|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 01:51 PM April 1st, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen that site before, and it does warm the heart, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 02:34 PM April 1st, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Everything I've read from credible surveys suggests that 75% of women REJECT feminism.
The intellectual dishonesty detailed in the post above condemns with no room for alibis that feminists are a pathological species of sexist, hate-mongering, misandrist vermin.
Well, that's a bit extreme. Maybe they are just misguided.
Anyhow, by what logic can we explain the continued deference and servility to feminism?
The passage of VAWA 2005?
The continuing carnage in the Family Courts?
The growing tyranny of the Domestic Violence Industry?
And, most importantly ....
the utterly complicit SILENCE of women against this gender warfare?
A "few good women" need to become a legion of good women if this virus of feminism is going to ever be extinguished.
Otherwise, men will continue to "go their own way..." and wisely so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 05:07 PM April 1st, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The intellectual dishonesty detailed in the post above condemns with no room for alibis that feminists are a pathological species of sexist, hate-mongering, misandrist vermin.
Roy, if you're talking about my comment as "the post above" and not the IWF article (if you're talking about the IWF article, I do apologize), what seems to be the problem? My comment says no such thing: I'm simply delighted with the fact that there are still women around who reject misandry and radical feminism and are willing to do so publicly. It's praise for women. I'm well aware of the fact that most women reject feminism even as many of them are happily enjoying the privileges it grants them - average women are typically unaware of the source of their advantages.
Where's this coming from? How am I being intellectually dishonest by saying that I'm pleased to see reasonable women finally speaking up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:37 PM April 1st, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
My comment was about the article.
Your writing is exemplary of some of the best MRA essays on the web.
Apologies for any confusion.
Grammar (and syntax especially) are a bitch!
Actually, my two daughters are named Grammar and Syntax.
If you've seen them over at another men's rights forum, you know what I mean!
Pretty? Not pretty?
(Re: men's intellects....)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:05 PM April 2nd, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Roy, and please accept my sincerest apologies - I misunderstood your comment (as I thought I might have).
As for the writing, I had a hard-core, sadistic feminist for "Canadian Literature" my last year in high school - not one man on the reading list - so I learned to explain myself in gory friggin' detail as I eviscerated the two horsewomen of the apocalypse that she thought were the entirety of "Canadian Literature" - Margaret Stone and Margaret Atwood. Patricidal manhaters of the Valerie Solanas variety, both. I knew I'd have to prove myself to someone else above her in the food chain to pass the course, so I had to be careful about my writing being of reasonable quality.
Anyhow, as for the teacher, the bitch positively hated me. My speech that year for the public speaking component of her class was naturally a condemnation of teacher's strikes for being nothing more than a greedy manifestation of Marxism and its retarded great-granddaughter, feminism, since most teachers were female, and they were planning a strike to demand ridiculous levels of compensation for their work if you compared it to the work of men in other occupations (a point which I proved), just to drive another thorn into her manicured paw, you understand. I threw in a jab about how female teachers work together to force men out of the profession using classical female aggression in the form of social isolation and ostracization, just to be a prick and for the pure pleasure of watching her head just fucking explode!
Here's the best part - she had to give me an A- anyhow after I demonstrated to her boss, the department head and my teacher in two previous years (he apparently thought I was "some kinda fuckin' writer", to quote Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket), that the C's and F's she was giving me were based on ideology, not ability, I'm proud to say. Making that nutcase turn purple while having her MALE boss force her to give me a top grade was my one great pleasure in high school. I could have died happy after I got that report card. Ah, the memories! This, you see, is why I just love to write. For that, I suppose I will be eternally greatful to Mz. Whateverhernamewas. Without her misandry, I would never have learned to enjoy expository writing and speech.
Your flattery is too kind, sir, but it's welcome any time. Again, my apologies for misunderstanding the comment - my fault entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's a great story.
However, I'm sorry to direct your attention to Frank Zappa's observation to the effect that the older you get the more all of society starts to look just like high school.
I am soooo glad I got through HS and college right before feminist studies invaded the curriculum. I had one English class at the U on "Solitude and Community" which it turned out was taught by a non-strident but clearly feminist leaning prof. We arranged our chairs in circular fashion, journaled, read a Margaret Atwood book, and had a pot-luck dinner at her house where the women brought a lot of weird vegan type casseroles. All-in-all it wasn't a terrible experience. I remember there was like only one other guy in the class and he was what you'd call a recalcitrant male, rather defiant and occasionally very argumentative; I was only a freshman or sophomore and didn't know any better than to go along (or not say anything) since it was all sort of new different and exciting and I didn't have much of a strong opinion on these matters then anyway. It was only a year or two later that the Dworkins of the world erupted on the scene and things took a huge slide downhill.
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Concerned Teen on 08:51 PM April 2nd, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Be glad that you got out when you did. Some high schools are now just institutes for feminazi brainwashing. Luckily for me, I go to a school with a good balance of male and female teachers, and students are encouraged to speak their minds if they don't agree with something. Some of my friends are not so fortunate. At their schools, it is not uncommon for teachers to punish students for disagreeing with their ideologies. Teachers just use their class as an oppurtunity to push their agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 01:07 PM April 3rd, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to see that you are able to think for yourself, keep it up young Man!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 06:21 PM April 3rd, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm increasingly anxious about what's happening to my comrades in high school.
I'm also worried that more and more HS-aged men are finding this site.
Is that a "good" thang?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Concerned Teen on 07:31 PM April 3rd, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I think so. Although I would agree with you that teenagers have a well founded reputation for being a bit radical, as long as we don't do anything to hurt the credibility of the Male Rights movement, we could be a valuable asset.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:12 AM April 4th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"Is that a "good" thang?" Of course it is Roy. The younger the People are that get involved in their future the better it is for everyone. They are the ones that are facing the current system filled with hormones and more traps set for them than were set for us. I applaud the youth that care about what is being done to them, more so than I do the "kids" that are only concerned about peer pressure, or their next piece of ass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:18 AM April 4th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
You are a valuable asset! You are the future! Do not apoligize for your youth as it is transient and society doesn't allow you to really enjoy it! Get as many of your friends and acquaintences as possible to be involved in their future. Sometimes radical is necessary, so don't sweat it. Voices of reason are not heard because of age, they are heard because of wisdom..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by A.J. on 12:36 PM April 2nd, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Anyhow, by what logic can we explain the continued deference and servility to feminism?
The passage of VAWA 2005?
The continuing carnage in the Family Courts?
The growing tyranny of the Domestic Violence Industry?
And, most importantly ....
the utterly complicit SILENCE of women against this gender warfare?
IMO it’s the ability of feminists to equate all things anti-male with the decent treatment of women. Feminism long ago abandoned any objective type of equal treatment of the sexes. It’s now a stealth movement of gender hatred packaged to appeal to the traditionally chivalrous. How many churches wouldn’t even consider supporting feminism but openly gush support for women’s shelters that promote feminist ideology?
Many, if not most, attacks on men are framed to appeal to traditional deference to women as much as to raving, screeching feminists. How else can the UNANYMOUS passage of VAWA be explained? How many representatives in congress would want to be seen with Kim Gandy on the campaign trail with them? Very few, but they still pander like a puppy to her positions.
Feminism has developed deceptive packaging to sell a product that few would buy if they knew what was really inside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 09:33 PM April 1st, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
The IWF can be a useful ally on the campus, but don't mistake them for friends or MRAs. I think they dislike the doctrinaire feminists more for their leftist orientation than their misandry or even their lying.
Every Sat. morning I watch this feminist show, To The Contrary (PBS @ 11:30 EST), to see what the other side is discussing. The panelists are women from the right and left (feminazis all), and the IWF is always represented. Believe me, they never seem to disagree on goals, merely methodology. Sorta like a panel of slave drivers debating whip techniques. With a nod to Animal Farm, you can't tell the farmers from the sows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I usually watch that show too - I've got a total crush on Leslie Sanchez (even though our politics differ considerably, not to mention that she's married) and hope each week that she'll be on...
Seriously, I occasionally email the show and speak up with my truly contrarian views when something really outrageous is said or left out. In spite of the show's title it's really pretty mainstream commonplace stuff, like women balancing work and family, women's health and reproductive issues, etc. Definitely a notch or two above The View's "Hot Topics", which really isn't saying much.
It'd be great if PBS would create a parallel, separate-but-equal men's show. (Or would it?) But what would we call it? Actually, a show which blended these two ideas into something covering "gender" topics from all perspectives could be good.
Anyway, I've read a bunch of the articles at IWF.org and think your take is pretty much right on. But at least they're an improvement, brain-wise.
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 07:22 PM April 2nd, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I usually watch that show too - I've got a total crush on Leslie Sanchez (even though our politics differ considerably, not to mention that she's married) and hope each week that she'll be on...
Whenever your crush on Ms. Sanchez threatens to get in the way of your objectivity, look at Bonnie Erbe. I swear, she looks like Sylvester Stallone in drag. LOL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 07:10 PM April 2nd, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the insight, Hunchback - I was just responding to the fact that their press is not pure hate, or pure privilege/demands (for women), which seems to be what every feminist and many "women's" sites are all about. I realize that like most women you'd meet on the street, the women at IWF are not about to take off their self-installed halos and toss away their ill-gotten privileges to help us out (if they even acknowledge that these things exist), but it's nice to see the misandry being kept under control for a change. Some women might choose to help, but it seems as if it will almost always be framed in terms of women's concerns, or what's best for women, not the men they're "helping". There are exceptions, naturally.
My only consolation when I deal with "non-feminists" that support feminism quietly or the not-so-hateful variety of feminists is that some of them are starting to see that what's bad for men and children is also bad for women. Therefore, while their motives are selfish, the result is assistance for MRAs. Wrong reason, right results (sometimes). Fortunately, as Roy has pointed out, there are a substantial number (i.e. in the millions) of women who flatly reject feminism entirely, and believe that what it's doing to men is plainly wrong. So, when I meet one under the age of 50 or above the age of 18 that's actually acting as if they don't support feminism, and is actively rejecting the special female privileges they're entitled to thanks to feminism, I'll be sure to let everyone know - they're about as common as albino elephants. I don't fault average women for this: they're biologically programmed to gather as many resources as possible to support infants, essentially all mammals do the same thing. Doesn't mean I'm going to put up with the codification of biological instinct in law by people who flat-out reject the idea of biological determinism and gender "roles" for humans (as if humans are not primates, mammals and animals too at the basic level).
Your Orwell reference is apropos. Consider also that "all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others" is still a hateful statement, even if it's printed on stationery that has nice little flowers around the edge or said in a soft voice.
One thing I've been getting irritated about, and haven't had any chance to comment on: what I call "triple income households". This is where a man has been thrown out by his wife (no-fault divorces or 911'd), is ordered to pay child support or alimony or both, and then the woman cohabitates with a man who is also supporting her but does not remarry.
One woman, two male wage slaves. Wasn't there an item on the front page about cohabitation finally being treated the same as a remarriage for the purposes of determining support someplace? Why the hell is a woman's income not "considered" until it reaches a threshold several times the poverty line for a family of four in most jurisdictions? This stuff just makes me want to throw up. We've created a system where these fairy-tale princesses (oddly enough, they seem to be the "frogs" in the modern version), can marry, fuck around on and cuckold men, divorce them at a whim, interfere with visitation and internationally recognized human rights (belonging to children and fathers), then shack up with another man and still continue to leech off the first (or several previous) husbands/fathers/paternity fraud victims. Naturally the feminists aren't about to push to have cohabitation declared the same as marriage - this would grant them division of assets and alimony, but it would also mean that when they tried to form a new triple or quadruple income home with another victim, it would result in the termination of previous alimony orders. Guess they figured that one out to their advantage, too.
You can throw me in jail if you like, but I will NEVER pay so some woman can enjoy two or more male wage slaves. I'd leave the country first, and do time if I had to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:26 AM April 4th, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I know a Man that is on SSDI. He was a certified mechanic who had paid into SS all of his life. He was awarded $1,200.00 a month by SS. He had been married for twenty some years and had raised three Children. No support was due as the Children were grown. But the court ordered him to pay alimony for ten years. They take out the $300.00 every month out of his SSDI payments. Ain't it great to be an Amerikan? The ex lives with a guy that she has been with for years, but won't marry him because she doesn't want to jeapordize her blood money, she admits that to my Friend. "Justice" and EQUALITY for all, what a joke....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 02:28 AM April 5th, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard similar horror stories here. The one that comes immediately to mind was a man who had developed epilepsy or some seizure disorder in his 40's as a consequence of some work-related incident, couldn't work anymore and was living on $10,000 a year in government disability pension income (we call ours CPP).
His wife left him (many of them do prefer to marry up, after all), taking the kids, and the woman on the bench decreed that he could "afford" $300 a month in child support off his $850 a month income. Of course, she completely ignored the income of the wife (a nurse, making $40K a year and I seem to recall reading that she was cohabitating with a new man), and the disabled man's uninsured drug costs, which came to about $500 a month.
Not only was alimony not ordered to support the man who became disabled supporting his family, nor was the income of second boyfriend she lived with considered, he was also ordered to die of starvation, exposure, seizures or all of the above so the ex-wife could have a few bucks to throw around with her new buddy.
I actually became nauseated when I read it, and I've got a good, strong stomach for these things nowadays.
Sadly, but unsurprisingly, I do believe the man killed himself. I think it was in Saskatchewan, and I'm trying to find the case. I want to know why there isn't an exemption for anyone who is legitimately disabled when it comes to child support.
Clearly the government thought there should be, because under CPP rules, there is a benefit paid to dependents when a parent becomes disabled. I think it's about $150 a month for a child under 18 or a student in school - I got it because my mother was disabled, even though she was married to my father at the time. Doesn't this suggest that the government believes that disabled parents cannot reasonably be expected to pay support for children?
Government disability pensions and welfare should never qualify as "income" for the purposes of computing such things, and incarcerated parents cannot possibly be expected to back-pay child support when they leave prisons (male or the occasional female)! In many jurisdictions, the custodial parent's (usually women's) incomes aren't counted until they're $30-$40K in the child support formulae, even though the same courts will happily murder a man to juice every last dollar out of a broken wage slave - after all, masculinity is evil and deserves to be punished, at least in the family court system.
I'm no misogynist, and I don't want to see women have any less standing in society than men, but I'm sick to death of the idea that if they aren't advantaged and out-performing men in absolutely every possible way at all times everywhere, they need "special" laws, protections, exemptions and rights to which men are not entitled. They either want equality or they don't! If they do, they can accept the downsides, too. Women can't have their cake, their ex-husband's cake, some new guy's cake, your cake, my cake and every other man's cake AND eat it to. Enough is enough. It's time for women to start acting like adults in society (I know that many do, and that many women face difficult lives too: I'm referring to the "special" ones that feel they deserve the rights without the responsibilities here.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by TachyonMale on 06:05 PM April 9th, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
[i]"Justice" and EQUALITY for all, what a joke....[/i]
If only everyone had realised that sooner, we may have been able to prevent feminism from attaining such an iron grip.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
bull writes "An interesting article I found on the "Independent Women's Forum" website about the "Ten Most Common Feminist Myths."