|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn;t take the time to srritinize the site, but there are things there that I tend to agree with.
However, the very last sentence of the referenced article was one I find VERY offensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A paragraph I loved:
Then came the cry for equality in all areas, including combat roles in war and membership in formerly all-male private clubs, as if women had the right to deny others their freedom of choice as to club membership. This cry for equality (which is not equality but the disenfranchising of men's rights to their own private, non-governmentally funded and non-governmentallyassociated social clubs) is not a cry for equality at all, it is the total disrespect for the rights of men to associate privately with whom they please and have women-free zones in life. Is that bad? No.
I've seen plenty of writing about freedom of association, regarding all-male clubs, but it's rare to see someone state flat out that men have the right to places where they can get away from females. Thanks to Seese for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will add, however, that there is a lot in the essay to which I take strong exception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting article to be sure, but I couldn't help but notice a certain schizophrenia in the authors position. I'd like to state up front that I agree with many of the points made by Mrs. Seese and consider much of the article to be at a minimum "though provoking". I would encourage her to continue developing her position and communicating it to us all. Having said that... I have a few "issues" with the article that if read may be equally thought provoking.
Mrs. Seese appears to be chastising feminists for their blind acquisition and arbitrary application of power, an admirable and appropriate admonishment. Yet in doing so she not only misses the unabashed feminine hubris at the heart of such behavior, she partakes of it.
"This is not to deny that in most instances women are as good or even better than men in the professions such as law and medicine, chemistry, math, science, aerospace and other engineering fields"
A person aware of their capabilities and limitations simply doesn't make assertions of superiority... ever. It makes one look like he/she has something to prove, and demonstrates a willingness to prove it by denigrating someone else. There is no truth to the assertion of feminine superiority in any of the aforementioned fields. I believe women are fully as capable as men in all these fields (and I'm a member of one of them), but better? I think not. As soon as such an assertion is made, the credibility of the author is the first thing drawn into question.
"Roe v. Wade allowed American women to use their freedom not just at the ballot box, but at the abortion mills (largely run by men)"
What is the point of "Largely run by men"? Does the fact that male doctors perform abortions somehow mitigate the responsiblity of the woman who chooses to abort her child? Does the fact that a man is willing to perform an abortion somehow incriminate all men, even the many who would choose to keep the child but are never given a say in the matter? Is this assertion based on real data and controlled for the percentage of female vs. male Gynecologists?
"How did you allow yourselves to get silenced?"
When a young man is raised by a woman bent on turning him into formless lump capable of being manipulated by any woman out there... don't be surprised when that's how he ends up. How can you hold such a young man responsible for resisting the manipulation of his own mother, one of two people that every child needs to love and rely on for proper guidance. It's taken me 15 years of freedom from my mother, 15 years of manipulation by women, 15 years of anger and depression to come to the conclusion that my mother was full of it. It's amazing how much better my relationship with my wife is now that she knows I'm not interested in her being my second mother.
"Are you the ones who sweet-talked the girls into a one-night stand and an unwanted pregnancy that either had to be terminated by abortion or the girl had to go it alone with her child and try to make her way in this world, supporting two at an age when she couldn't really support herself?
No... I was one who by modern feminist standards was raped for my first experience (though I think current feminist standards for rape are absurd), then when there was a fear of pregnancy, was told that it was "NONE OF MY BUSINESS" whether my potential child lived or died.
"Were you dads too busy making money to pay attention to the emotional and spiritual needs of your wife and kids?"
Supporting a wife and children on a single income today requires a whole lot of "making money", and that means that I depend on my wife to provide many day to day needs of my boys. I'm not going to apologize for doing what needs to be done.
"Are you the ones who didn't want to commit to marriage without a trial run first? Are you the guys who allowed old bats like Hillary Clinton and all her clones to get into the highest ranks of women as First Lady while pretending to be a wounded wife? Did you New York men vote for her as your new senator?"
I live in New York and I most certainly did not vote for Hillary, but my wife did. All these are good questions for men to consider, but many of them can be asked of women equally these days.
"Are you the brutes who come home full of displaced anger at your job and strike your wives so that they have to flee the home or risk getting killed?"
How about the wives who are full of displaced anger and initiate half of all spousal abuse (more than half based on some studies)? How about the wives who are full of displaced anger and commit 2/3 of the child abuse? Are they brutes too? What does a man do when his wife is abusing him, he can't flee the home since no shelters will take him. If he runs then he loses his children, if he calls the police than HE will likely be arrested based solely on the word of his abusive wife. According to the Deluth model he will always be the guilty party because "He has the power". Well if HE has the power than why are the majority of divorces initiated by women?
"The reason this article is directed at women, however, is that for the most part, they're the ones who held the homes together and trained the children, watched over their education, and set the moral tone of the nation. They influenced their husbands' votes and character, turning boys into men fit to live with and who became fit to head the household and run the nation. They're the ones who wouldn't stand for trash on radio or television, who insisted that "for the children" really meant what it said and enforced it at the local level and right on up to the corporate inner sanctums.
It was America's women, with or without the vote, who stood behind their men and behind their nation and behind their churches to build a country that was without parallel. Then they decided they weren't free and the nation came tumbling down.
Why am I focusing on the women?
Because when you want to change things, you go to the people who can get the job done. "
This whole section buys whole hog into the feminist "myth of female superiority". As if women were the moral fiber of the world and men needed women to tell them what's right and wrong. Women hold homes together? Simply bunk, it's the inviolate partnership of a man and a woman... together, that holds a home together. Homes are held together when men and women stop looking for the easy out, or what feels good for THEM, and start looking at what's right for their partner and their children. Women most certainly don't hold moral high ground here. (in "divorce at the drop of a hat" America at least.)
Additionally, I certainly wouldn't hold up women's teaching of our children as a point of pride. In these days of Ritalin as a replacement for competent teachers, our young men are being DESTROYED by the heavily female biased educational system. IF they can manage to survive primary and secondary schools, they can look forward to universities full of "Womens Studies" courses and hate for all things male. By the time my boys are ready for college it's quite possible that over 65% of college freshmen will be female, and the males will be an endangered species on campus. The thing that gets me the most is that a movement that started out looking for "equality" has so fully and completely been replaced with the search for "entitlement". The schizophrenia inherent in this article is simply a reflection of the public persona of feminism in general. They can continue to justify more and more scholarships for women entering college, even though women are the quickly growing majority on campus. They can continue to push for obscenely biased legilsation around domestic violence, even though unbiased studies have proven time and time again that DV is equally a problem for women. They can continue to pressure the educational system to teach in ways that benefit girls at the expense of boys, even though the average girl is now a YEAR AND A HALF ahead of the boys developmentally. They can continue to press for "equal pay for equal work" even though studies that are controlled for experience and hours worked per week show that women are payed slightly MORE for the same job. And I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Again, a good article, but it REALLY needed to lose the feminist propeganda component. And while the Mens movement is small, it's growing... there are some of us who recognize the problems facing this country and want to do something about them, but we're fighting against a 500 lb. gurilla and things aren't going to change overnight. (www.mensactivism.com)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW... I finished up by including a link to this site and e-signing the letter with my name... didn't want you to think that I sent this to her as if I was an official representative of the site. (it probably looks that way from the post I put up here).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An astronomical number of group libels against women and group libels against men. (And I only got halfway). Too many to deal with. Too much negativity. Too much bile and hate. Too much collective demonization. Waste of bandwidth, etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday April 01, @08:15PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Oddly I find myself agreeing with Lorianne. The piece belonged to the rhetorical category known as the "rant". If this is the standard of analysis in conservative women's circles they're as mad as the radical feminists.
cheers,
-sd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An astronomical number of group libels against women and group libels against men. (And I only got halfway). Too many to deal with. Too much negativity. Too much bile and hate. Too much collective demonization. Waste of bandwidth, etc. etc.
Too tired to type the usual knee-jerk litany?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read the article. Interesting, indeed!
It's the female-conservative side of the same misandronist coin that is all so common. The same basic presumptions underlie the author's writing: girls good, boys bad. Her scribblings are filled with sexist stereotyping and false assumptions.
She's as bad as Martha Burk and her like-- she's just sitting on the the other side of the coin is all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She's as bad as Martha Burk and her like-- she's just sitting on the the other side of the coin is all.
We do get it, coming and going. When it comes to promoting anti-male hatred, conservatives are little if any better than liberals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...but then she started ranting about abortion and church and all that shit. I stopped reading about halfway through.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
