|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quite a valid point you make. I'm sure there are servicewomen who have fled to Canada or wherever.
In addition, if women want to get out of Iraq, all they have to do is become pregnant. Women did this in droves during the Gulf War, and I'm sure it is happening this time around. Where are the figures on the number of pregnant servicewomen? Why is this ignored? I will include this in my email to CBS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:17 PM December 10th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm sure there are servicewomen who have fled to Canada or wherever."
I would definitely like to see some concrete verification on the numbers of female deserters 1st.
I have my doubts that women are fleeing to Canada in any significant numbers given the fact that they are only 2% to 3% of all deaths and casualties in Iraq. They just aren't in that much danger to begin with, and don't have the same life and death motivation that the more greatly endangered male soldiers do.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:29 PM December 10th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"They just aren't in that much danger to begin with, and don't have the same life and death motivation that the more greatly endangered male soldiers do."
Or to put it another way, misandrist America says, "A Man's Gotta Do What A Man's Gotta Do," but doesn't impose the same responsibility on America's over-prvileged females.
Ray
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...all they have to do is become pregnant."
Ah yes. Way to use your bodies sisters. How disgusting. And these are the same kind of dishonorable women who groan about men using women's bodies as a means of oppression, exlpoitation, etc. How clever of Feminism to teach women in a subliminal manner that they can use their bodies as a means of power and influence, and yes, more privelege. By any means, according to Feminism. Machiavelli would have been proud. Once again, it seems that some women are choosing to "exploit" and "oppress" themselves, and I have no sympathy for them.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But when a woman exploits and oppresses herself it is empowerment over the male patriarchy. :P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"But when a woman exploits and oppresses herself it is empowerment over the male patriarchy. :P"
So true. Personally, I like to call it hypocritical stupidity. But oh well, that's feminism for yah.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good to see the evil one is still with us!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who is this "evil one" you speak of?
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was referring to evil_maiden, that is, crescentluna, who I met at last year's Men's Rights Congress in DC. But don't worry, you certainly qualify too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"But don't worry, you certainly qualify too!"
Oh, well...hooray for me!
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously, 5,500 men (up to now) believe that whatever our Commander-in-Chief managed to do, we can also. Which probably accounts for some of the votes for Bush, as he may watch their backs !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:39 PM December 10th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"Obviously, 5,500 men (up to now) believe that whatever our Commander-in-Chief managed to do, we can also. Which probably accounts for some of the votes for Bush, as he may watch their backs!"
So what does that have to do with Men's issues? We seem to have a few liberal bigots on this site constantly trying to pick a non men's issues, political arguement with conservative men.
"The underlying purpose of The Men's Activism News Network is twofold:
To provide pro-male activists with news and information that will aid them in working toward establishing equal rights for men and the improvement of men's lives.
To encourage participation in activism projects, and to promote membership in men's rights organizations which coordinate activism efforts and serve as a supportive network for men."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:18 PM December 10th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"So what does that have to do with Men's issues? We seem to have a few liberal bigots on this site constantly trying to pick a non men's issues, political arguement with conservative men."
uuhhhm, most of the political idealogical mouths here are libertarian/conservatives who have many upon many negative things to sat about liberals (I am not a liberal).
I have come to this site off and on for a couple years or so and in fact more than once I have read conservative posters saying that a Liberal cannot be in the mens movement. Then they associate these men with feminists, ie. '"the enemy".
There is one poster I have read here and there who has been trying to point out that it is defeating to the mens movement to ostricize half the male population because of some men simply not being of the (mann's) politically correct party affiliation.
The statement above that you cut and pasted is nothing compared to the numerous anti-liberal statements of the oridnary male liberal voter.
I personally don't care if someone says how they feel about a party or politician (the particluar politican in this thread that we speak is sending many men, both Iraqi and American men to their deaths while everyone else is sitting on their asses).
I don't even agree with the original poster's statement. I don't believe anyone will have these soldiers backs. certainly not the ones who benefit from war.
I mean look around. The majority here is not Liberal. And since that is the case when someone says anything against conservativism/conservatives it boldly stands out to the conservative's eyes while glossing over all the anti-liberal rhetoric on this site...
(as a side point I have been reading a popular liberal site and have been suprised to see that some men are speaking up about things that I had never seen before from when I would go there a couple of years ago)
but oh well...all this infighting is why I drop in and out of being around these sites.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:48 PM December 10th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, actually, call me paranoid, but I figure stirring up the usual mainstream political bitterness is part of some feminazi plot to keep men weak and disorganized.
I just try to ignore if from whatever direction it comes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:08 AM December 12th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"Men's News Daily..." "I really think their permanent link on this site should be replaced with one that is more interested in building alliances than partisan politics that don't help anyone."
If you are truly interested in building alliances, how about just giving us a liberal site that is pro male, and, or anti-radical feminist - if there are any? Men certainly need all the support they can get. I'm reluctant to advocate tearing down Men's News Daily's link, since I don't really see any other sites out their making MND's effort to put up lots of news stories about things that are effecting men's lives. Yes, they are heavily, conservatively slanted so please get your liberal friends to counter it with a pro men's rights site. We're all waiting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:13 PM December 12th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes, they are heavily, conservatively slanted so please get your liberal friends to counter it with a pro men's rights site. We're all waiting."
Did I sense a hint of sarcasm or insincerity?
Though I'm sure I probably did not, of course.
But what is shown most obviously in the above quote is an example of how mens rights people want to separate out liberal men as an opposition group to that of the mens right-ers of the conservatives. You know, 'divided we fall' and all that bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:19 PM December 12th, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
""But what is shown most obviously in the above quote is an example of how mens rights people want to separate out liberal men as an opposition group to that of the mens right-ers of the conservatives. You know, 'divided we fall' and all that bullshit."
What is clearly shown in this thread is that there was a post, wherein liberal bigotry was used to start a vilification of conservative MRA's. A call was issued in that post to pull the conservative link to the site "MND" from Mensactivism. When in the next post it was asked to give example(s) of liberal sites that are pro men's rights, and, or anti-radical feminist, the question is not subsequently answered. Not only is the question not answered, the subsequent response attacks "men's rights people" as wanting "to separate out liberal men as an opposition group to that of the mens right-ers of the conservatives."
Here is the purpose of Mensactivism posted again from the Philosophy link on Mensactivism,
"The underlying purpose of The Men's Activism News Network is twofold:
To provide pro-male activists with news and information that will aid them in working toward establishing equal rights for men and the improvement of men's lives.
To encourage participation in activism projects, and to promote membership in men's rights organizations which coordinate activism efforts and serve as a supportive network for men."
Clearly, in this thread it is liberal bigotry that appears to be working blatantly to divide men's rigters, and apparently the liberal(s) has/have been unable to give example(s) of liberal sites that are pro men's rights, and, or anti-radical feminist. We're still waiting for an answer to that question regarding those liberal sites if indeed any exist.
Personally, I'm grateful that somebody is challenging the liberal bigot(s) who come on this site attacking conservative men out of the blue, and then trying to cast the blame on conservative men for starting it. It is the liberal bigotry that has reduced this thread to partisan politics, and thereby, divided "men's righters."
After posting example(s) of all those liberal pro men's rights and, or, anti-radical feminist sites, try being a "uniter not a divider" for a change. It's what Mensactivists strive to be, if allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:05 PM December 12th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Who is this "we" you speak of?
Liberal bigotry? You think this little blurb by someone against Bush is Liberal bigotry?
Are you so blinded by your political iedology that you cannot see the many upon many anti-liberal statements on this site?
My original point was that you (?was it you, I have no idea you speak in terms of "we" when all the conservative posts have been A.U.'s)
were complaining about how a LITTLE anti-Bush statement Liberal bigotry that was trying to pick a fight with the conservatives here. THIS is what I was addressing.
The conservatives on this site can say all the anti-liberal comments they wish , yet when a Liberal says an anti-conservative comment he is accused of trying to pit fights against the conservatives.
I was flipping this back on the you the conservative (or who knows, you speak of "we")...
If it the case that when Liberals make anti-conservative statements they are, as you put it, "constantly trying to pick a non men's issues, political arguement with conservative men"...Then it is just the case with the conservatives on this site who pick non-mens issues, or otherwise, to spout their anti-liberal rhetoric.
Unlike feminists, YOU cannot have it both ways.
If you dish it out, you better be able to take it.
If you don't want it dished out to yourself, then don't serve it out to others.
It is THIS hypocrisy with some conservative mens right-ers who at the very least, help create their self-fullfilled prophecy of Liberal men not wanting to participate with the mens movement.
I believe there is quite a bit of projection in the above post.
(by the way, your challenge for me, or anyone else to find you pro-mens right sites/anti radicals feminist sites is pointless to what I am saying. Why would LIberal men even feel welcome here when they not only have to put up with being ostracisized for their views (which is the minority here), but to not be allowed to dish out what they get served?)
That's been the point I was trying to make. And I believe that has been ignored.
Do you really not see the anti-liberal comments on this site? If not, I'd suggest in the future to take notice when you do see it so that you do not so easily get offended when you read an anti-conservative comment next time. Even if that comment has nothing at all to do with men's issues.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:26 PM December 12th, 2004 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
The men's activisms philosphy state this. It is a not strictly a site for conservatives to spout off, the libertarians looking for converts, with the Liberals just being guests. As some would have us believe.
"The Philosophy of Mensactivism.org.......
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
...........
Conservative or Liberal? Progressive or Traditional?
Mensactivism.org aims to be as apolitical as possible. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and people from other political backgrounds should be able to find something of interest on this site. Also, we believe that there are ways to promote men's rights through political activism with most political parties, and encourage people to do so. Thus, we will occasionally report on a political party or candidate's activity when it is related to men's rights, but this in no way endorses or condemns any party or candidate as pro- or anti-male......
Have you not seen all the many posts making Democratic party out to be the anti-male party and the Republican the male pro-male party>?
I think it'd be quite the feat to not have seen this here. Would this not possibly ostracize potential pro-male liberals who vehenmently dissagree with the Republican platform, but who are still interested in mens rights?
I am not a Liberal, nor am I conservative. But this is partly why I do say that I am a part of the mens movement to just anyone. I don't want to be associated as being a conservative.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:35 PM December 12th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"Unlike feminists, YOU cannot have it both ways.
If you dish it out, you better be able to take it.
If you don't want it dished out to yourself, then don't serve it out to others.
It is THIS hypocrisy with some conservative mens right-ers who at the very least, help create their self-fullfilled prophecy of Liberal men not wanting to participate with the mens movement."
That's quite a statement coming from the hypocritical liberal camp, which is solidly under the same tent as the man-hating, liberal, radical feminists. I guess I just don't see the value of compromising with an ideology that spends so much effort destroying the lives of innocent men. Personally, I despise anything that is even remotely connected with radical feminism, let alone something that is so solidly aligned with radical feminism as the liberal agenda or the progressive agenda. They have both worked hard in the name of radical feminism to destroy traditional families, and heterosexual men in the process. Supposedly women are empowered in the process, but a lot of women are not happy with radical feminism either.
If liberal man-hating bigots want to bash conservative men, then they too had better be able to take it. I for one am sick of those worthless MRA's who give so much aid and comfort to radical feminism, while lying and trying to make it sound as if men's oppression is coming equally from conservatives. Wake up, all the radical feminists voted Democrat in the last election. The Democrat party is driving men away in droves by being the prime supporters of the radical feminist agenda. How can any man be a part of any party that promotes radical feminism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Democrat party is driving men away in droves by being the prime supporters of the radical feminist agenda. How can any man be a part of any party that promotes radical feminism?"
The same way conservative men can be part of a party that promotes fundamental Christian fanaticism. The left has feminist fruitcakes and the right has Christian fundies pushing Princess priviledges and chivalry as law. The right is just as guilty of pushing for big alimony and child-support measures. The whole 'Deadbeat Dad' theory has law-and-order conservatism written all over it.
Yeah, I'm a liberal. Took me a long time to accept that label. I like weekends. I like the 40-hour work week. I don't think a credit check should be necessary for an appendectomy. I don't think Halliburton and Bechtel should dictate the DOE's policy on energy. I think we lost the drug war a decade before I was born. I like civil rights. I believe everyone should be equal under the law. I like a social safety net. I'm opposed to inherited astronomical wealth. The vanishing middle class worries me. The stagnation of real wages worries me. The emergence of an American aristocracy worries me. I think every American is entitled to a good education. I believe in the separation of Church and state.
It'd be a tougher choice if the right hadn't abandoned fiscal responsibility and opposition to foreign military adventures.
None of which has much of anything to do with Men's Rights. About the only left/right split I see as being divisive here is whether abortion should be banned outright and denied to everyone, or if equivalent choices should be extended to men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:15 PM December 13th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
"That's quite a statement coming from the hypocritical liberal camp, which is solidly under the same tent as the man-hating, liberal, radical feminists."
I stated twice that I was not a liberal. Do I need to state this again>?
You miss my point.
I don't even vote. But if I did do you know who I'd vote for?
I'd vote for the Democratic candidate because I am a low income person. I am not a fool. The Republican agenda hurts poorer men (not to mention the poverty draft for men who are sent off to die lately when conservatives become president).
They don't care for ALL men. So to have to choose either mysandry or poverty, I'd choose mysandry. And this is why some men choose to vote Democratic even when some of their agenda is mysandric.
This is how some men feel. They must put up with feminist mysandry because it's better than the other choice.
Do you see? Likely not I imagine.
I'd laugh if it weren't for the fact that when you shoot yourself in the foot, you're also shooting 'Mine'....
nice chatting AU
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:54 AM December 14th, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
"The Republican agenda hurts poorer men (not to mention the poverty draft for men who are sent off to die lately when conservatives become president).
They don't care for ALL men. So to have to choose either mysandry or poverty, I'd choose mysandry. And this is why some men choose to vote Democratic even when some of their agenda is mysandric.
This is how some men feel. They must put up with feminist mysandry because it's better than the other choice.
Do you see? Likely not I imagine."
Yes, I see, but as you say it is a matter of personal priorities, and I think the hypocrisy and overt misandry that lives under the big tent of the Democrat party is far more dangerous to men. I'm of the opinion that far more Fathers and men are having their lives destroyed by the Democrat feminist agenda.
Perhaps it would be good if some MRA dispassionately, or passionately, listed the primary way that men are oppressed by each party, and give concrete examples.
Now here's what I'd really like to see, "How are men exponentially, synergistically oppressed, discriminated against by being subjected to chivalrous accountability on the right (which excludes females from the same accountability), while the liberal "women are better than men, can do a better job than men" further damages men on the left? How are men exponentially oppressed by outrageous Democrat radical laws on the left, while the Republican right acquiesces to misandrist sexual harassment, domestic violence, child support, child custody, divorce, etc. laws?
It's outrageous to be sent by your country to the front lines of combat to die in war, while the same country is openly saying women could do a better job, then hypocritically America grants women privileged exemption from ground combat.
Even though I still feel that it is primarily the Democrat party waging the war on men by giving the radical feminists their base to operate from, the Republicans are aquiesing to the injustice that the democratic radical feminists create.
America is provably a hateful and bigoted nation against men, because primarily men are being sent to die in combat in Iraq by a Republican administration, while the Democrat radical feminist party wages war against men at home using that war as yet another proof of the violent nature of all men.
There is no doubt that there is a two pronged front in the war against men. #1 a direct assault by the radical Democrat party, and #2, an indirect assault of (A.) Republican aquiesence to the direct assault, and (B.) outdated notions of chivalry imposed on men that set men up for further exploitation by the direct assault of Radical Democrat feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:08 AM December 14th, 2004 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
"I like civil rights. I believe everyone should be equal under the law."
That's certainly at the top of my list, and the main reason I'm no longer a Democrat. Every time I opened the flap of the big Democrat tent the stinking hypocrisy of civil rights violations against men by radical feminists greeted my senses like the giant pile of _ _ _ _ that it is.
While I'm concerned about other issues and disagree with you on a number of other points, I'll keep my discussion to the MRA arena. I've been ruined so badly by the misandrist hate maggots (anti male laws) originating in the piles of filth (anti-male radical feminist doctrines) in the Democrat big tent, that I spend most of my time working on those issues that so negatively affect men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent points on both sides. This has actually turned into a productive discussion.
I've mulled over all this in my head for some time. Although I see the Democrats as harboring the radical feminists who continue to funnel public resources into their anti-male agenda, I see Republicans standing there politely holding the door open for them. Conservatives are not only sucking up to the religious right, but the PC agenda too. Or do you think that Condi Rice is the best qualified person to be Secretary of State?
I'm glad there are two parties in the US, and I wish there were more. I hope the Libertarian party gains ground, but I doubt it will. I see Hillary on the horizon. Is that what it will take to wake up men in general?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:40 PM December 14th, 2004 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
"Wow, that would acutally hurt, if the GOP weren't pushovers for every feminist issue other than abortion."
That's just not accurate. I suggest you spend some time on the Independent Women's Forum so you will know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is clearly shown in this thread is that there was a post, wherein liberal bigotry was used to start a vilification of conservative MRA's. A call was issued in that post to pull the conservative link to the site "MND" from Mensactivism.
Liberal bigotry my ass. The complaint was over how Men's News Daily (they seem to have forgotten all about the Men part) is rabbidly anti-liberal. This is not a smear, its a simple fact. Deal with it. Here, I'll prove it to you: read any column on the left side of the page. Highlights include "The Racism of White Liberals Must Be Assailed Now", "The Nuclear Solution to Judicially Imposed Atheism" and "The Gay Agenda vs. Family Values". And that's not even looking at the forums. How many essays deal with men's activism? Going by the titles, zero.
When in the next post it was asked to give example(s) of liberal sites that are pro men's rights, and, or anti-radical feminist, the question is not subsequently answered.
Because that question is a Red Herring the size of Free Willy. Just because Ralph Nader and Micheal Moore haven't started their own SuperBlueMensRights.com website, in no way excuses the rabid attacks on anyone on the "left" from columnists on MND or posters like yourself here.
And what good would that serve? You want to split a tiny movement in half along arbitrary political lines that are irrelevant to the issues? What is interently liberal or conservative about passing paternity fraud laws or shared custody bills?
Personally, I'm grateful that somebody is challenging the liberal bigot(s) who come on this site attacking conservative men out of the blue, and then trying to cast the blame on conservative men for starting it.
You sir, are full of shit. Go back and look at my origional post. Am I complaining about conservatives? No. Am I complaining about conservative issues? No. Am I complaining about specific fucking idiot rednecks like you who attacked us first? Hell yes.
If you are remotely serious about men's activsm, why are you going out of your way to ATTACK PEOPLE WHO WANT THE SAME THINGS YOU DO. Has the possiblitiy ever gotten into your thick skull that there are plenty of male Democrats who are or can be for men's rights? We wouldn't be on this site if that weren't the case. If you have an iota of sense in your body, you'll stop bitching about ALL liberals and instead focus on the INDIVIDUALS causing the problem, reguardless of wether that person is "liberal" or "conservative". And you'll welcome and shake the hand of any men's rights activism, REGAURDLESS of wether he is a liberal or not.
Guys like you have to make a decision. You can either keep hurting this movement by driving away people who want to join it before you know jack about them, or you can work together to build alliances and get things done. You can only pick one. The choice is up to you.
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:43 PM December 14th, 2004 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
"Are you English or retarded?"
You are one of the stupidest and most bigoted people I see posting on this site. Not only that you are a foul mouth.
"If you place the entire blame of the damage that feminism has caused at the feet of Democrats..."
That's right fool!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:09 PM December 14th, 2004 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
"Um, it is. And its an easily provable fact, too. Your naievete and the stick up your ass ensures your irrelevancy."
Your stupidity is compounded by your vulgarity, but at least your consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:03 AM December 15th, 2004 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
"Are you English or retarded? Every Republican on record voted for VAWA."
I just got this email from Glenn Sacks, and guess who Micael Moore (famous Democrat) equates to being the batterer, and who he equates to being the victim in a suppossed domestic violence relationship between Republicans and Democrats. I haven't seen this kind of liberal bigotry since CA State Senator Sheila Kuehl lied by creating the famous Super Bowl Sunday Myth to help get VAWA passed. Isn't interesting that Democrats like Barbara Boxer U.S. Senator from CA and other Democrats bragged about authorship of VAWA on thier web sites, but no Republicans did?
Clearly, the Democrats are still jamming the domestic violence lie on everyone, but your lies and their lies will not go unchallenged any longer. You and your ilk have done far to much damage to good innocent men.
As far as I'm concerned the men's rights movement would be far, far, far better off without lying man hating democrats in it. If you want to be a democrat and work to overcome the obvious, overwhelming heterophobic man hating that is in your party, that's fine, start there.
Here's an excerpt from Glenn Sacks email:
"Michael Moore's recent, controversial letter It's Time to Stop Being Hit draws an analogy between the relationship between Republicans and Democrats and that between abuser and abused. I'll refrain from commenting on the partisan politics involved but instead note that throughout the letter Moore and the woman he approvingly quotes follow the strict "men as abusers/women as victims" line. This line defies the credible research on the subject. To learn more about the myth that only men abuse, see my column Plaintiff in Suit Against LA DV Shelters is Right to Demand Services for Abused Men (Los Angeles Daily News, 6/12/03). To learn more about Michael Moore's relentless man-bashing, see my column Michael Moore, You Used to Be My Hero (Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, 2/8/04)."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upon further review... this is not productive at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just got this email from Glenn Sacks, and guess who Micael Moore (famous Democrat) equates to being the batterer
That definitivly proves two things: 1) the price of rice in China is 10 cents a pound, and 2) you are the dumbest person to ever string a complete sentence together. As if ONE person making ONE statment proves ANYTHING about MILLIONS of people. Seriously, how stupid are you?
But okay, lets play by your rules and go by quotes. Linda Chavez, conservative columnist: "As tragic as the death of a father is in a young child's life, it simply can't compare to the loss of a mother." "Female soldiers, including young mothers, should not have to pay the price for Pentagon bureaucratic blunders and gender-based recruiting quotas that have caused apparent shortages in male soldiers for the new land-combat brigades," said one Mrs. Donnelly in a story still on the main page of this site. John Cassick(not sure how to spell his last name) from the O'reilly Factor: "I think this men's rights movement, quite frankly, was founded by a bunch of guys drinking beer one night, mad that they gotta do child support payments...I think its just irresponsible".
So, by your standards, ALL conservatives hate men THREE TIMES AS MUCH as ALL liberals combined. So do you want to keep going with your bullshit generalizations, or do you want to start going after the responsible INDIVIDUALS as I said before?
I haven't seen this kind of liberal bigotry
Oh please. Ann Coulter. Sean Hannity. You want to talk about bigotry, these guys spit out more of it in one paragraph in one chapter of one of their books than Moore has done in his entire career. But then, they'd revoke all your Neocon Merit Badges if you weren't total hypocrites on a regular basis, wouldn't they?
Why don't you go back and re-read that email, and count how many times Glenn Sacks bitches about liberals. Watch and learn, grasshopper.
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's just not accurate.
No, it is completely accurate.
Conservative values?In a divorce, the woman gets the kids, man gets the bills? Check.
Women should be protected from violence, including domestic violence? Check.
Men are exptected to take the hard, dirty, dangerous jobs? Check.
Female life is considered more important than male life? Check.
I suggest you spend some time on the Independent Women's Forum so you will know what you're talking about.
Oh, okay, so a because a few conservative women aren't feminists and respect men, means that there aren't any conservatives that have hurt men? Well, since you "know what you are talking about", then by the same token, the presense of two pro-men liberals on this board proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that conservatives are wrong to put all the blame on the Democratic party.
Next?
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:48 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
>"So, by your standards, ALL conservatives hate men THREE TIMES AS MUCH as ALL liberals combined. So do you want to keep going with your bullshit generalizations, or do you want to start going after the responsible INDIVIDUALS as I said before?"
Your so full of it, it runs out your stupid, bigoted mouth on a consistent basis. You work so hard to defend your liberal friends that you do great harm to a lot of men struggling to get back their rights.
The hate war on men is a product of the radical/gender feminists who are firmly in the democrat tent. That is the source of the current hate war on men.
Republicans are opposed to the rabid hate that is being generated by the radical/gender feminist democrat party.
Nancy Pfotenhauer, President of the Independent Women's Forum writes about IWF being mentioned in Mother Jones, "An imaginative move. IWF twice opposed the Violence Against Women Act and continues to lobby against its enforcement. An antifeminist group funded by the usual consortium of right wings foundations... IWF also vehemently opposes affirmative action; Title IX, which provides for equal educational opportunity; Take Our Daughters to Work Day..."
Nancy Pfotenhauer was appointed, along with another IWF member to the National Advisory Committee on Domest Violence by then Attorney General John Ashcroft. Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney was a former board member of IWF.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:52 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
"Bzzt! You're wrong, I'm right, and I've consistently proved it. So you're admitting you have all the smarts of a bag of used diapers?"
You haven't proved a thing, except that you consistently use vulgar language to try to bully your inane opinion onto others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:56 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
"...then by the same token, the presense of two pro-men liberals on this board proves..."
All you've proved to me is that you are a friend and supporter of the democrat party that embaraces, supports and promotes vile, evil radical/gender feminism, and thereby you are not a friend of men who are struggling for their rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:01 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
"Translation: you know I proved you wrong, so you're going to slink off and proclaim victory. Not gonna work my friend."
There won't be any slinking away from any of the lies you post on this site, ever. Your stupidity is compounded by your snide misinterpretation of other's statements, but at least you are consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:25 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
"As if ONE person making ONE statment proves ANYTHING about MILLIONS of people. Seriously, how stupid are you?"
He's one example, but there are many as bad or worse; many, many, many radical feminist in domestic violence areas, women's studies, women's commissions, sexual harassment industry, other feminist organizations (NGO's) etc., and from what I see they are avidly against men's rights and vote democrat. Your snide insulting personal attacks are a projection of your self.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:39 PM December 15th, 2004 EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
"...these guys spit out more of it in one paragraph in one chapter of one of their books than Moore has done in his entire career."
...and by how much did the democrat 527's out spend Republican 527's to spew their propaganda?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He's one example, but there are many as bad or worse; many, many, many radical feminist in domestic violence areas, women's studies, women's commissions, sexual harassment industry, other feminist organizations (NGO's) etc., and from what I see they are avidly against men's rights and vote democrat.
And this proves...what exactly? I never said that feminists all vote Republican, or that the Democratic party has never pandered to feminists or passed feminist legislation. However, the big elephant in the room that neocons in the MRM refuse to see is fact that Republican polticians buckle to a lot of feminist issues just as badly as Democrats do. But if your whole agrument is based on guilt-by-association, the last time I checked the KKK voted solidly Republican.
Your snide insulting personal attacks are a projection of your self.
Actually those would be snide responses, backed up by facts, to broadly personal attacks by neocons like the ones on MND, thank you very much.
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your so full of it, it runs out your stupid, bigoted mouth on a consistent basis.
WRONG! First, I'm right, you're wrong, and I've proved it over and over again. Both with facts and by throwing your own tardlogic back in your face, like how one quote by Michael Moore somehow applies to every Democrat.
You work so hard to defend your liberal friends
WRONG! Show me where I've defended Moore's comments or Hillary's blather about how women are the ones who always suffer the most in war.
that you do great harm to a lot of men struggling to get back their rights.
WRONG! YOU are the one who's harming the men who want to "get back their rights". Its a fact and I'll prove it to you right now: - You'd rather spend your time bitching about liberals than actually talking about men's rights
- I am a liberal. This automatically grants me large doses of neocon bigotry, nevermind the fact that I don't like feminists and am for men's rights.
- Orrin Hatch is a conservative Republican. This automatically grants him total immunity from being attacked by neocons like you, despite the fact that he cosponsores VAWA legislation.
The fact that you would rather attack someone who AGREES with you on mens rights rather than attack someone who actively WORKS AGAINST MEN proves there is a serious amount of excrement between your ears.
Republicans are opposed to the rabid hate that is being generated by the radical/gender feminist democrat party.
WRONG! Here, check out the rabid hate put out by a Republican on the O'Reilly Factor. And of course you still ignore the fact that the VAWA was overwhelmingly passed by the GOP and that Republican Attorney Generals have gone after "deadbeat dads" with a passion.
Nancy Pfotenhauer, President of the Independent Women's Forum
Dude I already proved you WRONG on this! Lay off the tardlogic! If the existence of the IWF proves that the Republican party is free from feminist influence, then by the same token, the presense of liberals in the men's rights movement proves that the Democrtas are free from liberal influence.
So, you gotten tired of being proved wrong, time after time?
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:18 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
"A whole lotta talk about a whole lotta nothin. Where's the lies? Where's the misinterpretation? Either put up an argument, or give up and admit that you're wrong."
Your biggest lie is your denial of the authorship of VAWA by democrats, and the fact that the radical/gender feminists resides soley in the deomcrat tent, along with all of their man hating efforts. I keep putting up all kind of info that you never address. You just keep shooting your ignorant mouth off, but you never address all the radical/gender feminist man hating that democrats do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:30 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
"Have I EVER supported feminism?"
Yes, I'd say having a person like you in the men's movement is like losing a dozen good men, considering how you delfect the blame away from the democrats who support the radical/gender feminsts who are destroying men. Are you forgetting the support of liberal feminist causes John Kerry had on his web site, or the support the democrats have historically used to initiate feminist legislation. I consider you a defnite major enemy of men's activism, because of the lies you tell trying to deflect blame away from the man-hating democrats. Yes, you are a supporter of feminism by denying the truth about feminism being a major part of the platform that is promoted in the democrat party. You lie about democrats being, by far, the major source of malrn hating laws against males.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:38 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
"And *how* do 527's relate to either Micheal Moore or Counter and Hannity?"
Vast amounts of money were spent by democrats on 527's to push democrat propaganda. It was a major source of democrat propaganda in the last election, and vastly more was spent to spread the lies of the left, then the smaller amounts that was spent by the right to effectively get the truth out.
You criticize a certain segment of the information sources available today then accuse me of "misdirecting," by pointing out the democrats use of 527's. In your usual tactless and insulting manner you prove your stupidity and bigotry yet again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:47 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
"Dude I already proved you WRONG on this! Lay off the tardlogic! If the existence of the IWF proves that the Republican party is free from feminist influence, then by the same token, the presense of liberals in the men's rights movement proves that the Democrtas are free from liberal influence.
So, you gotten tired of being proved wrong, time after time?"
You do not address the issues I presented in the last post. You merely attack me. The only thing you've proved is your bigotry and inability to discuss that fact that deomcrats promote an anti-male agenda, while I have shown how Republicans oppose the feminist, anit-male, democrat agenda. Every time you open your big stupid mouth you insult me personally, but you keep not addressing valid points I bring up.
You are defintely an enemy of men who are working for their rights as is easily seen by the way you engage in your destructive approach to talking about valid points made on this board. With friends like you pretending to be men's rights activists, radical/gender feminist democrats have more power to oppress men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:51 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
"And of course you still ignore the fact that the VAWA was overwhelmingly passed by the GOP."
After they had it shoved down their throats by the Clinton administration, the radical/gender feminists, and the big liar Shiela Kuehl (Super Bowl Sunday Myth), and democrat activist like Barbara Boxer.
vawa would never have passed had the democrats not shoved it down everyone's throat. It's that simple so stop brining it up. As everyone is seeing now Republicans are opposing vawa and reducing funding for vawa greatly. If democrats were in power it would be getting expanded and have more money to ruin more men's lives.
You are the enemy of men's rights to keep lying about this as you have been doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:12 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
"WRONG! Here, check out the rabid hate put out by a Republican on the O'Reilly Factor."
Glenn Sacks was on Orielly and was discussing "Choice for Men," and chivalrous John Kassick did say that, but were, oh were has a men's rights journalist ever made it on any liberal talk show????
Glenn did get the time to present his statements, and that was the best chivalrous Kassik could come back with trying to present an opposing viewpoint. You also negelect to point out that Independent women's forum members have also appeared on The Orielly factor, with their equal rights approach for men and women. The radical/gender feminist democrats have spread their "propaganda as truth" over 30 years into a lot of main stream America, but that goodness that most Republicans are actively opposing it. Saddly, most democrats are still promoting the radical/gender feminist agenda as John Kerry's web site so easily proved in this last election.
Here's another conservative chivalrous tid bit, "Most conservative, chivalrous Republicans oppose women in combat." You see they believe that there are distinct biological differences between men and women, and that gender is largely not to a social construction, but a biological one. Saddly again, the radical/gender feminist democrats support our biological gender as being largely a social construction. As we all know, social roles are and can be socially constructed, but biology has certain hard wiring aspects that are not easily changed (if at all) by social gender re-engineering. Radical/gender feminists in the democrat big tent have done enormous damage to men, children, women, and traditional families with their vodoo tinkering with biological facts.
The damage that is being done to men today is largely a result of the decades of support that democrats have waged for radical/gender feminism, and the subsequent disruption it has created in all areas of our society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:23 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
"And this proves...what exactly? I never said that feminists all vote Republican, or that the Democratic party has never pandered to feminists or passed feminist legislation."
There aren't any radical/gender feminist voting Republican, and the Democrats are the ones who have initiated the vast majority of radical/gender feminist legislation. ...and this proves who the most serious enemy to men's rights is.
"Republican polticians buckle to a lot of feminist issues just as badly as Democrats do.'
Not true at all. The Republican oppose and buckle to feminist issues as the radical/gender feminist democrats who initiate that legislation run it down their throats.
"Republican polticians buckle to a lot of feminist issues just as badly as Democrats do."
That is another one of your ignorant, stupid lies. To the best of my info, for years the KKK voted solidly for Southern Democrats, and to the best of my info still do.
"Actually those would be snide responses, backed up by facts..."
No your snide personal attacks are a projection of your self backed up by your biased misinformation, and bigotry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:33 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
"I've proved lots. That your response consist of vauge denials with zero rational arguments indicates you just wont admit when you're wrong."
I've presented support for contentions I have made, but you do appear to project your sloppy debating methods onto others.
"Just communicating on the neocon level of discourse."
You are the one using the vulgarity, and you are the one who initiated it so it is clear you are communicating at your level. If I have been sucked into your vulgarity at any point I certainly apologize. It is hard to discuss issues with someone so insulting as you and remain detacthed from the abuse you hurl.
"As if a neocon should talk about bulling inane opinions into others. That's all that you do!"
As I have said I support my opinions, but will not be bullied by a vulgar, foul mouthed, lying liberal who consistently denies that the major cause for men's Draconian oppresion today is the radical/gender feminist movement that the democrats have been promoting under their big tent for decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:32 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
you know AU. I suggest you read more. Or at least when you do read, learn how arguments are contructed so that we don't need 20 posts without any sort of rational 'arguments' against what you are ranting against. A rant, is not an argument.
"Here's another conservative chivalrous tid bit, "Most conservative, chivalrous Republicans oppose women in combat." You see they believe that there are distinct biological differences between men and women, and that gender is largely not to a social construction, but a biological one. "
Good, let's send men off to die for the rich while women can stay home and live.
A biological difference which BENFITS women. Feminists won't fight this in an agurment by conservatives against a FEMALE DRAFT. They will only fight it if women don't have the CHOICE to join.
This is FEMALE PRIVILEGE okay? And YOU can't see that!
Do you understand that women win on both sides of this issue YET?
Yeah, you'll vote Republican and only send men off to die in war.
Yeah, that's mens rights for sure. Fuck that...
BOTHE SIDES support CHIVALRY in diffeerent ways and the funny thing is YOU support conservative female privilege whose only against the LIberal female privilege.
Fuck Chivalry in ALL it's forms...
(by the way, how come you don't just come up with a name and just post it on the bottom like I do? why is that so hard to do? why not AU?)
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:17 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#69)
|
|
|
|
|
"Yes, I'd say having a person like you in the men's movement is like losing a dozen good men, considering how you delfect the blame away from the democrats who support the radical/gender feminsts who are destroying men. Are you forgetting the support of liberal feminist causes John Kerry had on his web site, or the support the democrats have historically used to initiate feminist legislation. "I consider you a defnite major enemy of men's activism, because of the lies you tell trying to deflect blame away from the man-hating democrats. Yes, you are a supporter of feminism by denying the truth about feminism being a major part of the platform that is promoted in the democrat party. You lie about democrats being, by far, the major source of malrn hating laws against males."
p. george speaking---->You are the biggest of all harm to the mens movement for you will not accept a liberal in the mens movement which then diqualifys the "mens movement" as a "mens" movement. It would not be for ALL men. Just the politically correct men, conservative men, or at least only the men who agree with you. Quite authoritarian in my opinion and detrimental to the growth of the MENS movement.
You got a dick?, you want to better mens lives?, you're in the mens movement. Interesting how you don't see this.
Party's can change, and they do over time just as people do, why? Because party's are made of PEOPLE whose minds also change. If it were not for this little thing the mens movement would be hopeless.
So it is quite pointless to ostracize, marginalize, and demonize someone who is for mens rights and who wants to be a part of the mens movement, who happen to also be a liberal in the party you see as the enemy. Do you not see that those within the party that is your enemy----(and I stress 'your' enemy because not all see as you do, and so far you don't seem to be having the whole mens movement behind you. Do you realize that Warren Farrel is a Democrat who ran for governor of the state of California?????If not, why? Is he your enemy too? Where's the Warren Farrel Republican?)------who have people who are changing their views on men are an asset>? How will the party that you hate so much change if the people withn that party don't change first?
Unless, of course, you are just not wanting Liberals to join up with the mens movemnet because what you are really wanting is for everyone to join up with the conservatives to change society's views on men. Which would give me the opinion that your view of the mens movement is not really am inclusive movement for all men. But an ideologically conservative mens movement for 'only' those men who agree with and want, the realization of conservatism as a whole, for society.
Their really would be no need to fear pro-male Liberals joining the mens movement unless, I would think, it was also a threat against 'un-related' male issues being promoted within, and outside, the mens movement, ie, society.
For if the Liberals change their views on men and treat men better, thus changing the Democratic Party's views and treaments of the male gender there would be no other reasn for them not to be a part of are true "MENS" movement.
But, if they aren't allowed to join, and prove their change against men. They will always be a detriment to men because people like you will have never given them a chance to question their views on men, thus changing for the benefit of men.
And I really wish people like you would stop shooting me in the foot because I don't appreciate it. And you certainly do not have the authority to speak for the mens movement and drive them away.\\
(It's funny that you were screaming bigotry so loudly. When feminists do that it is often them doing so as they are are being the bigots. Not everyone who screams bigotry does this of course. But it is a tactic, or maybe simply projection)
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:26 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#70)
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you have been able to read my above post scudsucker.
I know whats going on.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:15 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#71)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm telling the truth. The democrat party is the tip of the radical/gender feminist spear that is aimed at the heart of every men. When you face the bigoted hate that is the agenda of the radical/gender feminsts, that the democrats love so much it is really insulting to have bigots like you and others deny that truth. Democrats may be men's rights activists, but what are they really worth when they stand shoulder to shoulder with the bigoted radical/gender feminists under the big tent of the dumocrap party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:27 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#72)
|
|
|
|
|
"A biological difference which BENFITS women. Feminists won't fight this in an agurment by conservatives against a FEMALE DRAFT. They will only fight it if women don't have the CHOICE to join.
This is FEMALE PRIVILEGE okay? And YOU can't see that!
Do you understand that women win on both sides of this issue YET?"
I understand that the stupid radical/gender feminists who are exclusively in the democrat tent exploit both sides like the stinking hypocrites they are.
I atually don't support chivalrous female privilege so you are wrong again. In a world where the radical/gender feminists have driven the agenda to rule over men I think it would be good for all women to have to serve in combat the same as men, no exemptions. It is conservative women who want housewife elevated to the status of a job, and it is conservative women who reject the glass ceiling myth, and it is conservative women who are opposed to abortion.
What you are doing is judging conservative women by the standards of those lunatic radical/gender feminists that share your big democrat tent.
If you want to be a men's rights activist why don't you work on the radical/gender feminists in your own party that are making men's lives a living hell before you pretend that you are a men's rights acitivists. I doubt the integrity of anyone who shares a tent with those man hating bigots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:34 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
"I know whats going on."
You're in denial to the source of the rampant man hating that's coming from the dumocrap party so it's very clear you don't have a clue to what's going on. You share a tent with the party that supports that radical/gender feminists and you support the party that supports that radical/gender feminists. Not only are you bigoted against men's rights for not, #1, confronting the man hating bigotry that goes on in the dumocrap party, you are hypocritical for denying that bigotry as the major cause of the misandry that men face in America. You are thereby of no significant value to the men's rights movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:39 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
"Warren Farrel is a Democrat"
He's written some interesting books, which the radical/gender feminists have written off, but what has he done to change the man-hating going on in the democrat party. Getting less than 600 votes doesn't sound to me like the democrat party even knows he exists, but then democrats don't really recognize the rights of men as equal to the feminists so why should they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:41 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#75)
|
|
|
|
|
AU, do I "share a tent" with the democrats?
Do I even vote?
Most of your above post is an angry rant based on emotion.
"I atually don't support chivalrous female privilege so you are wrong again."
Did not your conservative argument against liberals have conseravtives saying that women should not be in combat because of biological differences?
Did you not use this example to show how conservatives are different than liberal feminists>? And so therefore conservatives better for men than liberals?
If not, what exactly was your whole point?
It is also conservative women who want to keep their traditrional gender role while I as a man do not want to be in my traditional gender role.
From my point of view as someone who wants better lives for men, ie. myself, I don't want the traditional gender role. You can have it. And you will since you admit that conservatives think gender roles are strictly biologically based in your example. Your example was using biology to reinforce traditional female privilege.
Liberal feminists won't argue that point. They will only argue it if women don't have the choice to join the military. They don't want women to get rid of the traditional aspects of their gender that benefit women and this is how conservative women and liberal women can shake hands at times.
They both want traditional gender roles. They just argue on what and how much.
So, you as a conservative also support feminism to some extent as well.
None the less...You do not speak for the mens movement. Not only to try to speak for the mens movement you stay anonymous doing it.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:48 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#76)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't hate men and you are now slandering me, anonymously at that. (you claim I share a tent with man haters, when I don't even vote. or agree with you)
You share a tent with the KKK. Does that mena you hate Jews and blacks?
So what does that mean AU? Your own argument defeats itself that's what it means.
"confronting the man hating bigotry that goes on in the dumocrap party, you are hypocritical for denying that bigotry as the major cause of the misandry that men face in America. You are thereby of no significant value to the men's rights movement."
You are saying in the above that I Deny that bigotry is the major cause of misandry?
How does that make any sense? In the above where did I deny that misandry exists? In fact I did just the opposite. And if I agree that misandry exists and I want someone positive to be done about that how am I denying bigotry? Does not misandry itself mean bigotry against men? You make no sense. And I am no longer in wonder why you prefer to not even make up a name to address you by.
"You are thereby of no significant value to the men's rights movement."
I wish you did not have the significance that you have for it would be much more beneficial for men to have help and understanding from all sides who are willing to listen.
good day.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:51 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#77)
|
|
|
|
|
you are the one full of hate and it is sad, for the mens movement.
It shows that the mens movement is NOT just for conservatives.
And it is telling he chose to run as a democrat than a republican.
My point is not that I am a democrat or even like democratic platform. But my point is that you are excluding pro-male individuals because they are liberals. that is bigotry, if anything is bigotry. And it is self defeating to the mens movement AU.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:59 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#78)
|
|
|
|
|
"And I really wish people like you would stop shooting me in the foot because I don't appreciate it. And you certainly do not have the authority to speak for the mens movement and drive them away.\\"
It was Gang Banged who started this partisan confrontation by shooting his big mouth off about President Bush (by name) and driving conservative men away from men's activism with this statement, "Obviously, 5,500 men (up to now) believe that whatever our Commander-in-Chief managed to do, we can also. Which probably accounts for some of the votes for Bush, as he may watch their backs!"
Every time he or you or anyone does that you are going to get the thread from hell unleashing my feelings of outrage over the man-hating that goes on by the radical/gender feminists in the democrat party tent. If you or any other liberal wants to be treated with respect, then I suggest you present your greivances in a more respectful manner, stick to the issues, and avoid the personal ad hominems against Republicans.
I really do try to leave the partisan politics out of my posts and deal with the issues in a proactive way, but if liberals want to engage in partisan ad hominem attacks on Republicans, then they will be answered every time I read it, and I will try very hard to escalate the ad hominem attacks, because the truth is, I despise everything about the radical/gender feminists sheltered in the democrat party from the depth of my heart, soul, and mind. I have personally seen their agenda destroy family and friends, and I will never forget what they have done. They are very evil people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:20 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#79)
|
|
|
|
|
I know exactly how this started. I was the first to reply to you if I remember correctly.
Things like this are said all the time against Democrats and democratic politicians all the time so deal with it. Toughen up, you are not gauranteed that everyone will always say something nice about your political ideology. If you can't handle it get off the internet. Take a look at what you spouted off against, or at the very least implied, that Liberals aren't allowed in the mens movement just like I was saying some conservative men do. They do this to men who are pro-male.
We are not going to create another victim group called "Republicans" where they get to spout off against everyone else but demand they not get it in return..
You sound to me like you are full of anger, so much so, that you would rather ostracsize male democrats than have them as allies. There is no excuse for that. That is a reaction based on emotion which stunts the mens movement. As opposed to thought and strategy to help all men.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:28 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
"Things like this are said all the time against Democrats and democratic politicians..."
Well they certainly should be said against democrat lawmakers, because that is the source of the radical/gender feminist man-hating that destroys the lives of so many men in our society so deal with it. The radical/gender feminists own the democrat party. If you and your liberal friends want to try to minimize that, then you should get off the internet. It is the radical/gender feminists in the democrat party who have created the man hating sexual harassement laws, the domestic violence laws (and ran it down Republicans throats).
When you go to college campuses, and look at the text books, you see the liberal feminist agenda in any number of books, and when you take the classes you hear the bigots teachings the feminist doctrine, and find out they are all democrats so don't waltz around the hard fact that the vast majority of hellish family law situations today have been created by democrats.
You sound to me like you are full of stupidity and hatred to dwell in a party that is dedicated to the destruction of traditional families, heterosexual men, women and children. I want nothing to do with that pack of intolerant bigots who are so hull of hatred that they are "tyrants of tolerance," and bigots against innocent people. The political correct hypocrisy of the democrat party (hate mongers) in our society makes sick to my stomach.
"...implied, that Liberals aren't allowed in the mens movement..."
I really don't see them concretely contributing, just distracting men from the fact that the democrat party is the source of the radical/gender feminist, misandrist, hate laws that are destroying traditional families, and heteroseuxal men, women, and children in the name of their bigoted radical/gender feminist agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:38 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#81)
|
|
|
|
|
"But my point is that you are excluding pro-male individuals because they are liberals. that is bigotry, if anything is bigotry."
Here are some other liberals who are pro male like you, but I want nothing to do with their liberal bigotry or yours.
VAWA funded FVPF
Take the pledge to end the man hating that originates from the radical/gender feminists in the Democrat party tent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:41 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#82)
|
|
|
|
|
"You share a tent with the KKK."
No way, you are wrong again. That's just one more hate group in the democrat tent, the southern democrat tent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:50 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#83)
|
|
|
|
|
"You are saying in the above that I Deny that bigotry is the major cause of misandry?
How does that make any sense?"
It doesn't, when you take it out of context so let me cut and paste what I said, then read it as I wrote it.
P. George: "I know whats going on."
You're in denial to the source of the rampant man hating that's coming from the dumocrap party so it's very clear you don't have a clue to what's going on. You share a tent with the party that supports that radical/gender feminists and you support the party that supports that radical/gender feminists. Not only are you bigoted against men's rights for not, #1, confronting the man hating bigotry that goes on in the dumocrap party, you are hypocritical for denying that bigotry as the major cause of the misandry that men face in America. You are thereby of no significant value to the men's rights movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:59 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#84)
|
|
|
|
|
'You sound to me like you are full of stupidity and hatred to dwell in a party'
it is interesting to me that you say i 'dwell in a party' of hatred and am full of stupidity. yet, i have repeatedly told you i do not agree with the democratic platform, that i am not democrat, and that i do not even vote.
i am glad you are not the spokemen for the mens movement, which would be men, which would be me.
' I want nothing to do with that pack of intolerant bigots who are so hull of hatred that they are "tyrants of tolerance," and bigots against innocent people.'
if you truly are against liberals because of this one would only wonder why you would marginalize the pro-male men who come here. that would be the apex of stupidity.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:06 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#85)
|
|
|
|
|
"you know AU. I suggest you read more. Or at least when you do read, learn how arguments are contructed so that we don't need 20 posts without any sort of rational 'arguments' against what you are ranting against." "Yeah, that's mens rights for sure. Fuck that..." "Fuck Chivalry in ALL it's forms..."
It is you who run off at the mouth incoherently in an ignorant manner, constructing your opinions using profanity, and vulgarity. It is always amusing getting criticism on scholarship from the peanut gallery. As far as reading, I've been working on that my whole life, and don't fear that my credentials will be any less meaningful after your inane diatribes.
P.S. I'm sure you know how to spell construct, but it's just a little ironic, don't you think, when you lecture me on "constructing" and then forget the "S?" No biggy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:23 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#86)
|
|
|
|
|
"it is interesting to me that you say i 'dwell in a party' of hatred and am full of stupidity. yet, i have repeatedly told you i do not agree with the democratic platform, that i am not democrat, and that i do not even vote."
Sorry, I don't keep a scorecard of whose what, but when you misrepresent the radical/gender feminist owned democrat party as not being the primary source of the man hating that men face, and then falsely attack Republicans as if they had anything to do with KKK it certainly appears you are a liberal "attack dog" democrat in your opinions.
"if you truly are against liberals because of this one would only wonder why you would marginalize the pro-male men who come here. that would be the apex of stupidity."
If their leaving the man hating democrat tent as I did, it's pretty clear they're going to identify with the accurate assessment, which points out, that the radical/gender feminists own that party.
On the other hand if they encounter the usual liberal democrat bigotry and bashing, there's a good chance they'll leave and never come back.
I would be a lot more concerned about the later if you're sincerely worried about what abused men looking for the truth are thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:56 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#87)
|
|
|
|
|
"You sound to me like you are full of anger, so much so, that you would rather ostracsize male democrats than have them as allies. There is no excuse for that. That is a reaction based on emotion which stunts the mens movement. As opposed to thought and strategy to help all men."
It's not hate, it's just "battered by democrats for being a traditional male syndome." How intolerant of you not to see that, and how unsympathetic. It's the radical/gender feminists in the liberal democrat tent who promote "battered women syndrome" with all the privileges and excuses that go with that, but they also deny "battered male syndrome." How democrat of you to look at my victimization the way you do.
The fact that I despise the democrat party is based on the fact that they shelter and promote the radical/gender feminist's, man hating agenda, with all of it's destructive, man hating policies and laws. Yes, I feel strongly about that. I actually think that pointing out how democrats are destroying men through the radical/gender feminist, man hating agenda is a big help to the men's movement. Why should that clearly established link be covered over so men don't know who are the primary forces trying to bring about their destruction? There's no excuse for you or anyone else covering that up or trying to gloss over it. You contribute to the problems men are trying to overcome when you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:48 AM December 20th, 2004 EST (#88)
|
|
|
|
|
"You are saying in the above that I Deny that bigotry is the major cause of misandry?
How does that make any sense?"
AU-----"It doesn't, when you take it out of context so let me cut and paste what I said, then read it as I wrote it."
You right, you aren't making sense. now let's see what you cut and pasted and highlighted
"You're in denial to the source of the rampant man hating that's coming from the dumocrap party so it's very clear you don't have a clue to what's going on. You share a tent with the party that supports that radical/gender feminists and you support the party that supports that radical/gender feminists. Not only are you bigoted against men's rights for not, #1, confronting the man hating bigotry that goes on in the dumocrap party, you are hypocritical for denying that bigotry as the major cause of the misandry that men face in America. You are thereby of no significant value to the men's rights movement.
here read on what I wrote earilier---"They don't care for ALL men. So to have to choose either mysandry or poverty, I'd choose mysandry. And this is why some men choose to vote Democratic even when some of their agenda is mysandric."
So am I denying that the Democratic party is also mysandric? Am I? YOU are not simply taking what I said out of context but you are ignoring it and making me say something I NEVER said. In fact I said they had mysandry for some of their agenda..
You said----"Not only are you bigoted against men's rights for not, #1, confronting the man hating bigotry that goes on in the dumocrap party, you are hypocritical for denying that bigotry as the major cause of the misandry that men face in America."
If you re-read what you said you will notice that you separate out me supposedly denying the "source" (which I do not believe is the source, but part of the many tools feminists use) from----"you are hypocritical for denying that bigotry as the major cause of the misandry that men face in America."
So you separated out the source, saying I was bigoted against men for that. But ALSO because "you are saying.....that I Deny that bigotry is the major cause of misandry"
and again, how does that make sense?
you answered me correctly---""It doesn't"
only I didn't take anything out of context I read what you wrote and took exactly what you wrote at face value.
In my opinion you are a fanatic.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:55 AM December 20th, 2004 EST (#89)
|
|
|
|
|
"It is you who run off at the mouth incoherently in an ignorant manner, constructing your opinions using profanity, and vulgarity."
I said "fuck that" once or twice. All the rest of what I said has been rational arguments that you usually don't address at all. who use using the term "drumb-crat thereby showing their own emotional bias?
"As far as reading, I've been working on that my whole life"
I'd suggest reading more before you call others on their thinking or arguing skills, most especially when you hardly argue against the 'arguments', but mostly just rants against those making the arguments.
"P.S. I'm sure you know how to spell construct, but it's just a little ironic, don't you think, when you lecture me on "constructing" and then forget the "S?" No biggy."
I have many upon many mistakes in posts. Sometimes I'll even leave out words. I have mild dyslexia and it us no real concern because you still understoof the word I was trying to spell, no? And again, an attack strictly upon me and not my arguments. It wouldn't be so bad if this was not your M.O.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:59 AM December 20th, 2004 EST (#90)
|
|
|
|
|
"If their leaving the man hating democrat tent as I did"
they're against you if they're not with you huh?
Guess what, the way to change the party is for those in the party to change---you did not address that post that I posted earlier today where I speaking about this more in detail.
I'm glad you do not speak for me as a male.
Any male who cares about mens issues is welcome in the mens movement.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:27 PM December 20th, 2004 EST (#91)
|
|
|
|
|
"if this was not your M.O."
It's your M.O. not mine and there is no better proof than your post, where you do nothing but attack me personally and not the issues pertaining to the radical/gender feminist involvement in the democrat party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you are truly interested in building alliances, how about just giving us a liberal site that is pro male, and, or anti-radical feminist - if there are any?
What do political labels have to do with men's rights? This movement is plenty small enough without people trying to divide it up among arbitrary, irrelevant lines.
I'm reluctant to advocate tearing down Men's News Daily's link, since I don't really see any other sites out their making MND's effort to put up lots of news stories about things that are effecting men's lives.
Except MND doesn't do any such thing. Go check out their site, you have to hunt to find articles that affect men, and most of those are anti-feminist rants more than anything. Instead you'll find articles on how "The Racism of White Liberals Must Be Assailed Now" and "The Nuclear Solution to Judicially Imposed Atheism".
so please get your liberal friends to counter it with a pro men's rights site. We're all waiting.
The point is to keep irrelevant politics OUT of the men's movement, not add to it. I mentioned Glen Sacks earlier; look at the sucessful campaigns he's had against the Verison ad and the "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them". Now, tell me, based on his articles or his radio show, if Glen is conservative or liberal. Tell me he's going to support or decry politicians based strictly on their party affiliation.
Now what has MND accomplished, aside from making their site into another Free Republic clone?
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So what does that have to do with Men's issues?"
Quite right . . . sincere apologies !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:47 PM December 12th, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"believe that whatever our Commander-in-Chief managed to do, we can also. Which probably accounts for some of the votes for Bush, as he may watch their backs!"
Maybe they just thought that if the idiots in the Democrat party ran a traitor like John Kerry, who threw his medals in a trash can at a protest, then disloyalty and disrespect to military service is no big deal. Which probably accounts for some of the votes for Kerry, as they thought he would watch their backs!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was away, and I didn't catch this thread before. I think it's important that the men's movement should include all men. All men face the same problems caused by feminism, and we can't afford to turn people away just because they vote for one party rather than the other. We have enough to do fighting feminism.
Someone said that liberal statements made on this site were a feminazi plot to divide the men's movement. That's either a cheap attempt to ensure that the movement stays on the Right, or that person needs to seek professional help.
It shouldn't matter which party you vote for. If you are a man, you face widespread discrimination, a shorter life-span, more chance of dying of all of the major diseases, more chance of being killed at work. You have no reproductive rights, you face the ever-present possibility of being falsely accused of sexual harrassment, assault or rape, the ever-present possibility of being conscripted to die in a war you don't understand or support. In the event of a divorce, which feminism actively promotes, you face the liklihood of losing your children and having to continue paying for them. If a woman attacks you, you will probably get the blame for it.
Please, guys, do not waste time arguing about liberal and conservative. The movement should be big enough to embrace men of all backgrounds.
Remember, every time we bicker among ourselves, the gender feminists are cackling with laughter at us.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I get the impression that the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean slightly different things in North America than they do in Europe. Both US parties seem very Right-wing from a European standpoint.
The Political Compass is an interesting website which I've mentioned before. It includes an online questionnaire which you can take to find your own political position. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left' , established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook. The political compass introduces a second dimension; as well as 'left/right', they also have 'authoritarian/libertarian'. So each party or individual can be located as a point on a 2-dimensional plane. This makes far more sense.
I hope that an understanding of this model will help to reduce the left/right infighting in the men's movement, which really is counter-productive.
Please visit the site and take the test.
Here's a challenge for you - where on the political compass would you locate the feminist movement?
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is what I wrote to CBS:
Tonight's 60 Minutes episode concerned 5,500 MEN deserting the military during the war in Iraq. It's interesting that CBS always talks about over 100,000 MEN and WOMEN fighting in Iraq, but when it comes to soldiers deserting the military for Canada every last one of them is a man.
This kind of subtle anti-male sexism (misandry) has gone on for too long in the media. While I appreciate the sacrifice that many women are making in Iraq as well, I wonder what proportion of them have deserted the military by fleeing to Canada (or "opted out" by becoming pregnant). I suppose that this question won't be addressed by CBS as it isn't politically correct.
[Note: to reply to CBS you may have to temporarily turn off your pop-up stopper.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:46 AM December 11th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
And CBS and the rest of the main-stream media say they don't understand why a vast majority of folks say they are BIASED.
The media is either blind, retarded or just plain stupid. OR all of the above, I don't know.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The highest rate of desertion in the history of the American military was the seventh cavalry under George Armstrong Custer. Not only were men deserting in alarming numbers, a good many of them were putting up with very cruel initiation gauntlets in order to join the Cheyenne and the Lakota and went renegade. They hated Custer's arrogance THAT much. Even Custer for that matter was vocally critical of the government's Indian Affairs policies. Being hard on the deserters only got Custer demoted.
The irony is, it is rarely cowards who desert. It takes incredible courage to make that decision.
"You'll walk unscathed through musket fire
No plowman's blade shall cut thee down
No cutlass draw shall marr thy face
And you shall be my ain true love
And you shall be my ain true love
And when you walk through Death's dark vale
The cannon's thunder shant prevail
And those who'd hunt thee down shall fail
And you shall be my ain true love
And you shall be my ain true love
The field is cut and bleeds too red
The cannon balls fly 'round my head
Infirmary man may mark me dead
I've gone to find my ain true love
I've gone to find my ain true love
Asleep inside the cannons mouth
The Captain cries: "Here comes the rout"
They'll seek to find me north and south
I've gone to find my ain true love
I've gone to find my ain true love"
---the Deserter's Song by Sting
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
