|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every one of these time-o-the-month articles I read quotes this clown as if to give credibility to her attack. "See, even he says so and he is a man." He is a John McCain-esque character in that regard. I also like the way she quotes Susan Fauldi's "groundbreaking" work from....1999!
This book was barely windbreaking, let alone groundbreaking. I find it interesting how she (like many other of her ilk) points to characteristics like cooperation, etc. to say that traditionally female traits are more valued in today's workplace. She doesn't mention that passive aggression, backbighting, gossipping, excessive deliberation, indicisiveness, cattiness, distaste for hierarchy, emotionalism and the desire to make every relationship a personal still aren't and never will be valued in a capitalistic corporate environment.
If this nitwit were to carry out her ridiculous argument to its logical and equally ridiculous conclusion it would be that men as a gender are now barely worthy of women at all, and the true victims in this change of events are the women who are left unable to find anyone as exceptional as they themselves are.
She isn't even worthy of a letter, I'm afraid. No matter what I wrote she would find a way to convince herself that the letter itself further supports her knuckle-headed theory. We can only pray for her husband if she has one. And pray even harder that he evade capture if he is still in hiding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since the Y-chromosome has received very good press lately, which made the Steve Jones'book already outdated, I find it very strange that female columnists tend to refer to this book that was released a few years ago, as though they wanted to focus people's views on the demeaning of the male, and to deter them from more recent news that restored male dignity and glory.
They keep stating this already outdated book in an effort to hide the recent positive findings about the Y chromosome.
But reality is reality, and feminists will have to accept that, one day or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday July 13, @04:58PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
A women needs The Truth like a fish needs a bicycle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But reality is reality, and feminists will have to accept that, one day or the other.
Radical feminists stubbornness is only matched by their lack of integrity and unwillingness to make basic compromises in the political process. So, don't count of feminist accepting reality. Remember, they are intentionally attacking every facet of Western culture including basic fundamentals like the scientific method.
Feminist groups literally have no concept of truth, and they will not accept knowledge or truth even when it can be proven by basic scientific means. They have embraced relativism to the point that there is no such thing as "the truth."
It is clear that feminists will never accept reality because it means they will be required to accept masculine means of ascertaining the truth. In the feminist perspective, everything that males have discovered equals evil. If it is from a masculine source it is to be deconstructed and destroyed.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It is clear that feminists will never accept reality because it means they will be required to accept masculine means of ascertaining the truth. In the feminist perspective, everything that males have discovered equals evil. If it is from a masculine source it is to be deconstructed and destroyed."
I wonder if they realize that their political styles are much more like Hitler's or Stalin's. In fact exactly like them.
Dead White Men kind of funny really.
Women are just the vehicle to the ends. Feminism hates women as much as it does men. I already see feminist policy turning against women in favour of the state. This will continue to grow.
.
I believe this is both a men and women's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday July 13, @05:13PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
She isn't even worthy of a letter, I'm afraid. No matter what I wrote she would find a way to convince herself that the letter itself further supports her knuckle-headed theory.
You've got that right. Isn't it grand being "oppressed"? You "win" no matter what and outcomes are entirely irrelevant!
Well, I sure am relieved that it is Y that is shrinking and not X. First, it would be prof positive that the "Patriarchy" is out to get women. Second, we would no doubt have a new set of laws - Crimes Against Genetic Rotten Deals Act or something like that.
Evolution is a double edge sword. It can work for you or against you. But the author sure knows which edge it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday July 13, @03:39PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
this is why we are part of this fragmented organization called men's activism... we see it day in and day out, blatant unchecked misandry.
Lets face it, for over 30 years, there has been an intense focus on ALL things female as defined by feminism. As some people understand (most here anyway) feminism has made masculinity the enemy, and created the patriarchy as the embodiment of all things evil. Now the bad actions of the few represent the actions of the entire male gender. Feminism has shamed society into regarding men as dangerous, stupid or ineffective and has successfully passed sexist laws that (really) only apply to men.
Over 30 years of false rhetoric and unopposed feminist agendas have infiltrated all institutions in the US. Men have stood around and watched as feminism has intentionally undermined and replaced masculine based ideals, and criminalized male heterosexuality.
Now we have academic institutions that do not empower boys, countless fatherless homes (as men are driven out of their homes by misandric laws), and a huge and complete take over of popular culture that either appeals to the absolute lowest common denominator of masculine interests, or simply makes men look stupid.
Feminists have gone to work within companies, in the government and in the "justice" system to make a living first, but also to carry the feminist agenda of women first at all costs. Not many man think this way about other men. Feminism has created itself in the image of their "percieved" idea of a patriachy.
It is time for a National Organization of men. Unfortunately, most men are not equipped to argue with college trained persons on issues of gender.
There is no collective voice for the male perspective.
By design - we as male activists are considered "fanatics" and to even talk about the injustices men face today we take risks of alienation, or worse....
It is time for us to start talking to all of our friends (whether they want to hear it or not) about what is truly going on...
I tell everyone.
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets face it, for over 30 years, there has been an intense focus on ALL things female as defined by feminism...
I disagree. Feminism, though its goal is to exalt females, spends about 99% of its theory on men. Feminist theory is all about men. It's all about what men have. It's all about what men do (to women). It's all about what's wrong with what men have and do. I repeat: feminism is all about men, and what's wrong with us. It has never given any other reason for the world being "wrong", or women being in a bad position. It has never blamed anything else. The feminist answer to every question is "Because men... Because men... Because men..."
That's why it's called feminism!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday July 13, @06:56PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
If the energy spent within feminism is for the sole benefit of women, the focus is on women.
Have you checked out a library latley? The "into" thing for the last decade has been "X relates to women in this way or that"
I do agree however, that the commonality behind the "softer front" of feminism is the overt denegration of men.
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you checked out a library latley? The "into" thing for the last decade has been "X relates to women in this way or that"...
Okay, I think I understand your point better. What you're referring to is something I've often noted myself, with increasing anger. Based on the prevalent dogma of today, everything is harder/more complex/more special for a female. Just name the issue/career/crisis, and it's "even harder" if you're a woman - two X chromosomes notwithstanding.
So, yes - I agree with you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although there is a growing men's movement, we must reach out a greater number of people.....but as I said already here before, men's activists are viewed as more right-wing than left-wing, thus hindering half the male population to join the cause ; we must also state more clearly in our discourse that we are anti-racist, and totally pro-black. Webmasters of the Men's Health Office website have obviously understood that by displaying two blacks (son and father) on some of their pages. I'm saying that because I've been seeing many times in the forum of mensnewsdaily certain remarks concerning the discrimination against "white heterosexual males", and this kind of word will be used for sure to label us as racist and homophobic, thus once again preventing black men and gay men to join us. That's exactly what the Canadian feminists tried to do in their report.
Lastly, and I'm aware it will be the most difficult thing to accept for men's activists, we must realize that gay men are forming today an incredible network of power, almost as powerful as the feminist one, and that we must implement connections with them. On www.straightacting.com, there are more than 16000 registered members, and they are only male. They do represent a possible source of numerous new men involved in masculism.
And I'll add that artificial wombs and eggs made out of male stem cells will never be put at men's disposal, unless the gays ask for it, as the authorities are so keen to cater for their demands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday July 13, @07:02PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with many of your points "rage" - however, the "left" is the political party that embraces feminist theory and continues to pass laws that are biased against men (VAWA)...
NOW is clearly liberal. I personally think that a more conservative group would best reflect the interests of men. I also realize this would present problems in getting the word out - as major media outlets are clearly leftist...
I personally would like to see a strong moderate men's organization that could compete with NOW?
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the whole, these men are better off voting for Democrats, in spite of that party's stupid support for misandrist policies.
Now this is a rather ignorant statement. Many liberals and dems clearly support the power of the state to randomly assign a father to a child regardless of biology. By contrast, we don’t know of a single Republican in California that supports the oppression of males. All moderates and conservatives from both parties support the notion of the natural family in addition to the extended family. Only the rad-fem socialist liberals are attacking men with paternity fraud free-love socialist values.
Basically, many California liberal white supremacists are arguing that we should not have paternity fraud laws because the system works fine as it is constructed. What they forget to tell you is that the system has a foundation in free-love socialist values that originate in philosophy as taught by Carl Marx. The free-love socialists completely disregard the right of children to know their bio-dads.
The liberal socialists are literally trying to put all children into a basket and randomly assign the wealthiest male to pay child support. The system is so corrupt that we have a situation where multiple males are paying child support for one child. We even have liberals in California that point to African matriarchial cultures where women choose the most qualified male in the tribe to be the father as a justification for paternity fraud.
This is the same bigoted pattern used in arguments by the South to justify slavery. They felt the system was working find and didn't need to be changed. NOT! Clearly, males need to attack the socialist feminist liberals and seek to preserve what few family values remain. Only a free-love socialist would accept your corrupt thinking.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 15, @12:40PM EST (#56)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your point is well-taken, that Republicans are
a lot less misandrist than Democrats. I agree with you there.
My only point is this: It doesn't have to be
this way.
It's not accurate to pass off Democrats
as "liberal socialists." This is exactly
the kind of nonsensical thinking that drives
a lot of people to vote for Republicans,
when their own economic interests clearly
lie with the Democrats. The majority of people
who vote Republican are voting against their
own personal interests. It's sad, but true.
The Democratic party is badly screwed up,
but it is not beyond repair. And most Democrats
are manifestly not socialists. It's just
as wrong to label Democrats "socialists"
as it is to label Republicans "fascists"
or "theocrats." It's sloppy thinking.
If we start out with the presumption
that right=good and conservative=good,
and that democrat=evil, then there would be
nothing to talk about, would there?
In fact, there would be no reason even to have
elections.
But we don't need to have this presumption.
There are plenty of people in the Republican
party with patently wacky (and dangerous) ideas.
If you don't see them, then you haven't been
looking hard enough.
If you tell me that Democrat philosophy
originates with Karl Marx, then I will tell you
that today's Republican philosophy starts with
Joseph Goebbels. But we won't have a productive
discussion if we talk this way, will we?
The vast majority of people in the Democratic
party are ordinary people with garden-variety
political opinions. Let's stop the demonizing.
The liberal socialists are literally trying to put all children into a basket and randomly assign the wealthiest male to pay child support.
This is only true in your fantasyland.
This is such an exaggeration that it's
a falsehood. It ain't so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 15, @03:04PM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote:
"This is such an exaggeration that it's a falsehood. It ain't so."
My Reply:
Sadly most of what Warble is alluding to is true, in my opinion. You need only survey the action in Sacramento to ascertain the veracity of what is at the heart of his statements. I understand that ideologies cloud everyone's vision to some extent, but there is much substance to what he is saying. There is a lot of documentation, and a there is a lot of history, both substantiating a clear modus operandi for those to whom he refers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Democratic party is badly screwed up, but it is not beyond repair. And most Democrats are manifestly not socialists. It's just as wrong to label Democrats "socialists" as it is to label Republicans "fascists" or "theocrats." It's sloppy thinking.
I agree that there are many moderate dems however their voting record is clearly supporting a socialist agenda. Clearly, they have yet to openly support men's issues in a big way. Nevertheless, that is changing due to public pressure by men's issues groups and not because of their own initiative. They have only themselves to blame because of their voting record if we identify them as supporting extreme socialists policies and law. They are clearly willing to devalue men using economic arguments, and they are failing to address men’s issues on their own.
The idea that we should not be labeling many democrats as socialist demonstrates extreme ignorance of the California political culture. The plane fact of the matter is that we have many liberal democrats that publicly admit to being socialists. Further, it is clear that they support free-love values and the destruction of the family. If you want a list of names just go look at the socialist web sites.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 15, @08:26PM EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
The vast majority of people in the Democratic party are ordinary people with garden-variety political opinions. Let's stop the demonizing.
I agree. Right now the Democratic Party is more misandristic than the Republicans, but this needs to change. We need at least two major parties, neither of which is misandristic. I would like to see both the Democratic and Republican parties become a lot less anti-male, and I think the men's movement should embrace a diversity of political views and parties, as long as those views respect men's basic human rights and dignity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The phenomenon is known as "Daddy Shopping." It goes as such - woman thinks she might be or wants to be pregnant. She has unprotected sex with as wealthy a man as she can. Upon learning she has concieved, one of two things occur:
1) She goes to him with the old song of "We have a problem..." She counts on his "Chivalry" to shame him into "doing the right thing."
2) She finagles a "default judgement of paternity." This is often done by informing the courts of a false "Last known address" and not pushing the issue until after the time expires for him to contest it.
In either event it is also known as paternity fraud. Efforts made to correct this are opposed very frequently by democrats; less frequently by republican ones.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 16, @08:51PM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure that this really does happen...
it's a sad world we live in.
But what does this have to do with
the Democratic party? Are you trying to say
that Democrats actually advocate this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Democrats advocate policies which are acknowledged to allow this to happen - and always with the excuse "For the sake of the children...."
Do the Democrats come right out and say this, up front, without weaselage? Of course not. It would be political stupidity of the highest order.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you post a URL here to a page showing which Democratic politicians publicly advocate that children be assigned randomly to the richest men?
I'm curious to see this, if it exists.
Now this is a real hoot of a question. I must just laugh because politicians are not going to have a website where they openly state that it is desirable to randomly assign children to any father by the power of the state, yet one only needs to examine the facts of the current culture to observe that this practice is wide spread. Here are some of the facts:
- In California, married males cannot use DNA to disprove paternity when they are lied to after two years even if there is a divorce. By contrast a mother is able to get a child returned if they are switched at birth.
- In California, an unmarried male who is present at the birth of a child is pressured into signing a Paternity Opportunity Program (POP) agreement regardless of whether the male is the natural father of the child. That can only happen because the federal government prohibits (thanks to Hillary Clinton) checking DNA at birth as a condition of signing the POP form. Nor can DNA testing be required after signing the POP form by federal law. After 60 days it is nearly impossible to get the paternity overturned because the male may have mistakenly held the child out to be his own. After two years it is impossible to get the POP declaration overturned.
- In California, a mother who goes on welfare is forced by law to name a male as the father of a child. It does not matter if she states that she doesn’t know because of multiple sexual partners. By law she must single out a male as the alleged father. It doesn’t matter if the mother knows the location of the father or if 10 years have passed since she last saw the male. She is forced to list literally ANY ADDRESS and the male may or may not be served. If there is substitute service then the notice goes to any address. Shortly after, the default is entered the DCSS often waits two plus years because they do not want to absorb the costs of overturning an incorrect default judgment. After that they can garnish wages and the male cannot use DNA to stop the garnishment.
- Nationwide, mothers have the effective sole right to end the relationship between the father and child at most any time. Then if she desires, she has the special right to associate the child with ANY MALE.
- By estopple, the mother and state is able to end the relationship of the child with the natural father and name ANY MALE as the father. Then they can collect child support.
- Mandatory DNA testing of every child at birth in California to establish paternity would only costs about $20 million. By contrast, the CA-DCSS spends about $2.2 billion in naming “ANY MALE” to be the father of a child and collecting child support. Clearly, if the correct father were determined at birth the costs to the state of chasing after the wrong father would drop dramatically. That represents a savings to the state of about 1 billion in operating costs. Clearly, the state likes the power to name ANY MALE as the father of a child regardless of paternity. There is big money in the practice.
- In the last 20 years, California has named about 1 million incorrect fathers because of paternity fraud.
I suggest looking at the history of the Soviet Union, and learning much more about politicians to determine what values system they support. You will not find this openly stated on the web or in any public documentation. You can only learn their values by how they vote and the laws they sponsor.
Next, those of us that know of Tammy Bruce, Christina Hoff Sommers, and other feminist defectors know that radical feminism is rooted in Marxism. There is no question of this fact, and the very notion that radical feminism accepts American values is absurd on the face of it. If you question this fact then I suggest looking it up yourself. I'm not going down that road at this time.
Nevertheless, we can research the history of the Soviet Union and learn of communist thought from credible sources. In the July 1926 publication of The Atlantic Monthly we find the following article on the abolition of marriage:
The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage
In that article we find the following communist quote:
"...'Commissar for Justice, Mr. Kursky.... The woman would have the right to demand support for her child even if she lived with several men during the period of conception; but, in contrast to previous practice, she or the court would choose one man who would be held responsible for the support.' ...Commissar Kursky seemed especially proud of this point because it differed so much from the 'burgeois customs' of Europe and America. In those countries, he said, the husband can bring a friend who declares that he also lived with the woman, and the latter is then left defenseless.
Now for those that are fighting against paternity fraud and spending any time with the legislature in our respective states they will recognize this uniquely Marxist argument. They will have had experience fighting against this communist ideal, and they will understand that the primary source of the argument is from the liberal feminist democrats having that have adopted Marxist values.
Naturally, if we confront these human pieces of slime with the source of the argument they will lie and evade the issue of their having adopted Marxist values. I’ve personally witnessed this practice many times now. The radical liberal feminist democrats that have spread these values go silent and lie when they are confronted with the truth.
To clarify, the argument by Mr. Kurskey has the following key points:
- The woman has the right to demand child support.
- It doesn't matter if the woman had sexual relations with many men.
- The woman or the state should have the power to assign "ONE [read any] MAN" to be the father.
- Marxist's believe that it is evil for the American culture to permit a man to have a witness to discredit a false allegation of paternity because it can leave the mother without child support.
- Marxism teaches that a man should not be able to use witnesses (or DNA) to disprove paternity. Only the mother should have the power (or state) to name a father, and that allegation should be accepted as fact regardless of the truth.
Now I can assure you that during the Assembly Judiciary hearing on SB1030 that ACE's and many other anti-male feminist organizations were making this exact same argument. They literally stated that the state should have the power to name any male as the father, force the male to pay child support, that biology doesn’t matter, that the father should be forced by the state to have a relationship, and that DNA should not be used to prove innocence. They believe that the mother should have the conclusive right to name any male to be the father of a child without a possibility of DNA testing.
Don't think for a second that we don't have radical feminist liberal dem's that support this Marxist ideal. There are too many of us fighting against them. If AU doesn't believe this to be fact then AU can join the fight in the legislature against paternity fraud. You will not find the dem’s or anybody else telling the truth on this matter to the public because the public will politically hang them, and they know that the American public believes that biology should be the primary means for determining paternity.
After about 1-2 years fighting in the legislature, AU will either embrace this Marxist thought or reject it entirely. There is no in-between on this one. That is because it is a matter of biological fact that there is a natural father. Not state law can negate this fact. It is also a biological fact that a man and a women are the natural parents of a child. When the state or rad-fems seek to violate that fact they can only do so by adopting Marxist values and seeking the destruction of the natural family. When that happens, civilizations collapse. Determining paternity by biology is a uniquely American value, literally going back 1000's of years, and all women and men instinctively know that that a woman should name the biological father of a child in determining paternity.
It is only by corrupt free-love liberal socialist feminist thinking, unique only to only the Democratic party, that such a corrupt ideology could be supported as naming any male as the father of a child without consideration of the natural right of a child to know the natural father. Think about it.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...we must realize that gay men are forming today an incredible network of power, almost as powerful as the feminist one, and that we must implement connections with them...
I agree. The question is - what does the men's movement have to offer gay men? If gay men, due to their favored status among feminists, truly have advantages over straight men which are akin to the advantages women enjoy, then what would they be lacking that the men's movement could offer?
Also, many of the banner issues which men's activists campaign for are either irrespective of sexual orientation, or are very specific to heterosexual lifestyle and institutions (i.e., sexual harassment allegations, divorce, custody, etc.). And in certain cases, gay men and men's activists are somewhat at odds. Many men's activists campaign for a return to the traditional family, whereas gays campaign for same-sex marriage. And while many men's activists campaign against the military draft, gay men complain of being barred from the military.
I DO think the men's movement has something to offer gay men - which is something that I don't think gay men believe they could get from a masculine movement. Namingly, if it's bad enough to be a straight men and have to deal with all the misandry in our culture, then imagine what it must be like for a gay man. Not only are you being denigrated, but your romantic partnerships are being denigrated as well. If the misandry is to be believed, then gay male relationships are a double negative. At least straight men can take some vicarious pleasure in women (i.e., even if you personally are scum, at least the person you're with is not).
I actually wonder if a lot of the high suicide rates applied to gay males has to do in part with self-hatred for being male, and liking males. I also wonder if a lot of gay men don't realize how a lot of their better qualities are actually attributable to their being male, and not gay. For example, many of history's greatest artists and achievers have been gay men. But is that because they are gay, or simply because they are men who didn't invest all their energies in women? A lot of gay men might not even consider the latter possibility.
So, basically, in other words - if the men's movement is going to attract gay men, then I think the men's movement has to offer something that would be of special value to a gay man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So, basically, in other words - if the men's movement is going to attract gay men, then I think the men's movement has to offer something that would be of special value to a gay man."
No, there is no need to "specialize" for anyone really.
The one thing that homosexual men should absolutely cherish is freedom of speech. Feminists are totalitarian. It is unlikely that they will stop at just 'hetrosexual white men'. Even if it is a strawman argument and not entirely what I believe I think I can still point out the similarities. (Because I believe feminism to be really a move for communism).
Gay men, should want the free market, gay men should want freedom of speech. If you take away freedom of speech these laws will extend further and further down the road. The totalitarian movement is aiming at subtracting everyone's rights of free speech. Not just white straight males, but gay males, straight women, in fact eventually even gay women.
The rules will be totalitarian, and it may take another generation to accomplish, but look at what's been accomplished in the last generation?? Men, are cut from their children's lives, they are imprisoned without trial, they are executed from their homes based on allegations, the list goes on Im sure you know them. Imagine what another 30 years could do.
I've seen feminists go after women with just as much vigor as they do men. If that woman doesn't agree with their Nazi like tactics god help them. Erin Pizzey, Steinmetz and others are prime examples.
The Nazis were put into power via their socialist policies not their nationalist ones. But in the end, the holocaust was legal.
White hetersexual males are no more guilty of crimes than the Jews were. Its just that they had the money that these socialist groups want.
I certainly believe that a leftie male voter can be a men's activist. I know a couple personally.
Without free speech gay men are in trouble. But then again, so are the rest of us.
.
I believe this is both a men and women's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"No, there is no need to "specialize" for anyone really...
I take all your points with understanding and agreement. But, at the risk of sounding argumentative, I do have to pose one more question -
Aren't we already "specializing" by calling this a Men's Movement?
Based on your views, it shouldn't be just a Men's Movement, because feminism can and probably will harm everybody. So, why not just call this a People's Movement - People Against Feminism?
I mean, if we aren't going to specialize our goals toward helping one particular group of people, but ALL people, then why not just ditch the whole gender aspect from the title and simply say that this is a movement for all humanity with the aim of wiping out a particular subgroup of people (feminists) who have hostile intents which can potentially harm all people, and who have unfortunately gained the power to carry them out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Aren't we already "specializing" by calling this a Men's Movement?"
I agree, because I don't think we even have to call it the men's movement either.
Feminism has shut up the voices of women, it has indoctrinated them, it has lied to them, it has basically just *used* women to reach their ends.
This is not just about men. Men were the first casualties in the war, but women are next in line for the same treatement.
Mao did this in China. Its literally a repeat of the same thing. Its marxist class war and women are nothing but the vehicle or the donkey to get them to where they are going.
They fill women up with lies, hatred and envy. Do you really think Feminism cares about women as people? No, they care about them enough as trained agents, like suicide bombers.
.
I believe this is both a men and women's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Based on your views, it shouldn't be just a Men's Movement, because feminism can and probably will harm everybody. So, why not just call this a People's Movement - People Against Feminism?"
Works for me, since it is a truthful statement.
You will be suprized to find how many women have been denied the right to speak. Women's individual rights are evaporating at light speed.
The Canadian Government is now swinging the press wheels at telling the public that women are more now then ever being violent in the home.
This is a total lie really, because they always have been. But what will happen? I believe the next move will be to take the children away from the family. The father's rights are gone, now its time to turn on the mother's rights. Divide and Conquer.
Just ludicrious you think? Well, when you see how much government cake is recieved via foster children etc... than you will start to become suspicious.
Feminism is a war on all of us.
.
I believe this is both a men and women's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday July 14, @10:48AM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
There have been many good points brought up here. I would like to add that what Dan wrote is primary to the problem here:
"The rules will be totalitarian... Men are cut from their children's lives, they are imprisoned without trial, and they are executed from their homes based on allegations..."
Regardless of adding the specific interests of gay men into a man's movement, "family/custody and property issues, and the ease upon which any female can incarcerate a man on mere allegation alone, have to be the first issues that get addressed as they are devastating families and criminalizing average men. Secondary issues relevant to gay men could be added into the purpose of a collective group, but they really are not the top of the list in importance, plus gay men are already successfully achieving their own agenda.
Heterosexual men need to restore our OWN basic rights and dignity within society. Look at what feminism has done - it has removed men from our homes and alienated us from our children, and has denigrated us in all mass media. This is part of a socially engineered process that (I think) intends to make future generations of men (now boys) lack real role models, and become passive to the interests and abilities of women. This is a "macro social experiment" that is growing in success" and the media and the family courts are the primary tools that have brought about this change.
Does anyone know what the names are of the largest fathers-rights groups and men's activist groups in this U.S.? Is there any cooperation between these groups? Does a lobby exist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Regardless of adding the specific interests of gay men into a man's movement, "family/custody and property issues, and the ease upon which any female can incarcerate a man on mere allegation alone, have to be the first issues that get addressed as they are devastating families and criminalizing average men. Secondary issues relevant to gay men could be added into the purpose of a collective group, but they really are not the top of the list in importance, plus gay men are already successfully achieving their own agenda.
You said it. A collective group. For me, any improvement of the condition of any male is a win in a masculist perspective. So then gay men gain rights or priviledges, it's a win for men in general.
Moreover, keep in mind that sooner or later gay men will be allowed to get married and to adopt a child. And this is going to improve drastically the condition of fatherhood in western countries. So far, we have been told by the feminist doctrine that a mother matters more than a father to a child. But with gay men being allowed to raising a child by themselves, without any woman around, it will also be the official acknowledgement by society that men matter as much as women when it comes to family issues.
The role of heterosexual fathers will therefore be re enhanced and reinforced, as it will be the end of the matriarchy over the family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know what the names are of the largest fathers-rights groups and men's activist groups in this U.S.? Is there any cooperation between these groups? Does a lobby exist? >
I don't know the answer for the rest of the nation but in California we have over 16 groups working together at the legislative level. They include but are not limited to US-CAPF, CA-CAPF, WAPF, VFPF, NCFC, ACFC, POPS, and many more. So, yes we are working together and making a difference.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....but as I said already here before, men's activists are viewed as more right-wing than left-wing, thus hindering half the male population to join the cause ; we must also state more clearly in our discourse that we are anti-racist, and totally pro-black.
It is ironic that you would say this. At the last California Assembly Committee of Judiciary hearing the liberal dems against the California Paternity Fraud Coalition were all caucasion. By contrast, the Paternity Fraud Coalition was 90% African-American, 5% Mexican-American, and 5% Caucasion.
On the one hand we had a multicultural coalition supported by both liberals and conservatives, and on the other the white rad-fem supremacists were opposing paternity fraud legislation. Men's issues are clearly multicultural and growing. We have called the liberal dems on this fact and they are not happy.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the last California Assembly Committee of Judiciary hearing the liberal dems against the California Paternity Fraud Coalition were all caucasion. By contrast, the Paternity Fraud Coalition was 90% African-American, 5% Mexican-American, and 5% Caucasion.
Well, knock me over with a fuckin' feather. That... is... GREAT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 15, @03:33AM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
> At the last California Assembly Committee of Judiciary hearing the liberal dems against the California Paternity Fraud Coalition were all caucasion. By contrast, the Paternity Fraud Coalition was 90% African-American, 5% Mexican-American, and 5% Caucasion.
Wow ! I'm very glad to learn that ! Men of every colour working together to achieving improvement of males'rights, I just like it !
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> At the last California Assembly Committee of Judiciary hearing the liberal dems against the California Paternity Fraud Coalition were all caucasion. By contrast, the Paternity Fraud Coalition was 90% African-American, 5% Mexican-American, and 5% Caucasion.
Wow ! I'm very glad to learn that ! Men of every colour working together to achieving improvement of males'rights, I just like it !
The most striking and shocking thing to witness is liberal socialist free love democrates go against the express wishes of this multerculteral group by failing to openly support the coalition. It is also shocking that they are all white.
By contrast the Republican supporters are made up of several racial groups and supporting of the coalition's proposals.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"By design - we as male activists are considered "fanatics" and to even talk about the injustices men face today we take risks of alienation, or worse....
It is time for us to start talking to all of our friends (whether they want to hear it or not) about what is truly going on...
I tell everyone."
I agree completely, CJ, and think that word of mouth is the single biggest weapon we have...even slightly better than articles on TV and in the paper.
People buy insurance from a friend in the business or a referral usually. Insurance is insurance but it's the personal relationship that people value.
I can think of 5 close friends that are now very very aware of these issues, thanks to me. 3 of them have read "The Manipulated Man" and all are aware of the way women in general act. 2 of them actively view Men's Issues sites and for all I know they too have told others about it. When we are together it is a topic of discussion and when there is another guy present he then feels safe to say "yeah, I noticed that too and I thought I was the only one." It's like mentioning the emporer's new clothes,...every man out there knows the emporer is naked. They are just waiting for someone else to point it out.
Get to work everyone!!!!!!! Inform 1 new person a month or at least 3 a year about Men's Issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday July 14, @01:06PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
You're right. I do the same thing. I think it's important that the men's movement not be about being "against feminism." As far as I'm concerned, feminism is anachronistic, taken over by anti-male hate-mongers, and stupid. I don't want to talk about feminism. I want to talk about men, their real lives, and what laws and institutions affect men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You're right. I do the same thing. I think it's important that the men's movement not be about being "against feminism." As far as I'm concerned, feminism is anachronistic, taken over by anti-male hate-mongers, and stupid. I don't want to talk about feminism. I want to talk about men, their real lives, and what laws and institutions affect men."
I agree. We're not against Wendy McElroy, are we? She calls herself a feminist. We are opposed to misandrists, hypocrites, female supremecists. Those are our enemies, not just anyone who speaks up for women or calls herself (or himself) a feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We are opposed to misandrists, hypocrites, female supremecists. Those are our enemies, not just anyone who speaks up for women or calls herself (or himself) a feminist. "
What an interesting quagmire the issue of semantics and feminism presents. On the one hand, we aid our opponents by making it nearly impossible to discern who they actually are; on the other hand, we become backlash reactionaries who denounce entire ideas based on their association with other ideas. hmmm.
What if their was ONLY radical feminism? What if feminism and radical feminism were synonymous? Semantics can be a very powerful tool, and as long as male-friendly orgs keep calling themselves some breed of feminists, they are only acting to slow their own progress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark I've been doing this since I started studying these issues last year.
The wife of a cousin (she's a lawyer) got into a debate with me about a mens issues a few months ago when I was discussing some issues at a party. It was amazing to see her go down the standard list of feminist responses to mens issues. From dismissal, to laughing it off, to telling me men should "take it like a man". The very cool thing about that debate is that she threw out not a SINGLE curve ball... nothing I hadn't seen and heard in dozens of stories here and at other sites online. Pretty tough for her to debate against someone armed with tons of data who's prepared for everything she's going to say.
It was pretty fun, in the end we were discussing female violence and I told her to count the number of times on prime time TV a guy hits a girl vs. the oppsosite... THEN come back and tell me that women aren't violent in our society. :) When a couple people chimed in and said "hey, he's right, guys are getting slapped all the time on TV" she dropped the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a couple people chimed in and said "hey, he's right, guys are getting slapped all the time on TV" she dropped the whole thing.
Funny how that works. I get the same experience. People are not stupid except for those that fail to question the BIG LIE.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree completely, CJ, and think that word of mouth is the single biggest weapon we have...even slightly better than articles on TV and in the paper.
I've been doing this for over a year now in Sacramento, California. To my surprise every taxi cab driver in Sacramento recognizes me now as the man fighting against paternity fraud. Word of mouth does work better than we think.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CJ wrote: "It is time for a National Organization of men."
The National Coalition of Free Men (http://www.ncfm.org), with six active chapters nationwide, has existed since 1977. Membership is only $30.00. JOIN US!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 15, @03:39AM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
Is membership only for American citizens ? In other words, what things can an European man do to help you ?
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rage,
Membership in NCFM is open to anyone, without regard to country of citizenship. Thanks!
Kyle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is time for a National Organization of men. Unfortunately, most men are not equipped to argue with college trained persons on issues of gender.
There is no collective voice for the male perspective.
Ironically, it is true that there is little chance of there being a Natl. Orgn. of Men. Nevertheless, we find that at NCFM, LA we are able to organize groups all over California to work as a cohesive unit to fight common issues that impact the male gender.
We are literally making visits and calls monthly to new men's issues groups that are forming all over California. It is spreading like wildfire and we cannot keep up with the growth.
The effect is that more men's issues groups are joining the fight in the California legislature on a regular basis. The feminists know we are there, and they are quite pissed. In fact, they are so threatened that they have begun making serious false allegations and demanding police presence when we attend meetings, and the legislature is aware that their allegations are little more than lies designed to discredit the men's movement.
Further, when we started attending the paternity workgroup sponsored by the CA-DCSS there were 17 women's groups and only 2 men's issues groups. Today we have about 6 women's issues groups attending and 9 men's issues groups attending. That means we are now able to out vote the radical feminists. In addition, there are over 16 men's issues/family issues groups supporting our efforts in California. The growth and cooperation is clearly unprecedented.
Do not underestimate the growth of the men's issues movement. It is clearly a rapidly growing movement, and the informal coalitions are forming to connect these groups so fast that NCFM, LA cannot keep up with the growth. We have literally reached a point that we cannot speak at all of the meetings where we are asked to attend.
Personally, I do not care what form the men's movement takes so long as we keep moving forward, and that is happening at a rapid rate. Let the groups be fragmented. All we need is the Internet to tie these groups together as a team, and that I can assure everybody is happening.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble....you rock!!
.
I believe this is both a men and women's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble....you rock!!
Thanks! I'm a bit behind on spreading the news about the progress that we've made in California. As usual it is not without the typical set-backs, but I can assure everybody that we are kicking some major but in California. For example, we are now bringing major organizations into the coalition like The Reverend Cecil Murray's men's issues group into the movement (very big deal). The feminists are quite pissed. We've just been too busy to post updates.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 15, @03:54AM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
You are a great model for all of us, Warble. Thanks to you for all your efforts in favor of the male gender.
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... what Don & Mike (of "The Don & Mike Show" fame) would call an "untce" (Pig Latin for... well, figure it out). She and Maureen Dowd have this title in common.
Women like these just plain hate men and are glowing happily in the state of third-class citizenship we have been reduced to at the machinations of feminists and government officials (I am a hair's breadth away from openly advocating for a Second American Revolution here, but I have just a little more ways to go before getting there-- which to some people may only show how I am still in some level of denial with regard to how corrupt our gov't has become).
The way she finished off her article, asking us men to accept this state resignedly and then of course, we'd be loved for doing so, too, was truly insufferable. This is known as adding insult to injury and is not unlike a master telling a slave he should be grateful for being fed every day-- that he will be tolerated if not also loved and appreciated for being happily subserviant, so just do it.
But is her attitude really any surprise? Not to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a hair's breadth away from openly advocating for a Second American Revolution here....
I am a hair's breadth away from openly advocating for a Second American Revolution here....
Well sorry to say, you are a bit late. The plain fact of the matter is that if the socialist free-love rad-fem liberal state continues to destroy our families we will have a revolution similar to what the Soviet Union experienced when they openly sought the destruction of the family back in the early 1900's. Check out their history. It is repeating itself in America. I was literally shocked to learn that the communist already tried the experiment in that it resulted in civil war. Their isn’t a single social experiment today in America that hasn’t already failed under communism.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 15, @11:06AM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
You Wrote:
"The way she finished off her article, asking us men to accept this state resignedly and then of course, we'd be loved for doing so, too, was truly insufferable."
My Reply:
Equality is not what the past 30 years has given us, rather it is, "You'll take it and keep your mouth shut."
The abuse of all men, that is part and parcel of this, is just routine and acceptable in their minds, and if you dare to speak up or assert yourself, then you'll get the police called on you, "You male brute."
Loved? No, you won't be loved by these, merely begrudgingly tolerated for the slave labor you can provide.
Welcome to their brave new world, or should I say, "Sit down and take an oar. Your leg shakles will be secured shortly."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday July 14, @12:00AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, I'm just not buying what is being said in this article. Females have been given every break, every advantage for the last 30 years and now we read how inferior men are. Not true, take away all the edges females are given and pit men against women in open competition in all areas, in all fields. Let's see how far women have come in their ability to stand on their own worth without being artificially propped up. I respect the valid capabilities of all women, but obviously that is not reciprocated here and in a number of other areas by gender feminists.
Men have endured many millenia of the most adverse conditions and risen to the task, most recently, the American military in Iraq. All the while men have put up with the abusive put downs of the opposite gender, especially the last 30 years. Some things never change.
Why women are jealous of men is beyond me. They have gotten all the privileges of men, but still haven't put their shoulders to the most horrible responsibilities that men have endured.
Talks cheap, especially if you're a gender feminist. I wouldn't give this article more than passing consideration unless I were a hot air ballonest. Then, in a practical way, I would put to use this author's innane babble and give myself a real lift.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It gets worse, of course, because according to David Brooks in his article, Return Of The Pig, men are not only inferior, but they are insecure and also categorized as disenfranchised whites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminazis are jealous of men in general because they know they will never be as strong or as driven by logic. It is similar to the justifications burglars run through their minds as they rob rich people - they're rich, they can afford it, I don't have as much and I deserve some of what they have. Or communists if you like, and that takes us back full circle to the REAL roots of modern feminism - Marxism. Remember that dame who opened up the first domestic violence shelters and watched them get hijacked into man-hating women-only shelters?
You can also say that their jealousy is similar to that of someone driving a '95 Corolla for someone with an '04 Corvette. In a fair race, the 'Vette wins every time. Only by chicanery can the Corolla get ahead. Never mind that the guy driving the 'Vette had to pay much more for his car, or that he has to buy premium gas, or that his insurance is through the roof, or that cops love to give him tickets, or that it's more difficult to maneuver in parking lots due to its width. The Corolla driver can't stand that anyone has any advantage at all, and so takes steps to "destroy" or "beat" anyone with a nicer car.
It is this way with modern feminazis. Nothing is ever enough. Much like rabbits in Australia, they will expand relentlessly until they have consumed all available natural resources. And then they will damn men for not being quick enough to build them a boat to go to New Zealand.
They have latched onto this idea that they are entitled, and anything they can do to justify it, they will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday July 14, @09:28AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Any old bag with a name like "Horn-Blow" probably
has a night job sucking the chrome
off of trailer hitchs on a mattress behind the Y.
The little lady is just cranky because her contractions are
five minutes apart.
Madcap Misogynist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to make some points as a heterosexual man, who is very sympathetic to the gay rights movement.
Fathers' rights today are on the whole far less of a concern for gay men than for straight men, because there is a far lower percentage of gay fathers than heterosexual fathers. In addition, the issue of fathers' rights vs. mothers' privileges will remain less of a concern for gay men, because they won't have to worry about the government kidnapping their children and placing them into the sole custody of the female parent. At this time, and possibly throughout the future, only bi-sexual men and gay men who have, for some reason, acted straight and impregnated women will be directly concerned with fathers' rights.
The threat of false accusations of sexual assault, and the end of due process for men who are so charged, is less of a threat for gay men, because they are less likely to have any sort of sexual relationship with a woman (in the absence of bi-sexuality or rape by a woman, of course).
As for the denigration of men in the media, from what I can see, given how little TV I watch, gay men are far less degraded than straight men. I saw part of "Will and Grace" the other day and, while it seemed to rely rather strongly on stereotypes of the mannerisms of gay men, it seemed to show the gay men in a better light than most straight men are generally portrayed on TV. (I'm certainly not an expert on what is shown on the garbage-tube.)
There are, however, areas of strongly overlapping concern for gay, straight, and bi-sexual men.
The war against boys (see Christine Hoff Sommers' book of the same name) ultimately affects both gay and straight men; they are both more likely to end up with educations that are inferior to what they would receive if the academy were fair-minded. The anti-male hatred that is cultivated and preached by so many teachers and school administrators doesn't discriminate between gay and straight, when it teaches boys to despise school.
In addition, both gay and straight men should be concerned over the fact that men are being systematically driven out of the family, while they are being forced to pay for child care through taxes that support government funded child care centers and companies that put money into the centers rather than paying that money to employees. This should particularly concern gay men, since they are already largely excluded from the family by being, in most jurisdictions, barred from marrying and since they are, therefore, far less likely to be able to adopt.
Domestic violence matters should concern gays, because there is little support for a gay man, if and when he is battered by his partner.
Preferential treatment for women in the workplace should concern both gay and straight men. I've seen, on numerous occasions, women being given a great deal of preference over men in the workplace, solely because the women have vaginas. I've never seen a gay man being given preferential treatment over a straight man solely because he's gay. Also, when a gay man is accused of sexual harassment, or creating a hostile environment, his sexual preferences may do him no good. For instance, if a woman, who is competing with a man for a position, claims something along the lines of, "So-and-so said all women are lazy and stupid," responding with "I wouldn't say that, I'm gay," might hurt more than help.
Men's health issues are an area that should be strongly viewed as an area of common concern. Both straight and gay men, for example, get prostrate cancer.
It's important for us to remember that the feminists have been very effective in employing a divide and conquer strategy against men. On the whole, straight, white men had far more power than black or gay men thirty years ago. By preaching, very effectively I will add, that the white-heterosexist-patriarchy is the source of all evil, feminists have effectively divided us against ourselves.
My question: How do I, as a straight man, approach a gay man or an organization of gay men and effectively build a bridge so we can work together?
There are areas in which gay and straight men don't have the same concerns. However, if we want to restore our dignity and rights, we going to have to bury our hatchets and work together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your analysis is very interesting and relevant as usual, Thomas.
> It's important for us to remember that the feminists have been very effective in employing a divide and conquer strategy against men. On the whole, straight, white men had far more power than black or gay men thirty years ago. By preaching, very effectively I will add, that the white-heterosexist-patriarchy is the source of all evil, feminists have effectively divided us against ourselves.
That's right. Dividing men to weaken them. Dividing men to conquer them. That was the strategy of feminists up to now, and it has turned out to be very effective.
To convince gay men to become men's activists, we must tell them that we are strongly in favor of gay marriage, of adoption by gays, and lastly we must let them know of the latest breakthroughs in reproductive science, and especially that it is now possible to make eggs out of male stem cells and therefore that a child of their own is possible to be conceived, with one man giving sperm and the other giving the egg to be fertilized.
If gay lobbies began to pressure scientists so as to be given the ability to make children without women, this could become a reality very soon.
But above all, we must convince them that the masculist movement is not anti-gay, as the feminists are trying to label us. I'm sure there are a lot of gays eager to get involved in the defense of male rights (as you said, enacting an office of Men's health would benefit all men, whether straight or gay), but they are told by the mainstream media that masculism is about restoring the patriarchal system, that was undoubtly anti-gay men.
Furthermore we can also say that we are against every kind of male demeaning in the media, and showing gays as effeminate sissies is very offensive and prejudicial towards them.
Gay men are in very high positions of power these days. In my city, Paris, capital of France, the mayor is Bertrand Delanoe, an homosexual. In Berlin, capital of Germany, the mayor is an homosexual as well. Germany and France are the two most populated countries in Europe. As far as Delanoe is concerned, he's a feminist but not a gender feminist. And he's not effeminate at all, he likes manly sports like rugby, and sometimes he says that rugby players, tough guys then, are models for younger boys. You see, getting united is not impossible between gay and straight men. It would be totally nonsense to deprive the masculist movement from such a source of influence
and power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To convince gay men to become men's activists, we must tell them that we are strongly in favor of gay marriage, of adoption by gays ...
Sorry, I know it's politically-incorrect in the extreme for me to say so, but I don't buy it. An excellent article in Men's News Daily explores just what this will mean. It would be difficult to devise a more exact, targeted prescription for the total destruction of civilization-as-we-have-known-it. In other words, the ultimate triumph of feminism.
Of course, neither am I particularly anxious to "convince gay men to become men's activists." "Gay" men, like anyone, will do what they feel inclined to do. Nor do I consider myself a "men's activist." I am an advocate for the truth, nothing else.
And the truth, fashionable or not, is that "gay" men have been and are the first victims of feminism, which at bottom is no more than the fundamental narcissism of the infantile female psyche, which instinctively desires to keep everything within her Self (not an accident that one of the biggest "women's magazines" has exactly that title), and so resents anything that tries to separate from Her and become different. It is not an accident that feminism is so closely allied with "gay" issues, because the existence of the latter is both product of the former and evidence of Her success.
(BTW, by "infantile female psyche" I do not necessarily mean to imply that all females are infantile. There certainly are females who have grown up to one extent or another, who are no longer infantile -- and it's not by accident that such females are also those who are more or less at peace with the existence of men.)
Because the truth, fashionable or not, is that human beings who grow into physical adulthood erotically fixated on others of the same sex have simply failed to mature, remaining instead psychologically stuck on the threshold of puberty. In other words, they have never really left Mom's enfolding, suffocating embrace. The male homosexual is fundamentally a boy who will never betray his Mother's "love" by going to another woman. And his fascination with other men is fundamentally a longing for his own aborted manhood and/or lost innocence. I'm sorry, but that's the bottom line, and no amount of pseudo-intellectual obfuscation will change it.
In fact "gay" men have perhaps even more reason than normal men to resent feminism, but unfortunately it is almost impossible for them to realize this, because to do so they must understand just how thoroughly they have been robbed of their birthright -- to become men. To do that would require the very thing they lack: the ability of the developed male to confront and endure pain. The very name they have chosen to identify themselves -- "gay" -- is exact evidence of this fundamental state of denial -- for there is hardly a sadder, grimmer human social phenomenon than "gay culture," which is all about glorifying obsessive/compulsive, addictive, superficial behavior patterns.
It's no accident that so many "gays" deliberately choose, in full knowledge of the likely consequences, extremely hazardous behaviors. As a Zen priest I know once remarked, "We all decide when to die, and then we pick an excuse." As did another Zen priest who was a friend of mine, and "gay": he went out and got himself HIV'd, and died. Nobody wants to talk about it, but he must have known what he was doing. He was a very good-hearted man, but in the end I can only conclude he couldn't live with the life he had. (Read about him here.)
Understandably, but tragically, the entire goal of the "gay rights" movement has been to defend, establish and even glorify their "right" to remain half-grown -- to the point that any "gay" man who is fool enough to "break ranks" and question his "gayness" is savagely attacked. It is no accident that the intellectual atmosphere and tactical style of the "gay rights" movement exactly mimics that of the most doctrinaire and fanatic feminists. They are natural allies, for the one is the creation and lap dog of the other.
I can clearly remember when I was infatuated about another boy at age 11. That is, I believe, an entirely natural stage of development. But I grew beyond that stage, and became, as we say, interested in girls. Which has not been easy, I affirm, but it is part of a whole human life. It is entirely due to the triumph of feminism that increasingly large numbers of young people now fail to make this transition. I must emphasize that this failure is not a crime or some kind of moral failure on their part; if Mother doesn't want you to grow up and "abandon" her, it will be almost impossible to do so. I consider it a tragedy -- just as I consider it a tragedy that so many tens of millions of American men like myself will never know a normal sexual life, due to the Matriarchy-mandated circumcision program. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world."
And there are of course many ways that a male's development may be aborted; for instance Jack Kerouac, an early archetype of the modern "sensitive" Peter Pan male, could never make a go of his several marriages, and finally drank himself to death sitting at his Mother's kitchen table. An entirely unconscious tableau, but with serious, final consequences. As a member of the generation following Kerouac, his story has long haunted me. Why are so many "creative" men terminally neurotic? Like Kerouac I spent my youth in aimless, compulsive wandering, and eventually had to decisively leave my home community and state to get a handle on my relationship with my Mother -- which only now, nearing 60, am I beginning to really understand. The mother-son relationship is the key to all of human culture; unfortunately, all too often it is not healthy, on either individual or societal scale.
... we must let them know of the latest breakthroughs in reproductive science, and especially that it is now possible to make eggs out of male stem cells and therefore that a child of their own is possible to be conceived, with one man giving sperm and the other giving the egg to be fertilized. If gay lobbies began to pressure scientists so as to be given the ability to make children without women, this could become a reality very soon.
I'm sorry, but this is insane. Oh, I guess I should say "IMO," shouldn't I? Okay: IMO. Please read Aldous Huxley's prescient novel Brave New World . (I was amazed recently to be reminded that it was published in 1932! The man was a genius, to see it coming so long ago.) Then go on and read Brave New World Revisited . In fact, here's an edition including both. Read the readers' reviews. Is this the world you want? If so, why bother with a "men's movement"? Just do as you're told and take your assigned place in Paradise.
But above all, we must convince them that the masculist movement is not anti-gay, as the feminists are trying to label us.
Well, as noted above, I don't consider myself part of "the masculist movement." Because I consider such an idea merely a response to feminism on its own terms, which in fact preconcedes its victory. If that's the best "men" can do, then we really are what they say we are. And neither do I consider myself "anti-gay" (though I do resent the corruption of what was once a perfectly good English word). In both cases I refuse to be characterized, or directed in my behavior, by feminists and their allies. I am an advocate of truth. If the truth offends you, that's your problem, not mine. I've had to confront and deal with plenty of difficult truths in my life time -- including what now appears to be the almost certain triumph of feminism and everything that comes with it, and the creation of a world I really won't want to live in, which makes me glad I've had no children, and that I'm old enough that I probably won't see the worst of it -- so I know it can be hard. But the alternative, I've concluded, is worse. As human beings, we can choose, and indeed we must, sooner or later. To pretend otherwise is already to choose falsehood.
Gay men are in very high positions of power these days. In my city, Paris, capital of France, the mayor is Bertrand Delanoe, an homosexual. In Berlin, capital of Germany, the mayor is an homosexual as well.
Well, I knew Europe was pretty far gone, but I didn't know it was this far. I can only note, that's what happens, eventually, inevitably, when women participate overtly in the political process. Because women are the majority, and women will naturally vote for "men" they understand, and women do understand homosexual men, because homosexual men are boys, who've not yet broken out of Mom's psychological sphere of control and become something different, i.e. men whom women do not "understand," and who thus challenge women to learn and grow. Welcome to the future, the Global Plantation where everyone knows his place, we are all taken care of by the Nanny State, and everything that is not mandatory is forbidden.
Germany and France are the two most populated countries in Europe.
So what? I call this the "democratic fallacy": the notion that because a large number of people believe something, that makes it true, or good. It seems Germans, in particular, should have been disabused of that notion by their own experience only some sixty-seventy years ago. The truth is not decided by majority vote. If it were, the world would be fundamentally different than it is. In fact, unimaginable.
As far as Delanoe is concerned, he's a feminist but not a gender feminist.
A false distinction, as I keep saying. A feminist is a feminist is a feminist. Either men think for themselves, or women tell them what to do. There is no grey area. Either lead, or follow. This is simply the old tactic of the "extremist" breaking ground so the "moderate" can prevail. Hell, I've used it myself, when I was involved with Earth First! But I'm not confused by it.
And he's not effeminate at all, he likes manly sports like rugby, and sometimes he says that rugby players, tough guys then, are models for younger boys.
I'll bet. This pattern is as old as humanity; in classical Greece, for instance, older men "mentored" younger boys -- as did samurai in medieval Japan. True mentoring (as in the case whence the name is derived, the story of Mentor and Telemachus in the Odyssey) is certainly a good thing, but when the older uses the younger to satisfy perverted erotic needs (and I agree that they are needs, but the problem is that they have not been legitimately satisfied, or resolved) that is clearly abuse, no matter how it may be tolerated, even accepted, by the culture. If it is, to the extent it is, the culture is sick.
Have I offended everyone yet? Sorry. We have all been brought up, and deeply indoctrinated, by a thoroughly feminized culture, and few of us even begin to realize how completely our thinking and reactions are controlled by this programming. Feminism is fundamentally and irreducibly an all-out, unremitting attack on the very concept of meaningful difference. Beginning necessarily with the difference between female and male. To be male is to be different from female. Otherwise we would all be female -- as is the case in the many species that consist entirely of females (and consequently do not evolve). This is the logical and necessary aim, goal and inevitable result of feminism; "gays" and other forms of feminized maleness are just stages along the way. Either we are going in that direction, which I consider regression, or toward maturity, as individuals and as a species. Take your pick. If your feelings are more important to you than following the truth, wherever it may lead, then you are not yet a man. It's not easy, but it is our birthright, and you can do it, if you so choose.
It would be totally nonsense to deprive the masculist movement from such a source of influence and power.
Sure, if you can't beat 'em, why not just join 'em? Self-delusion is the most attractive kind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, I want to say that I respect your opinions, even if I disagree with you on many points.
> The male homosexual is fundamentally a boy who will never betray his Mother's "love" by going to another woman. And his fascination with other men is fundamentally a longing for his own aborted manhood and/or lost innocence. I'm sorry, but that's the bottom line, and no amount of pseudo-intellectual obfuscation will change it.
This is overexagerrated. What do you think of a man who got married, had children, and eventually turned out to be gay as he grew older ? He betrayed his "mother's love" and nevertheless he's gay.
> I'm sorry, but this is insane. Oh, I guess I should say "IMO," shouldn't I? Okay: IMO. Please read Aldous Huxley's prescient novel Brave New World . (I was amazed recently to be reminded that it was published in 1932! The man was a genius, to see it coming so long ago.) Then go on and read Brave New World Revisited . In fact, here's an edition including both. Read the readers' reviews. Is this the world you want? If so, why bother with a "men's movement"? Just do as you're told and take your assigned place in Paradise.
You speak like a wise man. But the problem lies in the fact that your position belongs more to the theory and to the books than to real life ; I'm more pragmatic, and hear me well, I would really prefer reproduction to go on as currently, with male/female relationship giving birth to a child.
But the feminists don't want that to continue ; then we have to choose : either we do nothing against it but talking wise and calm, and we are doomed, or we let the feminists know that the very technologies they would like to use to make men disappear can also be used by men to make women disappear ; the whole idea is that we must force them to seek a compromise with masculists, and only the threat of making women redundant for human reproduction could urge them to bury the hatchet and accept to taking part in "peace talks".
Being gentle won't bring any good to the men's emancipation. The only way to convince feminists to stop the oppression of men is to make clear for them that they could lose much if they went on.
> Well, I knew Europe was pretty far gone, but I didn't know it was this far
I've been reading such shocking and horrible things on this site for a while now, and believe me, I really don't envy you for living in America. Life in non English-speaking Europe is far more pleasant than in the US, even though there are gay men in positions of power. In France and in most European countries, apart from a few exceptions, women still love men.
Concerning Delanoe, I called him a feminist, but he's more the humanist type, and his aims are really to bring well-being to most people, men and women alike. There are nests of feminists in Paris townhall but when the gay mayor raises his voice, they all look like intimidated little girls, as he is very authoritarian.
Moreover there is one thing that you have forgotten in your analysis of homosexuality : narcissism. You are mistaken because you seem to think only of the effeminate gay man, but there are super-manly homosexuals, spending most of their time in the gym to achieving the most virile body (according to their conception of maleness anyway). These men are gay not because they can't free themselves from the picture of their mother but because they worship physical strengh and therefore despise women. The homosexuals through the ages, far from being the allies of women, have often hated them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do you think of a man who got married, had children, and eventually turned out to be gay as he grew older ? He betrayed his "mother's love" and nevertheless he's gay.
Well, to begin with, I don't believe anyone "is" "gay" -- as in some fundamental, genetically-determined "identity" like race or sex. Can you imagine a guy suddenly in his mid-30s discovering that he's black? "Gee, here all along I thought I was white!" We all have weaknesses of character, inclinations, tendencies, impulses, urges toward behaviors that are harmful -- or less than beneficial -- to ourselves or others, but as human beings we can choose what we do about them. The "gay" plaint "I can't help what I am" is merely another symptom of the condition: refusal to acknowledge responsibility for ones choices is the behavior of a non-adult.
Being human is not easy, precisely because we are faced with the ability to choose. We are suspended halfway between DOG and GOD, and we must constantly choose which direction we will go: back/down to the animal existence of choiceless, endless suffering out of which our ancestors so painfully climbed, or forward/up toward our potential as fully-conscious beings. Fundamentally, there is no rest from this ambivalence, this tension, this struggle, so long as we are in human form. And since we are -- I who write this, anyone who reads this -- there is no choice but to continue, for the only way out is through.
The reason, I believe, why "God" is usually seen as a male figure is because among ourselves the male, if he is to fulfill himself, must separate and differentiate himself from Mother, the matrix out of which we all arise; thus the development of the male is a paradigm of the potential development of humanity. We all come from the Mother -- physical life, with all its pain and suffering -- and we all seek the Father -- the absolute, the non-relative, free of the limitations of the physical.
The necessity of choice requires constant effort, for males especially. As has commonly been observed by psychologists of gender and development, and by anthropologists of human cultures, a boy must do something (and/or, as in puberty rites, undergo some hardship) to become a man, while a girl becomes a woman with no particular effort on her part.
Again I'll refer to Camille Paglia, especially her essay "Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art" in Sexual Personae (a good part of this essay can be read online) which is a gold mine of insight into these subjects:
"Woman's centrality gives her a stability of identity. She does not have to become but only to be. Her centrality is a great obstacle to man, whose quest for identity she blocks. He must transform himself into an independent being, that is, a being free of her. If he does not, he will simply fall back into her." ... "Every man harbors an inner female territory ruled by his mother, from whom he can never entirely break free." ... "Male bonding and patriarchy were the recourse to which man was forced by his terrible sense of woman's power, her imperviousness, her archetypal confederacy with chthonian nature." ... "Mothers can be fatal to their sons." ... "Maculinity must fight off effeminacy day by day. Woman and nature stand ever ready to reduce the male to boy and infant."
Of course the phenomenon of homosexuality is far more complicated than can be done justice in a brief, hasty contribution to an ephemeral online discussion. But in a cultural climate where masculinity is not only not valued but under constant, widespread attack (as witness all the subjects discussed here), it is not surprising that some, even many, men give up the fight in one way or another. The man who belatedly "discovers" that he's "gay" has done just that, it seems to me, though he may not be consciously aware of having made the decision. He's returned to the preadolescent time of reflected narcissism, before he faced the terrible imperatives of sexuality, a contest which, despite our best, most noble efforts, we all do eventually lose. And most likely he's done so because, in our male-hostile culture, though he did make the transition into puberty at the time, it was incomplete, forced, and not properly resolved. Nature does "bat last," and She cares not a whit for any of us; we're all just meat for Her grinder. It's not an accident that the astrological sign Scorpio is associated with both sex and death.
I would really prefer reproduction to go on as currently, with male/female relationship giving birth to a child. ... only the threat of making women redundant for human reproduction could urge them to bury the hatchet and accept to taking part in "peace talks".
Well, as a tactic this might be worth some laughs, but it also might backfire. What if they say, "Okay, race you!"? I don't really think that men can win in a contest over the territory of reproduction, because that's the territory that women own. The two sexes are not equal. But what men do own is the territory that we have created, outside of the territory that they own. And they want it, because it is what men have created that distinguishes humans from chimpanzees. As Paglia says, "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."
Actually, I'm not concerned about pipe-dreams of "test-tube" babies, because I think such will prove to be impossible -- or if possible, the product will be so far from human as to be irrelevant to anything that's important to me. Some may wish to take that road, but I have another goal in view. Indeed, a "Brave New World" may be created, for a while, but it won't work for long, because no one would want to be born into it. We all have times when we give up the struggle, and seek refuge in oblivion, but we all realize sooner or later that there is no going back, the only way out is through.
And I'm not much concerned about figuring out tactics to counter feminism, really. I'm not a "masculist," or "men's activist," or "anti-feminist." I'm just pro-truth. Feminism is a lie, has always been a lie, always will be a lie; and so it will die, sooner or later, of its own internal contradictions. "Never argue with a woman" is not only a kind of ancient joke; it is also a profound truth, because by arguing you limit yourself to her level of consciousness. Feminists want to have what they think men have, but, predictably, they want to get it by stealing it. But it can't be stolen, because it isn't an "it." And it's precisely because women don't have what men have (or in Rich Zubaty's words, "what men know that women don't") that they make this mistake.
I've been reading such shocking and horrible things on this site for a while now, and believe me, I really don't envy you for living in America. Life in non English-speaking Europe is far more pleasant than in the US, even though there are gay men in positions of power. In France and in most European countries, apart from a few exceptions, women still love men.
America is a violent place because the contradictions are most evident here. I don't like the violence, but I do prefer it to the somnolent "peace" I experienced during a sojourn in Canada, which is much like what Europe has become. My ancestors, like millions of others, came here from Europe precisely because they wanted freedom, with all its discomforts and danger. Those who stayed there were, one way or another, content with the condition of slavery (whatever one may call it) they had endured through millennia. Clearly Europe can be very pleasant, so long as one is part of the herd, content to be told how to live. Unfortunately for me, somehow during my life I've been just enough awake to be aware that how the herd lives is not how I want to live, so I would have a very hard time in Europe. It's bad enough here, and getting worse fast. Do European women really love men -- or do they love the harmless, amusing pets they've made of their men?
Concerning Delanoe, I called him a feminist, but he's more the humanist type, and his aims are really to bring well-being to most people, men and women alike ... he is very authoritarian.
Exactly my point. I don't care how "well-meaning" he is, I don't want him, or anyone, telling me how to live. The French don't seem to mind such collectivism, they really do seem to be herd animals. What's the French for "sheeple" -- "moutommes"?
Moreover there is one thing that you have forgotten in your analysis of homosexuality : narcissism. You are mistaken because you seem to think only of the effeminate gay man, but there are super-manly homosexuals, spending most of their time in the gym to achieving the most virile body (according to their conception of maleness anyway). These men are gay not because they can't free themselves from the picture of their mother but because they worship physical strengh and therefore despise women. The homosexuals through the ages, far from being the allies of women, have often hated them.
Homosexuality is exactly narcissism. And again, it is complex, and of course the relationship with Mother contains a lot of hatred: it is She, after all, who has ordained that the male shall not become fully himself, but remain forever "her little man." The present-day "marriage of convenience" between male and female homosexuals I often find amusing in its awkwardness: united by their visceral distaste for each other. But, in the end, it is mostly tragic.
A friend of mine recently committed suicide. I've considered the same myself many times in recent years, as I've been reliving and processing the trauma of my circumcision; but bad as it's gotten (and it's gotten pretty bad), I'm certain it would have been even worse to deliberately turn away and try to end the pain by ending my life: then I would have been faced with the same karma to resolve, but no body to do it in. There is no going back, there is not even any stopping. The only way out is through. Homosexuality is a kind of spiritual suicide, though it's hardly the only kind: taking drugs is another. In fact, when you get down to it, practically everything we do is one way or another an effort to avoid our pain, rather than confront and deal with it. That's why the Buddha said, "Don't just do something; sit there." And why a Tibetan teacher told a friend of mind: "Stop running. Turn around and face it." Whew.
The particular tragedy of homosexuality is that it so easily becomes a lifetime habit, and in these times that it's not only not recognized for what it is, but is actively encouraged and celebrated. Again, it's no wonder so many homosexuals find ways to end their lives.
Well, of course all suffering is unnecessary -- yet somehow we seem to have to try it all out.
Anyway, my point in regard to this discussion -- if anyone bothers to read this far -- is that there's no need to make a special effort to "recruit" homosexual males to the "men's movement." Just ally yourself with the truth, and anyone who shares that value will be your ally. If you have to bend the truth to induce someone to join your "movement," then -- well, what is your movement about anyway? If feminism is a lie, then to compromise with feminism -- or any of its subsets, such as "gay rights" -- is to become at least partially a lie. Pour a thimble of urine into a gallon of pure water: what do you have? Would you drink it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"My question: How do I, as a straight man, approach a gay man..."
Don't even make it about that. They are men, you are a man. There are some exceptions, but most gay people do not base their entire identity around the fact that they are gay. Especially the younger ones, who do not face as much flack as the previous generation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My question: How do I, as a straight man, approach a gay man or an organization of gay men and effectively build a bridge so we can work together?
My answer to that is sort of what I was getting at in my original response to Dan Lynch. And as someone else has already responded - it shouldn't be about the fact that he's gay and your straight. It's about the fact that you're both men, and therefore have a common interest.
What I was alluding to earlier was that perhaps too many gay men don't identify as being part of the male gender as a whole. They define themselves as only nominally part of the male gender. And, so long as they see their sexual orientation as giving them some sort of exemption from the "sins" of straight men, they won't believe that feminism can ever hurt them.
I'm not saying all gay men have this problem, certainly, but I think many do.
So, then - the goal is to help get rid of this idea that gay men are so significantly different from straight men that they can't really feel like they have a common ground with all men. Obviously, this is something that gay men who have these identification problems need to work out for themselves. However, it may also be something that the men's movement in general can somehow assist with.
Heretofore, I've consistently read the argument that the men's movement should not concern itself specially with appealing to gay men, because sexual orientation should not be an issue. However, if there are gay men out there - potential men's activists - who are not hearing the call because they have trouble seeing their commonality with the male gender at large, then this should be a point of concern for the men's movement. Again - it's a two-way street. But, maybe it wouldn't hurt for the men's movement to start acknowledging the gay male as another particular subgroup of the male gender, with specific issues of his own, just as we acknowledge poor men and black men and older men, etc. as particular subgroups with specific concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another area of common interest:
For a given crime, men are generally given far more severe punishment than women. Also, the punishment for a crime committed against a man is often far less than the punishment for the same crime committed against a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For a given crime, men are generally given far more severe punishment than women.
Yes, and in significant cases "straight" men are generally given far more severe punishment than "gay" men. As in the stark contrast several years ago of (1) the young "gay" male who was fool enough (Peter Pan is naive by definition) to go into a macho bar (in Montana?) and was killed by a couple of goons, and became a national celebrity "poster boy" for "gay rights" -- followed shortly by (2) a similar case where a couple of "gay" men kidnapped, tortured and eventually killed (apparently unintentionally; they just got carried away with their sexual excess) a "straight" boy, which was studiously ignored by the same media machine that had made Matthew Shephard a 20th-century Martyr. I don't remember what happened to the perps in the second case (I don't know how to search for it), but I'm reasonably certain there was a significant difference in the outcomes of the two cases.
I note, to my unsurprise, that the Matthew Shephard website apparently is maintained by his mother (I couldn't stand the syrupy music long enough to explore it) -- and is all about portraying him as a tender, innocent child victim of a cruel world. He was over 20, I believe, but apparently not yet a man. It's not an accident that mothers commonly "understand" their "gay" sons. "Oh, you poor little thing; come here and let me kiss the owie." Mother love can be a beautiful thing, but unfortunately it has no built-in check, and can easily run amok. The only restraint on its excesses is a healthy male component in the culture. This is what has been lost here -- and it will be very difficult to regain, if ever. With the whole world now increasingly saturated with estrogens, maybe never. This may be a one-way street. If so, I can only hope my next life will be on another planet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 15, @07:16PM EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
As a gay man myself, I have to admit that I agree with the vast majority of issues and opinions aired in the previous posts.
The 'Gay Rights' movement, along with the actions of militant feminists, have to some extent dilluted (perhaps even bifurcated) the collective goals of modern man, and the male activism movement.
However, I must point out that it is a common misconception to assume that all gay men implicitly support same-sex adoption and gay marriage. Infact, in the eyes of many gay men, the advancement of legislation supporting such actions is viewed as highly undesirable.
This perspective is not born out of the fear of a potential heterosexual 'backlash', or merely as a reflex reaction against the prevailing status quo of the gay establishment, but because as men who have been reared in 'traditional' families, we know (and have experienced) the benefits of having both a mother and a father.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This perspective is not born out of the fear of a potential heterosexual 'backlash', or merely as a reflex reaction against the prevailing status quo of the gay establishment, but because as men who have been reared in 'traditional' families, we know (and have experienced) the benefits of having both a mother and a father.
Thank you for sharing your insight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 16, @05:02PM EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
It is simply an opinion.
In a society where objective fact is disputed on an almost daily basis, and tradition, even in its most innocent and natural forms (e.g. the family) is subverted to the point of appearing draconian, I think it's important to restate such basic social truths.
Forgive me if I sounded patronising, or prophetic - but, with all the bad press the family gets nowadays (esp. from the feminist camp) I don't think a simple reaffirmation of the matter does anyone any harm at all: especially not to the the readers of a men's activism post thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday July 14, @12:54PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
There have been many good points brought up here. I would like to add that what Dan wrote is primary to the problem here:
"(feminist) rules will be totalitarian... Men are cut from their children's lives, they are imprisoned without trial, and they are executed from their homes based on allegations..."
Regardless of adding the specific interests of gay men into a man's movement, "family/custody and property issues, and the ease upon which any female can incarcerate a man on mere allegation alone, have to be the first issues that get addressed as they are devastating families and criminalizing average men. Secondary issues relevant to gay men could be added into the purpose of a collective group, but they really are not the top of the list in importance, plus gay men are already successfully achieving their own agenda.
Heterosexual men need to restore our OWN basic rights and dignity within society. Look at what feminism has done - it has removed men from our homes and alienated us from our children, and has denigrated us in all mass media. This is part of a socially engineered process that (I think) intends to make future generations of men (now boys) lack real role models, and become passive to the interests and abilities of women. This is a "macro social experiment" that is growing in success" and the media and the family courts are the primary tools that have brought about this change.
Does anyone know what the names are of the largest fathers-rights groups and men's activist groups in this U.S.? Is there any cooperation between these groups? Does a lobby exist?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
