|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday October 27, @08:16PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'Not bothering to offer any alternate explanation as to why college campuses are "now nearly 60 percent female, with women earning 170,000 more bachelor degrees each year than men," the piece fixated on the theory that feminists and their "gender bias industry" are at fault. Didn't it occur to anyone that women -- who are still underrepresented in traditionally male occupations like plumbing, electrician, carpentry, etc. -- might need a college degree in order to get a job with decent pay, benefits and opportunities for promotion? Or did that obvious explanation just not fit the producers' preconceived agenda?'
First off, I think we all know that most women don't give a shit about carpentry or plumbing, so what has that got to do with the story? Complaining about that would be like complaining that there aren't enough dudes in Home Economics classes, learning how to sew and make doilies and prepare cheese fondue.
The scary thing about the NOW is that they actually believe the whole world is a huge conspiracy against women, when it plainly isn't. Women are always given all kinds of breaks for no reason other than that they are women. Everyone has to watch what they say at the office for fear of a sexual harassment investigation, and some women advance in a corporation by means of lawsuits rather than any actual effort. And this is the kind of behavior we want to encourage? When men try that shit they get the boot 'cause if there's one thing no one can stand it's a man who can't do any work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we all know that most women don't give a shit about carpentry or plumbing
Also, these fields require a great deal of physical strength -- hauling and holding -- especially in the training stages. The average woman, with about 50% of the upper body strength and 75% of the lower body strength of the average man, is at an extreme, natural disadvantage compared to that average man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" 'the piece fixated on the theory that feminists and their gender bias industry' are at fault." (excerpt from the NOW article)
This is utter nonsense on the part of NOW. I saw this 60 Minutes segment. The piece devoted its central and sympathtic focus to a male author who specifically rejected the idea that feminists are to blame for the educational problems of boys as well as teacher bias agianst boys. He was asked by Lesley Stahl (after the interviews with Sommers) if he thought feminists were responsible and he said "No, I don't blame feminism. Where are the fathers?" (that's not an exact quote but it's close.) They treated this author gingerly and they let him have the last word. The NOW people are full of it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is its management completely dominated by old white men quaking in their boots because they fear women are taking over the world?
This statement is called poisoning the well. It is a typical strategy of NOW to insert a male-hate statement at the beginning of an article to bias the reader.
Notice the racist tone of the statement when they use the phrase "...old white men..." They not only hate a race of men, but they are ageists and hate older men.
Clearly, they are the perpetrators of a gender war that seeks to put women in power and oppress "old white men."
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday October 27, @08:34PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
It would be helpfull if Mensactivism provided a form letter and contact info (email or otherwise).
I will contact asap.
PS - It is so sad the NOW is so blinded by sexist hate that they relate women graduating with law and medicine degrees with that of male plumbers...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I was actually disappointed in the 60 Minutes story on boys' educational problems. I saw it as a segment in which they set up Christina Hoff Sommers to be rebutted by a feminist friendly author (Daniel Kindlon I believe) who says that feminism isn't to blame but rather neglectful fathers. Then he went on with the bit about how men get out of school and make more money than women (presumably because women are discriminated against). In other words the CBS producers were determined to make sure that the sympathetic focus was on an expert who directed the blame at men and fathers and rejected blaming feminism as Sommers does.
And then of course that was followed by all that silly nonsense from Andy Rooney about how women are better people than men and if only women were in charge there would be far fewer wars, and we'd be better off if Mrs. Bush was president instead of her husband, etc. (He said that to display his women-respecting sentiments after he stood by his insistence that there are too many female TV sports commentators who don't know what they're talking about.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" I saw it as a segment in which they set up Christina Hoff Sommers to be rebutted by a feminist friendly author (Daniel Kindlon I believe) who says that feminism isn't to blame but rather neglectful fathers. "
Yes, I'd be careful of assuming this is advancement. Clearly they could be just trying to quash all of Hoff Sommers work in one stroke. It all comes down to trite. I've seen people dismiss the truth for frivilous things before.
We must continue to look at Sommers work and spread it as far and wide as we can. I will try to remember a quote from Matt Vegh, a Canadian charter rights advocate, has spent two years assisting male victims of domestic violence in the provincial courtrooms of Ontario, Canada.
"Make absolutely no mistake," Vegh said. "Women can smoke dope, booze it up, throw a fist, wield a knife, use a gun, beat their spouse, and beat their kids. It is a type of violence that is ignored, condoned, and treated as frivolous by a justice system that survives by feeding on the one individual who is easily stereo-typed, lacks public sympathy, does not raise fear of reprisal in politicians, and often does not fight back."
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 29, @12:24PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
I, personaly, wrote Andy Rooney off, about 5 years ago.
He lost me (And MANY MANY other American Indians)when those 5 years back, He made the statements; Indians need to 'get with the times'. Their religion is an ancient, primitive one, for primitive minds." That is a 'rough quote'.
ALOT of us sent him letters.
Last time I checked, Chrisianity, Hinduism, Muslum, Budism and the Jewish religion are all pretty "ancient" themselves. How much 'ya wanna bet he'd NEVER say any thing similar about the "Main-stream" religions? AND Rooney made these remarks, not even KNOWING a THING about "Native-American "religion"".
He is just another person out of (too) many that believe we Indians worship "Rocks, trees and the sun". (What an ultra-maroon.)
So his comments on Women and Men don't suprise me one bit.
(Anyone else notice how Rooney, often, contradicts himself?)
If anything, I feel it is Mr. Rooney who is "Ancient" and needs to "get with the times".
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just read the "action alert" from N.O.W. concerning the 60 minutes segment about our young boys. I am pleased to see that a once confident, powerful, always getting their way organization, is suddenly in an uproar because no one really cares what they have to say anymore. As men's activism gains strenghth, they consistently find themselves squirming for a postion on issues that were once solely theirs. Can anybody say, "CANOW and custody battles?"
We have a long way to go, but watching them go through their anxiety attacks during our process of establishing a more truthful, equitable society, gives me motivation to do more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 28, @05:25AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
In Ireland,also, the superconfident feminists are becoming increasingly anxious. As Churchill said this is not the end or the beginning of the end , but,maybe,the end of the beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole truth about gender balance in education is like finding an excuse to elevate one half and down the other half...but to tell you the truth, those cowardly femmes from NOW [i believe] are probably the ones responsible for tipping the scales...this is a serious problem for the boys in this country! Hopefully, the friendlier femmes such as IWF and IFEMINISTS can shed the light on it...sorry guys, my brain is melted!
Emmanuel Matteer Jnr.
Emanslave@aol.com
*****MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND!*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 28, @08:00PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
The decline in male educational performance is directly related to the decline in male self esteem which feminism has produced. However,I think the most important issue, in the area of education, is the absence of Men's Studies courses. The establishment of State funded "Womens Studies " courses in the 1960's was crucial to the success of Feminazism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It obviously comes as no surprise to find the lying, manhating SCUMbags at N.O.W. getting hot under the collar at the mere suggestion that boys are having problems because of the anti-male bias that has been quite purposely put into the education system by people like them. Even if 90% of university graduates were female they'd still find some way of saying that women and girls are hard done to. It's hilarious how, in their hysterical 'action alert', they demand an alternative take on the situation in the name of balance. When's the last time anyone saw a programme expressing the feminist viewpoint 'balanced' by contrary viewpoints? I think N.O.W. needs to remove the Giant Canadian Redwood from its own eye before it attempts to remove the celulose molecule from ours.
One other thing. I checked out the N.O.W. website and noticed something peculiar. It doesn't seem to have any links to any non-N.O.W. websites, not even any other manhating feminist websites. It's as if they want their view of the world to be the only one anyone has access to. Feminists denying all views other than their own? Some mistake, surely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 29, @12:36PM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
I know I come down hard on the media, alot. And much of the time, I feel they deserve it.
However, I do, at times, forget that the feminists have a "gun" to their (the media's) heads.
Like I've said before; "Who runs the puppet show, The puppets or the puppeteers?".
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the "men earn more" thingy: Does anyone know what the MEDIAN salaries of the sexes are? I'm sure that if you took 19 male janitors and one male top CEO and compared their AVERAGE salaries to 20 women with mid-level management jobs, the men's average salary would be higher even though all the women make more $$$ than 19 of the 20 men.
This is actually something that has bugged me for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When someone can actually find me an instance of a woman and a man, working in the same company, of the same qualifications, doing the same job, and with the same length of time under their respective belts, and who do not make the same amount of money, I will say that it is wrong.
But I've never seen it. You can point at averages and medians and means and modes and standard deviations and all that other data, and write a really cool-looking two-page-long statistical analysis with all kinds of curves with shaded regions, and cryptic equations with square roots, P-values, Z-scores, T-scores, conclusions about rejecting or failing to reject hypotheses, etc. etc. etc...
...but if they aren't doing the same job, for the same employer, in the same department, with the same qualifications, and with the same amount of time employed in their positions... then... it's... all...
RUBBISH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When someone can actually find me an instance of a woman and a man, working in the same company, of the same qualifications, doing the same job, and with the same length of time under their respective belts, and who do not make the same amount of money, I will say that it is wrong.
I suspect that, in such a case, the woman on average is paid more than the man. Warren Farrell has pointed out that it would be absurd for companies not to employ exclusively the type of person who performs a given amount of work for less. This idea must be expanded, however, to include the costs for spurious lawsuits that women can file and for which men would, in general, be laughed at.
A company must realize that if women aren't paid more than men for a given background, ability, and amount of work, they may well be hit with lawsuits claiming discrimination against women. If, however, they pay women more, and chalk it up to affirmative action, they have a greater chance of avoiding, or at least winning, such spurious lawsuits.
The IWF has pointed out that "single women who live alone and have full-time jobs earn 28 cents more than similarly situated men." In other words, for those in such a similar situation, a woman on average makes $1.28 for every $1 a man earns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As someone pointed out there are a variety of factors that determine salary. median salaries are just a simple average but this does not mean they tell the story. One can examine all the variables they want but the fact is women are making choices that hurt their ability to earn a higher salary. The book mentioned a few days ago talks about several of these factors. The simple fact is that women prioritize family more than work. Men conviently have made the sacrifice to provide the stable, high wage earning job allowing women to choose work that is more flexible. Women who forgo childbearing and childrearing duties have salaries equal to any male (as long as all other variables are equal).
The trick to debunking this famous "research" is just ask if they have read the actual research. After they tell you "no" point out that the research fails to take into account variables. Items such as continous job history and personal choice are not included in the results. Is it really that surprising that someone who works for 5 years then takes off 5 years to be with their children before returning to work will not be in the same position or have the same salary as someone who had 5 years when they return? Women frequently turn down high level management positions to maintain their time flexibility at work.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony, median is NOT the same as average. Median salary is what the middle-of-the-pack person makes, and it can be very different from the average salary. Average is just the sum of all wages divided by the number of wage-earners, median is the salary of the person at the 50% mark; in the words of my high-school math teacher, the median is real while the average is a fiction (the average family may have 1.5 kids, but the median family has either 1 or 2).
Median salaries are lower than average salaries. The reason I'm interested in median salaries is that if the median wage happened to be closer to the average wage among women than men, it would mean that men's average is pushed higher because top-end salaries go mostly to men, not because men are paid more across the board. Huge CEO-style top-end salaries can seriously skew the average, but they do precious little to the median value.
If this sounds like hopelessly obscure rambling, I apologize; English is not my first language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In case anyone is interested in reading a feminist's poisonous vitriol regarding the elimination of males from the educational system, take a look at this.
It's only to be expected that, as it becomes impossible to ignore the oppression of males, feminists (with their media, educational institutions, and government) will claim that anyone, who objects to such oppression of men and boys, is a woman hater. Fortunately, the veneer of these hate mongers is wearing pretty thin. More and more people see through it every day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is my e=mail to Sue Montgomery, the one who wrote that Montreal peice on de Pascille`
"I read your article on the "Ex-teacher has Enough!" about Passille``s anger towards feminists (not women but feminists so we are clear on this).
Here is your quote:"It's enough to make you cry for these poor little fellas who haven't had a break in their lives. But where, Mr. de Passillé, were the men who could have provided such support?"
Here is my response: The 'men' were fighting to help their daughters to get a better education because they and the mother's were being 'mislead' by bogus research that implys that girls were doing so poorly next to the boys that immediate measures needed to be taken. Now it appears that since this falsified report by Gilligan was pure crap yet never questioned and put into legislation in both Canada and the US has severely left boys in the failing class. The school systems should be sued to no end and mis-information mongers like yourself should be worried about objective journalism instead of biased agenda formated unionism propaganda such as feminism. Are you afraid of a little boy that has done nothing to deserve anything from feminists in his whole life? Feminism is equal to the KKK they are a hate group that has a traget group for their hate. Most uninionist classes do. Blaming little boys for the patriarchy real or imagined is prejuduced at work. Feminism = sexism. "
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 28, @07:11PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
smontgomery@thegazette.southam.ca
Please, contact her and her editor and let them know that uneven, biased activity is never good for any JOURNALISTIC outlet!
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please, contact her and her editor and let them know that uneven, biased activity is never good for any JOURNALISTIC outlet!
What is her editors email address?
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't there some way we can work to start getting these people sacked? Would there be some kind of campaign or effort we could make to create the same kind of sentiments around manhating as exist around racial issues? After all, no newspaper would employ a columnist who railed against 'blacks' or Jews, so what makes these people think it's OK to do so against men? This is something that's been on my mind for a long time. I keep hearing views and reading articles that trot out the same wearisome message about men - that we're rapists, wife-beaters, child-abusers, deadbeat dads, oppressors, lazy, stupid, pigs, misogynists, blah-blah-blah - and there seems to be no end in sight. You can go into greetings card shops and buy cards that joke about murdering men. You can go into bookstores and choose from a wide variety of titles which promote a systematically negative interpretation of all male activity and history. You can go to university and get taught the most outlandish, paranoid lies about men - they have entire departments to do this. Governments pour millions or even billions of dollars into schemes to further spread and legitimise the wholesale demonisation of men, and they change the law or create new ones to make the process easier. This has all created a situation in which any negative statement about men is accepted without question, and where statistics which cast men in a bad light are accepted in exact proportion to how bad they make men look. The more this goes on, the more the minimum threshold of society's negative attitudes to men rises, and the greater the maltreatment of men they'll accept as necessary or simply deserved. Where does all this end? What next from the DV industry, or the rape industry, or the 'child support' industry, or the divorce industry, or the 'entertainment' industry, or the women-as-Marxist-underclass industry? If it isn't stopped it will get worse. In a few years time nobody will talk about 'the gender gap' in education; it will simply be accepted by policy makers that boys are less intelligent and less capable than girls - and any increase in success that boys may have will be seen as evidence of discrimination against girls. It's as if society is suffering from collective brain damage.
Sorry for ranting on. I'm just so sick of all this shit - as I'm sure we all are. As someone once said, "I haven't heard everything, I've heard enough." It's how to destroy it all that concerns me now. How to discredit it and ruin it so thoroughly that no-one will ever think to resurrect it. Trouble is, compared to feminists, most people in the men's movement are pussycats. I don't mean that as an insult, it is, after all, because unlike feminists we are not driven by a rabid, paranoid hatred of half the world's population. Feminists feel a real need to destroy men; it would be the ultimate affirmation of themselves. According to their twisted logic, if they destroy us that means that everything they ever said about us MUST have been true, otherwise why would they have destroyed us? It's kind of ironic that the men in the men's movement are actually closer to what feminists claim to be -believers in gender equality - than most feminists are.
Anyway, my thoughts are now on destruction; on how it might be done and who it would have to be done to. It's really about creating a sea-change of opinion, so in that respect any interaction with manhaters and their supporters is purely a spectacle for the benefit of those watching. It doesn't matter whether manhaters change their views, only that their view should become unacceptable. What a lousy thing to have to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 28, @11:58PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
"Most uninionist classes do."
What is this supposed to mean? What the hell's a unionist class? Are you also talking about "working class unions"? The working class, whose unions gave us the weekend, safety rules, and the 8 hour work day? The working class 'unions' that are broken by the US' govts. 'taft harely act', and killed unionists, for example the "Haymarket riot"? The working class who also makes up the majority of 'men'? Rich people make unions all the time with other rich people at the tops of corporations, conglomerates, wto, imf, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps, I misunderstand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Perhaps, I misunderstand."
Certainly you know the difference between power imbalances. Union's destroyed my city about 22 years ago simply because they became to greedy.
But my comment is more related to 'socialism' ideals, where the state has more power over the individual. Our state is feminist and caters to feminist ideals. Ideals that are stripping us of our rights bit by bit each day. Inventing new bills and new super-protections over those that are not a part of that union. Namely the birth group known as 'males'.
I am also not a big fan of company unions but nor am I a fan of giant overpowering corperations. But I was hoping to keep this issue about Feminazis and politics because our individual rights are being trampled on because women are afraid of the dark. The reason they are afraid of the dark is because those very unions(the dv industry etc...) terrorize women into believing they are in constand danger. Politicians pick up on this and see only one side of the coin, the side that will get them voted.
Masculism is the response to feminism. I think its a dangerous response because it continues our "Adversarial' positions. The only people who truely benifit from 'adversarial' systems are adversaries, namely lawyers. The system is corrupt and its feeding into the worst of humanity. For us win or lose Lawyers always win they always get paid.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 29, @03:55PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
"Certainly you know the difference between power imbalances"
Certainly I do, workers unions were created bcause OF the power imbalances between the employer and the employee. Workers unions do become corrupt at the top, I know. They constantly scab off the workers and try to get other priveliges that their power gives them. It is power that is the problem.
And to complain that your city was ruined because of unions is BS. The union was only created because the employers were ruining the workers lives by being unfair to them. If it were not for this, workers wouldn't have thought of making unions against their employer. This is why MEN die younger and make up 94% of work related accidents, sickness, and death. These conditions were made better by working men and some women fighting back with "unions". A socialist state is not needed for workers, they usually will use their own private unions to fight back. It is only when the workers have made a strong enough demand that the state will make labor laws to cool down the workers resistence. The employer and the employee have different interests. One to make as much money from the workers working for less wages and less benefits. The employee wants the opposite. The problem with radical feminism is that they think men and women have 'opposite' interests and pit us against each other, thus weakening the solidairty of men and women. Not that I'm a marxist, but I think this goes to show that these women are middle class women, who care only about their interests and not working class womens interests. Certainly not mens.
I should have copied and pasted this part of your ridiculous hyperbole. Comparing ALL of them to the KKK, and implying the same for working class unions is a great way to alienate people.
"Feminism is equal to the KKK they are a hate group that has a traget group for their hate. Most uninionist classes do."
Is it really men you care about? Because this demonization of working class men's unions that help them, will certainly turn them off quickly. It did me. I'm new to this "mens movement" because I see the damage that oppurtunistic power hungry women will use feminism as a way to get power. But what this mens movements seems to me sometimes is reactionary. Sometimes even the mirror image of what you hate, which is saddening to me.
I see the same men who complain about men dying younger and making up 94% death, injury rate, and other work related problems AND then complain about workers unions and laws to protect them. From my point of view, it feels like working class people are just pawns to for use of statistics about how bad men have it and then turn around kick us. "Men", don't seem to be the real interest for "some" in the mens movement, but something else. Just my observation.
(I think radical feminism can be reactionary as well)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can certainly point out many organizations that do not have unions and are far better to their employees than can be imagined, Johnson Wax is one of them around here.
Feminism is a union a union that has political pull. This is not the workers union. They promote propaganda that is accepted by government as reality with out any verification of the research etc...
I live in this town and its the employee's the union its self that state that it was the union that ruined it. They became unreasonably greedy and slothful. I do not know the owners or management so I don't have their side of the story. I belive they got up and moved to mexico or something.
Comercial unions I agree with more so than I do feminists. But in government we should not need those 'union' classes. The whites against the blacks the men against the women etc etc etc. This should be solved by our inalienable rights. If a man says he is sexually harrassed on the job he should not have to jump threw hoops to get somewhere he should have the same rights and protections as a woman. We both know that currently its not true.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @02:19PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"I belive they got up and moved to mexico or something."
Mexico has bad labor laws and pays extremely little. A lot of companies are doing this for cheap labor and lower labor safety standards, or none at all. This hurts 'men'(and some women) in Mexico as well! And then they send us the product to buy.
The labor market treats people/men as a commodity on the market. The employers want to pay less for this commodity, just like any other commodity, and will go to where they can find a cheaper commodity. Some, maybe even a lot of 'people' on the top of corps. nowadays treat working men more humanely, but this has been an historical problem for men. Where I worked a 21 year old kid was crushed to death, I"ve almost been blinded and I worked around garbage and they didn't even warn me about getting heppatitus B shots.
I'm possibly more sensitive to this subject than most people. But it has been from my experience. Men being treated as a commodity is the problem. I think this is part of the male bias of us being disposable. It is just not fair, from my point of voew and experience. In these same jobs I've seen women being given the safer work
I'm sorry if I sounded confrontational. I agree with most of what you say. I don't know how to fix this problem.
Plus this is way off topic.
" If a man says he is sexually harrassed on the job he should not have to jump threw hoops to get somewhere he should have the same rights and protections as a woman."
I agree. Men can be sexually harrassed on the job. And you are laughed at if you complain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 28, @09:57PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
My god!
The first sentence describes his essay as a "rant"
The second sentence describes his essay as a "screed"
the third sentence describes his essay as a "diatribe"
Only then do they get around to actually quoting the guy! What was that someone was saying about "poisoning"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only then do they get around to actually quoting the guy! What was that someone was saying about "poisoning"?
Nice catch. Then after the initial attack where she poisons the well, she continues by openly attacking innocent boys. In her mind these children are somehow supposed to take it like a man and suck it up. She couldn't be more hateful if she tried. It is truly pathetic that this gender warrior is permitted to publicly attack innocent children without consequence.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas,
I read that article by Sue and after seeing the following attack against innocent boys where she writes, "It's enough to make you cry for these poor little fellas who haven't had a break in their lives. But where, Mr. de Passillé, were the men who could have provided such support?"
First, she attacks innocent children because they aren’t “man enough” and then she blames men for the attack. Somehow, in her twisted logic her attack against innocent boys is the fault of men who are to be held responsible. NOT!
Notice the complete lack of debate in her article as she used male hate to address Mr. de Passillé. There isn't one place where she makes a well-reasoned argument.
Finally, in her reply to me she wrote the following:
"I assure you I don't hate men - I happen to be happily married to one and have several male friends. I also have a very loving son. "
But of course this is much like a master telling a slave that the slave is loved and that the master believes in racial equality. Nobody would believe that a slave owner loves the slaves while actively oppressing them and denying them basic freedoms.
In my opinion, Sue is a true gender bigot.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The NOW article suggests that men are somehow threatened by female academic success. This is fatuous nonsense: if women are truly independent, it's no one else's business, virtually by definition. The concern is about the relative neglect of the education of boys, not that women are winning some zero-sum game, or that men are somehow "threatened" with female success. Even if men somehow felt threatened, this feeling in no way obviates any obligation we have to improve the situation of boys. Are feminists saying that men have to stop feeling threatened by women before anything can be done about the relative neglect of boys in the school system? This position by feminists is utterly preposterous; moreover, any feeling of being "threatened" by the success of women is really none of the business of feminists, and they are incredibly presumptuous for their gratuitous psychological analysis of men (they themselves vigorously reject psychoanalysis of their feelings by men, incidentally).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{I am thinking about sending this into the editor of the magazine. I would like to know what people think.}The poor little misinformed missy. She asks where are the men are, I will tell her! They are working longer hours outside the home. They are protecting women from of the high risk jobs to free them for more lofty goals such as writing. They are politicians that create female specific legislation that addresses violence against women while men silently suffer violence at a rated twice that of any woman. They are trying to find support from a world where there are no clinics for men; no toll-free numbers for them to call; no marches for their pain; no syndromes to explain their explosions of frustration. Men are taught to stoically suffer any indignity in the hope that someone, anyone will see past the facade of power and see the pain they are enduring. Feminism makes the claim to be about equal rights for everyone. If this is the case where are the feminists that are speaking up for boy’s performance in academics? Where are the feminists complaining about the wholesale murder of men? Where are the feminists who demand health care legislation for men? Where are the feminists who complain about the lack of support for single fathers? Where are those feminists that speak up for men and boys?
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
