|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they are evil! I'm not condoning what the Duke players are doing, but possibly, they were not taught [or warned] about the danger they were headed for...suppose this woman was also a prostitute, or even a lesbian, she could still get them locked up for rape and other things...(*crying*) please guys, stay away from those kinds of women, especially feminists like Kathleen Parker! Somehow, I agree with what she says, but I'm starting not to trust her either...
Emmanuel Matteer
Emma.noelle.blay@hotmail.com
*****MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND!!!!!*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 04:13 PM April 24th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
She does, on the whole, write truthfully about issues important to men. But every once in a while, she'll slip in the passive-aggressive jab to let you know she's powerful. Seen her do it before...
She's an ally, but not someone I trust.
Having said the above -- no, I don't think the LAX players should have been doing what they were doing. It was neither moral nor wise. But in the current climate, and given the actions of the 'victims', the focus needs to be on the 'victims' and what they've done wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you 100%...beware!
Emmanuel Matteer Jr.
Emma.noelle.blay@hotmail.com
*****MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND!!!!!*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 09:34 PM April 24th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Arguments that such laws are unfair to the accused are rock solid. They are unfair, and as a mother of sons, I find the double standard objectionable. Thus, this tipping point may require some adjustment to our rape laws, perhaps toward keeping all identities under wraps until post-verdict.
As a "mother of sons" she sure offers a very weak condemnation of the double standards of the rape shield laws and practices compared to her impassioned plea for the privacy of accusers. She didn't even get into the legal straitjacket those laws place on the defense—"mother of sons" indeed.
Like so many mothers today with feminist leanings, when it comes to her sons and their interests, her first allegiance is to the Sisterhood. Moreover, I'd wager that these quiet, passive-aggressive betrayals are most likely unconscious, so slow-acting is the poison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 06:23 PM April 24th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Correct me if my memory is faulty, but this sleazy episode has all the same elements of the 1991 "Tailhook" scandal.
See -- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/navy /tailhook/debate.html
The college boyz' alleged crimes are all about ambivalent boundaries, ambiguous sexual codes, and implicit consent (or not) in the gender wars happening now in our admittedly "Raunch Culture."
To paraphrase another regular poster hereabouts – "It’s a good day ... to be celibate and not die!"
---
(An historical essay on Tailhook --- excerpts):
"Going Wild?" by Susan Faludi, 1994.
You know what really stinks? - the young Navy officer asked me. He pushed aside his third Scotch and leaned across the table in a chain restaurant near the Naval Air Station in Norfolk, Va., where the Tailhook prosecutions have crept along for more than a year and where he was one of the dozens accused of "conduct unbecoming."
"What about all the female officers who were going wild at Tailhook? How come they haven't been prosecuted?"
Going wild?
"You know, wearing sexy clothes, dancing like a bunch of party girls, getting their legs shaved in the suites." He lowered his voice. Some, he continued darkly, even had sex with other officers.
"How come they aren't being prosecuted for that? This whole thing stinks of a double standard."
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 02:34 PM April 25th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Roy, you're forgetting, women are always victims, and just as only whites can commit racism, only Christians can be religious bigots and only men can be sexists, even when those men are doing nothing more than what others are already doing to us in their "progressive" struggle for "victory".
"Nothing more than what you demand for yourself", indeed.
Can't you see the little halo floating over the heads of everyone but straight white males? I read and watched 1984 again recently (John Hurt did an excellent job), and like Winston's agonized, torture-derived vision of five fingers where there are only four, I'm truly starting to see the little halos floating over everyone else's heads.
To the decades of misandry, the man-hating women who abused, educated (indoctrinated) and raised me while denying me access to the father whose name and genetics I bear, and who paid for my life with his sweat and tears, the mass media with its constant barrage against the self-esteem of boys in their infancy and old men alike, eager as they are to provide the smallest morsel of misandric, derisive self-esteem and pride to any female that might happen by the television, the health care system paid for by men which eagerly ignores me into an early grave and the government with its campaign to eradicate the human rights, civil liberties and dignity of all men and things masculine at men's own expense, I say DOUBLEPLUSGOOD! Big Brother is very pleased with your progress. Victory is at hand in the war with Eurasia! "Eurasia", in this case, being 25% of the local population, of course.
When we do something that affects the rights or even potentially affects the self-esteem of other "groups", it's a crime/racism/bigotry/sexism, and punishment is swift and severe. When a member of a "disadvantaged" group (i.e. anyone but the 25% of society who are grouped together with people like me), does precisely the same thing to us, including the same crime, it's only because we made them do it, and rewards, recognition and perhaps treatment are forthcoming. Laws that favor the 25% straight white Christian males are "sexist, racist and anti-gay", whereas laws that openly discriminate against that 25% are "progressive" and a "victory". Being a straight white male automatically makes you guilty, being anything but automatically makes you innocent.
There's no double standard here, I see only one.
Again, I return to Orwell, who summed it up perfectly:
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human [man's] face--for ever." This is the most apropos, metaphorical description of modern society's treatment of masculinity that I've ever read.
According to the standard which governs our society, the laws that ban the hiring of men or deny us education or see us into early graves never having known the children we produced and paid for aren't "discriminatory", "racist" or "sexist"; they're "progressive". If we try to pass laws conferring the same advantages on ourselves, we're sexists. The operant standard dictates that "traditional" social conventions and even the occasional law that were unfair to others were "bad", but a rigid, complete set of openly racist and sexist laws that deny us standing as human beings in this society are "good". THAT's the standard at work here, and its net effect.
There is no double standard at all - the standard is that we're always racist, sexist, bigoted oppressors, but when anyone who doesn't fit the model patriarchal mold (i.e. 25% of the population) does what we might do, they're victims or innocents. All evil flows from masculinity, according to this society's myth.
Welcome to sub-humanity, gentlemen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:22 AM April 25th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone else see the similarities between the two cases? The young Woman was rallied behind by People that wanted to make this into a gender and color case, same as the congresswomyn. What is becomming obvious to me as these cases are plastered on the news is that most intelligent People are getting tired of the "Cry of the Wolf", when there is no Wolf. If these young Men are found to be not guilty this Woman should have to pay. Her accusations have effected many Peoples lives, not just the ones that are involved. But, what the heck; she was obviously working the system for all it was worth, and she was working. If she was raped, the Guys should pay, and in our system is there any doubt they will whether or not they are guilty?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by zenpriest on 07:03 PM April 27th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Parker is usually a voice of reason in a lot of instances but IMO in this case she succomed to the urge to think inside the box.
Don't be fooled by Parker or any of the other female authors writing on men's issues - they are women first and foremost and will gladly sacrifice as many men as necessary to make sure her privileged position is not threatened in any way. Men are going to have to deal with this for themselves, by themselves, as men have always had to.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Just won't seem to go away,