|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've read other stuff this guy has written. It's always the same theme, men should be the ones in charge. This article has no content, just this guy creating a subjective parable of how women would be happier, and the universe would be in harmony with a men in the driver's seat.
Read some of his other stuff. He's a cranky old bachelor and a dinosaur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree! He tells a good story, and then steers the monologue over to 1950s-land! LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 25, @06:56PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
It's seems to me that his theme is massive instutional discrimination against men in
family court.
Typical feminist denial tactics: attack the messenger, ignore the message. Or claim that it's just all about men wanting to oppress women.
Please try to open your mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did not address any of those things and neither did he. He is a messenger of nothing but bogus parables of gloom and doom. He's a crackpot.
Read his writings. He doesn't address any of those issues at all much less in a constructive, way. All he does is whine and whimper about how men used to be "in charge" and now they're not and we're all going to hell in a handbasket.
Again, read this guys writings.
I happen to agree ther is discrimination against men in family court. That, however, has nothing to do with this guy's claims that women shouldn't work outside the home or do anything besides be wives and mothers and obey their men. Two entirely different theories.
He's a loser. The men's movement is not helped by whiney losers like him. You need someone who can address issues in a concrete issue by issue, acivtivism fort of way.
PS And this guy IS about subjugating women's autonomy to men. That is his only message. Read his writings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100% in favor of laughing at this guy. He took a good article and decided to shit all over it with his irrelevant personal opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rather than a trully just "social contract" in which the rights of men are women are allocated according to responsibilities,our society has developed a social-cultural-political-religious-economic-legal framework in which males are designated as a "subject" class ruled by the state and women who are one in the same. Such being the case, men should reject the institution of marriage and the tyrannous state which so subjects them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree with his theories on an elite directing a remake of society, nor do I agree with his ideas about relationships.
Nonetheless, the story itself is apalling. Women simply should not be able to toss their husbands out of the house because they find them annoying or troublesome. His observations are correct in this regard: any woman who thinks that her life is going to be so much better with six kids but without her bothersome husband doesn't have her head screwed on straight. Six kids are a lot of work. Everyone (men included) tend to imagine divorce as, "Everything will be exactly the same except for what's-his/her-face will be gone." Not so, as this woman started to find out.
As for his being a "cranky old bachelor and a dinosaur...". Well, as I said I don't agree with his ideas on relations between man and wife, but on the other hand I was amused that you couldn't come up with anything more creative to say about his ideas than ad hominem. "That's passé," "We've progressed beyond that these days," "Get with the program," and "He's just a [fill in the blank]" are all things I've been hearing for decades from people who don't like someone else'e point of view but can't think of an intelligent counter-argument.
I don't want the life he wants, but if he wants to live in the 1950's, and he finds a woman who wants the same thing, more power to them. After all, isn't this all about people choosing their lifestyles? Isn't one of the great failures of feminism the fact that it brooks no opposition, and shouts down people with differing opinions with comments no more intelligent than, "You're a great big poopy-head, so shut up!"?
"I disagree profoundly what you say, but I would defend with my life your right to say it." — Voltaire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree with his theories on an elite directing a remake of society, nor do I agree with his ideas about relationships.
Agreed. But his crackpot retro- social engineering theores and pronouncement on relationships lose him credibility in his other views IMO. YMMV
Nonetheless, the story itself is apalling. Women simply should not be able to toss their husbands out of the house because they find them annoying or troublesome. His observations are correct in this regard: any woman who thinks that her life is going to be so much better with six kids but without her bothersome husband doesn't have her head screwed on straight.
Agreed raising 6 kids on your own is dumb idea for anyone, if you can avoid it. But the story is just that a story. An anecdote. Wich I doubt is even true (based on again on this guys credentials as a crackpot). I doubt whether a woman with six kids would kick out a husband as nonchalantly as he sets up the story. I COULD happen, but IMO it would be rare.
Otherwise, if we are to believe this parable is a common occurence we'd have to buy the premise that women overall aren't very smart. I don't happen to believe that. But this is another point that Makow is making, that women are too stupid to know what's good for them.
Again, he uses the story not to make a point about how to revise the divorce system, or the courts system or anything like that. After relating the parable he launches into his Chicken Little theme of how men should be in charge and the world is going to hell because men aren't totally in charge and women subservient to them. (Read other works by him, you'll see over and over the themes of submission and obedience to men with regard to women).
He loses credibility by not addressing the issue of legal issues of divorce, custody etc. and instead going off on a tangent about how men should be in charge.
I don't want the life he wants, but if he wants to live in the 1950's, and he finds a woman who wants the same thing, more power to them. After all, isn't this all about people choosing their lifestyles?
Strawman. If he wants that and can construct his live like that that's fine with me. The problem is he wants EVERYONE to live like that. I can't explain it fully, you'll have to go back and read other articles and books this guy has written. He makes pronouncements about how women, what women "should" aspire to in life (home and family), what women "should" and "should not" be doing, how they "should not" be provided education as much as boys (he has said women should not be educated in science in high school). If you will go and read his writing it is full of shoulds and should nots for women. That is his agenda, control of women. That is his ONLY agenda.
Isn't one of the great failures of feminism the fact that it brooks no opposition, and shouts down people with differing opinions with comments no more intelligent than, "You're a great big poopy-head, so shut up!"?
Right. Along with playing the victim card. And Makow is right along with the worst of feminists that he decries, doing EXACTLY what you (and others) say is so annoying about many feminists. Again, huge credibility gap. More like a credibilty chasm.
"I disagree profoundly what you say, but I would defend with my life your right to say it." — Voltaire
Great quote!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually Lorianne, I didnt see anything in this perticular article that you are talking about. And Makow stated he is concerned about the NWO taking away parental control. And this feminist dogma is infact a real living issue that is everywhere at the heart of the 'anti-family' groups agenda. To say that women are naive is actually wrong the real term is 'seduced' with power, the overt power to have your cake and eat it too.
There is a woman lets call her Karen. Karen works as a counciler at the sexual assault centre and has for a few years. Karen is becomming increasingly familiar with the law and its 'double standards' and how one can use them to their advantage especially bill 117. Now Karen lives next door to an aging couple whose last child has left the house. Well Karen and Sophie(we will call her), are talking one day about the usual things that women talk about and Karen goes into her usual mantra about the system and her daily routines at the sexual assault centre. Karen informs Sophie of Sophie's advantages in the courts with simple lies and half truths etc... so that Sophie can gain total control of the house and all the assets without any trouble whatsoever that a divorce in court would cause her. Remember Karen is a victim counciler.
In less than two weeks after this conversation, Sophie is dead, strangled by her estranged husband. Now did Bob kill Sophie because he had total control or because he was a man and needed total control? Not fuking likely, he was probably happy to see the bitch leave, but then again. But Bob lost every single thing he had worked so hard for in his life with one simple bogus accusation that gave Sophie total control of all the marital assets. If the reverse were the case Sophie would have no doubt killed Bob, so this is not a male attribute and anyone who thinks its different is thinking like a scum sucking feminist.
Now for Karen, who just a few short years ago was a nice Christian woman who took the time to tell the truth, give the right away and not lead people into such reviled actions of grotesque power. Its probably my fault Karen took that wrong turn in life, but the fact is, Karen has been indoctrinated with feminist dogma that allows women the immorall perception that its okay to take a man for everything he's worth and leave him in a puddle of sloppy shit then laugh at him, after he's given you his life and care. Oh ya not all husbands are assholes and dominate their wives or become violent towards them despite the numerous billboards out there.
Karen reads the feminist dogma at work and never questions the stats or how they got the stats or why they even put these stats out there. It all makes sence right. Do you think that Karen should feel somewhat responsible for what happened to the neighbors? I for one do. She helps to spread lies on a daily basis and perpetuates the vile tactics of coaching witnesses illegally for the stand and perpetuates propaganda so they can recieve funding for her job down at the sexual assault centre, which is nothing really.
If Makow is saying women are dumb its because they are so easily seduced into thinking they are by right allowed to do that to other human beings. This is the only statement that I could find that even remotely was close to your character assasination.
"Women are being hoodwinked into thinking they want power. Power is the wrong kind of fuel for them; eventually their engines start to sputter. They need male love expressed as male power. A feminist with six children will have a hard time finding it. "
This could be taken a few different ways, but even if taken literally he's got the 'hoodwinked' part right. What Makow fails at is describing a woman's power, which in that case your right theres where he is exactly like the feminists who also can't describe the women's power without giving up the 'vicitm card' they so love. Maybe its the feminists who are stuck in the 50s with Makow, can't wait till you guys catch up to the rest of us.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan, respectfully, you're going off the deep end. Who are all these people in these anecdotal stories? Anyone of them could be countered with an anecdotal story of some woman being wronged. What's the point?
This guy did not address divorce or custody issues. His only point was that men should be in charge, should have the "power" in male/female relationsips. That is his ONLY point.
In addition, if you read his other writing, this is his ONLY point in other writing as well. He does not care about custody issues, or fairness, or sharing of responsibilities, nor equal rights under the law. None of that. He has a singular agenda, female submission. That's it, that's all.
I urge you to read other stuff he's written. Is this the kind of person the Men's groups want to herald?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I urge you to read other stuff he's written. Is this the kind of person the Men's groups want to herald? "
Having difficulty seperating the different works or the issues from the person , Lorianne?
Its a typical story line, anecdotal or not. Does he want women to be under his thumb? Well you will have to bring better proof than, "read some of his other works". Going off the deep end? I take it you don't live in Canada, but he did discuss equal treatment under the law, the fact that she didnt make a false accusation against him that would have landed him in jail for weeks.
This story is routine. My story is actually true, and is currently under investigation. I have to mention that the children are sticking by him on this. So there is something of a win here. Treacherous bitch of neighbor instills feminist dogma disrupting family . Well it really should just be called , lying , cheating underhanded dogma, which it really is. Seems that Feminism has resolved itself to those vile attributes. Those anti-family establishments that set out to profit from other's misery. And if profits are low well one has to advertise.
As far as the NWO taking over and depopulating the earth, well the circumstantial evidence is there, but I agree corealation does not equal causation, Lorrianne.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 26, @01:40AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I think Lorianne is trying to say that, this Makow guy is the opposite extreame of the militant feminist mind-set, therefore is EAQUALY dangerous to the equality of the sexes.
Am I reading you right, Lorianne?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. There are people on the extreme poles of most any issue or "activist" group we could name. People who give the moderate middle with legitimate goals a bad name. Makow is one of those extremist IME, who try to latch onto the Men's Rights movement and dilute legitimate claims with, well to put it politely, blather.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women are being hoodwinked into thinking they want power. Power is the wrong kind of fuel for them; eventually their engines start to sputter. They need male love expressed as male power. A feminist with six children will have a hard time finding it."
They need male love expressed as male power? Why specifically do they need love to be expressed as power?
This guy is living in a cheesy '50s movie. Do you really not see it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 26, @07:36AM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
"They need male love expressed as male power? Why specifically do they need love to be expressed as power?"
This is true because if male love was given in a position of subservience it would be no better than having a dog.
Don't you get it? The so called 1950' marriage he describes is one of the equality we all strive for. The problems in the anicdote were started when the wife made a grab for ALL of the power.
It would be wrong for the man to be given all the power just as it would be wrong to give the woman all the power. The issue is, and always has been, the abuse of power. And I think ruining a man because you think you can do better for yourself when he's out of the picture qualifies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<It would be wrong for the man to be given all the power just as it would be wrong to give the woman all the power. The issue is, and always has been, the abuse of power. And I think ruining a man because you think you can do better for yourself when he's out of the picture qualifies. ">>
Good response Henry.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Don't you get it? The so called 1950' marriage he describes is one of the equality we all strive for. The problems in the anicdote were started when the wife made a grab for ALL of the power."
No it's not. It's a marriage in which the balance of power is decidedly in favor of the husband. The solution to the problem is not to turn the tables, but to set them right and then BOLT THE DAMN THINGS TO THE GROUND so that no one can turn them either way!
Furthermore, he talks about how power is the wrong kind of fuel for women's engines, and that they eventually sputter on it. He could have elaborated and said that mutual power and responsibilities would be better for both sides, but he didn't. He just left it at sputtering, and from that, I think he feels an inner derision towards women in general... just like the genfems feel derision towards men in general.
We ARE into real equality, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...this feminist dogma is in fact a real living issue that is everywhere at the heart of the 'anti-family' groups agenda.
Dan is right. The feminist decided a long time ago that they would have to attack the traditional family to destroy the patriarchy. It is no accident that we have a record divorce rate in our culture today. The idea that we have to destroy marriage as an institution to eliminate the patriarchy is a serious problem. The fact is that women can have equality and responsibility without destroying the tradition of marriage.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<< The fact is that women can have equality and responsibility without destroying the tradition of marriage.>>
Good work, whats needed is to point out the anti-family groups indoctrination methods and their seduction lures. Than as I agree with equal responsibility and not only an accountable wife but an intelligent wife the balancing of power is important in all marriages.
Unfortuanately revisioned history shows the 50s in whatever way they want. So how come the 20s to the 40s have a different take? Oh ya MGM thought it would be a good idea to party , drink and smoke. Making love to Greta Garbo.
I don't think anyone here is asking to go back to the 50s. Asking for the truth and fairness and to have people not destroy things families have built up because of their political values is not to much to ask.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
I agree. From the little I've read of him, he is an over-the-top conspiracy theorist and believes he has found the One True Way for men and women to interact succesfully. I cringe when he is quoted or referenced.
However, I do have some quibbles with you.
"Otherwise, if we are to believe this parable is a common occurence we'd have to buy the premise that women overall aren't very smart. I don't happen to believe that...
I believe you are mistaken in your belief. People, overall, aren't very smart. That includes women.
But this is another point that Makow is making, that women are too stupid to know what's good for them.
But, in general, they are! So are men.
I'm pretty intelligent, but that's never saved me from being stupid. Being smart doesn't mean that you know what's good for you.
My sister is smart - straight A's, etc. She married a jerk. Everyone knew he was a jerk, but you couldn't tell her that. It took her four years to figure out he was a jerk and divorce him. That relationship was never good for her, but being smart didn't save her from that.
Do you think that's uncommon?
Men and women, as a rule, make their life decisions based on wishful thinking. Knowing what's good for you is the rare exception.
In this story, one partner initiating divorce and horrendously miscalculating the real-life consequences adds credibility to any claim it might have to representing a common occurence.
To reject the idea that women aren't "that stupid" is, well... wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote:
To reject the idea that women aren't "that stupid" is, well... wishful thinking.
I meant:
To reject the idea because women aren't "that stupid" is, well... wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I have a higher opinion of people than you do then. Not that people don't occasionally do stupid things, but this little story was too pat and one sided. Even if one were to believe it were true, it would hardly be applicable to a wide range of families.
It's all so pat. Woman meets evil feminist, leaves husband and decides to go it alone with 6 children. I men c'mon. This is just so silly. He is talking down to his audience and obviously doesnt' think very highly of his readers either. It's a simplisitc anecdote.
Furthermore, he makes it seem like the guy is a saint and the woman a suseptible bumbling idiot, which, as I've said, if you read Makow's writing is his general view of women. He constantly writes in patronizing terms that women need to be saved from their own naivety and low intelligence, and that men (such as Makow)know what is best for women. This story exemplifies that.
And again, it has nothing to do with changing divorce/custody laws, it is a lame excuse to rag on women, once again.
I'm serious. If Men's groups want to claim this guy as a hero they're no different than feminists who herald the fringe Dworkin. Makow and Dworkin are both on the fringes as any reasonably intelligent person can see from their writing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right on. This guy thinks that if we can just roll back the clock fifty years, everything will be A-OK. First, everything was not A-OK fifty years ago, and second, even if it was, effecting such a radical change would have numerous unforseen consequences given the untold quadrillions of variables involved.
This kind of simplistic attitude is usually referred to as "reactionary."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This kind of simplistic attitude is usually referred to as "reactionary.""
I even forgot to bring up Mary Daly.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gendercide is not reactionary, but I wasn't talking about the genfems. I was talking about the guy who wrote the article we're discussing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But feminists have, so Lorianne are you an advocate of genocide? Or should I say gendercide?
<<"I'm serious. If Men's groups want to claim this guy as a hero they're no different than feminists who herald the fringe Dworkin. Makow and Dworkin are both on the fringes as any reasonably intelligent person can see from their writing.>>
Dworkin is also into Pedophelia which is widely discussed. And the anecdote that Makow has presented does show a very real situation. Its something my mother is actually going through right now with her "friends" . They are giving her books to read that are feminist and destructive to the family unit. These books tell her she is free from all guilt that men are the bozos of the earth , well the list goes on.
My mother who I do not consider to be dumb is actually not a very objective person, and always took the advice of teachers , prinicples, judges , doctors, lawyers etc... simply because of their 'stature' or 'title'. Not all people in those feilds are idiots, the point is, what makes them better than some one else? In far to many of those cases my mother was wrong for taking their advice and she took it simply because of their 'title', and never questioned the authority of where it comes from. Which is the case for many, many women.
Granted are women in relationships where they are being manipulated, yes they are and so are men, probably in equal numbers for each sex. Some people are dominate and some people let others push them around. Lets start up a commity of men and women that investigates each and every family and find the men and women who are being pushed around.
However my mother is married to a blockhead, but it shouldnt be my fault and it shouldnt be the fault of the men of the world. He's not violent to her, he's just stuck in his ways which is what creates the conflict for the most part. He's also a jealous type but that has nothing to do with his sex I can assure you.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have no integrity Dan Lynch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You have no integrity Dan Lynch."
Alright maybe I went to far with it, Lori. I apoligize.
But feminists routinely advocate for genocide of the male gender. They do it publicly and with impunity. Somehow the Mary Daly's of the world should be critized for it.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You have no integrity Dan Lynch."
And here I thought we were on a first name basis.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne wrote:
I guess I have a higher opinion of people than you do then.
Maybe so. I live in a society which produced Jerry Springer and crack babies. Both are hard for me to dismiss as aberrations.
Not that people don't occasionally do stupid things, but this little story was too pat and one sided. Even if one were to believe it were true, it would hardly be applicable to a wide range of families.
Hell, Lorianne, I spent one Sunday last summer helping a friend with his lawn care business. We got to his house that night and found it broken into, torn apart, with furniture and possessions missing, including his computer with all his business records. Neighbors said his ex-fiancee had pulled up with friends and a U-haul truck and spent the afternoon taking things out.
The police officer showed up, looked around at the chaos, the shattered back door window, listened to his story and asked, "She used to live here?" The answer was "Yes. Six months ago."
The officer then refused to file a report because he knew the prosecutor wouldn't bother to do anything with it. My friend asked what would happen if he went to where she was living and broke in and took his stuff back. The officer said, "Don't even think about it, man."... and shrugged.
Maybe you've got to see the incredible one-sidedness up close and personal and stand there with your mouth hanging open in disbelief before you can actually believe it. Then these stories don't seem so incredible.
I would appreciate it, if you choose to reply to this, if you would leave out telling me again what a crackpot and loose cannon Makow is. I've heard you. I agree with you. It has little to do with the frequency or infrequency of occurrences like the one he describes. The title of this thread is "An All Too Common Story." His article was pointed to because of the plausibility of this story, not because anyone necessarily credits his social theories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The police officer showed up, looked around at the chaos, the shattered back door window, listened to his story and asked, "She used to live here?" The answer was "Yes. Six months ago."
The officer then refused to file a report because he knew the prosecutor wouldn't bother to do anything with it. My friend asked what would happen if he went to where she was living and broke in and took his stuff back. The officer said, "Don't even think about it, man."... and shrugged.
Broken window. Chaos. The prosecutor wouldn't bother to do anything. Don't even think about reciprocating.
Remember Kristallnacht.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed raising 6 kids on your own is dumb idea for anyone, if you can avoid it. But the story is just that a story. An anecdote. Wich I doubt is even true (based on again on this guys credentials as a crackpot).
I agree that the guy is a nutcase. People like him do more harm to the men’s movement than good. We could do without his tirades and retro retard ideas. Unfortunately, this story rings true. The laws have been changed sufficiently such that this story is an all too common scenario. If I were to wager a bet, I'd bet it is true.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've read other stuff this guy has written. It's always the same theme, men should be the ones in charge.
I can't speak for his other writings, but in this article he didn't say that men should be the ones in charge. He said that women would be happier if men were in charge. This may or may not be true but it's intolerant to disregard another person's opinion. Since women tend to prefer men who take the drivers seat, and feminist policy certainly insists that the unilateral duty of men is to protect and provide for women, there appears to be a good deal of truth in his opinion.
But that's where the story ends. Men have always been the main losers under patriarchy. Men are the ones who are expected to meet the needs and desires of women at all costs. It's no different today than it was 50 years ago. This is why feminism, which supports patriarchy, must be stopped. Let women take care of themselves. Women may not like this, but it's in the best interest of men and their children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't speak for his other writings, but in this article he didn't say that men should be the ones in charge. He said that women would be happier if men were in charge.
Well, he is not authorized to speak for the 3.2 billion women on the planet. Also, logically, this statement would be false in the absolute. A true statement might be if Mr. Makow were to say "I, Henry Makow, would be happier if men were in charge."
This may or may not be true but it's intolerant to disregard another person's opinion.
Disagreeing with a person's opinion is not disregarding it. He can say what he likes. However IN MY OPINION I think his supremist positions discredit him. Furthermore, IMO it discredits the Men's Rights movement if they embrace his opinion. I guess its my opinion against his opinion then.
White Suprimists have a right to their opinion. However, I don't see a lot of political or other groups jumping to embrace their ideology.
To give equal time, IMO there are some whacko women who discredit both themselves and feminists who agree with them by association. Same deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Makow writes:
"As men we can stand up and resist tyranny."
Yet, if you read this and his other writings what he advocates is tyranny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Yet, if you read this and his other writings what he advocates is tyranny."
At what level Lorianne? This article says no such thing, as for the others, please quote your sources.
Show me exactly where he shows himself to be a Tyrant? Tyranny is the ability to call the cops and make a false accusation at will, tyranny is the ability to 'seduce' your neighbor that they have the upper hand in divorce is they just make a phone call. No proof, no evidence, just the 'feeling of fear'. Now thats the leap off the deep end.
Everyone on this planet should be working hard to get rid of Bill C 117
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I think the guy is more of an anarchist than a tyrant, and a bit of a nutcase, to boot. Not that I disagree with much that he says, but he takes conspiracy theories far too close to the edge for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He seems like a decent guy in an Oliver Stone sort of way and Oliver Stone makes pretty good movies.
You don't have to agree with everything he says in order to just agree with some. All those who have been, quit bitching about whether or not he can be a part of the club or you will start sounding like rad-fems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From my perspective, he is definitely a "member of the club," though I hesitate to describe it that way. But I do not regard him as "its" leaders or spokesman.
Right now, it's difficult to say that we really have one of those. I guess the closest person would be Wendy. As much as I like and respect Wendy and the other women involved with this movement, it disappoints me greatly that the media will not allow us a male spokesperson for the men's movement.
Ya know what? I'd like to get Dirk Benedict, Eminem, and Bob Geldoff together for a little summit, along with the leaders of NCFM, ACFC, and a couple other men's groups, Wendy, Trudy, Warren, Steve Baskerville, and Glenn Sacks. I'd like to get that group to identify themselves with a men's org publicly, and bring this thing out into the light of day. And I'll bet you COULD get those folks together, especially if you had personal contacts with them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He or she will be sought out. Besides we are all leaders to a certian extent. We shouldn't be here to learn how to follow, we should be here to learn how to lead.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True enough, Dan. But in terms of being publicly represented, it would be useful to have a minimum number of people speaking for the group. Makes it easier for the media and it makes it easier to keep our message consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 26, @03:05PM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
Are you all kidding? the media Ain't gonna give us a "voice" no matter WHO the hell we get as a Spokes-person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not quite so pessimistic, though I agree, it'll be awhile before it happens. Look at what's happening: Glenn Sacks is getting published in major papers like the Philadelphia Inquirer; George Will is writng and getting published speaking out against Title IX; Wendy is getting harassed by NOW, et al; various and sundry folks (Glenn, Dianna Thompson, Steve Baskerville) are getting on "right-wing talk radio." I think we seriously need to court the Benedict's, the Geldof's, and the Mather's of the world because they do have power in the media. Their appeal in the entertainment world is strong (though not nearly as strong as others). The thing is, they themselves rely on audiences, so we need to let them know that there is an audience that appreciates the risk they take. James Woods and Toby Keith also come to mind.
Hey, you know, it can't hurt us any to have some celebrity recognition, and if we can get some of the people that have already taken risks to associate themselves with us, then we all get stronger.
Imagine someone like Tom Selleck standing up at an awards program, a la Martin Sheen, and talking about how we need Stephen Baskerville (as much as Sheen said we need Al Sharpton). But Sheen gets away with it because there is a strong constituency there. Why can't we establish a constituency for some celeb to speak out on our behalf?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its my feeling that leaders should make themselvs known and not the reverse. Whose to say some unknown couldn't come into the picture and make a difference.
If Geldof wants to rant about whats happening to him its starting to show that what we are and have been saying all along. I strongly dissagree with the one voice tactic. We all have something to say and Im not going to sit around and wait for something big enough and famous enough to do my talking for me. I will talk to whoever will listen. Because they talk to people too. It may be a little slower that way but at least its in motion.
If you want to keep us focused on the issues than keep reminding us of the issues. I think I would like to start a thread about what the issues of the men's movement should or really is. We don't have to define it perfectly but basically get a generally idea of where each of us who post are. AS well, this issues may change from time to time respectively, who can say, the future is constantly in motion. Have the courage to be a leader.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I don;t mean "one voice" but I do mean "a few voices" instead of a multitude of voices speaking vastly differing messages.
On your comment of keeping us focused on the issues, I did write the letter copied below to a local Democratic candidate for Congress. I don;t expect a reply from her, but we did have a face to face conversation about a month ago.
July 8, 2002
Ms. Mary Brennan
BRENNAN FOR CONGRESS
Cranbury, NJ
Dear Mary,
Having received your letter June 25, 2002, I write to offer my congratulations on your candidacy and wish you the best of luck in your endeavor. However, I must withhold my support for the moment as you are running with a party whose views I do not generally support. As you may recall from our conversation at the recent business card exchange at Grounds for Sculpture, I am an activist for men’s rights, and while the Republicans are not as supportive as we’d like, the Democratic Party has clearly aligned itself with the feminist objectives making it difficult to provide any support. However, Chris Smith has rationalized his anti-abortion stance by supporting every feminist issue offered over the last several terms, and so I am quite open to supporting other candidates.
At this time though, I’d like to take a few minutes to brief you on what the men’s rights movement is and is not. I’ll try to be concise and restrict myself to issues that apply at the federal level. First and foremost, the men’s rights movement is FOR gender equality. Further, the men’s rights movement is AGAINST discrimination based on gender, as many of its proponents have wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters. The men’s movement includes its fair share of angry, outraged men, men who have in one way or another been adversely affected in unreasonable ways by unfavorable treatment based on gender. But it also includes women who believe that feminism is no longer about fair and equitable treatment, men who have stable and happy marriages, and children who’ve seen abuse visited upon their fathers and who, for various reasons, never complained.
Education. Since the publication of the books “In Another Voice” and “Reviving Ophelia” and the AAUW’s report ”How Schools Shortchange Girls,” educators have allowed themselves to be convinced that girls have been at a disadvantage in education. However, this is not the case now and may have never been. The rates of drop-out and delinquency have always been higher among boys, boys have always been poorer performers at reading and language arts, and boys are now entering college at a much lower rate than girls. The National Assessment of Educational Progress in all of the last ten years has reported declining academic performance among boys. All of these trends are getting worse. At the federal level, the men’s movement wants the government to reject the notion that girls are disadvantaged, as the data clearly indicate otherwise. Men want greater emphasis on reading, especially the development of boy-friendly methods of teaching reading and writing. Further, the moratorium on single-gender classrooms and single-gender schools must be lifted. It is clear that single-gender schools benefit both boys and girls, but since US v Virginia, 1996, single-gender schools are only allowed for girls. Some federal funding must be redirected away from teaching math and science and toward improved reading education. How can anyone, boy or girl, possibly learn science without first learning to read?
Domestic violence. VAWA II was revised from VAWA I to include gender-neutral language, but there are no means to establish accountability at the state level, so every penny of the $13.5 BILLION (over five years) is spent on behalf of abused women. Nationally, it is estimated that there are over 3,500 shelters for abused women and only one for abused men. (It is in Los Angeles.) Further, this one-sided distribution results in discriminatory enforcement against men. There have been many cases where men have called the police to report being a victim of domestic violence only to be arrested themselves! Men report DV far less than women, and who can be surprised? In either case, must-arrest laws that derive from VAWA II result in arrest of the man in the preponderance of cases, even when an arrest is unwarranted or not called-for by the victim. The men’s movement wants accountability put in to VAWA. States and other subscribing organizations should be required to prove that their practices do not discriminate in providing services, counseling, or in methods and practices of enforcement. Further, the next authorization of this bill should include a name change to one more gender-neutral, perhaps the Domestic Violence Reduction Act of 2005.
Paycheck fairness. The men’s movement is most emphatically against “comparable worth” or “pay equity” legislation. This should not be misinterpreted as being in favor of job discrimination. Many studies have shown that the differences that exist, the “seventy-five cents on a dollar” claim made by feminists can be directly attributed to individual choices in training, career choice, work-hours choice (part-time versus full-time versus VERY full-time), and other factors that affect compensation. Comparable worth, currently known as “paycheck fairness,” directs that the government survey every occupation and align compensation according to some artificially-defined set of criteria. This is an onerous task, one that is fraught with problems. First, it requires a committee to review every occupation, usually a committee appointed by the party in power. Such a committee will always have an agenda, yielding an imperfect assessment. Such a committee never does a complete job, yielding an incorrect assessment. Such an assessment must keep pace with the changing nature of occupations. And given the changing job conditions over the last thirty years or so, it is unlikely that a committee will accurately keep pace. The best means to determine compensation is the free market system, as it can keep pace with demand and occupation changes without bureaucratic interference. Discrimination, where it occurs, is covered quite adequately by the laws already on the books. Women already participate on an equal footing with men, and it is clear that there are occupations where women predominate and have benefited from market forces.
National Fatherhood Initiative. This agency is at least partially funded by the federal government and endeavors to educate men on the value of their contribution to the lives of their children. This is good, but it only goes halfway. There are many fathers who desire to be a valuable part of their children’s lives but are chased away by mothers, for a variety of reasons. This initiative needs to be expanded to educate mothers, especially single mothers, about the value of fathering in the lives of their children.
The Fourteenth Amendment. This Amendment speaks to equal treatment under the law. The men’s rights movement does not necessarily expect identical treatment, but there are many areas where men are treated much more harshly than women: in criminal sentencing, in family law, in education, and in health initiatives, the human part of being a man is ignored and vulnerable part of being a woman is exculpatory.
Title IX. I include this one because it is current and it is significant, and it is controlled by federal mandate. Title IX was originally enacted to prohibit gender discrimination in public education, and it is worded in gender-neutral language. However, its implementation, like VAWA, is far from gender neutral. In inter-collegiate sports, the OCR has determined that proportionality of enrollment must be the primary driver for funding of inter-collegiate programs. Seems fair, right? But it fails. It fails because it does not recognize a primary difference between men and women: men are far more interested in sports than women. One need not look very far to see the evidence; just show up at tryouts for the men’s and women’s soccer or baseball/softball teams. Don’t count the number picked, count the number trying out. Or go to the athletics office and ask to see the rosters of all of the intra-mural teams on campus. You’ll note in both cases that men outnumber women by as much as two-to-one. The bottom line is that male athletes are discriminated against because overall enrollment favors women. A better model is the exclusion model. It simply says that every student will have the same chance of being excluded from their sport, and it takes into account the demand for each position. It says that, if 100 men and 50 women want to participate, and the exclusion probability is 50%, then 50 men and 25 women will be excluded. This is fair to every individual athlete, and this is the model that the men’s movement will support.
Reproductive choice. While I’ve spoken with many men who regard abortion as wrong, the availability of safe and legal abortion is not an issue in the men’s movement. What is an issue is the right of men to participate in reproductive choice. It concerns the right of men to choose whether or not to become parents. Currently, women can choose not to be parents through abstention, birth control, abortion, adoption, or abandonment. On the other hand, men can only choose abstention. The means men have for birth control are ineffective. Once a woman has made the decision to continue the pregnancy, the man has no choice in the matter regardless of whether or not he consented. According to a court in Kansas “The issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant…” This leaves the door open for fraud and rape as “legitimate” circumstances of paternity. Consider the case of tennis star Boris Becker. In the late nineties, Becker was in England participating in a tournament. While at a night club, he met a woman with whom he had oral sex. The woman impregnated herself, and last year, DNA tests proved a match with Becker even though both parties acknowledged no intercourse occurred. The woman was awarded a sizable child support payment. Further, DNA tests are now being used to validate fatherhood, yet several states are considering eliminating this. Choice for men is not a medical procedure. Choice for men is the legal means for men to choose whether or not to become parents on an equal level with women. It is also not meant as an easy way to get out of child support, but it is meant as a protection against being coerced into fatherhood through fraudulent means.
The men’s movement is far larger than the media would have you believe. While it’s difficult to get solid numbers, one can find numerous Web sites devoted to men’s rights. Unfortunately, the Lace Curtain is proving much more impervious than the Glass Ceiling, and the phrase “the men’s movement” is never uttered even on the most conservative of outlets. I should point out, though, that George Bush made it into the White House on the male vote. The women’s vote was split almost exactly in half, married women, especially married women with children, voting for Bush and single women voting for Gore. But the men voted predominantly for Bush. No one in the media wants to identify the male vote as a real entity, and perhaps it is still smaller than the women’s vote. But the feminist vote is shrinking with every election. I mentioned above that there are women in the men’s movement, most of them conservative. You might check in with iFeminists.com, the Independent Women’s Forum, and SheThinks.com. As for an entry into the men’s movement, start with www.mensnewsdaily.com. There are links to other sites there. Also, visit www.menshealthnetwork.org.
Given your party affiliation and the risks associated with taking a position that could be perceived as “anti-woman,” I understand that you have limits on how outspoken you can be. I also understand that you may have personal feelings that are opposed to these. But I will offer you this: if you can provide support on something more than half of these issues, then I certainly will do what I can to motivate men to vote in your direction and I will volunteer time to spend on your campaign. I read recently that the Democratic Party is looking to court a largely ignored group for this year’s election: the white male voter. I believe their approach was to focus on the economy, but I think that focusing on the family-related issues included among the set above will be more fruitful. Perhaps your campaign will be a turning point.
Mary, thank you very much for taking the time to read this, and again, I do wish you the best of luck in your campaign.
Sincerely,
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<On your comment of keeping us focused on the issues, I did write the letter copied below to a local Democratic candidate for Congress. I don;t expect a reply from her, but we did have a face to face conversation about a month ago. >>
Good stuff Frank, and very compasionate. I especially liked the model you presented "Domestic Violence Reduction Act" That so far Frank is the best one I have come across, if you don't mind I am going to start using it. Thanks.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan, not only do I not mind, I'm happy that you like what I wrote. :-)
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got depressed
false algations of abuse
restraing order
lost everything
I am still in total disbelief that family courts are so unfair and baised against men
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
