|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting if not at all surprising that the aggrieved man in this case is not believed ("He" must somehow have collaborated in his own sexual harrassment..)
While commonly in these types of cases, the women is presumed "innocent" of any complicity or intent to abuse another.
This corroborates what we men already know and have to live with in our rabidly misandrist society -- men cannot ever be allowed to claim "victim" status, because the feminazi dogma that has so corrupted the legal and ehtical climate insists that only womyn be granted that status/privilege.
Moral of the story?
Only systematic legal reform and a shift in cultural gender ethics will provide a fair and equitable playing field...
Men's naive chauvanism is what permits this injustice to continue. WHY do we continue to subscribe to the fiction that women are inherently more honorable, incapable of deception, malice, and manipulativeness?
The evidence has long suggested otherwise.
Every day, men pay the price for this silly and misguided naivety.
Time to take off the rose-colored spectacles, guys, and see the "fairer sex" for what is has become here in the Femitocracy of Amerika...
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 29, @07:36PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"Men's naive chauvanism is what permits this injustice to continue. WHY do we continue to subscribe to the fiction that women are inherently more honorable, incapable of deception, malice, and manipulativeness? "
Because of "chivalry", we continue to accord women the privileges of the pre-feminist woman even though women have long dispensed with the obligations and constraints of the pre-feminist woman.
The feminist society is one in which:
1. Men lose all traditional privilege but retain all traditional obligations.
2. Women lose all traditional obligations but retain all traditional privilege.
The answer is, as you have so excellently expressed it is, a shift in cultural gender ethics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...even though women have long dispensed with the obligations and constraints of the pre-feminist woman."
Would someone tell me what these obligations and constraints are and where they came from? If you could quote a credible, historical source, that would be especially helpful. All I can find so far are what the roots of chivalry have obligated of men, going back to about 1100 A.D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday September 30, @12:55PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"Would someone tell me what these obligations and constraints are ......"
Examples of the obligations and constraints faced by the pre-feminist woman:
1. Obligation to give her life,if necessary, for the life of unborn child ( now free from that obligation due to abortion on demand).
2. Obligation to provide for sexual needs of her husband ( now free from that obligation due to creation of crime of "marital rape).
3. Obligation to remain at home to care for children ( now free from that obligation).
4. Constrained in relation to many educational and career options (those constraints are now gone).
Women are liberated from all traditional obligations and constraints associated with being a woman. However, men remain shackledby all traditional obligations and constraints associated with being a man.
The usage of the word "chivalry" in
these discussions is misleading as refers to the conduct of mediaeval knights (which is not what we are talking about}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AU,
Thanks for this reply, but I'd like to be able to quote a source that has at least SOME academic standing. (No offense intended!)
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday September 30, @09:58PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't this fall under 'common knowledge' and not need academic proof?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It turns out that there actually IS some academic proof of chivalry and its roots. I found a book by Maurice Keen that goes back to the roots of chivalry, tracing back to writings on the topic as early as 1170 A.D. I haven't been able to keep my nose in it long enough to see if it talks to any requirements of chivalry on women, but it DOES talk to how women ought to be treated going back that far.
There are other books as well, and some resources on the Web. The ones on the Web seem to talk more of chivalry among women, and the time-frame of those references go back ot the 1800's.
I'm looking to write an article on how we ought to be removing chivalry from our behavior in public service. I'd like to have it published, so that's why I'm looking beyong 'common knowledge.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, let's check off the list:
Now women can sexually harass men, and get away with saying "He asked for it."
Now women can sexually abuse men, and have them jailed if they complain.
Now Women can toss their husbands out on the street with no consequence.
Now women get preferences in hiring, education, etc.
Now women are looking for younger trophy husbands, and refusing to marry below their station.
Now women can behave promiscuously and get a "You Go, Girl!"
Women can now behave like animals, dumping feces over the heads of their peers, and be excused with "Girls will be Girls."
Hmmm ... I miss anything, guys? No? Didn't think so...
Well, it's official ladies. You're now Men.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
