|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kathy - What a tragedy that your son would die at the hands of a swat team. Your pain must be unbearable. My condolences to you and your family.
Many of us here are working towards changing the unjust laws that render men helpless and hopeless such as must have happened with your son Guy. I only wish we could work faster.
very sad story
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @06:13PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Are we supposed to feel sorry for this maniac who didn't want to pay to support his own children, got drunk and obviously terrorized his girlfriend then shot at several police not caring if he injured or killed them. If it's true that this was all over child support payments then what a selfish creep he was to risk others lives over money. I've got no sympathy whatsoever for him that for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @06:46PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly how do you know all this about this man? Or are you just assuming it because he is a man?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kathy, I am very sorry for your loss. I think that yes, the police did their jobs and there is no blame to be laid at their feet. As a policeman's daughter, I can understand their position. However, the people do not 'crack' like that for no reason. I imagine there was a long and grueling road to get to the point your son was at.
Anonymous user, you are being overly simplistic, and if you are going to make such bold, heartless statements, at least have the courage to put down a name. "Obviously terrorized his girlfriend" is your opinion, it could have just as easily been the other way around. He had more to lose than she did, so who would be in the position to deal it out? She would.
This is a sad case for everyone involved. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that yes, the police did their jobs and there is no blame to be laid at their feet. As a policeman's daughter, I can understand their position. However, the people do not 'crack' like that for no reason. I imagine there was a long and grueling road to get to the point your son was at.
I agree, Jen. You have a way with words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Obviously terrorized his girlfriend" is your opinion, it could have just as easily been the other way around. He had more to lose than she did, so who would be in the position to deal it out? She would.
This is a valid and important point. The feminists love to point out that men, on average, can hit harder than women. They then go on to say that DV by men is, therefore, worse than DV by women. They choose to ignore the fact that women not only have access to the same weapons as men, women also have all the fists of the government, and much of the rest of society, to use in their fights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jen said: "I think that yes, the police did their jobs and there is no blame to be laid at their feet."
I know very little about police work and I won't pass judgment on these policeman but I can't imagine in this day and age that live ammunition needed to be used to kill this man. We have technology available to stun or temporarily disable. For goodness sakes they have the compassion to use disabling darts on animals why not this man?
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @08:28PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"We have technology available to stun or temporarily disable. For goodness sakes they have the compassion to use disabling darts on animals why not this man?"
Because, sadly, if he had a loaded gun he could still get off a round and kill someone before going down.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because, sadly, if he had a loaded gun he could still get off a round and kill someone before going down.
Exactly my thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that equiptment like stun darts and taser darts are not in the normal arsinal of most police departments, also.
It would be nice of instead of tear gas they had a stun gas available, to render the person unconscience. Of course, then the poor man would just end up in jail, but still have all the same problems he had before. It sounds like this was a type of suicide.
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds like this was a type of suicide.
I'm not the least bit sure what the hell this sounds like.
I've really gotta go work out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @09:51PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not the least bit sure what the hell this sounds like.
If you read the article posted by Tom (not the mother's letter) you can see that it *was* suicide. McClure shouted to police and 9-1-1 dispatchers that Carpenter had shot him in the face. That he was dying and he wanted to die. If the police had been able to get to him they might have been able to rescue him, which is what he DID NOT want.
In the end he forced their hand.
Rest in peace Guy. This old world took your life from you but it can't hurt you anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know Ray. I am sure these SWAT fellows were all behind some barrier. I can't imagine they were simply standing in the open for a clean shot. Seems to me that he might have gotten a shot off (though I don't think that was his intention) but it wouldn't have done much if there was no target to hit.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @08:41PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"I think that yes, the police did their jobs and there is no blame to be laid at their feet. As a policeman's daughter, I can understand their position."
Sorry Jen, that sounds like the excuse the Nazi's used at Nuremberg, "I was just being a good German soldier." In other words, I was just doing my job. It's too bad the police believe that in 95% of the cases of domestic violence it's the man that's the perpetrator. They use this false feminist statistic to deny men like Guy the help they need. If the police want to be the purveyors of feminist hate laws, then I lay the blame squarely at their feet.
They have the ability to know right from wrong or they can just choose to follow their feminist indoctrination, when handling incidents of domestic violence.
If there's no excuse for domestic violence, then there is neither an excuse for a system that intentionally drives men to such desperation, that they have no choice left but to escape their tormentors through their own death.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray,
I know that the police are a part of a corrupt system, though I'm inclined to cut them some slack when the shooting starts, I'm diving for cover, and they're charging into the heat of battle.
I'm honestly curious. After they were notified of a shooting at the trailer, a neighbor got Tina Carpenter out, and Guy McClure stayed behind, what would you have had the cops do differently? I guess they could have surrounded the trailer, told everyone within rifle distance and in eyesight of the trailer to evacuate their homes immediately and not return until further notice, and then waited to talk him out or starve him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please don't take my post as an attack. I'm honestly wondering how the situation could have been better handled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @09:38PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
"Please don't take my post as an attack. I'm honestly wondering how the situation could have been better handled."
Yes, thank you, likewise from me.
There may have been no other way to handle this last desperate situation. The police and this desperate man may have been mere pawns that were forced by feminist policy to play out their individual roles leading up to this last tragic confrontation.
No arguement on this tragedy will ever by complete without knowing what kind of support was made available to Guy and to his wife to solve their individual problems and their problems as a couple and a family.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray, I can see where you are going with this. I agree with you that the system is to blame here for driving this man to the edge.
However, I would say that the policemen in question are not directly connected to that system in a way they can control.
They were called out to a situation, where one person was armed and another was being threatened. It is their job to try to handle this situation as best they can. They probably did not know the background on this particular case. They tried other methods before actually shooting, and those methods did not work. This man was bent on getting killed,which was out of the policemans hands, albeit understandable.
Consider these guys the clean up crew. Damage was done,(by the court system) and their job was to minimize the outcome. Their job is to keep as many people alive as possible. They saved one person, and killed one. I think in their mind that is better than losing two people, or more.
But I think you are right in that the police, whether advertantly or not, have a lot of control. On the subject of DV, I think that changing the law enforcement policies will be fundimental in making progress on this issue. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 12, @12:13AM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
"However, I would say that the policemen in question are not directly connected to that system in a way they can control."
Nuremnberg defense.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 13, @12:41AM EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
"I have no desire to join a bunch of wackos living in the past."
Thanks for your abuse. Your very good at it, or are you a victim too? That would excuse you from your abuse then. Could it also be that you're a woman? If so, then you already have the only acceptable excuse to commit domestic violence, don't you?
"No doubt if he had murdered his partner like so many men do, you would have still been blaming the woman for not getting out of the relationship and being a "victim"."
Wrong, if he had been married to someone using language like you use here I would just say that this "battered husband," the victim, should not have used lethal force to free himself from his batterer, the female primary aggressor. But since the Violence Against Women Act bigottedly denies all assistance to male victims of domestic violence, the help that he should have had was denied to him by the pheminut controlled domestic violence shelters.
As for as the child support contention, you bring on the acutal numbers and you'll get the arguement for that one too.
As someone else has already stated on this site:
FEMINIST LIES
MAKE BAD LAWS
Since you have elected not to sign your name I will do likewise.
Have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 13, @12:45PM EST (#69)
|
|
|
|
|
"No doubt if he had murdered his partner like so many men do, you would have still been blaming the woman for not getting out of the relationship and being a "victim"."
Save this comment for that murdering woman Clara Harris, just chage the genders in your tirade, then it will fit her perfectly. Most murdering women committing this most heinous act of domestic violence are better at hiding this crime than she was. Your tired old radical feminist tripe won't work her. Wise up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 13, @08:36PM EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
((("Your tired old radical feminist tripe won't work here. Wise up.")))
You got that right, AU.
And the news is even better than that.
That feminist tripe is working less in more and more places than just here!
Yes, The fembots are tripping THEMSELVES up. And with the very tripe you describe. It is more and more obvious to me that in order to win this battle, all we men's activists have to do, is stay true to who we are.
And all the feminists have to do to LOSE the battle is to stay true to who THEY are.
It's amazeing how much work they will save us, inevitably. (^-^)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is more and more obvious to me that in order to win this battle, all we men's activists have to do, is stay true to who we are.
And all the feminists have to do to LOSE the battle is to stay true to who THEY are.
It's amazeing how much work they will save us, inevitably. (^-^)
I'm glad you're back, Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 15, @02:59AM EST (#82)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Thomas.
'good to be back.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, Lady, Nice troll.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Look, My first troll....(feeling all warm and fuzzy inside)
I like the sarcasm hiding the fact she knows nothing other than the typical rhetoric....
She seems to be pulling a lot of assumptions out of thin air, but I suppose she won't bother to come back and debate with us, seeing as she would lose. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 14, @09:10PM EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen:
She seemed like a hard line feminist parroting the traditional rhetoric preached in Women's Studies courses.
I'm not sure what makes a troll a troll. The last one, that was identified by others, came on this sight and was really something (used profanity, child like name calling, etc.), and signed all posts anonymously. This one was milder.
It is good to be able to engage in spirited debate with those who don't necessarily agree with your opinion. It really helps to frame the issues within the factors that make them so complex.
The poster you refer to if not a troll was certainly leaning towards troll like behavior.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let us take a closer look at your arguments.
Interesting you say this? what were is support payments? Was he allowed to see his kids and take part in thier life or just visit them? What was his ability to pay like? Living in a trailer home would indicate that his life style was not high and his job skills were probably also lacking. FYI Oregon has the highest rate of unempolyment in the country! So likely he was out of work or could only get poor paying jobs to survive on.
This statement is an obvious attempt to demean him and categorize him as some idiot drunk. Would it be reasonable to assume that from his conversation with the 911 operator and his actions he was suicidal? Perhaps his being drunk was an attempt to self-medicate and escape from a world that didnt care about him.
If she was terrorized why are potential charges being threatened agasinst her. As is typical in a domestic dispute the male is presumed guilty of a crime. Likely, as is the case in the majority of domestic violence both parties are equally guilty. Perhaps she said something to provoke his drinking and suicidal acts?
Perhaps if there was a place for men to talk about the pain they are suffering they would not be forced to turn to suicidal acts like walking toward a SWAT team armed with bullet proof vests, helmets, and assault rifles, drunk and waving a pistol.
Perhaps if you can not see these at the last desperate acts of a man who had not other recourse you are the one who needs the sympathy or at least a heart.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a lot that I can't ascertain here.
Apparently was a domestic dispute. There's no telling from the article who was at fault. The police tried to get McClure to come out of the trailer. He fired at the police. Then, when he did exit the trailer, instead of dropping his weapon (or not taking one out with him in the first place) he went toward the police while still holding the weapon. "SWAT officers gave multiple orders for him to drop his weapon. McClure refused and continued advancing on officers."
They dropped him. The members of the SWAT team couldn't know who started the domestic dispute or even if it was completely one sided. What they did know was that a guy, who had fired at them, was coming toward them while refusing to drop his gun. If that's about the whole story, I don't think McClure was a victim. You don't shoot at the police in a war zone (read "anywhere USA") and then go toward them with a weapon without expecting to get shot. If I were a cop and he continued to come at me with the gun, I might have shot him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @06:48PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
If one is going to be pro-violence in a movement to liberate men one would have to be on McClure's side here. He was raped by the court system and took the only way out he could. He probably took the gun out on purpose so the police *would* shoot him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think Tom's post was about taking sides. I think he was simply stating that the police had to do their jobs for their own safety. They have their own families and lives, and if they have to take a life in the line of duty, they do. Trust me, I have never met a police officer who was proud of killing someone. I am sure they are out there, but they are rare.
As I said earlier, this case was a sad one for all parties involved. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think Tom's post was about taking sides.
My point is that the links on this thread don't inform me of what led up to the shootout. What was the decision of "Crook County Circuit Judge George Neilson and the State of Oregon?" Were the terms unfair? I'm honestly without enough information to know what led up to the killing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole thing sounds to me a lot like "death by cop," that this guy went out knowing he was going to be shot because for whatever reason he couldn't turn the gun on himself. Death by cop by another name is suicide. And though I share Tom's skepticism to a degree, I'm inclined to indict "the system."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only question remains: why kill himself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @08:20PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"He probably took the gun out on purpose so the police *would* shoot him."
I think the term is DBC or SBC (suicide by cop or death by cop). This happens repeatedly in L.A. Many men feel that if the courts (the law) are going to take a man's life, the least they can do is finish the job.
Feminists love it when a man goes out this way. It helps their statistics showing men as violent, etc., which helps them get more money to vilify more men.
Men in L.A. aren't the least bit concerned about terrorism. We have LAPD and the courts.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 12, @11:36PM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray.
Your post made the hair on the back of my neck raise up.
Very chilling, to say the least.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If that's about the whole story, I don't think McClure was a victim.
My apologies. That wasn't clear. I don't see, from what I've read here, that McClure was a victim of the police. He may well have been a victim of the corrupt courts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @08:09PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Cathy McClure:
I will remember your son, Guy, the next time I protest for men's and Father's rights in front of a court house in Los Angeles. I am not out there because I'm any kind of special person. I'm out their, because I am so saddened to read one more story like yours that I can no longer sit apathetically on my couch and watch T.V. and ignore the outrageously unjust atrocities that our governments are committing against decent hard working men like your son.
In my heart I wish that you would be comforted now and know that there are still decent loving people who will not let your sons death go unaccounted for by America's "justice" system. The laws that drove your son to do what he did must be changed, and the evil that influenced those unjust laws to be made in the first place must be shown in the full light of day for the evil it is.
The following sign which I have not yet displayed on the public streets, I will display proudly in special honor of your precious son in the hopes that others may find hope in our activist movement, as I have, and be saved from such a fate as your sons:
FEMINIST TRAINED
COPS & JUDGES
BATTER MEN
Grace and Peace to You and Yours,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll try not to harp on this, but I do want to repeat that we're shy on information here. Everyone, who is familiar with my postings, knows that I'm aware of the murderous injustices meted out by the courts, and much of the rest of the government, against men. I just think we ought to exercise some caution in a case like this.
If the radfems aren't using setups to trap us, they will soon. We just don't have much evidence in this case. Does anyone here know for sure that Guy McClure wasn't a monster. I sure don't from the posted links. Hell, I don't even know that the letter to the editor, at the top of this thread, really appeared in the Eugene Register Guard.
I'm just advising caution. God knows, we have plenty of cases with lots of evidence to point to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @09:12PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
"We just don't have much evidence in this case." "Does anyone here know for sure that Guy McClure wasn't a monster."
Yes, his Mom.
That being said, you are right to urge that we base our comments on fact and not just suspicions of a corrupt system, a corrupt system that has many times committed injustices against men.
This scenario is all to familiar, and one is tempted to fill in the missing pieces based on the male abusive, modus operandi that our corrupt "justice" system has so often employed.
Given the long established "pattern of injustice against men" that our system works so hard to preserve I reserve the personal right to say in cases like this "guilty until proven innocent." That's the way our courts choose to operate against men in areas of domestic violence so I hold them to their own standard. I don't trust our legal system any further than I can spit. I'm from Missouri, if our feminist indoctrinated, prejudice cops and courts are innocent of the blood of this man then "Show Me." Until then I'll just have to take Mom at her word. That's my choice. You can just chalk that decision of mine up to "battered man syndrome."
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 12, @02:35PM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
Mister Anonymous, you sound disturbed. You would be more helpful to everyone if you would master your passion, control your hatred, and tone down your anti-social rhetoric.
Thanks,
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 12, @11:47PM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
Steve:
It was Ghandi who said, "An eye for an eye and pretty soon the whole world is blind."
Your words to Mr. Anonymous were well said. It takes far more work to dress up, go out in the light of day, set up an information table in front of a court house, and exercise your right to free speech and free assembly in the presence of cops lawyers, judges, and the general public, than to engage in overtly destructive behavior.
One need only look at the life Ghandi to see what kind of power a peaceful, just man can have against an oppressive system.
Likewise, it was Sebastion Castillo who said to John Calvin and his government (upon their burning at the stake the heretic Michael Servetus), "To burn a man to death does not kill an idea, it kills a man."
The power of our reason and the justness of our pleadings will be the effective forces that change the madness created by the influence of radical feminism on law.
The pheminuts have a constitutional right to their heresy, but we too have an equal right to oppose that heresy with all the legal force of peaceful protest that we can muster.
Radical feminists in their batterer's programs condemn displacing aggression into alternative expressions like sports or other physical activities to further disempower men, but I say screw them. I'm going to channel all the upset they strive to provoke in this man into energetic activities like going out and gathering signatures, carrying picket signs, and engaging in all kinds of activities that work counter to their evil.
It is too bad we could not have found Guy to tell him this before he took a wrong turn (whenever that was) and let us hope that we can guide other men to vent their frustrations in constructive ways so that they will work to disempower evil radical feminist.
I can think of no finer, higher work for any man than displacing his male aggression (brought on by the injustices of radical feminism)into ways that work to disempower radical feminists of their evil abusive control.
If any men's activists have written a letter to their elected representative don't stop there, make photocopies, go out into the high ways and byways and nicely ask people to sign the letter also, then send those letters to elected rep's. One signature on a letter one more blow to radical feminist insanity.
There are plenty of legal, sane ways to go after the actions of the evil, hateful people who have worked so hard to make the lives of men in America a living hell.
Lastly, if you are a man who has already fallen prey to pheminut witch hunt that our legal system is on consider yourself a proud member of the walking wounded that make a majority of this movement. It is the intent of the radical feminists to shame you for being a man and thereby further disempower you, but I say look up, the source of your redemption is nigh, that proud unashamed face you see in the mirror is the beginning of better days ahead for you and the beginning of the end for radical feminism.
Remember always, you will never be alone, because you have friends who really want to see you make the best of things, no matter how hard that may seem to believe some times. They will be greatly saddened if you fail them.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray, my brother, that was a great post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...a proud member of the walking wounded that make a majority of this movement."
I don't know if this is true (that the walking wounded make up the majority of the men's movement) but if it is, it cannot remain so for long. This movement MUST engage the rest of the men, the men who for whatever reason have not had occasion to experience the true depth of misandry in law and in society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This movement MUST engage the rest of the men, the men who for whatever reason have not had occasion to experience the true depth of misandry in law and in society.
Some people will consider my statement (to follow) cynical, but then I'd consider them naive. The fact is, most people won't join the movement, won't do anything to stop the oppression of men, unless they believe there is something in it for them personally. Many men and women support feminism, or turn their backs on its lies and injustices, because they feel they can gain personally by doing so. (The men often think supporting feminism will help them earn the approval of women, which they desperately need, or they're afraid that opposing the lies will end with their lives being damaged.)
So, what is or can be in the men's movement for the average guy, who currently believes he'll personally be best off if he continues to support the dominant paradigm of feminism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will add that feminism gets the support of most women, even those who don't call themselves feminists, through such lies as, "If you don't support the women's movement, you'll always be paid far less than a man for the same work," and, "if you don't support the women's movement, you will be far more likely to be violently raped."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas, it doesn't matter if you believe in this pessimistic view or not. I'm not surprised for a moment that some (perhaps many) hold it. But that shouldn't deter the movement from TRYING to gain as many consituents as possible. If we make the effort, we WILL be successful, perhaps not to the degree that we'd like, but perhaps successful enough to make the difference that needs to be made. If we fail to do this, then we'll be nothing but the bunch of bitter white males that much of mainstream society regards us as, and our positions will NOT be advanced.
Oh, by the way, mainstream men do NOT support the dominant paradigm of feminism. They are apathetic, which means to me that they can be convinced to be, at least, sympathetic. Finally, remember that they are voting according to issues that impart more direct impact into their lives: the economy is primary. As long as they are not affected adversely by gender politics (and most are not), they will vote on other issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank,
I'm not sure, but I think you missed my point.
that shouldn't deter the movement from TRYING to gain as many consituents as possible. If we make the effort, we WILL be successful
I'm not saying we shouldn't try. We should try, but saying that we should try is very different from working out specific plans. My question is: How specifically do we convince many men and women that there is something in the truth and fairness movement that will lead to their personal betterment? (And I don't mean in some abstract, spiritual sense.) If we can't come up with specifics, it will be hard to dissuade them from simply going along with the dominant paradigm.
mainstream men do NOT support the dominant paradigm of feminism
Actually, to discuss that we'd have to define the "dominant paradigm of feminism." I'd say that dominant paradigm is the claim that women are suffering oppression under a sexist, male-dominated society. I suspect, for example, most men believe that for a given background, ability, and amount of work women are paid less than men. I'd also bet that most men believe that domestic violence is committed overwhelmingly by men against women. It's been my personal experience to find that most men believe such feminist lies and support social changes to remedy such specific injustices, which actually don't exist.
Finally, remember that they are voting according to issues that impart more direct impact into their lives: the economy is primary. As long as they are not affected adversely by gender politics (and most are not), they will vote on other issues.
This is precisely my point. I'm glad to see you agree with me. Men will vote on what impacts "their lives" as you put it, not the lives of other men. I think most men are savvy enough to sense that, if they speak out against oppression of men and boys, they run a greatly increased risk of being the victims of false accusations, the victims of claims of creating a hostile environment, the victims of divorce and loss of children because the man's wife doesn't want to hear the truth, etc. In other words, if a man speaks out against the hatred and lies of feminism, he runs an increased risk of serious financial and emotional loss.
Feminists have made a lot of headway by convincing women that by supporting feminism they will get paid far more, that by supporting feminism they will greatly increase their safety.
My question is: How specifically do we get more men and women to believe it's in their personal interest to stand up for the truth about the oppression of men?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Actually, to discuss that we'd have to define the "dominant paradigm of feminism." "
We'd probably also have to discuss how we arrive at what we mean by "mainstream men."
"How specifically do we get more men and women to believe it's in their personal interest to stand up for the truth about the oppression of men?"
Well, I've suggested before, though I'm not really able myself to affect this, that we need to do as the feminists did (and still do), and engage college students. The IWF has started with this, though they mostly target women. We need for the NCFM and other men's orgs to open up a campus outreach program and reach them before they start chasing pussy in the NOW meetings. (My assumption being that ACTING like you support the feminists seems to be an aphrodisiac, and remaining in that "community" for too long causes you to buy the feminist dogma.) Once men get married and become parents, they vote according to their wallets, because that is the most fundamental of their roles. I know. In many ways, I'm one of them. Get to them BEFORE this demand takes over their lives, while they are still idealists, while they can still afford to think altruistically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These are good ideas, Frank. It's important to reach out to young men in college and even to boys in high school and grade school. Fathers could play an especially important role in this. I've found that most of the men, who are my age, are too settled, too worn out from life, and too used to submitting to feminism and women in general to be of much use for anything other than sharing a bottle of wine with and watching a game. Younger men are more ready to act and have more energy and less to lose. If we end up with an all-male-draft for combat, that will be a powerful rallying point around which we can bring out a wealth of facts about male-oppression and female-privilege.
Also, I think we can make our slogans more powerful and direct. (Ray, I dreamt that I saw one of your slogans on a large piece of plywood. I was really excited and happy but disappointed that you weren't around so I could meet you.)
If we point out how a particular man has been driven to suicide or otherwise destroyed by the divorce courts or by false accusations, then we can finish with "IT HAPPENED TO HIM. ARE YOU NEXT?" (That's just a rough idea.) We need to get men to realize that we are all threatened by the evils of this feminist society.
I also think (this may be controversial) that it would pay off to degrade and humiliate femboys (male feminists). It may harden them in their position, but it will make other men, who see the femboys degraded, less likely to think that they're going to receive endless adulation for spreading hatred against men in general. It's time individuals starting paying a price for promoting misandry, even if that price is humiliation.
When men I know are screwed over by the feminist society and government, I've taken to asking them what they've done in the past to fight feminism. When they respond with typical silence, I point out to them that, in a way, they're getting what they deserve. They were willing to hide while the injustices were meted out to other men and boys. It irritates them, when I say it, but it makes an impression with them and with the other men who hear it. There's no longer any excuse for failing to fight the evil known as feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've found that most of the men, who are my age, are too settled, too worn out from life, and too used to submitting to feminism and women in general to be of much use for anything other than sharing a bottle of wine with and watching a game.
I was just thinking about this and decided it deserved some clarification. There's no doubt that many of the men my age may be fine providers, and excellent at their jobs, and generally good people. But as far as taking action to change society, they aren't going to do very much, or at least they won't risk much to do it. For deep social changes, we need to look to the young.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Kathy, His life was really over when Crook County Circuit Judge George Neilson and the State of Oregon decided what he would pay in child and spousal support in June of 1999. He had no hope and no life after that. I really wish the laws could be changed. My condolences go out to you. I would be very interested to see the details of this support order as compared to your son's income. Is there another article that we can see that has this info or can you tell us the details? Dittohd P.S. (To everyone else) If the police didn't have guns, would they have been unable to neutralize this man without others getting hurt? I think too many of us have been brainwashed in favor of the police just as the majority of America is now brainwashed against men. I would also like to add that by now, I think, all or most of us here are well aware that the details of what we read in newspapers is more often than not less than accurate. How many of us think that the police don't color less than favorable instances to cover their butts? I wonder how much of that article we were linked to is accurate and how much inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there another article that we can see that has this info or can you tell us the details?
Dittohd
Thanks, Dittohd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that we need details before jumping to conclusions on this.
I don't recall hearing of this case before. Just as surely as we need to convince the feminist-snookered popular press that there are occasionally bad women, we need to accept that there are occasionally bad men. Nothing posted here as of now negates that this guy was one of them.
Back when Scott ran this site, he researched these kind of things to make sure they were valid issues and not misogynist shill. It is distressing that the new group is less thorough.
I hope I am proven wrong. If so, I say fry the DA and whoever else is indictable on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @09:25PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't had a chance to show her this article, but I'm sure she will be interested, and maybe she will be able to shed some inside light about the particulars...
I have personally read some of her DPSST police recruit manuals on D.V., and they confirmed my worst fears about feminazi propaganda being implemented into police training manuals. Throughout the training manual they usually use gender-neutral pronouns, but every example is of a man beating a woman. They state that 95% of DV is men on women.
THEY SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT THE "PRIMARY AGGRESSOR" SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED BY ACCOUNTS OF WHO INITIATED THE VIOLENCE, BUT BY A NUMBER OF FACTORS INCLUDING HEIGHT AND WEIGHT!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THEY SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT THE "PRIMARY AGGRESSOR" SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED BY ACCOUNTS OF WHO INITIATED THE VIOLENCE
This should be a focus of our fight. The primary aggressor IS the person who initiates physical violence. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting post Hobbes. I would argue that your GF is deluding herself if she thinks that this training does not affect the perception of the police officers when they are dealing with DV situations.
If we reworded this simple paragraph the problem leaps out at the reader.
THE "PRIMARY AGGRESSOR" SHOULD NOT BE DETERMINED BY ACCOUNTS OF WHO INITIATED THE VIOLENCE, BUT BY A NUMBER OF FACTORS INCLUDING ETHNICITY AND RELIGION.
I wonder what people would say if this was written down in a text book that is supposed to teach our police force.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 15, @03:16AM EST (#83)
|
|
|
|
|
I think I asked this question once before, But...,
What if the "combatants" are two men? The cops break it up, and it turns out the smaller 5' 4'' guy started the fight with the 6' 5'' guy. It should be obvious to anyone that the primairy aggressor is the smaller man who started the fight in the first place, right?
So, If all things are equal, then why should that factor change just because the primairy aggressor in another case might be FEMALE?!?
Oh, and one more thing.
What happens if, in a fight between a man and a woman, the woman is larger than the man...?
Food for thought.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @09:45PM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
I accidentally submitted that last post prematurely...
Anyway, as I was saying, police recruits in Eugene are taught to determine who the primary aggressor is according to who weighs more and who is taller. Don't believe me? Read the DPSST manual - I did.
Furthermore, the mandatory arrest policy means that in the case of a domestic dispute, the primary aggressor MUST be arrested, and the primary aggressor can be determined not by who is bleeding, but by who is bigger (read: male). So when you hear about police arresting a man who is bleeding while the woman has not a scratch - rest assured that the cops are doing exactly what their training manuals prescibe.
It is that bad here. I read the whole manual on DV and the whole thing sounds like it was written by NOW. There is no cautioning that women batter men too. Not even a mention of the possibility that men can be victims. There is no balance - it is completely biased against men.
I have talked to my girldfriend about this stuff on a number of occassions, and she agrees with me that women batter men as frequently as men batter women. However, she insists that cops generally use good judgement when determining who to arrest and that the laws are more fair than I describe them. Hmmm.
Anyway, I recommend to everyone here that they take the time to read up on the DV laws in their own state. The training manuals are completely biased against men, and the stats they teach police recruits are completely FALSE!
BTW, if my s.o. knows anything about this particular case that isn't sensitive material, I'll be sure to post it.
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anon - any way to get copies of the recruit DV manual? It would help greatly to have access to those. You can reach me at tom@standyourground.com
Thanks.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @09:51PM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
Tom,
I'll see what I can do. I don't think it will be to hard to get copies. I'll email you if I find anything out.
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just looked up the paper where this woman claimed to be from. There is no record of her son or this case that I could find in the archives.
Anyone else tried to confirm this? Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevermind, guess I didn't know where to look ..oops Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 12, @10:15AM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
Talk about sleeping with the enemy.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 12, @10:51AM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
Bob,
I disagree. Cops are not the enemy, nor are women. I think my girlfriend of several years is very sympathetic to my concerns about DV. She has stood up to people in my presence on more than one occasion and corrected them that women batter men just as frequently. She doesn't agree with me on everything, but I don't know of anyone on this board who agrees with anyone else on the board about everything.
Sometimes I get so angry at everything that I start to see all women as hostile creatures, but I know that type of mindset is irrational and just as bad as the mindset radfems have. When I cool down I realize that most of the women I'm upset at dislike NOW as much as I do, and some of the men I walk by every day would probably be the first to sacrifice my life on the alter of chivalry. It isn't us vs. women, and it isn't us vs. cops, it's us vs. the (femi)nazi ideology that permeates every corner of our daily lives.
OK I'll get off my soap box now :)
BTW, I just read in the register Guard this morning someone has written a letter to the editor on this story, and it was very sympathetic to the shooting victim. I'll copy it & post it here when I have a minute.
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
some of the men I walk by every day would probably be the first to sacrifice my life on the alter of chivalry. It isn't us vs. women, and it isn't us vs. cops, it's us vs. the (femi)nazi ideology that permeates every corner of our daily lives.
This is true. Thanks, hobbes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 13, @12:10AM EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
Hobbes,
You sound like a great guy with a great girlfriend. The world needs more people like you and your girlfriend.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand that Guy was shot twenty nine times. I did not send in the article to berate the actions of the police. His Mom made a valid point about the oppressive nature of the laws against men in family court, which in this case according to her was the cause of the problem. Those who responded debating that claim, are claiming to know Guy better than his Mother, rather presumptuous. All one has to do is travel this country visiting the taverns. One will find that out of 10 men sitting at the bar drinking 7 are drowning their sorrows over similar situations. Not everyone can live as a wage slave to support the jobs that depend on that income. Working 45-50 hours a week and not bringing home enough to live comfortably can be enough for some to break. Do we blame the people that lash out due to the oppressive nature of the system, or do we lay blame where it belongs? Matters of conscience, or matters of humanity, or both?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those who responded debating that claim, are claiming to know Guy better than his Mother, rather presumptuous.
This is not correct, and you should be intelligent enough to know that. We know what the mother allegedly claimed. What we've stated is that we don't have enough evidence from what's been presented here.
I doubt you would want to see a man convicted on such flimsy evidence. "This is the way is usually is, therefore this must be the way it is in this case." Where have we seen that reasoning before?
We have crap for evidence here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My premise is simple, men are oppressed through the one sided system, not given biologicaly earned rights to parenthood due to social experimentation backed by administrative law. The amounts that men are ordered to pay in most cases(at least here in OR) are totally lopsided. That in and of itself is enough to declare Guy a victim of oppressive slavery. Cause, and affect. Unless of course one desires to debate the obvious so that they don't have to address it. As far as my intelligence is concerned, well, usually when a person tries to insult another person in that fashion there is a reason that dwells within the individual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That in and of itself is enough to declare Guy a victim of oppressive slavery.
No. It is not. You are not using logic. In fact, you are thinking much like a feminist. The above statement is very much like a toned down version of the feminist, "As long as one woman in the world is oppressed, all women are oppressed."
Like it or not, we still don't know if Guy was subjected to Draconion settlement orders. You are wrong in believing that if many men are then all men are.
Those who responded debating that claim, are claiming to know Guy better than his Mother, rather presumptuous.
People have pointed out that we lack enough evidence at this point to state that what applies to many men certainly applies to Guy. You are the one making presumptions. No one here has claimed to know more Guy than his mother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 13, @12:11AM EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
"I understand that Guy was shot twenty nine times."
This is only my opinion, but I would venture to say that this was no accidental shooting. Rather, this kind of excessive force clearly casts the police in the role they chose for themselves, that of judge, jury and executioner.
No doubt Guy gave them the excuse they needed to carry out this execution within the departments policies and guidelines. It is obvious that they took full advantage of their right to execute this man, and it appears pretty obvious that Guy was successful in getting these Dr. Kevorkian (sp?) surrogates to assist him in his suicide.
The haunting questions still remain unanswered, "Is the legal system so Draconialy biased against men that they drove this man to do this? What series of events over the years led up to this event, and what kind of assistance was available (or not available) to help Guy avoid getting to such a desperate point as this? What would a reasonable person assume justice to be when looking at the answers to all of these questions? Was justice served here or was Guy just one more casualty in the holocaust intentionally being perpetrated by the overall agenda of radical feminism?
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 12, @09:59AM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
Another man is coldly murdered by jackboot thugs. It happens every day. That's what they are trained to do. They could have quietly sent a non-threatening person or two to investigate the situation. Instead they sent an assasination army with orders to kill, and to nobody's surprise kill they did. More young men die from police murder than from most other causes. They are the army of the women's repbulic of America. They are the front line troops that enforce misandrist laws and oppress men.
Men need to wake up and recognize the police as our enemies. They do not serve or protect men. They oppress, imprison, and murder men.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 12, @11:48PM EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
Leonard Peltier, an Oglala souix Indian male, was falsely accused of the murder of F.B.I. agents.
Though their is a mountain of evidence that shows Leonard to be INNOCENT, He has been rotting in prison for around 30 years.
Leonard Peltier was convicted by a system that hates Indians. He IS a political prisoner.
It seems to me, that Guy was put to death by a system that hates MEN.
He was a political murder.
Murder by the courts, specificaly.
The longer I live the more paralels I see.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to make something clear.
Everyone, who's read my posts to this site, knows that I'm well aware of the terrible oppression of men in this country. God knows, we've seen enough cases with plenty of evidence of that oppression. However, a snippet of a letter, allegedly sent to a newspaper, that is given without so much as a link is not evidence. We may well end up with sufficient evidence in this case to protest what was done, but the snippet was not enough.
I suspect we have all seen plenty of examples of complete fabrications circulating on the Internet, often through email. I've always been amazed by how readily many people believe these fabrications.
God knows, we have an enormous amount to be angry about, and it's important to cut each other slack, when we do get angry. But when we see a claim that's made without a shred of support, let's exercise some caution. If it's about a man being screwed over, the claim may well be true, but it also might not be. It would be trivial for feminists to make up a letter, such as we see at the top of this thread, and then to point to the many men's reaction to that letter as proof that the men's movement is based on lies, that the men's movement is a knee-jerk reaction to things that haven't even occurred.
Though the settlement imposed on Guy may well have been draconian and unjust, we don't know that at this time. Though Guy may well have been a wonderful person, we still don't know whether or not he was a brutal wife beater, whose mother doesn't want to accept that fact. At this time, we just don't know.
We have plenty to object to with a great deal of evidence on our side. Let's not get too carried away, when all we have is someone's declaration about what someone else supposedly claimed about yet another person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 12, @04:19PM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas,
I agree. We don't know a damn thing for sure about this, and it is amazing to see the knee-jerk responses that arise in defense of someone we know nothing about.
It's reminds me of the feminist ideology at NOW that says "we don't care if she murdered her 5 little children, she's a woman and therefore we stand behind her" (not a direct quote, but close enough). It's just blind dogma fighting blind dogma.
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I agree. We don't know a damn thing for sure about this, and it is amazing to see the knee-jerk responses that arise in defense of someone we know nothing about. "
No but I certianly find the dv policy arrest to be very educational. So much so that I think a campaign should be designed around how sexist these policies are.
I wonder if these policies are open to the public for information purposes. I think its high time these tactics are shared with the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 13, @12:21AM EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
"We don't know a damn thing for sure about this, and it is amazing to see the knee-jerk responses that arise in defense of someone we know nothing about.
It's reminds me of the feminist ideology..."
This is no knee jerk reaction. This "reaction" is at least a number of people saying, "I'm getting sick and tired of reading these kind of stories, where the full truth is often swept under the rug and all we get is offical report about the evil man from the feminist trained cops and judges."
I for one hope this kind of rhetoric gets ratcheted up until so much heat is generated that everyone of these kind of incidents is investigated by an independent Men's Commission that is fully aware of the evil influence of Women's Commissions on policy and law.
Very Truly Yours, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I for one am pleased with the majority of response to the initial copy of the first part of Kathy McClures' letter that I sent in. I did not send in the second part due to what I considered diatribe against the Swat Team. Those that are interested in reading the entire letter can go to RegisterGuard.com, or rgletters@guardnet.com. There was an article in todays paper claiming that an independant National organization is going to review the Swat Teams tactics as to policy, and performance. Again, the important theme in this is the laws that rob men of their civil rights as human beings. Our laws do not reflect the natural state of the father, only the fact that men are seen as mules/wage slaves for the current regime. I am surprised that even with the printing of the Judges name, no one has suggested questioning him. We do need more pro-active men. To discuss that which is obvious until action is mute only serves to help the oppressive nature of the system.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 14, @07:07PM EST (#78)
|
|
|
|
|
"We do need more pro-active men. To discuss that which is obvious until action is mute only serves to help the oppressive nature of the system."
You are very correct in stating this. Having been raised in small towns and having lived in a big city for many years now, I believe that this action you mention must begin in the big cities in order to get the big numbers needed to effect change. This won't happen overnight, but I'm optimistic that we can have a real impact.
The words are useful for venting, and they do help to form good ideas, but nothing will be accomplished without action and hard work. Let us hope that we can stay on track and vigorously pursue these issues that so negatively impact the lives of so many men.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
