|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Clancy
(long_ponytail@yahoo.com)
on 02:12 PM December 28th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote thank you notes to both Miss Lovric and the Winipeg Sun. She hit the nail on the head - with a nine pound sledge hammer. I gotta ask - HOW IN THE HELL is it possible for a court to allow a girl into the BOY'S locker room???? Much less the freakin' BOY'S hockey team. Maybe the boys on the team should sue to use the girl's locker room, since it is no longer being used during hockey games. Let the girl HAVE the boy's locker room, just stay the HELL out of the other one! Lydia is right - this has absolutely NOTHING to do with equality. What a joke that word has become.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:24 PM December 28th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Lovric is %100 correct on ALL statments and obsevations.
Feminism IS all about revenge. Revenge for past wrongs (real or imagined) on a group of people generaly innocent of those wrongs. Those men who MAY be guilty are very old, now or very DEAD.
Just as the white people who forced my people (Cherokee) in the 1800s to march the trail of tears. They are dead, dead, DEAD! No white person living today is responsible for that atrosity. Yet to use the feminist logic we Cherokee should now seek revenge on ALL whites for what SOME whites did over 100 years ago. Basicaly they are saying we should punish the innocent generation for the crimes of the guilty generation. That's just NUTS! How can that POSSIBLY be seen as LOGICAL?!?
If I could get hold of Andrew Jackson and sue him for what he did to my people, beleive me, I WOULD! Because HE is guilty. But he's DEAD, so I can't. If there is a Heaven and a Hell, and I believe there is, then I'm sure Jackson and ALL the people responsible for the trail of tears are being dealt with in the next world. Good! and rightly so!
But to take the feminist path of logic, I should take revenge on George Bush for what Andrew Jackson did, simply because Bush is also a President. Yeah, I know, it makes me dizzy, too.
If ALL men are to be held accountable for any and all wrongs allegedly committed against any and all women who ever have and ever will exist, what about those of us men who are "victims" ourselves? I.E. so called "Minorities"? Were we not "victims" of discrimination as well?
My people alone were anilelated and dis-placed. So does that mean that even the men of Minority groups such as Blacks, Hispanics, Indians, etc., who have been discriminated against on a much higher and brutal level than any woman, have to pay for the crimes of those who have passed on?
According to feminists, that is the case. If you are a man you are guilty simply BECAUSE you are a man. If you are a man you are guilty by birthright! No matter if you are Black, White, Red, Yellow, etc. You are male therefore AUTOMATICALY GUILTY! This is their LOGIC!
There can be no doubt left in any sane persons' mind that we are dealing with a group of people who are to some degree (or completely) PSYCHOTIC.
There is no other expaination for their "rational". NONE.
We have said it to the point of redundancy, on this site that these feminists are of the same mind-set as the Nazis. Redundant or not, it IS true. They are no better than the Jew-hateing Nazis. They are the very thing they claim to despise. They are against equality. They are against "tolerance". they are against peace and they are against justice. They ARE the things they claim to be against in every sence of the word. And a people such as them will not, CAN not stand for long.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:48 PM December 28th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I applaud Ms. Lovric's integrity and her spunk, being courageous enough as a young female journalist to write the truth about the feminist hate movement.
As she states, there aren't a lot of young women who want to associate themselves with the radical misandrists who pretend to represent women's real interests while they bash away at marriage, family, romance, and seek to limit choices for women and men.
But calling "foul" on feminism is not enough.
It's time for non-feminist women to vocally and actively support men's and father's rights, including all the critical challenges in the legal system, i.e. using disproven DV hysteria to demonize men, discriminating against men in the divorce/family courts, false allegations of rape, paternity fraud, the child support scam, denigration of boys and men in the media, etc.
In other words, I'll believe the Ms. Lovric's of the world are true allies to men when they start to actively overturn, reform, and dismantle the legal bootheels of Feminazi Inc.
And that means giving up some of the privileges that feminist injustice offers all women, even the ones who say they're not "feminists...."
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:38 AM December 29th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I lost virtually all respect for this article when, in the first paragraph, the author said Feminism is about 'Revenge'.
What exactly do Feminists want 'Revenge' for?
The Author has said one of the biggest lies is a that Feminism is about Equality. She isn't wrong there. However, had she been brutally honest and said the the BIGGEST lie is that women were oppressed by men. Instead she has fell for the BIGGEST lie and said Feminism is about 'Revenge'. I find this unfortunate as it was otherwise a very good article.
Maybe I'm being a little harsh but until everyone, and I mean EVERYONE in the Mens' Movement is able to grasp the fact that the Feminists BIGGEST lie is that women were oppressed by men, when all historical evidence points to the fact that, while women were in-fact oppressed by the Ruling classes, men were oppressed more, then as a Movement we will fail.
RK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Looselog on 12:26 PM December 29th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
^It's so funny that you said "They are the very thing they claim to despise" Those are the exact same words I use to describe so many people today and the groups and ideologies they represent. To me it is a welcome relief to see that I am not the only one who recognizes this.
Ironically, I am Jewish. It just so happens that I happen to agree with you one hundred percent about Germans. Why would I blame today's Germans for the actions of a few radicals who held Germany hostage seventy or so years ago? That just makes no sense to me. And like you said, what am I going to do about it anyway? Sue Adolf Hitler for what he did to my people? Yeah, I'll get right on that.
Take care my friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by LSBeene on 04:51 PM December 28th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Wow
That's all I could say when I got through reading this: W-O-W!
You KNOW she will get a FLOOD of "that's not true", "you must hate your own gender", "but, but, but .... that's different", and/or "but for thousands of years" letters.
We need to let her know that men out there (and here) appreciate her work. I'll be dropping her a note and a link or two to men's sites.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bro on 05:04 PM December 28th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Heck yea!! Finally another person stands up and tells it like it is when it comes to feminism. I agree with you that she'll get a flood of emails and hate letters from staunch feminists who just can't stand men.
Personally I'd like to see those letters and such so I can sit back and enjoy watching the feminists work themselves up into a dither over the truth that she said.
It is quite true that most feminists live with double standards.
-Bro
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:41 PM December 28th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you! Horray to her for going agaisnt the grain and speaking the truth!! What a good idea to give her some links to men's sites! (Here's a good site for men: www.askmen.com-it seriously is a great site!)
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by LSBeene on 10:15 PM December 28th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote her a letter and gave her the following sites:
Hisside.com
MensActivism.org
NCFM-LA
Mens News Daily
I hope she takes a look and we can be of service to this brave and honest young woman.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by LSBeene on 01:45 AM December 29th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
As I consider all mail that I personally send out "personal" and (as you and I would also wish, confidential) try to give her the same privacy that we all want I will not post it.
Suffice to say she shot me off a quick E-mail (as she is human and came home from work tired) and thanked me and other men for writing her support and thanks.
Once again I write this knowing that I gave Lydia our site (and 3 others) and she may read this, that I hope she DOES read this, but I (hey, I'm human) feel awkward about writing in the third person, that she may read what I write about her, and just in general as to my wanting to give due consideration of privacy and respect on personal correspondence: She was very real and (it was a short note) seem genuine and nice.
Maybe it's me, but I kinda wanna hear her show. Lol, she may be opinionated (ummm, who here is not?) but she's fresh from the "honest opinion is honored" catagory.
Anyways guys, I'm also tired and maybe a little "punchy" at the end of the day.
Sorry to "wax eloquent" (lol, or incoherrent ?sp) but if you (or she) reads this, let's continue our letters.
She'll get 100 more from angry feminists.
Here is my Winnipeg Sun Letter:
"Hello and greetings from Nome Alaska!
I am writing you to thank you so much for your publishing Lydia Lovric's article: "It's all about revenge, not equality". I have my point of view and admit to this freely. PC writing and editorials have dominated our news for quite some time. I will keep this short as I wish to apply "BLUF" principles (Bottom Line Up Front). Lydia Lovric's article was so fair minded and straight up about ridiculous PC gender feminists and their current absurdities. She pointed out how "common sense" and fairness in the name of "equality" had been all so turned around that the very words were corrupted.
I proudly belong to a few very politically active men's groups (delineated below by links) who are working hard to expose the current brand of feminism as a fanatical and female supremacist ideology. My mother is a great example of what I would hope to be an exemplar of true feminism: president of her corporation, won't take crap due to her gender, wants to succeed and be independent in her life. This is what I grew up with, and until I hit the PC college life, I thought that this was what modern feminism was about.
Suffice to say that I was rudely awakened and given the "you're white and male and therefore owe me" attitude of today's PC indoctrination centers (liberal college atmosphere). I got burned and burned hard for "daring" to be male, white, heterosexual, and "daring" to express my thoughts in gentle terms, and living an accepting of others life (while maintaining my own beliefs).
Lydia Lovric's article contained a lot of "no BS" comparison and contrast. You will, doubtlessly, receive many E-mails condemning her, and her "heretical" and "anti-female" column. I would, respectfully but fully, express that she is neither. She said it straight. She gave real life examples and tried (and IMO succeeded) to base her ideas on a "fair for you fair for me" premise. In my opinion she was on target with her condemnation of how extreme feminist ideology clashes with reality.
Thank you for your willingness to publish her article. That may sound "just polite" but I also know that in Canada that even expressing an anti-feminist THOUGHT can get you targeted. The same is true of being in the U.S.
The salad days of the PC are ending and articles like this and men's exposing the expression of PC feminism is garnering anger at any who tear down the PC ideology and PC constructs. These false "truths" have, by harsh consequence, stifled any honest discourse concerning non-ideological problem solving, and even discussion.
Lydia's words were welcomed on many MRA (men's / father's rights activists) sites, and it is my fervent hope that more of the same is forthcoming. I guess I'm a "typical male" in that I am a guy who wants to do some "problem solving" versus continuing the guerilla-gender-warfare.
Below my signature line are some mainstream Father's / Men's Rights sites that you may wish to reference and to check out.
I sincerely (and sincerely meant) appreciate your taking the time to read what I have written in response,
L. Steven Beene II
Men's Activism - a men's / father's site that promotes activism against PC feminism
/
Glenn Sack's site - he's a father's / men's rights talk show host that has a large following in the father's/men's movement.
http://www.hisside.com/
Men's News Daily - a widely read site concerning men's issues
http://www.hisside.com/
NCFM - National Coalition of Free Men - a men's issues advocacy site and organization (This is the Los Angeles chapter's site)
http://www.ncfmla.org/index.html
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:35 AM January 1st, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to thank everyone for their support. I've been flooded with emails in the past few days. It's nice to know that there are so many people out there (both male and female) who appreciate my article and share similar views on this issue. We'll probably talk about this issue on my show (Sunday from 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. EST). You can listen online (www.900chml.com) if you get a chance. Thanks again for your letters! Cheers, Lydia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 07:13 PM December 28th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I wish to praise Lydia Lovric for her column on gender equity. I don't mind women gaining entrance to traditionally male teams/clubs/establishments, so long as, to quote Lovric, the door swings both ways.
I read recently that, here in the United States (at Oregon State University), all men's rest rooms have become unisex, but the women's rooms are STILL women's rooms. In other words, women still have the option of "using the facilities" with no men around, whereas all men must share their rest rooms with women should the women so choose. That's a perfect example. Just come up with one rule and have both genders stick with it, please.
I know Lovric might be receiving lots of hate mail today, and so I want everyone to know unequivocally that many people of BOTH genders agree with her and support her for her fair, egalitarian message.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kelly716 on 08:03 PM December 28th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I read recently that, here in the United States (at Oregon State University), all men's rest rooms have become unisex, but the women's rooms are STILL women's rooms. In other words, women still have the option of "using the facilities" with no men around, whereas all men must share their rest rooms with women should the women so choose. That's a perfect example. Just come up with one rule and have both genders stick with it, please.
So far, where I live (in Oklahoma) there are no signs of women being able to use men's rooms. Where I live, men's rooms are men's rooms and women's rooms are women's rooms (which is the way it should be).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:28 PM December 29th, 2004 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
How much you wanna bet that one of these days men will have to sit at the back of the bus?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:37 PM December 29th, 2004 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Men aren't supposed to sit on the bus at all - they're supposed to stand and let women have their seats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:27 PM December 28th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"The truth is, equality isn't so important for feminists when the person seeking parity is a guy. Equal treatment only applies when it benefits women. And that's why feminism just doesn't add up."
Femi's believe that Patriarchy is a system of power and control, where men hold the highest elected offices and are heads of corporations, and that this system unfairly benefits men. Therefore, they rationalize that special privileges must be ganted to women, but not men, hence the discrimination.
The truth is that women have the right to run for office and vote for whoever they want. The truth is also that women "opt out," and leave the hard, dirty work for men and choose instead to be housewives, or just play victim and exploit men.
The truth is also that the "Patriarchy" exploits men or anyone else it can exploit for a profit. Feminism just doesn't add up.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 12:01 AM December 29th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
no one here says the alternate conclusion or sees implication...
if there is no patriarchy... then the men got their by...
skill, etc...
THATS the p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 12:32 AM December 29th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry the sys glitched...
if there is no patriarchy, then how did the men get to where they are.. and how come things didnt change fast?
the myth of the patriarchy is fundemental to socialist feminist ideology (individual feminists need no such cruch - not all feminism is the same)
without it they can claim that we are the same.
men in womens sports would do the same thing...
a woman makes it into a mans sports with the men, and that shows that we are more the same..
if men who cant compete with the other men enter the womens division and win, then what?
without the added edge that the patriarchy (moriarty?) is bestowing secretly upon all men, how would they explain things since socialist feminism need this...
without patriarchy, there is no collusion.. with out collusion there is no mysterious advantage.. and with no mysterious advantage... its then up to our abilities, proclivities, and levels of risk and loss that makes the difference
if one group takes more risk than another.. that group will succeed more often and succeed bigger.. they will also suffer the opposite as well.. but the social feminists look at only the positive results of the group, and ignore the negs. so women take fewer risks, and suffer fewer set backs as a result of more conservative risk. without the fewer setbacks seen as a price for fewer and smaller successes.. you get the concept that the men are winning.. and again they cant see why cause without looking at the negs they dont see that there are a lot of broken bodies on that highway..
oh.. one more thing to mention..
since the patriarchy is not real, you cant get rid of it.. go ahead, prove that a ghost doesnt exist.. thats the beauty of it.. and the more you cant find it, the more skilled and nefarious and sinister it becomes because only such a thing could avoid being shown to exist.
meanwhile they can say "yeah, and john gotti didnt lead a crime family that didnt exist either"
scary stuff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 11:01 AM December 29th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree there never has been a patriarchy. There has been no society that women didn’t influence; whether or not they had the vote (Most men didn’t have the vote either). We’re practically in the position of George Orwell’s 1984 (which incidentally was about communism, an ancestor of feminism). In 1984 a manufactured enemy is created by claiming some other country/military pact has attacked. The war never comes to an end because there is no real enemy or objective, and the war can be blamed for every failure, every problem. Any opposition is treachery, and defeating the enemy requires more and more resources. Any similarities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thomas on 12:08 PM December 29th, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
The statement about "revenge" bothered me too, though I have to say that I was glad to see most of the article. In the past, both men and women were oppressed by society, though often in different ways. To claim otherwise is a lie.
Three of the most effective lies of feminism (there are, of course, many others) are the claims that men in the past oppressed women, that women are paid less than men for the same work, and that men are violent and women are victims. These three falsehoods justify much of the atrocity known as feminism.
If only she'd written "revenge for perceived or imagined past oppression," then I would agree with her. Nevertheless, it's good to see so many young women starting to reject the hate movement. It seems that many older women have based their identities on being feminists for them ever to have the strength of character to admit that they have spent much of their lives supporting a great evil. While some older men and even a few older women now stand up to feminism, hope for the future lies for the most part with the young men and women who have started to reject and even openly oppose the hatred and lies.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:48 PM December 29th, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
>"revenge for perceived or imagined past oppression,"
Thomas- Yes, I was careful to say it that way earlier. Because there is no historical documentation that says that women were actually oppressed. However there is TONS of historical documentation to show what happened to my people. (Indians) The feminists would have the world beleive that women were and are the most oppressed and persecuted people on the face of the planet. It just isn't the case. And as you are suggesting, it is easy to research and see for one's self what a crock the feminists have been pushing on everyone.
What happened to Indians;, provable.
What happened to Blacks;, provable.
What happened to the jewish people;, provable.
What (allegedly) happened to women....;, not so much...,
Yet these femaroids want us to beleive that what they claim has happened to them is not just as bad but WORSE than what my people, Blacks and Jews went through.
I find that insulting.
The feminists are more full of bull s#!t than a cattle barn...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by thatold55 on 12:19 PM December 29th, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Are you saying that Islamic extremists do not exist? Or perhaps you're saying that George Bush is a communist? Please explain your thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:46 PM December 29th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"Are you saying that Islamic extremists do not exist? Or perhaps you're saying that George Bush is a communist? Please explain your thinking."
Van Gogh's cousin tried to document all the Muslim women who were victims of domestic violence in Holland and paid with his life. So what's your point? What does your very next sentence mentioning George Bush have to do with the preceding sentence? What exactly are you trying to say?
As far as Mr. Bush and his female supporters, you may be able to better understand the women (and men) who oppose radical/gender feminism, and support Mr. Bush, by reading thoroughly some of the conservative women's sites. They do not support oppressing women or men, but rather advocate equality between men and women. In as much as they believe men and women are biologically different they hold to traditional gender beliefs. You obviously are an ideologue opposing "George Bush" who really doesn't have an accurate perspective of the ideology opposing radical/gender feminism.
Independent Women's Forum
Eagle Forum
Concerned Women for America
I have posted a lot of info in the past on the battles these "Bush Supporting" groups have waged against the radical/gender feminists. What can you post from your perspective supporting similar efforts? Go ahead, we're waiting.
All of the above linked sites are in support of traditional families and equality for men and women, and let me be the first to say that their traditional viewpoint is very oppressive to men (biased against men) in the area of military service (in my opinion). Let me also say they oppress men by holding to the traditional concept of chivalry towards women. Many would argue about how the lack of upper body strength in women disqualifies them for many combat assignments, and say military service decisions are not based on chivalry. None the less the "effect" is gross discrimination against men, that is exploited by radical/gender feminist types upon any allegation of domestic violence. Something really needs to be done about these issues causing all this abuse of good men caught in the middle.
The war on the alleged "privileged patriarchy" being waged against all men by the radical/gender feminists was the topic of discussion. The radical/gender feminists have waged that war by getting laws authored through the democrat party like the Violence Against Women Act. They have authored many other laws friendly to the ideology of the radical/gender feminists and hostile to heterosexual men. Yes, Republicans have acquiesced to the radical/gender feminist agenda being waged from the democrat camp, but as we see many Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to oppose it, and the same just cannot be said of democrats.
True to the typical modus operandi, a "Bush Basher" comes on here and deflects a good discussion with his/her partisan misinformation, and ad hominem attacks.
Please try to stick to the discussion or cogently expand the discussion, and stop picking the ad hominem, partisan arguments blaming "George Bush," for the plague of radical/gender feminism. If you have something specific, please try to communicate it in an intelligible manner instead of vague unsupported accusations. We're trying to keep the discussion civil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by scudsucker on 11:37 PM December 29th, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
which incidentally was about communism, an ancestor of feminism
I really wish you guys would drop the communist chestnut, for several reasons: - Its lazy. Rather than coming up with reasons why feminism is bad, just relate it to that old boogyman, communism!
- Feminism predates communism by thousands of years. All feminism is, is women bitching about how they've had it rough, which they've been doing as long as we've had women. They just finally got organized.
- So, in the end, comparisons between communism and feminism are about as relevant as those lists comparing coincidences between the Lincoln and Kennedy assasinations.
Now, what I'd like to see, is a good book debunking the historical myths of feminism, like the "rule of thumb" myth. I was in Barnes and Noble, and picked up a book out of the Women's Studies section, and it was talking about how women were banned from voting in the United States, and my immediate thought was, where? And I must have missed the section that talked about all these women demanding a sufferage amendment, also demanding to be drafted into World War I. Since they wanted equality, and all.
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by The_Beedle on 11:59 AM December 30th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I really wish you guys would drop the communist chestnut, for several reasons:
Hear! Hear! And we can lose the references to the Nazis as well.
Our laws are out of balance between the genders and need some correcting. As a group we'd be a lot better off comparing these injustices with Jim Crow Laws or Women's Sufferage. Laws that seemed reasonable at the time but in hindsight were markedly unreasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
