|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
No! (Score:2, Insightful)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To her credit, the professor graded me fairly and responded to my objection. She explained that my complaint was not valid because men's control of society versus women’s control is so vast that a man's complaints about anti-male prejudice paled in meaning.
It is impossible to engage a manhater in rational debate. For any objection or protest you make, they will always be able to construct an answer which puts you in the wrong. Their logic, such as it is, says that until women control society and all its resources, men can have no 'valid complaints'. Remember, modern feminism has its roots in Marxism. Marxism defines an 'oppressor class' in which is located all of society's evils, and whose destruction is the necessary requirement for the creation of an ideal society. The problem Marxism has always had is that this 'necessary destruction' requires the creation of a tyranny, and once created this tyranny cannot unmake itself.
The solution to this problem is to stop playing the game on their terms. These people are experts on legitimising hate, so there's no point trying to fight them by directly addressing their hate or by creating hate of your own. Remember, they have created the language of 'gender politics' specifically to promote the hatred of men, to demoralise men, to undermine men's belief in themselves and their own values, and ultimately to legitimise the inversion of male and female status within society (in accordance with the 'principles' of cultural Marxism - check it out, that really is the objective). This can only be countered by breaking out of the debate as they have framed it, because any attempt to operate within that framework will automatically lead to failure.
A male in the back of the classroom pushed his heavy book off of the table and it made a loud, crashing sound. An accident? Or the only protest he could make?
This young man had the right idea, but one act of protest is not a revolution. Men must say a collective "No!" to manhating. It isn't about trying to reason with people, it's about saying "I won't put up with this no matter what excuse you give." All rationalisations for manhating attempt to blame the victim for what is being done to him, which is a classic form of psychological abuse. Men must stop playing the victim and take back control of their dignity. Anything which harms your sense of dignity is, by default, wrong. It doesn't matter what bullshit crackerjack excuse someone gives.
Apart from throwing books on the floor, what can men do? Here are a few suggestions:
• Sit at the front of the class.
• Challenge all negative depictions and interpretations of men.
• Use 'self-referential' logic to undermine rationalisations for manhating. That means undermining an argument on its own terms, for instance: in response to the first quote I gave above, you could say that if men really had so much power they wouldn't have to put up with anti-male prejudice.
• Make all negative generalisations about men a personal matter. Each one of us is personally affected by anti-male prejudice, after all. When confronted by manhating - especially by a teacher or someone in a 'superior' position - ask if that's what they think of you. If they say it wasn't meant personally, ask if that's what they think of him (point to someone else), or of your friends, or your brother, or your father, or your cousin. Tell them you think their attitude stinks. Don't accept an apology. Tell them you're going to make a complaint, and walk out of class. Make a complaint claiming 'hostile environment'. The purpose of this is to create a situation which is out of the control of the manhater. Remember: you are not trying to change the manhater's views, you are creating a spectacle for those watching. You are leading by example.
• Start a 'Fight Manhating!' campaign. It would cost very little to have the slogan printed on a T-shirt, or to have some stickers made. This slogan is both an order and an accusation, not an invitation to a debate. When it comes to manhating, there is no debate to be had.
• Disrupt classes that promote negative views of men. Forget subtlety. As soon as the teacher comes out with an anti-male remark, everyone should be on their feet pointing at her (it probably will be a 'her') and chanting "MANHATER! MANHATER!" It should be loud enough to be heard half way accross campus!
• Network with other colleges and universities to spread the campaign of refusal and protest.
• Get female friends to support you - if they really care about you, they will.
OK, so maybe some of those suggestions seem a little OTT, but nothing will change so long as men act like frightened little mice and just put up with everything. Somebody has to be Rosa Parks, and the most powerful word you have in your vocabulary is "NO!".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 14, @09:15AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent points Uberganger! Thanks for the insight...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great suggestions!
Make all negative generalisations about men a personal matter.
I like this one a lot, and I've used it myself. It's much harder for a person to denigrate a group of people, if people they respect are part of it.
Start a 'Fight Manhating!' campaign.
I also like this one. I've been wearing my "Strong but not Silent Type" Tshirt for a while, and maybe I'll make one that says something like "Fight Misandry!" or "Misandry: It's everyone's problem".
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uberganger:Thank you for the informative and intelligent reply. Here is how I replied to gender feminism. I filed a Pro-se Law Suit against Texas Woman's University School of Nursing in Dallas alleging gender discrimination with much of the same complaints that the student nurse and murderer, Flores, had against the University of Arizona School of Nursing. They used the same aggressive, unprincipled, gender misogynic, and conspiratorial methods against me as he alleged that they used against him. Of course, the means that he used, violence and murder, are not justifiable and should be condemned as such. The case number of the law suit, filed in 1981, in Dallas Federal District Court was CA-3-81-0001-F. I settled the same out of court-simply droped the case without penalty to myself. The other thing that I did was to e-mail or write then Governor George Bush, now President Bush, requesting that he mandate that this same school stop requiring all B.S. in Nursing students take and pass, in order to graduate, a course in gender feminist "Women's Studies." The nursing school now requires the same which, of course, inculcates gender feminism in nursing students which further promulgates discrimination against males in nursing. Governor Bush replied essentially stating that he would do nothing about this state sponsered required gender feminist course at Texas Woman's University school of nursing.We, as you clearly stated, must take individual and joint actions, in an assertive manner, to promulgate justice, liberty, and freedom of thought on our college campuses and eradicate the intolerance, injustice, political correctness,censorship, and discrimination against males that is promulgated by the oppressive and authoritarian gender feminist movement on American college campuses.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few thoughts about dealing
Compile grade data about a particular professor. If it can be shown that there is a signifigant bias in grading, then it may be legaly actionable.
Request to substitute a history or philosophy course for a "Womans Study" course. If enough students did that it would be a clear message.
If forced into a class, see if it can be tape recorded for incidents of misandry, or at the very least keep a journal of notable events. Journals can oftimes be used as evidence in courts.
Bottom line is though, a student is trying to keep their GPA from getting trashed. That is why male students make easy targets for misandrists. (I call it fighting dirty.) Most serious students aren't going to jeopardize years of work to make a point about a sexist professor. Especially when it could mean kissing your degree goodbye. I went to college on a shoestring, I did not have the resources to put up a fight that should have been fought in a few cases. I can understand how the problem has gotten out of control.
We must remember that misandry has become a paid profession, with the resources of a college or university at the disposal of the scoundrel. Those of trying to fight have to devote signifigant portions, if not all, of our time and money to making a living. While these miscreants get paid to spread their hate. It's a difficult position, and students are in a very weak position to fight it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trouble with trying to lead men is that it's like herding cats.
I have said elsewhere, and I will say it here - even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion. Notes and tape recordings are a good idea. Womyn's groups have used it for years.
Guys, take some pages out of the womyn's books. They collaborate on how to use the system. Use it back. Turn the tables. GIVE them "equality," in all the full glory and meaning of the word.
If they complain, patronize them. If you have to promote them, speak glowingly about how "affirmative action" has brought them to where they are. Virtually beam with delight. Better yet, do this in a department meeting, while you speak in oh-so-PC terms about the glory that is Affirmative Action. Trust me, the message of "Token pair of tits" will come through loud and clear.
Go over their head - go outside the school. I've been there. They cannot stop you, and once an attorney gets involved, they don't dare. Womyn learn this early.
Troll the womyn's boards; rather, lurk there. I have several accounts under womyn's monnikers. Act all afraid of some mean old man (Reverse the genders) and they will fall all over themselves to supply you with dirty tricks.
You either (A) use these against them and win, which pisses them off, or (B) force them to close the loophole for them as well, which also pisses them off, or (C) force them into a position of being openly sexist, which puts it out for all to see and converts a guy or two to the fight. Which also pisses them off.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It is impossible to engage a manhater in rational debate...The solution to this problem is to stop playing the game on their terms. These people are experts on legitimising hate, so there's no point trying to fight them by directly addressing their hate or by creating hate of your own."
Well, I agree on changing the terms of the game, but not about rejecting rational debate as your primary tool. As soon as you abandon logical argument, you level the playing field to that of your opponent here. What is your goal? Will you change the views of a bigoted professor? Probably not. Do you wish to start a classroom riot and win the respect of the others who share your view? Then you're preaching to the choir. Do you wish to wake up the others, show them the bias that exists and how wrong it is? Then you must be the rational one, the voice of reason in the face of the unreasonable -- reacting in a physically posturing or angry way will only enable the professor and some members of the audience to dismiss you as yet another example of the brutish male stereotype you wish to label as unfair. The fact of the matter is that a professor who protests misogynistic biases in old folklore and then focuses on tales where the man is the villain cannot take the moral or logical highground -- she is doing exactly that which she criticizes. It cannot be good and allowable in one case and not the other because that would be illogical.
As for what men can do, I agree with your list, but be careful how you challenge -- remember your goals, your target audience, and how they think. And you DO care about what people think if your ultimate purpose is to effect social change. Do not allow yourselves to be perceived as bullying, or angry -- focus on being calm and rational or you unwittingly provide some apparent basis for this professor's view of the misogynistic male animal who deserves no consideration. Keep all your arguments based in what's fair because there is only one standard. Others cannot logically do what they protest being done to themselves -- women cannot bash men without justifying men's bashing women. Fair is fair. Most people see that.
Acknowledge that there is historical evidence of anti-feminine bias, but we don't live in those times and you cannot be held responsible for the mores of a society that came and went long, long ago. You deserve to be treated with the same consideration and respect that you in turn show women, and her negative portrayal of men by focusing only on select stories is unfair and dehumanizing. If you say "if men really had so much power they wouldn't have to put up with anti-male prejudice" it would only smack of sarcasm. Point out that men don't have that kind of power, the statistics of female on male abuse, point out how our media is biased -- why is it humorous for a woman to be shown hitting a man with a frying pan when a man shown hitting a woman with a frying pan would be commonly perceived as horrific domestic abuse? Make your audience THINK. Making the negative generalizations personal may or may not work. If the professor is truly a manhater, then you risk making the argument other than a professional one. I know, I know, it IS personal, but it may not be perceived that way by your target audience if you want to effect change. Do not let anger diminish your credibility.
Finally, think about what it is you want from this situation. Do you want her to be fired? Will you accept a sincere, fair overhaul of the curriculum? Definitely, tell her her attitude is unfair, don't accept an apology, walk out of class in protest, but consider what you want in making your complaint about a "hostile environment" -- as soon as you stand up in class and present a logical argument, you've already taken the situation out of the manhater's control. Check out the university's bylaws, organize the students (female students lend credibility to your campaign if your goal is to change feminine thinking) to petition to have her removed, and utilize your school paper and local media. T-shirts and chanting may or may not help your cause -- keep your goals and audience in mind in everything you do. Alienating them defeats your purpose.
No, acting like "frightened little mice" not only effects no change, but it enables the bias to continue -- after all, you wouldn't take it if it weren't true, right? This is the assumption held by your target audience. Being "OTT" will ruin your credibility, so be very careful to keep your ultimate goal or goals constantly in mind so you don't sabotage them in short-term-oriented behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Responses like this help me to understand why anti-male feminism has got so far so fast. Feminists have invented an entire system of perception in which all human activity is seen in terms of an ongoing 'gender war', with women as the downtrodden 'good side' that must ultimately have total victory over the male 'evil side'. This perceptual system can be viewed as a rigid template - like something cast in iron - which will only accept symbolic duplicates of itself. Feminists evaluate the whole of reality in relation to this template. So, if a woman kills her children it's because of something that absolves her of responsibility - her hormones, her status, her bullying husband - but if a man kills his children it's because he's an evil patriarchal male trying to control them or get back at a woman. If a woman kills a man it's not her fault (it's probably his!), but if a man kills a woman it's because he's an evil patriarchal male trying to control her. If boys are doing better than girls in school it's because of evil patriarchal male privilege and institutional bias, but if girls are doing better than boys it's because they work harder, or boys develop more slowly, or they can't hear as well as girls, or they're just stupid. I could go on, but you get the idea. The trouble with people like you, KnowYourEnemy, is that you just don't understand the underlying nature of the feminist project. You don't understand a system of thought which allows an educated, intelligent person to go up in front of a class full of young adults and come out with the most appalling, incoherent rubbish about half the human race.
Now I'll address some of your points. First off, I never said anyone should reject rational debate, I said that it was impossible to engage manhaters in a rational debate. Due to the inherant plasticity of words it is possible to turn anything into practically anything else, by blurring the meaning of words, arbitrarily redefining the meaning of words, using words in unfamiliar contexts, and so on. Feminists are very good at this, which is why they walk all over guys who try to be 'rational' with them. They also have their rigid perceptual template, which most people accept to a greater or lesser degree, hence the professor in Sacks' article explaining that his complaint was not valid because men's control of society versus women’s control is so vast that a man's complaints about anti-male prejudice pale in meaning. This 'argument' is effectively an unlimited license to abuse, insult, demonise and denigrate men, to falsify history and profoundly misrepresent society and contemporary issues. It relies on beliefs about society and power which are simply not true, and implicitly defines male and female relationships in terms of exploitation and abuse (in accordance with the cultural Marxist beliefs that ultimately underlie this bullshit). By all means be rational and reasonable with those who have not committed themselves to the anti-male feminist worldview, but don't imagine that the 'debate', which has been entirely constructed by feminists, is a place where rationality will get you anywhere anytime soon.
The fact of the matter is that a professor who protests misogynistic biases in old folklore and then focuses on tales where the man is the villain cannot take the moral or logical highground -- she is doing exactly that which she criticizes. It cannot be good and allowable in one case and not the other because that would be illogical.
Keep all your arguments based in what's fair because there is only one standard. Others cannot logically do what they protest being done to themselves -- women cannot bash men without justifying men's bashing women. Fair is fair. Most people see that.
Both these quotes are such crap. 'Logic' and 'fairness'; if that was how these people operated, none of us would need to come to this site day after day. Remember, according to feminist 'folklore', men have oppressed and exploited women for thousands of years. Now it is only fair that women should be able to 'get their own back' a little bit - though obviously what they do will pale in significance beside the collective crimes of men. Women have a right to class hatred against their oppressors, as one piece of manhating filth once put it. The logic of feminism is the logic of revolution - that whatever brings the brave new world a step closer is valid. Feminist 'fairness', built on the idea of historical oppression, not only legitimises but actually requires a continual negative, abusive, dishonest, vindictive portrayal and treatment of men. You and I might think we're trying to restore balance by eliminating manhating, but as far as they are concerned they're restoring it by creating and promoting the hatred of men.
Making the negative generalizations personal may or may not work. If the professor is truly a manhater, then you risk making the argument other than a professional one. I know, I know, it IS personal, but it may not be perceived that way by your target audience if you want to effect change. Do not let anger diminish your credibility.
The purpose of making the generalisations personal is to ground them in immediate reality, rather than allowing the audience to make the unconscious assumption that they refer only to strangers. For example, it's not uncommon for female journalists who come out with manhating crap to defend themselves by saying that they have a husband and son (as if having a wife and daughter was ever seen as proof that a man couldn't be a misogynist). The manhating remarks are always directed at someone else's son or someone else's husband; someone anonymous and perhaps far away; someone none of us know. However, in those 'other places' there are people unknown to us who have the same attitudes. We are their 'bastard men', and our sons are their 'stupid little retards'. When people take such attitudes to work with them, they become the legislators, the teachers, the TV producers, the film-makers, the journalists and the politicians who create and maintain the society we live in. As for anger; hell, you should be angry! If not angry, then disgusted or shocked or indignant or upset. You have to stand up for yourself in that respect because if you only do what feminists allow you to, you won't be doing anything. Whatever happened to self-assertiveness?
There are many other things I could pick up on in your response but they all fall into a few general categories, most of which I think I've already touched on. In summary, then:
• The rigid perceptual template that underlies the feminist worldview makes any attempt at challenging manhating within that framework impossible. If you accept the feminist narrative, you can forget about having a world that treats its men with respect and consideration.
• Under the feminist worldview, demonising and abusing men is logical and fair.
• The purpose of challenging a manhater is to create a spectacle for those watching, not to change the manhater's views on anything. It is to give others the courage to speak out and stand up for themselves.
• The power of manhating lies in the inaction of those who tolerate it, be they male or female.
• There can be no change without change. Boys sitting at the back of the class must sit at the front. Teachers depicting men negatively must depict them positively. People who are pissed off with manhating must stop tolerating it from those around them.
There are many different levels at which the pro-male project will have to operate, from direct confrontations with leading figures in the feminist movement (on our terms, not theirs), through lobbying of politicians and challenging feminist media attitudes, to purely promotional ventures intended to give the men's movement a positive image. Ultimately we will have to supersede the feminist movement, because only by doing so can we make it completely redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 15, @12:51AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
The whole feminist argument of; Men can't complain about sexism against them because they "oppress women", is compleate and utter bull s#!t.
The constitution and bill of rights of these United States, at least, state clearly that ALL people are guaranteed equal rights and protection of those rights, PIRIOD.
There isn't a little dis-claimer at the bottom of those documents that says; "Exept for Men".
(Or Maybe it DOES say that. Maybe it's written in a type of ink only feminists can see, I don't know.)
The point is, that ANYONE regardless of who they are, CAN and SHOULD protest when these GUARANTEED rights are violated. That's the way the system is SUPPOSED to work.
GOD! you'd think we wouldn't have to be explaining things like this all the time!
But I guess it clearly illustrates the type of mentality we are dealing with.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This young man had the right idea, but one act of protest is not a revolution. Men must say a collective "No!" to manhating.
You make good points and suggestions, Uberganger, but there's something that I will add to what you wrote. While it's good to discuss and figure out what "men" must do, it's important to realize that if you stand up to the feminists today, you will probably stand alone.
I've recently helped form a men's rights group in the Denver area. It has about 4 members. Until that, though I found a number of men, who were quite willing to bitch about man-hating and its ramifications, I never met a man who was willing to do anything about it. One man, a lawyer, belonged to a large writers' organization of which I was also a member. We talked about the rampant male-bashing by several women members, and he bitched at length about the anti-male injustices throughout society, but when I said I was going to resign my position as vice-president of the organization and state in an open letter that I was resigning because of the anti-male atmosphere, his response was (and I quote), "Oh! But don't do anything! They might get mad at you!"
He was serious.
If you stand up to the lies on campus today, you might get a miniscule amount of support, but don't count on it. You will probably be alone. You will be reviled as a misogynist who wants to put women, barefoot and pregnant, back into the kitchen. Men will attack you, perhaps more viciously, or at least more forthrightly, than women. They will want the women to see that they are "exceptions." They know it will help them personally to attack you. Even those who know the truth and aren't willing to attack you will keep quiet. They will be too cowardly to speak up.
For their part, women will attack you too, sometimes in the open. But you can also expect underhanded attacks, especially if you're seen as a real threat to the feminist power structure. Don't be surprised if, for example, some of the radical women write on the walls of women's restrooms that you tried to rape them on dates, that they fought you off, and that they haven't taken formal action because they're convinced it won't do any good. A few testimonials like that in different handwriting and you're dead meat buddy.
Again, while it's good to talk about what "men" should do, for the forseeable future know that if you speak out against feminist lies, you will be viciously attack and cast as a misogynist, and you will probably stand alone.
I'm just trying to give fair warning. If you're forthright at this point, be prepared to be a very lonely martyr for the cause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This may be the sort of question that could lead to a flame fest, but I'll post it anyway. Women, on campus and off, who try to distance themselves from radical feminism while still calling themselves feminists, claim that they are feminists because women are still denied rights.
So I'm wondering: What rights are women denied in the US?
I look forward to all responses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please ignore this for now. I'm going to post it on another thread, where it will be at least as relevant.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
