|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dang Thomas! Things seem to be going along just fine and then wham! You tell us that a rad fem is in line to take over the democratic party leadership. Maybe that's a good thing. They would surely go down the tubes if that happened and perhaps it would quicken the death of gender feminism.
Pelosi Belosi
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it is a good thing. CEDAW and comparable worth legislation continue to hold appeal because many women like the sound of it but don't really know what they mean. With Pelosi in this spot, two things happen: 1) She becomes a lightning rod for all of the anti-feminist sentiment out there (including ours); 2) those issues may be sufficiently illuminated such that those ignorant supporters learn and then reject them.
Were we to be at all successfully political, we should be attacking her and her immediate coven of witches and demonizing the hell out of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 08, @06:53PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"1) She becomes a lightning rod for all of the anti-feminist sentiment out there (including ours); "
The first one's a really good idea. I didn't even think of that! People who want equality have to take advantage of that, otherwise, possibly we're doomed.
"2) those issues may be sufficiently illuminated such that those ignorant supporters learn and then reject them. "
How do we do this if tv broadcating networks know they're major viewers are women? Not that women are our enemies or anything foolish like that. But, they do want to please their costumers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 09, @04:09AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
...Doesn't Pelosi (and others like her) realize that the WHOLE reason Democrats are loseing 'seats' and elections in general is largely BECAUSE of the very "veiws" and agendas She (they) push and support?
One would have to have a WASHCLOTH for a brain not to see it!
It is the anti-male views, like Pelosi's and her ilk that are also causeing more Men to abandon the Democratic party. (I'm a Democrat and I also am considering changeing parties, for this reason alone.) Why the Democratic party puts up with people like Pelosi, I'll NEVER understand.
Like the Republicans, the Democrats are comprised of mostly good people. But all it takes is one clown like Pelosi to ruin things compleately.
Odds are, If Nancy Pelosi does indeed become the house minority leader, I will bid the Democratic party 'fare-well'.
My bet is, I will be anything BUT alone in that.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists are very concerned that the recent Republican victory in the mid-term election will mean that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. Men's activists could use that to their advantage: feminists should not receive any support for reproductive rights if they are unwilling to budge on reproductive rights for men, paternity fraud, equitible child support awards, to name some issues of concern to men. It is unfair for women to want to have all the reproductive choices; I say, if they are unwilling to compromise, then we need not either. Although I support a woman's right to choose, for political reasons I would most certainly vote against it if women were opposed to mens issues. Why should women enjoy reproductive rights that they are unwilling to grant to men?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why should women enjoy reproductive rights that they are unwilling to grant to men?
I think it may be accidental on your part Mars, but this statement pretty well represents this country’s consensus on reproductive rights. Namely, that reproductive rights are something that belong to women and could be granted to men only with women’s permission.
Current abortion laws mean that, by definition, birth takes place only as a unilateral decision by a woman. Since a fetus has been declared to not be a life, conception is not the creation of life. Our current paternity laws represent men being held responsible for decisions we have no part in.
Can anyone think of an example of the law holding a woman legally responsible for decisions only a man can make?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our current paternity laws represent men being held responsible for decisions we have no part in.
Why does this make me think of taxation without representation and the American Revolution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why should women enjoy reproductive rights that they are unwilling to grant to men?
I think it may be accidental on your part Mars, but this statement pretty well represents this country’s consensus on reproductive rights. Namely, that reproductive rights are something that belong to women and could be granted to men only with women’s permission.
It's not accidental: I've been attempting to formulate in a phrase some of the legal power that women have (that they deny they have), namely, the power to control every aspect of reproduction, and its consequences. I don't have to be in favor of choice for men to agree with this: one only has to consider punitive child support assessments or the case of paternity fraud, where women have the right not only to name a putative father, but also to control knowledge of who the real father is, by denying the putative father permission to obtain DNA testing.
I think this is unfair; I'm undecided about choice for men (these days probably completely politically untenable), and I support a woman's right to chose in-principle, however, I will say (I wish more politically experienced activists would chime in if I'm off the political wall), that if feminists insist on blocking legislation that is fair to men, if they, for example, consistently oppose the creation of an office of men's health, if they consistently oppose child support reform, if they consistently oppose legislation to punish paternity fraud, if they think it's fine to outlaw female genital mutilation but not routine male genital mutilation (if any legislation is introduced to oppose routine MGM) then I would support the appointment of ultra-conservative justices to the supreme court who would seek to reverse Roe v. Wade. We have a Republican congress and a Republican senate. I'm not sanguine about this, but I will support their efforts to criminialize abortion if women will not relinquish their stranglehold on reproduction and its consequences, and compromise on at least some of the issues of concern to men's activists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mars, I appreciate your position but I really doubt that it would work. Any reversal of feminist promoted court rulings would become a victory for the religious right, not a group that promotes men’s rights. Unless things change quickly and drastically on the political front the “left” and the “right” will continue to be the dominant forces and any attempts to punish feminists will turn into something other than what you (I think) and I want. I suspect that for the nation to support an overturn of R v W would come only with a high level of buy-in to the religious right’s whole package. And for the most part, the religious right could care less about men’s issues.
I personally think that if our laws regarding paternity fraud were well known the general public would not support them. These laws are obscene and a no-brainer to anyone with an IQ above single figures. Politicians support these laws because there’s little public complaint about them and because there’s so much to gain from pandering to the man-haters that support them. It's simply a matter of benefit exceeding cost. We must make it more costly for politicians to support anti-male laws. As you well know, any attempt to raise awareness for men's issues is met with an avalanche of feminists discrediting it. They want us silent. It’s very important to feminists that these issues get squashed before they’re well publicized.
I think a more effective approach would be to take an issue such as paternity fraud and just work it to death, and expose what the rad-fems want hidden. And I think this will happen as men get more organized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think a more effective approach would be to take an issue such as paternity fraud and just work it to death, and expose what the rad-fems want hidden. And I think this will happen as men get more organized.
Perhaps; in either case it's wait and see. Presently, feminists have no disincentive to avoid compromise on any issue of concern to the men's movement. I suggest that if this pattern of quashing every attempt to legislate something approximating true gender equality continues (meaning, addressing institutionalized discrimination against men), then various political strategies may be considered, and adopted, or not; in any case, I would prefer that no one had a right to their own body, and that no one gender had exclusive control over every aspect of reproduction and its consequences, than the current situation, in which one gender dictates its terms to the other, on threat of criminalizing the other for non-compliance.
Feminists have decided that the threat of criminalization is the one thing that men understand--the laws are written that way. Therefore, I would not rule out the threat of criminializing abortion, even if a right wing minory claims it as a victory for itself, if Feminists will not compromise on at least one issue of concern to the men's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pelosi has to run for re-election again in two years. She can't be the minority leader if she's not in office, so we ought to be working now on getting the Republicans and independents to put up solid candidates to oppose her, EVEN WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. With the growth that NCFM-LA is seeing, this truly does seem do-able, but it depends heavily on getting the anti-feminist vote on her home district.
Can we get Wendy to move there and oppose her? (Just kidding Wendy!!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it depends heavily on getting the anti-feminist vote on her home district.
She's from San Francisco. I'm not sure there's much of an anti-feminist vote there. Perhaps if gay, bi-, and straight men started working together more on our mutual interests, we might be able to muster some strength in that city. For now, though, I'm not too sanguine about getting out the anti-feminist vote in San Francisco.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but if gay men feel that they are being attacked by hets AND lesbians, then they'll no doubt rise up and fight BOTH.
Hey, I'll gladly not bitch about public displays of affection (well, I've never bitched about it before anyway, so no bid deal for me) by gay men if they can get the agenda moving.
Mitchell A. Smith (I'm not really against anyone being treated fairly...ever)
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps if gay, bi-, and straight men started working together more on our mutual interests, we might be able to muster some strength in that city.
NCFM, LA went to a DV training session and there we found there was a gay man representing the interests of homosexuals. What he is ignorant of is the fact the DV has been defined in CA by law to be only male on female violence in a heterosexual relationship.
So, if there are two males that are domestic partners and one is being assaulted then it is just simple assault and not DV. This law was sponsored by lesbian radical feminist male-hater Senator Sheila Kuehl. Eventually the gay community will figure out that they are targets of hate legislation. In this case it is lesbians who sponsor legislation that is an assault on male homosexuals rights because they have a penis and balls.
It is truly amazing to watch these two groups go into a covert war against each other. It is even more amazing to watch homosexual males discover that lesbians are sponsoring and passing male hate legislation. Some people are just really stupid.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"What he is ignorant of..."
Perhaps there are other things he is ignorant of and perhaps he has an open mind and is willing to be enlightened. Though some of here are not supporters of gay rights, I know there is some common ground which would be the basis for cooperation.
Warb, any chance of contacting him and getting a F2F on where we see opportunities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warb, any chance of contacting him and getting a F2F on where we see opportunities?
This is an important idea. One of the reasons radfems (mainstream feminists) are so powerful is because they have so successfully used a divide and conquer tactic against all males. While vilifying and despising all men and boys, they have proclaimed that the real evildoers are heterosexual, white men. Since this was clearly the group of males with the most power in Western society, it was the obvious target of first choice. With all males, who don't fit the description of heterosexual, white man, turned against that group, we have been rendered far less able to fight the evils of feminism. Unless we work together, our chaces of success are greatly reduced.
Since many men in the men's movement are not sympathetic to gays, working together would might require leaving gay rights out of the mainstream of the men's movement (not opposing gay rights, leaving them out of the movement) and keeping quiet about objections to homosexuality, while working within the men's movement. I'm an environmentalist, but I don't see that environmentalism has to be part of the men's movement.
Gay men, straight men, bi-men: We all have concerns on which we can work together. These include, but aren't necessarily limited to:
1. Males being systematically driven out of the nation's educational institutions
2. Poor funding for men's health (a matter that is, in fact, very important to gay men)
3. The extremely high and rising rate of male suicides
4. Discrimination against men in divorce and child custody (yes, this does concern some gay men)
5. False accusations, a threat facing men and boys wherever and whenever women or girls are present.
The more we work together, the faster we will defeat the anti-male hatred that holds western society in its thrall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both the Republican and Democratic parties are unjustly dominated by women's interests in that women make up the electoral majority in the USA in our "winner take all" form of electoral representation. Until we replace our current "winner take all" form of electoral representation with some form of proportional electoral representation, men will not have a legislative voice that represents them and true legisltative representation . Women know the unjust advantage that the XIX Amendment to the US Constitution (right to vote for women) gave them as it has allowed them to gain unjust political, economic, cultural,and legal privilege over males. The same, in my opinion, has and will result in the deterioration of the USA economically, politically, militarily, socially,ethically, and culturally.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can't seriously be saying that the 19th Amendment is wrong?!? Are you saying that women shouldn't be allowed to vote?? I hope none of the trolls see your post and think it's representative of all the Mens' movement. They would go back and report to the feminazis that we're trying to put an end to womens' suffrage. The problem is not that they can vote, all U.S. citizens should vote. The problem is that they are more committed to block voting than men are. That and the fact that one major party has allowed the other to co-opt their vote almost exclusively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is not that they can vote, all U.S. citizens should vote. The problem is that they are more committed to block voting than men are.
Actually, the problem is more complex that women being able to vote. The problem revolves around the fact that women have never been drafted and compelled to do military service. Women have never been required to sacrifice their lives for the freedom of men. There has never been a time where 100’s of thousands of women died to protect men and their families.
This is due to an outdated stereotype were people are taught that women are more spiritual and noble then men. The result is that men are devalued in terms of their intrinsic worth as humans. It is this fact that is the foundation of all bigotry against men.
It is truly a modern outrage that a class of people (feminist) is in power that openly devalues the lives of men. They should not have the power to vote without the concomitant responsibilities that men must accept. It is sick that these male haters are able to send our children to war and have the power to vote.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The XIX Amendment did not specifiy that both genders should have the same responsibilities and rights without discrimination based upon gender. It, only, specified that women would have the right to vote without delineating that women should the same concommitant responsibilties as men (including mandatory military service including combat service) and without clearly prohibiting the majority female electorate from abusing their political strength to demand and obtain privilege for their own gender and discrimination against males. As such the XIX Amendment is an oppressive and unjust tyrannical law. Few, if any women, would accept the same responsibilities that men have by law and custom and trully egalitarian treatment, by law. As a result, this amendment has been used by the female electorate to grant themselves privilege,oppress males, and to discriminate against males. For this reason, the XIX is an infamous misscarriage of justice. It should be repealed and replaced by one which mandates the same responsibilities and same rights for both genders. It is my opinion that few, if any females would support such an amendment as they desire privilege not equal responsibility and not equal rights. The cry against the XIX Amendment should be as vehement as that which was used in the American Revolution, "No Taxation without Representation." It should be "No Representation for women without equal responsibilities for women and equal rights for men!"
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 25, @05:28PM EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
COmption....WOmens rights movemnet has destroyed family values, moral upbringing of children while sharing limited responsibility for their actions...WOmen equals victim....men equals criminal....Sad but true our laws reflect this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Pelosi is known for supporting repro. rights-- very well then, let's see if she'll support men's repro rights!
While decrying this event as bad for men, and in some ways it is, it's also a wonderful opportunity to inundate her and other Demo. leaders and reps. with the message: "Hey, what about US?"
Now's the time to start a letter-writing, calling, and e-mail campagin to the Dems. while they are in this shifting mode. We can use this chance to get C4M on the Demo agenda, or at least make it so hard for them to do any more harm to men in their platform that they are forestalled from further assaults on our rights as citizens, fathers, and men.
Your reps., Demo and Rep., can be found here:
http://yahoo.capwiz.com/y/dbq/officials/
Go for it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee Whiz! What a master stroke!
And to think that the Democratic Party took such a beating last Tuesday!
Gosh, I wonder why? (snicker! :)
Misandric Idiots!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To get a better idea of where Pelosi stands on issues relevant to the men's movement, take a look at this page.
I suspect it may be a good thing if radical, leftist feminists take over the Democratic Party. It could make the battle lines clearer.
So what's the most likely competition for prez in 2008? Hillary vs. Liz? Hillary vs. Condi?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I encourage every male activist to go to Pelosi's guest book and explain to the public why she is a misandrist that hates men. It should really piss them off.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I looked at her site and it is filled with women's issues, women's rights, women's this and women's that. No mention of men.
Can anyone imagine the public outcry if a male congressman had a web site that completely focused on men in a similar way? He would pay dearly. There would be a fireball of criticism that he was supposed to represent his entire district and that just focusing on men was sexist and neglectful of his other constituents.
Funny there is no fireball for Pelosi. How bout that? Can you say double standard?
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 09, @02:50PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone find a congressperson anywhere who has a men's issue section in the web site?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone find a congressperson ...
No, we can't. Because there is no such thing.
"Congressperson" isn't a word. It describes nothing. It's meaningless gibberish coined by pheminutz because of their desire to drive anything which they feel, in their paranoid little world, represents the male from the public forum.
Abandon the brainwashing, young Jedi; it's neither sexist nor misogynistic to say "congressman." The inclusivity is implied. Or if you must be Politically Correct, use "Representative" or "Senator" which are real words.
One of the steps is not to allow the pheministas to define the language and thus the terms of the debate. When you do so, you play their game on their terms with their rules. And you are doomed to lose.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know.
We should play the same game the feminazis play with us.
We should all protest "Hershey's" candy, because it isn't male-inclusive..., (HER-SHEy).
Oh, and we'd have to demand that the government abolish the name "Herman". on account of it implies ownership of a man by a woman. (HER MAN).
We'd have to abolish names and titles like 'HERcules', 'HERbert', 'HERmit-crab' and 'HERmaphrodite'. (Hey, why should only women own maphrodites...?)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 10, @12:57PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't been able to fine one, myself. My congressperson doesn't have one. But, I didn't expect they would. My congressperson doesn't seem to care much about the issues that I'm interested in. I'm going to keep bothering them to find out what they think about men's issues, however.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Washington Post has announced that the contest is over and Pelosi has won. Ford was her last competitor for the position after Frost dropped out, but Ford postponed the news conference where he was scheduled to announce his last minute plans to challenge Pelosi.
I've voted for Democrats far more often than Republicans in the past, but it seems clear that the Democratic Party is coming firmly into the grasp of the radical feminists. As long as that is the case, I don't know that I will vote for any Democrat. To do so might indirectly promote anti-male hatred and oppression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 09, @05:46AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you, Thomas.
I AM a Democrat, and this whole thing burns MY toast too.
At this point, I likely will leave the Democratic party.
I've had my fill of this sort of thing.
I can forgive for only so long.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am with Thomas and Thundercloud. If the democratic party is led by a rad fem I will no longer be a democrat. I will tell everyone I can think of and write letters to other democratic leaders. Maybe this will be a rallying point for us in the near future. Perhaps we can turn her misandry into a public debate and raise some consciousness in the process.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 10, @02:42AM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Tom,Yes, GREAT suggestions! Let's all do just THAT!! Contact the Democratic leaders. especialy the more moderate ones.
We might be wasteing our time with the more "radical" ones, but contacting them, too, will STILL send a message.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 08, @07:14PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm wondering if all mens activists are of the political right/conservative? Do you have to be against the left? Or, for the 'right'? I hear a lot of ramarks against the left wing, which I think is perfectly fine. I'm neither a leftist nor a rightist per se. But some of my ideas would seem radical to some, and put me on the left. I think men and women are equals, but generally with different talents and ability's that complement each other. And there shouldn't be any laws biased against men or women, as long as we have laws. I believe men and women should be equally free.
But at the same time I see how a lot of the left is female chauvenist and has it's own hypocrisy's and deserves to be heavily critqued. But, as does the right. I do not see the right as being morally superior or actually practice the liberty that it preaches. Nor, do I believe in God, at least for now. Personally, I think the democratic party and the republican party are just two heads of the same dragon.
I'm just wondering the "mens movement" is for ALL political backgrounds that are for 'real' equality between men and women? Or is there a certain conservative political shadow to the 'mens movement'? Is it 'really' for all men? Or is the mens movement trying to return back to the fifties where women were at home? Is it reactionary, or is the mens movement trying to progress us to equality for BOTH sexes? Keeping equality for women in mind as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 09, @04:52AM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
(((I'm wondering if all men's activists are of the political right/conservative?")))
Nope.
I'm a Democrat.
But maybe not for much longer.
My party seems to be getting closer and closer to being a socialist party. This whole thing with Nancy Pelosi proves my "suspicions".
Too often they (the Demos) are supporting people and organizations who's sole purpose(s) seems to be to destroy one group of people in order to "help" another group of people. This is especialy the case with their support of organizations like The "National Organization of Women".
The Democrats CLAIM to support minorities.
I am an American Indian (Cherokee) and I can ASSURE you they don't care about or support my people. for some time now, they have only "supported" minorities that go along with "the program" and martyr their causes and agendas. They came to us (Indians) only a few years back and wanted us to martyr their causes and agendas too. Most of us refused (includeing your's truely) and the Democrats all but came out and said to us, "F#@k you then!"
As for the Republicans, They'd hate us too if they gave us any thought at all.
So I have no idea which party to join if or probably more like WHEN I leave the Democratic party. I'll probably be an independant, most likely.
Sorry, I know that this was more info than you asked for, but I try to be thorough.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
You've voiced some of the same concerns that I've had on occasion. I've been pretty left-wing, and many of my own ideas seem to put me over there. But, I tend to avoid labeling myself as liberal or conservative. I'm just me. I also believe that supporting men's issues can be done without inhibiting women's issues. Instead, men's issues complement and work towards gender equality for all.
But I have noted what seems to be a strong conservative/right leaning in the men's movement. And it has concerned me a bit, but I've also heard a few, like you and like Thundercloud, who have similar ideas, so I don't feel too far out of place.
So, in the end, what I've decided is that the best thing about the men's movement is that it crosses party lines, ideological lines, etc. We've all got different ideologies, but we're united in wanting to promote men's issues.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been pretty left-wing, and many of my own ideas seem to put me over there. But, I tend to avoid labeling myself as liberal or conservative. I'm just me.
I didn't respond at first, because I generally don't care to get involved in discussions with anonymous users. However, people with handles have now written on this subject, so I can discuss the matter with them.
I'm about where Sean is on this. Please realize that I'm not preaching to convert anyone here, I'm just stating my own views.
First of all, I'll point out that I wrote above (post #6) "radical, leftist feminists." It's the radical leftists, as much as radical rightists, who concern me.
I've voted for Democratics far more often than Republicans in the past. I don't believe that blacks and Indians are poorer on average than whites because of natural inferiority (not that the majority of Democrats or Republicans believe that). I believe it's a social problem and that we need to work together to create a social solution. If that involves some sort of affirmative action for a while, then so be it, but I think there's a tremendous amount to be said for personal responsibility and, for those who work together as a group, group responsibility.
I do not, however, support any affirmative action for women. Thirty, forty, fifty years ago, women and men had different roles, but women's roles were no more oppressive than men's. To better understand this, read Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power." Today's white women may be the most over-privileged group of people in history. In addition, with the advent of birth control and safe, legal abortions, they have fewer responsibilities imposed on them than any other group of people in the world. If either sex needs and deserves affirmative action, it's males.
With respect to the environment, I am a conservationist, and I think that conservatives tend to be a bit too reckless with our natural heritage. I believe nature is suffering as a result of humans, and that we will pay and pay big time for our recklessness regarding nature.
I strongly support gay rights, even to the point of believing that if straights can marry, then gays should be allowed to also. If they're in love, then I'm happy for them and wish them well.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea about my relative conservatism/liberalism.
As for the Democratic and Republican Parties of today, we should remember the Democratic and Republican Parties of the past. I was recently speaking with a black man, who made the statement that the Republican Party has always been racist. He was shocked to hear the truth. Lincoln was a Republican. In the 1860 presidential election, many southern Democrats said that, if a Republican were elected, they would strive to secede. (They were rightly afraid that a Republican president would free the slaves.) As late as the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson had to strong-arm several Democratic members of Congress to get them to vote with most Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act. It wasn't until around the time of George Wallace that this situation started to change. Among other racist moves, in June of 1963, the Democrat George Wallace blocked access to the University of Alabama for two black students. He capitulated when President Kennedy, in a sign of a shift in the party, mobilized the National Guard against him.
In 1968, Wallace ran for president as an independent, but by 1972 he had rejoined the Democratic Party to run for president. In the Florida primary (yup, good ol' Florida) he took every county. He was shot and paralyzed in both legs by a would-be assassin. This damaged his presidential aspirations, but he still won the Democratic primaries in Maryland, Michigan (not all southern states), North Carolina, and Tennessee.
Within several years the Democratic Party had started to promote itself as the party of civil rights. Nevertheless, they may be returning to their deep, old roots as a party based upon discrimination, this time anti-male sexism rather than anti-black racism.
As far as I can remember, I've always registered as an independent, and I will probably continue to do so. Whether we're black, Indian, Asian, white, male, female, young, old, generally conservative, generally liberal, we have a common interest in justice as members of the men's movement. As I've stated in another post on this thread, however, if the Democratic Party becomes even more the party of anti-male hatred, then I may never vote for any Democrat, no matter what that individual's stand is on particular issues, because to do so might indirectly support and promote the vicious, anti-male, radical feminist agenda. I, too, will start to tell friends and acquaintances to consider acting in a similar matter, and I will, in the future, contact candidates about these feelings and convictions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I voted for Clinton twice and am now firmly in the Republican camp. As long as Democrats take a male battering and bashing approach to gender issues, through the likes of Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi (geesh they even look alike), then I will oppose them firmly, but dispassionately, because of their monstorously prejudiced abusiveness.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just wondering the "mens movement" is for ALL political backgrounds that are for 'real' equality between men and women?
You're here. You are as much a part of the men's movement as anyone else. What it becomes, inclusive or exclusive, equalitarian or privilege-mongering is as much your responsibility as anyone else's. You can take responsibility, become active and involved and have a real effect on the direction the movement takes or you can sit back and watch others and complain about where they are taking it.
Your choice.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 10, @02:31AM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
I was the guy who originally asked this question about the mens movement.
I wasn't complaining. I'm just now learning about it. The men's movement is not above being critiqued. In fact, criticism might make it stronger. I'm loyal to no ideology, I'm a cynic, which doesn't make life easy but hey, I'm a pessimist. I was not talking about any one person in particular. It was just an honest question from my observations. And I'm not "hiding" from mens activist users behind my anonymous-ness.
Thanks for the honest reply's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 10, @02:51AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
oh yeah, I also, 'am currently reading warren ferrals book "the myth of male power". And I think I've sent at least a few people to this site from debating on the 'net'. Perhaps I should create a nick name. I'm just a skeptical person who has become even less trusting of people in politics from learning about some of the feminist lies (not too mention all the male bashing that I've had to grow up in). It's messed up since the left is supposed to be the champiions of equality, being "egalitarians" and all. So, hopefully that might help explain my skepticism of the mens movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 10, @03:07AM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
To; 'Anonymous user".
You don't have to be a registered user, here, to identify your self.
I'm not regestered either, yet, but am prepareing to do so pretty soon.
Just come up with a "nickname" or "handle" for yourself, and sighn it at the bottom of your posts, Then people KNOW whom they are converseing with.
The reason many of us are suspicious of "anonymous users" is because alot of them come on here and insult, mock and attack on "personal levels" and start "flame wars". All while hideing behind the "anonymous" sheild.
And no, You are not a "coward" for posting anonymously. And there was nothing wrong with your questions.
In fact, Welcome aboard.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason many of us are suspicious of "anonymous users" is because alot of them come on here and insult, mock and attack on "personal levels" and start "flame wars". All while hideing behind the "anonymous" sheild.
Well put, Thundercloud. I will add that another problem with anonymous users is that attempts at reasonable discussion, even without flaming and trolls, can become impossible when dealing with more than one anonymous user. Two, or three, or four people can be identified in the same way (au), but saying somewhat different things. It then becomes impossible to know who is who and what exactly they are trying to say. It's good to have you here, au. Please consider using a handle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't seen a troll around here for a long time. Maybe I'm not reading enough threads.
I program my home computer; beam myself into the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was one (a Troll) about a week ago.
But other than that, I haven't seen any either. GOOD!
But now, we've probably JINXED ourselves by saying it, and a troll will pop up again soon.
By the way, I'm now a "registered user" my self. (In case anyone noticed..., or cared.)
(^_^)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where?
I program my home computer; beam myself into the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 15, @01:27AM EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
((("Where?")))
Where, what?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't complaining.
I actually did regret using the word after I posted, because I didn't see you as complaining. Sorry about that. I was reacting more to the implication that the movement is something "out there." The movement is us.
There is another class of post we get every once in a while that goes "I have been reading your site and am interested in men's issue's, but so-and-so made this statement I find disagreeable/offensive and no one jumped all over him. If that's the kind of movement this is, I'm picking up my toys and going home." THOSE are annoying!
I think it's inevitable that the men's movement will attract a large number of politically conservative voices, but certainly not inevitable that it become a conservative movement. It's up to each of us make sure of that.
I think there is an implicit recognition of that here. We do a lot of analysis of political parties and ideologies in terms of how they view men, but there's not a lot of strong advocacy for one's particular ideology. Even the most rabid libertarians do pretty well at keeping their proselytizing to a minimum. *g*
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said, Larry. I'm with you. I've always registered independant, and have voted for both Democrats and Republicans. I like to think I vote for people and stances instead of parties. I also think that neither of the major parties would touch "Mens' Issues" with a ten foot pole. I do, however see the point that some of the guys are making, that the Dems are more beholden to feminazis than Reps. I just don't see the need to give up my independance and commit to solely supporting Republicans. And I for one don't see that that is a prerequisite for the Mens' movement. Everybody is welcome here.
ps...When are the Sperm Cartel t-shirts going on sale?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ps...When are the Sperm Cartel t-shirts going on sale?
I've been thinking about that all weekend. :-)
T-shirts with a Sperm Cartel logo and a variety of slogans:
"The trouble with men is... They've got all the testicles!"
"Why buy the bull when the juice is free?"
"Take Back the Semen!"
I know a good graphic designer. Just gotta find me a young alpha-geek to build the website.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Take Back the Semen!" !!!!
I'm still laughing over that one!
Great line. hmmmm rhymes with "free men" "creamin" and "Demon" Lots you could do with that one....the creamin demons?? oh this is just getting too...evil. ;>)
Will be a great t-shirt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Creamin' Demons"
That is GROSS! ...So, why am I laughing...?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In theory, both men and women are equal in the US and the rest of the West for that matter. But in reality, though all are equal, some because of certain innate characteristics are 'more equal than the others.'
Equality is not the problem. Some getting more than their share of 'equality' is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll just answer the question: Absolutely not.
In many ways the right wing is even more dangerous because they are ardent supporters of what I call "One-Sided Chivalry." This is where you, as a man, have myriad obligations to a woman by sheer virtue of her reproductive plumbing, and she has none to you.
Furthermore, even when she abuses that privilege horribly, and behaves in a reprehensible fashion, well, it just sux to be you. Suck it up. Be a man. Step up to the plate. Knock it out of the park. It's the right thing to do. Be a man. Suck it up. (Yeah, I'm repeating - it's a mindless litany for the brain dead.)
It's the right-wing which has brought us to the point where you dare not defend your own life in the face of female DV.
It's the right wing which caves in and cowers when any of the pheminazis starts the whine about "but the chiiiiiiiiiiild-ren!"
Who puts the blinkers on in the federal court system when DNA evidence is presented about paternity fraud? You guessed it - it's conservative, Reagan appointees, screwing their eyes shut and covering their ears going "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-ImNotHearingYou!"
It's the right wing who is constantly doing the impersonation of Neville Chamberlain with an appeasement policy to the radphems - Jesus H, guys, how much fucking lebensraum do these whacky bitches need?
A great deal of the fiscal policy and foreign policy ideas that are thrown around here are Republican positions - but they make sense. That's not to say that makes someone who sees this a Republican. My take on it is that even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then.
No, a lot of us would welcome more bipartisan support from all sides on men's issues, but in this respect the left is more demanding of purity on certain issues than the Libertarians are; and as a Libertarian I can assure you that such a statement is a scary thing indeed.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I was just wondering. Do we have any idea on where Pelosi stands with respect to things like paternity rights, boys in education, men's health, things like that? I went to her site and only saw her opinions regarding women's issues. Although I don't agree with VAWA or CEDAW, just because she supports them doesn't *necessarily* mean that she wouldn't be amenable to looking into men's issues, just that her agenda is primarily on the women's side.
She was one of the few Democrats to speak out against the Iraq resolution, and I think war is a man's issue, since we're the ones signed up for the draft. So, I hesitate to be too critical of her. Yet.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't fool yourself into thinking she opposed the Iraq resolution out of any concern for men. She only did it to be on the record in opposition to Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you prove that? If so, I'd like to know. Frankly, all I know is that she opposed the Iraq resolution. To me, that neither says that she did it for men or to be against Bush. But it gives me pause, and I'd like to know the facts before I make any judgments. If you've got those facts, please lay them out.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can I prove that? Obviously not, I'd have to be a mind reader. However, is there anything anywhere in her voting record that has even given the slightest appearance of any regard for men? If there is, I'd like to see it. As far as I can see, it's always all about the sisterhood for her. What I'm saying is that her opposition to Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with gender, she just can't be seen agreeing with Bush on anything. Remember that the biggest part of the controversy over her leadership is because she's so much farther left that even most Democrats. She hates conservatives and has to disagree with them as a reflex reaction. I don't know if you're aware of this, but she's still on the executive committee for the Progressive Caucus, which is a subdivision of the Democrat Socialists of America. This is a group that carries on the philosophy of people like Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin. So to answer your question, no, I can't prove it...but I can add 2+2 and come up with 4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see. Now, that's twice that you've insinuated that I'm not able to process information adequately. I'm not trying to be belligerent, so I don't see how that's necessary.
That being said, I'll agree that I've only seen her take up stances in favor of feminist issues, but it is possible to be in favor of women's issues and also be in favor of men's issues. At this point, I don't think we have any information regarding that. That seems to be something that you're speculating, based on the limited evidence. Fair enough. Nothing wrong with that. I'm personally not willing to make that assumption without more evidence.
If you're not a mind reader, how do you know that she "has to disagree with them [conservatives] as a reflex reaction"? I don't know that she opposed the Iraq resolution for men (nor do I honestly believe that's true), but I also do not have enough evidence yet to make the judgment that she didn't. Nor do I have enough evidence to judge that she wouldn't be interested in men's issues. But, that's just me. I don't think that's a failing on my part, just a difference of opinion as to what constitutes enough evidence to support this theory. I honestly don't see that what you have is as easy as 2+2=4. There are too many unknowns in the equation for me to be comfortable making such a statement that unequivocally.
As for her being on the executive committee for the Progressive Caucus, I'm not certain how that's particularly relevant. That may be that I don't know enough about the Progressive Caucus (and I honestly don't know much about it).
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to contact Rep. Harold Ford, Pelosi's only competitor for House Minority Leader. Does anyone have an email address for him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas - I believe Harold Ford from Tennessee is:
tn09wyr@housemail.house.gov
I am working on a form to email a number of the dem leaders...it should be done in an hour or so...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to a little script where you can enter your ideas about Pelosi and it will email that message to democratic leaders. So far it emails to Kennedy, Lieberman, Byrd, Ford, and Daschle. If anyone has suggestions about others to include let me know and I will write them in. I thought it would make it simple to have some of us send out our thoughts.
http://www.standyourground.com/newnew.php
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is fantastic, Dr. Evil. Nice job!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
