|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by bukowski on 12:34 AM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:13 AM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I was so inspired to see this. This is just fantastic news. Hopefully we will more of this all over the world.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:35 AM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
What's hilarious is that the feminists protested against this--when it seemed like all the men wanted was equality; they weren't doing anything disruptive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 02:29 AM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, when I think of counter-marches, usually they have something to do with a bill that's been proposed or some specific task. Here, the main point for the men was to get attention, (I think, the article didn't mention anything else), and by countermarching all the feminists did was help them get more attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:09 AM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. The feminists are already known, the masculists are not. So the feminists gained little by it and benefitted the masculists tremendously: the police came, the media and public found it more interesting, etc.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bukowski on 08:42 PM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
And if the article is correct. All they were protesting was feminists blaming men for all the world's evil.
It doesn't seem they were trying to say men are innocent angels. But that men aren't evil.
But if that's the case, then maybe, just maybe, women share some responsibility too.
So from the article it seems to me, that the counter demonstration was really a protest against losing their one and only scapegoat.
If the feminists lose their scapegoat, than feminsts will no longer be able to have women be seen as innocent angels, and so they will then have to face the bad parts of themselves that they are denying.
(I know I talk about the "scapegoat" thing a lot. But interests me and makes some sens to me)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:52 AM March 24th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Not wishing to dampen anybody's euphoria, but how many men actually marched in Mexico??
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:30 AM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"The group said their objective was to counter a feminist movement which has placed the blame of all evil things on men."
Viva Mexico! Muchos Gracias Senors
Maybe it's time to start up the International Coalition of Free Men.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great idea. We are now gathering men from the US, Great Britain, Canada, Finland, Sweden, Germany and others. The net gives us easy contact. Great idea Ray.
Do we have True Equality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:05 PM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah.
We really SHOULD do like wise here in the U.S.
If we do, I will do what I can to get to where ever the march is being held.
It's PASSED time we did something like this here. As well as Australia, Britan, etc.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:48 PM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa there . . . Stop hiding your thunder behind a cloud !
Stand up each and everyone who has not been involved in a men's march . . Yet ?
In Britain . . . f4j are showing the world that men on the march are getting attention . . and making a difference !
Perhaps fortunately . . we do not have the same access to guns as in the US ! ! !
On your feet men everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:18 PM March 24th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if I stop hiding my thunder behind a cloud then I'd just be "Thunder".
...Actually that's not a bad thing, I guess..., :-)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 09:04 PM March 25th, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
You know, I could have sworn I said something about it being a global problem years ago!
Good luck to the Mexican guys. BTW, I’m putting a translation of a Mexican blog on SYG. The blog calls it “The Masculine March: Of the worse thing of the year” and says there were only 40 there. Even if that’s not a PC lie, 40 is still a good start.
Men have always tried to please women. This makes a nonsense of the idea of women being “oppressed”. Even now there are plenty of feminist men who will go along with any distortion or lie to “protect” women from “bad” men. However, more and more men are seeing feminism as a problem and are abandoning trying to please women who have become unpleaseable. Once a significant number of men stop listening to women, women will be in trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:01 PM March 25th, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
A turnout of 40 is excellent!!
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:01 AM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
We can march all we like the world over. Every one of us in every little way are petty misandrists. Note that every state inspired judge, jailer, executor, torturer, garroter, electrocutor, or plain ball-breaker of men are simply other men.
We have no compassion, pity, love, comradery or the slightest empathy for the next man at all at all.
As Ive said elsewhere, the ringleaders of misandry the world over are to be sought amongst men with the highest standing and positions of authority over their fellow man. Your average feminist is only a first order parasite of ideas and other peoples material..
We must look to ourselves for answers to this human-cancer of intolerance and hate for mankind
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 07:35 AM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
We can march all we like the world over.
I'm up for it.
Every one of us in every little way are petty misandrists.
Not the regs of this site.
Note that every state inspired judge, jailer, executor, torturer, garroter, electrocutor, or plain ball-breaker of men are simply other men.
Not true, especially when you add family court judges, those who choose not to refund spousal or child support each month, those who commit paternity fraud and make false rape claims, those who sue men for sexual freedom of expression, and those who write anti-male legislation. But yes, there are too many men who are misandrous themselves or simply work for the misandrous machine.
We have no compassion, pity, love, comradery or the slightest empathy for the next man at all at all.
Show us some love brother.
As Ive said elsewhere, the ringleaders of misandry the world over are to be sought amongst men with the highest standing and positions of authority over their fellow man. Your average feminist is only a first order parasite of ideas and other peoples material.
That's true, but you're forgetting that not all feminists are average. The more powerful feminists are ringleaders themselves.
We must look to ourselves for answers to this human-cancer of intolerance and hate for mankind.
Ourselves? I thought you said the ringleaders were "men with the highest standing and positions of authority over their fellow man"? Who exactly do you think is posting to this site, anyway? ;)
But... two things I think most of us can do a little better on are trying not to push each other down to gain the favor of pretty women and overcoming the gender selective pathos social rules and the media have been trying to brainwash us into having all our life. We're pretty good about these things compared to most groups of men, but we have some way to go yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:18 AM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"We have no compassion, pity, love, comradery or the slightest empathy for the next man at all at all. "
Very true. We are genetically programmed to battle with other men on the basis of racial/religious/ethnic/political differences. Even if there are no differences among men , men will INVENT differences in order to fulfill their basic biological need to be engaged in conflict with other men. This male trait is evident even on mensactivism. Posts dealing exclusively with mens rights generally get few replies. However, if a poster makes a statement on some racial/religious/political matter (unrelated to mens rights), there will be dozens of angry aggressive responses as men take the opportunity to gratify their primeval need to engage in battle with other men.
Can we ever overcome this inbuilt genetically determined flaw which militates so successfully against our efforts to defeat feminaziism? Maybe yes, maybe no. However I think it imperative that we, at least, recognise this flaw in our make up. It is the prime reason for the victory of feminaziism.
By contrast, women have no diffculty in setting aside differences, and uniting with other women in pursuit of common feminist goals. They are feminist first and foremost. Can men ever emulate them? Will there ever come a time when our "menist" identity will be of primary importance to us, becoming more important to us than our divisive racial/religious/nationalist identities?
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:04 AM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
YES! Men are taught to not care about each other! It is soooo true. Women talk to each other and care for each other. When a man sees another man in pain or trouble he thinks: "Who cares; he's a man. He can take care of himself."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 01:45 PM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"We have no compassion, pity, love, comradery or the slightest empathy for the next man at all at all. "
Very true. We are genetically programmed to battle with other men on the basis of racial/religious/ethnic/political differences. Even if there are no differences among men , men will INVENT differences in order to fulfill their basic biological need to be engaged in conflict with other men. This male trait is evident even on mensactivism. Posts dealing exclusively with mens rights generally get few replies. However, if a poster makes a statement on some racial/religious/political matter (unrelated to mens rights), there will be dozens of angry aggressive responses as men take the opportunity to gratify their primeval need to engage in battle with other men.
Can we ever overcome this inbuilt genetically determined flaw which militates so successfully against our efforts to defeat feminaziism? Maybe yes, maybe no. However I think it imperative that we, at least, recognise this flaw in our make up. It is the prime reason for the victory of feminaziism.
By contrast, women have no diffculty in setting aside differences, and uniting with other women in pursuit of common feminist goals. They are feminist first and foremost. Can men ever emulate them? Will there ever come a time when our "menist" identity will be of primary importance to us, becoming more important to us than our divisive racial/religious/nationalist identities?
Amen. Amen. A thousand times amen. I've said it before and hope to never have to say it again. The only disagreement I would have with the above statement is that this mindset is not hardwired. In fact, the fathers' movement usually avoids this divisiveness because of the urgency of their issues. (There are fathers so desperate that they want to change a law before their next court date.) This cohesiveness is possible in the men's movement if we trim away all but the essentials: gender issues.
At this point, I view someone who drags that other stuff into a discussion of men's problems as no better than a troll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:12 PM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know.
I'm the only Native-American that posts here (that I know of) and no one here has ever tried to smack me down, or what ever.
As far as "inventing differences" I invite you to look at the feminists. If anyone is talented in "inventing differences" it is THEY!
Invent them? Hell, they just make things up out of thin air.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:49 AM March 24th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
"In fact, the fathers' movement usually avoids this divisiveness because of the urgency of their issues."
The injustices suffered by fathers in family courts are only possible because of feminist control of the media, the legislature, the police, and the "domestic violence shelters" (where feminist activists, trained in womens studies centres, promote the destruction of the traditional family unit). The male judges in the family courts are insignificant cogs in the feminist juggernauts. They are merely feminist puppets.
Thus we might expect these fathers to be battling the feminists. But that is not the case. It is a characteristic of men that they will only battle against a male enemy. Thus these fathers must find a male enemy on which they can vent their anger their anger and frustration. As a result, their campaigns are directed against male family court judges whom they have (mistakenly) decided are the root cause of their suffering. The root cause of their suffering is the feminist juggernaut (driven by women). Engaging in skirmishes with other men will not stop this juggernaut. It will only be stopped if men unite and direct their energies against this juggernaut. However this would involve men uniting against a female enemy (feminism), and it seems men are simply incapable of doing this. Whether this inability is due to inborn genetic hardwiring or due to social conditioning is a matter for debate. I am increasingly of the belief that it is due to genetically determined hardwiring.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:16 AM March 24th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
You are so right. Men will not fight women. We are taught this since we are boys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:55 PM March 25th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
" You are so right. Men will not fight women. We are taught this since we are boys. "
Tha´t is what some men in some countries, during certain period has been taught, that´s all.
This was written 100 years ago:
As regards this point it should be remarked that mediæval chivalry tolerated (as Wharton expressed it in his "History of Poetry ") "the grossest indecencies and obscenities between the sexes," such things as modern puritanism would stigmatise
with such words as "unchivalrous," "unmanly" and the like.
The resemblance between the modern worship of women and the relations of the mediæval knight to the female sex is very thin indeed. Modern claims to immunity for women from the criminal law and mediæval chivalry are quite different things.
But let´s see how were things before :
"For three centuries of early modern European history, diverse societies were consumed by a panic over alleged witches in their midst. Witch-hunts, especially in Central Europe, resulted in the trial, torture, and execution of tens of thousands of victims, about three-quarters of whom were women. Arguably, neither before nor since have adult European women been selectively targeted for such largescale atrocities."
Yeah!! so we are genetically programmed to let our children, brothers, fathers and friends enslaved by pathetic lowless female parasites?, give me a break!!.
Lets see what happens in other places of the world:
"The Mujahadeen won the war, thanks to U.S. and Saudi assistance, which only increased after the Soviet pullout in 1989 following a UN-brokered agreement. (That agreement required the cessation of both Soviet and U.S. aid to the rival factions in the ongoing civil war.The Northern Alliance forces Took the capital, immediately castrating and publicly hanging the last of the Soviet-backed rulers, Najibullah. And all feminists.
The Taliban took Kabul in September 1996. applied Shari'a law with greater severity. Public executions became mass spectacles; women accused of adultery were forced to kneel in their burqas in the foreign-built soccer stadium in Kabul before being shot in the head as crowds cheered."
A guy working for IA said to bbc4:
"I have seen women stoned to death in the stadium for refusing arranged marriages. And the Taliban actually sold popcorn before these events — executions become entertainment for children."
But it seems men are paralized, they can not do anything to help themselves, men living in puritan countries have been brainwashed, but not the rest,
and anyhow you can overcome this, the first step is acknowledging that one is not en ehunuc lobotomized to serve femi-scum, just see how men have been able to fight women when necessary, then and now, here and there.
Take care!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:42 PM March 25th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you make some good points. Another example would be how the soldiers of occupying armies treated women in WW2 eg treatment of Russian women by the German army (and vice versa), treatment of Chinese women by the Japanese. This supports the view that chivalry is merely the result of conditioning.
I stated in a previous post that "It is a characteristic of men that they will only battle against a male enemy. " It should read "It is a characteristic of men in our society at this point in time that they will only battle against a male enemy. " This attitude of servitude may not persist indefinitely.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:24 PM March 25th, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Well said!!, and remeber there are more cultures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 10:02 PM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jname967 on 11:08 PM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
that men are in trouble. I remember this when the men's movement was at its (sadly long gone) peak in the early 90's... some men have a macho complex and refuse to admit the pain we're all in. And that may be one of the biggest hurdles to overcome.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Mangesh writes "Mexican men march for their rights. Story