|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 23, @05:54AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Dan:
I see from the description that you've linked that this is a serious product.
...and you are correct that this plays on the fear hysteria (man is the assaulter/woman is the victim) that society so eagerly loves to promote in women.
As you point out, "where the heck is the jacket for men?" In the U.S. in one year 13,000 men were murdered (all reasons) and 4000 women and 1300 children. That 4000 number for women included intimate partner violence (d.v.).
The majority of the people who committed the murders where men, but tell that to all the victims, becuase I don't think they were keeping score.
A victim is a victim and women do not deserve this protection anymore or less than men do. I guess kids are too irresponsibly and might shock there playmates just for fun so they don't get a jacket. Besides a mother that's abusing them (which is the majority of child abusers) would not let her child wear the jacket when she wants to batter, or she would just wait for an opportunity to attack the little person, when they weren't wearing it.
Yea, I'd buy one of these jackets for when I protest those domestic violence groups and all those irrational rad fems start screeming at me, "You must be a rapist!" I'd sure feel a lot safer, and it would also be nice to have, when driving thru those bad neighborhoods (that's anyplace in L.A. these days) late at night.
Too bad these sexist capitalists don't think a man's life is worth protecting, but then that just puts them in a category with our PhemiNazi, hate monger governments. This is just one more tool to empower women to commit violence. Women already have little or no responsibility for the violence they use in society, and this just gives them another weapon.
In my opinion we are not empowering women as much to defend themselves as we are empowering them to unaccountably commit assault and battery, which they already routinely lie their way out of like the bandits of justice that they are.
Here's the clincher. I suspect any truly hostile person shocked by this jacket, may quickly realize where the shock came from, become enraged, chase the woman down, and do a Mike Tyson on her head just for revenge. What good is this jacket then?
Not to mention if a person charges this jacket, forgets to discharge, then gets on a subway or other crowed place. Yikes! Leave this one on the drawing board, please.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"""""Not to mention if a person charges this jacket, forgets to discharge, then gets on a subway or other crowed place. Yikes! Leave this one on the drawing board, please.
Ray""""""
Hmmm...how about suing the stupid insecure misandric twat for personal injury?
Also, what happens to to wearer if she gets caught in a sudden rainstorm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What needs to be mentioned is that capitalism isn't just a system of economics, it's an entire social system. That is often overlooked or ignored.
Capitalism in its purest form is the ONLY system which bars physical force from social relationships. Hence, if you want to obtain a value in a capitalist society, you must voluntarily trade for it. (Trading value for value.) That includes government. Government's only function would be to protect your individual rights, including your property rights. It would only be able to use force for the defense of its citizens, and ONLY against those who would initiate aggression.
What this means is that feminist groups could not use government to loot your money to fund its various social programs. Hence, if you don't like the way a battered women's shelter operates, you would be under no obligation to give it money. If you don't like the way a rape crisis center operates, you wouldn't have to fund it.
It all boils down to the dollar. $$$ Without the dollar, feminist groups would be essentially powerless. Right now, feminist groups receive a portion of your money, whether you agree with them or not. (Shelters, for example.) They don't have to operate like a business, because they know money will continue to flow into their coffers regardless of the way they operate. They turn men away because they know they can get away with it. They're still going to get their money.
If, on the other hand, they had to operate like a business and actually EARN their money through voluntary trade, they very well MIGHT operate differently. But even if they didn't, you would be under no obligation to give them money, now would they be able to obtain your money without your permission.
And so it has to be said that feminism and socialism share one very important trait: the redistribution of wealth.
An important point must be brought up: In a pure capitalist system, would companies still use misandry to sell their products? Probably. But the same scenerio applies to them: You wouldn't have to trade with them. (I certainly wouldn't. In fact, even in America's mixed economy, I try my best not to trade with companies that I know bash men.)
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...now would they be able to obtain your money without your permission.
That should have read "NOR would they be able to obtain your money without permission."
Damn, my typing is getting rusty! :o)
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 23, @09:40PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Will this Randite political preselytizing ever die down on this board? It gets old. Not everyone buys into capitalisms claim to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that it trys to sell us. The mens movement is not the capitalist movement, at least I hope not, since so much misandry comes from their marketing. How would others feel if I continually critiqued capitalism on this board (by the way I'm not a marxist or even want govt. help). Would this be allowed?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB4.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 23, @09:58PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"And so it has to be said that feminism and socialism share one very important trait: the redistribution of wealth"
Actually socialisms real meaning is that the workers are in control of the means to life. This could be done in an authoritarian manner (which I dissagree with) using the state or a libertarian one where the workers are in direct control of the particular place that they work at and not be controlled and bossed around by their capitalist bosses or their middle management. The ownership of land is the state writ small and that owner can control the people who must be on that property to survive since there is only so much property that can go around.
"How Does Private Property Affect Freedom"
You can just cut and paste this url
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secF2.html#secf22
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 23, @10:14PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
selling your liberty and obeying a boss for a wage to the capitalist is not based on freedom but on masters and slaves, order givers and order takers. The only reason workers agree to be paid a wage for obeying is because that's their only choice to be able to survive under capitalism. Private Property makes workers (the property less) dependant and in a state of surrender to the property owners.
Now you may not agree and I'm sure you don't but would you want to keep coming to a mens activist site if you kept being proselytized to for some economic system that you didn't agree with? I could do this, and my critiques on capitalism would certainly have a basis with working class mens activists seeing how men make up 94% of ALL work related sickness, injuries, and death working for these very capitalists that you speak of.
Don't get me wrong you have every right to proselytize what you want to, but continually reading this polemics gets old.
www.anarchyfaq.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...but continually reading this polemics gets old.
Then don't read them. Nobody is forcing you to. ("Force" being the key word.)
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 24, @12:04PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
then I'll take that to mean you won't mind when I respond to your praise of capitalism with rational argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply all you want. I'm not so insecure in my politics that I can't take criticism. :o)
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The socialism vs. capitalism discussion is not the issue here. Not that you (or the anonymous leftists) don't make some valid points, but at the end of the day theoretical poiltical philosophy is just theoretical! Discussing political philosophy is fine, but it should not divide us. We need to 'unite' because if we don’t we are all screwed.
While we are arguing about political systems in the sky, real anti-male orginizations are taking real action, using the current political system, against real people, including us. If we don't take realistic action within the current political framework, things will only get worse.
This may sound sort of us vs. them. Unfortunately, the situation is a sort of us vs. them, if you take a look at some of these quotes by Robin Morgan, is a feminist icon and a former editor of Ms. Magazine. But, be warned they may not be very good for your blood-pressure! If you don't like that link, well, there are worse links out there!
That said, I am not pessimistic. Here is a nice article by Glenn Sacks, which some of you may have not yet read, that responds to the worst quote on the page.
Things are bad now, but they will get better, so stay united and optimistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 24, @12:29PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
THanks for the post rr, I see your point. I especially like the one about killing your fathers and not your mothers, WTF. I'm going to go read that article by Glenn Sacks, I like him a lot he seems like a pretty fair a guy.
Here's a nother quote-- "And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism -- the lie that there can be such a thing as "men's liberation groups." Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group specifically because of a "threatening" characteristic shared by the latter group -- skin color or sex or age, etc."
The sexism that see is female privelige. Putting women in less dangerous jobs because they're women, the state not wanting to put women to death because they are women, VAW acts when more violence happens to men, not being conscripted because they are women, the state not wanting to put as much women in prison or rationalize away female violenece because they are women, children going to mothers because women are natural born nurturers while men are natural born killers, all this is sexism in favor of women because they are women. I don't see how it doesn't exist or how come so many women don't recognize this. FOr an oppressed group women sure do get a lot of perks for their oppression.
I saw this one article talking about women being the fastest growing group being sent to prison and how we need to understand their "emotional trauma" of being sent to prison. These women didn't even think they were asking for a privilege when they asked the reader to think about their "emotional trauma". I responded by telling them they are just startiung to be treated equally by the state and that I think of it as an advantage for women to have the consideration of their "emotional trauma" when being sent to prison since it's not done for men. They didn't respond. It was an invitation to a vigil or rally for women in prison similar to a take back the night rally. The selfishness by feminists is truly amazing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday May 24, @02:15PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I just read that article, I thought it was great. It makes me wish I had a father in my life. thanks. Finally someone is giving us some credit. And he's right the left is beholden to feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, I not only disagree with a voluntary system of rights-recognition, I openly condemn it as assinine; a person's rights should have nothing to do with their wealth, or their ability to appeal to the interests of the perpetrator.
I'd much rather be able to have the long arm of the law than the short arm of the checkbook, if we're supposed to be as equal as everyone claims.
I don't see what this has to do with capitalism, so much as feminism, since women dont' want to take the hard necessary steps to prevent crime, so they scapegoat men instead, just like socialists scapegoate Hitler for all the evils of the 20th century regardless of statistics implicating him in only a small minority of deaths from socialism.
As for this "jacket," it's just one more sign of public paranoia rationalizing the sacrificing one person's liberty for another person's security that we see every day as self-absorption justifies endangering others to increase one's own safety; we see it every day from pit bulls to SUV's, i.e. "anything that increases my security is ok, even if it's at the expense of yours."
Meanwhile, women vote against reasonable measures like hangun rights because it's "scary" and "violent" etc, and then they end up overcompensating for the increased violence by voting for things which trade mens' liberty for their security, because their little pea-brains can't handle complex abstractions like political causation and sociological manifestations of crime etc.
I mean, if they can't handle the simple notion that "choice" carries responsibility, then anything else is rocket-science in comparison, and womens' lack of logic in this area proves that they have none in any other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday May 23, @03:43PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
According to Page 2 of the story a men's version of the jacket may be on the horizon. The story also quotes department of justice statistics that show that men are more often the victims of violent crime by strangers than women. I am glad the writer thought to ask about a men's version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Until one IS made, one can always by the womens version, modify it, and if needed, wear it under ones clothing or under another jacket. Why wait for a mens version?
Disclaimer: Everything I post is of course my own opinion. If it seems harsh, Feminazis just piss me off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The idea is to charge it only in threatening situations or when the wearer feels vulnerable, Whiton said."
Case in point; women feel vulnerable, and therefore are justified in endangering others.
"The jacket is designed for women only. Its small size and narrow armholes are intended to prevent men from using it as an offensive weapon."
I see; men would use it as a weapon, and not defensively, while a simple implement such as a Louisville Slugger would beat the bejeezus out of this gizmo in that capacity-- even against somebody wearing one.
"Whiton conceded that women could use it offensively, and that it would be hard for police to arrest anyone wearing one."
So for women it's ok; however Whiton's specialty is clearly paranoid gizmo's and not law, since for all legal purposes, this thing IS a weapon.
"Whiton said he has consulted with lawyers about potential liability issues, and has been given the green light. As long as the jacket is not used to commit a crime, there shouldn't be any problems, he said."
Yep-- if you've legal problems in endangering others with an offensive device, just find a legal loophole. However, I doubt this will pass legal muster; however, it seems that women get their own special laws in our femino-puritanical culture, while men are seen as punchion-clowns.
"Zbinden said she charges up the jacket only to show it off to friends, who are "suitably awed." The only person she's shocked has been her test subject -- her husband."
'Nuff said.
"I've never had an occasion to use it," she said. "I guess I don't lead a very hazardous or frightened life. I'm not the kind of person who carries pepper spray in my purse.... My life is such that I don't need to be afraid."
Only a feminist can show such arrogance; any man who can afford to do so, typically lacks to gall.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
