|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Marc Angelucci on Thursday September 05, @09:12PM EST (#1)
(User #61 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
I like the outline. But here are some thoughts.
First, maybe add the exclusion from nursing schools in the historical part at beginning. It took a us supreme ct decision to stop nursing schools from exluding men.
Also, while "white men" certainly get discriminated against, so do other types of men. By only including one other demographic, "whites” (unless I missed the others, if so, sorry), the outline excludes other men and has a political slant. If you mention white men, why not also black men, and Latino men (such as harsher immigration rulings toward undocumented males than females), and gay men and bisexual men (such as excluding gay men but not lesbians from giving blood, excluding gay male couples but not lesbians from TV, forbidding anal sex, searching purses carried by men but not purses carried by women, forbidding men from wearing skirts while women can wear either skirts or pants, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows states for prohibit anal sex, etc.).
I think the outline should either leave out non-gendered demographics like race, class, sexual orientation, etc., which is what I’d prefer, or else be inclusive of them. Otherwise we not only divide up men but we divide up men's rights activists. There are a growing number of minority and gay and bisexual men joining the men’s rights movement and I think they should feel as included as any other.
Just my own thoughts. Otherwise I loved the paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well put, Mark. Your points are of paramount importance to the men's/justice movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to add that it's a great outline. Kudos, Steve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 06, @05:15PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with Marc, in this.
Leave out "demographics."
Personaly I HATE them. American Indians are ALWAYS left out of them.
Even president Clinton's coalition on "race" included EVERY race on the planet ...Exept one.
You guessed it, Indians were the ONLY "race" excluded.
Let's not make the same mistake. No matter how hard we try, we will inevitably "exclude" SOMEONE, there by causeing animosity. When an "organization" segments it's self, it is asking for derision. We are MEN. piriod. regardless of skin color, race, sexuality, religion, Etc.
How ever, if it IS decided to use "demographics", PLEASE make sure Indians are included. I (we) are really tired of being excluded from everything.
Regardless of public opinion, We do STILL exist, and we are not a non-people.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personaly I HATE them. American Indians are ALWAYS left out of them.
Even president Clinton's coalition on "race" included EVERY race on the planet ...Exept one.
It's amazing and sad that this could actually happen in today's world. I agree with Marc and Thundercloud on this one.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too wonder about the effectiveness of mentioning white men without giving full due to the huge amount of discrimination that black men so disproportionately face in so many areas. From prisons to college to health, these guys are paying with their lives again, and again, and again. I say leave the data on the white guys in, but add to it all the horrendous numbers that document the victimizaton of black men, hispanics, etc. The better the effort we make to document the whole truth, the harder it will be to dismiss the validity of such a work. Whatever the numbers say, print that, and be as inclulsive of all groups of men as feasible. The unaddressed issues surrounding male victimization in this society is a scandal that stinks to high heaven, when considering all the special treatment for the protected statuses of women and children.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly agree that we should be inclusive of all groups of men. I've noticed that in the media males of color or minority background are more likely than Caucasian males to be treated sympathetically when it comes to relationship and family matters. It's sort of strange. It's like you have to be non-white before you can get portrayed respecfully as a father or husband.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 07, @03:08AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I have noticed that, too, Collins.
The mentality of the media is very odd.
Please don't take offense to what I'm about to say. But the media is made up primarily of "white people". These folks come from a very "liberal" yuppie school of thought. Somewhere along the way they were taught that, in order to show you are not prejiduce, you must turn on "your own" to show your intensions are pure.
As a "person of color" myself, I not only don't understand that mind-set, I RESENT it!
The assumption is, that ALL people of color hate and resent whites. therefore these "White yuppie" types play to us on this assumption. In other words they are saying in effect, "I'll show you I'm not prejiduce by BEING prejiduce"!
I do not trust ANYONE who hates (or pretends to hate) his or her own race or gender.
Ther's something VERY creepy about that.
So once again the media causes even MORE resentment and division between people by useing this insane method.
If they (the media) were TRULY sincire about wanting to end prejiduce, they would indevour to end ALL prejiduce. Not just what's politicalty incorrect.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud:
Yes, the thing that's so hypocritical about all of the fawning respect shown to these minority guys on T.V. is that it's so over obvious.
Ironically, if you go only a few miles from Hollywood to downtown L.A., were all of the courts buildings are, you find the reality of the law, and it is, need I say, not the same. Sugar coating Hollywood, and only a few miles away the hard hitting political prejudice of the real law, where minority men statistically find the antithesis of touchy, feely Hollywood. It is no coincidence that a movie like Psycho could come from such a schizoid society as Los Angeles/Hollywood.
Even more appalling ironic is the fact that defrauded fathers and male victims of domestic violence (from any ethnic group) will find no sympathy in either one of these hypocritical, politically correct, male bashing arenas.
As far as the main stream news media, they couldn't present a well balanced report if they fell over the truth coming out of their doorway. What will the public watch, read, etc. so I can sell more newspapers, etc. has become the guiding light of journalistic integrity.
As far as spin in the news goes, main stream media and pundits are the bottom of the vortex of the maelstrom where all of the swirling debris gets suck up and blown around before falling back to earth. Rather than reporting the news as it is found in an accurate and honest manner, more and more we find the media giants trying to explain through the filtered lenses of their politics and prejudice what they think we should see and know.
I think it was Will Rogers (or maybe it was Mr. Rogers) who said something to the effect that, "I only believe half of what I see and even less of what I read." These are wise words for these times. Dig deeper, and then dig a little more if you want to get through the dung heap of misinformation that is the main stream media's characterization of truth in the news. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee Whiz Ray, your brain couldn't complete a sentence if you fell over one coming out of your doorway.
Try this one.
"Sugar coating Hollywood does exist, but only a few miles away exists the hard hitting political prejudice of the real law, where minority men statistically find the antithesis of touchy, feely Hollywood."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday September 10, @01:06AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
((("I think it was Will Rogers (Or maybe it was Mr. Rogers) who said something to the effect that "I only believe half of what I see and even less of what I read.")))
Ray.
Yes, it was Will Rogers who said that.
No, not MR. Rogers. Or Roy Rogers, or Ginger Rogers or Buck Rogers, or even Roger Hedgecock, Roger Willcox or Roger Ramjet. (^-^)
Anyway, (Un-like now) back in those days, the media actually DID let an Indian speak once in a while. (Will Rogers was Cherokee, Same as Me.)\(^0^)/
Ol' Will would be turning over in his grave to see the state of affairs in modern America.
He was always suspicious of the media. and with good cause.
Hmm. Maybe THAT'S where I get it...,
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men are a subject gender because they have allowed themselves to become a subject gender. Males have refused to assertively stand up for their rights. The government, the U.S. Constitution, female voters, female citizens, individual males,lawyers, and politicians will not "follow the rules" and behave ethically in this regard. Until males collectively make the decision to assertively stand up for their rights, they will continue to be a "subject" gender as has been the case of peoples, nations, and other groups who have refused to stand up for their rights.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pleased that circumcision (male genital mutilation) is mentioned, and if that bit is expanded on, I hope it gets a nice beefy dissertation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This would make a great course outline for a men's studies course in college. Good luck trying to find such a "venue."
Considering the entrenched nature of political correctness and women's studies on our campuses such a class would probably be more like a trial, presenting evidence, than an educational endeavor. Instead of teaching, you would probably have to content yourself to argue your points against relentless and arguementative opponents.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a topic I would like to see covered in Steve's Outline.
Someone ask for this information in a previous posting, and I just stumbled across it at the U.S. Dept. of Justice http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipva99.htm
After you get to this page click on the Acrobat file 140k and go to page 9, there you will find statistics on "Intimate Partner Violence between persons of the same gender, 1993-1999
16,900 women were the victims of domestic violence by their lesbian female partners.
13,740 men were victims of domestic violence by their gay male partners.
I would like to see better numbers as to the total population of homosexual men and women. It would seem to me that these percentages are saying that women are far more violent in these homosexual settings than in heterosexual settings, or does this merely prove what we've been saying all along? Here the women can't hide their violence like they do in heterosexual relations where any lie is sufficient to cast blame on a man.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this information, Ray. As you point out, this would be more powerful, if we knew the percentages of men and women in same-sex relationships, who were victims of DV. This does lend support, however, to the studies that showed a higher rate of violence in lesbian relationships than in gay male relationships. It helps debunk the lie that men are more the cause of DV than women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it curious as a former teacher who took attendance, filled out affirmative action reports, etc. that I was required to ascertain (by name), "and appearance," whether people should be categorized on affimative action report forms as Latino, Asian, Black, White, American Indian, Fillipino or Pacific Islander, etc.
I often got to wondering about certain historically oppressed ethnic groups who didn't make the list. Why were they not on the list? What qualified a group for the list? Was it just historical disadvantage and oppression or were there other factors? Who made up the lists? I think it was the feds. What did "they" do with the reports? ...and more recently why did this report not require the reporter to identify homosexuals, since the law includes them as members of a group historically discriminated against and oppressed?
Considering the melting pot I live in did I make mistakes? Youbetcha. Would it have been even harder and more inaccurate to identify homosexuals. Yup, a big 10-4. I am also, by law, a mandated reporter of child abuse. NOW, you know some of the police state reasons I no longer teach.
Believe me, filling out these reports was no easy task, and my biggest question was, "Is this an infringement of my rights to be required to do these reports so unscientifically, and probably so inaccurately?"
Big Brother is watching all of us, more so every day, since statistics are so vital to justice, or the taking away there of. I'm scaring myself again, but what the heck.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 08, @02:31PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
It's not "Big Brother" that's watching us, Ray.
...It's BIG SISTER!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're right. There's a twist that even George Orwell didn't anticipate, but then he would probable say, "Okay, radical feminism started in the 70's but my book stopped counting in 1984. It's your futuristic social sci-fi NOW!"
Excuse me, I have to go work on my A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) experiments some more.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday September 10, @01:15AM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray.
When you complete your artificial intellegence, Would you consider giveing some of it to the Marx-fems?
You see, they don't have ANY intellegence.
If you gave them some, Artificial or not, at LEAST they'd finaly HAVE some intellegence!
(^-^)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
