|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 03:12 PM March 1st, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
But, then again it has been said that our government has actually started leftist radical organizations, as well as radical right wing and white supremist oragnizations as well. It helps keep the pot boiling so that the average Person can't figure out who the real enemy is. Within any slave population falling birth rates have always been a problem. When Human Beings are forced to live in an unnatural state, their instinct is to not procreate. I guess this just goes to prove that modern society isn't "all that"! In the article it talks about how the ruling class had all these discussions in ancient history. I guess the problem still is the ruling class, and they just can't seem to learn to give it up! "It is a good day to die!" How many levels of seperation and hate must we live with to try and preserve the ruling class?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but in contrast, the people in my age group (18-39), despite all the damage feminism has done, are gonna have to rethink and rebuid the family, despite their progressiveness...family is just as important as being successful in life...and you want to have another generation inherit your genes, right? So in one instance...please plead our feminist sisters to have a change of heart and start promoting family...
it's like Dr. Farrell said, we need to make the transition from rigid roles to trade-offs...and still pass that down to the next generation...
Otherwise it'll be a wonderful day to die [no pun intended, David]!
Emmanuel Matteer Jr.
Emma.noelle.blay@hotmail.com
*****MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND!!!!!*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 05:36 PM March 1st, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
His article was well-written and thoughtful, yes... it does point up some questions though. One big one is this: do men want, I mean, really want, patriarchy? He points out that patriarchy places a lot of burden on men and that the Romans had the problem of keeping men interested in their roles in society despite their supposed privileged place in society relative to women. Wouldn't it be fair to say the same thing happened in the '70s with many men deciding they didn't want to be Superman anymore, at least not to a wife and brood of kids? And does it not in its basic nature, continue through until today?
It could well be that a lot of men as individuals have decided that being a great "pillar of strength" is too damned tiring and annoying and if one doesn't have to do so, why bother? Better to hang out, live life, and not deal with the whiny children, nagging wife, and constant stream of bills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 07:43 PM March 1st, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
mcc99, that is my point exactly. "We" have to decide what and how we want to be instead of following the dictates of the "social scientists". Until we do, we are being led, and where we are being led quite frankly is not only unnatural, but shameful to the creatures that we are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 07:49 PM March 1st, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess one has to decide what exactly is being successful in life? There are a lot of Women in all walks of life that do not like the manipulations of "training". If a Man, or Woman cannot look deep into the "mirror" without pause, then I would say that they are not successful. When slaves lose their slave mentality then we can make some change. I am referring to myself and every other wage slave that walks this earth. Until that day Sir, "It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 05:33 PM March 2nd, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
family is just as important as being successful in life...and you want to have another generation inherit your genes, right?
That's the trap feminists are using to ensnare men in the DV industry and the permanent transfer of assets and children from men to women. We've had that "gender responsibility" beaten into our heads by female-dominated education and socialization.
Flexible roles are one thing, but a man cannot truly be free and "flexible" until he has the same relief from his gender responsibilities as every woman now feels free to demand, thanks to radical feminism. We need to do away with the nonsensical, imbalanced notion that women have choices while men have duties or responsibilities. There's no "forcing" gender responsibilities or roles back on women: that would be counter-productive. Therefore, we need to take advantage of the female default on those gender responsibilities that the feminists of the 60's and 70's caused, and claim the same right to choices for ourselves.
Only then can men truly be free to decide, without social pressure, to start having families. At that stage, however, we still need to address the gross imbalance in family law and the DV industry before most men will feel safe having children again. Until that occurs, men will avoid breeding, simple as that.
mcc99 said something interesting:
Wouldn't it be fair to say the same thing happened in the '70s with many men deciding they didn't want to be Superman anymore, at least not to a wife and brood of kids? And does it not in its basic nature, continue through until today?
In recent history, feminists and in the longer past, women in society as a whole, have always told men what their "duty" was, thus defining what "success" was. Now that women have rejected their "gender responsibilities" completely, their social "roles", I say it's time men decided what their duties are and what success means for themselves.
Feminism in the 60's and 70's broke the social "contract" men lived under for centuries, and removed (at least in my view) any responsibility other than the requirement to be a decent human being to others and obey just laws. The rest, gentlemen, is now up to us. In that respect, we can thank the feminists in a twisted sort of way: they ended up liberating men, too, but most men don't know it yet.
All that being said, if you, as a free, liberated man, choose to become a father, and face the perils of the feminist family courts and DV industry, and that's how you define "success", then more power to you, my congratulations, and best wishes for your family! Just don't let responsibility-free feminists, their society or some woman make you think it's your duty. Only you have the right to decide that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"When Human Beings are forced to live in an unnatural state, their instinct is to not procreate."
Tis a pity the government fails to recognise it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patriarchy will be back and some bitches are going to have very sore asses for raising their voices against their masters.
It's payback time.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 10:18 AM March 2nd, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
“If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, in 131 B.C. Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become. “Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.”
Sorry Quintus, no sale! If the feminists want their androphobic utopia, they'll just have to figure out how to do it without sperm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If liberation means the absence of unavoidable obligation, women's liberation has backfired. It is men who have been liberated. They need not be husbands or fathers to assure themselves of social status. . .They are not required to support women and children for life. They may experience transient social and sexual variety with a range of partners. The contemporary nuptial scene may be problematic or seem arduous to men and hence less likely to appeal to them..."
- Lionel Tiger
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 07:47 PM March 5th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I realize nobody's likely to read this, but I thought I'd reply anyhow, Martian Bachelor.
"Men's liberation", "men's consciousness": these are two names I and others have given to the struggle to release men from millennia of female-imposed dogma, duties and specific responsibilities. Women themselves broke that lamp and released the genie when they "liberated" themselves from the mythical "oppression" of the patriarchy. The only thing they were liberating themselves from was their responsibility to society, and responsibility for themselves. In so doing, they have broken a social contract which has been in force for millennia, and freed men from their burdens under that contract. The endless stories of women who rape, torture and murder children and men with impunity, women who defraud men and the courts with impunity and women who deny men access to their children: all of these are clear demonstrations of the truth of this assertion. By default, men are now free of their former gender roles, as cast by the women who socialized them.
Ironically, as Lionel Tiger's quote indicates, it is men who will be the true benefactors of feminism. Misogyny is unnecessary. Hate, violence and fear are unnecessary. All that is necessary for men to be truly free of the misandric and androphobic conditions we slave and live under is for men to realize that they now have a choice. Men are equally free to cast off the burdens imposed on them by women and society, and they may freely choose to accept or decline any responsibility other than those inherent in civilized life: the obligation to obey just laws and the obligation to behave in a manner which does not harm others, through action or omission.
If we begin to alert adult men to the existence of this paradoxical reality, and their overdue right to self-determination without interference from the objectives of women, they can begin to socialize and educate their sons, their nephews and their grandsons about it. Men will naturally rise to the "challenge" of being free of the obligations shackled to them for so long. It is simply what men do.
We should never attack, fear or hate women simply for their gender. They are our wives, our mothers, our sisters and our daughters. Instead, we should educate them about what men need, what we feel, what we think and what we hope for. Only in doing this will we ever end the hatred and violence of feminism. If we, as a generation or two of free men, demonstrate that we know we are free of socially constructed gender responsibilities, they can never be re-imposed on our sons. Feminism claims that all gender roles are socialized, and that this practice must end. Very well: I hereby reject all stereotypes, responsibilities and duties imposed on me as a man by my society, and demand my inalienable right to self-determination.
The tyrannical, hate-based laws and structures which are the product of feminism cannot be directly attacked: to do so only creates martyrs and fuel for the fires of the feminist propaganda machine. These unjust laws and institutions must fall under the weight of their own evil. Only by resisting unjust laws and governments through non-compliance and non-cooperation will we find what we seek: a repeal of misandric laws, and the evolution of a truly egalitarian system of justice.
Start now. Educate the men you know about their freedom from societal expectation and duty. They can be men without being "providers" or fathers or husbands, and they are free to choose or refuse paternity, whether the feminists and society accept it or not. Refuse to cooperate with unjust laws, including military drafts which only apply to men, the orders of structurally unjust family and "domestic violence" courts and so on, and eventually, justice will be ours. Refusal is the only way that the men who pay for our society's welfare can ever truly influence the course of events without creating martyrs for feminism. Feminists and their hatred have taken hold in every western government, and all the best efforts of all the best men can do nothing to change that. Women identify themselves as a victimized minority when it is women who in fact rule our society, thereby stealing the seat reserved for minorities who actually exist, and who should benefit from special government programs and laws designed to protect them from mob rule. Deny any woman the right to claim victim or minority status that they do not deserve, and shame them for weakening the cause of truly oppressed peoples everywhere. Their shame will be their undoing.
Misandric society still needs the cooperation, blood and sweat of its captive men to function. If we deny them those things, society will destabilize and become infinitely malleable, and we will have equal treatment, both under the laws and by our societies.
After some personal reflection, that's my philosophy. Accept it or reject it, the choice is yours. You are, after all, free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to take credit for pointing out that the countries which are cleaning our clocks economically in the global trade arena happen to be patriarchies.
I'm thinking specifically of Asia (Japan, China, etc.) and the Mid-East -- i.e., all those $$'s we're sending there to get oil so we (well, women at least) can get to the mall to buy all that stuff we don't really need which isn't made here anymore.
If we were the patriarchy feminists accuse us of being it seems like we'd be on really good terms with these countries/regions. But instead things are pretty testy with all of them except perhaps Japan.
Just a thought...
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Acksiom writes "Are secular leftists non-breeding themselves into a minority, compared to their more religious and conservative fellow-citizens?