|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 11:28 AM April 16th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This should not come as a surprise folks. This is standard operating procedure for the "Progressive Left". Censor Free Speech of those you disagree with. If that does not work resort to violence. Threaten their children. My response is come and get some. I have a Sister who is a mentally deranged FemNag. She has the "herd mentality" of feminists. She spouts off about the Patriarchy and economic issues.
So I asked her "Have you taken Macroeconomics"???
From a Non-Marxist viewpoint? No. Have you taken any Economics courses??? Well No. So the .76 cents on the Dollar Women make vs. Men you have no context to judge the issues do you? Silence. Typical FemNag Bull nuts. Get used to it Gents. There cannot be a dialog with these Attention Whores.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I propose a fair exchange: in return for the editor changing the word "An" for "A" in final sentence of the above post (a typographical error due to a partial revision of a sentence), I will provide this link to an article in the Cinncinati Enquirer, where the august Professor Jacobsen expresses the learned opinion that the free speech of others ends where her equisitely honed sense of outrage and her profound sense of entitlement, commensurate with her self-importance, begins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 02:42 PM April 16th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
It's a deal! And thanks for the follow-up link, I'll add it to the post, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asked whether she participated in pulling up the crosses, the professor said, "I have no comment."
She said she was infuriated by the display, which she saw as intimidating and a "slap in the face" to women who might be making "the agonizing and very private decision to have an abortion."
Jacobsen said it originally wasn't clear who had placed the crosses on campus.
She said that could make it appear that NKU endorsed the message.
Pulling up the crosses was similar to citizens taking down Nazi displays on Fountain Square, she said.
"Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor compared to how I felt when I saw it. Some of my students felt the same way, just outraged," Jacobsen said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 02:34 PM April 16th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
This comes as no surprise.
When they don't like something someone else has to say they typically throw little tantrums like this and run around acting like a bunch of little idiots.
They can't have a mature, reasoned discussion.
Soooo childish, are they.
Tell ya what ladies, if you're good (for a change) we'll let you sit at the grown-up table. But only if you're good. (Yeah, THAT'll happen)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 10:48 PM April 16th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
It's truly becoming important for men to understand that the typical women they face in everyday life are not normal, rational, adult, or clinically sane.
Most women now suffer, thanks to four decades of feminism, from a variety of personality disorders.
The basic almost universal one is Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It's primary clinical symptom is a total lack of empathy; i.e. you can't feel anything for any other person and you define all others as objects to be manipulated.
Think "crack whore" needing attention as her drug-of-choice. Preferably marriage.
There are other interesting personality disorders in the circus of feminist dementia --
Histrionic, Paranoid, Avoidant, Passive-Aggressive, Antisocial, Schizoid, Borderline, Sadistic, Depressive, Obsessive-Compulsive, etc.
Any man who marries without having his potential soulmate psychologically screened is a fool.
And no matter what the diagnosis of the psych work-up, for sure get a pre-nup!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 11:45 AM April 17th, 2006 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Roy-
Wow. I never thought about that before. But you're RIGHT. I have noticed those characteristics in a lot of women I have met to some degree or the other. I have met a man or two who exhibit some of the same traits but not nearly to the degree of many women I have met and gotten to know. The elements of sadism and lack of empathy are the most pronounced in many of them I know.
Hell, Sometimes I can hear conversations at restaurants I'm eating at, and MUCH of the time I can't believe some of the conversations I hear women having. I never hear such conversations from men.
About three years ago, I can remember sitting in a booth right next to a pair of women who were just having a blast talking about manipulating and even physically abusing their husband and boyfriend. Again, I have heard many such conversations between women. I have never ONCE in all my travels (when I could travel) heard a man or men have such conversations. Not ONCE.
Any one else have the same experience?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 06:53 AM April 18th, 2006 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
I have had that door slammed in my face the majority of the time if a woman is ahead of me.
But actually when ever the woman was Asian she waited and held the door open for me.
But any other ethnicity; White, Black, Hispanic even Native, SLAM! right in my face.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Pietatoes on 09:06 PM April 19th, 2006 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
I am a high school student. I only joined the movement recently. Out of habit, I keep the door open after my Gym class for anyone who wants to use the service. Strangely, I get a Lot of thank yous from The female population of my school. I always smile, and say, "You're welcome" The "popular" people, boys AND girls, don't even look at me... I wish I could just slam the door in their faces, but I have no balls/backbone/any other reference you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:06 AM April 21st, 2006 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
Because you are acting in a decent mannor doesn't mean that you don't have any "backbone". On the contrary. As long as you do not allow them to use you as a door mat! Doing the "right thing" (doing unto others as you would have them do unto you) sometimes requires more "backbone" than slamming the door. Saying your welcome to those that ignore your kindness can draw attention to their ignorance to them as well as others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we follow the prof's argument, we can destroy anything we find demonising men !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 11:47 AM April 17th, 2006 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm all for that.
Let's start by vandalising media out-lets! They're some of the worst.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by wryt on 10:10 PM April 16th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Although related to this article, this is a general observation about the site in recent times (the past year at least). I have seen a great deal more in the way of articles that are essentially pro-Christian in bent, and have little to do with actual men's rights (which have nothing to do with religion). I am atheist, and am definitely pro-choice, not anti-abortion. I have seen the Right in particular get completely hijacked by those psycho christian fundamentalists in the past few decades, and it has completely perverted the Republican's original noble values of conservative but sane economic policy, liberal rights and domestic policy, etc. to the point where they have simply been co-opted and are no longer a choice for those of us that care about our personal liberties. I would strongly caution against allowing that to happen to the Men's Rights movement if we wish it to succeed.
There is no reason the majority of the population shouldn't be able to get on board, just as with civil rights. But somehow suggesting that more choice for women equals less choice for men is wrong and will turn a lot of people off. The correct goal is more choice for both parties involved. Please don't mix up religious debates in this issue, as they are unrelated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MR on 10:41 PM April 16th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"But somehow suggesting that more choice for women equals less choice for men is wrong and will turn a lot of people off."
Choice for women to the exclusion of reproductive choices for men turns me off. That's been all society has had so far, and that has all been initiated by the intolerant liberal left.
There's certainly plenty of psychosis on all sides of Republican and Democrat politics screwing over men.
In the example in this post, as far as I can see, the pro life group responsibly put up their free speech display as was their right to do and along came pyscho, intolerant, liberal left, feminists and destroyed it.
If your going to bash people on the right the least you could do is give concrete examples with links.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by wryt on 11:05 PM April 16th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
First off, I do appreciate your prompt reply (I wasn't expecting anything for at least a day or so). As I said, while this was related to the article, it was more of a general trend I feel has existed and wanted to have some discussion on. Having said that, I disagree with a couple of your assertions, and wish to clarify at least to some extent my own views.
Choice for women to the exclusion of reproductive choices for men turns me off. That's been all society has had so far, and that has all been initiated by the intolerant liberal left.
I agree with you, but that wasn't what I said, and furthermore I would argue that this hasn't happened to a great extant. It is undeniable that there are far more reproductive choices for women now (both pharmaceutical, physical, and medical) then there used to be, and then exist for men. But I have seen some people imply that women having lots of choice is a bad thing, and that we should restrict that. Rather, the I believe the appropriate course of action is to work to boost research and development of male focused contraceptive and reproductive control systems (like the male pill), so that choice for both sides ends up at an equal high level, not an equal low level.
To take the hot button issue of abortion, it is perfectly valid to say that women should by default (I haven't fully considered whether exceptions might be permissible) have the choice to get rid of an embryo when they wish to. However, I also think men should have equivalent choice: given appropriate notice, we should be able to decide we do not wish to support a child, and opt-out entirely of that child's life. After that, the mother may decide what she wishes to do. Reasonable economic and practical considerations indicate that their should be a limited window (probably around two months from the time the father is informed of the pregnancy) to make that decision, but the decision should be an absolute right for both parties. That is the kind of "equal, but more choice" stance I was arguing for, as opposed to the "equal, but less choice" stance of the religious anti-choice front.
In the example in this post, as far as I can see, the pro life group responsibly put up their free speech display as was their right to do and along came pyscho, intolerant, liberal left, feminists and destroyed it.
I do respectfully disagree with you here. What I see is the standard anti-speech vs freedom of speech issue. This is the same as religious groups attacking pro-homosexual speech, PC groups attacking pro-war speech, or racial groups of one bent or another attacking opposing bent's speech. It is, in other words, a very important issue, but is also not a "Men's Rights" issue, except inasmuch as men do have the right to free speech. But so do women. It would be like saying the Holocaust was a "Men's Rights" issue, because tons of men got killed. Well duh, they were men and their rights were violated. But I don't think most people would appreciate it being made a big deal over on MANN. Likewise, whether they were feminists or Nazis isn't the issue. Whether it was religious speech or pro-baby eating speech isn't the issue. The professor should be condemned, and ashamed, for such a gross violation of the 1st Amendment, and of the general intellectual tolerance that forms much of the foundation of our culture and especially education. But I still don't think it has much of anything to do with this websites specific targets, unless "Men's Rights" is supposed to be read as "Less Women's Rights."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bulldogo.1 on 11:59 PM April 16th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
But I still don't think it has much of anything to do with this websites specific targets, unless "Men's Rights" is supposed to be read as "Less Women's Rights."
Of course this has something to do with men's rights. This is an example of the feminist viewpoint, totally backed by most of society, that they are the only one's who speak the truth. Feminists and women in general have the opinion that their ideas and morals are absolutes, they don't believe that men or their female sympathisers have anything worthwhile to say about anything. Feminists are becomming increasingly dictatorial and intolerant of any vies other than their own. Personally I believe this is because most of the hard radical feminists are beginning to get old and conservative in their own (weird) way.
Highlighting this article wasn't, I believe, about the abortion debate, it was about highlighting the pretension of feminists to stop the free speech rights of anyone who does not agree with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by wryt on 01:07 AM April 17th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you'll forgive me starting with the end of your argument, which is the part where I most agree with you.
Personally I believe this is because most of the hard radical feminists are beginning to get old and conservative in their own (weird) way.
To a limited degree (and on a more general meta basis), I agree with you here. All organizations of people, be they movements, governments, or corporations, have a tendency to stagnate over time unless carefully constructed and managed. It is certainly something to watch for, and to point out. However...
This is an example of the feminist viewpoint, totally backed by most of society, that they are the only one's who speak the truth. Feminists and women in general have the opinion that their ideas and morals are absolutes, they don't believe that men or their female sympathisers have anything worthwhile to say about anything. Feminists are becomming increasingly dictatorial and intolerant of any vies other than their own.
You here give a series of completely unsupported adversarial assertions against "feminists and women in general." bulldogo.1, this sort of unsupported hyperbole will not do if you wish to be taken seriously. Our minds are naturally lazy: we are buffeted by tremendous quantities of information, and a significant amount of our 'wetware' is in fact devoted to throwing away useless stuff. So it is certainly always a temptation to make issues black and white, to demonize the other side ("Femnazis" or what have you), in any debate at all. But reality rarely conforms to such a simplistic view. What is a 'feminist' here? A person who believes in 'feminism'. I went ahead and looked it up, because the Dictionary is certainly a reasonably authoritative source on what general society, not just a tiny self-selected slice (like who visits this website) thinks about language. The American Heritage has this to say:
Feminism, n.
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.
Sounds good to me! This fits with my general impression, anecdotally (from having discussions with lots of girls at college) and statistically (from surveys), of what "most women" think about feminism. Just as with most things (religion being an excellent example), there are small splinter groups of extremists (in this case, you are talking about women who have made up feminism to not be about equality, but about reversing inequality to favor women), who while perhaps being the most vocal certainly do not represent the majority. You, bulldogo.1, have a significant burden of proof if you are going to argue that most of the (I'll be generous to you and restrict it to this country) 140 million+ women in America do in fact subscribe to an extremist view of feminism. If you are just going to make wild assertions without solid evidence, then your opinion is of equal weight with the radical feminists, ie., worthless.
I have zero respect for ultra-hardcore 'dictorial Feminists'. However, I also have zero respect for the opposite side of the equation: the long standing paternal misogynists, who feel threatened by any advance of women's rights.
What I want is the middle of both sides to work to pull everything into the middle: in other words, equality. Right now, we have some areas where gender is essentially a non-issue. Pay (profession adjusted) is arguably about here. We still have some situations where women unfairly don't have equal standing. We -also- now have situations where the compass has spun 180 degrees and men unfairly don't have equal standing (child issues are an obvious one). We should be trying to pull both unequal sides into the center.
Highlighting this article wasn't, I believe, about the abortion debate, it was about highlighting the pretension of feminists to stop the free speech rights of anyone who does not agree with them.
I will concede it may very well have nothing to do with abortion, which is fine. But I stand by my assertion that it also shouldn't have anything to do with the Men's Rights debate. Oppression of speech is oppression of speech, period, and is rightfully placed in a crime/rights abuse class of its own. Extrapolating a single case like this into feminists in general, or to some sort of organized movement to quash specifically male speech, is not something I see any support for. Therefore, this is a Findlaw type case, or perhaps a commentary on higher education. It is not related in any specific way to Men's Rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 02:20 AM April 17th, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I have zero respect for ultra-hardcore 'dictorial Feminists'. However, I also have zero respect for the opposite side of the equation: the long standing paternal misogynists, who feel threatened by any advance of women's rights.
Ah, the eternal optimist. As you so casually toss around accusations that those you are debating are making "wild generalizations and assertions" and that they should provide evidence, perhaps you might consider putting your money where your mouth is, wryt.
Let's see you start by providing an objective set of evidence-based criteria, rules, if you will, by which MRAs might discern the difference between:
1) Intolerant female supremacists, such as the woman we're discussing here
2) "Hardcore", psychologically disturbed feminists who seek little more than the destruction of men, regardless of the outcome for women (a "feminihilist", if you prefer)
3) Feminists who seek to advance womens rights, regardless of the impact on the human rights of men
4) Feminists who seek legal equality and nothing more while respecting the human rights of men and the social, ethical and legal traditions of society
5) Women who do not self-identify as feminists, but who happily engage in misandry and gleefully consume the "goodies" accorded them by feminism's assault on all things masculine
6) Women who reject feminism, but quiety enjoy "gender privileges" accruing to them as a consequence of the actions of classical Marxist feminists (i.e. patricidal, misandric female supremacists), such as a male-only draft, preferred access to education and healthcare, preferred treatment in family courts, etc.
7) Women who actively reject feminism and the gender "privileges" resulting from this destructive ideology
8) Women who active support MRAs as they have recognized the hateful, greed-driven, supremacist movement calling itself "feminism" today
This fits with my general impression, anecdotally (from having discussions with lots of girls at college) and statistically (from surveys), of what "most women" think about feminism.
Bar chats with entitled, self-serving college girl feminists? "Surveys" (sources and publications unspecified)? You consider these sources to be authoritative or impartial?
"Most women" feel perfectly free to "choose" to belong to any one of the groups I described, can change their membership at any time without notice, and yet you would call men who aren't feminists in men's clothing "paternal misogynists". Your clear favor of women and your attempt to excuse them from the responsibility for others which is imposed on men involuntarily is duly noted for future reference.
Just as I'm not interested in a feminist's opinion of MRAs, which is generally claimed to be the very opinion you've offered above, i.e. "feminists are only interested in equality, and men who oppose us or seek the same privileges for themselves are misogynists", I wouldn't have been interested in a Nazi's self-serving, exceptionalist description of their ideology, a CEO's justification of the exploitation of child labor overseas to increase profits or a religious zealot's justifications for violence against other cultures or people, either. Consider that "most Americans" think that universal healthcare should be law, and that this same demographic considers the war in Iraq to be a greed-driven crusade, despite the propaganda to the contrary. I'll bet real money that information isn't in your dictionary either.
However, I also have zero respect for the opposite side of the equation: the long standing paternal misogynists, who feel threatened by any advance of women's rights.
There's a very strange thing you might wish to take note of about women being free to "choose" what sort of person to be when men are instantly labeled "misogynists" when they resist or attempt to make any choice at all: it's not possible to tell which group a woman has "chosen" to be a member of (for this instant), without forming a substantial relationship with the woman in question, yet you are happy to condemn anyone who is objective about this reality as a "paternal misogynist" or some similar self-serving nonsense. Do feminists like this professor and her ilk bother to "get to know" the men they condemn? Do they show any respect for the opinions of others or their choices? Does Catherine MacKinnon study every man's sexual practices before making the crude generalization that all heterosexual intercourse is "rape"? Why do you expect this of men, yet excuse women when they fail to do the same?
Men's rights activists like myself are not paternal or misogynistic. I seek legal equality for all races and genders and religions, and feminism is the enemy in my struggle. It has transformed from an 18th-century egalitarian movement into a greed-driven, female supremacy movement which actively seeks the destruction, criminalization and stigmatization of anything masculine or male. Yes, I realize that this does not appear in your precious dictionary, but consider for a moment that the pogrom against the Jews was constantly denied by the German administration, even while the genocide was underway. The same phenomenon can be observed in America, when you look at the treatment of blacks or aboriginal peoples. I doubt very much that a member of the KKK would offer a self-denunciation if asked about "white power". The fact that your dictionary presents you with an admittedly palatable definition of feminism while omitting any definition of our struggle, I might add, does not make this propaganda true.
As to the relevance of this article: this woman, a radical feminist, feels free to assault the free speech rights of someone outside her self-proclaimed victim class simply because it injures her ideological sensitivities, and feels it is appropriate to do so in a place of higher learning, scholarship and supposed academic "freedom". You are dead wrong in asserting that this has nothing to do with men's rights or MRAs: this arch-feminist destroying a display of constitutionally protected "free speech" and believing she has the unfettered right to do so whenever she "feels" like it is the very basis of our struggle, and if you cannot see that, I recommend that you engage in some slightly more productive debate on this topic rather than carelessly tossing moral assertions about based on your late-night chats with college girls about their opinions of themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 03:38 AM April 17th, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
My comment above has a truncated excerpt from your post as its beginning, so it probably doesn't make much sense. The section of your comment I meant to reference when I was talking about optimism (and the line I omitted in error) was:
I have zero respect for ultra-hardcore 'dictorial Feminists'. However, I also have zero respect for the opposite side of the equation: the long standing paternal misogynists, who feel threatened by any advance of women's rights.
What I want is the middle of both sides to work to pull everything into the middle: in other words, equality.
This last line was what struck me as overly optimistic, and prompted my comment and question. The first line was what angered me and prompted me to jump on your comment.
As a result, the tone of my response may seem unduly angry or belligerent, wryt, and I apologize for my rather harsh approach. I just get angry as hell when I hear people calling MRAs "misogynists" because we refuse to accept an ideology that in many cases deliberately seeks our destruction and erases our legal and human rights, or because we don't accept the "friendly" dictionary definition of feminism. It's also highly offensive when someone calls anyone exhibiting "paternal" (i.e. father-like behavior) a "misogynist". This negative characterization of a fundamentally positive aspect of masculinity is the purest form of misandry and the worst sort of hate-driven feminism at work, and it indicates an intolerance of even the positive aspects of masculinity, such as the supportive, protective father or the hard-working, self-sacrificing provider. That sort of agenda-driven dogma (calling men "paternal misogynists"), is the product of modern feminism, and it's offensive in the extreme. If I were to refer to feminists as "maternal misandrists" you'd probably react just as badly, as would feminists, I'm sure. Both statements are offensive for the same reasons, and both are grossly negative characterizations of fathers or mothers (and masculinity or femininity), respectively. I was deeply offended, and reacted to your comment as such.
I think we're all very aware of what we're fighting against (sexism and hate), and what we're fighting for (legal equality), and I do fully agree with you that religion and unrelated politics can become entangled in the issues from time to time, although I disagree completely with your assertion that this is the case with the woman who vandalized someone else's free speech because it offended her blinkered, ideological preconceptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
about how feminazism was able to take over the entire western world, just read the crap of that wryt moron.
I keep saying it, the real danger is not some fruit cake feminazi who likes to throw crosses, the real danger are PC morons like wryt.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:32 AM April 21st, 2006 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
The one thing that I truly agree with you on is the seperation of religion from the attempt to achieve equality. We are in the midst of a gender war perpetrated by our "paid" government. EQUAL RIGHTS are not a wish but a RIGHT that has been removed for the benifit of manipulation. Women should have no more rights with their Children than Men, period. If a Woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the Child the Man should be offered the RIGHT to raise that Child, period. If the Man doesn't want to raise the Child and decides to opt out of parenthood the Woman should have the right to abort. There will never be peace until there is EQUALITY for all regardless of gender. If you are not jaded just a "little bit" you must be postulating from a lack of real life experience as a Male in this country; have never had your Rights as a Human Being denied you, and told to learn to live with it. I do agree that we will never have peace or equality unless we work together. But, that does not mean that the womyn that conspire to keep Men down and use them as mules should be trusted. As I said you must not have been abused by the system as of yet. There are GOOD WOMEN that are on our side, and I welcome them and their help to achieve equality. As far as this womyns point of view is considered one must realize that her attitude is rather rampant with womyn in positions of power, ie. the womyn congress person that tried to use her gender as well as her color to excuse her attack on a guard because he should have known who she was. She was offended because she didn't agree, she then used her position to make a political statement that she felt didn't deserve to be heard, totalitarianism, nazi like behavior, or just another female bully?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me go on record that I am in favor of women's reproductive rights. My view is that the question of abortion is morally undecidable and must be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution. A postion on abortion is necessarily, though not exclusively, a political position. It is true, nevertheless, that women's rights groups have been effectively opposing proposed MRA reforms, though MRAs have been making slow progress in the area of paternity fraud reform. Accordingly, my support for women's reproductive rights are conditional: if pro-choice advocates continue to oppose all MRA reforms (for example, the MGM bill -- if pro-choice advocates will not recognize a man's right to his body, I will oppose their political right to theirs), then I will oppose Roe v. Wade; if they will support at least one MRA reform, I will support Roe v. Wade. There is no moral problem in conditional political support, as abortion is morally undecidable and must be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution; the legal and political arena is where such deals can and should be made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by wryt on 01:28 AM April 17th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Whoops, since I just spent way too long on another comment please forgive me for making this a more succinct response.
Quickly:
I disagree with you 100%, abortion is definitely a moral question on at least two entirely separate levels.
1. Do you think a fetus has any inherent rights, or should even be considered human (I don't)? If it does, how does that interact with the mother's rights?
2. How do you feel about forcing a specific brand of morality (yours) on others? This means you could be vehemently anti-abortion, but still be pro-choice (because you don't think society or the government should be involved). This is similar to how I feel about free speech: I strongly subscribe to the philosophy of "I may absolutely hate what you say, but I'd put my life on the line to defend your right to say it."
Next, I also disagree with your moral equivalency myself. I do not generally support the putting down of one set of rights as some sort of "bargaining" to support another set of rights, especially when I personally want both. I believe, given history and personal experience, that it is first and foremost a woefully ineffective strategy. You are just as likely to lose both ways, as in Roe vs Wade gets overturned and we don't get anything. I believe that the spiteful "well if I can't have some no one can" philosophy is pretty immature and unproductive, but that of course is itself a judgment and a whole different debate.
You are also making the same mistake I have seen from other posters: over-generalization and unsupported grouping. What evidence do you have that "pro-choice advocates continue to oppose all MRA reforms"? I'm a pro-choice advocate, and I hardly oppose such reforms (quite the contrary). I think if anything, pro-choice people are as a group predisposed to be more generous towards support of MRA action, assuming it is made clear to them that MRA is about equality and bringing everyone up to the same level, not some sort of zero sum game (which is ridiculous to suggest, but somehow has become the mindset of some people).
To summarize Little Lion: the saying "we can stand together or fall together" has a lot of truth. We should be trying to unite as many people behind the MRA cause as possible, because it is large movements that have the most power. Splintering into dozens of subgroups will not result in political power for anyone supporting more rights, and I therefore oppose the adversarial strategy in general in this instance. The two groups (pro-men's rights and pro-women's rights) have no reason not to have nearly 100% overlap because there is no mutual exclusivity going on (unlike, say, pro-rights vs radical Islam, for which there is little if any common ground and therefore a more adversarial strategy is appropriate).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoops, since I just spent way too long on another comment please forgive me for making this a more succinct response.
Quickly:
I disagree with you 100%, abortion is definitely a moral question on at least two entirely separate levels.
1. Do you think a fetus has any inherent rights, or should even be considered human (I don't)? If it does, how does that interact with the mother's rights?
See the excerpts, available on my blog, from Bernard Gert regarding abortion. This is a morally undecidable question that must be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution. The state may allow abortion or prohibit it.
2. How do you feel about forcing a specific brand of morality (yours) on others?
Common morality cannot settle all moral questions; accordingly, some have to be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution. I don't force my morality on anyone: the legal and political system decides how to resolve such questions, following its procedures. My role as an activist is to advocate for one outcome as opposed to another; my role as a citizen is to vote. It is always understood that the moral questions are unresolved. When such matters are settled in the legal and political system, my duty is to obey the law.
To summarize Little Lion: the saying "we can stand together or fall together" has a lot of truth. We should be trying to unite as many people behind the MRA cause as possible, because it is large movements that have the most power. Splintering into dozens of subgroups will not result in political power for anyone supporting more rights, and I therefore oppose the adversarial strategy in general in this instance. The two groups (pro-men's rights and pro-women's rights) have no reason not to have nearly 100% overlap because there is no mutual exclusivity going on (unlike, say, pro-rights vs radical Islam, for which there is little if any common ground and therefore a more adversarial strategy is appropriate).
First, you will never get agreement among MRAs or anyone else about the relative ranking of social goods or evils. This is a fact.
My prediction is that political tensions between feminists and MRAs will increase. I could be wrong, but this is my belief. I see feminists and MRAs engaged in a game of Prisoner's Dilemma, in which they will not cooperate. In a sense, the feminists, from whom we repeatedly hear that "this is not a zero-sum game" are correct, since Prisoner's Dilemma is not a zero-sum game: both players can lose.
Accordingly, I see that MRAs must be prepared to make a credible legal and political threat: if feminists continue to oppose men's political rights, then MRAs will conditionally support Roe v. Wade. I see that numerous pro-choice activists take a dim view of the right of males to their own body (go to Pandagon.net if you want to see examples of feminists jeer at the idea that someone's rights were violated by involuntary circumcision), to reproductive rights, and to protection from paternity fraud. So, while I would prefer that Roe v. Wade remain unchallenged, if the attitude towards MRA reforms does not improve, I would support the repeal of Roe v. Wade.
I give reasons, based on the descriptive account of Common Morality due to Dartmouth philosopher Bernard Gert, why it is morally acceptable to make such political bargains. It happens all the time in politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I deny mixing or confusing religious matters with men's rights issues. The intelluctual discipline it takes not to do this is trivial. Differences in attitudes towards men's and women's rights in the university is of interest to men's rights activists. Glenn Sacks, for example, give his opponents the benefit of the doubt by not attacking them, on the principle that the truth will out. You raised question of how the men's movement should conduct itself in your post. Glenn Sacks exemplifies one way; Professor Jaconsen exemplifies another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by wryt on 01:31 AM April 17th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
As a quick side note Little Lion:
I didn't even notice that you had submitted (or wrote?) the article in question until right this instant. I had/have no intention of personally attacking your views or suggesting you hold any particular views with my posts, I merely was commenting on a trend I feel is subtle but noticeable, under the belief that it is best to nip such things in the bud. I don't want you to feel like I was specifically targeting you or any such thing at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bulldogo.1 on 05:11 AM April 17th, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
I am sorry that I had to step away and missed the last few posts and I wholeheartedly thank RandomMan for coming to my defense earler. Your words were wise and right on the money.
As for wryt, I find it offensive that he question my statements that are based on 40 years of general observations and do not need to be backed up by any evidence at all. You know why wryt? Because it is my opinion and I am entitled to it. He then goes on to make his own generalizations and assumptions based on just one of my posts and says that I, and all MRA's, am/are mysoginists.
As stated earlier my views are based on 40 years of observations of society and I can most definately see a trend happening, more and more, where women in general have the belief that they are superior to men intellectually, emotionally, spiritually and morally. This has come from a direct push by second wave feminists in the sixties and seventies. They actually believe this. And it has spread into wider society, helped by misinformed and uneducated people like wryt who still believe that feminism is about equality. If it was about equality it would be called that and feminists would not hide themselves away in their ivory towers and bar men, and women who support them, from having any input into a debate that involves us all.
Wryt as you said you talk to college girls I will take it that you are young and naive and I think that you need to educate yourself on this subject before you make sweeping statements like all MRA's are mysoginists.
I will start your education with a few quotes from second wave feminist icons such as Valerie Solanas; All men are scum, Catherine Mckinnon; All heterosexual intercourse is rape, Gloria Steinem; The most dangerous situation for a woman is a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home. Go and read what these and other women have said and continue to say about men. Better still, go and live a bit of life in this increasingly misandrist world and come back in ten or so years and tell us what you think then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 05:29 AM April 17th, 2006 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
My own Sister sent me an email. Her own words "Men are violent Sexual Animals. They are full of testosterone. It drives men to do two things. Fuck things and kill things". This is the FemNag mindset that we are dealing with. Vicious hatred, refusal to see reality. Only the negative aspects of Male behavior are seen and articulated all the positives are ignored. I hate to say this but we can no longer have a dialog with these Bitches. We have passed that point at least two decades ago.
And the Right vs. Left politics is as ZenPriest states it or Spinbusters.com a misdirection tactic intended to divide Men. Neither Political Party gives a shit about us. Pay close attention to what they do not what they say. The Republicans and Conservative Women are not our friends either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bulldogo.1 on 05:43 AM April 17th, 2006 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree with you khankrumthebulgar. The situation is getting worse daily and it is time for men to stop taking the crap they do. The biggest problem is that many men believe the world view shoved down their throats through the media.
Worse still is that these male stereotypes are being promoted by education systems in the Western world. They (feminists and their powerful sypathizers) are driving these stereotypes into the heads of our children. Take a look at this report on the state of education here in Australia. It's a long read, but is very worth it. All men need to start talking about this.
http://www.mrcltd.org.au/uploaded_documents/School s_123-174.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bulldogo.1 on 05:50 AM April 17th, 2006 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry that link doesn't work. Go to The Menzies Research Centre; www.mrcltd.org.au/ and scroll down the page to "Why Our Schools are Failing and read the "Education and the Culture Wars" chapter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by shawn on 12:46 PM April 17th, 2006 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't see the article or topic as having much to do with religion. Crosses were involved, but they seemed to be symbolic (crosses were destroyed, but there was no mention about the vandalism being anti-regilious or anti-Christian).
From a men's right perspective, I believe the article deals with the intolerance of feminism. Feminism is a hypocritical evil that has little to do with women's rights.
As for abortion, you are trying to equate abortion with women's rights. You selectively use terms such as "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion." You do not use terms such as "pro-abortion" and "pro-life." Feminism is whole heartedly pro-abortion. Feminism, in general, is not pro-choice or pro-reproductive freedom.
One only needs to look at issues such as cloning. Shouldn't feminists and others who claim to be pro-choice and pro-reproductive freedom be staunch advocates for human cloning? Isn't that reproductive freedom too? Shouldn't a woman have the right to do what she wants with her own body by having herself cloned? Instead, there is a social, media, and political taboo against cloning. It's certainly not out of medical concern. If the cloned fetus is deformed or genetically disconfigured, simply abort it. Problem solved. No moral problem here. Aren't the 87% of Americans who oppose human cloning imposing their "right-wing Christian fundamentalist religious morality" on other people? Seems pretty hypocritical to me (to be pro-abortion and anti-cloning at the same time). It's legal to kill life, but it is or will be illegal to create life. The reason is simple. It will be possible to successfully and safely clone both men and women in the near future. However, only women can become pregnant (currently). This is why one is legal, and the other will be illegal.
Feminism, as well as most people who claim to be pro-choice are quite selective about what they mean. They have no problem imposing their morality on others when it comes to outlawing cloning, prostitution, drug use, polygamous marriages, incestuous relationships between consenting adults, sex-selective abortions when the fetus is a girl, etc. The only real exceptions are people who tend to classify themselves as Libertarians.
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be illegal. It would no longer be a "women's issue." The same is true with breast cancer. If men died from breast cancer at the same rate as women, breast cancer funding would be slashed, meaning that it's funding rate would be similar to other medical problems.
The article was about the intolerance, hypocrisy, and smuggness of feminism. It's the I'm better than you attitude. It's the do as I say, not as I do attitude. Feminism is just as intolerant to men as it is to pro-life demonstrators. The destruction of feminism and exposing the true nature of feminism is a men's issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 01:22 PM April 17th, 2006 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, that thought, that some may intepret the posting of this particular story as being a religious-issues piece in disguise, did cross my mind. However I gave it some thought and realized that the piece was important and relevant to MRA topics not because the vandalized display had a religious or moralistic message but because it was a blatant example of feminist 2x-standards in action: free speech is fine for feminists as long as it is on their side of the issues-- otherwise, they claim, it's oppressive. Personally, I am not particularly religious, and even if I were, I doubt it would influence my opinion on MRA issues or whether I post something on the site or not. -- Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 05:09 PM April 18th, 2006 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Included here is the complete text of a statement by NKU's President, announcing that the offending feminist has been suspended from teaching and will retire after 27 years of "service" to the University.
---
Statement by President James C. Votruba
Posted 04/18/2006
"I am writing to comment on the recent destruction of an approved campus display created by the Northern Kentucky Right to Life student organization.
One of the important roles that a university must play is to be a forum for debate and analysis concerning the important issues of the day. Often these issues are surrounded by strident rhetoric and strong emotions, which makes it even more incumbent on the university to create and nurture an intellectual environment in which reason and evidence prevail and where all points of view can be heard.
Northern Kentucky University has a distinguished record of addressing important public issues in a balanced way. We are proud that, as a campus, we are not the captive of one ideology or point of view. At their best, universities are not places of comfortable conformity. They are places where ideas collide as students and faculty search for deeper understandings and perspectives.
While the University supports the right to free speech and vigorous debate on public issues, we cannot condone infringement of the rights of others to express themselves in an orderly manner.
By leading her students in the destruction of an approved student organization display, Professor Sally Jacobsen’s actions were inconsistent with Northern Kentucky University’s commitment to free and open debate and the opportunity for all sides to be heard without threat of censorship or reprisal.
It has been heartening that student and faculty groups that do not necessarily support the position of Northern Kentucky Right to Life have come out strongly in support of the organization’s right to be heard through their display. This reflects a commitment to the importance of free speech and inquiry as a hallmark of our University.
Professor Jacobsen has been removed from her remaining classes and placed on leave from the University. She will retire from the University at the end of this semester. The Faculty Senate, representing more than 1,000 NKU faculty members, has taken strong action today that affirms the importance of free expression as a defining quality of the University. Our campus has spoken with a strong and unified voice. Further action may occur once a full investigation has been completed.
The action taken by the University should be considered in the context of Professor Jacobsen’s entire 27-year career at NKU. Nevertheless, her recent lapse of judgment was severe and, for a period of time, has caused some in our community and beyond to question whether Northern Kentucky University upholds freedom of expression. My answer to this question is an unequivocal yes. NKU lives its commitment to free expression and responds when that commitment has been compromised.
America is, today, debating a variety of polarizing issues around which people feel great passion. It is not surprising that these strong sentiments find their way onto college campuses. However, our role is to add light to these debates, not more heat. If we don’t serve this role, who will?"
---
I found it interesting that the NKU Pres. characterized her actions as a "severe lapse in judgement..."
Seems to me her behavior was an exemplary illustration of feminist's arrogant mentality, illogic, and assumed superiority to claim justice based on feelings of oppression.
---
Link is on NKU's home page at: www.nku.edu
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
