|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 19, @02:06AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Look. We all know that women can legally murder their children. What really gets me about this is that the feminist want to prosecute the husband. Mark may words. As a result of this trial we will see increasing pressure to criminalize men.
I cannot tell you how many women blame the husband ... simply because he is a male and got her pregnant. The numbers are overwhelming.
Finally, watch how the psychology profession gets off the hook. She was under treatment and yet not found to be a danger to the children. Damn it! Why wasn't she hospitalized! This proves that psychologists have no clue. It is going to be nothing but more female victimization rhetoric, and the result will be more men laws designed to criminalize men.
So, we must protect the wives who are forced to have too many children. How can we do that? NOW's solution is the same one that they support in China. A one-child policy and forced abortions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 19, @03:33AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
So, we must protect the wives who are forced to have too many children. How can we do that? NOW's solution is the same one that they support in China. A one-child policy and forced abortions.
Oh, I don't think so - more likely it will be forced vasectomies and isolation of children from their father...er, "male parental unit". Wouldn't want to harm women or limit their choices, doncha know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 19, @03:35AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"She was under treatment and yet not found to be a danger to the children. Damn it! Why wasn't she hospitalized! This proves that psychologists have no clue."
I agree that this whole thing is rife with double standards and misandry. But I'm going to respectfully disagree with the above quote. Being treated for a mental illness does not automatically mean you're a danger to your kids. There are millions of people receiving mental health treatment who are not a danger to their kids. Hospitalizing all of them, especially involuntarily, would be an administrative and social nightmare, and in many cases a violation of their human rights. We should only involuntarily treat someone when a professional finds them either gravely disabled (unable to care for self) or a danger to themself or others due to a mental disability (or some similar standard). Maybe she met that standard. But in the bias of hindsight it's hard to know without more facts.
Yes, there are many failures in the field, just as there is in most fields. But in no way does this prove psychologists don't have a clue. For every failure like this there are thousands of successes that we don't see or hear about. It's a difficult and complex field that is slowly evolving but will never be perfect.
Although I have doubts about her insanity, I do not automatically discount the possibility of her having been insane when she did this. I haven't seen enough evidence to decide either way. Her having called the police does not prove she knew what she was doing at the time she did it. In fact, the opposite can just as easily be argued (i.e. she 'came to' and called the cops, which, arguably, indicates a moment of insanity before she made the call). There needs to be much more evidence (treatment records, etc.) before proving either side here.
I don't doubt that a man would get less sympathy for having the exact same condition if he did this. And the blame-the-male attitudes of the gender-feminists here is quite sickening. If this were a man, NOW would never support him and instead would probably use him as an example of how horrible men are. But I also think we should avoid the knee-jerk reactionary thinking that the gender-feminists are so good at. Lest we become as they are.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said, Marc. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe she met that standard. But in the bias of hindsight it's hard to know without more facts.
According to the quotes in media, she was considered *not* a danger to her kids, so she apparently did not meet that standard. All the more reason she may not be able to stand on her insanity defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote:
"""I don't doubt that a man would get less sympathy for having the exact same condition if he did this. And the blame-the-male attitudes of the gender-feminists here is quite sickening. If this were a man, NOW would never support him and instead would probably use him as an example of how horrible men are."""
It will be interesting to compare the public response to the outcomes between the Yates trial and the upcoming trial of the man who killed his wife and three kids around Christmas last and then ran off to Mexico if you remember.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 19, @12:20PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Marc. You have a good point except for one major issue. She admits that she contemplated killing her children for two years. The fact that this was not sufficient to have her removed is inexcusable. It is a major failure of the psychological profession and it does in fact illustrate just how far it falls short.
If the profession were all it claims to be, they would have found her to be a danger to her children. However, it has become little more than pop science masquerading as hard science. I have done course work in psychology, and I found that many of their pet theories were unsupportable with scientific fact.
Worse, they are being allowed more power to influence legislation, our families, our schools, and our children under the lie of claiming they have a will developed science. I am not discounting the good that the psychological profession does. However, they have overstepped their professional bounds. They need to be reigned in.
Think about it. How many times do these damn psycho-babbling idiots tear children from their fathers? Think of all the damage they are doing with their support of false allegations against men. There is massive fallout. It is in the form of 10's of millions of damaged fathers. No self-respecting intellectual can objectively examine this profession and continue to claim they seek the greater good.
They cannot continue to claim that women cannot lie about rape, that children cannot lie about molestation, that women are incapable of violence, and that men should be criminalized if the woman chooses to make false allegations. When they start holding women accountable for this holocaust perpetrated against men then they can claim to have a respectable profession.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>It is a major failure of the psychological profession and it does in fact illustrate just how far it falls short.
That would be true if it was psychologists that are monitoring her behavior. Its not psychologists- its psychiatrists. There's a big difference- psychiatrists can prescribe medication.
Roughly 1% of the population has schizophrenia or similar psychotic disorders. They can't all be imprisoned. While they constitute a safety risk relative to the rest of the population, it doens't mean that all patients with psychosis need to be held against their will or similarly monitored.
In the case of Yates, it sounds as if she is psychotic with a superimposed behavioral pattern. The behavioral pattern is what is responsible for her killing her kids, and it is for that reason she should be guilty of murder.
>However, it has become little more than pop science masquerading as hard science
That is an insulting commentary to a profession that has done a lot of good for a lot of people. Again, you are conflating all the different psychological professions. There is a lot of bad pop psychology that is done, but there is also a tremendous number of people's lives that have been improved by mental health professionals.
> I have done course work in psychology, and I found that many of their pet theories were unsupportable with scientific fact.
Pet theories are often unsupported in many disciplines (physics, chemistry, etc), and that is true of psychology as well. That has nothing to do with the Yates case.
Just because Yates's lawyers are preying on the public's ignorance of mental health does not mean the mental health field is worthless. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
> Think about it. How many times do these damn psycho-babbling idiots tear children from their fathers?
Again, it is not the mental health professionals who do good research who are responsible for father's losing their children. It has much more to do with legislatures and courts having a structure that is NOT based on the research done by psychologists. If anything, fathers would be better off if the courts actually were familiar with research done by peer-reviewed psychologists.
> No self-respecting intellectual can objectively examine this profession and continue to claim they seek the greater good.
I am one such academic (MD/PhD) and I refute your claims. Just because the results of researchers have been ignored or abused by legislators and courts does not mean the profession is at fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 19, @05:22PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
First, I am not discounting the good that psychiatrist or psychologist do. However, when the damage exceed the good in terms of numbers the profession must come under suspicion.
With all due respect, a profession is at fault when it remains silent, and that is exactly what has happened and continues to happen in the psychological, educational, law-enforcement, legal, legislative, and other professions.
So no, unfortunately, I am not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Oh how I wish it were that simple. Again, when millions are males are systematically having their lives destroyed, and the professionals remain silent, they become responsible for the consequences. At best they are apathetic.
I will accept a refutation on your part if you can show where the APA or another such Professional Association condemns the holocaust that is taking place. Show me where your profession is actively lobbying legislatures to stop using junk science. I want to see the physical evidence. I want to see a list of laws your profession condems as based on bad science. I am open to physical evidence to back your claims.
First, I am not discounting the good that psychiatrist or psychologist do. However, when the damage exceeds the good in terms of numbers, a profession or group of professions must come under suspicion.
With all due respect, a profession is at fault when it remains silent, and that is exactly what has happened and continues to happen in the psychological, educational, law-enforcement, legal, legislative, and other professions. Not one of these professional groups are condemning the laws that are currently systematically criminalizing men.
However, I will accept a refutation on your part if you can show where the APA or another such Professional Association condemns the holocaust that is taking place in America. Show me where your profession is actively lobbying legislatures to stop using junk science. I want to see the physical evidence and I expect to see a list of laws your profession condemns as based on bad science. I am open to physical evidence to back your claims.
As for the hard sciences, you are comparing apples and oranges to try and claim psychology is a hard science. The analogy fails. Like it or not the legislatures do rely on pop-psych to pass laws, and those laws are systematically criminalizing men.
Finally, Psychologists routinely practice medicine by claiming that a person is depressed and recommending that they ask thier MD for medication. Teachers do the same thing with ADD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, did anybody take note of this:
'"My greatest concern is that the death penalty is even an issue in this case. Our entire family believes Andrea should be hospitalized and should not even have been brought up on these charges,"' the aunt added.
Forget the death penalty a moment. Five children are dead, and her aunt says that there should not even have been any charges. Not even a trial? You kill your own kids, and if you are a woman, you should be able to go straight from your home to a hospital for treatment? Surely, the aunt can't mean that...can she?
Those who claim to be brutally honest, enjoy the brutality more than the honesty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 19, @08:57AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
if justice were truly blind we could simply accuse "a parent" of murder and the jury would never know the gender. that way, we'd never have to bother with all of this hullabaloo in the courtroom again. custody cases dealing with parent A and parent B, randomly assigned. if only...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 19, @09:24AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for interjecting some balanced reason into this discussion, Marc. I've been wondering if this was still "men's activism", because it's been more like "men ranting and raving without thinking". I understand Scott has been very busy, but his absence here has had an effect.
Figures. Here we are just shootin' the breeze, while he's probably starting a revolution at UNH. Actions speak louder than words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for interjecting some balanced reason into this discussion, Marc. I've been wondering if this was still "men's activism", because it's been more like "men ranting and raving without thinking". I understand Scott has been very busy, but his absence here has had an effect.
I've noticed this as well, and if anyone feels I've contributed, then I apologize. We should all take a moment to remember that men's activism is *not* a place for hatred of or raving against women. It's a place for fighting back against anti-male feminism and for men's rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Anon,
MANN has always had its ups and downs in terms of activity and focus. I think we're doing fine, and for many people, a break is needed every so often to keep from burning out. To that I would add, the best way to counter frivolous speech on our comment boards is to add your own reasoned speech. You seem to have been doing this, and I thank you for it.
And while I'm not quite "starting a revolution" at UNH, things are coming together well with Stop Hating Men. People are starting to talk about issues such as male bashing and whether men are innocent until proven guilty or not. I even read in today's TNH that the student senate is proposing a resolution to raise the standards of evidence in UNH Judiciary Hearings. That would be a major step forward for fairness at this institution.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I even read in today's TNH that the student senate is proposing a resolution to raise the standards of evidence in UNH Judiciary Hearings.
Scott: Do you have any idea if "Stop Hating Men" had anything to do with this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Scott: Do you have any idea if "Stop Hating Men" had anything to do with this?"
Hi Thomas,
I doubt it. I personally think it's a great idea though. Here's a link to the TNH article:
http://www.tnh.unh.edu/news/senate.html
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed the following in the article cited above by Scott:
Heather Leaf, a student Senator, said she was concerned that this change could have an effect on sexual harassment cases.
Moore responded by saying that she met a number of times with Elizabeth Plante the director of SHARPP, who said the organization is concerned that this may change the number of students who would bring their cases to judicial programs.
Does this mean that Ms. Plante wants men to be reprimanded or severely punished solely because of a woman's declaration of wrongdoing without a shred of hard evidence being produced?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does this mean that Ms. Plante wants men to be reprimanded or severely punished solely because of a woman's declaration of wrongdoing without a shred of hard evidence being produced?
Well, yes, Thomas, it does mean that. We know women never lie or make false accusations. How very politically incorrect for you to suggest otherwise.
Now if you'll excuse me I have to read more about the woman in Australia that got disbarred for filing several false rape reports.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man, I just paid a visit to a certain other board. I didn't post, but I knew that if I would have I would have gotten eaten alive just for uttering that Yates should be heald accountable.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 19, @06:43PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Shoot. What board was that? Sounds like fun to be one of a few male activist demanding female responsibility.
Bet they were all trying to blame the man for the murders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Bet they were all trying to blame the man for the murders."
Actually, not all. Those who didn't were told by everyone else that they are trolls (even after posting respectfuly and with a good nature, just like we would when we disagree on things). Messages like "why don't you educate yourself before you come here and state your stupid opinions." are all over threads. For them, I guess, an educated view is one that corresponds to the gender feminist line. People should go see from themselves, some of the stuff is just trippy.
I'll give you two choices to guess from, so no one accuses me of trying to start a BB war:
1) msmagazine boards
2) msmagazine boards
And I'll say it NOW, so peaople don't get the wrong idea. I have never posted on their boards, and if I did, I would be respectful. I like debate, as do many here, as long as it is done in a non-troll like manner.
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 19, @07:34PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Scott, thank God you’re back – people were being mean to females.
They made me cry!
Where’s a policeman?
A couple even said something true to a woman!!
Maybe we should collect DNA samples and call the cybercops, just to be SAFE.
The Epic Ranters don’t bother me in the least – whether I agree with them or not, I enjoy the novelty of hearing American men STOP APOLOGIZING and actually say what they mean – even if somebody’s feelings get hurt. Even if EVERYBODY'S feelings get hurt. If the Rant doesn’t entertain, inspire, or enlighten me, I CLICK IT OFF.
Putting your wad down on pony number 13, “Balanced Reason,” huh bro? Good luck. Usedta be lightning, but I ain’t seen hide nor hair of him nigh on half a century. Don’t live here no more. Keep on waving that bag of oats around, though.
It tickles our keepers all getout!!
Alternately: Politesse and rationalism have uses and merit, but they're not gonna pry the bulldog off the baby's neck. Review the reality of your own culture over the past forty-odd years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Epic Ranters don’t bother me in the least – whether I agree with them or not, I enjoy the novelty of hearing American men STOP APOLOGIZING and actually say what they mean
So you don't think we mean it when we say that war with women is not what we're after here? Exactly how is it you're able to get inside my head, anonymous, and determine exactly what it is I "mean?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you don't think we mean it when we say that war with women is not what we're after here?
But if the pheminists want a war with you, you have one. It takes two to make a peace, but only one to make a war.
And I think any examination of the Pheminist leaders rhetoric empirically and objectively demonstrates that they want to criminalize masculinity - in short, a war.
You can call me crazy all you want. I have a URL for you if you doubt it.
http://gos.sbc.edu/s/solanas.html
She's all but canonized by the pheministas. She isn't "Fringe", she's read and praised in "Wimmyn's Studies" all over the land. This is FROM a college, for criminy's sake.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She's all but canonized by the pheministas. She isn't "Fringe", she's read and praised in "Wimmyn's Studies" all over the land. This is FROM a college, for criminy's sake.
I'm well aware of Solanas, but I would never suggest that she typifies all women, or even all feminists. God knows there are times when I haven't taken the high road, but in these matters, I, for one, am better off going that route.
I'm not going to call you crazy for your beliefs, but I do wish you would respect mine and not attempt to tell me what I think.
It's never going to come to a physical war with feminists, TGK. If it does, I'll be damned surprised. If it does, the feminists (I still haven't figured out what's derogatory about spelling it with a "ph") are going to have to be the ones to start it.
We're already changing things, you know. Slowly, yes, but it's happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 19, @11:15PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm... Perhaps it's the ultimate pessimist in me but I think at some time, men's liberation may well require a physical war. Not with women, but with the feminist interests in government. We converge here to lament our losses and celebrate our modest victories, but change is slow, and right now there's still a lot of inertia in the feminist movement: we are still losing ground. The problem is that the politicians are whores for votes, and until they are convinced that the feminist course of action is not acceptable to voters, they will continue to pander to the likes of NOW. Further, they have little impact on the courts. The only thing that will impact the courts is to elect a Republican Senate and a Repbulican House while a Republican President is in office. As much as the Republicans pander nearly as pathetically as the Democrats, even that is no guarantee. But the activist nature of the courts will not change until conservatives (with their own shortcomings) are appointed as judges, including Supreme Court Justices.
In order to stem the growing call for more forceful action, such as that advocated by TGK, there needs to be a demonstrated halt of support for the genfem movement within government. Otherwise, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, and the movie "Arlington Road" will seem prophetic.
I don't at all look forward to this prospect. But I fear that the media is so engrossed with themselves and their liberal/socialist views that they are losing sight of, and failing to report on, this growing movement within the US. If they continue to ignore it, they will be taken by surprise, and they'll only realize their mistake as they observe their own demise.
I fear this for my children, my daughters as well as my son, and I fear it for all the children of my brother and my sisters and my neighbors, and of course the children of friends I've made here. But even though the threat is still somewhat distant, it is very real, and the quicker we get the attention of other men and women, the quicker we achieve peaceful change.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm well aware of Solanas, but I would never suggest that she typifies all women, or even all feminists. God knows there are times when I haven't taken the high road, but in these matters, I, for one, am better off going that route.
And if you have that luxury, by all means, go there if it's effective. Winning and looking like a nice guy is ALWAYS preferable.
I'd just say that of the two, winning is the priority, though.
I'm not going to call you crazy for your beliefs, but I do wish you would respect mine and not attempt to tell me what I think.
Nightmist, mis ami, I only respond to what I read. It does certainly seem here sometimes that it's a case of "Sssssh! Massa Missy might hear us!" There's a lot of men in the movement who are weary of the policies of appeasement that seem to be preached, and many who grumble quietly that the movement is being taken over by pheminist sympathizers.
Now you can get angry at me for reporting it - but you're shooting the messenger. Tom over at AUM says ya'll are sincere and committed, and he's a good judge I've found. Now, if this stings, I mean no offense, but again, I'm saying open and out what some mutter in private - and that goes for many, many, many places - in fact this is one of the places where it's said the least.
But said it is.
It's never going to come to a physical war with feminists, TGK. If it does, I'll be damned surprised. If it does, the feminists (I still haven't figured out what's derogatory about spelling it with a "ph") are going to have to be the ones to start it.
LOL!!! Pheminist comes from PHoney fEMINISM, it's a dig that it says it's an egalitarian movement, but it's really just about more stuff for women with men footing the bill. I lifted that from Jack Kammer's "If Men Have All the Power How Come Women Make the Rules?" (it's a free download at http://www.rulymob.com) I alos like to use it because it differentiates from Wendy Mac's iFeminism (Jeez, I wish she'd found a different word for that!) And it reserves feminine for those real women who aren't bitter about not being born a man.
I really don't think it will probably come to a shooting war with the pheminazis - but that's mainly because the fascists rarely have the courage to do their own murdering. They'll send their jackbooted thugs in to do it for them. And since they're talking in Ottowa about electronically shackling any man so much as accused of DV by a woman, and in Scotland of making a DNA bank of men only, I think you might be mistaken.
We're already changing things, you know. Slowly, yes, but it's happening.
I'm not going to call you a liar, but maybe overly optimistic. I don't see it, myself. But I tend towards the pessimistic, I find it helps avoid disappointment.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Further, they have little impact on the courts. The only thing that will impact the courts is to elect a Republican Senate and a Repbulican House while a Republican President is in office.
You're not going to get anything better for men out of Republicans than you do out of Victi--I mean Democrats.
In order to stem the growing call for more forceful action, such as that advocated by TGK, there needs to be a demonstrated halt of support for the genfem movement within government. Otherwise, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, and the movie "Arlington Road" will seem prophetic.
If the men's movement starts acting like a bunch of terrorists like that, I will disassociate myself from it entirely and never look back. Takings lives except in self defense of your own life (not your livelihood) is not cool.
I don't at all look forward to this prospect. But I fear that the media is so engrossed with themselves and their liberal/socialist views that they are losing sight of, and failing to report on, this growing movement within the US.
That's changing even as I write this. See the Feb. 15 Toronto Star, or wait for the article I've queued up from it for tomorrow morning.
I fear this for my children, my daughters as well as my son, and I fear it for all the children of my brother and my sisters and my neighbors, and of course the children of friends I've made here. But even though the threat is still somewhat distant, it is very real, and the quicker we get the attention of other men and women, the quicker we achieve peaceful change.
You should *definitely* fear for your daughters, your wife, and your mother if bloodthirsty extremists take over this movement. They do not differentiate between women and gender feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist, mis ami, I only respond to what I read. It does certainly seem here sometimes that it's a case of "Sssssh! Massa Missy might hear us!"
There is a BIG, HUGE, TREMENDOUS difference between between taking a non-violent stance and being afraid of speaking out. Most people who have watched this site for any length of time know that I'm never afraid to speak out. I will, however, disagree with you when it comes to using force or violence. If you can't see the difference there, then I suppose I'm wasting my time typing this, but you should know there is a difference.
I'm not going to call you a liar, but maybe overly optimistic. I don't see it, myself. But I tend towards the pessimistic, I find it helps avoid disappointment.
Actually, I'm a fatalist. Always have been, so If I can see light here, surely you can.
Btw, I'm sick of Sun Tzu. Art of War has turned into another Bible or other somesuch work in which people just see what they want to see and ignore the meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous:
First of all: Let me say that I understand your anger, and I don't mean to be paternizing or maternizing when I say that. I often feel that anger myself. It's justified and it can be productively channelled.
Second of all: Let me say that, while I think that mainstream feminism is, perhaps, the most insidious evil that humans have ever developed (for the first time a hate group is raising its victims), I also think that we now have some reason for hope. A rapidly increasing number of men and women are becoming revolted by the unrelenting stream of hateful, anti-male lies and oppression. They are speaking out, and they are beginning to have a positive effect. Victory, over the fascism that goes by the name of "feminism" today, is by no means certain, but at least those fascists now have an increasingly well organized and vocal opposition.
Third of all: Let me say, "Why don't you choose a handle so we don't have to refer to you as 'anonymous?'" Not doing so makes it hard to follow an argument. It really would help.
Okay, now to the meat of the matter...
You seem to advocate more extreme measures, to fight the increasingly brutal oppression of men and boys, than letter writing and posting to the Web. Personally, I think that far more extreme measures may become necessary to defeat anti-male fascism. And the lives of many good men are already being destroyed every day (not to mention the lives of many good children, who are losing their fathers). But I think there is still hope for a, relatively, peaceful solution to the mess that we are in.
What I'm wondering is: What specific measures do you advocate? Which of these have you undertaken? (I understand if some are illegal and you don't want to admit that you've done them. At the same time, despite what some people think, I believe that Bob Rowan, El Dildo Bandito, is a courageous individual.) If you think that war is necessary, do you think that it is necessary for men to wage it against all women? For good men and women to wage it against gender feminists and their femboy toadies? Who should fight whom, specifically?
Just wonderin' ya know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo Kid: I'd like to hear your answers to these questions as well.
What specific measures do you advocate?
Which of these have you undertaken?
If you think that war is necessary, do you think that it is necessary for men to wage it against all women? For good men and women to wage it against gender feminists and their femboy toadies?
Who should fight whom, specifically, and for that matter how should they fight?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo Kid: I'd like to hear your answers to these questions as well.
Fair enough, straight answers to straight questions.
What specific measures do you advocate?
Ho, ho, you've asked for an epic. First, recognize that pheminism is a hate movement, and that they hate YOU. Because you are male.
As a result of this recognize they are your mortal enemy.
I DO NOT advocate the initiation of coercive force. I do, however, think we would be fools in the extreme not to prepare for that eventuality.
Pheminism has achieved its ends by recognizing that the personal is the political. Under the assumption that even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion, extend and embrace.
I advocate any and all legal discrimination against pheminists, in the form of cutting them no slack, under any circumsatnces, for any reason.
Live a masculine life! Stop trying to impress women. Stop trying to please them. Real women will appreciate you the more. As far as pheminists - they're terrorists. No appeasement. No negotiation.
Call a spade a spade. Pardon the French, but SCREW political correctness. Call a Nazi a Nazi. A Bigot a Bigot.
Recognize that the war you fight is not necessarily one solely of violence. You have to win the political, the economic, and yes, the Propaganda war. Heck, mate - Rhetoric is a tool to win. Verbal Jui Jitsu. Seize control of the language and set the tone of the debate. Read Sun Tzu, don't let them define the field, if you do you're doomed.
When in doubt, men are brothers, and vote for the male. We're already accused of doing it - cede that battle and commit the crime 'cause you're doing the time.
NO MORE ONE-SIDED CHIVALRY. Criminitley! I used to get my butt kicked by a couple kids down the street, till one day my father asked me why I was losing. I told him "I fight fair and they don't." A light went on! Next time, I picked up a stick and within two weeks I never saw them south of the bridge EVER again. To paraphrase George Patton, you don't win by dying for your "principles" you win by making those witches die for THEIR principles.
If you have to give ground, make sure you do it in such a way that it's clear "I'm only doing this because you're a girl and can't win unless I let you." Watch them stalk off and leave the spoils to you.
Don't let women define masculinity. I repeat, don't let women define masculinity.
This is just a few.
Which of these have you undertaken?
I've done a lot, just this weekend I helped a guy get out of the house with his kids until his soon to be ex got busted fro holding crank.
I've formed a small underground of cells for helping men get away from abusive and drug-addicted ex-wives trying to steal their kids. No questions, no names. We provide shelter for abused men.
I hire pheminists as salaried and exempt positions, and insist they do the same work as men. When they fail, I write them up and process them out all with due process. I'm also quick to jump on a statement with a response of, "You're not asking for special treatment because of your sex, are you?" I point out that none of these other guys they work with fget to take off for dentists, PTO meetings, etc and then demand they get back to their desks.
Whenever possible, I hire a poor schmuck as casual labor and pay cash so he has some income his ex-can't trace. Maybe take his kids out somewhere, or even pay a bill or two.
I do hire men as a matter of preference. I have an "quota" and I keep it. To the number. No more.
I do not aid and abet any woman to drive her husband away. Last year a woman I rent to had her husband removed. When she was late on rent, I filed eviction. As a matter of note, now HE is living there with the kids because she couldn't provide a house for them. In fact, last week she went to jail for failure to pay child support, because I referred him to a pit bull attorney.
If you think that war is necessary, do you think that it is necessary for men to wage it against all women? For good men and women to wage it against gender feminists and their femboy toadies?
Pheminists and phem-boys are the enemy Once many fence straddlers get a taste of true equality, these women usually become ardent anti-pheminists. And I think that's what we should demand of women, that they become pro-active in the fight against pheminism. The pheminists have a weak spot in that they can't seem to really put their heart into a fight that involves a memeber of the female gender.
Who should fight whom, specifically, and for that matter how should they fight?
That's going to have to be as circumstance and conscience dictate. I will say that I don't think extremism in the defense of liberty is necessarily a vice.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a few
What you don't seem to understand is that you are completely preaching to the choir. Everyone here already knows all that stuff.
I do hire men as a matter of preference. I have an "quota" and I keep it. To the number. No more.
And that's your right as a private business, but is that really your so-called "true" equality? Basing your hiring choices solely on sex?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do hire men as a matter of preference. I have an "quota" and I keep it. To the number. No more.
And that's your right as a private business, but is that really your so-called "true" equality? Basing your hiring choices solely on sex?
It's protest. I'm "Required" to hire 4 women. Therefore, I have hired 4 women. I keep it all legal, and have consulted with an activist attorney on how to legally make it clear they are tokens.
When the fascist get out of my life and stop twisting my arm, A reconsideration of this will take place. Until then, if massa wants me to pick 3 pounds of cotton, three pounds of cotton is all he's ever getting.
And it's worked. Many of these women have backed off and even renounced pheminist philosophy when it bites them on the butt. Believe me, I don't do it out of sheer meanness. Purpose and effectiveness is my sole determinant.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's protest. I'm "Required" to hire 4 women. Therefore, I have hired 4 women. I keep it all legal, and have consulted with an activist attorney on how to legally make it clear they are tokens.
That's all well and good provided people do know that it's protest. I would seem difficult to me to make it known that your hiring practices are protest, but if you can do it, more power to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me continue that, too - another part of this is that it will produce two things - either a backlash, (Maybe some guy suing because it's obvious he didn't get the job because of his sex) or enactment of more draconian measures - which just might be the spark to set off the powderkeg.
I ain't blinking on that. If they wanna let themselves be manipulated into doing something stupid, I'm jiggy wid' it. If they want to know if this crazy grin is real - they ain't paid to see those cards yet.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's all well and good provided people do know that it's protest. I would seem difficult to me to make it known that your hiring practices are protest, but if you can do it, more power to you.
It's all a matter of saying the right things at the right time with the right smile and the right phraseology. Make it clear you're "looking for a woman," release the right memo with the "diversity" line, and fail to dispel the assumption. Actually, with laws like that, with an objective definition you can point to, and the right weasel-speak, it's even easier to discriminate. Because you can point to results - and nobody can contradict you without making their side look ridiculous.
Just a matter of playing the system, and making it work for you. If nobody gets along with the token pheminista she falls on her face and you get to say with that sad little look, "Gee whillikers, it looks like the right MAN for the job wasn't a woman after all."
That is a meanness I can live with. They've treated my brothers unconscionably, and I find it liberating to remove those shackles from myself as well.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the things I am noticing is the amount of anger that is being expressed about this trial and other issues. I think for the most part we all agree that problems men have are ignored. Noone needs to prove that to anyone other than the flyby visitor here. I am going to attempt to open up the area in how I feel this trial relates to men.
As far as I can see Yates is innocent based on the criteria for depression. This does not mean I feel she should go free! In my opinion at the worst she should be put in a hospital for a long period of time (if not life). As a minimum she should never allowed to have children again. Drunk drivers have licenses revoked, child molestors are not allowed to work around minors, felons are limited in thier access to certain freedoms. Since Andrea Yates has proven that she is mentally unfit to deal with parenthood that right should be taken away.
As for the people that think she was forced into this action by her "bible-thumping" husband get a life!! DO NOT turn this into a blame-the-male issue. She did the crime not him! There are many men and women who want large families for personal and religious reasons but to blame him for forcing children on her is absurd and a typical feminist ploy to deflect or share blame with men in some form or another.
I would also like to clear up the conceptual problem people have with psychology and psychiatry. Psychiatrists are MD's with very limited training in counceling theories and techniques. Their focus is MEDICAL treatment of mental disorders through drugs or surgury.
Psychologist are not trained to the same extent (although they can get a limited medical license to prescribe some psychiatric drugs like prozac and zoloft.) Psychologists are trained to deal with mentally healthy and stable people that need to learn life skills. (This is an over simplification. Some of these problems are complex requiring a multitude of new skills to resolve.)
Finally on to how this is trial is a men's issue.
Noone has mentioned that post-partum depression is something men get as well. Also If she committed this crime due to depression why has noone made the next logical step that many of the crimes men may commit are due to depression as well. (A great book on this is "I Don't Want to Talk About It" by Terrance Real.)
I get a bit irked when I hear that 80% of women in prison have been abused in their life and noone takes this research to its next logical conclusion and asks if 80% of men in prison have been abused as well.
The issue her is not that she is getting away with a crime but that her crime is viewed as a medical issue not a inherent part of her nature. If this was a man I doubt he would be seen as "sick" or in need of treatment other than the electric chair.
The problem here is men are seen as purpetrators of evil and morally unsalvagable when they commit a crime. Women are still seen as victims of evil and morally savagable. Women are treated by the criminal justice system while men are punished. I just want the same treatment for men and their problems treated as well.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could you send me a more detailed description of what you are doing for your campaign at school? I might see if I can start something at my college.
Tony
Menrights@aol.com
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 20, @03:02AM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve neither the time, inclination, or legal representation to describe my efforts in full. My work well exceeds forty hours a week, is unpaid, and guarantees me, wherever I appear – even on “masculist” boards – loads of resentment, often from folks who have done little or no homework, leading sheltered lives unconnected to the realities of life for lower-class males.
I am old, in poor health, always broke, and intermittently homeless. Sometimes I live out of the back of my pickup. It makes Internet use so ... challenging.
These are not burdens, simply the standard price. Countless others have paid far more dearly.
“Nightmist, mis ami, I only respond to what I read. It does certainly seem here sometimes that it's a case of "Sssssh! Massa Missy might hear us!"
Yup. Especially any time a female is raked over the rhetoric, or called on her obfuscations. How readily, and unconsciously, we jump to their defense. Sophisticated masculists -- we revert straight to conditioning. It’s Pavlovian – and we’re not on the perfesser end, by the way.
In its niche, this site is superb -- consistent, accurate, cleanly laid-out and pretty comprehensive. Kudos to Scott et al.
But I find the site restrictive and unwelcoming, despite the open party line. The site is too self-conscious about its “position,” about arranging alliances, about not offending “mainstream” folks and losing credibility. The site runs scared of the Angry White Male A-Bomb, the same jive that's been used like a gag for thirty years now.
But this is no time for timidity and strategic stances.
Fuck Offendedness. Ditto for “credibility.” Speak your truth and let the chips fall.
If they fall onto your girlfriend, wife, or board mole, deal. Despite avowals, American females are not perfect. They need work. Lots of it.
“You should *definitely* fear for your daughters, your wife, and your mother if bloodthirsty extremists take over this movement.”
Bloodthirsty extremists? In the men’s movement? WHERE?? Somebody send me their URL.
Get out more. Walk the nation’s streets at midnight, visit the prisons, talk to the street punks, observe the tell-tale body language between the genders. America’s rivers run with male blood, much of it from infant boys. Male suffering and blood are the very nutrition of Western civilization - and our men’s activist commentators are worried about bloodthirsty masculists?!
Please God, SEND ME some rampaging extremists.
Shit, I’d settle for a half-dozen of angryharry’s Justice Jesters. Some of the Brits apparently don’t appreciate culture-wide emasculation. They’d have lifted Boulder up by its profitable misandry and chucked it into the Pacific, where it would sink to its own level of unconscious ooze (i.e., the bottom).
I wish we didn’t need Gonzo too. Gonzo probably wishes he didn’t need Gonzo. He probably wishes he could just get drunk each night and watch T.V.
But we DO need him, very much, and we will fail without his kind. They take the risks, and the big hits. Gonzo has fifty thousand forbears of freedom, and not one of their names are known.
I don’t like to be bullied and demeaned, and I won’t tolerate it against others. Not now, not ever, not for an instant. When day after day I see the weak crushed, the blameless criminalized, and the innocent massacred, my patience wanes, and I have less interest in guarding what is vile.
I want to believe that rule of law, due process and the inherent just nobility of America will free my brothers. I want to believe that, but I don’t. The signs are not there. Despite many fine efforts – which have value in their very expression – masculinity is dying in the West, replaced by an inner matriarchy and the drones who serve it.
When the regents are stripped of power – and they will be – and herded into the town square, that all may witness their hearts, I will beg mercy for those who have warred on the defenseless.
Vengeance is the dynamo of the matriarchate, the inner thrill of power that ravens down the generations. I have no wish to exercise it upon anyone.
But I WILL BE FREE, and so will my brothers, and God have mercy on any who hinder me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuck Offendedness. Ditto for “credibility.” Speak your truth and let the chips fall.
I speak nothing but my truth. Just because my truth may be different from yours doesn't mean I'm not speaking my truth.
Bloodthirsty extremists? In the men’s movement? WHERE?? Somebody send me their URL.
You don't think advocating another Oklahoma City bombing is bloodthirsty extremism?
I don’t like to be bullied and demeaned, and I won’t tolerate it against others. Not now, not ever, not for an instant. When day after day I see the weak crushed, the blameless criminalized, and the innocent massacred, my patience wanes, and I have less interest in guarding what is vile.
Fine. Don't tolerate it, but you don't have to kill people to do it. If the men's movement turns into a terrorist organization, it becomes no better than the feminists.
Vengeance is the dynamo of the matriarchate, the inner thrill of power that ravens down the generations. I have no wish to exercise it upon anyone.
Then why all the hate talk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 20, @11:27AM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist:
I think you missed his point. He was sympathising with Gonzo, yes. And he was giving his own interpretations and reactions. He's far more capable of forgiving then Gonzo, but he sees the usefulness and source of Gonzo's anger.
By the way, I have a week or two to catch up on. Hope everyone has been well.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 20, @11:37AM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
When the regents are stripped of power – and they will be – and herded into the town square, that all may witness their hearts, I will beg mercy for those who have warred on the defenseless
Welcome , Mr. Remarksman. We need your kind too.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is certainly a fascinating and valuable discussion. It would be reckless to an extreme to ignore the rising tide of anger on the part of many, many men. I see it now where I live and everywhere that I travel -- the no-longer-unexpressed building rage in men, the increasingly trepidatious look in women's eyes when men finally speak out.
For those who misinterpret what I write, I will try to make this perfectly clear. When I say that violence is coming, I am neither advocating nor speaking against that violence. I am simply stating that it is coming. And now I will repeat that in case my meaning is still, somehow, unclear. When I say that violence is coming, I am neither advocating nor speaking against that violence. I am simply stating that it is coming.
When I see and hear expressions of the growing wrath of men, I feel like I am standing on the ocean shore, watching the sea. Whether I like it or not, the tide will come in. And there will be places, a Bay of Fundy and a Mont-Saint-Michel for example, where it will arrive with breathtaking and awe inspiring force.
I suspect that some men will soon take to violent action. Actually, many already have. That violence has, so far however, been mostly directed by men against themselves in the form of drug abuse, alcoholism and suicide. When that violence turns outward, I don't believe that the men's movement will have been taken over by terrorism any more than the black civil rights movement was ever taken over by terrorism or violence. When extremism became part of the overall movement, that extremism fortunately did not drive out the likes of Martin Luther King and other non-violent activists.
Men are being exterminated in the family. Men and boys are being systematically driven from the nation's educational institutions. Popular culture teaches that males are, at best, contemptible fools. We've all heard the list, and we all know that it goes on and on.
People in power need to realize that we are sitting on a powderkeg, and the fuse burns shorter by the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it is violent to suit on a jury, and find another man dragged before the system charged with the real violation of an unjust law that merely criminalizes him for being male, and never should have been passed; and to say "No. Not Guilty." and by doing so sparing one more man from being raped by the system - then yes, I am a violent man.
If it is violent to hear yet another woman talk trash about men, and get back in her face, name her for the Nazi she is, spit at her feet and walk away - Then yes, I am a violent man.
If it is violent to have some hypocritical pheminist who says she doesn't need a man come to me for a job, a house, or some other succor, so she can leave her house and drive her husband out because she doesn't feel "fulfilled," and I shut the door in her face - then yes, I am a violent man.
If it is violent to help my brother man on the QT, because he can find no help within a system that is hostile to him by sheer virtue of his gender - then yes, I am a violent man.
If it is violent to extend to women who demand equality the equality they seek, and then stick them with the responsibilities of that equality and make them choose - then yes, I am a violent man.
If it is violent to take a pheminist at her word, and take no regard for her gender, treating her as if I would any man - then yes, I am a violent man.
If it is violent to name pheminist tyranny, hypocrisy, double-standards, and Gestapo tactics for what they are - then yes, I am a violent man.
If it is violent to judge "wimmyn" as they have judged me, and find them wanting by their own standards they impose upon me against my will - then yes, I am a violent man.
If it is violent to seize illogic by it's horns, and to turn it back, and reduce some mewling pheminist to tears, and remain unmoved by them - then yes, I am a violent man.
If it is violent to draw a line in the sand and proclaim to pheminists "Beyond here, ye shall not tread but at thy own peril" and mean it - then yes, I am a violent man.
If it is violent to be proud of my masculinity, and unrepentant for my birth and my forefathers - then yes, I am a violent man.
If it is violent to taunt, castigate, speak out and otherwise frustrate those who would put me and my brothers in chains; to dare them to send forth their jackbooted thugs, and promise that for every drop of blood they make run from my veins, that I will make a new river of crimson flow from them, and mean it - then yes, I am a violent man.
If proclaiming that pheminism is an evil spawned in the deepest recesses of the nether regions, and calling for my brothers to shun those who would embrace it is violent - number me among the violent.
If it is violent to name pheminism for the terorist hate movement it is, to arm myself with pen and sword against it, to point out the snipers they have arrayed against my brothers, to preach vigilance, no negotiation, and no quarter - then I am surely a violent man.
If it is violent to refuse to bend my neck to the bully and the despot, to meet their eyes with eyes full of terrible, icy, righteous wrath until they tremble in fear - then proudly, proudly do I proclaim for all the world to hear:
Behold. Fear me, for I am a violent man.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Behold. Fear me, for I am a violent man.
Ummm, none of that is violent. And guess what? We're all doing those things in our ways. The women in my workplace know better than to tread on me with anti-male commentary. They've seen my wrath of it (through words and example, not violence).
Advocating another Oklahoma City Bombing to prove a point no one will see (because they'll be too wrapped up in the aftermath and tragedy) and slaughtering hundreds of innocents IS violent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Nightmist. None of those actions that you listed, Gonzo Kid, are violent. Many of them strike me as great ideas, and I think you'd find that most of the men who post here agree with you.
On the other hand, meting out another Oklahoma City bombing would be violent. Maybe I missed it, though. I remember someone writing something about Oklahoma City proving to be prophetic, but I also remember that striking me as a statement that violence is coming, rather than an advocation of that violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I missed it, though. I remember someone writing something about Oklahoma City proving to be prophetic, but I also remember that striking me as a statement that violence is coming, rather than an advocation of that violence.
My point is that saying it's coming is admitting there are factions of the men's movement who are willing to go to such extremes, who advocate such extremes, and that we other folks don't mind.
I, actually, DO mind, and I'll do everything in my power to try to convince the rest of the men's movement to keep their heads about them.
I'll admit here that I may have too quickly judged TGK, but you must admit his initial posts can easily lead to such conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saying it's coming is admitting there are factions of the men's movement who are willing to go to such extremes, who advocate such extremes, and that we other folks don't mind
I have a lot of respect for you, James, but I have to heartily disagree with you here. Saying violence is coming is not the same as saying we don't mind. I believe that the US will suffer terrorist attacks in the future. That doesn't mean I don't mind. Saying that violence is coming is no more than saying that it is coming. It is not advocacy of violence.
If we believe that violence is coming, should we not discuss it in order to prepare for it, because by discussing it we are, supposedly, advocating it? Should we not warn those in power that violence is probably coming, so they can, hopefully, turn things around in time, because by warning those in power we are, supposedly, advocating violence?
I am not advocating violence, but I believe it will come soon. This society would do well to realize this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we believe that violence is coming, should we not discuss it in order to prepare for it, because by discussing it we are, supposedly, advocating it? Should we not warn those in power that violence is probably coming, so they can, hopefully, turn things around in time, because by warning those in power we are, supposedly, advocating violence?
You didn't say anything about warning people about it, though, Thomas. You said in your post that you're not advocating, but your not decrying it, either. I'm decrying it, for certain. Violence against anyone has no place in a movement designed to free people, and not impose ideas or positions upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can see that something I wrote above might have led to some confusion. I stated, Personally, I think that far more extreme measures (than letter writing and posting to the Web) may become necessary to defeat anti-male fascism.
There is a course of action that lies between what we do here and violent acts. That course is wide scale, highly disruptive, peaceful, civil disobedience. It was extremely effective in the joint anti-war/civil rights demonstrations in the late 60s and early 70s. Its time may be nigh in the western industrialized nations. If the matriarchy ever tries to get me to "voluntarily" register my DNA, I will go to jail before I will comply. In fact, serious demonstrations are still possible in Boulder when Bob Rowan, El Dildo Bandito, goes to trial. Such demonstrations may offer a chance to show solidarity in support of Bob's own civil disobedience.
By the way, Bob was offered a slap on the wrist as a plea bargain. The sentence would have been that he couldn't contact the so-called "artist" who created the mutilated penis display and that he couldn't go to the Boulder Public Library for a year. He couldn't have cared less about either thing, but he still refused and chose to go to trial. He believes this issue needs further exposure, and he believes that he has a good chance of winning, which might also make a great statement. His decision took courage as did his removal of the display that advocated violence against men and boys. I wish him well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You said in your post that you're not advocating, but your not decrying it, either... Violence against anyone has no place in a movement designed to free people, and not impose ideas or positions upon them.
Do you believe that violence had no place in the struggle against Nazi Germany?
At this time, I don't think that violence is necessary to liberate men. I do, however, believe that violence has been necessary numerous times in the past, including during the effort to free the Jews, eastern Europeans and many others from the Nazis. Will violence ever become necessary to free men? I honestly don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a course of action that lies between what we do here and violent acts. That course is wide scale, highly disruptive, peaceful, civil disobedience.
Indeed, and I have absolutely no problem with civil disobedience. I even marked the El Dildo Bandito thing as a rallying moment for the men's movement, if you remember my column about it.
Yes, there is a big difference there between civil disobedience and acts of violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 21, @01:31AM EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
Should we not warn those in power that violence is probably coming, so they can, hopefully, turn things around in time, because by warning those in power we are, supposedly, advocating violence?
Been there...done that. They laugh in your face. They laugh in your face because they know they can turn the military against us. This has already been proven in the Civil War. Further, if men use violence, it will certainly backfire. There is no question of this fact.
The feminist are very smart and have laid the ground work for such a possibility. All that will happen is that men will be further criminalized, by the 100's of millions, as new repressive laws strip men of their rights worldwide.
It is by far better to use their system against them. They have failed to consider this possibility. They really believe their lies, and they are expecting men to turn violent. It would come as a major surprise attack if we use the system against them effectively.
Do it by targeting the elite, the feminist of NOW, the legislatures, judges, the psychologists who are members of the APA, and etc. for anonymous yet legal actions that harm them and their children in the same way they harm us.
There is no need to lie. All that is necessary is to tell the truth. The feminist do not expect such a move. It is the fastest nonviolent yet legal way to get the message across.
If we had 500,000 men, each using the system once per month against an elite, it would take less than a month for the system to change. I guarantee it! We must do this on a massive scale to protect our children, our families, and ourselves. It is our moral and solumn obligation to make these strategic moves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we had 500,000 men, each using the system once per month against an elite, it would take less than a month for the system to change. I guarantee it! We must do this on a massive scale to protect our children, our families, and ourselves. It is our moral and solumn obligation to make these strategic moves
Heeheehee. Imagine clogging up the family court system with interrogatories, motions, hearings, suits - (Loud Guffaw!) Oh, man! They'd run out of money every year before MARCH! Good Lord, women would file something, and they'd have to wait a YEAR to get on the schedule!
Now that's a riot! Bartender! Give that man a double of whatever he's drinking!
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 21, @08:25AM EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
I recall from the sixties that there were books like Abby Hoffman's "Steal This Book" sold to the college age social activists, and it seems to me that there ought to be a book directed at men about how to accomplish just such what AU describes in post #60. Even if you can't get it onto the bookshelves of the mainstream bookstores (I doubt even Hoffman could get "Steal This Book" published in today's market), it could be published on the web. There's pro se advice all over the place, but that's advice on practical matters, not guidance on using the system to choke itself. Perhaps some smartass defense lawyer like Ron Kuby might be willing to help, behind the scenes. THough I suspect you'd really need to find a jaded lawyer to help with this. Most believe in the system as though it was a religion.
After reading Zubaty's book, though, I'm starting to have less and less respect for the "rule of law" and gaining more and more admiration for the the "rule of men." Perhaps I've misinterpreted Zubaty, but I see the legal system as nothing more than a growing cancer defined solely to enrich lawyers and oppress honest men. I think that, all throughout history, you'll find that nations have grown and their legal systems became saturated, and their citizens eventually choked on the personal burden and the ultimate injustice of legislating the un-legislatible. And the citizens responded either by revolting themselves or allowing an invader to prevail. I do ask myself if we've gotten there yet. I said before in this thread that I don't advocate revolution through violence, but I do agree with whoever it was in this thread who said, again neither advocating nor fearing it, that violence is coming. I hope it doesn't; I hope we can make things right without it.
But the message being sent is not being received, and the senders are growing increasingly frustrated, not just among the men's movement but among others who believe the nation/government is headed down the wrong track. I think the mistake some of are making here is refusing to mention it, as though it was a misbehaving relative who we keep in the closet, feeding him whatever he wants as long as he agrees to remain invisible. I think we can talk about it without advocating it, and I think we should. I certainly do defer to Scott, et al, on this issue because I don't run this site, but I think that if such a site were to emerge, it would be visited frequently, and not to the detriment of this one, nor to the detriment of the movement.
But I think most of agree here that we DO need a revolution, and that we would all MUCH prefer it to be non-violent.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do agree with whoever it was in this thread who said, again neither advocating nor fearing it, that violence is coming.
Thanks, Frank. At this point I oppose violence and support peaceful, civil disobedience (such as that taken by Bob Rowan, who, despite any imperfections of his act, at least had the courage to act and continues to exhibit that courage).
As for what the future holds, I'm not a seer.
I think the mistake some of are making here is refusing to mention it
It is far to important a matter to ignore or fail to discuss. Fortunately, we are discussing it here and now. Violence may well be coming. In fact, it's already here in the form (a great success for feminism) of a dramatic increase in the number of suicides by men and boys.
I certainly do defer to Scott
I heartily agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought the Yates diagnosis was psychosis rather than merely depression?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought the Yates diagnosis was psychosis rather than merely depression?
It was originally reported as "postpartum depression" and changed to "postpartum psychosis" a few days later. To tell the truth, nobody's really damn sure WHAT she was diagnosed with.
It's a men's issue because she is likely to get off on this mental illness defense while we've got a mentally retarded man with an IQ of 59 sitting on death row. She's a woman. He's a man. There's the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a men's issue because she is likely to get off on this mental illness defense while we've got a mentally retarded man with an IQ of 59 sitting on death row. She's a woman. He's a man. There's the difference.
Btw, you can find out more about how the Yates case is a men's issue by reading my ifeminists.com column on it from three weeks ago:
http://edge.net/~nitemist/yates.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 22, @02:05AM EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
Violence may well be coming. In fact, it's already here in the form (a great success for feminism) of a dramatic increase in the number of suicides by men and boys.
Oh my God. How right you are. The violence (suicides) has been escalating for ~30 years. It is just a matter of time till it spills over into the larger population without warning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 22, @02:14AM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
Now that's a riot! Bartender! Give that man a double of whatever he's drinking!
That'll be a double Korbel Burbon please... :)
Looks like somebody is finally catching on, and the beauty is that it is all legal. I have studied the matter and the laws in significant detail. The strategy is modeled after King’s nonviolent protest. They would not know what hit them, and we could keep it up indefinitely.
We can even learn from the Al Queda (sp?) network and model our operations after their strategy to maintain privacy and prevent the States from performing an illegal mass arrest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First a few comments about violence. There is a violent resistance going on right now! The problem is that all the hate and anger is directed at other men. The vast majority of suicides, murders, assaults, robbery are committed by men against men. Violence as a form of resistance works only if the repression is violent and the culture is non-democratic. (This is why Gandhi and MLK peaceful protests worked and peaceful protests in Nazi Germany did not.) What the men's movement can learn from these social reformers is that firm but organized resistance is a powerful and effective tool for change. What men really need is a UNIFIED voice. One that can be heard over the hegemonic feminist rhetoric (I love turning a word around on "them"). I see this site as a forum for men's voices. We will not agree and will probably never agree on the finer points of many issues but we are unified in our desire to be heard.
We needed to lay the ground work for change by demanding to be heard and challenging male discrimination when it occurs. Feminist rhetoric has formed pat replies to silence and redirect attention from male issue to focus on women. Any male issue that arises is seen as a backlash. Any attempt to focus on male issues is seen as a distraction from the "real" problem of female repression by patriarchy. Any discussion about male problems always drifts into how women are treated. I AM SICK OF IT!
The REAL issue with the Andrea Yates trial is not that she is "getting away with it." It does not matter is she was sane or insane or how the trial turns out. We all have our personal beliefs about psychological issues and have determined her guilt or innocence already. IT DOES NOT MATTER! What I see as the real issue is that she is given the benefit of the doubt. Any time a women commits a crime she is seen as the victim of society and given far more options for reform both medically and socially. On the other hand when men commit a crime they are seen as biologically and morally deviant. While men also suffer from post-partum depression I seriously doubt that if the husband had committed this crime he would have had the same defense. Men who have medical history's of depression, abuse, neglect, psychosis or any number of mental and social issues are still treated the same. We do not talk about the poor boys who were so depressed they took guns to their schools and shot classmates and themselves. We do not talk about the boys who are manipulated by women into having sex. What we do talk about is the women and why they did what they did. In my eyes this is the hidden insidious effect of feminism.
As men we are socialized to "grin and bear it". We are taught to hold in our tears and anger. We are told to never hit a woman (physically or verbally). Even as we attempt to talk about men's issues we still shift the focus on to how women are treated.
Questions I have about this case are how the father is being helped. Is he getting counseling? Are people/family/friends supporting him as he relives the loss of his children? Is this crime making men think about their position and responsibilities as fathers and husbands?
The REAL issue with the Andrea Yates trial is not how she is being treated.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What he meant by "what they mean" was "what they feel" but that's against the code. I for one love to rant. And I am not about to let a rebuttal stand simply because I ranted. I expect argument to be based in good faith, sound reasoning and seasoned with well crafted ad hominum arguments. Name calling can be fun if it is creative and reasonable accurate. I once knew a Russian fellow that could insult you in 22 languages without repeating himself. And he was still your best friend. We learned long ago about that so let's play on! As to Andrea Yates and her culpable husband I am convinced that he should be doing life in prison for torturing her with biblical intimidation and forced child bearing. She of course belongs in an institute for the criminally insane. The man is a maniac as much as she was. If we are to ever get the ladies back in the kitchens it will be our responsibility for their welfare and that our children. If, as men, we are to be the dominant force in a marriage then we must accept the ultimate responsibilities for the behaviours of our families. May I refer you all to my post Re: Enough with the Trolling #17 wherein I detail a solution for father's rights in the marriage contract. Please know that I have enjoyed all your posts and find much comfort in the sensitive and well reasoned thinking that I am finding at this site. I hope that you will forgive me if on occasion I invoke a heavy layer of vitriol to sweeten the dialogues. Bring it On!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What he meant by "what they mean" was "what they feel" but that's against the code.
That really doesn't matter, either, because I sincerely doubt he can see into my heart and soul, either, so he can't possibly know what I'm feeling, just as he can't know what I "mean."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 20, @04:14AM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
As to Andrea Yates and her culpable husband I am convinced that he should be doing life in prison for torturing her with biblical intimidation and forced child bearing. She of course belongs in an institute for the criminally insane. The man is a maniac as much as she was.
This is feminist propaganda that has little more design other than to criminalize men. Note that there was no rape. Yet the fact that there is a large family is sufficient for the feminist to imply rape.
This kind of hateful speech is why men must report feminist to 911 every time they do anything that is questionable. Examples, include a feminist patting their child on the bottom, holding a child by the bottom, changing diapers in public and touching a child in the private area, and calling children names (like stupid).
Every time we see a feminist exhibit this form of behavior, they must be reported to protect the interest of the child. Let the government prove their innocence in they same way they prove the innocence of men. Remember, feminists are already reporting men for these very acts that are listed. It is legal and you can do it anonymously. There is even a National hot-line posted earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>This is feminist propaganda that has little more design other than to criminalize men. Note that there was no rape. Yet the fact that there is a large family is sufficient for the feminist to imply rape.
Thanks for the reminder. However, I am not talking about all men, in that instance. He was well aware of the dangers of child bearing for his wife's sake. He should have taken measures to protect her/himself and the children from putting her in that position. He married her but he does not own her womb. How does a man rape his wife? I would think that it is by forcing, coercing her to perform when she has clearly shown an aversion to the effort. He has a culpability here. That is what needs to be addressed. I understand that we need to be careful about criminalizing men but we must still recognize our potentials for criminal behaviour. We are our brothers keepers. It is that position which will gain purchase in the political war to end the madness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are our brothers keepers. It is that position which will gain purchase in the political war to end the madness.
Are we really certain, though, Atilla, that Russell Yates impregnated his wife against her will? I haven't seen any news sources on that. If he did, then I understand your rape scenario, but I don't think we've seen evidence of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He should have taken measures to protect her/himself and the children from putting her in that position. He married her but he does not own her womb. How does a man rape his wife? I would think that it is by forcing, coercing her to perform when she has clearly shown an aversion to the effort. He has a culpability here.
Note the complete lack of evidence and the rampant speculation in this statement. There is no physical evidence that Mr. Yates forced himself upon his wife against her will. You are in fact assuming rape by virtue of his having a large family. It is therefore my humble opinion that Attila has bought into the feminist strategy to criminalize men. That makes Attila a traitor to freedom loving men worldwide. Only a communist or socialist would advocate such a draconian destruction of freedom.
What are we going to do, criminalize every man that believes in raising a large family? Are we going to criminalize men for their religious belief of holding a large family sacred? It would be one thing if there was a lack of means to support the children, however, that simply is not the case. If the children were neglected, the children would most likely been removed by the invasive CPS.
If anybody should be criminalized, it is Mrs. Yates for failing to control her body. She is the one that has an alleged record of two suicidal attempts. Gee. Last I checked attempting to kill oneself was a crime. At least it is if you are a man.
She is the one that should have reported her two year contemplation of murdering her children. It is the psychologist that should have determined that she was a danger to the children. Like it or not the responsibility, if any besides Mrs. Yates, lies with the psych that failed to remove her from the home. Everyone knows there was sufficient precedent with two suicide attempts.
What are we going to do now? Make men responsible for a wife’s murderous thoughts? In effect is advocating trying a father for murder for his wifes thoughts. It is nothing other than a strategy of seeking to systematically criminalize men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your reply, oh esteemed one. I will try to find the article that supported my contentions. I am not sure that I will be able. If you will trust my memory allow me to state that Mr. Yates used some very twisted biblical incantations to intimidate and subjugate his wife. There were allegations of other men further contributing to Mrs. Yates confusion and desperation in a similar manner. As such her will was damaged, weakened and highly irresponsible, not only by her husband, but also by herself, her past and all the medications used by and on her. I do not deny that Mrs. Yates was, of her own accord, a dangerous and liable failure as a mother and human being, but Mr. Yates promoted the last child after her final release from medical care with the doctor clearly stating that she was not healed, cured or otherwise. This state that she was involved with was clear to Mr. Yates and he ignored those facts and returned to his own self interest by expecting and inducing her to produce another child. I don't leave my guns around, loaded or otherwise, for anyone to risk our lives as Mr. Yates should not have. Perhaps the reactions are based on a fear that Mrs. Yates will not be held responsible if we turn our attentions to Mr. Yates. I don't see this as a single issue but two entirely separate points for adjudication. I've clearly stated my entire position in other posts as well. I am surprised at some of the replies. It is a good schooling for me nevertheless. Allow me to further point that the feminist movement in its purity has been useful for my own improvements as a person, male and husband, as I expect the adronist movement will also. It is the perversions of those truths that frighten me significantly, not the truths themselves. Frankly, i was of the opinion that our gender was correctly posited as the natural dominant. I still feel that that is case in the pure sense. The reality is entirely variable. One good woman can do wonders in the immediate sense by dominating a poor man and in the greater sense by her subtle ways. But a good man can save the world. The Bible is patriarchal for a good reason and I have come to support those old, wise guys in my time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...Allow me to further point that the feminist movement in its purity has been useful for my own improvements as a person, male and husband...
Oh. You mean the feminist movement in its purity as defined by NOW? I suggest that you go back and examine the assertions of NOW. They have repeatedly been proven to be telling lies and spreading little more than propaganda. Further, if you think the systematic erosion of your rights to due process is progress then you will gladly accept criminalization when the false allegations from your wife start.
Currently, you can be criminalized on the mere accusation or 911 call by your wife. You call that progress? You won't when that first false accusation comes in. For millions of men everywhere that first false allegation is just a matter of time.
Perhaps your wife has decided to divorce you. To get the legal edge, she consults a lawyer who advised her to make false allegations. After all we know that she will not be prosecuted. So, remember that time you called her a name like bitch when she wrecked the car in front of your eyes, or how about the time you raised your voice and might have even yelled, or thumped a table, or made her irrationally afraid for any number of reasons? Well now you are a danger to her. So, in the name of equal rights and protection under the law she is able to get a restraining order against you (ex-parte), have you removed from the home, and denied all visitation rights with your children. Yup. “The feminist movement in it purity has been useful.”
Then there are the examples of the workplace. If some “reasonable” female gets greedy and decides she deserves some money, she can easily blackmail you and the company with false accusations. All that is necessary is to claim that you looked at her in a manner that made her uncomfortable. Then you and the company become liable. Yup. “The feminist movement in it purity has been useful.”
Or perhaps you need to be monitored to see if you are touching your children inappropriately. Perhaps you are changing the diaper of a child in the park and in need of an anonymous 911 call to protect your child. Then you can enjoy the enlightened fun of having your child arrested, removed from the home, defending yourself against secret allegations that you will never see, moving out of the home so the child may return, and spending 10’s of thousands of dollars to disprove some mysterious and vague allegations. Yup. “The feminist movement in it purity has been useful.”
You are absolutely correct. The feminist movement in its purity is wonderful, and now men everywhere have the privilege of living in the constant fear of realizing that they have become the object of false allegations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me begin by saying the "The feminist movement in its purity" may have been a poor turn of phrase. I am saying that I have learned some useful things on balance by entertaining their original assertions for equity in relational transactions. I am still angry about many, if not all, of the failures of the femme. I am learning that any assertion of the failures of the masculine are not welcome on this board. So be it.
My assertion that though Andrea is a horrific person, Mr. Yates was negligent towards his wife and childrens' safety. I further assert that we would be remiss to not consider her plea of insanity. She does not seem to have been just an angry willful killer. The URLs and an excerpt are below:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/drow nings/951166
Russell Yates said last week that the couple mutually set out to have several children and that her depression following the birth of their daughter six months ago led to their agreement that they would have no more.
Cole said Russell Yates had talked about having six children.
"He wanted that many kids," she said. "I don't remember that she wanted that many. I know my husband and I made a comment that after you have the first two, you are going to change your mind. I don't know if it was (their) joint decision or not."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/drow nings/1031275
My sense is that we are shooting ourselves in the foot to become our enemies is not welcome on this board, and I will refrain from further assertions. Good Luck (un)Gentlemen.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
