Alumnus' Letter to Large University sets an Example
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2006-07-27 02:46
I nearly fell out of my chair in stunned disbelief when I saw this letter.
The U of Rochester has a large women's studies center and attracts numerous "scholars" to this place every year so they can do "research" and write their papers condemning the evil patriarchy, etc. Thus the fact that the official magazine of such a place would print not just that letter, but have it as the first one of the issue, is astounding. Kudos to the author and to the brave souls who let it go to press. I am sure they will get a good thrashing from the director of the "Susan B. Anthony Center for Women's Leadership" for it.
Ahh, another brick is knocked from the wall and a little more daylight is allowed to shine through...
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Great letter!
Great letter! Go Marc!
Proof of Inequality
As long as women persist in their campaign for "equal or better" rights, privileges and perks, they will demonstrate that they are not fundamentally equal to men. We're not out demanding "equality" only when it's to our advantage, quietly dismissing any issue which favors us, hoping nobody will notice, all the while blaming the other sex ("gender" is a term I reserve for data cables, humans and other animals belong to "sexes"), for our situation. Those seem to be activities associated almost exclusively with women. Such actions clearly indicate the presence an inferiority complex and delusions of persecution within the group. Men, on average, do not seem to suffer from these neuroses.
If women wish to be treated as our equals, they need to start behaving as our equals, taking responsibility for themselves and treating disadvantages and inequalities affecting men just as seriously as they ask us to treat inequalities affecting women. Unlike feminists, I'm all for an egalitarian society, and I would be fighting just as hard if women were being mistreated by society or suffering inequalities of opportunity. Well, women ARE subject to inequalities, but they're all in women's favor. Hence the reason I'm focused on men's rights and equality.
I would like very much to see women as "equals" (i.e. equal rights, equal responsibilities, equality of opportunity), despite the proven, inherent differences between men and women, and I do everything I can to treat them as such, despite the clear and undeniable hatred of men so many women spew uncontrollably and the constant barrage of privileges they demand, over above any rights men might have.
But until women stop with the "we deserve better" nonsense, and the idea that their rights are more important than human rights, they will, however, remain nothing more than a selfish, greedy parody of men in most men's eyes. Only women can change this, and putting us in debtors prisons, killing us off with shoddy healthcare and expecting us to die so they don't have to isn't going to convince anyone of their equality.
You want equality, girls? PROVE IT. Put your money where your mouth is, or shut the fuck up already.
Well Put
Women would put their money where their mouth is except for the little fact that almost all women would rather put their mouth where THE (not their) money is...
And as far as inequalities don't forget that there are hundreds of thousands of innocent men rotting in prison cells or forced out of their homes because of unfair unjust laws concerning sexual assault and sex offender registries.
There has not been an equivilent situation for women ever. No persecution of women has ever been on the scale of the current laws on sex offenders that affect men because this is an international effort on a completely unprecidented scale.
The current situation makes the Salem witch hunts and the Spanish inquesition look tiny by comparison.
Perhaps the biggest eason why only between 3-5% of convicted sex offenders reoffend - yeah, in reality sex offenders are the absolute least likely criminals to reoffend - is because many of them should not have been arrested in the first place.
But of course, how can a man ever hope to have a chance in hell of getting any rights to his children if he has a criminal record for a sex offence. And since an improper look, a touch on the arm, or in some states just pissing on a tree and being seen by a woman is a sex offence, you don't need to be a psychic to predict that it is all part of the feminist plan to have all men labeled as the sexually absive batterers that they believe they are.
They are not trying to criminalize being male -THEY ARE CRIMINALIZING BEING MALE!
AND IT'S ABOUT TO GET UNBELIEVABLY WORSE:
With the new bill HR 4472 AKA "Adam Walsh's Law" passed by both the house and senate and expected to be signed into law early next year we must all prey for our sons and brothers.
This new law will see police target YOUTH sex offenders and create a new NATIONAL sex offender registry (on top of the ones that already exist under VAWA in every state) which will include sex offenders NO MATTER HOW YOUNG THEY ARE on a publicly available web site. This law seeks to brand MALE CHILDREN as monsters for life. They are throwing the constitution out the window in the name of feminist propaganda.
There is a HUGE difference between a 50 (random adult age) year old man or woman who forcably rapes some one or sexually abuses a child and a CHILD who does not know what he is doing and does not mean any harm.
Criminalizing CHILDREN should NVER be a condonable action. Yet, in true feminist form of using feelings to trump commonsence and silence debate, George W Bush is expected to sign this new bill into law on the 25th aniversary of Adam Walsh's abduction. Our sons will be sacraficed to this horiffic abomination of a law and no one will raise a single world against it because they are using perhaps the biggest of all celebrity child abduction cases to blind everyone to the true intent of this vicious law.
God save our sons. Feminsists want to destroy them and nothing seems to be standing in their way.
Long Dead MRA's Truthful Writing
I'm curious to understand how one might achieve equality with members of a species whose entire existential reality revolves around getting up every morning and asking --"What deception shall I put on today?"
"How can I use camouflage to present myself as something I am not?"
The real genius of the members of the fairer sex is not that they pretend to be something that they are not; rather, they are pretending to be what the ARE.
"The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important."
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter7.html
Spooky stuff...but all par for the socialist course.
Paragon, that bill is some scary stuff. But it's completely expected. This and other heinous assaults on the dignity of humanity will all be sold as "good for women" and "necessary precautions", and morons in government everywhere will rubber stamp them out of a fear of losing elections. Canada (as you know) is even farther along than the US in this regard, but we have a much greater socialist influence here.
Now that they have so many men ear-tagged and marginalized, look for them to demand castration for sex offenders. Or the death penalty (as some laws have recently done). Or branding/tattooing of the forehead. When all of these are in their pocket, they'll want men drugged from birth instead of grade school as a potential "threat" to women. Then they'll want those drugged male babies treated with chemicals to stunt them sexually. Then they'll want control over the sex of all children to minimize the number of males produced. Then they'll want all men rounded up (and preferably exterminated), because they're all "potential rapists". When that happens, will feminists be "happy"? Of course not. In fact they'll be more miserable than ever.
Keep in mind that feminists are socialists at heart, and as deeply delusional as the Bolsheviks ever were. That means they abhor anything even vaguely resembling personal responsibility (it's all the fault of the oppressor class), or personal liberty (which they feel results in a threat to their "safety"), and are attempting to create a "utopia" where women won't have to endure men, whom they demonize and blame for the world's (and women's) problems. Note that most people misunderstand the word "utopia" as meaning a heavenly place where everyone is "happy". Not so. In fact, it means "a place which does not exist". The same kind of misunderstanding happens with "socialism": it doesn't mean what most people think. If you are unfamiliar with the Stalinist invention on a Marxist theme, it's time to get familiar, because we're watching the same forces (adulterated with estrogen, and therefore far more malicious and selfish), at work today.
I refer you to Orwell's excellent essay: "Can Socialists Be Happy?". As you read it, remember that feminism is simply a bigoted form of socialism. You quickly discover that the closer feminists get to their socialist utopia, the less happy they will be.
The way to keep women happiest (as a group) is to deny them something obvious which they can then proceed to scream "victim" about, and get all wound up about. They are only happy when they see themselves gaining something they don't already have, and it is immaterial that this "something" may very well be a right or privilege we arbitrarily decide to withhold or withdraw. After nearly a half century of listening to the socialist revolutionaries in the "women's movement" caterwaul at high volume, no matter what goodies they accumulate, no matter what advantages they have over men, no matter what indignities are heaped on our shoulders on their behalf, I am utterly convinced that this is the only means of political expression which lies within the grasp of most women. In short: to keep women happy, make sure they have something to be unhappy about. Arbitrarily pick any issue that such women would inevitably and selfishly call a "women's issue", i.e. birth control, abortion, dress codes, etc., and withdraw their rights and privileges with respect to that issue without any explanation, rationalization or reason. After a year or so, give them whatever they want on that one issue, but take away something else. In this way, feminists and the women foolish enough to listen to them will always have some thorn in their side, but they will always be happy. It truly is the best thing we could do for them, and it would stop the socialists in their tracks. All we need is a man in power who finally figures this out, and tells feminists "no" for the first time in their pathetic lives.
Re: Long Dead MRA's Truthful Writing
One need only look at a woman’s shape to discover that she is not intended for either too much mental or too much physical work. She pays the debt of life not by what she does but by what she suffers—by the pains of child-bearing, care for the child, and by subjection to man, to whom she should be a patient and cheerful companion. The greatest sorrows and joys or great exhibition of strength are not assigned to her; her life should flow more quietly, more gently, and less obtrusively than man’s, without her being essentially happier or unhappier.
I believe Schopenhauer would agree with me Roy: I assert that women and men are fundamentally different, but like Schopenhauer's reference to neither men nor women being "happier or unhappier", I claim (in a modernized context), that this biological difference does not preclude equality of opportunity nor mutual respect. These things signal the death of a civilization, of course, but that doesn't mean they're not a natural state of affairs between men and women, despite our immense differences.
It's interesting to me that the less we rely on ourselves for survival, the less we are differentiated by sex. In an agrarian, decentralized society, men kill the predators, do the hunting and handle the heavy labor. Women, naturally, work at managing the home, having and raising the offspring required to sustain the family and other important tasks. Neither men nor women are able to live effectively without the other, and a mutual respect develops. It is not the respect of equality, per se; it is a respect of necessity.
However, as society becomes increasingly centralized, managed and "secure", the need for those sex roles fades. So too does the mutual respect which rises from necessity. Men and women become largely useless to one another in the strict utilitarian sense, and the work we do becomes increasingly safer and less demanding. Feminists claim that no woman needs a man, but what legitimate, survival-imperative need for a woman is there in a Western man's life? Similarly, physical strength and tolerance of risk (both male attributes), become progressively less important in our daily life. As a result, the more useless we as a species become, the more "equal" we become.
Of course, if anyone bothered to read about the Roman Empire's final days anymore, they'd realize that this very pattern immediately preceded the collapse of that grand empire. They put down their farming implements, moved to the cities (centers of self-indulgence) and imported grain. Does the phrase "bread and circuses" ring a bell? That's the source.
Men and women don't need one another anymore, and our "work" has become increasingly acceptable to female inclinations. In fact, our societies frown on "dirty work" such as manufacturing or food production. Women are fundamentally greedy: it's a biologically determined trait which enables them to gather the most resources possible to provide for their offspring. It's only natural that as a society progresses to "bread and circuses", women will follow their greed and take more and more for themselves. The sprial continues as they now force society to abandon male-oriented roles and create the "nanny state". The fact that this spiral ends in self-destruction is a simple matter of historical fact. Of course, scholarship and facts are a male thing, so naturally, the feminists haven't caught on to this simple reality just yet. Alas, their indignation, misandry and "feelings" won't save them. Neither will the men they've been marginalizing and objectifying for 40+ years.
RE: Spooky Stuff...
We in Canada may be further along the socialist path then the US but we are not at the point of publicly branding children just yet.
All the other measures in "Adam Walsh's Law" like pushing sex offenders further and further from urban centers and increasing the powers police have for random searches and increasing the number of timers the RSO's must subjegate themselve to their police overlords per year are expected measures as they are merely logical next steps to existing statutes that were created under VAWA.
But targeting children seems like a whole new direction. Granted any MRA with a lick of sence knew it was only a matter of time before this next step towards the Feminazi "Final Solution" would occur. But, I for one did not think it would happen this soon.
And you are completely correct that the new bill was "rubber stamped" through both the house and senate. It was proposed by the sanate and passed by the house under the suspension of the rules (meaning without debate do to the fact that it was declared "non-controversial") and now it just has to be put to the president who has final vito or the power to sign it into law. It's already scheduled for signing though so no vito.
I personally do not know how anyone of either gender can support a law that could see 10 year old children who kissed a female classmate on a dare by his peers branded a sexual predetor and posted for the world to see on a web site for monsters. What future would such boys have in a world that already has 4 states in which sex offenders are ellegable for the death penalty? Was it not the purpose of the death penalty's re-enactment in the US to only kill those who themselve have killed?
The fall of Rome indeed.
Sign up for millitary service and hope that we are in World War III do to the current middle east situation because fighting a was over seas will soon be a safer option for young men then staying home where everything can be taken from them on a word alone.
"Non-controversial", because only men suffer
Paragon, I think this law is just a continuation of the slow slide of civil liberties in the Western world. It was "non-controversial" because only men are presumed to be affected by it, and the reigning zeitgeist is that men are evil, criminal brutes who should be rounded up and imprisoned so as to convert the country into a women-and-children-only daycare centre. This seems to be a steady pattern in democratic societies: the slow raising of taxes to support ever-increasing government scope, the steady criminalization of masculinity and the slow erosion of civil liberties to ensure "safety". I've always found it interesting that it's the freely elected governments that do some of the worst damage to freedom. Nothing like what Stalin and other dictators have done in the past, but close.
Here's an interesting set of questions we might put to our "representatives" when they propose ever-stricter regulations to be imposed exclusively on men:
"You tell us that this measure which reduces freedom is necessary to protect us. That the inevitable loss of human dignity is necessary for "safety". If this process is continued indefinitely, eventually we will theoretically become perfectly safe, but totally subjugated by the state. Is this the outcome you, Mr. Politician, desire? Can you conceive of a case where it might be necessary to protect the freedom of men at the price of safety for women and children? If no, why are men disposable in your opinion? Are women and children more valuable than the men who pay the sweat, blood and taxes that ensure our way of life? Does society not owe them a debt of incredible gratitude? Is this society not at least partially the property of men by that right, as they have paid for it many times over? Why, then, would you impose laws which degrade only the rights of men?"
If the answers maintain the status quo, we are being ruled by Marxists (i.e. socialists) and Stalinists (i.e. totalitarians), not democrats or republicans (I use those in the sense of political philosophies, not US parties). In my mind, this is an outrage and an offence to human dignity, as I believe in the principles of representative democracy and republicanism.
Of course, I wouldn't expect a response. The question is sadly rhetorical in this day and age.
Women and FEMALE children
As is so painfully being demonstrated by the passing of HR-4472, Fenisist and their supporters do not put any value on even a child if it is male.
no longer are we in the age of women and children. We are now entering the age of women and girls.
Little boys are nothing more then short men under the surrent regime and deserve the same fate as adult males.
So, When You Put On Your Optimist's Hat?
What do you envision?
Optimist's Hat?
There is such a thing, Roy? ;)
Seriously though...in an ideal world, people and our governments will see the signs of decay before things pass the point of no return. Not just in terms of our struggle, but in the more general sense. Socialism has been proven to be a lie, and it's ugly whore of a retarded daughter (feminism) will be too. A minority of women are manipulating men and using our innate protectiveness to gain advantage for themselves, which was entirely predictable, when you look back. But consider that the press is covering female predation, it is talking about the plight of alienated fathers, etc. etc. It's still largely a sea of misandry and female privilege out there, but there are some positive developments. There's a long, long way to go yet.
From my experience it seems that most women flatly reject feminism or the socialist idea of women being oppressed as a class by men as a class (more every day, while the radicals are dying off nicely due to bile poisoning..err..old age) and all the silly, hateful nonsense that goes along with it. They're still happy to help themselves to feminism's ill-gotten goodies in most cases, but some of them are at least willing to admit that their unfair advantages are plain wrong. Women who are willing to admit that are a minority at this point, but over the past decade I've watched their numbers grow.
The problem is that the socialist-feminist hate movement is so mature now (hell, NOW just hit menopause!) that its misandry is woven into essentially every law, every type of media, you name it. If we keep the pressure up, people will continue to realize that hating men isn't "empowering" or "liberating", it's disgusting and shameful. So, in the "best case", I see the situation gradually moderating, resulting in the restoration of some kind of balance and mutual respect between the sexes. It's a long shot, but I suppose it's possible, right?
I happen to agree with the idea that men and women should have equality of opportunity, biology permitting, and I'm glad that men are women are different in ways that are biologically determined. This does not make men better than women, or women better than men. It's makes us "different". Read into that what you will. I like the fact that we as men are generally inclined to protect the women and children in our lives, not to deny them anything as the psychotics in the feminist movement maintain, but to truly protect them by building and defending a stable society, often to our own great disadvantage. I'm proud of it, and all I want in return is a little fucking respect and an opportunity for equal treatment under the law. The fact that a very vocal minority of hard-core Marxist hatemongers despise us just for being men has proven surprisingly difficult to expose, but it's important to try.
Hope that answers your question.
my alma mater
Thanks for the props fellas. I was shocked as well that they printed it. I think alumni relations are *really* important to them. So I'd encourage this strategy - it's not the first time I've seen females' selfish point of view printed in the Rochester Review, and I imagine other universities do the same thing.
Next I plan to write to the Campus Times at the UofR - perhaps I can inspire some current students to file a suit under Title IX.