|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 03:52 PM March 21st, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Following that line of logic then I guess we should forget everything Dr. Martin Luther King taught us, because he was TOO BLACK.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:35 PM March 21st, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
On the flip side TC maybe we will never see Hillory Clinton as pres, because she is just to-to manly! But then again so are most feminists. Did you read Rhianna Jones post? Good post from the Feminine side. "Hoka hey!" TC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 10:27 AM March 22nd, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Hillary, too manly?
Yeah I think she may be.
Only difference is that it's okay if women are too manly, just not men. (???!!???)
No, I haven't read the Rhianna Jones post yet.
Hopefully, I'll get around to it.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 10:33 AM March 22nd, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I read that post.
Very good. Very insightful, too.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RhiannaJones on 05:01 PM March 21st, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Madam,
This is in response to your article "Man Overboard".
Granted, perhaps a bit less of the "Mansfieldian" version of manlines may be
in order. But, by fuck's holy backside, what really needs to be reduced in
this country is feminist hypocrisy and double standards.
You ask the government to become more feminised. Huh. More feminine policies
would probably mean that policies like the VAWA would be broadened to have men
arrested for frowning at their wives or for not stripping for "her pleasure"
thereby causing us precious little dears unbearable emotional trauma. Female
teachers would probably be promoted for raping 10 year old boys. And maybe
fathers (like mine) would be made to beg before they get to see their own
babies (the very ones for whom their modern day, "independent", wives are
demanding child support from them - on top of their own alimony, of course)
for an hour every two months. Oh hang
on, aren't most of these things
happening already !?! If they aren't, blame the hyper manly government.
According to far more respectable studies than the ones Eve Ensler and Kim
Gandy pull out of their unwashed asses, women use physical violence in
intimate relationships at least as often as men (- women are just too frail to
actually inflict damage most of the time, that's all). And yet, feminists ask
for more laws to abuse male civil rights while ignoring the violence
perpetrated by women. The VAWA asks that a man be evicted from their own homes
by the police merely because the woman says she "feels scared" of her husband
- no evidence required - and for some reason no one in the feminist camp is
opposed to that. Statistics show again and again that single mothers make
shitty parents (- I repeat - shitty,shitty parents - and trust me on this)
when compared to couples and yet feminists seek to make marital breakup easier
by the day. More
than half of all child abusers (at least 58%) are female and
yet they asked to be treated with kid gloves. Children suffering parental
abuse are more than twice as likely to suffer at the hands of their own
mothers than their own fathers and yet 85% of custody cases give the kids to
the mothers - and this is celebrated by feminists. Feminists never admit that
a woman commits any crime unless she is pushed to the brink, whereas men are
treated as criminals even before any crime is committed at all.
Consider this line from your own article - " a little more of what you would
describe as womanly qualities: restraint, introspection, a desire for
consensus, maybe even a touch of self-doubt."
Maybe Mansfield defines these as womanly qualities. Statistics don't. The
truth is women are less violent, not because of lack of inclination, but
because of lack of ability and the fact that the same situation presents more
risk to a woman than to a
man. (Women in office have shown an undeniable taste
for violence - Bloody Mary was called that for a reason and she is not alone
in the list of bloodthirsty female politicians). If women showed self
restraint and a tendency towards introspection, there would not be so many
single mothers leeching off welfare and neglecting their children at the same
time (maybe that is what juggling motherhood and earning money means these
days). If they tended to have a desire for consensus, there would not be so
many divorced fathers (resulting from non-aggravated, no-fault, divorces, mind
you) hurting for children their former wives ask the law to make them pay
for, but refuse to let them see. If women were inclined towards self doubt,
there would not be so many of them calling 911 to have their husbands chucked
out of their own houses without evidence and getting sole custody on those
grounds.
Mansfieldian manliness may or may not be overboard in the
USA but
feminine bullshit, led by feminists who obviously do not even know what is
right and what is not, certainly is.
And this is NOT just my view.
Very sincerely,
Rhianna (A woman living in perennial fear that the men she loves will be hurt
by unjust laws. And oh yes, survivor of a single mother.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:26 PM March 21st, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Rhianna thank you for your post. It is refreshing to hear from down to earth Women. EQUAL RIGHTS have to be for everyone. Your Husband is fortunate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 10:34 AM March 22nd, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Same here, Rhianna. Thanks!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:25 PM March 21st, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
(Wrote Ruth Marcus) "What this country could use is a little less manliness -- and a little more of what you would describe as womanly qualities: restraint, introspection, a desire for consensus, maybe even a touch of self-doubt."
Just to make the obvious point, this is another typical shame-and-blame feminist screed, which is all too simplemindedly morphing a legitimate political argument into a lobotomized Women’s Studies 101 rant.
It’s revealing to once again be reminded that for feminist twits, all political issues can be reduced to gender war clichés.
And, just to repeat the obviously obvious --
There were no feminists protesting the code of manliness when the lifeboats were loaded with women and children on the night the Titanic sank.
Manliness was "appreciated" at that moment, as it was when hundreds of NYC firefighters, police, and EMT’s unselflessly swarmed to rescue the Twin Towers disaster 9/11.
If Ms. Marcus wishes to protest manliness, I’d like to see her next column endorse a gender-neutral draft and mandatory registration for all 18 year-old females.
Yeah. That’ll happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 12:09 PM March 22nd, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep.
No feminists on the Titanic.
Stupid manliness...! (Sarcasm)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 04:59 PM March 22nd, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder what the historians would have said about the Titanic if the Captain had seperated the old from the young discounting gender. Those with more life to live having precedence over those that had lived most of their lives anyway. Even though this makes much more sense than what actually did happen; I wonder when our Children will be taught to actually make rational decisions in school, instead of being brainwashed to support a paradigm that does nothing but oppress everyone? Just a thought.......'It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "As usual the media attempts portray all things male as deeply flawed and probably evil. The