|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure in their own way groups like IWF mean well but the truth is, they're still feminists. They don't care a whit about men except in so far as we are useful in some way to women.
Absolutely, and all these groups are essentially the same. The attitude is the irritatingly patronizing one of, poor little boys, let's cut 'em a bit of a break. This won't change until we confront women on their claim to moral superiority.
And Ms. Sommers' comments were actually quite revealing. When she talks about "civilizing" boys (the "male animal") what she really means is training them to become the unquestioning servants of women later on, which to women like her is their proper place as sub-humans or defective women.
But, eventually, men revolt and the result isn't pretty. It's actually fathers, not mothers, who succeed in civilizing boys for they effect a gradual, rather than sudden, withdrawal from maternal influence. Ironically, the end result is better, not only for civilization but for women as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:50 PM April 2nd, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I am a male member of the IWF. I am responding to your inkwell commentary, "Is the IWF nice enough to guys?" Please note that I am responding with a degree of sarcasm that I feel is appropriate to the disrespectful attitude in which the piece refers to men.
At the end of the piece your string moderator says, "I for one have often noted with dismay that manifestos from "men’s rights" advocates usually end with a complaint about being forced to pay child support--and my sympathy for these guys tends to wane. And I couldn’t help but notice that in yesterday’s newspaper photos of gleeful Iraqis in Fallujah kicking the burnt sticks that used to be human beings, there wasn’t a single female face to be seen. There might be something to this business about the civilizing effect of women."
My response to that and the term "male animal" used by Hoff-Sommers follows:
I do not know where the IWF stands on the role of women in combat, but I know that the Concerned Women of America (a conservative Christian group) opposes women in any kind of a combat role. I see all kinds of support for men going to combat from conservative women whose opinions I see in the media. Even liberal women like Diane Feinstein and Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. Therefore, I think “they” (women) should be in the forefront of this and any future combat roles in this countries wars, instead of just running off at the mouth about the violence of men, and the problems of men not meeting every need of women. Who knows maybe men would be more civilized it they didn't have to go to war from now on. Let's find out. Send American women to fight all those bad foreign terrorists who fly planes into our buildings, and the guys will just stay home, sit in their rocking chairs, raise the kids, and make comments about women's barbarity as there bones are being thrown around some foreign, smoldering cauldron of war.
When we've lost as many millions of American women in war as we've lost American men, then and only then should men even talk about lifting a finger to give “equal” support to combating our enemies who use violent force against us.
My sympathy for these conservative male bashing females tends to wane, when they cry about leaving their children behind, and having to go fight in a war. They have reaped so much privilege from this country, and have faced so little life and death responsibility for our riches that it makes you sick. Why can’t they just quietly die in those wars, and send the child support checks regularly too.
I’ve never made love to a female whose missing limbs before and there’s sure to be many of them coming back from war. I don’t even like the idea, it’s repulsive, but I guess I have to be somewhat patriotic. I wonder what it will be like to see the great numbers of homeless veterans on the streets who will be women instead of men.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:29 PM April 2nd, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I for one have often noted with dismay that manifestos from "men’s rights" advocates usually end with a complaint about being forced to pay child support--and my sympathy for these guys tends to wane.
So sorry that we lose your sympathy by complaining about the criminalization of our sexuality. Too bad it's so difficult for you to understand why being forced to pay 30% of your income, being sent to jail, and having your whole life screwed up, just for having sex, in country that has found partial birth abortion to be a constitutional right, gets men angry. Go ahead, put down your cocktail, suspend your dismay, and try to understand mens' feelings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Psychopathy is a disorder characterised in part by callousness, a diminished capacity for remorse, superficial charm, proneness to boredom, and poor behavioural controls.
Psychopathic criminals habitually fail to fulfil societal obligations, appear to lack any sense of loyalty, and are unperturbed when confronted with the destructive nature of their behaviour.
Psychopathic individuals exhibit such characteristics as lack of guilt, lack of empathy, and superficial charm, which are considered primary in the clinical description of psychopathy (Cleckley, 1967; Hare, 1991)."
Given the obvious symptoms that feminists of all stripes and flavors exhibit routinely, I submit that for the general benefit of society, it is truly time to admit that FEMINISM IS A MENTAL ILLNESS!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohhhh, no, that's the last thing we need. Imagine it: "we find that the defendant cannot be held responsible for her actions as she suffers from severe feminism."
They'd LOVE that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:40 PM April 3rd, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"...it is truly time to admit that FEMINISM IS A MENTAL ILLNESS!"
No better proof of that than the Michigan co-ed who went "missing" this past week. We know now that her story about a knife wielding man abducting her was a hoax created by her. Just one more false accuser of men in a long line of female criminals.
The news media has been falling all over itself defending her:
Sean Hannity said we shouldn't press charges if she gets help.
A female victim's advocate on Fox news commented about how much the suspect drawing made from her description looked like her Father. "We should look into that. There's something not right about the Father's relationship," she said in so many words. What a hypocrite! Talk about blaming the victim.
"It was a cry for help," was repeated on so many stations so many times I lost track.
Surprisingly, a tiny few were saying she should be held accountable for her actions, and one "shrink" said she was not crazy, and should be held accountable.
Shock of all shocks, one police spokesman said, "It happens all the time."
Not only is feminism a mental illness. It is an infectious illness that has dulled the sanity of society, law, government, education, etc. to the point where they are in a significant state of denial about the damaging effects of gender feminist mental illness.
One can only wonder were this co-ed would be today without the 30 years of gender feminist victimology being hammered into every facet of our society. "I have to blame somebody for my problems, I can't just accept responsibility for myself," is the gender feminist cry that has passed from mantra to modus operandi for all the gender feminist brain washed females in the western world.
The cruel irony is that even people who think they haven't been affected by femi-supremacist propaganda, have been. IWF is no exception.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FEMINISM IS A MENTAL ILLNESS!
Feminism is not just a generic mental illness, it's a psychosis. Only a psychotic could believe that all men are potential rapists, should be reduced to 10% of the population so that "species responsibility" can be returned to women, are "oppressed" by the "patriarchy" even today, or any of the other numerous ravings put out by "mainstream" feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course I meant to say that women are "oppressed" by the "patriarchy" even today
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Today, advanced electro-shock therapies have been demonstrated to be effective in treating severe cases of psychopathology.
I would be willing to have my taxes raised if we could create a nationwide system of electro-spas for the feminist-afflicted souls among us.
Hell, I'd be willing to pull the switch!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roy,
Email me at zenpriest@menforjustice.com , there are some things I would like to discuss with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:26 AM April 6th, 2004 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
so...all men who pay child support simply had a one-night stand? some of those men agreed to raise and support a child - most of them, in fact. the stereotypical paternity suit constitutes a minority of cs cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:23 PM April 3rd, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I've said before that I consider the term "equity feminism" an oxymoron. My take is that the IWF is more Republican friendly than man friendly. However, I wouldn't be so quick to cast the entire IWF as anti-male based on the stupid comments of one moderator. Those comments do reveal the hostility toward men which is so prevelant in Western society, even in women who reject mainstream feminism. That she would characterize the actions of the mob in Fallujah as male behavior makes me wonder if she's been sneeking off and reading Dworkin.
I didn't hear the talk given by Hoff Sommers, but whatever she said, we need to remember her work as a whole before lumping her in with the man-haters.
It's disappointing to see how quickly all men's rights issues can be dismissed even at the IWF. But I don't think that moderator's comments represent the IWF overall. There's some good stuff over there.
TLE
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then what do they have "left over" as faux-concerns for men?
Condescending veiled contempt... maybe?
Or just another feminist prescription for how men can be "rehabilitated?"
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main reason I posted this is that it could be the first step on the slippery slope (emphasis on could be) and that we should keep a very close eye on them to see if they enforce some morality on this issue or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These comments are troubling and should be challenged. BUT, all things considered the IWF is probably the most influential, pro-male (well, almost always) organization out there. I don’t agree with everything they say and do but their ratio of good to bad is extremely high.
Let’s not be too critical of an occasional faux pas from people that are with us on most things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This doesn't suprise me. I have met many so-called female and even some male men's rights supporters that believe a women giving birth gives her a right to free money, protection and support from men. Even on a libertarian forum I used to go to it was hard to find a women that was "pro-choice" for men, yet most of them were "pro-choice" for women. Most non-men's rights people I've met seem to think collecting child support is a fundemental right granted by the constitution.
I don't know about the rest of you but to me this is a fundemental issue, recently I had a discussion with a feminist and in my research for the discussion I learned a lot of things about child support laws in the USA. Things like you are on the hook for child support even if you have a written agreement before intercourse or you still have to pay child support even if your sperm was taken without your knowledge (yes this has happened a number of times). I'm starting to think the USA is more femminist then Canada.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Things like you are on the hook for child support even if you have a written agreement before intercourse or you still have to pay child support even if your sperm was taken without your knowledge (yes this has happened a number of times).
Child support laws are based on the child’s right to support by its parents, regardless of the circumstances. A man in California that was statutorily raped at the age of 14 is paying support for the child that resulted. The child’s right to support supercedes all other considerations. Fraud, kidnapping, rape, etc. – all are irrelevant when it comes to child support obligations.
If a woman has access to your sperm she owns you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure!! thats why stay at home mothers are jailed for failing to support their children, same as wealfare queens.
In a traditional society women obey and serve men in return men support them, men have custody of children, and men are the ones to decide when, who and how many, and accordingly men are expected to support them.
Feminism is about rights without obligations for women, for that to happens other people, (men), must have obligations without rights, in any society people that has obligations without rights are called slaves.
So now women do not have to serve men but expect to be supported by them, they are the ones that decide to have children and have the right to rise them, but againg expect men to support them.
Women have the right to have money without the obligation to earn it, so men are force to work without a pay, (slave labor), the right to housing without having to pay for it, the right of pension benefits without having to contribute to them, the right to social security and so on.
Under these circumstances men refuse to marriage, and to support children they dont have the right to rise, no even decided to have them in first place, (no human beeing will ever accepts slavery voluntarely), so the feminists pass a law saying thst the use of the sperm of a man by a woman entitles her to force that man into slave labor, (work without pay, partially or complete slave labor, if complete the slave master should provide food and shelter to the slave, so he can keep on working, why bother?, just make them work without pay 3 days a week or so).
Nothing to do with children rights or whatever, is just the right of women to have children and not having to support them, is about the right of women to be supported by men for nothing.
Is just the right to enslave men, collectively (via taxation) or individually, (marriage or forced transfer of money, that is alimony or child support).
Women are entitled to exploite men thats all what it is, at a collective level we have taxation, (men pay the most of taxes and receive the least), and at an individual level, each woman has the right to have man to work for her.
Then it is necessary to have a system to allocate the slaves, wich woman has the right to exploite that man?, could be marriage, but men are refusing it, and also it would be disturbing for women having to get married in order to gain acces to the STATE SLAVE PROGRAM, or having to remaining married , so sex may be?, problematic, women have sex with several men so to who belongs a man who has sleep with 10 women?, the first woman to sleep with him may be? the one that sleep with him more times?, so they use sperm usage method, yep conveninent.
Ofcorse slaves must be raminded to tell potential female lovers their status, that they are allready owned, that is tell women that their sperm has allready been used, basycally that they are alrready under slave labor so is fine as long as the woman is just looking for sex, but .............. bullshit!!
HERE WHAT A FRIEND HAS TO TELL ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE WESTERN SOCIETIES:
I believe that despite all the efforts done by so many men`s sites, we will not succeed in changing the actual situation. Quite on the contrary: it will only get worse. The entire Western civilization is bound to end-up in the ditch. Of that I am certain.
It is only a question of time. I could bet my life on it.
There is, however, a very simple solution to all the desperation and grief that men must endure. There exists a very efficient way to end this slow agony. I would like to present my thoughts to you.
The main reason for this endless gender war is …. the children. And there seems to be no limit to the hatred and the misandry.
Therefore, by suppressing the source of the pain, the pain should disappear. Shouldn`t it?
My proposed solution is this:
1-Men must forego marriage. (Abolition of marriage preferable)
2-Men must refuse to father children. (Abolition of fatherhood and vasectomy are best)
3-Mandatory abortion.
If men stop marrying and breeding, they will enjoy freedom again. Of that there can be no doubt. It will eventually put an end to feminism through attrition.
The program I wish to propose is to run a huge and constant campaign by putting ads on television, advertising everywhere, newspapers, radio, etc…always the same message, it will eventually dawn on men that this is their ONLY alternative. We must hit where it hurts most! I believe that you can measure the impact….
Typically speaking, it is not the man who wants children: it is the woman. Men do not need children…..until they see their own offsprings.
Let us stop complaining about the injustices : it`s a dead-end, and simply eradicate the source of this injustice. And if there are still women wanting children, well, there are sperm banks on every street corner. Let THEM pay for everything and let THEM do all the work of raising children. Who cares if our society collapses?
Do you?
I don`t! (In fact, I hope it will).
Who knows: maybe it`s time for the West to say good bye? Let the Muslims in: they will be the next civilzation. We have done our share. In my opinion, the white race has to disappear: it`s the only way to save humanity, or what`s left of it.
When men will finally be freed from all the crap, they will be able to enjoy life as they wish and they still can have sex free of charge. Did anybody come up with a better solution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More light on the pathetic situation of western men from a wise man:
You are a slave.
I know that’s not what you want to hear as you hoist your New Year’s champagne, but it is the unpleasant truth that we all face going into 2004.
Movies and public school like to portray slaves as bound by chains and beaten with whips, creating a polarized image of slavery that can be pointed to with the comment, “You are not like that, therefore you are not a slave.” But history shows that slaves have been treated in all manner of ways, some more cruel than others, yet even with the most kind treatment, a slave remains a slave.
Setting aside the stereotyped image of a slave as a bleeding chain-bound wretch, slaves throughout history are often hard to recognize. In some cases, such as the Medieval Serfs, they were held slaves to the rulers by religious belief, and did not see themselves as slaves even though they were treated as such.The favored slaves of Asian potentates wore jewels to make a movie star gasp, yet were still slaves for all their finery and comfort.
So, what is a slave? How do we define a slave? What test do we use to tell if someone is a slave. What makes them different from free people?
Free people can say “no”. Free people can refuse demands for their money, time, and children. Slaves cannot. There is no freedom without the freedom to say “no”. If someone demands that you do something and you can say “no” and refuse to do it, then you are a free human being. If you can be forced to do something or surrender something that you do not wish to, then you are a slave. No other test need be applied.
You are a slave because the ruling class can do what they want, take what they want, and you cannot refuse. You may have freedom to decide what TV channel to watch tonight, or just which style car you will drive to your work in, but little power over the rest of your life.
You are a slave. When you live under a government that takes your wealth and your children and lies to you to keep you docile and scares you to keep you obedient, how can it be otherwise?
You are a slave. You can stay that way, or not. It’s that simple. Nobody is coming to save you. There are no heroes, no cavalry riding to the rescue. Whether you and your children will live as slaves or as free human beings is entirely up to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muslims Attending Prayers Outstrip Christians In U.K.
Some 930,000 Muslims go to the mosque at least once a week
LONDON, January 27 – The number of British Muslims praying at mosques has outstripped the number of regular worshippers in the Church of England, the mother church of the Anglican communion, which covers 160 countries, a mass-circulation British daily reported.
According to figures compiled from government and academic sources, some 930,000 Muslims go to the mosque at least once a week against 916,000 Anglicans, The Sunday Times said.
The figure does not include young children and does not give a real estimate of practicing Muslims, given that many of whom pray at home.
Tariq Modood, a professor of sociology at Bristol University, has found that 62 percent of Muslims pray in places of worship.
The Muslim community does not keep registers of attendance in mosques, the British daily said.
Archbishop of York David Hope, second in the church hierarchy, acknowledged that the number of Muslim worshippers has become greater in amount.
But he said that many more people "have an affinity" to the church than the number recorded as having attended once on a Sunday.
The figure proves the rise of Islam in Britain and the religious freedom enjoyed by around three million Muslims in the country amid calls for allocating more seats in the House of Lords to Muslims and other religious communities.
The Church of England has 26 seats in the House of Lords. However, the recent figures do not include Catholics.
Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) released recently a CD targeting the sizable Muslim community, reminding them that they are part and parcel of the British society and that their contribution "is not just a matter of history, but a reality in every walk of life".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One more about the falling of the west:
Chicago Tribune (01.10.2003)/- Two years ago, Mahmood Khawel, a 34-year-old financial consultant and devout Muslim from the Midlands city of Peterborough, wanted a quickie divorce.
So he went to an Islamic court in London where he performed the divorce ritual known as talaq. Standing before a judge, he declared three times in succession that he was repudiating his wife. Judge Omar Bakri Muhammad, an expert in Shariah, the sacred law of Islam, granted the divorce on the spot.
But now Khawel and his wife have changed their minds. They want to reconcile. Last week, Khawel was back in Muhammad's courtroom, asking for an annulment of the talaq.
"OK, brother, don't worry," Muhammad told him.
None of this would be recognized in any British civil court, according to legal experts, but for growing numbers of Britain's 3.6 million Muslims, Shariah is the law.
During the past decade, a parallel universe of Islamic jurisprudence has sprouted across Britain. Shariah courts can be found in almost every large city. In London, different Muslim immigrant groups--the Somalis in Woolwich, for example--have established ad hoc courts that cater to their community's needs.
Most operate quietly
No one knows how many of these courts are operating in Britain. Because of their informal nature, reliable statistics do not exist.
Most of the Shariah courts go about their business quietly. But Muhammad, 44, a native of Syria who studied Islamic law in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, does not shy from controversy.
His outspoken support for Osama bin Laden and his praise for the Sept. 11 hijackers--"the magnificent 19," he calls them--have landed him in trouble with British anti-terrorism authorities. Earlier this year, police closed his north London office, and last month they seized all his legal files.
But the faithful who fill the makeshift courtroom above a North London sweatshop care little about Muhammad's politics. They come here because they believe he is uniquely qualified to settle their marital disputes, sort out their business partnerships and decide the amount of blood money that should be paid to compensate the victim of a crime.
In his white gown, white skullcap and beard, Muhammad is an imposing figure behind the cluttered table that serves as his bench. Justice is rendered with swift certainty, and many pleadings are handled via the Internet.
Divorces form the bulk of his caseload. For men, getting a divorce is simple. For women, it can be more problematic. Usually, women have to buy their way out of an unhappy marriage. They also have to give up custody of their children and forfeit their property rights.
Muhammad said he tries to be lenient with women who are the victims of physical or psychological abuse by their husbands. These women are not required to pay off their husbands, and they also get to keep their jewelry and dowry, which are considered the bride's property under Islamic law.
He also said he gives the benefit of the doubt to women in cases where they married against their will. In these instances, he said, he simply annuls the marriage contract.
But if a woman wants a divorce "because her husband is impotent or he smells bad or he is ugly," the woman has to pay her husband double the value of her dowry, he said. In all cases, community property and custody of the children go to the husband. In the case of very young children, there is joint custody until age 7. Then the father gets full custody.
The custody laws are "quite logical," Muhammad said. "A child comes from the seed of a man. The woman is the soil in which the seed is planted. A man is fully entitled to the fruit of his seed."
British civil law would disagree, but Muhammad shrugs.
"I can't change God's law," he said.
Separate realms
Anjem Choudary, a lawyer with a degree from a British university, represents clients in Shariah court as well as in Britain's civil court system. He often hears the argument that when Muslims choose to live in Britain, they should obey British law.
"They do obey British law," he said. "But the Shariah is God's law. It is a fundamental part of being a Muslim. If you call yourself a Muslim you must put God's law ahead of man's law."
When the two are in conflict, as in the case of child custody laws, God's law prevails, he said. But why would a woman give up custody and surrender her property rights when she could easily obtain a no-fault civil divorce? The answer is usually family pressure.
A Muslim woman who ignored Islamic strictures and obtained a civil divorce would immediately be declared an apostate. In the insular and tightly knit immigrant communities of Britain, this would disgrace her entire family.
"The Shariah is what we live and die by," said Khawel, the man who was seeking to annul his divorce. Khawel and many others in the Muslim community have little faith in Britain's "manmade laws." This is especially true when their main source of information about it is the tabloid press, which tends to highlight cases of rapists escaping punishment while homeowners go to jail for defending their property against burglars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:47 PM April 5th, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes this is what I learned, I found an article in a legal journal about this issue I had already known about victims of statuatory rape being made to pay but I didn't know that victims of non-consensual sex would also have too. There were two cases in the journal that really peeved me off. One was a man who's girlfriend took his sperm out of a condom and impregnated herself she admitted to doing this without his consent or knowledge, the other was a man who was passed out drunk and was basically raped. In both cases the guys had to pay child support.
You are wrong about it being based on supporting the child regardless, this only applies to fathers. In the same article it had a women who was raped by her brother and the brother was raising the child. It was ruled she did not have to pay him child support, I believe the article called this the strict liablity of sperm theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a women who was raped by her brother and the brother was raising the child. It was ruled she did not have to pay him child support
I don’t doubt that there are double standards practiced to avoid victimizing a woman. The 99.9% of the time that it is men being duped or raped the “regardless of the circumstances” principle applies.
Anonymous, do you happen to know where you found the article about the woman who had been raped and wasn’t liable for CS? What journal was that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes you can read it here it's from a legal magazine - http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art 199903.html
Near the end they mention the case of the women who was relieved of her support obligations and two men who were not relieved of the obligations under the same circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes you can read it here it's from a legal magazine - http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art 199903.html
This link takes me nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I went to the site when I first posted the link and it was still there. I just went there now after reading your comment and it is no longer there. At first I thought it was because of the space between art and 199903.html but even when I took that out it wasn't there anymore, sorry. I did copy the article when I first read it but can't paste it here because of the rules here. Maybe the owners saw a bunch of hits coming from a mens activism site then removed the article, who knows.
Here is the case where the mother was relieved of child support obligations
Division of Child Support Enforcement ex rel. Esther M. v. Mary L., No. 94-33812 (1994.DE.19031)),(mother of children did not have to pay child support for children conceived as a result of the rape/incest by her brother; intercourse was involuntary and nonconsensual).
I did a google for the case and came up with this forum post that contains the part of the article relevant to our discussion.
http://www.equityfeminism.com/discussion/fullthrea d$msgnum=445
if there are any spaces in the link above remove them I'm not sure why this forum does that and I don't know how to fix it.
The original article is quite good it covers every angle about how men get shafted over child support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew74,
I did a google search on "No. 94-33812 (1994.DE.19031)" and got the article. The URL was the same as you posted. When I copied your URL again it took me the same place. The source must have been down for a while.
Anyway, thanks for the link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure in their own way groups like IWF mean well but the truth is, they're still feminists.
Close, but not exactly. They themselves will dispute the "feminist" label, which -- since, like any word used by women, it can mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean at the moment -- only confuses things. The truth is, they're still women, and as such are different from men: they think differently, have different concerns and priorities, different strengths and weaknesses.
Our culture has already been thoroughly feminized, and we have all been conditioned to base our thinking on the primary, unexamined feminist dogma that the sexes are really no different, outside of "socially-imposed" role models. Even in this forum I find most participants unconsciously taking this idea for granted. So long as you do not question this assumption, the most you will ever accomplish is begging women -- your masters -- to treat you nicer.
"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." --Marcus Porcius Cato (the Elder, a.k.a. the Censor), 234-149 BCE
Which is exactly what this IWF "discussion" is about. The quoted message from a concerned man is very well reasoned and moderately stated, yet is dismissed out of hand, with hardly veiled contempt, by the female "moderator." Why? Because she can. Because he asked, and in so doing ceded the authority to her from the beginning -- and she couldn't resist the temptation to use the power he handed her, all the more because she couldn't respond to his points on the reasoned level he presented them. This is known as "changing the subject," and has been a primary female tactic from time immemorial. Women instinctively regard such a man with contempt, even if he is their own creation -- in fact, precisely because he is their own creation: how can the Creator regard her creature as her "equal"? Boys -- "Is it okay for me to be me, mommy?" -- are not "equal" to women. Just as women are not "equal" to men.
Get this: There can be no question of "equality" between the sexes. There can be parity, a balance of power based on recognized, differentiated gender roles -- most of which are natural and innate -- and territories of authority, so that each sex has something to exchange with the other, and thus both have reason to cooperate.
Only when boys separate from Mother and grow into men do men have such a territory from which to address women, and do women respect them as men. And of course women instinctively try to prevent their boys growing up and away, out of their sphere of power. Who likes to lose a possession, a toy? And neither is this bad for men, for manhood "won" without effort is not manhood. Which is why women cannot make boys into men, because they are instinctively uncomfortable with competition and conflict -- which might result in someone's feelings being hurt. We cannot look to women -- even "intelligent" women like IWF or "iFeminists" -- to show us the way out. For all their talk, they simply don't know. The sexes are different. If they were not, there'd be only one of us here.
One of the few thinking men to be found these days in public is Fred Reed, whose latest commentary points out, in his usual inimitable style, the real, significant difference between the sexes:
"Women and men want very different things and therefore very different worlds. Men want sex, freedom, and adventure; women want security, pleasantness, and someone to care about (or for) them. Both like power. Men use it to conquer their neighbors whether in business or war, women to impose security and pleasantness. ... Just about everything that once defined masculinity is now denounced as 'macho,' a hostile word embodying the female incomprehension of men. ... Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women."
Read Fred twice, or more. Despite his informal, uneven style -- which I'm not sure is unconscious as it may seem, his style in itself is an expression of maleness, not "nice" but charmingly rough, beer in hand, direct and to the point, often ungentle but never inconsiderate -- he repeatedly gets right to the heart of the matter. "...female incomprehension of men." Exactly. And no amount of explaining or "inter-gender dialog" will ever entirely correct this. Women talk; men do. Ultimately, women will never understand men. If they could, they wouldn't need us.
"Men are happy for men to be men and women to be women; women want us all to be women." Never forget this. Keep it in mind, and you're well on your way to understanding women. Women want us all to be women -- or children -- because that's what they understand. But, like children, ultimately they don't know what's best for them.
I wouldn't be so quick to cast the entire IWF as anti-male based on the stupid comments of one moderator. Those comments do reveal the hostility toward men which is so prevelant in Western society, even in women who reject mainstream feminism. ... I didn't hear the talk given by Hoff Sommers, but whatever she said, we need to remember her work as a whole before lumping her in with the man-haters. ... In general, they are our allies, despite the fact that their focus is on women.
They're not my "allies." They're just women, blabbing on as women do, sometimes making sense but as often just talking to hear themselves talk -- because that's what women do. It's not a matter of being "anti-male" or pro-male; it's that level of "thinking" that is the problem. I'm not in a war with women, or feminists. They may be at war with me, but I refuse to cooperate -- because if it is a war, then women have already won it. They cannot lose; on that level they own all the power. But a man -- which is what I strive, hope to be -- is not on that level; he has graduated from it.
As I've mentioned before, I'm not in the cheering section for such women as "iFeminists" or Christina Hoff Sommers. Sure, she makes more sense than most women these days, but she still thinks as a woman -- as this quote makes clear, confirming my previous take on her. "Who stole feminism?" Nobody stole feminism; it never was anything else. Its true nature has become apparent as it has been allowed space to show itself. Restraint is the key; with it, we have human beings and civilization, without it we are overdeveloped apes living in chaos.
"The idea that women were repressed until the sexual revolution in the 1960s is absurd ... they were certainly restrained, a crucially different matter." --Melanie Phillips, The Sex-Change Society: Feminised Britain and the Neutered Male. Yes, women do occasionally make sense, and I'm glad to see it when they do; but I never take it for granted -- or assume the next thing they say will make sense also. Women change; it's their nature. It's why men are designed, in 'Enry 'Iggins immortal phrase, to "take a position and staunchly never budge." So that women, finally exhausted themselves by their constant changes, can have something to rely on in this world.
Of course IWF's focus is on women; what else would it be? Women's focus ("Women's Focus" is the name of a local "public"-radio feminist program) is always on women -- and, if they're among the increasingly few women who grow up, on children. It's the natural order: women take care of themselves and their children, men take care of women and children. Women do not understand men, any more than children understand adults; this is why, when women have overt power as they now do, they naturally, instinctively do everything in their power to keep boys from growing into men, i.e. growing out of their field of power. Thus the drugging of boys in female-dominated schools. The very existence of men -- adult, independent males, no longer mother-dominated -- is an intolerable challenge to female political power. No such matriarchy can survive if there are any men in the vicinity.
Actually, the "Independent Women's Forum," like "iFeminists," is just another oxymoron. There's really no such thing as an "independent woman." It is only the civilization that men -- with our annoying insistence that 2+2=4, even if you don't feel like it -- have created that allows these women the leisure time for their endless kaffee klatsches. No need to be annoyed with them about it; it's what women do. But don't take it seriously, either; when women talk, they don't mean the same thing(s) by it as men do. The sexes are different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent points all Philalethes. You've really hit the nail right on the head. I really we MRA have to stop being silenced and kowtowed by women and start unabashedly calling for a return to traditional gender roles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I for one have often noted with dismay that manifestos from "men’s rights" advocates usually end with a complaint about being forced to pay child support--and my sympathy for these guys tends to wane.
Of course. I really have no argument with this woman. She's really making it as plain as she can -- though probably without conscious intent. You see, I'm really not interested in her "sympathy." Sympathy is for victims. Again, this is what women understand; all women are victims at heart. What women don't understand is men -- who, if they are men, are are not victims. (When women speak of "compassion," what they really mean is sympathy, which is quite a different matter -- but that's another, though related, discussion.) No wonder women don't respect "men" who can't come up with anything better than what women already know how to do better than men ever could. Men's job is to show women something they don't already know. Otherwise we really are redundant -- except as "wallets," cannon fodder, etc.
This is why I'm not a "'men's rights' advocate." There are no "men's rights." The idea itself is a total capitulation to feminism. When feminists -- women -- use the term "rights" they're really talking about privileges. Which is exactly the opposite concept. Rights, as the term was used by Jefferson and the other 17th- and 18th-century thinkers who introduced the concept to public discussion, are what everyone has. Privileges, by definition, are possessed only by some, in contrast to others who don't have them -- and it was exactly such privileges that these thinkers were objecting to when they created the concept of "rights." To qualify "rights" with the name of any group smaller than all human beings is to destroy the very meaning of the concept. Feminists don't want truth or justice, they want all the goodies they can get. And, since they have no internal, reliable moral guide, they will happily misuse language -- or anything else -- if that gets them what they want.
Thus, to "advocate" for "men's rights" is to agree from the beginning that feminism is correct in its fundamental assumptions: that the sexes are at war, with irreconcilably opposed interests, and must fight over the goodies in a zero-sum game. Why bother? Just do what you're told like a good boy. If you're content being a slave, I suppose it makes some sense to agitate for better treatment from your master -- so long as you're careful not to annoy Her too much. Me, I'm not interested in living at that level -- arguing with women over who gets how much of the candy box. Candy is for women, and as they've made plain, they "want it all." Let 'em have it. I want reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes as to your desired "reality..."
You make an excellent existential argument; which is to basically "opt out" of the feminazi game.
Unfortunately, their vile ideology has already taken into account your counter-move, and they have rigged the legal system to ensure that, even IF you think you're not playing "in the game," you are already marked as male prey.
They have already circumscribed your Constitutional rights, your legal due process, and your very freedom.
You may want to believe you are "outside" the snare, but you are already guilty by virtue of your gender.
The only matter in dispute is WHEN you shall receieve your pre-ordained sentence....
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting post Philalethes.
Yes, we are surely different and the blackout of this idea over the last 30 years is an important support to your ideas expressed above.
I do differ with you on the idea of men's rights. This is a great quote:
To qualify "rights" with the name of any group smaller than all human beings is to destroy the very meaning of the concept.
My sense is that by standing up for men's rights we are bringing attention to how the above quote has been raped. If any group can prove that it has lost its rights than the above statement is null and void. The feminists don't care if it is null and void and even use the argument that men "OWE" them something from alleged previous transgressions. Simply bringing attention to our lack of rights does not negate the idea that "Rights" is for all human beings, not just for some. The men's rights advocates that I know are interested in the rights of all, not just men, unlike the feminist bigots.
You characterize our differences by saying "Women talk; men do." I completely agree. Men for thousands of years have risen to the task of DOING something when a dangerous foe appears. A dangerous foe has appeared. We need to do something about this feminist madness. We need good men to step forward and take a stand. Men who have separated from mother and who stand on their own.
I hope you can come to the men's rights congress this June. We need strong and passionate men to take a stand. Are you coming?
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
