|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok folks, time for a little bit of "I am plum sick of this S*#T" from your truly.
I could rattle off statistics, but those are the subject to heated debate. I could whine and mention several stories and add posts, but ... would it matter? I could sit in my house and sing Cumbaya (who cares at this point if I **SPELLED** it right!?).
But here is the problem. I been wantin' to set this straight for a while. The very organizations who claim to "care" and "support" victims of DV are trying very hard to ignore a whole segment of the population. You and I know the "segment", the 'Y' chromosomers. Yep, and by golly, since we aint a 'signifigant' portion of the numbers, well, just stick us in a jail an' take our jobs. I was always wondering about that, ya know. The 'significant' part I mean. I always read on BLOGS of sites I visit about DV that claim to be "feminist" that even **1** vicitm is too much. That every story is important. I hear ad infinitum that each tear is a F*$KING tradgedy. I keep reading that "until there are no more victims" that Feminazi's can slam men for being the barbaric horde that we are. But, then I hear from those barbarians about broken lips and black eyes and being torn from their homes and not seeing their children ... and the numbers all of sudden ... well, gosh folks, THEN its about numbers. Ok, I'm just a simple feller, but what in the tarnation? Ya read about a women who was abused, and men's activist or not, part of ya feels for her. You may have some reservations due to your past, on wondering if it was mutual, a false allegation, or if she truly is a victim. If the latter, I don't know about y'all, but I feel for the woman. I do. I may get some "ANON" troll who wants to pick a sentence of my response and point out how I don't have the propoer obsequious attitude when I don't genuflect, but screw the trolls: I DO feel for the woman. What rattles my cage is all them thar sites that put up this kind of (ahem) "disclaimer" and then go on a tear about MEN. Am I missing something? I mean, hell, momma always DID tell me I was the bumkin in the family, but if "every victim matters" and "DV awareness month is about victims" then how did 1/2 the population suddenly become a 'marginal statistic'?
Here it is, up front and personal: If you ever got hurt by someone you were involved in, well dammit, its just wrong. No "buts" ... no "howevers" are forthcoming. Its just wrong. My having my reproductive organs mounted on the outside don't make me invisible, make me guilty, or make me silent. Ending DV .... that would be a wonderful dream come true. It'll take years, hell, it won't ever "be totally over", but we sure can do some things about it. Presenting lying, slanted, and sexist "statistics" aint it.
Nuff said
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 16, @11:52PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
This is how radfems are getting away with their lies, by citing old and innaccurate DOJ "crime survey" figures. This source, if you look at it, is from 1994. The figure is from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which suveys DV in the context of "crime." That lowers the numbers especially for male victims because people are less likely to see it as a crime when it's female on male. The current Crime Victimization Survey says men make 15% of victims. The DOJ's Violence Against Women Survey, which was not a crime survey though still conducted by a crime agency and therefore had crime survey aspects to it, said 1.5 million women and 835,000 men are DV victims annually, which puts men at 36% of victims. "Approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States."
http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/nij/181867.txt
And of course, virtually all private research by NON crime agencies shows that men and women initate the violence at equal rates. Dr. Richard Gelles explains all of this very well in his 1999 article at http://www.ncfmla.org/resources/gelles/RichardGell esArticle.htm
More and more male victims are reporting, and eventually even the DOJ data, as biased as it is, will catch up. The radfems can only lie for so much longer. But they're misleading the public and hurting so many families and children in the meantime. That's why we need to keep fighting.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 17, @01:15AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, I am fairly new to the boards and have resisted posting on the site despite my several years of viewing it becasue of the hostility of some posters but I do have a sincere question that I hope someone can help with in a civil tone. Isn't this (The lies) being done by all feminists and not just radical feminists? Doesn't the general public believe these lies? If it is being done only by radical feminists and the general public believes them, then aren't the vast majority of the converts from the general public to feminism being converted to radical feminism? If this is the case then aren't the vast majority of feminists radical feminist? If so then what is so radical about that kind of feminism? That would just make it typical feminism wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 17, @08:48AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Good questions. I think that feminism, as a word, is going the way of chivalry, as a word. Both are out of date and misleading. Feminism, as an ideal, is supposed to fight for equal rights, concentrating on women's issues. This in and of itself would be a good thing. Radical feminism fights for women's issues to the exclusion and detriment of men's issues. A feminist would open a women's shelter, a radical feminist would ban any research into DV against men. One is helpful, one is harmful.
There are feminists out there who are fair, like at www.ifeminist.com .These people are open to both sides of all issues. The feminazis at NOW are downright hateful to men, and actively go out of there way to block any sympathy or gains for men's issues.
Do the general public buy into this? Yes. That is why we are here. I do not bash feminism as an ideal because all I want is equality. Women should have a group looking out for their interests. I just don't want that to be at the expense of men, who also deserve an equal voice. Men are looking for fair laws, equal standing, and respect. Same as women have had for decades now.
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someones old quote:
"Prison and the Grave are not mens shelters."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 22, @08:59AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I think Dr. Farrell originally said, "Prisons are not Men's shelters," but I added the "grave" part, along with some visual imagery, and put the whole thing on a T-shirt.
I have to press out some more of those T-shirts. A lot of people respond to that one.
Sincerely, Ray
P.S. The imagery is a picutre of a cute little 6 year old boy behind prison bars and tombstones on either side of him. It really shows the heartlessness and abusiveness of the war on men and boys that is going on in our country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday October 18, @01:04AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Alot of this is semantics, and alot of people on this site would answer differently. I'll give my two cents.
"Isn't this (The lies) being done by all feminists and not just radical feminists?"
I'd say yes and no, depending how you define "feminists." Professor Linda Mills (NYU) and Professor Irene Frieze and others are deemed feminists by many and yet they are starting to realize how the data on male victims has been covered up and unlike most feminists they are starting to tell the truth about it. In any case they are not spreading lies. If you accept "equity feminists" or "libertarian feminists" like C.H. Sommers as "feminists," then they are another exception. Personally I don't believe all feminists are spreading this unless you define "feminist" narrowly, which I don't - but I do believe the vast majority of them, and most of the mainstream ones along with the radical ones, are. I generalize about feminists because of that. Although the lines can be fuzzy, I do believe there is some difference between radical and mainstream feminists. The radicals fit the Dworkin and MacKinnon types who are explicity hateful and they don't cover it up, the mainstream ones lean more toward spreading misandry through myths and distortions of statistics, etc., and by working behind the scenes on public and educational policy. Both camps constantly lie.
"Doesn't the general public believe these lies? If it is being done only by radical feminists and the general public believes them, then aren't the vast majority of the converts from the general public to feminism being converted to radical feminism?"
Yes the general public believes the lies, although that is very slowly beginning to change. But believing something a group says doesn't make you an outright convert to that group. I believe some things Lyndon LaRouche says but I'm not a LaRouche convert. I think that goes a bit far.
"If this is the case then aren't the vast majority of feminists radical feminist? If so then what is so radical about that kind of feminism? That would just make it typical feminism wouldn't it?"
I think this again is semantics and definitions. I like Warren Farrell's quote from The Myth of Male Power (p.19) on that issue:
"I am a men's liberationist (or 'masculist') when men's liberation is defined as equal opportuity and equal responsibility for both sexes. I am a feminist when feminism favors equal opportunities and responsibilities for both sexes. I oppose both movements when either say our sex is *the* oppressed sex, therefore, 'we deserve rights.' That's not gender liberation but gender entitlement. Ultimately I am in favor of neither a women's movement nor a men's movement but a gender transition movement. However, I oppose skipping past a men's movement until men have equally articulated their perspective. *Then we will be ready for a synthesis."
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 22, @09:25AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"then aren't the vast majority of the converts from the general public to feminism being converted to radical feminism? If this is the case then aren't the vast majority of feminists radical feminist? If so then what is so radical about that kind of feminism? That would just make it typical feminism wouldn't it?"
We have discussed the enigma of the various "feminist" identifications before, but it is confusing and should be stated again.
There are equity feminists, I-feminists, gender feminists, radical feminists, militant feminists, etc.
The first two are feminists who believe in the original feminism of the 70's without all of the abusiveness that has been added by the later three.
The majority of feminsts are not the militant, gender or radical. Those three (gender, radical, militant) are the vociferous minority by all indications. Some even refer to them as Femicrats since the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Sheila Kuehl and Barabara Boxer are their icons. Hillary Clinton has toned down her rhetoric, but she has been solidly in that camp on the issues.
Equity feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers, and I-feminists like Wendy McElroy believe in women's rights, but not at the expense of truth or the destruction of innocent men and boys.
CWA, Concerned Women of America is a Christian organization (conservative) and boasts of a larger member ship than the more radical groups. They fought one radical group to a stand still at the U.N. over the Hillary endorsed issues contained in CEDAW (about 6 months to a year ago). It was glorious.
I'm probably forgetting some factions of feminsm, but you get the idea. You can find out a lot of info by typing in this info in a Google search.
Sincerely, Ray
Also, your correct, there often are strong comments posted here. There are a lot of battered, and wounded men who come to this site to express their outrage over the unjust treatment they have, and are, receiving under the hate laws of western nations like america, canada, briton, australia, etc. Nations, that under femicrat law, openly promote hate crimes against men, just because they're men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The federally-funded (VAWA $3.2 billion!) DV Industry/Racket, functions as the feminists' principle engine of mass hysteria and gender discrimination against men.
The lies, deceptions, and mythologies about domestic violence have a very focused purpose -- to criminalize maleness itself, and thereby convince the populace at large that "innocent women victims" are being terrorized by men, ALL of whom are real and/or potential predators.
(In Jamaica in the 1970's there was a draconian piece of legislation called the "sus law." It allowed one to be arrested for the SUSPICION of the intent to commit a crime in the future!
Every man in today's FemAmerica lives under the threat of "sus" by the DV gestapo squad.)
A very wise if pathologically deranged man once wrote about his craft --
"Propaganda is a means to an end. Its purpose is to lead the people to an understanding that will allow them to willingly and without internal resistance devote themselves to the tasks and goals of a superior leadership. If propaganda is to succeed, it must know what it wants. It must keep a clear and firm goal in mind, and seek the appropriate means and methods to reach that goal. Propaganda as such is neither good nor evil. Its moral value is determined by the the goals it seeks.
...
Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand.
A propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be successful in the long run. A good propaganda will always come along that serves a good cause."
- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda – Hitler’s Third Reich
Der Kongress zur Nürnberg 1934 (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., Frz. Eher Nachf., 1934), pp. 130-141.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb59.htm
Next time you read more deceitful stats about "95% of all DV victims are women..." and "DV is the primary cause of injury to women," and "a woman is assaulted by her male partner every 14 seconds..."
Remember Goebbels... his legacy as a masterful propagandist lives on in feminism!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's LIZ, the original She-man Manhater!
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just thought I'd share what I wrote to Ashcroft (to be copied to his henchwomen and also to Dubya):
On Wednesday, October 8, your office released the document entitled “ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT CHALLENGES MEN TO TAKE THE PLEDGE TO DEFEAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.” I urge you to reconsider your position on this issue, as it fails to recognize the well-documented fact that women are as likely to perpetrate acts of domestic violence as men. Further, it erodes the confidence placed in your office by the men of this country. While you are not an elected official, your boss is, and I would point out that his election in 2000 was heavily supported by men: the male vote (including mine) won George Bush the Presidency while the women’s vote was evenly split among the two major-party candidates. Your blind acceptance of the feminist agenda demonstrates your weak-kneed approach to the issue of domestic violence.
Domestic violence is not now, and has never been, a one-gender issue. I point out that the 1998 DoJ/CDC Report on Violence Against Women determined that almost 40% of the victims of domestic violence were MEN. A bibliography published by Dr. Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, examines 147 scholarly investigations, including 119 empirical studies and 28 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 106,000.
The feminist agenda has been reflected in public law for a number of years and the effect of this has been devastating for many innocent men. As a result of the implementation of legislation, for example, the Violence Against Women Act, there have been far too many men who have fallen victim to overzealous enforcement based on false or questionable accusations. Further, male victims of DV do not have access to any sort of shelter. And men who seek counseling are subjected to vicious anti-male models (such as the Duluth model) that seek to destroy their already seriously damaged psyches. It is time for the government to abandon this gender terrorism.
Your statements and their missing elements constitute a hate crime against men, and you would do yourself well to make amends, either in voice or in practice, or both. I will take this pledge only when the government recognizes that women and men are equal when it comes to perpetrating domestic violence. Until then, I will be examining third-party choices for election in 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
