|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:49 PM July 16th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I think a lot of people who post here, must be there, but the rest of us are with you in spirit and hope much good comes of this conference. We look forward to hear your insights and to see pictures of the conference.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been offline for the days of the Congress. Will also be out today and will post some pics tonight when I return home.
It was great! Wish you all could have been there. Scott was excellent. Great to see men from MANN and Biscuit Queen too! More to follow.
Tom
Join us July 15-16 in Wash. DC Glenn Sacks, Warren Farrell, Scott Garman, J Kamme
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:59 AM July 17th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Man, I wish I could get to some of these things!
If ever there may be one here in Indianapolis I PROMISE I will try to be there, guys.
Hey, Jenk was there?!? Now I really wish I was there, she owes me a hug! :-)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 07:43 PM July 17th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen and I both attended, she was down at her folks place in Fredricksburgh VA all week so it was a short hike for her... she made it up friday afternoon.
I worked until noon then slipped out, got down to DC in time for dinner.
It was a great time, and extremely cool to see many of the folks we've been talking to online for years now (the Toms, Beene, Dr. E)... as well as getting to talk with the likes of Farrel, Baskerville, Sax... guys who are getting things done in the real world. Lately both Jen and I have felt contantly annoyed by the wing-nuts that seem to be taking over some of the boards, to the point where all I want to do is flame the crap out of the morons. To get to sit down and discuss these issues with people who have intelligent, rational positions (many of the folks who've been posting less online)... it was like getting a recharge!
Sadly, we didn't come up with any silver bullets for dealing with the radicals who are making the entire movement look bad, but it was good to know that the folks who constitute some of the core of our work are as aware and frustrated by the problem as we are.
A BIG pat on the back to Dr. Evil for what could only have been an enormous amount of work getting this think set up... he did a bang up job.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 11:36 AM July 18th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Dave,
I've been out of touch with the boards lately, but I'm interested to know who you are referring to when you talk about "the radicals who are making the entire movement look bad". I regard myself as a radical MRA, but I would like to think that I have some 'intelligent, rational positions', and that I have contributed some useful analysis on this site. Most people in the mainstream media are not that aware of the men's movement. The only component with any kind of public profile (here in the UK at least) is F4J. F4J are pretty radical, but I wouldn't say they were giving anyone a bad name. We are up against a multi-million dollar international men-hating industry. I think a little radicalism is justified.
"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Louis D Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 11:59 AM July 18th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
AngryMan I think I was a bit vague there, as my signature indicates I don't think being radical is necessarily a bad thing... and there are guys who are definitely radical who I believe are of great value because they make the noise that gains awareness.
My problem is more with the people who spew hate ad nauseum and without focus or forethought. Stuff like "women should have their voting rights revoked". Now the auther stated this because he felt it was unfair that they don't have to register for the draft. That's a perfect soundbite that HAS BEEN used to make us all look like a bunch of women hating radicals. That author could just as easily have said "women need to register for the draft" and ticked off a number of valid points why... but NOOOO... he has to say something utterly stupid and invalidate our very rational position on the issue.
I understand the need for loud voices, and I wasn't really thinking of anyone on this board to be honest... but I bet in 5 minutes of checking some of the top boards associated with mens rights you'll find at least 3 or 4 threads with examples of what I'm talking about. I don't want to point fingers at any particular sites, especially because I think the site owners are working very hard to provide these forums, and I'm not going to suggest that somehow they're responsible for the problem.
I'm of the opinion that there may not be an answer to the problem... as long as our boards are open and uncensored, they're going to suffer the plague of 'the internet nut', but censoring isn't the answer either.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Rand T. on 02:44 AM July 19th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Stuff like "women should have their voting rights revoked". Now the auther stated this because he felt it was unfair that they don't have to register for the draft. That's a perfect soundbite that HAS BEEN used to make us all look like a bunch of women hating radicals.
I think you're giving the average person too much credit. I once saw on a different board (unrelated to men's rights) a person who stated that women should also be required to register for the draft. No mention of voting. In response, he was called a "mysogynist," asked "why do you hate women so much?", etc.
In today's gynocentric society, anyone that challenges the legitimacy of female privileges or even female supremacy is going to be perceived as a "mysogynist" by many people.
Also, name-calling is usually an indication of a person's inability to refute their opponent's arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 03:34 AM July 19th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Dave,
Thanks for your reply. I take your point about thinking before you speak, because you have to be seen to talk sense, and there are people out there just waiting to quote you out of context. Any slightly ill-thought out statements can be used against you to make you look unreasonable or ridiculous. You're quite right. The problem with people who make statements like that is not that they are radical, it's that they don't (or can't) use their brains. In fact I've often been offended by feminism for exactly this reason - the low quality of much of its discourse. Being angry just isn't enough, you need to understand what is making you angry and what (if anything) can and should be done about it.
The other problem, as you also rightly say, is that the boards are open to everyone, and it's difficult to censor them. If people have the knives out for you then they can and will misquote almost anything, and they can even 'plant' evidence on your board by trolling. So it is very difficult to protect yourself against that kind of bad publicity. I try to ignore the statements of the semi-literate on these boards and try to distill from them the best parts, to create a body of analysis, what some po-mo-fems like to call a 'masculinist discourse'. If most of us talk sense most of the time then hopefully we can set an example to the kind of people you are referring to, and the general public won't be able to write us off as a bunch of nuts.
In this sense I am with you - we should be intellectually moderate, but politically radical.
Best regards to you and Jen.
"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Louis D Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:17 PM July 19th, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Being politically correct is only useful when testifying before a legislative body. Other than that, MRA's are playing into the hands of the opposition's use of Marxism to censor free speech.
What MRA's really need to do is get a spine and doing some really radical stuff.
For example, Sunday there was a couple having a domestic dispute in a parking lot.
Well I 911'd the female and got the police to respond. It took about two minutes for them to get there. After the couple lied to the police the police chose to do nothing because there were no visible wounds on the male.
Obviously, if somebody had 911'd the male he'd be in jail.
The point is that we have to fight back creatively in a NON-PC way. Sooner or later they will arrest that bitch.
That is they only way to get attention.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:58 AM July 19th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
"In today's gynocentric society, anyone that challenges the legitimacy of female privileges or even female supremacy is going to be perceived as a "mysogynist" by many people."
Exactly.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 12:42 PM July 19th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
You may be right about giving the average person too much credit. Perhaps I'm a bit to optimistic about the motives of people but I'm the sort of person who gives people the benefit of the doubt... until they prove me wrong.
And as far as name calling goes... you're right about that, 95% of the time it's pure ad-hominim, but there's that last 5% that no doubt we've all experienced, it's when the person repeatedly says the dumbest things and ignores refutation. Persistantly repeating something stupid in the face of valid arguments doesn't make it less stupid, it just makes me question the author's cognitive ability.
Now while the other side engages in both these tactics with gusto, I think we need to try to adhere to a higher standard. Maybe in the long run it won't matter, but there are a lot of people out there who know nothing about us, and with the touch of a keyboard they can check out our sites. It's likely that their first going to hear about us from the other side, and when they come here to validate that we're a bunch of good-for-nothing child support dodging deadbeat dads... I really wish we could avoid proving it for them by having sites full of narrow minded hate.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:53 PM July 19th, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Hello to everyone-
I'm new to this board. I follow other MRA sites and post in some as well. I think this concern about the effect some angry posters may have on the movement is unwarranted. Frankly, I think most any post serves useful purposes unless the message is outright incoherent. In which case, that individual alone will look unstable. Look, expressed anger with intelligence serves a purpose. Communicating it well serves a purpose. More and more people, especially women (and especially those who have been on the sidelines of the gender war for the last 40 years)are taking notice and taking positions. It is appearing more and more like a gathering Perfect Storm in our favor. I think the anger in the ether may be drawing some women who have been on the sidelines all this time to our side. Look at the VAWA. Male MRAs are getting organized and even some women are speaking out against it. Politicians will one day have to worry more about an organized angry male backlash instead of a female backlash. The women cannot be made into a hysterical monolith anymore. The politicans are going to have to worry much more about a perceived group of very angry men in the future.
Institutionalized injustice against men will eventually find it's way to negatively affecting the lives of women. Some women are starting to understand this. And there sure is a hell of a lot for men to be angry about. Men are even being denied the right to their true nature, their masculinity. One (and only one) way this manifests itself is how PC allows men to communicate. "Let's not hurt any sensibilities now shall we?" I don't give a damn if anyone considers me a misogynist. Some people have motives to try and undermine anothers strong voice, some have been feminized, others just are too stupid to 'see'.
Men need to communicate more and more with a male voice. Part of that male voice is aggressiveness. Part of that male voice is demanding of respect. Part of that male voice is razor sharp logic. Part of that male voice is intimidating.
I think communicating this 'in your face' attitude towards feminism is good. I think expressing ones right to live free and to be treated with respect and fairness is especially good when one demands these things instead of asks for these things.
I believe the only people who would have a problem with expressed male anger are the feminists themselves and the chivalrous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by B_Riddick on 04:47 PM July 19th, 2005 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Very well said. I don't post much myself, and am relatively new, but I wanted to say that. You make a lot of good points.
I think it's also true that more people are waking up, as you said, and I believe a big part of this is the overconfidence and arrogance of feminists themselves. They're used to being largely unchallenged, and to the fact that most people believe their spin and lies which are stated as truth/common knowledge, but they get so blatant at times that people see through their games (and some more intelligent people also see through their more subtle ploys as well).
One example of where I think they tipped their hand to a lot of relatively normal people was with the Larry Summers brouhaha...they went so hysterical over something so simple and relatively inoffensive, that a lot of people saw them in a much less favorable light than usual, and saw the high level of silliness in their extreme reactions to some reasonable statements. They lost some people on that one, I bet.
So yeah, now would seem to be a good time for the kind of aggressive, logical discourse you were referring to, as feminists get more and more obvious in their injustices...there's more for people to point a finger at and say, "Look...that's just stupid."
Sorry if I rambled, mainly just wanted to let you know that I appreciate what you're saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:30 PM July 19th, 2005 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
"Hello to everyone-
I'm new to this board."
Welcome, and great to have your input.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 08:25 AM July 20th, 2005 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, we're not talking about worrying about "hurting sensibilities" and trying to silence anyone with a coherent thought. As I said earlier, it's about THINKING about what we're putting out there before we just spew it. There are a number of very angry MRA who nonetheless manage to make a lot of very valid points in their angry posts (Gonzo/Pete Jenson pops to mind as a good example)... these guys are important members of the community. The problem is there are a lot of MRA's or people who purport to be MRA's who spew garbage all over our boards, posts full of blind hate and nothing productive.
There was a good example not long ago of someone who professed to be a female MRA… she hung out on one of our boards, spewing endlessly and getting lots of attention from the guys. Someone dropping by our board who read her threads would think she was an idiot and a crazy woman hating radical, along with the flock of adoring fans who gushed over her every pronoun. So the months go by and she stops getting the attention she craves… guess where she is now… she’s over on a feminist board talking about how we’re all a bunch of lunatics (incidentally… she’d getting the attention she craves from them now, no doubt she’ll be back when her welcome wears out over there). So, we gave credence to a person for giving voice to all the negative sexist stereotypes about women… and the whole time she was playing all those ‘angry men’ and turning them into dupes in her drive for attention. Over the last year or two it’s gotten to the point that it's sometimes difficult to sort through the dross to get at the good stuff.
We shouldn’t shut off our sense of outrage and drive to change the status-quo; we SHOULD temper that with our intellect and understanding of the larger issues. We need allies, and many of our likeliest allies are under constant bombardment from narrow minded individuals on our own sites. How many mothers have looked to our boards after watching their adult male child chewed up by the system… only to be shocked and utterly revolted by the crap a few (it doesn’t take many… just a very vocal few) of the members are posting over and over again. I’m not talking about intelligent angry and forceful discourse; I’m talking about unadulterated hate and bigotry that matches the other side tit for tat. The problem here is that the other side is in power, they have momentum and enormous numbers. They get THOUSANDS or TENS of thousands to show up to their conferences… we got less than a hundred.
Second, it’s far easier to try to dismiss this problem as being unwarranted… I’d love to do it myself, because the problem has no easy solutions. The problem is that these hate filled individuals DO cause very real problems with how we are perceived from the outside. And if you think we can survive just ranting at ourselves and alienating everyone else... you're wrong. Just talking to guys on the ground doing REAL work for the movement in Washington last weekend I learned just how damaging the wing-nuts of our merry band can be. Part of the reason that we were told to stop communicating with the VAWA reauthorization board is because a bunch of idiots were doing their usual half-unintelligible ranting... but they were doing AT the policymakers. Now what do you think a politician is going to do when he reads some of these letters, you think he’s going to go “GEEZE, this writer has mastered the ability to write entire sentences using only swear words, I guess we’d better take him SERIOUSLY”. Every time one of those morons spews at a key person... it marginalizes and reduces the value of the work we're doing trying to effect change.
So... remember that this isn't about expressing male anger, it's not about protecting anyone's sensibilities or trying to be "kinder, gentler" MRA's. Ask anyone who knows me and you'll find out I'm a very confrontational guy, but I see the big picture and know darn well that we're not going to get far unless we can build a coalition of people from all walks of life, men and women, all colors and political persuasions.
Welcome to the board, register so we can put a name to the anonymous face!
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Denis on 08:58 AM July 20th, 2005 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe having hateful women going back to their 'feminists boards' is ever going to change. And it does'nt matter one damn bit if MRAs confront her or not, in that regard. It does'nt matter one damn bit if male MRAs return her hate with hate. These women have an agenda at the start and they will use any situation to try and rattle the converted. I know what you are talking about on Gonz's board. I post there myself. The feminut you are talking about is our useful idiot. She is helping us recruit men into the movement with her unadulterated hate. I am one of those who destroys her repulsive hate with logic. I'm not doing any of this to convert her. I'm doing this to expose her to men, and to women. Women are not drawn to her hate because she is a woman, unless she is talking to one of the converted. These same women are not by and large turned off by the angry men on this board. I believe that at this time, from my own observations, that female hatred is viewed much more negatively by women than the male hatred. Those women who are on our side, or are leaning towards our side, are not being pushed back by these hateful rantings going on between hate-filled women and men. It is all overshadowed by a much larger perceived population of rightly awakened and angry men. The hateful men are just scattered 'noise'.
Yea they get 1000s of attendees. We get less than 100. And your feedback opinions were thus less than 100 as regards the effect on the movement of the hate speech going on. I'm VERY active in this movement. Those that attended are to be applauded and commended. I salute them all. I write, I post, I send money, and I work daily at growing the movemment. Therefore, I've earned the right to have my two-cents added to the statistical mix of the other 100 or so. I think many many others could add to the statistical mix regarding their views on the relative importance of some nutcases going off..
Yea, we get less than 100 attendees and they get 1000s. They've only been working on their agenda for a mere 40+ years with absolutely no countervailing postions getting expressed much less getting time, in the media, in the government, or anywhere else.
I understand what you are saying. But my view of how serious a problem this is, is different than yours.
Denis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Denis on 09:00 AM July 20th, 2005 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
B_Riddick,
thanks for the feedback and kind words.
Denis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Denis on 09:00 AM July 20th, 2005 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray,
thank you for the 'welcome'. Good to be with brothers.
Denis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with Dave on this one.
The feminists spiraled downward as they turned a deaf ear to the hateful radical element and let them not only spew their crap but lead the rest of them. Rather than set limits on their hatred and openly disagree with the man-hating agenda the moderate elements went mute and the result has been that the agenda and the most vocal spokesmen of their group are those who openly hate men. We cannot afford to let the same sort of thing happen to us. When people voice hatred they need to be confronted by a throng of a chorus letting them know that our views are right but that we do not need to spew hatred in order to make our views known and work towards change.
If we choose to stay silent and allow hate we are cutting off our own foot just like the fems. You better believe that the culture at large will be much more forgiving to the women voicing hatred than to the men. It will turn a blind eye to the women due to their preferred/victim status and will be intolerant and judging of men voicing the same sort of message but reversed. You will be vilified and she will be accepted just like so many other areas we have seen.
Join us July 15-16 in Wash. DC Glenn Sacks, Warren Farrell, Scott Garman, J Kamme
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Denis on 09:54 AM July 20th, 2005 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
B_Riddick-
I wanted to add a few thoughts. Feminists have become like Jihadists. Any challenge or perceived challenge, such as with Lawrence Summers is reacted to with extreme behavior and rhetoric. Summers was only making suggestions for topics of discussion. He was not even stating positions.
In this regard, Feminism is DEFINED as extremist, intolerant, and hateful. It is not simply statistical 'noise' from some hateful voices as in the men's movement. It IS their movement, their idealogy.
The hate from Feminism is having a greater impact on women, than any of the noise from some men in the men's movement.
Denis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Denis on 11:10 AM July 20th, 2005 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists have become like Jihadists. Any challenge or perceived challenge is met with extremist rhetoric, personal attacks, and hatred.
They have become the idealogy of hate.
That is what 40+ years of feminism, with virtually no countervailing opinions being expressed, or being covered by the media and government has resulted in. Any movement, no matter how well intentioned, if left unrestrained for that long will become extremist.
If that is the discussion, then we are in agreement.
In it's early years, ranting and stirring up hysteria was a tool by the feminists to recruit women, and to passivate men. It worked remarkably well.
Interestingly, that tactic, after all these many years, now works in an opposite way. It is turning women away.
Somewhere between year 1 and year 40 of the women's movement, the tactic should have been changed. My guess is that the emoting affect on women to hysterical angry feminist voices lost it's impact with women in the later stages, not the early stages. In order words, the tactic was productive for a while and then became unproductive.
Women default to an emotive form of communication. Men do not. Men default to a more logical form of reasoning. Just as all women do not follow the one pattern, men do not all follow the other pattern. Men and women are different. I'm talking about majorities in both cases.
I just don't see the men's movement morphing into the same emotive hate movement that feminism has.
I believe women are responding to the men's movement. I think they hear the reasoned voices, the angry voices, and the occasional hateful voices. When looking at the big picture I do not see an impact, or at the least, the same impact that some here perceive. Getting women past their default emotive responses has always been the challenge for men. That is one of the reasons that politicians have lived in fear of a female backlash for decades. It's also why they give women everything they want. It's why the VAWA goes without alternate voices in front of the pols. For politicians, appearances are everything. Who controls appearances most? The media. This is only one example of many in 40+ years. It is also why some of you are concerned about how we are perceived by women. That default emotive reaction is a powerful political force isn't it? But it works differently for
women-women then for women-men.
I'm not suggesting that any extremist and hateful rhetoric by men not be responded to. I'm saying that I don't see it as a problem now, nor do I see it becoming a serious one in the future.
Should I be wrong, and I see that the men's movement is heading in a direction where the few hateful men have managed to affect the thinking of all or most men, then I will be out fighting them.
I believe the men's movement should be perceived as being made up of men who are fed up. The men should be perceived as being of sound mind but somewhat intimidating. There needs to be a 'threatening' factor to the oppostion and especially perceived by the power centers such as the pols.
That is how battles are won.
Denis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 12:16 PM July 20th, 2005 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
I commend you on your optimistic attitude regarding the non-impact of hateful rhetoric... but while I'm not a pessimest, I have seen that there IS negative impact.
If we strike out on our attempt to change VAWA verbage this year, there is no doubt that one of the contributing factors will have been the hateful rhetoric voiced by members of our movement. This is a very real, concrete result of bigots giving voice to their hate while associated with us. When a Washington Lobbiest tells the group he's trying to support to shut the hell up because we're shooting ourselves in the foot... it's a real problem.
I just can't continue to hope this isn't a problem in the face of such evidence that it most definitely IS.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Denis on 02:07 PM July 20th, 2005 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
I'd be interested in hearing all of the details on this that you can provide.
When I look at all the quality columns being written on MensNewsDaily, Glenn Sacks, and others, and I see the organizing that is getting positive coverage such as F4J, I find it dificult to believe that any lobbiest is worth much if he is saying that the hateful postings of a few negates all of these, and that he /she can't do their job. Seriously, look at MND for one. The front page and archives are loaded with quality columns. ditto Glenn Sacks. ditto AngryHarry. We're not talking hateful rantings here but thoughtful reasoning. Even when looking at the blogs, the hateful posts are a small percentage of the total. I just cannot believe that a small percentage of the voices de-legitimizes the whole message. It is easy to point to all the hate from women's groups.
Sounds more like a lousy 'Lobbiest' who just can't get the message out. Who is he/she?
Denis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 02:53 PM July 21st, 2005 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
This is our key lobbiest on VAWA... a great guy who's worked his ass off trying to get the ball rolling that will result in a gender inclusive VAHA (Violence against HUMANS Act).
I can get you more details when I get home and look through my notes... I attended a VAWA breakout session he hosted last weekend. He's a hard charging guy who doesn't sugarcoat what's happening. He was pretty blunt about some of the feedback he's gotten from the VAWA players, it wasn't good... and these were guys who were basically sympathetic to our cause.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Denis on 05:22 PM July 21st, 2005 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
thanks Dave. when it's convenient for you to post I look forward to hearing more.
Denis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:37 PM July 18th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings AngryMan,
I met Dave K and Jen at the conference this weekend, and in fact, I gave a breakout session on the subject of radical MRAs. I gave a list of topics that do more harm than good for the political agenda of MRAs. A lot of people consider me a radical because of my book, but I think of myself as a moderate. I don't think we should confuse the term "radical MRA" with "passionate MRA" or "very dedicated MRA". Perhaps the word "extremist" is more appropriate. How does one tell if one is an extemist? If you promote any of the following ideas, well, you just might be an MRA extremist:
1) You call for an end of women's voting rights since women aren't subject to draft registration (as Dave just mentioned), when really our position is simply to require women to also be subject to registration and conscription.
2) You advance the concept of male intellectual supremacy. It's just as wrong to prejudge anyone's intelligence by their gender as by their race - and it's just as ugly.
3) You glorify violence or suicides committed by opponents of feminism and distraught fathers. I would prefer not to have such men looked upon as heroes or martyrs for the cause of men's rights. We should make it clear that our goals are better achieved with lawsuits than guns, and by men who are still alive.
4) You call for an end to all separate women's sporting events, such as marathons and Olympic competitions. What we want is to keep women off men's sports teams, not to prevent women from participating in sports in general. I see this as retaliatory thinking - yes, feminists are out to disrupt male sports by the forced participation of women on men's teams, but that doesn't mean we have to suggest unrealistic remedies that make us look out-of-touch with reality.
5) State that a woman's only purpose in life is to have babies, and that we need to go back to the good old days when women obeyed men. Be sure to quote the Bible to back you up on this. Uh, I thought we wanted equal partnerships with women, but that women have become so privileged that they no longer understand the concept of equality. And religion is not part of the MRA agenda. At least I hope not.
There are others, but that should suffice for now. What we need is to find a way to work together on common goals using a common strategy. At some point, men need to get beyond the anger and into constructive activism.
BTW, thanks for the quote. It's sounds like something I've said, but I can't find it in my book. Was it from a post?
Cheers,
TLE aka rantmeister (SYG) aka Thomas Ellis, author of The Rantings of a Single Male
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 07:07 PM July 18th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I would add :
State that "Stay at Home" Moms are parasites or prostitutes when it's well documented that having a stay at home parent is by far the best configuration for child rearing.
Don't attack women because they have choices, attack women (and men) who try to deny US choices. Guess what category the 'stay at home mom attacker' falls into?
Tom did a great job with his breakout, although we could've used an extra hour (I talked to Dr. E about perhaps longer breakouts next year), it's a thorny problem.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 07:10 PM July 18th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"Be sure to quote the Bible to back you up on this. "
We had a good example of this in our breakout... there's NOTHING, and I mean N.O.T.H.I.N.G. worse than someone who has negative radical attitudes and has rationalized how God agrees with him/her.
Just take a look at Islam for ample proof of that.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 04:21 AM July 19th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings TLE,
First of all let me congratulate you on your book. Yes the quote was taken from there - towards the end - can't remember which page - one of many quotable lines in there. I'll be giving it to some male friends as a gift this year.
I liked your extremism checklist. That's very useful. I was relieved to find that I don't subscribe to any of them, and as I've said many times here before, I'm a devout atheist. I agree that it is important that religion must not be part of the MRA agenda, and we must not be seen as a religious movement.
Call me an idealist, but I want to see a world in which men and women live together, value and respect each other and enjoy healthy relationships. I see feminism as something which is deliberately undermining male-female relations, actively promoting an atmosphere of mutual fear and distrust. This is one reason it must be opposed. I think the kind of exteremists that you and Dave are referring to have fallen into the same trap.
I'm going to try hard to attend next year's event. Hope to meet up with you all then.
"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Louis D Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:05 PM July 18th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"Be sure to quote the Bible to back you up on this. "
"We had a good example of this in our breakout... there's NOTHING, and I mean N.O.T.H.I.N.G. worse than someone who has negative radical attitudes and has rationalized how God agrees with him/her."
I have to point out at this point, that a wife's submission to her husband is often brought up at domestic violence industry, anti-male, flame sessions as a way to bash Christian men. The most often mis-quoted verse is Ephesians 5:22.
How a Husband Should Handle His Wife's Submission
"...after the verse “Wives, submit to your own husbands” (Ephesians 5:22), the Bible says “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (verse 25). Christ doesn’t neglect, ignore, demean or abuse the church. He doesn’t treat her rudely or disrespectfully. He never acts arrogantly or insensitively toward her. Nor does He criticize her and make her feel she is not valuable. Rather He loves her, protects her, provides for her, and cares for her. So while God gives the husband a position of leadership in relationship to his wife, He also requires the price of self-sacrifice from him."
"Stormie Omartian is a best-selling author with more than 1 million copies sold. She and her husband, Michael, have been married for more than 28 years and have three grown children, Christopher, Amanda and John David.
Taken from The Power of a Praying Husband, copyright (c) 2001 by Stormie Omartian. Permission given by Harvest House Publishing."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 09:31 PM July 18th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
People who misquote or misinterpret the bible in order to denigrate Christians are no better than those who do or justify evil in Gods name.
I've read a number discussions of this passage that provide decent interpretations of what Paul was trying to communicate to the Ephesians with this letter... and to reference such historical text without contextual information (in this case usually to attempt to discredit Christianity) is a good indicator that the author is engaging in anti-Christian activism.
Having said that... I don't accept that it's OK for Christians to act radically just because our opponents do.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 12:31 PM July 19th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
You definitely should, it was a great time... and it's nice to now be able to put some faces to the names.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:14 PM July 19th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
AngryMan,
Amen! (couldn't resist that one) I agree on all counts.
I was scanning the latest pdf version of The Rantings for the quote, but couldn't find it. I started wondering if it got cut accidentally from the new file. Then I looked over the interview I did with Darren Blacksmith from www.cooltools4men.com and found it there. Mystery solved!
TLE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:42 PM July 18th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"I regard myself as a radical MRA, but I would like to think that I have some 'intelligent, rational positions', and that I have contributed some useful analysis on this site." "I think a little radicalism is justified."
Hmmm? I guess maybe I've sarcastically criticized our government sometimes, but I consider myself more professional than those who have turned out all those really horrible laws hurting this country's men and Fathers.
Our Government is Looking Out For Men's Rights Click "View Larger"
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 04:05 AM July 19th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray,
I know that you and I don't agree on everything politically, but I have a lot of respect for your MRA work.
"I guess maybe I've sarcastically criticized our government sometimes" In a democracy, it's our duty to criticise the government. The government is our servant, we are not theirs. People have this idea that criticising the government is somehow disloyal. It isn't.
"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Louis D Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:25 AM July 20th, 2005 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"In a democracy, it's our duty to criticise the government."
Well we certainly agree on that, but the feminists don't share our opinion. I'm a firm believer in everyone's free speech rights, even if I'm in disagreement with those voicing opposing opinions. Of course the fems want those with opposing opinions shut down. I have come to believe that free speech is one of the main things that has made our country great (as flawed as it is). If we lose that...
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 04:30 AM July 20th, 2005 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
"I have come to believe that free speech is one of the main things that has made our country great"
Definitely. One of the odd things about feminism is that they just don't expect anyone to argue with them. Everything a woman says is automatically correct simply because a woman has said it. David Thomas in his book "Not Guilty: The Case in Defense of Men" speculates that it might be down to the role of the mother within the family. She runs the household, has authority over her children, and doesn't expect any backtalk from them. Parents enjoy almost absolute authority, so the family is a kind of tyranny, though hopefully a benevolent one.
When women come out into the workplace or academia, they maintain these same expectations. Tom Ellis also touched on this idea in his book. He said that 'women expect to carry their relationship perks over to the workplace'. So women go to college, start to discuss political theory, base it on the principle 'Whatever I feel must be right' and don't expect anyone to argue with them, and what we end up with is a good recipe for totalitarianism.
The trouble is a lot of men play their side of the same game. When they meet women in public life, they also think using the conventions of private life. A lot of the time, men just don't question women the way they question each other. 'I'll just indulge her because she's so cute. I don't want to hurt her little feelings. With any luck maybe I'll get laid tomorrow'. If we keep doing that we'll be indulging them all the way to the welfare queue or the prison camp.
If women really want equality in public life they are going to have to get used to being questioned, and to stop using sexuality as an instrument of social control. They are not going to do this voluntarily. Men are going to have to insist on it.
"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Louis D Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:21 PM July 20th, 2005 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
"Men are going to have to insist on it." Yes, but unfortunately men feel instinctively compelled to ingratiate themselves with females in an attempt to gain alpha male status.
Women instinctively herd with other women. Men only herd to do battle with other herds of men. It is alien to men to herd together with a view to improving their societal position vis a vis women. Consequently the outlook for the mens movement is bleak, but hopefully I am wrong.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:15 PM July 20th, 2005 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
"Women instinctively herd with other women. Men only herd to do battle with other herds of men. It is alien to men to herd together with a view to improving their societal position vis a vis women. Consequently the outlook for the mens movement is bleak, but hopefully I am wrong."
...and feminist have greatly exploited that weakness to the great detriment of all men. A new paradigm is definitely in order and no better place to start than ending all acts of chivalry toward women. When any woman is offended, ignore her and be proud and confident you have done a right and good thing. IMHO, there's no better way to put a big dent in chivalry, than to require female registration for the draft, and to end all combat exemptions for females.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:00 PM July 27th, 2005 EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
There is a reason that women are exempt from combat status, and it has nothing to do with chivalry. Admitedly, in the modern battlefield, this reason isn't as prominant, but it still exists.
See, many women have gone thru the advanced combat training regimens in different branches of the military (similar to the movie G.I. Jane). Several have done extremely well; few have not been within the top half of the class or even bettter. Unlike the results in the movie, the truth is not a single female has completed any of these courses. Every single one has dropped out, a few to injury, but all of the rest due to a single reason: Vaginal Infection. Simply put, women can't keep that area of their bodies adiquately clean when they are in 'field enviroments' lasting weeks or months.
Now, when you are in extended peacekeeping mode, like the current situation in Iraq, this problem is virtually eliminted. However, during the invasion it would of been a serious problem, and hence why women are barred from general combat roles. It would be harmful to unit cohesion to have women added and/or removed from the unit due to the type of enviroment they are operating in. However, I agree that there are several other roles they can fill within the military, and should no longer be exempt from draft status.
For the record, I have both a son and a daughter.
--Demonspawn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 06:21 PM July 19th, 2005 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
I though it was great. Some great talks and I might some good people. Keep up the good work guys!!
Raymond Cuttill
Men's Hour Blog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 02:47 PM July 21st, 2005 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
It was great meeting you Raymond!
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:38 AM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I didn't make it, but maybe next year.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 08:05 AM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
There was another Ray there. Just like the 4 Thomas'! Hard to keep track when you meet 60-70 people in one weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 11:39 AM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
Set the time aside now... otherwise things will come up. Hell... things ALWAYS come up. I would've skipped this year myself if Jen hadn't signed us up, and all that stuff I should've been doing, we'll it got done a few days later.
Raymon Cuttill is the host of "the Men Hour" over in Britain... I've listened on and off to his show for quite a while now. I think he and Beene had the longest commute's. I don't know for sure but I'd guess that Alaska might be a bit farther than England.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 03:46 PM July 19th, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
The congress ROCKED!
We had a great time, it was well organized, full of dynamic and fantastic speakers, and I loved getting to meet you guys. Scott explained the whole wiki thing, it is really a great tool.
Thundercloud, I missed you there, I was really hoping you would make it. You and Gonzo. I owed you a hug and Gonzo a picture of his namesake.
I also bought Rantings (and had it signed), and am half way through it. I am officially blaming the author for not getting enough sleep! What a fascinating book. Not easy to read as a woman, but certainly worth it.
If any of you are in central NY/PA could you please contact me? We would like to get together with others in our area, in person is so much better than online.
TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 03:18 PM July 22nd, 2005 EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
There was another Ray there. Just like the 4 Thomas'! Hard to keep track when you meet 60-70 people in one weekend
I have been much impressed with the people that made the effort and/or could afford to go to this 2nd Men's Rights Congress. They appear to be really the top quality people in society any cause or organization would want in their ranks.
There seems to be a great dearth of "wingnuts" (though there are some) in the Men's Movement as compared to the present day Women's Movement.
This is good!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:35 AM July 18th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
RUSSIAN MEN.
Since yesterday i have been going through the net searching for reasons of men's mortality rates being so high when i came through the death rate of russian men.
RUSSIAN MEN ON AN AVERAGE LIVE UPTO ONLY 57 YEARS WHEREAS THE WOMEN LIVE UPTO 71 YEARS.
A GLARING DEFICIT OF 14 YEARS.
What a tragedy ! But go on the net and you will fnd more articles of russian women's supposed oppression and wage gap.
It is at times like this that one feels it is better if those bitches of the world are shot in their heads .
Also, experts do not seem concerned to entirely help the men.
According to them women are also losing out.
What are they exactly losing on health ?
Isnt this just way too ridiculous ?
Instead of acknowledging this a problem much more acute in men , the 'experts' term is as problem for both sexes.
Russian president, in a speech while acknowleding this problem starts this way, " Russian women lag behind european women by 10 years and russian men lag by 16 years".
A
Yes, inspite of men being so much worse off, he mentions women first.
And no mention of the glaring disparity between men and women where men are so worse off.
And yes, 'experts' also have this to say, women have to face the same harsh conditions as men there so maybe women are resistant to stress.
There is no basis for this finding of theirs.
What load of crap ! and this from suppossed 'experts'.
I wish people to get angry. Angry at this gross injustice. Just look at the attitude of these bastards . No, men are expected to live shorter.
THAT IS PERFECTLY ALRIGHT. MEN ARE DISPOSABLE.
As men don't you feel sick in the stomach ?
Russian men ought to helped and we as men ought to help them. Even if we feel helpless, there is always a way.
Otherwise such a great injustice will go on and on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:52 AM July 18th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
A clear indication that Western men are in trouble the world over. Russian men have a 14-year life expectancy gap vis a vis Russian women. That's approx. the gap between American white women and black men. And it's a big point that even the RUSSIAN president is too intimidated by women's groups to speak on an obvious fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:39 AM July 18th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
The same is true for American Indian men, as well. Especialy for Indian men living on reservations. Many Native guys are lucky if to make it to the age of 56, or so.
(I am half Caucaisian, and stand a better chance at a longer life than my full-blood brethren.)
Needless to say that if it were women dying at such an early age so disproportionatly there would be a GIGANTIC outcry from the U.N. and women's groups, just to name a few. But because it is MEN dying in this way..., well..., who cares? All the better.
AND I believe it is by design.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:12 PM July 18th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
As I recall, 14 years is the difference in life expectancy between white women and black men. Let's get real. As a good friend of mine told me once,
Death is The Greatest Indicator of Oppression Click "View Larger" Also see back
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
The second and final day of the