|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is quite possibly the stupidest article I have ever read in my life. What is most surprising is that the author is presumably an accomplished student of law writing for an internationallly-recognized media powerhouse like CNN.
The idea is facially absurd. Period. No more need be said.
Wait a minute!! Would the law apply to any accused women as well? Because come to think of it, I've got a grudge or two I'd like to settle, particularly with a certain CNN columnist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is clearly a case of "presumed guilt," which any self-proclaimed person of law react to as vehemently as germ warfare, witch-burnings or anti-semitism; anyone-- particularly a woman-- could gain an advantage in business or politics with just the simple unsubstantiated accusation of sexual offense; it's a little-known fact that Senator Joe Kennedy (of all people) did this very thing to Joe Montagia in order to get his theater by hiring women to file false rape charges against him (the William Kennedy-Smith trial does give some poetic justice to Montagia, but not to men in general).
Such an act would work particularly to the advantage of women, who are naturally held to be fairly above question when it comes to sexual abuse issues (despite actual statistics indicating otherwise, much as with domestic violence numbers, due to societal abuse of male victims). Consider the following: a woman in business, politics or any other area runs against a man, and the man's name is published as having been tried, arrested or accused sex offender-- especially against males or children. The fact that the man was summarily acquitted on the basis that accuser was outed as an out-and-out blackmailer, is not mentioned. Don't you think this would give quite an advantage to the woman in this case? After all, even if the reverse occurred, who would give similar note to such an accusation against a woman? It might actually HELP her, since sex sells when it involves a woman.
Men need to realize this strangle-weed BEFORE it happens and head it off before it takes root.
The price of freedom is, truly, eternal vigilance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe we should complain to FOX News asking them to cover this issue. They may not feel this to be as preposterous as we do, but they may be willing to expose it simply because it is coming from CNN. Could be worth a shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe we should complain to FOX News asking them to cover this issue.
Why not ask Wendy if she's interested?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd also like to mention the obvious fact that this could unfairly and irreparably damage a man's reputation by branding him with a hot-button issue; accusations of sex-offenses today are given about as much benefit of the doubt as those of witch-craft in the 1600's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is quite possibly the stupidest article I have ever read in my life. What is most surprising is that the author is presumably an accomplished student of law writing for an internationallly-recognized media powerhouse like CNN.
Yet this is the kind of talk that our legislators hear every day. It is the reason that we must grow the men's movement. We must have full time lobbiest in every state to literally speak up and shout these lies down.
They have got to get a sense of the growning anger that is present among men. They are hearing the rumblings, but it isn't scaring them enough yet.
The biggest problem that men have right now is the lack of lobbiest in every state. Without the lobbiest, these nutcases are free to craft law without any opposition.
The feminist are used to men being absent and being able to make any bogus argument. Well now the feminist control the government and men must fight back.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The biggest problem that men have right now is the lack of lobbiest in every state. Without the lobbiest, these nutcases are free to craft law without any opposition. "
It's pretty easy to sit in court rooms when your boyfriend is flipping the bill on everything.
The reason is Men are working and the one's that don't are probably playing nitendo. Learn the law and learn it now. The lawyers are not doing their job to up hold the constitution politician's are afraid to buck the trend and those feminist fucking whores are so bigoted and ego centric its all about them and what makes their life easier.
Feminists just don't know the consequences of unfairness and when they see it first hand its a "see I told you so, all men are bastards". Well ya you cut his balls off what did you think he was going to do? "Well there's no excuse for abuse." Wait you cut his balls off first. "Nope is was self defence", You just met the guy, "Doesn't matter he's a man, and well you know". This is how fucking daft its become. Feminists and morality is a long shot. They have no respect for human life.
.
I am suggesting a "Not Every Man is Marc Lepine Day" December 5th.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hilden writes, "A final point in favor of expanding Megan's Law is crucial, but often overlooked: Any contraction of the freedom of ex-cons, or those who were charged, will be accompanied by an expansion of the freedom of women and children.
"Even before this summer, American women and children already lived in a world with far less freedom in it than the world American men occupy. They already had to choose carefully the places where, and hours when, they traveled; they were already forced to often continually look around to make sure they were safe."
As we all know, this is based on lies. Women commit most child abuse. Women commit most child murders. Men are the victims of violent crimes far more often than women are.
Hilden. Hitler. Hmmm. Pretty similar names.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great Point! We have to take away more of men's rights so women can more fully exercise their rights. All this without ever looking at:
#1 all the ways that men are not able to fully exercise their rights now.
#2 how this will further impede men from being able to exercise their rights.
Thundercloud's joke about the radical feminist rings true again, when talking about this issue. "How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb? Ans. Just one. She just holds the light bulb, then waits for the world to revolve around here.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make no mistake about it -- under present political climate the
measure will probably pass in the next year if not in this one. The
measure will probably ruin the lives of falsely accused men and give
them no possibility of redress.
--------------------------------------------------
As the only way to fight the ultimate erosion of men's civil rights
I would propose a countermeasure which may be achievable by efforts of no
more then a few hundred person-hours of Internet + legal work. I would
propose making the LEGALLY PUBLISHABLE PARTS OF the following information available through the Internet:
1) Names of public figures who take/took active role in
taking away men's civil liberties and/or civil rights.
2) All publicly available "achievements" of these individuals
including media publications.
3) Information for individual men ruined and/or treated unfairly
by the system. Including how particular activism of these
individuals may have contributed to their unfair treatment.
4) As it is our belief that men treated unfairly should at
least know FOR WHOM are they being sacrificed by
society we should do our best to make this information
available to as many abused and/or unjustly
ruined men as we can.
Moreover, everyone who is forced to suffer unjustly tries to
understand what has happened to them. Thus, I strongly believe that every
person who is being sacrificed for political reasons has a right to understand
for whom and what he is being sacrificed.
Moreover, I believe that active misandrists should get as few male
votes as possible should they choose to run for any office. The loss of male
votes should be the main deterrent for misandrists seeking a political career.
** This proposition is very important so please circulate it within the
men's movement.
Copyright 2002 John Knouten
MASCULIST DETECTIVES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John:
Is the reason for point #2, because this would show their connections, their agendas, their ties with those who are bashing men?
Couldn't #3 due further damage to those falsely accussed? If they just want to get on with their lives (albeit shattered) might not the publising of the facts of their victimization give them grounds for redress against the person(s) republishing that info? I guess what I'm saying is wouldn't it be better to get something like a signed release from them before widely circulating that info about them? If we are saying they are victimized, we wouldn't want to do anything to make it look like we were adding to their victimization.
I like the idea of publically broadcasting the negative side of the politicians who are so cruelly doing this. I wish we could put even more political heat on those jackels. I know I'm gonna keep trying and looking for new ways to do that. You pose an interesting scenario. It makes one think.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Couldn't #3 due further damage to those falsely
> accussed? If they just want to get on with
> their lives (albeit shattered) might not the
> publising of the facts of their victimization
I do not intend to publish anything about the falsely accused (or even the INDIVIDUAL false accusers). I just want to explain how a given piece of activism by a given politician contributed to a given TYPE of injustice.
MASCULIST DETECTIVES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I do not intend to publish anything about the falsely accused (or even the INDIVIDUAL false accusers)."
I'd like to publish the trans scripts of my trial on the web somewhere, along with other litigating factors surrounding the trial. Along with evidence that was not allowed into the trial and evidence covered up by that shithead Sgt. Timmons of the Brantford Vice Squad. Along with the relationship between the Judge and the Prosicuting Attornie. I would also like to post the information of how my lawyer handled my case (which is why I started studying law).
I also want to mention how the sexual assault councilors sat up front and intimadated my witnesses as well as me when I testified. How their party intimated and bullied my witnesses outside the court (uttering death threats) and nobody including my lawyer as well as Sgt. Timmons did a thing. As far as Im concerned I didnt have a chance. It was three against one actually 4 if you include the relationship between the Prosicution and the Judge. My lawyer did not inform me of anything and left my life up to chance.
How anyone can call those even remotely a fair trial is beyond me. It is so unbelievably biased against men his word is completely irrelevent. I was a victim of a wrongful accusation simply because Candace Varga would not take responsibility for her actions. Candace Varga was caught cheating on her boyfriend and while screwing around with her roomates boyfriend(me) and her way out was a simple lie in fact the easiest of all considering the laws here and the discrimination. And to top it all off, Candace grabbed my crotch first, so in effect she actually commited sexual assault. So much for equal protection under the law.
The sexual assualt centre coached her testimoney there is no doubt about that. Learn about what you're up against and learn the lies and the total disregard for fairness. Learn about the strawman arguements of rapeshield laws such as "well even a prostitute can be raped" as if that justifies denying someone the right to face your accusors. What a load of shit.
This is the link to the Brantford Sexual Assault Centre. http://www.geocities.com/wellesley/commons/1493/
"A Just Social and Political World for Women and Their Communities."
Nice mission statement.
" The crisis line is open to survivors of sexual violence (female or male) or a friend or family member of someone who has experienced sexual violence."
They state that they help men, maybe its a start. They are still promoting it as a male only crime though.
These councilors break the law with impunity daily. Its called obstruction of justice. But then again we all know what a rag the Human Bill of Rights is.
.
I am suggesting a "Not Every Man is Marc Lepine Day" December 5th.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am sorry. Falsely convicting someone is like robbing them of their innocence. I had a different event which made me a masculist. Basically I suffered physical/lots of mental abuse and did not have help available to women.
MASCULIST DETECTIVES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<I had a different event which made me a masculist. Basically I suffered physical/lots of mental abuse and did not have help available to women.>>
Here is a site of interest.
http://www.whengirlsdoit.com/index.html
They are starting to look at female perpetrators of sex crimes.
In my case the woman was the 'sexual initiator', which is often heard in domestic violance cases. Funny how the story all changes when it comes back on her. What a fucking slut. Candace Varga is also a serial accusor I'd warn anyone of this mental case to basically stay away. She comes on very 'hot and heavy' especially after a few drinks. But it was well known to her roomates that she would wake up and accuse the guy she picked up as having attacked her. Unfortuanately for me I found out this information way to late. Judge Stead is in the dark ages when it comes to fairness much like the rest of them.
I reccomend looking at that site, there are all kinds of clips etc.. you need a windows media player to watch it. Its called When Girls Do It: Female sexual predators.
.
I am suggesting a "Not Every Man is Marc Lepine Day" December 5th.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I notice that Julie Hilden practiced First Amendment law from 1966 to 1969 and is currently a freelance writer.
I notice that she's no longer practicing First Amendment law. After reading this article, I'm not surprised that she had a career change, and I'm guessing that the change wasn't entirely her choice. With arguments like the one she set out, she would have trouble contributing at a law firm even at the level of a research grunt.
Those who can do, practice. Those who can't do, write for CNN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Amendment? Hell, she's competing with Nazi's. And I damned well told her that in my e-mail. Another Wench Exposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @05:26PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
julhil@aol.com
Write her.
Be polite but firm when you tell her what an idiot she is.
Doing a search for her name on www.findlaw.com will reveal other columns by this idiot misandrist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What concerns me is the narrowing of what constitutes actual guilt (through due process in the courts and an actual conviction)and guilt through accusation.
If you look at recent law reforms in England, they have systematically been intentionally doing this. For example, they intend to abolish the "double jeopardy" rule for serious crimes. Much of the talk around this has focused not on murder as you'd expect, but on the "opportunities" to secure greater numbers of convictions in rape cases. That is, you can be found "not guilty" of rape but at any time in the future be retried on the basis of any new perceived evidence or information. This is coupled to the creation of special "Rape only" prosecutors, again with the sole intent of securing more rape convictions.
So to get this straight, just by being accused of rape, there are specific "rape only" measures being put in place to try and secure your conviction.
The subsequent publishing of the fact you were once accused is simply another extension of this.
In Scotland, where we have a small but disproportionately powerful anti-rape lobby, they are literally falling over themselves to get the same tactics adopted here. (Scotland and England have different legal systems although we are both in the UK).
I firmly believe that we are reaching the stage whereby many of these lobby groups will not be happy until just the accusation of rape is enough to convict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I firmly believe that we are reaching the stage whereby many of these lobby groups will not be happy until just the accusation of rape is enough to convict.
Many neo-feminists like to claim that feminism, at least back in the 60s and 70s, was a wonderful, pure, well-intentioned movement that has since been hijacked. Well, I was a young adult back then, and countless times I heard women declare, "No woman would accuse a man of rape unless he was guilty."
The fascist oppression and evil that permeates our society today is a direct outgrowth of what feminism was back then. Feminism, at least since the 60s, has never been about any sort of equality. It has been an expression of hate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @07:01PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
The fascist oppression and evil that permeates our society today is a direct outgrowth of what feminism was back then. Feminism, at least since the 60s, has never been about any sort of equality. It has been an expression of hate.
Actually, most of the real feminists I know say that feminism was corrupted IN the 1960s and 1970s. They stretch back to Victorian feminism for the pure version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, most of the real feminists I know say that feminism was corrupted IN the 1960s and 1970s. They stretch back to Victorian feminism for the pure version.
I've read some extremely misandrist and racist statements from influential Victorian feminists. Unfortunately, I don't have the quotes or sources now. Maybe someday someone will write an honest, balanced history of feminism that will show all its aspects, including the hatred that existed from the start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good points by everyone. There are some feminists (usually the ones who want to preserve the word 'feminism' by sticking some other word in front of it) who have that whole rose-tinted thing about how their mothers and grandmothers fought so hard to win the freedoms women now enjoy, and how it's some kind of radical minority that's given feminism a bad name. What a crock! It was their precious mothers and grandmothers who created the whole stinking manhating ideology. While their fathers and grandfathers were out working to support their families, their mothers and grandmothers were sat at home (a home fillled with labour-saving gadgets courtesy of men) drinking coffee with their girlfriends and laughing about what a bunch of shits men were. I forget the bigoted bitch's name, but didn't one of these creatures say of so-called 'consciousness raising' that "we had some good manhating sessions"? And as for the feminists in earlier times, didn't some bunch of early American manhaters - sorry, 'feminists' - decide that women were morally superior to men? I'm trying to think of a bunch of people who thought like that and who didn't subsequently go on to violate and harm those they thought themselves so superior to, but I can't. Look at the things that are happenening today in countries all over the world. Look at the domestic violence issue, paternity issues, sexual harrassment, education, healthcare, and so on, and so on, and so on, and pretty soon you'll get the measure of that precious moral superiority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. In spite of what Wendy Mac may believe, there is nothing identifiably "feminist" about her writing. Feminism is ill-defined anyway, but recognizable by its unreasonable and totalitarian mindset. Anything that Wendy, for example, might say can be easily espoused by a non-feminist. There is no moderate, reasonable feminism, since a belief in equal rights and duties is not a uniquely (or even identifiably) feminist notion. In fact, whatever belief in equality they may express is entirely contextual and does not represent any over-arching set of reasonable ideas about justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's interesting to read the statements made on this subject by Trudy and Wendy at the NCFM forum in St. Paul, MN, on June 21, 2002.
Trudy (speaking of feminism in the 60s): "We didn't realize that feminism, by its own nature, cannot be about equity. It's right there in the word. The word isn't equalitarianism, it's feminism. The word itself suggests concentrating on women -- that they should be elevated in recognition, somehow. That can only be lopsided and unnatural."
Wendy: "So why do I call myself a 'feminist?' Why don't I just call myself an individualist or a humanist?
"Because the law does not treat men and women equally, either in its content or in its application. The law is not gender-blind. In many areas, it treats men like second-class citizens. In others, it discriminates against women. And until this is changed, until there is true equality -- neither privilege nor oppression based on gender -- I'll call myself a feminist."
One of the problems I have with saying that there is good feminism and bad feminism is that it makes it more difficult to debunk the hate. Feminism has a long and proud history of misandry, and hate-mongers shouldn't be able to put up a smoke screen by saying they're "good feminists."
In Germany during the 1930s there may well have been people who supported the Nazis purely because they enjoyed having the trains run on time, were bothered by the oppressive aspects of the Treaty of Versailles, and thought full-employment was a good idea. Did that make them "good Nazis?" Intentionally or not, by saying there are good feminists, one gives tacit support to the entire movement.
Feminism is largely a hate movement. People should learn to feel revulsion at the very sound of the word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism has a long and proud history of misandry, and hate-mongers shouldn't be able to put up a smoke screen by saying they're "good feminists."
I just re-read what I wrote, and I want to make it clear that I do not consider Wendy a hate-monger or a misandrist. It is other feminists, who are hate-mongers and misandrists, who can and do hide behind the "good feminist" smoke screen.
The word, feminist, should be associated with the word "Nazi." By its very nature, it precludes any sort of equalitarianism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 10, @02:59AM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
If Wendy and Trudy insist on being called "feminists", Maybe we should just indulge them and compromise.
I think titles like "Feminazi", "Fembot" or my personal favorite; "Marx-fems" easily make the distinction between some "Feminists" like Wendy and Trudy and other "Feminists" like Barbra Boxer (hound), Hillary Clinton, Mary Daly, Etc.
Wendy and Trudy are Feminists, The others are Feminazis.
How's that..?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have trouble remembering the specific differences in different feminist's veiwpoints, but it is important. Christina Hoff Sommers uses the term equity feminist to describe her veiwpoint and the term radical feminist to describe, well, the feminazis in her book "WHO STOLE FEMINISAM."
Wendy, Trudy, Christina are all truly fine people who are really only asking for fairness the same as we are asking for fairness. Wendy is and ifeminist, Christina is an equity feminist, and I'm not sure Trudy's prefered adjective preceding the feminist designation. I know the abortion issue is one area where some of our feminist allies are not in total agreement, and that is indeed a difficult, difficult topic.
The other ones (rad fems) along with their particuar veiwpoints basically want to destroy and throw away half of the human race (men), or at least have them in total subjugation to their will.
Fairness, parity, equality go a long way to help dispell the natural differences between the sexes. Those natural differences when coupled with animosity, patronizing attitudes, hatefulness, etc. (rad fems) has caused a lot of strife to be created between the sexes. To engage in a dialouge with one of their disciples, spouting their nasty agenda, is a very difficult, if not hopeless, cause.
As pointed out in the book, "THE GIFT OF FEAR," when dealing with people like rad fems the best way to deal with them is to personally avoid them like the plague. They want to engage you in a negative encounter so they can then point to you and say he's a mean, aggressive, violent, evil man and I'm just a poor, helpless woman. Look at how he's been talking to me, when in reality, they were the ones originally estsblishing the bench mark for hostility in the exchange. You have probably seen that exact behavior in some of the trolls that come on this site from time to time. Who could they really be?
I think the best we can do is to concentrate on countering their arguements using the gift of our analytical male logic, work at legislating against their agenda, but try to avoid engaging in contact or conversaton lest we are ensnared in the vileness of their personnas and baited toward the negative stereotype they would like to cast us as. The sirens may not have been rad fems, but rad fems are certainly harpy-like sirens.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 10, @10:21PM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
Wendy and Trudy are Feminists, The others are Feminazis.
Actually, Trudy is not a feminist and does not like the term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<Actually, Trudy is not a feminist and does not like the term.>
Thats what I thought. In fact she describes it as 'sexist' in her speach in new york.
She could probably be labled 'anti-feminist' but then again you'd have to lable anyone interested in sound reasoning, logic, fairness and factual to be an 'anti-feminist'.
I noticed that many are trying to suade the term 'anti-feminist' to mean 'anti-women' or a synonym of 'mysoginist', do not allow them to get away with this. Women are a rightful birthgroup that should be loved , encouraged and revered. Feminism is an 'ideology' that should be shot and pissed on.
Btw, Men are also a rightful birthgroup that should be loved, encouraged and revered.
.
I am suggesting a "Not Every Man is Marc Lepine Day" December 5th.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @01:54AM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
((("Actually, Trudy is not a feminist and does not like the term.")))
Noted.
Thanks, Anon.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I stand corrected and my apologies. No wonder I didn't know what designation of feminist she prefered. She isn't one.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is what the Sexual Assault Centre of Brant has to say about what makes an assault.
<<What is Sexual Assault?
Sexual Assault is any unwanted act of a sexual nature imposed by one person upon another.
Forced or coerced intercourse, grabbing, touching or kissing can be defined as sexual assault.
Sexual assault is an act of violence, control and domination.
1 out of 4 Canadian women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.
1 out of 3 girls and 1 out of 7 boys will be sexually assaulted before they reach the age of 18.
85% of assailants are known to the victim. The assailant could be a date, a partner, a sibling, a parent, a caregiver or anyone in the community.
60% of sexual assaults occur in the home. Another common location is the attacker's car.
Sexual assault can happen to anyone. It cuts across age and social status as well as economic, cultural and religious boundaries.
Stats from 1992 Ontario Women's Directorate >>
I'd like to find out how the Women's Directorate came up with these numbers. Funny a man can go to jail for 12 months in ontario for 'kissing' a girl. I swear to god if a girl kissed a guy and he made a complaint it would be laughed out of court.
.
I am suggesting a "Not Every Man is Marc Lepine Day" December 5th.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 09, @04:06AM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, This sort of thing has gone from ridiculous, to sublime to out right abominable!
just AMAZEING!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @10:12PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
she is no doubt a product of womens studies at one of the feminazi indoctrination camps...er i mean colleges.what a twit!
figures a scummy lawyer would come up with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have all failed Angry Harry's Test to remain as serving members of the men's movement! :-)
Your only hope for re-instatement is to read ...
http://www.angryharry.com/esShouldDefendantsBeGran tedAnonymity.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not even worth my time to respond to the writer of this article. It is so obvious from her closing statement that she is repeating radical feminist rhetoric to support her claims. I doubt that any letter or research would sway her to see men as victims.
It is not surprising that when women are victims the nation is suddenly spurred into action to handle an epidemic. meanwhile back in the real world men are being murdered wholesale by lack of medical care, depression, lack of safety in work places, security in prisons etc.
The simple facts are that one female victim is more valuable than any number of male victims.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It is not even worth my time to respond to the writer ..."
True, but if we had her BOSS's email address, THAT would be precious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just to follow-up, instead of mailing Hilden herself, contact CNN at: law.center@cnn.com and copy Hilden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 09, @03:50PM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea. I'm copying my Hilden-bashing letter I wrote yesterday to them now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 09, @05:03PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
You have all failed Angry Harry's Test to remain as serving members of the men's movement! :-)
What's this "ALL" shit? I happen to think NO ONE should be granted anonymity in ANY kind of court case. Anonymity for anyone (accuser or accused) violates several checks in place to ensure fair proceedings.
And who be Angry Harry to tell me whether I can or cannot be part of any men's movement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um, kind of ironic that you chose to post under Anonymous User then. (I know , I know, it's not a court case or anything.....)
I do agree with your point though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 14, @01:32AM EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, "Angry harry." You're probably a good guy, but as far as your test is concerned,
...I don't think anyone is careing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Always use the racial analogy to counter these types of arguments. Most violent crimes are committed by blacks. So here goes the analogy:
**
Any contraction of the freedom ex-cons, or those who were charged, will be accompanied by an expansion of the freedom of white people.
"Even before this summer, American whites already lived in a world with far less freedom in it than the world American blacks occupy. They already had to choose carefully the places where, and hours when, they traveled; they were already forced to often continually look around to make sure they were safe."
**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only problem with your idea is that I do not find situation funny. I would counter that misandry by developing Edmond Alert {http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/message/6215 }
MASCULIST DETECTIVES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only problem with your idea is that I do not find situation funny. I would counter that misandry by developing Edmond Alert {http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/message/6215 }
It's not supposed to be FUNNY. That misses the point entirely. The point is that we are so used to anti-male bigotry (intolerance in the gender domain) that we often do not recognize it; we can make anti-male bigotry stand out in sharp relief by transforming it into the race domain, substituting everywhere "white" for "women" and "black" for "men"--any other kind of "race coordinates" will do. Think of this as a serious transformation of coordinates, not as a frivolous matter. It is always legitimate to make such transformations and ask, is it possible, given the blatant and intolerable racism of the transformed text, that the original possesses anto-male bias? This is the point of the exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I see it now. It is addressing the way we have been conditioned to respond in our Orwellian, politically correct thinking.
Your formula clearly shows that if we address the way we judge the facts of any woman/man story by the same criteria we judge a white/black story the bigotry comes glaringly jumping out us, because we have been so long exposed to the proper expectations for racial relations.
Woman/man inequities are relatively invisible (accepted) in stories until you layer this bigotry formula into the words of the story. Then the prejudiced, the intolerable stands out.
It also serves to support the point that the level of bigotry that is routinely exhibited against men and accepted would not be acceptable in the context of race relations. It works for me.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 12, @03:51AM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, this formula without a doubt, illustrates bigotry to the point ANYONE with half a brain can see it.
Of course feminists have no brain at all, so even something THIS simple to understand may escape them.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's still a useful formula. Most people are completely unprepared for it. An argument where it can be very effective is the excuse that something "men do to men" is something for men to deal with; for example, circumcision is something that "men do to men" so women aren't in any way responsible, even if some mothers authorize the circumcisions of their sons. Try converting woman to white and man to black in this case. It's completely bigoted and unacceptable, in a most reprehensible red-neck sense, to say that some injustice is something that blacks do to blacks, so it's their problem.
India and Pakistan were closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation several weeks ago than ever; do we say that this is their problem, because we're white and they're asian? The same standards of equal treatment that apply in race matters should apply in gender (to the extent that biology permits).
The transform can sometimes produce false statements: consider "more women than men get pregnant", which is true. This becomes "more whites than blacks get pregnant", which is false, but it's not bigoted; it's just false. The point of the transform is to convert gender bigotry into race bigotry, where we are more conditioned to recognize intolerance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 13, @01:04AM EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
(("Do we say that this is their problem, because we're white and they're asian?))
Actually, I'm INDIAN and they're asian.
Sorry, Mars, I just couldn't resist. (^-^)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I see it now. It is addressing the way we have been conditioned to respond in our Orwellian, politically correct thinking.
Your formula clearly shows that if we address the way we judge the facts of any woman/man story by the same criteria we judge a white/black story the bigotry comes glaringly jumping out us, because we have been so long exposed to the proper expectations for racial relations.
Woman/man inequities are relatively invisible (accepted) in stories until you layer this bigotry formula into the words of the story. Then the prejudiced, the intolerable stands out.
It's an effective technique; it should be used with care, however. At it's best, it can disarm even virulent feminists; some harbor very deep resentment against me for exposing their bigotry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take Back Your Sanity
All evil movements have appealed not to the best, but to the worst in people. They have all appealed to hatred. We are currently engaged in a war on terrorism. The terrorists who have waged a war against us have appealed to human hatred at its most bottom level in order to rally their people against America. They tell their people of horrendous things America has (not) done and tell them that America is the reason that they are not doing well in life. All evil movements have used this tactic. Feminists are no different.
Feminists are some of the foulest creatures on this earth. Their activism is done by appealing not to the best in women, but to the worst. As such, feminists have managed to hold many women down, allowing those women to dwell in psychological terror -- in order to continue their activism. These women are contemptible and should be severely punished.
In order to keep their "cause" going and their numbers high, feminists need to keep women angry. They have a heavy amount invested in angry women. Not just their cause, but certain feminist's careers, tenure, and livelihood are invested in ensuring that women are being oppressed -- and that they stay upset over it.
As such, feminists encourage women to dwell on whatever misfortune that has happened to them - to keep the pot of anger brimming. The most critical issue that they focus on is rape. Feminists encourage rape victims to re-live their tragedy in their head over and over again.
One example of this is "Take Back the Night." Take Back the Night is an event in which feminists unite on college campuses and women get up in front of a mass crowd of people and describe abuse of all kinds: incestuous abuse, sexual assault by a friend, being raped or knowing someone who was raped. They dwell on the actual tragedies that happened to them and keep bringing up the feelings of anger and hatred from the incident over and over again.
Slight common sense can tell you that this is psychologically destructive. The only thing that encouraging women who have been raped to re-live their moment again can do is re-send thoughts of terror and horror through that women's mind and soul. These women are severely strained in their ability to put the tragedy in the past and move on with their lives. It's like picking at a scab, if you keep prodding it -- it never heals.
By encouraging this sort of behavior, feminists keep the anger flowing, the hatred brewed -- the 'cause' going. Feminists politicize the issue of rape to advance their agendas. They use rape victims as political pawns, allowing these women to live in psychological hell -- in order for them to enhance their agendas and careers.
In fact, I am proud to say, my observation of this feminist behavior is supported by statements straight from the horse's mouth. In Tammy Bruce's book, The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds, while she, a former Los Ang. NOW president, was within the feminist establishment, they encouraged their organization to "rub salt in the wound." Tammy elaborates:
"'Rubbing salt into the wound' means maintaining the pains of your constituency. It can take many forms, but primarily the strategy involves twisting any and every event under the rubric of human relations into an assault on women, blacks, gays, or whatever groups is your bread and butter. If the events of the day provide a real example of bias, they must be exploited -- and if they don't, then an appropriate incident must be invented to remind your constituents of their victimhood.
Need I say more?
I've seen other places in which feminist encourage anger and victimology. Catherine MacKinnon, a contemporary feminist icon encourages girls to "Try thinking without apology with what you know from being victimized." Don't think clearly -- try thinking when you were angry. Gawwwwwwd, these women are evil!
By doing this, they keep their numbers high of women who support whatever cause they are crusading. The angry mob is always there for them, ready to sick whatever person they deem evil. This type of conditioning by feminists is what causes them to be such unruly monsters. Feminists are known for the mob-like tactics when confronting people who disagree with them. They shout down speakers; they cuss at people; they scream their heads off at all dissent. They are, as Tammy says, thought police. And they do it for the most self-righteous of reason: they think that they are crusading for rape victims, for the poor, for all the poor baby bunnies of the world. Don't ever let them fool you. No matter what they were -- rape victim or not -- their mob-rule style tactics are not acceptable and these untamed beasts should be quickly reprimanded for their behavior.
The reason why they need a mob is because feminists are, above all things -- the biggest rationalizers on earth. Instead of studying the evidence first and coming to the conclusion; they have the conclusion first and seek out the evidence afterwards. And the conclusions about the world are based upon their emotions. Feminist don't want to go to the world, they want the world to come to them. Feminists want the whole world to cater to their emotions. Given they know they don't have objectivity on their side, they seek popularity. The collective replaces the objective. Observe this quote by a feminist. It was a post by a user named 'phebe' on a MS Magazine forum.
"John Harrison saying, "All I ask is that people try and address the discussion with logic and facts rather than with emotional statements."
Why should I have to give you what you ask? What makes your "logic and facts" BETTER in some sense than my emotional statements? That is not at all obvious to me. You said you loaded a gun and took off the safety and left it on a table and asked how long it would take for it to kill someone. I said it would take just as long as it takes for a three-year-old to find it. That's a woman's answer, and what's more, it's true. It is what happens. It is what is *important* in the situation you describe. Your "logic and facts" approach is empty, useless, idle and dangerous relative to the point that I am making, which is that this happens all the time and tiny children shoot themselves and others all the time, and everybody knows this! (Bold mine)
This young feminist has identified clearly the feminist line. "Why should *she* have to give *you* what you ask?" "Why can't the world see that *her* emotions are the ultimate arbiter of truth?" "Everybody knows this is true - *she* doesn't have to stoop to the level of providing facts and logic!"
Indeed, this is the groundwork of an authoritarian regime. People without any objective fact supporting their opinions must necessarily resort to force. Whether they be whim-worshipping religious zealots or crazy feminists, the rejection of objectivity leads to wars and violence. They resort to hushing out opinions of dissent. They have to scare the tribe into subservience -- it is the only way their faulty opinion can remain alive.
Events like 'Take Back the Night' and other feminist tactics are contemptible. It should be clear to anyone who is honest in evaluating feminist behaviors that they do not seek to improve women's lives. Feminists are crueler to their own women than they are to men! It surprises me that more people don't come out and criticize this event (TBTN) that exploits rape victims. What they really need is not to Take Back the Night -- but to Take Back Their Sanity.
written by:
Amber Pawlik
July 10, 2002
.
I am suggesting a "Not Every Man is Marc Lepine Day" December 5th.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan wrote"
"In order to keep their "cause" going and their numbers high, feminists need to keep women angry. They have a heavy amount invested in angry women. Not just their cause, but certain feminist's careers, tenure, and livelihood are invested in ensuring that women are being oppressed -- and that they stay upset over it."
Quotes Tammy Bruce:
"Tammy elaborates:
"'Rubbing salt into the wound' means maintaining the pains of your constituency. It can take many forms, but primarily the strategy involves twisting any and every event under the rubric of human relations into an assault on women, blacks, gays, or whatever groups is your bread and butter. If the events of the day provide a real example of bias, they must be exploited -- and if they don't, then an appropriate incident must be invented to remind your constituents of their victimhood."
Email I sent to CWA (Concerned Women of America),
The reason I am writing is to address the fact that radical feminists' organizations routinely, intentionally outright lie. We then have the concrete fact of their lying revealed, but by then the damage is done, and here's the rub, THE SAME MISINFORMATION KEEPS POPPING UP, AND POPPING UP, REPEATEDLY, WHILE THEY KEEP SEEDING THE ISSUE(S) WITH NEW LIES. PRETTY SOON ALL YOU'RE DOING IS PLAYING DEFENSE, AND PUTTING OUT FIRES. In a nut shell, we make every effort to tell the truth . I’m not saying we’re perfect, lying violates our Christian faith and our integrity so if were sincere we try with all our will and a lot of God's grace not to do that.
On the other hand, they seem to be taking full advantage of that fact. Is there some way to address the fact that lying is a standard operating procedure of their radical feminist agenda? Am I wrong in confronting their modus operandi by saying, Oh, here comes "chicken little" again, or they have the veracity and integrity of chicken little? How can we more effectively address this insidious device that they use so effectively to derail and sabatage what we straight forwardly try to accomplish? I am tired and frustrated by their low life tactics.
I wish someone like a Dr. D. James Kennedy (or CWA) would do a documentary on them like Coral Ridge did on the ACLU (their history, their agenda, their tactics, etc.). That kind of a project would have my full, unbridled support, and I think it would make an incredibly sensational Christian movie. I will continue to pray for you all of you as I request you do the same for me.
God Bless You All, Your Christian Brother,
Ray
p.s. O.K. I'm a Christian. Any of you can dump on me if you really feel like it. Guess what, I'm going to be the first to say sometimes I forget to act like one. I guess were all just a bunch of "angels with dirty faces."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @02:04AM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
To lie and then mock is the mark of the radical feminist. They are not content to injury the innocent (men). It is only when they mock those they greiviously injure, that the true depth of their perverted depravity is revealed in its vilest form. These harpies are truly the scum of the earth.
I once took and English class, wherein they taught the Bible (old testament)as literature, to wit:
"May their path be dark and slippery with the angel of the LORD pursuing them like chaff before the wind. May they fall into and live in the hole they dug to ensnare the innocent. May the unjust torment they created in the lives of the innocent be their own eternal fate, lest they turn from their damnable ways. May the curses they profane against the names of the upright and the just come back to rest on their own heads and never leave them, so help me God." Psalms 35 (paraphrased and in spirit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 10, @03:19AM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Ansewer; Just one. To hold the lightbulb and wait for the world to revolve around her.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 11, @01:58AM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
Glad you liked it, Ray.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 09, @07:03PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Heed my words you radical feminist you have sowed the wind, but you will reap the whirlwind. There’s a storm of righteous law a commin’ on your evil laws and it can’t come too soon. May God bless this end himself, and may good men and women everywhere join together to see it through.
ANONYMOUS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 09, @11:28PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the motivation. I sent this email to: law.center@cnn.com and copied to julhil@aol.com
Dear Editor:
I am writing to you to express my upset about the inane, unconstitutional, radical feminist drivel contained in Julie Hilden's article (title listed in subject heading). It appears her agenda is intent on further contributing to the injury of decent men.
What will it take, to bring an end to the pain I feel every day living in a country where laws exist solely to do evil to me, and other innocent, demonized men like me (just because of our gender)? This is no longer my country in heart, or mind. With every passing day, as individuals like Julie Hilden promote their abusive, man hating agenda, the number of men like me grows, and grows.
America is no longer a country that fairly addresses grievances under law or dispenses equal justice to all. It is nothing more than a facade of the creation it started out as, now devoid of the principals it once stood for.
Radical feminists have sown the wind, but they will reap the whirlwind. There’s a storm of righteous law a commin’ to abrogate their evil laws and it can’t come too soon. May God bless this end himself, and may good men and women everywhere join together to see it through.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
Was this o.k.? Suggestions welcomed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 12, @02:16AM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
aside from the incorrectly-spelled "a-comin'", sure. :)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
