach to MND is to broaden the appeal so as to bring our message firmly and forcefully into the mainstream.
I invite all the good people of MANN to continue to the conversation over at the MND forum. The format is very different, but the essentials are the same.
Semper Fi
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
good luck with your exams and we eagerly await your return.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The chat is happening tonight again at 9 pm (now) as always. Tonight's topic seems to have to do with Ayn Rand/Libertarianism (and feminism). Usually someone else posts the notice.
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday April 29, @08:43AM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't you find someone to run the site while your busy. There are many interested and qualified people that come here regularly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday April 29, @11:52AM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
That explains a lot. The site is run by a college student! It should only be a few years before he finds that to be a real man in this world he's got to stop waste time bitching and get a real job. And the rest of you babies will do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday April 29, @02:59PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
unlike the feminasti bitches that have swindled universities and the federal government out of money with bogus non-empirical hate agendas so that they can continue to spread hate after college...
Sorry to digress gentlemen...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like MANN's not already a kick-ass addition to his resume.
As Comma If.
Scott, I go on an activism fast every so often myself. It's healthy and rewarding.
Take care of yourself and focus on your immediate school priorities. We'll all be here when you have time again, thanks to the excellent work you've already done.
Go you!
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That explains a lot. The site is run by a college student! It should only be a few years before he finds that to be a real man in this world he's got to stop waste time bitching and get a real job. And the rest of you babies will do the same.
Spoken like a true male hating feminist.
I am curious. Do you believe that feminist have the right to discuss female based gender issues? If yes, do you believe that men have the same right? If no, why not?
Cheers!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott,
You're done great work with this site. I'm totally
impressed with your sense of social justice and
your willingness to do something for progress.
Live a full life. That's the ultimate protest
against oppression.
Good luck on your exams, brother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott - Many thanks for all of the hours you have put in and the great service you have provided. A short break will make it sweeter on return. Perhaps there are ways to spread out some of the responsibilities when you return? I bet there are many of us who would chip in a bit here and there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday May 06, @08:56PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
The following letter appeared in the February 1998 issue of Christian Home:.
I read with much controlled excitement and curiosity your well written ad that I found in the back pages of a magazine. Women taking over is a favorite fantasy of mine although the possibility is unfortunately nil. The patriarchal system is too entrenched in both the psyches of little boys and little girls to be undone. Yes, there were matriarchal societies in antiquity. But somehow the goddess was toppled, seemingly never to gain again the upper hand. The persecution of witches, after all, was out-and-out patriarchal war against ascendant, magical wymmen. And sure, there are little pockets of matriarchy, and female power can never be denied as it does exist; but society—society with a capital S—being run by females, especially being run by females exerting sexual power, is solely the realm of social science fiction. Keep in mind, after all, that when women are in power, they are quite often no better than their male counterparts—see Margaret Thatcher (England) or Indira Gandhi (India).
Nonetheless, this submissive male merrily and without qualm sends you his—I mean its—hard-earned $10 for buying into the fantasy and the delicious suspension of disbelief for however few moments the exhilaration may last. Greatly looking forward to receiving the literature you advertised, I am
Angelo in NY
Here is the editor’s reply:
Dear Antonio,
Thank you for your thoughtful letter in which you question the feasibility of a society run by women. I believe it deserves a reply.
First, you say that male supremacy is too deeply ingrained in both boys and girls to be rooted out. But such attitudes are not innate. They are learned behavior and can be countered with the proper training.
This is one reason that we emphasize the importance of the home. The home is a more powerful tool for the shaping of young people’s behavior than any other institution in our society. It has the potential to counteract all the bad influences that children are subjected to. Children learn male supremacist attitudes first of all from their parents and older siblings. Once the home becomes committed to female supremacy, this process will stop.
Next to the home, the second most important source of male supremacist attitudes is other children. This takes place primarily at school, but lately it also seems to have started occurring among older children in daycare. The pattern is that the boys come to understand that the world is run by men, and so they come to believe that boys are more important than girls and that they should spend their time with other boys and exclude girls from their activities. Once these all-boy groups are formed, the girls then form their own girls-only groups as a response to being shut out by the boys. This process was analyzed in our Time and Tide article for October 1995, “Why Girls are Yucky.”
Nothing can be done at school to halt this process; it can be counteracted only at home. But the home can be quite effective. We must not forget that in most homes boys are raised differently than are girls. If we raise our sons the way we raise our daughters, much of the problem of misogyny would disappear.
One reason why a lot of people have trouble believing that a society run by women could actually come about is that they think of female supremacy in terms of mistresses and slaves. If you have ever visited an adult bookstore and looked at the magazines they had on female domination, it is obvious right off that no society could ever by organized like that. But the mistress-slave paradigm is not the only model available.
Consider the male supremacist households of the Southern Evangelicals. You have probably heard that the Southern Baptist Convention has amended its statement of faith to say that wives should “submit graciously” to their husbands. In these homes men rule without building dungeons in the basement. And they socialize their children to enter into the same type of relationship as adults.
Female supremacists can do the same thing. They can have homes in which it is obvious to the children that their mother is the boss. The father can set an example for his sons through his obedience to the lady of the house. This is in fact the most important thing a man can do for his sons—to give them this example of obedience. Then the children can grow up expecting to have the same kind of marriage as adults.
You cite the witchhunts of the later middle ages and early modern period as an example of male backlash against powerful women. But this was back before the Industrial Revolution, which changed everything. The superior physical strength of the average male no longer has the economic importance that it once had, nor are women as tied down by childbearing as they once were. Women are simply no longer as economically dependent on men as in the past.
The nineteenth century saw a rapid rise in the status of women. Over time many members of both sexes came to recognize the moral superiority of women. During the Victorian Era many men realized that women tended to be more moral than men and allowed their wives to become the dominant figures in their households. Then in the 1890s began the male supremacist backlash. Male dominance was reasserted through the glorification of war.
This brings us to a very important component of the machinery of male dominance: the “male protection racket.” Men claim power over women on the ground that they are the protectors of women. But protectors from whom? From other men! This is why it deserves to be called the male protection racket.
The example of the male protection racket most often pointed out by feminists is rape. Most men are not rapists, but all men benefit from rape because it tends to make women dependent on them for protection. This is why male jurors are less likely to vote for a conviction in a rape case than are female jurors. Men have a hard time taking rape seriously because they benefit from its occurrence.
Rape is one part of the male protection racket, and war is the other part. Historically, it is man who is the warrior. This goes back to Paleolithic times. Man was the hunter, and from being a hunter to being a warrior was a very short jump. Men are still better fighters than women; when the U. S. Army began recruiting large numbers of women a while back, it did so by instituting lower standards for the women than for the men, a move which generated a lot of resentment among the men.
Men tend to be nonchalant about the destructiveness of war for the same reason that they tend to be nonchalant about rape: it helps to make women more dependent on them. Beginning in the 1890s, the male supremacists were able to turn back the rising tide of powerful women by claiming that men were protecting women by fighting in wars. After several years of a buildup of a prowar movement in this country, the U. S. entered into the Spanish-American War.
Today this war is not considered a just war. It was an imperialist war and lacked any moral justification, but the social climate of militarism which arose in the 1890s made it possible for men to reassert their authority over men.
It was also at this time that the word “sissy” began to be applied to men. Before that, “sissy” was just an affectionate diminutive, a corruption of the word “sister,” and was applied to girls with no negative connotations. Then with the resurgence of militarism, the word began to be applied to men who did not want the country to go to war. A sissy was a man who was like a woman in that he did not want there to be a war.
This new use of the word “sissy” clearly implied that men were superior to women. For if women were not inferior to men, what would be wrong with a man being like a woman? Labeling antiwar males as sissies clearly presupposed an ideology of male supremacist militarism.
This militarism continued in the twentieth century with World War I. Do you know what the First World War was fought for? Professional historians can’t agree about this either. Do you have any idea who even started it? That is another muddle. This war was pointless from a moral standpoint, but not from the standpoint of male supremacist militarism, and male supremacist ideology contributed mightily to the buildup which led to it.
Then there was World War II. Like all good militarists, the Nazis defended male dominance, and they set out to reverse the effects of the Industrial Revolution which had enabled women to rise during the nineteenth century. Their slogan for women was “kitchen, church and children,” but their policies went far beyond slogans. The Nazis awarded medals—bronze, silver and gold medals—to women who had four or more children. They shut down the birth control clinics, an action which made them popular with malestream church leaders. They made low-cost loans available to newlyweds on the condition that the bride quit her job. Then during World War II they instituted slave labor in German factories, bringing captives in from Eastern Europe so that German women wouldn’t have to do factory work the way the women of other countries were while the men were off fighting.
Nazism passed into history, and the Nazi attempt to subjugate women disappeared along with it. Of more lasting significance is the extent to which Hitler discredited militarism. The whole fascist ideology of young men proving their manhood by fighting in a war had been called into question. At the same time, the magnitude of the destructive potential of new weaponry made all-out war intolerable. World War II saw the first use in combat of nuclear weapons, and even men began to worry about the dangers of launching a war.
But man is still the warrior. It’s part of his genetic inheritance from prehistoric times. Furthermore, the male protection racket demands that men fight wars in order to get women to submit to them. As long as society continues to be dominated by men, there is always the danger of another war. Female domination and feminine training for males are crucial to the prevention of war in the long run.
The connection between male dominance and war is a two-way street. War legitimates male dominance, and men’s desire for such dominance leads them to be indifferent to the horrors of war in much the same way that they tend to be indifferent to the trauma of rape. To the extent that we are able to eliminate war, we are also helping to weaken male rule. This is why Lady Sophia endorses the World Federalist Association, a nonprofit organization working toward the elimination of war through the establishment of a democratically controlled world government. (If you want more information about the WFA you can write to it at 418 7th St. S.E, Washington DC 20003.)
We also believe that it is important to persuade people to vote for women for elective office and to stop voting for men. Political consultants have known for years that there is a small minority of voters which supports only women candidates and that this can make a difference in a minor race where most people don’t know anything about the candidates except their gender and party affiliation. We must see to it that this small minority of voters gets bigger; then both major parties will nominate more women for office, and more women will get elected.
This brings me to your complaint about women in high office often being no better than men. This is true enough, Angelo, but you need to understand that these women rose within a male power structure—they are women who have the approval of the male supremacists. If we can get into a situation in which nearly all elected officials are women, you will see them acting quite differently. In a male-dominated society, successful women politicians will have been prescreened by the men who are running things. But this can be changed, and each additional woman elected to office makes it just a little bit harder for men to maintain their control.
In writing that the idea of a female-dominated society is only a fantasy, you say this is especially true for a society “run by females exerting sexual power.” Actually, power relations between the sexes have always had a sexual dimension. In Gen. 3:16, the woman is told that “your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” That was in a patriarchal society, but today the high heel is on the other foot. Now that women are achieving more power in society, women’s fashions are reflecting their sexual power as well. This was the theme of our Time and Tide article for February 1997, “Power Dressing,” which was a review essay on Valerie Steele’s very important book Fetish: Fashion, Sex and Power. Women are dressing in a more distracting way—to use Julia Reed’s term from her April 1998 Vogue article “How Sexy is Too Sexy?”—because they have the power to do so. This trend will continue.
How can women come to rule society? I have already mentioned that the prospect of technologically advanced wars make male rule too dangerous to be tolerated. But female supremacy offers positive benefits to men as well. Because women are more moral than men, putting the women in charge means that the men will be elevated to a higher moral level. This is attractive to most men, even many of those who fight against female power. It is this opportunity to live on a higher moral plane which is the chief attraction of female supremacy for men.
Female supremacy will succeed because man is the warrior and woman is the civilizer, and war can no longer be tolerated. Female supremacy will succeed because in our society masculinity is a chromosomal defect inherited from prehistoric times. Female supremacy will succeed even if Lady Sophia were to go out of existence. It will succeed because it is the wave of the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is actually pretty amusing, if purely because of its overt and unabashed sexism. But it will never come true, for two reasons:
1) Women are no less violent and self-serving than men, but they are SIGNIFICANTLY less willing to take responsibility for their own actions,
2) There is a limit to which men can be contained by women and feminists, a limit we are now reaching. Just like with communism, socialism, and unionism, the true character of women is becoming clear, and the pendulum is beginning to swing in the other direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and the pendulum is beginning to swing in the other direction."""
Rather I stand on the otherside of that pendulum and with all my useless male strength push it back the otherway, because I am well past my limit.
It is not feminism that I am trying to destroy, it is the lies and the hatred, from what I understand feminism was not based on these things, We have groups today that only enjoy this solitude of hatred within female only clubs. They think the past justifies their actions today. It does not! None of them have lived through any of those experiences or wars. And women have been nothing but protected in every common wealth country. Do bad things happen to good people, yes, sorry about that, Im one of those people so I sympathize, but does that give me the right to ruin a bunch of blackmen's lives because one pointed a gun at me and stole my money. Does that give me the right to ruin the lives of Natives because 4 of them jumped me and kicked the crap out of me for no real reason. Does that give me the right to beat the tar out of some white guy because he helped those natives kick the crap out of me? Does that give me the right to ruin any women's life because she hit me in the mouth because she is morally superior to me(sic). It is an out standing NO!!!! But they do give me the right to defend myself as much as nessesary but as little as possible. These women are not feminists nor should they represent women's setiments, they are hate mongers with a specific agenda to distribute suffering. I wonder if they know "With great power comes great responsibility. " I made that one up you can use it if you want.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not feminism that I am trying to destroy, it is the lies and the hatred, from what I understand feminism was not based on these things,
In this, I believe that you are quite mistaken. Feminism has it roots in Marxism and Socialism. It depends on the lies taught in these evil philosophies to survive.
That is why you hear arguments about women making less then men. Yet when the argumenst are examinied, it is found they are using Communist theories to justify their claims. That is why we see feminism seeking to empower the almighty State in having control over the children. Feminism in its purest form is quite evil.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is why you hear arguments about women making less then men. Yet when the argumenst are examinied, it is found they are using Communist theories to justify their claims. That is why we see feminism seeking to empower the almighty State in having control over the children. Feminism in its purest form is quite evil.
I had never thought of it that way, thanks for pointing it out. But that is the great dupe then isnt it, and the origin of the individual is based on the need for rightness, so the recrutes are lied too, work hard to correct a wrong, this is not hatred or lies, but Ms. Information. The many people they have lied to believed in this so their bases was a form of self-defence, if given the right info, Im sure they would work hard to find a solution the other way. The beginnings of feminism starts in the individual, time or place is irrelevant. I still like women, but I realized just as with what your saying, you tell people what they want to hear, and they will love you for it. Men have known this for eons about women otherwise we would not all be here
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I think we know where this editor's stance on equality is. I can believe these people write stuff based on ideology and try to pass it off as scholarship. LIKE what the fuk are you talking about, there are so many holes in your theory that it looks more like mesh lining than an editorial. You are no better than the people you are accusing of racism , sexism , idioism. Does anyone have this person's name I missed it. If you think a government that omits statistics , continualy tells lies, and uses lies as a weapon will succeed in moralizing the world you will be telling people to eat cake long before you know it. The abuse of power is not gender specific, it is the position of power. And like you said either gender can weild power. What gets me is that you do such a diservice to women by not acknowledging any of their accomplishments simply because it doesnt fit your ideology. To say that an entire 50% of the population did not have major influences over the story of the world, is in itself sexism against women. We dont know the beginnings(pre-historic), we dont know if it was actually women who set up these policies or not, and since men enforced them it always appears they made them then doesnt it. The element is possible and equally likely. All your truths are falling down around you. Because they are skewd, bolstered falsehoods and people are waking up to it. You do not have the voice of all women, you have to bully women into your ideals with fear, so it is not men who perpetuate the fear of attack, it is you. If so many men rape, then we should assume that rape is normal and re name it or better understand it instead of criminalizing it, but like many of your other falsehoods these attacks actually are quite rare. But I agree violence against women is going to esculate and Im not talking about partner violence, but violence against women who are going after the same goals and materials. And not just by men but largely by other women aswell. When we all start competing for the same goods then well thats what it is isnt it. You want to play on the ice but you dont want to be body checked, but expect speacial treatment because your a girl. It won't work and never will because it is so flawed and sexist where do I start. YOu want to score, your going to get hit going for the net. And if you think that if all women on the ice then everyone gets to score guess again nobody wins that way, and no-one can pay the bill now can they. And if you think for one second your going to enslave me to work for your lesbian utopia you've guessed wrong, because the only way in which yor society works is if someone is at the bottom doing your work, because of your moral superiorty. Sounds a lot like the same stuff used time and time again, maybe its not the male gene thats responsible for slavery maybe it was the female all along. And oh ya, so innately selfish she would enslave her sisters too, while letting the man think he was ruler of the kingdom she ruled the bedroom. How long will it be when you will have to enslave all races for yourself, then once done begin to choose which women are okay to enslave, then once done whose children are takin from whom and enslaved where for your good (superior selfishness)morality. And if you think Im intimadated by your sexual assertivness then come on baby lets get it on. Because in the end your a predator posing as a housepet and nothing more.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 07, @09:24AM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
There are many interesting points in this essay. It does reveal with open honesty what most feminists believe in, whether they openly admit it or not. The type of 'attitude' in this essay (editorial) IS the underlying message in much of the feminist dogma that is exposed to children and college age students throughout the U.S.'s academic institutions and cultural communications.
Feminist ideology has spread into realms traditionally controlled by women - schools systems and the home front, and into the all media outlets (i.e. TV). Boys are told to behave passively, while girls are encouraged to act aggressively. This theme IS the dominant paradigm of contemporary television programming. Networks like the "Disney Channel" have a thematic orientation that tends to display boys with traditional male gender roles (jocks with rebellious behavior...) as the enemy, and passive boys as the allies. Whereas the girls are generally displayed as the 'problem solvers', or as aggressive participants in sporting activities. My daughter watches the Disney channel too much, and the other day on a show oriented toward girls the character actually said to a boy that she agreed to date "I will go out on a date with you as long as we both agree and understand that "you are and will always be dumber than me and all my girlfriends". So, the bumbling boy agrees and the rest of the story was 'happily ever after'. This is just one example of thousand pf misandric "grrl power" themes that are played out every week on this channel.
My example may seem benign, as any individual example does. But the issue is that the feminists rule 100% the way controlled mediums such as television programming depicts gender behavior and perceptions.
The feminists are waging cultural war, by exaggerating claims of oppression and abuse to get people involved and to open up federal channels of funding for sexist causes, and as a result have created an environment where fathers are easily disposed of from the family unit. And they have replaced all the male "role models" on TV with ineffective boobs. And have instilled misandric attitudes in the female youth population in this country. And have created more resources for our daughters to succeed and have forgotten about about the boys. There goal - get rid of the men (husbands), and re-educate the youth with twisted sociological theories.
As the author of this article points out "First, you say that male supremacy is too deeply ingrained in both boys and girls to be rooted out. But such attitudes are not innate. They are learned behavior and can be countered with the proper training." -ALL FEMINIST'S KNOW THIS, AND THEY ARE WAGING WAR ON THE BOYS IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES.
What are you going to do about it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It does reveal with open honesty what most feminists believe in, whether they openly admit it or not......
The feminists are waging cultural war, by exaggerating claims of oppression and abuse to get people involved and to open up federal channels of funding for sexist causes, and as a result have created an environment where fathers are easily disposed of from the family unit."
It is amazing that feminist feel sufficiently confident to openly cite their goal of establishing female superiority. They are able to do this with good reason. Feminists have control of literally every level of government. The figureheads in place are little more than feminist puppets.
Finally, there is no question but that feminism recognizes the need to destroy the family in order to establish overt female superiority. This is why they have systematically passed laws that allow men to be convicted for any reason, without any physical evidence or proof, if a female demands the criminalization of a male. Today, a female can falsely accuse a male of rape, DV, child abuse, claim fear, claim stalking, or child molestation if she desires to incarcerate a male and the justice system will act on her behalf. There is no need for proof and all traditional protections are gone.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 07, @01:37PM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
.it's all part of a giant agenda that has been unfolding for decades...
Change has occured because the 'political is personal now" and PC has shut up all rational thought and open debate on all social issues.
If one is anti-abortion they are anti-women. If one is anti-feminism they are misogynists, if one questions DV stats - what are they hiding?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There goal - get rid of the men (husbands), and re-educate the youth with twisted sociological theories. "
Last night I was watching Ophra. She was having a special on female sexuality. There were these supposed wise female Dr's on sexuality and other supposed experts.
They were all upset because according to them, 12-year-old girls were orally pleasuring boys and not getting the same oral pleasure in return. They all found this fact "especially disturbing."
In their mind, there was nothing wrong with 12-year-old kids having sexual relations and oral sex. The problem was that boys were having the girls "service them." They equated the oral sexual activity to kissing and called it common. They called such activity as common as kissing.
Does anybody else find this alarming!?!?
My God! This show should have fathers and mothers everywhere attacking Ophra for advocating that 12 year olds to become sexually active and seek to be pleasured equally.
At 12, NO kids have any business giving or receiving oral sex. Ophra should be thrown in jail for such an endorsement.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the end of James Dale's interview with the Trenton Times in June of 2000, immediately after the Supreme Court ruled against him, he said that he wanted to "be there" as a Boy Scout leader to counsel young boys who were beginning to recognize their sexuality. Whether or not you support gay rights, you have to recognize that we're talking about boys for the most part who are 12-15 years old and should NOT be making decisions about their sexuality for several years to come!
This is really no different, although it got the wrong kind of publicity in the liberal media.
We agree again, Warble, no child should be having ANY kind of sex at age 12. Where in the hell are their parents? Oh yeah, I forgot. They only have one, mom, and "she has needs too!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"At 12, NO kids have any business giving or receiving oral sex. Ophra should be thrown in jail for such an endorsement."
What is Oprah hiding?
I think she should be thrown in jail anyways and not because just of that endorsement.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 07, @11:10AM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
There are many interesting points in this essay. It does reveal with open honesty what most feminists believe in, whether they openly admit it or not. The type of 'attitude' in this essay (editorial) IS the underlying message in much of the feminist dogma that is exposed to children and college age students throughout the U.S.'s academic institutions and cultural communications.
Feminist ideology has spread into realms traditionally controlled by women - schools systems and the home front, and into the all media outlets (i.e. TV). Boys are told to behave passively, while girls are encouraged to act aggressively. This theme IS the dominant paradigm of contemporary television programming. Networks like the "Disney Channel" have a thematic orientation that tends to display boys with traditional male gender roles (jocks with rebellious behavior...) as the enemy, and passive boys as the allies. Whereas the girls are generally displayed as the 'problem solvers', or as aggressive participants in sporting activities. My daughter watches the Disney channel too much, and the other day on a show oriented toward girls the character actually said to a boy that she agreed to date "I will go out on a date with you as long as we both agree and understand that "you are and will always be dumber than me and all my girlfriends". So, the bumbling boy agrees and the rest of the story was 'happily ever after'. This is just one example of thousand pf misandric "grrl power" themes that are played out every week on this channel.
My example may seem benign, as any individual example does. But the issue is that the feminists rule 100% the way controlled mediums such as television programming depicts gender behavior and perceptions.
The feminists are waging cultural war, by exaggerating claims of oppression and abuse to get people involved and to open up federal channels of funding for sexist causes, and as a result have created an environment where fathers are easily disposed of from the family unit. And they have replaced all the male "role models" on TV with ineffective boobs. And have instilled misandric attitudes in the female youth population in this country. And have created more resources for our daughters to succeed and have forgotten about about the boys. There goal - get rid of the men (husbands), and re-educate the youth with twisted sociological theories.
As the author of this article points out "First, you say that male supremacy is too deeply ingrained in both boys and girls to be rooted out. But such attitudes are not innate. They are learned behavior and can be countered with the proper training." -ALL FEMINIST'S KNOW THIS, AND THEY ARE WAGING WAR ON THE BOYS IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to set up a forum and have the girls at the Ms. post and the women at shethinks or mens activists or whoever wants to get into it, and see what kind of stuff would go on. This means no real moderation, only a posting at the enter page that tells you if you are light of heart and can't handle the stunning coments and debates that may flair, this is not for you.
Does this sound dumb or fun. sounds like fun to me. Dan
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What you'll probably get is a bunch of men who want to debate the issue, and a few womn, but you'll also get quite a few folks, I predict mostly women, who'll do nothing but torpedo any intelligent debate with sarcasm and "victimness."
And NONE of the feminists will EVER admit that they were wrong about anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And NONE of the feminists will EVER admit that they were wrong about anything"
This is what I have been told. But the conflict would be more direct, it will probably be nicknamed the "Troll Site" because everyone will be bashing everyone, but it might be good for people to get these things out. One possible name I had for it is 'Editorial Slant' I am open to suggestions, and if anyone has experience with this in the past let me know. Tell me why it flopped etc... I think it would be kind of fun actually.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This is what I have been told. But the conflict would be more direct, it will probably be nicknamed the "Troll Site" because everyone will be bashing everyone, but it might be good for people to get these things out. One possible name I had for it is 'Editorial Slant' I am open to suggestions, and if anyone has experience with this in the past let me know. Tell me why it flopped etc... I think it would be kind of fun actually."
You ever tried Usenet? Take a look at soc.men or alt.feminism sometime...
groups.google.com
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You ever tried Usenet? Take a look at soc.men or alt.feminism sometime...
I will, thanks Scott.
My take on it though is, these are still onesided sights, i.e. soc for men, alt feminism for girls, whatever. I want to establish a nueral site that explains clearly that it is hot button debate, and that many things said can be offensive, which is where Wendy McElroy faced. There are so many groups, I'd like to get the boys and the girls together and bad mouth eachother face to face well post to post. And see what comes of it. No ownership for one sex or the other. But maybe what goes on there at soc or alt is doing that anyways.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 09, @08:33AM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly do not think that many feminists will come to the forum that you would like to establish, as they are into "non-traditional forms of knowing" i.e. no debate with dissenters, because they lack true empirical support, and technically speaking a debate would create a hostile environment that may shock their limited sensibilities and undermine their sense of "rage" that they rely on to spread their sexist hate against the oppositie gender...
feminism is sexism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 07, @01:38PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
Our Bodies, Our Scholarship
Unwomen, "happy" marriage, foreign male elements, and women’s studies.
By Cathy Young
Women’s studies programs are rife with radical feminist ideology, concludes a recent report by the right-of-center Independent Women’s Forum (IWF) .. a revelation about as shocking as the news that rap lyrics contain a lot of raunchy language. Nevertheless, the IWF report, Lying in a Room of One’s Own: How Women’s Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students, by Christine Stolba, offers an interesting analysis of an academic discipline (or, as some of its critics would call it, a pseudo-academic pseudo-discipline) that has been steadily gaining ground on campuses since its inception some three decades ago.
The report analyzes five of the most popular textbooks used in introductory women’s studies courses. It is at its strongest when it focuses on errors of fact. For example, the textbooks report that medical research has ignored and shortchanged women, without acknowledging the challenges to such assertions.
One book, Thinking About Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Gender, by Margaret L. Andersen, advises readers not to get too excited about new medical breakthroughs because "you might well find out that all the subjects in the study were men and that the same insights or procedures that medical researchers are heralding as advancing medical science have not been at all considered for their implications for women’s health." In reality, as early as 1979, over 90 percent of all clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health included women.
The same book also suggests, without citing any evidence, that more resources have been poured into treatments for male impotence than into research on breast cancer. Meanwhile, it fails to mention the fact that at least since the 1980s, breast cancer has received more research funding than any other type of cancer. Dubious claims about educational bias against women and domestic violence are repeated just as uncritically.
Not surprisingly, women’s studies textbooks also treat male-female disparities in the workplace as evidence of discrimination and oppression. They tend to be suspicious of free markets in general. Other patterns identified in the IWF study include a tendency to turn women with the wrong politics, such as Margaret Thatcher, into "unpersons" (or at least "unwomen"); to present only one side of controversies on such issues as the merits of day care; and to treat women who make politically incorrect choices, such as curtailing their employment to raise families, as dupes "apparently unaware that in these decisions they are following traditional gender stereotypes."
Marriage is viewed with such a jaundiced eye that happy marriages are mentioned with the word happy in ironic quotation marks; motherhood is presented largely as a burden, fatherhood as something even worse. According to one book, Women’s Realities, Women’s Choices: An Introduction to Women’s Studies, by the Hunter College Women’s Studies Collective, "Daughters often find ourselves in league with our mothers against the foreign male element represented by the father."
Some nuggets cited in the report are downright bizarre. For example, Thinking About Women suggests that homemaking is literally a hazardous occupation, since it "exposes [women] to a wide variety of toxic substances" that are not subjected to the same government regulations as in industrial settings, and darkly states that "the high death rate by cancer among housewives [has not] been widely discussed." No factual substantiation is given for the alarming implication.
Some of the IWF’s critique, however, is on very shaky ground. Should we really be incensed because Women’s Realities, Women’s Choices states that women can be discouraged by the perceived lack of important women artists, quoting literary scholar Helen Vendler’s comment that "no woman can fail to hope for the appearance of a woman poet of Shakespearean or Keatsian power"?
This doesn’t necessarily assume, as the IWF’s Stolba complains, that "women can’t or shouldn’t draw inspiration from male artists." One can be inspired by Shakespeare or Leonardo da Vinci and still find one’s self-confidence somewhat dampened by an all-male pantheon. Occasionally, too, Lying in a Room of One’s Own seems to reflect the IWF’s own agenda .. suggesting, for instance, that ultraconservative writer F. Carolyn Graglia’s paeans to "the joys of domestic life" warrant inclusion in women’s studies textbooks.
The principal charge in the IWF study .. that women’s studies courses are heavily biased toward feminist viewpoints and against traditional gender roles -- undoubtedly would elicit no more than an amused shrug from most women’s studies professors. As University of Massachusetts at Amherst professor Daphne Patai and Indiana University professor Noretta Koertge reported in their 1994 book, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From the Strange World of Women’s Studies, the assumption that women’s studies constitutes the academic arm of the feminist movement is quite common in women’s studies departments. Many programs openly list raising "feminist consciousness," promoting "feminist advocacy," and addressing "the campus-wide problems of sexism, racism, and other injustices" among their goals. The publications of the National Women’s Studies Association also assume that women’s studies courses must champion feminism.
What’s wrong with that? For one thing, such an approach explicitly subordinates scholarship to political goals. Even more problematic is that women’s studies courses tend to embrace a very particular, narrowly defined brand of feminism. It not only looks critically at traditional female roles; it labels as anti-feminist the view that women in the United States today have equal opportunity and assumes that American women "still live in a hostile environment."
Academic feminists may argue that the pro-feminist bias in women’s studies is necessary to counteract traditional biases that remain pervasive in the rest of the academy and in the culture at large. If this claim had validity in the early 1970s, however, it is certainly specious today, when feminist attitudes are widespread in the culture and especially in the universities.
In the updated edition of Professing Feminism, to be published later this year, Patai and Koertge conclude that the field of women’s studies is even more politicized and radicalized today than it was in the early 1990s. One may ask if this really matters. After all, the radical feminist orientation of these courses is an open secret, so we are not talking about innocents lured into women’s studies with promises of solid, scholarly, reasonably objective courses on women’s history or the sociology of gender. Most young women respond to the politics of women’s studies by staying away in droves. They may subscribe to broadly defined feminist goals yet hold women’s studies in contempt.
Nevertheless, there are causes for concern. As Patai and Koertge convincingly argue, the negative influence of women’s studies often spreads to other departments, contributing to a campus-wide climate of political and sexual correctness. Perhaps no less important, women’s studies in its current state does a real disservice to serious scholarship on women and gender. Those who believe that such scholarship is needed should be among the first to call for reform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Review of Women's Studies Textbooks
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Just in Time for Women’s History Month, Review of Women’s Studies Textbooks Reveals Questionable Scholarship, Ideological Bias, and Sins of Omission
ARLINGTON, VA (March 20, 2002) – “The ‘knowledge’ transmitted by Women’s Studies textbooks is often factually and interpretively at odds with reality,” concludes Lying in a Room of One’s Own: How Women’s Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students (PDF). In her review of the five popular textbooks used in Women’s Studies’ introductory courses on campuses nationwide, author Christine Stolba reveals an academic discipline dedicated to “transforming knowledge,” and the truth be damned.
“Feminism seeks to change society though activism and social change,” Stolba writes. “Women’s studies has a slightly different mission – it seeks to ‘transform knowledge.’ Because ‘traditional systems of knowledge’ have often ignored women, the argument goes, Women’s Studies must reconstruct knowledge altogether.”
After reviewing the syllabi used by Women’s Studies departments at 30 major universities and colleges, then closely examining the five textbooks most often assigned, Stolba finds that propaganda, not scholarship, may best describe introductory Women’s Studies courses.
· In Women’s Studies, facts simply don’t exist. “The author of Issues in Feminism says: ‘Feminist theoreticians in every field…are convinced that no purely factual studies exist,’ since facts have ‘all developed within a framework of male bias.’”
· Science, including and especially medical research, is to be taken only a bit more seriously than psychics on late night infomercials. “As one textbook states, ‘these people – scientists – are like all human beings, products of their culture…their investigations and conclusions about female and male characteristics necessarily reflect the perspectives and expectations of the dominant male culture.’ In other words, science’s guilt is presumed because it is an outgrowth of ‘male culture.’”
· Despite the fact that women “receive the majority of bachelor’s and master’s degrees, and within a decade are projected to receive the majority of PhDs,” academia itself is viewed as a tool of male oppression by Women’s Studies professors. “Even the curriculum is suspect, as the textbook Women in American Society reminds us,” Stolba writes. “Lurking behind the ‘overt curriculum’ in schools is a ‘hidden curriculum’ that ‘still supports traditional gender roles and, more specifically, discourages girls who might otherwise stretch themselves beyond traditional boundaries in intellectual skills and interest.”
· Freshmen women are informed that they are slaves. Citing Issues in Feminism, Stolba reports that “we find an extended section on ‘mind control as an instrument of patriarchy,’ wherein women’s place in society is described as a form of slavery: ‘An even more perfect form of slavery was one in which the slaves were unaware of their condition, unaware that they were controlled, believing instead that they had freely chosen their life and situation. The control of women by patriarchy is effected in just such a way….’”
· And freshmen women are being disabused of their “phallocentric thinking” and freed from “compulsory heterosexuality,” a term “frequently deployed in the textbooks to describe the ‘institutionalized practices that presume that women are innately sexually oriented towards men’ and explains how ‘heterosexuality is maintained by social control.’”
· Marriage, in the Women’s Study curriculum, is regarded as an “instrument of social oppression,” in the words of one textbook. Motherhood is “a mixture of satisfaction and pleasure plus anger, frustration and bitterness,” states another. And the dads who are paying for this education, well they are the “foreign male element represented by the father” in the textbook Women’s Realities, Women’s Choices.
Stolba, a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, makes a compelling case against the shoddy scholarship underpinning Women’s Studies. “Unfortunately, because they are in the business of ‘transforming knowledge,’” she writes, “the authors of Women’s Studies textbooks give themselves plenty of leeway with regards to those pesky things that make up reality: facts.”
Lying in a Room of One’s Own: How Women’s Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students documents a litany of factual errors, from bloated statistics about “battered wives” to false reports about women missing from medical clinical trials to equity in the workplace.
Stolba also gives us a peek into the graphics inside these books: “Women’s Studies textbooks also suffer serious errors of taste. Graphic photos of women performing do-it-yourself pelvic exams; fishnet-clad drag queens; a naked woman embracing her equally naked mother – ostensibly to represent generational differences – are typical.”
Lying in a Room of One’s Own: How Women’s Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students (PDF) is available to download by clicking on the link above, or you can request a copy by calling 1-800-224-6000.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Summer Epiphany
By Kerry Doyle
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
A teacher tells a student that two plus two is the same as four. The student accepts the teacher’s claim as fact and jots it down in her notebook. Likewise, when a professor tells a student that society oppresses her and owes her just compensation, the student accepts the claim as fact and jots it down in her notebook. At least, that’s my story.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming my ignorance on my liberal education, oh no. I take full responsibility for my deception. I had every opportunity to check on the Internet or research at the library or—even better—just ask my Dad if two plus two really does equal four. But being the trusting soul that I am, I took my professors at their word. My dad would have told me the truth, that yes two plus two really does equal four, but no I will not be oppressed or victimized just because I was born a girl. To this day he encourages me to make the American presidency my career goal. But all the same, he supports me in whatever career path I choose, including my recent naïve aspirations to end sexism in America and save the world’s women. My father has been waiting for me to, on my own, find the truth.
The truth … now that’s something you don’t hear very often. In my women’s studies courses in college I doubt that I ever heard the truth. While I sat in classrooms greedily gulping down “knowledge,” I never imagined that I would be rejecting that same “knowledge” only months later. But, here I am, a former women’s studies major, a former NOW intern, wondering what I can do to ensure that other students are not duped the way I was.
A semester ago, you would have thought I was a poster child for any given University women’s studies department. A proven activist and a Dean’s List student, I was easily accepted into the program. I began volunteering at a local women’s domestic violence safe house. I was vice-president of Students Together Against Racial Tension and a student member of the University Women’s Coalition. I was swept off my feet by the excitement and activism of the women’s studies crowd. When it came time to make plans for the summer after my sophomore year, I became stubbornly set in the idea of interning for a major women’s organization in Washington, D.C. My parents were nervous, my friends were cautioning, my boyfriend was scared silly; but me, I could not be oppressed. I had to break free of the social confines of sexism and gender. I had to immerse myself in the fight for equality and freedom for “womyn.”
So, I applied to five different women’s organizations based in D.C. They ranged from shelters, to young women’s support groups, to the National Organization for Women (NOW). NOW was the first to respond. Their intern coordinator called me at school for a telephone interview. Her final question for me was to describe my “feminist click.” You know, that enlightening moment—those radical feminists often refer to—when you suddenly realize that you are a victim of patriarchal oppression. Hmmm, well … I was stuck. But I used the thick, rich nonsensical lingo from my “Intro to Women’s Studies” course to avoid actually answering the question. I tried desperately to hide that not only had I never experienced this magical “click,” but I could hardly even fathom the concept. After hanging up the phone, I was sure that I had blown it. There were bound to be other women out there vying for the position who could relate to this “click.” Little did I know at the time, but these reservations were just the tip of the iceberg. If I had only listened to my mother when she warned me to follow my intuition.
As it turns our, I did get chosen as an intern for the National NOW office despite my less than Steinem-esque interview. Excitement abounded! My parents were still worried. My friends still cautioned. And my boyfriend, though entirely supportive, was very nervous. But the more they warned me not to come back with spiky bleached hair and a nose ring, the angrier and more stubborn I became.
My first day at NOW was a nightmare. I was already nervous just from excitement and eagerness to impress, but when I arrived the situation immediately became much, much worse. It was clear that I did not fit in—with my heels, pressed dress slacks, pink button-up blouse, and long, plain hair. I looked entirely out of place among the jeans, angry slogan-splashed t-shirts, spiky buzzed hair and nose rings.
The first thing I heard was a joke about Catholics. I reached up to touch, but not cover, the silver cross that I wear around my neck every day. Next, I and several other new interns were summoned to the conference room for “acquainting.” We watched several videos. During the last one, I had to leave the room to relieve my nausea. The graphic abortion propaganda was too much for my stomach. I held in tears and what was left of my breakfast for a few more hours, until I became so distraught that I left early.
A nervous tummy was not my only problem. I felt scared, lonely, disappointed. I spent the rest of the day convincing myself that it was all just nerves and that I would try again in the morning, first day jitters out of the way. I called my mom and she said, “Kerry, come home. It’s okay. No one will think any less of you for changing your mind.” But, once again, her advice was only fuel to the fire and gave energy to my stubborn, immature drive. I stuck it out at NOW for three long, strange weeks.
My experiences at NOW led me to question things that I had learned in my women’s studies classes. When I saw that NOW was consciously overlooking facts in order to support their causes, it was then that I saw the truth. Granted, it was hard to find, hidden by the unethical research methods that NOW practices. The assignments I was given provided me the opportunity to see how the organization works—how they twist reality (or simply ignore it) to support their unfounded causes. Suddenly, I saw the whole world in a different light.
It was a very unsettling experience. Everything I learned in the past two years of women’s studies courses seemed tainted. I imagine it would feel just as scary as being told that two plus two does not equal four. All things considered, this was a very good thing for me. As my women’s studies world melted away, reality shone through brightly.
It was a beautiful summer afternoon when I broke down, admitted to myself that the depressing feelings that had characterized the past three weeks were justified, and it was time for me to take the situation by the reins. I went to the office the next day, knowing that it would be my last, to collect my things, finish up my assignments, and make a plan to get out. I was greeted that morning with a letter in my mailbox pressing me to actively protest the Independent Women’s Forum campus ad campaign. I went to my computer and typed in www.IWF.org and decided, after extensive research, that it was no coincidence that the letter was placed in my mailbox that day.
I emailed IWF and begged for help, offering even to stuff envelopes if they would take me in. I do not doubt that they were quite skeptical at first, and rightly so. But, they interviewed me and gave me a chance. I learned more from IWF in two weeks than in my entire “women’s studies phase” (as I now refer to that time, with a tinge of humility). My first assignment? Fact checking. Let’s just say it was a nice change. This is an organization that values responsibility, honest work, and truth—just like me.
I am still interested in women’s issues. I simply value truth. I am still a feminist, but I now recognize some organizations’ perversion of feminism. I now know that there are more, far more ways to look at feminism than the one single radical feminist agenda that is so often shoved in our faces. If you can’t play well, play loud; that’s how NOW works. But as a wise man once told me, truth and goodness come with quiet thought.
So, my friends’ fears are allayed. My parents are proud. And my boyfriend is relieved. They knew I’d come around.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday May 12, @02:07PM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
A certain institution of higher learning is granting Gloria Steinem an honorary doctorate this month. I earned my doctorate at that institution and will be attending the commencement ceremony. Someone has to be there to stand, even if in silence, for mens rights and for the value of the degree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday May 12, @02:41PM EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh well, I can't make it this year. There wasn't much point anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What university is it? I'm sure the alumni would be interested to hear. It might even have an adverse effect on alumni giving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday May 13, @03:30PM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
Correct Theory Discarded In Favor Of More Exciting Theory
NY NY— The correct theory regarding pay equity was discarded Monday in favor of a far more exciting theory. "We love to create animosity between the sexes, this way the media will pay attention to us and young impressionable women can feel a sense of self-righteous rage again, and perhaps we can score some federal funding to keep our gender study friends employed" said Maxine Overture of NOW, pondering the results of a resent study that indicated pay inequality has as much to do with personal choices rather than overt patriarchal oppression"
:-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 14, @09:14AM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
In a new New York production of Thornton Wilder's Our Town, the role of stage manager is played by a ninth-grade girl. The director, Jack Cummings III, explained, ``I do not believe that audiences would welcome---the way they did [before]---an older white man lecturing to them on the ways of the world with a nod and a wink. The New York Times critic, Anita Gates, added, ``That may be true for some audiences, but an older black man or an older black woman could have made that point while maintaining the weight of hard-earned wisdom.''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 14, @09:34AM EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
The editor of Lloyd's List, a 268-year-old publication that provides maritime information for Lloyd's of London, announced that henceforth ships would be referred to as ``it'' rather than ``she.''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 14, @09:44AM EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
Arianne R. Cohen '03 justifies her course of academic study at some length in Harvard magazine, March-April 2002:
I can't explain what I study at Harvard.
I am a women's-studies concentrator. After a two-year stint of floating through five large academic departments while regularly switching concentrations and trying to fulfill premedical requirements, I have---to put it mildly---seen all that Harvard has to offer. And I love women's studies.
For the first time in my life, I am actually engaged with my studies. I enjoy writing papers....
Unfortunately, liking one's field and being able to explain what one studies are two different things. I generally try to hedge the topic, but inevitably a fellow student will ask what my concentration is. I usually respond straightforwardly: ``I am a women's-studies concentrator.'' But Harvard students tend to be audacious, persistent, and intellectually questioning people:
``So, what exactly do you study in women's studies?''
``I study gender studies ... it's much more than just women.''
``Well, what besides women do you study?''
``Um, well, take gender, for example. The construction of gender is intimately attached to race, religion, class, and a myriad of other identity markers, and can't be isolated into one academic vault. It's broad.'' ...
So what exactly do I study? I am currently taking five courses in four departments. As in any small concentration, only a few courses are offered each semester, so students actively seek classes in other departments. Maximum freedom results and students develop their own courses of learning, essentially studying what they choose (within reason)....
Still, explaining that I do my studies falls far short of explaining what I study.
I was pondering this dilemma over coffee late one night, after a phone call in which an old friend had denounced my concentration as ``pointless.''
``Why,'' he asked, ``did you ever leave government?''
In a fruitless attempt to change topics, I countered by arguing, ``You just don't get it''---a line of reasoning [sic] that, since its entrance into my pubescent vocabulary eight years ago, has inevitably gotten me nowhere. Luckily, friend and fellow women's-studies concentrator Laure ``Voop'' Vulpillères happened by just as I hung up. I figured that this lofty senior, a four-year women's-studies veteran, would definitely have answers to my troubles.
``Voop, how do you explain women's studies when people ask?''
``That's so annoying! I can never explain it, especially to my mom.''
``Okaaay, so if someone were to say, `Voop, what do you study in school?' what would you say?''
``I don't know. I usually just try to change the subject as quickly as possible ... whatever we study is really interesting though---why, what do you say?''
``Whatever I say, I end up sounding militant. So I try to say as little as possible.''
``Yeah, me too. It's a bummer... hey, after I graduate, can you stay in school for a long time and keep studying women's studies, so you can tell me what to read?''
``Um, yeah, sure, for one more year anyway.''
So there you have it: Neither of us has any idea of exactly how to explain what it is that we study, yet we both want to continue studying it forever. So, we continue to study away, saying very little, but enjoying ourselves immensely.
After Voop departed the room, I pondered for a while before telephoning a joint history of science/women's-studies concentrator to help me cope with my inability to explain my academic program. She recalled venting similar concerns in a meeting with a professor. The professor responded helpfully that ``women's studies is not a field. It's an area of interest.''
My friend went on to explain that women's studies applies to any field. In history of science, it explains how science has created and enforced its own definitions of sex and gender in society. In literature, it examines how various authors portray women and men in different historical moments and, by extension, the changing social construction of gender in society over time. In social studies, it analyzes the gender-based power dynamics of various political theories, and how these theories translate into the daily lives of both sexes. In essence, women's studies is looking at how gender operates in society across many different disciplines, while providing students with analytic tools that apply to any power dynamic. To me, this made sense.
I thanked my fellow student profusely for this explanation, and called Voop to tell her the good news. She was thrilled....
For my own purposes, I use women's studies in reference to my future profession (and current avocation), writing.... [T]hrough the process of intellectually tracing the position of women and gender in various social circumstances, I have learned how to trace the lines of power in any circumstance. It's like a lens with which to scrutinize any situation and instantly see what is happening on multiple planes. This ability is infinitely valuable to a fledgling writer, for whom the capacity to take common information and quickly see an interesting story spells the difference between success and failure....
This is why I love women's studies: because it has become a pivotal piece of my path to writing renown by teaching me how to think in a manner equally applicable to academia and the real world.
In the end, has this new knowledge helped me come up with a succinct answer to the ever-bothersome question, ``What exactly do you study?'' Not in the slightest....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is an essay I found, some may have already read it on the sex wars page found here.
http://members.tripod.com/feministhate/index.htm
I wondered how you feel about this?
Open Letter to Men's "Activists"
I'm not sure how old this open letter by Robert Sides is
Wherever men's rights "activists" gather, 90-95% remain passive.
Christina Hoff Sommers, not Warren Farrell, writes pro-male pieces for the NYT and WSJ. Mona Charen, not Robert Bly, challenges the idea of women in the military. Men simply no longer know the difference between thinking and doing. Even on (the Internet), Betty and Gisele call for action...not men (who seem content to talk forever and ever and ever and ever while their ship not only sinks, it lays barnacled on the ocean floor).
This is very odd, since whenever men DO get off their duffs, media DO respond by printing their letters, etc. Nonetheless, like infants, most men still expect reporters to be mommy-mindreaders who "feed" them without their having to DO anything. Over and over and over and over again, cyber-groups form saying they're going to act. Then, they do everything BUT act.
From time to time, someone says, "Hey, we're still just talking, not acting. Feminists both talk AND act. When are WE going to act?" Then the group starts talking about acting. They wonder what "action" means, and in what context. Alternate spellings are offered. Historical roots are dug up. Angels are counted on the heads of pins. And on and on the b.s. goes. Fire consumes the "House of Men" because given water, men refuse to use it.
Inactivism aside, this also gnaws: In one of my posts, I wrote...Pretend I'm a reporter. I've read an (Internet) mailshot. Now...Whom do I call to talk about it...Groups attract talkers and dissuade doers, dilly-dallying all the live-long days.
It seems men's groups actually LIKE reinventing wheels. They have no sense of urgency. Their "patience" and "reason" and "Big Picture-itis" lets femi-madness like a cancer grow. All that's required for evil to stop is for good men to stand up and kick ass. Yet men won't.
Passivity, acquiescence, and modern maleness let [anti-male] feminism grow. The meek do indeed inherit the dirt.
Media do NOT ignore men [I doubt that]. They ignore meek, mild, tepid, silent, "nice" groups. Guys have been talking like schoolboys for a long, long, long time. The only reason feminists win is because men won't do more than talk. Men's groups leave the field wide open to NOW, never opposing it. Men refuse to play the media game. Grown men whine over media they never use. They cry, "The NYT is biased!" Yet they never do anything for reporters to cover. When you ask such men how many letters they've actually written, it's usually "zero."
Men are such ball-less babies.
Honest to god, it's amazing any males have jobs. They have no concept how to use PR judo, how to get covered by even hostile papers, how to spin disasters to advantages, and so on. What's worse, you can't tell them anything, show them anything. After a while, you think 'Geez, these guys are so stubborn, blind, and pig-headed, I think their exes were right to dump them. Even Mother Theresa tires [tired] of talking to walls."
Women's groups contact media daily. They repeat known lies forever. Yet men think a hundred guys emailing one Truth to each other online matters.
Wake up!
Men sit on a beach raked with enemy gun fire, playing cards. They ignore calls from others to seek cover and fight back. Modern men have a death wish, Big Time.
Men's groups are always "going to" put ads here, send letters there, do this and that. Only they never do. They're Walter Mitty, facing Panzers in their minds, pushing grocery carts for hen-pecking wives in reality.
Guys now think putting messages in email bottles will "kick-ass." In another thirty years they'll go, "Shazam! Maybe we should hold some creative, attention-getting events, too."
You roll on the floor watching them, guys desperately trying to find their butts with both hands. And failing.
Told and shown- time and again- what works (that is, what grabs media's attention, what media can be used for, what politicians look for), men's groups CHOOSE to act deaf, dumb, blind, lame, and halt.
Some say it takes "weeks" to get media addresses, for example. Yet anyone with Internet access and 2-3 search engines can download, sort, and log-by-category (country, state, county, province, city, etc.) email addresses for several hundred media outlets (print, TV and radio) in 1 hour.
Period. I know. I just did it.
Ah, what's the use...
Bwahahahahahahaha!
I'm going rogue again. I've done media alone before, I'll return to it now. Only this time, I'm going to bash males. Not for being men, but for NOT being men. The public has the right to belly-laughs.
Tales of grown men losing their honor, kids, jobs, savings, and lives while playing Keystone Kops WILL entertain the public. So get ready for some multi-media hoots.
Media DO carry pro-male stories when, once every blue moon, men do more than blather. They also carry feminist stories because women always act. They've also printed/aired a lot of my words/thoughts. So they'll positively LOVE my tales lunacy in the non-moving men's movement...the gangstas who wouldn't shoot straight.
Look, I've cried with men. Coddled them. Coached them. I've economically carried, emotionally consoled, and small-talk kvetched with hundreds of guys. No matter. Men want to fail. It's time the public knows what "really" goes on in men's groups.
So check your local papers. Read 'em and weep. Let the tears of laughter flow.
(Who knows, maybe men will finally get pissed off enough to ACT! Then again, given the lure of beer, peanuts, and watching football..) Spare me lectures on "misandry," too. I've no patience for it. I've been at this -actively - for 20 years. If you've done more, I'll listen. If not, stuff it.
Gender war rages all around. The time for false, ms-placed outrage is long past. Men had 3 whole decades to get pissed at the real enemy: fembots. Getting angry with me now for pointing out the obvious is just more male hooey. Anyone who wants to know why men are in such a sorry state needs only to study the boneheads "leading" most (all?) men's group. Kindergartners could whup their collective behinds.
After 30 years of non-stop, one-sided feminist bombardments, men STILL "think" about whether to fight back or not. They spew pearl-like nuggets of wisdom like, "we need to unite under one big umbrella." then to absolutely nothing to make that happen. Any man showing balls, who will slap a woman who slaps him, is immediately pulled down by weenies who think Boy Scout essays matter.
God help us: women DO have bigger testicles today. Money in hand, copy ready, weak-willed crybaby men couldn't even follow-through to put one tiny ad in one small paper. Then these same guys have the gall to say feminism is "failing" since NOW has "only" 250,000 members and "only" comment on every gender issue under the sun.
It's time to round up all males over age 12 and put them on feminist farms. Let them pull plows and be useful. Just give them beer and let them sit at computers at night, whining to each other about how hard their lives are. Then watch them fall over each other each day, showing Big Nurse how many acres THEY can till for the humans (females)!
Modern men: ice cream cones on their foreheads, "kick me!" signs on their backs.
Robert Sides, MA.
PS. If hearing all this makes you angry, good. There's still hope for you then. Now, you can either (1) vent on me - who's done more alone than most men's groups combined (not bragging, just stating the facts) or (2) unite and fight, marching against feminists. No "leader" will galvanize you. Men who want to fight WILL, though bare-handed and leaderless. Men who don't want to fight will sit on their backsides no matter who tries to lead them (El Cid, Saladin, Washington, DeGaulle, Peter The Great, Ho Chi Minh, etc.).
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 15, @09:34AM EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't agree more. I have sprung to action and caused a major department store to cease marketing overtly misandric stickers to girls. I'm busy, and this took some effort. Everyman has to get involved, on a daily basis. I am sick of the bullshit whining I hear on these boards. The internet has united us in what - bitch sessions, instead of action...
If everyman acted up on a daily basis when confronted by misandry, and stopped the feminist male hate that is showing up everywhere today, gender relations might improve, instead of the current state of shame men feel without acting on the lies and propaganda that is burdened upon us every minute, every day in mass media. We (men) are victims of a cultural war by a united front that intends to displace our masculine values because we lack a united voice. Men act as individual functionaries when in positions of power. Others act in interest their agenda.
If a man thinks a woman might not be as capable at a given task as a male is, he will be transformed into some type of misogynist and deserves to get out ass sued off orto endure denegation in the workplace or media. In domestic matters, we are at fault regarless of the facts. If we think that being gay isn't cool, and we don't want any of it in our life, we are branded some type of homophobic hater, but in reality we could give a shit less, stop throwing it in our faces. If one thinks that the Israeli mid east issues are not part of the U.S.'s interests and we should be building strong alliances with countries that offer us resources (oil), and one will be branded a anti-Semite and if you are a public figure, a united front will denegrate you into something less than you are. If one thinks that the media is anti-tradition and perhaps is controlled by ultra-leftist ideologues that serve to propagandize issues from a pro feminist, pro gay,pro liberal,and pro Jewish perspective above all other perspectives, he will be transformed into a homophobic-anti-Semite-misogynist hater.
We (men) are branded daily, yet we are the accused group that "stereotype and oppresse people"
Are you shocked that I even brought up gays? Jews? Women? If so, than you are brainwashed. I have a right to say whatever I want, and this does make me a hate monster, it makes me objective. And I will base an opinion on a person to person basis. And until one is willing to openly consider issues from every perspective without fear of being "branded" nothing will change, and the PR for men will continue to plummet. And as the article pointed out, we will become third class citizens (as we already are second).
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, CJ, I am not shocked.
When someone calls me homophobic I respond with hetrophobic etc...
You make some very good points. And after watching Johnny Depp's latest release 'Out of Hell' I could see why its tuff being a 'white guy'. No matter, I do however dissagree with the bitch sessions, as the bitch sessions inform us of whats going on. What he is correct about is Men should continue to post on these sites, men should continue to email, men should continue to logg onto to men sites etc... The feminazis are targetting a specific 'birth group' i.e. born white male. We are not targetting a birth group, we are targetting a political group, there is a very large difference. I might ad, that the iwf or independant women's forum, although they are inclined to be more interested in women's issues (and this is something I have no problem with) these babes not only think about cause they also think about effect, and they constantly remind the women's studies profs. of this. If there was ever a site or group to turn your wife or daughter on to its this one. And as for writing letters, as soon as Im done my exam, Im going to write a few to some local papers and tv stations and some politcal people. If your doing this now, please give those misandric journalists a hardy 'fuck you' from me. email me at dan047@sympatico.ca .
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now THIS is what I call whining. It's a terrible, uninspiring letter that has no place on this system, which has served as a catalyst for action and activism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 17, @08:19AM EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
oh yeah, what activism have you done?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll cite one example. I helped with the letter campaign to the Washington Post in response to an bigoted anti-male editorial article by Judy Mann, former columnist at the Post, who suggested that the events of September 11th "shocked" the male rescue workers at the scene of ground zero--my brother was one of them--out of old patterns of behavior stemming from some violent "cult of masculinity" into a new level of consciousness that previously only feminists had access to, in which empathy for the victims was possible, and that would, if men were capable of sustaining it, lead to the feminist utopia.
Judy Mann abruptly resigned from the Post after their editors were deluged by letters from activists here (hardly those described in the open letter to men's activists) suggesting that feminists were exploiting the tragic events of September 11th to promote the usual anti-male bigotry that masculinity is responsible for all the evil in the world. Her parting column seemed to suggest a bitter defensiveness in response to the public's rejection of the notion that men are intrinsically evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 17, @08:21AM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
That is not whining, you are the whiner complaining that an "unispiring letter" has no place on these boards. Come up with an argument loser...don't just cry "foul" like a puss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 17, @12:42PM EST (#69)
|
|
|
|
|
I find it interesting, anon, that you immediately assume that Mars has not engaged in any activism. Mars that he has been very active on this board for some time. I don't think demeaning other men within the movement is of any real benefit. We are all here to reach the same end, even though our individual efforts may differ somewhat. Please don't turn people off from the men's movement by reducing debate to simple name calling (i.e. "loser", "puss"). We need all the help we can get. I have seen too many men get on this board and ridicule other men for not sharing opinions on petty issues. We should be strengthening others' resolve, providing support, and when needed, hosting intelligent debate, not alienating current and potential activists because they are not "doing enough". I, for one, welcome all intelligent comments and arguments regarding men's issues on this board, to which Mars has contributed greatly.
Just my 2 cents...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Girls! girls! play with your barbies nicely.
Just kidding. If the men's movement has any salt, petty bickering won't stop it. I think some of this is good. Maybe we are just sharpening our claws. But one thing is for sure, it shows how men have really been hurt or affected by whats going on. The frustration bubbles closer to the surfice. We shouldnt deny ourselves as men. WE are developing a culture here, a culture that will stand up to the lies and omission of facts. What we are developing is a defence system against a society that wants to smash us out of existence. WE need the arguements and the proof. We need allies, we need to undercut funding to our enimies that proliferate the propaganda that threatens our lives. We are not after a birth group or a perticular person, we are after an ideology that has been permitted to bloom despite its ugly smell. A culture of sickness and hate. We will cut its stocks and burn its roots and send that fever back to hell where it belongs. Our enemy's greatest advantage over us, is its one sided propaganda, there is so much of it its turned our girls into kooks. The very knowledge of the problem is activism , learn as much as you can, and tell others.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 17, @03:01PM EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
Mars was the one who initiated this by stating that the letter was "uninspiring" I think that the points in it are well made. I liked it. What's the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I liked it. What's the problem? "
Theres no problem.
I just like making speaches. :)
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point, which apparently was lost on a winner such as yourself, was that this dead letter has been festering on the internet for a long time; so long, in fact, that it couldn't possibly apply to the men's activists here. It's a negative, gratuitously patronizing letter that is inappropriate for this site. It's an unnecessary, whiney blast of hot air. I wonder about anyone who feels it fairly characterizes the men's movement today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The point, which apparently was lost on a winner such as yourself"
I know what my point was mars
and that is
for men's rights or men's activism we should be prepared to defend ourselves against critisim. Find out what people think, and have a responce for any attack. I see articles critizing the men's movement or men's rights, with the editorial slant of "Like we need one of those", and this was a man doing this. Clearly he was a feminist gleeb, but it doesnt detract from the fact he has columns in a dozen papers. Im all for bitching myself and sending emails. There was a big stink over a Lynn Johnston comic,'for better or worse'. WEll this saturdays paper had a very good point towards a 'Dedicated Dad', maybe she has heard us. Bitching has given some feminists careers, hopefully we will just get some respect with ours.
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a sense, Mars is right, in that it seems like this letter was nothing more than preaching to the the choir, even if it was drafted by a feminist. And, the fact that someone comes here regularly would indicate that they are paying attention, and that it's very well likely that they are counting these words as they make voting and buying decisions. And I thing we would all agree that, when it comoes to claiming power in this nation, voting and buying are among the most influential decisions one can make.
But Dan and the letter's author are right: MOST of the men in this country need a serious wake-up call. Perish the thought that I should use the word again (Warble, go easy on me here, buddy:-) but chivalry does NOT demand that we sacrifice our very lives to please women. And chivalry DOES demand that women share in the responsibility to see that EVERYONE, not just the women and children, are treated with respect and honor.
Okay, okay, chivalry is not the best word for what I'm trying to say. But my limited intellectual capabilities leave me with few options right now. All I'm saying is that every human being is deserving of a certain level of respect and honor from every other human being on the planet, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, national origin, birth order, or handicap. Or whatever. And men are being short-changed by the system that's managed by a fairly powerful group of zealots, no less hateful than the Taliban.
Somehow, we need to wake up the avarage man to this fact. We don't need to make him into an activist. We need to get him to make a few small donations to our cause, and we need to get him to go to the polls and vote, and we need to get him to choose his consumer goods more carefully, even if that means telling his wife that he doesn't like this brand or that brand of shaving cream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then we can continue the dialogue.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So buisy, I can't take part in my political
activism. Too much boredom and work!
CONTACT THE MEDIA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This just cannot wait. The CA Committee of Judiciary just passed an antipaternity fraud bill, and it is still largely intact!
Yes!!!
This is a major victory for men worldwide!
warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone have the details of this act?
Stand up and take a bullet. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following link has the details (enter AB2240 for bill number):
AB2240
It still has a long ways to go. But getting it past the Committee of Judicary is a BIG hurdle.
warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to visit my folks today, but I do have an announcement ready to post to MANN this evening. Lot s of good stuff to come...
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
