|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was always irritated by MND's heavy right wing bias and the large number of pop-ups, although I use Mozilla to avoid the pop-ups. Since the owner's stated intention is to outdo the Drudge Report the best thing to do is stay away. When his hits drop alarmingly he may reconsider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too was irritated by MND's heavy pro-war/right wing bias. And the forum was getting really interesting. I think the last time I visited was this past Wednesday. I think it really sucks that for the first time in 40 years, instead of only hearing from women's feelings, men were actually openly expressing their real genuine feelings on that forum. As Warren Farrell says, that's kind of like watching a baby making his first few steps, and then knocking him down. I don't know what the best strategy is, since some of the articles there I think constitute a step in the right direction; but then again, the right wing drivel probably negates it, so I don't know what to think about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MND's heavy right wing bias
And I was afraid I was the only one who was on to them. :) Its a good thing not all men's activists are like them because they seem to be more interested in making enemies than making friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same old, same old. "Both sexes are equal, but one sex is more equal than the other." The version of "conservative" "chivalry" found at MND is actually based on the same foundation as the leftist feminism MND purports to oppose.
Articles of interest occasionally appear (or are linked) at MND, but for the most part the site serves to perpetuate the feminist stereotype of men as insensitive, dull-witted primitives whose first/only response to difficulty is brute violence. It could even be a put-on, entirely created and run by some secret feminist "disinformation" squad.
Don't mistake knee-jerk, caustic "conservatism" for real intelligence, merely because it skewers the idiocy of knee-jerk, mindless "liberalism." See my remarks in the recent Dr Laura thread (which apparently were posted too late for anyone to read them) for more on this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 11, @07:12AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is about justice, freedom and men getting back in power.
not left or right wing!
Ragnar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 11, @03:21PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I too saw the whole sordid affair go down. I too was constantly irritated at the attempts by MND to marry the men's movement to the entire right-wing agenda.
I read the MND forum for the last month and watched as male posters kept getting kicked off for offending the female moderator navyblue, while highly offensive female posters continued to taunt the supposedly men's rights site with impunity.
I can't imagine the MS forum being moderated by a man in such a way. I was not sad to see the MND forum crater. I won't be back either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOS ANGELES, CA. - Mike LaSalle, former Men's Rights advocate and show business impresario was found unconscious from a whipping and lying in an alley outside a well known Los Angeles night club late yesterday. He was rushed to a nearby hospital where his condition was listed as unfair, lost and delirious.
LaSalle had recently made a name for himself as a self-proclaimed leader of the growing Men's Rights Movement where he had tried to establish for himself a reputation as an honest and staunch defender of the dignity and rights of men in their fight against feminist fascism.
However, many men had noted that recently Mike LaSalle was struggling to find his true identity in the high stakes battle for the hearts and minds of the western world's enslaved men. First, he openly plugged a female jazz singer on his now defunct website, Men News Daily, and then anointed a woman to moderate a message board forum that was linked to his site. The relationship that LaSalle had with the singer is surrounded in mystery. Equally mysterious is the identity of the moderator known as Navy Blue.
She precipitated a mass exodus of male readers from Men News Daily when she decried the inappropriate language that some men were using to describe women. Allegedly she complained to LaSalle that she was uncomfortable and could not find the sense of empowered closure that her special needs as a woman demanded. She reportedly was feeling sad and depresssed. A N.O.W. spokeswoman, Harriet Ingry, confirmed these reports and added "No woman in America should have these feelings. Next thing you know, we'll be back in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, doing whatever it is that women used to do in the kitchen.... whatever a kitchen is."
LaSalle apparently tried to appease the woman or women but men know the slippery slope that this presents. He continued to fall short of the expectations that women had for him. His failure to measure up was even described by some feminists as a form of violence against women. Harriet Ingry explained,"If you don't make a woman happy then she is sad. If she is sad then you have hurt her. If you hurt her then you are violent. Got it? Deal with it."
Police have not confirmed the type of weapon used to inflict the severe injuries on LaSalle. They would only say that the deep lacerations bear the unmistakable imprinted outlines of female genitalia. When pressed to define which part of that complex structure was used, a police spokeswoman tersely said, "The vagina". Ray Peterson, the Pulitzer prize winning author who started as a freelance writer with Mens News Daily, jumped up from his seat and and said in a loud and clear voice, "In other words, he was pussy whipped!". The spokeswoman ignored him, then laughed a little, and asked if there were any appropriate questions.
http://www.cogito-aro.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited out of bookmarks.
Even if it has nothing to do with a woman being named moderator and then a short while later the entire site getting nuked, perception is certainly of that.
Anyway what needs to be done is for sites to be owned by groups of individuals, not one whom can decide one day to change the rules. I had just started reading MND, didn't like it's political bias but eh, I don't like it there are other sites.. such as this one :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then the majority could vote out individuals they don't like. Individuals would need some sort of protection like "freedom of speech"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Individuals would need some sort of protection like "freedom of speech" Which is precisely what the Founders tried to do with the Constitution; but if the majority decides to junk the Constitution...? Look around. Ultimately, there's no escaping "democracy."
I often recall a sign I saw once on the wall of an early '60s commune: "If you care about it, it's your responsibility." They'd learned by painful experience that it's not groups that actually do things, it's individuals who make decisions and act.
If you think there "ought to" be a discussion site owned by a group, then you can start one. For now, at least, until the Thought Police ("left" or "right" -- they're really the same) decide to "regulate" the Internet -- all for your own good, of course.
Personally, though, I don't think it would work. You'd end up like all "collectives," spending more time sorting out internal power struggles than actually running the site. Better to act as an individual, and let the best man win. Until individualism itself is outlawed, for the sake of the greater good, and so no one's feelings will get hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree completely. I've been waiting for the proper point to introduce this idea, but I have asked the moderators/owner of MANN to set up a permanent thread on internet activism. There are all kinds of free hosting sites out there, basic sites are cheap anyway, if you don't want ads, and lots of tools that make web pages easy.
Add the concept of webrings to the idea, and we have a completely non-centralized "movement" where any man can say anything he wants without consulting anyone else. If people don't like it, don't link to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 11, @03:36AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's what happened:
Navyblue (AKA Robin, a woman) was made an admin in a few of the forums, nothing bad about that in itself, but this is where the trouble starts. 2 women named Shebe and Electra started baiting all the guys, one of them even said she had more sympathy for an animal than the nearest man. This happened for at least a week maybe two.
Now Robin was asked to do something about it, and didn't do anything, she went as far to say the two man haters were "contributing" to the forum. Maybe it was inexperience, I dunno but it was a big mistake.
By now the forum members were getting really pissed off, they were making like pressure cookers and guess who was in the blast radius? Yep old Robin herself (since it was her forum) they started some threads to get rid of her, and the Mike comes in heavy handed, accuses most of the posters of misogyny etc, and then Robin posts his comments as a sticky for the whole forum to see, christ....
By now almost everyguy piles on her, she said she was gonna leave, and even took a parting sideswipe at most of the guys there.
And according to a thread over at the stand your ground forums:
"A poster named NEO was either banned or had a talking to (don't know which), so he registered over there as "Karen Hawkins", a recently divorced romance novelist who really exists on Amazon.com. He had an avatar showing a bit of cleavage etc. It was intended, I think, as a practical joke to see which of the men's activists would bite and "renounce their principles" so to speak.
So only two bit - a poster named Kurt Birk and the guy who runs the site, Braveheart. I think Braveheart called her a "hottie", and he ran down there to welcome her, which he never normally does.
So when it was revealed that NEO was really behind it, Braveheart gave a ha-ha kind of post. NEO came on as some binary number and further embarrassed Braveheart with details of his practical joke. Braveheart then later ERASED THE ENTIRE FORUM and posted a notice about there being no more misogynistic comments etc. It was quite a coincidence, to say the least, right after he was heavily embarrassed.
So I posted that I thought that may have been a reason or at least a contributing factor to the erasure of the entire board. My post was instantly deleted, and I was banned. Then I saw two other posters simply make mention of the fact that they had seen my post, and all of the posts were once again erased. I don't know if those posters were also banned. All they said is that they saw my post. At present, there is only a notice over there about people not making misogynistic comments etc., otherwise the entire forum has been permanently erased. I called it a scorched-earth policy in my post."
Well that's the events as far as I can recall, and Mike? If you're reading this, do tell us your side of the story. We need to know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Adam
NEO's lack of loyalty and enormous ego makes him do strange things. Neither Braveharth not others can be blamed for not knowing the true identity of a member. It's the way you respond to someones posts that 'talk' about yourself.
Ragnar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey Ragnar, you a Nothrog?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jenk
I'm flattered, but no!
Ragnar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the post about NEO's trick, I posted about it then I was banned as well. Though I believe the ban is temporary. Anyway, If women can come on the forum and bait the men, then why not the men? I just thought it was spirited debate in a way with their attitudes colliding. I saw no problem and thought it was fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 11, @06:51AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Eh? Doesn't MND control its own forums? Someone fill me in here please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's important to get the facts before we judge. Has anyone heard the side of the board owner? It is his private space and he is entitled to do whatever he wants with it. Mike LaSalle has done a great deal for men in creating and running MensNewsDaily. Let's give him the benifit of the doubt and hear him out before we pass judgement.
We are on the same team.
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 11, @08:55AM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
My situation getting banned was telling Navyblue that she had the female superiority complex, in which if a man does not have a woman's approval, the man is wrong. I told her I will not comply with her as moderator of the forum with that mindset of her's and to basically "get behind me, Satan" as Jesus would say. I went on to say to Navyblue, because she said that she gave the Men's Movement credibility, that who the hell was she to give the Men's Movement credibility and that men will decide if the movement is credible or not. The slash of my intellectual Katana proved mortal to her ego and she told Mike and Mike banned me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...she said that she gave the Men's Movement credibility...
Some years back there was a famous Bill Moyers PBS special on the "men's movement," with Robert Bly, footage of men beating drums in the woods, etc. Then they went and asked the men's wives, girlfriends, et al. if participation in these events had improved their men's character and behavior. I gagged. Somehow I don't recall ever seeing a similar poll taken of men regarding whether their female companions' character and behavior had been improved by participation in "women's movement" activities.
That a woman would be put in charge of a forum at a so-called men's site ("Men's News Daily") simply shows that the really important questions haven't been asked yet.
Can you see a woman presiding over the Continental Congress, or the Constitutional Convention? What sort of Declaration of Independence or Constitution would have resulted? My goodness, we wouldn't want to hurt King George's feelings, now would we?
We can only hope that if allowed full expression (and clearly there's nothing left in our culture than has a hope of restraining it), the female urge to total dominance will finally become plain to even the most pussy-whipped "men" among us.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers." --Thomas Pynchon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I think I'd like to add some comments to this discussion.
First of all, whether you agree with MND's conservative politics stance or not, there are men in the movement who agree with this and Mike has every right to specialize his site in order to appeal to them. I'm not comfortable with the fact that MANN is now being used as a forum for bashing MND for its explicit political stance.
Second, it never ceases to amaze me how much people take free things such as web forums for granted. A lot of effort, time, and money is spent on these things and 99% of the users don't pay a cent to use them. If Mike doesn't want to see all of his hard work go into administering a forum where hate and women-bashing is too frequent, he has every right to limit membership or discussions on those forums.
I guess the bottom line here is, if you don't like MND in general because of its political stance, don't visit the site. If you think there's something unjust about the fact that a liberal news site doesn't exist in the same form that MND does, create one yourself.
Finally, don't aid the anti-male groups by helping them "divide and conquer" our movement by turning us against each other. Instead, help build resources that will bring us closer to our common goals. Whether it's through a new web site or the speech we chose to use, we are all each responsible for the success or failure of our movement.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said Scott. MND is our ally. Mike has done a great deal for this movement and deserves to be heard prior to any complaining and bashing. A thread such as this is at best premature. Some of the wording in the post is questionable and derogatory towards his site. That is regretable and I for one will say that it doesn't reflect my own view of MND or its owner.
I am in complete agreement with his stand of disallowing misogyny on his boards. If the feminists had the balls to disallow misandry from the beginning we would be in a completely different place today. Let's not make the same mistake.
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I, too, am all in favor of putting an end to any and all misogyny on every men's rights site. The question is: what were these people counting as misogyny? Condemnation of a handful of women for misadrist comments?
It's like the so-called abuse studies in which a man giving a woman the silent treatment qualifies as abuse, but a woman stabbing a man in the chest with a fork doesn't. Then they finish their study and say, "Oh, look, see? No women abuse men!" Of course that's what you'll find, if you have your own perverted parameters for what does and does not count as abuse.
So, what counts as "misogyny" according to this Robin person?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 11, @01:49PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
"If the feminists had the balls to disallow misandry from the beginning we would be in a completely different place today. Let's not make the same mistake."
==================================================
Tom:
Astute observation. I would have just said "common sense and logic," even though militant feminists consider those to be forms of abuse against women.
Let us definitely not make the mistake of disintegrating into a bunch of "emotional" arguing fools who cast off those good things (common sense and logic) that have so greatly benefited the human race all these centuries.
It is the power to reason that separates humans from the lower life forms, and if militant feminists want to devolve and take the species back to that chaos, I for one, will not go.
If any woman or man cannot recognize or admit the admirable qualities of men that so greatly benefit humanity, then we as males certainly need to do so, and thereby confirm and promote our stature as males.
Militant feminists allege that different opinions held by men have historically led to all the wars, and wars consequences, when in reality divisiveness, politics, dissension, conflict and desires are human traits that we all struggle with.
There are many today on all sides who would deny the fervent appeal for enlightenment made by Abe Lincoln for all men (people) to "tap into" the "better angels of our natures," and rise above the encumbrances that enslave us to the conflicts that are so costly to our human lives.
With all the constant efforts by militant feminists to demonize men (added onto our already imperfect human frailties), "the better angels of our natures" have never been in greater demand by all people of goodwill, than they are today.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can completly understand where they are coming from. I tried to send a very feminist friend for info here, to the pamphlet that is posted, and she looked around. It completely destroyed any credibility I had built up, when she read a few of the more discriptive comments. Do I think that they should be censored? No. Do I thing the posters should keep in mind how their words effect the men's movement? Yes.
The rants which so amuse us and keep us fired up also strengthen our opposition. We all are guilty of taking a rant to a place where, read out of context, our words can be used against us. If we choose to have this as a forum where we wish to invite the undecided, we should all be aware of what we write.
I feel that the main error MND made was to have a woman administrator taking part in major changes in policy.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jen: "I can completly understand where they are coming from. I tried to send a very feminist friend for info here, to the pamphlet that is posted, and she looked around. It completely destroyed any credibility I had built up, when she read a few of the more discriptive comments. Do I think that they should be censored? No. Do I thing the posters should keep in mind how their words effect the men's movement? Yes.
The rants which so amuse us and keep us fired up also strengthen our opposition. We all are guilty of taking a rant to a place where, read out of context, our words can be used against us. If we choose to have this as a forum where we wish to invite the undecided, we should all be aware of what we write."
I agree 100%. The "women are bitches" comments are not helping our cause in the least.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel that the main error MND made was to have a woman administrator taking part in major changes in policy.
The Biscuit Queen
What has been omitted so far from the discussion is the fact that there were some feminst trolls running around largely unrestrained for a couple of weeks before this all blew up. Numerous complaints were made about them, and it was impossible to avoid the appearance that they were being held to a different standard of accountability than the men were. One of those trolls has gone back and bragged on the MS board about bringing the MND forums down.
Navyblue was in an impossible and thankless position. She could not abdicate herself enough to not be offended by what the men said, any more than the men there could abdicate themselves enough to not be offended by what the trolls were allowed to say.
All in all, it was an extremely effective bit of sabotage - on par with bringing down the world trade center towers.
There really are respects in which attempting to wake women up to the deep, bitter, and seething rage which is brewing among a lot of men toward women - is actually meant as a kindness toward women. Something like seeing your neighbor's house on fire and knocking on the front door and saying "your house is on fire". One does not expect argument to the death over that, and if it happens the natural response is "Ok, it is your house."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of those trolls has gone back and bragged on the MS board about bringing the MND forums down.
Interesting. We have seen the trolls repetedly on this site. I wonder if Mike failed to recongnize their tactic of impersonating a men's activist and making them appear hateful. If Mike didn't realize that then he is in darkness. He may need a wakeup call. That is how the enemy operates.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is the spirit in which I wrote that comment. Navyblue was in a no-win situation, because she was a woman on a men's board (same as being a male admin on a feminist board) I feel her best option was to resign until this all blew over. That doesn't mean she did anything wrong, it just would have been a way to get out until it blew over. Knowing she was a woman just added fuel to the fire.
As for the trolls, I do feel that making people register before posting is a nesessary evil these days. It would go a long way in protecting us from trolls if we could track posters by their computer number.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the trolls were registered. Numerous complaints were lodged and the response was always "they have been warned." Nothing else was done until one of them was banned along with some of the people complaining the loudest about them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can completly understand where they are coming from. I tried to send a very feminist friend for info here, to the pamphlet that is posted, and she looked around. It completely destroyed any credibility I had built up, when she read a few of the more discriptive comments. Do I think that they should be censored? No. Do I thing the posters should keep in mind how their words effect the men's movement? Yes.
I sympathize with your point of view Jen. I know a lot of the anger expressed here is ugly and unpleasant to experience, and that must be all the more true for women.
In the end, though, I have to disagree. Please understand, I spent my entire young adulthood believing common sense and cooler heads would prevail. I remember thinking, as the hysteria over sexual harassment built up to its crescendo, "They have created a situation in which there is no way for a man to express interest in a woman that can't be construed as sexual harassment if the woman decides to construe it that way. Surely it won't take women long to see the foolishness of that." I really expected that at some point women would say "The 90%+ of us who are heterosexual want men to be attracted to us, and we want them to be able to say so."
It never happened.
In fact the situation has gotten much worse. As things stand now, if you express an interest in women you are a predatory bastard and potential rapist out to make sexual objects of innocent, angelic women. On the other hand, if you express no interest in women you are an immature commitment phobic Peter Pan and probably a porn addict, who is denying women their right to marriage and motherhood. I've chosen option 2, since as yet there are no civil or criminal penalties attached to it. This downward spiral is evident not only in relation to issues of sexual harassment, but also in the areas of domestic violence, rape accusations, family courts, and in fact in all aspects of the relations between men and women.
This is where moderation and sweet reason have gotten us. I'm a heterosexual man, but I am forced to live my life without women because the trends of the gender war have made having a woman in my life, or even approaching one to investigate the possibilities, too dangerous. To be perfectly blunt, I'm damn mad about that. Maybe being open about my anger won't win friends or influence people, but it may show them the consequences of the policy society has followed the past few decades.
And it sure as heck makes me feel a lot better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark C wrote:
"This is where moderation and sweet reason have gotten us. I'm a heterosexual man, but I am forced to live my life without women because the trends of the gender war have made having a woman in my life, or even approaching one to investigate the possibilities, too dangerous."
I agree so much will all that your wrote, Mark. I have been waiting a lot of years for a voice of "sweet reason" to emerge from women. The problem is that as the scales have tipped toward ever more power for women, even conservative women have liked it. The tension between the sexes and their agendas has ALWAYS been around, and it is easy to understand why anyone would not complain while things were getting easier for them.
The end result of all this mess is that a lot of men like you, and me, are simply turning their backs on women. The strange paradox is that all the so-called "rights" that MRAs are supposedly fighting for, are nothing more than the rights to have personal relationships with women.
I have pointed out repeated to women, and always been accused of "misogyny" when I did, that there really are violent women out there and there really are women who lie. MANN provides plenty of examples. The law provides absolutely no protection for men from these women, leaving them to protect themselves. OF COURSE men have to be more suspicious and distrusting of women as a result, and even the slightest indication that a woman might be dangerous will get her avoided by any decent man.
After watching most of the men I know get crushed under the femBorg steamroller, it is not "misogyny" to point out that as long as I treat women like they have the plague, I still have all the rights I need.
This makes calling any of this "men's" anything a mistake to some degree. Women would probably be best served by fighting for the rights of men to have personal relationships with women, but if they don't want to that is their business.
I posted a link here a week or so ago about Naomi Wolf's kvetching that men are turning off to women. Of course, she has to blame it on something so she blames it on "porn." A couple of generations of women have behaved so selfishly and one-sidedly that they have turned men off to the idea of marriage, and made them regard women as dangerous liars. For the generation of women coming up, marriage will be one of those quaint legends of history like the horse and buggy - a few wealthy people may have them as hobbies, but most people don't rely on them any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How is this not thinking about what you say? To say:
"After watching most of the men I know get crushed under the femBorg steamroller, it is not "misogyny" to point out that as long as I treat women like they have the plague, I still have all the rights I need" ~this makes sense and shows your opinion and subsiquent actions.
******
saying "These twisted bitches are so fucking full of lies and deceit that I won't touch any of them ever again, not even with my worst enemies dick."
Now that is crude, can easily be taken out of context, and really is an ineffective way of saying what you really meant.
Got it?
Being levelheaded and thoughtful is intelligent. Intelligence will win over more people than shrill attacks. MHO, The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, Jen, I didn't understand your post at all. The quote from me was simple, straightforward, and made a point. I have no idea where the other quote came from.
Yes, lots of men are not particularly eloquent. And, yes, lots of them are still so hurt that they are even less eloquent than they are capable of being.
What is your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was using your quote to counter point what Mark C said about "In the end, though, I have to disagree. Please understand, I spent my entire young adulthood believing common sense and cooler heads would prevail."
Now that I look back I see it wasn't very clear, I am sorry about that.
My point was that we can say exactly what we mean without being extremist (ei explosive and degrading). I made up that second quote to make the point how someone can say the same thing but not be nearly as effective. My second quote would have just offended many without making any real point, your quote was concise and self explanitory.
I should not have used your quote to make a point to someone else, i got mixed up with 80 some odd posts it is getting hard to keep them straight.
The Biscuit Queen
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point was that we can say exactly what we mean without being extremist (ei explosive and degrading).
Some can, some can't - Jen or Dave K, whoever you are.
A point I made to Mike before the meltdown was what kind of man does one expect such a site to draw OTHER than men who are hurt and angry. I also pointed out that MND was the only MASH unit I had ever seen staffed entirely by people who do nothing but evaluate how much they like the way the wounded are crying out in pain.
People often tease me that my education hampers me, but most men do not have the benefit of multiple college degrees. When they speak among themselves,it is often in rough terms which men understand and which do not bother most of us a bit.
I think Mike made many mistakes in all this, and one major one was not providing a place that men could go off by themselves and blow of steam and rant and rave without bothering women by it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Mike made many mistakes in all this, and one major one was not providing a place that men could go off by themselves and blow of steam and rant and rave without bothering women by it.
Or providing it and then putting a woman in charge, which defines it as a kindergarten. How politically-correct can you get? I'm dumbfounded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or providing it and then putting a woman in charge, which defines it as a kindergarten. How politically-correct can you get? I'm dumbfounded.
Well, Mike is plenty PC, but "mistakes were made" all the way around. There is lots of angry finger pointing right now, on half a dozen forums. Too bad that people in the west don't understand the concept of "saving face". Showdowns seldom benefit anyone unless you really are out to destroy something. But, once you call someone out, someone either has to back down or something blows.
As I have said, I almost never visited it before MANN was down for a week, and it doesn't seem like any great loss to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zen,
No one I know has ever suggested that your education is an impediment.
Quite the opposite..
You are universally known for having overcome it!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are universally known for having overcome (the impediment of too much education)
It's kind of an inside joke, Roy, although I do have a very difficult time writing for less than 12-13 years of education comprehension level. (I just got lectured on this by a Danish friend).
I don't know if some of my kidders are reading this board, but I have suggested extending the marriage strike into a general sexual/dating/attention strike toward western women in general. Just having men turn their backs on them completely. I posted a link here recently to an article by Naomi Wolf that shows it is already happening - I think men could speed it up intentionally.
I called it the "His-istrata" project.
Go to a search engine and look up Lysistrata, and you'll see the humor in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually set up a yahoo group just for that purpose, but no one was interested. My thought was to give the guys a private place to rant so that new people (not all women, btw) wouldn't be subjected to the hurricanes which happen here on a regular basis.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mensactivism/
Hasn't been used much at all, although I have started posting small activism projects to the whole 4 people I have.
Yes, I am the mod, but would be more than willing to hand it over to whoever wanted the task. I was just the person who got it set up. It takes approval to avoid trolls, but anyone here is welcome.
TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My thought was to give the guys a private place to rant so that new people (not all women, btw) wouldn't be subjected to the hurricanes which happen here on a regular basis.
I've heard lots of arguments on both sides of the "ranting versus reason" debate, but I have actually seen very few people convinced by reason. I don't think much of what has happened over the past several years has been reasonable at all, and have always noticed that people are much more motivated to change their behavior by a good lawsuit than by any amount of discourse.
Every movement, from the union movement to the civil rights movement, has had some degree of extremism and violence before it became effective. People with social power never seem to give it up willingly.
Atlas is shrugging, as Thomas observed, and I think in the long run that the people who will be most distressed by it will not be the ones who failed to express their frustration in nice enough ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the sound of "one man's back turning?"
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you got the plan, Stan. I mean, Roy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel that the main error MND made was to have a woman administrator taking part in major changes in policy.
Indeed; this turned the forum into just another elementary-school classroom presided over by Miss Wormwood, an environment which few American males remember with pleasure. Not surprising that some apparently (I didn't see the forum, all I know is what I've read about it here) responded by behaving like children -- thus sadly providing yet more self-fulfilling prophecy for the feminist view of men.
I'm sorry that jen's "very feminist friend" was offended by what she saw here, and I will agree that much of the "discourse" on this site is of pretty low quality. Unfortunately, this is the culture that the feminists themselves have made.
The truth is, it is women's use of the power they already have, as mothers, caretakers and teachers of the young, that determines the character of a culture. American women have decided, wherever in consciousness it is that such decisions are made, that they prefer their men to be perpetually children, because children are not in control of themselves, and thus -- some of the time, anyway -- easily controlled. The rest of the time, unfortunately, they are merely out of control; but this is a price that feminists seem to be willing to pay -- since offensive male behavior (including serious violence) "proves" that they are "right" about men.
The alternative would be to have developed, grown-up, adult men. Such men, masters of themselves, would not behave in the childish manner apparently exhibited by the offending posters on the MND forum (or here, for that matter -- and the rants do not amuse me). But they also would not be easily controlled and manipulated by women.
This is the choice faced by women in every human culture; they can have whatever kind of man they want, but it takes adult women to realize that they need adult men.
My response to feminism remains simple: Where do men come from? If you don't like the product, talk to the producer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes - Always good to see you. I worry that you are in some ways letting men off the hook and I know that is not your intent. While I agree that women have chosen an immature version of manhood as evidenced by the media, television commercials, legislation etc. The majority of the blame is ours. As men we need to stand up to the image that women have for us. We need to say "NO!" to that and become what is right for us without the approval of mommy. To simply blame women is not enough. We also need to see that we are at fault and that the choice to "stand up" as a man is always present.
The unconscious clinging to mommy and then being furious with mommy for not letting us be men is the sure sign of an adolescent who has yet to find his power. Have a problem? Blame mommy!
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Tom, thanks for your comments, but I'm afraid you're missing the point. Please note that I did not use the term "blame," that I never do, and (this is the important part) that I am not the least bit interested in determining where "blame" lies, as the concept, and the way of thinking it represents, I find entirely useless and counterproductive. The same goes for "fault" and all such terms of moral judgment and opprobrium. They're a waste of valuable time and energy.
I am not interested in putting anyone either on or "off the hook." I am interested in facts, in the truth of how things actually work, because I believe that no real changes can be made, in our own lives or in the world, unless based on a clear vision and understanding of what is actually happening and why. "Blame" is an emotionally-loaded opinion; facts are emotionally neutral, simply aspects of reality-as-it-is. What I present is (what I believe to be) a factually-true -- if little understood -- picture of how our world is formed.
So far as I'm aware, there has never been a reported case of a man becoming pregnant, gestating and giving birth to a child, of either gender. Nor of any similar event in any other sexual species. Indeed, the definition of "male" is based on this fact. It is females that lay eggs, or give birth. It is females who create new life. Males play a part, true, but not always. As I've noted before, the single key to understanding the entire "gender question" I found when I learned (in the book Why Males Exist) that there is a significant number of species which used to be sexual but no longer are -- because the females thereof simply stopped producing males. These species still exist, quite successfully occupying ecological niches, but they consist entirely of females -- though that may not be the correct term, since "female" implies "male," and there are no males in these species.
Think about this: Males are optional. It is females who make males -- and can not make males, if they so choose. Where power is exercised, there lies responsibility -- and nowhere else. This is not a moral judgment; it is simply fact. If a member of one of these female-only species does something, you can't "blame" the male -- because there isn't one.
And among humans this female creative power extends very much beyond the simple fact of physical gestation and birthing. Women are responsible not only for the fact that men exist, but for the character and quality of the men they create, because they naturally have charge of the child's early development. Even feminists, for all their claim of "equality," are clearly unwilling to give up this power -- else why do mothers demand and get "custody" in over 80% of divorce cases? This is not "blaming the mother"; it is simply a statement of fact.
Certainly "we need to stand up to the image that women have for us." But to do so effectively we must first understand that we are that image, the "little man" that Mommy created in her mind's image of the "ideal" male (i.e. better than the lout she unfortunately married). The key word you use yourself: "unconscious." So long as the process remains unconscious, it cannot be corrected. If our "clinging to mommy" is unconscious, then how will we ever "find our power"? It's not necessary to "blame" mommy, but it is necessary to see clearly that how she created and reared me has made me what I am: to bring what has been unconscious into the light of consciousness. Only then will I have the opportunity to change the relationship, and the course of my life.
Very few men, in fact, ever entirely separate from Mother. In the past, however, there was commonly at least enough separation to provide a reasonably healthy balance of power in human culture. Nowadays, the process of male growth is being aborted at very early stages, so that most males never seem to gain enough stature to meet women without being flattened by them. Nearly every male I know up to age 50 is totally bewildered and intimidated by females -- including, apparently, the proprietor of MND. I understand why, and certainly he's far from alone. There's no "blame"; but if we're ever to get out of this situation, we have to start seeing it clearly.
I use the word "aborted" deliberately. There are many ways a woman may "choose" (however unconsciously) to abort the full development and maturity of a child in her care. As I've said, I believe that the infant male circumcision program was and remains a pivotal event in the history of our culture, which has by now aborted several generations of American men, all of us permanently, unconsciously terrified of females, and thus severely handicapped in our encounters with them. Very few American men can see women clearly: the Gorgon is as much a part of Woman as the Angel. Thus the Myth of Female Innocence, which allows women to literally get away with murder.
As I said, I never saw the MND forum under discussion, but what I've learned here about the course of events is not surprising. That the proprietor of MND, a supposedly "anti-feminist" forum, would put a woman in authority over a men's discussion there, only demonstrates how successful feminism has been in completely reshaping our culture's thought processes. No man before the late 19th century, at the earliest, would ever have done such a thing.
Healthy human cultures understand that males (boys and men) need places to go and meet and be active together that are free of the female domination that every boy experiences from the beginning of his life, and spends most of the rest of his life trying to escape. And that he must escape if he is to become a man capable of giving women what they really need. A human society made up solely of women and children (of whatever age) will not survive.
If the proprietor of MND (who I assume was infant-circumcised like nearly all of us) doesn't understand this elementary fact, then he really hasn't a clue to what is wrong and what needs to be fixed. His promotion of simple-minded rightwing politics is more evidence of the same. Dumb Dubya is not the solution to Slick Willie; both of them are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the same Powers, who also are using the feminist movement to their own purposes, if not controlling it.
The feminists have won, but they will not escape the final collapse of the culture they've undermined and destroyed.
BTW, did you read my comments in the recent "Dr Laura" thread related to "right" and "left" politics and "gender issues"? Please do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes - The topic of all female populations in the animal kingdom is fascinating. A friend of mine told me the other day of a lizard population that is all female. He said that if the lizards were removed from their environment that they die immediately. Without the male they have lost all adaptability. Interesting stuff.
I couldn't agree more about the women being the creators of both men and women. It's a fact. The important element in all of this is how men break out of that trance, how we as men can forge our own consciousness that is free of "mother-strings." This is surely a topic worth discussion. The old fairy tales can give us some help here. The tale of Jack and the Beanstalk is actually a tale that was meant as a guide for masculine development. The first of the story is Jack being a momma's boy. He goes to town to sell the cow. He then decides on his own to instead trade the cow for some magic beans! LOL! He brings them back and finds his mother unhappy with his creativity. She throws them out the window. This part of the story is symbol for the first separation from mother. The next morning he climbs up the huge plant that has grown from the seeds of his creativity. He is now able to enter a realm that is beyond the mother. Then of course he has to deal with the old man.
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The topic of all female populations in the animal kingdom is fascinating. Certainly, and even more, crucial to understanding "gender issues." For me, as I said, this discovery was the key; once I got that, everything else fell into place.
A friend of mine told me the other day of a lizard population that is all female. One such species lives in the desert here in New Mexico. Haven't seen any myself, though. Another I have seen: the common dandelion. Worth noting, however, that so far as I know there is no such female-only species among the birds and mammals, the fast-moving, intelligent (well, relatively), warm-blooded species. So it's not clear how far feminism can go in this reverse-evolution scheme.
He said that if the lizards were removed from their environment that they die immediately. Without the male they have lost all adaptability. Well, not quite all, I suppose, but they would evolve very slowly, by comparison. I have a newspaper article about geckos, the ubiquitous lizards of tropical Asia and Pactific islands: Seems that some island populations became isolated long enough to take this step and lose their males, but now with frequent human travel between the islands the species are mixing again, and the female-only species are losing out in every encounter with the male+female species. Can't compete. That's the tradeoff: comfort and security for adaptability and variety -- a.k.a. the "spice of life." A while ago a woman told me she'd quit being a lesbian because in the end the lifestyle was just terminally boring. And there's nothing She can't stand more than boredom -- after all, that's why She created this whole show in the first place.
Yes, the Ancients knew a lot we seem to have forgotten. For instance, according to Cato the Elder (234-149 BCE), "If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." MISOGYNY!! (See, if you yell loud enough, nobody'll try to figure out if there's any truth to it.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The male Sea Horse actually gives birth and raises the fry. The female lays the eggs in his pouch, and he gestates them until they are ready to hatch. He then cares for them until they are old enough to fend for themselves.
However, I can see your point, and I especially like the last line of this last post. I have done some studying of the bible, and I feel that the reason for the "wife is to submit to her husband" passage is just that. Woman are not capable, as a whole, to be completely equal yet not try to take over. It is in our genes, as mothers, to control and dominate over others, as we do to our children. It is our jobs. We must be reminded, however, that this does not extend to others around us, ie our husbands. I feel that passage is written to make sure we each work on what is most difficult. For women, it is letting go of control, for men it is putting their family first.
Of course you must understand I scoffed at this passage for YEARS. It was one of the reasons I claimed to be an athiest, was an athiest for a long time. It has taken me a long journey to realize I have limits set to my behaviors, and most women are not ready to hear this message, unfortunately.
Philalethes, I have to say I really enjoy your posts. You always have a calm reasoning, yet dead on accuracy for arguement. Even on those occasions when I disagree with you, I still really find your opinions of value to my understanding of the issues.
the Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jen,
Thank you for your kind remarks. I enjoy your posts as well; an intelligent thinking woman is always (though unfortunately rare) a pleasure to meet -- especially as I do not "moderate" my thoughts here, in a forum by and for men, as I generally do when I'm talking with women. It's sad but true: I find that even with close female friends (and I probably have more female than male close friends) I must be careful what I say. I don't say anything I don't believe, but seldom say all I think, because they just can't handle it.
As for the sea horse example: I'm sorry, but you're off the mark; I'll chalk this up to a leftover from your feminist past. (1) The male sea horse does not "give birth"; he merely incubates the eggs produced by the female, just as do many male birds. Neither male nor female sea horse has a womb as do mammals; in the case of oviparous species the egg leaving the female body is the equivalent of mammalian females giving birth. Certainly the eggs may not survive without male sea horse's care, but that's true of bird eggs as well; what's unusual is that an invertebrate's eggs need such care, from either parent.
That the male sea horse does more child-rearing work than most males is certainly true; but it's still the female who creates the new life. And at some point in sea horse evolution it was she who decided (on whatever level such decisions are made) that any male who wanted to mate with her would have to provide postnatal day-care as well. Females make The Rules. Presumably she, like the females of other species mentioned, could dispense with the male and redefine her species as female-only. If that were to her evolutionary advantage. Males are expensive (as a recent feminist book snidely remarked in its title); they must confer some advantage to be economically justified. As they do in most sexual species. But not all.
And (2) it is just such responses -- citing a single, artfully mischaracterized example to "refute" a carefully made argument -- that long ago led to the bit of male traditional wisdom that advises, "Never argue with a woman." Because women don't ordinarily engage in discourse to discover the truth -- as men do, not always, but men can be held to it if confronted, while women will dodge (a.k.a. "change the subject") -- but merely to "win." And "all's fair in war and love." "Love" here defined as any encounter between the sexes, and "all's fair" because that's how women fight.
But as I said, I'll chalk it up to your past as a former "feminist." You probably read this example of how the sea horse single-handedly disproves the entire idea of meaningful differences between the sexes in some feminist polemic. Well, it doesn't. Like all feminist "natural herstory," it's entirely specious.
I have done some studying of the bible, and I feel that the reason for the "wife is to submit to her husband" passage is just that. Woman are not capable, as a whole, to be completely equal yet not try to take over. It is in our genes, as mothers, to control and dominate over others, as we do to our children. It is our jobs. We must be reminded, however, that this does not extend to others around us, ie our husbands.
Some good thinking here. But I would say that in Reality, there is actually no such thing as "equality." All relationships are hierarchical, in one way or another. Many change, from time to time. "Equality" only has meaning in relation to the limited sphere of human law, i.e. that, for instance, all people should be "equal" before the law in regard to their rights. And here "rights" means only what the Founders (Jefferson et al.) understood it to mean: self-ownership, the rights to life, liberty and property. Not any "right" to a job, health-care, or chocolate before breakfast (if it's someone else's chocolate). Otherwise, no body can have two heads, and neither can a family, nor any human relationship. Someone always leads, the other always follows. On the surface; below the surface, the reverse is often true. But that's as it should be; however, turn the relationship over and everything's upside-down.
An old English saying I read once: "When the cow rides the bull -- priest, watch your skull." Meaning that when natural relationships are turned upside-down, the truth (represented by God's deputy in this world, the priest) is in danger.
What is often forgotten about the Biblical idea is that the corollary to the wife submitting to her husband is that her husband must also submit to God. Only if a man is in proper relation to the Absolute (however you may characterize this -- as a Buddhist I don't call it God, but recognize that I must live according to the truth if I want my life to work) can he expect a woman to be in proper relation to him. And, as Christ pointed out, to "rule" truly is to serve. A husband's job is to "husband" his family's resources, meaning the energy created by his wife's devotion. A real marriage is a relationship of mutual devotion -- to each other and to the Truth, in which each member does the tasks he or she is most suited to do. And neither "lords it over" the other, in public or private.
Yes, it is true that woman is naturally suited to watch over and care for her children. And that her authority to do so is natural and right. But when her relationship to her husband is as to a child, things are not right. Because it means he never grew up. Of course, this arrangement can be very gratifying to her ego, but in the end a child-husband will fail to satisfy her real needs. But she won't know why, only that she's dissatisfied. This, I believe, is the real root of feminists' tremendous anger. They're not getting what they need from men: not only husbands but fathers. In great part it goes back to the Industrial Revolution, which famously separated men from their families. Absent fathers are not good for either boys or girls. Mothers can raise children up to the "age of reason" (6-7 years), and partially to puberty (11-2 years), but beyond that boys need fathering to become men, and girls need fathering to become women.
(But don't forget thaat the purpose of the Industrial Revolution was to make refrigerators, and other labor-saving devices. As Camille Paglia points out, civilization has been created by men, but, as always, in the service of women.)
I feel that passage is written to make sure we each work on what is most difficult. For women, it is letting go of control, for men it is putting their family first.
Indeed. My thanks for an insightful observation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 12, @05:18PM EST (#82)
|
|
|
|
|
But not being PERFECT relationship with God is not the woman's excuse not to submit. It becomes a ploy to say, "I (the woman) have decided that your not in proper relationship God, I have this self-castrating Priest, Minister, Rabbi who presides over the church I have selected for us who says so (and so will the Judge later on, if you get my meaning). BTW, I don't think that it is a mother's job to "dominate her children".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'However, I can see your point, and I especially like the last line of this last post. I have done some studying of the bible, and I feel that the reason for the "wife is to submit to her husband" passage is just that.'
To be honest, I still squirm when I hear this in church. I've always thought that a man and woman (or boy or girl) should be equal partners, with neither one holding dominion nor submitting to the other. Those who scoff at this passage I don't have a problem with; it's those who wish it to be the other way around...that he should submit to her. Those I have a problem with.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anon, the parents(should) have 100% control over their child for the first 6-7 years. The mother being the one usually in charge of the rearing, must tell her child when and what to eat, what to wear, what to play with, when to go to bed, who to be with, etc. This is all done with love and best intentions, for safety reasons. It is, however, also the definition of dominance. The children MUST accept the parents as the one's in charge, for their own safety. Part of growing up is taking that control for themselves as they mature enough to handle it.
I am a dog trainer, for me dominance is not some evil, feminist laden word but a natural way of life. All dogs fit on the dominance scale, and quite frankly so do most people. I see people vying for ranking by means of handshakes, eye contact, who goes first through the doors, etc. People are not so different beasts.
As for the bible verse, your reply makes no sense to me. Could you please re-word it to be more clear? Thank you, The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Certainly the eggs may not survive without male sea horse's care, but that's true of bird eggs as well; what's unusual is that an invertebrate's eggs need such care, from either parent."
Sea horses are vertebrates, and many other fish, such as Cichlids(for some time after hatching) and Clown Fish (only to hatching-Nemo was a farce), dual parent and care for their offspring.
"Females make The Rules. Presumably she, like the females of other species mentioned, could dispense with the male and redefine her species as female-only. If that were to her evolutionary advantage."
Interesting. Unfortunately for the sake of your arguement, females, or any other individual, cannot change their biology. There are many species, including birds, fish and most amphibians, which the females lay eggs regardless of the presense of males. The problem? The eggs are infertile. Every time. The male is NECESSARY for reproduction. In humans? Well, the Mother Mary excepting, there are no cases of immaculate conception documented. Why? Because it takes a male to create life.
With the advent of test tube reproduction, we have seen that neither parent need be present to create life. Give it another few years and the artificial womb, or male womb transplants (for the gay community) will make the woman as unnecessary to the whole process as you claim men to be.
Women have not always been in charge of every species. I find it interesting that you claim my example of the sea horse feminist (more national geographic than feminist in origin), when your arguement for females being in charge is exactly what "proof" feminists themselves use to justify their position.
"And, as Christ pointed out, to "rule" truly is to serve. A husband's job is to "husband" his family's resources, meaning the energy created by his wife's devotion. A real marriage is a relationship of mutual devotion -- to each other and to the Truth, in which each member does the tasks he or she is most suited to do. And neither "lords it over" the other, in public or private. "
Excellent. I heard recently a program in which the marraige, where one person was more concerned about themselves, was likened to a tick on a dog. A marraige where both people were in it for themselves was like two ticks on each other! (I just LOVE that image!) Marraige was intended to have both people putting each other first.
You know, what if men divorced women just because they ever felt unhappy and unfulfilled? I would say that every woman, including myself, would find themselved kicked to the curb after the first year or two.
Anyways, thanks for the debate so far....I always enjoy a good debate.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sea horses are vertebrates Indeed they are; my error. I'm not good at thinking/writing in the haste required by these forums. Nor am I expert in biology; that's not my point.
Unfortunately for the sake of your arguement, females, or any other individual, cannot change their biology. There are many species, including birds, fish and most amphibians, which the females lay eggs regardless of the presense of males. The problem? The eggs are infertile. Every time. The male is NECESSARY for reproduction. In humans? Well, the Mother Mary excepting, there are no cases of immaculate conception documented. Why? Because it takes a male to create life.
Well, this particular thread started with my mention of a number of known species (at least dozens, probably hundreds, maybe more) in which it does not take a male to create life. These species are assumed to have consisted of females and males at some point, but now consist only of females. I don't know how evolutionary biologists think that happened; given the example of the geckos, in which male+female species always overcome female-only species in head-to-head competition, it's difficult to construct a simple Darwinian model in which an individual female who reproduced without benefit of fertilization would have an immediate advantage over her "heterosexual" sisters in the same environment. Nevertheless, somehow it happened.
The New Mexican Whiptail lizard ( Cnemidophorus neomexicanus ), for instance, is a female-only species; no males of this species have ever been found. She reproduces by laying eggs, which, though unfertilized and presumably haploid, nevertheless hatch as baby female New Mexican Whiptail lizards, essentially clones of their mother. Some such female-only lizard species engage in a kind of lesbian sex, in which one female mounts another, presumably to stimulate egg production; of course no fertilization occurs, but the eggs do hatch and produce the next generation of lizards.
("The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist." --National NOW Times, Jan.1988)
There are, I gather, examples of such female-only (not asexual, as in amoebas) reproduction in all the major life groups (reptiles, amphibians, fishes, invertebrates, plants) except the warm-blooded birds and mammals -- I presume because the pace of life, evolution and competition simply don't allow for it among the latter. As illustrated by the example of the geckos, it appears (and makes sense) that the primary requirement for this evolutionary development (or devolution) is a comfortable, secure ecological niche without any significant competitive pressure. As we all know, males are incurably competitive; they can be dispensed with only when species don't need such abilities. But so they will when possible, as males are also expensive (as snidely remarked in the title of a recent feminist screed).
BTW, an American Indian (Iroquois/Mohawk) shamaness I once discussed this with told me that her teachers had told her that female-only reproduction was possible in humans, but the resultant offspring would be only female -- as in other species known to do so. So perhaps the logical end of feminism is theoretically possible; though it's worth noting that this shamaness's wise women teachers apparently didn't think the idea worth promoting. She herself is married, by the way.
Anyway, my point is simply this: that clearly the male is not "NECESSARY for reproduction." The eggs are not "infertile. Every time." Or maybe they are, strictly speaking, since they possess only a half-set of genes, but nevertheless they do hatch, and produce individuals of the species capable of surviving, living full lizard (and other species') lives, and reproducing.
True, it appears that "females, or any other individual, cannot change their biology"; but nevertheless it happened, somehow. My picture of how ("she ... could dispense with the male and redefine her species as female-only") was of course a metaphor. Maybe God did it; maybe it happened through some kind of mindless evolutionary process. In any case, if there was some sort of consciousness involved at some level of being, it makes more sense to me to say that it was the survivor of this event (the female) who made the "decision" rather than the one dispensed with (the male).
My point was that the discovery of this fact, unknown to me before ca. 1987, and still unknown to the vast majority of people, was, like the discovery that the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than vice-versa, a life-changing event that put everything into a very different perspective, and gave me the the necessary key to understanding what had theretofore been a frustrating mystery, i.e. the entire vexed question of "gender relations." Clearly, Simone de Beauvoir had it exactly, 180 degrees wrong in the title of her feminist Bible, The Second Sex (assuming that she was referring to woman; I haven't read the book).
Before I learned about this, I was caught in the "he said - she said" trap when trying to unravel gender issues. Feminists claim that they are tired of being the "second sex" and want to be "equal" now. But if the sexes are "equal," then there's no basis for differentiating between them; everything goes around in an endless circle; there's nowhere to start. Are there real, irreducible differences between the sexes? Exceptions have been found, it seems, to every one that has been proposed. Can we define anything, and begin from there? I can now say: Yes. As I've mentioned elsewhere, "equality" is a myth, nowhere moreso than in the relationship between the sexes. And if we try to live by a myth, rather than the truth, we will come to grief. The apparent relation between the sexes, like the appearance that the Sun revolves around the Earth, may be very compelling to our senses of observation, but it is not the truth.
When I was a teenager, my father sat me down one day and explained something to me: that freedom and responsibility are indissolubly linked, indeed, two parts of the same thing, like two sides of a coin. At the time, he was simply setting out ground rules for my teenage activity (that I could have as much freedom as I was willing to be responsible for); but it was not long before I realized that this was a Fundamental Principle of Life, and in the 40+ years since I have found its application to be unlimited, and unfailingly productive of understanding, sanity, and peace of mind. I've had a similar experience in application of this understanding of the true relation between the sexes; it has clarified every situation I've observed, including those previously most confusing.
Thus I believe that no real, fundamental understanding of any of the issues discussed here can be gained without beginning from the foundation of this fact: males are the "second sex," and are optional in terms of fundamental biology. Of course, that's not all there is to it, by far -- it seems clear to me that males are absolutely necessary if we have any hope of developing our consciousness and existence beyond the level of mere biology, i.e. the animal level, with all its attendant suffering -- but this fact is where we must start, if we wish to understand how this world works.
Think of a man as a stick in a woman's hand, a tool which she has created for her use. Clearly, the woman with the biggest stick will prevail in any contest with other women and their sticks -- or against any woman who doesn't have a stick (which covers the example of the geckos). (And the idea that females are not competitive is another of the Big Lies of feminism.) Fundamentally, that's what males are: tools created by females to use for tasks which they cannot or would rather not do for themselves. (Including, for instance, taking the rap for human competitiveness: "It's those awful men who cause all the wars; we're just here being sweet and gentle all the time.") Front men, fall guys, whipping boys. Garbage men, soldiers (the ones who actually do the fighting) ... all the jobs that all those "equal" women somehow still don't seem to want.
With the advent of test tube reproduction, we have seen that neither parent need be present to create life. Give it another few years and the artificial womb, or male womb transplants (for the gay community) will make the woman as unnecessary to the whole process as you claim men to be.
God help us. Of all the insanities thought up in the ever-busy human mind, these must be among the most grotesque. Nevertheless, none of these clever, hubristic expedients amount to creating life; like the male sea horse's incubation of eggs from the female, they are after the fact. "Test-tube reproduction" combines gametes from two human parents in an artificial environment; it does not create the gametes. The two parents may not be in the room, but they are absolutely necessary. The same goes for an "artificial" or "transplanted" womb; they are but containers, useless until they contain something, and that something comes from (at least) a female of the species. Only the Creator creates life; human hubris creates only misery.
Women have not always been in charge of every species. I find it interesting that you claim my example of the sea horse feminist (more national geographic than feminist in origin), when your arguement for females being in charge is exactly what "proof" feminists themselves use to justify their position.
Depends what you mean by "in charge"; but it seems to me clear that if, in a general, absolute sense, females can exist without males but males cannot exist without females, and females can decide whether males exist or not, while males cannot decide whether females exist or not, nor even, apparently, have any control over what decision females make regarding males' existence, then one of the two is in fundamental control of the situation, while the other is not. This is not a species-by-species matter; it is a universal truth. Thus I would say that females have been "in charge" of every species. The female is the species; the male is an optional variation on the theme. Once I was talking with a woman about this subject, and she said, "But aren't there any species that consist only of males?" And a minute later she said, "No, I guess that's impossible, isn't it?" Exactly my point. "Girls rule!"
The sea horse example I believe I've heard/read before from feminists trying to "prove" that males are as suited as females for childrearing tasks. (And who says there're no feminists at National Geographic? These days, feminist rhetoric comes from everywhere, including many male scientists who are, apparently, doing their best at what has always been required from males: to please the female.) Such one-off examples are always cited to "disprove" general rules, and always remind me of Samuel Johnson's famous quip: "Sir, a woman's preaching [in church] is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
Not clear to me what you mean by the feminist "position" that is justified by the argument I present. Let me make clear that, as with the subject of "blame" addressed elsewhere, I am not seeking to "justify" anything. Justification involves moral argument, and requires first defining moral principles, etc.; it's a completely different discussion. I am presenting only (what I believe to be) facts, because I believe that we must get our facts straight before we can begin to discuss moral or similar issues.
It's not that I do not care about moral issues, only that their discussion will be fruitless if we are not first agreed on the ground. For instance, it's pointless to discuss questions of power and its proper use unless we first understand what power is and who has it. Feminists are constantly complaining about being powerless, and in fact "everyone knows" that women are helpless victims of male power -- and, as exhaustively documented on this site, our entire moral/legal system is constructed on the basis of this assumption.
500 years ago, "everyone knew" that the Sun revolved around the Earth; after all, you could see it come up in the east every morning and travel across the sky. Until someone really looked, and found the truth was just the opposite. If NASA were running its space program on the basis of the pre-Copernican world view, it wouldn't get very far. And so long as we try to address the deep, painful grievances of both genders in the "battle of the sexes" based on untrue assumptions, we'll only go around in circles, and everyone will hurt more and get more angry, until perhaps we reach some sort of sexual Armageddon.
It's true that in a way I may seem to be agreeing with some part of the feminist view. Because it's true. Girls do rule. Tactically, I suppose, my approach is something like the "gentle" martial arts of judo and taiji (I've practiced the latter): yield to the opponent, and use her force to accomplish ones own goals. But it's not a game I'm playing; I wouldn't "agree" with any feminist position because it's a feminist position, I merely present the truth, and if a feminist position agrees therewith, well that's a place to start. And then hold them to it. Yes, girls do rule: so why not quit whining and rule responsibly? As a Zen master once said, if your horse-cart isn't moving, do you hit the cart or the horse?
In the encounter between the sexes, it is women who make The Rules. Men may hold some of the cards, but women own the deck. All that's really necessary to find solutions to the problems between the sexes is for women to recognize and acknowledge the power they already have, and that what we have has resulted from their use of that power, and to begin using that power consciously and constructively rather than, as in the past, unconsciously and (all too often) destructively. Will this ever happen? I dunno.
Disciple: Why is there evil in the world?
Ramakrishna: To thicken the plot.
But it does seem clear that we can't go on much longer as we have, for we are truly accelerating toward a precipice of a magnitude that few of us can even begin to imagine.
I've gone on far too long again. Dunno if anyone really reads all this; but at least it's helpful to me to think it through while writing it. Hope you get something out of it, anyone who reads this far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not surprising that some apparently (I didn't see the forum, all I know is what I've read about it here) responded by behaving like children -- thus sadly providing yet more self-fulfilling prophecy for the feminist view of men.
The problem is that the "feminist" view of men is so ideologically blind that it doesn't matter what men actually do, if a woman feeeee-yuhls like men did something, then that is "proof."
The "bashing" of women was nowhere near the level that navyblue paints it to be. One major issue that surfaced again and again was that any time a a man made a statement about women, just about ANY statement, there was an immediate chorus of "but NOT ALL women are like that" and the discussion immediately got derailed into the fine details of "the rules of discourse", thus effectively killing what men started out to try to get said.
What seemed to offend navyblue the most were posts by OTHER MODERATORS of the site making the case why women should not be put in a position of telling men what they could and could NOT say, ON A SUPPOSED MEN'S ISSUES SITE.
These posts were well thought out, well reasoned, well presented in the mildest of terms. But, as we have seen since the 60s, ANY criticism of women is dismissed as "misogyny".
Of course, the message got lost as she flounced off in a whirl of petticoats and hurt feelings. And, a whole gang of men jumped in to shame those men who had spoken up for hurting the "widdle woman's dewicate feewings".
All in all, I think there is a lot of value in this event as a case study for why no coherent "men's movement" has ever been able to form. The chivalrous "protect the women" reflex seesm to overpower any capacity for rational thought among men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All in all, I think there is a lot of value in this event as a case study for why no coherent "men's movement" has ever been able to form. The chivalrous "protect the women" reflex seesm to overpower any capacity for rational thought among men.
Zenpriest,
This is why you will find so many of us denouncing chivalry. The practice of chivalrous behavior always leads to special priviledge for women and oppression for men, and when the men experience the oppression they change the name to call it "a sacrifice" so that it sounds noble.
The is no longer anything noble about chivalry. It is just a forum for the devaluation of males.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The is no longer anything noble about chivalry. It is just a forum for the devaluation of males.
totally agree
Sorry, I don't agree. The problem is not the courtesies men show to women, the problem is that many women have dropped their side of the ancient bargain. A culture in which all relationships are based on total egotism and savage competition cannot last.
"How do porcupines make love? Very carefully." But at least they do it; otherwise there'd be no little porcupines.
The ancient bargain is, in essence, this: mothers care for and protect their sons, who grow up to care for and protect their wives, and the cycle repeats. Both must do their part for it to work, and for human society to survive. But mothers have the ultimate power to define, or redefine, the arrangement; however, even they cannot contravene natural law. Natural law is, in essence, the Golden Rule: you get what you give. And, your creation cannot be other than what you create it to be. And, your creation's character will be a reflection of your character. This is what women need to get straight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The is no longer anything noble about chivalry. It is just a forum for the devaluation of males.
totally agree
Sorry, I don't agree. The problem is not the courtesies men show to women, the problem is that many women have dropped their side of the ancient bargain. A culture in which all relationships are based on total egotism and savage competition cannot last.
Unfortunately, the specific meaning of the term "chivalry" has been lost. According to dictionary.com:
chiv·al·ry - The medieval system, principles, and customs of knighthood. The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women. A manifestation of any of these qualities.
Chivalry was much different than the courtesies men show to women, it was an elaborate code of conduct which applied to one specific class - the soldier class, below the nobility and above the peasantry. Very significantly, it was reciprocal. If a knight escorted a Lady (capital L intentional) he put his arm out, palm DOWN and she placed her palm on the BACK of his hand, because palm to palm contact would be seen as too intimate to be "seemly."
Beyond that, I agree with the spirit of what you say - the problem is not civility or common courtesy, it is the fact that it has become one-sided with no expectation of reciprocity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Sorry, I don't agree. The problem is not the courtesies men show to women, the problem is that many women have dropped their side of the ancient bargain. A culture in which all relationships are based on total egotism and savage competition cannot last."
I don't want chivalry to be replaced by total egotism and savage competition. I want chivalry to be replaced with COMMON COURTESY, MUTUAL RESPECT, SHARED GENEROSITY, and so on. We ALL should show kindness and compassion for EACH OTHER. The problem with chivalry is that it's one-sided, putting men in the role of servant and women in the role of damsel in distress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- get better standards for friends.
Because I don't see many 'very feminist' people carping in turn about the routine outright hate speech put forth regarding men by *mainstream* feminism, let alone mainstream *society*.
And the conclusion I draw from this is that people such as your 'friend' will use *any* possible wedge they can find to stay in denial and reject the message.
And I don't think 'enabling' them, or anybody else, in their denial, by 'watching' what we write, is in our *or their* best interests.
So like I said. . .
. . .rather than all of the rest of us *in general* compromising, howzabout just you *in particular* having higher standards for *your friends*.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the feminists had the balls to disallow misandry from the beginning we would be in a completely different place today. Let's not make the same mistake.
I had the benefit of an insider's view to the way the whole thing went down. While I totally agree with the fact that Mike spent HIS time and HIS money to build the thing, and therefore is king of that realm, in most other respects I am "the loyal opposition".
In response to the quote above, the feminists today completely control the discourse. When one political party or movement gains control, that is their goal, in what way do you see this being a "mistake"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zen - When one person acts like an ass it is litte reason for the other involved to respond on that level. Angry little boys tend to act out their emotions. Grown and mature men tend not to do that.
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cool. That will no doubt save the day for you in divorce court. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever commercial and other lofty "principles" entered into the self-immolation of the MND Forum, it is worth keeping in mind --
the forum's "owner" and its female "moderator" saw fit to obliterate men's speech, men's voices, men's history, men's identity.
I have no further interest in MND, however it may seek to salvage its reputation.
And, the site's moronic right-wing politics were a bore anyway.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the forum's "owner" and its female "moderator" saw fit to obliterate men's speech, men's voices, men's history, men's identity.
Yes, they did. And, I think there is a lesson in here for real men's activists - a lesson with implications for long term survival and success, or total failure.
Not everyone who appears to be the enemy of our enemy is necessarily our "friend."
People operate out of their own self interest and just because they are driving along the same section of road at the same time you are, does NOT necessarily mean they are headed for the same destination.
Unlike MANN, Mike started MND as a commercial site - he was out to make a buck. That means he is going to sell what sells. He thought a particular brand of right-wing politics with a little men's advocacy thrown in would sell. He was concerned about his "customers".
NO ONE CAN FAULT HIM FOR THAT BECAUSE HE NEVER PRESENTED HIMSELF TO BE ANYTHING DIFFERENT!!!
" They Erased Men's Voices & History... Get It?
I dearly hope that men DO "get it" this time around. Yes, "they" silenced men because "they" didn't like what men were saying or how they were saying it. This has been happening for 40 years.
They are going to keep erasing men's voices and history as long as WE ALLOW THEM TO by relying on THEM to do for US what only WE can do for ourselves, because it is OUR interests which are the issue here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They are going to keep erasing men's voices and history as long as WE ALLOW THEM TO by relying on THEM to do for US what only WE can do for ourselves, because it is OUR interests which are the issue here
agreed.
and where MND's vision and mine are the same, I will use his forum. Where it is not I will go elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonsense. First of all let me reassure all of you: my ex-wife is somehow behind all of this. She found a way to get into Mike's pants and took pictures. Once I convince Mike that she always forgets to take the lens cap off he'll calm down.
At first I thought the forum had been hacked. But no. Apparently some kind of coup d'etat has taken place. Or coup d'esprit. Or coup de cul. Robespierre must be smiling. Gentlemen, we have met the enemy and they are us! Once again.
Even Kafka could not have come up with this scenario. We have Angry Harry lecturing us on the standards of civility. And also lectures once more on the necessity of remaining fragmented and splintered. This is a man who previously had a menacing military tank on his main page. I am in a state of shock and awe.
This is oviously about money. Harry mentions advertisers. I guess this proves that truth and money just cannot mix. So why don't you just change the name to MensAndWomensNewsDaily? Or better yet DiversityNewsDaily? Or PoliticallyCorrectNewsDaily?
Is (was) MND too right wing? Too left wing? Neither I think. Bit I do think it was taken over by religious conservatives. Religious and patritotic zealots have always destroyed any nascent men's movement by fragmenting it. Anybody remember Promise Keepers?
I know that we can fight women without rattling guns, waving flags and thumping bibles. All we have to do is put together an organization that will help individual men, one man at a time, and men will see that it is working and they will join.
Then one day a representative from this organization is going to walk into some politician's office and tell him/her that if he/she doesn't vote for a certain bill that men want then he/she is going to be voted out. The politician will laugh his/her head off on his/her way to some women's club that wants more funding for safe houses and forced DV classes.
But come November he/she loses the election because a huge block of votes controlled by men went against him/her.
When this happens the flood gates will open and men will be free.
Go to my website and read my satire on Hillary Clinton that Mike refused to publish.
http://www.cogito-aro.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 11, @01:06PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
It's an election year and we are going to hear and see the agendas of both the right and the left being inserted into the discussions pertaining to men's issues.
I saw a hand made sign on the back of a truck the other day that read, "Save America - Vote Republican." I tend to agree with it strongly for a number of reasons, but to each his/her own.
As a former registered Democrat who voted twice for Bill Clinton (twice) I have seen the billions of dollars, empowering militant feminists, that has come out of his tenure in office and want nothing to do with a party that stills believes and practices the same.
In my opinion, the reason so many view MND articles as far right is because they themselves are so far to the left, blinded by their own ideological beliefs. They deny the strong ties their party has to the militant feminists that are destroying men, families and America .
As far as the female moderator at MND, I was not involved in the forum, but from what is written here, it sounds like she wasn't up to the task in the first place.
One thing I admire most about the mens acitivists that communicate their thoughts is the brutal honesty that they use to communicate with. Some would immediately pounce and say, "Ah Hah, you love the brutality more than the honesty," but I would say, "Nah, it just gives me a chance to practice my diplomatic skills with really outspoken people."
We Men's Rights advocates can certainly never be too skilled in that area.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as the female moderator at MND, I was not involved in the forum, but from what is written here, it sounds like she wasn't up to the task in the first place.
Hello Ray,
I've never posted to the MND forum, and I've only read a small percentage of the posts including just a few of the posts by NavyBlue. I didn't see any of those that were involved in this final blowup. I have to say, though, that I found the posts by NavyBlue that I did read to be carefully thought out and very considerate of the plight of men today. I'd like to see her contribute to the MANN forum, though it might be most productive if she waited until things cool off a bit.
The following is a general statement, and isn't meant as a lecture for you, Ray:
As for a woman moderator on a Men's forum, I think some of the confusion comes from not being clear on what it means to be a "Men's forum." If it means a forum composed only of men, then women have no place there, though on the Internet it's not possible to exclude those whose sex one can't really determine. If, however, "Men's forum" means a forum dealing with men's issues, then there's no reason to exclude women from posting or administering, provided they have men's welfare at heart.
While there may be a higher percentage of women than men who are feminists, there are still a lot of men who attempt to advance their petty personal agendas and power trips at the expense of other men through feminism.
Women are not the enemy, feminism is.
-- Creating a hostile environment for Nazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If, however, 'Men's forum' means a forum dealing with men's issues, then there's no reason to exclude women from posting or administering, provided they have men's welfare at heart.
...Women are not the enemy, feminism is."--Thomas
Well said Thomas!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted below is the MND Forum owners's explanation of his rationale for erasing men's history:
"I've been reading quite a lot about the removal of the MND Forum at other boards. A number of people don't understand what has happened, so I will make it clear:
I appointed a women (navyblue) as moderator for several of discussion groups at the forum. I made that decision on the basis of my assessement that navyblue was intelliegent, focused, reasonable and friendly to our issues. Her sex did not enter into my decision-making process. (For that matter, the appointment of the other moderators like OldBullFrog, Rob, Roger Gay and NEO was not made on the basis of their sex, but on the basis of their interest and ability.)
Last month, a member using the screen name "NEO" asked me to set up a private board on the site to be used exclusively for purposes of men's activism. I set up the board, made NEO the moderator, and allowed him to invite anyone he chose to participate in his private discussion group.
At the same time, NEO and a few other members were posting messages to the threads moderated by NavyBlue that were antithetical to my notions of taste and fairness. Many of the messages were simply hate-posts spewing anger at women in general, and NavyBlue in particular for having the temerity to moderate a "men's forum". NavyBlue exercised her prerogative as moderator, and eventually asked me to ban NEO, Meikyo and Shebe from the forum.
Since I had already made NEO the moderator the private forum, I was disinclined to completely ban him. I told NEO and Meikyo that they would be allowed to post in the private forum, but not on the main discussion board. I banned Shebe outright.
NEO complained about it bitterly, and posted a personal insult to me in the private forum. I banned him immediately. (NEO, of course, would not take no for an answer, and tried to get back into the forum by signing up under a number of new names, including: ONE, Karen, 11001010, Ross, and 1. NEO, or Ross, or whatever he's calling him (her?) self these days is - IMO - one sick puppy.)
After I banned NEO and his feminazi counterpart Shebe, I thought the matter was settled, but within a few hours, another male moderator of the board, Rob, posted a lengthy message in thread managed by NavyBlue, demanding ON THE SOLE BASIS OF HER SEX that she step down or be removed from her post as moderator.
Other members posted messages friendly to Rob's position, and Navyblue then resigned as moderator.
I found it particularly appalling that Rob - a man I had just made moderator of an extensive forum dealing with Men's Activism AT HIS REQUEST - would lead an assault on a fellow moderator. That was really the last straw."
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Direct quote from MND Forum post --
"I'll add to this thread by saying this:
When the catcalling began the other night after a pack decision to publicly roast me, I washed my hands of the MND forum because it was irrevocably lost to the dysfuctional antithesis of Mike LaSalle's fine and critical vision for MRA. I stated on forum that I was embarrassed to have entered an environment where the freedom of speech fought for by true warriors such as the man that I love personally, is so recklessly maligned, and where the forum's most abusive and disrespectful members call themselves 'warrior's. The punctuation to my decision was made grotesquely by the conduct of two male moderators who had the lack of class and most basic respect to post their personal opposition to the presence of a female moderator, on a thread that was clearly crafted to invite abuse and ridicule. That is unconscionsable and the most blatant example of bias and limited reasoning. This is notable in the face of the charge that I could not moderate because my feminine bias precludes my ability to be rational with men. I'll repeat that in another way for those that do not grasp the seriousness of what has occurred here in the name of MRA: Issuing and inciting personal attacks in a public venue, on a moderator because she is female, while demanding that all females give deference to you generally as men and allow you unbridled 'freedom of speech', is insane and a double standard. All that those participating in this conduct Friday night have achieved is looking pathologically out of control with personal rage and hopelessly out of alignment with authentic concern for the rights of men. No thinking reasonable person will find you credible after such a circus-like display. The result? You have lost the respect of others and that is your lot. Going to other websites to act out further adds to that complete lack of respect and so be it.
However, the consequence that is of concern is that of how Mike LaSalle and MND are affected by the reputation that results from the likes of the free for all that was held here recently. That is an unacceptable consequence and the credibility of MRA through MND, before courts, political platforms, and all other cultural venues where men require a voice, will not be lost to that type of agenda. Therefore, when Mike asked me to remain in this position to moderate because he desires to ensure that the forum is a place for sane discourse and authentic fellowshipping of men, I agreed because I choose to continue supporting his work and his vision. He is one of the finest men I have had the privelege to know. Taking up space on his website on his dime, for the purpose of bashing women, and infighting with other men that depart from the hateful platform expressed by many, is a betrayal of his goodness and a manipulation of his intention in providing a forum. I will not allow that, and in his name, will moderate accordingly. The forum will no longer be used for a flame and bait fest, nor will it's members be the caliber that disredit Mike LaSalle and his hard work, or the larger reputation of MRA."
~ Robin/navyblue
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...Women are not the enemy, feminism is."--Thomas
Correction. Women who fail to openly oppose feminism are the enemy due to their apathey in watching the men they love destroyed by feminism. Their are millions more women that oppose feminism, and yet they do nothing, than their are actual feminist.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is also true that men who fail to openly oppose feminism or who actively promote it are the enemy due to their apathy in watching other men destroyed by feminism. There are millions of men who promote feminism and millions more that oppose feminism, and yet they do nothing.
My point is that many men are also at fault, and it is feminism, not women, that must be defeated.
That makes your point much clearer, and I can agree with it stated in this way. What I have reached the point of having absolutely zero tolerance for are the dodges of "well I am not a feminist" or "not ALL women are like that."
I think that right now men's activists need to be extremely careful of their language and make sure they express what they mean. The brawl on MND was much like your classic move bar fight with men attacking each other more than they were attacking women. As frustrated as we all are about the state of things, it is extremely easy to turn on each other over relatively small misunderstandings.
The sticking point in viewing "feminism" as being at fault, is that an "ism" never makes false accusations or files a lawsuit - an individual person does that. There seems to be a culture- wide willingness to excuse women from responsibility for their individual behavior. "Feminism" did not kill Andrea Yates's children, SHE killed them - one individual woman. "Feminism" did not run over David Harris with the car, one individual woman did. "Feminism" did not accuse Kobe Bryant of rape, an individual woman did.
We need to start looking at two things -
1) the individual responsibility of women for these actions, and
2) the culpability of all others, male as well as female, who have exploited this situation for personal gain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
excellent post, well said. Te Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Their are millions more women that oppose feminism, and yet they do nothing, than their are actual feminist."
If they do nothing, then they do not actually "oppose" it. "Oppose" is an action verb. If your house is burning down, sitting passively by doing nothing while it burns down is completely different than putting out the fire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they do nothing, then they do not actually "oppose" it.
Good point.
What I've often found, and perhaps this is what Warble is referring to, is that many women, when challenged on what feminism claims and what feminism has wrought, will state "Oh, well I don't believe in that." Yet many of these women are happy to reap their short sighted, petty, personal benefits from feminism at the unjust expense of men. Many women who don't oppose feminism and in fact give it their tacit approval will claim to oppose it when making that claim suits some personal agenda of theirs. As you point out, though, they don't really oppose feminism.
-- Creating a hostile environment for Nazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
many women, when challenged on what feminism claims and what feminism has wrought, will state "Oh, well I don't believe in that." Yet many of these women are happy to reap their short sighted, petty, personal benefits from feminism at the unjust expense of men.
That is exactly the point I bring up over and over. Women who have passively ridden along on the coattails of feminism, and fully enjoyed the ill-gotten gains from it, don't get a free pass from me based on nothing but a claim which isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For most women to forsake feminism would require that they renounce the elaborate apparatus of legal and cultural privilege (read - "power") that forty years of feminist coercion has achieved in our society.
I am unaware of any organism that will cede the advantages of such an environment once acquired, let alone actively work for its own diminished power and control.
The obvious logic for the men's movement is that only persistent counterforce will be effective in the struggle to reform the now toxic-for-men legal and cultural environment.
"Equality" now must be won (regained?)without much expectation by men that females will play any significant collaborative role in this epic battle.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""Equality" now must be won (regained?)without much expectation by men that females will play any significant collaborative role in this epic battle.
And, without much expectation that females will approve, either. One of the statements made by the female moderator on MND that really threw gasoline on the fire was that her presence was necessary to give the men's rights movement "credibility". A poster who was quickly banned for the insult pointed out her egotism and made the point that men as a group are rapidly losing their need for female approval.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is was very illuminating... just how quickly the assumption of "female approval" quickly created a rabid dog pack, yes?
Desire...
Always the doomsday machine!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"First of all, whether you agree with MND's conservative politics stance or not, there are men in the movement who agree with this and Mike has every right to specialize his site in order to appeal to them."
I agree. As I'm finding out more about this story I've learned that this was not an outside party hosting the forum that had decided to censor, (which was my first interpretation from the article), but Mike doing it himself. Had I known that, I probably wouldn't have bothered to post it at all because in my opinion articles about any changes Mike decides to make to his site aren't really newsworthy.
"I'm not comfortable with the fact that MANN is now being used as a forum for bashing MND for its explicit political stance."
I'm actually kind of glad to hear some of our liberal brothers in the movement speak up. I've tired of seeing MND, and sometimes MANN, used as a forum to bash them for their political stance.
"Second, it never ceases to amaze me how much people take free things such as web forums for granted. A lot of effort, time, and money is spent on these things and 99% of the users don't pay a cent to use them. If Mike doesn't want to see all of his hard work go into administering a forum where hate and women-bashing is too frequent, he has every right to limit membership or discussions on those forums."
I agree with all of that, except the part about a lot of money being spent on the forum. There are some services out there that will host a forum like that for you for under $50 a year.
"I guess the bottom line here is, if you don't like MND in general because of its political stance, don't visit the site. If you think there's something unjust about the fact that a liberal news site doesn't exist in the same form that MND does, create one yourself."
MND has attacked men's activists on the left specifically, and has also appears to be trying constantly to co-opt the movement from a men's movement to an anti-liberal one. The resentment of the liberals your reading in this forum isn't just about their right-wing stance.
"Finally, don't aid the anti-male groups by helping them "divide and conquer" our movement by turning us against each other."
I've been preaching that for years. The right-wing has refused to stop attacking leftists. Since they've decided to divide us, we're divided. At this point it's foolish for the left not to retaliate. It's sort of like the "gender war", as long as feminists and chivalrists keep bashing men, we have to keep retaliating.
"Instead, help build resources that will bring us closer to our common goals. Whether it's through a new web site or the speech we chose to use, we are all each responsible for the success or failure of our movement."
My ideal as well, but most of the activists on the right will not cooperate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your post sums up my frustration quite nicely. Republicans have done plenty to support feminists and feminist legislation, but all of MND's ire is directed towards Democrats. Also, the fact that there might be guys who are Democrats and have been wronged by feminism and want to be in the men's movement hasn't occured to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 12, @12:33AM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm actually kind of glad to hear some of our liberal brothers in the movement speak up. I've tired of seeing MND, and sometimes MANN, used as a forum to bash them for their political stance."
I agree, although I'm not a liberal. I do have a little bit more in common with them then conservatism though. I agree most with people like Henry David Thoreau, Bob Black, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and most of all Peter Kropotkin. You may have heard of a couple of them. At least presently I don't want to call myself by any political philosophy.
Hombre---"MND has attacked men's activists on the left specifically, and has also appears to be trying constantly to co-opt the movement from a men's movement to an anti-liberal one. The resentment of the liberals your reading in this forum isn't just about their right-wing stance."
Well, I don't go to MND very much. But I have thought that maybe some people want the mens movement to be just a conservative movement which I don't think is good. I think it's good that liberals or people on the left are speaking up more about their beliefs to show others that they are their too.
One thing that surprises me about Mensactivism is that they haven't censored 'any' of my unpopular political views that I've made known at times (or my swearing)
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess the bottom line here is, if you don't like MND in general because of its political stance, don't visit the site. If you think there's something unjust about the fact that a liberal news site doesn't exist in the same form that MND does, create one yourself.
That's the bottom line of the whole thing, and power that every man has without any change in the laws whatsoever. There were a whole lot of threads over there about "banning" Amber Pawlik, despite the fact that she was a regular featured columnist on the main page.
There is a kind of helpless mentality in all this which also underlies feminism - refusing to exercise power one already has and instead demanding that the world change. I also did not care for the general politics of the site, and could not figure out their editorial policy. I dealt with mostly by seldom going there, until MANN was down for that week and I got involved in a bunch of discussions which looked for a while like they were going to result in some real activism.
I am a never ending advocate of using the power one already has before asking for any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 11, @11:34PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I'm very grateful that Scott and the MANN admins run this site without ads and mostly without political dogma (D and his communism fixation aside). ;)
Mike LaSalle is too intent on making a buck with his site and being a Drudge wannabe. First the iFeminist board shuts down and now MND. We should do everything we can to support the people who care more about men's rights than they do about money. StandYourGround and MANN are two of my favorites. Power to the people!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 13, @04:00PM EST (#121)
|
|
|
|
|
(D and his communism fixation aside). ;)
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, don't aid the anti-male groups by helping them "divide and conquer" our movement by turning us against each other. Instead, help build resources that will bring us closer to our common goals. Whether it's through a new web site or the speech we chose to use, we are all each responsible for the success or failure of our movement.
Scott,
You are quite right. The men's movement continues to permit the feminists to use tactics like divide and conquer, making false allegations and calling in the police, baiting, and more.
While I don't agree with all of Mike's politics, I know that the different groups must learn to overcome their differences and stick together with a united front.
The other thing men must learn to realize is that when a leader is particularly successful the feminists will unite and attack that person until they are destroyed or forced to resign. I have personally witnessed the feminist use every lie and dirty trick they can to destroy influential individuals in the men's movement. We should not be aiding the feminist in this strategy by attacking our own. It is a very stupid thing to do. Everythime this happens the movement is set back one year or more.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I too have some comments.
Unfortunately, in this age of "public education," very few of us are taught to think clearly anymore. One effect of this lack is careless use of poorly-understood language in emotionally-loaded contexts. For instance, the word "censorship," used in the heading of this thread. It's important to understand that this word can have two related but different meanings: in a general sense, it denotes the suppression of expression of views, while in a more specific sense it means such suppression when done by the State, with its "monopoly of force." In these times when the State's power is increasingly felt in all areas of our lives -- thanks in great part to the growing power of feminism (see below) -- many seem not to know or understand the difference between these two kinds of "censorship." This is a case of the first type of censorship (and a classic example of how women wield power, covertly and by proxy), but not the second; the proprietor of MND indeed does "have a right" (so far) to run his site however he wishes. Nor has anyone in this thread said he does not.
On the other hand, anyone else also "has a right" to criticize how he runs his site; he does, after all, present his efforts to public view. And I haven't seen anything here that I'd call "bashing." An honest, frank exchange of views between men is not "bashing." Though women, who live in a world primarily of feelings, and often are so insecure in their thinking that frank disagreement (indeed any difference at all) is experienced as personal threat, might see it as such.
Which again is the problem. There's nothing wrong with women thinking (or "thinking") like women, but when men start thinking like women, things are out of balance. Feminist dogma notwithstanding, the problem is not that men aren't more like women, it's that "men" aren't more like men. Though it seems quaint (and very politically incorrect) to current sensibilities, Rudyard Kipling's poem "If" has a lot of truth to it:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise ...
... you'll be a Man my son!
One of the hallmarks of female (and childish) "thinking" is the instinctive belief that one "deserves" to have what one wants. It's instinctive, biologically based -- since the universal pattern is the male required to please the female (i.e. give her whatever she wants) in order to get "access." But in humans this assumption has gone far beyond its evolutionary function -- and is the reason behind both "chivalry" and the huge success of feminism.
And thus arises the complaint of "injustice" (or "it's not fair") when she doesn't get what she wants. That's how women naturally "think." I don't think that there's "something unjust about the fact that a liberal news site doesn't exist [similar to] MND." Of course it's not Mike's responsibility to cater to my views, and I'm not a "liberal" anyway. But what's interesting is the use of the word "unjust." What does "justice" have to do with it? Nothing, except in the female mind -- or a male mind that, like so many in our modern world, has never developed beyond the female/child mode of thinking.
Finally, as for "dividing" the men's movement: I'm not part of any "movement," actually. I'm a man (or hope to be one someday), and a truthseeker. And truthspeaker, now and then. I don't know that I really have "common goals" with anyone who wants (or acts on the unexamined impulse) to suppress the free exchange of ideas in the interest of some "higher good." In my view, there is no higher good than the free exchange of ideas, and the freedom it requires.
All I really share with MND is a critical attitude toward left-wing feminism; beyond that, the ideal world MND appears to long for -- an imperical American hegemony over the world, a totalitarian "conservative" (as opposed to "liberal") dictatorship at home -- is no more attractive to me than that envisioned by the most rabid left-feminist. The two of them are totally agreed on the level of principle; their only argument is who is going to dictate my life to me. That MND should be thought representative of "men's" views I find appalling. As I said above, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that it's a complete hoax, fabricated by a feminist "disinformation" program.
"Movements," like harems, herds, and other collectives, are for females. It's been remarked that men's first priority is freedom, while women's is security. Thus women are natural herd animals, for security is most easily and immediately found in numbers. And thus the inclusion of women in political life must inevitably lead to totalitarian collectivism, as it has everywhere it's been tried -- at this point, essentially the entire planet, which is fast turning into one vast nursery, where "everything that is not prohibited is compulsory." Women instinctively seek the security of such an environment; when women rule, this is where everyone must live.
"Do you want to be free, or do you want to be taken care of?" Answer this question honestly, and you'll know where you stand on the male--female spectrum, regardless of what form your personal plumbing may have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was part of this private forum moderated by NEO that Mike talks about. I was taken in by NEO's apparent zeal for the "cause" and my own deep dispair over having watched nothing being done for many years. Mike is right, NEO is one very disturbed individual.
However, I believe there are a couple of truths that a lot of men are going to have to confront sooner or later. Just as a lot of people would agree that "feminism" has not served the interests of "all" women particularly well, I don't believe that a single "men's movement" will do any better for men.
There is a fascinating bit of doublethink happening when people talk about the problems caused by things like false accusations, but stubbornly refuse to look at false accusers. Pointing out that SOME women really are like this really is NOT attacking "all women", but the strawman always gets twisted that way.
I'm going to use a quick personal example to make my point. Several months ago, I had a brief conversation with a woman. I find that women in general find a way to work marital status into the conversation quite early - particularly single women trying to figure out whether you are a candidate or not. The moment this woman found out that I was single, I swear that her bust size grew at least 4 inches, and that at least 2 more inches of thigh suddenly appeared. She went on to tell me how available she was.
In her case "available" meant that she had found out 3 months before that her husband was having an affair, and now, of course, the marriage was OVER! In fact, the papers hadn't even been filed yet, and he was still living in the basement. But, the papers were "going to be filed any day."
Now, all of this could not have possibly been less interesting or relevant to me. But, I made the very mild comment that usually it was best to wait a couple of years after a divorce before getting out on the dating circuit again, and figure out what went wrong so similar problems could be avoided in the future.
The next thing I knew, I found myself in one hell of an argument with a very adamant and fairly angry woman. NO!!!! SHE WAS READY TO GET WHAT SHE DESERVED!!!!!
Feminism was nowhere in the picture. I was dealing with someone unwilling to look at any role she might have had in her husband seeking someone else, very much playing the "woman done wrong", and quite in the mode of arguing with every word that came out of my mouth.
Regardless of their political affiliation, such women are to be avoided. However, I do think that feminism had a lot to do with creating the vast number of them that I encounter today.
Thank god I'm old and really don't care any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 11, @05:06PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
"Mike is right, NEO is one very disturbed individual."
You are goddamned right about being disturbed. I am disturbed about the world men live in today. I fear for my son's future in a world dictated by feminist. I find that very disturbing.
Zen wrote:
"Thank god I'm old and really don't care any more."
Good! Lead follow or get the F out of the way if you don't really care, because I and others do care.
Neo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can we possibly arrange for a civilized game of darts among gentlemen at a suitable Irish pub, perhaps in the county of Cork, for Zen and Neo?
I suspect at closing time most of the vitriol would be muted, if not stumbling out the door....
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No vitriol, just observation. I really don't think a single men's movement can serve the interests of all men.
The appearance of the "marriage strike" is just the tip of the iceberg. With lots of women dumping marriage, and lots of violent women out there, many men are choosing for themselves the same monastic lifestyle that was common in Europe during the middle ages and is still common in many buddhist countries. A "strike" is usually called "over" at some time that the difference is settled. However, men who have made the personal decision to go against the cultural tide probably aren't going to change their beliefs just because the legal system changes.
That's good news for most of you guys - more women left over for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well as someone who was once on the rebound I can tell you that it's tough for someone to accept that they had a part in their partner screwing up their marriage. Part of this is IMO there is no justification for cheating... it's pure cowardice. If I was so unhappy with a marriage that I'd consider seeing other women you can bet your ass I'd sit down with my partner and tell her so... and we could go from there.
I can also say that ANYONE on the rebound should be avoided... they're not sane, I know I wasn't. I did some things that I'll regret forever. It was a very difficult time, thank god for Jim, Johnny, Jose, who along with the Bush & Michelob boys kept me alive... I would never have survived without some chemically assisted oblivion.
I agree with you that the mens movement needs to have diverse approaches to serving men... because we cover the gamut from men looking to insure their boys have a fair shot at life to men who've been put through HELL and are just not going to be able to have detached converstations about the injustices they've suffered.
This problem over at MND is sad but predictable. I checked that forum on occasion but rarely posted, it was a bit too out there for me personally.
Dave K
"a Radical Moderate"
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 13, @04:31PM EST (#124)
|
|
|
|
|
"NO!!!! SHE WAS READY TO GET WHAT SHE DESERVED!!!!!"
Did you give her what she deserved zenpriest?
;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you give her what she deserved zenpriest?
Actually, I gave her a few minutes of my time, which was a lot more than she deserved. But, I have always taken pity on cripples, emotional or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 12, @12:36PM EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
Does posting "Misandrist" or "Man-Bashing" comments result in instant expulsion from the group?
MacKenna
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 12, @02:28PM EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
We've all experienced this one. A woman complains and the hammer drops. No discussion, no asking both sides. No warning. It's all worked out behind your back. No finesse. It's just men complaining, who cares.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We've all experienced this one. A woman complains and the hammer drops. No discussion, no asking both sides. No warning. It's all worked out behind your back.
Well, I certainly have. Ten years ago I was working for a local publisher on a monthly magazine, part-time, contract basis, about a week each month. I'd been there some eight years, working often nights, weekends, holidays to get the book out by deadline. I was, I thought, though not on the regular payroll, nevertheless part of "the team." I worked in a room full of women, and as you might guess, had been treated over the years to a steady supply of the casual misandrist remarks that pass for humor in female circles. I was quiet in the corner, they probably forgot I was there.
Then one day I stepped over the Line. This was only a few months after I had spontaneously relived my own circumcision, and I was still in a state of considerable shock. The office conversation delved into a recent news story, about a rape that had occurred in a downtown office, where the perpetrator had apparently applied some sort of constraints to the victim; I remember the term "leg-irons." The usual comments were made about the character of men in general.
That evening I happened to attend a presentation at the local library about circumcision. One of the nurses brought a Circumstraint board, the medieval-style torture device to which the baby is strapped to keep him immobilized while a little feminist persuasion is applied to his genitalia. I got an idea: I borrowed the board and brought it to the office the next day, which happened to be the last day of production. At the end of the day I spoke up, got the room's attention and said I had some remarks to make about the previous day's overheard conversation. I said, if this rapist had tied his (female) victim down with leg restraints, I had an idea where he maybe got the inspiration to do so. And I held up the Circumstraint board to general view.
"Every day," I said (memory is approximate), "more than 3000 baby boys are strapped to this device and brutally tortured and permanently crippled in their sexual organs, at their mothers' behest. Is it any wonder that relations between the sexes in America are a little out of tune?"
Dead silence.
I was, of course, rather nervous; quaking, I should say. I am not very good at difficult confrontations, especially with women -- and now I know why. (If I displease Her, will She do it to me again?) However, I survived, and I put the Circumstraint away and went home. Three weeks later, not having had any requests as usual to come in and work on the next issue, I called. And was asked to come in and meet with The Boss. I thought he had some special assignment for me. Well, he did: it seems I had seriously offended the women in the office with my little performance ("blaming women for circumcision" -- how preposterous, when the pro-circ hospital nurses themselves had said in print that it's "the mother's choice"), and they had gone to him all in a tizzy, saying they were afraid to work with me because I might be violent! Little ol' me -- the perfect archetypal newage intellectual wimp.
But of course, The Boss had no choice but to Protect the Defenseless Females. I was given an ultimatum: I could recover my job, such as it was, if I went to the production room and apologized and begged their forgiveness for my rude and threatening behavior. (Not a word was said, of course, about the years of nasty remarks about men I had quietly endured.) I declined, and thus, after eight years of dedicated work, ended my "career" at that publisher, with no notice, no chance to defend myself, no recourse, no "severance pay." Nada.
Thus did I truly learn, finally and definitively at age 50, about the real power women have, and how they use it. They didn't even do it on purpose, I'm sure -- as Salome did when she demanded John the Baptist's head. They just instinctively did what women have always done, acted on their feelings without thinking, and saw to it that I was punished for my disrespect toward their prerogatives. "Bad boy, don't you talk like that to your sister!" "B-but what about what she did to me?" "Bad boy, shut up or I'll give you something you'll remember!"
So this story, about the female "moderator" going to the male site-owner "in a whirl of petticoats and hurt feelings" (thanks, zenpriest), is amusingly familiar. Truly, "there's nothing new under the sun."
I wasn't really all that upset about losing the work; it was time for a change anyway. But it was truly an education. I heard only recently from a third party that The Boss, my former employer, had remarked that I was the best worker he ever had. (Just as I recall being told back in the 1960s when I was a temporary office worker in New York that the agency had found men to be better workers than women, even as clerk/typists.) Well, too bad for him. He probably still doesn't understand what happened. "Women rule the world; no man ever did anything unless a woman allowed or encouraged [or demanded] him to do it." --Bob Dylan, late 1980s interview in Rolling Stone (I have it somewhere).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is one interesting story. What I have noticed is that women will react to anything; especially being shown what side of the bread is buttered. Proving any point without a shadow of doubt tends to infuriate them even more. It's like they take revenge for you being right. Don't you ever show me what is right and what is wrong again! I'll teach that bastard not to embarrass me again.
That's exactly what happened at MND.
Neo
Welcome to the Real World
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You mean like telling father's rights activists to drink insecticide and other little gems? If the female moderator had put a clamp on that the whole flap could have avoided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You mean like telling father's rights activists to drink insecticide and other little gems?
Yes, exactly like that. The story as it is coming out is pretty one-sided, but most men are seeing through it anyway.
My favorite was the troll who made her sig line: "Conservative women are the true feminsts."
The funniest thing was - she is right, and no one got it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My favorite was the troll who made her sig line: "Conservative women are the true feminsts."
The funniest thing was - she is right, and no one got it!
Hidden in plain sight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still like to distinguish between feminists and traditionalists although I use the blanket term "feminacentrists" to cover them both. It kind of helps to keep the players straight.
Traditionalists want to stay home and bake cookies while some guy supports them, and they want to make sure there are enough men left standing to stave off the Muslim hordes. But they are not necessarily our friends. This is where people at MND were getting blindsided by Amber Pawlik and Karen DeCoster, who were traditionalists trying preserve their female perks. It doesn't hurt to play one side off against the other as long as you know what you are doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do have to jump in here. I guess you could call me a traditionalist, by your definition. I stay at home with my kids, although I do work part time as a dog trainer some nights and weekends.
I do this, not because i feel I am priveliged, but because it is important one of us is here for our kids; I did not graduate from college and my husband did, he is more qualified to provide. We did not have kids for someone else to raise. In fact, I was a child care provider for many years when the kids were young so I could suppliment our income yet stay at home with them. I have seen first hand why someone needs to be home with the kids.
Now? Well, my oldest son, at 13, has had many problems with school, and we have decided to take him out and homeschool him. Again, I have a job here in the home which is worth more than the small amount of money I could make outside the home.
I strongly feel that much of the ills of society are due to two generations of children raised by childcare workers. Someone needs to parent the kids. I like the ideas of overlapping schedules to minimize daycare, Switching which parent stays home, or having men stay home. I don't care. My concern is that the kids get cared for.
Ask my husband and he will tell you that for the amount i could make outside the home he would rather have me stay home, cook phenominal meals, have the house clean, the laundry done (usually) and be here when the kids are sick or have vacation days(6 weeks total plus summer last year). The peace of mind is worth it. We have tried me working full time, and our house does NOT function.
I think that you are right, there are women who want the choice to stay home without the responsibilities. There are women who are selfish and just don't want to change men's roles. But there are also women who valued the traditional roles, in which BOTH husband and wife complimented each other and both had limits. We can still be outraged and fight for the same causes you do. DV, education, health, family courts, media, the draft; how does my being a traditionalist keep me from seeing these as areas of crisis in need of action?
We have sons. I am gravely concerned how these issues will effect them in the future. I have just as much of a vested interest as you in these issues. Maybe I don't have a penis, but my children do, and as long as I am alive I will do my damndest to make sure they are safe from the kind of manipulations that I see feminism working.
We are on the same side here.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not knocking you personally. In fact you are one of the more man-friendly women I have seen on the boards. I was just reminding people that not all anti-feminists are our friends. I was thinking more in terms of people like Phylis Schafly, Karen DeCoster and others. There is an alarming tendency in the mens-movement to beat on feminists while ignoring the fact that there are a lot of women of the traditional stripe who are basically contemptous of men. There are also a few feminists who are basically friendly toward men. That is why I prefer to focus on feminacentrists, or as some people call them, "women-firsters".
As far as staying home or working, that is between you and your husband and I don't knock it. A lot of women work because the family needs both incomes, but they are not really feminists.
I have also known a lot of women consider themselves feminists who have never held a real job in their whole lives.
I do admit my trust level is low and I tend to scrutinize people's motivations before accepting them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can accept that. Attitude really does make all the difference. It was 3 in the morning, sorry if I jumped on your case...I really shouldn't write when I can't sleep! I get a little defensive of my stay at home status, especially since it is such a privelage-I am very lucky Dave is willing to support us.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I get a little defensive of my stay at home status, especially since it is such a privelage-
That's ok, Jen, we've seen enough of you to know where you are coming from and ingore an occasional need to defend yourself. However, it does perfectly illustrate some of the real pitfalls of the perpetual gender argument.
What you just reacted to was not the crude language you objected to in a previous post, but a simple statement of the frustration men feel - actually expressed in the mildest of language. It doesn't take gutter language to start getting push-back from women.
I think the KEY difference you illustrate is that you realize it is a privilege, instead of regarding it as an entitlement to a "choice." That latter attitude is what modern day men find so unbearably offensive.
Women who have competed with professionally all our lives, used their sexuality to get special attention from their bosses (and sometimes later screamed "sexual harassment"), got promoted over harder working men trying to do for their families what Dave does for you, all the while screaming about "eekwuhl pay for eekwuhl werk" and "glass ceilings", and are NOW deciding that it isn't any "fun" and want to let some man take over the dirty work of proving for the family,are going to be the targets of a LOT of male rage.
Oh, yeah, and I forgot to mention turning up their noses at men who didn't make more money than they did - even though those men worked harder and were more qualified and the only reason those women made as much money as they did was "affirmative action" and having a vagina was the best key to job promotion possible.
When a woman like that starts to argue, and justify herself, and complain that there are "no good men", then the discussion is going to escalate until it gets really ugly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jen and I know wives who stay at home and still expect their husbands... after working full days... to pull a full load at home too. We also know husbands who's wives work full time yet are still expected to all the housework. It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that people spend too much time listening to what other people think their lives should be like:
"Girl he doesn't do ANY housework? That's just wrong, he's using you!"
"Well... a real man doesn't do housework, that's womens work"
"Women who stay at home are no better than brood mares"
"Well when I was young a womans place was in the kitchen and takin care of the yung'uns"
and on and on, everyone out there... friends and strangers on daytime television, they all seem more than willing to tell you how your partner is screwing you. They don't know SQUAT about your life, and you're an idiot if you blindly swallow what they have to say.
People need to start using their OWN brains and applying some common sense and sense of fairness to their situation. Both parents working full time?... well maybe you should make sure that one person isn't carrying all the load at home. One partner working full time and one staying at home with the kids? Maybe the homemaker should reject as unfair the notion that his/her partner should work full time and then do half the work at home too. What happened to people just doing what's fair instead of trying to get away with as much as possible?
For my part, I didn't do well when Jen was working... and I'll admit a fair amount of it was arrogance (a vice of mine). When companies contract me for work they pay as much as $150/hr for my services, but I get home from work and have a pile of housework to do. If I was single I'd pay a cleaning service to do the job, but if we had done that we'd have spent Jens salary on cleaning services and daycare... it just didn't make sense. I was one of those guys who's wives ended up working yet still doing most of the work at home, and neither of us liked it. It was a tough time, both of us were miserable. Luckily Jen chose to forgoe working to stay at home with the boys (and she's only used it against me a couple of times since then ;) ), and I make enough that we can afford that route. I count myself just as lucky for what she's chosen as she is for being able to choose it. Of course in the end we believe it's the boys who will gain the most from following this traditional model.
Dave K
A Radical Moderate
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course in the end we believe it's the boys who will gain the most from following this traditional model.
I know I'm jaded, but this last statement baffles me. With women clobbering men in divorce courts, and getting the majority of college degrees and white collar jobs, it seems to me that training them to fit into the traditional model is setting them up to be cannon fodder.
Or did you mean that they will gain from you and jen following the traditional model?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exatly... they're the ones who will benefit the most by the fact that they'll have a parent at home. We certainly aren't setting them up to expect that's the role they'll play.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We certainly aren't setting them up to expect that's the role they'll play.
I believe that, unfortunately, it will have that effect in the end. Whatever they get told, children learn mostly by imitation. I'm sharing the results of a lot of years of introspection, here. Having a good and decent mother does not prepare men for how foul SOME women have become, and they have a very difficult time seeing it until it is too late and one of those women has her hooks into him.
Jen is their primary example and prototype of "womanhood" to them, and without a huge number of "women can be awful, BE CAREFUL" messages, they will innocently assume most women to be like her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know, it scares the shit out of me. Our older son already has dated a girl who was abusive, and I made it very clear WHY I had a problem with that. That doesn't mean it got through though. The thought of my kids going through what Ray, Stephen, and others have gone through is what spurs the two of us to be active in men's rights. No matter how many times I say be careful, the boys will not be, most likely, until they get burned. All I can do is start parading the headlines when they get old enough, Nick being old enough now at 13, and hope they get the message.
You know, we have these abstract ethical and philisophical discussions, which I really enjoy, but the bottom line is the every day situations. And all the philosophy means nothing when I look at my kids and am terrified for them.
I guess that is why I want to make this place as open for new people as possible. The more people behind us the better chance we have of making change. Again, it is a great balancing act.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're right there, telling them is not the most effective way to teach kids... although telling them over and over and over ad nauseum does sometimes get through. All we can do as parents is guide by example and equip them with the tools to hopefully come to their own conclusions. No longer do I simply roll my eyes when I see some mysandric ad on TV... or a mysandric program. We try to draw attention to the negative stereotyping so the boys will recognize it for what it is. I'm seeing this stuff even in cartoons, and now I'm making them change the channel instead of watching that garbage.
Also, when we discuss some of the issues men are facing today we don't do it at night when the boys are in bed. We do it right there at the dinner table, and while they might not seem interested at the time, it's amazing how much sinks in. Even then, it's very scary how much damage a girl could do to their lives, and that's a tough thing to communicate to a teen.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I know, it scares the shit out of me. Our older son already has dated a girl who was abusive, and I made it very clear WHY I had a problem with that."
Jen, I remember you telling us about this--he was abused by a girl he was dating, the school shrugged it off, et cetera--and about how it inspired you to frequent this site.
Has anything been done for your son since this has happened? Do you know about safe4all.org? They might be able to help a bit, in one way or another. This girl should face consequences, or she's likely to do it to someone else, especially since she now feels entitled to do so, as they never reprimanded/punished her.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good question, at this point I doubt there is a lot of discussion, our older is of the age where that might be possible but he's very introverted so I'd be surprised if it has. Our younger is Mr. Outgoing, but he's at an age where this sort of stuff is most likely (and thankfully) going over his head. I hope he gets a few more years of innocence before we start turning him into an activist. :)
It seems to me that it's our educational institutions that are responsible for a lot of the anti-male crap our children face... all the way through college. I think the best way to minimize the damage sexist teachers/professors can inflict is to arm our kids with knowledge beforehand... make sure those people aren't spouting anything that we have not already debunked.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We've pulled him out of school... Jen is homeschooling him until we move (we've got an accepted offer on a rural place an hour west of here and just need to get rid of our current place). The situation with this girl wasn't the primary reason (horrible school just wasn't teaching him anything), it's certainly a big plus that he's away from that situation.
Dave K
A Radical Moderate
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the homeschooling requirements is health. I think I will be doing a weekly current events where I pull an article off this board and have him write a paper on how this effects his and other men's health, and how that relates to the bigger picture of everyone including the women who support it.
We just started this week, so we are still working out the kinks of the new program he is on. It is pretty exciting, being in CHARGE of my son's education, instead of doing damage control after the fact.
Perhaps reading articles of what is really happening, and perhaps interviewing some of you guys if you would be willing, may help him see the bigger picture. They do hear on a daily basis these issues as we discuss them, but I don't know how much they absorb. Luckily our younger son is only 8 and really too young for most of this to really effect him yet (other than the TV stuff, which we monitor and call it as it is on the spot.)
I guess when I feel like we aren't very active, I should remember we are teaching two upcoming activists, which is just as important as flyers, t-shirts and protests.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. . .be an interview subject.
Drop me a line at acksiom @ netscape . net; and please put 'Biscuit' in the subject line so that I don't despam it by mistake
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is Mike simply acted on clear priorities.
The forum exists at the pleasure of the web site's editorials and news service, not the other way around.
If the forum becomes an issue, period, you just clean out the database and start over.
It was mostly Mike's loss anyway.
outside of its legitimate influence.
He had a problem.
He delt with it.
Now why don't some of you just deal with it.
So listen, next time save a copy of your material because this happens all of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I stated upon entering the new board.
I am proud of everyone here for standing ground on a simple premise.
I will NOT be moderated by any WOMAN!
I will NOT sanitize my dialogue to accommodate the absurd.
I see though you and you are fooling no one.
I am a man and you will not censor me because of my gender.
No loss, just a stronger and smarter group of activist
http://schlausenberg.proboards25.com/index.cgi
Welcome to the Real World
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 13, @04:16PM EST (#123)
|
|
|
|
|
Is it true that this Navyblue women really said her presence as a moderator brought credibility to the site/movement?
If so, any abuse that was spewed at her in any form she had coming to her. If it is true I for one will never visit that website again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, navyblue said as much, and implied as well that the men's movement "depends" for its success on well-meaning women to come on board.
Of course, the transcripts have been erased, along with all the affirming and dissenting men's voices that were trashed in the firestorm.
It only took one "well-meaning" female to subvert the whole enterprise.
I'm sure there's a Biblical passage one might quote here, but since I'm not a Christian, I'll leave that to my respected brethren.
I keep asking myself, why was it so threatening for men to propose that their speech not be controlled (errr... "moderated") by a woman?
On a MEN'S site?
One of the ostensibly few remaining social spaces where men might gather and converse without the intrusion of PC "ettiquette."
Have we arrived as a culture at the point where any congregation of "only" men must be criminalized?
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 14, @02:29AM EST (#129)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it is true. I refuted it and got banned. I posted this also under "Why I got banned from MND"---Meikyo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Navyblue still thinks men are judging her unfairly because of her gender by calling for her removal as moderator.
The thing is, no one raised questions about her ability as moderator until her gender bias became clear.
Yeah, it's their board and they can fuck it up all they want. They don't need my help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is, no one raised questions about her ability as moderator until her gender bias became clear.
I haven't been watching - are the feminasty trolls even being mentioned? Or is this another case of a female provoking men into reacting then her actions being prevented from ever being looked at?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under "The Last Straw" topic by Braveheart (warrior stripes now gone) Mike and Navyblue do mention the (last second) banning of Shebe, but insist that Navyblue was roasted because she is a woman, not because she gave the femtrolls all kinds of freedom while jumping on any venting by male posters. And of course lecturing us on how we need female approval to establish our credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Navyblue got roasted because as a "gender-neutral" moderator, she wasn't doing her job worth shit. She probably wasn't doing her job worth shit because she is a woman and had some natural sympathy for what the trolls were saying, while nothing but a vague intellectual grasp of what men were saying.
One of those trolls ran wild through all the boards for more than 2 weeks before things blew. If she had been "moderated", none of this shit would have come about.
Just another case of a woman provoking men to extreme behavior (gasp! "VIOLENT" words) then skipping out and her role never being mentioned again.
It pretty much makes me want to puke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Were our State a pure democracy...there would yet be excluded from their deliberations...women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, should not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men."
.
Welcome to the Real World
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this quote. I looked it up, and found the complete version:
"Were our State a pure democracy, in which all its inhabitants should meet together to transact all their business, there would yet be excluded from their deliberations, 1. Infants, until arrived at years of discretion. 2. Women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, could not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men. 3. Slaves, from whom the unfortunate state of things with us takes away the rights of will and of property. Those then who have no will could be permitted to exercise none in the popular assembly; and of course, could delegate none to an agent in a representative assembly. The business, in the first case, would be done by qualified citizens only." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:71
Clearly, the point is to allow political power to those who may understand the implications of its use, and be guided by reason rather than short-sighted passion. And not use secretive methods ("depravation of morals" = the sexual and maternal power that women have over men) to undermine the reasoned deliberation that is the only hope for a free and just society.
And an interesting essay on the subject by a Jefferson scholar, who opines that "Jefferson would feel quite comfortable with the equality that women experience today, GIVEN THE SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF TODAY." Not sure I would agree, given the real social conditions of today: rapid social decay ("depravation of morals" -- note that "depravation" is not a misspelling of "deprivation"; it derives from "deprave") and growing totalitarian collectivism, related developments which have, not coincidentally, exactly paralleled the advance in women's political "equality." Consider another Jefferson quote:
"With [every barbarous people], force is law. The stronger sex imposes on the weaker. It is civilization alone which replaces women in the enjoyment of their natural equality, that first teaches us to subdue the selfish passions, and to respect those rights in others which we value in ourselves." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VI, 1782. ME 2:84
It seems clear that, once given political power on a par with that of men (adding to the power women have always had over men), most women simply have no concept of "respect[ing] those rights in others which we value in ourselves." Given political power, women instinctively use it as if they were governing children. Governing children -- dependent beings without the right, or the capacity, of independent action -- is not the same as governing a society of adults. No more than a handful of our now-"equal" women understand this, so far as I can tell. Women are natural monarchists; the principles of republicanism (a society of free, independent persons voluntarily cooperating) are simply not native to the female mind, formed through aeons of evolution as rulers of their children while dependent on males for protection and care.
It was men who created the "civilization" Jefferson speaks of, in which passion was placed (however imperfectly) under the rule of reason, and women also enjoyed more freedom and comfort than in the previous state of barbarism -- the "golden age of Matriarchy" the feminists idealize. As Camille Paglia famously remarked, "If the development of civilization had been left up to women, we'd still be living in grass huts." And we may still return to that feminist utopia.
(Now, if we were bears, things might be different; but bears have no society at all: each individual male and female maintains es own independent territory, and they meet only -- briefly -- to mate, whereafter the female raises the young by herself.)
One of the myths of the modern feminist social/political order is the "female head of household." There is no such thing; every "single mother" household is headed by the State, which provides the protection and care she needs -- her real "husband." There is really no such thing as an "independent woman" in this world, outside of possibly a few exceptional individuals who will never be the norm. The "independent woman" is a hothouse flower, incapable of survival outside of a special environment maintained by men. The Empress is naked, but no one will say so; you might get sent to bed without your supper -- or worse.
For a treasury of Jefferson quotes, see Thomas Jefferson On Politics & Government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is interesting Philalethes. I have heard a number of cases made for women being as aggressive and violent as leaders as have the men but I am not so familiar with the idea of women ruling as if those being ruled were children. Do you have some links for this idea or some quick evidence that would support this?
It is also interesting the lack of adaptability of those animal populations which are all female and then connecting that with ideas of there being no real female independence. However, since there are no examples of all male animal populations (at least that I know of) then can we infer that there in no real male independence either?
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Queen bee want to protect her honey, and the drones are very good at doing exactly that for her.
Ragnar
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
