|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 02:33 AM February 19th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
If he's 13 now, that means he's still got a few years until he has to start paying the woman who raped him child support. It has happened before - a woman rapes a child, and the child is later forced to pay support for the child the rapist delivers as a result of the rape.
Women have "choices". Men pay for them.
It's a lovely world, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The boy is described as being withdrawn and suicidal now, how will he cope when he gets the Bill ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by robrob on 05:41 AM February 19th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
She was 26-years-old, 5 foot 1, 100 pounds, blonde and blue eyed...
Only a female reporter could write this about a woman having sex with an underage boy. What is the point of this opening? That she was attractive and the boy was lucky? That he couldn't say no?
I wonder if she would write about a 26yr old hunky, handsome man with dark hair and eyes having sex with a 13yr old girl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 12:53 PM February 19th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't help matters that Hollywood, feminists, sick women and segments of our society make the "Much older woman and young boy relationship" Chic, trendy and "cute and funny".
Notice that when a woman does this, everyone has a chuckle, it is given an explanation, it is called "every little boys fantasy". "It is just a woman being sexually empowered" or "adventurous"
But when a man has relations with a young girl it is given the OPPOSITE reaction. It is called "Evil" he is called "paedophile", it is called "statutory rape", "sick", "twisted", "A CRIME".
And as always, men who do this are demonized, and women who do it are diagnosed.
No double standards, here, huh?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SpikeRants on 01:49 PM February 19th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I had that discussion with my brother in law from California. He didn't seem to think anything of it when a woman does it to a boy-- even though by law it is the same crime. When asked about a man doing it to a girl, he couldn't fathom how a young girl would want to be with a handsome man.
I agree with the fact that it's every young man's fantasy; there were plenty of hot teachers in my school I would have liked to come on to me. BUT, at that young age, it's still taking advantage of a younger, less developed, frankly dumber (in not having enough knowledge to wonder why this married woman is coming on to me, etc.) person. What if the victim in this case were 21, but mentally retarded to the point of having a 12-year-old developmental level? Would it then have been his fantasy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 03:23 PM February 19th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
It's clear from the newspaper account that this woman is a sophisticated predator and pedophile.
She calculated the entire plan to entrap and rape this boy, including becoming friendly with his family, learning how to impersonate his mother to call him in sick for school, and arranging for babysitters to get her three young kids out of the house so she could have her psychotic fun.
And she gets ONE YEAR of work release as punishment?
It's becoming clear that the real problem in our Injustice Shitstem is not only feminism and bad feminist laws, but the legions of pussified bought-and-sold male blackrobes who subscribe to an insane and treacherous chivalry that sees no reason to hold women accountable for their choices and actions.
The average sentence for a MAN convicted of rape in this nation is 12 years! Hard time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 07:42 PM February 19th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
It finally occurred to me what we've been missing. We've been had, guys.
Women "liberated" themselves, alright, starting with sex and birth control. The average woman's error was in assuming they were liberating themselves from "the oppression of men" or "the patriarchy", as feminist propaganda had conditioned them to believe. Of course there's a "patriarchy". If there weren't a patriarchy, there would be a matriarchy, and we'd all be struggling to get into the Bronze Age, which is where female-controlled societies stop evolving. All agrarian and industrialized societies are patriarchal for a reason, or they don't survive. Read your history. If women want to take ours over, they will have to become the very patriarchy they claim to hate. Too bad feminism is a suicidal meme.
But this wailing about the patriarchy was simply a Marxist propaganda campaign to create their victim myth and demonize men as a class, allowing their movement to gain popular acceptance.
What they were actually "liberating" themselves from was their gender's responsibilities. These are better known as social responsibilities, and they've carried it so far that they now expect to be excused from criminal responsibilities at the same time they are allowed to arbitrarily imprison men for such offenses as non-payment on paternity fraud, hurt feelings, or some innocent man marrying a woman with a mental illness who can still manage to dial 911.
Oh, they held on to their gender privileges just fine, and stole most of ours, all while transferring all responsibility and culpability onto the backs of men.
Of course, as any halfwit has by now figured out, men never "oppressed" women to begin with. We simply had different sets of responsibilities and privileges that were necessary to sustain life in our society, and one day, soon after the birth control pill gave them the ability to have sex without taking any responsibility for their actions, the women decided they didn't like having any responsibilities - we should apparently carry all of those, which is why 95% of workplace deaths are among men, and we fill the glass cellars and prisons, all while listening to constant complaining about a non-existent wage gap women choose to create! The birth control pill was the catalyst that enabled them to use their propaganda campaign to dump ALL of their social responsibilities on men. They didn't stop having children at our expense, of course, they just decided that all of a sudden, everything in their lives was a "choice", and everything in ours was not.
So, what we need to do now is figure out a way to liberate ourselves from our responsibilities, and let the chips fall where they may. The girls did it 40 years ago without giving a thought to the consequences for anyone but themselves, or who had to pick up their pieces.
Why shouldn't we do the same?
They used Marxism and class hatred to get what they wanted. I'm open to suggestions on the propaganda we can use to get a full-fledged POPULAR men's liberation movement underway. A positive movement, that seeks to do only what women have already done for themselves: liberate all men from their social responsibilities, making all male responsibilities a choice.
What would we seek to be liberated from? To start with:
1) The expectation that we will work ourselves into early graves so some woman doesn't have to
2) The only responsibility in criminal and family courts
3) The only responsibility for the costs of children, particularly when we have no choices regarding paternity, and are commonly denied access to those same children
4) Total responsibility for all social ills and the evil in our world
5) Responsibility for sustaining or supporting women's "choices". Let them fend for themselves.
IT'S LONG PAST THE TIME WHERE MEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE SAME CHOICES AS WOMEN ABOUT THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES TO ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES!
We can't use class warfare to accomplish this - women have already created the victim-industrial complex in this society. Marxist revolutions always end in failure, so that's out too.
Can we pitch this as a massive extension of MAUS's "going your own way"? How do we get the average man to buy in and begin to deprogram themselves from being slaves to a woman-centric system, to relieve themselves of the burden of carrying all of society's blame and responsibilities, and to return the responsibilities women dumped on our backs, along with a few of our own, to the products of feminism for a full refund?
Unlike women's movements, I recommend that we keep the responsibility for ourselves, and ourselves alone, but reject all others that have been unfairly heaped on us. This will help restore balance to society.
Given the corruption of the government by "women's interests", that would include legally reducing the taxes we pay to as close to nil as possible, ditto for alimony, child support, dowries and the rest. Within the law, of course.
Suggestions on how we start it?
MEN'S LIBERATION. NOW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Fidelbogen on 03:17 PM February 20th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wonderful post you've written! I'm saving a copy on my computer!
The best OVERALL plan, in my opinion, is to put into motion with all deliberate speed a massive (largely grassroots) talking campaign against feminism.
I call it the SLAMFEST.
Since there will be plenty of screaming from their side, you should invest in a good set of earplugs! I recommend the soft, foam-rubber kind. ;-)
Everyone should employ his natural genius in this effort. The balladeers who play guitars should compose ballads and play their guitars. The cartoonists should draw cartoons. The artists should paint pictures. The wordsmiths should be clanging away in their smithies! The analysts should analyze. The polemicists should polemicize. The conversationalists should conversationalize. The samizdat legions should get busy in their kitchen-table workshops. The moviemakers should make more movies like "Oleanna", and insinuate them into avant-garde circles. And those who "know people" and have "connections" should help to connect the wires to make the whole thing light up and jump to the next level, and the next and the next...
Slamfest, slamfest, and more slamfest!!!
Since feminism has been wreaking its havoc for about 40 years, the SLAMFEST ought to last at least that long.
It ought to escalate to a crescendo.
One caveat: Don't attack *women*. Apart from drawing public attention to seductresses, murdering moms and the like (in order to undermine the myth of female innocence) the Focus should be purely on feminism as an ideology and as a movement. Feminism's big mistake was to rip into all men indiscriminately, and they shall pay dearly for their temerity! But let us not go down the same road as they..
The Slamfest should be especially well represented on college campuses, in order to counter the influence of gender studies curricula.
I say "grassroots", but remember that it doesn't need to remain on that level. In time, the Slamfest should reach critical mass, whereupon (being too big to ignore any longer) it will "break through" into the mainstream media. And that's when the fat publishing contracts start rolling in....
The main work of the Slamfest should be to EXPOSE FEMINISM''S CRIMES. To paint those crimes in blazing colors for all the world to see!
I have sketched the matter in broad-stroke; let that suffice for now.
Keep in mind that the Slamfest is compatible with all sorts of other counter-feminist scenarios; it can run as a background program on the same server. :-)
"Feminism has a rap sheet."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 05:13 PM February 20th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Again kudos to RandomMan for outstanding writing and synthesis of the key issues MRA’s confront!
First, an historical footnote. The 1970’s-80’s feminists were indeed making a neo-Marxist critique of society which included a clever bait-and-switch maneuver to identify men as an oppressor "class." The rad fems basically transferred Marxist class-warfare language into their imagined Evil Patriarchy and gender relations of power-and-control.
But those second generation feminists also linked women’s liberation to the overthrow of capitalism. What happened to that political argument?
Well, it’s simple really.
With the success of N.O.W., the legal extortion of billions of tax dollars to fund an ever-growing menu of franchises of the Women’s Victim Industry (i.e. domestic violence network, divorce & family court gulags, Title IX, paternity fraud/child support scams, womyn’s studies programs, etc.) it became crystal clear that feminism was thriving within the very capitalistic system they formerly claimed was oppressive.
In sum, feminism got itself plugged into the public money trough, and life has been good ever since. So much for ideological purity... Real Marxism was too inconvenient when instead of overthrowing Congress they realized they could just buy and bully the congresswussies into submission to the feminist agenda.
So, indeed --- "How do we get the average man to buy in and begin to deprogram themselves from being slaves to a woman-centric system…. ???"
On an individual level, it’s not that difficult. It means doing an objective cost:benefit:risk:reward analysis of how women affect your life positively and negatively.
Most men will rationally conclude that marriage, cohabitation, and even casual dating should be approached with requisite trepidation and caution --- or better, avoided.
Of course, there’s the obvious pussy power challenge. How many men are willing to become temporarily, voluntarily celebate rather than toss away their liberty in homage to the Golden Vagina?
On a systemic level, where laws have to be reformed or repealed, funding redirected or terminated, and lies exposed, it’s going to be decades before the feminist apparatus can be deposed.
Recently it proved to be impossible to get even minor reforms included in VAWA 2005, other than some waffly language that mandated nothing but allowed all the pols to state that they "voted for a more inclusive VAWA..."
I’ve concluded that the quickest route to a "popular men’s rights movement" will be to support the MGTOW /Marriage Strike/ End Chivalry philosophy, because women need to feel a much greater degree of discomfort and distress than they do at present.
When women become sufficiently unhappy, they scream about it... and politicians respond to hysterical banshees far more quickly than to rationale arguments for fairness and justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 06:41 PM February 20th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the positive feedback - always nice to hear.
I agree - MGTOW/Marriage Strike/Paternity Strike/Chivalry is Exploitation is the way to go on the individual level. It will most certainly take decades to undo the damage at the level of legislation and regulations as practiced by a feminist judiciary, government and civil service.
One interesting note: when the male birth control pill becomes available shortly, hopefully it will have an impact very much like the female version and will serve as the long-overdue catalyst for social change to end the exploitation of men. Personally, I did it the old fashioned way (i.e. vasectomy), and ended up with serious complications as a "thank you" in my twenties, so I hope the male pill spares someone the grief I've had to put up with just to avoid paying some woman court-ordered extortion.
The cost-benefit analysis is the key. We just need to keep making average men aware of the real costs they're paying - in addition to the harm done to young men by the feminist education system and a misandric culture, there's the dates, engagement rings (our version of dowry), marriages, child support and alimony. They don't see the various stealth taxes imposed on men by our female-centric system. Among them, there's the diversion of billions to fund VAWA, billions in feminist pork in academia, billions to fund enforcement armies for those subject to "woman tax" (my word for alimony, mommy support and the like). The list is almost endless, and it's all drawn from the public trough that men slave to fill for an a society that hates them in return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:43 PM February 20th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"The list is almost endless, and it's all drawn from the public trough that men slave to fill for a society that hates them in return."
So, logically, it becomes necessary to interrogate men's penchannt for MASOCHISM?
(Webster's) -- (1) a sexual perversion characterized by pleasure in being subjected to pain or humiliation especially by a love object
(2) pleasure in being abused or dominated; a taste for suffering
Maybe VAWA 2010 could have a line of credit for all men still captive to Chivalry to receive free electroshock therapy at feminist clinics?
Sounds extreme.... but then again....
How many more decades of feminist injustice do you think may be required before the sheeple wake up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 09:33 PM February 20th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think people will ever wake up until we break the system that conditions them from birth, and I don't think chivalry has its roots in masochism in the vast majority of cases.
Men are gradually conditioned in way that gradually and progressively exploits their paternal, protective instincts for the benefit of women and their offspring. It's just biologically programmed greed on the part of the females controlling socialization. These days, we call the resulting sickness in men "chivalry" and the resulting sickness in women "entitlement".
Sadly, I don't think ECT will do it, Roy. Female greed is biological at its roots (see below), and is conditioned and emphasized through socialization. Chivalry develops from an equally biological root, and is then nurtured throughout a man's education and socialization. Male chivalry may be the worst sort of exploitation (of men!) in our society, but its roots - protectiveness and paternalism - are truly in our genes. If the roots weren't that deep, women couldn't twist them into "chivalry" and "honour" for their own benefit. This happens during our education and upbringing through the stories we're told and the lessons we learn, and the notion that men are worthless unless a woman says otherwise is forced on us at every moment through the media. Women in our society are now effectively "recruiting" girls with "girl power" earlier and earlier to help society keep boys hopeless. The result is generations of malleable young men kept without hope or self-worth so they'll be more easily socialized to believe whatever women tell them.
Female-controlled socialization was once necessary for the species to survive in organized, advanced societies (women granted "chivalrous" or brave men "honour" as a way of controlling them for their own benefit), and its roots aren't going to go away any time soon, even if we do finally manage to reverse the warped socialization of men by women in our society.
The feminists prey on the chivalry that results from our biology and their carefully controlled socializtion of men like a leech preys on blood. This is of course the very basis for their political "victories" in male-controlled societies.
If you think I'm wrong about the basis of adult behaviour being socialized exaggeration of innate biological traits, then you'll have to explain to me why female infants too young to even speak automatically make "googly eyes" and put on great big smiles for men they encounter, even when they could not possibly have been "socialized" to do so. It's a survival tactic - female infants engage in this play bahaviour early for a reason: men are programmed to respond by giving the infant what she needs. This behaviour becomes more complex later in life after the female-controlled socializtion has done its job to expand it as much as possible, but at its root, it's the same biological drive: women once needed to gather the most resources possible to survive and raise infants of their own in "fatherless" societies where men weren't part of a nuclear family unit, and they did this by having men give those resources to them. Adult females flirt shamelessly for money and favours, but it's the same basic biology at work. You see, men were never really part of the original mammalian family units - we just got laid and moved on. Of course we've changed all that as our species and societies evolved, and men are most definitely critical to their children's lives now (despite what feminists claim), but some of the underlying surivial tactics from our primate ancestors have endured nonetheless. Hence the evolution of female greed at the biological level. A long, long time ago, it was actually necessary as a survival tactic. Later, men were drawn into monogamous relationships through socialization. This also served the female need for resources while raising their offspring.
Once women exploit those biological roots by preying on men's innate paternalism and socializing men to give up their resources (now it's done through the force of law), marry and be "chivalrous", and women are given complete control over conception with "the pill" and gynocentric abortion and "family" laws, all you're left with is unnecessary greed which serves no valid purpose. Even nuclear families aren't necessary for female purposes when the government acts as a surrogate "man" to answer their endless demand for resources. ALL of this is just a seed of biologically necessary female greed grown to giant proportions.
Of course, we just call it feminism. It's so much easier to type than the explanation above.
I don't suggest that we try to change biology. I belive that our disrespect for biology and women's exploitation of it is what got us into this mess. Instead, I suggest that we try to respect it while undoing the failed social engineering experiments and manipulation carried out by feminists. We do this (at first) by liberating ourselves, intentionally denying biology as an act of civil disobedience. What we'd be disobeying is the feminist-engineered social construct of chivalry and resource transfer through government intervention.
Once we have restored balance to society, and the laws recognize in words and practice that all men and women are legally equal, but fundamentally different in their biology and behaviour for valid biological reasons, we can then start talking about re-assuming some gender-specific responsibilities.
You see, I don't suggest that women should be barefoot, silent and pregnant. I think that up until the early 60's, women did have some cause to complain about the laws of the land. I agree that women are my legal equals, and entitled to the same rights and protections as any man in an advanced, centralized industrial society! Where I start to disagree is with the idea that women don't have the same responsibilities, or that they're entitled to privilege without responsibility. Women will never live up to a man's responsibilities in this society. Therefore the only possibility of change lies in reducing our level of responsibility to those of a woman in our society as an act of civil disobedience.
Equality must prevail, goes the feminist party line. SO BE IT. We have to live down to the standards society expects of women for a while to restore the balance. It's the only way. The male birth control pill will allow us to start this process.
My only demand is therefore that men have the same degree of "choice" in their lives that women feel entitiled to. To achieve this, we have to challenge ourselves to live down to the standards applied to women without ever losing sight of the final goal of true legal equality that respects the biological differences between men and women, even if they are no longer essential for survival as a species given the type of society we live in, and a society which rejects selfish and ultimately futile attempts at "social engineering".
ECT's a good thought, but I think the male pill is really going to be the shock treatment that society needs. Feminist societies will either die out due to declining birth rates and be replaced by non-feminists, or we will prevail in restoring balance to society. Either way, the feminists will lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 11:04 PM February 20th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"Once we have restored balance to society, and the laws recognize in words and practice that all men and women are legally equal, but fundamentally different in their biology and behaviour for valid biological reasons, we can then start talking about re-assuming some gender-specific responsibilities."
And you are writing the next Disney screenplay for "The Little Mermaid --- Part Two?"
Please... more explication.
Especially please define who the envisioned powerful "WE" might be?
Do you have phone numbers I can dial up?
MRA organizations that I can subscribe to?
Congressmen I can bride?
I like your writing, but that's the most absurd prepositional phrase I've seen in a while...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:46 PM February 21st, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
If there was a "WE", it would be shut down as a hate group by feminism's private army, and you know it, Roy.
I was making the point earlier that there IS no "WE", and it made me realize that men don't need a centralized leadership or propaganda army the way feminists do. The only WE that's required is men: as many as we can each individually manage to convince to liberate themselves. It's a one-on-one movement that I'm suggesting. My hope is that it progresses enough that there is effectively a "we" (in the form of lots of free thinking, liberated men) by the time it's all said and done, but action takes place at the individual level. I'm suggesting a popular movement started at the individual level and propagated from one individual to the next, nothing more. I believe that once a man is educated as to the fallacies of feminist society, he will see the wisdom of deprogramming and liberating himself. Whether it's through speech, actions, print, film or whatever is immaterial. It's the individual drive to undo the process of dumping all responsibility and guilt on men that's important.
Feminists have forgotten that one of the underpinnings of their movement was the separation of the self from the group identity. In fact, they've rejected it entirely and have formed a collective "victimhood". The only way to fight that group identity is by temporarily developing a movement as men without losing ourselves to the group, insofar as it's possible. That's the "WE" that will eventually decide when it's time to consider taking back some responsibilities for others - individual men acting in their own interest. I don't expect there will ever be a cohesive organization of any kind. Just a popular movement of men towards liberating themselves, a sort of "men's consciousness", if you will.
There's something like 3 BILLION of us on this planet. Even 5% of that is a huge "WE".
But liberation happens on the individual level, and a sufficient number of individual men liberating themselves will have the effect we desire. Therefore your nonsensical questions about who to "call" are just that: nonsense. Think of it in terms of a popular movement consisting of learning and actions by individuals without coordination, all resulting in a net effect which benefits all men.
The only organization that could conceivably help would be lobby groups or other pressure organizations to try and make such a movement more popular with the average Joe. If we, as men, can convince our governments to follow New Hampshire's lead and create commissions on the status of men, we, that is all men, will benefit, but they won't necessarily help our cause.
So, to answer your question, in the near term, "WE" refers to you, me and every other individual MRA. We need to think and act as individuals, and we're all socialized against doing so.
Once there's a bit of balance as a collective result of individual actions, then ALL of us individuals, i.e. "WE" will individually decide what makes sense in terms of re-assuming some responsibilities beyond those we assume for ourselves. I don't want some woman telling me what my responsibilities are anymore. Hence "WE" - a large, decentralized group of individuals finally free to make choices about their responsibilities in society. It's the overloading of responsibility onto men's shoulders by women who demand "choices" that's caused the present situation.
If you disagree with me about the roots of feminism, or about my suggested plan of action - the individual liberation of men, preferably within the context of a popular movement, although this isn't a prerequisite for individual action, then please explain why instead of flinging unproductive insults at me. If you have a better plan, then let's hear it. Otherwise, why don't you try helping out? What are the best ways for an individual MRA to convince the average man to deprogam and liberate himself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 07:07 PM February 21st, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
There is some really excellent analysis being done here guys. Respect to all of you.
Here are a few of my ideas:
Take a leaf out of the feminists’ own book. Make common cause with other anti-Marxist groups. Contact religious and conservative groups, even if you don't agree with them on other issues.
In daily life:
• You need to take issue with feminists wherever possible.
• Challenge casual misandry in conversation.
• Challenge their false statistics.
• Assert yourself. Learn to recognise verbal manipulation.
• Refuse to be emotionally subjugated.
• Refuse to be ashamed. You are a heterosexual man. Be proud. You have a right to be here.
In your personal life
• Boycott marriage and reproduction with Western women.
• Challenge friendly or conservative women to take a stand against feminism.
• Refuse to be the sexual and emotional slave of feminists. Refuse to be manipulated. You do have other choices.
• Only date non-Western women.
• You enjoyed masturbation at age thirteen - re-discover it.
• Use the sex industry, or remain celibate.
• If you are in a relationship with a woman, don’t lose sight of your own values and your own identity. Refuse to give up your friends and your old hobbies and interests. Retain control over your own money, and your own life.
• Never trust her female friends. They do not have your best interests at heart. Some of them will test you to see what you will do. Always challenge them if you need to. Ironically, they will respect you for it.
In the workplace:
• Identify feminist activists in the workplace and attempt to marginalise them.
• Always protect other men against their bullying tactics.
• Alert others to what is going on, and try to recruit support.
• Keep an incident diary of their activities.
• Always challenge them, but protect yourself.
• Try to recruit friendly women to help, but be careful.
• Alert management where appropriate.
In the media
• Write books and articles.
• Build websites.
• If you come across offensive representations of men in the media, challenge them.
• Write letters and emails to those responsible.
• Organise pickets outside their offices.
• Write letters to the newspapers.
• Draw the attention of other men’s activists to the offending article.
• Boycott the products being advertised or the institutions responsible.
In university
• Build a men's group on campus.
• Insist on a Men's Studies program to balance the Women's Studies program.
• In gender studies, insist that they teach Warren Farrell and Daphne Patai as well as Andrea Dworkin and Mao Tse Tung.
• Ask them why they teach Andrea Dworkin and Mao Tse Tung.
If a teacher holds women-only classes:
• Contact the university authorities and complain. Insist that you want to attend the classes. Threaten to go to the newspapers and sue the university if you are prevented.
• Contact other members of the faculty and canvass their opinion. Express yours. Enlist their help wherever possible.
• Contact your student union organisation. Agitate to pass a motion condemning single-sex classes.
• organise pickets and boycotts of her lessons.
• Do not just target her single-sex classes, target all of her classes.
• Organise sit-ins by groups of activists in her classes - go into her classroom during her lessons and have a party with music and dancing.
• Occupy the room and make noise, but be extremely friendly to everyone. The idea is to disrupt the lesson and cause embarassment, but always be a good citizen.
• Give leaflets to passers-by.
• Don’t forget to invite the local media.
In the Arts Faculty
• There is a need for a new paradigm of cultural criticism, a masculist criticism to oppose feminist criticism.
• It should concern itself with both elite and popular culture.
• It should critically examine the demonisation of men and male sexuality. It should critically examine male stereotypes, including, but not limited to, sexual stereotypes - the Beefcake, the Wimp, the Pervert, the Dirty Old Man. Most of all, perhaps, it should directly challenge feminist theory. It should take feminist texts as one of its principal subject matters, and critically examine them, especially using the tools of science and Philosophy.
• It should embody the values of the Enlightenment.
• It should identify, publicise and challenge feminist hate-speech.
In general:
• Use your own creativity – think of new ways to attack feminism.
But remember:
• Never confuse women with feminists. Women are not the problem. Karl Marx is the problem. Arrogance, selfishness and greed are the problem.
• Men are natural protectors. Protect yourself and others - Always stay within the law.
Men need to organise themselves. The thing to remember about these women is that they know perfectly well that what they are doing is unjustifiable. They do it as part of a pursuit of personal power and status. If they feel that their status will actually be damaged by it, they will slink away with their tails between their legs.
When attempting to confront feminism politically, I believe that the current state of Marxism provides a good model of what is achievable. Today, Marxism is virtually dead politically, but there are still a few marginal Marxist parties in existence, none of which has any chance of ever gaining power. The feminist movement is basically the Western World's last surviving bastion of communist ideas.
It is not possible to completely eliminate feminism, nor is there any need to try. The important thing is to reduce it to a state in which it is no longer a significant political force. There are three principal aspects of feminism which can be directly attacked:
(1) Its theoretical base; the claims that it makes about how the world is.
(2) Its moral credibility
(3) Its financial base.
These are inter-related; feminists’ moral case is based upon empirical claims about how the world is; they have a moral case if and only if these claims about history and society are correct; people donate money to feminist causes because they perceive them to be moral ones; feminists spend much of their funds on propaganda, which serves to improve their moral credibility, thus encouraging people to accept their claims, and attracting more funds. Attacking any one will indirectly serve to undermine the others.
A lot of feminism’s credibility is based upon the premise that it promotes social responsibility. This premise can be attacked using examples such a the ones mentioned on this site – e.g. that feminism is encouraging the emergence of single-parent families, separating fathers from their children, and that this is in fact bad for the children, and therefore bad for society. There is abundant evidence that fatherless boys have more chance of failing at school, using drugs, becoming offenders, fatherless girls are more likely to suffer teenage pregnancy, and so on. Far from promoting social responsibility, feminism is actually doing the reverse; it is highly socially irresponsible. This is what we need to draw people's attention to.
"Those who promise us paradise on earth have never produced anything but hell." Karl Popper
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 08:19 PM February 21st, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
But remember:
• Never confuse women with feminists. Women are not the problem. Karl Marx is the problem. Arrogance, selfishness and greed are the problem.
• Men are natural protectors. Protect yourself and others - Always stay within the law.
Sage advice, AngryMan. Thank you for a brilliant contribution to the discussion of what we can do as individuals to reduce the political impact of feminism in our lives and our societies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 08:56 PM February 19th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
On Friday, Judge Harlan R. Bochman of the 17th Judicial District, Adams County District Court, sentenced 29-year-old Angela Vasquez to one year in the Adam's County Jail on work release on charges of sexual assault on a child.
She and only SHE had choices. She could have aborted the bastard anytime she wanted even up to almost the time of birth. She could have kept it a secret and cockold her husband in to believing it was his. She could even now abandon the child to an adoption agency. But then she would not be eligible for a child support check from her rape victim now would she?
And to think that men are dying and getting permanently maimed in Iraq to supposedly defend and maintain this system of justice. Puke!!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
