|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 30, @11:55PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"He should have dunked her head in a bucket of Proactiv solution and poured all her Miss Clairol down the toilet to add insult to injury. With all the dye she uses to turn her charcoal black hair blonde, that's probably the entire North American supply."
While I am sure the writer sees this comment as humorous, anyone making a political statement needs to be focused and make cogent arguments. Having a clear grasp of when to use such brash humor is important, and in my opinion, it does not belong with opinion pieces. Subtle irony is much more effective.
If you take a third-person perspective, a statement like that above sounds like hate speech, which certainly does not help the cause and gives fodder to extreme feminists who are working to portray men's activists as hateful brutes. Writers, please be sure to review your work carefully from an outside perspective, and would the editors please be more careful in filtering for things like this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
does not help the cause and gives fodder to extreme feminists who are working to portray men's activists as hateful brutes.
Exactly.
Most of us that visit this site understand the underlying anger and frustration being expressed. But the net effect of such posts may be to give credibility to the anti-male stereotypes that feminists exploit so well. Remember, they’re masters at turning a non-issue into a crisis that threatens all women everywhere.
I’d like this site to be a place to challenge feminism, not promote it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I’d like this site to be a place to challenge feminism, not promote it."
Challenging "feminism" is already considered hate speech.
Wake Up!!!!!
In fact I hope they do inflate this site.
Secondly, what the guy said was not directed at a group, but rather at an individual who was willing to hit a little child.
What this author wrote was considerably mild in comparison to what feminists boards are reciting.
If they want to make issues about "hate speech", then we have a few examples we would like to point out to them and everyone else for that matter.
Of course they will use the claim that women have not acheived their goals yet. Which translated should read "feminists haven't reached their goals of turning the country into a fascist nation yet".
Censorship is a slippery slope into totalitarianism. In fact it is the slipperiest.
But for sake of arguement I will re-read the post.
I believe this is both a men and women's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan, I’m confused and may owe you an apology. After casually reading the original post I read the comment by “anonymous user” - He should have dunked her head in a bucket of Proactiv solution, etc. - and had the impression that he was quoting you.
Where does that quote come from? Not from your post as far as I can tell, there’s no link and it’s not in the text. I have no problem with what you posted. I’ll read more carefully in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Where does that quote come from? Not from your post as far as I can tell, there’s no link and it’s not in the text. I have no problem with what you posted. I’ll read more carefully in the future. "
It's okay, A.J., I've re-edited the post to take out any think I could see as negative, such as calling the NOW org "pigs", and, something about pouring some sort of chemical on an abuser's head.
But its correct, they are not my words, they are the words of the poster.
I hope you have a chance to read my views on the more important parts of the post.
Dan
I believe this is both a men and women's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Since a very high percentage of NOW members are man-hating pigs, "
This is the worst I could find in the submission. Which is hardly hate speech and, is probably true. Would you be happier if I took out the "pigs" reference and just left the 'Now members are man-haters'? When Wendy McElroy makes a slam at the NOW group many people seem to jump for joy.
It doesn't seem to stop NOW or any other groups from printing t-shirts that say "boys are stupid throw rocks at them".
An example of real 'hate speech' would be, "Women are scum, we should probably reduce their numbers to at most 10% of the population. Cause if we do, the world would be free from crime and violence alltogether."
This phrase is attacking a birth group. A clear blanket generalization with no foundation. Just pure prejuduce.
Our goal should be to seperate 'feminism' from 'women'. So we can stay alert to the ideology of that herd, rather than the individual women who are innocent of wrong doing. The character Judith Light potrayed was not innocent.
I want to point out that the "system" has become so financially hinged on descriminating against men our focus should be changing in that direction and not these petty disputes of whose a pig and who isn't.
I believe this is both a men and women's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For some reason this person has decided to post on the activism of 'boycotting' companies.
They speak of how this effects everyone in the company. The so called "innocents". Well, perhaps they are innocent, perhaps not. The key factor here is that it affects their business and their jobs.
It might even be a sign that all this boycotting is working. People are beginning to notice. Or not, Im not sure enough to talk about it, Im just going by the post that was made.
To me, 'socialism' is fundementally the transfer of wealth. In our highly 'feminist socialist' society, the transfer of wealth from man to woman is extreme. Companies know this. In fact, capitalists may even encourage this because women are "the shoppers". They spend the most and waste the most.
In germany we held everyone involved in the nazi party accountable for what they did to the jews. It was progressive, just like these other companies are, like Lifetime.
If Lifetime continues to "man-bash", and these people continue to work there , they themselves will become absolutely *dependant* on bashing men themselves. Maybe they don't call the shots, but they reap the rewards. It will come to a point that their mortgage, their new pool, their trip to burmuda will be far more important than the health and wellbeing of a group of people.
The reason why Nazism came into play was because of economics, the reason is the same for fascism and communism.
Now, some of the freemarket folks here will or might say, they have the right to advertise that men are scum and vice versa for other companies. But the courts are being conditioned by these groups, so what we have now is a oneway street.
Do you think we should sit back like the Jews and just hope it will get better? Do you really think they are going to play fair once they hear our side of the story?
This is blatently Animal Farm all over again (which by the way can land you a 26 year prison sentence for owning a copy in Cuba).
Like I said, the system is finacially hinged on descrimination against men as a group.
I believe this is both a men and women's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see a link for this post anywhere and it seems like the writer started typing part way through something he was thinking to himself.
"As far as boycotting..." Did someone say something about boycotting something beforehand?
I am confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The person was making a remark about how 'boycotting' certain companies will hurt the workers. Who, according to him are innocent little pawns in this giant industrial misandry march.
I think even if there is no link, its an interesting point of topic. Aside from calling the NOW organization a bunch of pigs and stigmatizing an abuser, the post has merit.
I believe that the real attacker of men is the fact that the world has become financially hinged on man bashing and descrimanating against men specifically.
I believe this is both a men and women's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
