|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a link at the bottom of the page to "The American Partisan." It goes to a porn site. Apparently, The American Partisan went under and the porn company bought the URL and is using it for a redirect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's a link at the bottom of the page to "The American Partisan." It goes to a porn site.
I contacted the editor of SpinTech Magazine and he said he'll remove all the links to American Partisan. He, also, has no idea what happened to American Partisan. In any case, while the link is there, you might want to avoid it. I clicked on it to see what else of interest American Partisan might have, was sent to the porn site, and had to cold reboot to get out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the most part, I agree with her, but I do disagree on the matter of the old-fashioned "hold-the-door-for-a-woman" bit. I do believe that chivalry--that is, in its one-sided form--IS sexist, both towards males and females. It tells males that they are essentially second-class citizens because they must do nice things for females and get nothing in return (and by "in return" I just mean other little nice things, NOT sex...) and it tells females that they must have help with every little thing.
I'd like to replace chivalry with common courtesy. You see the shadow of someone behind you as you enter the bank, hold the door, whether the person is male or female. Women frequently hold the door for me if they're right in front of me. It's just the genuinely decent thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it tells females that they must have help with every little thing.
I don't think it tells high ranking military officers that they need help with every little thing, when their subordinates hold doors for them. It doesn't tell monarchs that, when their subjects hold doors for them. It doesn't tell slave holders that, when their slaves hold doors for them. And I don't believe it tells women any such thing, when men hold doors for them. It tells men and women that men are inferior to women, and the feminists have jumped on this, like every other form of female privilege, and declared that it's some form of oppression of women.
I'd like to replace chivalry with common courtesy. You see the shadow of someone behind you as you enter the bank, hold the door, whether the person is male or female.
I, too, hold doors for anyone. I always have, except for a brief period after being verbally attacked several times by women for doing so and also being criticized by a woman for not holding a door for her. Now I, once again, hold doors for anyone, and I'm ready to get in the faces of any foul pig feminists who give me grief for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm including this link to encourage you and to show that it's not so bleak, after all. I found this today via search engine...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2178025.s tm
A lot of men and women who believe that fair is fair and that with equality in the workforce (a good thing) there should be equal duty in the social world. A few nuts, too, but for the most part those surveyed agree with us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article says
"we got within a hair's bredth of amending the Constitution to grant women special protections."
Could someone tell me what this is about? What nearly happened to the Constitution?
(BTW, I'm British so I'm not familiar with everything about the US Constitution)
Raymond Cuttill
Men's Books, Men's Radio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could someone tell me what this is about? What nearly happened to the Constitution?
I think she's referring to the Equal Rights Amendment, which, if it were interpreted in the straightforward manner in which it is written, would probably not be a problem. Unfortunately, it would probably be twisted to oppress men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 16, @11:05PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Would the ERA have given men equal rights?
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would the ERA have given men equal rights?
You decide. As far as I know, this is the Equal Rights Amendment in its entirety:
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
In answering your own question, remember that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution allegedly guarantees equal protection, but when the country goes to war the government's attitude regarding the draft is that men should suffer horribly and die so that women can live in greater comfort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remember that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution allegedly guarantees equal protection
Sadly, the reality is that the constitution says whatever it’s politically fashionable to read into it.
The equal rights amendment would change nothing constitutionally - it’s simple redundancy. Its primary purpose is to give political credibility to an even greater level of feminist inequality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the ERA were passed and were interpreted as it is written, the Violence Against Women Act would be eliminated unless a Violence Against Men Act, complete with associated infrastructure and funding, were passed. The Office of Women's Health would cease to exist unless a comparably funded Office of Men's Health were created. The all-male draft-for-combat would cease to exist except as a memory of murderous oppression of young men.
If properly interpreted the ERA would be great for men and a disaster for the feminazi agenda. What will probably happen, however, is that we'll see more things like Affirmatve Action to ensure more preferential treatment for women to correct alleged, fabricated oppression. We'll see laws passed ensuring that women, who work far fewer hours than men on average and who have been in a field for far fewer years, are paid the same as men to correct alleged, fabricated wage discrimination. We'll see government funded support for "all care-givers and dependents irrespective of their sex" including women and children after men have been eliminated from the family.
In short, we'll see plenty of anti-male legislation that gives special priveleges to women. The wording of the ERA actually makes it clear that the feminists will pull this: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." The feminists and their henchmen and henchwomen in the government will claim that females are oppressed in some fabricated manner; then the government will pass laws guaranteeing special priveleges for women because "without these protections, and under the current laws, the government is abridging the rights of women."
Unfortunately, A.J. is right, when he states, "the reality is that the constitution says whatever it’s politically fashionable to read into it."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where feminists excel in achieving anti-male legislation is not in the actual argument for the legislation, it’s in the ability to establish phony beliefs and precedents that are then used to preclude opposing arguments in the legislative process. In short, they’re simply several steps ahead of anyone that might get in their way.
Remember, elected officials don’t care about objective truth; they care about what the public believes.
For example, VAWA would have never seen the light of day if the country didn’t collectively believe in the assumption of woman as victim and man as perp. Years of activism and propaganda preceded the introduction of legislation. Who could argue against going after wife-beaters? (And it was only wife beaters they showed us.) Then when the legislation was introduced, as biased and unconstitutional as it is, who could argue against it if the nation believes in the premise?
Feminism is a model of long term planning. When you see a feminist activity that seems harmless don’t ever assume that it’s based on altruism. The public’s admiration and acceptance of the work will be used as leverage for further anti-male legislation. Feminists have become the unquestioned masters of converting seemingly thoughtful and innocuous activism into a tool to promote their legislative agenda of hate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 17, @08:50PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Would the ERA have given men equal rights?
Given feminazi political power, there would have been only a very small chance of this, irrespective of the text of the amendment. That's why feminazis have turned to "The Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women," i.e. CEDAW. Given that perfect equality in everything is impossible to achieve, this convention essentially imposes a legal requirement to discriminate against men. But that's ok, because all forms of discrimination against women will be eliminated. What bullshit!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 18, @07:52PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas writes:
I wrote:
> Would the ERA have given men equal rights?
You decide. As far as I know, this is the Equal Rights Amendment in its entirety:
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
Sounds like a ringing endorsement of men's rights! We can look at this positively: maybe misandry is such an ingrained prejudice that it will take two amendments, not just one, to overcome.
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 16, @10:20PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
At end of article...
"If men only knew how much satisfaction women get out of mocking them, if only they could see the glee on their little painted faces when they knowingly hurl monikers like, 'macho nuisances,' 'helpless slobs,' 'only slightly more evolved than garden snail and far more slimy.' Perhaps I should not say 'if' but 'when.'"
My, how she fires that off with such relish!
"Several signs point to the fact that men are increasingly frustrated, not only with women but with their place in society and their physical surroundings. As women march through the workplace shouting their battle cry, 'viva la estrogen!' the guys are shoved in the back corner where they can brood over their misfortune until they are ready to come out and behave. But they may just come out swinging."
We can only hope -- and at the rate western men continue to remain seemingly obliviously marginalized, it'd be nice if a few more of us showed more fight.
"The new revolution is coming, comrades. Sooner or later, men are going to revolt and it won’t be a pretty picture. Although I think the best way for men to revolt is to just ignore women all together."
Doesn't she wish we'd go on ignoring them! That's the mistake we've been making for decades now. Ignoring them allows groups like NOW and to continue on about their merry male-bashing ways.
Ignoring what is happening to us is the very last thing we ought to be doing. We have been doing it for far too long already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think she means ignoring women altogether instead of cutting them the slack we've shown for too long, in the delusion that maybe if we were nice to them then they'd be nice to us. This never worked in history, since if a person disrecpects you then it's not because you haven't been nice enough, although we're trained to believe that in pseudo-Christian society-- which is why pseudo-Christians tend to get walked all over by every vulgar culture when the actual doctrine is quite a bit harsher to the unrepentant.
In reality, only a dog licks the hand that beats it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 16, @10:49PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
She was actually right on the money with her last comments. I interpret it differently than the author of the last post. I agree that we should not ignore the bad behavior, blatant sexism and mistreatment that men have to put up with. But, I do believe that ignoring women in the sense that we will make no effort to accomodate and appease their ridiculousness (those who are ridiculous) is a good idea. When asking your single male friends what is new with their life, don't lead with their dating situation as this implies that dating and relationships are essential to his life and happiness.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday April 16, @11:03PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I also think the previous poster misinterpreted Roscoe's closing sentiments. When she talked about men ignoring women, she was probably referring to that particular form of male attention that women so love to provoke and manipulate, not men's attention to women's misbehavior (which is probably not something Roscoe has encountered, at least not since she stopped living in daddy's house).
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When asking your single male friends what is new with their life, don't lead with their dating situation as this implies that dating and relationships are essential to his life and happiness.
There is great wisdom in this. I've spoken with teachers and school councillors and seen them interact with kids. They frequently give the message (often stated unequivocally) to girls that they don't need boys or men. "You might prefer to be on your own. You might want to be with a man. You might want to be with a woman." The message to boys is quite different. "It will be so wonderful for you when you're in a relationship with a strong woman." That sort of thing.
In short, the message to boys from a very young age is "You need girls and women to be happy." To girls from a very young age the message is, "You DO NOT need boys or men."
It is sick and hateful to raise boys to need females while raising girls not to give a damn about males.
Men need to learn that they do not need women to be happy. They need to learn that marriage and fatherhood can and, in many cases, will be used against them to make their lives pure hell. When your buddies start talking about the loves of their lives, be sure to remind them to use protection when having sex. "She's may well have had sex with dozens of men, and may be having sex with dozens of other men now. You don't need a disease, and fatherhood is a noose around your neck in this country." If they're thinking of getting married, remind them to get a good pre-nup but remind them also that the courts may well ignore the pre-nup to give the woman whatever she wants. If there are kids, he can rest assured the courts will claim that they're giving everything to the woman and destroying the man "in the best interests of the child."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The traditional role of men was, of course, being the protector, the provider and the more dominant of the pair. Then came the sexual revolution. The basic thrust was that we’d throw off those sexist chains and all be one big equal happy family. But one sex wound up a whole lot more equal than the other. Which one? "
I think it may just as simple as that. That the expansion of the state wants to take on those roles of protector and provider. And in the meantime will promise everything and anything to women in order to get that position.
And since they (the state) never really loved their wife anyways, it means , when they get absolute control will deal with her as they please. Disregard her in her entirety. So sad, to bad, it wasn't what was promised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I have to take exception that men ARE beaten into warrior-drones via personal violation, prohibition of feelings, and declaring open-season on any display of such, it's simply absurd to say that there are no male victims of societal conditioning, until little girls are given the same indifference and hostility to their walking home crying and bleeding.
I think the main point is to learn our lesson-- that women are naturally inferior in terms of objective conscience, and treat them as such just as children who fancy themselves equal with adults, i.e. with humor but refusal, and enforcement if necessary, as yielding to their demands to gain their approval is unhealthy for both. Men must be strong and firm, and resist temptation to allow them to gain dominance-- while men may dream of mind over matter and all that, it seems that women aren't capable of it.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
