|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
good article.
Bias against poor men, and men of third-world countries etc. by western feminist-controlled international agencies is absolutely awful.
Who is going to fight for these men? Western men don't care, it makes us look both macho and open-minded by supporting female-priveleges. The men in third-world countries are often powerless, poor and often uneducated, so they can do nothing. The women in these countries will be indoctrinated to hate men and enjoy privelege. And, the western feminists are happy to see any the needs of any group of men shortchanged.
It is late, but I have alot to say about this general topic, so I may post more later. In the meantime I just wanted to try to start a discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 21, @07:47AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Poor little boys. What's the matter, afraid of feminism? Face it dickheads, we're coming and there's nothing you can do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We continue today's nature programme with a rare sighting in these parts of the lesser spotted feminist. A creature normally seen only in places where continual praise is heaped on it, so matter how sad or mad or bad are its ideas. Surprisingly in spite of its small stature and very tiny brain, it has an incredible mouth, which for some reason always seems to be open, whether anything worthwhile is coming out of it or not. One of its cries, which it utters with great gusto and total glee, is called the "Ah Diddums" approach. "Ah Diddums" is an expression meant to convey that the recipient, usually male, is a child crying over something of no consequence in the adult world and the child should grow up and get over it. Not only does the expression convey total contempt and hatred, but it is used no matter how valid the original complaint. It has, of course, no meaning, but its purpose is not to communicate meaning but to express hatred, at least partly in an attempt to shift the argument from any logical or sensible grounds to an emotional or frenzied state. On hearing the "Ah Diddums" call there is one thing an opponent can feel both certain of and pleased about. The "Ah Diddums"call means that the feminist has no argument at all.
Raymond Cuttill Men's Books Men's Radio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 21, @09:45AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I know I should not feed the trolls, but...
rr made some valid points and I just wanted to back him up (like we should do for one another in the men's movement.)
As for the troll - the sentiments expressed in this person's post are sad. Their glee built unpon the delusion that "they" cannot be stopped is quite tragic. "They", in fact, can be stopped and "they" will be stopped. It is inevitable. And when this happens the fantasy world this person and others like them is living in, is going to come to a short, hard stop and it is not going to be pretty. I don't actually look forward to this in some ways. I believe that the generation of young men growing up today are going to retaliate for all of the abuse they have been put through for all their lives. I believe that they will retaliate without restraint, for what mercy has ever been shown to them? Men have been pushed and pushed so far and for so long that when they finally push back I'm afraid that some of them will knock those who symbolize their antagonizers right back to the stone age. All of the things men have been labelled with, like being violent abusers may come true in a kind of sulf-fufilling feminist prophecy, for some men will think "since I've been labelled and treated as a violent criminal all my life, simply for being male, I may as well be guilty of the crime" and lash out. Do you recall those public information commercials where they show children being called names by their parents, being told they are worthless and stupid etc.? Well, when you tell boys that everything they do is wrong and that all of their natural instincts need to be corrected or medicated out of them what do you think they will turn out like? I really fear for feminists who enjoy torturing men from the safety of feminine privledge, like poking at a caged lion with sticks. They really don't stop to think what will happen when the lion gets out of his cage, in this case the cage is nothing more then a man's self-restraint. And if they think they are opressed now, wait until all of the social tools they have used to destroy men are taken out of their little hands and put back in the toolbox by their daddies for their own safety. I wish we could live in a world of equality but it seems like we will forever have to take the role of caregiver and watch over and protect women from themselves and the results of their own short-sighted agendas.
i don't have a nick yet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good post Nickless... :)
I see things similarly, but I see feminists not so much relying on mens restraint as on the willingness of the government to act as a that restraint. Socialism and feminism go hand in hand because feminists like our ignorant troll above rely on the controlling aspect of governemnt to provide them with power... and socialism is much more controlling as a form of government than capitalism.
When I talk to feminist they inevitably pull things down to a personal level to illustrate the power that "big bad men" have over them. They attemp to argue that physical strength automatically equals power... when every married man in the world knows this is pure BS. They'll say "well men don't have to worry about getting raped in a dark parking lot", but ignore the men who are raped by Family Courts every day, denied access to the children that give them a reason to get up and drag their tired ass to work every day.
I would urge men to ALWAYS push things back to a societal level, because it's this level where feminist are working (so of course they want to avoid it). It's currently their stronghold, but the inevitable failure of socialism in ALL it's incarnations means their failure is simply a matter of time. The feminists have bet on the wrong horse, a least common denominator nag who's failed every time it's been tested because it attempts to deny basic human needs and marginalize the individual. This marginalization is what feminists use to justify their atrocities... it's also what Mao and Stalin used to justify the eradication of hundreds of millions in the name of the collective. I just hope that they're not allowed to do much more damage before the tide turns... and that I'm around to see their fall (some of which is already evident... and I'm loving every minute of it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 21, @11:39AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
if physical strength automatically equals power and that power imbalance must be corrected for then I guess very large women have less of a claim for feminisms benefits and very small men should be able to get a spot in line.
So once these empowered women learn kickboxing (like they appear to be doing in every commercial from deoderant to tampons) they have to a degree less to fear and should no longer be as protected.
Sounds stupid, huh?
Yeah, I think so.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Socialism and feminism go hand in hand because feminists like our ignorant troll above rely on the controlling aspect of governemnt to provide them with power... and socialism is much more controlling as a form of government than capitalism. "
Which sometimes leads me to believe that it is the government controlling feminism and not the other way around.
It is not the Patriarchy that uses rape to control women, it is Feminism, that uses rape to control women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, when you tell boys that everything they do is wrong and that all of their natural instincts need to be corrected or medicated out of them what do you think they will turn out like?
"What's done to children, they will do to society." - Karl Menninger
I wish we could live in a world of equality but it seems like we will forever have to take the role of caregiver and watch over and protect women from themselves and the results of their own short-sighted agendas.
What do you mean by "a world of equality"? Think about it: we've all been brainwashed so that a large portion of our "thinking" consists simply of repetitions of buzzwords or -phrases like this one. "Equality is good," we dutifully parrot, without ever asking ourselves (or those who tell us what to think) what "equality" means. The term was made popular by a few 17th/18th century thinkers, culminating in Jefferson's famous words in the Declaration of Independence. But what they meant by "equality" was something very different from what modern ideologues and demagogues, especially including feminists, have made of it. What they meant, in a word, was simply the right of self-ownership, no more. They hoped to see a human social order based on that right, in which no person could be deprived of life, liberty or property by another. Clearly in our time we've come a long way from that ideal.
"Equality" is now just a buzzword, with no clear meaning that can be pinned down, which can be used indiscriminately as a rhetorical club which instantly reduces any discussion to a shouting match, and shortly to an appeal to the power of government to force anyone to eat whatever its favorites want to feed them (i.e. us).
Winston Churchill famously remarked, "If you're not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at forty, you have no head." Now at sixty, I simply have no more time for the passionate but irrational idealisms of youth. It's clear to me that if we want to do the best we can in an imperfect world, we must start with how things actually are, and proceed from there to build what can be built on the basis of reality, not a foundation of dreams, however attractive they may be. I was a "psychedelic ranger" in the Haight-Ashbury in the 60s; I know about dreams.
Yes, it's true that in traditional societies that lasted, different groups had different roles to play, and the elder and wiser did "protect" the younger and short-sighted from the results of their unchecked passions. That's just life. If we're going to live together successfully, we will have responsibilities.
The problem with this vague ideal of "equality" is that it attempts to make the heart and the head "equal." They're not. Both are indispensible, but their functions are different; and ultimately we must choose by which we shall be ruled. If we are ruled by the heart, i.e. the passions, we are really no more than fancy-dressed chimpanzees, and subject to the endless suffering produced by an unconscious life. If we are ruled by the head, i.e. by reason, we have a chance of becoming human. The difference between the two is this: The heart, when it's on a rampage, ignores the head; indeed, it is not even aware of the existence of the head. The head, on the other hand, includes the heart in its awareness, and, at its best, acts for the greatest benefit of the whole body, head, heart, hands and all. This is why traditionally man has been the head of the family, while woman is its heart. Not because either is "superior" or "inferior," "better" or "worse"; it's a simple matter of division of labor based on capacities, tendencies, interests, skills.
It's not exactly true that neither can live without the other; no head can survive without a heart, of course, but a heart can survive without a head: it's called being "brain-dead." Look around; clearly, that's where we're headed.
Socialism and feminism go hand in hand because feminists like our ignorant troll above rely on the controlling aspect of governemnt to provide them with power... and socialism is much more controlling as a form of government than capitalism.
Though it's true that feminists look to government to force society into their agenda, I think the relationship is deeper than that. Feminism naturally leads to socialism because women are natural collectivists. The first priority for all females is security. Observe a herd of horses, a troop of baboons. The females keep to the group, and the males defend the group.
Traditionally, human females have looked to the males close to them for the security they need: fathers, brothers, suitors, husbands, sons. Many of these males have been and are, of course, imperfect, and the security they have provided was never 100%. Female thinking is fundamentally pragmatic, not abstract: interested in results (immediate, if possible), seldom concerned with longer-term consequences. Men of the past (Rome, Athens, for examples we can read about) understood that if women became involved in public life, i.e. politics (from the Greek polis, city-state), the life of the state would devolve into a daily round of short-sighted "solutions" that would result only in new problems, until the whole structure would gradually collapse.
(For some very interesting discussion of these points, see "The Men's Tribune." Warning: not politically correct; may offend your programming. Think.)
George Washington was a man. When, after the success of the War of Independence, "the people" clamoured to make him king, he declined. So he was elected president, but after two terms he resigned. In both cases, it would have been more "efficient" -- even for the success of his own dreams -- for him to take on and keep the power that was offered him. However, he chose the less efficient road, because he had a longer-term goal in mind. I often think of him and the other men who founded this Republic; there simply are none like them in our time.
When women enter political life, they naturally, instinctively, inevitably begin to look to the State for the security their imperfect menfolk have not provided for them. The State, as a conceptual entity rather than a flesh-and-blood human, can always be imagined to be whatever you want it to be; once you begin down that road, you're like the donkey following a carrot on a stick attached to its own head. It's always a "transitional period" which, if we're patient -- and will eventually lead to the Utopia of everyone's fully realized dreams. And meanwhile, the real predators can have a field day.
Women's "liberation" is simply females trading the "oppressive" protection and care provided by their fathers and husbands for protection and care by the State, which is the new "father" for everyone and "husband" of women. This is the connection between feminism and socialism. It is not contrived or constructed; it is innate and inseparable. When women overtly rule, the only outcome is socialism.
And it's well on the way. Note that every growth in government power is sold to us as an improvement in our own security. This would not work if the democratic majority (women, and "men" who "think" like women) were not desperate for security. Just today I read of the latest great new advance: "Barcoding humans." The woman writer says, "As far as I am concerned, having a chip [in my arm] with a code in it is not giving me the chills. I think it would be nice to use it to get cash or pay for gas, and I wouldn't mind paramedics having access to my health records in the blink of an eye. Besides, I know it would never get lost." Isn't security great? "The VeriChip is similar to the more than 25 million chips already embedded in animals all over the world acting as 'pet passports,' allowing customs officials to monitor those animals that do not need to go into quarantine, or to identify your stray dog." "...its makers think the surgically implanted IDs could be the Social Security numbers of the future in a nervous world."
No, I don't see this turning around any time soon. The momentum is too great, and the ignorance propelling it is overwhelming.
Which sometimes leads me to believe that it is the government controlling feminism and not the other way around.
Well, not exactly, but I believe Graham Strachan got it pretty close in a sentence: "...behind the feminist and other popular movements are some very ugly scheming people who want to destroy the institutions of civilisation so they can rule over the wreckage." Whether this Ruling Elite is even human is a subject of some debate, but it must be clear to anyone who steps back a bit to look around that their agenda is close to completion -- and the sheep are bleating ever louder to be put safe in the pen.
BTW, capitalism is not a "form of government," it's an economic system. The opposite of socialism is a political order based on individual rights and freedom -- and responsibility.
As for AIDS in Africa and American taxpayer money, though McElroy doesn't mention it, last I heard this issue is the latest hobbyhorse for circumcision enthusiasts, who claim that uncircumcised males are a major factor in the spread of this disease. See "Reasons Given for Circumcising a Male" for a list of the 300+ justifications to which this has been added.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Captalists have embraced feminism, watched TV or went to the store lately?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True... but in true capitalistic fashion they don't so much support it, but rather they are willing to make money off it. Women appear to be more susceptable to advertising than men, if the volume of "female targeted" advertising is any indication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's because they buy things for themselves and others buy things for them also (husbands). They have more access to money to buy things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree with this. Companies have not only been making money off of it but they have been donating money to feminist groups and supporting feminist ideology. I think we've seen enough articles here about this to not be able to deny it.
Gender feminism has invaded every area of life from science to government to corporations to labour unions to religous institutions. I don't mean "equality" feminism but the typical men are trash women are superior type of feminism. Equating feminism with socialism is a mistake. Feminism is something much diffrent.
As for the other post, socialism isn't female-powered or created. Socialism was thought up by men (like most things) and instituted by men (like most things). Some feminists just use socialist dogma to support their cause but then some feminists use biblical references also. They will use any tool to get what they want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insightful post Philalethes, your statements regarding Socialism/Captialism are of course true. I often jumble forms of governments with the societal bases their built on when I write. Captialism, at least the American version, has been traditionally associated with individuality and responsibility. The US, even today, is one of the least collective societies in the world (hard to believe, given our government institutions seem to be more and more socialist slanted). The only viable incarnation of Socialism as a system of government is Communism... and the failure of virtually every communist state is IMO directly caused by the failure of Socialism to accomidate the individuality inherent in all humans. We are not ants or bees to be treated as a collective "worker class". If you dictate that all be held to the same standard of living and that accomplishment offers no reenforcing incentive (pay, promotion, whatever), you will eventually end up with all performing at the same least common denominator level.
I agree with you that women are much more collectivist than men... but what I find interesting is that they suffered just as much as men under the yoke of communism (but apparently learned nothing from it). Even so... I've discussed this with my wife and she simply doesn't understand the danger of attempting to force humanity into a societal contstruct that ill suites us. Aside from the need for things such as "purges" to flush the ill suited out of our perfect society (easy to do when there is only collective, not individual), in the end true human nature will ALWAYS win out, and a society so molded will be easy pickings for someone with the charisma and determination to control it. Once we're beaten into the compliant Oxen feminists would like us to be, someone (certainly a man) will simply walk in and pick up the reigns.
But this is a "worst case scenario", and one I doubt will come to pass. I think the pendulum will swing and a corrective force will become strong enough to offset and undo many of the more egregious feminist acts. But then again... I'm a hopeless optimist. If worst comes to worst I'm prepared to jump ship and head to someplace where people know the value of the word "freedom", perhaps one of the former Soviet satellites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 21, @05:39PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think "the pendulum will swing". Rather the gender war will go full circle. Currently, women have all the privileges men traditionally had. However, they retain all the privileges of traditional pre-feminist women. This is the ideal situation as far as feminists are concerned. However, this position is untenable. As the gender revolution continues, women are going to lose traditional female privileges and become truly "equal". When women see what that society is like, they will curse the feminists who started it all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are not ants or bees to be treated as a collective "worker class".
Actually, I've wondered if that might not be where we're headed. Note that the social insects are almost entirely female: one sexually-mature queen, tens of thousands of permanently pre-adolescent female workers (basically lesbians), and a handful of male "drones" kept around only to meet the necessities of reproduction -- and discarded once they've done that job. This is not an accident.
I agree with you that women are much more collectivist than men... but what I find interesting is that they suffered just as much as men under the yoke of communism (but apparently learned nothing from it). Even so... I've discussed this with my wife and she simply doesn't understand the danger of attempting to force humanity into a societal contstruct that ill suites us.
Yes, exactly. If you give a child unlimited access to a box of candy, what will happen? A sick child. Children don't know what is best for themselves; that's why they need adults to take care of them. Note that in the Age of Feminism, it's politically incorrect not only to notice that there are differences between men and women, but even to see differences between adults and children, or any other difference that might imply that we're not all "equal."
Again, I urge you to read Camille Paglia: "Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art" in Sexual Personae. (Look it up at Amazon; the first 18 pages - of 39 - can be read there online.) "Ferenczi remarks, 'The periodic pulsations in feminine sexuality (puberty, the menses, pregnancies and parturitions, the climacterium) require a much more powerful repression on the woman's part than is necessary for the man.'" In other words, women must expend tremendous effort to avoid knowing how totally they are ruled by Nature's inhuman, heartless power. Thus they are unconscious masters of denial -- far more able than men are to live in a dream world without seeing its contradictions. Thus, ruled by their feelings rather than reason, they are easy prey for demagogues.
Once we're beaten into the compliant Oxen feminists would like us to be, someone (certainly a man) will simply walk in and pick up the reigns.
And that's exactly what's happening. American is collapsing from within like every decaying empire before. As tens of thousands of barbarians pour in through swiss-cheese borders, the masses are kept occupied with bread and circuses, new emperors are chosen by the praetorian guard, and the women are on a rampage. Ecclesiastes was right ... truly there is "nothing new under the sun."
The US, even today, is one of the least collective societies in the world (hard to believe, given our government institutions seem to be more and more socialist slanted). ... If worst comes to worst I'm prepared to jump ship and head to someplace where people know the value of the word "freedom", perhaps one of the former Soviet satellites.
I don't know that there's anywhere left to go. The New World Order is pretty well everywhere by now. I'm reasonably sure it will be possible for clever individuals to slip by, but there will be no really free societies or nations for the foreseeable future. It's ironic, though, that some other countries might now be freer places to live, practically speaking, than the USA, since the USA is the only nation on the planet which at least officially pretends to be founded on principles of self-ownership and individual sovereignty. Everywhere else, the individual is officially subject to the authority and whims of the State. Even in "enlightened" Europe, for instance, if you're charged with a crime you have to prove your innocence; you don't own yourself; the collective does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As the gender revolution continues, women are going to lose traditional female privileges and become truly "equal". When women see what that society is like, they will curse the feminists who started it all.
Some, it seems, are already having second thoughts -- though so far only a handful, and next to none are willing to follow where reason leads. Some, like Wendy McElroy, are prepared to give some ground because feminist demands have become so outrageous they simply can't keep a straight face anymore; but I'm not entirely sure this isn't a kind of strategic move. I remember when Friends of the Earth was founded, in great part to make the Sierra Club look "moderate" -- a tactic that worked. Then after a few years Dave Foreman and friends founded Earth First!, staking out even more radical territory to make Friends of the Earth look "moderate." That worked, too. Skilful politicians know you always demand more than you expect to get (or even want); then you can "compromise" for what you wanted in the first place. This is why I'm not interested in "compromise" -- only in the truth.
In any case, I don't think women will ever be "equal." Again, what does this mean? Does it mean that most men's feet will be cut off -- or women will have extra feet grafted on -- so that we'll all be the same height? Will women be euthanized so we'll all die at the same average age? The idea is ridiculous. "Gender equality" is nothing but a code word for "women aren't getting what they want." What do they want? They've already told us: "We want it all!" Equality, huh?
There's only one way to real "gender equality": if human females, following the lead of numerous other species, simply stop producing males, so the entire species consists only of females. I suppose this is a possibility, though I know of no other warm-blooded (mammal or bird) species that has done so. But so long as there are human males, any talk of "equality" between the sexes will be no more than a cover for a covert war, wherein women will strive to gain all the power, property and bennies they can while keeping foolish men in the dark.
"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." - Cato the Censor (ca. 2000 years ago)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 22, @04:46AM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
What does true equality mean? In a truly equal society, women could be thrown out of the home and forced to support her husband and children with the prospect of imprisonment if she refuses. In a truly equal society a woman would be imprisoned if a man makes a false allegation of threatening conduct against a man. In a truly equal society, women could be subject to savage unprovoked assault in the streets which the police would completely ignore. In a truly equal society men would be entitled to defend themselves when subjected to verbal/physical assault. In a truly equal society, men would abandon traditional values (as women have done) and build a society designed solely to gratify mens sexual needs, material needs and status needs.
This is the society which will emerge when men follow in the footsteps of women , and abandon the shackles of "traditional male values" (as women have abandoned traditional female values).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes wrote:
Even in "enlightened" Europe, for instance, if you're charged with a crime you have to prove your innocence; you don't own yourself; the collective does.
Where does this come from? Are you refering to a particular country in Europe or a particular crime? England at least has legal system founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
I am presuming that you are refering to the laws defining rape as "sex without very good reason to believe consent was given" which some have felt was shifting the burden of proof - but you make it sound like the EU has guilty until proven innocent written into their constitution or something.
--- panlet ---
Yes, I do know I overuse italics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 22, @09:34AM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
If a woman alleges an assault (without any evidence) the accused man is guilty unless he can prove his innocence. Even if he does prove his innocence, he may still be found guilty. The fact that English law is founded on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" matters not one whit. The principles of feminaziism now govern the English legal system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
England at least has legal system founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Sorry, due to haste I generalized. True, the presumption of innocence is a pillar of English common law, which is the basis of American jurisprudence; but the rest of Europe operates on the opposite principle, that the accused must prove his innocence, which is so far as I know universal throughout the world outside of the "Anglo-Saxon" countries -- where, as noted, presumption of innocence is fast falling by the wayside as we are all inducted into One Happy World. Observe, for instance, the International Criminal Court, which the USA is roundly criticized (by many Americans as well) for not joining -- wherein the accused have none of the rights guaranteed Americans in our Constitution and common law.
I don't know if the presumption of guilt is "written into" the EU constitution (whatever that may be), but it's certainly traditional, the continental equivalent of "common law"--the way things have always been done (aka the "Napoleonic Code"). And of course it fits the overall philosophy of the New World Order, wherein we will all be well cared for for our own good, and "everything that is not prohibited is compulsory."
It is just such differences between British culture and continental European traditions and practices that prompt at least a few Britons to resist their incorporation into (the modern version of) the Holy Roman Empire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether you disagree or agree with Philalethes, his post to me is a striking argument for the academic benefits of a men's studies program. It was a joy to read, and damn insightful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whether you disagree or agree with Philalethes, his post to me is a striking argument for the academic benefits of a men's studies program.
Well, thanks for the compliment, but I'm a college dropout actually, and not much enamored of the idea of "men's studies," which seems to me like much of the "men's movement," ceding the field to the feminists by aping their idea that the two genders' interests are so different and antagonistic as to require separate (and mutually hostile) "studies" or "movements." I'm not a "masculist" (if I were I'd call it "virist," from the Latin vir, "man," which seems to me more exactly the complement to "feminist," from femina, "woman"); I'm (in this context anyway) a humanist. Homo sapiens is one species, not two, made up of two gender forms, each of which embodies and manifests part of the total human potential and character. Certainly there is tension between the two genders, as between any pair of complementary opposites; but we are here to learn from and help each other, not to have a war with the aim of determining a "winner" and "loser." One hand does not "win" by cutting off the other. Only a person who's never grown up could think so.
It's nice to be heard, even though I wrote the above in some haste and didn't feel it presented my thoughts as well as I might like. These subjects are important, and deep in their roots and implications; a fast-moving, ephemeral forum like this seldom allows me time enough to explore them as well as they deserve. It's true that something has gone badly wrong in the relationship between the sexes, and it won't be repaired without some really serious thought, and (I feel) analysis that goes well beneath the usual superficial responses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"As far as I am concerned, having a chip [in my arm] with a code in it is not giving me the chills. I think it would be nice to use it to get cash or pay for gas, and I wouldn't mind paramedics having access to my health records in the blink of an eye. Besides, I know it would never get lost." Isn't security great? "The VeriChip is similar to the more than 25 million chips already embedded in animals all over the world acting as 'pet passports,' allowing customs officials to monitor those animals that do not need to go into quarantine, or to identify your stray dog." "...its makers think the surgically implanted IDs could be the Social Security numbers of the future in a nervous world."
"..And he caused them all, the great and small to recieve the mark of the Beast; and he who had not the mark of the beast, neither could they buy nor could they sell...."
Hmmm. Naw, never happen. Could it?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Gonzo, for getting it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know that you have to pay for prostate cancer check ups. Did you know in some provinces a women can go to a psychologist and get accepted for a taxpayer funded boob job if she can prove to the psychologist that the small size of her boobs is causing her signifigant mental distress. Some provinces pay for "gender reassignment surgery" as being a drag queen is now a mental disorder covered by health care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I may have heard this. Either way Im not in the slightest suprised.
Some psychologists. I thought the rule was 'if its not broke don't fix it'.
I studied psychology for years and had even thought of getting into the field.
These so called socialists are in fact capitalistic in nature.
My Sociologist prof was a real scum bag. He would find any reason he could think of to insert feminist dogma into his lectures.
Later I surfed his website and found that he had about 12 different seminars and courses based on 'violence against women'. He was spouting the 95% all male etc bullshit.
But in truth this wasn't about any socialist outlet this was all capitalism at the heart.
Which may be why we are getting confused about socialism vs capitalism here. I will post on this if I can find the Canadian intellectuals site.
I also have something else to go with it.
For a minute I was worried you were a troll and was offering me the boob job and sex change. I feel relieved you're not.
Though I think the official policy of men's activism is that transvestite men are welcome, or transvestite women for that matter. Though the issues at hand remain clear. Thanks for the post reply.
It is not the Patriarchy that uses rape to control women, it is Feminism, that uses rape to control women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debate and analyze it as you will; women, on the whole, do believe that the exchange of permanent freedom for temporary security is a fair one; had Patrick Henry asked a crowd of women "Is life so dear and peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of slavery and chains?" the answer would have been a resounding, "Duh! Yes!"
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
