|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Misandry is a kind word for it.
Name me three things with a moving part invented by a woman, biatch.
I can't even begin right now, as it starts from being based on contrary to fact assumptions, and just goes downhill from there.
A while back, I had a little debate with a female who was crowing about them being the first gender, and men being the second. I sure got satisfaction from the look on her face when I pointed out the that Mark II models were invariably the improvement, and more advanced.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name me three things with a moving part invented by a woman...
True, but in fairness, out of the total male population, what percentage of males throughout history invented anything or did anything of noticeable greatness?
We need to stop always reaching for extraordinary examples of accomplishment to defend men. That's not the level where she was attacking us. She was attacking us at the majority level - the "average" level.
I'm probably never going to invent anything. I'm probably never going to find a cure for anything. And while I may very well find myself in a war someday, I doubt I'd be a soldier of exceptional mark.
So, lacking those "great" qualities, what "average" masculine qualities do I still have and should be proud of? That's what we need to focus on in defending men. Because if you read the article closely, that's what she was referring to. She was basically saying that masculine qualities are really only valuable when applied to certain high-octane, historic-status applications - but that they don't really justify the majority of males who are too second-rate to make the history books, yet still too high-octane to adapt to the more humble rigors of daily life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True, but in fairness, out of the total male population, what percentage of males throughout history invented anything or did anything of noticeable greatness?
I get your point, but still I think it's worth pointing out to idiots like this female that everything she takes for granted that enables her to live in reasonable comfort in what is commonly regarded as civilization was invented/developed by the men she regards as useless appendages.
Do you think it was Homo habilis females who figured out how to knap flint three million years ago on the Serengeti plain? No way to tell for sure, but I somehow doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True, but in fairness, out of the total male population, what percentage of males throughout history invented anything or did anything of noticeable greatness?
Invented anything that hasn't been seen under the sun? Probably few - but who are the problem solvers?
It's what I find laughable about the supposedly strong, successful, independent women - when the going gets tough do they (as a majority, too) suck it up, bite the bullet, reach down and grab 'em, and pull themselves out of the mess?
Hmmm?
No. They look to be rescued. Used to be they looked at their men, their husbands. Now that they have divorced their husbands, they look to their new husband (the government, the courts, and the police state) to do it for them.
What the average masculine qualities we have to be proud of is thus: If it had been left up to women we'd still be living in caves because nobody would have been able to figure how to build a house. We'd be scurrying about hunting scraps of nuts and berries, because fighting those big old animals is too scary. We wouldn't be travelling far from our holes because it wasn't safe. And we'd still have the witch doctor chanting over us when we had the plague, because nody would be able to reach a consensus on trying something new.
But I bet sure as hell we'd still be the ones killing the fucking spiders - because they're icky.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The saddest thing is that the USWNR is willing to print something like this. Here's what I wrote to them:
By Jodie Allen
Are men obsolete? = MISANDRY
Jodie Allen conveniently didn't mention any of the positive attributes of the masculine, only the negatives. Could she simply be someone who disdains men and unfortunately has a national podium to spout her hatred? She tells us of John Dillinger but forgets Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi. Just imagine an article about women that exclusively lists the negative aspects of the feminine. She would be boo'ed off the stage.
Our culture is fertile ground to spread hatred of men and your publication is a part of that madness.
Wake up.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what horseshit
BTW, out of concern for equality and gender fairness, I call this sort of thing "cowshit." I thought I'd made up this term, but recently noticed someone else using it somewhere. Anyway, you're welcome to use it too; I'd really like to see it get around, as "misandry" (practically unknown ten years ago, when I had to go to library's unabridged to follow up a dim memory of a word I'd once heard) is now seems to be doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A single page shill for the wildly out of touch feminists.
However, notice that she didn't make reference to paternity fraud, infanticide, nor did she write about the rapidly closing statistical gap between male crimes and female crimes. Yep: while crime remains rather steady for men, it is on the increase for women.
Gosh, that feminism sure is wacky.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 17, @06:27PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
For starters, how can such an overtly sexist twit become managing editor of U.S.News & World Report and writes a column on the political economy for a magazine? This is just one problem this country faces right now. If a male editor where to publish an article that women are dumb at science and have not contributed to the advancement of science like men have, or that women are weak at sports, he would likely lose his job.
There are many conclusions in Jodie’s article, but not much analysis is offered to support her biased viewpoints. This is how I see it:
Feminism has created school systems that emphasize and strengthen abilities that come more natural to girls compared to that of boys, and more programs exist within schools that are gender specific for the specific advancement of girls. Add the majority of educators are women (many feminists) and typically liberal - the school environment becomes a place that views masculine traits as pathological. This causes “marginal” boys to get discarded, or drugged or pushed into remedial classes and discourages many mormal boys from participating. The system is “stacked against” the boys, and this is why as Jodie puts it – “girls now outperform boys in grades, admissions, student government, and extracurricular activities”. The fact that girls are doing better is a result of a successful social program that has taken over the majority of schools in this country. And now that there is a measurable amount of success, feminists shout “men are obsolete” – a true dyke fantasy.
As far as men outnumbering women in crime (this may always be somewhat true) but I think it is fair to say that the judicial system and arrest tactics employed by police are biased against men. It is demonstrable that women routinely get lighter sentences (or get their charges completely dropped because they are women) while men usually get the full force of the law. In DV policy, police are told to always arrest the male. If a woman hits a man, it was because he must have deserved it, but if the other happens –it is likely the man will be arrested and finds his name in the local newspaper. Also social programs are mostly geared to help and enable women in a “normative” sense, whereas marginal men get the “pathological” treatments of social policy, just like they did in school.
As far as Jodie’s opinions go, I think she is a sexist hater who will always see the “gender glass” as half empty instead of half full as she casually denigrates an entire gender in typical feminist style.
Men have been primary in building every institution that modern civilization depends on to function, and will remain to do so as long as civilization still exists.. To dismiss men as “irrelevant” in the future is a monumentally stupid statement that only reflects a damaged mind…
Jodie should be fired. Lets get on it…
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She starts to sound like she's going to offer a solution but then she just goes further into the "men are inferior" line of reasoning. To me, this sounds exactly like she's been thinking about what's "wrong" with men, and what's "right" with women, and this is just a pointless summation of a series of undirected thoughts. It truly doesn't go anywhere. I've read far better articles on amateur weblogs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 17, @07:22PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't even read the artical and I know what it says. I've seen the arguments in a movie that my mom made me watch. I've read the stuff in books and stories and magazines. It's always the same arguments and they don't even take any outside discussion into acount. I shall now read it and see if my suspicions are true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 17, @07:38PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
We're bitter because we're a bunch of "surplus males". Maybe they ought to start building some camps out in the desert for us before we create the otherwise inevitable "dystopia". This is really foul, but not unfamiliar rhetoric.
Hillary for President!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fortunately, every one of the liberal media outlets is suffering in reader/viewership now that we live in a free market of ideas and since their bias has been exposed (by Ann Coulter, Bernard Goldberg, etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 18, @08:54AM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Thing is, USN&WR isn't particularly liberal. It's leans sort of country club Rebublican.
John Leo is good though. Definately on our side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For me, the really humiliating thing is that I subscribe to USNWR. Needless to say, I'll be changing that, as soon as I can compose a suitably dignified yet venemous letter...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There must be surprlus women too if there are surplus men and more women then men. But of course this is not something likely to srike an author of this kind of work.
She did point to a general trend in human society though, toward the end of her prattlings, which ought to concern both feminazis ane men's rights people like ourselves both. Her brief mention of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr's work addresses the matter directly. Technology reduces a need for immediate skills-- once skills are codifed into a machine or other repeating, no-humans-required device, these skills are no longer "needed" from humans. This may save an employer's bottom line but eventually causes reduced demand for goods (if consumers have no work, they have no money, and thus can't be consumers for very long) as well as a loss of jobs (Robert Reich, Labor Sec. under Clinton, discussed this in several works he published in the 1990s), leading to a vicious cycle (vicious like misandry...).
Soon if "modern science" delivers as promised a means of creating human infants outside a human uterus, the question will then be "What are we going to do with all the extra *people*, no longer needing a particular sex or the sexes anymore to reproduce, except for some genes which may be extractable eventually form ordinary body tissues?"
But I agree, this woman clearly hates men. She needs to be written to and told to go climb a tree. But also don't imagine she will change her mind about men. She is a little too long in fang to change her stripes now. But while she (thankfully) is likely to be retiring soon, you can be sure she is grooming a (female) successor who probably shares her beliefs about the dispensibility of our gender. At the very least, we should make sure she knows we know about her and don't much like her misandric attitudes.
Oh yeah, and cancel any subscriptions you may have to this magazine, and let them know why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To: letters@usnews.com
-------
To the editors:
I can't believe you folks are employing a person so incredibly bigotted as Jodi Allen.
Her article "Are men obsolete" ( http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030623/opinion/ 23money.htm ) is perhaps one of the most blatant and severe examples of misandry in a national publication by a media professional that I have ever seen. Can you imagine something worded like this article written about any other category of person that would get published? And her skewed and erroneous misinterpretation of historical facts about men and society speak for themselves.
You have lost another customer. My suggestion is that you move to do damage control immediately. Fire Ms. Allen and publish an apology to your readership. In addition, I would suggest you implement an educational program among your staff to make them more aware of misandry and how it affects the well-being of men, boys, and the females in their lives.
Also be aware of how it affects yor subscription rates.
Sincerely yours,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 18, @11:27AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 26, @03:35PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
You might be interested to read what I wrote on this subject regarding the same article. The entry can be found at:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/normalcyispasse/
There, you will also find my comments to US News and Jodie Allen herself.
That article was simply one of the worst things I've seen published in recent history. I hope to see a letter of reconciliation published in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
