|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by quetzal on 05:34 PM March 27th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I can remember when girls were impressed by those - even if they had a funny way of showing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bull on 07:38 PM March 27th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Once upon a time, before feminism, little girls and boys discovering their sexuallity through harmless trials and errors was considered part of the maturing process. Now it's cause for civil action?! It's a said state of affairs!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:53 PM March 27th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
How sad. To take an innocent situation and play games with Childrens lives. The Mother has the right idea, take her Children out of the school. I never had coed gym when I was in school, there were certain exercises that were coed, but it was Boys gym, and Girls gym. This is another sign of big sister/brother, and the concept of gaining control through the Children. Why couldn't they have counseled the Kids right there, unless of course they want to start keeping hard documents on Children so that they can use them against them later. Like I said, so very sad...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So much for "the best interests of the child."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tirryb on 04:36 AM March 28th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Man, the future looks grim.
Right now adult males are getting more and more leary of 'coming on' to women, in case they get sue'd for sexual harrassment. Bad enough, but what's going to happen to our next generation? Boys will be taught at school that ANY form of attention they show a female, even just a note in class, is intolerable and will lead to punishment. Girls on the other hand, will be encouraged to show their feelings and to take control - how long before the days of boys asking a girl out are well and truly gone..?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 08:25 AM March 28th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Boys will be taught at school that ANY form of attention they show a female, even just a note in class, is intolerable and will lead to punishment.
It makes you wonder what kind of sad, pathetic person would want human relationships to be like this.
I recently read a collection of folk tales collected by the Brothers Grimm, and the preface had some interesting things to say about recurring themes of many of these stories. One of those themes deals with women's disgust at the sexual act, and the projection of that disgust onto men. These stories typically involve a princess who has to perform a series of tasks for an animal - often an animal she dislikes - and by performing those tasks she breaks a spell, causing the animal to turn into a handsome prince who she then marries and lives happily ever after with.
When the prince is a loathsome animal (perhaps a cold, slimy frog), what we're actually being presented with is a girl's-eye view of boys! The tasks the princess has to perform represent a maturing process, or a kind of 'rite of passage', after which she becomes an adult woman. Her perception of the male sex then becomes that of a mature woman (as symbolised by the disgusting animal turning into an adult man), and sex (coyly suggested by 'marriage') becomes a part of her life. Needless to say, the spell is usually unjustly put on the man by a witch - that is, by an older woman that no prince would touch with a well-sharpened halbard.
The recurrence of these themes across cultures separated by time and distance suggests an instance of a Jungian 'archetype' ("In the psychological framework of Carl Jung, archetypes are innate prototypes for ideas and may be used to interpret observations." - Wikipedia). The hysteria over sexual harrassment, and the depiction of the male sex as intrinsically base, seems like the latest reskinning of an ancient archetype. Unfortunately nowadays this archetype is being enshrined in laws which will have the dual effect of keeping women in a pre-adult relationship to the sexual world and keeping men (and boys) in the role of the disgusting animal. Just about the only male-female relationship that gets applauded these days is that of the woman and the gay man (see 'Will and Grace') - in other words, a relationship devoid of sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 10:29 AM March 28th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Another word for it is 'heterophobia'. Daphne Patai, in her excellent book of the same name, claims that there has been a conscious, determined effort in the last 40 years or so to destroy heterosexuality, and in particular the family. This has been motivated by the quasi-Marxist belief that everything is socially constructed, that heterosexuality and the family are nothing more than a collection of arbitrary conventions which have nothing to do with biology, and moreover, that they are designed to oppress women. We are living in a 'Patriarchy' and a 'heterosexual dictatorship'. The only way to free women, so the femynysts believe, is to destroy heterosexuality and the family. This view of the family is deeply misanthropic, and was first promulgated by Karl Marx's sidekick, Engels, in his book 'The Origins of the Family'.
The sexual harrassment industry, in Patai's opinion, is one of the instruments being used for this purpose. Misandry is another. If the feminazis can persuade women that men are evil, and persuade everyone that heterosexuality is pathological, then the hope is that heterosexuality and the family will eventually wither away. It is hopelessly misguided of course - heterosexuality is not about to go away. It is also hateful, and has caused, and continues to cause, enormous social harm. It must be exposed for what it is - absurd, misanthropic, and the Western world's last remaining stronghold of communist/totalitarian ideas - and publicly opposed.
It is obviously in lesbians' best interests to avoid men and to encourage other women to adopt their lifestyle. The Will and Grace syndrome has good PC credentials, because it is seen as solidarity between members of two oppressed groups.
This attempt to destroy the heterosexual family has been largely unopposed for many reasons.
Most people have a naive 'sugar and spice' attitude towards females, and just don't want to believe that they could ever be capable of organised aggression.
Feminists are very good at moral intimidation - that is the whole point of playing the victim - so people are less likely to oppose them. They are very good at destroying the reputations and private lives of anyone who is brave enough to stand up to them. Look at Neil Lyndon, Erin Pizzey and Esther Vilar.
Incidents such as this one are the result. An 8-year-old boy passes a love note to a girl in class, and gets excluded from school for 'sexual harrassment'. It would be funny if it were not so sad. This situation verges on insanity.
Of course, the school has a duty of care towards its students, but under the current heterophobic, anti-male climate, this innocent childish behaviour is seen as sexual abuse, and so emergency institutional processes are triggered. Meanwhile, adult females abuse children and get away with it.
Enough, ladies and gentlemen. It's time to stand up and oppose this mad, hateful nonsense.
"Those who promise us paradise on earth have never produced anything but hell." Karl Popper
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 01:21 PM March 28th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
All this illustrates why the term "Feminazi" is so appropriate.
Feminists are called Feminazis, not because they are simply a un-likable group, but because they ARE, indeed NAZI-LIKE.
Where in the Nazis were into genetic engineering feminists are into SOCIAL engineering, but BOTH groups hope to achieve similar ends. That being the control and ultimate destruction of one or more groups of people. Both use demonizing tactics and both claim a type of victim-hood. And both justify their actions saying; "It is for the good of society".
Why so few people see the feminists for what they truly are, is beyond me.
As for this so-called "sexual harassment" by this boy towards the girl. Incidences like this will only serve two purposes, in the end. That being that boys will simply grow up to resent and despise females. And that is a fact. And we will see the results of this very soon in the next generation, mark my words.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 05:19 PM March 28th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
This is perhaps the third or fourth recent mass media article of alleged sexual harassment in elementary schools by pre-pubescent boys in recent weeks.
It's intriguing to try to figure out what it signifies on a number of levels.
Most curiously, it appears that a charge of sexual harassment now requires nothing remotely sexual or minimally aggressive -- merely interaction between two children of opposite genders. (Although someone may have heard about charges of same-sex sexual harassment in kindergarten by now?)
If touching during normal play, and naively writing "I love you..." on a notepad can result in charges of sexual harassment, are we far away at all from criminalizing a look, a glance, a gesture?
(Recent laws included in the passage of VAWA 2005 broadened definitions of harassment and stalking to include electronic communication in all forms. So, one can now go to prison for harassing a person they have never seen or been proximate to.)
A good feminist attorney, maybe a Gloria Alred type only with credibility, could make a case for "in utero sexual harassment" in the case of fraternal twins, who can be of the same or opposite sexes. "He kicked my placenta! He usurped my space in the womb! He looked at my private area!)
Add to this curious mix the documented double-standards for prosecuting and punishing male vs. female sexual predators, whereby females typically get probation and males get 5 - 12 years in stir, hard time.
Not too subtly just under the surface of all these events is a potentially interesting link to that still-not-dead-enough Code of Chivalry!
Like Pavlov's dog, that bell just keeps ringing, and men keep falling right into line!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 07:31 PM March 28th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
This is Part of the Gender Equity Movement. Its goal is to modify the behavior and sexuality of Boys. To prevent rape and sexual harrassment. What it is really is an indoctrination and intimidation of males starting at age 5. How well is it working?
As the Kindergarteners in NJ who had oral sex on their school buses last week. This is absolute Bull Shit on the part of the FemNags. I have a solution. Very simple solution. Segregate the genders and educate boys in boys only schools. Simple no way to harrass girls if they are absent. The FemNags will never allow this. As their true agenda is to turn heterosexual Wolves into chemically, socially, emotionally, castrated Poodles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 10:33 PM March 28th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to discern any "logic" in all the misandric machinations of the feminazis is like trying to reason with a bi-polar afflicted individual.
The contradictions in what feminists "want" appear to be endless (please add your own):
* Women want gender equality at home, with the choice to stay home and breed while a wage-slave hubby grinds his spirit away at the office 24 x 7. Oh, and any allegation of "causing her emotional distress or ignoring her needs" can put the zombie salaryman in jail.
* Women want equal opportunity and respect in the workplace, but an allegation of sexual harassment can end a man's career, assuming he's even hired by some miracle escaping the affirmative action bias of the H.R. feminazis.
* A new generation of post-feminist educated professional young women desire high-earning egalitarian husbands, but they ignore how still very intact radical 70's-style feminism has created pervasive gender wars and a generation of young men who are abandoning women-controlled higher education and are quite reasonably terrified of further matriachy via marriage.
* Women want men to be more open, more sensitive, and more expressive -- while having a Dial 9-1-1 goon squad available to swoop down and arrest any man whose openness, sensitivity, and expressiveness may disappoint or offend.
In a climate of tyranny, it seems quite insane to expect that the subjects of that intentional coercion and systemic assault will pretend that violence is not happening to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 08:28 PM March 28th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Your analysis is spot-on, Uberganger.
There's no question that feminism seeks to create a state where women remain children, sexually, socially and legally in perpetuity - literal little princesses in every sense of the word. They cast men in the fairy-tale role of repulsive aggressors, all while demanding at the same time that someone or something fill the protector/provider role of "daddy" in their stage-play, casting government as their easily manipulated surrogate patriarch to provide the laws and funding for them to remain children, as any sensible, individual man would laugh in their faces at the idea of supporting a woman's "right" to "choose" to remain infantile, and they know it.
This, of course, explains their substitution of "daddy" government for adult men in their lives. It allows them to remain perpetually child-like sexually, socially and legally, while demonizing all things male (part of the cross-cultural, fairy-tale requirement for women to remain perpetually immature), yet remain dependent on us for support and protection through the surrogate "daddy" government.
Unfortunately, I won't pay so some greedy slut can remain in her fairy-tale world, and I'm sure every man here agrees. Unfortunately, we can't cut them off directly, we're not the "daddy" in this picture, thanks to feminism.
However, I say that if they're going to act like spoiled, childish, immature little princesses, and demand laws that demonize us and take our hard-earned dollars to finance their little pink world, that we start treating them like spoiled children that they are, and that we start finding some ways to stop the bulk transfer of men's labor into the pockets of feminism's captive "daddy" governments. As usual, I'm open to suggestions that don't require prison time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 10:38 PM March 29th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
A slight digression.
Has anyone noticed that the show 24 is on the verge of mentioning frivolous sex har suits by the hypersensitive. In the show the "perp" is obnoxious but blameless. The "victim" is just about to accuse one of the protagonists who innocently patted her shoulder.
I hope Fox ignores whatever letters from the feminazis and pursues this storyline.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "Here we go again...