|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by HombreVIII on 10:57 PM November 12th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I think the implications for this are large and could be very positive. How does this group feel about the idea of forwarding this info. to as many people in the media as possible, and trying to keep media focus on it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tumescent on 12:08 AM November 13th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I think its about time that these sorts of blantantly discriminatiory programs be called on the carpet. The quote you cited... "I'll be upfront with you -- no white male will get this award,''... should make it clear that this is an open and shut case. SIU isn't doesn't believe in equal opportunity..it believes in genderism and racism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:15 AM November 13th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The Bush Administration's attack emphasizes people of color, with men thrown in as an afterthought. This is exactly the kind of divisive issue men's rights groups should not be enticed into. Bottom line, it will divide white MRAs from black MRAs, and stamp the movement as a shill for the right wing.
We must be wary of any issue that has the taint of race. The media would be all too willing to paint the men's right movement as a movement of angry white men. Right up there with the Montana militia.
I repeat. Watch with interest if you must, BUT TAKE NO ACTION. I repeat, TAKE NO ACTION IN THE NAME OF MEN'S RIGHTS.
Good night, and good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:55 AM November 13th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"I repeat. Watch with interest if you must, BUT TAKE NO ACTION. I repeat, TAKE NO ACTION IN THE NAME OF MEN'S RIGHTS."
I strongly disagree, we should support the aspect of this that clearly is discriminating against men based on their sex.
Men and women have both faced discrimination and oppression historically, and just because most elected officials have been male doesn't mean men have benefited from that as much as they have suffered under it. It also doesn't mean women have been oppressed by it as much as they have benefited from it.
# Women comprise the majority of the voters.
# Women are as highly educated as men, graduating in higher numbers than men,
# Women have all kinds of "choices" and could easily be politicians, but "opt out."
It is ludicrous to give a privileged, pampered, rich, white woman a position in a program over a poor, disadvantaged white man based solely on sex as that Illinois college has clearly stated it does.
It is time government took a hard look at all the chivalry, and all the bogus affirmative action programs that have benefited privileged, pampered white women.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:21 PM November 13th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"The Bush Administration's attack emphasizes people of color, with men thrown in as an afterthought."
correct -- the various bushies dangle this anti-affirmative action ruse before us every 18 months or so, as soon as we forget about the last time they pulled this shit
it is easily documented (though ineffectual and insincere threats using the Justice Dept. is a new tack)
the repubs trot this "fairness scam" out whenever they want to divert attention/news away from their own corruption and cowardice, and their TACIT APPROVAL of anti-white-male policies
whenever this tactic is used, as the poster above notes, the righties are EXTREMELY CAREFUL not to emphasise the most egregious abusers of the victimocracy in the proposed action -- they always emphasise the race angle, hoping to further divide american men, and to continue to lure white males to their misandrist, hypocritical ideo-politics
then -- after they've covered their asses in the media, and bamboozled their constituency, what happens? -- for another year or two we never hear ANOTHER WORD about any revision of affirmative action, quotas, or the second-class citizenship of boys and men in the US
all photo-op, no action
so once again, they get off the Hook
and we stay on the Hook
"This is exactly the kind of divisive issue men's rights groups should not be enticed into. Bottom line, it will divide white MRAs from black MRAs, and stamp the movement as a shill for the right wing."
which it already pretty much is, to great disadvantage
"We must be wary of any issue that has the taint of race. The media would be all too willing to paint the men's right movement as a movement of angry white men. Right up there with the Montana militia."
absolutely correct
the repubs, like the dems, are not interested in justice, fairness, or strengthening the nation by implementation of MERIT rather than mass victimocracy, the major beneficiaries of which were and are FEMALES
a.a. was supposed to help low-income blacks, mostly, and instead it was manipulatted into a power-tool for middle-and-high-income white FEMALES, whose Daddies can already afford to pay for their colleges, and can afford to jumpstart their careers, and bail them outta any other challenges or problems in life
while low-income males, esp white males, remain at the back of the line not only in education, but in access to all social services and cultural benefits/opportunities
don't fall for Fakeout #147 from these cynical punks -- it's just more manuouvering and talk, the same bullshit we've been hearing for decades
federal law has explicitly forbidden discrimination in hiring, education, etc for decades, yet it's the federal govt -- no matter whether dems or repubs are in power -- who have perverted, and continue to pervert, the system to disenfranchise males and yoke us with second-class citizenship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:48 PM November 13th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I could be wrong, but I don't think so, but from what I can tell, American Indians are among the "non-preferred minorities" that are barred. Generally speaking when these folks say "minorities" they are generally referring to Blacks and Black women, probably specifically.
If you are "Native-American" and you are a male you are S.O.O.L. The same apparently goes for White males.
I am not trying to provoke anyone here who is Black, I'm just relaying what I think to be true.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:18 AM November 14th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, folks this is absolutely fantastic news. Think about it: the government is actually taking men's rights and fairness seriously (that would be upholding the constitution and law!) instead of catering to the special interests for once. THIS IS HUGE.
I think we should mobilize. Somebody ought to let Glenn Sacks know about this (he's the guy leading the campaign against that fraudulent anti-father, anti-male PBS show). I think we all should write our reps to thank them in order to encourage this type of fundamental fairness.
Hey, folks this is absolutely fantastic news. I don't like all the cynicism I'm hearing. Think about it: the government is actually taking men's rights and fairness seriously instead of catering to the special interests for once! THIS IS HUGE.
I think we SHOULD mobilize. Somebody ought to let Glenn Sacks know about this (he's the guy leading the campaign against the fraudulent PBS show). I think we all should write our reps to thank them and encourage fundamental fairness.
Middle class white men will continue to get shafted until we speech up. Women use their power to sue as a way to intimidate government special privileges and treatment. Upper class white women are promoted faster, get in to elite schools more often, and are now favored in almost every occupation. Even the Wall Street Journal is jumping on the "not enough women millionaires means discrimination” band wagon. Folks: THEY ARE DEMANDING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR MILLIONAIRES!!! And knowing their track record they will probably get it, unless we take action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:13 AM November 14th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn Sacks is adamantly against any racially divisive action by the men's rights movement, and so am I. Feminism has historically used minorities as a human shield. The dumbest thing a faction of the movement could do is be suckered into Bush's shell game. Please see the above posts.
We must sit this one out or risk being fractured before we're fully formed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:09 PM November 14th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
While I agree about avoiding racial issues within the men's movement, I also can see how the MR movement could support the gender aspect of this. But, since there are lots of areas (fathers, paternity fraud, PBS, DV, etc.) where we don't have the help of the Bush Admin. or other government entities, I'll still focus my energy on those areas, while still cheering the Bush Admin for this (at least the gender portion of it), because I think that's where the MR movement's resources are most needed.
Marc A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:51 PM November 14th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I just think that justice is justice and whether you like Bush or not, they are delivering it. This is something to be celebrated.
How fair it is that daughters of millionaires who have had every privilege money (and politics) can buy, get advanced faster than middle class men who have busted their butts their whole life? This is a key issue for the MRM, in my opinion.
American women today are the most privileged humans to have ever walked the earth. Its time for them to compete on a level playing field. And its time to stop discriminating against middle class males.
Affirmative action for millionaires? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:50 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"I just think that justice is justice and whether you like Bush or not, they are delivering it. This is something to be celebrated."
uh . . . WHAT exactly has been "delivered"?
zee row!
this is nothing but talk -- a little scabbard-banging designed to deflect attention away from internal party corruption, and to reel back in male voters who are considering straying
over the past half-dozen years the white house, through various spokesmen/fronts/agencies, have dangled this plum in front of us many times, each time with a slightly different spin
do the homework, look them up -- you'll discover that each "threat" to rescind a.a. is overwhelmingly focused on race, and rarely or never on gender -- and it's our disenfranchisement via gender -- the inferior citizenship of males -- that is, and has been, killing us
some guys in the movement want to run with these boys, but you can't do that until you understand their strategies and tactics, esp in the areas of mass propaganda and manipulation -- otherwise yr policies will always be based on a misunderstanding of your opponents
. . . of course, one must first distinguish who ARE one's allies and one's opponents -- not as simple as it should be in the movement, obviously
if we keep buying the same snake-oil from the same snakes, we should stop whining that nothing changes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by unrulypassenger on 06:32 PM November 18th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't look at me ...i didn't vote for him.
Parent of white male in college (but california doesn't do affirmative action on admissions)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
From the