|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the above heading, I wrote to the Editor-in-Chief of the Cornwell Sun, see below:
Dear Sir,
Your newspaper contains a rant by one Ms Anna Weiss, "The End of Mankind".
Considering that Ms Weiss has been long-a-go discredited on much of her ravings and use of blatantly false statisics (probably self manufactured) by Christina Hoff Sommers in her book "Who Stole Feminism" it is surprising anyone still allows this woman near their journal, to bring discredit upon it !
Perhaps some form of screening process should be introduced to check out the background of your contributors ?
Sincerely yours,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(to the letters email address, as well as personally to the Editor in Chief and the Red Dayze Whatever addresses)
PLEASE DO NOT RESEND!
Hello,
It was recently brought to my attention that a recently published article in your paper was extremely insulting to men. Being of the male gender, I was compelled to look. I was, to be honest, shocked at what I saw.
The article was "The End of Mankind" by Anna Weiss, and is archived on your website at http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004 /05/06/4099f23890634?in_archive=1
Reading the article was chilling, even from the first line. The tone of the article was that of an extreme fundamentalist and a radical, apparently (in her own words) calling for segregation of the sexes and to keep men as a secondary caste "unless the women deem it necessary for their own well-being". This is not only radical on the level of Hitler or any given Ku Klux Klansman, but is also sickeningly self-indulgent. The article, if such a thing is possible, goes downhill from there. Such phrases as "command men to do as they please", "total coup", "sexual domination", "sex slaves to women", and "eliminating male distractions" leap off the page as a veritable 'viva la revolution' poster.
Seeing as the author appears eager to commit 'gendercide' by (in her own words) "assert[ing] supremacy", I am shocked that any sane editor would allow such an article to be let near a printed page. The author is less suited for publishing and more for a mental asylum. Ignoring her dreams of gas chambers and extinction of the human species (or, as it were, "males are not even necessary for the continuation of the species" to her), she makes such broad statements as "men are the main contributors to the world problems we face such as alcoholism, domestic violence, and war", completely ignoring the men in history such as Albert Einstein, Leonardo DaVinci, Mozart, and Michelangelo (to name a fraction of a few), who have played a huge role in the betterment, evolution of culture, and development of humanity as we know it. Addressing her above quote, she speaks as if, a: ALL men are drunk, abusing warmongers. As it happens, in the US draft that existed for ALL previous wars to this date FORCE men to fight, as it so happens, often against their will. Yet so many women call in to radio stations calling draft-dodgers "cowards", and the rest "the warmonger gender". She also completely ignores the fact that a large number of women play a role in the decision to go to war, and many more eagerly fight. All of what she states as going for all men exist in, at maximum, 10% of the world's population. I also like how she ignores the sexual abuse of young boys by women, which is close-approaching needing a new category for mainstream news sites to organize their list.
She also spews the stereotype of men always and only wanting sex as if it were a fact and a reason to destroy the entire gender. Yet, she also ignores the little-known statistic that women are prone to commit domestic violence at least as often as men, and many times more likely to use a weapon to "even the odds". Also, domestic violence and custody cases are, by a rule, one-sided for women, despite overwhelming evidence. I doubt having Abraham Lincoln himself (another member of my list) as a witness could turn the tides of misandry that exist in favor of women. It always seems that feminists (or, in this case, feminazis?) play up how strong and independent they are, but a minute later are suddenly 'weak', and need to rely on the money of men to survive. Two-faced at best, dangerously unstable at worst.
I should state that this is not true of all women by far, and there are a good number of cases of domestic abuse which *are* warranted. However, seven valid cases does not make the next thousand automatically warranted. Abusers are the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. Spouting preconceived and bigoted notions as facts or proof of some kind is illogical and moronic.
To reiterate, the author sounds like the spawn of Adolf, and writes with such furor (Fuhrer?) and intensity that I'm shocked and aghast that the title/subtitle of the article managed to slip by the any editor's instant common sense monitor. Except, of course, that I'm forgetting that thanks to Political Correctness, men as a whole are the only abusable group of people in the media. Maybe with the double-standards that exist already and the political correctness that defends everyone but men, Anna Weiss' dream world will become a reality.
But for now, I'd appreciate a printed retraction/apology for printing a bigoted and extremest article that, if the word "men" was switched with any minority- or the word "woman"- would be burnt and launched into space before the fourth word was written. Your paper has offended me personally, as well as the doubtfully hundreds (millions, counting availability of the online edition?) of men who read this. Despite arguments to the contrary, men *do* have feelings, and don't appreciated being targeted for the next "racial" (for lack of a better term) genetic elimination.
Sieg Heil Fuhrer Weiss, and may the master race of Women live forever!
-DeepThought
---
Erase the EARTH
to gmail me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
This article was obviously written tongue-in-cheek. It was not intended as a
serious call to action against men. Thank you for your comments.
best,
--
Andy Guess
Editor-in-Chief
The Cornell Daily Sun
Hmm. Apparently I missed the fact that eliminating a 'race' of people could be funny in some way.
I'm still not sure that he's actually being serious in his reply. It wasn't "obvious" to me at all, because, sadly enough, her article wasn't uncommon in tone or extremism.
-DeepThought
---
Erase the EARTH
to gmail me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, I think he's naive, but he understands that this stuff sells. There is money to be made from anti-male hate speech. Let's send him a tongue-in-cheek article calling for the extermination of feminists and see if he prints it.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, please do NOT resend.
I'm sorry, but it's less "obvious" to me that the article was written sarcastically, considering this kind of hate-speech is all-too-common these days. If I were to write an article talking about how all Muslims should be killed in a genocidal sweep (which, by the way, is something I would never do) and submit it, telling you privately "by the way, it's tongue-in-cheek", would you print it? What about an article about African-Americans by a "Patriotic Georgian" calling for the KKK to be in direct control of the government (again, an extreme hypothetical)? Would you print it, as long as I told you "ha, isn't this cute"?
The fact of the matter is, it was written in an extremist fashion and printed in a section which isn't recognizable as tongue-in-cheek. There was no mention in the article that it was a joke, and enough people got angry about it to indicate that, at the very least, it is interpreted as hostile. If this were an editorial by the Onion, I still couldn't see the joke. There's no punchline, save for the paragraph about "women as the dominant sex". Even if it were followed by a statement which either criticized the opinion or statement expressed in the article, it is still not fit subject matter to make light of... unless genocide is this year's running joke.
-DeepThought
---
Erase the EARTH
to gmail me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For me, this rant was less chilling than laughable. It was almost relieving in a way, because many young women might read that and become disinterested in the feminist movement, since there are so few people who would want to be associated with such flaming bile as that.
A central part of her thesis "Men have ruled since the beginning of time, and what we have to show for it are the mistakes they have made." is untrue. There have been civilizations that worshipped goddesses and were ruled by matriarchs. They didn't fare very well when it came to tribal warfare, which is why they are all but extinct.
I have never heard such ridiculous gender bigotry since my friend seriously suggested that women should be sex slaves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:34 PM September 15th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, at first I thought it was satire, making fun of feminism. I do hope that the editor loses his job, though. this is simply inexcusable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If my response is up, you will see me first suggest that the author is making some sort of long-winded joke.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jas0n,
Can you cite any references that describe a truly matriarchal civilization? None have ever existed that I am aware of. Ms. Weiss had it right when she said "Men have ruled since the beginning of time." The rest of her essay is nonsense, and frightening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:57 AM September 16th, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
All I can say to Mzzz. Weiss is...; So you want to exterminate all men, eh?
Well it was tried on my people (American Indians) before, and we simply would NOT go down. We never did, we never have and we never will.
My guess is that any and all attempts to "exterminate the male" will be met with just as much resistance. In the end, if you aren't carefull, out of self preservation on the part of men, it may be YOUR gender that ends up exterminated...,
But if you wish to TRY, then by all means my dear hate-mongering-sow, BRING IT ON!
I do not use the war cry "Hoka hey!" for NOTHING. It has real power and meaning to it.
If ever anyone tries to exterminate me, be it for my race or gender I will employ that war cry with ghusto!
And maybe, just maybe Ms. Weiss YOUR SCALP may hang from my BELT.
Be carefull who you declare war on. You may not like what you find. and the end results may not be what you expect.
Thundercloud.
"HOKA HEY!!!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:00 PM September 16th, 2004 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, there's Victorian England.. truthfully I don't think there's ever been either a Matriarchal OR Patriarchal society...the person at the top of the ladder being one sex doesn't mean that one sex rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:18 AM September 17th, 2004 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, there isn't. No matriarchial society has ever survived contact with the outside world.
Proving cultural Darwinism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone explain to me what the two previous posts mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matriarchy means a society ruled by women and where inheritance of power and property pass from mother to daughter and men play servitude roles.According to feminist propaganda this would be a utopia free of violence and all other human ills. The only matriarchies that have ever been actually proven to have existed were in the Polynesian and Micronesian Island groups. They were all stone age societies of head-hunters and cannibals that practiced human sacrifice to their rathful volcano goddess Paele, virgin girl more often than not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:20 PM September 15th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"Frankly, males are not even necessary for the continuation of the species at this point. There is enough sperm in sperm banks to continue to reproduce indefinitely."
Where does she think sperm comes from? The tooth fairy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And there is that little niggle about genetic diversity, oh yeah, and evolution of our species. Sure honey, you don't need any more men....
Um, maybe a biology 101 course in addition to women's studies classes would have been beneficial
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And there is that little niggle about genetic diversity, oh yeah, and the evolution of our species..."
Well DUH!!(NOT to you Jenk, I meant that to Weiss)
If any species continued to use the same old DNA structure over and over again, eventually their genetics will become very weak and frail against negative genetic mutations like birth defects which are often seen in Polygamist Families (due to incest).
Over time the continuous usage of the same old sperm (or eggs) would render the Human Genome helpless against disease and biological defect. It's genetic diversity that keeps our DNA able to defend itself (and us) against negative mutations.
Genetic diversity leads to positive genetic mutations seen in the phases of evolution.
And sperm is mostly responsible for those *POSITIVE* genetic mutations. Eggs are just like the 'bare bones' part in the construction of DNA. It's sperm that helps continuation of positive genetic mutations in evolution.
Oh whoops, I committed a horrible sin in the eyes of Feminists for defending sperm and their honorable/noble/lovable/wonderful manufacturors--Men and the whole Male Species! They'll think I'm a *Spermocrat* now!
Well hey, sperm is 100% protein :)
But they don't teach Biology 101 in Women Studies Courses, because that would teaching COMMON SENSE, LOGIC, RATIONALE, *REAL* SCIENCE, and FACTUAL INFORMATION!!!
Women Studies Courses are ALL about lies, illogical and irrational bullsh*t!
You Men (and Boys) are VERY necessary for friendships built on mutual respect for each other, equal partnerships, human fellowship, building great societies/civilizations together, and maintaining peace in my mind. I love you guys :)
You're the reason why I could NEVER go lesbian/bisexual. Unless I'm REALLY-REALLY-REALLY drunk. And I mean *REALLY* drunk. Besides I *LOATHE* most women and girls around me anyways.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:01 PM September 16th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
From what I gather, most mutations happen on the male side. This is probably due to the fact that male sexual organs are external and are thus exposed to environmental changes. I learned in my old high school health class that variations in temperature can increase the defect/mutation rate of sperm.
Female organs, on the other hand, are internal and well protected from the outside environment. Plus, females usually only produce one egg at a time, meaning that the likelyhood of developing a "usable" mutation is not good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Thea
I have always been loyal to the mens causes, ie, equal treatment under the law etc. At the same time I still treat women special, as a man I love you girls too, always have and always will. Can only speak for myself but I would bet most other men feel the same.
Pete in Nebraska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not in support of this article, just in support of factual acuracy:
Theoretically it would be possible to harvest genetic material from a female egg and implant it in another egg. This would result in a child having two parents.
So technically, given technology that I don't think exists yet (but its close), I suppose we aren't necessary for reproduction. But along that same line of thought, neither are blacks, indians...
The author needs to quit reading "Mein Kampf", and see a therapist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:03 PM September 16th, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
>"neither are blacks, indians"
Woah, don't go nuts, here! :P
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On that line of thinking, none of us are necessary. The earth will keep revolving with or without humans on it. Maybe that is part of their liberal agenda, the extinction of the human race?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:05 PM September 16th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't be suprised if it WAS there agenda.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think strictly speaking you're right... however I vaguely recall reading last year about this:
Two X chromosomes don't have as much genetic code as XY. Female egg chromosomes POSSIBLY be used to create another XX human (female)... but they could never create another male once we're all gone, and the genetic code in the Y chromosome is likely more important than the radfems want to believe.
On the other hand, the same is true of male genetic material... it could be inplanted in an egg to create a new human, and the genes of two males could combined to create either a female OR a male. Male genes have all the information for both... females genes can only create females.
Frankly I think anyone who would contemplate eliminating an entire gender is a very pityable person. Talk about "having issues"!
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:10 PM September 19th, 2004 EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
Once upon a time, long ago, there was a bird.
This bird prided himself on how well he could fly.
He often showed off his flying skill to the other birds and animals of the forest.
One day he sat proudly on a branch as the other forest dwellers watched. He said to them; "I am the greatest flier of all whom live on the earth. I am faster than Eagle, swifter than Hawk and more nimbil than sparrow."
A wise Eagle sat nearby and listened. When the bird had finished his speech the Eagle said to him; "If it not for the WIND you would have no flying skills. You would have no flight at all."
The bird ruffled his feathers and snapped back at old Eagle saying; "I need NO ONE'S help in flying as I do!!" He decided to show everyone his point so up he flew as high as he could go, when he was nearly out of sight from the animals below he told the wind; "GO AWAY wind. I do not need you!"
So the wind heard what the bird said, and just as the bird had demanded the wind left him.
As soon as he did, the bird fell to the ground with tremendous force, and of course he died.
The old Eagle just shrugged and took to the wind flying away.
THE END.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this article is obviously intended to goad and provoke men, and as such, shouldn’t be taken too seriously. This kind of thing used to make me furious a few years back, because I still believed that feminism was a progressive, liberal movement which fights for equality and social justice, and I expected more from it. Once I realised the truth – that feminism is a self-serving, crypto-fascist religious cult for arrogant middle-class women – I learned not to get so upset. In other words, I just lowered my expectations. I am going to argue below that the article is an absurd, incoherent pile of bigoted crap. It is really not worth getting upset over, but we certainly should object to it on both intellectual and moral grounds.
The writer cannot be excused on the grounds that it is a joke; a racist joke is still racist, and the fact that it is a joke does not excuse that. Imagine substituting ‘black people’ and ‘white people’ instead of ‘men’ and ‘women’, and then read the article again. How does it sound now? Not very funny, is it?
Having said that, the article is still one of the most interesting I’ve read for a while. It is very reminiscent of ‘The Scum Manifesto’ by Valerie Solanas. It reads like a summary of anti-male feminist ideology from the very first sentence. We should put it under the microscope and treat it as an interesting specimen of contemporary Western culture. What we see is not pretty, but it is actually pretty sad and absurdly comical.
“Men have ruled since the beginning of time”.
Have they? This is highly questionable to say the least.
(1) I for one do not rule, and nor do any of the men that I know. It is possible for the elite to be drawn from a particular social group without it being the case that all members of that social group are members of the elite. Her argument commits what is known in Philosophy as the Quantifier Shift Fallacy. All roads lead to some place, therefore there is some place that all roads lead to. All rulers are men, therefore all men are rulers. However, it is not even the case that all rulers are men.
(2) It denies women’s complicity, and make no mistake, women are complicit. Men very often act in pursuance of women’s interests. Many historians agree that the strict moral and religious laws which the Spanish endured under the Fascist Franco regime were actually the brainchild of Franco’s wife. The fact that there is a man in office does not imply that women are denied access to power.
(3) Women are not merely complicit in men’s actions; they also act in their own right. There have been plenty of female rulers in the past, and their human rights record is no better than that of their male counterparts. Catherine the Great staged a coup against her husband the Tsar, had him murdered, and seized power. She then introduced serfdom to Russia, making the lives of the population significantly worse. ‘Bloody’ Mary of England burned people at the stake for their religious views. Margaret Thatcher created massive unemployment, homelessness, poverty and social division.
Feminists simply have nothing to be smug about on this score.
She continues:
“and what we have to show for it are the mistakes they have made”.
This is a very cynical, negative view. We could equally look at the successes. It also implies, of course, that a world ruled by women would be free of such mistakes. Thus, even though gender is socially constructed, we are told again that women are essentially superior to men, indeed, morally infallible. This is another standard tenet of contemporary feminism – that a world ruled by women would be a better place due to women’s inherent moral superiority – but where is the evidence for it? It is nothing but idle speculation at best. It also commits the Naturalistic Fallacy. However, it is not really intended to tell the truth about history, it is designed simply to stroke the egos of female readers.
“What is needed is a revolution of sorts. A brutal and extreme stroke of feminism is the only way to rectify the situation”.
She moves on to the tired old left-wing rhetoric of revolution. We should come to regard revolution as a serious form of political failure rather than some kind of political Holy Grail. As Karl Popper argued, it is irrational to believe that a higher form of order is more likely to emerge from chaos than from the current order. What kind of change does she need anyway? A few more pairs of shoes?
“It will show the males of our society exactly how much power women yield and who really deserves to dominate”.
I thought a key tenet of feminism was that women had no access to power at all. Now, she is saying that women in fact do have access to a great deal of power. This is another central contradiction in feminist theory. Women are helpless victims, and at the same time they are also mighty Amazon warrior-revolutionaries on a mission to transform the world. Which is it?
‘Who deserves to dominate’. Does anyone deserve to dominate? Can’t we imagine a society in which no-one dominates? The implication is clearly that women deserve to dominate, again because of their essential moral superiority.
One of the most significant implications of this statement is that the writer is – I suspect unwittingly - putting forward the argument that ‘might is right’. “It will show the males of our society … who really deserves to dominate”. Her thesis seems to be that after the revolution, women will deserve to dominate simply because they do dominate. Might is right. Anyone who seizes control deserves to have control. This is a tyrant’s charter. We could equally put forward the same argument in favour of ‘Patriarchy’. She is claiming, in effect, that tyrannical rule is self-legitimising. This is a hopelessly ill-thought-out and naïve position, and certainly not a liberal one.
In truth, at this point in our history, men are fairly unnecessary as they do little that women cannot do to the same extent or even better.
Can you imagine a writer claiming in a national newspaper that black people are unnecessary? That homosexuals are unnecessary? That Jews are unnecessary? There would be public outrage, and quite possibly criminal proceedings. Yet she feels confident to assert this with impunity. This is a sad indicator of the state of our society.
It is again a fascist argument to the effect that someone only has a right to remain alive if they are somehow ‘useful’ for something; if they have some kind of unique skill or ability that others – in this case women – need.
In Philosophical terms, this could be criticised as an excessive and inappropriate use of teleology, but politically, it offends every principle of liberalism. In both the US constitution and the UN charter of Human Rights, a basic concept is the inalienable right to life. People do not need to justify their own existence in terms of their usefulness, they simply have a right to life.
Again, Weiss has picked up a double-edged sword. If women can do everything that men can do, then equally men can do everything that women can do, so if this makes men expendable, then it equally makes women expendable. In addition, we can challenge Weiss on her own terms. Do we really need Weiss? What unique useful skill does she have? Perhaps Weiss is unnecessary. It is again, a naïve and foolish line of argument, but an undeniably fascistic one.
If women demonstrate their solidarity and assert their power, the world will reap the benefits.
Feminists will not reap the benefits - the world will. This demonstrates feminism’s pretensions at selfless civic-mindedness. They seek nothing for themselves, they are simply trying to build a better world for others. How noble.
And that is only the first paragraph.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In truth, at this point in our history, men are fairly unnecessary as they do little that women cannot do to the same extent or even better."
Didn't bother to read the article, but the above is a typical fallacy that is inherent in feminism: Feminism claims to have made women "independent of men" or have made "men unnecessary" but if you look closely into the actions of feminism, you see that feminism is, in fact, a symbol of women's dependency on men. Or, IOW, women's need for feminism is women's need for men. Why? Because feminism is simply marxism in a dress. What were feminism's main grievances? Lack of equal access to employment and academic institutions, which were controlled by men. But the reason they were controlled by men is because men created them in the first place. No laws prevented women from creating their own businesses (to offer employment opportunities to women) or academic institutions. If an equal number of women had been business entrepreneurs, academic pioneers, etc., women would have had "equal access" to all of these institutions.
But women didn't feminism to make it possible for them to create academic institutions or workplaces -- that has always been possible. Feminism simply used the government and legislators (i.e. anti-sexual discrimination laws, quotas, etc.) to force men to provide to women what women couldn't provide for themselves. But without men, there would be no such institutes for women to have access to, since men created them in the first place.
And, if one would argue that women can create these institutions by themselves, then one cannot claim that women have ever been dependent on men, and, as such, that men have ever had any economical or educational power over women that wasn't women's fault or couldn't be changed by women independently.
Bottom line, women's need for feminism is women's need for men, for all feminism is doing is using the goverment's power to transfer resources created by men into the hands of women. Without men, there are no resources for feminism to seize and give to women, and hence all of feminists' "achievements" would be meaningless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:44 PM September 16th, 2004 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Rand.
Sounds right to me.
Actually, if you were to turn this whole thing around it is MEN who don't really need women.
I mean we could easily make the SAME argument, and frankly, there would be ALOT of validity to that arguement.
As far as segregating the genders, as Ms. Weiss claims to want to do, I'd be fine with that. Le's go for it..., I have enough aggravation. I'd have alot less with feminists on some remote island away from men.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a gem of an article - I recommend reading it!
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hold that Pity . . .
. . . this woman has a long history of promoting Myth & Legend over Fact. She has been a prime mover behind how the US got to be where it is today, particularly regarding all fictitious abuse stats, girls being the ones failing in education and the whole education system being structured against the need of boys, etc.
Pity her . . . where is the Gun ? ? ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whenever I read 'dominating class' and 'power' in a person's argument such as hers, I can't help but think Marxist.
It's hard to believe somebody can fall so deep into their own pathological rationalizations they become blind to their ideology's self-refuting nature. Or maybe she does see them and thus resorts to projecting her own flawed argument with such vigor as to hide her own insecurities about its validity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:22 PM September 16th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
This Marxist-Feminist writes, "Once females take over the majority of the labor in the workforce, they will hold more sway over government policies. Slowly but surely, women will infiltrate the government, and gain elected positions with the support of the sisterhood. A total coup follows...."
What is ironic is that women have had literally hundreds of years to "take over.....the labor in the workforce...." and they still continue to refuse to take on the death occupations like iron worker, farmer, coal miner, and more.
Why? Because feminists like getting a free ride on a man’s salary or a government program. Feminists have no intention of doing actual work or taking risks at work to gain power. They are too damn lazy.
As for her claim that "....Slowly but surely, women will infiltrate the government...." well that is already happening at an accelerated rate in California.
The result is an increasing socialist disaster that leads to male oppression. The laws now read like they conform to the directives from The Communist Manifesto! Yet the public is ignorant of this because our leftist schools and conservative schools will not teach from the source documents.
In fact communistic disasters are only mentioned and never explained. Ever wonder why? What is ironic is that almost all of the women legislatures in California are Marxist-Socialist-Dems!
Get ready America. Marxist-Feminism is rapidly coming to a state where you live, and you cannot stop it. Don't think so? Think again.
Finally, we've all heard the mantra of following the money. Well if we consider how much is spent on homeland security to prevent terrorism we find the budget is 2.2 billion. On just the VAWA, which is directed specifically at the destruction of males, we find the core budget is 4.5 billion.
Now if we add in the costs family courts which follow Marxist ideology, the CA-DCSS (another communist organization), the welfare programs, the social services workers that criminalize males, the mandated reporters that are there to send males to jail, the court advocates (more communist) for females, and the family destruction units that are called DV shelters (again more communism) then we get at least 100 billion being spent to destroy or oppress males.
Now what is more important to America? There is the ~$100 billion being spent to destroy/oppress males and there is the homeland security with its 2.2 billion dollar budget to keep America safe?
What a joke! LOL! This country is stone cold stupid! And the retard police, firemen, and front-line soldiers go along with this!
Why the hell would any male join homeland security to support such hate is beyond me. Let the women do the job.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:49 AM September 18th, 2004 EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
"What is ironic is that women have had literally hundreds of years to "take over.....the labor in the workforce...." and they still continue to refuse to take on the death occupations like iron worker, farmer, coal miner, and more.
Why? Because feminists like getting a free ride on a man’s salary or a government program. Feminists have no intention of doing actual work or taking risks at work to gain power."
Warb:
Have you ever wondered what gender feminists would complain about if men suddenly did disapear from the face of the earth? Could it be, "Those rotten men disappeared just to make women's lives harder and more oppressed, proving once again the power of male oppression, or "By totalling relinquising all power and control men chose the only way they could find to put the whole work load on women and further enslave them and further exercise their power and control to the very end."
I don't agree with everything Fred Reed says, but I think he hit the nail squarely on the head when he said this, "Without men civilization would last until the oil needed changing"
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, cause there are enough of us women who know how to change our oil (although not always WHEN;-)
It would be when the oil ran out, or the garbage piled up, or things started burning, THEN we would start bitching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:08 PM September 16th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
This is his response to an email I sent him, which called for his resignation:
"Hello,
Clearly, you are not endowed with a sense of humor. This article was
obviously written tongue-in-cheek. It was not intended as a serious call to
action against men. I might also add that it was published last May -- but
apparently the article was recently linked to from a certain website.
Thank you for your comments.
best,"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, it wasn't. There was not one inkling of humor in that article which would lead one to believe it were tongue in cheek. Either this was meant as is, in which case the editor is clearly biased, or the author is an incredibly poor writer, in which care the editor is incompetent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with Jenk on this one. As I said in my post, it is obviously an attempt to goad and provoke, and it has been slipped in under the radar on the grounds that it is a joke, but there was nothing remotely humourous about it.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:31 PM September 17th, 2004 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
>"Clearly you are not endowed with a sense of humor"
And clearly THEY are not endowed with a brain, common sense or decency.
Funny that if an article like this were writen by a man about women, it would be de-cried for the hate-speech that it is. but when a woman writes it about men, oh, well it's HUMOR.
Humor my aunt FANNY.
In my dealings as an American indian activist, I have seen articles and "humorous" cartoons written by members of the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups. In these I have seen comics about beheading black people and skinning Indians. These KKK type folks think that THEIR litarature is FUNNY too.
I see NO difference between what Wiess is saying about men and what the KKK and other hate groups say about us minorities. NO DIFFERENCE.
It is the same thing. The only difference is the target. It isn't Blacks, Jews, Indians, gays or women, it is MEN.
Why are all other "targets" off limits, exept men?
It is always disturbing when a society accepts ANY kind of intolerance.
Inevitably that intolerance leads to pain and even death.
Ask any of my people, we'll tell you.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:26 PM September 17th, 2004 EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
Near as I can tell, the "tongue-in-cheek humor" aspect is that she doesn't think it will happen but thinks it's fun to fantasize about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
".........that women cannot do to the same extent or even better"
That's a phrase/mentality that has been bugging me for years. I hear women saying it, media commentators saying it, even politicians saying it.
What does it mean? It's a ludicrous fantasy of positive thinking. It is applied to every job, situation and discussion - both real and theoretical. The irritating bit is "..or even better". How? When? By what standard?
It's a mentality though that has soaked through to mainstream female thinking and ties neatly in with the moral superiority part of some of the other arguments in this thread. Moral and capability superiority - that's quite a combination.
An example - I'm a commercial airline pilot and we regularly undergo CRM (Cockpit resource management) training. One of the key tenets behind this is the development of open, honest communication between people, irrespective of rank and job role. Once, a female external trainer (non-pilot) mentioned in her introduction that she was surprised to find so few women in the room as it is "widely accepted" that women have superior communication skills to men. Another of the trainers (also female and a non-pilot) qipped: "Watch out guys, you [male pilots] might be extinct sooner than you think".
She seemed baffled when it was pointed out that it was "widely accepted" that men have better spatial skills in relation to certain aspects of flying - also a key part of the job. However, no-one was suggesting that female pilots might become extinct because of this.
Many women simply fail to see the double standards and contradiction in their thinking on this.
Apologies for the slight digression, but I believe this point is related to the overall superiority complex that many feminists have and which is amply displayed in this article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once, a female external trainer (non-pilot) mentioned in her introduction that she was surprised to find so few women in the room as it is "widely accepted" that women have superior communication skills to men. Another of the trainers (also female and a non-pilot) qipped: "Watch out guys, you [male pilots] might be extinct sooner than you think"
Just curious, but were these two a_holes reported to employee relations for their misandric remarks?
They were definitely creating a hostile work environment. I am not being condesending but if these two creeps were not disciplined in someway because the men did not complain then that is a prime reason this sexist garbage dumped on men exists! Men just do not or will not take up for themselves in this type of situation. It is past time to stop this self destruction and get over this real men don't complain mindset.
And of course just reverse the gender roles in the example above and well, you know the routine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Luek,
No, the concept of workplace hostility does not exist in the UK (unless you're female).
In the UK, we're famous for our stiff upper lips. It's not an urban myth that a couple had sex on an underground train in London and everybody else simply read their newspapers and kept their heads down.
It's very "un-British" to cause a fuss if you're male. We have all the worst aspcts of chivalry here.
Like many professions, we regularly wail and gnash our teeth over the lack of females as pilots....and in I.T....and as politicians.....and.... We never comment on the huge bias in favour of female law and medical or education graduates.......or the lack of female street cleaners, oil workers, etc etc....
Not being flippant Luek - it's just that we're conditioned to smile benevolently at these comments and take them on the chin. I agree 100% with you about men standing up for themselves. In general, I usually don't let female colleagues away with misandry in my presence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:00 PM September 16th, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
All I can say is F4J is a British group showing the world how to stand up and be a man. Roll on and show the world!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are correct AU- the exception to this is definitely the F4J group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I emailed the editor in chief, and he wrote back saying it wasn't meant to be serious... I had a feeling. But would it be an appropriate joke if it involved any other group of people? I think not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:27 AM September 17th, 2004 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how tongue in cheek it would be if it targeted the other gender.
Some food for thought for that silly editor.
Nice save... NOT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:57 AM September 17th, 2004 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
I ain't gonna be their whipping boy.
I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:02 AM September 17th, 2004 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
>"I ain't gonna be their whipping boy.
"I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more."
I get the first part, and agree.
But the second part...,...'the Hell...?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:09 PM September 17th, 2004 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
It's from a Bob Dylan song.
I simply mean I ain't workin' under any matriarchal, femi-supremace system that makes men do all the labor while the females sit on their fat asses eatin' Bon bons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:39 PM September 17th, 2004 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I can go along with that.
...But, Bob Dylan...? *shudder*
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:53 PM September 17th, 2004 EST (#56)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, don't knock Bob...he can't sing worth a damn, but he writes a razor line every time. He's best when other people do his stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:55 PM September 18th, 2004 EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, I hear Bob Dylan said something like "Not much happens that women don't approve of"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:14 PM September 19th, 2004 EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
Just kiddin' with ya, Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, I hear Bob Dylan said something like "Not much happens that women don't approve of"
You might have heard this from a previous post by me; somewhere in many boxes of papers I have a Rolling Stone interview with Dylan ca. 1988 in which he said (approximately, according to my memory): "Women rule the world. No man ever did anything unless a woman allowed or encouraged him to do it." (And I have quoted this in numerous posts here.) It was this remark, and the book Why Males Exist (out of print, check your library), which I discovered about the same time, that finally gave me the necessary keys to understanding the whole "gender" question.
From the beginning of sex, ca. 1.5 billion years ago, the male is the creation of the female, and always will be. She creates/produces males to take care of chores which she cannot or would rather not deal with herself.
"Cannot": provide genetic diversity to enable swift evolutionary change; single-sex species of any complexity cannot adapt quickly to new conditions. This includes particularly those species which used to have males but no longer do -- about which I learned in Why Males Exist. It is worth noting that while there is a substantial number of female-only species among plants, invertebrate animals, fish, amphibians and reptiles, I know of none among the warm-blooded, fast-moving birds and mammals. Certainly this is not an accident. Like the modern fad of lesbianism, female-only species can survive only in thoroughly-protected, unchanging ecological niches.
A woman once told me she used to be a lesbian, but gave it up because lesbian culture/society was terminally boring. I was not surprised. I was also not interested in her rather pathetic attempts to engage my male interest -- which included her proud story of how her little boy (a product of anonymous artificial insemination) stood up in school for the idea that fathers are unnecessary. Why she thought I would be charmed by this story I don't know. This woman came from Berkeley; maybe she should have stayed there.
"Would rather not": any dangerous task, since the female's first priority is the security necessary to reproduce successfully. This is why men have always fought the wars, not because women can't fight, but because men are expendable. And, of course, why men provide 95% of on-the-job deaths, etc. etc. She can always make more, after all.
The male is the front man, fall guy, and whipping boy in Her melodrama. The male "rulers" and warriors feminists complain about are simply front men for the females who run them -- mothers, "lovers," wives, daughters -- and benefit from their amassing of power, territory and material goods -- or their defending of power, territory and material goods from the front men sent by the women across the river. "Fall guy" and "whipping boy": well, you can figure it out.
Yeah, this article is a joke, but it is a sick joke. The truth is, Bob Dylan was right: women do rule the world, and the world we have is what women want -- or at least what they have used their power to create. Including the pathetic politically-correct feminist males like the editor of this paper. I no longer see much point in complaining about it. They'll do what they want, as they always have. If ever any substantial number of women begin to wonder why they're suffering, and really want to know, the information is available. The Buddha explained it all quite clearly 2500 years ago, and he was surely not the first, nor the last. And then he simply walked away from the melodrama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:42 PM September 19th, 2004 EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, now I really AM sorry I took a swipe at Dylan.
Sorry, sorry, sorry, Bob.
Is that better?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let them think that they decided they were working too much and not spending enough time at home. Let them integrate this with the notion that it would be a perfect opportunity for the women in their lives to work towards the equality they desire by becoming the primary breadwinners of the family. Once females take over the majority of the labor in the workforce, they will hold more sway over government policies
I say, more power to her. If her plan succeeds (ROTFL) then we'll see who has time to run political action groups and lobby the government for social changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Sir/Madam,
I understand that on May 06 2004, your newspaper published a highly offensive article by Anna Weiss, entitled ‘The End of Mankind’, which is now available on your website at the following address:
http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004 /05/06/4099f23890634?in_archive=1
In her article, the writer called for political revolution, engaged in hate-speech against the male population, and called for all males to be subject to compulsory internment and a loss of civil rights which she unashamedly characterises as slavery.
I gather you are under the impression that this article was intended to be humorous. If so, then I have to say that you are naïve. I have read the article closely, and I could find no trace of humour in it. However, even if it were so, this would not excuse it. If the writer had made the same statements about any other group in society, whether in jest or not, it would be regarded as hate-speech. I ask you to consider how the same article would sound if you were to substitute women, homosexuals or ethnic minority groups in place of men. Perhaps you can explain to me why men do not require the same consideration that is given to these others.
I urge you to take a more responsible attitude in the future, and not to condone treatment of one group in the population which you would not condone for another.
Regards,
etc.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:05 PM September 17th, 2004 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
It is just this sort of hypocrisy that Ms. Wiess spews that makes my blood boil, when she and feminists like her preach "equality". How does this sort of attitude and article bring about EQUALITY?
If any thing it is CLEARLY about IN-EQUALITY of the sexes. Specificaly(SP?) MEN'S.
I just want to throw a stick at her, or something...!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if the editor will post it, but the following is my response to the hate-rant by Ms. Weiss:
I understand that the editor of the Cornell Sun is trying to excuse this hateful article by claiming that it is a piece of humor. Anyone who is interested in seeing analogous, racist "humor" can go to this Web page: http://www.resist.com/cartoons/racistcartoons.htm. The article by Ms. Weiss is every bit as hateful as, and no more funny than, those racist cartoons.
In case anyone thinks that the alleged humor spewed out by Ms. Weiss is somehow acceptable because men supposedly have all the power in society, you might want to stop listening to your Women's Studies professors for a while and get some facts.
Women receive extreme amounts of preferential treatment in divorce and child custody cases. They are often given custody of the children and are then allowed, if they choose, to cut the father off from any contact with his children. The courts may say the woman has to allow access to the father, but if you're a man and you ever find yourself divorced and cut off from your children, don't be surprised if the courts just turn their backs on your ex-wife's actions. And let's not forget that separating parents from their children was one of the most horrific aspects of slavery in the US. There's a reason that kidnapping is a capital crime.
There are many shelters for women-victims of domestic violence (DV), but only one in the country for men, despite the fact that according to extensive research women initiate and commit DV at least as often as men.
We hear endlessly about the glass ceiling that women face, despite the fact that with the same background, ability and amount of work, women earn at least as much as men. In addition, we hear little about the glass cellar of work for men, who account for some 94% of workplace fatalities.
Males commit suicide far more frequently than females, and males have a lower life expectancy, yet there are federal offices of women's health but no federal office of men's health. Male education is being systematically eliminated. For a given crime, men are punished far more severely than women. Only males are forced to register for the draft. They are thereby clearly told that they are the disposable sex (sound like Ms. Weiss?). When women falsely accuse men, even to the point of filing false reports and committing perjury, they are rarely brought to justice; instead the courts just turn their backs on the crimes.
This list goes on and on. Wake up men. There's nothing funny about what feminist society is doing.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the email that I sent to Cornell University President, Jeffrey Lehman, who can be contacted at president@cornell.edu. Feel free to use these ideas to write your own comment to him. Note that it might not hurt for him to receive email from around the world.
Dear President Lehman:
I am not sure of the connection between Cornell University and the Cornell Daily Sun, but there was a piece published by the Sun on May 6, 2004, that may well violate university hate-speech codes. The piece,
The End of Mankind" by Anna Weiss, can be seen here, .
I understand that the editor of the Sun claims that the article is a piece of humor, but I doubt that such "homor" would be tolerated if it attacked any group of people other than men. In light of the collapse of male-education in the US, and throughout the developed world for that matter, I think that university tolerance and, in fact, assistance(through publication) of such hate-speech is far out of order.
I look forward to your response.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:36 PM September 17th, 2004 EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
excellent idea to email the prez, Thomas. I'll get one sent to him today.
-h
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:44 PM September 17th, 2004 EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
Editor:
That was a very misandric article. This article proves once again that the radical/gender feminist agenda is comprised of unscholarly research and irresponsible curriculum. Radical/Gender feminist lies make bad laws. Shame on you for promoting hate crimes by printing such an article.
Sincerely, Ray XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX XXXXXX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was my response:
Boorish biggotted feminazi shit maggots are very much like those political enforcer cadres in China during the "Cultural Revolution". They had a little run at feeding their mean spirited narcisstic egos by bullying people in the name of a political noble cause. They were once feared and powerful. Nobody misses them in China anymore. Even though most of them have actually disappeared off the face of the earth. Rumour has it that they were fed to dogs just before those dogs in turn were chopped up and stir fryed in woks with bok choy and ginger and served as chop suey. This boorish biggotted feminazi shit maggot (who would be looking at a jail term in Canada as a hate monger) is cat food. I will be delighted to dance on the bulldozer raised ruins of Cornell....bring on the gender war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:57 PM September 19th, 2004 EST (#66)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's all very well to bombard the editorial staff of the Cornell Sun...who are in all probability women's studies students anyway...and all this really achieves is letting them know that they can get our attention and they can fend it off with the"I was only kidding"defence at will. Just by the way...I am aquainted with members of a comedy troup in Canada called "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" which is a top rated show in Canada and one of it's commedians (Rick Mercer) is infamous in Canada for making Americans look like idiots on faked man in the street interviews. Anyway I am aware that whenever one of their troop makes a manbash joke they always close with a "just kidding"(on advice of a legal department that is always fending off lawsuits).
They may even go throught the motions of appeasing us with an inscincere appology.
Let's find out Cornell's Code of Conduct and sexual harassment policies and transcribe the total of this thread and the thread at the Sun and submit it to the Board of Governors as a formal complaint....The Sun does have to answer to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello AngryMan and Maus. In addition to writing to the paper online, I've also written to the president of Cornell, Jeffrey Lehman, at president@cornell.edu. I haven't heard back yet. In fact, I haven't even received acknowledgment that his office received my email, though the email didn't bounce back to me, so they probably received it. Either they're very busy and haven't had time to respond, or they're blowing it off. So far.
If you haven't done so yet, I suggest you write to him as well. If necessary, I can start a new thread here to put this idea back in the forefront and to try to recruit support for further activism. This site is, after all, Men's Activism News Network.
Then again, I'd be happy to work with you guys, and anyone else, through email, if you're serious about doing something regarding this. You can contact me at mensrights01@yahoo.com.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas, Good man I like this kind of faith and confidence, it is what will ultimately win the day. Now I'll fill you in on a couple of things, I know because I have taken on universities before. First, a complaint to the president of a university is like a complaint to the president of Toyota about defective brakes....the leader is a figurehead who never even reads such things and such letters go into an indifferent beaureaucratic mill. Also Cornell, according to it's code of conduct, (and God love them for this) prides itself as a forum of free speach and has wide parameters of tollerance.
A more effective approach would be to address to the Board of Governors (the ones who make the quantitative management decisions regarding the economic health of the institution) a manifesto of as articulately as possible stated collective concerns about the wisdom of letting a political special interest group being given such license to make misandric policies a guiding force in the formation of educational policies when no real democratic polling of grass roots approved mandate exists and where negative impacts on the educational future of an entire gender are already evident. When we compose the manifesto, present it as a petition and pass it in all of the weblinked MRA forums, then submit it to the senate and board of governors, not just of Cornell...but all universities in the United States and Canada and try to make IT the launchpoint of the dialogue......just a humble suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
