|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Luek on 03:54 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I believe some men's egos should be "crushed" and "crushed" good! Particularly the ones in Congress who voted to renew the social-Marxist legislation called the Violence Against Women Act!
And since there was not one single vote against renewal that includes all of them! Also, the pasty faced black sheet wearing male tyrants who promote and enforce misandry should have their egos "crushed" too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 06:29 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually having them "hung" in the proverbial town square would be better, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MR on 03:59 AM March 11th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Sentence the politicians who passed VAWA to the public pillory so all people of integrity may cast their scorn and stinking, rotten vegetables upon the scoundrels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:01 AM March 11th, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Not bad! Yes, I am a fan of the stocks, if done properly they would be humane, and re-educational at the same time. A lot less expensive than the current "jail" system, and a lot more effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 04:15 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for pointing this one out, Natalia. I'll never buy another Rolex again. I owned one years ago (a gift from an employer which I sold for beer money when they laid everyone off :), and I was actually considering it down the road, but my beat-up ol' Timex will do very nicely, thank you, and I've got better things to spend that kinda money on. Like a car.
I wonder if I can expect to see an ad with this kind of copy in a men's magazine:
"A woman's personality is like ice. Fragile, cold and fun to crush."
Which is just as hateful and equally irresponsible and harmful.
Surprising that a company that sells most of its product to men would publish such a blatantly misandric ad, guaranteed to put any man with some dignity off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bledso on 11:19 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
The ad campaign can be found on their main site.
http://www.rolex.com/en/
Just click on COLLECTIONS>ICE CAMPAIGN.
It takes a minute to eventually get to the statement in question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by backer242 on 04:38 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I was reading the companies to boycott page on the standyourground site and all of the complaints seem to be about men being the butt of the jokes in the commercials. I read some of the comments posted and it seems to me that some of us are being a little over sensitive.
One of the things I consider great about being a man is that it is perfectly acceptable, even encouraged, that I don't get my feelings hurt so easily. To be quite frank, I couldn't care less about what image of men the media tries to portray. I figure, anyone who can't tell the difference between reality and television deserves to be duped. In fact, I hope those who believe that stuff is real or even imagines it is becomes relationship – incapable; maybe they'll stop reproducing.
Anyway, there's much bigger fish to fry then worrying about how some man is portrayed in a Red Lobster Commercial or in some corny women's magazine. That stuff is entertainment. Laughs sell and so does a little male bashing from time to time. I think we need to keep our eye on the big pictures like the importance of fathers in the home and legislation that creates inequality between men in women like abortion laws (if a man can't get one, a woman shouldn't be able to get one either - but that's just my opinion). I am certain that women are equal and it’s time to start treating them as such – good, bad or indifferent. In my opinion this is a much more important project than whining about some stupid commercial.
backer242
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by lmfgm on 05:26 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I do not think it is about being too sensitive it is about the differents these companies makes between men and women. I have a great sence of humor and love to laugh and think alot of the commericals stated are very funny and love them but you will not see these companies using women in the same light. It just not PC to do it to women but it OK to do it to men and this is want the stand your ground is tring to change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 05:43 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
It's interesting that an MRA poster could argue against being "too sensitive" against misandry and sexist discrimination.
Men today face a finely tuned, interconnected matrix of misandry that shows up in our everyday day lives as bad feminist laws, demeaning feminist advertisements, stupid male steroetypes on tee-vee, and a pervasive, generalized anti-male cultural climate.
I'm confident posters here could list specific examples until the MANN server crashed.
WHY should men not be "sensitive" about undeniable discrimination and sexism masquerading as "women's equality?"
My theory -- it's that same old Chivalry gremlin that men can't seem to shake off... and that feminists count on to fool men over and over...
"Real men don't ..." --- you fill-in-the-blanks of self-defeating nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by al_nbd on 08:58 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to ignore the obvious propaganda of misandry is sometimes just a type of psychological defense. Not the best one, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 10:58 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey! Real men don't fill in blanks...
I'm just messing with you, Roy. I couldn't agree more with you about your entire comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Demonspawn on 11:51 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"Real PEOPLE know how to let shit roll off their backs."
It's not just a man thing. Everyone should learn to just fucking relax. I honestly believe that people get offended way to easily. Just like I tell any black guy that gets offended by a black joke, or a woman that get offended over a blonde joke... just get over yourself.
Now... I will admit I'm perterbed by the fact that it's always men being the 'butt of the joke' on most mainstream media. I'd perfer some sharing of the jokes. But we need to pick and choose our battles carefuly as a men's rights group. Complaining about TV commercials showing men kicked in the balls, or even advertisments like the above won't win the heart and mind (and more importantly, voting power) of Sterotypical Guy A. He will see us as "just a group of oversensitive whiny men." But approach the gross injustices in law, reproduction rights, federal funding for male-only diseases, and the barbaric divorce laws, and we will have a way to connect with him.
Hell, when it all comes down to it, give me equality in the law and in my rights and choices, and I could give a flying fuck about how I (men) look on television or magazine advtersiments. Which is really more important to you?
--Demonspawn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 10:23 AM March 11th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
"Hell, when it all comes down to it, give me equality in the law and in my rights and choices, and I could give a flying fuck about how I (men) look on television or magazine advtersiments. Which is really more important to you?" (Demonspawn)
It's worth pondering that back in the pre-radical feminist era men were represented in the media as decent, moral, caring, conscientious, productive, wise, responsible, etc.
Today as we all know men are the butt of most jokes, being widely portrayed as stupid, inept, clueless, slacking, slothful, incompetent, slobbering dolts.
Think about the different versions (social constructions!) of men in 60's and 70's TV programs vs. today.
Interestingly, the bad feminist laws had not yet been enacted when the general social image of men was positive.
So maybe it's a chicken-and-egg issue?
Bad anti-male laws seem to go hand-in-glove with misandry in the media.
VAWA did not become law just because some ticked off feminut got up one morning and decided to demonize men.
It was preceeded by two decades of concerted feminist media messages about the evil patriarchy and the moral debauchery of men.
I would argue that you can't repeal the bad laws and systemic sexist discrimination against men in a social climate that makes major bank on misandrist mass media.
And, I'm not "too sensitive" to fail to appreciate a good joke poking fun at men now and again...
"Two penguins and a divorced father walk into a bar..." ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by backer242 on 12:46 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you have a point. Consider the "chicken or the egg" analogy and here's where we differ. It's not the responsibility of feminist, the government or anybody else to insure that, overall, it becomes an understanding that those commercials or negative steriotypes are just media. I believe that, generally speaking, men need to start putting pressure on their friends to be good husbands, well cultured, nurturing (as men can be, although, in many instances, different from women) and responsible people. This must become a norm in American society; right now it is overwhelmingly the exception. Then we can start to refute legislation that says that women are gentle, better, more deserving creatures. When these goals are reached, it won't matter what's on some commercial; commonly, people will know better and realize it's just a joke.
I stand by this on all counts. For instance, I'm a black guy and a lot of "black" people get mad at me when I say that their social-economic position is not the responsibility of "white" people and that "white" people have apologized for slavery and it's time to move on. It's an unpopular interpretation of society, but it's the only one that makes sense to me. Good thing I don't care about being popular. After all, I was born a suspect :) A good black joke is a little refreshing from time to time.
backer242
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Backer242 said: I believe that, generally speaking, men need to start putting pressure on their friends to be good husbands, well cultured, nurturing (as men can be, although, in many instances, different from women) and responsible people. This must become a norm in American society; right now it is overwhelmingly the exception.
Are you saying that men are generally irresponsible? Where's the proof for that?
SYG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Demonspawn on 07:30 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps it is a chicken and egg issue, but here's my view on it:
One needs to remember that the only difference between a cult and a religon is the number of worshipers. Right now, Feminism is a religon, and men's rights is a cult. To gain a foothold in today's society, we need more supporters.
I feel that the way to gain more supporters is to target men wish issues they can connect to. Issues like the one this thread is about may/will be important in the long run, but I don't feel they will be the issues that will attract the already socially programed male populace to the men's movement. It would be far easier to present to them issues they will identify with, spesifically divorce law (most men hope to get married some day), child custody law (as most hope to have children and be infuencial in their lives), and men's health issues (as more men will get prostate cancer than women get breast cancer, yet the federal funding seems to think otherwise).
Those are the issues we should be pressing forward on. To continue with the "shotgun approach" as we currently are, treating all anti-male issues as equal, will allow our detrimenters to focus on the minor ones: the view of men in meida, (god I hate to admit this, as I was one, but) men as victims of domestic violence, and other fringe issues; and use that to paint us as "whiny, weak men" which the average man will not wish to be associated with.
Are the "fringe" issues important? Yes. Will focusing on the fringe issues bring more men to our movement? Sadly, no. Only after connecting with the pre-programed men in sufficent numbers can we work on reversing said programing.
And that, my friends, is why it is important for us to pick and choose our battles carefuly at this point.
--Demonspawn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by backer242 on 11:40 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Point well taken.
backer242
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 12:03 PM March 12th, 2006 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
I respect the viewpoint that Demonspawn has staked out, i.e. that MRA's need strategies and tactics instead of "shotgunning..."
Where I disagree is when he defines mass media and it's pervasively negative and hostile portrayal of men as a "fringe" issue.
My basic argument back up this thread was that you cannot pass anti-father laws, ruin men in divorce courts, drug young boys in schools, deny abused men help....
UNLESS... UNLESS ... you have already created a misandrist, sexist, male-bashing media culture that "normalizes" this tyranny.
Recall that neighbors watched their neighbors getting arrested, their houses ransacked, their property confiscated, eventually disappeared?
In, well ... let's try a little history ---
Germany, Russia, Poland, Latvia, Spain, France, Bossnia, Armenia, Sri Lanka, Guatemala, Honduaras, Nicaragua, Argentina, Brazil, Panama, the United States (circa WWII round-ups and detention of Japanese families...) etc. etc. (And let's not even mention Africa... that would be politically incorrect.)
There's a real good reason why the term F-E-M-I-N-A-Z-I has become popular.
You cannot successfully (as a strategy) disconnect mass media from laws in a society that makes its laws not on abiding principles or values, but upon opinion polls and the subjective, illusive, fragile, and still-evolving concept of democracy.
In fact, if Demonspawn is correct (and he is) that MRA's need to "pick some big ideas," then the mass media will be the channel through which these ideas are defined....
as big, small, or non-existant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:48 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
"Real PEOPLE know how to let shit roll off their backs."
If it were just "shit" (i.e. fun, jokes, humourously intended), I'd be the first one laughing. Remember the SuperBowl myth? Think that was a joke without political intent?
It's like the Simpsons, or any other popular TV show. In the first season, the jokes were usually evenly distributed, as were the political barbs. All genders are lampooned, all races poked fun at. Hell, I BOUGHT the first two or three seasons, they were hilarious.
In the second season, the jokes started to target mostly men, but not always.
By the third season, men became almost continuously evil buffoons, and women became all-knowing, innocent and wise, the only intelligence on the program. I stopped buying DVDs after that point.
The conversion happened en masse between 1991 and 1994, if you watch films television programming carefully. If you're interested in the marketing causes, look up "Marlboro Friday" to see part of the reason this trend was started. At first, it was just aggressive marketing (better to lose 35% of the customers to lock in 65%, they thought, after brand loyalty started to fall), to the people spending the most money, but feminists embraced the misandry wholeheartedly and made it their own.
Later in the lifecycle of that very same show, openly racist statements begin to appear. I don't think such "humour" is funny in the least, etiher, because it's a political statement, not a joke.
But at no time are women EVER the sole target of the "humour".
That's not humourous, it's a political statement, and it isn't fucking funny anymore. Are "nigger" jokes funny? How about "kike" jokes? "Faggot" jokes? (My sincerest apologies for the use of those ugly slurs - I use them only to highlight their inherent evil.) I'm sure you don't think so either. Why? Because they're demeaning political statements, not "jokes".
Feminists have made "man" an ugly slur too, so jokes about them are now demeaning political statements. See the difference?
So tell me a "joke" without political intent in the form of demeaning, ugly slurs, and I'll laugh my ass off. It's automatically presumed in the mass media that white men (the "patriarchy") are the privileged oppressors of society, and can therefore suffer no injury. The media has truly drunk deep of the kool-aid, even though calling someone a "man" is now a slur, thanks to feminism.
I, for one, don't find political attacks designed explicitly to damage the popular image of masculinity for discriminatory political gain to be very funny, Demonspawn. What you're watching is political activism in the media, not humour. Feminists made the private political, remember, thereby removing questions of masculinity from the "moral" questions of society, as I talked about at length in another thread? Once "man" or "masculine" isn't intended as a sexist slur, I'll start laughing at their barbs again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by backer242 on 11:48 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe Demonspawn agreed with your point of view. I, backer242, did not realize, at first, the impact of these negative images in the media.
I now see both of your points and consider them quite valid. I must admit, however, that I still don't really care what the media does. This is only because I am more passionate about pressing legislative issues. Now that I understand a percieved connection between the two, I will say, that I am glad that there are those who will watch for these instances.
Here's another approach though: instead of attacking companies for the ads they put out, boycott the networks that show the adds or the shows during which they are shown. I think this might be more effective. After all, a lot of men watch a lot of television.
backer242
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 12:08 AM March 12th, 2006 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
The bottom line for these companies is the all mighty dollar. If we boycott the companies that pay for the advertisements, then they will get the messsage, you think? What you have said is sort of like putting the cart before the horse. Drain the supply, and the will deminishes, or, cut off the head of the snake, and the body will die.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 02:07 AM March 12th, 2006 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
OK backer242. Let's examine one specific case (there are many others I'd like to examine later such as Verizon and Home Depot). The case in point would be the Mary Kay Ash foundation and their support for the 'Breaking the Silence' PBS series. Particularly the last episode. I haven't checked the list to see if MKA is there, but it doesn't matter. It should be.
I sincerely doubt that the backing of this series by MKAF had NOTHING to do with the targetted customer demographic of Mary Kay Inc. In other words, it is reasonable to assume that their backing is tied in with their marketing and advertising. The idea that this is not a common practice (backing issues calculated to garner support in their target audience) amongst companies is beyond far-fetched.
If you are not acquainted with the example above, please refer to www.glennsacks.com for a large quantity of background material.
I'd be very interested in hearing your comments regarding MRA's hypersensitivity to advertising with respect to this particular instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by backer242 on 02:49 AM March 13th, 2006 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
I have to be quite clear about something, although I will look at the page you suggested, I think TV is brainless, almost every ad I've ever seen in a magazine is mindless dribble, and the only interest any company ever has is to make money off of our neglegence to look at life through critical lenses. You're all right, it's bad humor. So what.
I still think the main issue is before we start harping on which companies are mean to men, men need to start taking responsibility for their own actions. I've read a lot of feminist literature (know thy enemy as thyself) and every point they make is not unfounded. I think these advertisements serve as a smoke screen for the real issues. Men shouldn't be worried about divorce court because there should be no way in hell divorce is going to become necessary (and don't start with some "these things just happen" - we're men for God's sake and we know nothing "just happens"). If we do have to go into divorce court we need to be prepared to show the unfairness in the system. We won't be able to do that if we spend our days tracking naughty companies and their stupid advertisements. I put up with a lot of crap from my wife as, I'm sure, she does me. But when we first got married we discussed our circumstances and she and I, both, understand that this isn't about feelings, it's about commitment. I have a commitment to provide an environment in which my family can grow (my wife calls that leadership and so do I); she has the responsibility to maintain the drama so that I can carry out my responsibility. Either of us are perfect, but noone can say that we don't do the best we can. She's not held responsible for what I should be getting done just like I'm not responsible for what she should be getting done. I am convinced that individual responsibility to the team is the most important aspect of societal success. So screw all the advertising and let them say what they want. I'm not going to worry about it because I know they're wrong and that's all there is to it. Why don't we start worrying about each other and quit worrying about them? They're going to say what they want to anyway and believe it or not, there's no such thing as a successful individual. If you want to be concerned about people making fun of you, go ahead. Like I said, I'm a minority and if I spend my time on that I won't get anything done.
Regardless of how you feel, we're on the same team and I've got no plans of trading up and I don't think any of you do either. This is the road to victory over this feminist government of overt male repression. They will come to know that you can only kick a body for so long before it bites off the foot.
backer242
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 09:35 PM March 13th, 2006 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
backer242,
Thanks for the honest reply (no sarcasm intended at all -- 'thanks' means thanks).
I'd like to elaborate on my original post, as well as respond to several of your points.
1. First, to elaborate. The case of the PBS program 'Breaking the Silence', that I was asking for your opinion on was intentionally cherry-picked by me to provide, what I consider to be, an example of the worst type of misandry driven (at least in part) by marketing/advertising dollars. The program was funded by the Mary Kay Ash Foundation (they've funded previous programs in this series). It's premise is that fathers that sue for custody are doing so for less than altruistic purposes. The case is made that many are child abusers. The program lacked nearly any balance (not according to me, but according to the ombudsmen for PBS and CPB). N.B.: This program was not an advertisement, but it was sponsored by MKAF. The dollars spent WERE spent in part to appeal to a target audience. Any other assumption lacks much credibility. Essentially, I consider this example fair game for a discussion on misandry in advertising.
2. To respond to several of your points:
a. I agree, TV is drivel. Really.
b. I agree, men should not adopt the thin-skin of feminism.
c. I agree, many man have been cads/jerks. The problem with this argument is that men are held responsible for their actions -- to some extent always have been (especially under the erstwhile code of chivalry). Women are, provably, not. Compare sentences handed out to female criminals to those handed out to males for the same crime. (Think Andrea Yates -- "it's her husband's fault").
d. I partially agree that MRAs have larger issues to attack first. However, I don't see this issue as all that minor. Got any kids? Wait 'til they think it's cool to tell you to shut up and kick you in the balls. (P.S.: I do monitor very carefully what my kids watch/rent/play. The message can still get through.)
e. You mention '...there should be no way in hell divorce is going to become necessary...' implying that men should be able to foretell the future and read minds. I can assure you that you, or one of your friends, is in for a massive surprise on this one. The phrase "Well, I've changed..." left me speechless when it was used on me. There really is such a thing as 'free will'. This means the 'ability to change ones mind'. Based on? Well, based on advertisements, women's magazines, Oprah, divorcing friends, the churchwomen-vine... How much control do you have over these? Next to none?
f. 'I am convinced that individual responsibility to the team is the most important aspect of societal success.' DEAD ON, brother! Spoken like a true man. I agree with this whole-heartedly.
In closing, please do review the 'Breaking the Silence' mess on Glenn Sacks site. It may not cause you to agree with me, but it should certainly strengthen your resolve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:33 AM March 14th, 2006 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, you are dead on! But, some people prefer to ignore the truth, as it allows them to practice their typing skills! You have made some very truthful statements, and have done so without excess, job well done Brotherskeeper!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 06:37 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I do not see how portraying Men as insensitive ignorant idiots can be a positive thing. To ignore the onslaught of propaganda is to ignore our own existence under the current paradigm. To encourage Women to denegrate Men, as if it were a "good" thing to do is not really advantagious to change. To teach Men to ignore their feelings is how we got here in the first place, not where I want to be. Willful ignorance is a crime against oneself, as well as the rest of society. I would rather be enlightened, and seek change. "It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 03:26 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Indian activist Charlene Teeters has a saying that fits this occasion. It was originally said in reference to bigotry towards Indians, but it is applicable in this case, too. It is as follows;
"When some one tells you that you are harming them, and then you continue to do it, it then becomes INTENTIONAL on your part..."
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:43 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes! And one might suggest that when you continue to harm yourself, or accept harm to yourself, then it also becomes INTENTIONAL on your part.
And here's a tangent I discarded earlier in this thread ---
How come feminists (i.e. ordinary women) are always quick to accuse men of being "insensitive, out-of-touch with their feelings..." and THEN, when a man actually GETS IN TOUCH with HIS FEELINGS, he's a wuss, a metrosexual, a loser?
(Maybe because his feelings are mostly angry and awakening his long-suppressed true nature in captivity to the subtle and unsubtle Matriarchy that started at birth? Crap, that's another comedy riff.... )
Wanna know why?
Because when men truly GET IN TOUCH WITH THEIR FEELINGS.... FEMINISM IS O-V-E-R!
And no emotional rescue will be in sight for the girlies and their comrades.
(Typing in ALL CAPS is very liberating, but I'm too SENSITIVE to keep it UP(pun very intended) for long....) :-0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:38 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
So in effect you are saying that the system is purposely harming us. Well TC, I think we already knew that didn't we? "It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 10:41 PM March 10th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Rolex HAD a reputation for ultimate quality. Don't need them anymore.
Q: What groups are these ad agencies focus testing these ads on?
A: Groups of one, such as Matt Lauer(?).
Sheesh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:34 AM March 11th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I mailed this young Woman and thanked her for her sensitivity, and the post. She politely responded. Any thinking Woman should be encouraged to continue thinking!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 01:54 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
I find it interesting to hear feminists and like-minded women (and some men) who claim that "Negative images of women in media is damaging to the female psyche. Especially that of young girls.".
But notice the lack of concern for the psyche of young boys when the media depicts anti-male images and rhetoric. (and it is done CONSTANTLY)
If anti-female imagery and content can damage females, why is the same not said when anti-male images and content are depicted?
As usual this illustrates, GLARINGLY, the hypocrisy of feminism.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:23 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud,
No doubt you know about the "Indian Children's Schools" that the U.S. government started back in the late 1800's when the Great White Father decided that it would be best to "civilize" the savages? (Take their children away...)
It was a blatant attempt to "un-Indianize" children born into Native American culture, in order to re-create them as "productive citizens."
Do you see a connection to what feminism is trying to do to men?
Perhaps yesterday's Indian Schools are today's Family Courts?
I am in no way diminishing the intentional attempted extermination of your people's culture.
(Unsuccessful, thankfully...)
All the great chiefs originally thought they could treat the Great White Ftaher as a human being with integrity, right?
What did Sitting Bull conclude?
Before he was assassinated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:54 PM March 11th, 2006 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Roy, I find it interesting that posts like yours point to the duplication of our government in oppressing previous Peoples in our country, but shy away from the actual culprite of today, which would be the same, the government. I admit I have been played, but I also admit I have had enough. Under the Constitution it is our right to resist tryanny, from without, and within. Civil disobedience is our right under the Constitution, is it not? Therefore I am nothing less than a patriot, and so is anyone else that rejects tryanny that has the misfortune of being a "citizin" in the land of the free..Just a thought...."It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Demonspawn on 01:10 AM March 12th, 2006 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
Not under the Constitution, but under the Decleration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 12:27 PM March 12th, 2006 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the correction D/S. But in actuality one does not need a written piece of paper to claim what is righfully ours by birth. The paper just gives those that need an excuse just that, and a reason to resist. But, they are beautifully written words none the less aren't they........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Demonspawn on 03:51 PM March 12th, 2006 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
They are beautiful and wonderful words, but please go down the rabit hole with me for a few moments...
I want to know what rights you think we have by birth.
Mabye it's because I've seen what I've seen, but I don't believe in inaliable rights.
Imagine, that after the next presidential election, that whoever wins (as I don't wish to insinuate the current president lest this become a party debate) decides via executive order to outlaw all firearms and declare martial law across the entire US. What rights do we have then?
The same rights we have right now... those we are willing to fight for. Fighting doesn't alwas mean combat, but it does mean putting force behind the ideas. The force can come from votes, political pressure, money (granting or taking away), and, if all else fails, taking up a rifle. But don't forget that words without force are just that, words.
I hope you can understand now why I want the mens movement to become focused, to attract more followers (and therefore force), and make moves to actually do something, rather than remain a bunch of men complaining about how unfair the world is. I honestly believe that our first thrust should be to foucus our core "things that need to change" into a set that good number of men will agree with a bond to, giving us the ability to force goverment to bend to our will in the name of equality and fairness.
In short, we are the founding fathers of the men's revolution.
--Demonspawn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:31 AM March 13th, 2006 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
Good question. Also a good answer. We have the same rights that every FREE Human Being has. The right to claim the rights that we are being denied. The only real point that I might argue with is that the "revolution" that you refer to is not just for Men, it is, and should be for everyone. We will never be truly successful if we do not unite with Women for a common cause of taking control of our own government, and putting an end to the manipulation of the masses for the benifit of the ruling factions of society. Why is it that People that have moved to "this" country to flee communism are now afraid? Because they see it getting worse here than it was there. Now that is a sobering thought isn't it. That's what happens when you stay in the rabbit hole to long, things change in the real world. It makes no difference what "party" is in office as the "players" that are up front are nothing but puppets serving the same masters. The People of this country, and for that matter every country need to take over the control of their own governments and run things from the bottom to the top, if we are to survive as a species. Everything is in place, all the systems are already there, and the grunts already make the clock tick. The only way Human Beings will be able to live their lives with dignity and respect is if they take the place of Citizen, and I would agree with you that it might have to be done with force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 01:02 PM March 13th, 2006 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
I seriously have my doubts that we can "unite with women", David. Maybe we can, but I doubt it. Too many of them LOVE the status quo.
For instance; Most White (and Black) people agree that killing Indians and stealing their land was wrong. But I don't know one White (or Black) person who is willing to give the land back to us! :-)
The difference being of course Most Americans don't hate Indians or want to see our rights taken away. However they are happy with the status quo. I.E. keeping our land.
The feminists and a good majority of American women, on the other hand, DO like seeing men losing their constitutional and civil rights while they (women) gain rights and privileges that no man has ever enjoyed.
That is what I believe we are up against.
So female comrades, in my opinion, will be far and few between.
I could be wrong. I'd like to think I may be, but I don't know.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 05:03 PM March 13th, 2006 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Today, March 13th, is the 27th anniversary of the Grenada Revolution!
You may recall that Ronnie Raygun rescued the island in an "intervention" (not invasion) in October 1983.
I was a teacher in Grenada during the Revo.
The revolutionary leadership destroyed themselves through inter-party factional in-fighting which led eventually to many murders.
(Shades of Fathers4Justice, only the homicide has been rhetorical so far....)
Today Grenada is a happy capitalistic Caribbean island with cell phones, satellite tee-vee, way too many cars for an island 12mi x 22 mi, lotta drug traffic, naked tourists, corrupt officials, devastated agricultural sector, degraded ecosystem, dying coral reefs, AIDs up the ying-yang, escalating unmarried pregnancies, too many guns.
When the men's rights' "revolution" becomes prominent, I trust that MRA's will have learned some crucial lessons from earlier failed revos.
"Forward ever, backwards never!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 05:38 PM March 13th, 2006 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Second attempt to respond to you TC, last time I tried seven times. I have met many good Women that are tired of the crap, and are also tired of watching their Children suffer. There are many womyn that want to keep the status quo, as well as people of privelege. But we will fail if we are not united. I take every opportunity that I can to try and plant some seeds of thought into any Woman that will listen. Until we quit allowing the social scientists, the psychiatrists, and the "professional" politicians to manipulate our lives we will not be able to live as Human Beings with dignity. I personaly would like to see the American Indians receive all their land back, as People like me could then live free. But, it will never happen. In so far as my own life I am without hope, but I retain hope for the future of our race. Unless we take what is ours and live as Citizens with all the priveleges and responsibilities we will always be treated as wage slaves and commodities. A Chief Towanka, don't know what Tribe was quoted as saying, "We were free until we stopped fighting, now no one has freedom." Anyway TC we need Men and Women to work together in order to achieve equality for us all. A "Hoka hey!" to you Sir!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 05:46 PM March 13th, 2006 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
Have you noticed that the promotion of greed and the proverbial dangling of the carrot on a stick has been used to subjagate almost every place on earth so far? Wait until the newbees find out that the dream is nothing more than a nightmare, and when you "wake up" you find that you are nothing more than an indentured mule, only the animal rights activists try to make sure that real mules get treated better than we do! There is a part of the bible that is true as far as predictions are concerned, there is a part that says that the day will come that you either serve the "beast" or perish, sort of like right now huh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 01:21 PM March 14th, 2006 EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
David-
Yes. I have heard that.
B.T.W., upon the head of the beast, isn't there supposed to be a WOMAN...?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:25 PM March 14th, 2006 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe in Bibles, though I respect those who do.
Mostly, I trust heretics, especially the ones with guns and pens.
Of course, there's always room for debate...
with a feminist bullit, yes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:47 PM March 14th, 2006 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe in bibles either Roy, but the controlling factors that printed them did put some predictions in them, and some of them have come true. That of course would lead some People to believe that there actually was a plan from the beginning. Written by Man, for Man, anyway I don't trust anyone until they earn it. I try to treat People with respect, until proven otherwise. I never try to push my personal spiritual beliefs on anyone, but have found that if a discussion does start other people get nervous and seem to want to convert me to whatever it is they believe. I have respect for some heretics, whether or not they have a gun, and hope that they can use their pen. The feminist bullit has already been fired a long time ago, you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 01:16 PM March 14th, 2006 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
...it melts under the heat of truth.
Sorry for the generalization, but hey, if "turn about is fair play"...
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
