|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:42 PM March 19th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that feminists may drop the whole "gender determined by social construct"
Jazz. In light of the growing evidence they may HAVE to.
But as far as them saying that they are supirior to men when that time comes, they're already saying that.
In fact their whole rackett is based upon that belief.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But as far as them saying that they are superior to men... In fact their whole racket is based upon that belief.
All feminists, no matter whether they describe themselves as "gender" feminists, "equity" feminists, or whatever else feminists, even conservative "anti-feminist" feminists, believe in the fundamental moral superiority of women. The only difference is in how they think this belief should play out. Even those who claim to deny this belief because it would look bigoted and that wouldn't go over well, what they end up saying is that men aren't intrinsically morally inferior because they can change themselves to act like women. This is, of course, implicitly asserting the truth of what they claim to be denying.
But, human nature being what it is, those who loudly proclaim their moral superiority are like the Pharisees in the Bible: hypocrites. That is why, as I see it, a major emphasis of the men's movement should be to expose this hypocrisy. For instance, pro-life women blame men for abortion while over one-fourth of women over 15 have voluntarily walked into an abortion clinic and gotten one; pro-choice women, on the other hand, proclaim their "right to reproductive freedom" while denying this same "right" to men. There are plenty other examples of such hypocrisy I could name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that "all feminist" are in the belief of female superiority. Some, I emphasize some, are not female supremacists. A lot are, but we got some pretty great women among our ranks who hate gender feminists as much as we do.
Just trying to be helpful.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I said "all" I was referring to all the feminist groups styling themselves "whatever-adjective" feminists. Of course not all women in those groups think exactly alike. However, I maintain that even "non-gender" feminist groups (or even women's groups that reject the term "feminist"), by and large, accept female moral superiority and its consequences of not thinking of men except in terms of how they relate to women (there are, of course, being individual exceptions).
Let's look at some of the arguments advanced (by various women's groups) against recent feminist excesses:
Sexual harassment hysteria is bad, because then men go back in their corners and refuse to relate to women in the workplace.
The sexual revolution is bad, not due to the absolute moral position that sex should be saved for marriage (which would then, of course, make women equally as guilty as men) but because "irresponsible" men will then attempt to "have the milk without buying the cow".
The Equal Rights Amendment is bad, for it lowers women onto an "equal" plane with men (women obviously being naturally superior).
Date rape hysteria/false rape claims are bad, because they trivialize instances of real rape, and claims of real rape won't be taken as seriously anymore.
Abortion-on-demand is bad, for it liberates men from having to take responsibility for their sexual behavior.
Note that in all of these instances, the focus is on the undesirable consequences of women's bad behavior rather than on the immorality of such behavior in itself. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret this as meaning these groups view women as essentially morally irreproachable. I know there are exceptions like Wendy McElroy. Unfortunately she is the exception that proves the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The sexual revolution is bad, not due to the absolute moral position that sex should be saved for marriage (which would then, of course, make women equally as guilty as men) but because "irresponsible" men will then attempt to "have the milk without buying the cow".
"Sexual harassment hysteria is bad, because then men go back in their corners and refuse to relate to women in the workplace."
"Abortion-on-demand is bad, for it liberates men from having to take responsibility for their sexual behavior."
Whats interesting about some of the examples you provided is that it illustrates that while feminists attempt to manipulate political or social power to gain advantage,those women that critisize feminism do so in part because they fear the loss of their traditional advantage found in their ability to use sex and emotion to manipulate men.
Some time ago i found a link at the Stand Your Ground forum for a round table discussion between a group of women critical of feminism,after a quick scan of the conversation i found a quote that simply stated "men will do what we tell them to do" i dont remember what it was in referance to as i did not read the article after i found that quote,but i can tell you i havent read a female's take on the issue since.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's interesting about some of the examples you provided is that it illustrates that while feminists attempt to manipulate political or social power to gain advantage, those women that criticize feminism do so in part because they fear the loss of their traditional advantage found in their ability to use sex and emotion to manipulate men.
I would go so far as to say as most women who publicly criticize feminism do so in large part because they fear the loss of that traditional advantage. What many of them are really saying to their feminist sisters is, look, men are pigs and we have the right to use them as tools for our own advantage, just don't be so blatantly open about saying so, and don't push so hard, or the men might finally wake up, realize what the score is, and revolt.
It's particularly revealing and galling for me to see that traditional morality is being subverted to serve the feminist agenda. Some "conservative" women are so self-centered apparently as to think traditional moral codes exist solely for their sake, to be quietly discarded when convenient, just not too flagrantly lest the benefits be lost as well. There's just such hypocrisy. I could write all night citing examples.
For instance, many of them wouldn't think twice about wearing short skirts, tight jeans, low-cut blouses, etc., to work. Every woman that does this, of course, is attempting to manipulate the boss into a promotion. But then, other undesirable men start hitting on her as well, or the boss is just a little too blatant on what he expects in return. No fair, she shouldn't have to put up with this (no matter that she brought it upon herself in the first place) - sexual harassment! But wait, now all the men are scared about sexual harassment and refuse to pay her any attention at all, acting extremely coolly towards her, even the boss. Hence SH has now gone too far and its worst excesses must be curbed. To top it off, the whole time she is loudly proclaiming on how she wishes to be judged solely on her merits.
Sad to say, there are plenty of women who feel it their birthright to manipulate men. This is not what true womanhood is about; these are pathetic specimens of it. We need a term for the female equivalent of "jerk" or "cad".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We need a term for the female equivalent of "jerk" or "cad"."
bitch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate you clarifying.
I agree completely with your examples of how even most "good" feminists care only about how "bad" feminists are hurting women, and not men.
Your examples were exellent.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vince wrote -
"Even those who claim to deny this belief because it would look bigoted and that wouldn't go over well, what they end up saying is that men aren't intrinsically morally inferior because they can change themselves to act like women. This is, of course, implicitly asserting the truth of what they claim to be denying."
True, and true again.
If you want to refute this statement, try to find even one statement by a feminist saying "women need to become more like men... and emulate their self-sacrifice, courage, dedication as providers, selfless defense of home and country, and unassuming service to family and community..."
Tragically, in exalting women to the detriment of men in this era of feminism, our society has fallen into a trap that pits the best qualities of each gender against the other.
Some healing is long overdue....
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, this is not new.In the sixteen and seventeen hundreds there was the phenomina of the "gentle"man. (I think these guys would easily meet your criteria of wussie poopies Thunder Cloud).
They wore wigs, lace, and highly effeminate clothing, had highly mannerized behaviour and spoke with a learned and affected lisp.
However, more often than not, these "fops" were, like the villanous Archibald Cunningham in the story of Rob Roy McGreggor, in that when they were not being watched for these affected behaviours they were rapacious with rapier and rape stick.
Surely this sort of history would show that such efforts are not only futile but indeed counter productive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my opionion one of the main problems society in general and the mens movement in particular is going to have to overcome in order to see real progress is once again the problem of definition.So far their has been a reluctance on the part of us all too challenge the logic at the heart of these definitions and i think it shows up once again in this article with the use of such terms as "fragile","emotional need", or in the using such phrases as "can be anybody you want to be" to highlight the differant approaches taken for boys and girls whithout questioning the value of the approach itself.The answer to the problem does not come in accepting the language and definition of the approach as valuable then applying it to boys, but from questioning the approach itself.
From its onset feminism has been based on the logic of ego,if it can be expressed in terms of "needs" or in terms of "emotions" then to the women that fueled the movement and increasingly to the women that supported it,then that was enough to define the demand or definition as real.No value was ever placed on the role of objective reason,in fact it was avoided, and in fact recently any attempt to apply objective reason to any of these issue's has been defined as "linear thinking" and dismissed out of hand.
We can not accept the feminist focus upon "needs" and "emotions" and the logic that follows if we are to challenge feminism ,for it is the logic that followed this focus that has created the world we now live with.These boys do not need(or want) society to define their needs as "fragile" they do not need(or want) a school system whose focus is their emotional "need",especially since "emotional needs" is defined by female need and not male, and neither they nor society can afford yet another gender weaned on the superficial platitudes of ego notions like "you can be anything you want",it is not an issue of want, but of do, and thats an important distiction that has been lost on three entire generations.It has been this unquestioned focus upon "needs" and "emotions" that created the problem,and it is only in removing this focus and by challenging the value of it that balance can be achieved, not in finding ways to re-apply this approach to boys.
This article is about the re-emerging value placed upon biology in understanding the differant behavior, approaches and strengths of each gender,an understanding that society had, and acted upon, before the definitions of feminism were accepted.It was feminism that told us,and wrongly, that girls "were once told they would never be good in math and science", this was never true any more than it was true that boys were told they would never be good in "english".Society simply aknowledged the fact that each gender had its strengths and weaknesses based on biology.It was the aknowledgement by society that boys were stronger at things such as math that was re-defined by feminism as "women are incapable of math"and therefore action must be taken to correct this injustice, instead of questioning whether or not this was ever true and therefore if any action was ever necessary the article accepts the notion and calls for a similar action to be taken on the part of boys.Boys are not being compromised because there isnt a similar focus upon there "needs" but because the system has bulldozed over them in its desperate rush to meet the so called "needs" of females.Neither girls, boys or society has benefitted from the acceptance of these approaches or definitions and its our attatchment to these concepts that needs to go,we can not afford to have them more firmly entrenched by demanding them for ourselfs or for our sons.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:27 PM March 19th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
These boys do not need(or want) society to define their needs as "fragile" they do not need(or want) a school system whose focus is their emotional "need",especially since "emotional needs" is defined by female need and not male,
I agree. "Emotion" has been defined as a female capacity and a male lack. That's bullshit.
The point is that men are fully human beings until they allow themselves to be converted into donkeys or poodles. That means they suffer, love, feel depressed, elated, etc. even if they don't incessantly focus on their feelings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that there are some modest signs that the rad fems are losing ground in the public imagination and regard, it's going to be interesting to see what the entrenched fembaucracy comes up with as a "fallback" plan.
As Anonymous above has insightfully suggested, if they come at boys and men with an agenda proposing greater "sensitivity" to males' "real needs," and the mandate to "recognize" the newly discovered dimensions of maleness...
... beware the trojan horse strategy.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever the new approach is, its bound to be as transparent as the ones it follows.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:39 PM March 19th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
the "Battle of the Sexes" continues unabated
Joe Manthey's article is excellent, but I wish he had cut the bit about the "Battle of the Sexes." Some amount of conflict between men and women, husband and wife, male and female friends is an evitable part of life. That's not a "Battle of the Sexes". Feminazis have declared war on men and reduced men to second-class dogs. In doing so they have hurt most women, i.e. non-male hating female heterosexuals and humane lesbians, as well as most men, hetero and homo. People who recognize that men shouldn't be treated like disposable sub-humans are just starting to realize the outrages that need to be corrected. So it's a Battle between Male-Haters and Male Respecters. Biological differences between the sexes have little to do with this political problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...or SOMETHING, because I don't have sex on my mind at all. So much for generalizations.
""We are failing our boys for not seeing their fragility, or, if we do acknowledge such, it's often minimized because of the myth that they are "inherently flawed." Just as girls were once told they would never be good in math and science, boys are often sent indirect and direct messages that tell them they're defective, if not just plain bad.""
See, this is a reason to REJECT this Mars/Venus nonsense of males all being "like this" and females all being "like that". Generalizations only wind up hurting us all. If I ever have kids, I'm going to raise the boys and the girls the same exact way--telling them not to abuse or mistreat ANYONE and not to put up with being abused or mistreated by ANYONE. And if my daughter wants to be a truck driver while my son plays with dolls, I couldn't be happier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:14 AM March 20th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
right on, man.....
p.george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:05 PM March 22nd, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Boy Genteel.
I think you just summed up the entire agenda of the men's movement in one well written post!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
