|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we need to set up a website that mirrors Ms. Burke's. On it, we should list organizations that discriminate against men and boys, and demand that Americans boycott them, as she does with the Augusta National. Her own organization should be there, as well as the YWCA, Wellesley, Smith, Holyoke and Bryn Mar Colleges, the LPGA, etc. We could start a list here.
There is great hypocrisy in the spectacle of the National Club of Women's Organizations complaining about sex based discrimination. That needs to be pointed out.
Tom Campbell
"the greater the ignorance, the greater the dogmatism"
-Sir William Osler
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I sent an e-mail to Ron Pontiff of "Golfers for a Real Cause" and asked him what his group is doing for prostate cancer. His reply was:
"Vince,
Although we are all very concerned with prostate cancer, it would be impossible to raise enough money for several issues to make an impact. I have had several emails where people have asked me to include heart disease, etc., and at this time I am going to stick with the two causes I already have. You are more than welcome to start your own nonprofit for prostate cancer, and when you do, send me an email and I will be the first to donate.
Ron Pontiff
Golfers For A Real Cause, Inc."
So essentially, he's saying "We can't do it all". Well that's fine and dandy, nobody asked him to do it all. However, I had pointed out to him that prostate cancer kills approx. as many men as breast cancer kills women, yet he failed to address that issue. Since breast cancer research and awareness receives about a gazillion times more funding than prostate cancer, I don't ask him to "do it all", I just ask him to put a little more thought into what actually needs more funding. Breast cancer? Or prostate cancer? Which one receives the least funding, thus has the greater need?
Of course, he says that I can start a non-profit fundraising group, and he'll be the first to contribute. That's nice. Me, being the average guy that I am on a fixed income, who works every day for a living, have tons of resources available at my fingertips with which to start a fundraising group. (Is the sarcasm that obvious?) I wonder if he's contributed to ANY prostate cancer fundraising program? Maybe he's waiting for me to start one?
Don't do it all, Mr. Pontiff. Just put a little more thought into what you actually DO do!
Methinks Mr. Pontiff picked breast cancer not because of his overwhelming desire to help women with cancer, but to make himself and his organization appear "pro-woman".
Let's hope Mr. Pontiff is never diagnosed with prostate cancer. He'll find it rather difficult to find resources out there to help him.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am utterly confused on why Burk is attacking this private club? (Well I do know but that is another issue.) Her groups stance that the club will not allow women is very odd since they do not have any men in thier club as well. Ms. magazine that supports them is equally anti-male. They have given no arguments how women are harmed by the men's only policy. I was very amused when a talk show reviewer asked someone supporting Burk how they can complain when they have no men in their group. The silence from the guest said it all.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony.
Yeah, It's funny, isn't it? How when women have a "FEMALES ONLY" (exclusion of men), organization it is called "progressive" and "women havein' it all".
But let ANY Men's group have a "Men only" policy and suddenly it is "sexist" and "patriarchal", Blah, blah, blah, Boo hoo hoo.
It may come as a shock to many women, but we guys need a break from them, from time to time. (or in my case, permanantly.)
Just as you ladies need an escape from us "EEEEVIL MEN!!" we need one from you too. BELIEVE ME!!! Sorry, but it is NOT the same thing as being excluded because of your race, the way alot of feminists are trying to say it is.
As a Man I don't WANT to be included in your little girly-get-togethers. And do not feel discriminated against one little bit when you DO exclude me!
The feminists need to read "Don Quiote"(SP?) it's about a guy who sees thing that aren't there, then over-reacts to them.
You feminists could REALLY realate to that guy.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 23, @10:21AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
The fact is that even though breast cancer receives far more funding than prostate cancer, the guy should be free to donate to whatever-the-hell charity he wants! If he wants to donate the funds of this anti-Burke crusade to the disadvantaged millionaires club, he should be free to do so!
Don't get me wrong, it is fine to remind him that breast cancer receives far more funding than is relatively appropriate. This whole thing though is about freedom and attacking him for supporting breast cancer is (almost) hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who said anything about denying him his freedom to raise money for whatever cause he wants? Any poster on this forum should know by now about my libertarian/semi-objectivist politics. (That is, I'm a true liberal in the classical sense of the term.) I'm probably the most pro-freedom person you'll ever meet.
Perhaps you should re-read my post. The point I was making was about his MOTIVES. Here's what is happening: His group decides to take a stand against Ms. Burke. (Which I have no problem with, BTW. More power to him.) However, to stay one step ahead of the feminists, who will eventually accuse him of being a woman-hater, he sets up a fund to raise money for breast cancer, so that if and when the feminists do come calling, he can tell them:
"I'm not anti-woman! I'm pro-woman! Just look at how we're raising money and awareness for breast cancer! So there! I'm all for women!"
So what's the motive there? True concern for women with breast cancer? Or to have a piece of defensive ammunition to use against the feminists who will eventually point their guns at him?
If someone truly has a passionate concern for breast cancer awareness, kudos to him. But to use the issue as simply a means of extending the olive branch to feminists is a bit disingenuous.
If he wants to take a stand against feminist extremists, then let him take a stand! Essentially what he's saying is "I'll take somewhat of a stand against you, but please don't attack me. Can we still be friends?"
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. I don't care what he donates to either. The fact that it is advertized is what made me decide NOT to buy the shirts and hats. No half-assed measures here. All or nothing. Otherwise we are pissing up a rope.
Disclaimer: Everything I post is of course my own opinion. If it seems harsh, Feminazis just piss me off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In an e-mail Mr. Pontiff sent to me, he stated (and I'm quoting exactly here):
"It's not like I sat down and put a whole lot of thought into which cause I was going to fight for. I just thought by choosing breast cancer it would get the women from Martha's side to mine!"
He simply confirmed exactly what I was stating all along. He didn't do any of this because of some longstanding desire to help women with breast cancer. (And he obviously doesn't have much of a desire to help men with prostate cancer.)
He did it to make friends. He did it to prevent himself from appearing "anti-woman". So now, when (yes, WHEN) the extreme feminists accuse him of being against women, he can point to his wonderfully benevolent breast cancer charity and say "I'm not anti-woman! Look what I'm doing for breast cancer research!"
There's a word for that, and it's not "concern". It's "hypocrisy".
It's pretty revealing that he wasn't going to do ANYTHING for prostate cancer until several of us e-mailed him with our questions and concerns.
Mr. Pontiff, if you're reading this (and I know you're aware of this thread since I e-mailed the URL to you), you're probably thinking "I just can't please any of you people!"
No sir, apparently you cannot. What would please us? Sincerity. If you're going to do something for breast cancer, then do it because you sincerely care and NOT because you want to win over friends of Martha Burke to your side.
And if you actually DO do something for prostate cancer, do it because you're genuinely concerned about it. Not because you're trying to appease us.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 25, @04:00AM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
He's not going to win any friends from the MB camp. But I'm not sure we're going to win many over if we brow beat people who are essentially on our side. He's probably not a men's activist per se--not yet. Of course, if we are unpleasant enough maybe never. Btw, what was revealled is that activism works--the emails brought him a step in our direction. Put a little sugar on that vinegar!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in agreement here too, Dittohd.
I, like-wise, will not give a dime to breast cancer research.
Why? because I hate women and want them to die from breast cancer? No. It's because breast cancer is OVER funded to begin with.
Why keep pouring water into a buckett that's all ready over flowing...?
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a common enough phenomenon. Those who wish
to criticise some aspect of the dominant orthodoxy
go out of their way to establish their credentials
as loyal believers. Otherwise they risk being
excommunicated (denied access to the media) as
incorrigible heretics (misogynists).
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand all the criticism here regarding the choice of breast cancer as a charity to campaign for, and I would rather he selected prostate cancer as well. But you have to recognize that what he has done is taken a position that is absolutely unassailable from the feminist quarter. They really can't attack him. Oh, they can say he's a hypocrite for supporting Hootie, but he's really not even doing that in any large way.
C'mon, guys, back off a bit. This is a tactic, a wise one, and it WILL work, though probably not by itself. WE don't necessarily like it, but consider it from the perspective of the opposition, and it looks less offensive.
Also. Someone above mentioned the possibility of starting our own website. Might I suggest a domain name? http://www.ncwo.com/ is available. (The National Coalition of Women's Organizations owns http://www.ncwo.ORG/)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 25, @06:18PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Frank H.,
I agree... I think it is a good strategy, also. Also, have you seen www.augustadiscriminates.com? Martha did not secure the domain .com, and somebody has already done what you suggested! It's hilarious... check it out.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
