|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cathy Young states, "According to the girl, she repeatedly told them (the boys) she wasn't ready to have sex, and protested when they took off her clothes and when the other defendant, Juan G., undressed. She testified that Juan G. forced himself on her despite her verbal and physical resistance but eventually stopped due to her struggling. The girl also said that when John Z. started having sex with her, she repeatedly tried to pull away and told him that ''if he really did care about [her], he wouldn't be doing this.''
She then goes on to state, "She did not try to leave the bedroom when they began to undress and fondle her, even though she wasn't restrained; she admitted that she enjoyed the fondling and that after Juan G. left she voluntarily lay down with John Z. and returned his kisses."
So she "protested when they took off her clothes," but she "enjoyed the fondling" and "voluntarily lay down with John Z. and returned his kisses," when they were both naked.
The "boys initially insisted that all the activity was consensual. (Juan G. later pleaded guilty to sexual battery.)"
I can imagine Juan's lawyer... "It doesn't matter, Juan, if it was consentual. If this goes to trial, you'll be convicted and do hard time. If you cop a plea, I can get you a far lesser sentence. Either way you're found guilty. But by copping a plea, you get a lesser sentence and a record for a lesser offence." Gee, what's young Juan going to do?
Ms. Young states, "Some critics of the California decision have taken the view that once you've said ''yes,'' you lose the right to say ''no.''"
I wonder where she saw this. From what I've seen, all the critics have pointed out that the girl never said, "No."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This "rape" case presents several profound problems:
1)..."Rape" under these circumstances is not the violent type of rape we all understand. The potential penalty (8 year minimum) is WAY too harsh.
2)...Withdrawn consent is evaluated subjectively. A confusion on the part of the man (always the man, a guy will NEVER be able to claim HE withdrew consent because we KNOW all men are beasts) seems to be no defense. If she skakes her head back and forth during sex, that could be considered "no".
3)...As previously critiqued, how long does he have to withdraw. What if he is in the throughs of orgasm...no defense I'm sure.
4)...BURDEN/STANDARD OF PROOF. In a criminal trial the burden is supposed to be on the State...it seems more and more that an accused in rape must prove his innocence. However, the standard of proof is where these cases show the erosion of the law. These cases will come down to he said/she said. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt". How a man can be convicted on this standard in a he said/she said scenario I do not know. How the state can prosecute when that's all they have, I do not know. But, they will, and damn "beyond a reasonable doubt", men will be convicted simply because she seemed a little more believable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"". How a man can be convicted on this standard in a he said/she said scenario I do not know. How the state can prosecute when that's all they have, I do not know. But, they will, and damn "beyond a reasonable doubt", men will be convicted simply because she seemed a little more believable. "
Welcome to Canada.
Anyways most of these things are bullshit. I find it very interesting that it all comes down to her 'reputation'. She certainly would look like a total slut if her classmates found out she had sex with two guys.
The only thing that bothers me about this case is- why did the guy stop? I mean if it was my belief that she had to go home so hurry up I would hurry up. But if it was my belief that she wanted to go because she didnt want to be in that position anymore than I would stop.
To be honest I could see a girl saying that she had to go as an exit excuse. Don't get me wrong, this should not be the rule, Im just saying I could see it.
Its my opinion that the guy stopped a minute and a half later because he knew what she meant. Its also my opinion that he should not be punished whatsoever. It is a he said she said situation. Someone mentioned that someone got to her and forced her to lay charges. That wouldn't surprise me either.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 22, @11:52PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"The only thing that bothers me about this case is- why did the guy stop? I mean if it was my belief that she had to go home so hurry up I would hurry up. But if it was my belief that she wanted to go because she didnt want to be in that position anymore than I would stop."
Maybe it took him a minute and a half to figure out that by "I need to get home" she meant "stop." What I find problematic about this ruling is that there seems to be no recognition on the part of the court that the state of mind that obtains in the midst of sexual intercourse is simply not conducive to analysing the layers of possible meaning in ambiguous statements. That is my objection, not that "the victim loses the right to say no after saying yes," or that it is impossible for a male to stop himself in the midst of the act.
Cathy Young's article is helpful in that it showed that the situation was much more complex than earlier accounts I had seen indicated. Still, this situation seems very far from clear cut to me. If I understand correctly, the woman is saying that her activity with the two boys was first non-consensual (she said she wasn't ready to have sex), then consensual (she enjoyed being undressed and fondled) then non-consensual (sex with the first boy) then consensual (she returned the second boy's kisses when they were naked on the bed), then non-consensual again. I can see how he would end up being confused; she certainly seemed to be.
I sometimes wonder if the impetus behind the ever expanding definition of rape is simply women's desire to maintain plausible deniability, that is to avoid ever being put in a position where they would be forced to admit to wanting anything as disgusing and un-ladylike as sex. Maybe that's trivializing a major problem, but from this side of the barbed wire, that's how it sometimes looks.
Mark C
(Sorry to post as an AU, but I'm having login problems.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I sometimes wonder if the impetus behind the ever expanding definition of rape is simply women's desire to maintain plausible deniability, that is to avoid ever being put in a position where they would be forced to admit to wanting anything as disgusing and un-ladylike as sex. Maybe that's trivializing a major problem, but from this side of the barbed wire, that's how it sometimes looks."
Yes, that's what it looks like to me too. But I also think there's more to it:
1. Courts do not want to seem to appear "unsympathetic to women" so they go along with the lobby.
2. There are also loads of paternalistic old judges who still view females as weak and defenseless and don't like the idea of their grand-daughtters out there doing threesomes with drunk boys at parties. They want to punish the boys for it and view their little granddaughters as victims because it is more "chivalrous" to do so and fits their B.S. idea that girls are all sugar and spice and innocent, etc.
3. Women want to be able to decide whether or not to get a man in trouble with the law at will so they have continued to press for discarding evidentiary standards in these kinds of cases. A rape accusation with no standards of evidence does this, in a variety of situations, such as divorce and child custody disputes.
Between the feminazis and the paternalistic old geezers, men are shafted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All good points mcc99. Combine that with the constant half truths (which was somewhat mentioned in the evidentairy part) even the public in general consesus does not realize its own prejuduce.
Locally we had a rape conviction by jury. I did not see the trial but even band member council leaders were appaled at the conviction and testified for the defence. There has been a bit of a public outrage since because the defendants did not receive jail time. And when I mean public I mean by women's organzations all of which wre not at the trial and do not know the facts of the case.
As I am in court regularily I over head a great conversation with defence councilors and the procicution. All of them were laughing about how rediculous the case was as the woman was seen that week alone knecking with three different guys outside the courthouse in in the local area.
Not only are these 'rapesheild' laws being used more as weapons, they are sending innocent men to jail. They reinforce the stigma that women should be ashamed of their sexuality.
Then compile this with a strong legal backing where women are basically blackmailing men with allegations because nearly every form of contact between men and women has been criminalized.
It is utter bullshit to disregard the fact that women too grab guys' asses, or coerce them into sex. The only solution is to destroy rape shield laws, fight for fair trials and tell these women's groups to shut the fuck up.
The promotion of fair and just research can help. As by educating the community of reality it is the only way fairness and justice can be restored to the legal system.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once again, I think Cathy Young has represented feminism well. I agree with her take- that the interpretatin of rape is difficult, but that the general premise of rape is that forcing someone to have sex when they have expressed disinterest is morally wrong.
Whether that premise applies to this case is debatable, but i think the premise is sound.
I admire the feminists such as Cathy Young and Christina Hoff Sommers who support the rights of women without blindly applying feminists dogma inappropriately
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The interpretation of rape is difficult???????????
Do you really believe that a man should face prison, and possibly a long term, on subleties? One would think, and rightly so, that the commission of a serious crime would be clear cut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once again, I think Cathy Young has represented feminism well. I agree with her take- that the interpretatin of rape is difficult, but that the general premise of rape is that forcing someone to have sex when they have expressed disinterest is morally wrong.
Cathy Young completely misses the point and in doing so portrays herself as little more than a bigoted equity feminist. She completely ignores the right of a male to expect and demand that a female make her intentions and wishes clear when withdrawing consent.
If a woman is saying no then damn-it she needs to make some kind of effort to push the male off of her and leave. This pathetic, "I'm so weak because I'm female", nonsense is absurd. Women are capable of saying, "stop...stop now!" Or they can say, "don't!" What…are they so void of physical strength that they cannot even put their clothes on? Of course not! Yet these bigoted judges and feminist would have us believe that is the case.
Women must be required to have responsibility for their actions if they are to enjoy equal rights. The ambivalence of the pathetic weak-minded female that could not make-up her mind is unacceptable.
Men must have the right and the assurance that the message of "NO" will be clearly communicated. Only the female can be responsible for clearly communicating to the male that she means “NO!” There must be a responsibility on the part of the female to make an REAL EFFORT to stop the activity if she does not want to continue. This is the only clear way that a male can know that consent has been withdrawn. When the female continues to ride a man while saying, "I have to go home....(Yum this is great!)" that is clear consent to f__K me hard!
Does anybody really believe that the sex would have continued if she had gotten up off the bed and left? NO! Does anybody believe that her story jives with all of the conflicting messages and contradictions? NO! That female was a pathetic little bitch that just wanted to transfer her guilt onto two innocent males that she sent to jail. The public should be outraged over this fact.
Females must have some level of responsibility in this civilization. If they are so weak minded and fragile that they cannot even say, “no…please stop now,” then they are not deserving of their rights, and we should begin to scale back the rights of females to account for their fragile, inferior, and weakened nature. Then we can provide special protections for them and categorize them properly as not being able to manage having equality.
Finally, there is this obligatory pathetic whining about males being able to withdraw consent. Does anybody really believe that this will ever be prosecuted? NO! Of course not! Cathy is just pretending to have sympathy for the males so that she can support a confused argument that attacks males in disguise.
Anybody that has an ounce of sense will realize that the female was just putting up a cover of resistance to avoid the appearance of being a tramp. Instead we find that this female is little more than a high priced prostitute. In this case the cost of the sexual encounter that she submitted to was jail time for the two males so that she could preserve her good feminist name and image of purity.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 23, @03:53AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"Cathy is just pretending to have sympathy for the males so that she can support a confused argument that attacks males in disguise."
**************
You're 100% right! With friends like her who needs enemies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cathy Young... completely ignores the right of a male to expect and demand that a female make her intentions and wishes clear when withdrawing consent.
YES!
Cathy is just pretending to have sympathy for the males so that she can support a confused argument that attacks males in disguise.
I'm afraid her article smacks of exactly this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent points WArble. The entire focus is on HER rights and HIS responsibilities. No discussion whatsoever about his rights and her responsibilities. This is a continuatin of what has been going on for eons.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice post.
Young tries to straddle conservatism and feminism.
She is not "male positive". She is shrill and
evasive in one-on-one debate (this is from
personal experience). She pretends to be principled but when principle conflicts with the
positions that keep her popular, principle
goes out the window and she suddenly loses that
verbal facility she usually trades on.
While some of the conduct of the men in this case
may have been distasteful, it is as obvious as
the testicles on a dog that "I should go home now"
is not a withdrawl of consent. Consider any
analogous situation where consent is required
and has already been given. At most the statement
was a hint that the speaker was thinking about
changing her mind.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 24, @12:29AM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Kathy Young used to speak with a modicum of common sense, and an objective viewpoint that attempted to present both sides of the issue. I don't see any serious attempt on her part to objectively view this case from the young boys perspective. Primarily she writes from the females perspective of rape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who Stole Cathy Young?
I doubt anyone stole Cathy, She's just showing what's really there. Read her article about Russell Yates where she says:
The decision to have more children and to home-school them may have been mutual, but that doesn't get Russell Yates off the hook.
Having noticed this before, I can't say I'm surprised at what she wrote here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have read EVERYTHING Cathy Young has written regarding gender issues over a number of years, at least every thing at detnews.com, reason.com, salon.com, Boston Globe, her own website, and Cato. It is a lot of material.
Some of her articles are extremely supportive of men, others are moderately supportive, others waffle. Sometimes she misses the boat. Overall, I'd say she is at least 50% with us. Compare that to the rest of the media. The NY Times for example is about 99.9% against us.
Having been involved in men's rights for many years, I have seen times when we could not get one single person to support us at all in any way. There have been years when Cathy Young's support was a Godsend!!!! She also brings at least part of our point of view to the liberal media, i.e. the Boston Globe. Her way of presenting things, even when flawed, even when half wrong, does work with many people who would be afraid of pure mens rights. I will take converts any way I can get them. Once the foot is in the door I can complete the process.
I was a male feminist 25 years ago and I still know many of them. Those who are extremists consider Cathy Young to be an anti-woman pig, a mens rights whore, a traitor, etc. She has been reviled by feminists for years, but has persisted in saying things as she sees them. I have NEVER, EVER, EVER, won over a male feminist by pouring out anger on them. And belief me I have a lot of it. I have successfully brought male feminists into the mens movement by using Cathy's very cautious and non-threatening approach to get my foot in the door. You may call me a weasel, but I win my battles. Thats all that counts.
I wish Cathy could do better than 50%. I think it is good to critique her articles. I do not think we will help ourselves if we totally trash people who are sometimes allies, because they don't get it half the time. I never won any battles by attacking my allies personally, even those who had serious flaws, which she does.
I think a more balanced view will help us in the long run. That does NOT mean being a wuss, retreating, giving up, kowtowing to feminists, etc. It means being clever. It means using every single advantage and tool at our disposal.
Would like to hear your opinions.
Will Johnson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 23, @03:48AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Cathy Young wrote in the Boston Globe article:
“It's possible, after all, that the girl was willing but later felt guilty and ashamed, and was tempted to reinterpret the events to absolve herself of responsibility. Her own testimony suggests ambivalence rather than outright rejection. She did not try to leave the bedroom when they began to undress and fondle her, even though she wasn't restrained; she admitted that she enjoyed the fondling and that after Juan G. left she voluntarily lay down with John Z. and returned his kisses. Perhaps her protests were so half-hearted that the boys could have honestly misinterpreted them as coyness.”
My Reply:
PRICK TEASERS ARE BATTERERS,
The following is my opinion only, and not intended in anyway as advice. It’s every man for himself in the irrefutably man hating, feminist run State of California as well as the Western world.
If America is truly a land of equal justice then the boy(s) in question in this article will be guilty of rape, when the girl in question in this story is convicted and jailed for domestic violence. But then, justice in man hating California has never been about a man or boys’ rights. It’s all about the woman, her perceptions, her whims, her moods, and now even her after thoughts. Also, as we already know from the feminist model of domestic violence, the woman is always the victim, and we must never blame the victim. How dare males even think they have any rights or entitlements to equal justice under the law. How dare males think they have consideration as human beings in a court of law in feminist run, man hating, Draconian California.
To be safe, in the future a boy such as the one in question in this unclear situation must tell the abusive female feigning coyness, that, “I have to go masturbate now, because your cruel and abusive “prick teasing” has given me the “stone aches.,” your teasing and rejection have caused my gonads to swell painfully with male sperm and accompanying fluids to the point that I am in dire physical pain, not to mention mental anguish.” Consideration should be given to filing a police report alleging domestic violence after such an incident, even before masturbating to further protect the male. In reality this should not be considered trivial, when you consider the infinite number of ludicrous allegations that have been made by women in this area. Reread this last sentence as it is probably the most critical one to the protection of the man’s rights in such a situation as the one we are addressing. On second thought, considering that it is always the woman’s word that is believed, and that it is the feminist model of domestic violence that is followed in California this might not be such a good idea. All the divine, infallible female has to do is say, “he was the ‘primary aggressor,’” or “he tried to make me have sex with him,” and it’s off to the pokey for long, hard, horny pokey Joe.
It appears clear to me that when a woman tells a man that, “I want you to want me so bad it hurts,” she is overtly committing domestic abuse against the male by uttering such a cruel, insensitive controlling statement, but then in the sexual arena as in every other area of the gender arena, it’s all about a woman’s right to choose, abuse, torture, initiate, manipulate, control, change her mind, and terminate based on every whim, wile, fancy, perception, nuance, and now after thought contained in feminine intuition. ...talk about a hostile environment.
Given the Draconian condition of man hating law in California, it appears clear to me that any time a man feels threatened or insecure in an intimate relationship he should consider immediately stopping, fleeing, filing a police report alleging domestic violence, and then go masturbate.
However, if you withhold your services from a frustrated female who wanted them, then you are perceived as selfish and rejecting of the female, and everyone knows “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” Hell hath no fury for a man like a California court of law where a lying, vindictive female pours out her indignation and anger with a vengeance against the perceived male brute who has slighted her unquestionable, sacrosanct virtue and perceived rights. ...talk about a hostile environment.
Ray
The preceding was my opinion only, and not intended in anyway as advice. It’s every man for himself in the irrefutably man hating, feminist run State of California as well as the Western world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be safe, in the future a boy such as the one in question in this unclear situation must tell the abusive female feigning coyness, that, “I have to go masturbate now, because your cruel and abusive “prick teasing” has given me the “stone aches.,” your teasing and rejection have caused my gonads to swell painfully with male sperm and accompanying fluids to the point that I am in dire physical pain, not to mention mental anguish.” Consideration should be given to filing a police report alleging domestic violence after such an incident, even before masturbating to further protect the male.
Now I am just DYING rolling on the floor in laughter. Turnabout is fair play!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 23, @09:59AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Women get special priveleged status under California laws, and under the same laws men get slave status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 23, @05:53AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Cathy Young wrote in her Boston Globe article:
#1 “But would anyone really want to argue that a man who forces a crying, struggling woman to have sex isn't committing rape because the sex started out as consensual?”
#2 “No less disturbing is the suggestion that a healthy red-blooded male can't control himself under the circumstances.”
#3 “Believe it or not, men as well as women can change their minds during sex.”
My Reply:
Nothing like getting expert testimony on the dynamics of male sexual abilities and nuances from a woman who hasn’t got a clue of what it’s like to be a man. This apples and oranges comparison is trying to say that there is no excuse for raping a woman, because a man has no problem interrupting sex at any time, because he instantly has 100% control at the drop of a hate any time the unique physiology and psychology of the sacrosanct woman leads her to “change her mind.” I am outraged to think that a self righteous female thinks she has the right to understand all the subtle psychological and physiological nuances of the male body to such a high degree without having ever experienced them for the slightest fraction of time.
Specifically addressing the items that I have enumerated as #1, #2, and #3:
#1 “But would anyone really want to argue that a man who forces a crying, struggling woman to have sex isn't committing rape because the sex started out as consensual?”
From now on the law in California is clear, if the woman needs to stop having sex, then the man must stop having sex by totally disengaging in sexual intercourse with her at her slightest protestation.
However, if the man does instantly stop at every slightest protestation of the female during sexual intercourse, let him now be forewarned and prepared to be treated abusively afterward by the female with statements such as, “Why did you stop,” and “You selfish bastard, you only care about your own pleasure.” After all a woman has the right to change her mind, even after she has changed her mind, then changed it again, and again, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Thanks California Supremes, nothing like defending a woman’s right to choose by changing the rules in the middle of the game and making a young man pay with years of his life, how Draconianly unjust.
#2 “No less disturbing is the suggestion that a healthy red-blooded male can't control himself under the circumstances.”
The man in this situation has been driven into orgasm mode so to the abusive female who would change her mind one might say, "Get lost “prick teaser, and do it, please, just as quickly as I stopped, and let me reach orgasm without you." A more sensitive, politically correct, feminist indoctrinated male might just say in his wimpy emasculated voice, “Excuse me, please, I have to jerk off now, if that’s O.K. with you and the California Supreme Court.”
Reaching climax physiologically completes the complex dynamics of the male physiology that have been set in motion by this level of sexual stimulation and arousal, any less is simply an example of domestic abuse of a man, one might even argue rape. Would anyone really want to argue that a man is not being severely physically and sexually abused, if he is not allowed to reach orgasm, once he has reached such a state of sexual arousal where his juices are flowing. I find this omission equally as disturbing as the abusive nature of a female who puts a man in such a state, and then changes her mind. But then gender equality has never been about equality from a man’s perspective. It has always been all about a woman’s special entitlement. ...and then I don’t think like a female, I think like a man, and everyone knows that in California and the Western world women have the last word in all areas of interpretation in sex, and justice under law.
#3 “Believe it or not, men as well as women can change their minds during sex.”
This absurd statement may be true for a 75 year old man or some other sexually dysfunctional male, but for physically fit, and otherwise normally healthy males, whose juices are flowing to climax, they really don’t change their minds. I like to refer euphemistically to this behavior as, “engage pecker, disengage brain.” If a female is trying to communicate with the male brain during this level of arousal I suggest that you speak up clearly and unambiguously. Upon such notification a man can pull it out, spin around and masturbate to a climax (if that is still permitted under California law), but “changing their minds at the point the juices are flowing shows how totally ignorant this author is of the physiology she is feigning to so adroitly address. At least that’s my perception of the way that "Mr. Spunky" has always worked on me.
Given the Draconian anti-male direction this state is heading, any act of sex with any woman should never be considered safe or legal by a man.
These are just my observations and opinions and are not intended as advice for anyone. In man hating, male bashing California it’s every man for himself and may God have mercy on the innocent, because this bigoted states anti-male laws certainly show pitifully little mercy or justice for any man.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing like getting expert testimony on the dynamics of male sexual abilities and nuances from a woman who hasn’t got a clue of what it’s like to be a man.
Ah, but Ray, according to the all-knowing, morally superior, sacred sisters of feministhood, there are no natural differences between males and females. Any perceived differences are entirely social constructs and will disappear once we have deconstructed masculinity.
Barf!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 23, @10:28AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas You Wrote:
"Ah, but Ray, according to the all-knowing, morally superior, sacred sisters of feministhood, there are no natural differences between males and females. Any perceived differences are entirely social constructs and will disappear once we have deconstructed masculinity."
My Reply:
The feminists in California in full consort with the government are working very hard to bring this about. Unfortunately, I can only think of one way, one act of MALE GENITAL MUTILATION, that would even make this statement partially true. Too deconstruct masculintity they must first castrate masculinity. In certain circumstances chemical castration is legal NOW in California.
The young man in question may have even have been in considertaion for this option given California's rabid anti-male, man hating climate, but I would have to inquire further to fully substantiate or deny such a claim.
As Lyndon Johnsnon so eloquently put it when speaking to a female reporter about the Communist threat to America, "They'll only be happy when they have our peckers in their pockets."
Way to go LBJ, to bad you didn't say feminists instead of Communists. You'd have been a prophet. If you live in California today a better Presidential altered saying of one Teddy Roosevelt might be, "Speak frankly, but keep one hand on your pecker."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 23, @10:03AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray has my vote for Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 “Believe it or not, men as well as women can change their minds during sex.”
This absurd statement may be true for a 75 year old man or some other sexually dysfunctional male, but for physically fit, and otherwise normally healthy males, whose juices are flowing to climax, they really don’t change their minds.
I have to disagree, Ray. While my sexual experiences are not voluminous, I have had a number of experiences where I have found that the encounter wasn't what I was hoping/expecting and found myself "fully engaged" and really thinking "What the hell am I doing here? I could be somewhere having a good time!"
I changed my mind about it, but I didn't "withdraw my consent" and get up and leave. I soldiered on out of sheer frickin' courtesy! Getting lost in here is the idea that in some way consensual sex is supposed to be a friendly act.
As BusterB has pointed out of a woman who "withdraws consent": "She's not treating this guy like a human being; she's treating him like an amusement park ride that she can turn on and off whenever she chooses."
Changing your mind about a particular sexual encounter is quite natural and human and happens all the time. "Withdrawing consent" absent an extremely compelling reason in an activity that's so central to a person's identity and sense of self-worth is a self-centered, hostile, controlling and dehumanizing act.
Withdrawing consent only seems reasonable and natural to those who view sex as essentially hostile in nature in the first place.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good post Larry, and great point by BusterB. Sex is not supposed to be a war (unless you want it to be... and that can be darn fun too :)). My opinion is that if a woman or man believes it's a negative, "dominating", painful, exploitative, etc... experience, they simply have not been with the right partner, or perhaps have been having sex for the wrong reasons. While I think women can control their drives better than men (at least based on my experiences), I don't think they want it or enjoy it any less (in fact it could be argued that they enjoy it more).
Anyway I'm digressing (one of my favorite subjects after all :)), the really scarry thing about this ruling is that now I have to tell my boys that they could get ARRESTED and put in JAIL if they have sex and the girl decides they didn't do the job right. Ruining a kids life on the say-so of another is abominable. I can't imagine how she can live with herself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to tell my boys that they could get ARRESTED and put in JAIL if they have sex and the girl decides they didn't do the job right.
You have to tell your boys that they can get ARRESTED and CONVICTED OF RAPE and SENT TO JAIL if they're competing for a job with a friend of some girl or if some girl doesn't like the way they comb their hair and she feels like punishing them for it. She can claim they raped her. Hell, she can say she wanted to have sex with them and then, during sex, said she wanted to go to Europe. They can claim they're innocent. (These boys said the sex was consensual.) They get convicted.
Evidence is NOT required.
This has all arisen from the days when feminism was a loving, fair-minded, equity movement before it was hijacked. (What a package of lies!) Many times back then and many times since, I have heard feminists declare, in their belligerent manner indicating that anyone who disagrees will be cut off and shouted down, that no woman would ever accuse a man of rape unless he was guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loving, fair-minded, equity movement before it was hijacked
Perhaps not hijacked, but certainly radical feminists have taken over leadership of that movement. IMO this is good for us because they've marginalized themselves to the point where normal moderates have left them to their hate. They've transitioned from a movement with strong popular support to one that has alienated even those it's claiming to help.
no woman would ever accuse a man of rape unless he was guilty."
Well this goes back to the woman a a pure innocent creature... how could they POSSIBLY do anything wrong, or LIE? The current state of legal affairs just boggles the mind, no "innocent until proven guilty", no "burden of proof", no "reasonable doubt". All the concepts that we've long associated with a fair and balanced judiciary have been literally thrown out the window.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing wrong with demanding that someone show a crime has indeed taken place before we go about prosecuting someone for a crime.
Let's say, Dave, that the police show up at your door, and haul you away - because I say you sucker punched me, and stole my money. I have no bruises - no fat lip - no blood, and only my word that I had money to steal, but you rotton SOB, you're going down on this! It's the big house! Your cellmate Bubba is going to tatoo nipples on your shoulder blades and show you why it's called the POKEY!
Why, then, is rape so different?
It is neither unfair nor "Putting the *victim* on trial" to have someone show cause. Anything. Scratches. Flesh under fingernails. Bruises. evidence one has been ill-used. Hell, say, "No, I don't want to. Don't. I want you to quit it. STOP!"
Sorry to say, but "She said/He said" scenarios are a case of my word against yours. In the above analogy, were I to show up at your local precinct HQ, they'd ask for bruises, an ATM receipt, a check stub, a bank slip showing I got money out, they'd ask me how much, look for blood, a fat lip - they'd do all these things. And if they found nothing, and I couldn't show I had money, they'd shrug their shoulders, take a report, and ask exactly what I wanted them to do about it, since they couldn't arrest you on my word alone.
And it's the way it should be for everything. Murder? Where's the body?
Rape is a heinous crime. But it's still a crime, and not "special." The Bill of rights should not be suspended.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're dancing around and missing the point.
We've had it drummed into our heads for years that "NO" means "NO." I'm willing to take that at face value. Despite the fact that at least half of the women in the world are going to get really pissed off wwhen we all start accepting no as no, and move on. (Let's face it, guys, being pursued and persuaded is a big part of the joy for many women.)
The trouble is, though, that things besides no now mean no. "I have to be going soon." What's next? "The ceiling needs painted?" You keep going down thatr slippery slope, and "Yes! YES! Harder! Faster! Do me, do me!" is going to mean no.
This needs to be stopped, and stopped now. If no means no, then fine. Hey, I'm a misogynist SOB, and I'm in no way so desperate to get laid that I even play games. I hear no, I move on. (Pisses a lot of women off, but screw 'em.) If some woman told me, "No, stop, I changed my mind." I'd be on the edge of the bed putting my pants on and calling the next ho' on speed dial so fast her head would spin - either that or getting her clothes and telling her to go home.
But if "No means No" is to be effective, then it has to be amended to "No means No, and only NO means no."
The game playing stops. It's no fun anymore, people are going to jail because of women and their game playing bullshit.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, I don't think so. Again, these "reasonable" women are really more dangerous than the rabid, frothing feminists. They appear to be "thinking," but they are not; their "logic" doesn't hold under examination. The "equality" they claim is still of the "both sexes are equal, but one is more equal than the other" variety. The plain fact is that the sexes will never be "equal," for reasons this case makes starkly clear, to anyone who is prepared to be honest about it. Which, so far, does not include any of the women I've seen write about it. The "best" of them are willing to "give a little," but fundamental female privilege remains sacrosanct.
Not that I think it can be any other way, so long as there are two sexes. From the invention of sex, some 1.5 billion years ago, the male has had one job, one reason for existence: to take care of chores which the female cannot or would rather not do for herself.
First is the function of supplying genetic variability, to support rapid evolution of the species. Non-sexual species, such as the amoeba (which never became sexual), or those species (represented in all life groups--plants, invertebrate animals, fish, amphibians, reptiles--except the warm-blooded birds and mammals) which used to be sexual but stopped (by the simple expedient of ceasing to produce males; all such species are exclusively female), must rely on external events, such as cosmic rays striking cell nuclei, to produce changes from one generation to the next. They evolve, but very slowly. Sexual species have an astronomically greater potential of variability, thus ability to creatively meet new circumstances and survive and prevail. In most sexual species, this is the entire purpose of male existence.
And this First Imperative is the reason behind all the male aggression the feminists complain about: because the imperatives under which both sexes live demand that the best male be the father of the next generation, and for Nature (the very Goddess the feminists want us to worship) the most efficient way to determine which male is the best is by all-out competition, no holds barred. Nature is amoral--as Camille Paglia points out, there is "No Law in the Arena." So far as Nature is concerned, a fight to the death between males, followed by forcible sex (what humans call "rape") with any nearby female, is a perfectly good method of ensuring the most viable next generation. As is any sort of guile or subterfuge: "All's fair in love and war." The cock-teasing behavior of this hormone-enhanced, reproductive-prime female is all part of the game.
As any biologist knows, Nature cares only about species, not about individuals; She literally does not know we exist. The God "who sees the smallest sparrow fall" is not the Goddess.
The bottom line: In the past 1.5 billion years, those males of any and all sexual species who have not, as women constantly complain, been "obsessed with only one thing" have not become our ancestors. It's that simple.
The second male chore, in species such as homo saps where the sexes live together, is to protect and support the female in her tasks of reproduction and nurturing the next generation. This second task comes up only when the first has been taken care of, but then it also becomes an absolute imperative. Thus males must be ready to die to protect females. As untold billions have. Not only do I not think this arrangement should be altered, I don't really think it can be altered, so long as males exist at all.
And this is why in "he said / she said" altercations, her word will always have more weight than his. Because this drama is played out on the foundation of the fundamental relationship between the sexes, one of which creates the other (how can a creature be "equal" to his Creator?), while the other's existence is justified only by his sacrifice for his Creator's sake.
The problem with this woman's "reasoning" is that she wants to sort-of reverse these two Imperatives--and, of course, she wants men to do all the work. The female can continue playing all her instinctive games designed to stimulate the male's desire beyond his reason--i.e. to override his natural instinct of self-preservation, so she may control and use him entirely to her purposes--but then demand that he remain in control of his "male urges" so he will shoulder the entire responsibility for aborting the process she has set in motion, when her mood changes.
Finally, among humans the male job of doing for females what they cannot or will not do for themselves has been greatly extended, due to our development of conscious, rational thought (or at least, the potential for same). It is this, our capacity for "reason," which has "elevated" us over all other life forms (in this world, anyway), and, finally, given us some hope of escaping the eternal round of suffering that is the lot of all existence under the brutal, unthinking rule of Nature.
The first task of the male of any species is to make himself different from the female; indeed, a "male" can be defined as "a member of a species who is different from the female." (Thus, the common expression "female of the species" I feel is not accurate: the female is the species, while the male is a variation thereof. The sexes are not equal.) This is why maleness necessarily involves effort, beginning even in the womb, where all embryos begin life as females.
In humans, this process of male differentiation has naturally extended to the capacity of reason being more developed by males, as they are slightly, at least, separated from the daily, eternal rule of Nature's imperatives, to which women are subject by their bodies' agenda, which rules them and their behavior. A man can, if he makes the effort, stand aside from his "feelings" (i.e. hormonal impulses) and rationally consider them, and whether acting on them would be wise or not. A woman can do this too, but is far less likely to, both because her "feelings" rule her far more directly and absolutely, and because she doesn't have to. If she needs some thinking done, with all the effort that entails, she can always find a man to do it for her. Drop a few hints, and he'll do anything for her; she knows this instinctively.
To my mind, this woman is a perfect example of the fundamental unworkability of feminism: Though she is a staff writer for a magazine whose very name represents the male world of the mind that women now demand to be allowed into as "equals," when it comes down to a real question in the arena of sexual relations, she simply (and probably without conscious thought--i.e. "reason") exercises her "right" to be unreasonable. "We women are just going to be irrational, and you can deal with it."
As Warren Farrell speculated in The Myth of Male Power, all this may just be an escalation of female testing: Now that we're no longer living on the Serengeti Plain, how is a woman to determine a man's strength and fitness? Well, by subjecting him to the unreasonable stress of a double-bind imperative; those men who somehow survive this will be the "fittest." It's all unconscious, and, I suspect, it's gone too far. As always, the unconscious, unrestrained exercise of female power is destructive of the very stable cultural matrix whose security females need most of all. Look around. Under the overt, uninhibited rule of the Matriarchy, our world is rapidly descending into chaos.
The truth is, the traditional restraints on female behavior evolved precisely to accommodate female irrationality by containing it, so the larger social/cultural order, which females need to support their task, can survive. I'm not in favor of anyone being or feeling hurt, and I am in favor of everyone being as free as possible to do whatever she or he wishes with es life, but trying to create such favorable conditions by living in a fantasy that deliberately ignores fundamental facts of life will only lead to more suffering.
According to a note at the bottom of the Boston Glob article, "Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine"; so I went to Reason's site and found the same article published there--and, as I'd hoped, a link to address the author directly. Just click on her byline, and you can send her an email. Wouldn't hurt her a bit to hear some of the comments in this thread, though I would suggest sitting on your thoughts for 24 hours or so and rewriting for public presentation. We can--and must--be clear and firm on these subjects, without becoming strident or abusive. In other words, demonstrate that we are not just male versions of the feminists, that as males we are different from females, and can offer them something they apparently cannot do for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 23, @12:35PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes, you wrote:
“As Warren Farrell speculated in The Myth of Male Power, all this may just be an escalation of female testing: Now that we're no longer living on the Serengeti Plain, how is a woman to determine a man's strength and fitness? Well, by subjecting him to the unreasonable stress of a double-bind imperative; those men who somehow survive this will be the "fittest." It's all unconscious, and, I suspect, it's gone too far. As always, the unconscious, unrestrained exercise of female power is destructive of the very stable cultural matrix whose security females need most of all. Look around. Under the overt, uninhibited rule of the Matriarchy, our world is rapidly descending into chaos.”
My Reply:
Your entire post was even longer than any single post of mine, but I read it all and think that you have added another very valuable dimension of insight to this picture.
You have posed a very fundamental question that is at the heart of the continued evolution of our species. We live in a time of technological advancement, where the rate of change is accelerating so fast that even the most well equipped dominate male feels frightened and alone. He needs a body like Adonis and Hercules , a brain like Einstein, the wisdom of Solomon, the insight and sensitivity of Warren Farrell, and the bank roll of Donald Trump, and then at the drop of a hat he should still be willing to throw it all away for the sake of the survival of the species and the protection of the egg laying female.
Fortunately, I’m up to the task (just kidding/false male bravado). The harsh reality is that (as always) the demands far exceed the abilities of any man to meet them all, but nature is a cruel task master and will always dictate those expectations that, “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do,” even if he dies trying.
It just seems that now those expectations are higher than ever, but I may be wrong. On the one hand technology has certainly aided the survival of our species in many ways, even if it has complicated the hell out of things in the process. On the other hand it goes without saying that technology has also created the potential as never before to irreparably destroy human life on a gigantic scale. All of this is coincidentally happening at a time when the human population of planet earth is at an all time high. Perhaps those subconscious species controllers of which you speak are subtly sending out signals to individual human procreators to back off, because the habitat is too expended and exhausted to support any further expansion of the human species, except for the very elite.
Pity the poor female, she has to exercise the OMNISCIENCE to choose those traits most valuable to pass along to our species. This must be done in order to carry our species onward into the next generation with the most relevant humans for that task. Does anyone dispute that historically she has most significantly controlled the selection and mating process short of rape?
It’s too bad that no one will be around to read the record that says, "The feminists were firmly in control when the generations of human life on earth came to an end."
I have to go now, my most attractive courtship ritual apparel is ready at the cleaners and I must be practicing my courtship ritual dance. The competition is fierce, and the prize is even fiercer, but I’ll just keep telling myself it’s all for the good of the species.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 23, @01:47PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Philalethes you wrote:
“Now that we're no longer living on the Serengeti Plain, how is a woman to determine a man's strength and fitness? Well, by subjecting him to the unreasonable stress of a double-bind imperative; those men who somehow survive this will be the "fittest." It's all unconscious, and, I suspect, it's gone too far. As always, the unconscious, unrestrained exercise of female power is destructive...”
My Reply:
Well you have certainly definitively defined and described, beyond any doubt that I have, the dynamics responsible for the majority of domestic violence in Western society. You can even call this one the Ray model if you want.
In showing how the female of our species is driven to constantly goad her male partner to better equip his family for the survival of the species (as it involves them on familial level) you are also paying testimony to how the female partner innately (subconsciously) is driven to provoke her man time and again to do things beyond his willingness for the betterment of her “nest,” her “future.” The man is clearly expendable. It has always been all about the survival of the sacred female and her off spring as they are those most necessary to insure the survival of the species. ...so much for the democratic illusion of equal justice in America. We see here what is really going on in our courts today.
In the majority of family disputes it is the woman who is relentless beyond reason, abusive, and violent. In the majority of cases, she commits the domestic violence in her efforts to fulfill her perceived familial goals. One need merely look at the 80% of divorces that are filed by women to see the eventual outcome of this epidemic of domestically violent behavior by women as men fail to comply with the females partners ever higher demands and expectations for him. One need only to have seen or experienced this behavior to know beyond any doubt that women are the “primary aggressor” in the majority of domestic violence occurrences in Western society and probably the world.
Once again we have the feminist movement to thank for contributing, by endlessly pointing out to other women ad government the endless perceived deficiencies of all males. It’s all in the best interest of the survival of the species from the feminine perspective, but that inane illogic (that inability to subjectively analyze the faults inherent in the female self) is what is most wrong with the leadership and tragic direction of the feminist movement. The female can do no wrong. The man is always wrong. Even when he’s right, he’s wrong. Who could ever win against such illogically loaded argumentation as that employed by the “fems.” They have declared no common ground before any discussion ever begins. The ground is all theirs by feminine entitlement before any discussion ever begins. After all, it’s all in the vital interest of preserving the species. Our society is crashing internally and the feminist are driving the vehicle that is heading our society towards destruction.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 23, @11:19AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Gonz, You Wrote:
"Yes! YES! Harder! Faster! Do me, do me!" is going to mean no"
My Reply:
http://www.greysquirrel.net/harris.html
Your statement tracks true. Just today the news media is reporting that the Attorney for Dr. Clara Harris said that Dr. Clara Harrises’ alleged murder of her husband (Dr. David Harris) was really just and ACCIDENT. An ACCIDENT? You’d have to be seriously out of touch with reality to even consider that for one second. Is Dr. Clara Harrises” attorney from California?
Dr. Clara Harris is the female Dentist caught on videotape in Texas killing her husband (Dr. David Harris) with her car, knocking him 30 feet into the air, running over him 3 times, parking the car on his dying body, while the guys 1st daughter watched in horror from the passenger seat and pleaded "No." Next we’ll hear that the dead man (Dr. David Harris) was really asking Dr. Clara Harris to commit this heinous act against him.
In the past couple of days the mother of the dead man has appeared walking arm in arm, supporting Dr. Calra Harris. After all it is alleged that the dead man was having an affair and this somehow justifies the poor distraught woman’s murder of her husband (Dr. David Harris) and need for her support (sister to sister).
I say, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” is proven once again beyond any doubt by this event. Women are certainly capable of being the most dangerously violent creatures of any that God ever put on this earth. So much for THE MYTH OF FEMALE FRAGILITY. Once again we see them just get a weapon to "level the playing field." This time it was a 4000 pound car.
Once again, it’s a fine day in America for equal justice in the gender arena. While Robert Blake rots in jail in Los Angeles, this female menace to society is free on a minuscule bail in Texas for the same accused crime. The evidence of murder also appears to be far greater in the Dr. Clara Harris case than in the Robert Blake case.
She was released on $30,000 bail. That’s the same bail amount that the scam artist, Los Angeles legal system requests when a man is flagrantly, falsely arrested and incarcerated by the scamming LAPD on false domestic violence allegations.
There’s nothing like equal justice in America when it comes to fair treatment of all people based on their gender. No, really, nothing! Women are so privileged and receive such special treatment that our founding fathers should be rolling over in their graves at the speed of light.
Please go to this web site to get a clearer perspective on this whole situation. Please.
http://www.greysquirrel.net/harris.html
Ray
P.S. I’m not sure I got the singular possessive correct in “Dr. Clara Harrises’ attorney,” so any wiser grammarians out there please correct me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the overt, uninhibited rule of the Matriarchy, our world is rapidly descending into chaos.
There is absolutely no doubt about that.
As for "It's all unconscious," however, I must dissent. There may well be a significant unconscious aspect to the crimes against humanity committed by the feminists, just as there may have been an unconscious aspect to the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis. But there is also a conscious aspect driven by insane hatred. The German Nazis despised the Jews, and made a conscious decision to enslave and exterminate them. Feminists despise everyone who has committed what, to them, is the most monstrous crime that a person can commit — the crime of being born outside of the female biological group.
The speech and actions of feminists may range from subtle to overt, but hatred against the biological other lies at the root in either case.
False accusations are the means by which all feminists keep all males in a state of abject subjugation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it used to be that 'No means No'. Believe it or not, all assault rates across the board have been dropping in north america. Well except assaults done by women.
That also means Sexual Assault etc.... These councilors are out of a job and they are killing the cause by solving the problem. So its high time they create a new problem. And with continued success who knows. I agree with the No means no, unfortunately it has been proven and is known by all of us that no does not always mean no and the thrill of the chase is the reason for the hunt. People just didnt realize that women enjoyed that chase as much.
"The German Nazis despised the Jews, and made a conscious decision to enslave and exterminate them. Feminists despise everyone who has committed what, to them, is the most monstrous crime that a person can commit — the crime of being born outside of the female biological group. "
Actually the Nazis despised anyone not of aryan race as well. So biology proved well here as well. Inch by inch the feminist agenda is moving forward. Regardless if women are adopting the lable they are adopting the principles this is well as boys. They adopt these ideals based on faulty information and omission of facts. They make people hate men with justifiable reasoning. Now before you freak out about my statement of justifiable reasoning let me finish.
That Justifiable Reasoning is the omission of facts and the otherside of the story. In reality the fact that people really don't know that much about it proves my theory that what the feminists claim is just not happening as much.
Thats why we have the "don't blame the victim" along with other scnearios that destroy culpability.
In commercials daily we hear little subleties. For example a flower commercial.
The commercial goes on to describe all these horrible things that happen to women like lost her cat, her mom died, when what's his named dumbed her, as well as good things, like got the promotion etc..
But the end was that it was a woman who sent the flowers because women do this sort of thing.
Everywhere we go these days it seems like they are inserting 'reasons' why society should hate men. Such as that tampax comercial that states that men clearly designed highways simply because these women have no where to go to the bathroom.
After years and years of this constant pounding and raising the bar of acceptable character assisinations against men what do we expect?
The Nazis were socialists, what socialists do is extort money from a target group and give it to their supporters. Feminism is no different. In order to do this the politica force has to outright demonize their target group in order to de-humanize their value and take away their rights. We are a society running on misleading information. That misleading information is being generated by massive federal monies.
Any outburst by men is criminalized or demeaned as unmanly. The arguement against criminalization will be harder to fight but do not let anyone tell you what it means to be a man. A man stands up for justice if you believe your cause is just you are most certainly fullfilling your manly duties.
Quite frankly men just do not have the voting power. They are either in prison or disregard their voting rights. The campuses have trained these boys and girls to hate men and see things the feminist way.
Many of us here are outright victims of justice. We strongly feel that biasm has dissabled us. But as the old saying goes, "It ain't over till its over".
Pick yourself up, dust yourself off and get back in the god dam game.
We start showing how radical feminism and Nazism is almost at parallel with eachother we may begin to re-humanize men and the glory of manhood.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now guys,
I know how you guys feel about the whole rape ruling...maybe it would be best to turn against the whole rape-crisis industry, period! That ruling where "yes can also mean no" can let us know we [men] are being led on and put in danger! I know that it is wrong to rape someone, don't get me wrong! But this whole thing has gotten out of control! It's just not funny anymore!
In this day and time, it's very difficult to be a gent to an unwilling, and free woman. I mean, when you say hi or be nice to someone and hold them in your arms, the woman will think that you're a perverted psychopath and resist, and then anything romantic or intimate you say will be considered sexual harassment! It's just no use guys. *sobbing*
I do commend Cathy Young on commenting on that article...and she has some pretty honest words. But I'm now starting to think that if you can't get love, happiness, or pleasure from a woman, then you'll have to look elsewhere!
P.S. My apologies in being late for posting comments! I just started school! Oh and if I tried to wear you guys down with that last post on that Donahue special with Farrell, I'm sorry I was just trying to create a drive in us men to stand up for ourselves!
Happy Belated New Year to all!
Emmanuel Matteer Jnr.
Emanslave@aol.com
*****MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND!!!!!*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Young misses a larger point about he said/she said situations. That is, even if the girl did say no and struggle, there is no way to absollutely know that she did. It would still be he said/ she said. Nothing changes.
The larger point is that in private situations, each party bears responsibility for placing him or her self in a situation, where the following things "may" happen:
1. Honest misunderstanding, resulting in one or both persons feeling used/abused. This would apply to either the male or female or possibly both coming away from the situation feeling differently about it than the other party.
2. Intentional rape or forced or coerced sex.
3. Intentional false accusation of rape or forced or coerced sex.
4. Nothing unpleasant happens and the incident is given no furhter thought.
In any of the 4 cases, both or all persons put themselves in a situtuation that "may" not turn out as they had anticipated. Everyone has a responsibilty to engage life with the full and complete knowledge that no situation, not even sitting home alone in one's living room, involves zero risk. If you are alive, you're at risk of things not turning out has you had anticipated. Period. The rest is navigation of one's circumstances to the best of one's ability.
A great deal of our lives involve trust in other people. When we drive, we are compelled to trust that the other drivers are not maniacs bent on destroying us and others. But we take the risk that there "may" be a maniac or careless person behind the wheel of the next car each and every time we get in a car.
When we engage others at work, school, or play, we have to trust that other people are basically decent and careful and not out to harm us. Othewise, we'd be living in a cave in Tibet.
I see the boys and the girl in this situation as having taken risks in trusting the motives and reactions of the others. They took a gamble behind closed doors and they all lost. No one but the 3 involved know what happened and it's doubtful they'll ever agree. It is clear none of them are happy with the outcome, and none of them anticipated it.
I don't agree with the ruling in this case. With the known facts, I do not believe either boy should be incarcerated. I'd rather the trial itself plus perhaps counseling be sum of the consequence they all 3 face.
If there is anything good that came of all this it is the publicity. Perhaps people (particularly young people) will become more aware of the precarious situations they place themselves in and the variety of possible consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 23, @08:46PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:
This is a precedent ruling by the California Supreme Court redefining what constitutes rape. Their is nothing good about the ruling that came out of this ambiguous case. There is nothing about this ruling that serves justice. Nothing.
This is a clear and egregious miscarriage of justice by the Supreme Court of The Great Hate State of California. Man hating has been taken to an all new level and I will make every effort to avoid women at every opportunity since they could lie about anything at any time and be believed by this completely bigoted and biased government in California.
Chivalry is dead, deader than a doornail. You women are completely on your own. It's just to dangerous for a man to be in your company, ever.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think her point was that such an absurd absence of justice will increase the visibility of this inequity. It seems that many men out there have their collective heads in the sand (or worse), and as long as this sort of thing flies under the radar nothing is going to change. In this respect a positive can come out of this overwhelmingly negative situation. Now it's out there and every man and woman can come to their own conclusion. To this point EVERY SINGLE PERSON (men and women) I've discussed this with has been appalled by the verdict.
What happened to "Guilty until proven Innocent", it's been replaced with "He's guilty anytime she says so". This is one of the most GLARING spotlights on the failure of our Judicial system that I've seen since OJ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 24, @02:24PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorrainne, I do not agree with your statement that even if there were a struggle there would be no eveidence. I believe that if the girl did not struggle enough to aquire injuries, and did not go straight to the police for a rape kit to be done, there should be no case in adult rapes. If the girls in these types of cases actually struggled, most likely there would be no case and no 'rape'. The boys would see that the girls did not want to be having sex and would stop in most cases.
When I was a kid, you did not turn the car on if you did not want to drive. These girls need to realize they have responsibilities for their actions, and the boys need a better lawyer. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I said there was would be no way to prove if she had said NO. Furthermore you logic is dangerous. If a robber threatens you with death if you don't hand over your wallet, and you don't struggle, does the jury then say "We don't believe you since you did not say No or did not struggle" ?? This is what Young means that we should not hold rape to a higher standard of proof than other crimes.
He said/she said or (he said /he said) cases are relevant in other areas besides rape. We must be consistent in our burdens of proof.
Even if she had said no, or said she said no, there is no way to corroborate that in 2-party situations. Perhaps because this was a 3-party situation, it was a different matter. In any case, it boils down to each party putting themselves in a vulnerable situation. The girl was vulnerable to rape or misinterpretattion, the boy(s) were vulnerable to false accusation or misinterpretation. None of them apparently anticipated what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He said/she said or (he said /he said) cases are relevant in other areas besides rape.
What total BULL SHIT!
I have had crimes committed against me like robbery. It didn't matter to the police what I said. They wanted PROOF. Mere allegation was insufficient. In a real crime where there is no external physical evidence other than a man’s word the police will make out a report and walk away. Nobody gets prosecuted without proof.
By contrast, feminist male-hate laws are the only laws where somebody (a.k.a. a man) can be convicted by the word of a person (a.k.a. a woman) with a complete absence of ANY physical evidence.
In my opinion, Lorianne has been caught in a lie.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 24, @06:31PM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
"He said/she said or (he said /he said) cases are relevant in other areas besides rape."
liridanne is right. all that needed by court to convict is man saying a crime happened. this has happened in past like in south when courts conviced balcks of crimes and only word of white people was necessary. same as rape. no evidence is requred to prove someone beat you up or robbed you. just you're word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 24, @09:45PM EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
"In a real crime where there is no external physical evidence other than a man’s word the police will make out a report and walk away. Nobody gets prosecuted without proof." i emphazize by repeat. Lollipop rite. wrabble wrong. legal president set in old south. only word of white convict black. in us and califirnia now only word of girl convict boy. good president since white and woman better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @12:15AM EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
In said robbery, Most likely the man would have had to be caught with evidence...weapon in question, wallet,credit cards, etc.
This was not robbery. It is obvious that no person is going to just willingly walk up to a mugger and say, "oh, here is my wallet. Have a nice day." Then turn around a few days later, regret it, and accuse the man of robbery.
I stand by what I said. Her burden of proof was to show she struggled. The only way to do so was to 1)have injuries 2)have torn clothes 3) scream bloody murder so others could hear her.
The burden of proof must lie in the prosecution to prove the case. There was no objective evidence in this case. The girl had reason to lie. This, in any other case, would have shown that her testimony could not be taken at face value.
I think it is obvious she did not struggle, she did not say no, she did nothing. She has SPIT on women and men across this country. She has TRIVIALIZED rape and insulted men and women who actually have been raped.
IMO: She should be put in jail for slander and false accusation. She should have to visit a rape crisis center and hold someone who has been brutally attacked and raped. She should spend a few nights in the prison she sent those boys to, see those boys get raped for real in there, they most likely will. Maybe then she would count her lucky stars that all she did was have a little too much fun. And maybe she will get a reality bitch-slap.
The real crime is that the adults who are the justice system allowed this to go so far. She wouldn't have gotten anywhere without support.
Lorrainne, your arguement holds no water here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 24, @06:20PM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
"The girl was vulnerable to rape or misinterpretattion, the boy(s) were vulnerable to false accusation or misinterpretation. None of them apparently anticipated what happened." loranne is right. no one anticipated what hppened. the boys were falsely accused and the girl was raped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 24, @06:21PM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
"If a robber threatens you with death if you don't hand over your wallet" lorianne is right. the boys threatened the girl with death. that is why she didn't have to struggle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 24, @08:15PM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
"the boys threatened the girl with death. that is why she didn't have to struggle."
WOW! NEW EVIDENCE!
Where you there or are you just making this up. Please report this to the California Supreme Court you are a valuable witness. By the way, what were you doing there, hiding in the closet, or were you by chance participating in some way? You do not report this as heresay so you must be directly involved in some way. You are to be commended for coming forward or are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If noone witnesses the robbery and the police can't recover your wallet ON the robbers person then you don't have a chance of conviction. The robber says "I never seen this guy in my life" and walks away. The burden of proof is on the accuser, and just saying "he did it" is not proof in any other case but apparently when a woman feels she's been raped.
In fact I imagine if a MAN said a woman had raped him he'd have no chance of a conviction without proof (and a lot of it). So this trend in the law can be deemed nothing but a very bad application of justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DaveK:"So this trend in the law can be deemed nothing but a very bad application of justice."
A political application of justice.
A case up my way determined that the two men in question should not get jail time for a gang rape. Prominant individuals testified for these young men. The papers keep publishing letters of pissed off women from shelters and where ever. Not one of the women being quoted actually saw the trial. They based their remarks on blurbs of a very biased paper.
These young men were first time offenders and the jury did not hear all the evidence that the sentencing judge did. First offenders don't usually go to jail on many charges.
The personal has become the political here. Rape is bad and it happens to women (or so the story goes) so we must kill on site, why even bother with burdens of proof or a trial. She said he did it nuff said.
The problem is the rapeshield. The rapesheild is what really convicted those two young men. The rapesheild is no longer doing what it was intended to do and acts more as a sword than a sheild. Further more rapesheild laws in my opinion do more to oppress women regarding sex. AS it reaffirms to women that they should be embarrassed about their sexual history on a societal level.
The fundemental of rapesheild is a good idea but can easily be argued with "relevence". With woman bouncing around like whores non stop on television how can anyone be worried that she will be called a slut on the stand. People are adult enough these days to realize what the difference is. Lets evolve. As my statement is true feminism and true equality don't hold it against me as a guy. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 26, @09:10PM EST (#123)
|
|
|
|
|
Dan wrote:
"The problem is the rapeshield. The rapesheild is what really convicted those two young men. The rapesheild is no longer doing what it was intended to do and acts more as a sword than a sheild. Further more rapesheild laws in my opinion do more to oppress women regarding sex. AS it reaffirms to women that they should be embarrassed about their sexual history on a societal level."
My reply:
As men become more and more alienated women will be increasingly faced with the CHOICE between normal loving heterosexual contact between men and women, and the agenda of the radical feminists, that demonizes such normal behavior by asserting that all such contact is either rape or leads to rape.
A few more of those, "This is not an invitation to rape me," posters showing a man and a woman lovingly kissing will really help men to understand how feminists view this kind of contact. In fact we should all get one of those posters and post it. Let's speed this process up. I'm getting really tired of waffling females, who don't make a clear CHOICE, who straddle the fence taking the best from both sides of the issue, while men pay either way. There are also the idiot men who refuse to listen, and see what kind of danger we are all really in at the hands of these radical feminists.
Every ethical hunter knows that it is illegal to hunt during mating season, because of the need to maintain the population and the vulnerability of females and especially males during that time. It is clear that the radical feminists have directly targeted Homo Sapiens (specifically their mating behavior) for extinction with their bizarre and unnatural policies.
The agenda is clear, men are the primary targets and if they do not do all in their power to immediately survive they will never even be available to mate. Right now, the heterosexual male is more wary and gun shy than a shell shocked bird dog. He is in everyone's sights, but especially the radical feminists.
More of the RESPONSIBILITY for the protection of men and the species is falling squarely on the shoulders of all females, because men have "had it with all the crap of radical feminism." They are tired of honestly speaking up against these radical feminist abuses only to be labeled as batterers for being assertive against these radical women. They are tired of entering into relationships in good faith only to be exploited and abused by the bigoted, man hating, lies and deceptions put forth by women and law.
If women do not want men to believe that this perverted group of harpies represents them, then they had better speak up so loud and clear that the policy makers and law makers hear them, otherwise they can go screw themselves, no literally, because there won't be a man left willing to expose himself to the risk of doing that.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well if we could ever get the truth out there about their rape statistics and how those people use fear mongering to gain financial support their might be a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:"If a robber threatens you with death if you don't hand over your wallet, and you don't struggle, does the jury then say "We don't believe you since you did not say No or did not struggle" ?? This is what Young means that we should not hold rape to a higher standard of proof than other crimes. "
Unless you are lying on the pet heavily petting and knecking with your gun wielding robber one can assume a stark difference of evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The extremes strengthen the middle ground. The more extremes two sides of an issue become, the more people gravitate to the center to more even keel positions. This is true of many issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 24, @08:27PM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
"The extremes strengthen the middle ground."
The extremes seek to strengthen themselves and destroy the middle ground. That is why extemist like those who have given us radical feminism are so dangerous to society. The extremist feminist are rolling in billions of taxpayers dollars as they destroy lots of innocent men in the middle with scam programs like VAWA, paternity fraud, etc. The anithesis of what you say is true.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is just analogy run amok! :)
So I guess I'll add mine.
I believe extremes are more like someone hanging WAAAYY out on one side of a tippy boat... if you've got someone leaning WAAAY out on the other side you're fine, but if not then everyone who'd RATHER be in the middle is forced to start leaning the other direction to keep the boat from flipping. :)
These days I'm starting to think we're leaning so far we're taking on water... hopefully we'll wake up and balance the boat before we're all swimming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @12:24AM EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
Extremes are dangerous. This case is an extreme. How does this strengthen the middle ground? Maybe if the extremes were balanced it may even things out, but there is little balance in the here and NOW. (pun intended)
If you are on a teeter totter, and kids are both on the ends, the heavier side goes down, has more weight. The farther out to the end, the more force is exerted (called leverage.)Feminism is the big bully sitting on the end of the teeter, laughing at the skinny little kid hanging in the air.
Time for the playgound moniter to administer a good ear pinch and drag that bully to a time out. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @07:48AM EST (#71)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen:
That was a very nice post, logicaly constructed, and well spoken. There was a perceptive honesty to what you've said, even though I have at one time or another been that skinny little kid left hanging by his fingernails by those big bully feminists.
That's a pretty shocking metaphor, when you consider that I actually weigh 230 lbs.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chivalry is dead, deader than a doornail. You women are completely on your own. It's just to dangerous for a man to be in your company, ever.
Ray, I don't believe so. Yours is just as reactionary a woman believing it is never safe to be alone with a man.
At the end of the day, we are all at the mercy of our fellow humans. We simply have no choice but to create a society where we can trust each other. I agree that this ruling moves in the opposite direction, but I also think most people realize that and this ruling create a backlash against cynicism. It will shake some sense into people and prompt them to ask: Is a society full of cynical distrustful people what we want?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 24, @06:52PM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
"At the end of the day, we are all at the mercy of our fellow humans." loopylump is right. women may get raped by men. the governmint punishes the men. women may false accuze men. the govermint does nothing. equal risk for both. end of day. all at equal mercy of fellow fellows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 24, @06:56PM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
"women may get raped by men. the governmint punishes the men. women may false accuze men. the govermint does nothing." ooopsie. i am wrong. women may get raped by men. the governming punishes the men. women might false accuze men. the govermint punishes the men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 24, @08:39PM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
"At the end of the day, we are all at the mercy of our fellow humans." loopylump is right. women may get raped by men. the governmint punishes the men. women may false accuze men. the govermint does nothing. equal risk for both. end of day. all at equal mercy of fellow fellows"
Be careful not to spill your sour mash on the keyboard it'll ruin your computer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 24, @08:35PM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
"At the end of the day, we are all at the mercy of our fellow humans." "We simply have no choice but to create a society where we can trust each other."
Tell it to Kitty Genovessi (sp?) No one came to her aid as she was being murdered, and after this ruling I would walk the other way in any situation involving a scamming female. That's all females, since I consider them all to be exploitive scam artists. As I said before, "You are on your own." How does your new complete liberation from all chivalry of men feel?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How does your new complete liberation from all chivalry of men feel?
I spoke with a woman a couple nights ago, who was saying that she liked it when men were chivalrous, when they opened doors for her, for instance.
I told her that I'm never chivalrous to women in the US anymore and that any man who is chivalrous in this country is a fool setting himself up to be railroaded, given the anti-male attitudes in this society.
She thought about it and agreed with me. A pretty cool gal!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 24, @10:04PM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
"At the end of the day, we are all at the mercy of our fellow humans." empahsize by repeat. lanalang right, ray wrong. man can rape woman. govermint punish man. woman can false accuze man. govermint punish man. all equal. all at mercy of felow humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @07:35AM EST (#69)
|
|
|
|
|
Anon Wrote
"man can rape woman" (-1, vulnerability woman)
"govermint punish man" (-1, vulnerability man)
"woman can false accuze man" (-1 vulnerability man)
"govermint punish man" (-1 vulnerability man)
(all parenthetical emphases is mine)
"all equal"
My reply:
-1 does not equal -3.
It appears that what you have stated clearly adds up to show that men are disproportionately at the mercy of females and that all is not equal.
Three things I will not want to be at the mercy of:
#1 females
#2 your logic
#3 your math
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three things I will not want to be at the mercy of:
#1 females
#2 your logic
#3 your math
Ray:
I generally don't respond to AUs, but since you've responded to AU, I'll respond to you. I don't know if there was a method to AU's madness or even a madness to AU's method, but the person did bring up an interesting point, regarding legal precedent in this country for not requiring evidence to convict someone of a crime.
Note: A legal historian will know far more about this than me.
In the southeastern states, as far as I know, many blacks were convicted of crimes solely on the testimony of whites stating that the blacks were guilty. In some cases, not only was evidence not required to show that the accused was guilty, evidence wasn't even required to show that a crime had taken place. I have read of cases where white women willingly had sex with black men, sometimes with more than one black man at a time, and later, after being found out, accused the black men of rape in order to cover for themselves.
In the current situation there is an added incentive of money, but the similarities, between what is happening today and what happened in the southeast, are striking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It appears that what you have stated clearly adds up to show that men are disproportionately at the mercy of females and that all is not equal.
Ray,
I think that AU was trying to sarcastically make exactly that point. It's hard to tell, though.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I said before, "You are on your own." How does your new complete liberation from all chivalry of men feel?
Men are getting it more every day. Men are telling other men to stop the chivalry. Men are suing other men that practice chivalry and the chivalrous males are loosing....BIG! Ray knows what I'm talking about.
If your are male and chivalrous then you will get sued and you will loose. If the male-hating feminist doesn’t sue you by claiming that your chivalry is creating a hostile environment at work then there are men who will because of the bigotry that chivalry creates.
Chivalry is nothing more than a code word for special female privilege. If you practice chivalry then you are giving females preferential treatment and discriminating against men. Soon this practice will be grounds for a discrimination suit. It is a suit that you will loose.
Hundreds of businesses in California are learning this even as this message is written. What is really humorous is to observe chivalrous males and females fight for the right to oppress other men. They are going down! BIG! Even as this is being written bigoted anti-male businesses are crying foul and forking over the damages.
I can promise that you will hear more about how chivalry (a.k.a. male-on-male hate) is being destroyed in the next few months as the law suits mount...and mount....and mount....and mount....and continue to mount until chivalry is broken in California.
If women want equality then they must stop demanding chivalry and demand equal responsibility. All females that demand chivalry are male hating bigots. All men that practice chivalry are male-on-male hating bigots. PERIOD!
I promise everybody that males who are chivalrous will get sued....and loose! It is happening even as I write this message. Do they think they can fight back? Yeeessss. Are they loosing? Absolutely. And they are being forced to pay up. Only the truly stupid continue practicing chivalry while knowing that it is going down.
Those males that "get-it" and that are in the know are aware of what this means. If you don't know then watch out....a suit is coming your way.
If you are chivalrous then stop your hate. Chivalry is dead and going down just like Ray said, and those who know me are fully aware that I'm good on my word.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If women want equality then they must stop demanding chivalry and demand equal responsibility.
This brings up the fundamental flaw in the Equal Rights Amendment—ERA, namely that it isn't the ERRA—Equal Rights and Responsibilities Amendment.
I can promise that you will hear more about how chivalry (a.k.a. male-on-male hate) is being destroyed in the next few months as the law suits mount...and mount....and mount....and mount....and continue to mount until chivalry is broken in California.
You've shown yourself to be true to your word on such matters, Warble. I look forward to the news reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @12:32AM EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
Chivalry should not be dead. It is something to aspire to, just as grace is something for women to aspire to. Feminism, most women, have lost grace, and now are poisoning men's sense of chivalry.
Perhaps I am niave, but I think these things are worth fighting for. Just because bad things have been done in the name of a thing does not mean the thing itself is bad.
Chivalry was at one time a code of honor. Let's not insult all those who lived up to that in the past by describing it as male on male hate.
Grace is now viewed as a great weakness in women, but I personally think most women would be much better for having some. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chivalry should not be dead. It is something to aspire to, just as grace is something for women to aspire to. Feminism, most women, have lost grace, and now are poisoning men's sense of chivalry.
Jen,
I believe that you are confusing be polite, courteous, respectful, honorable, noble, and more with modern day chivalry. I also believe that you are quite misinformed on the conditions that surrounded historical chivalry.
Historical chivalry was something that was present when women were a man’s property and they could be controlled. If a woman committed paternity fraud then she could be executed.
Today women are no longer oppressed and they enjoy freedoms like voting, equal employment, and special privilege. There is nothing about historical chivalry that we should aspire to unless we desire to stop women from voting, return to the chivalrous ways of oppression, and turn women into property.
Modern chivalry demands that special privilege be granted to women on the part of the male even if it means the male will be oppressed.
Modern chivalry means that women get a free ride while the male absorbs the costs.
Modern chivalry means that women expect men to cough it up....and cough it up....and cough it up....and cough it up until they are dead and gone while the woman laughs all the way to the bank.
Modern chivalry means that men get oppressed as mothers commit paternity fraud for their own gain.
Modern chivalry means that hundreds of men are criminalized when a woman makes a false allegation so that the police might nail a few actual criminals.
Modern chivalry means that when a man is chivalrous in the workplace that they get a sexual harassment suit or a hostile environment suit and that they get a one way pass to homelessness.
Modern chivalry is male-on-male hate as men compete to get sex from the woman.
Modern chivalry is the mechanism that many date rapist use to seduce women and give the rest of us a bad name.
Historical chivalry was at one time considered noble yet even then women who were married could commit criminal acts and have their husbands prosecuted. Not much has changed about women except they have gotten more demanding and clever in exploiting the chivalry of the male.
It’s no wonder that Jan wants Chivalry to continue. Special privilege is hard to give up in return for equal responsibility.
So, I'll say it again. In California, where I find wealthy Hollywood business persons supporting chivalry, they will be sued. If they cannot understand reason then we will reason with their pocket-books! We will find those that practice chivalry and we will make them accountable for their practice of male-on-male/female-on-male hate.
And so the chivalry of Hollywood shall cost them dearly.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @07:15AM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen, Warble, et al.:
Just tonight on a public sidewalk in Hollywood in front of a club, I saw a young female strip down to her G-string underwear to get special privilege (to get in ahead of 50 or so people waiting in line), to get in for free. Five men in the admission control area, working for the club, watched her and then let her in. Women were paying half as much to get into this club as men, when they weren't letting women in for no charge at all and charging men $15.00. I have previously seen a member of LAPD attend this club as a private citizen with his date. He flashed his badge to go to the head of the line with his date.
Hollywood encourages, promotes and exploits men through sexual discrimination, akin to this public exhibition tonight, at its many night spots. Hollywood profits through sexual exploitation of men by females, then Hollywood turns around like the true feminist hypocrite bastion that it is and profits even more by making movies that vilify men as exploiters and abusers of women.
There have been a number of Hollywood movies made about female victims of domestic violence, but have you ever seen a Hollywood movie about a male victim of domestic violence? There have been Hollywood movies made about sexual discrimination against women, but have you ever seen one showing this happening to men? For that matter have you ever seen a Hollywood movie about male victims of paternity fraud, or child custody? Have you ever seen a Hollywood movie emphasizing these percentages: homelessness (85% men), homicide (76% men), suicide (75% men), combat deaths (historically 99.9999% men), or industrial deaths (94% men)?
In the heart of the Great, Man Hating State of California there beats a predictable cycle of prejudice, discrimination and injustice against men in a vile place called Hollywood, California.
Hollywood and North Hollywood are suburbs of Los Angeles. West Hollywood has seceded from LA and become its own city.
It is depressingly tragic to have to note that this sick, biased, man hating city contributes so much to setting the social patterns of our society, through:
#1. it's legendary male discriminating entertainment
#2. it's man vilifying and hating movies.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @11:03AM EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your response. And it is Jen, not Jan.
I think we have different views on chivalry. Just becasue you do not agree with me does not mean my definition is wrong. You have chosen to make your own definition.
I just realized that to argue this point is mute. I will be slammed as a feminist for disagreeing with you.
We all were talking about extremes earlier in this thread. Your position is an extreme. Men are no more a collective victim than women are. It takes two to tango. Just be careful, as you are alienating over half the population, many of who would support you. I still support you, but I am very wary to stick my neck out on this board. I suppose that leaves me to stick it out in real life, instead.
I really dislike dealing in extremes. On either end.
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men are no more a collective victim than women are. It takes two to tango.
Jen,
You may consider this post extreme. If you do, so be it. I certainly don't consider you a feminist, but I think you have been seriously mislead, as have so many other well-intended people in US society and the rest of the world.
I cannot think of a single way in which women are victims of systemic or legal discrimination in this country. Yes, there are men who personally discriminate against women, just as there are women who discriminate against men. But the discrimination against women is illegal.
Here are some ways in which men are systemically discriminated against, often with the open aid of the government:
Paternity fraud;
Kidnapping of men's children and forcing the men to support the known kidnappers;
Far more maternity leave than paternity leave;
Far more funding for research into female specific diseases than for male specific diseases, existence of an Office of Women's Health but no Office of Men's Health;
Men and boys being driven from the nation's educational institutions;
Funding specifically targeted to reduce domestic violence against women but not to reduce domestic violence against men, the existence of VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) but not of VAMA (Violence Against Men Act);
Criminal sentencing, men being given far more severe sentences, for a given crime, than women;
Affirmative action preferential treatment for women;
Registration for the all-male-draft for combat.
No requirement of evidence beyond the accuser's word to convict and imprison men and boys.
As for "It takes two to tango," the same could have been said of the Nazi occupation of France (and many other situations throughout history). Yes, there were French collaborators and members of the Vichy government. But it was not true that the Nazi occupation forces were no more collective victims than the French populace — not, that is, until the Nazis were overthrown. History has often shown that one group can be more the collective victim than another, even when some members of each group are together dancing the tango.
As for not sticking your neck out here, you're going to get some heat, if you post on this board. Everyone does. God knows men have plenty of reason to be angry. I was tortured by women, when I was a child, and they were never taken to task for their actions, so I feel my share of anger. But, though anger may color a person's style, it doesn't invalidate the points a person makes.
Believe it or not, Jen, your presence here is appreciated, but this is not a place where people can count on being handled with kid gloves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But it was not true that the Nazi occupation forces were no more collective victims than the French populace
Make that "it was not true that the French populace was no more collective victims than the Nazi occupation forces."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @01:21PM EST (#77)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen You Wrote:
"Just be careful, as you are alienating over half the population..."
My Reply:
#1. Sorry about misspellng your name.
#2. After being abused, battered and otherwise vilified for over thirty years by the abuses of feminism I find your comment ironic. Men have certainly chivalrously forgiven their feminist offenders 77 times (Matthew 18:22), many men still continue to do that, but now you are suggesting that they continue their foolish generousity in order not to alienate "half of the population."
I guess I'm just a little too "alienated" myself to put much effort into such further futility. Consider this ruling by the California Supreme Court as offense #78. It may be unloving to keep a record of wrongs (1Cor 13:5), but being infinitly loving is not an order commanding men to automatically be the slaves and doormats of the entire feminine gender. Given the long established "pattern of abuse" against men by the feminists I see no problems in shaking the dust from my heels and walking away from the entire female gender. It is not men, that, any longer have to show chivalry towards females. We have ungraciously had that door slammed in our faces many times by the feminsts for being unprogressive.
If any woman out there says she is not a feminist, she merely has to show me that she is not a part of the long pattern of abuse against men that feminists have consciously worked so hard to promote in so many ways for decades. I hereby relieve myself of any guilt for the inconveience that may cause you or your gender, just consider it tough love (Prov 3:11-12). If you consider that rude or harsh you simply have the efforts of your feminist sisters to thank for that.
"The Women's movement as all of womanhood, is in desperate need of male leadership."
Sincerely and Lovingly, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @01:35PM EST (#79)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen:
I guess this just goes to show in a small way what happens when a man takes a woman at her word and doesn't bother to check out the details.
I apologized to you for misspelling your name after you pointed that out to me, but in going back over my post I cannot find anywhere where I committed such an error.
Were you trying to trick me, or did you just make an honest mistake, or am I overlooking the error somewhere in the posts? This is why I always try to include in quotes the area of information I am rebutting in my posts.
Apology rescinded and awaiting further proof.
Just last night at the club in Hollywood I found a small woman's pursue lying on the floor so I picked it up and gave it to an offical of the club who thanked me profusely. Old chivalrous habits die hard. Actually, "I'd do the same for a man." Maybe that's a good gauge to use in the future to differentiate common courtesy from chivalry. Needless to say, "open your own doors."
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, "I'd do the same for a man." Maybe that's a good gauge to use in the future to differentiate common courtesy from chivalry. Needless to say, "open your own doors."
Actually, I open doors for men, but I'm very cautious about doing it for women. I've been screamed at and publicly degraded for doing so. Any woman, who doesn't like it, can go bitch at a feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just realized that to argue this point is mute. I will be slammed as a feminist for disagreeing with you.
Excuse me? You cite the historical definition of chivalry then claim it was considered noble and when I point out the negative qualities of historical chivalry you have a problem? Historical chivalry was oppressive to women, it permitted male ownership of women, and it granted special privileges like immunity from criminal prosecution. As now you whine because you think you are getting victimized?
That is really quite pathetic. There is nothing about chivalry that is good and that should be continued. Modern chivalry result is discrimination and should end. It should be locked up on the history books as a shameful thing of the past. Both feminist and masculist agree on this matter. Chivalry is dead.
Only bigots continue to hold onto chivalry because of their desire to oppress men and grant women special treatment.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just be careful, as you are alienating over half the population, many of who would support you.
Never mind that fact that feminist have successfully alienated half the population. I guess that is supposed to be okay simply because we are JUST men.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @03:48PM EST (#85)
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I apparently misread the Jan thing-sorry. I really thought I saw Jan, not Jen.
I think that the problem I am seeing here is that this whole cause, men against feminism, is a very new and unusual problem. I know some will disagree with me here, but just bear with me.
I think debating on the details, definitions, faults, is not necessarily helping here. I fully have been doing so too, and am now making a concerted effort from here to stop. While I like debating it is taking time and energy away from action.
I am taking things from the now, no pun intended. I think that the people of this cause should look at this as any campaign. Find your objectives, and figure out the most effective plan of action.
What are your objectives? To make this country equal for both men and women legally, educationally, in leadership, etc.
What is the best way to go about this? Well, while slander and defamation, no matter how deserved, may win you momentary support, truth, strength in arguement, and decency will win more people to your side in the long run. Having the most support on your side is a very good start as well.
So I am saying that exposing the truth, packaging it in a way that everyone willing to hear will be able to without feeling hated, and not stooping to the oppositions tactics I think is the best way to go about this.
I believe in this cause but feel very alienated by many of your(the boards) posts. I feel hatred and discust towards women in general seething in some posts, and as a woman I am finding it hard to be symathetic in the face of what feels like an attack. I know some people here may have an axe to grind, but I am just saying that these posts are shooting yourself in the foot.
Warble, it is NOT OK that feminists have alienated half the population. I did not say that, and I never implied the 'just men' bit. I said that your cause would be better served if you could count on members of both sexes to support you. Twice as many potential supporters. I think this cause would be foolish to discount that in tactical terms.
As far as chivalry, I was looking at your modern definition. Sorry I was not specific. Historically, I do not think chivalry had much to do with women in specific. It was a code of conduct among men all around, wasn't it?
quote
"Collection of virtues expected of a knight....eventually merging with the concept of a gentleman."
"Loyal, courtious, protective and gentle, and honerable to all including enemies...and courage, honor and fidelity"
Yes, women were not given any rights then, but that does not mean chivalry itself was bad. I may be going out on a limb here, but Christianity has been weilded as a weapon, yet the premise of the religious is still a valid and good one.
I think that 'I would do this for a man also' is a valid way to look at things. Women who scream at men who open doors for them also have an axe to grind, but I do not think they are anywhere near a majority.
I appreciate you not discounting my opinion as 'feminist'. I honestly did not expect a serious reply. Thank you. I think what you are doing is very important here. I am just trying to find my niche in this whole thing.
On a side note, we were interviewed at a Cub Scout Pinewood Derby today. I told the newsreporter that it is really good to have someplace boys are allowed to be boys.
I also have the number of a local rape and domestic violence group, and am putting together a package that hopefully will help educate people to the other side of DV. I am hoping to package this so they feel it is in their best interest to share this info, in terms of more active support from men. I am trying to do a small bit. I would really be interested, rather than this debating, the sharing of ideas on what each of you are personally doing and how we can support each other. Has anyone else had expirience with these programs who could give me ideas? How can I support your efforts? We are in NY, is there any legislation we should be supporting or protesting?
Pluggin along....
Yours, Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jen wrote:
What are your objectives? To make this country equal for both men and women legally, educationally, in leadership, etc.
That's one, generally shared objective, but it's by no means the only one. The theme that pervades the amorphous blob known as men's issues is men's dependence on women's approval and the ways society encourages and enforces that dependence.
Psychologically, many men are brought up to be emotionally dependent on women. Society and media are actively encouraging this with constant messages that a woman's feelings are more valid than a man's, a woman's judgement is more compassionate than a man's, and so on and so on, ad nauseum. The message to men is to stuff their own judgement and rely on the judgement and validation of women. That's how we get Nice Guys and male feminists. Feminism is exactly what the word itself suggests: A preference for the feminine over the masculine.
Legally, the system makes men dependent on women's judgement and goodwill. Sexual harassment law makes male public behavior contingent on female judgement and goodwill and forces him to depend on individual women being "reasonable."
Expanded definitions of rape make make a man dependent on a woman's judgement and goodwill about any private encounter.
Legal abortion makes a man totally dependent on a woman's judgement and goodwill after conception if he will become a father.
Family law makes a man continually dependent on a woman's judgement and goodwill for access to his children.
These same laws and systems act to ensure that women are specifically not dependent on men's judgement and goodwill. They don't actually make women independent, they simply make men unconditionally dependable (supportive of women's choices).
Sexual harassment doesn't work in reverse. There is no "reasonable man" standard. Rape shield laws and subsequent court decisions specifically exclude notions of a woman having obligations to a man in private encounters. Family law guarantees child support, regardless of a man's judgement or goodwill.
What is the price for a man not being unconditionally dependable in all of these situations? A ruined life and/or jail.
I believe in this cause but feel very alienated by many of your(the boards) posts. I feel hatred and discust towards women in general seething in some posts, and as a woman I am finding it hard to be symathetic in the face of what feels like an attack. I know some people here may have an axe to grind, but I am just saying that these posts are shooting yourself in the foot.
What you are witnessing is men weaning themselves off the dependence on women that has generally been trained into them. It's a painful experience. There is a feeling of betrayal, of being lied to, manipulated, used and abused. Of course we are angry! Of course we are disgusted!We have every right to be and we need to express that.
Why are we going through this painful experience? Why don't we just accept our dependence? Because women are people. They are every bit as stupid, selfish and horny as men. They are not dependable. Especially when society keeps telling them they don't have to be. That being dependable to men is being oppressed.
So, you will hear over and over and over again what will feel to you like attacks on women. What they are is attacks on the notion that women "better people" by pointing out the ways they can be lousy people. We're seeking emotional and legal independence (or at least an acknowledgment of interdependence and mutual obligation). We're convincing ourselves as much as anyone else.
It may be uncomfortable for you but believe me, it's a lot more uncomfortable for us.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have a lot of potential allies who understand some of what we are saying. Lets not trash them because they do not understand the whole picture yet. The better thing to do is to explain to them the full picture.
I was raised by a vicious feminist stepmother who thought men were mostly jerks. It hurt a lot after losing a mother who was kind and loving. Then I spent years in academia where man-hating nuts like Catherine MacKinnon run the show. I could be (and I have been in the past) extremely hostile to any woman. But I have learned to cultivate allies. If you got rage, go beat on a punching bag. Then get out and do something that brings real results for mens rights.
IF YOU TRASH POTENTIAL ALLIES YOU ARE HELPING ANTI-MALE FEMINISTS. OR, PERHAPS YOU ARE AN ANTI-MALE FEMINIST JUST TRYING TO DISCREDIT US.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @05:56PM EST (#88)
|
|
|
|
|
"Has anyone else had expirience with these programs who could give me ideas?"
Jen:
Although we have our differences I want to thank you personally for expressing a sincere interest. Dr. Warren Farrell has a web site and has written several books. "THE MYTH OF MALE POWER" was, I believe, his first book and remains my favorite.
Here are others addressing the issues brought up here that I have found enlightening:
CHIVALRY by Maurice Keen
ABUSED MEN by Phillip W. Cook
WHO STOLE FEMINISM by Christina Hoff Sommers
THE WAR AGAINST BOYS by Christina Hoff Sommers
DIVORCED DADS by Sanford Braver
None of these are extremist books, although I could give you the name of some of those, I doubt you'd care for them.
Here are some web sites you may find interesting:
NCFMLA.ORG that's my picture at the begining of the "flyer" (before war and a domestic violence battering to my person)
glennjsacks.com
DVMEN.ORG
batteredmen.com
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Jen,
Many of us have been seriously beaten up and feel a lot of justified anger. I was raised by a bitter feminist step mother. After losing a kind and loving mother it hurt like hell. I then spent several decades in academia where hateful feminists like Catherine MacKinnon have tremendous power.
I think that if you hang around you will learn a lot about what many men are feeling today. I do understand your feelings about this - rage is hard to cope with even when it is justified.
With regards to men being no more a collective victim than women, that was probably true up to the 60's. Do you recall Betty Friedan's quote "Men are not the enemy, they are the fellow victim". Don't recall the citation for that.
The point is that, now, after 35 years of feminism, most of the injustices women faced are being righted or have been. Our society has focused MASSIVE attention and funding on the problems of women, while denying even a pittance for men. Womens organisations and programs have received billions of dollars. There are 750 or more womens studies programs in our colleges. In nearly every single aspect of gender issues, immense effort to help women has been matched by a big yawn for men. With regards to female on male domestic violence, most feminists deny its very existence - but see www.batteredmen.com. A divorced man is very likely to lose his children almost automatically, even when he is a wonderful father. He can be put in prison if he cannot make the child support on the children ripped from his heart.
In many areas the pendulum has swung right through the middle and men now suffer substantially greater discrimination.
We are angry, not because we think only men are victims. We are angry because society has chosen to entirely ignore male disadvantage and pain in many, many, many, many ways while catering to female disadvantage and pain. We just want equal treatment.
Many women now understand this. While some of the people hear are to angry to hear it, people like Trudy Schuett, Wendy McElroy, Erin Pizzey, and many others are often almost totally in agreement with us. Cathy Young is quite often, but not always. Some people seem blind to this reality. Sometimes it takes rage to make people get off their asses. But the flip side is that it can blind them, and they run around stabbing everything in sight, even those who are their friends or might become their friends with a bit of dialogue.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @06:20PM EST (#90)
|
|
|
|
|
"IF YOU TRASH POTENTIAL ALLIES YOU ARE HELPING ANTI-MALE FEMINISTS."
HOGWASH! When these people start carrying my chains instead of adding to the weight of them then I'll back off, and not until then. Their acquiescence to half truths is a denial of the real depth of abuse, and bigotry that men bear, and is a major part of the problem. I will continue to point out their watered down truth and biased treatment every chanced I get. Besides, it's not like their really ever going to do anything for men.
I just in the last few minutes heard Geraldo on Fox News say of Calra Harris that he hopes she gets off, because so many men have gotten off. Talk about biased. We have a long way to go, and it is time for all men to not take this kind of biased abusiveness anymore.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cathy Young has done a lot for men. Read her entire body of work.
She doesn't always get it. So what.
She is often an ally. Sometimes she is not.
Criticizing her mistakes is good. I disagree with her somewhat often and have told her so. She has been rather defensive at times. Calling her an enemy is counterproductive. I got real enemies. Their names are MacKinnon, Dworkin, Morgan, Pollitt, Steinem, hooks, Daly, etc. Plus the sick anti-male bigots in many (or most or all?) university womens studies departments, the divorce industy, the domestic violence industry, government bureaucracies. Etc, Etc, Etc. I don't feel the need to label those who are sometimes allies as enemies - got enough already.
Allies are not always perfect, but they carry part of the load some of the time. Beats having no allies.
I've been fighting this war for 25 years. I'll take what friends I can get. Even flawed ones.
Regards,
Will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will,
Thanks for the compliment, but...
I could be (and I have been in the past) extremely hostile to any woman. But I have learned to cultivate allies. If you got rage, go beat on a punching bag. Then get out and do something that brings real results for mens rights.
... I disagree. If you got rage, it's because you got pain. Hitting a punching bag may get rid of the the rage, but then going right back to negotiating for feminine approval and validation (cultivating allies) is just asking for more hurt. I know. I've tried. It doesn't work.
The allies we will get will either be those who are not afraid of men (and their pain) or those who find it in their best interest to do so, regardless of our emotional states.
Thomas (I think) once commented that this board provides an "emotive education." It is important for men to know that they're not alone. That their feelings and perceptions and pain and anger are valid. That's how they get the courage to start standing up for themselves. For every kinda sorta sympathetic potential ally who is put off by the emotion, 100 men are nodding and looking inside of themselves.
These are the people who are going to join NCFM or start their own groups or talk to others at the risk of alienating them and all the other things an activist can do. They are our audience. If women want to come along, that's great, too. But we don't need their permission or approval.
IF YOU TRASH POTENTIAL ALLIES YOU ARE HELPING ANTI-MALE FEMINISTS. OR, PERHAPS YOU ARE AN ANTI-MALE FEMINIST JUST TRYING TO DISCREDIT US.
I gotta go with Ray on this one. Hogwash.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXCELLENT WARBLE!!!!!!
Excellent distinction between today and days gone by!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry said:
If you got rage, it's because you got pain. Hitting a punching bag may get rid of the the rage, but then going right back to negotiating for feminine approval and validation (cultivating allies) is just asking for more hurt. I know. I've tried. It doesn't work.
I agree entirely with your statement. I never seek feminine approval or validation any more though I did for many years. I know exactly what I believe and I know its correct. My validation is my own experience coupled with that of several hundred friends/aquaintances in the men's movement, coupled with what I have read by Farrell, Baumli, Schenk, Zubaty, Kimbrell, Driscoll, Sacks, Sommers, Young, Nathanson, Patai, Christensen, Angry Harry, McElroy, Baber, Kammer, Paglia, Shuett, Strauss, and many, many others. I find much validation of my beliefs at MenWeb, MensNewsDaily, batteredmen.com, gendercide.org, MenStuff, themenscenter.org, townhall.com, etc.
Larry said:
The allies we will get will either be those who are not afraid of men (and their pain) or those who find it in their best interest to do so, regardless of our emotional states.
I have found that allies come in all flavors. Some start out more uncertain than others. Some don't understand all of what we are saying immediately. You work with what you got. It is astonishingly easy to make strong allies who are not afraid of men if you know how to get past their initial fear or ignorance. Intentionally making enemies from potential allies loses wars. I have been winning allies for the mens movement for 20+ years by tailoring my overture to each recipient. Over the years I have found a pattern to what usually works: A moderate-conservative male responds to one approach, a male feminist to another, a fair-minded female to another, a mother of sons to another, the second wife of a divorced man to another. People are all different. A hammer is not always the best tool.
Larry said:
Thomas (I think) once commented that this board provides an "emotive education." It is important for men to know that they're not alone. That their feelings and perceptions and pain and anger are valid. That's how they get the courage to start standing up for themselves. For every kinda sorta sympathetic potential ally who is put off by the emotion, 100 men are nodding and looking inside of themselves.
I think your first point about emotive education is critical. Men have got to get connected to their feelings and perceptions and pain and anger and realize its valid. So many men seem to be asleep or afraid they must be nuts. I felt very alone for years. Thought I was crazy from my early 20's until my early 40's. No more. Unfortunately, in 20+ years I haven't seen a lot of guys lining up, though it looks MAYBE like its starting to change. I am not one to count my chicks before they are hatched, so I'll believe it when I see it.
Though I haven't seen a lot of men lining up, I have seen people who are 100% feminist shift over to being "kinda sorta sympathetic potential allies" then shift over to being serious allies. I guess I take a longish perspective, having been working on mens rights for two decades and having seen few big victories. WRT to Cathy Young, I have read every single thing she has written over a number of years (not an exaggeration). In fact, she is often very supportive. I think she is an honest ally. She tries to think things through. She has certainly botched it on some occasions, but she is much better than kinda sorta sympathetic. She also gets a portion of our message out to people who would never hear it or would be totally turned off by it. Those people need to be led along more slowly. But we may need their votes to pass legislation. The early womens movement worked in part because they convinced a lot of men to support them. Of course they scared a bunch of men too - especially politicians wanting votes, and unconscious dependent men.
Larry said:
These are the people who are going to join NCFM or start their own groups or talk to others at the risk of alienating them and all the other things an activist can do. They are our audience. If women want to come along, that's great, too. But we don't need their permission or approval.
I agree. The only problem is that I do not see thousands of people joining NCFM. I would also add that alienating rather than winning allies will not help us. We cannot dictate our victory. It might be more satisfying to our egos to cram our program down peoples throats whether they want it or not, but I doubt if that is possible. So, we have to persuade others to join us - numbers make power. Different people respond to different forms of persuasion. I would also add that many women are already coming along. Three examples: Deborah Watkins is the president of Dallas NCFM. Dianna Thompson is a founder and Executive Director of ACFC. Wendy McElroy is a tremendous ally - ask NCFM Twin Cities.
Regards,
Will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @08:34PM EST (#95)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray:
"it's not like their really ever going to do anything for men."
Those words of yours are very strong, Cathy Young is not Geraldo (thank God), therefore I suggest that you be the first to praise your enemies and "luke warm allies," when they support the issues that help men in their struggles against radical feminist oppression. I'm waiting Geraldo, but not holding my breath.
Sincerely, Ray
Yes that's me giving constructive criticism to myself. I'll be the first to admit that I will have some areas in need of constructive criticism from time to time, and if someone sincerely sees it a different way, when I say something, then please do express yourself. We may not always agree, but perhaps together we can find enough consensus to improve some things.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @08:44PM EST (#96)
|
|
|
|
|
"Calling her an enemy is counterproductive."
Yes, I stand corrected if I inferred that she was. The sin of unintentional omission (unintentionally failing to do what you should) is not as serious in my book as the sin of commission (intentionally doing someone harm).
I am remiss if I did not thank her for the good she has done BEFORE criticizing her for what I think is waffling and missing the male perspective in her Boston Globe article.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Jen,
I am in NY too. Email me at willj1776@yahoo.com for further discussion.
I think Warren Farrell's Myth of Male Power, Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say, Why Men Are the Way They Are are superb. Christina Sommers Who Stole Feminism really blew the lid off feminist myths. Wendy McElroy's articles at www.zetetics.com/mac are excellent. Daphne Patai's book Heterophobia is critically important and her book Professing Feminism is quite useful as well. Glenn Sacks articles at www.glennsacks.com are good. Andrew Kimbrell's Masculine Mystique is a very non-radical one. Driscoll's The Stronger Sex is quite interesting as it ties in some evolutionary biology. One of my first intros to the mens movement is Francis Baumli's Men Freeing Men - still worthwhile. Though I disagree with Cathy Young's view of the men's movement, she is an excellent critic of the women's movement. Her book Ceasefire is a superbly referenced well-thought-out critique that goes beyond Sommers. Though some folks will disagree, I have read all of her articles and find that she usually supports men, often quite strongly. And sometimes she botches it. Her Cato publication with the attorney Michael Weiss entitled Feminist Jurisprudence is very worthwhile. Its free at www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-256es.html. This should be a good start.
There are four websites that have tons of good stuff: MenWeb (www.vix.com/menmag), MenStuff (www.menstuff.org), The Mens Center (www.themenscenter.org), National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM, www.ncfm.org). I read www.mensnewsdaily.com every day. It has commentary from a wide range of perspectives and many links. I also like the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC, www.acfc.org) which deals with the divorce industry's war against men and their children.
I am quite involved with several NY organizations so do write me directly.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello again, Jen,
I may have missed it, or read it and forgotten, but I don't remember you asking for recommended reading. In case you did, though, here's my response.
You're getting a lot of recommendations, and that can be overwhelming. If I were to recommend two books, they would be Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power" and Christina Hoff Sommers' "Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women."
In general Farrell's book might appeal more to men and Sommers' book to women, so if you're only going to read one, at least to start, I'd recommend "Who Stole Feminism."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we were interviewed at a Cub Scout Pinewood Derby today. I told the newsreporter that it is really good to have someplace boys are allowed to be boys.
I also have the number of a local rape and domestic violence group, and am putting together a package that hopefully will help educate people to the other side of DV.
Thank you, Jen. This is fantastic. Do you need any citations so you can track down some of the facts?
Again, thank you. Every considered effort helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also have the number of a local rape and domestic violence group, and am putting together a package that hopefully will help educate people to the other side of DV.
Jen,
You've taken some heat here, but I suspect you will be hit with far more, when you go to a DV group and try to open their minds to the other 50% of the story. Brace yourself.
And, please, keep us posted on your experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There you go and I'm with Larry.
Hate women? No. As a whole mistrust them? Absolutely. Unaccountable power is absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I refuse to be dependant on a woman for approval. I do what I wish, when I wish, and do not account for the reasons. I neither ask for any more prior approval from a woman than I would for a man; and when my choices are criticized, I give the same response I would a man: Yonder in that basket lies my bills. I get 11 a month. You get to draw at random and pay them, and you get that many votes how I do things. Until them, you're opinions are neither solicited nor welcome.
Men understand this instinctively about other men.
I also refuse to cut any more slack to a woman than I would a man; which is namely, your personal problems don't mean diiddley, so be at work, be on time, stop whining, and be professional - or else I will find someone who will.
I'll give you food for thought here, Jen - Feminism wants equality, right? That is what they profess, what lip service is offered up, correct? So how come extending that equality, treating a woman as one would a man, is seen as being "hostile to women?"
You think about it for a while, and come to what conclusions you will. And then ask yourself this - what if men treated women the way women treat men?
Seriously. Log off, roll that about, and come back before any response.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as chivalry, I was looking at your modern definition. Sorry I was not specific. Historically, I do not think chivalry had much to do with women in specific. It was a code of conduct among men all around, wasn't it?
The old code of chivalry was a set of laws, governments, groups, and ideals that cannot be considered apart from the culture. It was a set of beliefs and attitudes about how knights should behave.
The code included swearing Christian (only) allegiance to god, special duties to protect the weak (a.k.a. women and children), police like duties, included special references on how to treat women is special privileged ways, codes of honor, and more.
It is quite well documented that during the historical period when chivalry was popular that there were orders of chivalry, which were governed by the pope. Women had no property, they had no rights to manage government, they could not vote, they could not attend the theater without the husband’s permission, and etc.
Today chivalry has evolved into an environment of special privilege for women. This is in part because during the period of Old English Law, when codes of chivalry were widely practiced, there were special provisions that prevented women from being punished for their criminal actions when they were married. It was thought that the control of the male over the woman was so complete that the male should be criminally punished for the wife's criminal activities. Unfortunately, as women gained their equal rights they chose to refuse equal responsibility for their criminal activities.
In modern society we see the code of chivalry manifesting itself in the form of special female privileges. Often, this privilege results in the severe oppression of males and their families. Here is a sample list of how modern codes of chivalry result in the oppression of males:
1) Paternity fraud. Mothers are able to intentionally withhold important information from their intimate partner(s) that would help them to determine the need for a DNA test due to chivalry. Under the code of chivalry, it is thought that a woman would be shamed by being legally required to disclose all of her sexual partners. Men should not be victimizing women by demanding full disclosure in paternity related matters. So women are free to lie and perform father shopping.
By doing so, mothers can seize large amounts of funds from innocent males. In California, NCFM, La has a documented case of a child with two fathers being ordered to pay child support. One has been legally defrauded and the other is thought to be the bio-dad. In addition, Lisa Bonder switched the test results of a paternity test so that billionaire Kerkorian would be tricked into assuming fatherhood. As a result of that legal form of paternity fraud, Bonder is being rewarded with becoming a millionaire. Women are able to do this because of chivalry and chivalrous traditions.
2) Women rarely if ever do equal jail time as males when committing the same crime. Women are privileged because due to chivalry, it is though that it is too horrible for a mother to do jail time. No thought is given to terminating her parental rights and automatically granting sole custody to the father. Instead the children are placed with the mother’s relatives and the father must spend a fortune to obtain custody if at all.
3) Women have visitation rights with their children while in prison while males are forbidden from having any physical human contact with a family member. Codes of Chivalry demand that the weaker sex (them mother) be permitted loving contact with children. It would be too cruel to the children and violate codes of chivalry to deny the children access to their mother. But it’s considered chivalrous to cut off the children’s contact with their father, and it’s okay to further turn the father into a sociopath by denying them all contact with their family on the outside world.
4) Women are free to make false allegations of DV and rape with impunity. Chivalry permits women to make any false claim without any proof. The police, because of chivalry, will arrest the male even when it is obvious that the male was severely attacked by the female and did nothing wrong. Women are rarely if ever prosecuted for the destruction of those that they victimize via false allegations because of chivalry.
5) Women are free to create a hostile environment at work. For example, if a woman bites a male at work it is considered amusing and funny. While if a male, because of chivalry, were to bite a woman they would be sent to jail, fired, and their life would be destroyed.
Women attacking men = funny.
Men attacking women = criminal prosecution.
6) Women can enter the men's room without fear of a consequence. It is to be viewed as funny under the current code of chivalry. If a male enters the woman's room then because of chivalry they will be arrested, prosecuted, and listed as a sex offenders for the rest of their lives. Chivalry destroys men and elevates women to special priviledge.
7) Women get special privilege at nightclubs in the form of free or reduced admissions, free drinks, special differential treatment by men, and more. By contrast men do not get free admission, ladies rarely grant males special preferential treatment, and females will shame a man for failing to grant special treatment.
8) Women often get free entry into match making services, while males are required to fund then entire business. By contrast, there are no dating services that are funded only by women while males get a free ride.
The list of special privileges that women experience as a consequence of chivalry is almost endless.
Therefore, NCFM-LA is putting that practice to an end by suing all businesses that discriminate against men and grant women special privilege by way of chivalry. I've already cited the legal codes in CA laws that permit us to do this very thing and win. Chivalry is going DOWN! BIG!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOGWASH! When these people start carrying my chains instead of adding to the weight of them then I'll back off, and not until then. Their acquiescence to half-truths is a denial of the real depth of abuse, and bigotry that men bear, and is a major part of the problem.
I must agree. Jen has not been abused on this forum. By contrast she is getting rational explanations on why chivalry results in the oppression of males and creates special privilege for women.
When she is told the bare truth, she whines as though she is being victimized. Jen can get over their bigotry and learn to accept and respect our views, or she can go brainwash more Boy Scouts.
Dang! I shutter at the thought of Jen teaching those innocent children to be chivalrous. They are being set-up from the get go and victimized at the hands of Jen and they don't even know it.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If women want to come along, that's great, too. But we don't need their permission or approval.
Exactly. Women have a choice. They can accept our pain and they can accept our conclusions, or they can go and brainwash more Boy Scouts to become victims at the hands of feminist. It's their choice.
Me. I'm going to fight against people like Jen that brainwash little children into being chivalrous and haters of men. Men must put and end to chivalry once and for all. As we put an end to the bigotry caused by chivalry, women can accept equal responsibility, or they can go cry in a corner and claim victimization.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll be Mr. History Major. Chivalry was a code which determined noble behavior. This permeated all sections of life. The key was, once you stepped outside the code, and showed that you were "base." you could no longer claim the protections of it.
Chivalry was a covenant, and two way street. Between men and women, it described how the two sexes would interact, and put limits. Once you were "no gentleman" no woman would have you except for a pox-ridden trollop. Which also meant no heirs, etc. If you were a woman and were "no lady," well, it's either the convent or the nunnery for you.
Hence you will hear me sneer at what I call "one-sided chivalry" that puts obligations solely on the male, and demands he stick to it even if he is abused, cheated on, made a victim of fraud, stolen from, lied to - you get the point.
So far as I am concerned, the whole contract of chivalry is null and void - at the express wishes of the majority of women voting. No, it's not "most women" but those who have bother to weigh in and show up at the polls have pitched it. My suggestion to the quiet majority of women who want it back, if that is indeed the case, is to pick up your end of the deal, decide whether or not you like it, and if so, recommit yourself.
Prime example of one-sided chivalry: Promise Keepers. Nice ideals. What a bunch of suckers.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray:"I apologized to you for misspelling your name after you pointed that out to me, but in going back over my post I cannot find anywhere where I committed such an error. "
IT was warble who mispelled her name. Im sure it was more of a typo as he spelled her name correctly several other times.
Lets not let the little stuff bother us.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its my opinion that Chivalry is an Olivebranch. It seems to be very Arthorian.
There was a time period when that was very strong. At a time when it was most necessary.
King Arther is rooted in Christianity, which in my belief has done more for woman (and humanity as a whole) than any other know force in history.
But obviously certain peoples are trying to destroy Christianity and all that comes with it.
The fundamental process of Socialism is to transfer wealth. To transfer wealth from a 'target' group to the 'supporting' group.
The Nazis needed money and money fast. And this may explain why in this day and age so many Jews are involved in the media. As the Nazis started gaining power they continued their hates speech directed at the Jews. The Nazis too claimed that they were 'oppressed', and discriminated against. That the reason for their poverty was the jews. Instead of creating a market where all could prosper they slowly criminalized jewish customs. Overdramatized jewish behavior, and demonized them in political cartoons.
Eventually it came to the point where spitting on a jew was no less a crime than spitting in a pond. They taxed the jews , criminalized them, demonized them and made everything about jews a blot on their society.
Chivalry is exactly perfect for modern socialists today. Feminists can covince women that they are oppressed and that it is men responsible, that actions like chivalry is a corruption. They attack the culture and our unique differences in a process to transfer wealth to their supporting group.
The target group, men, are easy prey for this formula. Enacting the very things our mothers taught was proper mannerisms it is almost hardwired to our makeup.
The issue isn't wether or not woman like these displays of curtosy, its a matter of how can they find a way to criminalize or profit from it.
Not equating men to dogs of course. But teach a dog to pee in the yard they with shifting politics come in and fine that dog for peeing in the yard. Peeing in the yard is a perfectly good place for the dog to do it its natural business, but finding a way to "fine" the dog for doing his natural business is very profitable.
The reverse is that the supportive group is the cat. Now the cat pees in a litter box so it can't be a crime right. The cat could even argue that since it has to pee in the litter box it is oppressed. Something rediculous like that.
As a new government shifts to transfer wealth one could criminalize kitty litter and play the same trick on the cat.
The criminalization of chivalry is an indirect path inwhich to criminalize men for the sole purpose of transfering wealth to the supporting group. Musolini,Hitler,Lenin,Stalin,--well the list goes on. But collectively how many millions of people died at the hands of socialism, do you think?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 26, @02:18PM EST (#117)
|
|
|
|
|
Dan wrote:
"Chivalry is exactly perfect for modern socialists today. Feminists can convince women that they are oppressed and that it is men responsible, that actions like chivalry are a corruption. They attack the culture and our unique differences in a process to transfer wealth to their supporting group."
and
"The criminalization of chivalry is an indirect path in which to criminalize men..."
My reply:
Dan, those are excellent insights and comparisons.
As the Nazi's twisted the cross of Christianity to exploit and use it to serve their purposes so too do the radical feminists twist and exploit chivalry to serve their purposes. You are perceptive to make this valid, parallel analogy, across the span of decades. Chivalry, that was once an olive branch in the eternal "war between the sexes," has now been deviously twisted and proclaimed as a weapon of oppression and violent exploitation, used by men against women. After all any attempt today by men to be loving to females is ultimately believed (by these radical feminists) to be triggered by the motivation to rape them. Now chivalry has become in their minds just a tool that men use to initiate that violent behavior. Can anyone deny that a goal of radical feminism is to turn (demonize) loving intimate relationships between men and women into an act of rape and oppression. I haved heard someone state that some Women Studies courses teach in their classes that heterosexuality is the #1 reason responsible for the oppression of women, but can't quote that as absolute fact without further corroboration.
These two "movements" are directly connected through their use of a common methodology. We face no less an evil to justice and freedom today, than we faced when the Nazis where in power in their day.
With a little more criminalization of the behaviors men have been conditioned into from childhood we could all soon wind up in jail or radical feminist re-education camps (schools). In fact I think in large part, and not so subtle ways, we are already there.
Does any man really think that they (the radical feminists and their ilk) aren't even NOW (as we speak) going over our behaviors and analyzing what next to target for demonization?
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As the Nazi's twisted the cross of Christianity to exploit and use it to serve their purposes
Hello Ray,
I'm not sure if you're referring to the swastika, a symbol that apparently predates the Christian era by a long time. It seems it was associated with many pre-historic (often called "Heliolithic) cultures and may have been a good luck symbol. Hitler took it for the Nazis.
This is from H.G. Wells' "The Beginnings of Cultivation" in his "A Short History of the World."
"Twelve or fifteen thousand years ago, in all the warm and fairly well-watered parts of the Old World these Neolithic human communities, with their class and tradition of priests and priestesses and their cultivated fields and their development of villages and little walled cities, were spreading. Age by age a drift and exchange of ideas went on between these communities. Eliot Smith and Rivers have used the term “Heliolithic culture” for the culture of these first agricultural peoples. 'Heliolithic' (Sun and Stone) is not perhaps the best possible word to use for this, but until scientific men give us a better one we shall have to use it. Originating somewhere in the Mediterranean and western Asiatic area, it spread age by age eastward and from island to island across the Pacific until it may even have reached America and mingled with the more primitive ways of living of the Mongoloid immigrants coming down from the North.
"Wherever the brownish people with the Heliolithic culture went they took with them all or most of a certain group of curious ideas and practices. Some of them are such queer ideas that they call for the explanation of the mental expert. They made pyramids and great mounds, and set up great circles of big stones, perhaps to facilitate the astronomical observation of the priests; they made mummies of some or all of their dead; they tattooed and circumcized; they had the old custom, known as the couvade, of sending the father to bed and rest when a child was born, and they had as a luck symbol the well-known Swastika."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 26, @04:13PM EST (#119)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas:
Yes, you are right I should have been more clear about that. I even have a book from the Men at Arms series that shows, on the cover, a warrior from approxiamtely the Greek empire time (B.C.) with his shield. On his shield is the Swastika. There is also a series out on DVD and I believe the name is, "The Occult History of the 3rd Reich." It gives some of the ancient origins of the Swastika and mentions that some Americans even painted this symbol on their airplanes in WWI for good luck.
I was trying to make a comparison of how Christianity became twisted under the Nazi's and was probably recalling a video I have about the life of Lutheran Pastor, Deitrich Bonhoffer titled, "Hanged on a Twisted Cross." I believe this video is still available from Vision Video.
Although this comparison relating a twisted cross to the cross of Christ and Christianity is not historically true to the origin of the swastika it has been used in imagery to metaphorically describe what Nazism did to Christianity in Germany at this time. Thanks for your input and clarification. Ironically, you have added powerfully to how good, or inocuous things can be hijacked and become associated with great evil, i.e. the swastika.
Chivalry has quite a way to go to have the negative conotation that is associated with the swastika, but with the help of radical feminism it's headed in the same direction.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 26, @04:18PM EST (#120)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, we shouldn't be swating at mosquitos, when were up to our arses in alligators.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So far as I am concerned, the whole contract of chivalry is null and void - at the express wishes of the majority of women voting.
Exactly. Only ignorant retards want to keep the covenant of chivalry going. Women violated the contract and now they want to keep it going without keeping their side of the bargan. NOT!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 26, @09:03PM EST (#122)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, you wrote:
"Exactly. Only ignorant retards want to keep the covenant of chivalry going. Women violated the contract and now they want to keep it going without keeping their side of the bargain. NOT!"
My reply:
As men become more and more alienated women will be increasingly faced with the CHOICE between normal loving heterosexual contact between men and women, and the agenda of the radical feminists, that demonizes such normal behavior by asserting that all such contact is either rape or leads to rape.
A few more of those, "This is not an invitation to rape me," posters showing a man and a woman lovingly kissing will really help men to understand how feminists view this kind of contact. In fact we should all get one of those posters and post it. Let's speed this process up. I'm getting really tired of waffling females, who don't make a clear CHOICE, who straddle the fence taking the best from both sides of the issue, while men pay either way. There are also the idiot men who refuse to listen, and see what kind of danger we are all really in at the hands of these radical feminists.
Every ethical hunter knows that it is illegal to hunt during mating season, because of the need to maintain the population and the vulnerability of females and especially males during that time. It is clear that the radical feminists have directly targeted Homo Sapiens (specifically their mating behavior) for extinction with their bizarre and unnatural policies.
The agenda is clear, men are the primary targets and if they do not do all in their power to immediately survive they will never even be available to mate. Right now, the heterosexual male is more wary and gun shy than a shell shocked bird dog. He is in everyone's sights, but especially the radical feminists.
More of the RESPONSIBILITY for the protection of men and the species is falling squarely on the shoulders of all females, because men have "had it with all the crap of radical feminism." They are tired of honestly speaking up against these radical feminist abuses only to be labeled as batterers for being assertive against these radical women. They are tired of entering into relationships in good faith only to be exploited and abused by the bigoted, man hating, lies and deceptions put forth by women and law.
If women do not want men to believe that this perverted group of harpies represents them, then they had better speak up so loud and clear that the policy makers and law makers hear them, otherwise they can go screw themselves, no literally, because there won't be a man left willing to expose himself to the risk of doing that.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray wrote:
As men become more and more alienated women will be increasingly faced with the CHOICE between normal loving heterosexual contact between men and women, and the agenda of the radical feminists, that demonizes such normal behavior by asserting that all such contact is either rape or leads to rape.
Yes indeed. I suspect that the bigotry of feminism has created a generation or two of boys who will fear and/or hate women. I have young daughters, also nephews and nieces. Worried about what they will face.
Ray said:
A few more of those, "This is not an invitation to rape me," posters showing a man and a woman lovingly kissing will really help men to understand how feminists view this kind of contact. In fact we should all get one of those posters and post it.
Do you know where these can be obtained?
Ray said:
If women do not want men to believe that this perverted group of harpies represents them, then they had better speak up so loud and clear that the policy makers and law makers hear them, otherwise they can go screw themselves, no literally, because there won't be a man left willing to expose himself to the risk of doing that.
I have never understood how so many women (and men for that matter) can be so blind regarding what is being done to the men and boys they supposedly care about. I have had experienced may instances of this personally. I gave a friend a copy of Columbia's ludicrous sexual harassment policy to a friend when her son was admitted. She basically said I was ridiculous to be concerned. My sisters and cousins have young sons. When I have mentioned these issues to them, one seemed to be concerned, but the others seem to think I was making a big deal out of nothing. I think it is evidence of how thoroughly brainwashed they have been.
That said, there are also a number of women who have gotten at least part of the message. For example, I have heard that roughly one half of the people in the fathers rights groups are women. Don't know if thats true, but there sure seem to be a lot of them. Sommers and McElroy have figured it out.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @01:49AM EST (#125)
|
|
|
|
|
"This is not an invitation to rape me," posters showing a man and a woman lovingly kissing...
"Do you know where these can be obtained?"
Will:
Not for certain, I've seen them around. You might try the "Family Violence Prevention Fund" web site. I think I've seen them there. They are a large organization that is completely biased against men in the area of domestic violence.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good Post Will, Jen is my wife and it's basically my fault for dragging her into this... but I must admit she has kept an open mind and given me 100% support. While she supports this cause she is still a woman, so when men share their (justifiable) anger on this board toward the gender that has caused them so much pain... it by necessity includes her. We both know that for true change to occur we NEED men who take (radical) positions in opposition of radical feminism, but that's doesn't make it easy to take. She's a person who is used to being judged on what she says and does, not what gender she is. Of course no one here knows her (except me of course :)), so for them she's just as likely to be a feminist trying to subtly undermine their positions. I can understand both sides of the issue and I've encouraged Jen to stay involved and keep a thick skin when dealing with the board, because she's exactly the kind of woman that we'll need on our side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I shudder to think of what the world will become if the basic ideas communicated by Jen (my wife) fall by the wayside.
"Loyal, courtious, protective and gentle, and honerable to all including enemies, courage, honor and fidelity"
I try to live by these concepts, and no one is going to tell me they're wrong. These are things I equate with being a decent human being.
I don't assault others for having a different point of view although I'll debate the topic ad infinitum. I don't stereotype, personally attack, and accuse in order to marginalize the positions of my adversaries. I'm angry yes, but I won't blindly strike out at anyone I can tranfer that anger to. I want equality for both sexes, but I don't believe that means living in a world where basic human decency is the cost.
I choose to try to live by example instead of reducing to the least common denominator. I WILL NOT stoop to the methods of the radical feminists... to do so is simply too far beneath me. Lucky for me the person I learned how to be a man from was a great and gentle one, a person who did what needed to be done for his family but bowed his head to noone. Now as I reach middle age I find I'm starting to remember some of those lessons, after many years of thinking I had all the answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I shudder to think of what the world will become if the basic ideas communicated by Jen (my wife) fall by the wayside.
I'll take your word and the words of Jen as evidence that she is a loving and supportive wife to whom the idea of casting you aside for her personal aggrandizement would be anathema.
That said, shudder rather at what your life would be like were she not.
"Loyal, courtious, protective and gentle, and honerable to all including enemies, courage, honor and fidelity"
A common definition of chivalry. And if your "enemies" don't share those values, you become a chivalrous victim. Right. Dead right, but right.
I try to live by these concepts, and no one is going to tell me they're wrong. These are things I equate with being a decent human being.
They are a battle plan for dealing with life. And like most battle plans they rarely survive contact with the enemy.
I don't assault others for having a different point of view although I'll debate the topic ad infinitum. I don't stereotype, personally attack, and accuse in order to marginalize the positions of my adversaries. I'm angry yes, but I won't blindly strike out at anyone I can tranfer that anger to. I want equality for both sexes, but I don't believe that means living in a world where basic human decency is the cost.
Basic human decency is gone. Those chips have already been cashed in, the train has been robbed, etc. Question is, how bad do you want them back? Are you willing to fight, whatever it takes, even if it means getting your hands dirty. Or do you want to join the loads of other men in their collars besides their sons telling them how "They fought the good fight, cheer up, not whether you win or lose but how you play the game" and all that other rot and nonsense? Maybe if you write it down enough, the scraps of paper will be good for keeping the collars from chafing. But you'll still be a slave. Maybe a house slave, but a slave.
I choose to try to live by example instead of reducing to the least common denominator. I WILL NOT stoop to the methods of the radical feminists... to do so is simply too far beneath me.
What methods would that be? Oh, yeah. The effective ones....
Lucky for me the person I learned how to be a man from was a great and gentle one, a person who did what needed to be done for his family but bowed his head to noone.
Hm.
Along with accepting the things that cannot be changed, and changing the things that can, remember to also ask for the wisdon to know the difference.
It's one thing to accept an evil for yourself rather than to do what is necessary to change it. Remember also that you accept that previously mentioned slave collar as a birthright for your sons.
Now as I reach middle age I find I'm starting to remember some of those lessons, after many years of thinking I had all the answers.
I used to believe in a lot of that too, until I realized that honor is wasted on the honorless.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I shudder to think of what the world will become if the basic ideas communicated by Jen (my wife) fall by the wayside.
"Loyal, courtious, protective and gentle, and honerable to all including enemies, courage, honor and fidelity"
I try to live by these concepts, and no one is going to tell me they're wrong. These are things I equate with being a decent human being.
I shudder to think of the horrors that men will continue to suffer if chivalry continues. Men will be discriminated at businesses with differential treatment much like blacks were during the Jim Crow laws, men will see increasing incidences of paternity fraud, women will increasingly oppress men using false allegations, and etc.
Nobody has attacked Jen for the values of being loyal, courteous, protective, gentile, honorable, courage, and fidelity. However, the practice of chivalry has been under attack on this forum. If Jen cannot distinguish between the two then she has a problem.
Further, I shudder to think of how her Boy Scout Troop will be damaged if they continue to be taught chivalry by Jen. This needs to stop! Jen needs to stop encouraging little boys to treat little girls with differential treatment that leads to male hate and discrimination.
For example, if a little girl hits a little boy I’ll bet Jen tells the little boy to tough it out and be a man. If so then this is but one example of how Jen hates little boys. The proper response is to train the little boy to do the same thing that a girl would do, and that is to dial 911 and make a police report against the little girl!
But no! Jen teaches chivalry to the little boys. In doing so, Jen teaches the little girl lessons in how to oppress the little boy. Jen tells him to take the abuse like a man, and encourages the little boy to later become a victim if he suffers battered male syndrome. By contrast the code of chivalry grants the little girl special privilege, she is seen as cute because she is a little girl attacking a boy, she is seen as the weaker sex and incapable of inflicting significant damage, and she is told that girls can hit boys while boys must take the abuse.
Clearly, the world would be a less violent place without the Jen's of the world teaching a code of chivalry that permittes little girls assulting little boys!
Until Jen stops teaching these little boys the code of chivalry she is an enemy of the men’s movement. The same goes for you if you teach this code to little boys.
I'm not going to explain again why modern chivalry is so bigoted and hateful towards men. Nor will I explain why you cannot intelligently talk about modern chivalry without understanding the historical context of chivalry. Many of us have listed ways in which chivalry leads to male oppression in this country.
The fact remains that there are many male activists in California that are suing businesses that practice chivalry. We are taking those businesses down big time! We have proven that chivalry is the basis for differential treatment of the genders and that it is illegal.
The fact is that in California men are legally entitled to equal treatment with women. Chivalry is a bigoted code that goes one way. We do not hear of women practicing chivalry and giving men special differential treatment. SO GET A CLUE BUKO! Stop your obvious hatred of men, dump the male-hating code of chivalry, and start learning to fight for justice in men’s issues!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"
For example, if a little girl hits a little boy I’ll bet Jen tells the little boy to tough it out and be a man. If so then this is but one example of how Jen hates little boys. The proper response is to train the little boy to do the same thing that a girl would do, and that is to dial 911 and make a police report against the little girl! "
Incorrect, Jen and I HAVE two little boys, and the correct response to agression is to come to US, little boys are not equipped to deal with these issues nor should they be. Little boys should be little boys and not worry about political issues. WE would deal with it by addressing the girls parents, and it would escalate from there if required.
You are attacking Jen for defending the ideal of Chivalry, which is encapsulated in the values above... it is also a two way street and does NOT mean taking abuse from someone else, it simply means holding onesself to a higher moral standard.
"But no! Jen teaches chivalry to the little boys. In doing so, Jen teaches the little girl lessons in how to oppress the little boy. Jen tells him to take the abuse like a man, and encourages the little boy to later become a victim if he suffers battered male syndrome. By contrast the code of chivalry grants the little girl special privilege, she is seen as cute because she is a little girl attacking a boy, she is seen as the weaker sex and incapable of inflicting significant damage, and she is told that girls can hit boys while boys must take the abuse. "
But NO, you're anger is now spewing out of my wifes mouth, an impressive trick. Jen and I teach boys AND girls to treat others with the respect you yourself would like to be treated with, and that having the self respect to reject getting pulled down to thier level is something you do for YOURSELF, becuse it makes you a better and much happier person.
"Clearly, the world would be a less violent place without the Jen's of the world teaching a code of chivalry that permittes little girls assulting little boys!
Until Jen stops teaching these little boys the code of chivalry she is an enemy of the men’s movement. The same goes for you if you teach this code to little boys."
Interesting how fond you are of assigning actions to others so you can then denigrate them based on these assigned actions. Feminists are very fond of Straw Men themselves. Much more convenient to deal with than actually addressing the issues at debate. Jen and I have both clearly stated that the twisted version of Chivalry that you're attacking is not in any way related to the ideals that we support that were associated with classical Chivalry.
"I'm not going to explain again why modern chivalry is so bigoted and hateful towards men."
Please don't since it has absolutely nothing to do with anything either Jen or I have posted (except for the many words you've put into our mouths). The ideals encapsulated in classical chivalry would not enable differential treatment of ANYONE. It WOULD dictate that as a person you treat ALL others with the dignity and respect that they deserve... it doesn't mean be a punching bag for feminists, it doesn't mean allow others to walk all over you, and it does not go one way.
If it were followed by all it would mean a less violent world for everyone. Perhaps instead of fighting against a noble ideal you should be fighting to get women to start applying it to themselves instead of just expecting it from others. If the feminists have perverted the notion of something that was good, then instead of buying into their perversion... fight against it. Next you'll be fighting against the superbowl because the feminists have perverted that into a day of violence against women. Then we can go after Valentines day because feminists have perverted that into something to do with a vagina.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Folks,
As we are both in NY perhaps we can meet or work together on some things. Can you email me at willj1776@yahoo.com.
Will Johnson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ideals encapsulated in classical chivalry would not enable differential treatment of ANYONE. It WOULD dictate that as a person you treat ALL others with the dignity and respect that they deserve... it doesn't mean be a punching bag for feminists, it doesn't mean allow others to walk all over you, and it does not go one way.
Dave,
Now we find that you as a defender of chivalry, which is well know to be a one-sided code of behavior governing the conduct of males in relation females, are resorting to telling lies about how chivalry is shared equally among the genders. NOT! What a bold faced lie!
Male-haters such as yourself always resort to telling this lie when you are backed into a corner. You have been caught in your own lies and hate for all the world to see.
Ray, Gonzo, and I have given endless examples of how chivalry discriminates against males. We have listed the legal code from the California Unrah Act to demonstrate the laws under which we can sue businesses for practicing chivalry. This isn't some radical form of feminism that we are practicing to stop the hate.
We have demonstrated how chivalry also oppresses little boys. Others have drawn parallels to historical settings to demonstrate the bigoted roots of chivalry. Now you refer to "classical chivalry" in defence of this bigoted code of hate?
Further you, in your blind defense of chivalry seek to equivocate on the meaning of chivalry by blindly pretending that it does not lead to the oppression of males and the special differential treatment of females. That is typical of male haters.
We often find that chivalrous males will deny their own bigotry while defending the practice of male hate. This behavior is also typical of racists. In the case of women, they will deny their bigotry against males because they want to continue reaping the special treatment and benefits derived from chivalry. The elimination of chivalry means that females must exercise equal responsibility.
Nobody with any modicum of intellectual honesty would define chivalry as a code of behavior that is practiced equally among the genders. That is a lie that you must tell to defend your hate. Only a male bigot would make that claim as you have.
Finally, everybody knows that little boys (like Boy Scouts) who are taught chivalry are taught that little girls can hit a boy and that the boy, under the code of chivalry, cannot defend himself against the attack. That is common knowledge.
By contrast, under the code of chivalry, if a little boy hits a little girl then the girl has the right of self-defense and can hit the little boy and do whatever harm she desires with impunity.
Stop lying about this Dave. It only makes you look more like a bigot. The same is true of Jen.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, if a little girl hits a little boy I’ll bet Jen tells the little boy to tough it out and be a man. If so then this is but one example of how Jen hates little boys. The proper response is to train the little boy to do the same thing that a girl would do, and that is to dial 911 and make a police report against the little girl! "
Incorrect, Jen and I HAVE two little boys, and the correct response to agression is to come to US, little boys are not equipped to deal with these issues nor should they be. Little boys should be little boys and not worry about political issues. WE would deal with it by addressing the girls parents, and it would escalate from there if required.
Dave,
Your not real bright are you. The rules for dealing with violence have changed. What you are doing is placing your boys at a major disadvantage. You are teaching them not to stick up for their rights as a male. They should have every equal right to report violence as a female (little girl). Instead you are teaching them to just take it and Mommy and Daddy will handle it. Tell me. Just exactly what are the consequences when a girl hits a boy? None!
For example, at every school in California there is a code of conduct posted that instructs little girls on how to sue and report little boys to the police for violence, creation of a hostile environment, and sexual harassment. Guess what. The teachers train the children on what that code means. Similar codes of conduct are posted in all schools all over America. If you were involved in your children’s lives you’d know that. Here’s a clue. Those codes of conduct are not teaching chivalry bucko!
Now by your method if a little girl is violent towards the boy then you go to the parents, report the little misdeed, and in the end the little girl gets off for her violent behavior with a statement of it's not nice to hit boys. But of course it is understood that the boys cannot use self-defense when a girl attacks because of chivalry.
By contrast, when a girl is the victim of violence, sexual harassment, or a hostile environment then she calls the police (911) and reports the boy for the violence. If it’s sexual harassment then she reports it to a councilor or some authority figure. If she is a victim of harassment or a hostile environment then there is an attorney involved and a suit for damages. Nobody is calling the parents of the little boys and informing them of the pending suit.
The bottom line is that you screw your chivalrous little boys while the girls are rewarded for her behavior because nothing of significance comes of her actions. If you believed that your boys had equal rights then you would take the same actions as the little girls would.
Dave and Jen need to pull their heads out of their a____ and get a clue. Chivalry is dead. You need to focus more on real equal treatment and stop defending a code that victimizes your little boys.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, if your marriage works for you, great. We should all be so lucky.
Point is, Dave, you are LUCKY.
See, you have rolled the dice. Now, hey presto, a seven! Whoopdeedo. Funky butt-dance of joy. But it isn't that cut and dry. If you want to roll those dice, pick 'em up. More power to you. Glad it worked, and hope it continues to work. Most of us have seen how often it comes up snake eyes, because the game is rigged.
Let us say - let us give a for instance - Jen gets a brain lesion, God Forbid, which causes her to have delusions that you are having an affair and trying to take your sons away from her. Two words: You're HOSED. For whatever reason, if Jen gets bitter, you will be out your house, half your money, your kids, any influence in their life, a third or more of your check, in many states if you remarry a new wife's income will be calculated against - and so on and so forth. in this example I'm extending the benefit of any doubt and attributing such behavior as aberrant, and with an organic cause.
CHIVALRY - the "personal code" you espose is modern chivalry - has a few core principles which are by and large harmful:
1) Don't whine. If something happens which is unfair or inequitable, to point it out, to complain is to be a whiner. However it is fine for women to complain, because you, Mr Y Chromosome, are a beast. Be thankful they overlook much.
2) Suck it up. Stiff upper lip. For God's sake, make no moves to correct this, a stoic demeanor is demanded. Not merely quiet, but be proud you've been crapped on. Bear it up. Since you're male, you deserved it anyway, considering all the suffering women have put up with for centuries at your beastly hands
3) Play nice with the girls. The fact that you've been kicked in the nads, had your hair pulled, had blood drawn, been screamed at, belittled, called names and the like is of no import. Stop whining and suck it up. It's no excuse for responding in any fashion. Besides - you must have done something to deserve it.
4) Don't be a tattletale. Tell someone else so they can handle it, if you must, but that will make you a tattletale. Which is a whiner, but worse. Of course, their idea of handling it will be to tell you to stop being a whoiner and suck it up.
5) Let the girl win. You big brute you. You prove nothing by winning against them, except that you're a bully. Of course, when then win, it proves that they are as good as you - no, actually better, and they are allowed to crow and be poor sports - even if you did let them win. Of course, if they lose, sports and such are so patriarchal.
6) You're not going to let a girl beat you, are you? This is kind of disconnected, but the fact remains, if you do lose, it's because you're a wimp. Which gives to no room to do anything but suck it up, you whiner, even if the game was rigged.
These, Dave, are the mixed messages that boys recieve from day one - you can't win without being a bully, you can't lose without being a wimp, it's okay if everyone else cheats, besides they have to, but it's fair - and so on and so forth. The upshot is that you slap your Johnson out on the chopping block for a woman - if the cleaver falls, it sucks to be you, if it doesn't, you let her walk away with the prize.
And where I am most curious - when did it ever become, that standing up for yourself, that saying, "Stop. That's wrong. You can't treat me like this - and what I'm going to do about it is not let you" became a dirty thing?
My friend Pablo told me what Machismo is - it means taking care of yourself, of fighting your own battles, of not letting people walk on you. It doesn't mean fighting like a banty rooster - sometimes it means saying "Screw you" and getting the problem person out of your life. Forgive, but don't forget. It means standing up for what is right. It doesn't mean fighting the battles for those who won't fight for themselves, but for those who can't fight for themselves.
Now that ain't a bad thing. And if that makes me macho, and testosterone poisoned, sign me up.
Okay. Jen's Miss Wonderful. I'll take you at your word and be happy for you; but, the fact remains you live at Jen's sufferance. You continue to be Dad, and Husband, by her pleasure. You can call it an equal relationship, but she shares her power. You have none of your own (And power given isn't really yours). As a western male, you are fundamentally incapable of entering into an equitable relationship, because the law doesn't allow it. At at any time, Jen can take it away. No, it doesn't follow that she will, but she CAN.
So you have two sons? Cool. How will you GUARANTEE that the women they hook up with will be like Dear Old Mom? Oh, yeah, you can try to stack the deck and teach them to play the game - But Guarantee? Nope. Can't be done. And odds are, just by statistics, that one of them WILL be divorced, and the remaining odds aren't good on the other.
You want your sons to live by these rules, in this rigged game?
Dave, I taught my son to be a realist. I teach him how things can go down, and to protect himself. He refuses to have sex without a condom because he isn't ready to be a dad. He has flushed out one gold-digger by believing in a pre-nup, and he's just 17. He ain't afraid to tell a hose-beast pheminazi not to call him 'cause he doesn't have time for her dumb crap.
BUT - because I didn't fill his head with idealistic nonsense as gospel truth, like his dad had at his age. So he's not going to be disillusioned and bitter about having to learn the hard way, when someone could have warned him. Like his Dad is.
Think about it.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys,
If I might butt in here for just a minute. This conversation has degenerated and I think part of the reason is the misunderstanding of the term 'chivalry'.
I believe that Dave and Jen are using the word in its more modern sense of deferential consideration amongst BOTH sexes. Check out this link :http://www.askmen.com/dating/heidi/32_dating_girl .html
Yes, chivalry used to be about deferring to women as the arbiters of the moral order, and there are plenty of people who still think thats what it means. Such a practice is not just archaic, but downright dangerous to men. In a perfect world, Warble, I wouldn't mind if some clubs discrimminated in favor of ladies -- it helps to attract them in the first place. But given the crap that men face today, in law, social/political environment, etc, I can't help but wish your lawsuits the best. At least you will drag out into the OPEN the price of equality, something our silly culture seems to have forgotten about.
As for you Gonzo, thank you for yet another great post. You bring up some excellent points about the power structure of marriage today. Its rather funny --before I came here, I was reading yet another review of yet another book on MSN.Com, concerning why the population of single women in their thirties (exploded from roughly one percent in the late fifties to 28 percent now)can't find mates. It's really laughable in a sad way that NO ONE thinks to ask 25 to 40 year old men THEIR reasons for not marrying and write that up in a book. At least no one that I'm aware of.
Anyway, I think both you and warble have forgotten that we are talking about children here-- they are probably not even adolescents -- and thus it IS more appropriate for them to go to mommy or daddy at this point and let them handle
it.
Anyway, I'm sure all involved mean well. Please don't let possible misunderstandings drive wedges between you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @07:58PM EST (#137)
|
|
|
|
|
My how quickly the radicals become that which they hate. Your personal attacks and rampant straw man tactics are so like stardard feminist modes of behavior that I feel sorry for you... and no doubt you can't even see it.
I have clearly communicated my definition of chivalry, you even choose to repeat it... yet you go back to some deviant definition defined by feminists and swallowed whole hog by you.
"treat all others with the dignity and respect that they deserve"
show me where that means male hate or female entitlement. I've repeatedly communicated that this is my interpretation of classic chivalry. I care not what feminists have made of it. If anyone is, you are the slave to feminists for following their distortions of reality and letting them shape your mind and behavior.
Your yells of "man hater" ring like the feminist yells of "abuser". Do you honestly want others to view you this way? Is this the face you want to put on this movement?
Don't give in to feminist tactics, hold to a higher standard and it will serve the Mens Movement MUCH more than the shallow attacks and transparent debate avoidance tactics I'm seeing above in your posts.
Frankly it appears that you're deliberately attempting to elicit an angry response, toward what end I can only imagine. In any event I hope you can resolve your blind anger, because posts like those above do nothing good for this movement.
I will not address your straw men point by point, it's a waste of my time, but I will say that unless you can respond to a statement of mine directly, to the point, and without attack or slander, I'm going to ignore your meanderings... I'm not doing you any good by getting you so worked up, and frankly it's boring me.
You do make one good point regarding how rapidly many people involve the police these days, but in doing so you buy fully into that trend too. It's a sad state of affairs that people can't discuss things adult to adult before resorting to the government. BUT, I again will not give in to the propensity this country has for involving the government in every aspect of our lives. If after I discussed the problem with the girls parents I didn't get the appropriate feedback I would take that next step, but not until.
I don't know if you have children but I would be surprised if you did, your notions of parenting are... different. One of my prime responsibilities as a parent is to protect my children from exactly the kind of think your discussing. THEY don't need to call the police, I do, if and when that becomes necessary. THEY don't need to know how to defend themselves in this feminist twisted world, I do. As they get older this will change, but for now they get to be happy and carefree children, and I would never have it any other way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @08:05PM EST (#138)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I miss a day and look what happens.
Warble-I really do not know who you are talking about. First of all I am not even a scout leader. I am a mom who went to see her son race his car.
As far as all the brainwashing this Jen is doing, it sounds very evil. I personally have done childcare for 8 years and taught preschool. I taught boys and girls that they are not allowed to inflict violence on ANYONE. Believe me, one Italian family I cared for had a little girl who was a biter, as in leave marks biter. She was put in time out for biting her brother exactly the same time her brother got for punching his sister(as in leave bruises punching). 5 minutes by timer and a note to Mom. 10 minutes second offence, and rest of day in quiet time for third. Same across the board. So this Jen you are talking about sounds pretty evil and not very fair. Glad she isn't watching my kids.
Warble, I said none of those things you accuse me of. I am concerned with the future of my kids, my boys. I thank doG every day I have boys instead of girls, because quite frankly I LIKE boys better. The are genuine, straighforward, and to me far more interesting, and they don't mind if I belch at the dinner table. I have no pink anywhere in my house, and I am glad. I like that we can make potato cannons and launch rockets and get dirty and that I never have to worry about another person with a hormonal cycle in our house.
As far as our marraige, if you knew me you would not be calling me Miss Wonderful. We really got quite a laught out of that! I can be hell on wheels. I am a normal woman, which means a good deal of the month my hormones are getting the better of me. So I forewarn, and try to control myself, and I apologize if I lose my temper and yell a bit. I am human and that is the best I can do. I expect the same from David, as he does from me, although he is much more even tempered by nature than I.
You have the power to knock your wife or girlfriend cold. But it would be insulting to you for me to tell you that you have this power. Why? Because to you it is not an option. You could, but you wouldn't. Well, sure I could walk out with my kids, hell, I have friends who would buy me a one way ticket to CA and give me a place to stay. But I wouldn't. It is no more an option to me than for you to knock out your wife or girlfriend. So while yes, there are many women out there who would do this, just as there are many man out there (not as many granted) who would hit their spouse, it does not mean I am one of them.
My first instinct was to be angry with you, Warble. You know nothing of me yet you make up all these slanderous accusations about myself, then drag my husband down as well. You accuse us of being man-haters, of abusing our sons, of things that I think you would NEVER say to me if you knew the least bit about me. I have said nothing to you to warrent this response. I disagreed with you about the definition of chivalry. That is all I did.
I feel really sorry that you have gone through whatever it is that makes you so angry and bitter. I am also glad I am stubborn enough not to let your bitterness turn me away from taking up the cause that will protect my husband and sons. I truly wish you luck, Warble, and I hope someday you come to peace with yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @08:12PM EST (#139)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, that was me in case it wasn't obvious...
DaveK67
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @08:24PM EST (#140)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Remo,
I realize that the term Chivalry has undergone many changes over the centuries... but the interpretation that my friends and I accept has been clearly communicated above I believe. It means treating others with respect, not taking advantage of power, and behaving with dignity (among other things). It doesn't mean you can't defend yourself from attack or attack back if need be, just that you try to live your life without resorting to such behavior at every turn.
I definitely agree with you that in the modern era these concepts must apply to women equally (as I stated earlier), women today have power and with power comes the need to use it wisely. However, I believe we should enforce these behaviors on all instead of attacking them. The ideals we're discussing are noble, and I refuse to let feminists distort them into something ugly. My notions of Chivalry and proper male behavior was formed by the many strong men in my life, and as such it's fairly impervious to distortion by any outside influence. I most certainly have never seen any of these men manipulated and enslaved by it, perhaps if I had my opinion would be different, but thankfully that's not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @08:25PM EST (#141)
|
|
|
|
|
Doggonit... my password is at work so I can't post as anythng but anonymous... this too was me.
DaveK67
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @08:36PM EST (#142)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, for the recommended readings. I will try the library, but I think I will probably have to buy them. Can I get them at Amazon or Barnes and Nobles?
We just finished Spreading Mysandry, the teaching of contempt..(I don't have the book right here and don't want to say it wrong)
I found it very interesting, sometimes he dug a bit too much I thought (my fav. movie was in there ;-(,) but it was a real eye opener for me and I now can't watch anything without seeing the politics. I really never thought about it before. I am very glad Dave bought the book, as I never would have read it if he hadn't brought it in the house.
I talk to my kids now about the movies we see, we recently had a very good discussion about Treasure Planet, and how they took all the strong male characters from Treasure Island and either made them female, made them idiots, or kept them out altogether. Also, why they showed the dad walking out when in the book he died. I don't want to them to think that those are their only options.
Has there been any work towards boycotting movies or shows which are overtly mysandrous? (I hate to admit I loved Cybil, but in hindsight it was a very mysandrous show. I don't think I could watch it now.)I would have liked to publicly
I am going to start with Sommers' I think, to get the other side from 'Mysandry', then go from there. I am taking a psych class, so I may be able to use this for a paper as well.
Thanks again, Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel really sorry that you have gone through whatever it is that makes you so angry and bitter.
Jen,
This is where that "emotive education" thing comes in.
Warble once wrote here:
Odd. Last night my wife was becoming progressively more violent by the minute. Everything I tried to deescalate her violent behavior failed. I walked away, talked calmly, and isolated myself and yet all of those actions would seem to cause her to become more violent.
However, when she saw me posting that last message, she got scared and stopped immediately. Damn. I cannot call the police because all that will happen is that she will lie and they will arrest me.
Nevertheless, if I post to this message board detailing the violence then she stops. Go figure. I discovered this quite by accident. I was just responding to another posters question.
Scott. Sorry, to use this group like that last night. However, your board is more powerful and effective then the local police. It was literally the only thing I could do to stop her from becoming more violent.
The Gonzo Kid, who has also weighed in passionately against chivalry, told us:
There is where the rage comes from - The one time I worked up the resolve to call the police, they came out, saw my bruises, saw the blood on my lip, saw the shattered glass in my hair and all over the kitchen - then saw my ex-wife's crocodile tears and I was the bad guy. Never even took a report. Asked her if she wanted to press charges, and made me leave for 48 hours.
Score one for chivalry. I know you mean something more modern and "equitable" but perhaps it would be better to come up with a different term. That word has been ruined beyond repair.
I am also glad I am stubborn enough not to let your bitterness turn me away from taking up the cause that will protect my husband and sons.
I'll repeat - when you see male anger, you're seeing the depth of male pain. His bitterness should be a spur to take up the cause that will protect your husband and sons.
I truly wish you luck, Warble, and I hope someday you come to peace with yourself.
We all do, Jen. That's why we're here.
P.S. - Warb, sorry to turn you into a poster child, but the shoe fit.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @08:58PM EST (#144)
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo,
When did I ever say that men are being treated fairly?
When did I say what feminism wants? I said what I thought the goal of Men's activism was.
When did I expect to give you any input as to how to run your life?
I see snide comments and sarcasm, from either gender, as being disrespectful and hostile. I saw the same on the feminist board towards men when I took a few minute to follow up on an article from here.
I see that to win this battle you need people to fight with you, and you get far more flies with honey than vineger.
I do not believe I have treated anyone on this board any differently than I expected to be treated. I only asked on one topic not to be slammed; not because I am a woman but because it was a VERY painful subject which I rarely am willing to even discuss. Just as if you were dealing with custody issues, you would not want someone being flippant toewards your situation. I have not slammed anyone, and after this last rash of posts I certainly had cause to. But I do not believe in treating people with disrespect. You know, that whole code of honor thing.
So, seeing as I do not feel any of your comment is particularly fitting what I actually said, what am I supposed to think about? It sounds like we already agree with each other.
Respectfully yours, Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are certain words which are - well, evil words.
Chivalry has become one of them. "Feminism" (I try never to use that except in quotes. I prefer `pheminism - or - PHony fEMINISM') is another.
You know why "Chivalry" is so hot button? It's been a club used against men a whole lot. Well, pardon my french, but FUCK reclaiming the word. It's a dirty word. It's been killed, murdered, and turned into some hideous undead monster. Nope, pound a stake in it's heart and throw it back in the ground.
In modern usage, the common usage, it is one sided. Therefore, it's pointless to use. You say say it, you can say what you intend it to mean, but it will be heard for whatever others want it to mean. At best - ambiguous; even then unworthy of use. Why use a word when its meaning is unclear and varies?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @09:10PM EST (#146)
|
|
|
|
|
Will, thank you. You are right, life has been extremely harsh on men and it is time to change things, and yes, I agree that there needs to be extremists to get the ball rolling.
I guess I am an idealist. I tend to think everyone follows the same code of conduct I do until they prove me wrong. I thought that a gentle(to me) reminder that not all women are feminists would serve to open things up a bit. I really believed that both men and women working together in a solid, upfront movement would be preferable to all. I was naive and now know better than to try to change people's minds. I still believe slow and steady wins the race (full of cliches today.) So I guess we need the extremists to start the ball rolling, then the turtles to carry it through.
I appreciate the encouragement, as I said I am pretty damn stubborn and it takes more than a few nasty posts to keep me away!
Sloggin' along, Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @09:42PM EST (#147)
|
|
|
|
|
Larry, Thank you for the insight.
What happened to him was truly awful, and obviously things need to change. She sounds like she belongs in jail.
I did not beat Warble.
I know it seems obvious, but he is treating me like I am the same beast, and I am not.
By lashing out, no matter who is talking, he reduces his effectiveness. I was being logical, in terms of the movement, and meant nothing personal by it.
I can see why he is so angry. He must have children at home or he probably would have left long ago, and that should be a crime to hold one's children as ransom like that. It is not right and needs to change.
So let those women who are sympathetic HELP. The more on this side, the more effective. And women listen to women more than men, just as men listen to men. So let us speak with you.
I really hasd no idea this would piss him off so much. I thought it was a debate on a definition. If I had any idea he would react this way I probably would not have even started it. I was gone all day Sunday to a dog show, so I was quite suprised at the long rash of posts concerning this when I looked tonight.
Thanks again, Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jen, I've been burned, more than once, it this great illusion called love and romance. Some say they find it. If you believe in it, if it makes you happy, bully for you. I have seen no evidence that it really exists.
I see those things and relationships and all the other hokey stuff that goes around it as a great big trap. Why? Been there. Done it. And like I say, fool me once, shame on you. Twice, shame on me.
No more shame on me.
It may sound bitter. And, truth to tell, it is - it was born in bitterness at least. But it has been liberating. Since my son cam to live with me last year, the renewed freedom has been stunning.
Jen, some things are assumed: A man needs a wife to "take care of him." A man needs a woman to "Make his life gentle." A man needs a good woman as a companion, to sew, to cook and clean, to civilize, and on and on and on.
Each. And every one. Of those things. Without. Exception. Is a total falsehood. Like Gloria Steinem said, paraphrased, A man needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle.
That said, I maintain a select friendship with a handful of women. I have a couple who are past the breeding years who understand the necessity on occasion of a friendly piece of tail. I'm not too proud to pay for it - it's generally cheaper than a date, everyone knows what to expect, nobody has their feelings hurt - and on top of that I have the rest of the night free.
For "companionship" I have cats. FOr conversation I have friends, and those conversations aren't spent analyzing them in angst over what is really meant, or putting "the relationship" under a microscope.
YMMV. Dave's too. I also realize it's mortal heresy at the high altar of Da Mudder Gawddiss O' Pheminine Sensabilities. But .. but .. but ... my house is clean...and the laundry is done, and I eat well. Oh, well, fortyish, has cats, lives alone, clean house. Guess I must be queer. That's the only explanation that has come out that seems to make many women breathe a sigh of relief. I guess if I was gay, I'm just one of the girls.
(Sorry to disappoint, girls. Find another theory.)
I highly recommend it for most men, though.
This in no way says you may not be a fine woman. TBT, though, cross the internet 'puter screen you and Dave in NYC could both be Bruce from Des Moines. I don't know ya well enough to say yea or nay.
If you say you and Dave are all that and a bag of chips, I believe you. Made for each other, good. I won't doubt you unless you indicate otherwise.
And nothing personal. But even if you cloned an exact duplicate of yourself, I don't need her. She'd be probably better off without me, too, but besides the point. A "woman's touch" a "feminine presence" in my life would interfere. It would be worse than useless, it would be an annoyance and aggravation that I could do without.
Even though this might torque a few pheminuts up, which is pure gravy for me, this really isn't a slam, just a statement of fact. Roll me up Sarah Michelle Gellar, June Cleaver, Julia Child, and (insert pron actress here) and put them in one body, and it would be a big "so what?" I'm over it, a big boy, all raised and housebroke all by myself. Honestly, most the women I find interesting at all in person are lesbians; most others I know I have only a sexual interest in, frankly, because it's all they have to offer.
And Honestly, I don't need to be converted. I'm happy this way. For the first time in forty odd years - well, almost 30 years - I look forward to my days, and I have a plan for my future that I am in control of. I need not negotiate, ask permission, put up with attitudes, suffer last minute shanges, stand accused of not giving a damn about anyone but myself (Guilty, but only in the third degree) - I can do as I damn well please. What I make, is mine. What I buy is mine. I can throw out what I wish, and packrat what I want. I won't have my favorite shirt cut into rags.
(As a side, here's a free observation for you: One of my greatest joys right now is having six open books by my bedside: I don't get chirped at, interrogated, or have editorial comments made. You do with that as you will. Consider it a word to the wise, though.)
Ain't no slam, ain't no snide. You got sons? You don't want them aloof and distant like the Gonzo-Man? I'm hip. I was made, Jen. This is the only way I am free, that I get an equal playing field, is by dealing with womananity (IT'S A WORD NOW, YOU SCHMUCKS) only when required to. I've made peace with it. This shoe fits my foot real well. Will it fit your boys? Who knows? May be right comfy. Might pinch bad.
Read some back stuff here, Jen. Then sit and think about this: If things don't change in the next 25 or thirty years, the pain of these men here could be the pain of your sons.
I'd spare them my pain - I'm coming out of the tail end of my marriage stuff, and that game's about over and the chips all but cashed in. If all the laws change tomorrow - if I wake up in the AM and all these reforms I'd like to see have overnight been voted into being, signed into law, and approved by the courts, it's not going to make a damn bit of difference to me. It's too late.
I fought my fight, lost more than I won, have my battle scars, and my battle is over for me. Now? I'm doing this for the next guy. For my son. For your son. For the sons of people I've never met.
For daughters? No. I'm going to be blunt. Indirectly, I think it would do them good, but daughters have their own champions, and every day is "Woman's Pride" day for them. Indirectly, I suppose since helping your sons helps you, I'm "helping" you. It's not my focus. I can't address the feminine, so I won't - that segment has it's own spokeswonks in droves anyway.
I hope you don't think this snide - some I love doing it to, I get almost sexually aroused when a certain fifth column pheminut gets her thong in a knot here - but you seem sincere so far.
But - and understand this well - I am NOT a nice person. I'm a crotechety, opinionated, 24 carat sonofabitch who does not suffer a fool gladly. Even though I have five degrees, I believe in plain speaking, devoid of weasel words. I'm vulgar at times, sarcastic to idiots, and enjoy mocking those who are overly self-important.
I believe in radical revolution. I'd like to see men marching in the street; I'd love to see man hating judges who have fucked us over time and time again so pucker-arsed scared they won't even come in to get their last check. I'd like to see these ratholes of lesbian misandry called "women's shelters" hammering their doors shut. I'd like to see men doing jury nullification and refusing to convict even any man in a domestic issue until our voice is heard. I'd like to see a men's underground, where men can take their kids so they won't get stolen from them. I think male cops who help in serving summonses, and jailing men for losing ther jobs are traitors to their sex, and need to have their testicles revoked - and frankly, if I saw an involuntary revoking, I'd suddenly discover an acute loss of short term memory and bad eyesight.
I'd like to see paternity defrauders in jail, with mandatory hysterectomies. A "File In" would be a wonder to behold. Get a hundred - five hundred men - in a court, filing every petty little motion they can do, refusing to waive a hearing, refusing to go en masse, and bring the family court monster to a screeching halt. I don't even think the Australian Blackshirts are all bad - they need some focus, and refining, but I think we need "fault" divorce back. And shame.
No. Gonzo ain't a nice man at all. A lot of this I'm not full bore on - but how much? Enough to keep 'em honest. We'll leave it there. Nobody has paid to see those cards yet.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @10:14PM EST (#149)
|
|
|
|
|
Will:
I found the web site and it's far worse than I thought. These man haters live in my own back yard, Los Angeles. I'm sure they contributed to the injustice that these two young men experienced through their influence and input. Here's the sight for "This is not an invitation to rape me:
www.students.haverford.edu/masar/documents/LACAAW_ Catalogue.pdf
Go to page 11 and look and read from there. You're in for a shock and will see why Warble is so steamed (vituperative). When we try to change things for the better for folks out here we have these people trying to undermine our efforts and sometime in the political arena we even have to interact on a civil level with these hate mongers (believe it or not).
Jen and Dave please don't be too offended by the lack of diplomacy that some have treated you with here. We should all be civil, but at times some of us aren't up to it. Perhaps you will see some of our frustration, by seeing the thinking of some of the people we face, that control law and society in L.A. and California. It's a little disconcerting when such virulent internecine rhetoric flares up some times, but I guess that just comes with the territory, wherein strong willed people express their strong opinions. Don't be too upset I like it when people have a different opinion that my own and make me defend my statements. It makes me refine my thinking and my contentions
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @10:25PM EST (#150)
|
|
|
|
|
Try this:
http://www.students.haverford.edu/masar/documents/ LACAAW_Catalogue.pdf
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @10:35PM EST (#151)
|
|
|
|
|
In the 1st post a space occured between: LACAAW_ and Catalogue Take it out and this works.
In the 2nd post of this address a space occured between: documents/ and LACAAW Take it out and this works.
In other words find the space and take it out.
Sorry for the technicalities, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @10:56PM EST (#152)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen:
www.students.haverford.edu/masar/documents/LACAAW_ Catalogue.pdf
Here are the kind of Commissions that Warble and I have gone to to say:
STOP DENY!
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
BATTERS MEN
Want to guess how they treated us. These are the kind of women we need help with from people like you to get them to come to grips with reality and truth.
Respectfully, I would very much like your reaction. Page 11 is a good place to start looking and reading.
The Family Violence Prevention Fund is also a great site for you to check out to see how this group of feminist only recognizes women as victims of domestic violence:
http://store.yahoo.com/fvpfstore/healthposters.htm l (remove that space before the l)
http://store.yahoo.com/fvpfstore/noname.html
http://store.yahoo.com/fvpfstore/worpos.html
This group is creating programs to target your boys because everybody knows all men are born violent and are out of control.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorrect, Jen and I HAVE two little boys, and the correct response to agression is to come to US, little boys are not equipped to deal with these issues nor should they be. Little boys should be little boys and not worry about political issues. WE would deal with it by addressing the girls parents, and it would escalate from there if required.
Jen and Dave,
In my opinion, you are EXTREMELY ignorant, foolish, stupid, or just simply retards if you think that you can rub a little chivalry on an attack against your boys and think the problem is going to go away.
Here is a cataloge of materials that illustrate the level of hate that is being directed at your boys from the radical feminist:
Male Hate Literature
Now go to page 4 and look at the male hate manual that is being distributed at a school near you. The lies in this manual that are designed to teach male hate are taugh without your knowledge.
You will also find a poem that teaches teenage girls to fear all teenage boys that have a fast car.
To feminists:
Boys + A Fast Care = Boy that Hits Girls.
Page 5 has a great stop sexual harassment sign that is aimed at those evil little (male) tykes of yours.
On page 7 they are only too happy to help students get bigoted male-hate propaganda for their politically correct male-hate reports.
My favorite is where the CHIVALROUS father holds the hand of his daughter in a poster, and the feminist have the message, "this is not an invitation to rape me."
Of course it is extremely bigoted to assume that a father holding the hand of his daughter is going to assume he has an invitation to rape his daughter! But then it is the chivalrous males in congress that provided the funding for this stuff.
Get a clue Dave. Chivalry is dead and will not stand up to this assault on men's rights. Nothing other than an all out frontal assault against these bigots is called for.
Chivalry will not work to counter the assault that is currently builing in scope and power against your boys. If you continue to teach chivalry to your boys or if Jen continues to teach chivalry to her Boy Scouts then she is teaching them to hate other men and to become victims of feminist hate.
But then you are most likely too ignorant to recognize that fact. Just wait. There is $4 billion in funding that is being funneled into these male hate projects. You haven't seen anything yet. You'll learn about the time you find yourself in jail for holding the hand of your little boy.
Think it cannot happen to you? Think again. Men are going to jail for changing the diapers on their little girls. It’s just a matter of time till you go down.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 27, @11:22PM EST (#154)
|
|
|
|
|
Jen:
You sound like a very decent person.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here are two very telling statements that in my opinion clearly expose Dave as a liar.
In statement one Dave writes:
"The ideals encapsulated in classical chivalry would not enable differential treatment of ANYONE."
So Dave would clearly have us believe that chivalry does not result in differential treatment. Well if that is true then there would be no need of women embracing the code of chivalry so that males will enjoy equal preferential treatment.
In statement two Dave later writes:
"Perhaps instead of fighting against a noble ideal you should be fighting to get women to start applying it to themselves instead of just expecting it from others."
Now hold on a minute Dave! You cannot have it both ways. You are claiming there is no differential treatment in other posts, you claim that chivalry does “…not enable differential treatment of anyone”, you claim it is somehow a superior code of behavior, and you claim it is good to teach to little boys.
But the fact is that either statement one is true and correct and chivalry doesn't lead to differential treatment, or statement two is correct and there is differential treatment that requires women to embrace and practice the code of chivalry.
Thus we catch Dave in a typical scenario of lying and denial. No doubt that it will piss him off. No doubt that he will deny being caught in a lie.
This reminds me allot of the days when racists would quote scripture to justify their hatred and oppression of blacks. Then when it was explained to them why people thought they were teaching racism they would start redefining their terminology. Then the racists would have us believe that it was God's ordained place for blacks to be slaves to the white man. NOT! They were liars then and they are liars now.
So it is with chivalry. It is a code of bigotry and hate. It is a code that leads to the oppression of males and a system of female privilege.
Dave looses again. Notice that he was trying to be chivalrous and defend his wife's demands that we be chivalrous.
In doing so the chivalrous male (a.k.a. Dave) had to resort to telling what in my opinion is an outright lie to defend the honor of what in my opinion is his bigoted wife.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jen and Dave please don't be too offended by the lack of diplomacy that some have treated you with here.
Ray is right on this point. I only get like this when somebody is ignorantly trying to defend chivalry which I equate to defending racism.
People who defend chivalry hit a nerve with me. You can expect that I will go off and nail you for your bigotry in any way that I can.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jen, some things are assumed: A man needs a wife to "take care of him." A man needs a woman to "Make his life gentle." A man needs a good woman as a companion, to sew, to cook and clean, to civilize, and on and on and on.
Each. And every one. Of those things. Without. Exception. Is a total falsehood.
Gonz,
Good thing you came back to your senses and disputed all that filth in the first paragraph.
I was about to think that you'd lost your mind!
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to see men doing jury nullification and refusing to convict even any man in a domestic issue until our voice is heard.
This is why I always accept jury duty now. Problem is that I'm too damn educated. So, they will never pick me to sit on a jury.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know it seems obvious, but he is treating me like I am the same beast, and I am not.
If you are teaching chivalry to your little boys and the innocent Boy Scouts then in my book you are as bad as the racist that I knew when I was growing up. I didn't treat the racist nice and I'm damn certain not going to treat chivalrous bigots any better than a racist. Chivalry is bigotry.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
". . .Jen and I HAVE two little boys, and the correct response to agression is to come to US, little boys are not equipped to deal with these issues nor should they be. . .Jen and I teach boys AND girls to treat others with the respect you yourself would like to be treated with. . ."
Ah.
In light of that, then. . .are your sons intact, or did you have them circumcised?
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So let those women who are sympathetic HELP.
This is like a racist demanding that they be permitted to help the non-racist overcome racism.
What idiocy. You still don't get it Jen.
Chivalry is bigotry.
Racist didn't end racism any more than chivalrous bigots will end the assault of male-hate.
Men don't need more bigots to help end the bigotry. It has never worked for any group in the past and it won't work now.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....say it, you can say what you intend it to mean, but it will be heard for whatever others want it to mean.
Yea BROTHER! You go man! Amen! Tell it on high. Alleluia! Let the bigots know the word is filthy before our Loooorrrrrd almighty!
Odd that these retards can understand why we don't use the "N" word any more to describe blacks. Not they want to use the "C" word to determine how we should behave towards women.
THEY CAN GO STRAIT TO HELL! They need to stop speaking that filth and given men the same respect that they give the blacks.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.S. - Warb, sorry to turn you into a poster child, but the shoe fit.
No problem. Wow things have come a long way since then. That night was terrifying for me. At least now I know what it means to be the object of domestic violence.
During those days I thought that women were supposed to be able to slap, hit, push, kick, throw objects, and otherwise attack men while men stood there and took it. Now I know that women have no right to inflict this kind of suffering upon men.
All that needs to happen now is that the feminists, psychologist, police, doctors, nurses, employers, government, and more figure out that men have the right to be free from violence also.
Also, now I know that men must take the violence, or the male will face false arrest because of the chivalrous police officers that hate men.
Those were terrifying times. I don’t ever want to see that again.
Chivalry does nothing but teach males to permit women to get away with bad and violent behavior while at the same time demanding special privilege.
Chivalry is bigotry against males.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I definitely agree with you that in the modern era these concepts must apply to women equally (as I stated earlier), women today have power and with power comes the need to use it wisely.
Give me a break. This bigot would have us take the "N" word and apply it to whites equally. NOT! Chivalry should not be applied to women equally for obvious reasons. GET A CLUE! You don't take a terrible word like chivalry or the "N" word and apply it to the opposite group to end bigotry. It doesn't work.
Chivalry = bigotry against males!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If this AU is Jen and you support teaching chivalry to little boys and Boy Scouts then it is my opinion that you are quite bigoted. Period.
As for these accusations of slander or whatever, I am quite clear in stating that everything I write here is my own opinion.
If I'm wrong then so be it. Just renounce chivalry as a code of undue priviledge for women and one of oppression for man and my attitude will change towards you just that quickly.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, chivalry used to be about deferring to women as the arbiters of the moral order, and there are plenty of people who still think thats what it means. Such a practice is not just archaic, but downright dangerous to men. In a perfect world, Warble, I wouldn't mind if some clubs discrimminated in favor of ladies -- it helps to attract them in the first place.
Remo,
No doubt you would also argue that it's okay to discriminate against blacks by permitting males in free and charging blacks a fee. After all, ITS GOOD FOR BUSINESS and it attracts lots of those white chicks in the SOUTH. NOT! Yea! That’s the ticket! Let’s discriminate against ALL of the races and let only the white people in free. ITS GOOD FOR BUSINESS!
Wow! I never figured Remo out to be a bigot. Well he has just shown his true colors. He believes in special privilege for women and discrimination against men. In Remo's world, women should get preferential treatment that discriminates against males. This is the same thing that the racists in the South want.
Newsflash! If you owned one of these clubs, your business would be the first business that I would sue for bigotry and male hate, and I would win the suit. Get a clue man! You cannot have it both ways! Either women are going to be our equals, or they get differential treatment and in that case somebody gets oppressed. In this case you advocate the oppression of males!
My God man! It stuns me how many men claim to believe in equal treatment, and then out of the next breath they spout justification for thier bigotry.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave, I taught my son to be a realist. I teach him how things can go down, and to protect himself. He refuses to have sex without a condom because he isn't ready to be a dad. He has flushed out one gold-digger by believing in a pre-nup, and he's just 17. He ain't afraid to tell a hose-beast pheminazi not to call him 'cause he doesn't have time for her dumb crap.
I've been doing the same thing with my son, and I'll be damned but he gets it! He keeps his pecker in his pants and never takes the risk of getting a bitch pregnant. He knows that if he does that then he will become enslaved in financial prison.
He's already had several bitches try to pull that pecker out and get pregnant. One of the bitches has already nailed two separate guys at the age of 21. Dang man! She is 21, has two kids by two different dads, gets welfare, gets child support, and that ain't enough. Now she wants to f___K my boy and pop out another so she can suck money off of him. Damn glad I taught him to avoid sex with her and ladies like her at all costs. He gets it.
Now get this. Later, when the breakup comes the bitch tries to nail him for sexual harassment at work so she can again get more money! The only thing that saved him is that fact that everybody knows she's a whore trying to have another kid so that she can get more money.
This is what feminists and chivalry have done for us. Men are best to run, not walk, but run from such bitches. Otherwise, they will get screwed.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During those days I thought that women were supposed to be able to slap, hit, push, kick, throw objects, and otherwise attack men while men stood there and took it. Now I know that women have no right to inflict this kind of suffering upon men.
Equality of the sexes will come on the day that a woman attacks a man, and he turns around and punches her teeth down her throat - then she gets arrested and convicted for starting the fight.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa, warb - I'm all for a private business being free to discriminate in any way they want. The Augusta Golf Club springs to mind. They Key word is PRIVATE. Once public money gets involved, it's a different story.
I'm all for a women's club. Keep them in one spot where an eye can be kept on them. And I'd like to have the days back when we had the Men's Clubs, where one could go, drink beer, belch, and put your feet up on the table with no women to snark at you.
And far as I'm concerned, let's see, Nightclub, let's women in free so there's a meat market for the guys, guys come in, pay cover, pick up women - OH! They're just PIMPS for WHORES that are too stupid to demand a piece of the action - hm. Whores is the wrong word. Since they don't get paid, I guess that makes them just sluts.
If I'm going to get a whore, I'm just going to pay for it straight up and cut out the middleman, believer in private enterprise that I am.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm going to get a whore, I'm just going to pay for it straight up and cut out the middleman, believer in private enterprise that I am.
Exactly. They are little more than whore's looking for a free ride and for the man to pick up the tab for their good time. Then they walk out and leave most men with a woody.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In light of that, then. . .are your sons intact, or did you have them circumcised?
Violence against boys from the chivalrous Jen and Dave? NEVER!
I must admit that allot of good decent people getting caught in the trap of chivalry and circumcision. This is why they call it ignorance. They don't know that they are practicing violence and hate, but it is just that nontheless.
That is why we must expose their ignorance and demand that they set aside their ways of violence and male hate. Once they've done this, they can be of great value to the men's movement as decent people.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In modern usage, the common usage, it is one sided. Therefore, it's pointless to use. You say say it, you can say what you intend it to mean, but it will be heard for whatever others want it to mean. At best - ambiguous; even then unworthy of use. Why use a word when its meaning is unclear and varies?"
Valid point, although until this discussion I didn't know that it was ambiguous... seemed like everyone I knew had a fairly uniform idea of what it meant. Of course I live a long way from feminist hot spots where perhaps this is a more visible problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 28, @02:51PM EST (#174)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, I have to say, that I feel like we are all having two separate conversations. David and I and a few others have been politely trying to debate the issue of the definition of chivalry. You and I disagree. Understood. I can see where, under your definition, chivalry is a bad thing.
Instead of just aggreeing to disagree, you have exploded. This animosity is not fitting to this thread. No one has gotten upset with you. You are so angry that you are not even paying attention to what anyone else is really saying. An example, I DO NOT teach boyscouts anything. I am not a leader. Yet you have several times since I told you this continued to say I do. A person disagrees with you and you scream BIGOT!!
I am now very uncomfortable with sending people this link because I do not think the way you are behaving is representing this cause very well. You are being as unreasonable as the feminazies. And one person acting like you is what people will see.
I think you have a great deal to offer this cause. Your enthusiasm and concern for this cause is helping get the issues out in the forefront. Your awful expiriences as a battered husband are crucial to not only educating but also helping men feel it is acceptable to be a victim, and to take action.
But I learned long ago that screaming radicals just alienate people. Lead by example, get the truth out there, and be accepting when people come for information. If they are misled, offer reading material, if they are angry or disbelieving, then patiently give them the links that will persuede them. If they attack, quite honestly, I would ignore them. Showing yourself as a strong, patient person who is confident enough of the truth to let it speak for itself will take you a lot farther than spazing out everytime someone has even a slightly different opinion than you.
Of course, this is my opinion. This is what worked for me for working with dogs and educating people on training. When I told everyone they were idiots and were wrong, no one would even talk to me. When I led by example, showed how well adjusted and trained my dogs were, people started asking me for help. Not the same issue, but human psychology doesn't change.
Warble, I came here looking for ways to help, and for information. This is what most people coming here are looking for. Can you honestly say you are providing that? Has anything you wrote given a stranger, maybe another abused husband, any clue as to where to start? Or has your posts made them turn off the computer and shake their head, thinking that both sides are just as crazy and why bother?
I wish this this thread had not gotten this insane. I think it would be best if I just walked away from this thread. I will continue to be on this board, because I feel it is the right thing to do.
Respectfully yours, Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will try the library, but I think I will probably have to buy them. Can I get them at Amazon or Barnes and Nobles?
Hello Jen,
In case you're still on this thread...
"Who Stole Feminism" is available at Amazon. Also, if your local library doesn't have at least one copy, it should. I've had my local, public library order books on more than one occasion, just by requesting that they do so. So you might want to try that route.
I hope you enjoy it and find it enlightening and inspiring. Your sons have a tough, vicious, unjust time ahead of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, I came here looking for ways to help, and for information. This is what most people coming here are looking for. Can you honestly say you are providing that? Has anything you wrote given a stranger, maybe another abused husband, any clue as to where to start? Or has your posts made them turn off the computer and shake their head, thinking that both sides are just as crazy and why bother?
You had all kinds of information given to you supporting the claim that chivalry = bigotry against males = special privilege for females. You choose to ignore it.
You were given citations of legal code on how businesses can be sued for their practice of chivalry. You choose to ignore it.
You were given examples from Ray, Larry, Gonzo, and others on how chivalry = bigotry against males = special privilege for females. You choose to ignore it.
Instead you chose to play the superior enlightened female and refuse to be accepting of the INFORMATION that was communicated. Only your view and Dave’s view is the CORRECT view.
We have all seen this before. It's nothing more than a husband wife team that embrace ideals of female superiority as taught by the code of chivalry claiming they just wanna learn more while rejecting what they are taught.
This isn't something new that so-called enlighten "I just waaaannnnaaaa heeeeellllp" feminist and chauvinist haven’t tried before.
We see this crap in various forms. For the radical feminists it takes the shape of programs designed to teach the evil little boys how to be feminized little boys. For the chauvinist it is a system of brainwashing little boys to treat females as morally superior and spiritually enlightened beings worthier of special differential treatment.
Either way it's
females = superior
masculinity = inferior
They are simply two shades of the same thing. Both result in the oppression of males.
So, unless you can listen to what you are being told and accept our opinions and perspectives then I’d suggest that perhaps you shouldn’t bother.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valid point, although until this discussion I didn't know that it was ambiguous... seemed like everyone I knew had a fairly uniform idea of what it meant.
Ah, Dave, everyone does. That's why you've been forced to reiterate many times that you are espousing the "ideals encapsulated in chivalry" rather than chivalry itself.
The ideals you are talking about ("Loyal, courtious, protective and gentle, and honerable to all including enemies, courage, honor and fidelity") are in no way unique to chivalry but appear in many ethical systems.
A good soldier is not violent.
A good fighter is not angry.
A good winner is not vengful.
A good employer is humble.
This is known as the Virtue of not striving.
This is known as ability to deal with people.
This since ancient times has been known
as the ultimate unity with heaven.
-Tao Te Ching
What makes an act identifiably chivalrous, rather than simply honorable? How about a man going down on one knee to propose? How about the men on the Titanic ensuring that women and child were saved first?
What separates chivalry from other codes of conduct is the idea that men are powerful and women are valuable and men have a responsibility to use their power in the service and protection of valuable women, even unto the point of sacrificing their lives.
You seem to me to be saying "I don't mean THAT kind of chivalry" yet that is the feature of chivalry that sets it apart from other ethical systems of integrity and character.
Chivalry is completely unambiguous in it's "save and protect women first" character. It's because you aren't acknowledging that, because you're trying to extract some ideals and deny chivalry's special premise, that you're getting so much heat.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good post, Larry.
However classical chivalry, which is what you are referring to , wasn't just about defering to women. It was also about love of King, duties to King and country, and the other duties of a Knight. And, at the time, men had some real power.
And what your complaining about Dave and Jen doing is , indeed, what YOUR doing. Classical chivalry never was just a code of conduct for the sexes, it embraced much more, and in my opinion, its perfectly appropriate to keep whatever parts of it you want. After all, men have deferred to women and placed them on a pedastal in many societies since the beginning of time. Ask Ray, he'll tell you.
Thus, its a bit unfair to tar chivalry with today's brush. It worked in its time, AMONGST THE PEOPLE -- King's, Queen's, Knights, etc-- it was MEANT to apply to. This type of chivalry does NOT work today. However, the personal code of honor and consideration that Jen and Dave practice may be perfectly appropriate -- at least for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You seem to me to be saying "I don't mean THAT kind of chivalry" yet that is the feature of chivalry that sets it apart from other ethical systems of integrity and character.
Chivalry is completely unambiguous in it's "save and protect women first" character. It's because you aren't acknowledging that, because you're trying to extract some ideals and deny chivalry's special premise, that you're getting so much heat.
Larry,
This is very well said. Chivalry does demand the subordination of men's interest to women, but then women demanded that they have their interest be set at equal value with men. In so doing they got the right to vote and hold occupations from which they were traditionally excluded.
That is fine if women want equal treatment and equal responsibility. However, when they demand equal rights then women can no longer legitimately demand that men subordinate their interests to those of the woman's. So when the boat is sinking, men should have their consideration of safety balanced equally with those of women. In other words, it is no longer women and children first.
Yet because of chivalry, we find men hating other men and women demanding the subordination of men’s interest so that they can get consideration as having more worth then a man. The result is a culture of special privilege for women only while men become oppressed and devalued.
Unfortunately, men were ignorant and stupid when women made that change in our culture. They thought that chivalry should continue as women gained rights, and the women chose not to give up their privileges that resulted from the code of chivalry.
As a result we see women demanding that men subordinate their interest to those of women in matters of paternity fraud, club entry fees, demands for free drinks, demands for special treatment rather than equal treatment within the context of marriage, demands for special treatment when they are guilty of assaulting males, demands for special treatment in divorce such that they get a free ride, demands for almost no criminal sentencing as compared to men, demands for close contact and close personal relationships with their children in prison (and getting it) while men are cut off from ALL family relations as though they have no intrinsic human worth, demands by women that men sacrifice their lives on the front lines of war to protect the freedoms of women while women hold privileged positions of power from which they are able to order men into war, demands by women that there be no registration or draft for women, we find that women can violently attack men in the workplace and it is considered humorous while a male’s life is destroyed if they look at a women funny, we find that women can enter restrooms and humiliate men while men are sent to jail if they go into the woman’s room and the males name goes on a permanent sex offender list while the woman's name is never entered onto such lists, women demand and get special health services from the government that are not given to men, they have committees to represent their interest at every level of government while men have nothing, women demand full coverage welfare while men end up homeless then die of starvation and disease, and more.
That is the flip side to chivalry that Dave and Jen deliberately choose to ignore, and it is this ignorance that makes them appear so bigoted. It is that flip side that is oppressive to men while granting special privilege to women.
The lists of special privileges for women are endless. Clearly, women are privileged because of chivalry. It is time to destroy chivalry and grant women their demands of equal rights along with the equal responsibility that should accompany those rights.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And what your complaining about Dave and Jen doing is , indeed, what YOUR doing.
Remo,
I'll cop to some of that. At least to being quite reductionist about the whole of chivalry.
Classical chivalry never was just a code of conduct for the sexes, it embraced much more, and in my opinion, its perfectly appropriate to keep whatever parts of it you want. After all, men have deferred to women and placed them on a pedastal in many societies since the beginning of time
Do you really think so? Is it appropriate for legislators, bureaucrats and judges to defer to women? Is it appropriate for police responding to a domestic dispute to put women on a pedestal? Arguments about classical chivalry aside, do we, in this society, have any better, more accurate adjective for that behavior than chivalrous?
However, the personal code of honor and consideration that Jen and Dave practice may be perfectly appropriate -- at least for them.
True. It's also true that Jen advocated it as a practice for others: "Chivalry should not be dead. It is something to aspire to, just as grace is something for women to aspire to... Grace is now viewed as a great weakness in women, but I personally think most women would be much better for having some."
She got an argument.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After all, men have deferred to women and placed them on a pedastal in many societies since the beginning of time. Ask Ray, he'll tell you.
As a matter of fact I have asked Ray. And Ray agrees that it's time for chivalry to come to an end. He has seen it for its bigoted effects on men and he has had enough of the female deference that they get from police and in the courts. Ray would be the first to encourage the genders be polite, respectful, noble, courageous, having integrity, and being truthful.
We can do all of these things and more without adding the bigoted element of chivalrous bigotry as Jen and Dave insist must be done.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry:
I wish you and Warble would listen better. I have said it before:
I DO NOT ADVOCATE DEFERENCE TO WOMEN, ESP IN THE DESTRUCTIVE MANNER OF THE "OLD" CHIVALRY.
As far as it goes, I don't see the government having a role in telling a private club that is NOT involved in "interstate commerce" how to run its business. And if you want to attract women-- or want to attract men -- you give them incentives to come. Would I gladly pay more to go to a club with lots of women, rather than less to pay to go to some place with few or none? In an ideal world , YES.
But my point is that Warble completely overlooked my very next few sentences where I wished his lawsuits luck...why? Because we supposedly live in an "equal" society. And its time for people-- esp privilidged females, to learn what that entails. Maybe they may rethink some things, and maybe the men's movement might get some money.
Anyway, it was real nice for Warble to compare me to a racist or a misandrist. Thank YOU , Larry for not doing the same. I realise that Warble has a lot of legitimate anger, but posts such as that, and some of the things he said to Jen are uncalled for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble,
I think you are letting your anger get the best of you. Not all people who misunderstand or even disagree with some parts of our position are enemies.
While I pretty much agree with your definition of what chivalry is, I think you are going way overboard. Instead of just explaining what you think and dropping it you have become attacking and insulting. It seems like it has become some sort of a personal vendetta.
In the long run we need numbers. If we drive away well-meaning people because they do not get 100% of our cause the first time they post we are hurting ourselves. I have found again and again that those who get 10% of our cause today, get 20% tomorrow, and 30%, and..... if we do not drive them away with hostile attacks. For 20 years the mens movement has gone nowhere - in some part because we have acted liked screaming psychos attacking everyone who comes near. Suing LA county is where we should be channeling our anger. Attacking those who want to join us is horribly self-destructive.
Nobody's perfect. Give people a chance to work with us. Jen and David are so far away from Catherine MacKinnon its not even funny. Please stop lumping them together with our sworn enemies.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But my point is that Warble completely overlooked my very next few sentences where I wished his lawsuits luck...why? Because we supposedly live in an "equal" society. And its time for people-- esp privilidged females, to learn what that entails. Maybe they may rethink some things, and maybe the men's movement might get some money.
Anyway, it was real nice for Warble to compare me to a racist or a misandrist. Thank YOU , Larry for not doing the same. I realise that Warble has a lot of legitimate anger, but posts such as that, and some of the things he said to Jen are uncalled for.
Remo,
If I got it wrong them I'm truly sorry. We are taking BIG TIME HEAT for these suits in the public. There are allot of people that believe women should have special privileges.
I use the analogy of discrimination against blacks in the days when blacks were charged more because of their skin color because many times that is the only way that people get it. Chivalry is bigotry in the same way that racism is bigotry and it is just as serious.
Also, we get the "it is good for business if women get in free" argument allot from men all over the country that want to justify giving women preferential treatment. We never expected that this issue would get the level of attention that it has drawn. We really wanted it to be kept at a low level. In fact we tried very hard to keep these suits a secret. In fact we went to extraordinary lengths to keep these suits a secret. It didn’t work. The news media picked up on this and started hacking at us for filing these suits.
Next, we began to realize that ONLY people that embrace chivalry believe that these businesses should be able to search men and not touch women, charge men and let women in free, give women free pool games and charge men, allow women to shoot for free at the gun ranges and charge the hell out of the man, give free drinks to women and charge men double the normal price, charge men double the price at the door so that they could give women free food, the list goes on endlessly.
So, yes we am taking a very hard line on chivalry. I guarantee that after you file a dozen or so of the suits and go through the HELL that we are experiencing that you will take a hard line on chivalry also. After filing a few of these suits you will see chivalry to be just as bad if not worse than racism. We are finding that EVERY MALE THAT FILES about 12 of THESE SUITS is taking a hard line against chivalry, and that is because chivalrous values are the source of discrimination that men we experiencing.
Again, if you reject chivalry and reject preferential treatment of males then we just had a misunderstanding and I'm deeply sorry Remo. To be frank I was shocked at how I interpreted the post. I couldn’t believe what looked to me like your support of chivalry and discrimination against males. I must have misread that big time!
My BAD! My BAD! My BAD! A thousand apologies! God I’m sorry!
As for Jen and Dave and their defense of chivalry, my opinions that I have spoken stand. But you can be certain that if they denounce chivalry that I’ll forgive their bigotry just as quickly and I’ll forget that they ever defended the practice.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And if you want to attract women-- or want to attract men -- you give them incentives to come. Would I gladly pay more to go to a club with lots of women, rather than less to pay to go to some place with few or none? In an ideal world , YES.
But of course if you stick to this line of supporting differential treatment of women then well....Houston we have a chauvinist.
If it looks like a chauvinist, squeaks like a chauvinist, waddles like a chauvinist, and sound like a chauvinist....oh well.....
Chauvinism = differential treatment among the genders = preferential treatment of women = bigotry.
You need to come to California and go through a few of these suits with us. We'll be glad to knock some sense into your head! Then you'll see the differential treatment for what it really is. Bigotry.
Trust me. It isn't easy to file these suits against so many businesses that discriminate against men. It takes one HELL of allot of work. It also wears at you to go into so many businesses knowing that you are going to experience discrimination and that you have to fight back. What we are doing isn’t easy. We could use your help Remo! Gee. You might even learn why we get so PISSED!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of just explaining what you think and dropping it you have become attacking and insulting.
The white supremacist said they same thing about Mr. King. So, did the Christens. They wanted him to just drop the issue and go away. They though that he was alienating more people then he was drawing in.
I’ve got news for you. We are growing so fast that we expect to double in size again in the next few months. There are allot of people that are pissed and they have had enough. Our biggest problem is managing the growth and dividing up the activist projects. It isn’t alienating people and hoping they will show up.
So get used to it. I’m not dropping the issue and well it ain't going away. It's just going to get bigger. We just tippled the number of suits against the chauvinist bigots. I expect that in the next 6 months that we will triple the number of suits again, and we will continue till people get the point.
What is the point?
Chivalry = differential treatment among the genders = hatred of men = devaluing of men = preferential treatment of women = special privilege for women = bigotry
DEAL!
Warble
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jen and David are so far away from Catherine MacKinnon its not even funny. Please stop lumping them together with our sworn enemies.
Funny you should bring this up. It turns out that our sworn enemies (i.e. Gloria Alred) approve of our stance on chivalry. They love the club suits and they want more! And so we find that politics makes strange bed fellows.
Nevertheless, they do so for very different reasons. You see, it turns out that date rapist use these forms of preferential treatment to manipulate women into rape scenarios.
I must say that I happen to agree and that I hate being manipulated by these rapist that use chivalrous values to exploit women.
We simply need to be meeting women on equal terms, and women would be much safer to do the same rather than demand preferential treatments that rapists exploit to charm them.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 29, @12:37AM EST (#189)
|
|
|
|
|
Larry wrote:
"Yet because of chivalry, we find men hating other men and women demanding the subordination of men’s interest so that they can get consideration as having more worth then a man. The result is a culture of special privilege for women only while men become oppressed and devalued."
My reply:
"Both of my now ex-wives were fond of saying, What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine." Dumb, generous me bought into this thinking surely there was reciprocity and a sense of fairness in this for me somewhere, but not so Bucko.
The exploitive, take it all conditioning that our chivalrous society has engendered in the minds of the majority of self-centered females leaves few females worth knowing on a close intimate level. That being the case, it's just not worth the effort, let alone the risk to even bother anymore.
I hope that more and more men of all ages will subscribe to this basic self preservation understanding, but if they chose to follow the old chivalrous ways as before, then let these amorous fools be forewarned by this writing of Dante Allegro, describing the words written above the gates of hell, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here." Let's update that to say, "all ye men."
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 29, @12:51AM EST (#190)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble:
Here's a good rule of thumb for our bigoted, chivalrous society to use as it metes out suppossed justice in our courts across the land, "Would you do the same thing for a man?"
The first time I spoke these words was to police officers helping a homelss woman as I walked by.
There was no reply.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 29, @01:34AM EST (#191)
|
|
|
|
|
Willj wrote:
"In the long run we need numbers. If we drive away well-meaning people because they do not get 100% of our cause the first time they post we are hurting ourselves. I have found again and again that those who get 10% of our cause today, get 20% tomorrow, and 30%, and..... if we do not drive them away with hostile attacks. For 20 years the mens movement has gone nowhere - in some part because we have acted liked screaming psychos attacking everyone who comes near. Suing LA county is where we should be channeling our anger. Attacking those who want to join us is horribly self-destructive."
My reply:
What you say is true. I agree with what you say, but ask for understanding and extra consideration for men, because of the egregious abuses that they have endured at the hands of a radical feminist indoctrinated government in America.
A little story to make my point:
I once accepted a dog that someone had abused. It literally had scars on its back legs were some sicko tied it up and God knows what. The point is that for a long time I never just reached for this dog, because I would be greeted with snarling and clinched teeth. Trust once lost is long gone. Slowly over a long period of time this dog responded to my love and dog food, but it was never 100%.
Chivalry in Western society today is on life support and if it were up to me I'd yank the plug. It has been used as part of a feminist double standard to egregiously abuse men, and most women who have stood to benefit by this double standard have all to willing acquiesced to this system.
If they NOW whine about the degradation of chivalry, then I say tough you've got equality. If you want unconditional love without expectations, get a dog, and the next time your giving that little doggy a snack treat and lovingly petting his head ask yourself, "would you do the same thing for a man?" Many women would truthfully have to answer no.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first time I spoke these words was to police officers helping a homelss woman as I walked by.
Hummm. I wonder what one of Jen's Boy Scouts would say?
Funny, as I Boy Scout I always that that men and women should get equal treatment. Needless to say I didn't fit into that chivalrous group.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with what you are saying about how chivalry is used by feminists. I think that conservative males in particular are all too often the dupes of radical feminists. They even work against their own stated goals. For example they say that fathers are important, then they support all kinds of punitive legislation which drives men out of their childrens lives.
Regarding the use of the word chivalry. I am wondering whether some people who use the word chivalry really mean politeness. Politeness works both ways, or it does as I conceive of it. I don't think of it as a gender specific thing. It involves no favoritism at all as I practice it.
Having worked in academia for two decades I have been around more than my share of misandrist feminists. At first I would rage about them, then I realized that I was getting nowhere with anyone, except a few other very angry guys. But not the rest of the world. Everyone else thought I was a nutcase. Finally I realized that one can make a lot of allies by bringing them on step by step. I had to learn how to temper my anger. That was hard!!!!
When I raged and insulted people they went in the other direction. By talking calmly and rationally, but sticking to my point of view entirely, I have made some major victories. Rationality, calmness, politeness do NOT mean backing off at all. I have gotten congressmen to support legislation, have gotten some very pro-male stuff into national publication, have gotten many people interested in the mens movement, have gotten two local groups thinking about the male DV victim, and many other victories. I now have quite a bunch of local men supporting us with financial donations and/or by challenging feminist lies when they talk to other people. Not too bad for one guy.
So, even though our rage is justified, I have found it to work against us if we attack people indiscriminantly. I got enough enemies without making new ones. And I want to win.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 29, @03:25AM EST (#194)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble wrote:
"You see, it turns out that date rapist use these forms of preferential treatment to manipulate women into rape scenarios." "I hate being manipulated by these rapist that use chivalrous values to exploit women."
My reply:
I was checking out this club in Hollywood today and noticed in their flyer a mention of how to take care of your drink when you're in their club: cover it with a napkin, don't leave it unattended, leave it with the bar tender if you have to go to the restroom, have someone you know watch your drink, etc. It went on to explain that rohipnal (sp?), the date rape drug, is virtually undetectable in a drink.
The discrimination against men that these clubs use exploites the concept of chivalry. These clubs admit many more females than males so that the males will chivalrously buy the females lots of drinks. Women go to these clubs with an idea that they will grace the male with their conversation and desirable physical presence in exchange for the male pumping lots of booze into them. Having sex with one of these suckers is of course out of the question. How sexist to think of these ladies, err, bar sluts as such tramps. What the female mind is overlooking in this idea is the fact that some of these exploited men are in reality, date rapists who are turning the tables on them. The date rapist exploits the wily female by slipping her the date rape drug, getting her into a stupor, and then taking her somewhere and raping her. What happens in this turning of the tables of chivalrous exploitation is that the con artist is being out conned by the bigger con artist (the date rapist).
Warble also wrote:
"We simply need to be meeting women on equal terms, and women would be much safer to do the same rather than demand preferential treatments that rapists exploit to charm them."
Well that was right on target up to the last three words, which I think should have been, "to drug and screw them."
It's a scam artist screwing scam artist world out there, and if your a woman who goes out flashing your femininity and shaking down men for what you can get out of them you shouldn't be too surprised when most men despise you and a few even rape you. If you don't like the fact that I'm blaming you for your own victimization, then you should go running to your radical feminist sisters for their chivalrous treatment. They can even teach you lots of new ways how to exploit and violate all men.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...in 20 years the mens movement has gone nowhere - in some part because we have acted liked screaming psychos attacking everyone who comes near.
Yes I see that. Here is why. In 20 years the men's movement was poorly marketed, it took on issues like c4m that could not possibly my won in court through new legislation and they kept using the same loosing themes, it involved chivalrous men that fought each other because of hate, it had a poorly defined product and poor presentation in the marketplace, it was poorly organized, the men failed to compromise and support each other, and more.
It's going to take one HELL of allot more than being nice to get the men's movement to move forward and be successful. It's going to take men abandoning their chivalry FIRST before anything can take place. Until that happens then men are wasting their time.
It's like in the times when the African-Americans had to learn to fight for their rights. The FIRST had to learn to overcome their racism that was aimed at each other. After that, everything fell into place. The same is true for men. The practice of men hating men must stop first!
Gees. Get a clue people. You stick to this agenda of condoning chivalry and the men's movement will go nowhere because men will hate other men. Get rid of the chivalry and BAM this movement will take off like a bat out of hell!
The NUMBER ONE most important thing that must happen first is that MEN DROP CHIVALRY. There is no more important issue in the men’s movement. Give me a non-chivalrous male and that person can do the work of 1000 chivalrous males.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 29, @12:34PM EST (#196)
|
|
|
|
|
Connerly v. State Personnel Board (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 16, 40
"As long as organized legal systems, at once the most respected and most feared social institutions, continue to differentiate sharply, in treatment or in words, between men and women on the basis of irrelevant and artificially created distinctions, the likelihood of men and women coming to regard one another primarily as fellow human beings and only secondarily as representatives of another sex will continue to be remote. When men and women are prevented from recognizing one another's essential humanity by sexual prejudices, nourished by legal as well as social institutions, society as a whole remains less than it could otherwise become."
----------------------------------
Maybe California should take another look at the law it has on it's books in this and other areas of it's society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My original post:
...in 20 years the mens movement has gone nowhere - in some part because we have acted liked screaming psychos attacking everyone who comes near.
You said:
Yes I see that. Here is why. In 20 years the men's movement was poorly marketed, it took on issues like c4m that could not possibly my won in court through new legislation and they kept using the same loosing themes, it involved chivalrous men that fought each other because of hate, it had a poorly defined product and poor presentation in the marketplace, it was poorly organized, the men failed to compromise and support each other, and more.
My response:
All true. AND because we present ourselves as rabid dogs too often, biting everyone in sight, our FRIENDS included.
You said:
It's going to take one HELL of allot more than being nice to get the men's movement to move forward and be successful. It's going to take men abandoning their chivalry FIRST before anything can take place. Until that happens then men are wasting their time.
My response:
I agree 100%. Nobody here suggests that being nice will move the mens movement. There is an immense difference between being a rabid dog and being a useless feminist-pleasing wuss. I would rather win that get my rabid dog rocks off. Therapy belongs behind closed doors.
You said:
It's like in the times when the African-Americans had to learn to fight for their rights. The FIRST had to learn to overcome their racism that was aimed at each other. After that, everything fell into place. The same is true for men. The practice of men hating men must stop first!
My response:
This seems reasonable. I note that the holiday is named after Martin Luther King, not after Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton or the Black Panthers. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that the Farrakhan/Sharpton/Panther strategy is most likely to bring success. It appears that you diss the King strategy. Is that correct or do I misunderstand you?
You said:
Gees. Get a clue people. You stick to this agenda of condoning chivalry and the men's movement will go nowhere because men will hate other men. Get rid of the chivalry and BAM this movement will take off like a bat out of hell!
My response:
Find me someone who actually truly supports chivalry as you and I define it and I will tell them the same thing you would. If everyone in the world dropped chivalry, but we all act like rabid dogs the movement will still go nowhere.
You said:
The NUMBER ONE most important thing that must happen first is that MEN DROP CHIVALRY. There is no more important issue in the men’s movement. Give me a non-chivalrous male and that person can do the work of 1000 chivalrous males.
My response:
I agree 100%. Those of us in the movement understand that. How do we communicate this to everyone else who is not in the movement? How do we communicate this to people who approach us with limited understanding but an open mind. I have never convinced any one of anything by calling them a stupid fool or the like. Have you?
We cannot put everyone who disagrees with us into prison, nor can we sue everyone. We cannot take all of their money and humiliate them publicly. Only feminists and their chivalrous allies in government get to do this sort of thing. I suggest that most people will join our side because we convince them through non-stop rational common-sense argument, not because we foam at the mouth like rabid dogs or shoot them all or put them into prison or whatever.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to delete Warbles name at the bottom of post and forgot to sign my name on it.
Will
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 29, @03:10PM EST (#199)
|
|
|
|
|
Willj wrote:
"We cannot put everyone who disagrees with us into prison, nor can we sue everyone. We cannot take all of their money and humiliate them publicly. Only feminists and their chivalrous allies in government get to do this sort of thing."
My reply:
We have a lot of work to do, 30 years of injustice to overcome. I'm patient and not oppossed to a balanced approach that maximizes our opportunities for success.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't resist the urge to make the 100th and 200th posts on this thread. FWIW, here's my take on what we've seen...
I believe warble has made excellent points about the problems with the word, "chivalry." The practice of men deferring to women lies at the very heart of oppression of men and preferential treatment of women. I think we are all in agreement with that. As for the meaning of chivalry (I'm not going to get technical with a discussion of denotation and connotation), I suspect that most people think, today, that it means deference by men to women. Such deference must stop.
Some people may think that chivalry means mutual respect, loyalty, etc., but when one says that one supports chivalry today, it will quite often be taken to be a support of deference to women, in part to make up for alleged past or current oppression of women. That is a corruption that must stop.
So, it seems to me that it's best to stop using the word, "chivalry," as something good and to instead speak in terms that are better understood, such as "respect," which by the way should be earned. Civility should be extended by default, respect must be earned.
Warble is a true and effective activist. He's in the heat of battle right now over preferential treatment of women by businesses, over chivalry as it is often meant and understood. I respect and commend warble for his continuing efforts and for staying in the fight, even when it takes an emotional toll.
As for Dave and Jen, I suspect that they mean well but that their use of the term, "chivalry," should be reconsidered, because of its current implications.
Perhaps we should bury this thread, it's getting awfully long to follow anyway, and try starting over again giving each other another chance to make a good impression. I suspect that we can all work together well, once we get past this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I DO NOT ADVOCATE DEFERENCE TO WOMEN, ESP IN THE DESTRUCTIVE MANNER OF THE "OLD" CHIVALRY.
Remo,
That is what I thought your position was but, to me, that caveat was conspicuously absent from your post to me about picking and choosing what you want from chivalry. So, I pushed you to clarify. I'm sorry for making you repeat yourself, but I thought it worth it.
I realise that Warble has a lot of legitimate anger, but posts such as that, and some of the things he said to Jen are uncalled for.
I don't know, Remo. I just don't know. Maybe he's being rude, maybe he's providing a rude awakening. If Warble asked me, I'd advise him to take it down several notches. But he hasn't and he's a big boy who can make his own decisions.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 29, @06:22PM EST (#202)
|
|
|
|
|
"Some people may think that chivalry means mutual respect, loyalty, etc., but when one says that one supports chivalry today, it will quite often be taken to be a support of deference to women, in part to make up for alleged past or current oppression of women."
Chivalry is ultimately the devil in disguise in that it oppresses the people who extend it (men) far more than the people it is graciously extended too (women).
When one looks at the long string of abuses by women that have led up to 99% of domestic violence situations it is apparent what contribution chivalry makes to the fraudulent hateful abuse of men through domestic violence laws.
Incident upon incident of abuse are heaped on husbands and boyfriends who chivalrously take the abuse as they are taught right up to the point that the female pulls her ultimate scam and produces old bruises that she says have instantly occurred (or some other equally bogus allegation that gets the man arrested).
The extreme bigotry and hatred of the police is evident not just in the fact that they fail to gather the real evidence of domestic violence occurrence at the time of a report, but in the fact that they totally disregard the cumulative pattern of abuse against men, which in 99% of domestic violence shows that it is the woman who is the primary aggressor and batterer.
Chivalry is an insidious weapon of oppression against men that is used with great viciousness by our feminist indoctrinated police dept's. throughout America. Men in America today have nothing to fear from terrorists as long as our police are on the streets.
You’ll see this one posted again. It bears repeating, because people just aren’t getting it.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe he's being rude, maybe he's providing a rude awakening.
Rude awakening!?!?!? Dough!!!!!
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's hit the root of the issue. After all, there are hundreds striking at the branches of the tree, with only one striking the root.
Chivalry is a bad thing because it allows the feminine (women) to define the masculine (Men.)
No, grasshopper.
Let women define what it means to be a woman. We define what it is to be a man.
That's where chivalry is such a fucked up concept, because it lets womyn define masculinity.
(And that's why many women hate me, because I refuse to allow them to define for me what it means to be a man. And if they hate me, so what? Such women are obviously unworthy of even my most casual regard.)
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And that's why many women hate me, because I refuse to allow them to define for me what it means to be a man.
Exactly. It's all about women controlling men while retaining absolute control over their personal bodies. But it goes way beyond that.
For example, they want and have unilateral choice and in addition they also want unilateral choice to determine who they will name as the father of a child. Women do not want men to have information that permits them to make a choice.
Or in the case of the military, they want unilateral choice to choose on whether to enter. Then if they choose to get in, they demand choice to obtain all of the most favored assignments while avoiding the front lines. Then they can say, see.....see....see....all the good that women have done for men in preserving their freedoms!
Meanwhile, the man in the service is getting named on a default paternity judgment that he knows nothing about. After two years the time limits will expire and a few months later he will have his wages garnished with no possibility of overturning the judgment. The result is that the military man looses his freedom and becomes a financial servant of the mother that lied on the paternity forms while the women get the cushy command positions to order men to their death.
Women literally want the choice to kill, slaughter, oppress, and enslave men, and they have won that legal right to do so through chivalry and radical feminist ideals.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can promise that you will hear more about how chivalry (a.k.a. male-on-male hate) is being destroyed in the next few months as the law suits mount...and mount....and mount....and mount....and continue to mount until chivalry is broken in California.
This sounds interesting, Warble. Can you give us any more details, such as, what specific behaviors you are bringing suits over?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds interesting, Warble. Can you give us any more details, such as, what specific behaviors you are bringing suits over?
I'll cite the law for you so that you'll be able to check it for yourself.
Ca Civil Code citations follow:
This guarantees men that they are to be free from women getting preferential treatment [a.k.a chivalry] while men are spit upon:
51. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
CA prohibition that prevents price discrimination against men or women:
51.6. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995.
(b) No business establishment of any kind whatsoever may discriminate, with respect to the price charged for services of similar or like kind, against a person because of the person's
gender.
52. (a) Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney's fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6.
***********************************
To specifically answer your question MarK C, if I going into ANY business and find that a woman is getting chivalrous treatment that business WILL get sued. The cause of action will fall under section 51. The penalties are described in section 52.
For example, we often find that business will do a full invasive body search of males while women remain untouched. That is a violation of the Unrah Act. They cannot neglect to search women.
Also, we had an incident where a woman stripped in the street to her g-string yesterday. The chivalrous males at the door permitted her free and immediate access ahead of all males that were in line. Man cannot get the same treatment. So, there is a suit being filed.
If a male is forced to wait in line longer than the women because of their gender then they get sued. This happens all the time. The chivalrous doormen will discriminate against men and give women special treatment. We have filed suits on that count.
Any form of differential treatment of men and women at a business is a basis for suing. Since chivalry is the number one basis for treating men as second-class citizens and women as superior we find that we look for chivalry. When we find it we sue. Where there is chivalry there is a suit waiting to happen.
So question? Does Hollywood encourage differential treatment among the genders? DAMN RIGHT IT DOES. These businesses are going down! We don't just file one pathetic count either. Depending on the size of the business, the frequency of the discrimination, and the seriousness we may file 50 counts of discrimination against a business.
For example, there is a business called Model Introductions. This is a Hollywood classic. They recruit millionaire males and playboy quality females. The cost of a male to join is $50,000 while the females pay nothing. We are filing a suit that could be upwards of 100 counts of discrimination. The Unrah act demands that men and women be charged the same.
Chivalry is going down! BIG NCFM, LA is taking it down and we are not going to let up.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @10:48PM EST (#103)
|
|
|
|
|
To tell you the truth Ray, I don't feel anything because I think your crusade will fail. Just as the side distrustful and vengeful against all males will fail.
I choose not to live a cynical, negative, pessimistic life. There are many like me. We tend to ignore the Chicken Littles who make hyperbolic vitriolic pronouncements against segments of humanity. Just as the KKK is routinely ignored by most people, so are other types of unilateral haters.
Reasonable, logical, positive-minded people will win. Unreasonable, illogical hate mongers will lose (that includes counterparts in both sexes).
They'll just led miserable unhappy lives, and then die haters. The only thing I "feel" is some degree of sympathy for them and their wasted lives. Other than that, I will not allow them leeway to shove their twisted hateful negativity into my life.
If I changed the names on some of the posts here and posted this at Ms. some of you would be indistinguishable from the ultra pessimistic hate-mongers there. I swear, you're all clones of each other! It's really quite amusing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To tell you the truth Ray, I don't feel anything because I think your crusade will fail. Just as the side distrustful and vengeful against all males will fail.
Keep going, Ray. We need fighters, and you are one. I suspect that, once men aren't being destroyed by feminism and preferential treatment for women, you will soften the stance that you feel is necessary today. In fact, your statements reveal a great underlying sensitivity and caring.
You have my support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reasonable, logical, positive-minded people will win. Unreasonable, illogical hate mongers will lose (that includes counterparts in both sexes).
Now this hate male by AU is really FUNNY! Ray is one of the most chearful and friendly men that I've ever known. He is a champion and a noble man that stands up to bigotry.
Give me a million Rays and the world will be a better place. We would all live happier lives.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now this hate male by AU is really FUNNY! Ray is one of the most chearful and friendly men that I've ever known. He is a champion and a noble man that stands up to bigotry.
Hoo...
Fuckin'...
Ray!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 26, @12:47AM EST (#107)
|
|
|
|
|
You Wrote:
"To tell you the truth Ray, I don't feel anything because I think your crusade will fail."
Oh Boy, a critic! I do respect your right to have an opinion, although we don't agree. I'm thrilled to have your input. By the mere fact that no one was really very upset with me I thought I wasn't trying hard enough. NOW that I've gotten such a response as yours I'm encouraged and will try even harder to make good points. Thanks for your input, and have a nice day.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:" It will shake some sense into people and prompt them to ask: Is a society full of cynical distrustful people what we want? "
It certainly seems to be what the rad fems want. They spend an enormous amount of money basically stating that women should fear all men that all men have the potential. That women should use their "Intuition". Then convienantly describe to them what that "Intuition" is..
.
You can't oppress people forever and get away with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 24, @06:24PM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
"They took a gamble behind closed doors and they all lost." lirianne is right. they all lost. the boys are convicted of sex crimes. the girl has suport of family and friends and counseling maybe. she is right they all lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 23, @11:03PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
It's astonishing that Cathy Young's story is about the positive value of this decision. She might have mentioned that there are 10 times as many men in jail as women. She might have mention that the minimum sentence for this "rape" (which of course means what the male did) is 8 years.
If men don't speak out for themselves, they will be treated like dogs. As someone mentioned, feminism desparately needs some male leadership. More importantly, men need male leadership. Let's step up, guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a related issue so bare with me as a ramble a bit to make my point.
I have been pondering for years now why feminist theory has been so easily embraced by society. At its core feminist theory is basically a conflict theory almost identical in formation to Marxist theory. The only difference is that the ruling class is specified as men and the working class as women (later expanded to include minorities. Why was this perspective so easily adopted when examining gender while Marxism is still only considered one of many lens to examine economy. If you ask any knowledgeable person they will tell you that Marxism is limited by its heavy handed, one problem, one cure view. Society is too complicated to lay all social problems at the feet of any one group. Does Marxist theory make some valid points? Sure but it does not answer all questions or even claim to resolve all social problems. (People who blindly believe in Marxism are another issue.) There are many equally powerful arguments why social problems exist that are widely researched and examined. Why is it then that feminist theory is the only widely accepted gender theory? My argument is that it supports a "natural", almost universal feeling we have about women, that they are morally pure and blameless. As a result the problems that occur in male/female relationships can not be due to any fault of women, so it must be something else,... men! Women have for hundreds of years now been seen as virginal in their purity. As our society evolved, as all societies do, it has doggedly retained this notion of female moral purity. (Anyone who doubts this read "Uncle Tom's Cabin and other early American literature.) Feminist theory has been so easily accepted because it fits into our natural feeling of women's moral purity and the need to protect women both physically AND spiritually. For any one who doubts this this of the classic methods of shocking the audience in film and literature: have a woman harmed or in danger.
This is clearly seen in rape cases where any ambiguity in the facts of a she said/he said situation defaults to the woman. It is silently assumed that a woman would never lie or misrepresent the facts to harm someone else.
Any easy way of
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You said: Feminist theory has been so easily accepted because it fits into our natural feeling of women's moral purity and the need to protect women both physically AND spiritually.
I think you are exactly right. I have also read that the idea of female superiority in the moral and spiritual arena has been around at least since the 1800s. Perhaps it explains why so many traditional/conservative folks are such dupes and supporters of feminism.
Feminism and chivalry are in some respects two versions of the same thing: sacrificing men to protect women. Its amazing how so many conservatives, who claim that they want traditional values, families, a father in the home, etc are so supportive of the feminist assault on men. They think that by attacking men they are somehow protecting the precious little woman. Some day hopefully they will wake up and realize that they are helping to destroy men and thereby families.
Its interesting that some conservatives understand and are against this, while many support it. Two examples of many examples that I have run across: Paul Craig Roberts (Washington Times) gets it, Sean Hannity does not. Roberts has written a number of great pro-father articles. Hannity on a regular basis trashes men and talks about how much superior women are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism and chivalry are in some respects two versions of the same thing: sacrificing men to protect women. Its amazing how so many conservatives, who claim that they want traditional values, families, a father in the home, etc are so supportive of the feminist assault on men. They think that by attacking men they are somehow protecting the precious little woman. Some day hopefully they will wake up and realize that they are helping to destroy men and thereby families.
Willj,
Make no mistake, they are waking up in California as NCFM, LA nails the bigots where it hurts....in the wallet! If they want to practice chivalry in CA then we have a lawsuit waiting for them. This male-on-male/female-on-male hate will not stand. Chivalry is going down.
What is really wild is that groups of attorney’s are trying to organize to preserve the practice of male-on-male/female-on-male hate and discrimination. That will be an interesting battle, and we believe it is one they will loose.
Make no mistake. NCFM, LA is nailing the cultural capital of the world....Hollywood....big time! They are just now beginning to wake-up and realize what has taken place. We nailed them in the night while they were looking the other way. We are about 90% complete in carrying out this form of activism. We are doing everything legally possible to stop male hate at the source, and that is in Hollywood!
We are already hearing rumblings about this in the news and on national media. That was with just a few suits. Now the volume has more than tripled. If necessary then we will triple the number of suits again.
Attention all males in California! You have a mandate to help stop male hate by supporting NCFM, LA stop the hate! If you are in California and want in then join and help stop the hate. We will give you all of the instruction necessary to carry out this attack on male hate.
Chivalry is going down!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 25, @07:39AM EST (#70)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble wrote:
"Attention all males in California! You have a mandate to help stop male hate by supporting NCFM, LA stop the hate!"
My Reply:
Attention all males in California! You have a mandate to help stop male hate by supporting NCFM, LA stop the hate!
It bears repeating.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hannity on a regular basis trashes men and talks about how much superior women are.
I've noticed this also. So I wrote Hannity after one of his shows where he was talking about an argument that he had with his wife while in Colorado, and then I made a promise. If I ever see Hannity raise his voice to his wife while in Colorado I will dial 911 and have him arrested. That is the law and he did admit to DV on his show (according to Co law).
Be on the lookout for Hannity and his wife in Colorado. If you ever see him there then watch for them having an argument or loud discussion where Hannity raises his voice. Then dial 911. According to Colorado law he is committing DV.
Let's all help Hannity find out just how morally superior his wife is to him.
In fact lets all do this to all media elite chauvinist. Put a target in their heads and dial 911 at the slightest hint of child abuse or spousal abuse.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
