|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doctrinaire pheminism is finally showing its ugly true face. It's with a wry smirk that I point out that it's women who are the first targets of this new phase.
Oh, yea, the beans have well and truly been spilled.
It's a measure of poetic justice that the fence straddling women are the ones who are in the crosshairs. The women who have stood by silently, only occasional giving a faint cluck of disapproval. The one's who have let feminism destroy their brothers and sons, but feared to give up their feminine privelege to have their cake and eat it too. "I'm not a feminist, but I want it for my daughters and sisters."
Heh. Look behind you, gals. Its not a man, but your "daughters" and "sisters" with the strap-on preparing to to do it to you.
Kiss your choices and freedoms goodbye, because as long as these women draw breath, you are sitting on the bubble. Oh, this may get shouted down, but the end runs are coming. Soon, if you don't work, you'll be a tax penalty. Your ability to get aid (from the monstrous and bloated state that you have elevated to your new husband and caretaker) will be based on your contribution. Your right to vote is on the table - no workee, no votee. That way they won't have to worry about you voting them out of office.
LOL. We've been telling you for years that pheminism is *NOT* your friend. What has it gotten you? More time away from your children, if indeed you have time for a family. Relationships? With sexually liberation, many men have declined to buy from you as the milk is free at countless places. High blood pressure, herat attacks, stress - welcome to the wonderful world of men. And since you're not men, you suck at it too.
Brave New World, eh?
You might say you never asked for it. You never wanted it this way. This isn't what "feminism" was all about. It's been hijacked, it's really been about equality, equity, and egalitarianism. It was supposed to liberate, to give you choices, not to take them away. You didn't want this. But you did. You asked for it, in one of the most time honored ways known to the human race.
Didn't anyone ever teach you that "Silence gives assent?"
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So now the rallying cry is that mothers "should" work. Next we'll be hearing demands that they should be "required" to work. What does that mean? Forcing them to work.
Think I'm going a bit overboard? God knows I hope I am. But at this point I ain't too optimistic.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I point out that it's women who are the first targets of this new phase.
At least since the 60s, feminism and totalitarian socialism have worked hand in hand. At first men were targeted and cast as evil. As the family was suitably undermined, the state became far more powerful. Man-hating feminists used the state (through legislation, the courts, and the state-sponsored educational institutions) in their drive to crush all the evil non-females, and the totalitarian socialists used feminism (through the criminalization of fatherhood and pathologizing of maleness) to further strengthen the state.
Until now, it was never clear to me which of these two interlinked movements, totalitarian socialism and feminism, would end up dominating. (Though they work with each other, I believe that they are different.) The statists are making it clear that freedom for women is contrary to their interests. Now that population collapse is becoming a concern for politicians, women will be encouraged to have children. Perhaps a few bones, in the form of monetary compensation, will be thrown their way, but it is the state that will raise the children or at least determine how they will be raised by private corporations.
That, at least, is the dream of the totalitarians. Perhaps they think that many men, having grown tired of and angry at women, will allow this new trend (the formal removal of choices for women) to go unchallenged. I think, however, that they are mistaken. Despite the anger of many men, I don't believe that they have on the whole sold out to the totalitarian socialists'/feminists' methods. Quite the contrary in fact. Men have been and continue to be galvanized to oppose the totalitarians.
This is an age old battle, between totalitarians and freedom-lovers, fought many times throughout recorded history and probably countless times before that. We can't turn back the advances in reproductive technology that freed women from their biology and made it possible for so many women to imagine that they could subjugate or even eliminate men. And we won't stop the reproductive technological advances that promise to some day free men from their reproductive dependence on women. But this doesn't mean that the totalitarians will succeed in their attempt to seize complete power through their divide (men and women from each other) and conquer modus operandi. Unfortunately for them, there are two things that will continue to get in their way and that they can't (at least in the foreseeable future) eliminate — heterosexuality and the affection that so often arises with the sharing of physical intimacy.
They're sick. They're powerful. They're going to cause far more damage before they're through. But the totalitarians are not going to succeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 16, @07:44PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
let's all get behind Hillary for president and let her also implement the priniciple that the "village" can raise children better than their mothers can.
I don't consider raising children to be mothers' work any more than it is fathers' work. It's unfair to men (and women) to presume that raising children is women's work. That presumption contributes to the massive institutional anti-male sexism in family law and family court.
Of course, I have no problem with as many couples who so choose to have the father work outside the home while the mother works within the home. If that's what most men and women together choose to do, that's fine. But men need choices as much as women do.
As for Hillary, I think she is viciously anti-male and I will never, ever vote for her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even though I tried to make that post literally drip with irony, the flat nature of the web makes many things seem literal.
One extremely sad thing I have noticed is that people only start paying attention to something when women start getting hurt by it. It does seem that a lot of women would vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman (and some, sadly, simply because she is so anti-male) without giving any thought to whether she would do anything good for anyone. Look how easily she won the senate as a carpetbagger in NY.
The presumption that raising children is women's work doesn't just "contribute" to anti-male sexism in family court, it is the entire basis of it. It is a perfect example of how feminism has aligned itself with exclusively female concerns in order to manipulate women by the normal stresses between the sexes and the frustrations of women with men.
The question remains whether having subjugated men, the socialist incursion will now turn against women who have jettisoned their protectors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The question remains whether having subjugated men, the socialist incursion will now turn against women who have jettisoned their protectors.
It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. The men's movement may prove to be the salvation (by opposing totalitarian socialism) of all the women who happily sat on the fence while men and little boys were being crushed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 17, @03:55AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Is it really sensible to link systematically feminism and socialism ? Approximatly half of men in Western countries are left-wing, so are we not going to scare them by labeling socialism as one of the roots of feminism ? They might think that they have to be feminists as they are socialists......
I'm myself left-wing but I'm also anti-feminist. By attacking moderate socialism all the time, you are decreasing the potential audience in male population for men's rights defense.
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've kept silent here on the whole subject until now.
1. Name me 3 major socialist parties that doesn't support "feminism."
2. Name me 3 major socialist political movements that aren't in bed with "feminism."
3. Name me 3 brands of "feminism" (Besides Wendy MacElroy's fringe movement) that doesn't demand a larger nanny state?
The proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 17, @11:37AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Problem is :
even right-wing parties support feminism and special rights for women. But their feminism has been considered as less threatening than left-wing feminism because it is not a by-word for an intrusion into private life.
I must admit it makes a big difference.
Nevertheless, pretend you're a left-wing man, defining himself as a socialist, because you believe that underpriviledged people are entitled to financial support by the government.
Now let's say that you come to mensactivism.org by chance.
You begin to read, you begin to feel sympathy for the plight of men described here, and then you see all these attacks against left-wing and socialist ideas and principles.......how are you going to react ? Well I'm going to tell you : "in fact people on this site are against left-wing ideas, so they are against principles of equality, and therefore they must probably be misogynistic, homophobic, racist far-right persons".
And so the Men's cause has lost almost half of the male population.
If we want to gain access to the mainstream media, we must absolutely convince people that defending the men's cause is neither left-wing nor right-wing. That's why I suggested on an other thread that a banner should be put on the site stating that men's rights activists are anti-racist, anti-homophobic and apolitical. I'm pretty much convinced it would draw instant sympathy from the readers not used to hearing the male point of view on gender issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello anonymous.
I do my best to avoid discussions with anonymous users. They too often end up with several AUs making contradictory posts, and a reasonable discussion quickly becomes impossible. If you'd like to use a handle, please do so. I'd be happy to talk about these matters with you. Otherwise, I won't spend the time, other than to say that there are good reasons to disagree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"in fact people on this site are against left-wing ideas, so they are against principles of equality, and therefore they must probably be misogynistic, homophobic, racist far-right persons".
Consider this one, Rage. By definition, according to left wing political correctness...
(Say what you will there. Political Correctness is one thing that is firmly and solidly left wing, all by their lonesome)
.."misogyny" and "Men's Right's" are one and the same; "women" are an "oppressed class," therefore "Men's Rights" is only a euphemism for the retention of so-called "male (Read: Oppressor) privileges."
It would be one thing if such government aid was limited to those needy people who were needy as a victim of circumstance, but it hasn't stopped there. The left wing has embraced every whack-job and nutcase special group as underprivileged if they claim to be, all under the aegis of "we caan't be judgemental."
Let's take affirmative action. Either affirmative action is a good thing - or not. It's can't be both "A" and "Non-A" at the same time. If it is a Bad Thing for women, it must be a Bad Thing for a minority group. If it is a Good Thing for a minority group, then it is a Good Thing - even for women.
A roll-back of that bias and presumption in favor of women to the detriment of men is the heart of the Men's movement. We cannot, however, speak against it out of one side of our mouth, and for it from the other. It reduces our credibility and integrity, from an ethos perspective. We would be attempting to argue that a thing is both "A" and "Non-A" at the same time, which is neither logically or philosophically inconsistant.
Affirmative action - and when you are on the shitty end of the stick of it, it becomes much less appealing - is a cornerstone of the left wing agenda. Once you get hit by the "Sorry, men, especially white heterosexual men, need not apply" stick a few times, it becomes rightly seen as special rights and special privileges for special groups. Not equality, or egalitarianism, or a remedy, but plain old get-evenism.
Don't take my word for it. Go to your left wing friends. Announce your rethinking of feminism, affirmative action (even if you limit it to just vis-a-vis women) and the presumption against men in courts and government.
Will they revoke your "Left-Winger in Good Standing" card? I think we all know what will happen. How many doctrinaire left-wingers will refuse to even speak to you again?
I can't tell you what to do, but I will gaurantee you cannot roll back the ill-gotten gains of pheminism without undoing a hell of a lot of left wing work. Can't be done. Yeah, you'll have to change a lot of right wing attitudes, but these attitudes aren't enshrined in law and policy and precedent. We cannot undo affirmative action for women without undoing affirmative action. We cannot roll back special, albiet undeserved, social programs that are "Girls only" without doing it across the board. It's not going to happen, the pheminists have seen to it, to keep *YOU* on the plantation.
So you have to decide if you want to be free, or if you'd rather not piss off Massa Missy.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 17, @12:37PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I have forgotten to sign !^
^_^
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, I didn't realize that was you, Rage. For the moment, take a look at posts numbered 8 and 10 on this thread. For now I'll just say here that my politics tend to be "left-wing" more than "right-wing" overall. Nevertheless, I think it's important for us to acknowledge that totalitarian socialism is a tool of anti-male feminism.
As for your suggestion "on an other thread that a banner should be put on the site stating that men's rights activists are anti-racist, anti-homophobic and apolitical," take a look at MANN's "Our Philosophy" page, where you'll find "Mensactivism.org aims to be as apolitical as possible. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and people from other political backgrounds should be able to find something of interest on this site." You'll also find, "However, we do support the many issues that men of color and gay or bisexual men face, and want to encourage all men, regardless of their race or sexual orientation, to work together to improve men's lives and dignity."
Again, I believe that it's fine for certain things such as education and, to an extent, health care to be supported in part by the state. But this doesn't change the fact, which I believe we need to acknowledge, that totalitarian socialism is a tool of feminism. If someone disagrees with me, fine. I don't see such disagreement as fundamentally anti-male. In fact, I believe that a highly-restrained, conscionable socialism can be used to advance men's rights by, for instance, increasing the number of university scholarships for men and increasing funding for research and development into cures for male-specific diseases. Nevertheless, we need to avoid falling into the trap of trying to use big government, totalitarian socialism to advance our rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We cannot undo affirmative action for women without undoing affirmative action. We cannot roll back special, albiet undeserved, social programs that are "Girls only" without doing it across the board. It's not going to happen, the pheminists have seen to it, to keep *YOU* on the plantation.
One of the saddest and sickest things about feminism is the way that a group of generally extremely privileged white women glommed onto the civil rights movements of blacks and gays. Feminists hate gay males and black males every bit as much as they hate white, heterosexual males. It has just suited their agenda to intertwine the feminist movement with legitimate civil rights movements. Unfortunately, they are all now interlinked to the extent that it will be far easier and more likely of success to build a new human rights movement and throw out all the old, corrupt baggage of the subverted civil rights movements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Nevertheless, I think it's important for us to acknowledge that totalitarian socialism is a tool of anti-male feminism.
I agree with you on this one. Totalitarian socialism is the enemy of men, but of women also. I only intended to point out the distinction between totalitarian and moderate socialism, which is called "social-democracy" in Europe.
> In fact, I believe that a highly-restrained, conscionable socialism can be used to advance men's rights by, for instance, increasing the number of university scholarships for men and increasing funding for research and development into cures for male-specific diseases
Exactly. Of course it won't occur overnight. But boys should also benefit from affirmative actions programs to help them close the gender gap in writing and reading skills for instance.
And it is by making the Men's movement appear as "progressive" or "liberal" that we will draw sympathy from the mainstream media, and then be given the ability to promote males'rights.
By the way, the Philosophy page of the site is excellent, and is a good answer to those who try to label us as far-right extremists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Feminists hate gay males and black males every bit as much as they hate white, heterosexual males.
This is indeed something the black and gay organizations should be aware of. I have always had the impression that homosexuality especially was still a taboo in the Men's movement. But all male activits must become convinced that gay men can, and probably will, be fantastic allies, as they represent such a powerful lobbying network in all the political and social fields.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Don't take my word for it. Go to your left wing friends. Announce your rethinking of feminism, affirmative action (even if you limit it to just vis-a-vis women) and the presumption against men in courts and government.
> Will they revoke your "Left-Winger in Good Standing" card? I think we all know what will happen. How many doctrinaire left-wingers will refuse to even speak to you again?
You know what ? I'm very sad to admit it, but indeed they would probably react the way you said above.
It's a very ironical situation. On one hand, concerning social and economic matters, I'm left-wing, that's to say I don't want society to be led by savage capitalism, with underpriviledged, disabled and poor people being considered as "losers" who don't deserve to be supported by federal institutions.
On the other hand, I acknowledge that left-wing parties are more pro-feminist than right-wing ones, and leftist politicians refuse to see the numerous examples of blatant discrimination against men. The cause of men's rights being the one I'm the most devoted to, it's really a dilemna for me. I don't know any more which side I must vote for !
So ironical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have always had the impression that homosexuality especially was still a taboo in the Men's movement. But all male activits must become convinced that gay men can, and probably will, be fantastic allies
I heartily concur. I am a staunch supporter of equal rights for gays and lesbians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know any more which side I must vote for !
I'd recommend voting for individuals, not for a party. That's what I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, another thing : concerning the coming prospect of achieving our independance from women for reproduction through the use of artificial wombs ; such a technology will never be allowed by far-right politicians as they consider it as anti-nature.
Left-wing politicians are likely to allow people to use ectogenesis, not to level the reproduction field between men and women, but because it will be a way to grant homosexual men the same rights than to straight people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd recommend voting for individuals, not for a party. That's what I do.
Actually the problem remains, because an individual can be a mix of good and bad (to some extent always is, in fact). If I'm not convinced that any of the candidates are overall very good, I won't vote for any of them. We should have a vote of no confidence in the candidates as an option in each election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 17, @07:15PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely. Gay men are men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gay men are men.
If they are men - that is, adult male human beings - then they don't need special privileges and support from the Mommy State. And the same goes for women, if they are women. Unfortunately, however, there seem to be no more than a handful of either in our present society, while the vast majority of over-18 homosexual males and females of any erotic persuasion appear to require all kinds of special protection and "affirmative actions" in order to be "equal" to normally sexual white males.
The identification of feminism, "gay" rights, etc. with socialism is not accidental or arbitrary. I would have no problem with either "movement" (or any other) if they would confine themselves to insisting on removal of legal limitations on their full exercise of responsible personal freedom. It may be that each of these movements was limited to such goals in their very early manifestations, but both very quickly morphed into hydra-heads of the Beast of totalitarian collectivism, while hardly any of their participants seem to see this as an unwise course - or even to have noticed the change at all. From this I can only conclude that the overwhelming majority of these groups are not sufficiently disciplined (perhaps, indeed, unable) in their thinking to understand the most basic of all moral principles, without which even the most "well-intentioned" efforts to "improve" the world will only create another road to hell.
I think it's worth pointing out that Simone de Beauvoir was not only opposed to allowing any women the freedom to be traditional mothers, but was also an enthusiastic fan of Chairman Mao, and applauded the Cultural Revolution, wherein, amid general social chaos, children as young as ten years (or even younger) participated in mobs that persecuted, tortured and killed their own parents. Most Americans know little about this period in recent Chinese history, the apotheosis of everything that feminism and all its related movements work toward.
There are indeed a few "gay" men, and a few women, who are clear on such issues: For instance, Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com makes no secret of his erotic proclivities, but he also understands that if his freedom to live as he wishes depends on others' freedom to do the same. And Claire Wolfe is a woman I can respect, and one of my favorite writers. But the numbers of such people, unfortunately, are very few; while the vast majority give every indication of supporting our accelerating slide into a society in which "everything that is not prohibited is compulsory."
From reading Wendy MacElroy's writing in Liberty, and from the enthusiasm for her work often expressed here, I had hopes to find some sense at "ifeminists," but was somewhat disappointed, e.g. at the dismissive response to my mention of the Golden Rule (the ubiquitous Brian, who seems to be a favored pet, informs us "How the golden rules fails to be a moral rule"), and to the issue of infant male circumcision ("ludricous").
I'm sorry, I know it's politically-incorrect to say so, but in my experience, most "women," and most "gay" men, seem to me, in their character and behavior, more like children - who require both care and supervision - than like adults. Being an adult is not easy, to be sure, even in the best of circumstances, and requires effort; but if the motivation is there, the effort can be made. None of us is perfect, to be sure, but I see a very great difference between those who make the effort and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think a lot of the special interest groups even yet have seen the trap, namely, that rights bestowed are rights that can be taken away, turning those on who these preferences and special privileges are given into chattel, forever beholden to their benefactor.
Don't think so? Here's the acid test. Imagine if in 2004 the Black voting block went as far Republican as it is Democrat. How long do you think it would take before the Dems abandoned black issues as one of their core causes?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm myself left-wing but I'm also anti-feminist. By attacking moderate socialism all the time, you are decreasing the potential audience in male population for men's rights defense.
Hello, Rage.
You write of "moderate socialism," but, if you take another look at my posts, you'll see that I consistently refer to "totalitarian socialism."
I don't consider myself left-wing or right-wing. As far as I'm concerned, there's some good and a lot of bad in each. For instance, I think that taxpayer funded education, at least through high school, should be universally available. I also think that right-wingers tend to be too reckless with respect to the environment. Nevertheless I'm wary, to say the least, of the left-wing's resort to government intrusion into private lives at just about every juncture and of the right-wing's inclination to get involved in many actions involving only consenting adults. I'm also concerned with the left-wing's often cavalier attitude toward the constitution, particularly freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.
My specific problem here is the fact that the feminists and totalitarian socialists are, as Gonzo points out, in bed with each other. Though I may agree with the precepts of a kinder, gentler capitalism (a capitalism tempered by a small amount of socialism), the fact is that big-government, totalitarian socialism and feminism have co-opted each other. Both are now determined to oppress not only men but everyone outside of a small cabal, who intend to rule.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
