|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:32 AM June 13th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I've read through this site and agree that the name "ManHaters.com" is terrible, however if the name were changed to womensactivism.org or something less inflammatory much of the content, support (for women), and complaining wouldn’t be any different than what's in mensactivism.org.
Given that we are responsible for ourselves, we men should do more to hold each other responsible and own up for the way we've treated women in the past and are still treating them... and yes we get some of that back but like I said we are first responsible for ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:45 AM June 13th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"own up for the way we've treated women in the past and are still treating them..."
What, treating them with dignity and respect and being rewarded with treachery, terror and violent abuse? Do you want us to ignore women's violent abusiveness and their psycho false accusations?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:28 AM June 13th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, troll.
Your up early in the morning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AlMartin on 06:49 AM June 13th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"Own up"?????
DO you know me? Have I personally treated women abusively and with no respect? NO.
Do I have an axe to grind with all people of middle east descent? NO. Not ALL middle easterers are terrorists! Of course, in your little utopia, they must be.
Why should I be held responsible for others actions? I refuse to be the whipping post for all the ills of the world.
I am more than a wallet and sperm donor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:42 PM June 13th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear mr. or mzzzzz Troll-
As an American Indian I am freaqyently told; "You must hate all white men for what they've done to your people..." (this is said more often by white people) My response is; "Yes, I hate the white people (including women) that desimated and commited genocide against my people. ...BUT, I certainly hold NO animosity for any white person who has never harmed, or whishes to harm my people."
The majority of Whites (and Blacks) know very little about us but they certainly don't whish us harm. There is a SMALL minority that do, but they are few and (fortunatly) have very little power to hurt us, these days. The KKK for example. Most Whites want nothing to do with the KKK. But for me to judge ALL whites by the actions of a group of people from the past and a small group of people that have lost most of their influence would make me, What? ANSEWER; A racist.
Just the same way that any White person who is harmed in some way by a Black person or SOME Black people holds ALL Blacks accountable for the actions of a FEW Black people, is also a racist.
Any one that holds the whole accountable for the acts of the few IS A BIGOT, by definition, PIRIOD.
That includes FEMINISTS and like-minded women (and some men).
I have never raped, attacked, abused, opperessed or beaten up a woman IN MY LIFE. Yet by your feminist (read bigotted) "logic" I must pay a penalty for someone else's actions simply because I am the same GENDER as that person. That's not just retarded it's madness. But then, what IS bigotry but a type of madness. And having witnessed this type of madness from other types of bigots my expiriece tells me that today's feminists have proudly joined the ranks of bigots. They hate ALL because of the acts of some. ...Just like any other bigots...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 08:34 AM June 13th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"however if the name were changed to womensactivism.org or something less inflammatory much of the content, support (for women), and complaining wouldn’t be any different than what's in mensactivism.org."
Yeah, lying about our site is really gonna fool our readers. Do you see a picture of a dead woman impaled on a trident in our logo? Do you see comments like "women are like a fine wine. They begin as grapes, and it's up to men to stomp the shit out of them until they turn into something acceptable to have dinner with." being written by our regulars? Does our site maintain a database of women our vindictive readers want to publicly slander? You seem to have troubling differentiating between our objecting to bigotry and their promoting it.
"Given that we are responsible for ourselves, we men should do more to hold each other responsible"
Which is it? Are we responsible for ourselves or for "each other", (aka "ourselves and every other man in the world")?
"own up for the way we've treated women in the past"
Own up for my actions? Or own up for other men's actions? Or own up for the "feminidiot revisionist" version of other men's actions, which is entirely based on trying to make men look bad? Do I get to own up to inventing damn near everything, and doing almost all the heavy labor throughout all time?
"and yes we get some of that back"
Another case of "When women do it, it's not as bad because... ".
"but like I said we are first responsible for ourselves."
Your entire argument here is that we should not police women at all until we are finished policing men. At this site, we believe in equality and that kind of BS doesn't stick. Save it for your manhaters.com friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by B_Riddick on 03:22 PM June 13th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Heh, very good way to put it. I'll second that!
Mr/Ms Anonymous guilt trip can own up to whatever he/she likes, I've done nothing to own up to regarding my relations with women(unless it's a crime to be naively nice to women who don't give a damn about you. I'd call it a mistake myself)...and they've got a lot to answer for in regards to their relations with me, among other things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:37 PM June 14th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
>""What you mean we, paleface""
..huh...? Sorry, B Riddick. But we Indians do not now, nor have we ever spoken like that. That is purely a Hollywood invention to make Indians seem less intelegent.
Sorry, but along with being a men's activist, I am an indian activist as well, so I have to point out things like that.
uhm, anyway I too have always been decent to women. I have never raped, beaten, been mean to or abused any woman in my life.
So the whole argument that the troll is making, that all men should pay for the crimes of a few is not only ridiculous it is the same bigotry that feminists use to make their "points".
Following that logic, then all women must pay the price for the ones that abuse and murder their sons, whether they have ever hurt a child or not. Useing this logic all must be guilty if some are guilty. Makes alot of sense, don't it...? (sarcasm)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:04 PM June 14th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think they meant anything by it T.C.
Jinx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Ragtime on 04:56 PM June 14th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi TC.
It was me who made the 'Tonto' quip following your wonderful "Dear mr. or mzzzzz Troll" posting -- I saw it as a tongue-in-cheek way to tell the troll "speak for yourself," and I figured you'd get a chuckle out of it.
I was quoting an old joke (which I'm sure you've heard), and I'm confident you know me well enough by now to know I mean no disrespect. I'm sorry, my friend, if the humour got lost in the inadequate medium of this chat forum.
As an aside...
Maybe it's just me, but I watched "The Lone Ranger" as a kid, and I never once thought of Tonto as 'stupid.' On the contrary, he always seemed to be a courageous, loyal, and valued friend who knew all kinds of neat stuff that the Ranger didn't. I thought he was cool. :-) He left me with a *good* impression of Indian folks, not a bad one. If there were other prejudices at play in the show, maybe I was too young to catch them.
Ragtime
The Uppity Wallet
The opinions expressed above are my own,
but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Philalethes on 11:54 AM June 15th, 2005 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
I watched "The Lone Ranger" as a kid, and I never once thought of Tonto as 'stupid.'
I regularly listened to The Lone Ranger on radio (more than 50 years ago, before it was on TV, which we didn't have), and don't remember Tonto being portrayed negatively. However, many years later I learned that "tonto" is Spanish for "fool, dunce," though apparently the writer claimed it was a Potawatomi word meaning "wild one." In any case, despite his pidgin English (certainly better than my Potawatomi) Tonto seems to have given a positive, if rather stereotyped, image of Amerind people to a couple generations of Euroamerican kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by B_Riddick on 10:31 PM June 14th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, see Ragtime's post on this (tired of getting flamed for quoting someone, and neither he nor I meant anything negative, quite the contrary).
Second, in the more recent years that quote, which originally appeared in the "lone ranger", has been used as a punch line to ridicule someone who foolishly thinks he/she speaks for others as well, despite not consulting with them. In such scenarios, the object of ridicule is actually the one in the "lone ranger" role rather than the "tonto" one, if you follow the analogy. I've seen it used multiple times where a character of dubious intelligence is perfectly willing to do something stupid/suicidal, and tries to drag his/her buddy into it, and they get the line used on them as the more intelligent character wisely chooses to sidestep the danger insead of leaping into it.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:05 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Is that the joke where Tonto and the Lone Ranger are surounded by Apaches?
I think I HAVE heared that one. If I remember right, I think I probably laughed, if it's the one I'm thinking of.
No, don't worry, I wasn't offended, It's just that there are still alot of people who think Indians speak "Tonto talk". I just have to be sure I mention that we don't talk that way, so as to educate those who DO think we speak in that way. I wouldn't be a very good Indian activist if I didn't, I guess.
But, no I'm not mad or anything.
Me just want-um make sure people understand-um.
(hee hee)
And by the way. Tonto and the Lone Ranger were my heroes, when I was a kid too.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:22 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Did you play cowboys and Indians?
Jinx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:36 PM June 17th, 2005 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
Is that the joke where Tonto and the Lone Ranger are surounded by Apaches?
I often use a very concise form of it to illustrate the principle, which actually drops out the stereotypic pidgin but keeps the concept -
"Looks like we're surrounded by Indians, Tonto."
"What's this 'we' shit, WHITE MAN!?!?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:12 AM June 16th, 2005 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
>"Did you play cowboys and Indians?"
Yep.
But the game ended a little different than with most kids, if you know what I mean. :-)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:40 PM June 13th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
It's hysterical that you would think that we really believe that:
a) you're male
and
b)any of us would genuinely even consider for a nano-second that just by being male we would "own up" for the way "we've treated women in the past and are still treating them".
You are truly deluded.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, it wouldn't surprise me a bit that our troll might be a man. There are plenty of self-loathing male apologists out there, many of them in the so-called mainstream media.
Just my two cents.
Chris F.
Those who claim to be brutally honest, enjoy the brutality more than the honesty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by quetzal on 03:52 PM June 13th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
You remind me of Andrea Dworkin.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:29 AM June 14th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it's the ghost of Andrea Dworkin. We might have to exorcise the website.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:43 PM June 14th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
The troll's BRAIN is a ghost...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:29 PM June 14th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
own up for the way we've treated women in the past and are still treating them...
The moral obtuseness of this boilerplate "grand theory of life" is just astonishing. What planet is this benighted individual living on? How is she so sure she understands all of human history, yet she's so blind to the reality of men's lives right here and now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AlMartin on 06:41 AM June 13th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
What I wouldn't do for a copy of the "Rate-a-guy" list. I would send an email to all the men that have been rated, and let them know that their alledged loved one (previous or otherwise) have listed their name, address, and date of birth on this site for all to see!
Woman:
"Hey, try this cut of beefcake, it's really good"!
Woman 2:
"Naw, I don't like that cut, and I read on the beefcake rating site that it looks good on the surface, but when you bite into it, it's a little tough...."
I mean, if there isn't a law against this, there should be!
I am more than a wallet and sperm donor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by quetzal on 04:13 PM June 13th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Ha ha! check this out..
I started an account for myself on manhaters.com.
Then I posted the following:
"I find it to be self-evident that when men cheat on their wives, they are being dirty rotten scoundrels; whereas women who cheat on their husbands are doing so because their needs are not being met. But this raises a question: if a woman who cheats on her husband, is seeing a man who himself is married, then apparently she has no quarrel with dating a dirty rotten scoundrel; furthermore, this implies that a dirty rotten scoundrel is meeting her needs.
"Does anyone know a way out of this conundrum?"
--"manliker"
--quetzal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:24 PM June 14th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
For manhaters, the answer is simple. The woman who is cheating on her husband deserves money and sympathy. The married man she sleeps with is a creep who deserves to be castrated. And he's not meeting her needs well enough, you can be sure. It all follows from the woman=good, male=bad man-hater fundamental principle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 06:05 PM June 13th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
They do not store the names of the people who post guys there in order to, are you ready for this, "protect their anonymity and prevent suits of libel". The site's owner mentions that they aren't out to ruin any guys life though, and because of that for $25 she will remove any info. there if the man requests it. She also instructs her readers on how to tell the "real listings" for the ones "guys put there themselves". If under sex it rates him as having a good performance, he wrote it about himself. If it says he's a deadbeat father of 2 illegitimate children it's a "real" listing.
Big sister is watching!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 01:02 AM June 15th, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Helped certainly. Unfortunately a woman, (or man I suppose), who sees his name on that database might decide to take revenge on him for whatever the woman who posted him there accused him of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:09 PM June 15th, 2005 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
...my head hurts...
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 09:59 PM June 16th, 2005 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
No, you misunderstood what I meant. I mean if some woman decided to put your name up there for whatever reason, and then some other woman or man who knows you saw it there, they might decide to punish you on that woman's behalf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
