|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent Raymond!
I noticed that somehow the whinning seems more believeable when referring to wymen.
I can't wait for the others to be posted.
Maybe you could offer them to MSN to balance out there good natured ribbing of men? I am sure they would not like being thought of as being misandric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They don't give a shit if anyone thinks they're "misandric" because no one knows what that means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 09, @11:45AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Then use it in sentences. When people ask, explain. That way, the definition of misandry will get out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ha! It kind of shows up on that 'personal ads' quite well. They show a geeky guy and complain about his looks, and then justify why men shouldnt be into women's looks.
Anyways. I know they put some work into that web site, but, is doing the same thing for smothering a woman and promoting violence a good idea?
I was thinking we would be doing more of the "this is how it looks when we do it in reverse" brand of activism. Sideline it with an anti-violence ad.
I think the tit for tat stuff will only further us into 'entrenched positions' in this 'gender war' and alienate us from women as well as turn us more and more against women.
Perhaps the upside is there will be a large back lash on it and a demand to remove it from the site, in which case you can point to the msn site.
Otherwise we are becomming more and more like the things we are claiming to hate.
I like you , so don't take it the wrong way, kay.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 10, @02:29AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you, Dan.
I don't like the idea of "reverse violence" towards women, either.
Besides, we all need to remember that it is exceptabale in society, when Women are violent towards men. It is always seen as "cute and funny", no matter how horrific, mean-spirited or sadistic it may be.
But if it is a MAN being violent towards women it is ALWAYS seen as EVIL, no excuses.
So, since we have that stigma working against us, a "reverse violence" card may not be a very good idea. I understand the anger and frustration, behind it, but it's just TOO likely to "back-fire".
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm unaware of any war without casualties--even the cold war had its casualties. Evidently, arguing that male bashing is unacceptable isn't enough; some people need the examples of the tit-for-tat female bashing cards to begin to get the idea: this shows that men are getting tired of the acceptability of male bashing, and they are willing to do whatever they have to do to put an end to it. You have to show the opposition that you are serious.
That's why I'm advocating that men's activists bargain with feminists over Roe vs. Wade, if Republicans manage to threaten it. Judging by the law, women want control over every aspect of reproduction (and its consequences) and don't want men to have any; they don't want men to have any say in matters of paternity fraud, child support awards, and on and on. So, men's activists have to be willing to vote against something they might believe in (a woman's right to her body) for political reasons, if feminists are unwilling to compromise on issues of concern to men.
It's not merely fighting fire with fire; it's men actually using the power that women say we have (and deny that they have), Feminists are counting on our chivalry; I say success depends multiplicatively on the factors involved, and our chivalry works against us. We have to be prepared to do what it takes, for political reasons. Thanks to Kate Millet, we don't ever have to discuss how women regard us personally, since "the personal is political", so we can focus on the political, and forget about the personal; in particular, the MSNHatesMen site is political, it's not "personal". No more Mr. Nice Guy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 10, @03:34AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Mars.
I see your point.
While I often come on this site and make fun of feminists and get angry at "Women", I don't want to see them hurt. either literally or symbolicaly.
So, yes, for me the "reverse-violence" thing is a bit hard for me to take.
However, as you illustrate, We are INDEED in a WAR, literaly. and sadly, in war there MUST be casualties. That is the very NATURE of war.
War doesn't automaticaly mean you HATE your enemy. But it does mean you have to OPPOSE them. and unfortunatly that may mean useing extreame measures.
Am I reading you right?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 11, @05:22PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
"We must become the change we want to see."
Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
War doesn't automaticaly mean you HATE your enemy. But it does mean you have to OPPOSE them. and unfortunatly that may mean useing extreame measures. Am I reading you right?
It means being prepared to use the power you have. It means convincing the enemy that you will use the power you have. It means that I won't be a nice guy and not use the power I have, say to support the reversal of Roe vs. Wade, even though I support a woman's right to her own body in principle, if women won't compromise on some men's issues. If they are willing to compromise, I will support them; if they are not willing to compromise, I will support the appointment of conservative justices who will move against Roe vs. Wade and I will support other conservatives as well to increase the likelyhood that abortion will be outlawed: even though I believe that women should have reproductive rights, I am against women having exclusive control over every aspect of reproduction and its consequences; therefore, if they are unwilling to compromise on matters of concern to mens activists, then as it is unfair for one gender to have all of the control, I would oppose Roe vs. Wade. This is the kind of thing I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMEN.
I have long said, if you want "M" shoot for "Z" and be prepared to "negotiate backwards" to your real goal.
And as the story goes, when asked after the smoke clears if you really would have gone there, you shrug, smile sardonically, look them dead in the eye, and say, "You didn't pay to see those cards."
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 11, @02:49AM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it's harm them so much as ever so gently holding a mirror up to them so that they can see that their fly is undone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 12, @10:59AM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Why is your message helpful?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 12, @11:39AM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's not."
I see. Only people who agree with Mars are allowed to have an opinion here.
Bye then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I get it.
You've sold me on this. Thanks.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is my statement helpful? Among numerous reasons, I am specific, and I give arguments to support my positions. Your statement, on the contrary, is vague; one hesitates to second-guess the application of Ghandi's comment to anything I've said--after all, life is too short for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I see. Only people who agree with Mars are allowed to have an opinion here. Bye then."
My wife uses logic like this, if I disagree with her marginally then she takes my position to the most distant extreme and forces me to argue my way back to where I intended to be in the first place. But it's more difficult for her to walk away from me once she's done this.
AU, you can walk away from this if you want' it's really no loss to me, especially since you choose not to identify yourself.
But I don't think your Gandhi contribution was particularly useful because it was "offered" in a manner that seems condescending to me. Like a hand grenade dropped on the table with the pin next to it, we're supposed to figure out what your intent was before the thing explodes.
Gandhi was the pre-eminent figure in evicting the British from India, but he was by no means the only one, and in fact, there was MUCH blood spilled before the Brits finally moved (The Brits saw to that!)
So, you came in here, dropped a glib little line, got it dismissed because it simply wasn't supported, and now you want to go off and sulk in a place that's not quite out of everyone's sight.
Go ahead.
But if you decide to come back, bring an explanation with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 12, @07:04PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"But I don't think your Gandhi contribution was particularly useful because it was "offered" in a manner that seems condescending to me. Like a hand grenade dropped on the table with the pin next to it, we're supposed to figure out what your intent was before the thing explodes. "
You should read the quote for what it was. I don't think Ghandi was being condescending at all, and it wasn't presented "in a condescending way." It was presented. That's all. And it's a great argument. It needs no further support.
Also I am not the anonymous who posted it. So fuck off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...It was presented. That's all. And it's a great argument. It needs no further support.
Also I am not the anonymous who posted it. So fuck off.
No anonymous, as presented, it is a disembodied statement, not an argument. One cannot draw much from it, except that both anonymous posters are put-down artists. For an example of a substantive argument, I offer the following suggested use of game theory to analyze the political strategy I have advocated elsewhere in this thread. This is only the first indication of what can be done with these methods.
We can think of this strategy as a 2x2 game, as in the matrix below. Several analyses are possible; I prefer the Theory of Moves, as explained in the monograph of Brams of that title; the players begin their game in some historical context and they are allowed to look ahead any number of moves. There are two players: Feminists, and Men's Activists. The Feminists are assumed to want abortion to remain legal as a primary goal; their secondary goal is to appear fair, since this will gain them political points if they appear willing to compromise and abortion is criminalized, than if they appear uncompromising and abortion is criminalized; if their compromise doesn't gain them anything, they can be tougher in the future. The various issues of concern to the Men's Activists are such things as child support reform, family court reform, the establishment of a department of men's health and the criminalization of paternity fraud. The Men's Activists want compromise on at least one issue of concern to them as a primary goal; as a secondary goal, they do not want women to have exclusive control over every aspect of reproduction and its consequences (i.e., whoever has control of children has an advantage in divorce). If Feminists are unwilling to support at least one issue of concern to men's activists, then Men's Activists will support the appointment of an ultra-conservative legal activist judiciary who will move to criminalize abortion; this way, no one will have exclusive control over every aspect of reproduction and its consequences, even if no outcome favorable to men's activists occurs. The relative value of each position in the matrix below is given by a pair (f,m), where f is the value of the position to the Feminists, and m is the value of the position to the Men's Activists.
...................|.Feminists don't..|.Feminists
...................|.compromise......|.compromise
============================================
Abortion......|.....(1,2)............|...(2,3)
criminalized..|.........................|
============================================
Abortion still.|.....(3,1)*...........|...(4,4)
legal..............|.........................|
The starting position of the game is the one closest to the current historical situation, given by the lower left hand corner of the matrix
(indicated by an asterisk). Here, Feminists have the advantage, since their primary goal is met; Men's Activists are starting from their worst position, since Feminists have defeated virtually every of their attempts to obtain legal reform. The analysis depends on how much power Men's Activists have to influence the criminalization of abortion one way or the other, depending on cooperation from the Feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 12, @09:35PM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
"One cannot draw much from it, except that both anonymous posters are put-down artists."
Yes. I am a put-down artist. I am pretty fucking good at it when I want to be. How you decided that someone who quoted Ghandi is a put-down artist is beyond me except for the fact that you (and possibly frank_h) are both paranoid as hell when someone disagrees with you.
The quote itself is a valid argument against violence. Just because you may be too ignorant or stewed in your own juices to see its relevance does not mean it is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. I am a put-down artist. I am pretty fucking good at it when I want to be.
The chief contribution of the put-down artist to the world is the put-down; that's their thing. Beyond that, there is no contribution. I'd say you're at most mildly entertaining as a put-down artist.
The quote itself is a valid argument against violence.
Fine; in that case, it belongs in a thread on violence.
Just because you may be too ignorant or stewed in your own juices to see its relevance does not mean it is irrelevant.
Say that again, this time with feeling, but without the ad hominem slurs, if that can be managed (in contrast, my use of the phrase "put-down artist" was accurate--I refer to the quoted text in italics if there is any question about this). No one is censoring your dissenting opinion, whatever it is; it's up to you to express its relevance to this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weeeeeell, Goooooolllllly, Sargent Carter...!
One thing begs the question for me here, me bucko - if you weren't the "Anonymous Coward" that posted it, then why ya gettin' so hot about it fer? I imagine that might be why it was concluded that you and them are one and the same. (And the jury is still out on that so far as I am concerned, but that's another story.) That's the whole trouble with "Anonymous" postings - can't even use a program to keep you schmucks straight.
Of course, that's the way some Anonymice like it, that way their words can't be tracked and quoted, and they can write in dozen's of times with a "me too" trying to invoke the fallacy of numbers.
Also, you might want to leaven your slanders about people with a few facts, and do your homework, hm? Mars and Frank are pussycats.
Now you want someone who believes Mahatma Ghandi was a hypocritical asswipe who wasn't a fraction as peaceful as he wanted everyone to believe, come here to me. This marching with joined hands singing "Glory, Glory" and "We Shall Overcome" and "Kum-bah-yah" crap is for the birds as far as I can see. I'm your standard issue underground radical who believes the system is hopelessly corrupt, and that outright conflict, while not being a necessary evil is sure as hell an inevitable one.
And as far as "Put down artist" goes, frankly, you're a piker, Schmedley. I've gotten more offline hate mail from radphem trolls who were absolutely frothing at the mouth because I've got them in tears and stamping their lil' feet and with their panties in a wad than you can dream of. I'm a nasty, vicious old coot, and I like few things better than watching one of these big, strong, macho pheminazis go from singing Helen Reddy to shrill and strident tears, calling me six different shades of mean bastard.
At best, shitheel, you're a phem-boy troll, and worst you're one of these fifth column pheminut cross-posters trying to stir up trouble and using shaming language. Wake up, Bubby. I've reviewed the thread. You haven't been told to shut up or been censored, you've been called on your bullshit. So pony up, me hearty, or go back to the kiddie table, or get used to the abuse.
Oh, and get your "ad hominem" straight. You're not wrong because you're an asshole, you're wrong AND you're an asshole. The former is ad hominem. The latter is just a put-down.
Cheers! ;-)
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, TGK, right between the eyes. Actually, I'm not interested in putting anyone down, but I Do want a better explanation of the contribution. Just like with ML King, the peaceful protests of the Black community gave numbers and validity to the movement, but the movement would never have gotten the exposure it needed if it weren't for some of the more extreme 'demonstrations.'
"Anonymice"
I like it. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 13, @03:29PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
Wah-wah. Cry a little more, whiney baby. After the Anonymous luser has left? How do U know? Or are you the anonymous luser yourself?
Um, I don't think you need to leave your email here? So how could anyone harass offline or online? Oh, they can't, you're just making things up to sling mud.
An Angry Guy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The quote itself is a valid argument against violence.
I reflected on this statement and concluded that its tacit condemnation of the use of force in any form whatsoever was self-serving and hypocritical. I say this because anyone who is familiar with law enforcement is aware of the truism that the laws are enforced through the threat or use of force. In the case of men's activists who seek to reform institutionalized discrimination against men, the determined efforts of feminists to prevent reform and to maintain the status quo means that feminists are actively using the law, and hence the power of the state to enforce the law, against men.
In the current situation, one gender dictates its terms to the other, on threat of criminalizing the other for non-compliance. For example, men's activists want relief from paternity fraud; feminists want to criminalize the putative father; they seek the strong arm of the law to enforce child support from men who aren't fathers of the children they are compelled by the state to support. On the other hand, women who commit the identical crimes as men do not receive identical punishment; feminist apologists seek relief from the enforcement of the law against female perpetrators of crimes; take the recent case of a woman schoolteacher fired for statutory rape of an underage boy. So much for becoming the change we want to see. In the case of women paedophiles, the change we want to see is more women paedophiles going free. In each case, against men and for women, the power of the state to enforce the law through the threat or use of force is recognized and condoned by feminists.
Feminists have decided that the threat of criminalization is the one thing that men understand--the laws are written that way. I conclude that the Ghandi quote is self-serving and radically hypocritical; moreover, the stark fact that feminists seek the power of the state to enforce anti-male legislation gives lie to one of the most hallowed shibboleths of feminism: that women are always victims of the use of force, and that they do not have the power to use force against men. They helped write the laws. They use the power of the state to enforce the laws. The invocation of Ghandi is utterly spurious in this context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 14, @08:55AM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
"I reflected on this statement and concluded that its tacit condemnation of the use of force in any form whatsoever was self-serving and hypocritical. I say this because anyone who is familiar with law enforcement is aware of the truism that the laws are enforced through the threat or use of force. In the case of men's activists who seek to reform institutionalized discrimination against men, the determined efforts of feminists to prevent reform and to maintain the status quo means that feminists are actively using the law, and hence the power of the state to enforce the law, against men. "
Now THIS is an argument. I still disagree that the original poster intended the Ghandi quote to be a put-down--and I am all for violent resistance when it is necessary--but thank you for actually arguing your case (and arguing it well) instead of stooping to the juvenile tactics of some others here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now THIS is an argument.
In contrast to what? The out-of-context Ghandi quote?
I still disagree that the original poster intended the Ghandi quote to be a put-down...
Perhaps I misjudged it; quotations of pacificsts unsupported by further elaboration aren't usually intended at to promote discussion, but to end it. If the intention of the anonymous user are hard to judge, then are you saying you know what the intention was, or are you simply saying that one cannot determine the intention, or even formulate a plausible hypothesis?
but thank you for actually arguing your case (and arguing it well) instead of stooping to the juvenile tactics of some others here.
Why would an Olympian figure such as myself ever stoop to anything? It sounds as if you are thanking me for making the effort (perhaps for a change) not to behave like a typical men's activist. Also, I'd like to know more precisely what you agree with, or else what you consider an substantive argument. I find this more helpful. Perhaps I'm being ungrateful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now THIS is an argument. I still disagree that the original poster intended the Ghandi quote to be a put-down--and I am all for violent resistance when it is necessary--but thank you for actually arguing your case (and arguing it well) instead of stooping to the juvenile tactics of some others here.
Awwww - izzums lil feelings hurt?
Get with the program, bucky. Pompous and pontifical quotes all by their lonesomes are intended to be squelchers. Take on a name - and it becomes an argument from ethos, not from logos. Ethical = Appeal to authority. One of the logical fallacies. Just as foolish as a pathetic (Appeal to pathos, or emotion) argument.
Think for a damn minute Ghandi wasn't aware that he was making a potential martyr of himself that would inspire bloodshed? Fuck, man, he COUNTED on it.
You get flack from me for hiding behind the AU posting. Again I ask you - if you weren't the AU that posted this pompus turd of a proclamation from Ghandi, then why the hell did you get your panties all in a wad?
You offended by plain speaking? Or are you one of the Dale Carnegie PC types who uses weaselspeak at every given turn, and gets all uptight when people say what they mean and mean what they say? I've got me a handful of degrees. I can be a egghead if that really fuckin' impresses you. It doesn't impress me, but I've worked with a whole bunch of dickweeds in academia who, after all the flowery language is parted, are still punks, albeit punks with a titularly impressive vocabulary. Usually, though, they use their "impressive vocabulary" to compensate for some other deficiency.
(:-D That's innuendo, son. it's regarded as clever by the painfully intellectual types)
That's feminine communication, me bucko, the weighing of every word, and becoming all wrought with angst over every inflection. Eschew it. Reclaim your masculinity. The proper response to "What did you mean by that?" is to throw a dictionary and a remedial vocabulary primer on the table, and tell them "Figure it out, and if you have any problem with the poly-syllabic words, let me know."
Half the battle is to stop playing womyn's games with womyn's rules. And damn right I take the "man" out of it. Such females aren't worthy to use the appellation.
Know when I started winning arguments with women? When I began to refuse to argue like one, and accept their conditions for "win or lose" or to be impressed by their crocodile tears when I got the better of them. And it's high time that the pussy-footing around a bunch of self-important, high and mighty bitches stopped.
Want to take away a bunch of their power? One way is real easy. Stop giving it to them. If that's unchivalrous, then meet an unchivalrous man. I stopped doing it for women that don't even have the courtesy to give me a "Thank'ee, Kind Sir."
Go thou and do likewise. You'd be amazed what dividends it pays.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 14, @10:07PM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
--snipped out the gonzo kid's sick blather--
What a fucking child.
Mars knows how to make a point. You obviously are nothing but a put-down artist with no contribution to make but put-downs.
You have won nothing. You may think you have, but men are still suffering. You have only make things worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My apologies for indifferent grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have won nothing. You may think you have, but men are still suffering. You have only make things worse.
Which proves nothing but your pitiful ignorance, you snot nosed brat. You want an intellegent argument, it's on you to say something intellegent to begin with; instead of coming in taking potshots and hiding behind the "Anonymous" monniker.
I help men up close and personal, with my finance, freedom, and sometimes physical well being on the line. What do you do besides troll the internet and cower behind your anonymity, you chickenshit rat bastard?
Don't bother; I didn't think so.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 15, @08:50PM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
"My apologies for indifferent grammar."
Positively no need to apologize for indifferent grammar. I took your points.
Also I would like to continue this discussion with you, but may we do so in e-mail? I like the points you made, and I would like to further discuss them with you without distractions by the incoherent blathering of the intellectual child who has decided to vent his anger on anyone who posits a differing view.
I am also encouraged by your lack of need to list your qualifications for intellectual discourse, or to toss out terms for logical fallacies to give others the impression you know what you are talking about. You stuck to the argument and that impresses the hell out of me.
Let me know if it is fine to e-mail you (I have your address as it is presented in your posts) and I will do so next week. I will be away from internet access until approximately mid-week.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also I would like to continue this discussion with you, but may we do so in e-mail? I like the points you made, and I would like to further discuss them with you...
Sure. I make my email address available for that purpose.
I am also encouraged by your lack of need to list your qualifications for intellectual discourse...
I did jokingly refer to myself as an Olympian figure...
You stuck to the argument...
It's important to stick to the argument--everything else is so much static. Maintaining a high signal-to-noise ratio in this subject (or any subject) takes intellectual discipline--probably more than I am capable of, but I believe it will pay off in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the "Reign of Terror" in the French Revolution of the late 18th century, the national pass time seemed to be going to the public square and watching aristocrats getting their heads cut off by the infamous guillotine just because they were members of the aristocratic class.
The aristocrats for some reason seldom ever showed outward fear or violently protested their fate while on the scaffold preparing to die a gristly death. There was some kind of unwritten but understood code of conduct among them that there was a certain protocol and mode of conduct aristocrats displayed in front of commoners. Even the queen, Marie Antoinette is said to have profusely apologized to the executioner when she accidently stepped on his foot while she was ascending the steps to her fate.
What brought the bloody slaughter to an end was when the chivalrous aristocratic code of conduct broke down and the condemned started screaming hysterically in protest and had to be physically dragged up to the scaffold by the executioners.
When the masses saw and realized what was happening was not a game and it was really hurting and torturing real feeling people the masses identified with the condemn's terror and pain and the spectacle lost its luster as ghoulish mass entertainment.
So it is in my opinion that we as men must let the masses know that what is happening to us is not a petty matter and we as a group regardless of race, social status or income are being brutalized by the iron heel of the animal like state! We must force this epiphany upon the masses social consciousness. We can't depend on the hope that someday they will just "get it" and amend the situation.
I believe we should protest and protest loud and long enough for all to identify with our pain and unfortunate circumstance.
The 'meek' do not always inherit the earth. Possibly only a 6 foot by 3 foot plot of it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In a fair world, on a level playing field, I would agree with you. I don't want to suggest that smothering women is a fun idea, but then neither is smothering men. (The other 2 ecards will be ready when I have time to get to grips with Flash animation).
So how do you protest the ecards on MSN? Emails etc. to MSN draw only polite, but dismissive responses. MSNHatesMen was first suggested in July. Of the 4 MSN ecards it was going to challenge 3 are still there. The 4th is still around but doesn't seem to be listed now. This is about 6 months ago. Little or nothing happens when men complain about these ecards or manhating ads on TV or a continuous stream of misandric films, dramas and documentaries. Now there are men doing a lot of good work trying to counteract the feminist propaganda in a calm and fair way, but they are often not being listened to.
If you believe, as I do, that men's rights are a civil rights issue then you only have two real paths you can go down. You could call them the Martin Luther King path and the Malcolm X path. I prefer the Martin Luther King path as the only option when the "system" won't listen to you. I'd like to see sit-ins at family courts or people chaining themselves to railings or interrupting live TV shows. There has recently been 300,000 people in Italy protesting the possible war with Iraq. This year alone, there has been 100,000 people in London protesting in favour of fox-hunting, about 1000 cyclists protesting the lack of cycle paths in London and previously there has been a lesbian absailing into parliament and a lesbian almost interrupting a news programme. The two lesbians apparently protesting the heinous treatment of lesbians in our society. (pause for the laughter to die down). Where are our lesbians, I ask? The average men's/father's protest seems to have less than a dozen people. These ecards is a chance for eactivism if you like. No feminist can complain about them without either acknowledging the ecards at MSN are also sexist or being exposed as a hypocrite. I'm not worried about a backlash. Feminists don't need a reason to be nasty to men. The more exposure the website gets, the better I like it. As I state on the website, when MSN removes their ecards, I remove the equivalent ecard.
So we just might get the sexism at MSN a bit of exposure or maybe, just maybe, get rid of the ecards at MSN.
Raymond Cuttill
http://www.cyberManbooks.com, http://www.menshour.com, http://www.mensmovement.org, http://www.msnhatesmen.com
Men's Books, Men's Radio, Men's Resources and Men's Studies, Men's Ecards
Member of UKMM and member of ManKind and hopeful author of a proposed book on men and feminism.
Bracknell Home for stray cats, old computers and political incorrectness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we should not bash women. We can bash misandrists.
__________________________________________________ _
PUNISHMENT AND CRIME
http://www.geocities.com/masculistdetectives/dart1 /
PUNISHMENT AND CRIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I like you , so don't take it the wrong way, kay
"You talking to me?" (in best Robert De Niro accent. :-))
Unless I'm mistaken and you mean someone else here, then my name's Ray not kay. I'm not having the operation in the near future either, so I'll still be Ray. To be more serious, I agree that promoting violence is a bad idea. That is precisely what MSN is doing. I am trying to mirror their "violence" if you like. Last month on Men's Hour I described the WHO report on world violence as violent towards men. By their definitions it is, since it denies men access to information and services, and denying women that is included in their definition of domestic violence. I don't see any other way of getting at MSN. If MSNHatesMen gets exposure that's fine. If MSN reacts and gets threatening I'll try to resist. MSNHatesMen falls under free speech as parody/political comment. The ecards are created along the same lines but are not actual copies. My feeling about the whole thing, the men's movement in general, is that we need in effect to have a row with women as they are not open to sensible argument. When we can talk to women as equals and not be treated as idiots, then MSN will not think it's OK to have misandirc ecards and then MSNHatesMen will disappear.
P.S. Like the talk at Toronto Mensa. I'd like to do something on Men's Hour about it. Do you have a tape or can I do a telephone interview? Let me know.
menshour@menshour.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"P.S. Like the talk at Toronto Mensa. I'd like to do something on Men's Hour about it. Do you have a tape or can I do a telephone interview? Let me know. "
I am definately open to a radio interview. I don't think there is a tape recording of the speech. Please email on it.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the tit for tat stuff will only further us into 'entrenched positions' in this 'gender war' and alienate us from women as well as turn us more and more against women.
Actually, NCFM, LA has already had an experience with this tit-for-tat issue at the legislative level. When Senator I-hate-men Kuehl made a long statement of misinformation all men's activist were forbidden from responding to her hate ridden rhetoric.
Senator Escutia said I will not have tit-for-tat here and forbade men’s activist from responding.
Putting these cards out there will most likely only hurt the men's movement by causing this kind of knee-jerk reaction at key times. It will just come across as woman bashing and be seen as tit-for-tat. Then when we really need to make a response at the legislative level we will be prejudged and prohibited to speak.
These cards are a bad idea. It is much more important to preserve a respectable image. But on the other had, if these groups want to look stupid then maybe it’ll make NCFM look more responsible.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These cards are a bad idea. It is much more important to preserve a respectable image. But on the other had, if these groups want to look stupid then maybe it’ll make NCFM look more responsible.
Warble
What constitutes "respectable". In my view, the use of the phrase "tit-for-tat" by Senator Escutia was gratuitous; moreover, it's not at all obvious that these cards--or their absence--will change the opinion of closed minded individuals who are determined not to hear men's activists side of the story.
Rebutting nonsense with sense is not tit-for-tat; stooping to the level of the cards might be; on the other hand, if the men's movement founders on account of a few e-cards on MSNHatesMen, it's in its death throes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 13, @03:30PM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, yes, Senator She-lie Krule.
Miss 'Fariness' Herself.
So fair that she won't "allow" a decenting oppinion from her 'opponant(s)' in our allegedly "free" country.
Okay, I take back every, single, thing I said in opposition to the E-cards.
I am now 100% behind the idea! We need every bit of "ammunition" we can get in this battle.
Thundercloud.
PS.
I'm posting anonymously, again because my 'account' is malfunctioning at the moment. sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I think the tit for tat stuff will only further
> us into 'entrenched positions' in this 'gender
> war' and alienate us from women as well as turn
> us more and more against women.
If we were making jokes about misandrists as people, I would agree 100% (AS LONG AS ALL JOKES ARE LEGAL). But attacking a third party is very odd.
PUNISHMENT AND CRIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your remarks. I am hoping to finish the second ecard possibly this weekend, otherwise next weekend. The third ecard will need some graphics which I'll have to create.
I'd be surprised if MSN would want them. Actually I'd prefer MSN withdrew their cards and I'd withdraw MSNHatesMen, but I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon.
As for some of the remarks by others, what I thought I'd do is put together an item on the Men's Hour, due this weekend, which hopefully will fully respond to them. So watch this space!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given how many women are in men's movement and how many women help individual men, I disagree with the stuff 100%! I love my wife very much.
Besides, a successeful abuser is an abuser who turns his/her victim's anger onto a third party. Why should we let misandrists succeed in destroying us morally? Why should we excuse misandrists by insulting other women?
A much better idea would be legal cards/jokes about powerful manhaters. Including Michael Moore.
PUNISHMENT AND CRIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Why should we excuse misandrists by insulting other women?
A much better idea would be legal cards/jokes about powerful manhaters. Including Michael Moore. "
YOu know this is a good idea, and was the initial idea of what Ray had as he named the cite itself 'MSNhatesMen.com" . Ray made a direct attack at the guilty party.
I think that with a bit of ingenious and some work some great ideas can come up for showing who the man-haters are and force them into exile while exposing them as 'bigots'.
If there are any artists in the house, feel free to contact me, I can write the cartoons if you can draw them. I have some great ideas that can be easily scanned into email's that can be sent far and wide. Its a good and easy way to reach the public.
The ManPage
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. My wife has been totally supportive of men's issues, and has done plenty to support the cause. I don't like to see her get bashed, simply because of her sex. Indiscriminate carpet-bombing doesn't really help things.
On the other hand, I do think it's important to talk to people about these MSN cards, and let them know they exist. You can discuss with them what it would be like, if the roles were reversed. It's a good way to get a conversation started.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mars, Gonzo and I were discussing this earlier in the thread.
I think if we ARE going to do "female-bashing" cards, it should be made very CLEAR as to WHY we do them. We should make sure it is known that we don't HATE women, we are just tired of the women who hate men. and that our cards are simply a response to the garbage that these man-hateing females put out.
Ours is an "empty threat", so to speak. Their's is NOT.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or else, the cards could bash misandrists instead. Instead of bashing women seemingly indiscriminately, given that the context in which the cards were created will be wilfully not absorbed (as we have seen), the cards could bash misandrists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 12, @02:38PM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
I must concur. Quite often until such people have such sentiments applied to them they find it difficult to empathize. to quote the proverb, "They can dish it out, but they can't take it."
I have heard and read here many sentiments such as "Let us not become them." While laudable, it's unrealistic, in my view. Feminists wish to play smashmouth politics with men's groups, and play the chivalry card when one responds in kind. This causes many to measure words carefully, so as not to appear to live up to the feminist rubric. I have news, gentlemen. You fall under it whether playing nice or not. You are anti-female, child-hating, unfeeling, cold-blooded, just wanting to control women and get out of paying child support cads. By Definition. You are men, in men's activist groups. Ergo, the shoe must fit, because all Men's Groups are composed of such men.
Yes, it is circular logic. Yes it is illogical on it's face. You're not dealing with pure logic, you are dealing with rhetoric and sophistry in its classical forms and application. I don't like it, you don't like it, it is contrary to the way men think. So what? It is reality. Deal with it. Or ignore it at your peril.
The chief thing I see being accomplished is many men turning away in disgust ovger what they perceive as namby-pamby, pantywaist tactics. Honestly, all some feminist activist has to do is say "Misogynist" and most Men's Activists collapse and cringe.
Just an observation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm even guilty of this form of weakness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I have heard and read here many sentiments such
> as "Let us not become them."
That joke does not affect me. Feminists are my row models. My fiction is based on "Thelma and Louise."
> The chief thing I see being accomplished is
> many men turning away in disgust ovger what
> they perceive as namby-pamby, pantywaist
> tactics. Honestly, all some feminist activist
> has to do is say "Misogynist" and most Men's
> Activists collapse and cringe.
Indeed if we are not ready to respond to bashing in kind, we will be percieved as whiners! And men will turn away from us. I just suggest bashing misandrists themselves.
PUNISHMENT AND CRIME
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
