|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @11:29PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The entire article is a put down of men, albeit to spin women around, but with her as a friend, you certainly don't need enemies!
She's preaching "mere male" here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure its a little condescending, but its still 1000x better than what you'll see on most other talk shows.
The best advise I've gotten about women is based on a single principle: don't let them take you for granted. Anything taken for granted will be given less respect.
Unfortuantly, most of the actions of men in movies and advise from women just screams "TAKE ME FOR GRANTED". Flowers on the first date. "I'll always be there for you." Treating women as overly special, privledged, never saying no to a woman, etc etc.
In fact, I think all the talk of "commitment" is just womanese for "take you for granted". If you're committed, then you'll always be there, and if you'll always be there, then why should she make any effort to be a good girlfriend/wife?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 08, @02:53AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for shining the light on this little piece of feminine evil.
If any men out there think she's doing them a favour, then they'd better take a serious look at themselves in the mirror.
This woman is man's worst enemy.
Beware the feminist in sheep's clothing.
Seriously guys, do you really need some patronising, matriarchal b**** to fight your battles for you?
When are you going to become men and stand on your own two feet? Stop hiding behind a woman's skirt.
I maybe wrong, I don't think so, but that's my opinion. A man's got to have an opinion. That's called freedom of speech. That's called being a man.
God bless all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Huh? Soc? Is that short for socialist?
soc = social commentary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 08, @01:35AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"Women seem not to understand, or underestimate, the profound power they have over their husbands. Men are very emotionally dependent upon women from the day they are born to the day they expire. This book teaches women to use this power benevolently – which will definitely result in them being happier with life and love."
=================================================
"But Honey, I've done all the tricks you wanted. Can't I just have the doggie treat now?"
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.....THE PROPER CARE AND FEEDING OF HUSBANDS? She's comparing men to pets. Pets that women should take care of and treat kindly, but pets nonetheless. Just about everything in here is something demeaning men. No, she's not a feminist; I'd be pleased to have a feminist over the "back to the old ways" that Dr. Laura is proposing. She thinks the number one thing "men need" is to feel like the provider, the protector. Guess who benefits here. Women. I believe that men and women are equal partners and should care for, protect, and provide for EACH OTHER. Equality benefits everyone.
Dr. Laura thinks it's a compliment to call men "simple", either in the sense of being stupid or the sense of being uncomplicated? I certainly don't. And what men are calling her up and saying, "Yeah, all I really want is sex and a sandwich." I don't want those men representing MY gender. I'm certainly more complicated and sophisticated than just needing two things.
Really, how could any self-respecting male-rights advocate think she's doing us any favors?
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw Dr.Laura on Fox News. Yeah, the "men are simple, we women are complex" stuff bothered me, too. She may be well-meaning, I'll give her that, but maybe, so are the men who say, women can't fight wars, be police officers, etc. After all, aren't we trying to protect them? If that sort of thing offends women, however well-meaning, then by all rights, we men have a right to be offended, too, when something like this hits the airwaves and bookshelfs.
What bugs me more than just about anything else, is when men say such things about themselves, to each other and about the whole male gender. After all, if men say it about men, it's got to be true, right? Right!
When one stops to really think about it, how can one buy into the whole "men are simple" rountine? And that's just the problem: these men don't think. Maybe THEY are the ones controlled by their loins, thinking that if they spew that stuff, maybe, just maybe, they'll get some. And they don't care if their fellow men are hurt.
Just my opinion.
Chris
Those who claim to be brutally honest, enjoy the brutality more than the honesty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that 'simple' means 'straight forward.' When a man says he would like a sandwhich, he would like a sandwhich. When a woman says she would like a sandwhich, if she says it at all, she would like to be taken out for dinner, or the kitchen cleaned, or is trying to set the man up not to make the sandwhich and then be able to get mad at him.
10 years later she can bring it up when he forgets her birthday. ;-)
Complicated is not always a good thing. Lets not confuse lots of waves with depth.
Takes one to know one, the Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Complicated is not always a good thing. Lets not confuse lots of waves with depth."
That's true, Jen, but I think the implication being made by Dr. Laura and the men who talked to her is that women are multifaceted, whereas men only care about sex and a good meal. It's sort of like holding up a copy of MAXIM or any of its clones and saying, "This is what men are all about. Let's celebrate their simplicity and reflect upon the influence we have over them." It would be like if a man wrote a book explaining that women are easily controlled if they get some chocolate and get to shop for a few hours. Perhaps she thinks she's complimenting men, but I find her viewpoint rather condescending, to say the least.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, I guess I should have made a distinction there. I meant that when men talk about themselves, I think 'direct' is what they mean. When women talk about men, I think they mean simple as in neanderthalic. Sorry I wasn't more clear. TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know many here will disagree with me, and it's all good, but I don't have major heartache with her book. Ok, she's not entirely our best friend, but she's not a feminazi by any stretch. I agree with Ditto that she often does rebuke women who call her with silly whiney self-justifications and childish attitudes. Now, I am not a Dr Laura expert, but let me point a couple of things out. She's grew up in a certain age and IS a certain age. She's got a cute title to her book and it COULD be interpreted as condescending, but I don't think it was MEANT that way. Also, many of you may have noticed that most MEN and women have no clue how bad men have it (as the bad happenings are carefully screened by the lace curtain and women's studies) until it hits a male friend/family member on their heads like a ton of bricks. Yes, regular women's tacit approval, if not quiet aquiescence to, the plight of men is a pretty shitty deal. I do think that Dr Laura likes the choices women have but she wants women and men to be responsible. Now, YES, she does want the best of both worlds, and that's inherently unfair, but she's not a malicious harpy who ruthlessly is out to hurt guys. She's trying to talk to women in the way women talk to each to other. Even a respected woman is not going to get listened to if she is wagging her finger and chiding her audience.
Ok, ok ... was it a bit condescending? Yea, it was, but the gentle message might be accepted by a few women, and THAT wouldn't be so bad.
Ok .. flame me ... lol
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ya know, I try to listen to Dr. Laura sometimes, and I have yet in the past many years been able to stamach more than about 10 minutes of her at a time. Max.
Ya'll must be talking about a different Dr. Laura.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot BELIEVE I am gonna post this ... did you know there are Nude shots of her taken when she was an undergrad that are posted on the web. Man, that's kinda whacked.
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot BELIEVE I am gonna post this ... did you know there are Nude shots of her taken when she was an undergrad that are posted on the web. Man, that's kinda whacked.
Thanks for the visual, Steve. Now I have to go claw my eyes out.
Man, I thought we was PALS.....
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I listened to "Dr" Laura for a while in the late '90s, about the same time I listened to Rush Limbaugh. In both cases I agreed with their positions on many specific issues, but found their arrogant, insensitive, intolerant attitudes tiresome. Their huge success is no indicator of real excellence, but merely a symptom of a culture starved for even crumbs of truth in a sea of lies. Both pretend to be "thinkers," but they really aren't: they merely parrot (some of the) views held by people who really do think. Don't mistake knee-jerk, caustic "conservatism" for intelligence, merely because it skewers the idiocy of knee-jerk, mindless "liberalism." Rush's famous "conservative" self- and intellectual discipline has recently been exposed for just what it is: a superficial attitude (a money-making one, to be sure) with no real correlate in his own behavior.
"Dr" Laura is a perfect example of the fanaticism of the convert. In her youth indeed she was a typical libertine female of her generation, as evidenced by the referenced bawdy photos that someone posted on the Internet. Then she got religion (orthodox/conservative Judaism), which she embraced with the uncritical zeal typical of the all-too-common type who is not looking for truth so much as for the emotional security provided by a ready-made, self-referential (e.g. "The Bible must be true, because it was written by G-d!") belief system. Like David Horowitz, who chameleoned from radical '60s leftist to rabid '90s rightist without apparently having a single original thought on the way, "Dr" Laura is merely an example of the lowest-common-denominator of Churchill's famous dictum, "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head." Such herd-animal "thinkers" exemplify only the most superficial versions of either heart or head.
As a former, relatively unthinking youthful liberal myself, now at 60 a thinking conservative in what I would consider the true sense -- someone who is passionate about conserving what is of value in the world (while most "conservatives" are enthusiastic wasters) -- I'd say that becoming more conservative as one ages is a matter of intellectual and spiritual growth. The real "conservative at 40" retains every bit of the heart he had at 20, but now understands that Reason is a more effective tool than Passion for accomplishing the true, lasting satisfaction of the heart's needs. This is why, in traditional societies that work, it is the elders who make the important decisions -- precisely because they are not ruled by short-sighted passions. The problem with our culture is that there are no elders. Merely becoming older (which we all do regardless) does not automatically make one an elder in this sense.
The pervasive misunderstanding of this point is a good example of how female thinking has become the dominant norm in our decayed culture. It has often been noted that one of the prime differences between the sexes is that girls become women passively, merely by growing older, while boys must make some kind of effort to become men. This idea of the need of effort, the valuing of performance, and that differences do matter is a fundamental element of healthy male consciousness. That American men now think like women is reflected in men's groups celebrating men over 50 as "elders" by default, simply because their bodies have lasted a half-century, just as mush-headed women want all the children in the game, losers as well as winners, to get a prize, so nobody will feel bad. It's not that I want anybody to feel bad; but I do recognize that a culture cannot survive in sanity under this kind of rule.
I finally parted ways with "Dr" Laura when confronted with her enthusiastic (even rabid) promotion of infant male circumcision. Not, I believe, because she has given any real thought to the issue, but simply because such an attitude fits both her "religious" beliefs and her "born-again" 1950s American culturalism. I agree (and I was there) that the '60s didn't work out all that well, but I don't think returning to an unexamined, idealized version of the '50s is the answer. I was there, too; the excesses of the '60s arose directly out of the severely dysfunctional neuroses and inadequacy of '50s culture. It was insane.
The bottom line is, if/whenever "Dr" Laura may appear to be sympathetic toward men, or supportive of "men's issues," it is merely by accident. "Conservative" misandry may look a little different than the heretofore more common "liberal"/feminist variety, but it is still based on a fundamental contempt, in her case further compounded by her fanatical convert version of Jewish American Princesshood.
BTW, I don't see anything "wrong" with opening doors for women. If/when they are women, rather than the overgrown pre-adolescent frustrated tomboys that are the present norm. Adult persons of both genders can do such little courtesies for each other without damaging their own self-esteem; indeed, it is just such courtesies that are an indispensible requirement for civilized life, by cushioning/lubricating the encounter between the two most savage/dangerous predators on the planet. The problem is that there are hardly any such adults in our culture nowadays. And feminism, both the familiar modern leftist version and its less obvious but even more pervasive/powerful foremother that created the infant male circumcision program, is a lot of the reason.
Andrew Main
Excerpts from the Dr. Laura Schlessinger show of March 4, 1998:
Dr. Laura: There is OVERWHELMING medical evidence of the medical and health benefits of circumcision.
Hedy: I disagree... I disagree...
Dr. Laura: No, no, no my dear, you can't disagree with fact. I know it... it annoys your opinions, and it's not what you want to believe, but if you would like me to put you on hold, we can send you REAMS of it.
Hedy: Oh well, and, and...
Dr. Laura: And you're not a medical doctor, and neither am I, but I read the literature and it's OVERWHELMINGLY positive.
Hedy: Actually, it's a Jewish organization that's against circumcision.
Dr. Laura: No... uh, I doubt that, dear. It can't be by definition. But there are organizations which pretend to be Jewish, which are basically anti-Semitic, which promote LIES, deceptions, distortions and just bad information to keep you from joining the covenant. Now, if you want to be that naive because you don't value your religion that much, I understand. But I'm still going to put you on hold and we're going to forward you the information... and I really think that it is basically anti-Semitic propaganda because the medical community way overwhelmingly gives evidence for the medical benefits of not having that foreskin, much less your covenantal obligation with God. ... [reads excerpts from various newspaper stories quoting pro-circumcision medical "experts"] ... So the bottom line for all of this is that there's nothing bad about it and it has benefits. If you want to crinch about about absolute numbers, I still contend most of the anti-circ business is anti-Semitic. So the "anti" is valid. The thing that they do suggest is some anesthesia. I've been to so many Brises, as you would hear the word said... Never once did I see a mohel have anesthesia per se... and the kid cried for like six seconds and it's over... So I'm not sure that's a major issue. I mean this has been going on for thousands of years... I don't think, you know, you'd have Islamic and Jewish families torturing children... for thousands of years... I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note, BTW, that prominent among promoters of universal infant male circumcision in the 19th century were Jews, e.g. Dr. Lewis Sayre, who apparently hoped to "blend in" better with the dominant White/European culture by forcing their sexual psychosis on everbody. See "The Sexually Mutilated Child":
"Millions of Jews were murdered during the Holocaust because circumcision marked them as Jews! This must never happen again! Everyone should be circumcised!" --Pediatrician's wife, American Academy of Pediatrics Annual Conference, Hyatt-Regency Hotel, Chicago, April 14, 1996
By everyone, of course, she means every man. Women -- including "Dr" Laura -- are exempt, in Judaism as in WASP culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Her article demonstrates a total lack of respect for men by trying to portray them as inferior to women, and simple creatures for women to control.
She's NOT an ally of male activism, she is one of its most dangerous enemies; she uses indirect and disguised methods of putting down men. Her portrayal of what a man is is exactly the same kind of pathetic male that the character Raymond in the horrible show 'Everybody loves Raymond' is.
The last thing we need is for people to fall for that hidden man-hate and confuse it with support for our cause.
Women like that must NOT be allowed to make their degrading definitions of men and have them stand as the truth by trying to back the ridiculous article up with some select responses she has gotten from men who must be completely brainwashed by watching too much 'King of queens'. Obviously these men are the sheep who are married to the women she wishes to sell her book to.
Should this disrespectful and awful woman and those weak men who are too intimidated or weak to disagree be the ones to define what men are like?
No! Men are the ones who define what men are, NOT women. She's got it all mixed up. If her definition, and that is the definition used by Hollywood and the media too, is allowed to stand without someone speaking up against it, then the male cause is in serious trouble.
The first step forward is to install in men the confidence to define what a man is themselves, instead of being told what a man is by women. She has some nerve trying to tell US what WE are. MEN know what men are.
One group cannot survive if it allows another group to define it. To allow such a thing to happen would be equal to asking to be dominated and degraded. And this trend has already gone far - much too far.
So considering this woman and her unhealthy and WRONG definitions and views on men an ally would be equal to swallowing sugar-coated poison.
In some cases I think it almost takes an outsider to see this, because in America these things have gone so far that any article that isn't a direct attack will wrongly be interpreted as support.
Well, this article is not support, it's a dangerous attack on men. Be aware of such tactics. Don't let her spoonful of sugar make the feminist medicine go down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe your just a troll.
No, you are definatly a troll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 08, @10:33AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you should listen to the show. . .that is all you need to do. Dr. Laura consistantly suggest breakups based on one sided discriptions. . .dangerous and irresponsable. As anyone (with any sense of reality) knows, there is always two sides to the story. In most of the "poor me's" and in most of the callers topics. . .she immediatly goes after the male as the "bad" one without any justification or reason. The few men that are "allowed" through the screening are usually speaking of rather stupid issues that she mocks and laughs at. She expects the "traditional" ethics and morals of men (money, chivalry) of course with the added wants of modern women. She expects men to work much to provide and then condems them when he doesn't do enough time worth of chores, child care etc (because the rotton ba***** is at work all the time). She is definatly a "new wave" feminazi. She promotes separation and divorce based on her feminist agenda. . .no consideration whatsoever of the male point of view. . .period.
Once in a blue moon however, she does spank the female usually in the context of "you made a bad choice with your rotton boyfriend". Of course based on only the "she said" scenario.
With Dr. Laura it is always a "she said scenario" and therefor it must be. Women never lie nor do they use selective verbalization. What woman would ever acknowledge their own wrongdoings, over zealous expectations, character flaws etc, etc.
How can a person give "advice" in a relationship when she only hears half the story? She believes that herside is the only side that matters.
This feminsts truely believes that males are the property of women.
Listen to her show and you will know. AM 760 in the morning.
It baffles my mind that Rush and Laura use that same station.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man! Only two posts so far that at least halfway agree with me? I'm generally very sensitive to anti-male speak, so could I be this wrong?
I didn't say Dr. Laura was perfect. She is definitely old-fashioned conservative in many ways. (She still believes men should open and close doors for women - give me a break!). Like I said before, she has made me really angry on a couple of occasions, even to the point of returning a couple of her books I'd bought a week or two before. I repurchased them later at bargain sales and used bookstores to ensure she didn't get any royalties from me as a result.
I disagree about the woman-sided bias allegations (in part), though. I have heard on several occasions where a woman complained about her man and Dr. Laura took the man's side, immediately taking the woman to task for whining and using the latest feminist psychobabble to justify their whining. One case in particular that immediately comes to mind was when a woman whined and was almost crying on the air accusing her husband of rape because he had intercourse with her in the middle of the night without first waking her and getting her agreement. What feminazi would take the man's side in this instance? Just listen to her jump on women who try to use the "he's abusing me" whine without a tight explanation of exactly what he's doing.
Sure, most of these conversations are one-sided, but that's the case in 99.9% of all radio talk show conversations. In most cases, a talk show host has to believe the person at the other end of the line, but Dr. Laura doesn't always. She jumps on women based on their whine even at times when the man isn't on the line to give his side. I've also heard her request that both sides get on the phone at the same time to get to the bottom of a disagreement, which I don't think I've ever heard any other talk show hostess or host do. And I've heard her side with the man in some of these instances.
I've also heard her take the man's side after he called and described how abusive his wife was. She has on more than one occasion that I've heard, tell the man to get a good lawyer to get his child away from an abusive mother. She has even chided the man for being too much of a wimp (when he was) and get done what needs to be done (against the woman) to protect the child.
Of course she acknowledges that the court system is biased against men, but that's why she has emphacized a good lawyer and told the man not to delay getting legal advice and to take action early against the woman when she felt it necessary based on what the man told her on the air.
Sure, it's not hard to find articles that criticize Dr. Laura... because she's conservative. The left does this all the time to belittle and invalidate conservatives without having to address the issues head on. Just because she isn't perfect and has made mistakes in her life doesn't invalidate all her advice.
Bottom Line: I didn't submit the review of her new book to say how wonderful Dr. Laura is in every way. I did it to compliment her new book. The title is obviously a little condecending, but geez, that just hype! Where's your sense of humor? This is just, in my opinion, a way of selling books to women who are brainwashed against men from the cradle to the grave.
How many books advise women that men's actions toward them and the way they are treated by men is largely based on the way they act towards their men? When was the last time we ever heard someone ask what a woman did to start or instigate a fight? When a man hits a woman, has anyone lately asked the woman what she did or said that led up to it?
I personally am sick and tired of all the kiss-ass books that tell men how to act towards women without ever seeing books to women on how they should act towards men. In that matter, this book is a breath of fresh air!
I still say she deserves our gratitude in this case. And I emphasize in this case.
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 08, @04:24PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"I didn't say Dr. Laura was perfect. She is definitely old-fashioned conservative in many ways. (She still believes men should open and close doors for women - give me a break!)."
What wrong with that? See you guys are just like feminists. Only you want the reverse. You want to women to have all the responsibilities and men to have none at all. Makes me sick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly which responsibilities were you referring to? Perhaps responsiblity for one's own actions? Maybe you meant the expanded responsibility that is SUPPOSED to go with having expanded choices and rights. Or is it the responsiblity to finance the life of a child only the female has the right/choice to let live or die. Could it possibly be the responsiblity to pay her own way when she exercises her right to divorce her husband and break up her family (a right she exercises in 2/3 of divorce cases). Perhaps you disagree with holding women responsible for the 66% of child abuse they perpetrate, or the 50% of spousal abuse.
Please do tell... what responsibilities do we wish to shirk at the expense of the "fairer" sex?
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I didn't say Dr. Laura was perfect. She is definitely old-fashioned conservative in many ways. (She still believes men should open and close doors for women - give me a break!)."
What's wrong with that is that women aren't expected, in turn, to hold the door for men. They're not promoting common courtesy, but rather one-sided chivalry, which treats men like servants and women like helpless damsels.
No, I'm in favor of equal responsibilities. As for the "feminists" comment, I don't think "feminist" is a dirty word. We should be aligning with the ones who wish to treat everyone fairly and opposing the ones who wish to discriminate and cling to double standards.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know that much about Dr Laura but I just saw her on Larry King and I liked a good bit of what she was saying. She did speak of men as being "boys" and diminished their power in relationship however she also held women accountable for their actions in marriage. Boy was that a breath of fresh air. She said that women tend to complain and gossip about the men in their lives and basically get caught up in their own negative stories. She claims that women have lost the art of truly loving their husbands and need to break the cycle by appreciating their men by complementing them, caring for them and appreciating what they do.
Whoa! What a breath of fresh air. Someone actually talking about women's RESPONSIBILITIES! I like it.
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said, Dr. Laura definitely has good parts.
I must admit I hardly ever listen to her anymore, though, because for a woman, she's just too caustic and her attitude is too "holier-than-though" for me, especially coming from a woman.
Her attitude would be hard to take coming from a man, but even worse, in my eyes, from a woman.
One of our posters mentioned about not too many men getting on her show, but I doubt that the problem is her staff keeping men off the show. I'm more inclined to believe that there are not too many men willing to be talked down to by a woman on national radio (or under any other circumstances, for that matter).
Dittohd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, it's not hard to find articles that criticize Dr. Laura... because she's conservative. The left does this all the time to belittle and invalidate conservatives without having to address the issues head on.
Um, sure. Not that either party has a patent on grandstanding, but its been conservatives who've spent the last 25 years trying to turn "liberal" into a four letter word, not the other way around. And conservatives catch-phrases like "big government", "tax and spend", and the aformentioned "liberal" aren't exactly addressing the issues, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liberal has become a four letter word because of liberals, not conservatives.
Riiiight. In the same way its the fault of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee that Republican staffers broke into and spied on their computer systems. In other words: not at all. The only responsibility that liberals have for this is a general, strange unwillingness to stand up for themselves. i.e. Demo
Liberals are in the progress of changing their name again. Now they're "progressives".
So? Many liberal laws and programs came from when they were last called progressives, around the turn of the century. Unions, workers rights, food saftey, anti-monopoly laws...
But it won't work, "A rose by any other name..."
Thats exactly what I'm talking about. You don't make a rational argument as to why a law or philosophy is bad, you only smugly utter a three or four syllable word and expect everyone to nod their heads in agreement with your wisdom. It is a retarded argument made by lazy asshats.
As for the assertion that liberals haven't done everything they can to make "conservative" a four letter word, where have you been?
Awake. If you'd been paying attention, you'd know that there hasn't been any such campaign for that word. The term 'right-wing' is bandied about, put it isn't part and parcel of your political philosophy.
left of center = liberal = bad
right of center = conservative = maybe right-wing
Of the second one, there's a whole nother extra step on the end there that you're missing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 11, @07:10PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Her article demonstrates a total lack of respect for men by trying to portray them as inferior to women, and simple creatures for women to control.
She's NOT an ally of male activism, she is one of its most dangerous enemies; she uses indirect and disguised methods of putting down men. Her portrayal of what a man is is exactly the same kind of pathetic male that the character Raymond in the horrible show 'Everybody loves Raymond' is.
The last thing we need is for people to fall for that hidden man-hate and confuse it with support for our cause.
Women like that must NOT be allowed to make their degrading definitions of men and have them stand as the truth by trying to back the ridiculous article up with some select responses she has gotten from men who must be completely brainwashed by watching too much 'King of queens'. Obviously these men are the sheep who are married to the women she wishes to sell her book to.
Should this disrespectful and awful woman and those weak men who are too intimidated or weak to disagree be the ones to define what men are like?
No! Men are the ones who define what men are, NOT women. She's got it all mixed up. If her definition, and that is the definition used by Hollywood and the media too, is allowed to stand without someone speaking up against it, then the male cause is in serious trouble.
The first step forward is to install in men the confidence to define what a man is themselves, instead of being told what a man is by women. She has some nerve trying to tell US what WE are. MEN know what men are.
One group cannot survive if it allows another group to define it. To allow such a thing to happen would be equal to asking to be dominated and degraded. And this trend has already gone far - much too far.
So considering this woman and her unhealthy and WRONG definitions and views on men an ally would be equal to swallowing sugar-coated poison.
In some cases I think it almost takes an outsider to see this, because in America these things have gone so far that any article that isn't a direct attack will wrongly be interpreted as support.
Well, this article is not support, it's a dangerous attack on men. Be aware of such tactics. Don't let her spoonful of sugar make the feminist medicine go down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote the comment above, but my login failed when I submitted the comment, so I just want to make it clear that it I wrote it.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
