|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 14, @10:38AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
And the State taketh away.
Canadian citizens have never been considered more than subjects by their leaders, however pretty their Constitution is in principle. I'm not beating my chest though-- we Americans are heading down the same path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I worry that you're right. My wife is an activist for domestic violence prevention, and she agrees that we are heading in the same direction. Every day she deals with radical ideologues who push exactly this sort of legal agenda. As I told her last night, the situation in Canada is nothing more than the logical conclusion of feminist theory regarding intimate partner violence. Her own research efforts regarding violence within lesbian relationships has been repeatedly stifled by these people, and it's a damn shame. Things will likely get much worse here before they get better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Her own research efforts regarding violence within lesbian relationships has been repeatedly stifled by these people, and it's a damn shame. Things will likely get much worse here before they get better.
I have studied research about Lesbian violence, and oddley what I have found is that it is not the "butch" of the relationship who is doing the assaulting but the other one. Logically this is not surprising as our culture has spent so much time on suppressing the strong from hitting the weak we've totally forgot about the weak hitting the strong. The Weak hit and in a defensive posture play victim. "Playing the Victim" has become a defensive manoeuvre. The Police encourage this behavior because it keeps them employed, as do Lawyers. And please don't tell me the system is going bankrupt because they all say that to get more funding etc... It is them who are bankrupting the systeming and in truth The judges, the administrators, the lawyers, the corrections officers, the guards, the Police they all get paid. Added note it is more expensive to incarcerate women than a man. Dan Lynch
Christine Stolba for President. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not entirely sure of what you meant by "however pretty their Constitution is in principle", as I am Canadian. But I can tell you one thing, the police are nothing more than hired guns for women around here, they scoff at men who try to say they are the victims regardless of how much blood is dripping from their heads , it is the men who are going to jail. I'll tell you why men do not call the police for help men try to deal with the situation themselves, so as a 'gun for hire' it is in their best interest to serve their client namely women. Justice is long gone , its about the money. Dan Lynch
Christine Stolba for President. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But I can tell you one thing, the police are nothing more than hired guns for women around here, they scoff at men who try to say they are the victims regardless of how much blood is dripping from their heads , it is the men who are going to jail.
This same pattern is present in almost all of the U.S. States now (CA, CO, MA, WA, OR, etc.). All exculpatory evidence is systematically suppressed, and this practice is by policy. The same scoffing is present. They simply do not believe that women are in fact violent. The police are literally little more than guns for hire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have known several men who were physically abused by women...
One of them indeed tried to call the cops. They didn't arrest her, but laughed at him, despite the fact that he was bleeding from a knife wound.
I guess cops (and a lot of other people) are conditioned to believe that simply because the woman is (usually) a lot smaller than the man, she can't hurt him.
But that's clearly not true if she has a weapon, or if she is bigger and stronger than he is (relatively rare, but it happens sometimes).
In fact, the one ex-boyfriend's ex-girlfriend from hell had a pattern of checking herself into battered women's shelters every so often, even though she was often the one who started the fights.
I don't know if anyone ever really beat her up, or if she just went around telling stories to play victim, but she was one of those women who truly provoked men into fits of rage... hell, when I knew her, *I* wanted to slap her upside her stupid head--I was the new woman on the scene, and she allegedly was no longer interested in him, but boy, did she rake him over the coals (he was raising her first kid, not even his biologically).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I live in Colorado, the Canada of the USA.
The VAWA to me is unconstitutional for it is gender oriented and one sided. It is not VAPA Violence Against People Act but women only - that makes it unconstitutional.
To fight anything like this it has to be found unconstitutional. On grounds of being gender oriented.
Check ot the below link it will scare the shit out of you.
http://www.dvmen.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The VAWA to me is unconstitutional for it is gender oriented and one sided. It is not VAPA Violence Against People Act but women only - that makes it unconstitutional.
That is my thought exactly. I have learned quite a bit more about how the act was justified, and how the false statistics were generated to support the act.
Historically, when rape studies were conducted, the statistics were quite low. Then a few studies were done with VERY broad questions about sexual activities. By using broad questions, Koss was able to redefine rape and inflate the statistics. For an excellent discussion on this matter, click this link: Sommers
For example, the following question was used by Koss in her bigoted study:
"8. Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?"
If a female answered yes, then the female was defined by Koss (not the respondent) as having been raped.
I believe that this is same the sort of trickery that MacKinnon uses to claim that 50% of all women today will be raped. Radical liberals are famous for using equivocation to change the meaning of words and phrases to they can have an agenda accepted by the public.
Unfortunately, our moderate and conservative politicians didn’t dare examine or challenge the trickery that was taking place to pass the VAWA. The liberals just gave a green flag without considering the potential impact on men’s rights. None of them wanted their constituents to view them as being anti-feminist. That, in a nutshell, is how our Congress was tricked into passing this act that is most likely unconstitutional.
Even MacKinnon was observed to say (paraphrase) that the legislatures were failing to understand the significance of the legislation. This was well planned and quite intentional. This act was no accident.
As men, we have a couple of choices. We need to follow the lead of the malehate fems and find our own PhD's to generate false allegation statistics, or we challenge this act head on, or both. If we fail to generate these same sort of statistics they will ignore the crisis of systematic criminalization by false allegations that has been generated for men.
Does anybody know if the constitutionality of the act has been challenged?
B.T.W. I have read the info at www.dvmen.org. It is quite informative, and it should scare the shit out of any male. This should be required reading for all males in our culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble,
The original VAWA (referred to by most as VAWA act 1 ) had PART of it declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2000. Basically, the part thrown out , was the part that allowed women to bring suits in Federal Court if they didn't get satisfaction in state court.
The amazing thing is that it was a 5-4 decision. Reinquest wrote the majority, I believe. Basically that part was thrown out on being an unwarrented extension of the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution. Congress, claimed its authority to enable Fed suits was based on the effect that "violence against women" had on "interstate commerce". It was held that authorizing congress to use the clause in this manner would basically allow congress to regulate anything, as its hard to see how such a loose concept as "violence against women" has anything whatever to do with commerce.
As I said, the amazing, ( and sickening) thing was that it was so close. And this on a conservative court, widely viewed as being "federalist" in philosophy. The usual suspects were on the dissent including Kennedy and Ginsburg.
I have the entire decision if you would like me to send it to you.
Remo
Btw: Unsure about what VAWA2 actually says or what its provisions are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well ten years ago I went to a sale meeting at my bosses house with sales and engineering from 4 countries so I had to be there. I called my wife about this at 3:00 pm and said I would be home around 10:00 pm. Well I was at home when I said and after playing pool some shots and beer and talk about the business I was home. I got out of my truck about 10:00 pm and who was at the side door with a gun shooting at me, my wife for the last 10 years. I was not drunk, but she shot at me 2 times with a .22 semi with LR hollow points in it. So it got back in my truck hoping not to be fired on again and slept in the park that night. What was I going to do I had 2 children sleeping in the house, was I to have her arrested was it PMS. Well I came home the next morning and she was a different person and blamed it on PMS. So what in the fu*k am I to do, I did nothing.
Another time I was out planting the vegetable garden on a Saturday while listening to car talk on the radio with a beer. And she was screaming at me about anything and everything very loud PMS again I guess. So I went into the house and asked her to please be not so loud someone might hear you and call the police. Well she pushed me against a hot electric stove that was on high cooking chili. I got 3rd degree burns on the inside of my arm from that. Well I did turn and swung at her out of pain and reflex and she got a bloody nose. So she ran out of the house got in her car and I just sat there waiting to be arrested that was 8 years ago. I did all the lets go to jail stuff, I showed my 8 inch in diameter wound to the police and told them my wife started this but that did not matter that I still smelt like a burnt steak and I still have the scare to this day. I went to Jail I went to court and my wife was with me but that did not matter she was sorry and realized it was her fault but that did not matter. My lawyer and I plea-bargained with the court and I had to pay and go to probation. I accepteted this at that time, for if I was a good boy for 1 year they would expunge this from my record it is. 7 years later my wife knock out a front tooth of yours truly with a backhand. Needless to say we now are getting a divorce.
Just telling the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Got that down right, with the 'state' of 'affairs', government and (erp!) "relationships".
For sure headed down the same path. Not only US & the Maple Leaf. All over this new world order. Relates intimately to Canada & U.S. & the Great UK. We guys are not only facing fems, our forefathers, too. The dad the U.S. thought we'd kicked out of our new house.
Under the email below, "The Idea", is my reply, my idea of the new order, is under the subheading email,
"The Idea: The Rules have changed (to old ideas)"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The report written by Dr. Richard Gelles is very informative. Someone in the DV industry in the Los Angeles County system has been going around saying Gelles told her the study he did showing equal male/female relationship violence actually was self defense for women. This article by Gelles refutes that. So I emailed Gelles to find out when he wrote it and where he stood on the article today (to see if he somehow changed his position, as some claim). He wrote back and said he printed this in 1999 and that he stands by it. This report should be distributed as far and wide as possible. This is exactly the history the industry is still actively covering up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do we get it out there? How do we tell people who have been systematically brainwashed into still believing that women have no place to go, that men are the only victimizers in relationships, when its only men who sexually harrass. when almost every objective study proves that in highschool girls sexually harass as much as boys and not as a response but as initiaters???? How do we get this out there when the gov. spends billions in promoting the one way ideal. Do we have to take out ads ourselves???? One thing we have to do is stop giving the goverment money to throw men in jail without fairness.
Christine Stolba for President. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do we get this out there when the gov. spends billions in promoting the one way ideal. Do we have to take out ads ourselves????
We work with people like Marc who are activists in promoting legislation that support men's rights.
In this case, what we need (in CA) is to find a legislator who is willing to sponsor a bill that will show the other side of domestic violence. Most men and women don’t even realize that their wives are violent.
For example, I was in a counseling session last Saturday and I provided several examples of how my wife was emotionally abusing me. One was when she humiliates me in front of the children, mocks me, and berates me. Needless to say that she denied that it was emotional abuse. The psychologist was shocked that I would even make such a claim and tried to turn her attacks into my fault. This isn’t the first professional to try such a bigoted tactic. They simply don’t know or realize that women are being abusive and hateful when they attack men.
We can use the Gelles report to justify the spending, and we can support these bills with our letters and phone calls. We may not get them passed on the first try, but I believe that we have to be committed to this cause for the long haul.
One thing for certain, we cannot do this as individuals. We must organize into men's groups that sponsor legislation that is in our best interest. That is how we get the word out.
If the legislatures refuse, we can nail them with their own laws and let them feel the sting of their regressive legislation. How is another topic.
That's how we get the work out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'am all for it, but I'm still going to promote it one to one, I run an ad for the wrongfully accused, and the bulk of my calls are from men who have been involved in domestic violence. The feel descriminated against because they too were assaulted, and in many cases no assault took place that the accusation came from a Blackmail threat, i.e. if you dont do this I'm going to say you did this. When these men call I tell them about the unfair bias in the courts as much as I can. Maybe they will tell others and as I put it, Fight the system to the bitter end, never take a plea always take it to trial , bankrupt the system and scream bloody descrimination all the way, Get as much of your side out as possible not just to the judges but to the general public. Most people I know have plead guilty to avoid the cost of fighting the courts, that tactic has become more costly then ever imagined. Dan Lynch
Christine Stolba for President. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fight the system to the bitter end, never take a plea always take it to trial , bankrupt the system and scream bloody descrimination all the way, Get as much of your side out as possible not just to the judges but to the general public. Most people I know have plead guilty to avoid the cost of fighting the courts, that tactic has become more costly then ever imagined.
The only time that a person might take a plea is if they really are guilty and it can be proven. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much to prove a man guilty because of the degradation of the laws that protect men.
Beware; if you are attacked you will most likely be arrested for the attack because you are the man. What ever you do, do not defend yourself during an attack by a woman in any way. If you do you will be considered the primary aggressor because of the fact that you are a man. That will make you the criminal.
If you must resort to self-defense during a violent attack by a woman, you will be arrested because you are the man. In that case, I am convinced that taking a plea is the worst possible tactical error that a man can take. They will pretend to be your friend while demanding that you plea guilty. Then upon pleading guilty, they will send you to a reeducation (brainwashing) class and you may still do jail time anyway. Further, they will enter your name into a permanent database as a spouse abuser. Then if the attack by the woman happens again you will automatically be assumed guilty by the jury.
When in the police car shut the hell up. They are recording you. When in prison shut up. They have secret inmates there to report on you. When being arrested shut up. They will twist everything that you say. The only protection that you have as a man is to shut your mouth. Do not engage in polite conversation with the police officer. It is a trick to try and get a confession. They will screw you and they are trained to do so. Do not take a lie detector test without the advise of an attorney. They can use it to make it look like you are a liar with trick questions. They are experts in trick questioning.
Police will always try to claim that you made a confession where there was none. If they ask questions like where you drunk, be respectful and demand that they do not badger you. They are trying to trick you into a confession that can be used against you. Learn what these trick questions are and how to answer. They are using a well known fallacy called begging the question. If you fail to answer or answer it incorrectly, they will claim that you made a confession where there was none.
If the wife dials 911 after you defend yourself, always use the 5th amendment right and never say a word. Don't listen to anybody except your attorney. If you are seeing a marriage councilor, do not disclose any details to the consoler. That is especially true if the wife is present. If you do, the DA will be permitted to disqualify her testimony and use hearsay to convict you. Shut up in the presence of the counselors, the laws have been dramatically changed. You no longer have the privacy privileges that were traditionally present. They are required to make a police report without you ever knowing that it was filed. The counselor will just get mad if you point this out so just shut your mouth or they will use it against you.
If you are a man and getting threats, make certain that you have a nest egg of at least $10K to get out of jail and hire a lawyer. Make certain that you have a friend or family member that will help you with the financial details. In jail they will strip you of all outside contact. You will require the friend to make bail. Make certain that you have the phone numbers memorized. Otherwise, you will remain in jail and be systematically screwed by a male hating system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please tell me this will change. Please tell me society has learned something from world war 2. WE have to fight this at the front lines some how things cannot continue this way. Its insanity, is anything being done or accomplished? ON this one sided gender profiling? And does anyone want to bitch about the segment on "Downtown" last nite Dan Lynch
Christine Stolba for President. Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we stopped paying taxes (I assume that is what you are getting at about giving the government money) we would be put in jail, hindering this movement terribly.
Educate people. The next time Men Can Stop Rape or a similair organization visits a local highschool - ask if a representative of yours can visit as well. That is one to at least provide a counter to this system of continual "you are a bad evil male!" Also, argue people out of their mindset afterward of people ever being the victims.
A friend of mine awhile back got involved in SAFE House. I remember her talking about how she was counseling women in prison who had been arrested for domestic violence though they were defending themselves. That is always believed, while a man is obviously lying. SAFE House literature continues to believe that 95% of domestic violence is committed against females by men. I'd have to dig around, but I remember their literature of "is He an abuser?" had some dumb ass indications...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gelles is very good at answering email. He is involved in a massive study of child abuse, so please don't email him unless it is really important.
If you want a copy of the Gelles article Marc refers to, just ask. Quite a few of us have it.
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the issue of domestic violence is perhaps the defining issue for the men's movement to tackle. Feminists are using it to strip men of all power within the family, all rights over their children and their own property, as a legitimisation for denying men basic rights under the law, to destroy positive perceptions of men, to legitimise the 'reeducation' of boys, and to funnel billions of dollars into securing manhating feminists in important positions in the education system, legal system and government. The need to 'protect women' has been turned into an unlimited license to violate the rights of men. Feminists are attempting to universalise domestic violence for the sake of oppressing the male. If you don't believe me check out this site
http://toolkit.ncjrs.org
The purpose of this 'toolkit' is to make the issue of domestic violence by men against women a completely inescapable one, literally from cradle to grave. The collective mind of society will be soaked in a saturated solution of feminist domestic-violence 'theory', which is really nothing but an intellectualised rationalisation of the manhating that lies at the heart of modern feminism. It will become the primary filter through which people perceive not only relationships between the sexes but also the whole of history and of the future. This is not simply another 'men's issue', it is THE issue. To counter it the men's movement needs a universalisable idea of its own, one which not only encompasses all present issues but which also pre-empts any that may yet arise. This idea can be summed up in one word: manhating. The kind of DV policies responsible for the sorry tale described in the above article are the products of a pathological hatred of men. The sad stories told in some of the other posts here are also the product of a pathological hatred of men. These are not simply 'loopholes' or 'bugs' in the system, these are deliberate, calculated policies. The deliberate deafness and blindness to anything that doesn't fit the manhating feminist template is not an accident, it is an essential part of the hatred.
There is no quick fix for this. The manhating industry - and that's what it is - has enormous resources, whereas the men's movement has very few. Even men take part in manhating, wrongly imagining that it'll always be some other guy on the receiving end of it. My greatest fear is that nothing will happen until things are so terrible that everybody will be touched by this manhating insanity, until millions of lives have been completely devastated by it, until it touches those at the very top of the power pyramid because even their wealth and privilege are no longer defense enough. That could take decades, during which society will become ever more overtly anti-male, not just turning a blind eye to the abuse of men but openly encouraging it.
Last year, in one of my posts, I suggested a campaign with a simple, direct message. I pointed out that there are actually two places where you can make your voice heard even though you don't have great resources. One is, of course, the internet. The other is the street; literally on public objects. My idea was a flyer campaign bearing the simple message "Stop Hating Men". Scott Garman has since taken this idea and turned it into a website, which is great and deserves all our support and every success, but the major drawback with the internet is that it doesn't impose itself on people, you have to go looking for things. If you really want people to start noticing you, you have to get in their faces a bit. This is already happening to some extent with newspaper articles, radio programmes, etc, but as I said earlier, the idea of manhating has to be universalised; made inescapable. Something as simple as brightly-coloured stickers bearing the words 'Stop Hating Men', put on public objects like streetlights, would help to achieve this. They could also be stuck on DV posters in bus shelters, etc. It would take seconds and cost very little, but a single sticker in a public place would be seen by more people in a day than might visit this site in a week, and it would help to plant that idea, that seed, that there is something bad happening and it needs to be stopped.
OK, so it doesn't sound like much, and it seems so small against the billions of dollars manhaters have. The men's movement doesn't have that kind of money, so it has to be a bit creative with its tactics. I'll leave you with some of my thoughts on 'Stop Hating Men', taken from an e-mail I sent Scott on the matter:
The purpose of the 'Stop Hating Men' slogan is to cut through all the bullshit excuses and get to the physical nitty-gritty. It is not a request, it is a command. It is not interested in why anyone thinks it's OK to hate men (and by inference promote that hatred and act on it). It is not an invitation to a dialogue, since to engage in a dialogue with the self-justifications of manhaters is to avoid the issue of what they actually intend to do, and that is really the only issue. As I said in a recent posting of mine on mensactivism.org, manhating must be seen as fundamentally wrong. We can't say it's OK if you think you've got a good excuse because it is in the nature of bigots to see themselves as justified. Even the matter of whether women have been oppessed by men must be questioned in terms of what use anyone wants to make of that idea. Lately it has struck me that the normal process or reasoning may actually be reversed in modern feminist thought. In other words, feminist attitudes to men have not arisen from known historical facts and known facts about the modern world, but rather those 'facts' have been inferred from feminist's own feelings towards men. The more they hate men, the more they imagine that there must be a good reason for doing so. Perhaps this explains why they are so willing to believe even the most preposterous domestic violence stats or the most outlandish nonsense about the past (the 'Rule of Thumb', for instance).
Further to 'Stop Hating Men' being a command, not a request, it is also an accusation. Telling people to stop hating men assumes that they do hate men. This ties in directly with what I said above about the men's movement suffering from a lack of a unifying idea. One might protest that current domestic violence policy or family law was not created out of a hatred of men but out of a desire to help women and children, but as ever we must ignore these justifications and look at how men are actually treated. It is not necessary to ignore male victims of violence, nor is it necessary to denigrate and hound fathers and create laws that make it easy to criminalise them on no evidence. These things arise from other motivations than wanting to help women and children. Whether they arise from a hatred of men is irrelevant if their effect is the same as if they had. As I've said, there's no point in engaging with the process of rationalisation. If the harm done to men by certain laws and systems hasn't arisen from some kind of institutional hatred of men then let's change these laws and systems to eliminate the harm. The response to such a call for change will give us the real measure of the justifications offered against the accusation of hatred. It is this accusation of hatred that could be employed by the men's movement to give itself a common sense of purpose. There would still be groups campaigning against domestic violence on men and injustices in family law, but they would be bound by the common accusation that it is the hatred of men that underpins both issues. It would provide the men's movement with a versatile enemy that could be universalised to cover any situation where men are experiencing discrimination or defamation.
OK, I've ranted on for a bit, but I hope I've managed to explain my thinking on this matter with some degree of success. In pointing out the need to ignore the justifications offered for manhating I feel I am only stating the obvious. Nobody on the face of the Earth, no matter what qualifications they hold, what political power they have, how many books they've sold, how many people watch their chat show or what injustices they may have suffered or feel they have suffered, nobody has the authority to dictate to someone else that they must put up with maltreatment, defamation, denigration, humiliation or injustice. Anyone who would claim such authority is a fraud, and their words of self-justification, no matter how eloquently put, are the products of a false morality.
The use of 'Stop Hating Men', or some similar uncompromising slogan, entails the necessary assumption of a certain amount of authority. This authority has to be assumed because nobody out there has the power to grant it. It is not open to debate because debate assumes that some conclusion other than the end of manhating could ever be acceptable. I know this all sounds very hard-line, but what is the alternative? Manhating here and there but not everywhere? Manhating on alternate Thursdays? Manhating between the ages of 24 and 45? Crap to that. Keep the message simple, that way everyone knows where they stand and what is expected of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 15, @09:28AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
My idea was a flyer campaign bearing the simple message "Stop Hating Men".
How much will 100 of these cost?
warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One site somewhere or another sells bumper stickers for 1 dollar each. Guessing that you add money so you make a profit, maybe .50 each? Though you could probably just print them out on your computer for less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Though you could probably just print them out on your computer for less.
Excellent idea. However, I am not that great a graphical design. If somebody can post a link to a good design that will help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'm sure i could come up with a suitable design, being that it is my hobby and occasionally my part-time work too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 15, @10:08AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
The need to 'protect women' has been turned into an unlimited license to violate the rights of men. Feminists are attempting to universalize domestic violence for the sake of oppressing the male. If you don't believe me check out this site
http://toolkit.ncjrs.org
Okay guys...Hey! Yes! You! Take a look at this toolkit! It is the most biased, organized, and one sided attack against men yet. There are no provisions for educating the public that women are equally as violent as men. The progress the feminist have made is even more extensive than Uberganger realizes. He is just starting to get the idea.
They (feminist) are organized, powerful, well funded, and they hate you!
It will become the primary filter through which people perceive not only relationships between the sexes but also the whole of history and of the future. This is not simply another 'men's issue', it is THE issue.
Hey! Guys! You hear this?!?! This is not joke! All legislation against you like the marital rape laws are now being filtered through the DV issue. That includes laws like any new divorce legislation. There is no new domestic legislation being considered without the DV filter turned on. No other more significant men’s issue exists today.
This is it men! Organize! Join a group that is fighting back now! These women hate you, they are well funded, and they are organized. This is no joke. Do not make the mistake of thinking it won't effect you. It will! Not even a well-meaning female spouse is able to avoid the global reach of these manhaters.
...until millions of lives have been completely devastated by it, until it touches those at the very top of the power pyramid because even their wealth and privilege are no longer defense enough.
Millions of lives are already impacted and experiencing the devastation. Further, the intensity of the damage is rapidly increasing. It is relentless. Don’t wait for the new statistics to come out. We only now have the statistics from 1995 on DV. It will take another 5-10 years before we know the real extent of the damage that is happening right now. The damage is there, it is real, it is terrible, and yet it is hidden from the public by the media. This censorship is by design.
We can help the powerful become aware of the damage by calling 911 when they argue in public with a spouse. Don't question it. Just report it! That is the law. They must be helped to experience the benefit of the laws they have enacted.
If you see any of the elite, legislatures, members of N.O.W., or other members of the elite pick up their children and touch them on the buttocks, report them. That is inappropriate touching. I know this because families are having their children seized in Orange County, CA for this act. Help the elite feel the benefit of their laws. Report their child abuse anonymously. It is legal and it is the only way to help bring an end to this madness. If you need the child abuse hotline ask information, or just dial 911. Hell I’ll get you the number if you ask.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was expecting a lot worse - or at least, their position to be a lot more blatant. It was basically "blah blah blah, women are abused at phenominal rates, blah blah, we need to be more aggressive in preventing violence against women, blah blah, we need to re-educate men more." Probably the first thing that got me going about mens rights was this insane idea that men are not informed that violence/harassment against women is bad. MenCanStopRape seems to feel it is their duty to educate highschool-age young men that rape is wrong, and you should be attentive to that fact.
At first it seems merely stupid and perhaps a bit zealous. However, I come to the conclusion that it is purposely overzealous - to convince their followers that they are rightfully that way. They bloat statistics so we, the public, will go along with any legislation that contains measures against domestic violence. They need people to feel like it is a horrendous problem - because otherwise, they cannot browbeat anyone into supporting them.
I think, also, that they honestly believe themselves. They honestly believe that every woman who is charged with assault against her husband did so in self-defense. That every woman who pursues domestic abuse charges against her husband was violently raped nightly and probably had some of her children killed too. And the law allows it! mean old law.
Guh, sorry, I'll stop here. I'll be gone for the weekend, had to let that out of the ol' system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well ten years ago I went to a sale meeting at my bosses house with sales and engineering from 4 countries so I had to be there. I called my wife about this at 3:00 pm and said I would be home around 10:00 pm. Well I was at home when I said and after playing pool some shots and beer and talk about the business I was home. I got out of my truck about 10:00 pm and who was at the side door with a gun shooting at me, my wife for the last 10 years. I was not drunk, but she shot at me 2 times with a .22 semi with LR hollow points in it. So it got back in my truck hoping not to be fired on again and slept in the park that night. What was I going to do I had 2 children sleeping in the house, was I to have her arrested was it PMS. Well I came home the next morning and she was a different person and blamed it on PMS. So what in the fu*k am I to do, I did nothing.
Another time I was out planting the vegetable garden on a Saturday while listening to car talk on the radio with a beer. And she was screaming at me about anything and everything very loud PMS again I guess. So I went into the house and asked her to please be not so loud someone might hear you and call the police. Well she pushed me against a hot electric stove that was on high cooking chili. I got 3rd degree burns on the inside of my arm from that. Well I did turn and swung at her out of pain and reflex and she got a bloody nose. So she ran out of the house got in her car and I just sat there waiting to be arrested that was 8 years ago. I did all the lets go to jail stuff, I showed my 8 inch in diameter wound to the police and told them my wife started this but that did not matter that I still smelt like a burnt steak and I still have the scare to this day. I went to Jail I went to court and my wife was with me but that did not matter she was sorry and realized it was her fault but that did not matter. My lawyer and I plea-bargained with the court and I had to pay and go to probation. I accepteted this at that time, for if I was a good boy for 1 year they would expunge this from my record it is. 7 years later my wife knock out a front tooth of yours truly with a backhand. Needless to say we now are getting a divorce.
Just telling the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well writ, Uberganger.
Such as in your opening shot:
“Feminists are using it to strip men of all power within the family, all rights over their children and their own property, as a legitimisation for denying men basic rights under the law, to destroy positive perceptions of men, to legitimise the 'reeducation' of boys, and to funnel billions of dollars into securing manhating feminists in important positions in the education system, legal system and government.”
“The sad stories told in some of the other posts here are also the product of a pathological hatred of men. These are not simply 'loopholes' or 'bugs' in the system, these are deliberate, calculated policies. The deliberate deafness and blindness to anything that doesn't fit the manhating feminist template is not an accident, it is an essential part of the hatred.”
THE RULES HAVE CHANGED:
THE GROUND MOVES UNDER OUR FEET, UNFELT
I take a stance that the above issue is not only planned by many of the current feminists. Further, that it is only a part of a much larger plan by greater forces who are using feminists as a tool. Those who rule at the very top intend, and have intended for most of the 20th century, to reconstruct & re-socialize America. One of their key objectives is to destroy, then reconstruct “nuclear families” into “extended families”.
LARGER AGENDAS
But that is just one of the objectives. For example, a more basic objective was in changing our fundamental political thinking, that of a constitutional republic versus a democracy. Which goes in hand with constitutional government versus parliamentary government. A parliamentary system, including ever-changing “democracy-by-the-minute”, encourages the citizenry to vote exactly as they vote for toothpaste, political faces, & other marketing devices. This also includes the sales of buying & voting based upon whims, expediencies, crises, opportunism, AND the habitual conditioning of citizens, as if issues were isolated & polarized--rather than being cohesive, and having interrelated & longer-term, more complex effects.
Directly related to this polarization (which is a tenet in political science courses of parliamentary politicians to isolate & strengthen his/her constituency), is to condition each of their ‘minority’ groups to combative rather than cooperative politics. This is exactly the well-known Marxist tenet of “class struggle”. Except the idea, as Marxism was, is promoted by the monopolistic capitalists, the latter whom are TOTALLY opposed to free-market capitalism.
Also directly related to marketing & to direct attention to the immediate isolated issue of the moment, is the conditioning dong by the media into 10-second sound-bites, assisted by TV (which I add, Internet has further assisted with 1-second chat-bytes). However, all but the morons & mentally disabled have long-since been aware of that.
Those who are potentially more aware & intelligent have been disabled from the time & ability to view society & even science in larger & longer-term perspectives, by the demand for increasing professional specialization.
CAPITALIST & SOCIALIST COLLECTIVIST COOPERATION
TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE OLD INTO NEW MEANINGS
Regarding the power of feminists as tools, and the broader social planners, my view is that the media (along with direction of public forum) has become (and are becoming) under the control of fewer & fewer people. Ironically, most are elitist males.
Furthermore, I think that most citizens are not aware of the extent, and still believe that they have more democratic & constitutional power than they actually have. Hence most of us, including in this forum, continue to discuss issues in the framework of the older order, as if, and assuming that, it still exists.
I realize that this & my next statement will offend the majority’s ego & traditional pride of self-destiny & control, including that of each of the majority’s individual polarized groups:
We already are living in a controlled state, passing for democracy. The most efficient form of fascism is when the slaves think they are free.
In our ever-concentrating media into control of fewer hands, our individual & our special interest groups, have become vitally dependent upon public access & forum upon America’s own aristocracy.
Which in a broader principle, was one of the primary debates of how the fledgling U.S. form of government would be formed after the Revolution against the British:
How to balance the elite powerful & those who held larger property (assets), versus that of the common individual citizen, who tends to go radically democratic in favor of his momentary needs. Hence, the compromise with a constitutional republic, in which certain laws of limits were defined, applying to both the powerful and individual rights.
The Liberals of that time were the Revolutionists who argued for a more common rights. And the conservatives were those who had been British loyalists, the Tories, who argued for a continued aristocracy.
However, things since the U.S. formation, have radically changed again, leading to our current political, individual, and social revolution.
A constitutionally limited government of reason & justice, plus guarantees of protection of one individual from another, has been replaced with a parliamentary government in which voting is done on the whim of the moment on individual issues as they arise.
Which democracy in turn, has now been replaced with our aristocracy which controls all means of production, distribution, and communication. (If this sounds like Marxist ploys, you ears are still working. It’s communism, but meaning the common goods & good are controlled by the state, which state is under control of the far less-than-common elite.) Needless to add, the aristocratic power also includes power over the presentation & forum of discussion of these vital issues.
Our traditional honorable liberals have been subverted, and liberalism has now been transformed into liberal fascism. And no wonder the confusion and fruitless polarization between the modern liberal and the modern conservative. Both find themselves being forced with no alternative, into being transformed into fascists.
The U.S. Constitution has been mostly transformed into de facto, by-the-moment amendments, sold like toothpaste. And beyond that, The Constitution & national sovereignty has been further eroded & emasculated by an end-run around it, by taking many of our governing affairs across international borders. The tools & players there, are the New World Order (the preferred euphemism now The Global Society), interlocking international corporations, international political cartels, and aristocratic high-level agreements between the elites of many nations.
THE NEW WORLD ORDER:
DOMESTICALLY & INTERNATIONALLY
The Tory has gone fully international again, just like they were in the British Empire. Except this time, the Empire includes many other nations’ elite players. So, the rest of us can just sit back & take it, and watch them roll our dice. This will indeed, be The New Age.
Hence, in our latest 20th Century Revolution between these old historical opponents, the two original factions & political perspectives, the Tory has won, back in control once more.
==============================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday March 15, @02:11PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
You are absolutely correct in your analysis. The anti-violence campaign waged by feminists has become the 'wedge' that has opened the floodgates for universal anti male propaganda that has resulted in the un-constitutional and biased treatment of innocent males in all matters.
Where I live, there are permanent signs installed by the department of public works (!) all over the state saying - "this is a violence free zone" with a man's clenched fist. Hasn't violence always been illegal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fraid not. Violence has always been a tried & true tested, effective means of change. Including promoting further violence & revolution.
Just that now, violence is very effective against men, too. Yeah, violence is illegal. As long as some feel it's illegal when others do it to them. Otherwise to some, including fems, violence is legal if they do it. Even pass more laws to do it, make violence legal.
That sound convoluted? Damn sure is. Think that's convoluted enough? Try this. The library-sized collection of fed statues plus the states' are not laws enough as is. But we are told we need more, because the million we got already are not working.
Now that's convoluted thinking! Thousands of laws which aren't working, and we are told we need more of what is not working.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
