|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 06, @02:02PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the article: If a woman and a man are in combat together, the man, if he’s been brought up right, will sacrifice his life for the woman.
Let's try this: If a negro and a white are in combat together, the negro, if he's been brought up right, will sacrifice his life for the white.
Sound bad? It is. But it's no worse than what the female said.
These people are utterly blind to what a bunch of fascists they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's exactly why I always say that modern liberals and conservatives are not the opposites they want people to think they are. They both share the same foundation: the "good" as defined by altruism.
Look at what the conservative says is good:
1) You sacrifice yourself for somebody else whether you want to or not (i.e. your "duty")
2) Desire for the unearned (i.e. "You owe it to me to sacrifice yourself for me!")
The modern liberal simply applies those same principles in a slightly different area from the conservative. But the foundation is the same. You owe such-and-such to somebody else, based not on their earning it, but on their need.
Bullshit. Fuck 'em, I say. If somebody wants it (whatever "it" is) so damn bad, then let him/her provide it for himself/herself.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 07, @12:21AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"If a woman and a man are in combat together, the man, if he’s been brought up right, will sacrifice his life for the woman."
"If a man and a woman are in combat..." If a woman approaches combat with the same stupidity that she uses in flaunting her privelege in civilian life, then her body will make an excellent bullet stop after she's been killed while running her big mouth when she should have been paying attention to the combat conditions around her.
I'm sure under those conditions it wouldn't take long before a woman would be sleeping with a man to get him to feel obligated to protect her and a possible off-spring.
Men are useful to women as long as they're useful, but beyond that "servant status," women deeply envy and despise men for the physical power they have. Respect will never be something that a woman will give to a man, unless they want them to take a bullet for them, and then they will only give that respect grudgingly.
For the average male grunt in the trenches (young, dumb and full of cum) he's a dead man as soon as the woman is in the fox hole and they have sex.
The woman will survive after the male is dead without too much trauma, after all in her mind, "MEN ARE DISPOSABLE."
According to the laws of nature, men are wide open to this kind of "Sexpoitation," and always have been.
Women in combat, fine. Form a separate unit and let them prove their worth as grunts. Just make sure you form a second unit of women who will be used to fill the body bags.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men Are People, Too
After reading "What Women Think About Modern Manhood", I'm convinced that your panel, most notably Charlotte Hays and Erica Walter, doesn't consider men to be human beings, but rather their personal servants.
Walter can't figure out why men never offered her their subway seats when she was pregnant. That is because those men are her equals and not subservient to her. Men and women alike should offer their seats to those who truly need them--the handicapped, people carrying several packages, etc.--but in most cases a pregnant woman is more than capable of standing for a ride home on the subway.
I was appalled when Hays wrote that a man, "if he’s been brought up right, will sacrifice his life" for a woman. To say that is to believe that one human life is worth less than another, a nauseating opinion and not entirely unlike societies in which women are considered second-class citizens and baby girls are discarded.
It's been said that chivalry is dead or dying, to which I say: "good riddance to bad rubbish". Some say that chivalry is degrading to women, and it probably is. But how come no one worries if it's degrading to MEN? Why should a man stand when a woman enters the room? Is he less of a person than she? Why should a man make a woman feel special and receive no similar kindness in return? Believe it or not, there are some guys out there who'd also like to feel special, to feel loved and wanted. This is a human characteristic, not a male or female one. Nor is it a liberal or conservative one.
Let's replace sexist chivalry with common courtesy. We need to stop treating people differently based on which chromosomes they have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good letter, Boy Genteel. What these dingbats and their feminazi counterparts haven't figured out yet is that men on the whole are currently reinventing themselves while refusing to follow the dictates of self-superior women.
WALTER: During my first pregnancy, I rode the Washington, D.C. subway every day. I was amazed at the number of men who didn’t offer me their seat, didn’t lift a finger for me.
As Boy Genteel points out, the women who didn't offer her a seat were every bit as culpable of any transgression. Yet Walter, with her sense of female entitlement, fails to mention this.
GAVORA: How can men treat women in special, flowery ways, yet walk into a boardroom and face them as hardnosed equals? I’m not sure that’s a balance men are capable of.
Hate to break it to you, Sweetie, but women are no more capable than men of treating members of the opposite sex in special, nice ways and then of walking into a boardroom and facing them as hardnosed equals. Oh, right. Only women deserve to be treated in such special ways. Yet another expression of the reactionary sense of female entitlement.
O’BEIRNE: I don’t think there has to be a trade off. Men will behave however women demand they behave.
Again, men are reinventing themselves, and not as people who behave in whatever manner women demand that they behave. Men don't need women to tell them how to act.
GAVORA: After watching the movie Titanic, I was wrenched by the image of all those men dying simply because they were men. The notion of allowing all women and children into the boats first—I think most men today would ask, “Why? Why should I die?”
The answer is, "There is no reason for men to die so that women can live." To believe that there is such a reason is to believe in a profound, murderous fascism. It's what the German Nazis believed about the eastern Europeans. (An interesting comparison to the German Nazis. Those traditional Nazis believed that Jews should just die--like so many extreme feminists believe about men. The traditional Nazis, however, believed that eastern Europeans in the lebensraum should die to make room for Germans, so that the Germans could be more comfortable and wealthier--like contemporary, reactionary, American women believe about men .)
I'm no more likely to sacrifice my life so you can live, Gavora, than you are to sacrifice your life so I can live. And that is how it should be.
WALTER: Modern urban life itself is especially hard on males.
Where in the modern world can men be men? The frontier’s gone.
The frontier is far from gone. It has simply evolved. The great male scientists were true men, and many of them worked in small labs, often in basements. These women feel far too great a need to define manliness in terms of physical prowess that is used to service women.
CHAREN: It would be wrong not to give feminism some credit for improving women’s place in the world. But I believe many of these changes would have happened organically anyway—with rising prosperity, labor-saving devices in the home, and widespread education.
Don't forget cheap, efficient birth control with few side effects and safe, efficient, relatively inexpensive abortions.
CHAREN: ...men were freed from all traditional responsibilities (and that) has hurt women and children extremely badly.
A bald-faced lie. Men have had their traditional rights taken away. Today a man cannot legally have a child. A child is the mother's child. She can allow the biological father, or just about anyone else, access to the child, and she can deny access to the biological father or to just about anyone else. If she chooses to do so, while she is gestating, she can simply dispense with the "non-living, non-human growth." After the child is born, if she decides she doesn't want to deal with it, she can in many jurisdictions simply dump it off at a hospital or fire station. The man still has his traditional responsibility of paying for the child, even if he is cut off from all contact and even if, as is far too often the case, he finds out that he isn't the biological father. Men still bear a great deal of their traditional responsibilities. It is women, who have been freed from all traditional responsibilities. This is best exemplified by the reactionary women on this panel, who believe that they should have all of their new-found freedoms, but that men should still be bound to their traditional role of self-sacrifice for the sake of women.
WALTER: Encourage marriage among young people... there is one arena in which men can still be men, and still find lots of opportunities to exhibit heroism—fatherhood.
Marriage and fatherhood enslave men today. The man has no rights in the relationship. He is not a father with proper rights and responsibilities. He is a servant and wallet, who is financially responsible for the child and for the child's mother, and who has no rights with respect to the child, even to visitation, which can be withdrawn on as little as a whim by the mother. (Think of no-fault divorce.)
O’BEIRNE: Women don’t want a guy to feel their pain, they want a guy to clean the gutters.
Isn't she sweet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O’BEIRNE: Women don’t want a guy to feel their pain, they want a guy to clean the gutters.
Yeah, Thomas, I really thought this line said it all. I'm not that much of a touchy-feely person, but the implication that all women need men for is manual labor is really disgusting. Clean your own freaking gutters, lady!
The gall of these women really amazes me. I wonder if anyone would be interested in the opinions of a panel of men on contemporary women? If any organization, right-wing or left-wing ever assembled such a panel, no doubt it would consist of femboy bozos who would grovel in awe of the divine feminine. I am so sick of all of the little tin goddesses one has to deal with these days, who seem to think that men should either be banished to hell for their innate badness, or else owe women total, absolutely selfless service and obedience, as well as respect bordering on mystic awe. Not all women are like that, but those are the ones that seem to get all the attention.
And one last thing: any woman who thinks I'll behave any way she demands I behave is in for an extremely rude surprise...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am so sick of all of the little tin goddesses one has to deal with these days, who seem to think that men should either be banished to hell for their innate badness, or else owe women total, absolutely selfless service and obedience, as well as respect bordering on mystic awe. Not all women are like that, but those are the ones that seem to get all the attention.
Oh, so sad. And oh, so true. Fortunately, a great many men are turning their backs on the whole damned bunch of these self-righteous hypocrites.
And one last thing: any woman who thinks I'll behave any way she demands I behave is in for an extremely rude surprise...
You da man!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 07, @12:35PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Phew! Great to see such a terrific post. The Nazis thought it right that millions of Russians and Poles should die to provide space for Germans.The feminists think it right that thousands of men should drown to provide space in the lifeboats for women-a brilliant analogy. On the subject of giving up your seat for a pregnant woman, I think it is understandable that many men hesitate. After all, for all we know , she may be on her way to an abortion clinic to have her child murdered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The frontier is far from gone. It has simply evolved. The great male scientists were true men, and many of them worked in small labs, often in basements.
I will add that there are still great symphonies to write, and great blues licks to dream up on the spot. There are great philosophies to develop, great novels to write, star systems to explore. Do these nitwits think that men, a few hundred years ago, were all leading expeditions to explore the world. Most men back then were struggling to survive on a small farm or dying in coal mines.
It is absurd to think that the above mentioned fields are not frontiers for men, simply because they are now frontiers for women. When men drive back the boundaries, they will do it in part with testosterone, just as women will drive back the boundaries in part with estrogen. Once we get rid of the anti-male hatred and oppression, men will lose nothing by having female companions as part of the endeavor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 06, @04:49PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent post,Adam, which has prompted some excellent replies. Feminism has liberated women from all the constraints and obligations of traditional female chivalry. Their objective now is to try to ensure that men remain shackled by all the constraints and obligations of traditional male chivalry. Thus, feminists now "praise" traditional "manly" behaviours such as cleaning sewers, walking into burning buildings, going on foot patrols through mine fields etc. It is disconcerting that many men actually lap up this "praise" without understanding it's motive. However, if men decide to throw off the yoke of unilateral chivalry, there is nothing the feminists can do to stop them. Unilateral chivalry is the root cause of ALL the injustices suffered by men to-day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dissagree. I believe full well that it is in the intentions of communists to destroy 'chivilry'.
They started with women and have convinced women it was to their dissadvantage. Which is a total lie. Now it pervades to men who find it unfair.
Next we'll be trying to eradicate the orgasm as in Orwell's book.
Men are men nothing's going to change that.
Women are women nothing's going to change that.
All these little things that have been disigned have been put in place for one thing and that is sexual unity. That unity is being destroyed to turn us against eachother.
Reactionary? Yes, but Stalin was the one trying to turn the clocks back to an uncivilized time. Mackinnon who instituted Sexual Harrassment laws was a full fledged Marxist and America still ate it all up. To much insentive for lawyers I guess.
Do we really want women on the front lines? Obviously not. The article was probably more about how stupid it is for women to be in the military than it is anything else. There is mountains of evidence to prove that women in the military is a bad idea. And think about it. If women were any good in the military don't you think that greedy war mongers would have been using them from the beginning?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 07, @06:26AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for reply to my post. However, it confirms to me that there is a fundamental chasm in the mens movement.
On one side are men who believe that it will be possible to return to a pre-feminist society in which men will live up to traditional male values and women will live up to traditional female values. Would that ths were possible!!. You appear to contend that feminist values were forced on women and that women are yearning to return to the traditional female role. I do not believe that to be the case. Ultimately, the feminist victory was achieved because women wholeheartedly backed the feminists. They backed them at the ballot box and, equally importantly, they backed them when spending their money (eg refusing to buy a product if it was advertised in a politically incorrect manner). Women have enthusiastically thrown away the obligations of the traditional female role (whilst hanging unto the privileges of the traditional female role). You believe men should be willing to sacrifice themselves for women (traditional male chivalry). Do you believe women will ever again be willing to sacrifice themselves to save their unborn child (traditional female chivalry)?
On the other side of the chasm are men who accept that women have no intention of returning to the pre-feminist role . We would believe that the only way forwards is to follow suit, i.e. to throw away the shackles of traditional male chivalry.
If you believe it right that men specifically should be sacrificed at the front line (in accordance with traditional male chivalry), I find it difficult to understand why you object to the feminist society. Do you think it right that the courts force a man to provide for the material needs of his wife (even if this means driving a man to suicide)? Surely this is traditional male chivalry!! Do you object when a man is imprisoned on the basis of allegation of abuse by a woman, for which there there is no evidence. After all, traditional male chivalry dictates that it would be better that a thousand innocent men go to jail rather than for one woman to endure even the most trivial verbal "abuse". Do you object to the media's denigration of men and it's glorification of women? After all, traditional male chivalry dictates that women are fragile and defenceless whereas men "can take it".
I do not understand how it is possible to uphold traditional male chivalry and criticise the feminist society at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I do not understand how it is possible to uphold traditional male chivalry and criticise the feminist society at the same time."
I could not agree with you more bud! There is a lot of men around who have still not become fully aware of the depth of their own exploitation, praise addiction etc etc and still appear to think that women in general are going to somehow transform back into the traditional role.
Come on fella's wake up and smell the bloody coffee, All women have a twisted side, most cant/wont even consider this a possibility let alone confront it and because of things like "chivalry" they never will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 07, @12:15PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for reply, Addenuff. I think that men find it more difficult than women to change their mindset. It took me about 10 years to progress from Dan's viewpoint to my present viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It took me about 10 years to progress from Dan's viewpoint to my present viewpoint. "
I didn't realize I said all those things, but here's my response.
I believe that conservative values are a default position. That the transfer of wealth is a fundemental asset that is natural in one place. That is from parent to children. The most obvious supremacy of this is two parents, to have both parents provide, nurture and guide that child, their child.
If you take away all of the socialist advances that wome have been given, take away all the bullshit statistics about male and female violence. Even if you drop tax incentives to marry, but drop tax de-incentives to marry. Guess what you're going to find?
Two parent homes. Women had obligations as did the men. Not every family was perfect and no family is going to be. But re-vised history hasn't distored my objectivety just yet.
If Im protecting my country and my home I don't want women on the front lines that can't handle the fight. I don't want women firefighters that are there because of lowered bars.
Men are men, and women are women. The soviets tried to change that, guess what, their fucked. Yet the same soviet offshoot is here in America. People should see it for what it is. An organzed group trying to take away our rights and freedoms. Indoctrinating women whole sale through media images and manufactured perspectives. You should check out a great article called 'Media and the Hive Mind'.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @12:28PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Our analyses of the situation couldn't be more different.
I feel you are holding onto the traditional male mindset. That mindset dictates that mens' role is to fight against other men on behalf of (and to protect)women. That mindset is,I believe, an anachronism. Women do not see men as their protectors anymore. That role is fullfilled by the Feminazi State which they have created, in which men have the status of vassals.
In the traditional male mindset, women are viewed as rather helpless individuals who desire to bake apple pie and bring up children. They are viewed as compassionate and caring. I don't buy that anymore. I could walk from one end of Ireland to the the other on the bodies of suicided young men. Do you think women care? Frankly, Dan, they couldn't give a ******. Women are wallowing in the suffering of men.
The traditional male can't understand how the ruthless and cruel Feminazi society came into being. Since he views women as caring and compassionate, he decides that this society was foisted on women by some external force ,eg Communism . I don't buy that. Women have wholeheartedly embraced feminaziism. Women have been in the front line fighting the cause of feminaziism for the past 30 years . Society did not force feminaziism on women. Women forced feminaziism on society. But the traditional male, with his traditional view of women, refuses to accept this.
Women have thrown away the traditional female mindset. They have embraced a new morality. According to that morality, anything which enhances womens' power, status and wealth is good. The traditional male hangs onto the traditional imaginary image of the pre-feminist woman.
And how does the traditional male fight against feminism? He can't. The traditional male can't fight women. So he invents a male or gender neutral enemy to fight against eg Communists. All the while, women are fighting on the front lines of the gender war further strengthening the feminazi grip on society. Back in the ranch, the traditional male is fighting his imaginary enemy (much to the amusement of the women he thinks he is fighting for).
Feminists have nothing to fear from the traditional male. Their only fear is that men will throw away the traditional male mindset. If men ever succeed in so liberating themselves, feminism will be finished within a week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I feel you are holding onto the traditional male mindset. That mindset dictates that mens' role is to fight against other men on behalf of (and to protect)women. That mindset is,I believe, an anachronism. Women do not see men as their protectors anymore."
But even if they did, I still find those traditional roles to be sexist in nature. The "Titanic" philosophy was in full force before the change in mindset you describe, and this "Titanic" philosophy--"promise to sacrifice yourself gleefully to save any woman and expect no similar promise from a woman in return"--is inherently sexist as it treats one group of people as more deserving of life than another. That is why males should embrace modernity with regard to gender roles, but only on terms that are acceptable to all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @01:44PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. On the subject of the Titanic, it should be pointed out that the actions of those men were justifiable in the context of the society of 1912.The traditional female role at that time dictated that women must be willing to sacrifice themselves on behalf of their children. Thus it was not uncommon for women to die giving birth to their children. It would have been unthinkable to kill a child in order to save the life of the mother. This was accepted by women. If I had been on the Titanic in 1912 , I hope I would have fulfilled my corresponding duty as a man;i.e. I would have given up my place in the lifeboat.
However, we now live in a world in which women have thrown away all the obligations of the traditional female role. It would be considered unthinkable for a woman to give up her life to save her child. "Women must be able to control their own bodies" they tell us. So be it. Then men must also be able to control their own bodies. If I was on a sinking ship to-day, it would be "men and children first!".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "Titanic" philosophy was in full force before the change in mindset you describe, and this "Titanic" philosophy--"promise to sacrifice yourself gleefully to save any woman and expect no similar promise from a woman in return"--is inherently sexist as it treats one group of people as more deserving of life than another.
For a long time, I've grappled with the unhappy possibility that Nature programs men to fight each other and sacrifice ourselves and other men for the benefit of women because women are, indeed, superior. Partly as a means of emotional self-defense from that theory, I've come up with two, more male-flattering theories as to why this could be.
1) Men are more likely to survive a life-threatening situation, and therefore are more qualified to brave it. (It's always possible that a resourceful man on a sinking ship could find a way to stay afloat in the water, until he reached safety.)
2) Uniquely male contributions to society make it possible for men to be valuable dead as well as alive. I know this sounds terribly morbid, but let me explain. Men have a way of materializing our personal value in the form of things which are separate from us, and therefore can remain after we are gone. Things like the money we make, the roads we pave, the buildings we build, the wars we die winning, the art and music we create, the laws and constitutions we write, etc. These are all things which can live on long after the men who created them are dead. This does not mean that we should not care about sacrificing male life - but, the loss of male life has more compensating aspects.
Women, on the other hand, are like the Golden Goose. Their value (at least as it has been traditionally defined) is all absorbed in what they are and cannot be extracted from them in any viable way. Women are valued for their company - and for things which require repeating on a daily basis (not to disregard the long-term value of good mothers, of course). When a woman dies, the things we value her for most - her company, her smile, her cooking, etc. - die with her. That's why we feel we need to keep women alive.
Keep in mind - I put forth this theory in the spirit of affirming men, and with the full belief in equal value of the sexes. However, I'm also suggesting that the value of men can be wringed out of us differently and with lesser regard to our personal beings than the value of women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women now have equal value to men, this is what the entire feminist movement is about, a woman can make a skyscraper, a bridge, or even a child.
the things we value her for most - her company, her smile, her cooking, etc. - die with her. That's why we feel we need to keep women alive.
Well if you are dead, then how can you appreciate her company, her smile, her cooking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 09, @01:07PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Right on, Kirran. If there was a prize for "post of the month", this one would have won hands down. I would add, in response to Hawth, that women float much better than men. Also, their bodies can withstand cold temperatures much better than men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--If you believe it right that men specifically should be sacrificed at the front line (in accordance with traditional male chivalry), I find it difficult to understand why you object to the feminist society. Do you think it right that the courts force a man to provide for the material needs of his wife (even if this means driving a man to suicide)? Surely this is traditional male chivalry!! Do you object when a man is imprisoned on the basis of allegation of abuse by a woman, for which there there is no evidence. After all, traditional male chivalry dictates that it would be better that a thousand innocent men go to jail rather than for one woman to endure even the most trivial verbal "abuse". Do you object to the media's denigration of men and it's glorification of women? After all, traditional male chivalry dictates that women are fragile and defenceless whereas men "can take it".--
I agree with this. The equality that many feminists fight for--the egalitarian feminists, not the hateful misandrist ones--will benefit males as well as females.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 06, @05:43PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
One point being that feminism has claimed credit for changes in society that probably would have happened organically anyway — with rising prosperity, labor-saving devices in the home, and widespread education. As one panelist mentioned "you didn’t need a bunch of bra-burners for that."
Another good point that was brought up is that men (in general, not all men) - like it or not- are confused. This is reflected in popular culture where men are bashed and our deeds (expecially the bad deeds of the few) now represent our gender as a whole.
One panelist mentioned that feminism has replaced masculinity with sisterhood. This has demonized men.
I'll take a conservative woman over a liberal one anyday. Voting Conservative is generally the only choice in fighting liberal-feminists...
The post 9-11 thing was "played up" a bit too much.
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voting Conservative is generally the only choice in fighting liberal-feminists...
I disagree. We have to move beyond the whole damn bunch of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 06, @05:50PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
whatever... in my State, every liberal is a feminist.
I'll always vote against Ted Kennedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it amazing how feminists turn a blind eye to ol' Teddy's activities? If the drunken womanizing isn't bad enough, don't forget Mary Joe Kopechne.
Seems violence against women isn't a bad thing as long as an extreme-leftist is doing it, eh?
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guess how much of that was ever proved? Jack Squat, and Squat left down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll always vote against Ted Kennedy.
No argument there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's what the reactionary ditzes can't seem to get through their thick skulls:
Males owe females nothing that females haven't earned, and females earn nothing solely by virtue of having vaginas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well they lost all credability with this remark...
British men are terribly mannerly, but they’re all wimps
Try saying that to Vinny Jones or the British Army or just the run of the mill Lad....
An opinion from the keyboard by Westcoast2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Several of the posts here bring up an important point.
There is a concerted effort by right wingers to co-opt the men's rights movement by declaring that feminism and communism are one and the same. They are not the same. Feminism is female supremacism, and, as shown by the women on this panel, it crosses the entire political spectrum. This is true whether the supremacist is Hillary Clinton declaring that women suffer the most from war because they have to live without their dead men (rather like declaring that men suffer most, when women are raped and murdered, because the men have to live without their women) or one of these reactionary women pointing out their terrible disappointment with modern men, because few modern men are willing to throw their lives away so that women can continue to live in all their wondrous femaleness.
Frankly, were I on a sinking ship today with a shortage of life boats and half the passengers male and the other half female, I'd rather the women were left wing feminists than right wing feminists. I think the former would be more likely to say that males and females should alternate getting on the life rafts. (Granted, they'd say that a female should go first — girl, boy, girl, boy, rather than boy, girl, boy, girl.)
The women in this article share with communist feminists a fundamental belief in the superiority of females. Their support of one-sided chivalry is as much an attack on men as is the hatred preached in women's studies classes. And it is more insidious, because it is hidden behind a pretense of repecting manliness, while defining manliness in terms of sacrifice for women.
Anti-male hatred is not synonymous with communism. Female supremacists are not confined to left wing political parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 07, @04:06PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to say I agree with everything in this post. Over the past couple of years the feminists have been engaged in an insidious campaign purporting to support "manliness". Their agenda is obvious. It is crucial to feminists that men retain the chains of the traditional male role .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally getting it. Chivalry isn't the problem, one-sided chivalry is.
Either men owe women something as women, and women owe men something as men -
OR
Nobody owes anyone dick based on their gender. Hold your own fucking door open and pay for your own fucking dinner, biatch.
And kill your own goddamn spiders. He didn't do shit to me, and him crawling around in my tub doesn't bother me in the least.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 12, @11:54PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks guys a while back when I came here this place was full of communists this and communists that. I was beginning to think of it as a capatilist or objectivist action centre.
Every time I hear a conservative talk about traditional values I cringe. I think of my mother and her minister husband. I think of him running around like a lap dog fufilling her every need, then I think how well she has him trained. I don't want to live that life!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
