|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:55 AM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
"What do y’all think?"
I think it's an excellent piece of writing. A fundamental tenet of feminists is that the shedding of gender burdens will NOT affect their traditional gender privileges. Indeed, women have managed to retain those privileges and believe they will retain them indefinitely. Astonishingly, men still accord women these unwarranted,unmerited and unjustifiable privileges. But this untenable situation wont continue forever and I believe men will soon start telling women where to get off.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:44 AM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
If it were an old man I would have definitely stopped to help, but any woman... forget it. Never! It's just too dangerous. Women have learned the power of scamming men, and I wouldn't lift a finger to help any of them out of concern for my own self preservation. They're all on there own, and I'm the better off for it.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:32 AM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
What about those women who are re-redefining feminism to not be the male-hating feminism that we have grown to love? ...I am thinking of Wendy McElroy of iFeminists.com and her ilk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:21 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
My question for any iFeminists that I might encounter with a flat tire, a broken lawn tractor, or a non-firing home furnace or similar non-functioning mechanical device would be --
"How come you don't know how to fix this?"
I have no doubt that the answer would be the same for the radical gender feminists or the sympathetic iFeminists. (Assuming they are capable of an honest reply.)
"Why, sir, I am a victim of the Evil Patriarchy, and its misogynist cousin Male Chivalry, which conspired to keep me from having access to any mechanical knowledge!"
Then I would have to say - "Well, then you'll just have to inflate your own tire, sister. You do know how to blow hard, right?"
(Roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 01:19 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Then you might have a nice honest debate and both of you will come away with more information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:22 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
iFeminism and Wendy's brand of political outlook are more geared toward shielding themselves from the growing cultural unpopularity of feminist dogma than it is to becoming more egalitarian.
True, she writes a mean article, and has balanced views most of the time. Try spending some time on her forum though, and you will find infinite quibbles and truly acrobatic dodging of issues.
iFeminists aren't our friends...they are simply feminists who are too chicken to stand up and take the crap coming thier way because of the backlash against the injustice that THEY THEMSELVES helped to create.
They're cowards hiding behind "fresh thinking".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 01:32 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I only used the tire as an example.
You would be supprised how many times a week an ordinary decent guy reflexively does his man's duty.
Here is another example - the next time the car needs the oil changed, suggest to your GF or wife that she change the oil, and you will vacume the carpet.
I would explicitly doing this at work - It will backfire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 02:10 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I would [avoid] explicitly doing this at work - It will backfire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 12:44 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I've seen "women in distress" at the side of the road before and my first reaction is always of contempt and I just drive by while thinking, "Women can do anything a man can do, only better!" Another one that has a tendency to come to mind is, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" or one that I came up with, "Do it yourself or find another woman to help you."
While I kinda like what Johnnyp is trying to do, "feminist" has a derogatory connotation these days and women are, by nature, politically correct. I bet if we asked these women what their real thoughts were concerning feminism, without using the label, we would no doubt find a large percent of them are actual feminists in thought and deed who do not wish to accept that derogatory label.
It might be a good idea rather than to give these women the chance to lie so easily through a "yes or no" question, ask her "Why are you not a feminist?", giving her the opportunity to explain her feelings on the subject. I think this would give us a better idea of her real thoughts on the subject. Not foolproof, of course, but I think an improvement over a yes or no choice.
Women these days are real good at wanting the benefits of both sides of the coin whenever it benefits them, so inconsistency is just a necessary part of their game.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 12:24 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that even makes a dent in feminism's hold on the average woman, and it certainly won't impact a dyed-in-the-wool feminist. Without a thorough deprogramming, most women aren't even aware of their privileges much less ashamed of them. As for a true believer, she would see your act (or inaction) as spitefulness, and it would merely harden her position. In either case, your refusal is just an inconvenience—a bump in the road until her next potential savior shows up—not the road to some sort of epiphany. I guarantee that the stranded woman you helped quickly either forgot you or was enormously relieved to have dodged a potential Marc Lepine or serial killer.
The only thing that changes the minds of most entitled women is when the anti-male bias boomerangs and bites them on the butt WITH REAL PAIN. These are the grandmothers deprived of grandkids, second wives deprived of income, girlfriends who lost lovers on false rape charges or access to his dough because he lost his job on false sexual harassment charges.
As far as denying women chivalry goes, most self-respecting MRAs (yourself excepted) don't believe in it and find the concept limiting and self-debasing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 01:26 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point - but
1) The ordinary guy needs to start somewhere.
2) You would be supprised at how many women go along with feminists because that is the only thing on the table. A tide starts turning when the first drop of water starts to move
3) What I proposed is in addition to the political efforts. I just do not think the political efforts can make a dent because militant feminists are GOOD at what they do, and the silent majority of women on the fence have no reason to be heard - they are getting the best of both worlds.
4) It can't hurt - and the man might actually get a chuckl out of the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 01:33 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
One other thing - what we are doing now does not seem to be working - let's try somehting different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:26 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
[quote]As far as denying women chivalry goes, most self-respecting MRAs (yourself excepted) don't believe in it and find the concept limiting and self-debasing. [/quote]
I wholeheartedly disagree with this sentiment...in fact, I advocate men 100% completely avoiding anything resembling chivalry...and to make it plainly obvious why.
Frankly, the vast majority of women have no idea how pissed off the vast majority of men are these days. I think the time for them to find out...daily...is well past nigh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:06 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"As far as denying women chivalry goes, most self-respecting MRAs (yourself excepted) don't believe in it and find the concept limiting and self-debasing."
Also totally disagree. Chivalry (as MRAs use the term) is acceptance by males of traditional female gender privileges. These privileges include favoured treatment in criminal law, civil law, media portrayal, education, employment, social security, health funding etc.
Men shouldn't open doors for the same reason Rosa Parkes didn't give up her seat. By giving up her seat , Rosa Parkes saw she was accepting the principle of racial segregation in general. By opening a door, a man is accepting the existence of female gender privilege , and effectively accepting all the injustices of feminaziism.
Would you open the door for someone of a particular race, religion or nationality? Why do you open the door for someone of a certain gender?
Its a matter of principle and not doors or bus seats.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:35 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps I phrased the sentence wrong. What I said (or attempted to say) is that MRAs usually hate chivalry. I do, and refused to engage in it (and discouraged others from doing so) even as a young child.
I've got to write more carefully.
Hunchback
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:00 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Hunchback. I was a bit surprised and confused by your post. But it gave me an excuse to launch another "spiel" on my favorite topic.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:55 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
"The only thing that changes the minds of most entitled women is when the anti-male bias boomerangs and bites them on the butt WITH REAL PAIN. These are the grandmothers deprived of grandkids, second wives deprived of income, girlfriends who lost lovers on false rape charges or access to his dough because he lost his job on false sexual harassment charges.
As far as denying women chivalry goes, most self-respecting MRAs (yourself excepted) don't believe in it and find the concept limiting and self-debasing."
Chivalry like other old prejudices dies hard. ...and it isn't like I'm not doing everything I can to kill it. All women have to see that the pain that men are suffering under the jack boot heel of gender feminism is very, very real. No better way for them to see that, than through the erosion of their own precious social entitlement to chivalrous treatment. Yea, it's an entitlement that most females will take for granted until they are conditioned otherwise by brave, wise men who no longer subscribe to chivalry for women.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:36 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Chivalry provides for feminists in the U.S. the same tactics of psychological-emotional terrorism that Lyndie England and her comrades at Abu Ghraib employed when they stripped Iraqui men and took pictures of them.
It is a blatant expression of female gender power, based on exploiting men's instincts and socialization to protect and idealize women.
Chivalry has become for men a kind of intellectual infantilism... and a denial of the true betrayal that feminism represents.
When I see a chivalrous man, I see a heroin (heroine?) addict.
Only he's addicted to his fantasies about the "fairer sex."
I don't recommend a twelve-step treatment program; merely one step ---
WAKE UP!
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 06:41 AM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
I have though a lot about this, obviously. 10 years ago I considered myself a feminist. I have marched on Washington at a pro-choice rally, lived on a commune, etc.
I have never had the real pain of men's issues come into my life as you say, not in the direct sense. What I had was a marriage which was crumbling and a need to get to the root of why that was happening. At the same time I had a husband starting to look into this.
The difficulty which lies ahead of all of us is the process which each woman must go through. That process is painful, guilt ridden, and ends in giving up things. Is it worth it? Absolutely. Is it easy? Not one bit.
When feminism started think how difficult it was for men to give up what 'power'(or place may be a better word) they had, at work, at home, in the service. There were areas where, as tedious, dangerous, and ugly may they be, they were the realm of men. They helped define men, and brought them a sense of a place and purpose in the world.
Feminism took that away, and I cannot imagine how difficult it was to watch the invasion of women into their world. Yet men did it. Men allowed this to happen, and many embraced it thinking it was right.
Women are now asked to do the same thing in a way. We are asked to see that everything we believed in our lives in terms of being a woman was a lie. Women in the existing generations, the exception being those over 70, truly believe in a patriarchy. They truly believe men are dominant. They believe women make 80 cents on the dollar, that one in four women are raped, that the men hold all the power in business and politics.
Women today are indoctrinated, in ways that are very difficult to change. It took me the better part of a year to make the facts sink in and the guilt, stubbornness and privilage get out. That was a very, very difficult time, and not the least because my friends were there egging on the feminist side. It is a long, hard road to challenge feminism in your life as a woman.
Because where men lost their places of exclusivness, which usually was not power at all, the average woman truly does have power today. The balance is shifted in the home and workplace and absolute power corrupts as we all know. It is also addicting.
I as a woman have a great deal of power. I have learned over the last 5 years that this power was making my marriage crumble. That this power was not making either of us happy. The power was wrong, and I did not ever want to see our sons faced with this imbalance. A marriage is suppose to be a partnership, and partnership denotes equality, not the power of one over the other.
I speak today to men who are dealing with women in their lives, and my heart goes out to them. These are good men, who just want a good marrriage, kids, and a decent job. These things are being denied to them, then blamed on them. I am not even a man and i get downright pissed off at much of what goes on today.
I just keep trying to talk to other women, and usually they will at least think about it. I got my mother, a die hard feminist and a dean, to look at her college enrollment and graduation figures. She was shocked, downright shocked, that twice as many women graduated than men. It is a start. What else will she now question?
Keep pluggin away guys, one person at a time things will change.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:54 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
BQ,
It's very interesting that your mother is a feminist/academic!
So, perhaps you are seeking to reform and resurrect the promise of her generation, by redeeming feminism through your own new version of pro-male feminism?
BTW, did your mother and father divorce?
There's a terrible pattern that most of us live out... seeking to take on the unlived potential of our parents. ( C. Jung ... it's important to confront and conquer these projections.)
Your voice is important to the MRM. It's honest and bold and vulnerable.
I wish you would write more about POWER, and how your personal experience of having it contradicts the feminist's myth of Patriarchy.
Why, for instance, do most women identify with the victim identity that is the false source of power that feminism presents to girls?
I don't grasp how giving your individual power away, joining a collective cult makes you stronger.
Though I do appreciate fashion, and pop-culture, and intelligent, sexy women.
So, I'm a victim too, right?
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 09:39 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
Huh?
My parents are not divorced-married 37 years and counting.
I am in no way feminist. Not even one little bit.
I am not accepting my personal power as a woman just as many Germans refused to help the Nazis. Because it is not right.
What cult am I joining?
This has little to do with my parents, and much to do with my children, my husband, my sense of what is right.
Why would you be a victim, 'too', implying I think I am a victim?
If this is the same Roy as SYG, you are just as cloudy here as there. I am not sure where you are going, what you are implying, or where you are going with this line of questioning. Could you please clarify?
I really can't answer anything until I really understand what you are asking.
TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:10 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever the confusion about the Roys, this one pleads guilty to being "cloudy."
I am cloudy about how a women who's self-described primary means of relating to her husband is based on dog training could feel that she is exempt from being considered a feminist.
I am cloudy about how a female who benefits from being a stay-at-home mother and wife solely because her husband is a hard-working dedicated father and partner might suggest she lacks any taint of feminism, i.e. "female privilege."
You allege you've "not accepted" your female (victim) power.
Obviously you can claim that, because your husband's utility as a well-trained protector allows this claim.
BTW, my dad's a retired veterinarian, so I'm not a little familiar with the field of training dogs.
You can't imagine how many good dogs have been destroyed by bad dog trainers.
(Roy ... No. 2?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:28 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
Can we get away from this "dog training business" PLEASE?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:10 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#66)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:29 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
Well trained responses!
Precise. Simple. Obedient.
"Yes! We Can!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 08:10 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, one at a time. Thank you for clarifying-it is easier when you get to the point.
AS I have tried to explain, I learned how to communicate by training dogs. It taught me to throw away the method of communication I learned from my parents, which was to assume the other party could ready my mind then get mad when they could not. If my method of learning was unothadox,it certainly did work. The person who did the most changing in that process was me, not Dave. So I was the one I trained.
The funny thing is that while I have said I am a stay at home mother, I have not been out of work more than six months at a time in the last 12 years. I did child care for 8 years, have worked as a cleaner, a vet kennel worker, and a dog trainer. I also have been going to school. So while I technically have not had a full time job, I did not just sit around the house. I chose jobs which would allow me to retain the responsibilities I had in the house while also allowing me to make money.
Also, as I have explained, the not working full time was a decision reached by Dave as well as myself. We could either both do housework, cooking, laundry, etc and both work full time, or I could stay home and Dave would not have to do those things. It was his decision to not have to do those things. It was not fair to expect me to do 100% of the housework AND work the same hours as Dave, and he agreed. We will end up hiring a housekeeper once I get a degree and go back to work full time (when the kids are older), but right now without a degree I would be working only to pay for gas and housekeeper. A waste of time. I also do much of the household maintainance and car work, so that would not have balanced it out. I also do not believe in hunny do lists.
Female victim power means I do not hold divorce and alimony over my husbands head-would not use it if he left me tomorrow. I will not accept a job based on female quotas. Have learned to do for myself when it comes to my car. Have learned not to laugh (I just don't find it funny)when a show includes male bashing, or violence, and bring it up to the annoyance of everyone around me. It means I write letters to fight VAWA. It means I write nasty letters back when Planned parenthood tries to get me to donate to their abortion funds. I buy drinks back at weddings, not just let the men pay. I hold doors open for men as well as say a hearty thank you when they do so for me. No one sends me male bashing e-mails because I have stood up and told them they are not funny. I will not go on, but could.
My husband is not a 'well trained protector', you insult him and that is pretty sad, since he has done nothing to you. If I were poor, having to work two jobs to support myself I would feel the same way. It would be a lot harder, but no less right.
You are right, many a dog has been ruined by bad trainers. If you have a point with that, say it. The passive aggressive crap is getting old.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:58 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#102)
|
|
|
|
|
TBQ-- "You are right, many a dog has been ruined by bad trainers. If you have a point with that, say it. The passive aggressive crap is getting old."
Jen, I'm pretty sure you have a truly great marriage.
I'm pretty sure you and Dave deserve every credit for working very hard at what you have.
My point about "bad dog trainers" was just a warning flag for you, because you cannot continue to ignore your own exceptional power and privilege and project them onto the larger society / MRA readership.
Dog training is the essence of passive-aggressive conditioning, right?
You condition the dog to suppress his natural aggression, and channel it into what you want, right?
If I have ever been less than directly assertive, then I guess I missed a couple lessons about being appropriately aggressive.
You write/speak/command exceptionally well, a weapon you may choose to employ to slay, or heal.
Dog training, or intra-species communication, yes?
(roy # 2?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:58 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen.
The other day I found a Raccoon in my back yard.
It had been shot with a cross bow bolt. I carefully tried to pick it up and it snapped at me.
The point is that even though I was trying to help this little Raccoon, it still tried to bite me. Many MRA's are like a wounded Raccoon. They are injured and therefore will bite at anyone who comes near. Even if that person is trying to help. They do not mean to be 'mean', they are just hurt, angry and maybe scared and tend to lash out.
That is what that little Raccoon taught me.
Incidentally, I managed to get the Raccoon to a local wild life refuge. They got the bolt out of her shoulder and chest. They said she will probably be all right, eventually.
And before any one bawls me out for "comparing" Raccoons to Men, (I don't want to get anything started, again) Keep in mind that we Indians believe that God speaks to us through nature. We believe that nature teaches us lessons about OURSELVES. In this case the Raccoon teaches about being in pain and how we react to pain. I represented Jen trying to help and the reaction from the Raccoon represented some of our reactions to Jen. But the biggest lesson of all comes from the fact that though it took some doing and reconsidering my options and tactics, in spite of the raccoon's mistrust and lashing out, I still managed to help her.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 08:20 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#75)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. I will try to be more sensitive in the future, it is easy to forget that behind the angry words is a wounded soul.
I am really glad it worked out with the raccoon, people can be so cruel.
TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:08 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#82)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes.
And if I ever find the person who shot that little raccoon, there's going to be hell to pay.
...It's kinda wierd that when these little animals get sick or hurt, they tend to come to my house. Somehow they seem to know that my family won't hurt them, or something.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 02:24 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Nice post - help how you can.
Everytime you see a biased news article - write, or call the organization and complain / talk about the truth. Same thing with politicians.
Until women demand today's crazyness be stopped, nothing will happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:30 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
Most Western women LIKE things the way they are. They LIKE seeing men hurt, even dead.
Why should they change?
Nothing will change. It will just get worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:16 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#83)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm not sure that I would say; "MOST Western women" like to see men hurt. There are definitely those who do, but I think many of them don't even realise that we're angry. The media just doesnt report it, like they do when other "groups" are upset.
And as far as things "never changing", I think they will and are. It's slow and steady, but it is changing. To quote George W. Bush when speaking of the war; "It's hard work, It's hard work". And it HAS been hard work. In fact it's an up hill battle. But up hill battles can be won, they just take more effort and we've got to be willing to take that effort.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:00 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#89)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:40 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#115)
|
|
|
|
|
>"It's DEAD JIM...!"
Okay, we get it, Dr. McCoy.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sandra on 03:05 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm no feminist, nor am I a fifteen-year-old boy...but I know how to change a tyre!
A truly chivalrous man will offer to help a woman in need, whether she's a fairy princess or a jack-booted kickboxer. If said woman mouths off with a feminist diatribe to the man who offers to help her, more is the shame on her! And if she declines his help based on some feminist principle, she has no grounds for complaint later.
What's the best way to eliminate fascist feminism? Confrontation between 'regular' women and the feminazis is occasionally appropriate. But most of the time, mutual respect and appreciation between men and women, and recognition and acceptance of basic differences between us, will do the job splendidly. Setting an example is best: women with over-developed offence-sensitivity will notice that their less strident sisters get on with men quite well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:16 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"and acceptance of basic differences between us,"
Ah yes. Women want "acceptance of basic differences" when such acceptance confers advantage to women.
But , surprise surprise, they ruthlessly oppose "acceptance of basic differences" when such acceptance confers disadvantage to women.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sandra on 03:25 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know about that...
I like the things that are different about men! They are physically stronger than women, in most cases. They are generally more daring, better at figuring out certain things and better at controlling dangerous situations. Their deep male voices are remarkably effective at curtailing the behaviour of recalcitrant children. I don't mind it one bit.
It hurts to see the way men are put down so often in politics and media. It is appalling to see women who are convinced they don't need men in order to have children. It's awful to think men don't want to help or rescue women anymore because they might 'offend' some politically-correct standard.
I grew up in a very traditional family at a time when such families were fast going out of style. Now I get weird looks and unfriendly comments from other women quite frequently because my main concerns in life are running my house and looking after my husband and children. (Somebody has to do it!) If the children didn't have their father to turn to, look up to, admire and depend upon AS A MAN then I shudder to think what their lives would be like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:54 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
A woman who accepts the traditional duties of her gender is entitled to traditional female privilege. However, nowadays, that means a very small number of women.
The vast majority of women have rejected traditional gender burdens; these women have no right to traditional gender privileges.
Basically we can have 3 types of society:
1. Traditional. Both genders have burdens and privileges peculiar to their gender (ie, a society which recognizes gender difference)
2. Equality. Both genders lose their burdens and privileges (i.e. a society which doesn't recognize gender difference)
3. Feminaziism. Females lose their burdens but keep their privileges. Males lose their privileges but keep their burdens. (i.e. a society which recognizes gender difference when such recognition confers advantage to women, but denies gender difference when such denial confers advantage to women). This is of course the society we have to-day.
My preference is for 1. I would accept 2. I totally refuse to accept 3.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:55 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Agree totally with the typology of women above, though I might be tempted to add Category 4 -"Psychotic Bitches Who Emerge from Types 1,2,3."
My problem with the iFeminist ilk is that they are basically using a lot of supposedly sophisticated jargon to appeal to men by saying -
"But I’m not like that! I’m special, and you should not lump me in with all those nasty rad-feminists!"
What the iFeminists don’t say --- and which most men’s experiences prove --- is that MOST women ARE "like that."
I’ll reconsider my opinion about Wendy and her comrades when they stop protesting about how uniquely special and sympathetic they all are and start putting all that energy into some useful political reform.
And, since women, iFeminists included, are such superior multi-taskers, maybe when they’re not appealing for "special" consideration, (notice – a trait that feminists and iFeminists share...) could they please organize a few bake sales to defeat VAWA 2005 by the end of this month?
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sandra on 02:44 AM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm.
Do you like women at all? Do you see us as all the same, the way you insist women see men?
I suppose I could spend my life hating men because one of them raped me on the way home from school one day when I was twelve, and VERY modestly dressed.
Or I could spend all my energy hating men because my first husband blew most of his money on prostitutes and gambling, even though he was a fine citizen and church-going man.
Let's see...there's the bloke who tried to refuse me a car loan at a credit union one time because I was divorced, and 'divorced women can't be trusted.'
Or the boss who gave a promotion to a younger male colleague where I used to work, because, as the boss said, 'he has a family to support' (so did I!).
I could come up with a million excuses to detest men in general. And that's what my hatred would be based on--excuses. Why waste time and energy doing that?
I know from experience there are plenty of decent men in the world, and women, too. If we keep on lumping the opposite sex together and tarring them all with the same brush, are we not guilty of the very thing we claim to abhor? Change has to start somewhere. (Incidentally, I've never visited this iFeminist website. Guess I'd better take a look to see what all the fuss is about.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:24 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Sandra (an assumed female) asked --
"Do you like women at all?"
Well, truthfully, not much.
In the collective sense of "women," I have concluded that it requires too much soul-draining energy to "like" your kind.
I do indeed like, and love.... individual women.
But as a class?
No.
Feminism deformed what was once feminine and now it no longer attracts.
It's not a matter of power. I like insightful women who know who they are and what they want...
It's just that... feminism itself has destroyed what once allowed women to be confident and powerful.
Feminism has erased femininity, and achieved nothing of substance to replace it.
So, do I "like" women?
Yes. I would like them to reclaim their essence, their souls, their actual nature.
That makes me an idealistic and cynical MRA.
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 05:13 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
Do I like women?
Yes - I have become worn down.
It seems that every woman I have dated in the past 15 years seems to follow the same path:
1) Can’t cook
2) Can’t fix things around the house
3) Has little free cash
4) Has little free time to do things for me
5) Doesn’t keep a nice house/apartment
6) Isn’t very nurturing
7) Makes me feel like I am being judged - or they are insulting.
I end up feeling like I am doing most of what is needed to keep the relationship going. All she provides is a little conversation and some sex. I can get that much cheaper elsewhere.
Its not like I date bar tramps (I have never met a woman in a bar). I have met the women I have dated at work, through friends, in my apartment complex... I am an average looking guy with a good job and a BS and MS.
Again - I have become worn down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:08 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
"Do you like women at all?"
If a black person in the 1960's campaigned for equal rights, this does not mean he hated whites. Just because a man campaigns for equal rights, it does mean he hates women. However, it is possible he DOES hate women. This is hardly surprising given the savage treatment meted out to him by the feminazi society, and bearing in mind the enthusiastic support MOST women (probably 95%) have given to feminaziism.
For the record I dont hate women but I do hate the injustices suffered by men because of feminaziism. I do not accept my gender should make me a second class citizen.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sandra on 02:05 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Fascinating view, Roy. Yes, I am female, as you assumed.
Good to know you can see individual women through all the politically-correct garbage out there. And you are correct when you say an awful lot of women have forgotten the essence and soul of femininity. This forgetfulness is taking over Western society in some rather grotesque ways. Refusal by a woman to participate in the War On Men often means making enemies of other women. I have no wish to spend my life warring with men. I like them too much, and they are much too important to alienate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:49 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Sandra, (the alleged female admirer) compliments me for being able to "see" individual women "through all the politically correct garbage..."
"Good to know you can see..."
This is precisely why I do not wish to have so-called sympathetic iFeminist women infiltrating the Men's Rights Movement!
I do not need validation from any woman, and when you offer it, you are simply claiming that you want to be the Judge of my Voice, by saying that in your eyes "I am Good."
You "gals" just do not GET IT, do you?
We no longer covet your approval, we no longer seek your blessings, we no longer care about what women "think."
It's over, girl.
Deal with it.
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:52 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
"Refusal by a woman to participate in the War On Men often means making enemies of other women."
I believe that a man should not be discriminated against in any way because of his gender. Do you agree?
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sandra on 02:57 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. I agree wholeheartedly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sandra on 02:59 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, well...I am not welcome on this site. You don't recognise an ally when you see one.
No need to bother responding; I won't be back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:03 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad to hear it. Wellcome to mensactivism.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:09 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
"Well, well...I am not welcome on this site. You don't recognise an ally when you see one.
No need to bother responding; I won't be back."
???????????????????????????????
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:02 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
Sandra,
You would be making a major mistake to "eject yourself" just because some anonymous man expressed that your female voice does not interest him.
Can you deny yourself for so little?
You, like so many women, confuse male verbal combat with a lack of approval. (Sometimes it's an invitation...)
Learn this and you will prosper!
You may be an ally, or you may be something other.
What MATTERS here is how you express yourself.
You can choose to stay and post more, and then your audience will decide if your voice is worth listening to.
Or, you can retreat and claim (falsely) that you were unwelcome.
I don't yet know if I care about your opinions, but I do recognize a good writer!
You should give it another post or three....
Please?
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:33 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
"You would be making a major mistake to "eject yourself" just because some anonymous man expressed that your female voice does not interest him."
I think that because there was a 3 minute delay before I responded, that she thought I wasn't interested in her support for MANN. Actually, it is rare for conservations to be conducted in real time on MANN as in a chat room. Usually when I make a post, it may be several hours (or the next day) before I check if there has been a response. I dont leave the internet connection running on the laptop between use as I dont have broadband and my last bill was astronomical. Anyway I think she thought there was a real time conversation in progress and interpreted the delay as being ignored. If I have driven someone away from MANN, it was completely unintentional.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:27 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
Hotspur,
You know what's really funny?
ANY man who responded to Sandra is already feeling guilty that he might have been her motive for abandoning MANN.
That's really, tragically comical, yes?
Chivalry will kill us all dead and deader....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:43 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks anon,
I dont feel so guilty now.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:15 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
I dont know what made me so paranoid. I got mixed up going through the posts on this thread. It was post 35 that drove her away from MANN.
Here is the full text of the post below:
Sandra, (the alleged female admirer) compliments me for being able to "see" individual women "through all the politically correct garbage..."
"Good to know you can see..."
This is precisely why I do not wish to have so-called sympathetic iFeminist women infiltrating the Men's Rights Movement!
I do not need validation from any woman, and when you offer it, you are simply claiming that you want to be the Judge of my Voice, by saying that in your eyes "I am Good."
You "gals" just do not GET IT, do you?
We no longer covet your approval, we no longer seek your blessings, we no longer care about what women "think."
It's over, girl.
Deal with it.
(roy)
Its all YOUR fault Roy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by aerd on 02:55 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
Sandra - Personally, I thought what you had to say was worth hearing. Don't judge us all by the words of one.... individual. Fairly new to this site myself, but I found the reply that seems to have made you feel unwelcome, a bit offensive. It doesn't appear to be representative of the views of the majority here and if in time I find it is, I'll stop visiting the site myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Acksiom on 08:44 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but the thing is, just because you've been through the grinder doesn't mean you've thereby learned and internalized the philosophical and analytic basics of the men's civil rights movement.
Particularly since they're still being worked on in many areas.
The relevant lesson here has become well-understood already, however. Men's civil rights advocates and activists are increasingly realizing that threats of withdrawal of approval and interaction are simply the same old tired game of false "emotional crisis pricing" that has been played against us since birth.
Sandra can go right ahead and withdraw. That's fine. The more informed among us will shrug and move on to something with a real profitability index, instead of lessening our integrity and wasting our resources by struggling to appease her. The simply fact that she's trying to pull that crap on us tells us she's a poor investment ITFP.
We've simply been ripped off too many times, lost too much investment of time, wasted too much energy, by allowing someone -- male or female, but clearly much more often female, if one's honest about one's observations -- to successfully resort to the old, "I'm taking my bat and ball and going home if you're not gonna be nicer/more obedient/sufficiently supplicatory/etc. to me," gimmick.
Fact is, the more one learns about the exploratory *philosophy* of the men's civil rights movement, the less susceptible one becomes to this kind of false "emotional oil crisis" pricing threat.
You see, allowing themselves to be emotionally manipulated in such fashion is one of the primary reasons why the few voices of sanity in the women's civil rights movement were drowned out by the chauvanistic, extremist female supremacists profiteers.
And more and more men's civil rights advocates and activists, having that horrible example before them, are realizing all the time to not make the same mistake, especially once it's been explained to them. Because they've almost always been targeted by that kind of manipulation their entire lives, and have known on some deep level that it was well and truly messed-up nonsense, but simply never had it clearly pointed out to them in such a fashion that they could "step outside" their cultural blinders and recognize it for what it is.
The bottom line is that someone who resorts to such manipulative behavior and displays such a narcississtic and juvenile attitude, especially so quickly, most likely isn't someone worth recruiting in the first place. They're just not going to be worth the effort. They're pricing themselves out of the market. Because they're simply NOT the "All that and a bag of chips" they think they are.
In fact, they usually aren't even the chips.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:11 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're probably right, Ack.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:30 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
No, you're EXACTLY right, Ack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:23 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm an Indian activist as well as a men's rights activist.
As an Indian activist many of the people I oppose happen to be white, but I do NOT hate "White people". (I am half white, myself)
But just for the record, a lot of the people I oppose, as an Indian activist, may be white, but there are Black people who stand in the way of Indian rights, as well. And many opposed to Indian rights are WOMEN as well. So the issue is never just "black or white". No pun intended.
And I don't "hate" any of the fore mentioned groups. (Whites, Blacks, or Women) I hate what they do. I hate that they actively oppose Indian rights and equality, but I don't hate their respective "groups".
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:30 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
When I first responded to your first postings, I said "WELCOME aboard".
That means, as the phrase implies that you are WELCOME.
Maybe we don't all share that sentiment, but SOME of us do.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:52 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#69)
|
|
|
|
|
Hotspur,
I am immune to "shame and blame" tactics.
Sandra will come back.
Because she has been listened to here, on this site, in depth, and that's a new experience for her.
And, in truth, she's worth reading.
(As an aside, I am personally getting very concerned about the few dozen brilliant women who have discovered men's rights sites and now post regularly.)
When your movement starts to attract opportunists, that means you have the power to create opportunities.
Take note, strategy must evolve now.
(roy)
Wait and see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:19 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#84)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:36 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#88)
|
|
|
|
|
Crap! I didn't know I was being offensive!
I always have that problem with females.
You should never, never, be 100% truthful.
Women see a truthful man as either (a) weak or (b) untrainable or (c) just a great "friend."
In any case, you will not get laid.
It's just a perpetual variation on the -- "Does this dress make my ASS look too big?" question.
I should have learned by now....
There's never a correct answer.
Except maybe to grab that A-- errr... question.... and enjoy it! ;-)
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:15 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#99)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, Ack is correct.
I always try to get the more interesting iFeminists to continue to post, because I believe it usually allows some useful study if not amusement.
I still have not seen a "sympathetic non-feminist pro-MRA woman" who will state something remotely like -- "It's time for me to shut up and support my man and encourage him to speak out!"
Nope.
Never heard that.
In the continuous din of iFeminist's loudly proclaimed solidarity with MRAs, there has been little respectful silence, not much in the way of insightful listening, many proclamations but few honest questions, and hardly a pause in the unending onslaught of suffocating "but I'm really different..." sympathy.
A pillow applied with subtle finesse can kill you just as dead as an obvious brick.
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 09:47 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#101)
|
|
|
|
|
I would, but my husband already does speak out-so do i still count among the pillows?
TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:38 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#103)
|
|
|
|
|
TBQ --
You invented the pillow.
And that's why I listen to you.
Be nice, OK?
(roy # 2?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 09:03 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#126)
|
|
|
|
|
I am one with the pillow.....
ohmmmmmmmmm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 06:12 PM September 2nd, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
What you described is the exact more of the same thing that has gotten us into this ridiculous situation in the first place.
1) One group of women raises hell to get special privileges
2) The remaining majority sits back and enjoys both the new benefits and the old benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by aerd on 12:16 AM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree totally with the need for "regular" women to be confronting feminists and policians etc. In fact, you'll find quite a few feminists confronting feminists, in recognition that their sisters are turning what was once a humanitarian movement for equal rights into a politically correct hate group.
I've had my own unfortunate experience - I won't bore you with the details. It is true that we live in a time when men, unfortunately, have good cause to fear women. This was not the intended result of feminism and feminism shouldn't be blamed for it. Feminism was an appropriate and largely successful response to a real and serious long-standing problem. Unfortunately, and this is a reflection of our aggressive culture, there are many who will abuse whatever power is available to them, and many of these people are women who are willing to abuse the special rights granted them under different areas of the law.
I find it sad reading some of the responses here - that feminism has created this terrible division. I, myself, would stop to help to anyone who needed it, regardless of their gender. As a social species our main strength lies in the fact that generally speaking, we look out for each other - that's a good thing. I don't think the "are you a feminist" spiel is really going to have a positive impact of any kind.
The state of gender politics in our culture is complex. There are many areas in which feminism frankly failed - other areas where it seems they over-achieved. There are inequalities on both sides of the fence. The fundamental failure and the reason why we're not seeing social progress in gender politics is this squaring off of men's rights v. women's rights.
What feminism should have achieved was an increased social awareness of human rights. As much I see and have personally experienced the disadvantages of being a man at this time, I don't think men's rights groups are going to have the kind of impact that's needed. I think what we need to see is a united human rights movement.
At the moment, we have two halves of the population bitching and moaning about why the other half has it better. What's a government to do? Whatever they do will please half of them, and send the other half in a frothing frenzy. How much more effective might it be if everyone sat down together and agreed on the basic principle of equal rights for all, and worked from there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:22 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"How much more effective might it be if everyone sat down together and agreed on the basic principle of equal rights for all, and worked from there?"
Yes, but it wont happen. Women have no intention of agreeing to gender equality. It is unrealistic to expect a Privileged group to sit down with an Oppressed group and agree to equality. Women will not agree to give up their privileged status. It will have to be forcibly taken from them if gender equality is to be acheived.
"There are inequalities on both sides of the fence"
As far as I can see, ALL gender discrimination is experienced by men, and men alone.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 02:15 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Nice idea - but it is naïve. It does not take human nature into account.
People struggle for power and resources. My view is that the balance has gotten out of whack. Men are mostly still filling their traditional roll (some willingly, and some are forced), and women can go back and forth between being a woman or man (mostly free of cost), depending on what situation is best.
People usually are not willing to give up a superior position – why would they? If I were a woman, I would do the same as is being done now by women.
I think we just need to show the costs that women have generally been shielded from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:08 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
Let's just cut to the chase, OK?
Eloquent opinions aside, Feminism, Inc. is now a fully-funded, tax-payer supported BUSINESS!
Tens of thousands of women's studies professors, women's legal advocates, and domestic violence experts have staked their lives and careers on the continuation of the War On Men!
It's coming to a vote near you this month --- with VAWA 2005!
Except, you don't actually get to vote on it.
Your elected representatives will sell your tax dollars for an easy re-authorization of VAWA.
Thank gawd for the New Orleans hurricane...
That will allow VAWA to sneak through Congress with no media coverage at all!
The good news is that VAWA '05 targets women of color for special attention.
Maybe those disposessed mothers with dying babies in the Astrodome will take heart when their D.C. sisters celebrate another victory for women!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:01 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
aerd emitted this -- "It is true that we live in a time when men, unfortunately, have good cause to fear women. This was not the intended result of feminism and feminism shouldn't be blamed for it."
Holy farts!
There are still a few male guppies out there in the feminist's shark pond.
Can you imagine being this naive and foolish?
Can you imagine being such an intellectual zombie?
Can you imagine the shock this young man has yet to face?
Well, I'll take it all back if he can describe what the "intended result of feminism" might be?
Please, aerd --- just the basics, a simple summary, of what will no doubt be your masterful thesis....
And, please, dedicate at least one chapter to the "compassion of feminism..."
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by aerd on 09:44 PM September 3rd, 2005 EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Roy, not everyone who disagrees with you is a young, inexperienced idiot.
You've very much underestimated my experience here. I have been the victim of a false claim of sexual harassment - from a woman who had been harassing me (which I'd reported), who then explicitly threatened me in an email (which she doesn't and can't contest) when I refused to date her. She then falsely claimed that I had harassed her. The two female staff she reported this to - one of whom was my supervisor who had several complaints from me on record about this girl showing an unwelcome interest in me dating back over 12 months - immediately assumed my guilt and instructed me to apologise, because I'm a man.
Intellectual zombie - well I was a psychology PhD student in one of my country's top three universities before the harassment...
My former employer (I quit and refused their later offers to get me back), refused to accept that I had been sexually harassed - despite the explicit threat to "make my life hell" for refusing to date this woman. I have a case against them (and the woman) for sexual harassment and sexual discrimination in the federal courts in Australia.
To try to get me to drop the case against her in the federal courts, this woman fabricated a series of death and rape threat emails. The police initially believed her, until they turned up at my house and I showed them the documented history of the case. In the meantime, while they were investigating, she took me to the civil courts to get a protection order against me. Unfortunately Yahoo stuffed me around with getting an activity log for the account, so I was left on the day with no way to prove the emails had been fabricated. The magistrate accepted her story that she had printed and immediately deleted the emails. He refused to allow me to submit character witness affidavits or to allow character witnesses to take the stand or to consider her obvious ulterior motives for seeking the order. Even now that the police have unequivocal proof that she fabricated the emails - they won't press charges against her - even though she is still now in another court claiming those emails are real. Open and shut case of perjury in three courts.
As a govt employee she made repeated unauthorised access to my files (a criminal offence) and used that information to make abusive phone calls to my mothers house trying to get my number. That was formally investigated - but govt departments here take a pretty soft view on privacy violations. I've received harassing phone calls from her brother. And here's the kicker - she has a recent criminal record for serious assualt and a generally very scary psychiatric history.
But as a man, I have no protection against this honest-to-god psychopath who can aggress against me with impunity, because of her gender.
But there is a funny side to all of this - something that has provided both myself, and my friends, a good deal of amusement - I'm gay - a fact now known to all involved in the case. This stupid woman dropped her false complaint against me the second she found out - though she claims not to have received that documentation and gave herself cancer instead as an excuse for dropping the complaint - splendidly psychotic.
Now in Australia, the payouts for these cases are pitiful, and so not worth the effort - but I have taken my case to court for the principle of the thing and to leave a record so her next victim has some measure of protection.
I have suffered extensively because of the gross inequalities that men face in this particular area of life. Many of my friends were women - including three I had supported through cases of their having been harassed by sleazy old men at work. Of my many female friends, only two of them stepped forward to support me - many of them still work for my former employer and fear retaliation, which I can kind of respect, but still I feel let down and believe they don't deserve my friendship any more.
But I've studied the legislation and the case law and a lot of the issues surrounding it. Women are not my enemy.
The intended result of feminism is no mystery - it was equality, at a time when women didn't have it. In some respects they still don't, but in many others they have clearly overshot the mark - and some feminists are speaking out against that.
Going back to where this thread started - men speaking on men's rights aren't going to achieve much. For example, if I were to speak about inequalities suffered by men, the militant man-hating feminists would just point to my history and dismiss me as "bitter". If women speak out against those inequalities... well that's different.
One of the most successful advocates of men's rights in Australia is a woman - the wife of a man who has suffered these inequalities. And her voice carries a lot further because she is a woman.
It is exactly the kind of attitudes expressed by Roy that work against us - if we treat feminism as "the enemy", we won't get anywhere. You can choose to use feminism as a convenient punching bag to vent frustration over real inequalities that men face, or join forces with those traditional feminists who still believe in the idea of equality and basic human rights. If your goal is to bring about positive change, my money is on the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Acksiom on 08:45 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
Problem is, Aerd, the term itself is corrupt and false to begin with.
Would you call the theory of the political, social, and economic equality of the races, "caucasianism"?
Or of the faiths, "christianism"?
Or of the classes, "elitism"?
And the same reason why those are bad words when used for such meanings applies to the use of "feminism" to describe the theory of the political, social, and economic equality of the genders.
And anybody who isn't willing to recognize this most probably isn't worth recruiting in the first place. It's sort of a combined litmus test for the capacities of both abstract reasoning and behavioral variability.
If people can't -- or WON'T -- recognize that the term itself is irrational, ill-constructed, self-contradictory, and conceptually toxic, once its fundamental erroneousness is explained to them, then they're usually not worth "joining forces with" at all.
If they're not willing to give it up once they've been shown its falsity and inherent harmfulness, then they probably don't have the Right Stuff anyways.
Odds are, they're simply not intellectually and emotionally mature enough to qualify as reliable and trustworthy, and therefore aren't worth courting.
Just forget 'em and move on to the next prospect. Plenty of other fish in the sea.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 11:51 AM September 4th, 2005 EST (#56)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. The term feminism now effectively means putting women's needs over men's. Men, and those women who support them, must stand up and not allow this to keep happening. Just saying you are a feminist supports radical feminism, because radical feminists do not make any distinction between their brand of hatred and moderate feminism. So when radfems speak, they speak for all feminists, and even all women, unless those women are openly anti-feminist. So while I am certainly not anti-woman, I certainly am anti-feminist.
Even moderate feminism denotes putting women's needs first, by the nature of the word including one sex and not the other. Moderate feminists tend to buy into the factoids propigated by radfems, such as 1 in 4, 80 cents on the dollar, 95% of DV victimizes women, etc. SO even those women who claim to be moderate feminists, who honestly do not hate men, are still part of the problem.
I do not 'hate' most feminists. However, I disagree with and in many cases hate feminism and will never again support it in any form. That is why I am not part of ifeminism. I think any group with the name feminist attached is inherantly broken.
I consider myself an MRA, meaning I am active in supporting the rights of men. It says what I am active in. I would not say I am a masculist, which to me connotates the philosophy of putting men's interests above women's, which is no better than the other way around. Just my small way of assuring for me, that once the ball gets rolling, it stops in the middle this time, unlike feminism which wants the ball in their court. (Even that analogy is misleading, as it assumes the ball was originally in men's court which I do not believe it ever really was.But it is the best I got right now)
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:22 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#85)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes.
The ball in the middle. That is exactly where we want it.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by aerd on 02:56 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#71)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think we can disregard the historical context - once upon a time, feminism was about achieving equality for the genders, because it didn't exist. And what they strove to achieve was more power for women - so feminism is an apt name for that movement. I would not use the term feminism to describe the theory of the political, social, and economic equality of the genders - the same is also true of the men's rights movement or masculinism. Which is why I think men and women (who might call themselves feminists) speaking in the language of human rights is going to be more effective.
And let's face it - feminists have the political stage. Men's rights movements are making some progress in that direction, but the political climate is very antagonistic towards men's issues and rights. If there are what I call traditional feminists who acknowledge that men are disadvantaged in some areas of life and support that changing, why not work with them?
I wrote what I wrote initially because of some of the all-inclusive negative comments in relation to feminism and women in general that I'd read here. I think that's counter-productive, particularly given the strong political position that feminism currently occupies.
Like any group you'd care to name, feminism is not homogenous. There are feminists who speak out against the way men are discriminated against - largely because of the work of other feminists.
I have to concede the point that the term feminism, today, particularly since it is commonly waved about as a human rights movement, is inappropriate. Women and men both, I think, shouldn't be talking about women's rights and men's rights - it should be human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 10:21 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#78)
|
|
|
|
|
Women were not at any point less equal than men. That is herstory, or feminist history. Until the industrial age, both men and women worked on the farm-both worked and neither had much in the way of power-neither really cared, as survival was the point. The few people in power were men, but that did not mean men in general had power, and some were women. Also, women were protected in ways that men were not, which is power. So each had a very different set of pro's and con's, but the balance was there.
Women started seeing men's pro's as privilage, and women's cons as oppression, but failed to notice women's pros and men's cons. Thus feminism was born, from the start a false pretense.
I do not see any problem with working 'with' ifeminists-ie. having parallel campaigns. But actually aligning with any feminists gives some control to those feminists, and that is a mistake.
I think we need to make it clear that while we are humanists-fighting for human equality, we are also MRAs-that it is men's issues right now which must be addressed. Women's issues are being addressed, with tax payers money. It is men who are left behind right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:31 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#79)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the feminist strategy was explained as early as 1913 in "The Fraud of Feminism" (available on the web).
The agenda was that the abolition of male privilege HAD to be coupled with the retention and ehancement of female privilege. By adopting this strategy , feminists calculated that men would eventually have the status of preCivil War Black and women would have the status of preCivil War White. The feminist calculations have proven to be correct. However the feminazis have not finished yet and the twin track approach continues with ever decreasing status for males. The next target is to reduce us to the status of Jews in Nazi Germany and then.....?
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:26 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#86)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I think men will be "reduced" to the status of present day American Indians, first, THEN to that of the Jews in Nazi Germany.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:46 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
"once upon a time, feminism was about achieving equality for the genders,"
No, it wasn't. From the beginning, it was about abolition of gender inequality as it applied to women, and women alone, whilst simultaneously expanding gender inequalities as they applied to men. And the latter has always been as important , if not more important, to feminists than the former.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 01:21 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
Intellectual zombie - well I was a psychology PhD student in one of my country's top three universities before the harassment...
Roy's unfortunate ad hominem is probably the result of frustrated passion. Aerd, you are certainly no intellectual zombie, and yes, you've been vetted by the gender school of hard knocks. Your victimization gives you a pass in my book. But in terms of the history and realities of gender politics you are a babe. Much of feminism had already de-emphasized equality by the late sixties. There was an ongoing debate among the feminist leadership as early as '72 on whether the pursuit of power (rather parity) should be the direction of the movement. Give you one guess which faction won. Since about '75 the movement has paid lip service to equality but pursued power in all of its forms.
The international juggernaut that is today's feminism, a political and financial behemoth, was designed four decades ago with a ruthless savvy that would make Machiavelli blush... and the intent was there even then: the knitting of the Lace Curtain (their first act); the indoctrination of children; the dismantling of the two-parent family; the subordination of men; the infiltration of gov't, academia, and business; the creation of social memes accepted by the majority of the populace—it was all there from the beginning.
Aerd, your intellectual powers are unquestioned. You did, however, come in here with what you thought were all the answers. Men's Rights Activists have been doing this for years. Accept a little humility and ask questions. Don't interrogate or pontificate. Use your research skills to discover the true nature of the not-so-bad feminists; read Warren Farrell, Jack Kammer, Christina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young, et al. Then come back and perhaps instruct us all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:49 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by aerd on 04:12 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#72)
|
|
|
|
|
All I suggested was that an inclusive approach to human rights - as opposed to men's rights or women's rights would be more effective.
As for interrogating and pontificating, and needing to demonstrate humility and ask questions (nice way to politely insult without addressing the content, btw)... what I did was ask the question:
"How much more effective might it be if everyone sat down together and agreed on the basic principle of equal rights for all, and worked from there?"
So far, the responses have mostly equated to "feminism and feminists are all bad". I've never personally known any of the militant feminist types. I've encountered a few with the harassment business - who've been quite forthright in expressing their clearly gender-biased "professional" opinions about why it's ok for women to sexually harass men. But the feminists I've known personally, as friends, are quite reasonable women whose own particular activities are targetted at those areas of life where women are still genuinely disadvantaged and are also outspoken when they see men being discriminated against. Frequently they'll speak up when men dare not to.
You've suggested that I need to research the not-so-bad feminists, as if in fact there just aren't any. I know from personal experience that that isn't true and have to question the effectiveness of adopting a total anti-feminist (who like you say, are a juggernaut), and in some cases of other posts I've read, anti-women stance.
Don't particularly care to "instruct" anyone, but I am beginning to wonder why this notion:
"How much more effective might it be if everyone sat down together and agreed on the basic principle of equal rights for all, and worked from there?"
is causing offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:14 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
"at those areas of life where women are still genuinely disadvantaged "
What areas might those be?
"and are also outspoken when they see men being discriminated against"
Can you give some examples of a feminists being outspoken when they see men being discriminated against?
"Don't particularly care to "instruct" anyone, but I am beginning to wonder why this notion:
"How much more effective might it be if everyone sat down together and agreed on the basic principle of equal rights for all, and worked from there? is causing offense."
The "notion" of equality is NOT offensive to MRAs, as you would know if you actually read the posts on this site. It is feminists who find the notion of equality offensive and there is no need to "wonder" why this is so. It is because equality would mean a drastic reduction in power and status for women, and a drastic increase in power and status for men.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 08:57 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#77)
|
|
|
|
|
1) Can't stand to urinate
2) Needs additional hygene products between the age of 12 and 40 something
End of List!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:24 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#113)
|
|
|
|
|
>"can't stand to urinate"
I can't stand NOT to urinate...! If I do it really hurts and I make funny faces, until I finally go. Then I say; "aaaaaaahhhh...!"
...Then I leave the toilet seat lid up. *evil grin*
Oh, wait, you mean they can't stand up while urinating. Okay, I get it. Well now that just makes my post sort of silly, doesnt it? :-)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 12:44 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#114)
|
|
|
|
|
*shaking head*
We can stand up while urinating, but it sort of runs down our leg....
Not exactly something I can *stand* ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:42 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#116)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 08:21 AM September 5th, 2005 EST (#76)
|
|
|
|
|
aerd, I challenge you to find one—just one—area where today's female (i.e., woman or girl) is seriously disadvanted and the problem is not being addressed and hand-wrung over by gov't, media, or the ubiquitous women's commissions.
On the other hand, demonstrate one men's issue that is being serious addressed by the above institutions. Just one. Or, failing that, one men's issue that is not being countered by the feminist establishment.
Those not-so-bad feminists that you point to are merely believers of the lowest level, analogous to the party members in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, blissfully unaware of the true face of their ideological creeds. They embrace the label, swallow the lies, and spout the statistics that they've been taught. At best they're ignorant. NO self-respecting equalitarian seeker of justice, could knowingly accept the actions of feminism as it presently exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop helping women is not enough and will lead to no result. Men should in the first place stop allowing women to tread them like dogs.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:11 PM September 4th, 2005 EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
Here we go again.
But in this case, Bert I agree with you completely.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:46 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#87)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think we should "stop helping women" when they need help, but we need to start helping men too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:03 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#90)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, women have all the help and government funding in the world for their issues and concerns. Men have little or NONE.
Time to spread that "equality" around...!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 05:38 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#98)
|
|
|
|
|
to stop helping women was not the point of the orriginal post.
The point is - to expose "regular" women to the costs of feminism. To date, women have been able to enjoy the benefits of feminism, and men fulfilling thier tradional role.
There is no free lunch - that is the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:04 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#91)
|
|
|
|
|
You guys just want to dominate women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:32 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#92)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, Jeez, here we go again.
Okay, troll, WHERE does anyone here say they "want to dominate women"? WHERE?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:44 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#94)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Thundercloud,
Forget about the troll. Here's post 94 (I think). Only 6 to go.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:49 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#95)
|
|
|
|
|
95 and still counting...........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 04:35 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#96)
|
|
|
|
|
I'll jump in at 96...
Oh, you evil men! Dominate me! Dominate me!
Yeah, thats it. We just want to be dominated. And you men just want to dominate us.
Isn't that comeback getting a little tired already? You just want to dominate women. Geez, after how many years you would think feminists would get a little more imagination.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:51 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#97)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for helping out, Jenk. Here's 97.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:08 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#110)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen-
If the feminists had imagination, they wouldn't be feminists
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:13 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#112)
|
|
|
|
|
...that you are a troll.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:06 PM September 7th, 2005 EST (#129)
|
|
|
|
|
No.
The truth is is that for all your talk about "women wanting to dominate men" it is actually you men who want to dominate women.
You want us barefoot and pregnant, chained to a stove and gagged.
Everything you all write SHOWS that that is what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 03:19 PM September 7th, 2005 EST (#130)
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, you are so right. WHy am I here? I am just a victim of the patriarchy!I have been brainwashed by dick.
Listen, feminista, crawl back under the rock from whence you came. The men here give me FAR more respect than the feminists ever had. These men expect me to be accountable for my actions, be able to back up claims with facts, and treat me like an adult.
I have no clue where the barefoot and pregnant crap is coming from, since the men here are all boycotting marriage or are already married. I think that domination may be transferance, since domination is what feminism seems to be about lately. Geez, asking for equal rights is domination? What next? Get a life and if you are going to troll, try using your brain first.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 04:37 PM September 7th, 2005 EST (#132)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:38 AM September 9th, 2005 EST (#133)
|
|
|
|
|
>"You want us barefoot and pregnant, and chained to a stove and gagged."
No not all women. Just you Troll-head.
Okay, maybe I should apologize. Maybe you're not a troll. You're obviously just a lunatic.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:39 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#93)
|
|
|
|
|
We guys just want justice and equality for everyone
(actually I only bothered to make this post as I think we have a sporting chance of making a century of posts. It's been a good while since we had 100 posts on any topic)
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 09:45 PM September 5th, 2005 EST (#100)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah for me!
So do I win anything? ;-)
TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:29 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#107)
|
|
|
|
|
Belated congratulations, Jenk. I had a feeling we were going to make it.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:13 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#117)
|
|
|
|
|
You win a Burrito, with a bug in it!
Don't ask...,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:45 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#118)
|
|
|
|
|
I deserve half of it (whatever it is) as I did most of the work between 92 and 99. I only let Jenk have 100 because of my chivalrous nature.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 03:11 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#119)
|
|
|
|
|
If the prize is a burrito, you won't be the only one she's sharing it with. (Phew!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 09:02 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#125)
|
|
|
|
|
I can't smell, load it up with refrieds!Look out Dave!
"I only let Jenk have 100 because of my chivalrous nature."
Oh, so you let me win cause I am a girl?! How freaking male chauvanist pig of you! HMMF!*stalking away*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:51 AM September 7th, 2005 EST (#127)
|
|
|
|
|
I know you said; "don't ask", but I can't help it, I'm inquisitive by nature. What IS a "burrito with a bug in it"????
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:06 AM September 7th, 2005 EST (#128)
|
|
|
|
|
"What IS a "burrito with a bug in it"???"
It's a burrito with a bug in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 03:21 PM September 7th, 2005 EST (#131)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:20 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#104)
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I believe that if women and men are equal, then you have to treat people on that basis.
For example, on a crowded bus or train, I would never give my seat to a female. The exceptions are where someone (male or female) is elderly, or has an obvious infirmity or medical condition.
Similarly, I would never help a female caryy something heavy, unless it was so evidently unsuitable for one person to carry. In that case, I would offer a male or female some help.
A few years ago, I was on a train after a concert. The train was from one city to another and the journey was about 1 hr long. The train was jammed with concert goers returning home to the other city, including myself. I got a seat, however, the train was very busy and the people started to queue up in the aisles too. A group of four women (early 30s age group) were standing right next to me and within a few minutes, had jokingly suggested that my friend and I give 2 of them our seats as they were "ladies". They were joking to an extent, but mentioned it about 3 or 4 times over the first 15 minutes of the journey. Finally, I said something fairly blunt around "equality" and asked if they would offer me their seats if the situation was reversed. One of them laughed loudly with mock outrage and said "Of course not - we're ladies".
Silence from me. Silence from her and her friends as they dawned on what I was getting at. Silence for the next 45 mins of the journey.
These situations have nothing to do with chivalry for me. They're just a balanced, rational attitude when people are equal. I would never drive past anyone at night with a flat tyre if I somehow knew they didn't know how to change the tyre - male or female.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:05 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#105)
|
|
|
|
|
Very well said.
Suppose you had been eating a meal with those "ladies" and,when the meal was over, you half jokingly suggested that they wash the dishes. I assure you their reaction would be anything but ladylike.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:11 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#111)
|
|
|
|
|
Good one, Hotspur, Good one! LOL!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 07:24 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#106)
|
|
|
|
|
"I would never drive past anyone at night with a flat tyre if I somehow knew they didn't know how to change the tyre - male or female."
I did not advocate driving past someone with a flat tire. I advocate questions and conversation that points out the costs of feminism. Regular women are able to hide from the economic law of "no free lunch" because we let them. When regular women share in the pain, they may begin to speak up. This will open another front in the war against feminist descrimination and the rediculous viewpoints our culture has adopted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:58 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#108)
|
|
|
|
|
I never said that you advocated driving past anyone.
Having considered that scenario though, I am only stating what my reaction would be to that situation.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 03:20 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#120)
|
|
|
|
|
I have a very short list of people I give my seat to:
1) the infirm
2) the not-so-spry elderly
3) the late stage pregnancies
4) people bearing infants
.
.
.
5) women with big bazongas wearing loose halter tops
Okay, okay, the last one wasn't exactly PC masculist, but what can I say, I'm a big-hearted guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:00 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#121)
|
|
|
|
|
Hunchback, you have just forfeited your share of the burrito.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 06:09 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#123)
|
|
|
|
|
1) I agree
2) I agree
3) If she were pregnant with my baby
4) If it was a man managing the children (got to help out brothers), or my children
5) Defiantly not - but I would give her $5 to do some calisthenics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:22 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#124)
|
|
|
|
|
Re 5):
Hey, standing over her with a view like that I might not want to get off at my stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:11 AM September 6th, 2005 EST (#109)
|
|
|
|
|
To the answer, ".... I asked her if she was a feminist, and she stammered, looked confused, and seemed to become uncomfortable. I could see the wheels turning in her head – she wanted to standup and have me “hear her roar”, but she also knew that she did not know how to change a tire, like any 15 year old boy could. So after a few moments she stuttered a “no”. ...."
Wrong answer to wrong question!
You should be asking does she OPPOSE feminism! It is not enough to NOT BE A MARXIST-FEMINIST. She must swear to oppose feminism.
Then she is deserving of help.
Anything less than that allows women to think they can still be passive and do nothing but allow feminism to oppress men and children.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 06:03 PM September 6th, 2005 EST (#122)
|
|
|
|
|
Good point Warble-
I am just thinking one step at a time and trying to plant seeds where I can. I advocate trying to lead regular women to a conclusion. People (especially women) do not like having their nose rubbed in "it".
You would be surprised at how far pointing out the obvious fact of no free lunch can go.
Much attention has been given to group one – I am just thinking about how to reach and activate groups 2 & 3:
1) Fight political/militant feminist wherever possible
2) Encourage regular women to see the light
3) Encourage women who respect men’s role in society to speak up
Make friends and allies where you can, and defeat enemies where you must!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
johnnyp writes "Until “regular” women start confronting feminists, politicians, and the media, no progress will be made. We can lobby, and complain all we want to the politicians and media elite too no effect because nothing can overcome a shrill feminist except a large number of women. Unless regular women see the costs of feminism, they will not act."