|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But growing numbers of men -- especially divorced fathers -- seem to be showing a greater interest in men's issues and willingness to get involved. I think there's more reason to be encouraged than discouraged. Look at all the web sites sympathetic to men's issues. Look at the effort to get legislation passed that will promote men's health, counter paternity fraud, help divorced fathers, and increase awareness of male victims of domestic violence. It seems that there is a growing activism against anti-male discrimination in the media and at colleges and universities. It's gradual but steady.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 20, @01:23PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think men are apathetic about men's issues at all. I think many men are *afraid* to speak out about men's issues. And many others support men's equal rights but are too much individuals to include themselves in a social "movement" outside of their own individual and private contributions to equality.
I have said before that I am uncomfortable with public activism. Maybe some others share that view.
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about private activism, Jack? Is paying dues to an organization that will advocate for you without identifying you or asking you to publicly protest okay?
Just curious how far you might go to support a movement without being vocal/visible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 20, @03:45PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
What about private activism, Jack? Is paying dues to an organization that will advocate for you without identifying you or asking you to publicly protest okay?
Absolutely. I also have no problem with public protest per se. I have participated in several when I felt the cause was right.
Realistically, I think we should expect that the vast majority of men will never speak up in protest. Look at history (and please, any historians here correct me if I am wrong on this). It is usually a very vocal and/or radical minority of a given group who create change. Even if the majority supports them, they generally do so silently.
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See, what we need as much as people in the streets carrying signs, is guys in the background who are willing to chip in a few bucks and also put their name on the membership lists of the organizations they choose to join.
Image the power that, for example, NCFM would have if there was a list of names 250,000 strong. Imagine the lobbying power of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 21, @01:05AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Image the power that, for example, NCFM would have if there was a list of names 250,000 strong. Imagine the lobbying power of that.
Heck. When NCFM hits 50,000 it will cause the radical feminist to quake with fear and die on the spot from heart failure. They are already quite scared with only a few of us standing up to their 10's of thousands. This has only just really begun.
Further, there are lots of major new ideas that have surfaced in the last couple of days. Don't ever underestimate just how upset the public is with the oppression of men. You cannot get a real sense of this without tabling in public.
I should also point out that this is the second time in a month that we were tabling, and again we were completely overwhelmed. We literally could not manage all of the interest. There was too much media coverage, to many people asking questions, and not enough informed activist to manage the crowd.
Remember, there were about 12-16 activists present at any time. The early morning was the busiest. After that the crowds tapered off as they arrived for work.
So, if you guys are not getting a sense of this then it suggest that you're missing out on something.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just curious, anyone know how big the NCFM's membership is? Better yet, anyone have a breakdown by city? Thanks for any info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just curious, anyone know how big the NCFM's membership is? Better yet, anyone have a breakdown by city? Thanks for any info.
I'm hearing that we have 2000 members Nationally. But don't let that fool you. In California there is a big push to grow the group.
We've caught on now and we know what it takes. We are doubling every few months now. The growth comes in spurts. By contrast it took years to double in size just a couple of years back.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd be happy for a dozen members in New Jersey. But I'm not really a good recruiter myself. Just don't have the personality for it.
I will offer this, though, Warb. I think if you can you ought to drive heavily into the colleges and universities, most especially the community colleges, where there's a little less PC pressure from the feminist-oriented administrations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will offer this, though, Warb. I think if you can you ought to drive heavily into the colleges and universities, most especially the community colleges, where there's a little less PC pressure from the feminist-oriented administrations.
LOL! While we are a bit behind schedule on this we are making major progress. We've got a new member on board that is a teacher. He has the same idea. We are starting discussions on how we can create a seminar. Then we will train on the presentation. After that we'll start holding pizza parties and luring in students.
It's coming big time Frank.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just curious, anyone know how big the NCFM's membership is?
When are you guys gonna learn that size doesn't matter :>)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When are you guys gonna learn that size doesn't matter :>)
:-0
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 20, @03:10PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
The reason men are apathetic about men's issues is that the leaders and organizations surrounding men's issues have absolutely no relevance to the lives of ordinary men.
The men's issues discussions and organization are controlled by ex-hippies and other such "enlightened" individuals who have absolutely no understanding or sympathy with the majority of men. Warren Farrell is symptomatic of the problem. Warren doesn't believe in winning, doesn't believe in traditional male values, and doesn't have a clue how traditional men live and think. Warren tolerates Marxism and is a feminist himself.
Traditional men don't want the world that feminists and "enlightened" men want. What they want is an old-fashioned job and a world in which marriage and children matter.
The men's issues and men's movement groups are all oriented toward men who do not share the macho, Christian, conservative values of most men.
That's why no men will join up. They (me included) see the men's issues groups as hopeless weenies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The men's issues and men's movement groups are all oriented toward men who do not share the macho, Christian, conservative values of most men. "
You have to run a survey of the men in the 'movement' before you make such sweeping statements. I, for one, DO share exactly the values you describe, and I also regard myself as an active member of this movement.
However, I do have concerns similar to yours, and if you'd like to carry the discussion further, individually, email me at fhujber@hotmail.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is one of the problems that I have been trying to get a grasp on for at least two years. While I can point out specific areas where men are suffering in society there still seems to be a lack of ,.. anger..? outrage..? motivation...?
I feel that the problem is multifaceted. one of the facets is that males in our society are taught from a young age to not complain about an area that could be used against them. Often a complaint is considered a weakness and in a man is seen as,... unmasculine. While men work together to accomplish specific tasks there is still an underlying feeling that at any point one of the men could be a competitor and as such men dramatically limit close personal relationships where sharing of painful issues is more easily accomplished. Men have few safe areas where they can talk openly about problems they are feeling without the fear of it being used to humilate them later or simply being silenced.
This leads into the second area that influences men from becoming involved in men's issues. feminist theory (note: not feminism since there are many feminist groups and women that support male issues.) feminist theory has become the dominate means to view gender. It has been taught, directly or indirectly, to everyone for the last 30 years. We as a reflex feel that men are often advantaged in society and that any social issue that men are disadvantaged in is just a result of balancing out the power relations between men and women.
Combine all of this with the strong social and , I would argue, biological desire to protect the ones we love men often will make sacrifices to allow greater freedom for others. [I am sure this comment would ruffle feathers amoung NOW and radical feminists.] Men are used to literally sacrificing their lives for family and country. It appeals to the male sense of heroism and valor to stoically grin and bear it. A basic feeling of women and children first prevents men from speaking out for themselves. Men would rather die than admit they are hurting.
What can be done? I am unsure. I think a portion of it needs to involve women. Not the current brand of radical feminist women that silence men but the compassionate and caring ones that can help to heal the wounds men have. I am reminded of Farrell's comment that men in helping women to freedom have forgotten to free themselves. How easily we forget that it was men who voted to give women the right to vote amoung other things. The successes of the women's movement were not accomplished by women alone and neither will successes of the men's movement.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony,
Well said.
It is not nessisairily "Men's apathy about Men's issues", at all.
The best way I can put it is as such...:
Men are taught to never say; "ouch!" no matter how much pain they feel.
Women, on the other hand, are taught to say "ouch!" even when there is no pain at all.
The question is, How to overcome this hurtle.
I believe your ansewer is the right one.
like the liberation of women needed BOTH genders to come about, so too will the liberation of men need both genders.
The problem is, however, as you stated, Men have a biological program to protect and help women.
Women, however do not have a similar type of "wireing" regarding men. There within lies the problem.
While women found a fairly willing ally amoung "protective" men to help them fight for justice, I have my doubts that we, as men can count on the same alliance from women.
Because of this, I feel that OUR struggle for justice will dwarf that of women's.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 20, @06:00PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"The men's issues and men's movement groups are all oriented toward men who do not share the macho, Christian, conservative values of most men."
From my point of view the mens movements has too many conservatives and right libertarians. And seems to be orientated more so towards that. I can't wait until the mens movement becomes more mainstream and isn't so traditional or conservative. And, anyways It could be argued that being "macho" is exactly why men aren't interested in mens issues. Macho means men just suck it up, pull up their bootstraps, do it on your own. The mens movement is a "collective" effort of men. Yes I said that demonic word "collective"! Call the high priests! this heretical!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Warren Farrell is symptomatic of the problem. Warren doesn't believe in winning, doesn't
believe in traditional male values, and doesn't have a clue how traditional men live and think. Warren tolerates Marxism and is a feminist himself."
Oh I think Warren Farrell believes in winning but maybe he doesn't see the majority of men as being the way you describe. He respects men's traditional sacrifices and their protective impulses but understands that there is a cultural evolutiion in progress. One in which women are increasing their power as income producers while men are demanding more rights within the family, especially related to the care of their children.
Farrell, incidentally, praises the Promide Keepers as a movement which supports men to express feelings, discuss family and meet in small groups. It gives men valuable emotional support through the church. The downside, as he sees it, is that the emotional support comes with the pressure on men to play the role of the provider, the role that creates the Father's Catch 22, that is, providing for the family he loves by being away from the family he loves. He also feels that men who attend church, unlike women, have to deal with considerable role conflict -- asking for help, expressing vulnerability, and so forth.
I've read most of his books and I've never thought he was hostile to capitalism; he is a feminist if you define a feminist as one who supports equal rights *and* responsibilities for men and women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
This is the way a lot of men feel about speaking out about men's issues. Last year a pamphlet was distributed to every mailbox in the company I worked for. One of the short articles in the pamphlet said that domestic violence was something perpetrated by men against women. I immediately fired off an e-mail to the discussion list for my department (which is quite large, over 100 people) with the low-down on the article and why it was false.
The only person who responded to me was a women who said, "Yeah, but who's more likely to put their partner in the hospital?" I responded that, one, men hate doctors, so they'd rather buck up and bear an injury; and two, I didn't think it was okay for one PERSON to hit another PERSON, regardless of gender. The mailing-list conversation fizzled after that.
A couple weeks later, one of my coworkers mentioned to me that he'd heard rumblings from a lot of the other men in the organization. They generally agreed with me, but were afraid to say so publically because they didn't want to handle the political repercussions.
For myself, half of the department already thought I was an ass because of a rather ill-considered message I sent to the same list a couple years earlier, so I could pretty much say what I wanted. :)
Here's the thing: The status quo is a very strong force. Men are not likely to stand together on this because they're afraid of being perceived as not "politically correct" or whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are elements of the status quo that I do like, and this goes back to some of the things said two or three post above, in this thread. There elements of the "traditional role of men" that I'm quite willing to accept. Some of them I see as being natural, that is to say that "manhood" evolved according to a division of labor among the men and the women based on what each was best equipped, physically and emotionally, to do.
And I'm willing to accept some modification to that traditional definition inasfaras the things that have changed more or less permanently. But many things that the wome nsee as having "changed" are only temporary, and rely on the persistence of technologies that we've developed over the last hunded years or so. Those things could be eliminated by a cataclysmic event like nuclear war.
But as a man there are unique things I bring to the table and I demand that they be respected, just as I respect the things that women bring to the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By way of follow-up, these uniquely masculine things and the "traditional" role of men are what brings the conservative element to the movement. I'm not sure what the non-traditional or nouveau element really is, but if it forces me to go against the natural forces that, in my opinion, define manhood and masculinity, then you do not have my support.
I've read some things by Farrell, and he hits the mark... almost. It seems to me that in his world, men and women are identical, that for example, a woman should be ready to physically protect her husband as he is willing to physically protect her. Well, I can't speak to the willingness part, but as far as the ability for one to physically protect the other, I'm better equipped than my wife is, and it seems that his is true for most couples.
So before you try to sell me on the model of manhood that fits you nouveau-man paradigm, describe it for me. If it sounds anything like William Pollack's, then count me out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friends/Brothers:
I don't know how long I can keep this up, but
yesteday I stood in front of the Van Nuys police station with a sign held 4 foot over my head. I'm 6'1" 230lbs, old, but yet in good shape. It said, "FALSELY ACCUSSING ABUSE IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE" I held it up to their front window (statue of Liberty style, but using both hands, one clasped over the other-prayer like). As I stood there I prayed silently for all the men whose lives are gone one way or the other because of evil feminst lies/law, then I prayed the Lord's prayer, then I prayed for strength to hold my arms up some more, then I thanked God for allowing me the privelege of doing what I was doing, then I stopped in front of City Hall where the batterer's hearings are held and did the same thing. I carried that sign above my head over the last few days for hours. How is that possible? I don't know. My arms should be falling off, but they're not. The day before yesterdays sign read, "GENDER PROFILING IS HATE CRIME." I held that one up in the police dept. front window same way. I'm going back next week with a sign that says, "FALSE FEMINIST STATISTICS CREATE HATE LAWS" Those aren't even my words they're Warbles so this becomes a men just being friends to each other thing too. I wasn't really planning on taking this whole thing this far, but now I think I'll just keep going awhile. I don't have a lot of time, but I'm not oppossed to making a few new sign or two if you've got a good one you'd like to have me carry for you. I haven't carried one for dads yet. I like this one: NOT YOUR DNA? YOU STILL PAY! Why am I doing this? Because somebody has to, and I can't wait anymore. O, by the way I was actually carrying two signs, because the backs are blank. I put the backs together. What was the other sign that I always carry with whatever other sign I'm carrying? This one, MEN'S COMMISSION NOW!
How am I able to do this? I just remember how scared I was when I watched those Marines go out into the Tet offensive into the Khe Sahn area from that Helicopter carrier that I was on, and I remember how guilty I've felt all these years not having gone with them, and I just tell myself be brave like them, and hold that sign a little higher for those guys who came back to the ship in a bag. They deserved better than that, and we deserve better than what this country is doing to us today. Go with the courage of a Marine and the Grace of God.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...FALSE FEMINIST STATISTICS CREATE HATE LAWS" Those aren't even my words they're Warbles so this becomes a men just being friends to each other thing too...
What? You KNOW Warble? Hold on a second. I’ve never revealed my identity to the public, and I’ve never told anybody who I am. How do you know of me? Have I met you? I know who you are but I've never introduced myself. You're that crazy guy passing out all of those flyers and getting new members for NCFM, LA.
As for me I just hang in the background drinking beer and pretend to be active.
B.T.W. I thought you did a great job at the protest last Tuesday. Guess I should have helped out by holding a couple of signs, but no I'm more into going across the street and having a scotch at the local pub. Watching out the window was great though. You guys got lots of attention from the public.
I like this one: NOT YOUR DNA? YOU STILL PAY! Why am I doing this? Because somebody has to, and I can't wait anymore.
I REALLY like this one, and I agree that we cannot wait for other lazy beer drinking couch potato men to help.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I REALLY like this one, and I agree that we cannot wait for other lazy beer drinking couch potato men to help.
The last thing any man wants to hear these days is another bunch of people putting him down. It may be frustrating sometimes (most of the time (all the time)) but in a world full of male denigration, another denigrating voice isn't likely to get much of a hearing. Plus, we'll be doing the manhaters' dirty work for them - which is what they want anyway. If too few men are actively taking part, maybe some new recruiting strategies are needed. Just putting men down, which seems to be some kind of inbuilt kneejerk reaction to anything men do which displeases someone, isn't it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 25, @09:50AM EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
"If too few men are actively taking part, maybe some new recruiting strategies are needed. Just putting men down, which seems to be some kind of inbuilt kneejerk reaction to anything men do which displeases someone, isn't it."
VERY well said. Calling men who do not participate lazy, pussies or anything else is not going to motivate more men to participate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 20, @05:05PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't attend the chat most times. I require something called sleep, so I'll put my thoughts here briefly.
In a sense I agree with The Madcap Misogynist but would add
Men have to compete (They've been doing it for 5 million years). Some men think they have the ONLY right way to tackle feminism. This can lead to autocratic organisations. ("Me Chief, you Indian" to members). This also leads to a lack of publicity drives, and too many small men's groups. We need to identify with each other and each other's problems. We need an umbrella organisation (I hate to say it, but we could learn from the feminists on that one). We need public meetings. (Look at the Senator Cool videos. Nothing shows the real face of feminism like that). Plus a lot of men don't even know there is a men's movement.
Men don't see themselves as a group. They don't identify with other men's problems, or even their own problems. We get 2 or 3 men doing one campaign. We need thousands. We need to speak directly to men. (We need our own media, even if it's one programme or a single sheet, we need TV, Radio and newspapers)
More and more young men are being told they are a problem, and that they don't have problems. We need to get into schools and colleges.
We need to appeal to young people. We need to tall them their problems are valid, not something they should put up with. Let's not talk about making marriage stronger (Not a chance and stable doors and bolted horses). Let's talk about false allegations, paying for a baby you're not involved with, no choice for men, but most of all let's talk about women's attitude to men. Everyone can see that. (A lot of men don't even know they are allowed to complain, but they know they're being attacked).
I also believe
Both Christian and secularists need to combine forces.
Both Americans and rest of world need to combine forces.
It will get worse before it gets better.
We will have to sit on the front of the bus, not one or two of us, but hundreds, thousands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 20, @07:59PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
This can lead to autocratic organisations. ("Me Chief, you Indian" to members).
This is EXACTLY what I don't like about activism and one of the reasons I stay away from men's "groups." There seems to be too many people who reason that if I don't think exactly like they do, then I am somehow the "enemy." Well, sorry, but no one is ever going to share the exact same position with another person on every topic. I also don't enjoy other people telling me what to do or what I do and do not think about a subject.
Plus, what if the group I belong to decides all of a sudden that they support, say, killing Jews, and I don't support that. Well, my name is on their roster, so automatically I am a bigot.
If there is an defining characteristic that is "male" I think it is individuality. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is EXACTLY what I don't like about activism and one of the reasons I stay away from men's "groups." There seems to be too many people who reason that if I don't think exactly like they do, then I am somehow the "enemy."
Oh I don't think there is much danger of a reputable men's group becoming autocratic and taking over the world. This is absurd.
Further, if you think that diversity of ideas and expression are not permitted in men's groups then you are SERIOUSLY misinformed. Perhaps, I could see that happening is a religious men's group like the Promise Keepers or a cult, but that is an absurd fear of the more democratic men's and reputable groups.
Finally, men have been working in groups and teams for years. The extreme individualist is more of an anomaly than the norm. This idea is just disinformation that we don't need in the men's movement.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This is EXACTLY what I don't like about activism and one of the reasons I stay away from men's "groups." There seems to be too many people who reason that if I don't think exactly like they do, then I am somehow the "enemy.""
That is a major problem in a lot of men's groups. There are many different approaches to men's activism and everyone has the issues they prioritize and the issues they don't care much about within the umbrella of men's activism. As men are quite competitive, this can lead to a lot of petty bickering, especially if one person doesn't support a particular topic another is heated about. Perhaps these groups should be advised to put more effort into making men feel welcome in them.
The reverse also seems true. There's plenty of men who don't want to join a men's group unless its members believe exactly what they do. They feel their view is the correct one and why support others who are 'wrong' about some things. It would be nice if these people would realize that even if some things a men's group promotes are in contradiction to their beliefs, they'll accomplish a lot more by being willing to work with a group than holding out for the mythical one that will one day come along with all the right answers.
Until the majority of our energy is no longer spent worrying over the ways every other men's activist is wrong, we will be ineffective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
((""Me Chief, You Indian." to members"))
Raymond.
I know you probably didn't mean anything by that comment, But I have to admit I cringed a bit when I saw it. And I feel I need to say, that my people (Indians)do not now, nor have we ever spoken in that way. (Ugh, Me want'em, Me Chief etc.) We call that "Tonto-talk", and it is completely an invention of Hollywood.
I'm not trying to start a flame-war, or anything, or trying to shove political-correctness down anyone's throat, but remember I'm an American Indian activist as well as a Men's activist, and as such I have an obligation to speak out against stereotypes concerning both.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But I have to admit I cringed a bit when I saw it. And I feel I need to say, that my people (Indians)do not now, nor have we ever spoken in that way.
I must agree with TC on this stereotype. Indians have a long history of working well together as a group and team. American men could learn a great deal from their example.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll withdraw that phrase if it bothers you. It was shorthand for something like "I'm boss and you have to do what I say", and more punchy. It was never meant as something American Indians would say. In fact, I've only heard it mentioned by white people, in films and otherwise. As for Hollywood stereotypes, some of the ones about us British are caricatures, not to mention the ones about men.
BTW, I did ask if you had any references for Indian voting rights, which you said started in 1948. I can't find anything so far in my online searches. Have you got an act or something I could look up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to my psych text book, men are more likely to be picked on if they appear weak whereas women are more likely to be picked on if they appear strong.
The "masculine" strategy to avoiding conflict is to seem so tough that no one would dare pick on them, whereas the "feminine" is to appear so weak that they are no threat and their is no point trying to take them down a peg.
The result of these strategies is to make it appear that women have innumerable obstacles in their way, where as men are unscathed. Equality, from the feminist point of view, will not be achieved until both sides have equal problems. Some feminists will get angry that after a century of voting, women still have all the problems.
Of course men have problems too, but women do not necessarily understand this. People tend to assume that others think like themselves. So feminists will assume that if men don't complain loudly then it must be a trivial problem. E.g. women report higher levels of stress, but men have higher levels of biological stress indicators and stress related illnesses.
Feminists have often said that they "have never heard men complaining about it" - so it must be that men don't really care - and since men don't really care it can't really be discrimination against men.
From my point of view, "mens rights" are not all that important to me. To me, any form of Mens Activism that fosters understanding between the genders is important. To me real tragedy is that men are often made to feel ashamed of the crime of being born male. To me this is more important than the law, because realistically the law will always be an arse to both men and women, but if men can respect themselves and expect others to respect them, it won't matter quite so much.
Furthermore, just because a movement does not directly result in a particular law, a atmosphere where it is considered acceptable for decision makers to discuss and consider mens issues is far more likely to result in a more or less fair legal system.
Ultimately I don't think I have a right to tell either men or women how they want to live their lives, only that they should themselves know how they want to live their lives and how to achieve this without having to interfere with the wishes of others.
I.e. if the husband&wife want to do the home work together that's kind of romantic. If the man wants to do the hw than he should be allowed to. If the women wants to be the traditional housewife - ok. If both of them want to work only on their careers then they could easily afford a house cleaning service. Problem solved, no politics required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because most men are pussy whipped.
All some womyn has to do is get her lil' lip aquiver, and sob tearfully about how unchivalrous and mean-spirited the horrible men are, picking on a poor, helpless girl, and most men fold instantly. No matter how morally heinous and reprehensible a position she is defending, count on a band of chumps to don armor and jump on the white horses, and ride to her rescue.
And who sits there and laughs because she sees her enemy get beat up without having to chip nail one to do it?
I've seen time after time - right here, which is one of the least likely places to find womanist sympathizers -such things happen. Reread some of the old posts on forced paternity "But the chiiildreeeeeen! SOMEone has to do it! Us poor, poor womyn are so disadvantaged! You men need to be respnsiiiiiiiiiiibullllllll!" Then comes the chorus of how we got to be fair, one-sided chivalry for it's own sake, even if it makes us pheminist butt-monkeys.
Hook, line, and freakin' sinker. Set yer goddamn watch by it, I swear to Christ.
Sooner or later some of us wake up and realize that it just plain doesn't matter whether or not you do the crime, you do the time. You can be so sensitive you make Alan Alda look like Morton Downey Jr, and you're still going to be labelled and rubricized as a brutish clod of a - yech! - male. No matter how much you bend over and contort yourselves to "prove" you're "Not Like That" you are still going to get tarred by the brush.
Men have to be taught to say to women, "So what?"
So what? You hunted around for a sperm donor, led him down the primrose path, and dumped him the minute you had all things lined up for Child Suppport and Welfare. Bite us. You ain't getting it. How's your CHILD going to live? Make Solomon's choice. Give the child up. That'll traumatize you? So what?
You filed a false abuse report, so now you get criminal charges; you lose your house, your freedom, your job, and your children. That'll upset you? So what?
You left work early week in and week out. You took off for giving birth. PMS downs you three or four times a year. You can't go out of town because of your "sitter" situation. Yeah, it sucks to have to choose between work and parenthood; ask all the men who have done it for untold centuries. You're not getting the raise or the promotion. It's going to the man that pulled your weight all those times. To make it evenm worse, you're unproductive, and we found a man to replace you who won't do all that. How will you live? Don't like it? So what?
Yes, I said fireman. He works for the fire department and he's a man. So what?
So what. Say it a few times. Tell the truth now, feels good, doesn't it? I see that smirk. Don't try to hide it from your Uncle Gonzo. The variants are lovely. "Here's a couple of quarters, you old bat. Call a friend who cares - in fact, here's a buck. Call both of them."
I swear guys, 90% or more of our issues would disappear just by telling these man hating dykes like Germaine Greer, Susan Brownmiller, Kim Gandy, and the whole lot to just get bent, go pound sand up their... anyway, and to just plain go to Hell and get out of our face.
What would you do if they were a man? I tell you what you'd do. You'd smile. You'd tell them there were sixteen different brands of wrong. You'd drop their studies in the trash without reading them and pronounce them to be junk science. You'd laugh in their face, stick to your guns, display the bird to them, and dare them to get up and jump if they felt froggy.
You'd tell them to suck it up.
So what, lady? Suck it up.
One day, you'll see some Men's Group start out with the only proper response to a new piece of drivel from the lofty ivory towers of NOW, and it will start out, "Kim, you ignorant slut..." I guaran-damn-tee that organization will have to hire an accounting firm to check in the donations, and will provide work for the US Census Department on those off years to keep track of the members.
Let's drop the angst. It's unmanly. Men aren't followers my butt. George Patton had followers. Go see the latest Bond film come Friday. Mostly guys. They're men, dammit.. Admit it, who do you really like - sensitive Jean Luc Picard and his unrequited love for Bev Crusher, or James T. Kirk slipping the old space sausage to everything with a pair of boobs, in between telling the Klingons to back the hell off or he'd blow their fruckin' ship to hell? Huh? Which hits that visceral nerve? Which one is it that you mutter at least to yourself that he has a pair?
Men are action oriented. We have to do something, not hold bake sales and roll bandages. I know more damn guys who are ready to do something, but men are not going to be led by having them write a check, sign whatever petition you pass around, and sit down and shut up. Fugginay, they can get that kind of crap from their friggin' wives.
Think about it, why didn't you want the girls around when you were little? All talk, no action. Little Suzy would bitch about Mary all the time and never do a damn thing. Little Tommy and Young Mikey had an issue, it was down at the old lot, and it got settled.
Talking about things is a woman's game. They learn it young. They play it constantly. They are good at it. You can't win. If they decide they didn't say that, it doesn't matter if you got it on tape or in writing. They didn't say it. It's out of context. They didn't mean it that way.
I don't have a dog. My dog doesn't bite. It's not my dog. Marc, ya there? Ever hear that one?
You don't have to play your game to win, either. The solutions is not a showdown with them at the vacant lot. That's an extremist response. Just. Don't. Play. THEIR. Game. That's the down side of them being so damn good at their game. They're a bunch of one-trick Charlenes.
Well, I'm outta here for tonight. Catch ya'll on the flip side. And yeah, I got a couple emails from a couple of you, but I have been busier than a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest; I will respond sooner or later.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Men have to be taught to say to women, "So what?""
Slowly, men seem to be learning this. Certainly men around my age (mid 20s) are doing it more than older men. Guys younger than us are doing it more as well. We were raised in a culture where feminism had already taken hold. We saw girls put on a facade of delicacy only for manipulative purposes, and act "macho" the rest of the time. We saw women leave men in droves with no consideration for their feelings and take as much financially as they could from those men, whom they would spend so much time bitching about.
Ultimately, as a result of seeing all the harm as we were developing our world views, we're much more skepticle of the genuinity women's emotional displays. As such, we've become much less concerned over those displays, and also have learned to question the wisdom of over-reacting to them even when they are genuine.
Unfortunately, the government is not filled with men my age or younger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the government is not filled with men my age or younger.
Actually, there is a group of men around my age group (35-45) that have been caught in the middle of the transition, and we are pissed!
We've seen the difference between the old and the new, and we reject both. It's going to be great having the younger guys come along and build on the foundation that we are setting. I for one look forward to it.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble wrote:
It's going to be great having the younger guys come along and build on the foundation that we are setting. I for one look forward to it.
I'm in that same transition group and have the scars to prove it. One thing I've started doing is giving advice and guidance to a kid (25-year-old) at work. He's got a live-in girlfriend and has just started college.
Young men may be more cynical these days but they can be just as bewildered by the feminine and can use the help of someone who's seen the whole playbook. He's taken me quite seriously since I predicted within two weeks when she would give him the "Our relationship isn't going anywhere. We're not growing. I need more of a commitment." ultimatum. :-)
I strongly encourage all you other curmudgeons to start giving young men the benefit of your hard-earned wisdom. The only real way to wean men off their emotional dependencies on women is to show them that they can depend on other men.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, it is young men who will bring about the liberation . Men over 40 are imprisoned by stone age attitudes eg the attitude of the jackasses who stood on deck of the Titanic watching the women row away in the lifeboats.
Wow. Looks like we have a bigoted troll that hates older men.
The interesting thing is that we have yet to see the "younger men" supporting men's activist groups. They've done almost nothing.
Typically, it is men in their late 20's and over that are doing all the work while the immature children are chasing pussy.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have not met many men face to face in this movement, but in the ones that I have met, ALL are over 40. The younger ones are, just as you say, Warb, chasing pussy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 22, @02:00PM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
I have not met many men face to face in this movement, but in the ones that I have met, ALL are over 40. The younger ones are, just as you say, Warb, chasing pussy.
that so, frank? i happen to be under 40 and have been well entrenched in men's issues for quite a few years. a little research is necessary on your part maybe?
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps, Jack, but I was referring to those who will listen to what we have to say instead of blowing us off on the latest hunt. Obviously, if you're involved, then you've taken the time to listen, and for that I tip my hat to you. I remain of the opinion that most younger, unmarried guys have little interest in any sort of movement.
On the other hand, the older guys who are involved need to reach out to the younger guys, especially college students, and in THAT we are seriously deficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eminem has come up upon occasion on this site, and I think it's useful to bring him up again as part of this discussion. Other than the folks I've met F2F, I really don't know the ages of the other folks who visit here (my previous comments relate to those I've met F2F), but I think that we could definitely use some validation from some notable folks. I'm not sure Em meets my choice as a poster-boy (man) for the men's movement, but I'd sure as hell like to get him into a solid discussion on it and perhaps try to engage his... endorsement(?). His lyrics (is that the right word for words that go with rap?) seem to call out to those who needed a father in their lives and know with 20/20 hindsight that they COULD have had one of their mothers hadn't gotten in the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i happen to be under 40 and have been well entrenched in men's issues for quite a few years.
Just for the record I see men of all age groups in the movement. The youngest is a man who is 23. He is very supportive of the men's movement.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 22, @08:24PM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble,
I think you missed my point. All great movements are founded by "older men" because it is they who have lived long enough to experience the full range of injustices which have caused them to found the movement (I hope that sentence makes sense!). This was the case in the French Revolution and the American Revolution. "Older men" were the ones who first analysed the injustices in the society and devised blueprints for a new society. This is happening to-day in the mens movement. However, ultimately it will be younger men , following these blueprints, who will bring down the feminist tyranny. Young men will do this because they are not constrained by traditional attitudes of servitude which were indoctrinated into the older generation. I do not accept that younger men have no intrest in mens rights. Indeed, I think they are expressing their anger in the most forcible means possible- ie they are killing themselves. Once the mens movement gives young men clear direction on the way forward,they will not be found wanting. I think my original "post" was a little bit succinct and open to misinterpretation.
Regards,
"bigoted Troll"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was this woman who approached our family for help. She was the sweetest thing ever. She had been dumped by her family, her b/f and everybody, but she didn't bear any grudges.
Then she savagely attacked a (female) friend of our family. Needless to say, we became just another nasty bunch of people who dumped back her on the street. Just as well she doesn't bear grudges.
It is important to be aware that ones sympathy can be used as a waapon against oneself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to mention this in my last post, but withholding sympathy can also be dangerous. Many of the worlds tragedies have been caused by people withholding sympathy from all the members of a group that they consider dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 24, @01:52PM EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
"Many of the worlds tragedies have been caused by people withholding sympathy from all the members of a group that they consider dangerous."
Including prisoners.
Jesse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh Gonzo, I think I'm in love!
Men put up with feminist crap precisely because we're not like they say we are. If we were really living in the dreaded 'Patriarchy' we'd have a WWE-style 'sports entertainment' show where, to the accompaniment of loud rock music, you'd see self-proclaimed feminists being spanked silly by meatheads in combat gear every night of the week. I already have my front-row season ticket for that one, by the way.
Of course we're not monsters, rapists, wife-beaters, child abusers, primitives, and all those other insults that have become the default perception of men in some quarters. It's all a pile of cultural-Marxist crap specifically intended to demoralise us and undermine our position within society. It's almost a kind of collective madness, as if some people can't function unless they have an enemy to hate and destroy.
I agree with your 'So what?' attitude. It isn't men's task to make women's lives work, or to bear responsibility for their decisions because they can't be bothered to. I guess feminists forgot to factor responsibility into their equality equation - the idea that you have responsibility doesn't really sit too well with the idea that you're a victim. Jesus, what a mess.
I don't know if there's one big answer. Maybe things have to get even worse before they get better. However, I think there are a lot of men who don't buy into feminist crap - I never did from the first moment I became aware of it. None of the men I've worked with trot out the feminist line, and I'm talking about people from their late teens to their mid-fifties. There's a general attitude of skepticism and cynicism towards such things, but also a general disinterest. At the moment it's kind of an invisible war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 21, @10:06AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
"I've seen time after time - right here, which is one of the least likely places to find womanist sympathizers -such things happen. Reread some of the old posts on forced paternity "But the chiiildreeeeeen! SOMEone has to do it! Us poor, poor womyn are so disadvantaged! You men need to be respnsiiiiiiiiiiibullllllll!" Then comes the chorus of how we got to be fair, one-sided chivalry for it's own sake, even if it makes us pheminist butt-monkeys."
Maybe I have not been here long enough, but I have never seen posts like that here.
I was stabbed in the back by a so-called "men's group" for standing up for its own ideaology. I won't be joining another any time soon. I will fight pheminism but not through a so-called "leader," especially not the "leader" here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 21, @10:55AM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
This article by "Gonzo" must rank as one of the best contributions ever to Mensactivism. Men have a gigantic millstone around their neck which is impeding progress; this millstone is called "chivalry". Women have long abandoned any traditional forms of conduct which have in any way impeded their empowerment. It's time for men to do likewise. Apathy is produced by the desire for advancement being opposed by the ridiculous desire to be a gallant little Sir Galahad. It's grow up time. We must unashamedly declare our intention to create a society whose sole funtion is the fulfillment of mens' needs. Any traditional mores which oppose this must be abandoned. This is the message which men will listen to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On chivalry.
First off, this term has been hijacked. It means so much more than conduct accorded to ladies. (Please note the term lady. This does not mean all women.) Being called "unchivalrous" as a means to prod a man who is not behaving as some woman expects is a perversion.
Chivalry is a code of conduct in battle denoting bravery, horsemanship, honor and prowess. The term fallen into disuse because of technological advancements that made medieval combat obsolete, but chivalry has been shown in numerous ways even in this past century. Troops in WWI who celebrated Christmas with their enemy before resuming battle showed chivalry. Troops honoring a flag of truce to communicate (during the Battle of the Bulge in WW2) showed chivalry. Honor to ladies does not diminish us, those women who would abuse this courtesy are not worthy of it. A sure sign of this unworthiness is to use chivalry against a man. Those who do this are unworthy of the gift of being treated chivalrously. Do not let the unworthy steal this fine tradition from us. I am an honorable and chivalrous man. The ladies in my life will be treated accordingly, screeching harpies will be given my disdain, and will never sway me.
Chivalry is a two way street, it is respect given and received, it is honor, it is bravery, and it is historically a mans prerogative. Do not let it be taken.
Agraitear
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 21, @02:40PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
I think that is the point Mr. Gonzo makes, as I have heard him use the term one-sided chivalry before here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 21, @04:48PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Reply to Agraiter re "chivalry"
"Chivalry" causes judges to take children from their fathers , throw fathers from their homes, and then chivalrously force the father to support his wife and her new lover.
"Chivalry" causes police officers to arrest men falsely accused by women ( who are then likely to be imprisoned by chivalrous judges )
"Chivalry" causes policemen to ignore savage assaults provided the victim is male
"Chivalry" causes male employers to discriminate against men
etc etc etc etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 21, @05:24PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"Chivalry" causes judges to take children from their fathers , throw fathers from their homes, and then chivalrously force the father to support his wife and her new lover.
"Chivalry" causes police officers to arrest men falsely accused by women ( who are then likely to be imprisoned by chivalrous judges )
"Chivalry" causes policemen to ignore savage assaults provided the victim is male
"Chivalry" causes male employers to discriminate against men
Precisely so. One-sided chivalry has a large role to play in the oppression of men.
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 21, @01:46PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Does the Augusta club count? Only they're saying "Martha, you ignorant slut..." Go Hootie!
Why was this moderated as "Off-topic?" It specifically addresses this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off, well stated Panlet. It seems to me that your trying to define what the men's movement means to you as an individual. What motivates you will likely be different than what motivates someone else to be involved.
My first note about your psychology texts is to be VERY careful and look at the actual studies anytime they talk about how men act. citations !citations! citations!
Second the way I think about men's rights is that is is a subcategory under the men's movement. Under this large umbrella are many areas that are equally important. Theory, counceling, writing, etc. Men's rights tends to be the most talked about since it is the one that confronts the feminist agenda directly. By demanding a portion of the attention men's rights activists and issues tend to infuriate feminists that are used to being the sole voice and focus of attention. I see men's rights as the physical representation of changes men are attempting to make in a social gender role.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the way the result is reported can make a huge difference.
E.g. My 10 year old text implied that a study demonstrated that pornography increased acceptance of rape.
My more recent text reported the study as showing that depictions of women enjoying rape increased the acceptance of rape in both men and women. This "result" is a lot less surprising to me. The newer textbook also mentioned studies that passive-porn such as semi-naked pictures of women not only reduces aggression but can also improve mens perceptions of their significant other in some circumstances.
Before I went to school I firmly believed in the feminist movement as I agreed that prejudice was wrong. By the time I reached university I felt betrayed as the teachers were actively encouraging prejudice against men (men are untidy, violent, warlike etc.). However I didn't know how to put my feelings into words as I had never heard the other side of the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A poster brought up the issue that mens groups believe that their way is the only way. Different activists may have different goals. E.g. one might focus on men as breadwinners, others may believe that problems facing men as primary care-givers should be addressed.
I guess I was saying that they may have contradictory ideas as to what rights men should have - but so long as they bring attention to the problems men face they do share a common cause. The before laws can be fixed it is necessary to show they are broken.
OTOH if a minority wants to change a majority opinion they must have a clear message and not waver or waffle(soc-psych again). So I think that all activism claiming association with a particular mens group should reflect the principle message that the groups sets out to get across. Most mens groups should probably also avoid sending unnecessarily inflammatory messages that just give their opponents rope to hang them with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IN all totalitarian ideologies and movements (political,religious, and ideological), if the same obtains political power, they tend to try to eliminate all of the significant opposition that might threaten their political supremacy.
The same was the case for communism, fascism, and religious fanaticism. The same generally means that those groups and individuals who might oppose them who are the most intelligent, freedom loving, individualistic, and self respecting are likely to be singled out for persecution and elimination as the same represents the greatest threat to
the same. It is clear that feminism is no different in this respect. It has singled out those male entities and individuals for elimination and persecution which show the
most self respect, intelligence, freedom loving, and individualism. One of the first groups to face feminist persecution for the aforementioned reasons, in my opinion, were returning Vietnam Veterans. It is well known that the
military and, especially military men, are an anathema to feminists and feminist organizations for the aforementioned reasons. It is clear to me that this same will tend to, through the selection of base, ethically weak, unintelligent, and corrupt males, for reproduction by females and feminists, in the increasing debasing of the
body politic and citizenry of the USA, especially males. The same will result in the gradual but certain loss of civil rights for all, a gradually decreasing quality of life, a gradual but certain deterioration in the civility in the USA,and, perhaps, as in the case of our current illegal immigration crises, the conquest, either overt or covert, of the USA itself.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 24, @02:01PM EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
"The same was the case for communism, fascism, and religious fanaticism. The same generally means that those groups and individuals who might oppose them who are the most intelligent, freedom loving, individualistic, and self respecting are likely to be singled out for persecution and elimination as the same represents the greatest threat to the same."
Yep, the coomunist party even turned on workers and forced them into submission. For example, just read about the Kronstadt rebellion in Russia. They even killed and imprisoned anarchists, and other council communists who were a threat to their power. You can read a book by Noam Chomsky called "power". It's an analys of power and privelege and how those in power get it and keep it.
Jesse
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
