|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by scudsucker on 11:43 AM January 29th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
...because this isn't an op/ed, its a rant. Which is too bad, because shooting down the sacred cows of feminism is so easy to do, like asking in what part of HBO's movie, Iron Jawed Angels, shows these women demanding equality in voting demanding also equality in being drafted for the army.
But if this is really an op/ed, Robbins spends most of his time making blanket statments about feminist sterotypes of men, aparantly not realizing (despite his supposed Ph.D) that blanket statements are just another term for sterotypes. Examples: - Female feminists believe all men beat their wives, rape women, and oppress women–except for Bill Clinton.
- Feminists oppose Dr. Rice because she's a political conservative. Barbara Boxer all but called her a liar during her confirmation hearing. So much for the sisterhood.
The first is an obvious cheap shot at the favorite whipping boy of Republicans, Bill Clinton, even though the number of feminists who have said sex=rape is just one, and Clinton has been out of office for over 4 years. And feminists dislike Rice because she's "conservative", its not because she's a fence riding buck passer who keeps missing the big issues. And if you think all women get along and never dislike eachother, you obviously don't know too many of them.
No, if you want good columns, look no further than Glenn Sacks. Reasoned, logical, and if Glenn has stong politically partisan beliefs, he manages to keep them totally seperate from his campaigning for men, something others seem to be completely incapable of doing, to the detriment of the men's movement.
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by shawn on 02:42 PM January 29th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
The first is an obvious cheap shot at the favorite whipping boy of Republicans, Bill Clinton
No, it's an accurate shot at feminists as is illustrated by their hypocritical responses to Clarence Thomas (conservative accused of harassing Anita Hill) and Bill Clinton (liberal accused of harassing Paula Jones).
Eleanor Smeal on Anita Hill: "The political leadership has got to see the seriousness of this. Too much that happens to women is not treated seriously."
Eleanor Smeal on Paula Jones: "I think it's a putup job. I think it's a way to derail the health care plan and everything else."
Gloria Steinem on Anita Hill: "The next female President should appoint Anita Hill to the Supreme Court."
Gloria Steinem on Paula Jones: "It wasn't wonderful behavior [by Clinton] but we're not the Ayatollah here."
Patricia Ireland on Anita Hill: "Women have put on power suits, worn sensible shoes and played the game by the rules, only to find themselves the victims of sexual harassment - and they're angry."
Patricia Ireland on Paula Jones: "I'm skeptical of the motivation of the people who are pumping this story."
Bella Abzug on Anita Hill: "[Senators trivialized Hill's sexual harassment charges because] they do it all the time. It's a way of life for them."
Bella Abzug on Paula Jones: "A lot of the excitement here is based upon statements made by a couple of troopers that have already been discredited. And so, you know, it isn't as if you've got a clear picture here."
Pat Schroeder on Anita Hill: "They treated her like we treated rape victims in the '50s."
Pat Schroeder on Paula Jones: "The charges are not considered very credible", and "This issue just makes me want to throw up."
Dianne Feinstein on Anita Hill: "I think there was a real sense of outrage ... [people] saw what Anita Hill said taken without a grain of seriousness, her charges really not investigated, her comments virtually dismissed and the confirmation went ahead."
Dianne Feinstein on Paula Jones: [Feinstein has said nothing]
Ellen Goodman on Anita Hill: "Women with Post-Thomas Syndrome survive. By now they have been through disbelief, denial and outrage. The image of Anita versus the Boys, however, remains vivid."
Ellen Goodman on Paula Jones: "[Feminist critics assume] those who oppose sexual harassment are required by the canons of sister hood to believe any woman who charges sexual harassment. Not exactly. You don't have to check your skepticism at the door of feminism anymore than you have to check your bra."
Anna Quindlen on Anita Hill: "A great many people in high places owe Anita Hill a public apology."
Anna Quindlen on Paula Jones: "According to those who insist that feminists should embrace Ms. Jones unquestioningly, all women's stories are the same story. That's ridiculous and condescending. Each instance of sexual harassment has to be judged on its own merits. Facts, timing, motives, credibility - all must be considered before we make up our minds what to believe."
Margaret Carlson on Anita Hill: "She wasn't suing for money. She wasn't asking for money. She wasn't offering to settle. She didn't want a job for a husband who wants to be an actor."
Margaret Carlson on Paula Jones: "Someone without a job from Arkansas, whose lawyer says she's not in it for money, but clearly she's in it for something - fame, celebrity, money, something."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:03 PM January 29th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
although your point, counter point, is quite effective, I agree with the original poster: the original referenced piece wasn't an op-ed...it was a rant.
and not a very purposeful one at that.
and that's all it takes, really. whether you think it is well done isn't the point. the point is that at least two of us think so little of it that we actually posted a negative respose here. and that's a good sign that the written bit is not only weak in representation of the issue, but also weak in conviction.
however, you, Shawn, did a great job. keep up the good work.
shark (I haven't posted in so long, that I've forgotten my login. I'll send Scott a note)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 05:52 PM January 29th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Bella Abzug on Anita Hill: "[Senators trivialized Hill's sexual harassment charges because] they do it all the time. It's a way of life for them."
Bella Abzug on Paula Jones: "A lot of the excitement here is based upon statements made by a couple of troopers that have already been discredited. And so, you know, it isn't as if you've got a clear picture here."
SHE IS STILL DEAD! IT IS OFFICIAL AND CONFIRMED!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 06:59 PM January 29th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"The first is an obvious cheap shot at the favorite whipping boy of Republicans, Bill Clinton
No, it's an accurate shot at feminists as is illustrated by their hypocritical responses to Clarence Thomas (conservative accused of harassing Anita Hill) and Bill Clinton (liberal accused of harassing Paula Jones). "
No, the original statement, " Female feminists believe all men beat their wives, rape women, and oppress women–except for Bill Clinton." is just a cheap shot at Clinton. Your post does do an excellent job of showing the hypocrisy of feminist responses to Hill versus Jones, but that's not what the original comment was about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by shawn on 03:03 PM January 29th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
And feminists dislike Rice because she's "conservative", its not because she's a fence riding buck passer who keeps missing the big issues.
You mean like all the liberals (e.g., Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Kofi Annan, etc) who publically stated that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, was a threat to the world, and must be stopped. I want to know why all these liberals lied to us and what Barbara Boxer is going to do about it.
No, if you want good columns, look no further than Glenn Sacks. Reasoned, logical, and if Glenn has stong politically partisan beliefs, he manages to keep them totally seperate from his campaigning for men, something others seem to be completely incapable of doing, to the detriment of the men's movement.
An ironic and telling statement coming from one of the most partisan and politically opinionated people who posts comments to this website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 06:36 PM January 29th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"And feminists dislike Rice because she's "conservative", its not because she's a fence riding buck passer who keeps missing the big issues.
You mean like all the liberals (e.g., Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Kofi Annan, etc) who publically stated that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, was a threat to the world, and must be stopped. I want to know why all these liberals lied to us and what Barbara Boxer is going to do about it."
Wow, a neo-con suddenly making a drastic change of subject to avoid having to discuss an accurate accusation hurled at one of their own. How unusual. There are many things wrong with your statement. For starters, the people you named are not liberals, (with the possible exception of Ted Kennedy). I don't know why the media keeps acting like they are, but fake liberals are pretty common in the media nowadays. I was watching an episode of "Hannity and Combs", prior to the last election wherein the conversation basically went...
Combs "I'm a huge liberal. I'm extreme. Certainly you don't want to be any more extreme than me, do you? I mean I hope you aren't that ridiculous as to be further left than I am. I'm the most liberal of liberals, and I'm here to present the most extreme liberal opinion."
Hannity "Ok, well let's talk about the election. Hasn't Bush done a great job so far?"
Combs "I think Bush has done an absolutely fantastic job, but let me ask you... does he have the stamina to keep it up for another 4 years? Remember folks watching at home, you're opinion has to be more right-wing than mine to be reasonable because I'm so extremely liberal!"
Hannity "How dare you slander Bush so brazenly!"
That may fool the feminists, but I don't buy it.
Secondly, only complete freaky wack-jobs who people like you think are not worth listening to were publicly saying that Saddam didn't have any WMD, I was one of them. It was a simple deduction really, I reasoned that if Saddam had WMDs, we wouldn't have had to forge documents to try and convince the UN he did. Also, the way the Bush administration kept pretending that pictures of a building with trucks outside of it are the same thing as pictures of nuclear material made it pretty obvious they didn't have any actual evidence of these weapons. Not that figuring that out makes me something special, anyone who's willing to try thinking for themselves instead of having their beliefs spoonfed to them by the idiot box would have drawn the same conclusion. Fortunately for Bush's government, the people do not think for themselves, and the media encourages extreme hostility towards those who do and thereby disagree with it's version of truth.
"No, if you want good columns, look no further than Glenn Sacks. Reasoned, logical, and if Glenn has stong politically partisan beliefs, he manages to keep them totally seperate from his campaigning for men, something others seem to be completely incapable of doing, to the detriment of the men's movement.
An ironic and telling statement coming from one of the most partisan and politically opinionated people who posts comments to this website."
Ironic how? Telling of what? It sounds like you're condemning Glenn here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:03 PM January 29th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
wtf...nancy pelosi isn't a liberal? when did that happen? kofi isn't?
hillary not a liberal? her sealed master's thesis was an argument in favor and sympathetic to the black panters. her wild-eyed promotion of women's rights at the expense of men (just one example: abortion, abortion, abortion...and now she's trying back up from it so that she can seem moderate). she wanted federally funded health care for ALL. oops...socialism knocking at your door. this, btw, could go on and on and on and…
I'm sorry, but you excluded yourself as neutral at the very point which you attempted to discredit the previous argument by naming those people as NOT liberals. and, you name called. typical attempt to divert the argument by demeaning your opponent. therefore, based on the empirical evidence you have given us, you're an overly biased observer with comments.
smell yourself.
me, I'm a conservative hawk. one which would further destroy your argument if not for the fact that you made yourself out to be overly biased and therefore not trustworthy in the beginning.
and, finally, my god, quoting hannity and combs to support your stance. (eyes rolling...I'm getting dizzy)
shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 09:31 PM January 29th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
wtf...nancy pelosi isn't a liberal? when did that happen? kofi isn't? hillary not a liberal?
Yep. They each represent they're own piggybacking special interests and are unconcerned with the economic, political, and democratic views which make up the basic liberal ideology.
her sealed master's thesis was an argument in favor and sympathetic to the black panters. her wild-eyed promotion of women's rights at the expense of men
Exactly. She's concerned about some of the special interest groups that happen to align themselves with democrats. It's like calling Charlton Heston a conservative. He might be a gun nut, but when it comes to basic conservative views on government or the economy, for all I know he's a theocrat.
(just one example: abortion, abortion, abortion...and now she's trying back up from it so that she can seem moderate).
I don't know much about that, I really don't follow Clinton news lately. I won't be voting for her if she runs regardless.
she wanted federally funded health care for ALL
Now that actually shows some concern about liberal politics. However, didn't it seem that maybe she gave up just a little too easy on that one? It was one of those things that sounded nice as a campaign promise, but Bill had no intention of working for it, (being the "liberal" that he is), and handed it off to Hillary so they could not do it and keep him from appearing to fail at the same time.
oops...socialism knocking at your door.
You're calling every country in Europe socialist and saying I'm overly biased. Hey, instead of worrying about a small part of your taxes doing some good by helping people stay healthy, why don't you complain about the masses amounts of your taxes paying for a war which we were never told the real reason we started? Or how about the massive amounts of our tax dollars forcibly given to others to use as research and development. If we pay for research and development of a product, by all rights we should share the profit from it's sales right? We should be able to produce this product ourselves shouldn't we? We should at least get one? Nope. All we get from those corporate welfare scams you're reverse Robin Hood philosophy would never allow you to complain about is the right to purchase the product... if the research and development is successfull... at the price the company decides to sell it... if it happens to be something we want. Great expenditure of our tax dollars, but conservative hawks like you call yourself tend to be too busy complaining that a homeless guy might get some tuna to have time to object to the much more costly corporate welfare.
I'm sorry, but you excluded yourself as neutral
The minute I let you know I was a person. All of us are biased, our arguments still need to be considered on their own merit anyway. At least, according to Aristotlian logic. How you determine what you consider a good argument might follow a very different set of rules.
and, you name called. typical attempt to divert the argument by demeaning your opponent.
Okay, you got me there. I did call myself a freaky wack-job. I honestly meant no offense, and I was kind of being sarcastic, but I suppose I owe myself an apology. Will I ever forgive me?
therefore, based on the empirical evidence you have given us, you're an overly biased observer with comments
"overly" is a matter of opinion, not empirical evidence. So taking your opinion out of that the remaining factual statement is that I am a biased observer with comments. As are you. Maybe we should form a club.
smell yourself.
What an insightful thing to say.
me, I'm a conservative hawk.
Have the conservatives started calling themselves that now too? As I understood it, the anti-Iraq war people, (not the democrats, since most of their representatives were for the war), started referring the the Bush administration as chickenhawks based on their lously explanation for the war. They were comparing it to the reason once told to Foghorn Leghorn as to why he was being attacked "Because I'm a chickenhawk and you're a chicken." Calling yourself a conservative hawk is practically an admittance that you support wars for no good reason.
one which would further destroy your argument if not for the fact that you made yourself out to be overly biased and therefore not trustworthy in the beginning
There's a white flag of victory if I've ever seen one. So you don't "need" to defeat my argument because you can attack me instead huh? You can even show that I'm biased! Wow! But you're right, you shouldn't trust someone who 2 years ago said Saddam didn't have WOMD. You should trust Bush's administration who all knew absolutely 100% that he did! I wonder if those conservative hawks are 100% sure of the other things they tell us?
and, finally, my god, quoting hannity and combs to support your stance
Here I am talking about the portrayal of psuedo-liberals by the media and I quote someone the media tells us is liberal who obviously isn't. How ridiculous!
(eyes rolling...I'm getting dizzy)
Next time, you might want to wait for that to clear up before posting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:28 AM January 30th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Hombre,
I love your response. However, you needn't have taken so much time as you basically skirted the whole first issue.
If you choose to say someone isn't 'liberal' then you should back it up. You haven't. Your statement to that effect was much to short and inconsequential to prove anything. Maybe you need to look up the term 'liberal' for a better understanding of what it entails (the current, modern application of the term specifically targeted to those that promote a deluded progressive agenda, which each of those named most certainly does).
Hillary is a liberal. Bill was more a centrist (oh gosh, I hope that none of my hawkish friends are reading this). Bill was also a pig of a person. As is Hillary. Which is why they work so well together.
Socialized medicine is lockstep with socialism. Not such a far jump. I don’t condone it. I won’t ever vote for it. This from a man that, at 42, has had heart surgery and doesn’t at the present time have health coverage. My choice. I also believe that privatizing schools is a good choice. Very complex issue, which is beyond the scope of this discussion.
However – I must say this – if medicine were to be socialized on some level (with private options of course), then k through PHD must be socialized as well.
And most of Europe is looking towards a socialistic ideology, as is our mucked up neighbor to the north. I cry not for their social ineptitude.
And corporate welfare? EVERY senator and congressperson (damn feminists :)) scoops on that one. Name one, ONE that doesn't support some sort of corporate welfare. You can't, Hombre. Besides, the Enron debacle happened mostly on Clinton's watch. It just finally failed at a time when a new president was elected.
Calling myself a conservative hawk does not mean I'm for war just for war's sake. I am, however, interested in more political freedom for other countries. I fully support our current foreign policy on that issue. Now, this is not a complete referendum on my beliefs: just a snip of what I view as appropriate. Going into Iraq was the correct call. We should have done it LONG ago. Not taking out Saddam in the Gulf War was a huge mistake. I’m still somewhat confused as to why we even bother with the UN anyway. Silly organization. Libya on the council of Human Rights. Sheesh. Besides, at least I let you know that I’m a hawk. You’re trying to straddle the fence, and doing a poor job of it. Or, you’re lying your you know what off just to appear more centrist. Which, btw, I applaud.
And the name calling was when you referred to Shawn as a neo-con, which presides over itself with a bad connotation. Unless, of course, Shawn has called himself that before. Or, I missed the point you were making entirely as my eyes were busy rolling so much.
Wow, I think they still are.
:)
Yet, I think I like you. Imagine that.
I'm tired now. Must get sleep. I probably won't reply to this again just because I'm somewhat lazy right now. However, if you want to give me some more guff, you can send me a note at:
ppmnow@hotmail.com
Shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by shawn on 03:14 AM January 30th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
For starters, the people you named are not liberals, (with the possible exception of Ted Kennedy).
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Kofi Annan are not liberals? Ted Kennedy is *possibly* a liberal? Right. And Condi Rice isn't a conservative. All I can say is Wow.
Regardless, all these moderate and fanatical right-wing politicans like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and Kofi Annan publically claimed that Saddam had WMD's, was a threat, and needed to be stopped.
Feminists such as Barbara Boxer do not like Rice because she is a conservative. More precisely, they do not like Rice because she is close to and valued by the president. And they don't like the president. It has nothing to do with her role in Iraq. They want to stick it to Bush.
Secondly, only complete freaky wack-jobs who people like you think are not worth listening to were publicly saying that Saddam didn't have any WMD, I was one of them.
I cannot parse the meaning of your sentence. I believe you are saying that two to three years ago you did not believe Saddam had WMD's. That's great, but your views were not shared by very many people at the time. Pretty much everyone in the world believed that Saddam had WMD's. This included conservatives, liberals, France, Germany, the UN, and even Saddam's generals (who thought the other generals were in charge of the WMD's). There were a few exceptions, true, but not many. If nothing else, these assumptions were based on historical precedent. Saddam did have WMD's, he used them, the US/UN kept finding and destroying them up until the mid-late 90's when Saddam disobeyed the world by stopping mandated UN inspections. What's a person supposed to think? "I'm sorry officer. I'm a convicted drug felon out on parole. Even though you have a warrent to search my car, I'm not going to let you in because I have nothing to hide." Even the anti-war movement supported this assumption. People didn't protest the war because Saddam was a peaceful fun loving guy, they protested the war because they felt war was bad (or this war was bad).
It was "common knowledge" that Saddam had WMD's. What has this got to do with men? We are targeted by common knowledge assumtions every day.
Ironic how? Telling of what? It sounds like you're condemning Glenn here.
I certainly was not condeming Glenn Sacks. My comment was directed at the original poster. The original poster criticized men in the men's movement for integrating politics with men's issues. Fine. Yet it is this original poster who is always spouting politics in this forum. That's the irony. Yes, I know. It isn't politics when a person bashes the Bush administration. That's an accurate representation of the truth. It's only politics when a person makes a reference to the hypocracy of feminism's support of Bill Clinton (a man accused by many women of harassment, abuse, and sexual assault). It's like when self-proclaimed environmentalists have "don't pollute" bumper stickers on their SUV's. That's the telling part.
I'm sorry, I have a job. I probably will not be able to respond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 06:38 AM January 30th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
The above long-winded exchange between two men who are probably both equally dedicated to justice for men the reason why partisan politics (or economic theory, racial politics, non-gender ideology, or even sports for that matter) should be kept out of a gender discussion.
The temptation to blame men's status on PC liberals or chivalrous conservatives may seem great at times, but the current condition of men/fathers is so perilous that activists simply cannot afford to get into this kind of pissing contest. Can I get an AMEN?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amen.
Our battle is far too "uphill" and we have so few allies that we need to look beyond some issues in order to work together to defeat a huge machine and a hypnotized culture.
Do we have True Equality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:34 AM January 30th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Hear, hear. All men, conservative, socialist, green, libertarian, every political flavor in the world, are getting pissed on. All men should put a stop to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:38 PM January 30th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Amen.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by scudsucker on 02:42 PM January 30th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
You mean like all the liberals (e.g., Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Kofi Annan, etc) who publically stated that Saddam Hussein had WMD's
As another poster pointed out, just because someone happens to be to the left of Strom Thrumond, doesn't make then liberal.
and must be stopped.
Totally, completely, 110% wrong. Yes, everyone was surprised that we haven't turned up a canister of mustard gas next to a scud warhead. However, merely having WMD's is not the reason we went to war. Bush argued that Saddam was an imminent threat that had to be taken out without delay, and in that stance Bush was virtually alone. Anything else is revisionist history.
In any case, the executive branch is in charge of both gathering intelligence and waging war. Congress didn't declare war, they authorized Bush to use force. No matter how you shake it, the responsiblity for the Iraqi debacle rests entirely on Bush's shoulders. Deal with it.
and what Barbara Boxer is going to do about it
Get someone who can do the job? Rice isn't a bad person for not making the right calls, but it does make her a bad National Security Advisor.
An ironic and telling statement coming from one of the most partisan and politically opinionated people who posts comments to this website.
What a surprise...you're wrong. Again. Did I mention Iraq? No, you did. Did I start dropping the names of various "liberals" to try and make a point about something that doesn't have anything to do with men's activism? No, you did. The only time I bring up politics is when one of you neocons starts flapping his gums, and needs to be smacked down with the truth.
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:51 PM January 29th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
As many have pointed out, treating men like second-class citizens is a global problem that spans different political parties and ideologies. I want to live somewhere where everyone's basic human dignity is respected by all parties in a multi-party, democratic system.
So in the midst of an article that highlights hypocrisy and contempt for men, I was disappointed to find:
"I believe when the Titanic goes down without sufficient lifeboats, women and children should share the lifeboats."
Do you really believe that, as a man, you are specially fit to die? Do you really believe that men's lives are worth less than the lives of women?
I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by B_Riddick on 04:23 PM January 29th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I think he meant that they should share the lifeboats with men, as opposed to only with each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 06:10 PM January 29th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
The full quote was
" I believe when the Titanic goes down without sufficient lifeboats, women and children should share the lifeboats.
Feminists believe women should share the lifeboats with the children—if there’s room. "
I originally interpretted that to mean he was saying women should share the boats with the children, and feminists were saying women should get the boats first and then children. However looking at it now it seems to make more sense if there's an implied "with men." at the end of the first statement. He should have been a bit more clear on that one IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:08 PM February 1st, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
The failure of feminism
Gerald Sutton
Gerald Sutton
March 2, 2004
Earlier this year I was talking to a friend about feminism. At that time I didn't know much about it besides that feminism seemed awfully biased. For years I was led to believe that women were owed by society and feminism was a way of helping women. So at the time I was not for feminism nor fully against it because I didn't know details of what it really was about. To my shock, she explained to me that there were actual women's studies classes in college. Most importantly she told me some of the things they would teach women. My heart sank in disbelief followed soon after by anger.
To think that College actually teaches that men have oppressed women all through history? That marriage has been an institution that men used to gain control over women? To someone who does not know what really is going on out there and then learns for the first time the extent of how our society has turned against males and the traditional family, it's natural for many to get angry. It's not natural to get bitter however, I'll explain.
From my perspective, I can confidently tell you that there is no place in society for the wicked and twisted ideals of any form of feminism. Queen Victoria said it best in 1870 "Were women to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings, and would surely perish without male protection."
I know I am no King, however, let me say something along the lines of what the Queen said. Were men to 'unsex' themselves by turning their backs on women and their duty to family and nation, they would become the most miserable, angry and worthless of beings and would surely find no happiness without honest female interaction or companionship.
That doesn't mean you have to get married, but you must show respect to women. We all know there are bad girls out there, either avoid them or teach them by good example. Just be sure to take care of the good women because they need good men.
Feminism is a sickness that has damaged and hurt men and women in different ways and has damaged our marriages and social structure. If ever the devil was to find a way to keep people further from God, he could do it by turning men and women against each other. He waited for our modern day for his feminism plan to work though. Women cannot deny their need for a man internally, nor can men deny their need for a woman. However in our modern day western wealth, that need is hidden in the form of pride, bitterness, selfishness, and greed to name just a few reasons.
For months after I talked to my friend, I began an independent research into feminism and its effects on western cultures. I talked to friends and church leaders about the subject to get an idea on how others felt about this issue. Opinions were mixed to say the least. Some feel feminism hasn't done enough for women's rights. Others, such as many churches, see through the lies of radical feminism, and they try to repair damage done to families and relationships.
During much of my research one thing that hung with me was my anger. I could feel it building as I read case after case of unfair treatment to men. To be blunt, it was disgust in the pit of my stomach to see a nation, who expects so much from its men, yet gives them the least amount of respect and support partly because of the effects of feminism. Another reason things have gotten as far as they have, men are brought up and are wired to meet the needs of women. Women also are very concerned about their needs; it's the main reason women want men, for security. What's sad is that the humanity of our heroes has been forgotten and men have become punching bags and expendable muscle in a secular and feminist culture.
I soon realized that I had seen enough of the problem, and it was time to move on. It took certain elements to pull me from my bitterness and get me back to rational thinking. First I needed a desire to be happy, to break free from the anguish of my lingering anger. Happiness does not come from just outward sources; it comes from your own heart and how you choose to live YOUR life. If you think more money or more freedoms will bring you happiness, think again — just look at today's America for the proof.
Another thing that made me bitter was knowing that no matter how much effort I put into complaining about feminism, I could never undo the damage that has already been done. Have you ever felt like your fighting a battle you just can't win? You get more frustrated right? The more pressure we put on ourselves trying to reach unrealistic goals, the more we hold ourselves down from true healing or from making a positive difference.
Unfortunately now some men are refusing to marry because of what's going on. To deny marriage in anger and fear of women or the system is foolishness. Marriage is essential to happiness for most people because most people desire a life long partner.
True, the laws in America have encouraged divorce with its laws and show little rights to Men. But to expect a boycott on marriage to improve things is just wrong. We are all humans who need respect and there are many good intentioned women out there who want men.
The system (i.e. government, courts, educators, leaders etc), not women as a whole, is mostly at fault for the current despicable situation that demonizes and treats men terribly. Not all women have been brainwashed to believe men are the reason for all of life's problems. Men need to begin taking their demands to the government. Men need to get in the governments face and say they will no longer stand for the unfair treatment their country is giving them.
Not only are men being unfairly targeted and treated, women are also being led into miserable lives when they could have been so much happier in a pro masculine man, pro feminine woman, pro family environment. When I notice some men cursing up a storm and lashing out angrily against everything female, even if there is a woman who is trying to send a message to support men's or family issues, I can tell there is an anger problem for them, they just don't recognize it yet. It's their anger causing them to be negative when the anger should have been long past. The men's movement could get ugly if it is led by anger and bitterness and not by reason and wisdom.
There are many men out there who want revenge, or who feel that the only way to prove a point or solve the problem is to throw everything right back at women. Do we think that beating women into submission will make our lives better? Sure maybe some angry men might get a temporary relief to see female suicide rates rise, or see women's life expectancy drop to that of men's, or see women become demonized all over popular culture. Is that what we really want? How much more negative lessons can our nation take before it crumbles into social implosion?
Our goal today in spite of all the anger and frustration should be a goal of bringing men and women together in marital bliss and Gender Healing. Our future generations are dependent upon the choices we make today. If men begin to target all women as the enemy, what will that teach our boys growing up — to despise all women for the mistakes of some?
With all due respect, I do not know the level of pain that fathers go through after having his wife and the courts take his children away. I have not been falsely accused of a crime largely because of my gender and to sit in prison because of it. However I have known pain in my life, pain that to me was debilitating to my character, something I just could not get past because it hurt so much at the time. We all have known pain and anger at some time in our lives. What I am trying to explain is that we (men or women) do not have to live life in pain or bitterness. If you are not happy living your life, if there is something missing that just makes you feel empty, or in a constant struggle then get help. Find friends, a church, counseling that will help you live again. This is the devils playground, but it doesn't mean you have to play the devils games. Take back your life, surrender to your heart, sacrifice your pride and see the bigger picture. God wrote an entire book for us to learn from, to show how we should live, a book filled with wisdom and hope. Though this world will deny the truth and wisdom of Jesus Christ in the Bible it doesn't mean you have to.
This is not really a gender war we are in; it's more than that. This is really a war between good and evil. If we were in a gender war then the battle lines would be a lot clearer. There are no battle lines, the truth is that everyone is running around confused and frustrated. Think about whose side you are on for a moment. Are you trying to heal the wounds or are you trying to drive the dagger deeper? Men have a voice and a vote, if we are going to fight the evil that infests our government and society we have to demand changes from our leaders.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Gerald Sutton was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and now works for an airline in Appleton, WI. He is 31 years old, single, and a freelance writer with a conservative, Christian viewpoint. He has been writing since he was eight, with an interest in History and Social Studies. A proud Veteran and follower of Jesus Christ, his greatest concerns today are feminism and its effects on American culture and Politics. His goal is to write for a Christian publication one day.
© Copyright 2004 by Gerald Sutton
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/sutton/040302
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice writing, but I prefer Paul Robbins, he is more realistic.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
