|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:07 PM July 25th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This is an important subject which I don't recall being discussed on MANN before. That is, the establishment in democracies of "self regulating" unelected, extrajudicial, extraparliamentary entities with widespread power to advance feminist policies. They are sometimes known as "bureaux", "boards", "authorities", "councils" etc.
Usually they are involved in "advertising standards" or "employment equality" or sometimes have a broader scope in the field of "equality".
They remind me of the Mullahs in Iran.
All these bodies will have feminists strategically placed in them to ensure they stay on the "right" path ie the feminazi path.
They exert an enormous influence on our everyday lives.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:46 PM July 25th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent insight, Hotspur. In many cases, these various "regulatory bodies" and "advisory councils" are a product of recent times and a supposed greater need for consensus - feminist style consensus, anyway.
Not suggesting a conspiracy, by any means - but "regulatory bodies" and the kind of controlling "community building" they espouse is of a piece with the Feminist POV, in my mind. A sort of "tyranny by enforced consensus", where they can claim everyone agrees, because no one dares do otherwise for fear of being "oppressive".
Every such mechanism has its weakness - how can we turn the Feminist "Advisory councils" against them? Not by frontal assault, certainly - that will just provide the various regulatory boards with excuses for more regulation. But there are weaknesses waiting to be exploited, nonetheless...
Tom P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:12 PM July 25th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
What are the types of weaknesses that do exist in the womens rights jurisprudence system?
Each system can be attacked from one of three angles, or combinations of these:
1. Idealogical
2. Political
3. Physical
1. With Idealogical the plan of attack is to convince those within the system you are attacking of the errors of their system and policies.
2. Political attacks involve using whatever public power your counter-group has to defeat your adversary. Voting to change the system, lobbying, bribery, or blackmail.
3. Physical attacks use force to permanently remove your opponents. This area includes deportation and murder.
An example of an idealogical attack is the womens rights movement against men in the west. It was successful and we are paying dearly for it.
Another example of an idealogical attack in the Indian independence movement.
Idealogical attacks are successful when the adversary is not fully committed to resisting and defeating it's enemy.
An example of 1 and 3 combined is the Red Factions of the cold war. The adversary to the west (Russia and it's allies) used idealogical attacks to motivate citizens of the west to use physical attacks to bring about a communist regime change.
Another example is the recent London bombings where idealogical attacks were used to convince specific muslim londoners to blow up random people. With these two cases idealogical attacks were not used to convince the masses but to convince small groups of people, then this attack, being successful, was given the physical payload.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:20 PM July 25th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Physical attacks may be the only means possible for men to remove the rights of women.
Women are committed to remaining in their position of power. Feminists are committed to expanding women's power. There is no disagreement between feminists that power is something they wish to keep. There are few women who would allow their power of the vote and govermental position to be removed. Idealogical attacks will not likely yeild results.
Men are not commited to removing women from power, many men support even the most male hating feminism. Even if men were committed to removing women from power women will not vote against their own intrests and women are the majority. Political attacks will likely fail aswell.
Physical attacks, the attack of the minority viewpoint, if massive and widespread, could physically destroy feminists themselves. If the physical attackers were adament enough and attacked only women feminists women could eventually lose all power. The attacks would have to be substantial or else they too would fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:40 PM July 25th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
To my mind, you are talking of terrorism. Even in the unlikely event that I agreed with you, I'd not be foolish enough to say so on a public forum, simply because I know it would be playing directly into the hands of those who oppose equal rights for men.
Either you have not considered that aspect of the situation, or you don't care (which, IMO, makes you dangerous to men's equal rights), or you are a provocateur. Which is it?
Tom P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:28 PM July 25th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't care about that part of the situation. Women's rights activists are allready out enemy, why care if they become "more" of our enemy?
I am not pro equal rights. I am pro male supremacy. Why any man would be against male supremacy I do not know. We allready have equal rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Rand T. on 12:51 AM July 26th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I think we have a feminist troll here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:57 AM July 26th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I was thinking.
Just on the outside chance this guy (gal?) is sirious, I think I speak for alot of us, here when I say; we don't particulairly dig "supreamists" of any kind. Be they female OR male.
Supreamisist are people I have fought against ALL my life. All that supreamasists are for is destroying others for their own benifit. to oppress and supress other groups. I don't care if it's White supreamisists Black, Asian, Hispanic or even Indian supreamists. Gay, straight male, female. Supeamisists are all the same. Opress, supress, de-humanize and even murder those that they feel superior too.
That's not America to me. We don't need supreamisists here, or anywhere.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:37 PM July 26th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
As long as women have the vote men will be under her heel. If that is what you want then you got it. Enjoy your shitty world that you uphold. Fucknuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:49 PM July 26th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Troll, troll, go away; come again no other day.
Boy Genteel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:10 AM July 27th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
As long as there are examples of "men's rights activists" like the 'Troll', feminists will always have the amunition to "prove" their "point" about the "oppressive patriarchy". Thus using this "evidence", to get more legislation and laws passed that are detimental to men as a whole.
My dear Troll. You are the minority of so called "men's rights activists". But the feminists will use you and your comments to say that you represent the MAJORITY of men's rights activists. You do more harm to the 'cause' than good, with the attitude that you have.
We (MRAs) do not wish to be oppressed any more than we want to oppress others. I hope you will re-consider your position.
The men's rights movment has nothing to do with taking justifiable rights away from women. It DOES have to do with stripping away the SPECIAL rights and PRIVLAGES that women have OVER men.
As long as women (or any group of people for that matter) have special rights and privlages over others there is NO WAY that there can be actual equality. When BOTH men AND women have the exact SAME rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES then there will be ACTUAL equality. And not untill then, piriod. I do not know why you can't see that.
If you are about oppressing and subjegating women then you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. You need to join a supremisist group. MRA's are NOT supreamasists. We do NOT seek superiority over women the way most feminists seek supreamacy over men. There ARE men who seek supreamacy over women, (And they are no better than the feminists) but that is not what WE are about. So go bug those guys, not us.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bigbadwolf3210 on 11:47 PM July 30th, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
this is obviously bull sh*t so why is this person allowed to remain? supremecy? give me a break.
the ever rabid
bigbadwolf3210
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tirryb on 01:04 AM July 26th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
> Each system can be attacked from one of three angles, or combinations of these:
> 1. Idealogical
> 2. Political
> 3. Physical
I personally think that there is a forth option - and in this case pretty much the only option that will work. Fiscal attack.
As many of us probably know, idealogical attacks are unlikely to work - we can't convince bodies such as this that our cause is just, to them we're lesser people with lesser rights. Politically we're unlikely to get that kind of power any time soon, and physical attacks would be counter-productive as well as morally wrong.
But hit them in the hip pocket, and people take notice.
If a few hundred thousand men returned this soup to the manufacture demanding a refund, and/or wrote stating they refused to purchase more of their products until the ad was pulled and an apology made, I'm pretty sure the soup company would quickly relent (though the ASA would probably still not pay attention).
As sad as it is to state about today's society, money gets people's attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:04 PM July 25th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Another good example of how feminists have been able to circumvent democratic processes is by establishing in every state a Bureau or Dept. of Domestic Violence --- usually within the office of each State's Attorney.
These DV entities are basically in control of how VAWA funding gets awarded through feminist-friendly grants and other feminist-pork rackets.
They also largely make the guidelines for how police, judges, and DV "treatment" services will be forced to operate within a solely feminist / Duluth DV model. They also ensure that no alternative voices or approaches to DV can emerge to threaten the dominant DV Industry.
None of the bureaucrats staffing these DV agencies are elected directly by the citizenry, they are appointed and/or hired as public employees of the state.
So, a huge amount of power to determine policy and the money flow is for all practical purposes outside the public's scrutiny.
It is any wonder that the coordinators of the recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on VAWA's reauthorization did everything possible to run a stealth program under the public's radar, while also ignoring the many thousands of messages via faxes, e-mail, letters, and phone calls appealing for a fairer, more balanced range of perspectives in the invited testimony?
Interesting how a movement that loudly proclaims its fundamental commitment to "equality" has become an exemplary Stalinist model of coercion and propaganda.
We are dangerously close to a Dictatorship of the Gynocracy....
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Acksiom on 07:27 PM July 27th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Shoo, troll. Shoo.
Icky old troll. Yuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bigbadwolf3210 on 09:23 PM July 30th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
LOL... well only if they kick you in the nuts ... then it's alright in my book. go ahead! i'll give you an alibi ... i'll say we were at the topless bar being obnoxious and taking advantage of poor women working there.
until then it's a chess match and were loosing.
an ever rabid
bigbadwolf3210
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:41 AM July 26th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not too surprised by this.
This IS the country where they had a billboard up a couple of years ago that depicted a woman walking two naked men on leashes like dogs.
Considering that Australia is a pretty decent country with pretty decent and good people, I do not understand why the men there just sit by and allow these sort of things. I don't think Australia has quite the Wussie-poopie ratio that we have in the U.S. So I don't understand it at all.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bigbadwolf3210 on 06:16 PM July 31st, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
pssst... thundercloud... whats "Wussie-poopie ratio" mean? is that spineless sissies verses men with properly working spines?
;o)
the rabid
bigbadwolf3210
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Rand T. on 12:36 AM July 26th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"Get a sense of humor" is just a euphemism for "adopt feminazi values, where males and their genitals exist for others' sadistic pleasures and their pain and suffering count for nothing as they are not actual human beings like females."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 03:01 AM July 26th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
There is no doubt that this commercial reinforces sexist stereotypes which benefit women. The only male character in the scene is a criminal, and he terrorises a female victim, not a male one.
The police officer makes no attempt to challenge or arrest him. Instead she is seen kicking him in the groin; by attacking his male genitalia, she is symbolically attacking his manhood itself. She seems to be attacking him because he is a man rather than apprehending an offender in a professional manner.
The fact that a woman is doing this makes it a symbolic battle of the sexes, in which women emerge victorous.
The fact that the woman is a police officer lends her an additional air of legitimacy. She has the law and morality on her side; he does not. Indeed, by kicking him in the groin she is defending the public interest. The viewer is expected to be amused and to applaud.
I accept that there is a slapstick quality to the scene, but this consideration would not be decisive if the sexes were reversed. If a male police officer was seen punching a female thief in the breasts to the sound of breaking glass, I don't think feminists would see the funny side. Double standards again.
"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Louis D Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice, 1913
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:09 AM July 26th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
If you've a copy of the advertisement I believe the most effective solution would be to redo the advertisement frame by frame but replace the man with a woman.
If it is indeed just 'humor' then there should be exactly the same reaction by people to the woman being abused as the man. If there is an outcry then it is proof positive of the huge double standard against men.
I'd be willing to participate in further discussions on this but I am not sure how doable this would be, perhaps using cartoons instead or computer graphics so it wouldbe an exact frame by frame version would be enough to show the hypocracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by canaryguy
(nospam.canaryguy@nospam.stealthfool.com)
on 10:25 PM July 26th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
If you've a copy of the advertisement I believe the most effective solution would be to redo the advertisement frame by frame but replace the man with a woman.
Easiest solution -- reshoot! Recruit friends, buy beer reshoot it word for word.
Who cares if it isn't a mirror image of the original? Get it close enough and you're set!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 08:00 AM July 26th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
The only way to change anything is to get out there and make a noise. It's no use trying to show that these people are hypocrites - they already know that and they don't care! You have to expand the matter to include something that is indefensible, then you have to publicly accuse them of it in order to wrongfoot them and force them to change.
In this instance you would need to link the advert to the subject of domestic violence against men. You would have to organise protests and marches proclaiming that the advert encourages the belief that violence against men by women is acceptable or funny. You would have to enlist genuine male victims of domestic violence to help put your message accross - the more extreme the violence they have suffered, the better. There are men out there who have had boiling fat poured over them by some woman who thought it was somehow OK to do that. You need that guy with his shirt off and his permanently ruined skin on display shoved into people's faces any way you can, and you need to link his horrific injuries to the advert in the manner I have described: that the advert legitimises female violence against men.
You don't need to have tens of thousands of people, but you do need enough to make a crowd. You need enough to get some publicity. As long as you're just writing letters and sending emails you can be comfortably ignored and the status quo can continue uninterrupted. Direct physical action is by far the best way of getting anything done. A letter or email can be dismissed, somebody getting in your face can't; you are forced to engage with them. This is why Fathers 4 Justice did more in a couple of years to publicise the inequalities fathers suffer after divorce than organisations which mooched along unseen for decades.
The greatest power our enemies have is that they are public and we are not. By default, this means they define every issue and set the parameters for every debate - I've even read postings to this site where people fret over the 'genfems' and the 'radfems' (meaningless distinctions invented by other feminists!) will quote this or that remark. It reminds me of an article written by Robert Sides, in which he talked about how all feminists had to do was say "Boo!" and all the MRAs would go running for cover. No wonder they think men are idiots. Men act like idiots and cowards all the time, never defending themselves, never speaking out, just letting it all go on and get worse. Sigh. But action is the only thing that'll change anything at all, ever. Take what they've done, associate it with something appalling, and accuse them of legitimising that appalling thing with what they've done. Keep at it mercilessly until they are forced to back down, then use that as leverage for an expansion of your position - don't allow their part in the drama to define the limits of your action. Who's going to talk about having a sense of humour when confronted by a kid whose dad was murdered by his mother? Escalate, wrongfoot, demonise. Come on, use your imaginations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bigbadwolf3210 on 09:18 PM July 30th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
i really think another commercal would be great... showing the robber getting up and knockin the woman on the ground and when she tries to get up and is on all fours get behind her and kick her with great intensity in her pubic area with the sounds of glass breaking and a laugh track going.... we can all just laugh... but it aint really funny is it? pardon the run on sentence, there!
and be carefull ya'll! someone's gonna say you worship your penis if you keep this belly aching up!
the ever rabid
bigbadwolf3210
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "A commerical for Country Cup Soup in Australia depicts a police officer head-butting a man and then kicking him in as hard as she can in the groin. Once again complaints about violence against men in advertising are dismissed. In fact the kick to the groin is considered "humourous". I was disgusted when I saw this commerical here in Australia and now outraged that the complaints against it are just dismissed as "get a sense of humour".
See