|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:08 PM February 29th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I already posted this earlier to another posting, but here again is my letter to the editor about this article.
==================================================
Dear Editor:
Sometimes we disagree as is the case in your story rationalizing the acceptance of “Boys are Stupid - Throw Rocks at Them” T-shirts, 2-22-04.
My rational follows this line of thinking, "When a child is young, train them up in the way they should do and when they are old they will not depart from it." Also, "When a child has been fully trained he/she will be like the teacher."
I'm one of those people who believes that the power of suggestion leads people to behave in certain ways, whether they are psychologically unstable or stable. "As a person thinks in his heart so is he/she." The "boys are stupid" T-shirts are in my opinion sending the blatantly irresponsible public message to all children (but mostly girls) that “males are disposable.” That’s right these T-shirts are public messages, because unlike violent video games, T.V. programming, etc., which I likewise despise these T-shirts are not confined to the walls of someone’s home, but are being boldly worn in public, telling all the world that battering males is acceptable (but wink, wink, it’s only a joke, right)? Yea right, how would you feel if someone told you your life was a joke?
Considering a few of the death and oppression statistics I for one will do all I can to take seriously such duplicitous deceptions that lead insidiously to an acceptance of violence against males. Males are: 99.999% of combat deaths and casualties in war (DOD). Yet in Iraq, when there is only the slightest 2% increase in the deaths and casualties of women, a female makes the cover of Time Magazine as “person” of the year, standing in front of two men. We should apply the same measure to the 15% of battered men that the domestic violence industry (and attorney general of CA) hasn’t been able to cover up, yet we treat battered men as if they don't exist and routinely deny them access to domestic violence shelters in California. One only has to look at the sexist language of CA domestic violence literature to prove the historical, systematic prejudice present there. Additionally, men are 94% of workplace deaths (NIOSH), 75% of suicides (CDC), 76% of homicides, 93% of the prison population, 90+% of homeless people, 99+% of the falsely convicted, freed by DNA evidence (Project Innocence). Men die many years earlier than women, and of the 10 or 15 leading causes of death by disease, men lead in all categories. Is that all a joke to you too?
Men face discrimination in government and society in many places. California women's studies programs are numerous on college campuses teaching an anti-male agenda from a feminist perspective. There are no men's studies programs. California has 31 women's commissions (including a commission for women in prison), but none for men. L.A. County has an Office of Women's Health, but none for men. There are numerous domestic violence shelters for women throughout California that exclude men, but only one that I know of in Lancaster that will accept men. Men are not entitled to get a student loan in college unless they are registered with selective service, and only men by law can be drafted, when one is activated. No wonder women comprise the majority of college enrollment. Dare I even mention the discrimination and bias that men face in the mass media? Men face discrimination in government and society at every turn.
In light of the seriousness of the above conditions, I find the San Francisco Chronicle's flippant patronization of males (reinforcing the disposability of males) not only irresponsible, but contemptible. In my opinion, that editorial is just one more concrete example of the sexist, hostile, emotional batterings that men face daily in California (and the United States) at the hands of a hatefully bigoted populace, indoctrinated by the inane teachings of radical feminism. The San Francisco Chronicle's editorial was not shy about commenting on the conditions that females face, but took every opportunity to trivialize those males face.
In the interest of brevity I will conclude. All quotes I used above are from the Bible, and I will end with just one more, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Considering how those T-shirts will not only lead to further violence against males, but females as well (when those experiencing “battered male syndrome” strike back), I would urge the editorial arm of the San Francisco Chronicle to reconsider where it stands on those "inane" T-shirts.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:43 PM February 29th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Apart from the grotesque hypocrisy of the journalist, she missed the main point totally, which is that the anti-male slogans worn by the little girl darlings invite their bludgeoning. Why would males act like cowering victims, just because the gender feminsits claim women do?
The "women weak, need special treatment [sexist laws, etc.]" does not apply to men, who are classically self-defense specialists and thus taught to respond to threats with greater force. From the point of view even of sexist feminsts, if men are the evil oppressors they are made out to be, why would they not respond by killing women, when faced with these overt threats? Do women think they can tease the beast, or threaten the good? If so, they only prove how stupid they are, encouraging sexism on the part of males along with a justified self-defense. Then they claim that women never "ask for it".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:14 PM March 1st, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
No offense to any one who is a Rush Limbaugh fan.
But I tend to disagree with Rush on a number of political issues (IE. The enviroment) However I find myself agreeing with him on MOST social issues. Primarily THIS kind of social issue.
He hit the nail square on the head on this one.
More and more the "popular culture" not only reveles in anti-male violece it encourages and propagates it! All the way from sado-masochistic-anti-male- violence in "entertainment" to T-shirts aimed at young girls.
Perhaps Ray should make a new line of T-shirts for boys that read; "IF GIRLS THROW ROCKS AT YOU... THROW BIGGER ROCKS BACK AT THEM!"
Let's see how long the feminazis and the fem-boy Wussy-poopies (like Toad Goldman) would put up with THAT! My guess is; not long.
The media would go nuts as well, asking; "Why do you condone male violence towards females?!?"
Upon which we would have to repliy; "Why does "David and Goliath" as well as you floatsome heads in the media condone and DEFEND female violence against males?"
Sorry, folks, Maybe it's time to fight dirty, I don't know.
Some times in order to make your point one has to become as absurd as the opposition.
I know I may get flamed for this, a bit, but I don't care.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:48 PM February 29th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The San Francisco Chronicle printed a whole bunch of response letters from all over the world today, most of them disagreeing with the op-ed. They printed mine, but they cut it down alot and get this, they changed the word "misandry" to "misanthropy"! When will these ignorant editors learn to do their damn research! I bet they had not clue what it meant and never bothered to check. I'm going to write them again to remind them to look up "misandry" next time.
Nice job everyone who wrote! The letters are at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2004/02/29/LVGEI585101.DTL
The above link probably has gaps in it. If it doesn't work, go to San Francisco Chronicle and search "glenn sacks" or "national coalition of free men"
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:17 PM February 29th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Marc:
I cut and pasted your abbreviated letter, then sent the email below in regards to their misuse of the word misandry.
Ray
==================================================
"Dear S.F. Chronicle:
In the space between the words "misally" & "misanthrope" in Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary appears the word "misandry." The definition reads: "a hatred of men --- opposed to misogyny."
From experience, I can tell you that you cannot find the word "misandry" in the average cheap paper back dictionary, or even in some of the better small "college" dictionaries, proving once again that "a little knowledge can be a dangerous think [my malapropism]."
Before The S.F. Chronicle's next bungled attempt to cover men's issues I suggest it's staff "drink more deeply" of the true meanings surrounding the facts. You know, those facts that some people think don't exist, merely because they are too ignorant of the facts to cover them accurately.
Sincerely, Ray"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:43 PM February 29th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Somehow the bracketing punctuation I used erased part of the definition. Here's the whole thing. Sorry about that, and don't worry it did get through intact to the S.F. Chronicle.
Ray
"misandry." The definition reads: "a hatred of men {her bitter experiences with men led her to bring up her daughter in a spirit of ~} --- opposed to misogyny."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:22 PM February 29th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear S.F. Chronicle
Thanks for printing a portion of the letter I emailed to you, but would you please attach my name to it instead of some guy named Mark from Texas? I signed my email just like I'm signing this.
Sincerely, Ray XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX, CA
================================================== ================
You printed this Sunday February 29, 2004
Editor -- Sometimes we disagree, as is the case in your story rationalizing the acceptance of "Boys are stupid -- throw rocks at them" T- shirts.
I'm one of those people who believes that the power of suggestion leads people to behave in certain ways, whether they are psychologically unstable or stable.
The T-shirts, in my opinion, send a blatantly irresponsible public message to all children (but mostly girls) that "males are disposable." These T-shirts are public messages -- unlike violent video games, TV programming, etc., which I likewise despise -- and thus are not confined to the walls of someone's home, but are boldly worn in public, telling all the world that battering males is acceptable (but wink, wink, it's only a joke, right)? How would you feel if someone told you your life was a joke?
MARK T. BITARA
Huntsville, Texas
================================================== ================
Here's the whole original email I sent to you, just to prove it was me:
I've already posted it on Mensactivism twice before. In fact it's the opening post on this story so I won't post it again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:33 PM February 29th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
What do you expect from people who don't have enough sense to know it's wrong when little girls advocate violence against boys.
...and San Francisco is the home of the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) as well as the S. F. Chronicle, and this:
(click) Coaching Boys into Men
Family Violence Prevention Fund
383 Rhode Island St. Suite #304
San Francisco, CA 94103-5133
Phone: (415) 252-8900
Fax: (415) 252-8991
TTY: (800) 595-4889
I guess these two groups are too busy committing misandry to bother knowing what it means. What flagrant, flaming hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:02 AM March 1st, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly: it's the practice of misandry where these groups like FVPF get their power. Pointing out to them what it means would make no dent. On the contrary, getting you to try to point it out to them lets them know that you have succumbed to their power, just by you coming to them. They must be disposed of in other ways. Heh, Heh, Heh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:24 PM March 1st, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Recently in the news media there have been alot of reports about; "the alarming trend of bullying, in todays shools."
If throwing rocks at a kid (based souly on his sex) isn't BULLYING then what is?
So on the one hand the news media de-crys bullying while on the other hand defends it. I hate to use a stereotyping, Hollywood Indian saying but, I think the media "speaks with a forked tounge".
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:57 AM March 2nd, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"If throwing rocks at a kid (based souly on his sex) isn't BULLYING then what is?"
TC:
You are right on the money. Anyone who defends these T-shirts is nothing more than an accessory to femi-battery.
It took a long time to draw attention to bully's in schools, and it is the height of sexism to exclude femi-bulls from their historical involvement in physical abuse and intimidation.
Isn't it curious that "bitching" (verbal, emotional battering of males) can't be spoken, because the word would be construed as hateful to women, yet the word "bullying" is used freely as a metaphor for intimidating behavior? We are so conditioned that we use it without thinking, but it is a sexist word implying intimidation and physical abuse by members of the male gender. No doubt bullying comes from young male bulls competing for dominance and mating rights in the herd.
There is no term in animal husbandry for a young bull, but heifer is the term for a young cow. "Heifering" and "Cowing" don't seem to imply a lot of relevant female behavior. Females in the herd are passive takers there, probably more so than they are in human society.
Bitching (female dog) and nagging (female horse) have relevance to human female behaviors as some would argue bullying does to males, but if you use those words today people will say, "That is hateful and politically incorrect." I personally like the term "snakes" in regards to radical feminists, or "devils," but suspect I’d be labeled a hate monger if I metaphorically used those words.
Language is very important, and the use of all male nouns and pronouns in domestic violence literature is just one glaring example of the hate that has been (and still is) routinely committed against males by the hateful sexist bigots in that industry.
Sexist double standards in the use of words to describe behavior is epidemic in our society, and just one more example of what 30 years of feminist deviltry has brought to out society.
Considering that women are no more morally upright than men, and that they have been using lies and subterfuge to wreak barbaric cruelty and destruction in men's lives for decades it is irresponsible that men should still be subject to such sexist labeling as "bullies." Let the term femi-bully be born, and let it be used freely. It fits. It metaphorically shows obnoxious women who are obsessed with having power and control, using intimidation and physical abuse to assert themselves. If that isn’t a femi-bullying, than what is?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:19 PM March 2nd, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray.
In our local news, where I live, it was reported that female bullying is worse than male bullying.
I sat up and took notice when they said that, thinking that maybe SOMEONE was on to something.
But no. They were implying that female "bullying" towards other girls through the use of peer pressure, gossip and alienation was a "Far worse kind of bullying than what boys do". (Theire words.)
"Oh, yeah," I thought to myself, sarcasticaly "Being ignored is a MUCH worse thing than being beaten to a bloody pulp!"
They even showed footage of a large girl beating the day lights out of a small boy, before saying that!
I'm still waiting for the news media to announce that Testicular cancer is worse for women than it is for men, too.
(I was just kidding, there, but then when I thought about it..., I wouldn't put it past the Fem-media.)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:58 PM March 2nd, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm still waiting for the news media to announce that Testicular cancer is worse for women than it is for men, too.
(I was just kidding, there, but then when I thought about it..., I wouldn't put it past the Fem-media.)"
Considering that "out of it" editorial that ran in the Chronicle I wouldn't put much past them either.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:31 PM March 1st, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Any chance you could reprint those letters to the editor here? It didn't come up.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:20 AM March 1st, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I thought that the whole point of the "Girl Power" image/movement was to communicate to young girls (13-18) that they can feel good about themselves, on their *own* terms, and not based on how boys/males judge them.
If writers like this one accept the idea that girls have to wear T-shirts like, "Boys are Smelly -- Throw Rocks at Them" in order to feel good about themselves, are they not promoting the idea that the only way young girls can feel good about themselves is by bashing the opposite gender?
Doesn't that end up bringing young girls right back to a boy-centered definition of self-esteem and self-image?
And isn't that rather self-defeating?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
