|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its time that we start saying the words that fit many of the feminist groups in thie country and around the world.
These are HATE GROUPS!!
If you cant see that, then you are still sitiing their looking for a way to find middle ground between men and feminist. While they are not listening, and hating men and children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:08 PM April 24th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
You are right they ARE hate groups.
As an American Indian I have made comparisons between the feminists and the KKK, many times, on this site. I feel the same way towards the feminists as a man as I do the KKK as an Indian.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud, you have cut to the bone on this issue, and have the credibilty to yield that blade!
Not because you are a Native American, ( I reject all tokenism just as I reject the gender-fascism of the feminazis)... but because your insights have always been straight to the point and precise.
I look forward to your future posts!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:21 PM April 26th, 2004 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Roy.
Thank you, very much.
B.T.W. I also reject the name "Native-American".
I am an American Indian. But more over I am an American and a Cherokee.
We've been politicaly-corrected to DEATH in this country. And beleive me I am not the ONLY Indian who feels this way.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism is not about denying male sexuality. Feminism is about control and power of sexuality, reproduction and birth.
When we men wake up to the fact that these feminists want to destroy marriage becuz they want control over family (whatever structure it take), children, and male sexuality, only then will men realize that "some" women are in this for their own status in our society.
No different than a man who wants to compete and leave his legacy, feminist want to have a stronger stake in the world order.
The family unit, of man women and children, is a unit that satisfies all those involved.
But in order for family to be bale to maintian itself, all those involved must have a need for it. And women do not have to have a need for family.
Male sexuality on the other hand needs to be controlled and taken over by women....lol.
I know its hard to beleive, but ino ur society our women are contaminted with "penis envy".
So what they do is to feminize the boys, and take the high road against them.
This whole thing is about power and control.
We men better wake up and see the signs!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not going to spare anybody's feelings in response to this thread. The simple fact of the matter is that women exercise control over men through sexual and emotional blackmail and when THAT wanes they threaten the seizure of your assets and the custody of your children. Terms like "pussy whipped"didn't just fall out of the sky.
Contrary to popular belief, a masochist is not someone who enjoys pain and suffering. It is someone who's psyche has been so distorted by guilt and shame and who's sense of personal worth has been so belittled by chronically unattainable passmarks on an ever demanding performance eveluation that they come to fear abandonment more than anything else. They will then put up with ANYTHING to avoid that abandonment.
Guys, learn to savour and cherish your own company. If you meet a female who turns your crank and she feels the same...do what comes naturally. But form your relationships on the same expectations that you do with your own family and male friends. NEVER GIVE SPECIAL POWERS TO ANYONE SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE FUCKING YOU!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:24 PM April 23rd, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism has been an evil, since the modern version was concieved during the mid 1800s and the ancient pagan versions. It has always been anti-family, anti-male, anti-children, and anti-God.
If you listen to the complaints of the feminists in the early 1900s they were: we demand the vote, we don't want to have many children, we should beable to say no to our husbands (neither are allowed to deny eachother in the bible), etc...
It was always about forcing man and wife apart, destruction of the family. Empowering the female to become the male, satanic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:11 PM April 24th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
>"Empowering the female to become the male,"
That is EXACTLY what feminism is about.
Good observation!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:45 AM April 24th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
...feminism has been waging war on male sexuality for decades. And for those, who are inclined to fall for the lie that feminism was a noble movement in the 60s and 70s, I'll emphasize the dates of the following quotes from feminist leaders.
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together.... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the breakup of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children...." " Functions of the Family," WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 - Linda Gordon
There has been no stronger front in america's radical feminist hate war on men than our courts. There has been no greater ally "toadying up" to all things the radical feminist push on society, than our judiciary. Those black robed prostitutes of law know full well the evil they are doing to men, in violation of their constitutional rights, but they do it anyway. They sell their integrity for a fat salary and prestige, while hypocritically projecting an air of righteousness as puffed up as their vain egos. If any judge doesn't know the depth of corruption he promotes by acquiescing to his feminist training, then he/she is so stupid he/she should immediately be voted off the bench, then tried for hate crimes against men along with all the other misandrist judges in america today.
Ray
(Click) Feminist Trained Judges Are Blinded By That Bigotry
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To quote Colonel Kurtz ("Apocalypse Now") --
These judges are nothing more than "errand boys sent by grocery clerks"... to do the feminists' bidding.
Every sitting judge is terrified of the feminazi lobby, the DV womynz advocates, the shelter gestapo...
because s/he has to get re-elected to the bench every few years, they understand that any judge who is portrayed as being "soft" on DV and lacking in required deference to the fem squad will become the object of the organized feminist wrath.
Only massive legal reform and the dismantling of the feminist Family Destruction Industry will end the current tyrannies against men in our nation's courts.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:07 PM April 24th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
This may be one for the "DUH! file", but does anyone here think that the whole legalization of 'gay marriage' is PART of the feminist agenda to destroy the institution of marriage?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:25 PM April 24th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"does anyone here think that the whole legalization of 'gay marriage' is PART of the feminist agenda to destroy the institution of marriage.
TC:
Women' studies has always looked at heterosexual marriage as oppression of women. They've looked at heterosexual relations as a form of rape by men, and also as the power of the patriarchy over women.
Daphne Patai (a women's studies professor for ten years) has several books out, but two that are most relevant to this discussion. Professing feminism: Cautionary tales from the strange world of women's studies, and Heterophobia.
Certainly not all gays are heterophobic as certainly not all straights are homophobic, but Women’s' Studies has actively promoted heterophobia. Considering that there are over 700 women's studies programs in america, and that they recruit interns from their students to work for their agenda in Washington, D.C. and other places (using taxpayer's dollars) there can be no doubt that women's studies actively works for the downfall of the traditional family.
Ray
(click) Women’s Studies Incites Heterophobia
(click) Women's Studies; Unscholarly Research, Irresponsible Curriculum
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. . .and you can read some of my semi-relevant thoughts on the matter here:
http://patheticearthlings.com/archives/001216.html
Do a search for 'Acksiom' on that page if you're not inclined to read all the comments, and just want mine.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:17 PM April 24th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
#1 "does anyone here think that the whole legalization of 'gay marriage' is PART of the feminist agenda to destroy the institution of marriage.”
==================================================
#2 "I for one don't and you can read some of my thoughts here" - “And all the fretting about the threat to “traditional” marriage and family life posed by homosexuals is going to seem as silly, malicious and old-fashioned as worrying about miscegenation.”
==================================================
I don’t care how many happy little child care parties you have with little children, two mommies, two daddies, etc. as long as heterophobia is peddled to the minds of women (and men) in women’s studies courses, then beneath the surface of any social activity will lurk an insidious destructive force working to tear apart happy heterosexual marriage and happy heterosexual relationships. It is just the end result born out the intolerance for heterosexuality coming from women’s studies programs, or any other segment of any community that preaches heterophobia.
Gay marriage may well be an idea from the gay community, wherein many gay's have no problem with heterosexuals doing their thing (live and let live). I do not consider Women's Studies to be a part of that live and let live gay community. Indeed, I consider Women's Studies heterophobic agenda to be the "900 pound gorilla" hitch hiking on the gay marriage train (agenda). They actively teach that any heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman is an act of rape by the privileged patriarchy, is an act of oppression against all women, and is anathema to the liberation and freedom of women. That heterophobia is an active threat to heterosexual marriage, as well as any happy heterosexual relationship between men and women. The book heterophobia by Daphne Patai addresses at a number of points how the sexual harassment industry is itself a form of sexual harassment against heterosexual males normal social behavior.
Intolerance is bigotry whether it is a Ku Klux Klansmen all dressed up in white robes and pointy hoods, or whether it is politically correct women’s studies mavins all dressed up in their politically correct, heterophobic rhetoric. The Femi Klux Klan is comprised of the same kind of bigoted hate mongers as all the previous ones that have gone before just more deceptive in all their politically correct disguises.
The "900 pound gorilla" is out of the cage and she's teaching a women's studies course somewhere near you. If the gay community wants to defend the heterophobic bigotry of the women's studies agenda, then they are not showing the same kind of tolerance that they are requesting for themselves.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The feminist movement has been hitchhiking on other movements since they tried to hijack the abolitionist movement in the mid-19th century. More recently they latched lamprey-like onto the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 60s. They insinuated themselves into affirmative action in the late 70s and during the same time period took over the DV issue from the woman who first created centers. (Incidentally, she was the first to realize the need for men's DV shelters.) Likewise, because there's a large lesbian contingent in radical feminism, they used it as a wedge into the gay activist community (mostly to push their anti-family agenda). Now in the 21st century, they're making inroads into the U.N., UNICEF, Amnesty Int'l., even Iraq. They will use any vehicle to promote their agenda and at the same time pass themselves off as faithful allies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have read a couple of stories, and i have found that the feminist movement is not having much succes abroad. Like the U.N., and Iraq.
And even in places like Africa...
We should realize that feminism is on its way down now, and it will surface again long after we are gone...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:05 PM April 24th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
As long as socialism exists feminism will never die. Socialism has been the most sucessfull tool of satan, it cannot be countered with human logic for it just keeps repeating what it has always said regardless and changes it's own 'logic' to fit whatever it is subverting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I beg to differ. UNICEF is headed by a radical feminist and is focused on girls, Amnesty Int'l is focused on women, and the UN examines closely the effect of war and its deprevations on women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .and children. Today, feminist marchers are attempting to turn the eye of the presidential election to abortion and women's health. Feminism is alive and onery as ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:52 AM April 25th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Socialism is worker's control of production. Then it goes from there on how it is organized. So say there is a small bookstore democratically owned and ran by the workers who actually are doing the work at the bookstore. That would be a small scale version of socialism because the workers would be in control of themselves at work. Whereas when an individual owner is in control of the work place that means the workers are under the control of the owner because the workers are on another's private property. Similar to how an individual has to follow and obey whatever state they go to. They are under that states jurisdiction, it's territory so they must give up their autonomy, or self government. This is how private property works. You have to be on someones property to survive, just as you have to be on some state's land to survive, and as long as you are in some state or on one's private property you must follow and obey their rules. And pay a tribute to the owner or taxes to the state for living and working within it's territory. Private property is the state writ small, and is created by the state to take user rights away from the majority. Thus it is statist. Yet, those who support this system and benefit from the state's enforcement, claim others are the real statists for trying to get their own privileges from the state. Thus changing their own logic of liberty, and entitlement so as not to subvert their very own ideology.
Goodbye
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socialism has been much demeaned in the public discourse.
At its core, socialism simply proposes that democratically organized communities should have influence over the decisions of capital...
Such as, to pick up and relocate a Midwestern factory (i.e. the Maytag appliance plant in Knox, Illinois that is evacuating to Mexico and erasing 3,000 jobs in a town of 11,000... thus, destroying its middle-class ...)
"Globalization" is now and has always been about condemning American families to a Third World level of subsistence...
"Leveling the playing field" of capitalist global commerce means that soon not only will husbands and wives in Free Amerika have to work full-time to survive; but soon, so too will children.
Under this regime of capitalist vampires, the child-labor laws will soon be repealed.
Look at India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh if you want to view to future of middle-class Amerika.
The "free market..."
"For who... to do what... how many times... to whom?"
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure about that. I heard a feminist opposing gay marriage on NPR but she was very tight-lipped as to why.
In a practical way, I can see gay marriage as being a good thing. The divorce industry will have to adapt and that could be noticed. If they don't adapt, the success of gay marriages will be noticed as well and people will wonder why. [This is a long-term thing...]
Divorce judges will actually have to think: "How can both women in this marriage be right?" "How can both men in this marriage be wrong?"
This reminds me of a joke:
Q: What do you call a brain-damaged lawyer?
A: "Your Honor."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:49 PM April 25th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Very good points, and I tend to support gay marriage on this grounds. On the other hand, marriage has turned into a farce, and at this point perhaps it would be best to just do away with the (civil) version of marriage. Two persons should just set up rules/contract to govern their relationship, and stay out of the horrible mess of family law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You think a contract as opposed to a civil marraige would negate those problems? Not likely. The problems are Caused by the bias against men, not a contract. it will not go away until the law addressed this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q: What useful function does the state perform with regard to marriage?
With no-fault divorce the state does nothing whatsoever to enforce any marriage “commitment”. The state provides incentive to divorce through community property laws and the euphemistic “best interest of the child” (legal interpretation: whatever a mother wants) standards of child custody.
Apparently the state’s function with regard to marriage is to be sure that people are not held responsible for anything they commit to, and to provide incentives to terminate those (non) commitments. Those couples that actually stay together today need to be highly committed since they must resist the power of the state that is determined to separate them.
With regard to marriage the state (and feds) have become complete puppets of the feminist political machine, and to that purpose have converted marriage into a meaningless charade except as a tool to enable (mostly) women to destroy the lives of (mostly) men and children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:03 PM April 26th, 2004 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
"Apparently the state’s function with regard to marriage is to be sure that people are not held responsible for anything they commit to, and to provide incentives to terminate those (non) commitments. Those couples that actually stay together today need to be highly committed since they must resist the power of the state that is determined to separate them.
With regard to marriage the state (and feds) have become complete puppets of the feminist political machine..."
The war between the sexes has been a factor in the lives of men and women throughout history. In the best of circumstances (relationships) there have been cease-fires that have lasted various lengths of time. Some have lasted a lifetime, and some only a few days or months. Time together may not even be an accurate indicator of the quality of a relationship as some people are gluttons for punishment, and may enable each others dysfunctional behaviors. For some reason the Clintons (Hillary & Bill) come to mind.
In today's modern world, with all the stresses that demand people’s time for everything but family, it has become a "Mission Impossible" challenge to keep a man and a woman together with their children. Meddling, half-witted, radical feminist, politicians have used their decision making roles, regarding families, to irresponsibly legislate family matters into an encyclopedia of politicized laws. We now have a scenario for disaster every time one of these lunatics takes to his/her feet in a legislative body and attempts to further legislate “family in america.” The combined lot of them are like monkey’s playing with matches in a gasoline refinery (IMO).
Ray
(Click) Government's Involvement in Family Business
(Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I am trying to convey is only as the page comes up initially.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For men, marriage has become a game of poker with the opponent dealing from a stacked deck.
The only reasonable response is to refuse to play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:40 AM April 28th, 2004 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Amen to that. I wish there were some way young men could find that out without having to go through the living hell associated with divorce that courts routinely put men through for years and years.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:33 AM April 25th, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"This may be one for the "DUH! file", but does anyone here think that the whole legalization of 'gay marriage' is PART of the feminist agenda to destroy the institution of marriage?"
how can more people getting married destroy the institution of marriage? Does it destroy the institution of marriage when straight people go to vegas and get marriend drunk? Did Britanny Spears destroy the institution of marriage by getting married in Las Vegas and divorcing 2 or 3 days later? How can one complain that two gay people getting married who love each other destroys marriage. yet straight people's marriages end in divorce about half the time and they can get married the very day they decide they want to be married.....?
Straight people are the ones who destroyed the institution of marriage.
Anyways, I'll get married if my girlfriend wants to.
But really, I'm happy hanging out with and getting laid whenever feel like it to the kindest girl I've ever met.
So, in case anyones missed my sorry ass (yeah right...). that's where I've been. I don't even care that much about feminism or their bullshit anymore, I'd rather just get drunk and talk to women. I love talking to women (among other things), it's so fuck'n fun, I think they're great. I've just been around the wrong women, that's all.... And that, is my cure for their hate.
I can't complain anymore, I don't have any feelings towards man haters, or at least as much as before, fuck'em. If the world collapses tomorrow by them destorying marriage, I'll at least have enjoyed this piece of shit called life with a woman. And the best thing in life is the touch of a woman.
What we currently call marriage is just a piece of paper that bonds two people lagally together for special legal benefits from the state comtrolled by old farts with sticks up their tired asses. Who cares that someone wants their love sanctiond by the state. People will still ove each other and want to be with each other when this institution crumbles and something evolves to take it's place.
I think we have to just find the right women, and ignore the ones who hate us.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:25 PM April 25th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
For evil to triumph it takes only good men to do nothing.
We cannot just ignore. We must destroy feminism in complete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:38 PM April 25th, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
you and I think differently about this.
institutions and organizations fall when people ignore them. and that is all I'm doing, that is my cure for myself.
I didn't say do nothing. I said I would ignore. I also believe in ignoring laws that are unjust. Ignoring something sometimes gives that something even less power. And that is my method, you can have yours.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As dog trainer, i see two schools of thought. One, the old school, that problems must be addressed and by usually positive punishment (adding something the dog doesn't like to punish the dog)the problem is solved. Now the new training methods call for either all non-punishment methods, or negative punishment, which is taking away something the dog likes to punish the dog, sort of a doggy time out.
The fact is that for many situations, ignoring the behavior works, like barking in the crate, or jumping up on people. If you ignore the dog completely when they are doing these behaviors, the behaviors tend to stop. They are behaviors which are intended to get attention, and when they do not getwhat they want they try something else.
However, there are other behaviors which this does not work. These are behaviors which are self rewarding. Counter surfing, for example, is very rewarding to the dog. He will look around at all flat surfaces in the kitchen, and snatch whatever is left there. Some dogs will get on the counter, on the fridge, in the fridge or into the cabinets. (Yes, I have come across all of these). Ignoring the dog is great...for the dog. He says great! They don't mind! And keeps doing it because he is getting something from it. Unlike jumping on people, which is done for attention, the counter surfing dog doesn't want human participation.
So what do you do? While modern ideas can work some, like crating the dog when you are away,keeping the counters clean,etc, these are prevention methods and teach the dog nothing. The dog will never forget there may be food there. Punishment works in cases where the dog needs to learn self control of a self rewarding behavior where a person will not be around to monitor the situation. Set up a self punishing system (bitter the food left out, a throw can, etc)
So what does all this have to do with feminism?
p george thinks that by ignoring feminism, it will go away. Feminism is a self rewarding, aggressive behavior. It will not go away, in fact ignoring it is exactly what they want. They do not need your attention to gain satisfaction.
Ignoring the problem is what got us here. Only by actively dealing with the issue can things be changed.
Behaviorally speaking, we need to educate more people so that the general population can start dealing with this issue. Only when the general population is consistantly training the press, the government, and the feminists, will their behavior change. Refuse to buy their products, give them their votes, or fund their programs, and you will find their behavior will change. At the same time punish when they get out of line, such as false allegations, or family courts. I really don't think this is that complicated when you get down to it. Stop making it rewarding, and the behavior will stop.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:31 PM April 26th, 2004 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
Exellent analogies, there Jen.
And yes, you are right, Feminists DO want us to ignore what they are doing. Evil has a much harder time flourishing under scrutiny.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:53 AM April 27th, 2004 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Confront, confront, confront, if we don't everyone thinks we're all happy with the radical feminist agenda. Ugh!
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i believe it was michel collins ( the origional leader of the ira) who once said that the best way for a group to ressit another group is to completly ignore them. that is denie that they have any power over themand to set up ones own system. that way one uses thier own system as eventual every one does, theirfor making the other system useless
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
