|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the original poster.
If a rational discussion is to be had about why PEOPLE are not having babies it must include men to ask why not.
Women HAVE the babies, but as we are often reminded by feminists, it is MEN who impregnate women.
Asking women is 1/2 of the answer. The other 1/2 must be directed towards men.
Be very clear: the feminists don't give a sh*t what the problem is: they care more about the money, political capital, and keeping the current "feud" going than what happens to our society.
Some men may not want them for NONE of the reasons MRAs believe. And AS MRAs we must be looking for the truth. It MAY BE that we are right, but since we are fighting a foe who has not one grain of "whole truth" in "her" collective body, we must find the answers.
================================================
Also, slightly off topic, but relevant. I'll go out on a limb here and say this:
It bothers the sh*t out of me that so many of these "women's" organizations that discuss and help make policy that effect heterosexual relationships are populated by so many LESBIANS.
I mean, let's just contrast and compare: The lesbian's I've heard compare the inequity have ONE main issue: give us "marriage" and we'll be equals.
Uhh, yea. Sure. You betcha. I am SO SURE that right after Christians (and esp white males of that persuasion) just hand that over that ALL the man hating lesbians will stop grinding their axes, legislating their hatred, and just embrace us as their brothers.
yah, sure. You betcha.
WHY are there so many man-hating lesbians SOOOOO interested in hetero-relationships and "just trying to help women" (destroy families)? Gee, lets think REAL HARD about why a woman, who is attracted to women, would want to demonize her competition.
Sheesh ... Hetero girls character assassinate the SH*T out of each other when competing. Is that so much of a f*cking stretch to just NOT wonder why man-hating lesbians want women fearful/hating men and alone?! (with financial help of men - but that's another long post)
I mean, if men were putting out stats like this:
1) 1 in 4 lesbian will have a woman sexually assualt them.
2) The majority of lesbians visiting the emergency room are there due to other lesbians battering them.
3) The most unsafe place for a lesbian is in her own home with her lover.
4) Lesbian parents often walk away from their children and have no care for nor instinct towards raising their children.
5) The majority of sexual abuse towards children is from the lesbian mother raising him or her.
6) The prevalence of lesbians using date rape drugs is on the rise and straight women must be careful because, like it or not, all lesbians are "potential date-rapists".
7) If a straight woman has a lesbian experience and feels anxiety, depression, or regret there is a reason: probably she was assaulted. Even if she consented at the time she may have felt unable to say no by the predator who pressured her.
8) If a lesbian gets you drunk in order to get you to have an "experience" or to "test your bi-sexuality" then it was rape. A straight woman under the influence cannot give consent.
9) If you kill your lesbian partner it's most likely due to her abuse. Being battered isn't your fault. We must work to stop lesbian DV and stop blaming the victim.
10) If your lesbian partner asks where you're going, won't communicate with you, yells at you, denies you sex, demands sex from you, and/or plays music that is too loud for you and you don't feel as though you are the victim of abuse: you are. Women who are dating lesbians are conditioned to accept this kind of behavior as "normal". It's not normal, and you don't have to put up with it. Come talk to our straight counselors and let them help you break out of this abusive lesbian relationship.
I could go on ... but you get the point.
And to COUNTERPOINT this: if lesbian relationships were the perfect model of empathy, intimacy, fulfillment, and peach they would POINT THAT OUT. In reality they have the same problems ALL couples do.
And since they aren't interested in stopping sexual assault, DV, or child abuse in their OWN relationships ... but DO seem AWFULLY interested in "pointing them out" and "helping" in hetero relationships ...
It begs the question why.
But with all those single women now out there who are fearful/hateful of men ... I guess you can figure out what MY answer would be.
It's about time SOMEONE said this. They sure aren't shy about giving US a broadside of "factoids" ... we should point out to the public WHY they seem to want men out of women's lives.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:25 PM November 18th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
This babies-are-a-women's-issue shit is so typical. Reducing fathers to sperm donors and wallets is the most worst part of anti-male cesspool that passes for media today. It's a great way to avoid troubling issues like lack of male reproductive rights, lack of male life choices, and sexism in child custody decisions.
It's true that a lot of lesbians spew anti-male hate. But so do a lot of hetero women and men.
But the bottom line is that lesbians amount to perhaps 1-3% of all women. If the rest of women and men don't care enough about each other to stand up to anti-male hate mongers, they might as well just ignore each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This babies-are-a-women's-issue shit is so typical."
I agree. However, I understand that feminists and women have ruined the nuclear family, fahter's rights, father-child relations, the "justice" system, hetero-relationships/hetero-marriage, and men's rights, but I just don't understand why the lack of massive baby production is such a big deal.
THERE ARE SIX BILLION PLUS PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET!!!
I advocate the extension of full and equal reproductive/parental rights to men/fathers, the end of feminist persecution of men in the workplace, give boys equal educational opportunities, raise the awareness and funding of men's health, forcing female criminals to serve the exact same prison terms and even the death penalty as men, reforming marital/divorce laws, and giving men/boys full rights over their life choices and full autonomy over their bodies/genetic material, but I just don't see how a baby bust is such a bad thing.
THE WORLD IS OVERPOPULATED!!!
I know that as a woman, my rights (and priveleges) in this matter are far greater and cast greater influence (legal and cultural) than any of you poor guys here (and that's WRONG AND A MISANDRIC GENDER BIAS OF OUR SO CALLED "JUSTICE" SYSTEM THAT MUST END), but who cares that the human population is dwindling. It won't become zero.
Just because people have the ability to reproduce doesn't mean that they have to. Not everyone was meant to reproduce, nor should everybody reproduce.
Men should have the right to choose when they become fathers regardless of what some vindictive woman or feminist says. A WOMAN OR FEMINIST SHOULD HAVE *NO* SAY IN WHAT A MAN SHOULD CHOOSE TO DO WITH HIS GENETIC MATERIAL/BODY OR LIFE CHOICES!!! Fathers should be given equal parental/custodial rights. Men should have full autonomy over his life, career, money, body, and DNA. NO WOMAN OR FEMINIST HAS THE RIGHT TO MANIPULATE A MAN'S DNA OR LIFE TO SERVE OUT HER VENGEFUL, MONEY DRIVEN AGENDA!!!
I agree that men should remain free of marriage and childhood until the misandric feminist laws are abolished, but even then, I don't see why all people should pop out babies. People are more than just their body parts. So could someone be ever so kind as to remind me why people should couple and pop out babies, babies, and more babies. And why is contributing to the planet's population is a good thing?
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"and childhood"
I'm so stupid. I meant 'children'. Sorry, sorry.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but I just don't understand why the lack of massive baby production is such a big deal.
What, so you'd rather see your race and culture cease to exist then? Or perhaps your economy go bankrupt and pay first world prices with third world services? That is, if you're one of the lucky few in a job with mass un-employment all around.
THERE ARE SIX BILLION PLUS PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET!!!
Third world types, not westerners.
but who cares that the human population is dwindling.
It's not the third world types that are dwindling, it's first world folk. If there's too few of us, it'll be like the fall of Rome and the fallout will be huge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rome fell because it was sacked over and over again by German barbarians, and because of its corrupted and immoral generals and senators who enjoyed their luxurious and decadent lifestyles far too much to care about the security of their empire. Partying was at the top of their priority list. Watching their borders was at the bottom.
And the overpopulation of third world people does have an negative effect on our economy as we are the ones flipping the bill for financial and medical aid to them.
Still, we should all fuck and pop out four to seven kids per family just to keep up with the third world? Won't that put more strain on our frail economy? Everybody should have kids, kids, and more kids? Does this means you're all for the government coming in and telling people of both sexes to become propagation machines? Is that all human beings are; baby-producers? And people are worthless if they don't have kids? People should be fined for not having kids? Kids, babies, procreation,....is that what a person should base their standing in life on and that should be their goal in life? Hitler believed the same thing too...if you didn't reproduce you were an enemy of the state.
Human beings and Westerners aren't going away anytime soon. People are still having kids. I see pregnant women, hear about parents having multiples, people (especially pearly-White Upper Middle Class folk) are pursuing fertility drugs like a crackheads, and white suburban women view themselves as "birthing goddesses" that must have tons and tons of kids. That's all my sister-in-laws are obsessed about. That's all a lot of girls around me in my dorm are obsessed about; marrying immediately after college, getting a house in the suburbs, and popping out babies, babies, and more babies.
Nice priority list, huh? So typical of the majority of American woman isn't it? I feel sorry for their boyfriends.
America (especially White Middle Class Conservatives that dominate this country both in numbers and control over political offices) has a 'Cult Of Progeny,' and it's prominent within the White Middle Class. Why do you think Americans are so damn obsessed with making everything "kid-friendly?" Because people are still having kids and litters of them here in America and it's mostly white people. Westerners and White-Americans aren't going away anytime soon.
Developed countries like Japan, England, Germany, and other West-European countries may have a skyrocketing senior citizen population that dwarfs the younger, working population and perhaps encouraging people having one or two kids per family wouldn't hurt.(But the government should *NOT* force them to procreate, nor intimidate them with taxes and fines.)
But here in America, please. If you say you don't want to have kids, people look at you like you're Satan. Americans without kids are expected to paint a scarlett letter on the chest. It's a form of cultural intimidation that I and other people (especially males) should ignore. And I am ignoring it and refuse to give in. Just because I and my future male-life-partner won't have kids (he could have kids from a previous relationship and that's fine) does NOT mean that Western Civilization will crumble.
Enough people will keep thinking that they're nothing and worthless unless they kids and it will be those people who continue the species. And those people and their litters of children out-number those who don't want to have kids here in America.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thea:
I'll try to answer your question about why the baby bust is a problem. (Warning: Long post ahead.) Don't take this personally. This isn't an attack on you or your ideals. As a matter of fact, I opted not to have children, though the reasons for my decision may be different than your reasons. For one thing, even for my parents generation, I always saw parenting as a rotten deal for men. In addition, I saw what was coming for fathers in this society, and I wanted no part of it.
There are three critical factors that come readily to my mind, when I consider the collapse in fertility rates.
- The collapse is happening at too high a rate for societies/economies to be able to cope with it.
- The collapse is happening largely in developed nations, while poor nations and especially the more radical sectarian in those nations continue to reproduce at above replacement rate.
- Not only are governments failing to make serious efforts to adjust to the drastic demographic changes, they're doing just the opposite.
Before I address these issues, I'll point out that even Alan Greenspan (I know, he's not a god) has started to speak of the economic disaster that we face as a result of population aging and collapse. In addition, Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Scott Burns address the matter in their excellent "The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know about America's Economic Future." Kotlikoff is an economics professor at MIT, Burns is a journalist. Their book has been praised by four Nobel Laureates in economics. These guys mind their Ps and Qs. Believe me, we're headed for serious trouble because of the catastrophic drop in fertility rates.
Now, as for the three listed items:
The collapse is happening too fast for societies to cope. Replacement rate in a developed nation is about 2.1 children per woman. (Yes, it's given in terms of the woman, without regard to any man.) That's because, if we're going to maintain a constant population, on average a woman has to reproduce for herself as well as a man and not every child lives to the average age of having the average number of offspring. In less developed nations, replacement rate is higher, because of greater infant mortality.
If you look here you'll see stats on the worldwide drop in fertility rates. The US, for a number of years, has hovered around and slightly below replacement rate. In nations like Japan, Italy, and Spain, for instance, the fertility rate has fallen nearly to one-half of replacement. At first populations aren't collapsing, because of age extension, but the rate of age extension is falling. (In many nations, especially some of the developing, average age at death is rising rapidly into the mid- to upper-70s and then crawling higher after that.) Soon, as that mid- to upper-70s range is reached by enough people, populations will decline as the elderly die and few children are born. By around 2050 (believe me, it'll come fast) the population of Europe is expected to drop by about 127 million -- more than the current populations of France and Italy combined.
Consider what happens when the elderly reach their current limit. If the population is, say, 130 million, as it is in Japan today, in one generation (say 25 years -- we're looking at rough numbers to get an idea of what's going on), the population will fall by 50%, to 65 million. In another generation, it will fall to about 32 million or so. In another generation, it'll fall to about 16 million. We're talking about a collapse from 130 million people to 16 million in 75 years, or roughly the average person's lifetime. Devastating plagues have rarely if ever taken such a toll, and even then the population collapse has, in itself, always led to great misery. These are straightforward predictions based on current fertility rates, yet the fertility rates are overall still declining.
Economists are studying and starting to predict that impending misery. The elderly don't purchase as much as the young. They tend to save much more, because their future earning potential is relatively tiny. They also don't produce as much and their burden on society, as currently structured (one of the major points is that we need major restructuring, and I'm talkin' overwhelming) is an order of magnitude greater than for youths. Medical care for the elderly, for example, is far more of a social financial burden than education for youths. Again, if you want details, see "The Coming Generational Storm."
For years, economists kept trying to blame Japan's stagnant economy on corruption and cronyism, but careful analyses kept showing that the amount of corruption and cronyism didn't go up prior to the current economic crisis, when Japan fell from the world's most dynamic economy into utter malaise. They're now starting to point out that population aging is a major contributor to the problem (as alluded to in the article, whose link leads this thread).
Consider on top of this what will happen as the population collapses. People die and leave homes empty. There goes the home building industry. They leave functional cars in their driveways. There goes the automobile industry. Appliances: the same deal. Our economy is based on population growth, as most clearly emphasized by the Ponzi scheme of having the young pay social security taxes (payroll taxes). That money isn't paid into an interest bearing account. It isn't even hidden under mattresses. It's given to the elderly. The idea is that, when today's youths are old, they'll be taken care of by the future batch of youths. The problem is that there used to be a triangle with a large base. The top represented the number of elderly, who were provided for by the young (the triangle's base). Unfortunately, we are now inverting the pyramid. The number of elderly is burgeoning, while the number of youths is shrinking. There are far fewer wage earners to support each member of the elderly today than in the past. And we haven't had anywhere near enough magical technological breakthroughs to make up the difference.
Aaaak! I'm getting tired. I may continue to address this tomorrow. In any case, I think you should pay attention to this. We're headed into an enormous economic crisis because of the collapse of fertility rates. And that crisis is going to bite you on the ass, perhaps more viciously than anything else that you're facing today.
All the best for now. Sleep well.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All I'm getting are statistics and I agree with them, and there's no disputing that the growing senior citizen population is and will have a serious effect on our economies.
However, the impression I'm getting is that you're all for the government coming into people's homes and forcing them to reproduce five to eight kids against their will.
I thought we were against forced parenthood?
How could you be for one version of forced parenthood and be against another since some of you guys here are victims of forced fatherhood (or paternity fraud)?
Are you saying that every single person in a particular country should have five to eight kids, even people who should not have kids due to poor health, poverity, a conviction of a violent crime like murder, or mental instability? And people who don't have kids should be Blacklisted as enemies of the state/civilization and forced to pay a penalty tax for it? Human beings who don't reproduce are worthless and a failure in life? Even if a single childless person invents a cure for cancer and a vaccination for HIV/AIDS they're still a worthless member of society, who is an enemy of the state who should be fined and pay a penalty tax? And single and childless Joe/Jane Q. who has a career, works everyday, pays their taxes, and is a law abiding citizen is a worthless member of society and an enemy of the state who should be fined and forced to pay a penalty tax?
It is the people who do want to have kids who should be encouraged to have more than two or three kids. Not people who have chosen not to procreate.
People who don't have kids should not be stigmatized or Blacklisted as enemies of the state and civilization (unless you're into that Nazi thing), nor should the government fine or create some kind of tax penalty for them. All I have been given are the statistics, not any kinds of solutions to the problem. No body has answered my question.
And I find Adam H's "what, so you want your culture to die out" accusation to be just plain racist bullshit. What culture, Caucasion-European culture? I'm half-White and half-Black, honey. So I really don't have a culture to solely call my own. Are you afraid of the "mud-people" like me?
White people have always been a minority in the world. The only thing that can change that is if you forbid people of color from reproducing for a couple of generations and then force all white people to have eight to ten kids per family. Increasing the population of a nation should not be racially driven based on bigotted views. Hitler was into that kind of thing.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you have misread what everyone has been saying. No one has suggested to force people to have children and no one but you has brought up race.
The Third world country reference is not about race, it is about nations. Somalia having 2 billion children will not help support the growing elderly population in the US. If 2 billion blacks, whites, reds, yellows or purples in the US were born, then yes it would help the US, so color has nothing to do with this.
No one has suggested forcing people to have children. Your first post was declaring how it would be a good thing for us not to populate, that you couldn't see any down sides to people having less children. Adam H was simply pointing out an error in that thinking. He did not mention forcing people to have kids.
The fact is that population IS a gowing concern (pun intended) that we all need to think about. Changing family law would go a long way to remedying this problem, as would stopping the vilification of fathers, ending no-fault divorce, introducing the male pill, (people with choices will make choices, not run) and tax subsidies for intact families. There are many things which can be done to help this problem which have nothing to do with forcing people to have children against their will.
Personally, I think that making abortion less attractive than adoption, getting babies from simgle mothers to waiting adoptive parents, would go a long way. 9 months just isn't that long. But I doubt that will happen, the whole it's all about me syndrome.
Anyways, there are lots of things which can be done, all of which benefit the men's movement. This is an opportunity to add a tool to the men's activist box, and I don't think we should waste it.
BQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I find Adam H's "what, so you want your culture to die out" accusation to be just plain racist bullshit.
The weaker the argument, the stronger the words. Wanting to defend your race and culture is no different in principle to defending your family, except in a larger scale.
What culture, Caucasion-European culture?
Whatever culture you're from.
I'm half-White and half-Black, honey. So I really don't have a culture to solely call my own.
You're in America, is that somehow not your culture?
Are you afraid of the "mud-people" like me?
Hardly. Are you just here to indulge in poor woman's shame and blame tactics or will you compose an actual argument?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poor woman's shame?! What the fuck?! I have no shame, fucker! I gave you my arguments. Kiss my fucking ass! It's not like *YOU* have given any solutions to the problems. Nothing but pick off irrelevant little things I said in my two previous posts. I'm asking for people's ideas on what they think are solutions to the problem. You have given shit. You just want to fuckin' argue. Eat shit and post a REAL GODDAMN SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM!!!
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for actually writing a REAL response to my post jenk, rather than write shit like Adam H. I just want to hear people's solutions to the problem.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the impression I'm getting is that you're all for the government coming into people's homes and forcing them to reproduce five to eight kids against their will.
I'm at a loss for where you got this idea. As for my statements, I wrote in the opening to this thread that "There are a few problems with the article's analysis... proposed solutions involve greater government intrusion into the family." I'm extremely wary about more government intrusion into people's reproductive choices.
Are you saying that every single person in a particular country should have five to eight kids
I've never seen anyone, who has addressed the growing problem of population collapse, make any such declaration, despite the fact that a number of people have already and are now addressing the issue. Actually, I suspect that a shrinking population would be good for humans and for the world's ecosystems, provided we adjust our economic and social structures so as to allow for this without falling into, at best, severe economic malaise (as in Japan today) or, at worst, extreme economic collapse.
When Shrub (aka President Bush) passed the law to provide more medical prescriptions for the elderly, he increased legally committed transfer payments by approximately 6.5 trillion dollars, thereby raising the total committed transfer payments to approximately 51.5 trillion dollars. Combine this with the nation's official debt and you have an amount in excess of all the wealth of every US government (federal, state, local), every company in the US, and every individual in the US. In other words, we are bankrupt. There will be no getting out of our current, building problem without some hardship, and the sooner we start accepting and dealing with the hardship, the less severe it will ultimately be. We need fewer committed transfer payments, not more.
Moving to a side point for a moment... Most of the statistics I give here can be found in Kotlikoff's and Burns' book. It's not the only book I've read on this subject, but it's the best.
And people who don't have kids should be Blacklisted as enemies of the state/civilization and forced to pay a penalty tax for it?
Again, I don't know where you get the idea of blacklisting. I've never stated or believed any such thing (again, I chose not to procreate, though I recognize the severe problems that we now face as a result of population aging and coming population collapse, both of which are direct results of the collapse of fertility rates). As for a penalty tax for not reproducing, I'm very wary of such an idea, though it's, in effect, already in existance through tax breaks for dependents and parental (especially maternal) leave from work. Also, increased government subsidies to people with children are frequently proposed by economists and demographers who are looking at the problems we now face as a result of falling fertility rates. Again, I'm very wary of this. The more the government subsidizes child rearing, the more the government will want to control child rearing.
As for questions about race and culture, I don't care about "race." I'm not sure races really exist, and I don't believe, if they do exist, that one is superior to another. However, I do believe that cultures exist, and I do believe that some are superior to others. On the whole, in the US, we have a constitution-based elected government (despite its many faults). I wouldn't want our culture and government structures replaced by a dictatorship or monarchy run by, for example, radical Zionists or radical fundamentalist Muslims. Either one would consider the other inferior to the point of requiring, at least, severe loss of freedoms.
France is rapidly becoming Muslim, and many of the Muslims there are not adopting French culture. Not only is anti-Semitism growing in France and other European nations as a result of the significant percentage growth of radical Muslim elements, it's now become dangerous for girls in several French inner cities to go outside without wearing a burqa. (There have now been numerous violent attacks on girls because of this.) Purdah is a terrible thing. I wouldn't want to see it become a part of any culture in which I live.
At current rates (here, I'm afraid, I don't have a citation, so take this for what it's worth) in less than a generation France will have a majority of Muslims. In less than two generations, the majority of French voters will be Muslim. This wouldn't concern me a bit if the growing Muslim population were on the whole adopting French culture, but to a large extent they are not. Despite the problems of the time, I wouldn't have minded being Jewish in France 35 years ago. I would not, however, want to be Jewish in France in another 35 years if the culture continues to evolve the way it has been and the way it currently promises to. And that evolution is a direct result of the collapse of fertility among indiginous French, the steady immigration from different cultures (which are staying very different), and the relatively high fertility rates among the members of those very different cultures.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just saying we can have a perfectly good "fuck you" - "No, FUCK you" argument w/out breaking our keyboards during our discussions.
(trying to make a joke and failing miserably!)
Happy friday
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You make a number of fine points, BQ.
Somalia having 2 billion children will not help support the growing elderly population in the US. If 2 billion blacks, whites, reds, yellows or purples in the US were born, then yes it would help the US, so color has nothing to do with this.
Good point about the population of Somalia not directly aiding the elderly of the US, though immigration from Somalia could help us, provided the immigrants adopted much of the good in American culture. As for the births in the US, it's also true that they could help our economy, though of course 2 billion would be a bit much. I will add, though, that it would be important to have those children born into a culture with values similar to those of the current culture. I wouldn't want them born into an adament sub-culture that believed, for instance, that girls shouldn't be educated. I wouldn't welcome a large Taliban-like subculture in the US.
Changing family law would go a long way to remedying this problem, as would stopping the vilification of fathers, ending no-fault divorce, introducing the male pill, (people with choices will make choices, not run) and tax subsidies for intact families.
Good points. Also, think that working toward the end of the war between the genders (working to end feminism) would also quickly lead to a rise in fertility rates as men and women came to trust each other more.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:32 PM November 19th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
thea;
don't get too angry and go away on us. I said it before, I love reading your posts. So you are half black and half white, I am all white and if I were a little closer to your age I would kill to hook up with someone like you.
Pete in Nebraska
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poor woman's shame?! What the fuck?! I have no shame, fucker!
Yeah, I noticed.
It's not like *YOU* have given any solutions to the problems.
As an admin here for several years, I've been doing my bit towards a universal solution. I believe less government, not more is the answer.
Nothing but pick off irrelevant little things I said in my two previous posts.
Given your reaction, they could hardly have been irrelevant.
You have given shit. You just want to fuckin' argue. Eat shit and post a REAL GODDAMN SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM!!!
What, did my comments really get to you that much? regardless, this is one of those conversations that won't do anything productive.
So I am prepared to offer a truce, if you agree to not let things get to you too much in the future.
How about it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very well then, truce. I don't like staying angry people over little things anyway. We have the same common goal and shouldn't tear each other part over little things. I agree to disagree with your points. Truce.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What, so you'd rather see your race and culture cease to exist then?
This sounds like a racist argument. 'You have a duty to have children to keep the race alive'.
Firstly there is no such thing as 'race'. Racism is a discredited 19th century scientific theory which argued that the human population could be categorised into groups based upon large-scale physical features such as skin colour, hair type, etc. With the advent of genetics, it was discovered that the racial categories are fictitious; they don't correspond to any actual biological feature. We don't divide the world up in terms of eye colour, and it makes no more sense to divide it up in terms of skin colour. Martin Luther King was right about that.
How scientists choose to categorise things wouldn't have mattered, but for the fact that many people adopted racial theory and took a further step - that different races have different values (of course 'we' always have more value than 'them'). This is one of the key origins of fascism. Feminists have made a similar move with regard to sex; 'Wimmin' have more value than men.
The point about being anti-racist is not that all races are equal; the point is that there aren't any races. What there is is racism, the belief that there are races, and that these races have different values.
There certainly is biology, but the people in my town are genetically no more similar to me than people in Asia are.
There certainly are cultures, but cultures come and go all the time, and they constantly change.
If the first world is becoming underpoplated, then one obvious solution is immigration - hire people from elsewhere to come and work here.
Of course that might mean you end up becoming an ethnic minority. Oh my God! You might have to give citizenship to some of those third world types. Incidentally, that is one of the reasons that German tribes kept attacking Rome. They wanted Roman citizenship and were refused, so they burned it down. People say that the US is the new Roman Empire...
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This was meant to be a reply to Thomas's post, not Thea's
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry I meant Adam H - I was right the first time!
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds like a racist argument. 'You have a duty to have children to keep the race alive'.
That really depends on how you see racism, I get the feeling you see racism as identifying with your ethnic group and advancing your collective interests yes? If so, why is this bad?
Firstly there is no such thing as 'race'.
Since this is the crux of your post, I will make the couter argument the crux of mine.
If there is no such thing as race, how come all those non-white advocacy groups don't say the say thing? and if there is no such thing as race, then there's no need for affirmative action in America, and no need for "positive discrimation" in Europe.
What I find weird here is, you advocate putting another groups interest before your own, when the other group has no inclination to advance your interests. It's the equivalent of giving somebody something for nothing, because the alternate would be "racist" so you do what's contradictive to your self interests, and think it's somehow good?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam, I was probably taking you too literally. I wrote that comment early this morning and I jumped the gun. I don't think we should be calling each other racists, we have enough to do fighting feminism. I was getting hung up on the meanings of words. No offence.
To answer your points:-
I get the feeling you see racism as identifying with your ethnic group and advancing your collective interests
Not really. There is such a thing as ethnicity, but that is culturally defined, whereas race is biologically defined. People do use them interchangeably, which can lead to confusion. One of the most basic featues of modern-day racists is that they do not see the distinction, and they call ethnicity 'race'.
how come all those non-white advocacy groups don't say the say thing?
They are opposed to racial theory, and racism, but they too may talk in terms of 'race', not least of all because their opponents do.
I'm not denying that people are discriminated against, I'm saying that they are discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity rather than race (although from their point of view, it hardly matters). Also, there are plenty of non-white racists in this world...
there's no need for affirmative action in America, and no need for "positive discrimation" in Europe
I'm not sure to what extent I am in favour of those things anyway, I have no comment to make on that.
What I find weird here is, you advocate putting another groups interest before your own, when the other group has no inclination to advance your interests.
Jenk made a good point about not confusing ethnic identity with national identity. The US and UK are both ethnically very mixed, but each is a single nation. If you accepted migrant workers into your country it would help your economy. They would be a different ethnic group to you, and so your ethnic group may 'suffer' by becoming proportionally less numerous, but the nation as a whole would benefit.
I was proposing a multi-ethnic society with immigrant guest workers as a solution to the problem of the falling birth-rate and aging population. This is a real problem, and immigration seems to me like a good solution to it (Racism is the principal barrier to its success). It seems morally preferable to maintaining the population levels by coercing people into parenting.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam, I was probably taking you too literally. I wrote that comment early this morning and I jumped the gun. I don't think we should be calling each other racists, we have enough to do fighting feminism. I was getting hung up on the meanings of words. No offence.
It's cool, all I'm trying to say is that the racial/cultural angle (however you want to see it) is quite prevalent, and while it is a touchy subject, sometimes you do have to factor it in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey there,
I know your upset but calm down. This is not a pick sides and glory hate fest. There are solid reasons that lesbians are concerned with all this and its not the baiting ‘competition’ concept.
First of all… they are lesbians.. Men are not competition to most of them, to the ones that we are.. Well, those are bi-sexuals, not lesbians. All this though is neither her or there.
Here is my simple take on it. Take it for what its worth.
We all are aware that there were inequities in the past. I will not get into the how’s and whys, of whether it’s a conspiracy or cultural, lack of law with its defenses, or whatever. In general as we are currently fond of saying “we played our roles”. In simple, men earned outside the home, women were predominantly in the home. Women fared better by linking up into a family unit at the time. Men did too. Family life shows stability and need coupled with a lack of ability to move, and hiring bosses like that more. in essence though there was too much work to be done at home just to get through the day, and that work doesn’t put food on the table, so it was a division of labor and survival (this is not the place to discuss the equities and inequities of the lives of our great grandparents, which today is really irrelevant other than a straw man argument).
Where do lesbians fit in this? Of course they can’t opt in on the good provider husband. Nor can they get one of the provider jobs because bosses then, given the lay of the land, knew that to put the man out was to put a family out, one that was needy that he was already bleeding (ie see labor riots).
It has nothing to do with competition for the bedroom (of which men aren’t really equipped to compete in this arena anyway), it has to do with not being let to earn their own living that would free them from having to marry someone in order to live decently.
Maybe silly reversed, but I think it would be like you or I having to marry another man and have sex with him in order not to starve or having to do other questionable things. God knows the women wont let you haul bricks so that you can afford to live by yourself.
If we want to be understood on our side, we must endeavor to work
to really try to see their side. To do so is to understand, to fail is to
be confused by what understanding makes reasonable behavior. –Rumments-
As far as the family break down and such, well you can read a lot of books that show that many of the early feminists were also Communists. This is not the same thing that we perceive today or feel is a Commie. The ideas and concepts were the same, but today our concept is sullied by how it was finally expressed. For the intellectuals of the early century this was political theory with as much promise for them as tune in turn on and drop out was a solution for another generation.
Again. Why would they be against the family? Well they are not per se; they were for a system that was offering an alternative freedom. The next step in political development. What they thought democracy would evolve to. Again whether the promise is real is not here or there, its that what this alternative was promising was equal pay regardless of work. We all do our part to our ability great and small and all that we do goes in to a kitty and is shared by all. Ok, in real life the leaders kind of got around this.
The point here was this was a system that was promising them the ability to again not have to marry someone that they didn’t want just to live. This system didn’t just stop at the idea of different pay, it also spoke that the family would no longer be necessary, and with it the toil and drudgery of living the role that they were not meant to live as they feel inside.
Looking at America in the past there is only a few periods where the concepts of homosexuality were tolerated, for much of its history it was a dirty little secret. Looking back you see little reference and such, and I would not think that it’s a new phenomenon given the earlier cultures that venerated and celebrated it rather than tolerate it.
It is easy to see how a bunch of women who love women get together when the men they are forced to marry are at work and tell common stories about how they were raped because of obligations (of course to the world that didn’t even acknowledge the existence of a lesbian how could a wife be raped). To them why couldn’t they just marry and then just mutually respect each other and not be forced to comply. The men though didn’t know what was wrong with their wives (the wives could never confess and then get thrown out with again no way to work).
When its only the lesbian women meeting you can see how in their world there is a lot of violence that seems to be everywhere because there are confused men (though not understood that way), using force to get their wives to comply and act like other guys wives. We all don’t like being on sexual call all the time but if we are compatible a great amount of the time the waters get tested we are receptive or at least can be convinced by our partner. So depending on circumstances the amount of ‘drudgery’ sex can be non-existent to a good portion of the time, but for the lesbian it was ALL the time. And for the man, he never could make her happy, she never can hide it.
Also not to mention this was way before general birth control so eventually have sex and you will make her pregnant. So now you also have the group common experience of having to bear and take care of the children that you didn’t want from a man you had to have.
From this its easy to see how things are or how a world view can be created. Given that the worldview is not invalid, just not globally encompassing, it was easy for other women to agree with various parts. She might not agree with the marriage rape thing, but does agree with being able to work. She might not agree that women should work but do agree that women should vote. So you can see a tight core of women who are empowered to save what they believe all women experienced. And a constituency that agreed with many of the parts and so supported them on all parts and got used to supporting it and winning valid, real, progress. It gets pretty heady when you wake up one day and can tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite!
The rest of your post of which I am not sure of all the facts there just say that lesbians are people. That’s all. For each point you can see where a person not inhibited like the majority of others would have a higher incidence of events where being less inhibited would cause more. As far as prosecution differences well, we already know that there is a general lower penalty rate, this doesn’t get removed because of sexual orientation since its based on the physical. There is no need for me to go over it all point by point.
Be less concerned about domestic abuse among lesbians. The women don’t need you looking out for them. They are not the majority of women, and they are not really your concern. Your concern are the sane thoughtful intelligent women out there that when they look can see.. most women don’t know what’s going on. Most people don’t. maybe you do cause you been slammed, but not everyone gets slammed, not everyone has the time to pay attention to all the details. Vote republican, vote vegan, vote whatever.. the concept is that your too busy to go over every issue your self so you select a group that seems or actually does represent your ideas, or at least the ones that count to you. years ago NOW was more respectable, women grew up with that. unless they marry a divorced man with a kid, or have any number of the adventures that we talk about here, they don’t know, see, believe, or have time to explore the truth of it.
Forget about who beats who more. who’s having sex with who. Think more about how you can get someone to notice what’s in front of them without preaching to them. The best is to have them notice and tell you.. go subtle.. opening someones eyes is not a pleasant experience for them. At some point they may be asked to give up some idea they think is fundemental to their life, relationships, or even regard for themselves and the world.
Don’t make the mistakes that they are making by being angry at the messengers and not the message.
ArtflDgr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wanted to respond to part of your post, and after I've mulled over more of it, I'll try to respond to the rest.
You pointed out a VERY interesting fact, and I think you missed how you made my very point:
Since 1-2% (or whatever #) of women are lesbians, and think about this, how come you find MUCH HIGHER %'s in "women's groups". Now I'm not talking about LESBIAN advocates, but groups that are advocating "for women" (at the expense of men).
I mean ... sure there are lots of angry hetero women too, but the large ratio (versus per capita) of lesbians in organizations that regularly find reasons to bash men truly amazes me.
Give it some thought.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I recommend reading 'Heterophobia' by Daphne Patai, and 'The New Victorians' by Rene Denfeld.
There has always been a separatist strand within the feminist movement - if men are the cause of all the trouble then stay away from them. Eventually this developed into the belief that you can't be a properly committed feminist unless you are a lesbian.
It seems also that there was an internal coup within NOW in the early seventies, Gloria Steinem was expelled, and NOW gave priority to lesbians, which as Denfeld points out, is a bit like NAACP giving priority to gay people just because some black people are gay.
For these reasons, there are close links between the lesbian community and the feminist movement.
A lot of these groups have a natural tendency towards extremism. Members compete with each other for status, to see who can be the most committed feminist. They do this by playing 'holier-than-thou', 'I'm a better feminist than you'. More moderate members abandon the group in disgust, turning it over to its more radical elements. Heterosexual women will feel alienated and leave. The result is that you tend to get a disproportionately large radical lesbian presence in women's advocacy groups.
This is one of the reasons why feminism is as bizarre and anti-male as it often is. It also doesn't really represent the interests of women, any more than a neo-fascist party represents the interests of white people - it just claims to do so. In fact, it is entirely self-serving.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicely put,
I think LSBeene was so keen on proving his point that he missed mine. I did not prove his point, i was just complexly stating the obvious.
lets make it simpler...
that any organization that offers something to some group would have that group, and others that need what they are offering, disproportionatly represented in their makeup as compared to the general populace.
So there are more lesbians and victims of abuse and such represented in some of the major organizations, in others it may not be so prominent because others may not represent the interests so well.
looked at another way.. its highely likely that the lesbians out there can vent like LSBeene at the fact that the mens movement is top heavy with men that have had incidents that caused them to look at a situation that they may have well gone through life oblivious to if it were not for the one or few events that brought them to a particular organization.
the point that i was making is that the issues are not born out of just a few women who happen to love women sitting behind a desk in a major organization. the real power is the influence the weild, and they have been careless lately by weilding lies with the truths.
what happens from here on can happen without any changes to the feminist organizations. their membership breakdown is not an issue (even if it was there is nothing that can be done about it).
stay focused on the real issues that we have.
refrain from making up big issues when we stop having big issues.
change the awareness of people and people will change things (for the most part we have been silent until now).
thats the last i will chat on this off topic...
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:37 PM November 18th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
when you study the sheer reluctance of the middle classes to breed, you wonder whether there is really any other option.
1. Try stopping the anti-male domestic violence hate campaigns, address male victims of domestic violence, and establish reasonable policy procedures that ensure that men and women will get reasonable due process against DV allegations without being presumed guilty, tossed out of their house or in jail.
2. Establish a presumption of equal custody to child, and an affirmative action program to help achieve male/female parity in primary custody decisions.
3. Have a "ask your husband if he feels fulfilled with his career day". Find ways to help men locked in wage slavery because they have the sole responsibility for earning money to support their family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:37 PM November 19th, 2004 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree with that bishop that married couples not having children are self indulgent.
Look at the options:
Stay unmarried, be completely celibate, never breed.
Stay unmarried, be monogamous, practice birth control, never breed.
Stay unmarried, be promiscuous, practice birth control, never breed.
Marry, remain faithful, but never breed.
Marry, cheat, sire children with those other than spouse.
Stay unmarried, be promiscuous, avoid birth control, sire multiple out-of-wedlock children by multiple partners.
Marry and have children with spouse (news flash! not everyone wants this!)
Make up your mind already! Which is worse? Having children out of wedlock or not having children in wedlock, or having sex out of wedlock but not children or ... oh you get the point!
Will they soon require by law marriage and breeding? Maybe we should research artificial gestation and human immortality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
