|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by frank h on 02:18 PM March 31st, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, according to the woman who answered the phone, the center doesn't exist anymore due to a lack of funding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by zerostress on 02:36 PM March 31st, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I knew it was to good to be true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 02:36 PM March 31st, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Assuming that this is not hijacked by the same people that originally caused the problem, this would be a wonderful program to replicate to other universities.
In looking at the web page, I am encouraged by what I see. It looks as though they intend to at least cover men in the media.
It should be fairly easy to put together a list of issues for men, generate accurate, well documented presentations, and disseminate these amongst programs such as this one. I'm sure those on this board could generate any number of issues, e.g. 'her choice, his responsibility'. etc.
This is heartening. I hope it isn't hijacked by the standard, truth-free academicians. Does the poster have any info on who may have sponsored this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 02:38 PM March 31st, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
OK. Looks like I was busy posting while others were busy answering the question.
And just exactly WHY, given Title IX, was this NOT funded? What utter bigotry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by frank h on 03:24 PM March 31st, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I had a follow-up email exchange with the Secretary of the President of the University. She indicated that it was not very-well utilized. I'm going to follow-up (I have another phone number). But if anyone has friends going to ODU, then they would be better-placed to query the university.
I've spoken with two different women on this topic at the University, and at least their tone was sympathetic. So hold your venom, guys. We'll get more mileage out of saying "Gee this was great! How can you get it going again?" than complaining about discrimination (even though that's what it is).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 08:54 PM March 31st, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Frank,
Nice work. Good advice.
Still, to follow up on your last phrase, we HAVE seen, according to Kate O'Beirne, mens' sports programs disappear simply in the name of numerical 'equality'. Weren't even women clamoring to get into the programs shut down. i.e. had nothing to do with utilization, or demand, just a way to shut the men down.
What would be nice would be a program that could enumerate men's rights for entering freshmen, as well as some of the dangers that MRAs have enumerated in the past. I don't know any other way to begin to shut down the bigotry (am actually thinking of specific cases I know of), but to prepare men to call the bigots on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by frank h on 09:08 PM March 31st, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I spoke with the Vice President of Student Services (I thkn that's his title) about this, and he really did lament that fact that even when it was operating, the center didn;t have much clientele. We talked a little bit about the propensity of men NOT to seek help in the same ways and places that women do. I suggested that he try some 'stealth' methods, reaching out to men through non-traditional menas, etc. and he agreed to take that on.
I definitely got the impression that he does get it, that men are certainly not going to easily buy-in to the feminist positions on the obvious issues, and you can see from the Web site that their bent was a masculine-positive approach. I encouraged him to use the Title IX justfication for all it's worth.
I think the real solution, though, is to get male students at ODU to call for the services or at least look for the office and make some noise when they find it's not there.
One VERY sad thing, though: I originally called the President's office, and the woman I spoke with didn't even know such a thing existed.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 11:19 PM March 31st, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
OK, let's get real...
The so-called "men's movement" consists of a few hundred (maybe a few thousand) 'Net guys typing into their screens.
There is no political base, no political activism (recall the self-immolation of Fathers for Justice U.K. recently when the "leader" got a movie deal...), no clout whatsoever --- VAWA 2005 passed with 100% male CongressPERSONS voting in favor!
Give it up, dudes!
Find a good woman and make your peace with the Matriarchy!
(I'm kidding?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 05:07 AM April 1st, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Roy, no justice means no peace, and you're way off base assuming that most men won't share in our sense of indignation at the indignities heaped on men by feminism once they've been educated about reality. Yes, VAWA passed, but gender-neutral language is starting to appear in it, there's equal parenting initiatives on the table in some states, men's commissions forming up in places, men's activists are getting air time and press space (when they aren't being framed). You're far too pessimistic. I understand why, but you need to "snap out of it", in my opinion.
I agree with you in one way: find a good woman. By good woman, I mean one that believes in actual legal equality and equal responsibility for members of both sexes, not special status for women, and who will support herself if the relationship doesn't work out. Don't marry, don't have kids, and lock your assets up in the tightest possible way.
On the other hand, I tend to accept some of Chuck Palahniuk's ideas from Fight Club, i.e. that we are a generation of men raised by women, taught by women and socialized by women. Maybe another woman isn't the solution we need. The same author also claims that our fathers are our model for God, and what does it say about God if your father bails on you? Surely this must mean that God hates you (which is really a way of saying we hate ourselves, or consider ourselves unworthy because our masculine role models "abandoned" so many of us, at least according to our female role models - ran like hell from a harpy at home or was denied any right to participate in our lives is more like it). In saying this, he makes a point that's highly relevant to our plight: we've been conditioned to believe that masculinity is evil, violent and absent, and to hate ourselves for it and feel guilty just for being men, as if this were something criminal or wrong and we all share some portion of culpability for whatever it is that women claim this week. This conditioning was done largely by women and for women. Again, maybe avoiding them for a while isn't such a bad idea, given the massive risks associated with contact.
Give it up? Should the soldiers and civil rights activists that finally achieved some sort of standing for black people in America have given up? Should Gandhi have given up when the British beat he and his followers senseless? How about the folks that led the American Revolution against British tyranny?
Consider that men are trained to be silent and "take it", and won't speak up for themselves, especially against women - the code of chivalry is still drilled into men's heads as children (it serves feminism's agenda admirably), along with a nice new layer of existential guilt and self-loathing thanks to those same feminists. I've found that what you hear from men in public (i.e. spaces women have invaded that used to be for men to "bond", socialize and express themselves in, just as women still demand for themselves but deny men), about feminism and and its antonym, equality, is radically different from what you'll hear in private, where feminist censorship and frivolous "harasssment" litigation does not penetrate.
I have a better idea: rather than giving up, go recruit some more men to join our cause, deprogram them and work at undoing their feminist conditioning. You'll free a mind and liberate a man from tyrrany he never even realized was there. There is no politically viable solution to this problem other than letting it expose itself for the fraud that it is, and accelerating its implosion wherever possible. Feminists and their lackeys dominate the media, the government and both political parties in your country (all of the major ones in mine as well), based on the actions of our governments, so appealing to them is like asking North Americans to walk to the store instead of taking the car: pointless. Individual and group resistance, civil disobedience, deprogramming, liberation, education and patience are a far better idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 01:54 PM April 1st, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Roy,
I've read your posts in the past. You have no small talent for reasoned insight (no lipstick on your derriere, means what it says).
I don't believe the, currently, small size of the efforts in question are necessarily a problem. Indeed, I consider them an asset. This will rid the effort, in its formative stages, of extremists and those who are primarily motivated by hatred -- they won't have the patience or attention span. Those who are motivated by a sense of justice and fairness, however, will understand that they have an obligation to continue, come what may.
A movement like this can scale very, very rapidly, given the right base. Think in terms of binary exponentiation. All you have to do is reach two people, who in turn, each reach two more. Then the power of two takes over...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:46 AM April 1st, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
RandomMan: Once again you have responded very well. I have to agree, spread the word with the intent to enlighten, and do so as often as possible. Never give up, for you are correct, there can never be Peace until there is EQUALITY/JUSTICE for "everyone". I am having a problem with the patience part though myself. I am proud of the fact that there are many womyn that don't want their Husbands around me because I give them "ideas". I will continue to give them ideas until I quit sucking air. "It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 02:11 PM April 1st, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
(RandomMan) -- "Roy ... You're far too pessimistic. I understand why, but you need to "snap out of it", in my opinion."
Every once in a while I have to state the obvious. Just to remind myself why I might be wrong.
RandomMan is the reason why MRA’s should never give in to terminal pessimism.
He’s right. There are positive signs that need to be considered.
Though I feel men are right now about like the 1850's Dixie plantation slaves who celebrated only being whipped 20 lashes instead of 40 when their massa decided to be "kinder."
Pretty much what I expect of feminists in the next ten years as their power slowly evaporates.
And, as a man who has been in the Edjucashun Industry for most of my life, I have less faith in the intellectual Brahmins than most civilians --- nearly all of higher education is now under the thrall of radical feminism. It’s basically a mass intellectual castration regime at this point. Recall Larry Summers at Harvard, the institutional beacon of American elite virtue?
(Davidadelong) --- "I am having a problem with the patience part though myself."
Yeah, I can relate to that. It gets worse with every passing year. Time does matter. There comes a point where if you don’t see any real results, you cut bait and cruise on to better fishing grounds.
The MRA movement may be at that point now, or soon.
Men demand results for their intentions and actions.
They can be small results for a while, but not for long.
True?
(And the whole "find a good woman" thang is a joke, right?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:51 PM April 2nd, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
I am proud of the fact that there are many womyn that don't want their Husbands around me because I give them "ideas".
As they say: when you start catching flak, it means you're over the target. Keep it up Davidadelong!
And here I thought it was just me the women were busy keeping their slavemen away from...glad to hear I'm not alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank H wrote: "I had a follow-up email exchange with the Secretary of the President of the University. She indicated" and "I've spoken with two different women on this topic at the University"
That's the problem with this so called men/boy-friendly crap, there are always some feminazis involved. Here is another fine example of feminazi interference in boys business;
The Boys Project
Take a look in the "Board"section and see how many feminazis are involved in this project, it's fucking unbelievable. Are men turned into pussy woosies so much that they need feminazis to show them the way? What good does whining about feminazis if on the other hand it seems men can't even take a shit without the guidance of feminazi bitches?
Holy fucking moses guys, demand your balls back and start kicking those feminazis out of men's business, it's about fucking time to realize we don't need them and their feminazi crap.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 10:06 AM April 1st, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that not being able to go to the bathroom without women assisting in the shake out is not the position the men's movement needs to be in. But at least this board does have women who have scoped the feminist war on boys and decided to do something about it; I wouldn't describe them as feminazis. However, though allies on this project, I wouldn't describe them as MRAs, either.
Much, much worse are the true, certified, card-carrying feminazis insinuating themselves into the movement. For instance, Carol Gilligan, whose bogus study on schools shortchanging girls caused much of the problem, was chosen by Time to do an article on how to fix it. This is the real danger: the powers-that-be recruiting our enemies to "solve" the problems they created. Similarly, with federal funding, Blankenhorn's Fathers Initiative admonishes fathers not to abandon their children—with nary a mention of the family courts engaging in wide scale fatherdectomies. And should VAWA ever truly become "gender neutral," we have feminist front men like NOMAS poised to get the funding for men's shelters.
Yes, this is a real problem for men's and fathers' rights. Having fair-minded women assisting—though not leading—the fight is a good thing: the fems sure got plenty of assistance from us "oppressive patriarchs" in their growth. But making certain that our foes don't control the solution once we do get finally get recognition is a cause for extreme vigilance.
And despite their size, funding, and proliferation, the only thing holding the feminazi machine together is the Lace Curtain and its web of lies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 05:38 PM April 1st, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Hunchback,
Solid post. I believe you have the personalities in question calibrated quite accurately.
Nice data for reference as well.
thanks,
bk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Iaskance on 11:38 AM April 2nd, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Ummmm, with all due respect, and with a nod to caution about the motives and committment of some women participating in the raising of issues of concern to men/boys, I think your characterization of this effort is off base.
The front person of this effort is Judith Kleinfield. For those unfamiliat with her, she is both the person who shredded the AAUW 1992 report that played chickenlittle with the education of girls, and also the person who slammed the MIT report on "bias" against female science researchers.
The genesis of this effort seemed to start perhaps nine months ago, and was raised on McElroy's ifeminist board. While McElroy did not follow through visibly with giving the issue much direct attention, it is a genuine effort by someone.
I'd draw your attention to the comments by Tom Mortenson on his site/blog. He notes that he has talked about this issue for ten years before anyone picked it up significantly, and he is pleased to have Kleinfield on board. He himself is on the board of this effort - and so are Sacks, and Farrell, Kimmell ( and unfortunately William Pollack).
Please be careful to not assume that all women are so blinded by ideology that they are de facto feminazis. Kleinfield, Hoff Sommers, Doreen Kimura, and at least six or seven female neurobiologists have considerable integrity in their work. Not everyone is a Carol Gilligan.
While it is early days for this effort, and least she is trying.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Iaskance, it's because of chivalric bullshit like yours that feminazis can ruin men's lives. Woosies like you (and others on this board) are a disgrace to MANkind and you don't deserve being called a man.
Stop being cowards and start kicking feminazi asses.
Bert
--------------------
From now on, men's rights first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 09:48 AM April 3rd, 2006 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Bert, I'm with Iaskance on this one.
The fight-friend-and-foe-alike-and-let-God-sort-em-out attitude is counterproductive at best and lightly veneered misogny. This is NOT what our movement is about. We are about justice.
If there is an objection to women leading our struggle, I second that motion. If there is an objection to women defining our goals or strategy or tactics, I object to that. If it's a case of women set boundaries, I sure as hell object to that. But if it's denying that any woman can be our ally and assist with our mission, then the hell with THAT.
Our enemy is feminism and injustice. We oppose women when they embrace this gender tyranny, not when they join us in fighting against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 12:43 PM April 3rd, 2006 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
You are preaching to the choir Brother! We will only win with the genders united, not divided. Well said, but have you noticed that some keep repeating the same thing, almost as if they want Men and Women to be divided even more. Sad, very sad....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Iaskance on 05:47 PM April 3rd, 2006 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
I made it, a life-long ambition realized : To-day I am a Woosie, woo-hoo and all that shit....
Tell ya what Bert, let's choose us up sides - I get noted feminazis like Kleinfield, Hoff-Summer, Laframboise, Parker, Mercer, Sacks, Farrell, Ravitch, Cheney, Mortenson...
You can have oh, I dunno,
Michael Flood of http://www.xyonline.net/
Hugo Schywzer of http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schwyzer/
Barry over at http://www.amptoons.com/blog/
and any of the four founders of this outfit
http://www.whiteribbon.ca/
PLUS- ONE TIME OFFER you can have William Jefferson Clinton hisself
After all, they are all male,so I guess you are good to go with them, right, just so long as they aren't female,huh?
By the way, if you are the standard that boys are to choose before calling themselves men, then boys are in REAL trouble. Go out into the real world, before you decide who is a coward. Your phony bravado is pathetic
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by oregon dad on 11:48 AM April 1st, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
really do not want their husband around single men?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 02:46 PM April 1st, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Women do not trust other women.
They learn this in high school, where the girl-wars are waged.
Read ODD GIRL OUT: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls ( Rachel Simmons ).
Women hate working for women bosses. Same reason --- no trust can occur between females.
Why?
Do we have a certified psychologist on board who can detail the specifics of Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
Men have no idea what they are actually facing in the female species.
Maybe the release of "Fatal Attraction 2" will clear up this mystery?
Ms. Stone is still not disclosing.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 07:39 AM April 3rd, 2006 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Women hate working for women bosses. Same reason --- no trust can occur between females.
Why?
It's because women have no higher values, only men do. To be precise, women are not held to the consequences of higher values (which is why they get shorter prison sentences than men - if they get sent to prison at all). Promises, whether personal or in the form of contracts, are built on higher values - things like trust, integrity and honour. Women don't think they have to be held to these values, and other women know it. Men foolishly think otherwise!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 05:36 PM April 3rd, 2006 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
I do know that most Women that get married do not want their new Husbands to have single friends is because of the training process that they put the new Husband through. They do not want the "new" trainee to get any "ideas". I have heard Women talking about their endeavors to "train" their Husbands when they did not know I was paying attention, scary and educational. Remember, most Children have been raised by their Mothers, Father to busy "making a living". Most Boy Children are raised to "listen" to Women, and most Girl Children are raised to manipulate Men. Gotta break the cycle of training Folks through education and truth. Oh wait, the same thing is taught in our public schools isn't it? It has been for hundreds of years. I guess if one were to think about this, they might see a pattern, like we are being manipulated as a People to make us easier to control. Just a thought..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by zerostress on 07:44 PM April 2nd, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
If you guys want a good laugh, follow the link.
I know, I know, it's in French but just scroll down about 2/3 of the page, find the NOW logo and enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 01:31 PM April 3rd, 2006 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I read French, but the bit your were pointing out is in English.
Snort. Giggle.
Do you actually mean to tell me that there are sentient beings alive that think feminists are interested in equality (more of that giggling going on here), or (laughing so hard I have to wipe tears from my eyes, justice.
HA!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
zerostress writes "While wandering on the Internet, I found this