|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Daoistfire on 07:35 AM February 19th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
LOL
(Seems most of the males have been brainwashed by the feminist "education program", what a nice world, have fun)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:45 AM February 19th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
If the article was about the violence against Men it would make sense. Otherwise it is more propaganda intended to brainwash Men into being wimps, and easier to manipulate. The guy is being well rewarded for his selling out to Humanity, they usually are. Any discussion about violence that does not include all violence, manipulation etc. is nothing more than propaganda designed to help seperate the genders so that they can create their corporate world of control. We are losing Folks, as we stir our gender hate we are losing. When we wake up it will be way to late. "It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bull on 12:25 PM February 19th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Mainstream society will eventually tire of unsupported feminist rhetoric.
"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments." Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 12:29 PM February 19th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
This guy Jackson Katz is a virtual travelling circus act who consults all over the world with his message that masculinity means violence and society needs to reform boys and men -- by force, if necessary. (Nice irony.)
He appears to have adopted the entire feminist screed of anti-male ideology, and recycles long-debunked statistics on his web site --
----
* Males perpetrate 95% of all serious domestic violence.
* The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 95% of reported assaults on spouses or ex-spouses are committed by men against women.
* Studies have found that men are responsible for 80% to 95% of child sexual abuse cases whether the child is male or female.
----
His main argument fits squarely into the feminist doctrine of the social construction of gender --
"What comes to be accepted as "masculine" in a society is largely a cultural construction, not simply an expression of a shared male nature. Key here is distinguishing biology from learning, seeing masculinity - or, more accurately "masculinities" - not in biological terms, but as a learned set of standards or styles embedded deeply in the values and ideology of culture. As culture evolves, so does our notion of what constitutes "manliness."
He holds women pretty much blameless (i.e. a full endorsement of the "victim" culture), though in a teacher's guide to one of his videos, he does state ---
"While girls and women are not in any way responsible for men’s violence, they do have an important role to play as well, because the tough guise is attractive to men in part because they see many girls and women validating it. Girls and women have to show that they’re looking for more in men than bad boy posturing, and in particular that they value men who reject the tough guise."
I'd encourage all MRA's to check out this guy's web site. I'm surprised that Sen Joe Biden didn't have this dude as a featured speaker during his sham VAWA 2005 Senate Judiciary Committe hearings.
Link at -- http://www.jacksonkatz.com/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 09:13 PM February 19th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I’m sure this Jackson Katz thinks he’s saving the world from men (He himself being right thinking is not one of the men women need saving from) and in doing this chivalrous act he will be praised by women. Actually the women who would outwardly approve of his words don’t want him on the planet either. It is not our behaviour they hate, it is being male. The male violence thing is just an excuse
These women have no irony. I saw that again demonstrated on TV this weekend. I was watching a programme about Greenham Common. Greenham Common is about 30 miles form me here in the UK. It is now an industrial estate but in the 1980s housed the USAF Cruise Missiles. A peace camp was set up against the missiles. Essentially a lot of tents and caravans on some disused land as a permanent protest. The BBC refers to it here Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp, 1981-2000. What the BBC doesn’t mention and the programme did, was that it was not initially a women only camp. Women outnumbered men. Some apparently had husbands who supported them but had to be at work so these women came and lived at the camp. There was also clearly a feminist/socialist/lesbian element. Anyhow they had a vote (presumably in secret from the men there) and decided to make it a women only camp. Because a couple of the men got angry about it (one threw some water over a woman and another slashed a tent) this was taken as meaning they had made the right decision. The irony of it is that to protest a nuclear confrontation between the East and West where communism would have happily excluded all other forms of government on the planet, they then choose to exclude half the human race from this protest. Don’t they know wars are started on less than that.
The other thing is that these women apparently got rid of the cruise missiles. It wasn’t the collapse of the Soviet Union.
BTW, that London Free(?!) Press is in London, Ontario, in case anyone was confusing it with a well known city.
PS, Scott, it took me 4 tries to post this. If you’ve got another server, I suggest switching ASAP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 01:19 PM February 20th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Dirtbags like Katz is one of the Reason the FemNags are still in control of Academia. And they are getting their funding with our Tax dollars. Maginas who apologize for the crime of being born Male. He is a pathetic excuse for a Man. Men like he and Hugo Schwyzer are typical FemNag apologists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 09:10 AM February 21st, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
While girls and women are not in any way responsible for men’s violence...
This isn't true. Apart from the fact that women initiate over half of all domestic violence incidents, there are other less obvious ways in which women are responsible for men's violence.
In many homes, men are still expected to perform the role of punisher to their children. This allows women to use the threat of violence to control their children, without having to get their own hands dirty (another old, old story, eh guys?!).
Women have been given an expectation that violent, abusive behaviour by them against men is acceptable and should go without punishment or even social disapproval. Men are expected not only to not defend themselves, but also to expect no defense from any other agency. Worse still, feminism invents excuses whereby the responibility for women's abusive behaviour is transferred onto the man she is abusing, usually for transparently bogus reasons (familiarise yourself with the 'Primary Aggressor Rule', if you haven't already done so).
Men are permitted only a very small range of emotions. This is related to something I've mentioned before, namely that women have no higher values because society doesn't hold them to the consequences of those values; 'higher values' in women are just an affectation. Similarly, although we may claim that men may have the full range of emotions (anyone care to remember all that crap about men crying in the 1990s?), the reality is that the consequences of some of these emotions do not apply. The reason they do not apply is that women want those consequences entirely for themselves. The emotions in question are the 'sympathy-inducing' emotions, especially the emotion of being upset. Men are not allowed to be upset - especially by women - and no social mechanism or structure exists for dealing with such upset. The universalised statement "girls and women are not in any way responsible for men’s violence" is a symptom of this, as is the well-worn saying "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". Of course, women's upset is an excuse for anything, up to and including murder.
Since men are not allowed to be upset (because women want the consequences of that emotion entirely for their own benefit), important social systems - such as the law - are increasingly more harsh in their treatment of men, sometimes putting those men under unbearable strain. Under these circumstances men can be driven to desperate measures, including acts of violence. The fact that the man has been criminalised by an unjust legal system does not absolve that legal system from the consequences of its actions. Feminism has been especially successful in the creation of new 'crimes' that men can be found guilty of, and in the creation of ever more unyieldingly sadistic sentences for these 'crimes' (check out Canada's Bill 117, or pretty much any area of relationship law).
Nobody is suggesting that all male violence is women's fault, but to pretend that none of it is is absurd. And if women's violence is all men's fault (feminists generally believe that it is), then what does the lack of female violence (as claimed by feminists) say about the society we live in? You can't have it both ways, sisters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(chermanstovall@msn.com)
on 05:55 PM February 20th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
but I'd like to hit this guy over the head with a tire-iron (3 Stooges style, of course). My quick hits: reading the word "Oprah" was enough to disengage my considerable intellect. I guess "Kill Bill" delivered a message to young girls and women that's way more different than, uh - can anybody give me an example of a recent movie that portrays Samurai sword weilding men that whack women into fish bait? I watched "wrasslin" while growing up (in my formative years) so I must be behind the learning curve when I admit that those horrific images of ultra-violence failed to implant the subliminal message that it is considered manly to slap a few "HO's" around. The more interaction I see between single men and women both my age and 30 years my junior the more I see that women do NOT want the kind of man this femiparrot claims we should become. What my empirical data has proven is that a very large population of women are becoming so desperate for a male companion with balls(*) that they not only submit to being called stupid when in fact they Do and/or Say something stupid, they come back for more - in tears, and with full admission of culpability that they are indeed: STUPID. I was nothing short of stupefied upon seeing and hearing this in action multiple times. Surely, I mused, this must be the fastest way to get the heave-ho and put on the N.O.W. most wanted list but hell no. The more these ladies got called on their crap the more they wore out their fingers dialing the phone and the more frantic they became. I supose the only demographic this would not work on would be Maureen Dowd clones and we all know where ole' Maureen sits in the food chain - unedible. As my grandson grows older I will not stop boxing with him, I won't stop "wrasslin" with him and I won't discourage him when he gets old enough to realize that reading lingerie catalogs is a lot more fun than reading "Harry Potter" (IMO). By the way, I do buy Hustler and porn flicks and I think it is perfectly fine to say "I'm not a rapist". GFY "Mister" Katz and the Oprah show you rode in on. But then, that's just me.
* - Having Balls does not translate into "I'm the boss so eat my sh*t". You can have balls and be a man, like MANN contributors, or you can have balls, like Jackson Katz, and be a eunuch. I really don't like impugning the character of someone I do not know but looky here - Jackson, don't try to repair me, my brothers, my sons or my grandson. We're doing just fine.
P.S. On a completely unrelated topic, my son relayed to me that in a very recent conversation with a 70 year old college counselor who, coincidentally, happens to be female, confided that he should take heed and beware because "women are LIARS". Do you think she was lying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 07:51 PM February 20th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Somebody READS!! Lingerie catalogues. Which reminds me of a joke in a sitcom when the Sun newspaper first started showing topless women (Page 3 girls) when someone said
“Bring me the Sun newspaper” … “and something to read as well”
But seriously, you remind me of the idea that women challenge men but they don’t want to win. Sometimes you can fail the test by just agreeing with them. I’ve heard recently that women these days will offer to pay for a meal on a date and if you accept you’re out. You have to figure out what they want, not just accept what they say they want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(chermanstovall@msn.com)
on 08:20 PM February 20th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I read something somewhere (might have been here) by this guy that spoke about the tests that women give and he made it his personal mission to fail every stinkin' one of them. He became another one of my heros. I disagree on one point, women don't know what they want. They say they do but the choices they make are in direct opposition. Well, I take that back. They do know one thing they want. Their cake and yours, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 08:29 AM February 21st, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree on one point, women don't know what they want.
Here! Here! The most fatuous question ever asked by anyone in the whole history of human question-asking was Freud's "What do women want?" I think one reason why feminists want women to 'have it all' is the desperate hope that if women have everything then somewhere in all that stuff will be whatever the hell it is they want.
I disagree on one point, women don't know what they want. They say they do but the choices they make are in direct opposition.
I read an essay by Philip K. Dick a while ago which may shed light on this. He said that a very good therapist he knew had said that in almost every case of criminal psychosis there was an easier choice that the person didn't take (this was in reference to the "I don't like Mondays" shootings, which were perpetrated by a woman). The psychotic thinks they're taking the easy way out, but they're not. I think most of the regular visitors to this site will agree that feminist women are psychotic (that is, completely out of touch with reality) - and how many more times do any of us need to hear some manhater bellyaching about how there are no good men left? You can't see the wood for the trees, psycho-bitches, you just can't see the wood for the trees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Demonspawn on 11:46 AM February 21st, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I figured out what women want a long time ago. It's quite simple really, they only want one thing: MORE! They want more flowers than they got last Valentine's day, more money from your paycheck than they got last year, etc...
Oh, and another thing. Never abhor violence. Violence is an incredibly useful tool, not to mention the very force that makes the world go round. Violence (or the threat thereof) is what keeps your national borders safe, is what keeps most potential criminals in line, and quite honestly keeps many of us entertained (remember that most 'big pro sports' are simply watered-down versions of the Roman gladitorial games). It is also what keeps goverments from totaly exploiting their citizens, which is why most goverments that allow firearms ownership are consistantly attempting to outlaw it.
--Demonspawn
P.S. I havn't forgotten the request to look into why ritilin is so mass-perscribed. I've been busy with a few job interviews :) However, from a site listed in a previous story, re-read this from http://www.ritalindeath.com/
--------
Did you know that schools receive additional money from state and federal government for every child labeled and drugged? This clearly demonstrates a possible "financial incentive" for schools to label and drug children. It also backs up the alarming rise/increase in the labeling and drugging that has taken place in the last decade within our schools.
Did you know that parents receiving welfare money from the government can get additional funds for every child that they have labeled and drugged? In this way, many lower socio-economic parents (many times single mothers) are reeled into the drugging by these financial incentives waved in front of them in hard times, making lifestyle changes possible.
------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:39 PM February 21st, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Violence in and of it self is abhorrible. Violence for the sake of violence is abhorrible. Violence in the form of self defense is applaudable. Violence as a form of entertainment is nothing more than a diversion to keep the masses at bay. A lesson learned by the Romans, no? I believe that every Child should learn martial arts in school, and should also learn how to handle guns in school. But that doesn't mean that I am a violent person. I just think that if we had an even playing field things would surely change. But, as you know we have never had an even playing field. Your info on the manipulations of the poorer Parents seems to back up what I said about the government trying to stifel the smart Children in our society. I have said that we are entering into a modern version of the dark ages for years now, just different means of achieveing the same goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 03:06 PM February 21st, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
whats the bill of rights for? to limit government! then whats freedom of speech for? to give cultural marxists something to do.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
alphamale writes "I just about fell off my chair reading