|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:50 PM March 7th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"One could have a scenario where men are surplus to requirements", Dr Susan Greenfield, leading brain researcher.
Requirements? To pay money just because they had sex? To serve as wallet-fathers? To die in wars? To fill jails on bogus charges? To serve as scapegoats for angry, old, empty women?
Let's end these requirements right now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:15 PM March 7th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Femi-supremacists think they are superior, but they are not. If these idiots think it is difficult to get a man to do anything for them now, just wait until 20-20 when open rebellion against femi-supremacist tyranny arrives. Let's face it, rebellion against that tyranny is already here, and I, and many other men will not take one step further if it supports the agenda of those hate monger bigots in any way. We will oppose them (peacefully) with every ounce of our mind, spirit, and body. We will oppose them in the air, on the sea, on the land, in educational institutions, in government institutions, in the work place, etc, because life under that kind of jack boot tyranny is worse than death. Is that in your broadcast BBC?
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:43 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
If it's a fight the fems want it is a fight I am willing to give them. Be that fight political, social or even physical. My paitents with these morons has long since been exausted.
There was a time when I thought I would be fighting a civil war in this country. But I thought it would be against skin heads and KKK losers. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine that the war I was anticipating would be over, not race, but GENDER.
Again as I said, I am more than ready and willing to fight such a battle, if the need arises.
And you Fem-trolls can scream that I'm advocteing "violence against women" all you want, I don't care. I would fight this war against ANYBODY who was looking to grind me down. As American Indians My people went through such an ordeal ONCE based on race. I will NOT be forced to endure the same, exact thing based on gender!
"I'd sooner fight on my feet than die on my knees!"
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
"It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What always astonishes me most is the jaw dropping levels of hypocrisy that feminists and their minions feel comfortable in promoting.It was they that saddled society with the current ridiculous definitions of what constitutes sexism and gender inequality,all those empty buzz words used ad nauseum to justify any self centered demand that came into their pretty little heads.And now that the political momentum has swung so firmly in their favor you really do have to marvel at the blind self absorbed stupidity thats required to so fully embrace all the postures men were once so wrongly accused of.And to not only embrace them but to give them a life and an energy that would rival any Mccarthy-ite any National Socialist or any 16th century Cardinal.When a movement first reserves for itself the right to define morallity it becomes a very dangerous one indeed, since the very act of critisising the movement can be dismissed as immoral and any posture assumed by the movement becomes by their definition, just.Its time to develop an avalanche of political momentum on our own, so that we can begin to reintroduce reason and logic into the public debate in order to replace the moral hypocrisy that seems to define everything.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:18 PM March 7th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"When a movement first reserves for itself the right to define morallity it becomes a very dangerous one indeed, since the very act of critisising the movement can be dismissed as immoral and any posture assumed by the movement becomes by their definition, just."
It is absoulutely amazing that this behavior is tolerated under the guise of female empowerment.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:19 AM March 8th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I think something else that may be hypocritical or disingenuous:
Feminists complain about how men have an unfair advantage in the workplace (and other areas).
In response, the government and various other organizations bend over backwards to cater to women by giving them student loans or scholarships and catering to their learning style.
Now that women are becoming better educated, feminists claim men are inferior.
I saw a movie called The Tuskegee Airmen and I think it had a good example in it of what is happening. Basically, we are playing a poker game with the deck stacked against us, and our opponents insult us because we can't win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:47 AM March 8th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"Now that women are becoming better educated, feminists claim men are inferior.
I saw a movie called The Tuskegee Airmen and I think it had a good example in it of what is happening. Basically, we are playing a poker game with the deck stacked against us, and our opponents insult us because we can't win."
Here's just one more glarring example from today confirming what you are saying, (click) Woman beats men
Ironically, under the Unruh act, it is against the law for a business to discriminate in pricing based on gender. I doubt that law applies here, but it certainly applies in the intent of the law.
Also, it is interesting to me to see that when women are just too inferior to compete with men on the level playing field, cheating is resorted to. So much for fair and open competition based strictly on ability.
Is this now going to be the next attack on men's sports after Title IX wreaking havoc?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They have a prize for overall winner and a prize for women only and the women get a 20 minute head start???? How can anyone not see this as wrong. The least they could have done was $25000 for the mens winner, $25000 for the womens winner and $25000 for the overall race winner. No the rig the contest so the Womyn Wins Everything. Running is an event that women could more easily beat a man(compared to weight lifting anyway).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women cannot beat men at anything.Whether its running,weightlifting or whatever,thats the very reason they gave the women the 20 minute head start.In fact thats the very reason women are given a head start in everything,to insure that a women can be shown winning.This is the new ideal and it must be made to happen,what must be done in order to make this happen is irrelevant it simply must happen.Havent you all heard,there is no differance between men and women and if any outcome challenges this "truth" the outcome must change in order to protect this new "truth" and insure the continued education of the masses.What lucky boy's we are to benefit from the wisdom of women.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:11 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Any one remember that bizzare show on FOX: "Celebrity boxing"?
Well this disscussion reminded me of it.
Perhaps you may recall when they aired their first "Woman vs. Man" bout.
It was a bout between WWF's Chyna (Joanie Laurer) and (God help us) Joey Buttafuoco.
The media just buzzed with anticipation. everyone betting on Chyna to win.
They couldn't cover this story enough, they were wetting themselves with sheer glee in antisipation of "Chyna kicking Buttafuoco's ass".
Then came the evening of the fight.
Buttafuoco mopped the floor with poor Chyna (I did feel a bit sorry for her.)
Any way, Buttafuoco won easily. And did the media report this victory? NOPE! nothing but dead silence. Not ONE report on it from ANY news oranization anywhere.
Now, imagine if you will, what would have happened if Chyna had actually one this stupid fight. The media would wet themselves even more with glee in reporting that Chyna, a woman, had (of course) beat Buttafuoco, a man. They would be trumpetting the "supiriority" of women, shouting about "Grrrl power" and how "men had better watch out now".
This is just a microcosm of what is happening along gender lines. But, in my oppinion, this microcosm illustrates with crystal clarity what we face today.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:14 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I meant to say; "if Chyna had actualy 'WON' this stupid fight". not "'ONE' this stupid fight".
Geeze, I know I'm a lousy speller, but i'm not THAT bad!
thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Thundercloud,
Have you got any links/dates etc. on that?
Raymond Cuttill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:03 AM March 9th, 2004 EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
No, Raymond, I don't.
This occured about two, maybe three years ago. You might have some luck doing a GOOGLE search on it.
In fact I think I may try that myself.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:24 AM March 9th, 2004 EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, Raymond. I tried the GOOGLE search.
I didn't find much. I did find a few articles about it though.
I had my best luck with the key-words; "Chyna vs Joey Buttafuoco".
I came up with an 'ESPN' page that goes into a fair amount of detail.
I hope that helps at least a little.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, it is interesting to me to see that when women are just too inferior to compete with men on the level playing field, cheating is resorted to. So much for fair and open competition based strictly on ability.
Since women get special treatment for not being able to run as fast as men (they are about 10% slower), perhaps men should get special treatment for living 5-6 years, or about 10%, less than women. Our social security problem could be solved by simply requiring women, and only women, to either pay more in social security taxes or to have them retire at a later age. If it's fair to discriminate in sports, then it should be equally fair to discriminate in retirement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:02 PM March 9th, 2004 EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
"or to have them retire at a later age."
Considering that the SSA is proposing that, without factoring gender, men will now get even less, while women will still get a longer draw on soical security than men. Using the glass ceiling analogy, men undoubtably pay more into social security as well.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote this a couple of week ago.
Men can be women except when it might compete with women (and they can still be rapists)
Women who are trapped inside a man's body (or men who want their whatits cut off, if you prefer) aren't being allowed to compete with women in sport because they might beat the little darlings....
Some quotes from BBC pages
Athletes are to be excluded from new laws which will allow transsexuals to legally recognise their new genders, it was announced tonight.
Under the Gender Recognition Bill, published two months ago, transsexuals will be able get new birth certificates even if they still have their original genitals, provided they are diagnosed as suffering from “gender dysphoria”.
Now the Bill is to be amended so UK sporting bodies can continue to decide case-by-case whether individual transsexuals should be allowed to compete.
But
Legislation to give legal recognition to transsexuals could in theory result in a woman who was born male being charged and convicted of rape, the Government said tonight.
Junior constitutional affairs minister Lord Filkin told Tory ex-Cabinet minister Lord Tebbit: “A transsexual person who has been legally recognised as a woman by law in the UK under gender recognition legislation could be charged with, and found guilty of the rape of, another female person.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In an article that Camile Paglia once wrote she said it was perfectly clear to her why men have nothing to fear from the threat of a feminist takeover and the evidence of that is in simple things like a man's roladex as compared to a feminist's. She once had to pull into a garage on a back road in Maine and was impressed at how this ordinary self employed gas stop owner/mechanic had at his finger tips on a roladex an arcane network of where to get anything he needed including parts for her Saab.
The roladexes of her feminist aquaintences all contained contacts who did pretty much the same thing well....bitch and complain.
If it were not for the efforts of men...women would be living in grass huts and licking termites off of a straw for their sustenance. No actual matriarchy that has been studied by anthropologists in the last three hundred years has ever had a population exceeding 300 persons...they were all societies of head hunters and cannibals...and they all practiced human sacrifice and more or less continual warfare with neighbouring tribes.
However here the real agenda is clearly stated. It was never about equality ...it was about rendering men redundant and disposable and making heterosexuality more and more illegal and frowned on while making lesbianism more and more acceptable and attractive to those obsessed with power and control.
To all of those people who dismissed me as a crank 20 years ago.....I TOLD YOU SO!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No actual matriarchy that has been studied by anthropologists in the last three hundred years has ever had a population exceeding 300 persons...they were all societies of head hunters and cannibals...and they all practiced human sacrifice and more or less continual warfare with neighbouring tribes.
Can you give more information about the above?
(References, links or titles)
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would love to Rand but this information was something that I gathered and garnered from a pile of books maked for destruction as being obsolete and outdated in a library inventory purge long before the internet was even formed. What I can tell you is this...apart from the sort of legends created from whole cloth (like those created by Wagner, Neitche et al for the Germans) there is not one scrap of physical evidence of ANY pre-patriarchy civilization...NOT ONE WHATSOEVER. Now of course there were punctuations of notable temporary matriarchies in the form of powerfull queens in the liniage of civilizations established by the military might and labour exploitation of men...but not even ONE civilization that was matriarchially ruled for more than two generations EVER!!! Now rather than call me a liar or challange me for references try to find one. The matriarcal societies that have been found were all in the Polynesian, Micronesian, and Indonesian Island groups and were all stone age tribes that were little more than extended families. The maximum population of 300 I may be wrong in the case of the Queen Matriarch of pre-Christian Hawaii...she was THE BIG KAHUNA the most successful and celebrated matriarch in legitamit recorded history. If any of our feminazi BIG SISTER WATCHERS would like to argue with this...let THEM provide the research and footnotes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:44 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
I heard/read in my World Civilization class that Africa was largely matriarchal. However, it never said by how much it was matriarchal. I got the impression that men still usually ruled, it's just that women had higher status compared to Middle Eastern societies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MAUS, I was not asking for references about matriarchal "civilizations." Rather, I was referring to matriarchal tribes, religions, etc., the ones you mentioned that practiced human sacrifice, canibalism, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to explorers from Cook onwards and in the memoirs of just about all of the Christian missionaries who went to the South Pacific in the nineteenth century, cannibalism and or head hunting was commonplace among just about all of the tribes, matriarchal or patriarchal in the Polynesian and Micronesian Island groups and Borneo. It was also found among some of the west coast tribes of the Oregon/British Columbia region which seemed to have some sort of cultural affinity to the Polynesians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:13 AM March 8th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
In a so-called patriarachy men rule the institutions, but they also do the dangerous, dirty work. In the only matriarchal tribe I ever heard of, women ruled, but men still did the dangerous and dirty work AND enforced security.
This is the vision of feminism: men do the dangerous and dirty work, get paid, then some other men and women who rule the roost, take from them and give to women. Prettty much like today only worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:31 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Women complain about being "objectified" by men. I.E. a "sex-object"
But through my observations women view men as "objects" in more ways than men ever did women.
Men are seen by a majority of today's women as; sex-objects, Hate-objects, Money-objects, Violence-objects, Blame-objects Scape-goat-objects, Sadism-objects and War-objects. I could go on but you get the point.
Ah, so many women, so much hypocrisy.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is really not new sir, the third century BC prophet Isaiah said "As for my people children are their oppressors and women rule over them".
I know that some of the comments I have made on this site would have some people lable me an "Anti-Semite"...nothing could be farther from the truth...I am a great admirerer of the Jewish culture and I would dread to think what the world might have been like were it not for the courage, tenacity, and ironbound integrity of the Jews. That having been said it was their "doctors of the law" who came up with the legal procedure of divorce...and I am not suprised that a man like Christ who was remarkably open minded about prostitutes, Quisling tax collectors, apostate half-breed Samaritans and all manner of low life had not one good word to say about divorce lawyers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:14 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I have a different version of 2020 than the BBC's. It includes men not having kids at all, and the ones who do being men in immigrant families whose women are not hostile to them.
But those few poorly-advised men who do have kids may well be like the "leading man" in this upcoming story. Tell me, is this a future Britons really want? Even feminist Britons? Perhaps this wee 2-parter is more of an effort to point up where Britain (and America, Canda, etc.) are heading, and I find it hard to believe it is appealing to anyone but the most misandrist feminist.
Coming out directly and criticizing feminism is not permitted in PC Britain on the BBC. So this may well constitute a sideways attempt to do so. Well, I don't suppose I'll find out for sure since I don't get "The BBC Channel". :)
My categorical advice to men is and remains, avoid marriage and children like the plague they represent to men these days. If our "culture" dies out as a result, then so be it; wasn't like we came up with this crazed feminist idea stuff. But as far as I am concerned, marriage and child-making is essentially a form of self-abuse for a man these days; look at what men set themselves up for when they do this! Just avoid it, don't do it.
I do have to mention one thing about this article that bugs me-- the implication that the notion of flex time was somehow originated by women. That is patently false. The idea of flex time for employees has been around for centuries and taken many forms. In Europe in many places employees have never been without "flex time", such as in Italy. And businesses there have been run for millenia by men.
Well, at least until 2020 anyway. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:47 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you.
DON'T marry and have kids, if you aren't and don't already.
It just isn't worth takeing the chance.
I gave up the notion of marriage about 10 years ago, when I saw what was happening to my male friends who got married. They endured abuse both physicaly and verbaly. Their divorces all but destroyed them. I also began studying the divorce rate and it's affect on men and children.
All this coupled with the attitude that so many women hold towards men, today,(negative/hateful) told me in no un-certain terms that marriage was the worse thing I could contemplate.
So instead I have devoted my life to men's issues and emerseing myself in my Cherokee culture and seeing to it that that culture is preserved. These have been more rewarding, I think, than any marriage would have been for me.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"These have been more rewarding, I think, than any marriage would have been for me."
Well said, TC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:25 PM March 9th, 2004 EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
Hobbes,
Wado. ("Thank you" in Cherokee.)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought I remembered the name Steve Jones when I read it in the list of honorary graduates at my university (http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/honorary04.html). He's the one who wrote "Y: The Decline of Man", right? I'm graduating this year, he'll be in the SAME ROOM as me... and I don't think I'll be able to do a thing. Any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:56 AM March 9th, 2004 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you could speak to him (in private) in a gently manner (don't agress him) and ask him if he knows a radical feminist called Valerie Solanas, who tried to kill Andy Warhol 36 years ago.
She wrote the Scum Manifesto advocating the mass extermination of men in a Hitler-like manner, basing her "ideas" on the so-called genetic superiority of women. Ask him if he realizes that his theories actually fuel the most extremist feminists' hatred, who might try to kill him too one day....
By the way, remind him that the male pregnancy will occur sooner than he thinks, and since male eggs have become a reality since 2002 (from cloned male embryos), two men will be able to have a baby of their own in a few years without resorting to women.
And as the human genome (human genetic background) is now fully sequenced and analysed, genetic manipulation is going to start, so if it is true that the Y chromosom is desintegrating therefore leading to the disappearance of sperm production (and then male disappearance), then genetic manipulation is going to even the playfield and save men.......that's why feminists are so worried about eugenics, they know it will emancipate men from women, and give men an increased lifespan, matching the women's one.
One last thing : human highest IQs are always found among males. Do you know why ? Because of the way the x and the y interact between each other, which doesn't exist in females.
If Mozart, Beethoven, or Einstein have been males and not female, it's thanks to the Y chromosome.
Nuff' said !
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After such a clear and powerfull rebuttal of all the points made in this thread how could we not stop "whining".
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:32 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Ah well, if you could read as well and as fast as your bitter little fingers can type, you would have noticed that the word "share" is not even on the radar in this article.
The exact words I believe are: "a world run by women"
Of course, I'm sure that actually fits the feminist definition of "share".
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:52 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly, Rob.
If all it was was a matter of SHAREING power with women You would find NO man on this site who would object.
When I was younger I went along with feminism because I thought that SHAREING power was exactly what the objective was for feminism.
Go to the feminist web sites and I assure you there is no one there who is interested in "SHAREING" power. The whole objective of feminists, like-minded women and Wussy-poopie fem-boys is to TAKE power away from men and give it all to women and then some!
The objective is to empower WOMEN and WOMEN only and dis-empower men to the point of completion.
"Can't stand to share our power"? I and a vast majority of men have been nothing but WILLING to SHARE power with women.
No man in his right mind ever agreed to loseing his or all men's power.
You need to get your definitions straight. "Shareing power" does not nor has it ever meant giveing up your own power, sovernty. identity and humanity to lay down and empower another group to destroy you.
Normaly i try to stay civil but in your case, my dear troll I MUST ask if you are a complete stupid idiot?
One would have to be to beleive and make such a comment.
Go to your little feminist hate-sites and learn more about hypocrisy, it won't fly here.
"can't stand to share your power", what an idiot!
Sorry, folks I normaly try to be civil but such stupidity just burns my toast!
Yeah, troll I said STUPIDITY!!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:37 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
It's also only to share power with women who agree with the feminist's ideological beliefs. There are many conservative/libertarian-like women that did great things, but they seem to always be ignored by feminists for some odd reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"share you power"
Share *what* power? I am a human male, which means that society limits the actions that I can perform and use shame, ridicule and physical punishments to enforce that I stay "masculine" (right Warble?). Meanwhile females are allowed to display and act out aspects of either gender with no repercussions at all or, at the most, some verbal insults. Females can watch whatever entertainment they want, wear whatever clothing that they want and participate in any activity that they want. Any attempt to dissuade them otherwise is responded with accusations of "sexism" and "inequality". If a male attempted to perform "feminine" activites, he is chastised, ridiculed and shunned.
Females have many social benefits like victim shelters, awards and recognitions for women only, employment assistance and privileges, while males have none of that. "International Woman's day" and "Woman's history month" has no male equivalent.
In a relationship, the male is expected to initiate the relationship, accept any burden and responsibility of making sure he is not initiating the relationship "incorrectly". Then the male must compensate the female for her company. The male must protect the female from harm even at the risk of this own life and provide for her welfare once the relationship is established. Then, the male is expected to continue compensating the female through the form of gifts and special treatment. Note that IF a female does any of this herself for the male, she does so by her own CHOICE, where the male *must* do these things or face punishment by society.
Females are encouraged to have a "victim" attitude where they can accuse everyone else (especially males) of problems that they have in their life and society will seek way to help and compensate them.
Female homosexuality is encouraged and rewarded. The media has a plethora of situations showing female homosexuality in a postivie and desirable light. Females, in general, are allowed to touch, hug, dance with, kiss and otherwise initiate contact with each other or with males. Males are not allowed to make physical with each, except under extreme sitautions (such as highly emotional situations) and may only have physical contact with females after having their express permission.
Even outside of a relationship, males are expected to risk danger before a female and assist females with burdens.
And there are many, many more situations in which females are granted freedom, liberty and power while males are forced to have limitations and responsibilities.
To summarize: females are allowed to have the positive aspects of either gender, while not having to forcibly face any of the responsibilities, while males have the responsibilities with few of the positive aspects, while facing ridicule, shame and even physical punishment for not following the parameters set down by society.
What is this power that you speak of? :confused:
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think some of the most basic problems that have arisen as a result of feminism's rise to power have come about as a direct result of a profound misunderstanding of the world we live in and of the words used to describe that world.Power is not a word that can used in the same way when describing men and women,male power is a fundamentally differant thing than female power.This is something that the original framers of the current brand of feminism such as gloria steinem and germaine greer could never understand.The only power they themselves were capable of recognizing or even acknowledging was the male form and this created quite a dilema for them since quite naturally no women possessed this form.Now instead of asking the obvious next question which is "what form does female power take" they took the irrational route of assuming that both forms of power must be the same and if women then dont have this male form of power then it must have been taken from them.So now we have had 30 years of dancing around this word power without ever asking the needed question .........
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only power they themselves were capable of recognizing or even acknowledging was the male form and this created quite a dilema for them since quite naturally no women possessed this form.
The ability to define the term “power” represents far greater influence than the supposed “powerful” characteristics do.
If I could control our government, courts, schools, and military by giving the word “power” the definition I choose to give it, I wouldn’t have the gall to define it as “anything I don’t have”. But then I’m not a feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And yet women have provided us all with the definitions now in use without controlling any of the things you've listed.Women do now have always and always will control the societal and moral structures that we all live with.Its what women do,they build societies.Men on the other hand build civilisations and become the stewards of the codes and definitions created by women.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And yet women have provided us all with the definitions now in use without controlling any of the things you've listed.
WADR your response sounds like a contradiction. If I can control the definitions, then I DO control the things listed. I reject the silly notion that "men" control government, etc. just because most elected officials carry a pair of nads. The political system assures us that we get elected officials who know who to pander to in order to get and keep their jobs. Whether feminists use males or females as political puppets is irrelevant. The fact that most office holders are male simply gives an illusion of male power.
There's infinitely more power in controlling the process than in having physiological characteristics in common with political functionaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:16 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
A.J.
I tend to agree with you, here.
It's like a puppet show. All you see is the puppets, but who really runs the show the puppets or the puppeteers?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion is about the differant "forms" of power not wether women do or do not "have" power.And i began by challenging the original assumption of feminism that women were "powerless" simply because they did not have the male forms such as being the heads of political institutions.The point being that female influence and power has always been felt and expressed differantly than male power.Men are the stewards of the political and moral institutions yet these institutions reflect female values more than male.That is not a reflection of absolute control on the part of either gender.But it is a reflection of the makeup that has defined these institutions for centuries.Now as to which form or approach to power has more effect,i think the advance of feminism at the expense of reason has made that clear.But then it was feminists that said women were without power not i.
i would also like to know what "WADR" means.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:45 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
>"i would also like to know what"WADR" means."
It's probably something from "Monty Python". We've been getting alot of weird "noises" here lately like "Icky zoopop" and "Ni". Or what ever.
I'm not sure what it's all about, though.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With All Due Respect, I imagine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:31 AM March 9th, 2004 EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, great, now I feel REALLY stupid...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cain, I agree with your analysis and didn’t mean to pick apart a minor detail, I was just expanding on your post.
My point is that the male side of the power balance is now an illusion (if it ever really existed). I don’t believe that a male being in a position of power benefits men to the degree that the female values he enforces benefit women. I think that any balance that may have existed has been destroyed.
Yet feminists still point to male functionaries in the process and cry “Men have all the power”. An analogy might be – Who has more influence, the person who writes the laws or the cop that enforces the laws?
I think it’s largely an illusion that the traditional male side of the power equation carries real weight.
Oh, yeah, WADR = with all due respect
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since we both seem to agree that the feminists have been wrong all along and women do in fact have power and always have,lets take this in a differant direction and deal specifically with the notion of male power.
You have stated clearly that you feel male power is now an illusion and have added doubt as to whether or not it ever carried any real weight.I will state clearly that i disagree.Its my position that male power is very real,in fact as real now as it ever has been.
My previous posts were an attempt to describe the traditional balance that had always existed between the differant forms of power,male vs female.I think we can both agree that the balance no longer exists and in fact the advance of feminism has been at the expense of that balance.
However it is my view that the imbalance although created by the advance of feminism was NOT created by women but by men.It was are relinquishing of power and not any action of theirs that created this imbalance.And the relinquishing of that power began when we began to accept their definitions of what power was or wasn't,of what constituted sexism and gender inequality,whether traditional roles were simply traditional or whether they were attempts to enslave an entire gender, and we even began to accept their notions of whether gender was even real.But the fact that we and now by extension society have accepted their definitions does not render us impotent, nor does it define their power as absolute but it does describe the imbalance that we are now all dealing with.
I also think that the responsibility for reestablishing the balance is are's and are's alone,we cannot expect feminists in particular or women in general to halt this runaway train,it is for us to do.And the first step is simply to reject their definitions and in fact challenge their right to establish definitions.And the most important definition to reject is the one that began all of this,the notion that to critisize feminism or women in general is by its very nature hostile,beacuse that is the one that really tied are hands.The original description of men that dared critisize or question was " Male Chauvinist " which became " Chauvinist Pig " which became " Mysoginist " which became the currently popular " Sexist ".No of course none of these words or phrases carrying any real meaning, but all of them are interchangeable, and they are all simply used as baton's to hit men over the head with.
The male power that you deny is by my definition held back and i believe its being held back by are own inaction.Men play a distinct role in society and i described my view of that in another post as a response to one of Larry's.I will add here that because of that natural division in role and responsibility men are instinctually accomadating to the demands made on us by women even when those demands are irrational simply because we recognize that women are not men and that their world and sphere of inflluence is differant from our own,so we do not expect the same level of rationality from them as we would from one another.lt is now time that we demand the same level of rationality from them as we do from ourselves and if they do not respond then its time that we impose this new level of rationality.
And let me just add that im finding this approach to conversation a little hard to keep track of,im not always sure which way the conversation is going.Im a little more comfortable with the standard one post follows the next format.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However it is my view that the imbalance although created by the advance of feminism was NOT created by women but by men.It was are relinquishing of power and not any action of theirs that created this imbalance.
I have no argument with this view. I agree completely that it is up to us to reassert ourselves. I think our differences are more a matter of semantics than of a real difference of views, i.e. whether we discuss power as it inherently exists in us or as it's currently expressed in gov’t, etc.
You’re right that men still inherently have power but have chosen not to use it, that feminism has risen because men have chosen to do nothing to stop it. My view is that a prerequisite to asserting power is to realize that the feminist claims that women’s interests are neglected is (ultra)BS. I believe that most men today willingly relinquish power out of a sense of humiliation and shame, largely because they’ve bought into feminist lies. Before we can reassert ourselves we must have enough self-respect to recognize how we’re allowing ourselves to be used as doormats.
My earlier posts have to do with how our society actually functions today, without addressing why or who’s responsible for it. I think we can both agree that if we continue down the road we’re on it can only get worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:07 AM March 10th, 2004 EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
"I agree completely that it is up to us to reassert ourselves. I think our differences are more a matter of semantics than of a real difference of views..." "Before we can reassert ourselves we must have enough self-respect to recognize how we’re allowing ourselves to be used as doormats.'
As is clear from the posting of anonymous, male bashing, put downs and other forms of battery are the main forte of the gender feminist movement. I think that our differences are a difference of views, and not a matter of semantics.
Men must assert themselves as you suggest and stop being the door mats of these batterers. We will be criticized for doing that, but the best answer is, "I have a right to be free of your hateful, battering abuse. Furthermore, I have a right to enjoy my life as man without subscribing to the feminist model for men."
Just because these hate mongers are dissatisfied with us, doesn't mean they are right, it just means they're hate mongers. They wouldn't be satisfied with us no matter what we were. That's just the nature of their abusiveness, and it needs to be seen for what it is, an endless emotional battering of the male sex, based on a perverted idea (by gender feminists) of what they think the male sex should be.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Humiliation and shame is the key.When we accepted their definitions and value judgements we accepted the self imposed guilt that came with it.Their movement their definitions and their value judgements moved very quickly from legal parity and the right to vote to redifining gender roles as inherently hostile.This we accepted because social and political momentum has its own influence and carries its own weight seperate from the value of the ideology its promoting.Once they established their notions of inequality on the backs of truly just issues such as legal parity, the moral stance they inherited was unassailable and it no longer mattered to what issue or direction this moral stance was directed because now it was the stance we were up against, it was no longer the individual issue.It no longer matters that the new issues are irrational or themselves inherently hostile, for to question a firmly imbedded and socially accepted moral stance is by society's definition immoral.So we as men accepted these definitions as well as the responsibilty and guilt for this re-defined view of the past since no single individual can easily alter the direction of an entire culture let alone a newly immerging moral order.
So here we are,but we are no longer single individuals howling at the moon,we are now a collective voice and that voice continues to get louder,and the louder it gets the more courage it provides to those that still remain silent.But regardless of how long it takes for this collective voice to re-assert itself the outcome is already assured,it can be no other way.When the momentum begins to slow and the movement can no longer sustain its inertia the only thing it has left to stand on is logic and reason,and if it doesnt have that it begins to crumble in chunks.
Everyone knows feminism is built upon nothing,that its little more than a power grab,the only problem is in admitting this openly.So its not neccassary for us to educate the public about things that are already clear to see.The role of the Mens Movement is simply to begin building political momentum of its own,rob feminism of their's and then watch as they disappear in a puff of logic.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:42 AM March 9th, 2004 EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
"...female influence and power has always been felt and expressed differantly than male power. Men are the stewards of the political and moral institutions, yet these institutions reflect female values more than male. That is not a reflection of absolute control on the part of either gender. But it is a reflection of the makeup that has defined these institutions for centuries."
Absolutely, certain things in life reflect the power that women have. Greeting card company's, flower shops, etc. would evaporate without women in this world. Men have formed so many institutions, laws, buildings, inventions to simply please the "little lady" that it boggles the mind to perceive of them all.
Given the effort that men have had to make to care for and nurture women and offspring, it is easy to see how feminists might say, "Men control everthing." "Men have all the power."
Well guess what "baby," biology dictated than men do all these things to ensure the survival of the human species. That was truly men's subconscious prime motivating factor. It is clear in this polluted, overpopulated world that women are now exercising their power to kill off as many weaker males as possible to have only the very best males to select from to breed with (nothing new there). In a dirty, grimy, crowded existence the competition for everything is more vicious than ever before. What else could have allowed gender feminist ideology to rear its ugly head?
We certainly have reached critical mass as a species, as a society (globally), and as individuals.
But don't worry gender feminists have all the answers. Just ask them. If you think things are screwed up now, just give them another five years then look again.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:47 AM March 9th, 2004 EST (#56)
|
|
|
|
|
The one above was the old draft and somehow in cutting and pasting from the word processor I got the wrong one. The one below is the intended response. I go rest now.
Ray
==================================================
"...female influence and power has always been felt and expressed differently than male power. Men are the stewards of the political and moral institutions, yet these institutions reflect female values more than male. That is not a reflection of absolute control on the part of either gender. But it is a reflection of the makeup that has defined these institutions for centuries."
The above is a very astute observation. Certain things in life reflect the power that women have. Greeting card company's, flower shops, etc. would evaporate in an instant without women in this world. Men have formed so many institutions, laws, buildings, inventions simply to please the "little lady" that it boggles the mind to perceive of them all.
Given the effort that men have had to make to care for and nurture women and offspring, it is easy to see how gender feminists might say, "Men control everything." "Men have all the power."
Well guess what "baby," biology dictated that men do all these things to ensure the survival of the human species. That was truly men's subconscious prime motivating factor. It is clear in this polluted, overpopulated world that women are now exercising their power to kill off as many weaker males as possible to have only the very best males to select from to breed with (nothing new there). In this dirty, grimy, crowded existence, the competition for everything is more vicious and more perverted, than ever before. What else could have allowed gender feminist ideology to rear its ugly head? If you think the kill off of babies through abortion was horrendous over the past 30 years, then just stayed tuned to see the kill off of the baby boomer population as they hit old age. All those aborted fetuses just aren’t going to be there to pay into social security and keep those societally worthless old individuals alive. Score another one for feminazism. The parallels just keep on coming.
We certainly have reached critical mass as a species, as a society (globally), and as individuals. ...but don't worry gender feminists have all the answers. Just ask them. If you think things are screwed up now, just give them another five years then look again.
Yes, the power structures are shifting, and the mills (courts of law) that crank out ruined men are running at a phenomenal pace.. America has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, having now passed Russia. 93% of the prison population is men, but the cry can still be heard from the outraged populace and suck a_ _ politicians to build more prisons. We have women’s studies centers on college campuses to help women. We have women’s commissions to help women. We have offices of women’s health to help women. We even have commissions for women in prison to help them with education and family, but none for men. Yet, we still have to do more to help women.
From a street corner near your home, in a town called looserville, leaning on a lamp post the view is a riot.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:02 AM March 9th, 2004 EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
"Men on the other hand build civilisations and become the stewards of the codes and definitions created by women."
Not without the "societal and moral structures." Those are the foundation men build on. If those are gone forget the rest. My new societal role is "DEADBEAT," I can't be bothered with the rest of that stuff. Get a feminist to do it, and while you're at it send them to fight the wars against all of those other bad men in the world. I'm too busy hugging a lamp pole. The sooner men rebel, do nothing, and let the feminasties totally screw everything up, the sooner we can stop hearing their ceaseless, whining and complaining about what we have accomplished with our sacrifices.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:35 AM March 9th, 2004 EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray, I agree.
Perhaps it IS time we men just threw up our colective hands and say; 'Fine! It's not good enough for you? do it your self and don't come crying to us when you screw up!'
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im sorry gentlemen but i cannot agree.Giving feminist what they actually want is not a victory for us.Lets not forget that most of this is an ego trip for women whether there is any substance to any of their advances is completely irrelevant to them.Its much like the marathon discussion earlier on,hey look a women won,a women won.Yes but she was given a 20 minute head start.Doesnt matter a women won,a women won.Now if we simply stand aside they view that as a victory and it only serves to reinforce their delusional views of themselves."See we are better than any man" its almost unbelievably childish but unfortunately its also very real.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:29 PM March 9th, 2004 EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
Cain.
That IS definatly food for thought.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The sooner men rebel, do nothing, and let the feminasties totally screw everything up, the sooner we can stop hearing their ceaseless, whining and complaining about what we have accomplished with our sacrifices.
Amen to that. Men should refuse to serve in the Armed Forces, to serve as policeman or firefighters, or frankly in any other capacity in which there is danger to life or limb. Women are so eager to be there? I say let them. Let them take over society's "dirty work" for a while. This will cause feminism to collapse like a house of cards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now instead of asking the obvious next question which is "what form does female power take" they took the irrational route of assuming that both forms of power must be the same and if women then dont have this male form of power then it must have been taken from them.
Dang! That's awfully close to a narrative I've been putting together in my own head.
Carol Gilligan, in In a Different Voice, proposed that female's view of the self and feminine ethics made them on a basic level see themselves as prisoners. (Following the same reasoning, men see themselves as exiles.) I think they look around, see other women acting like prisoners, see men not acting like prisoners (we're acting like exiles!) and conclude we must be the jailers.
So many females have also been encouraged to see men with contempt that many you meet now see themselves as Colonel Hogan and you as Colonel Klink.
Larry
ADULT: What you are once you've run out of excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generally speaking i see myself as Sargeant Shultz but i see your point.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are essentially both dealing with the same reality and finding differant ways to describe it.And that basic reality is that feminism at its very core is an allusion based on flawed reasoning or a paranoid's view of the basic relationship between men and women.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are essentially both dealing with the same reality and finding different ways to describe it.
Indeed. In fact, I have an answer to your question:
"...what form does female power take?"
Value.
Men appear to be inherently powerful, women inherently valuable. It's the difference between self-respect (knowledge and maintenance of one's personal power) and self-esteem (knowledge and maintnance of one's personal value). Of course, power has its own kind of value and value has its own kind of power. That is what the feminist mindset denies.
And that basic reality is that feminism at its very core is an allusion based on flawed reasoning or a paranoid's view of the basic relationship between men and women.
Again, we're seeing the same thing. I see it as short-circuiting women's growth to maturity. Eventually they need to figure out, as women like Trudy, Jen and Luna have, that men aren't their jailers.
Larry
ADULT: What you are once you've run out of excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats very interesting Larry
My take on the division has been to describe male power as external and female power as internal,and im talking about direct application here not perspective.Men have always been obssessed with and therefore motivated by external forms such as War,Science,Mathematics,Enginering,logic.All of the things required to control and manipulate the external world to the benefit of the people,the tribe,the community that the men represent.Women have always been obssessed with and therefore motivated by internal forms such as Emotion,Language,Relationships,Spirituality and of course family.All the things necessary to control and manipulate the moral and social order.The differance in gender is real and as such has a real affect on the motivations and outklook of us all.To deny that as feminism has, forces people to deny their very nature and creates a society with all the character and charm of a schizophrenic,always uncertain as to who it actually is.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:06 PM March 9th, 2004 EST (#69)
|
|
|
|
|
"The difference in gender is real and as such has a real affect on the motivations and outlook of us all. To deny that as feminism has, forces people to deny their very nature and creates a society with all the character and charm of a schizophrenic, always uncertain as to who it actually is."
Isn't it ironic how political correctness tells us to celebrate our diversity, except in the area of gender, where things truly do appear to be hard wired into us by physiology.
Having grown up in the midwest, but having lived for decades in L.A. it also appears to me that most of our racial differences are more cultural than anything, and in a few more decades in the melting pot, different groups will have merged to the point of being less distinguishable (so much for diversity in that area when everyone has intermarried).
On the other hand I don't see a big run on sex change operations (except in Hollywood) happening any time in the future. Physiologically (except for anomalies), sex is 99.99% assigned at birth so as you say, "The difference in gender is real..."
Gender feminism is a disease, and schizophrenia is just one of its symptoms. Pardon me while I get out of touch with my sensitive side and go celebrate my gender uniqueness with a big shot of logic and common sense.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The contradictions in there constant mantra of "uniqueness" has always ben one of my favorites.The moment gender enters the equation their position is immediately reversed and the idea of one's "uniqueness" is no longer tolerated.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:53 PM March 9th, 2004 EST (#72)
|
|
|
|
|
It is also strange that feminists and like-minded women keep telling us there is no diffrence beween the genders..., Then they turn around and critisize men for being different from women and talk about how supirior they are to men.
...'the hell...?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women take exception to the view that all women are alike, but will vigorously deny that any woman is different."
Larry
ADULT: What you are once you've run out of excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HaHa,very true.The differances never exist until they bitch about how our differances make us pigs.And of course they never clue in to the fact that admiting to the things they are bitching about is admitting the very differances they deny.Round and round we go.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:27 PM March 9th, 2004 EST (#76)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep!
I got dizzy just reading your post!(^_^)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I going to suggest that men may have power in some sense but women have power over the species. They decide how many babies and who's the father and always have. (Until fairly recently most women considered children a blessing not a hindrance). Men have to compete to be the husbands/fathers. Women rarely compete except for the exceptional man. If men don't provide and protect they don't get women. If Genghis Khan or Einstein aren't attractive to some women then they don't have children and their abilities die with them. Therefore the men you have now are more or less what women have wanted or needed. If men have gone out and fought or invented or worked hard it is not in spite of women it is because of women. Like most females in most species women define the species. It is only because of feminism that women are trying to deny the value of men and women's influence with men and over the world in general.
Raymond Cuttill
Men's Hour Blog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The choices of both men and women have an effect on the direction of the species,but i think its very true to say that the female choice since it is they that are in direct control of the process has more of an influence.
In order to attract women men use displays of power,because its our instinct and because women are attracted to power.In order to attract us women use displays of beauty because thats their instinct and of course because it works. And the process itself has seen to it that both genders fit the requirments that the other is looking for.Women are soft,delicate and beautifull and men are big,strong and powerfull.And no amount of feminist psycho babble is going to change the fact that we remain irresistibly drawn to one another precisely because of those gender traits not in spite of them.
And yes its very true that men do what men do because of women,but the dirty little secret that no women would ever admit to is that women do what they do because of us.And it is they not us that work so hard to establish the commitment and it is they not us that have more to lose when so many of us are just walking away from any form of commitment.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:00 PM March 10th, 2004 EST (#81)
|
|
|
|
|
"And yes its very true that men do what men do because of women, but the dirty little secret that no women would ever admit to is that women do what they do because of us."
In my opinion, they “do what they do” more because they are covetous of our male physical power, than they “do what they do” out of a desire to have pleasant relations with us. That coveting of male power by females explains why we had to let a woman win the L.A. Marathon. Women have the largest, group inferiority complex in the world, and it is highly obvious, because of the way they are constantly trying to usurp or undermine the male physical power that we are born with. If there is anyone in this world who lives in a sexist hostile environment, where they are constantly being harrassed because of their sex, it is men.
The average gender feminist who is confronted with this truth will deny it, but that is simply because she is an egotistical megalomaniac who will never let a man be right about anything, even something as over obvious as this. Speaking of patronizing, disrespectful ways, here is a good example from this thread, Poor Little Boys "You men just can't stand to share your power. Just shut up and quit whining." Patronization is the main modus operandi of the typical “smart mouth” femi-supremacist.
Femi-supremacists think they are superior to men in all ways, but they are not. They are simply covetous of men to the point of being as repulsive as “Orcs.” This modus operandi, “patronization,” is highly disrespectful to men, and really points out what kind of complete fools run the domestic violence industry. Considering this form of emotional abuse alone would constitute a massive battered men’s epidemic all by itself. If you factor in all the other forms of abuse females commit against men, we would finally see the true picture of domestic violence instead of the big fraud that is currently before our eyes.
Femi-supremacists will never be satisfied until they have all the power and control so they can then treat all men like slaves and idiots. Such is the abuse that the average man faces, when he wakes up anywhere in the western world today.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This brings us back to the notion of a schizophrenic break down in behavior.On the one hand we have the internal instinctual response of women to men,their attraction to us and their desire to establish a commitment with us.And on the other hand we have the surface dialogue of feminism which exploits women by pandering to the female ego.Feminism has of course been very effective at convincing women to adopt these surface notions and its also been succesfull at convincing some of them to internalize these notions.But that does not change who and what women are, it simply means that women are paying a very steep price for their attachment to an ideology that refuses to allow women to aknowledge openly the very instincts that drive them.Now that's a schizophrenic break down.
As a side note i use Google as my spell checker and when i ran "commitment" through it,the first entry on the list was "Commitment,The #1 Woman's Magazine on the Internet" with all the same how to get a hubby, how to keep him and how to make chocolate cake articles that womens magazines have been putting out since Gutenberg first had his notion.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:38 PM March 12th, 2004 EST (#84)
|
|
|
|
|
"How to get a hubby".
Well, let'see you might start with a little
respect.
Don't nag all the time.
Stop critisizeing ALL men.
Quit trying to BE a man.
Stop trying to change men.
Stop trying to "have it all" includeing Men's.
Stop screeching in public how you hate men.
Which leads me to suggest you stop hateing men.
Because it is like being a KKK member and saying you want Black, Indian, Hispanic, jewish Etc, friends. Who would WANT to be your freind in these groups?
Stop beleiveing that the men you see on TV are real. I.E. submissive, spineless, groveling, Uncle Tom mouse-boys.
Stop shoveing victimhood in men's faces.
And stop trivializing men's issues.
If you follow this basic guide line you might, I repeat MIGHT find a "hubby", ladies.
...It's up to you...
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/t
Larry
ADULT: What you are once you've run out of excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:25 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
"You men just can't stand to share your power. Just shut up and quit whining."
Ah, a dominatrix! How many men have you killed with those stiletto heels? When you hit me with that whip is that domestic violence or just foreplay? How many fish have you caught with those stockings? What do you mean it turns you on to see me in handcuffs? It sounds like you have a power and control issue.
I'll shut up and stop whining, when you stop abusing me, and if you really want to "share" power then give back half the power, instead of just seizing it all.
I really hope someday you learn to play nice, and stop being a mean little girl who likes to hurt boys.
R.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:43 AM March 9th, 2004 EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
"I love the smell of trolls steaming in the morning. It smells like victory."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:51 AM March 9th, 2004 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
,i>"You men just can't stand to share your power."
I'd love to share with you. How's this, "The Titantic's lifeboats are now boarding, FEMINISTS LAST, men and children 1st!"
Enjoy the Ice, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:58 AM March 9th, 2004 EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
NICE burn, Ray!!
Let me try one.
Okay let's share the power.
Men can volunteer for the military if they want too and WOMEN can be drafted. How's that, Angelina Trollie?
Or how about this?, When the cops come to a domestic violence situation they automaticaly arrest the FEMALE.
Or this.
In entertainment we constantly show violence against women as sexy, cute and funny while treating ANY violence against men (real or imagined) as a tragedy and\or sexism.
Or maybe this, The courts will award custody of children to the FATHER automaticaly. because a father is viewed as being a better parent and more "important" to a child. Then we make the mother pay money that she doesn't have and if she can't make the payments we'll throw her in jail.
So you see, my dear Troll. We would have no problem at all in "shareing" the "power" with you.
In fact if what is happening to men these days is the "power" that you so hungrily crave, then I think I speak for most, if not all of us, here when I say FINE share the power, in fact... TAKE IT ALL!!!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:24 PM March 9th, 2004 EST (#70)
|
|
|
|
|
TC:
Good list. I have to go chisel out a statue of of a prominent feminist pioneer to replace the one I have of Atlas with the weight of the world on his shoulders. The only question I have is, "Should I put a bra on her or just let 'em hang?
I guess I'll never get the hang of female opression/liberation imagery.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:07 PM March 9th, 2004 EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray,
I can ansewer your question as to whether your sculpture should wear a bra or be bare chested.
I am an artist, myself and I can tell you that the ansewer is; neither one.
Why? because as I have learned through out my artistic history, There is no RIGHT way to draw, paint or sculpt the female form.
It will always be critisized. ESPECIALY by women. the'll always say things like;"Her breasts are too big", "Her breasts are too small", "Why is she so skinny?", "Why is she so fat?" "Why are her arms so rounded?", "Why are her arms so mucular?" "why isn't she wearing any clothes?", "Why isn't she wearing enough clothes", "Why is she wearing so MUCH clothing?", "Why is she so feminine?",(probably because she's a GIRL) "Why is she so masculine?",
"Why do you draw her so short? You must feel supirior to women!" and "Why is she so tall? You must feel infirior to women."
I'm not kidding, Ray. If you're an artist, you've probably heared the same sort of things.
There is just no "RIGHT" way to portray the female form. No matter what you do it will always be wrong.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. . .with the million-plus 'leggally' gender-exclusive male genital mutilations performed annually in the usa.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once again I say as I look down the front of my pants....OH MIGHTY MAGIC WAND...OH PONDEROUS AND ALL POWERFULL KEY TO THE CITY...MAKE ALL THE THINGS THAT FEMINISTS SO CHRONICLY GRIND THEIR AXE ABOUT GO AWAY!!! WHAT? YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT?...YOU ARE JUST GOING TO BE A PRICK ARE YOU? NO WONDER THE FEMINAZIS DON'T LIKE YOU!!!
You know it is now something I use as a litmus test when I meet someone and I am getting to know them in terms of their character wether or not they can be trusted...I watch how they react when the subject of power comes into the conversation. People who treat the subject the way they would treat somebody else's dirty kleenex and quickly change the subject are decent and trustworthy. People who are obsessivly fascinated with it are the sort of people who will use their fat poorly manicured fingers to go around picking other people's noses and I wouldn't trust any of THEM as far as I could spit a lunger. POWER IS THE ABILITY TO COMPEL OTHERS TO DO WHAT THEY OTERWISE WOULD NOT DO. I have no such ability so to imply that I am some sort of miscreant because I am unwilling to share that which I do not have is absurd. YOUR LUST AND FASCINATION FOR THIS UTTERLY TOXIC SUBSTANCE UNDERLINES TO ME THAT THE LIKES OF YOU IS EXACTLY WHAT I DO NOT WANT IN ANY POSITION OF CONTROL IN MY LIFE. Besides it is entirely contrary to the nature of power for it to be shared....power IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN taken by force. So shame on YOU little girl
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
