Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer

Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
stevenslacker
Newbie
stevenslacker

I see Michael Noer’s article was temporarily taken down.
Read liberal bloggers crowing about the removal of the article from Forbes on the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/08/23/update-disgusting-misogy_e_27874.html
Like high school teacher (invariably female) teaching a gaggle of twleve year-olds so-called “comprehensive” sex education (where’s the education for boys about paternity testing anyone anyone?), many women maintain a false belief that even adult men should not speak freely and openly about the facts regarding marriage, dating and women.
But alas it was not to last. The matriarchy has seen to it that the article is not 100 % censored, but that the author has his legs cut out from under him, then made an example of in a public flogging!
The original article link now sends the unsuspecting reader to a duel opinion page, with an equal space for rebuttal offered to someone with a **bleep** (In most magazines I know of, rebuttals are usually reserved for a side bar; but this is different, ladies first, madam!)
http://www.forbes.com/home/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html?thisSpeed=35000
Unfortunately, the rebuttal is not much of a rebuttal at all, but an anectdote based on a single woman’s experience.
Second, a large chunk of Michael Noer’s article is left out from the analysis, most substantially, the sidebars are left out. This of course leave a large portion of his argument out, so that readers will falsely presume that the rebuttal is actually a meaningful response. This once again, begins the falses sense of security.
A fate worse than complete censorship: have your argument deliberately gutted in part, then set up for a fall in a public forum. A believable performance. The matriarchy is to be truly commended for this purpose.
I hope Forbes will not mind me copying portions of the sidebars on their own web site. The sidebars in the original article presented such facts as:
1. You are less likely to get married to her.
So say Lee A. Lillard and Linda J. Waite of the University of Michigan’s Michigan Retirement Research Center. In a paper, “Marriage, Divorce and the Work and Earnings Careers of Spouses”, published in April, 2000, they found that for white women, higher earnings, more hours of employment and higher wages while single all reduce the chances of marriage. “This suggests that (1) success in the labor market makes it harder for women to make a marital match, (2) women with relatively high wages and earnings search less intensively for a match, or (3) successful women have higher standards for an acceptable match than women who work less and earn less.” Some research suggests the opposite is true for black women.
2. If you do marry, you are more likely to get divorced.
In 2004, John H. Johnson examined data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and concluded that gender has a significant influence on the relationship between work hours and increases in the probability of divorce. Women’s work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men’s work hours often have no statistical effect. “I also find that the incidence in divorce is far higher in couples where both spouses are working than in couples where only one spouse is employed,” Johnson said. A few other studies, which have focused on employment (as opposed to working hours) have concluded that working outside the home actually increases marital stability, at least when the marriage is a happy one. But even in these studies, wives’ employment does correlate positively to divorce rates, when the marriage is of “low marital quality.”
Sources: “A Treatise On The Family,” Gary S. Becker, Harvard University Press, 1981; “Do Long Work Hours Contribute To Divorce?” John H. Johnson, Topics in Economic Analysis and Policy, 2004; “Wives’ Employment and Spouses’ Marital Happiness,” Robert Schoen, Stacy J. Rogers, Paul R. Amato, Journal of Family Issues, April 2006.
Source: “Marriage, Divorce and the Work and Earnings Careers of Spouses,” Lee A. Lillard, Linda J. Waite, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center, Working Papers, April, 2000.
3. She is more likely to cheat on you.
According to a wide-ranging review of the published literature, highly educated people are more likely to have had extra-marital sex (those with graduate degrees are 1.75 more likely to have cheated than those with high school diplomas.) One April, 2005 study, by Adrian J. Blow for the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy summed it up: “If a woman has more education than her partner, she is more likely to have a sexual relationship outside of her primary relationship; if her husband has more education, she is less likely to engage in infidelity.” Additionally individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat. “In a more general sense, it appears that employment has significantly influenced infidelity over the years,” Blow said. “The work environment provides a host of potential partners, and individuals frequently find themselves spending a great deal of time with these individuals.”
Source: “Infidelity in Committed Relationships II: A Substantive Review,” Adrian J. Blow, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, April 2005.
4. She will be unhappy if she makes more than you.
According to the authors of a controversial 2006 study: “American wives, even wives who hold more feminist views about working women and the division of household tasks, are typically happier when their husband earns 68% or more of the household income.” Reason? “Husbands who are successful breadwinners probably give their wives the opportunity to make more choices about work and family–e.g., working part-time, staying home, or pursuing a meaningful but not particularly remunerative job.”
Sources: What’s Love Got To Do With It? W. Bradford Wilcox, Steven L. Nock, Social Forces, March, 2006; http://www.happiestwives.org.

08-25-2006 12:03 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
zacharias
Regular Contributor
zacharias
Well, with guys like you around, it looks like the matriarchy’s grip is loosening.

08-25-2006 12:08 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

zacharias wrote:
Well, with guys like you around, it looks like the matriarchy’s grip is loosening.

Listen to yourself. Are you for real? Seriously, listen to yourself. Giving yourself and your buddies a pat on the back for “accomplishments” on a message board? Puh-leez. Whatever.

Oh, am I not being supportive enough here? Is my nose not firmly enough planted up your ass for your liking? Maybe if you took all my money, deprived me of my job and then changed the social mores of society such that it really wasn’t kosher for me to leave the house, I’d better know my place and treat you better.

That’s so much effort. You could just stop being a juvenile prig and you’ll get the same result.

08-25-2006 12:14 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
SM777
Regular Contributor
SM777
I’m surprised that you are not happy with the article and the responses, Marta.

After all, it just reinforces your independence.

You are independent aren’t you?

Come on, you don’t need a man in your life, so why should you care?

08-25-2006 12:32 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
tomshh
Regular Contributor
tomshh

Oh, am I not being supportive enough here? Is my nose not firmly enough planted up your ass for your liking? Maybe if you took all my money, deprived me of my job and then changed the social mores of society such that it really wasn’t kosher for me to leave the house, I’d better know my place and treat you better.
————————————–

I don’t know, but I have a feeling it would offer A LOT more to society if you did these things.

Unless you are in the rare percentage of women who are better off for society to not raise a family and keep the society in order.

08-25-2006 12:57 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

SM777 wrote:
After all, it just reinforces your independence.

You are independent aren’t you?

Come on, you don’t need a man in your life, so why should you care?

I have a man in my life. He works. I work. And neither of us want children. We’re as happy as happy can be.

08-25-2006 01:01 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

tomshh wrote:
Unless you are in the rare percentage of women who are better off for society to not raise a family and keep the society in order.

Yes, that would be me. I’d make a terrible mother and housewife. I make a far superior nurse, of which the world has far too few. Plus I actually LIKE working sixty hours a week. Would even if I had half the salary.

So I’m exactly where I should be. Imagine that, a woman who knows herself well.

08-25-2006 01:03 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
tomshh
Regular Contributor
tomshh

Yes, that would be me. I’d make a terrible mother and housewife. I make a far superior nurse, of which the world has far too few. Plus I actually LIKE working sixty hours a week. Would even if I had half the salary.

So I’m exactly where I should be. Imagine that, a woman who knows herself well.
————————————-

That is great, I am all for that. All I ever wanted was equal opportunity for EVERYONE, which no longer exists in this country.

Now if only you are okay with the fact that…

1) Most women are happier in the home with their kids.
2) Most men are happier with women that stay home to raise the kids.

08-25-2006 01:06 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

tomshh wrote:
That is great, I am all for that. All I ever wanted was equal opportunity for EVERYONE, which no longer exists in this country.

Now if only you are okay with the fact that…

1) Most women are happier in the home with their kids.
2) Most men are happier with women that stay home to raise the kids.

That’s not held up by my survey of things. Most women stay home as a necessary sacrifice, not because they love the fact that they can’t work and rear children at the same time, i.e. if they could, they’d do both well. As for men wanting women to stay home, what I’ve seen is that when women stay home, they’re called whores/prostitutes, because they do not work.

The problem is that men want something very understandable for them to want, but that is unsustainable: someone to have their children, be a good companion and keep their environs clean for them, without complaint, for decades at time. I get it, believe me, I do. It simply isn’t an acceptable situation to give someone all of those things with no more security than their continued good will. I’m not saying anything about you in particular (I’m sure you’re very trustworthy and loyal), just that state of the thing in general. Some notable (though perhaps smallish) proportion of men, once extended such absolute power, do not wield it well. They ruin it for the good guys. Then there’s the fact that housework is more drudgery and more isolating than work. It boosts no reasonable creature’s self-esteem that their toilet is clean. People (men and women both) need a sense of accomplishment that scrubbing crap off the commode just doesn’t give you.

Finally, I think the old 1950s set up could have used a little retooling. We could do without the biological determinism and rigidity of roles, no? Sure, men and women can decide they want to do what their bliss leads them to, but there’s no need for coercive laws or social mores, methinks.

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-25-2006 01:14 AM

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-25-2006 01:15 AM

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-25-2006 01:17 AM

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-25-2006 01:18 AM

08-25-2006 01:12 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
mraguy101
Newbie
mraguy101
Sure you are, Marta2003. Does your alleged husband know you are posting here?

08-25-2006 02:38 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
yohan
Contributor
yohan

>marta2003: Most women stay home as a necessary sacrifice, not because they love the fact that they can’t work and rear children at the same time, i.e. if they could, they’d do both well. <

In my family and with most of our friends, who are not into feminism, it is rather different.
We think, that most of our wives go working as a necessary sacrifice, because the husband/father is not earning enough during a certain period, like in our case, when our children were studying in the university.
For sure, my wife likes to stay at home – it is much nicer than to work full-time in a company. My wife is just not greedy, for our daily life, my average salary is enough, we need not to be rich.

Most Western women do not like to work, but they like money. The husband’s salary is shared, while the wife’s salary is for her own spendings. – And if the husband is getting tired of ‘sharing between equals’, he will be divorced using domestic violence allegations, the wife gets the house and most of his assets and of course monthly alimony to keep her former living standard and because she is so helpless.

If we talk about marriage, we have to talk about
DIVORCE = Equality for feminists…it is the husband’s fault.

No surprise, successful men do not want to marry Western women.
The risk of divorce is 50 percent or higher. Too high to consider marriage anyway.

08-25-2006 04:25 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican

Most Western women do not like to work, but they like money. The husband’s salary is shared, while the wife’s salary is for her own spendings. – And if the husband is getting tired of ‘sharing between equals’, he will be divorced using domestic violence allegations, the wife gets the house and most of his assets and of course monthly alimony to keep her former living standard and because she is so helpless.

This old chestnut again — it seems to be a bit of a mantra. Have you ever spent weeks on end with children? It’s very isolating, and not particularly intellectually stimulating. They’re hard to train, they’re incomprehensible, they’re all-consuming, you can’t easily get away from them, it is not easy. Out-of-home work isn’t just a way to make cash — it’s a rush of adrenaline, it’s a challenge, it’s exciting (or can be). Just like men, women can find a vocation and enjoy it. Some women work because their families need the money, but in a situation where one parent CAN stay home, some women either aren’t suited for it or aren’t particularly interested. This does not make them bad parents — plenty of fathers feel the same way.

In terms of this supposed salary split (which I’ve seen quite a few times on this board), it’s not a division I’m familiar with. None of my married friends do it, my parents didn’t, and it sounds like a circumstance from decades ago or a situation where the husband wants his wife spending her own money for “frills”. Most couples I know have their salaries paid into a common account, which is then used to pay into retirement accounts and all bills.

As for all of the “litigation hates men” arguments — when you get married, write up a prenup if you’re nervous. When you enter marriage, understand that you’re entering a partnership and all funds will be split 50/50. And if you are the breadwinner while your spouse stays home and takes care of your children, understand that your work out of the home and your spouse’s work in the home will be judged as equal in the partnership.

How is this difficult to understand? It’s a partnership that’s entered into with a 50% stake for each participant. Why expect to emerge from its dissolution with more than your share?

08-25-2006 05:02 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
married
Regular Visitor
married
Marta2003 wrote:
>
> I have a man in my life. He works. I work.
> And neither of us want children.

Evolution seems to be working.

08-25-2006 05:32 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

yohan wrote:
In my family and with most of our friends, who are not into feminism, it is rather different.

Good for them. I’m quite confident (all relevant history supports it) that once your friends (namely the women) got exposed to the benefits of feminism, they’d find it irresistible. It happens EVERY time.

08-25-2006 05:34 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Serin
Newbie
Serin

Marta2003 wrote:

Good for them. I’m quite confident (all relevant history supports it) that once your friends (namely the women) got exposed to the benefits of feminism, they’d find it irresistible. It happens EVERY time.

Indeed, it is irresistible.

Let’s say you told a child they could have as much candy as he wanted. Breakfast, lunch, dinner, in between, whenever – as much as he wants. It would certainly be irresistible, but in the end it would be damaging for the child.

Another analogy:

The government passes a law that says, hey, you don’t have to pay for anything anymore! Walk into a store, grab what you want, then leave. Sure, you can pay if you want, but now you have the option to exercise this privilege if you choose. Irresistible? Yes. Good for society? No.

Just because it’s popular or attractive does not mean it’s a good thing.

08-25-2006 07:29 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican

Serin wrote:

Let’s say you told a child they could have as much candy as he wanted. Breakfast, lunch, dinner, in between, whenever – as much as he wants. It would certainly be irresistible, but in the end it would be damaging for the child.

Another analogy:

Let’s say there were two children, siblings, same age. One child consistantly gets an extra scoop of ice cream, or more time to play on the swings, or can stay up later at night. The other child notices this difference, but every time the child objects, they’re told to stop complaining — because they have SOME ice cream, and besides, maybe if they ask nicely their sibling will share the excess. Maybe.

But the slighted child has finally had enough of this short-changing and waiting for scraps off their sibling’s plate, and so finally stands their ground and demands the same amount of ice cream. The sibling doesn’t like this — for one thing, the sibling liked being the favourite child. They liked having to be asked, being able to make the magnanimous gesture of sharing ice cream. (They’re also not so fond of the possibility that actually splitting the ice cream equally might mean getting a smaller share than they used to.) But because good parenting is fair parenting, the effort is made to stop this blatant favouritism and treat the children equally.

There will be a period of time when the former favourite pouts and stomps, and takes petty actions against their sibling — this is behaviour expected of a spoilt child who’s only now being brought into line. And once in a while the newly-equal sibling will demand OVER half their share, and point to past inequality to justify it. But after a while, things will settle down.

08-25-2006 07:56 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Serin
Newbie
Serin

Pelican wrote:

And once in a while the newly-equal sibling will demand OVER half their share, and point to past inequality to justify it. But after a while, things will settle down.

Ah…but there’s the rub, isn’t it? Let us assume that women really have gotten the short end of the stick, and men as an entire gender have been getting that extra scoop of ice cream all this time (not something I believe, but for the sake of argument). You yourself point out that given this new privilege, more inequality will STILL be created. In other words, just like I showed in my earlier post: if you give someone the ability to take more, they will, regardless of greater effects or long-term consequences. Your only argument to counter this is that things will “settle down.”

I’m sure you have something to back up that assertion.

-Serin

08-25-2006 08:12 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Angelus
Contributor
Angelus

Marta2003 wrote:

yohan wrote:

In my family and with most of our friends, who are not into feminism, it is rather different.

Good for them. I’m quite confident (all relevant history supports it) that once your friends (namely the women) got exposed to the benefits of feminism, they’d find it irresistible. It happens EVERY time.

Yes it does. You won’t stop until every woman is as miserable as you are.

It really makes no difference to me, as long as men know what you are up to and can make intelligent decisions. And that is, at the end of the day, what bothers you Martha. That’s why the Forbe’s article bothers you so much. You know truth will set men free. You don’t want men to be as free as women. You are nothing but a bully. But time puts everyone in their place. The clock is ticking.

08-25-2006 08:31 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican
I admit that in an effort to achieve equilibrium, sometimes those fighting for equality might overreach, as happens in every cause. But that’s not a drawback at all — how do you set a boundary without being able to identify what is officially “too much”? It just means that those occasional inequalities will temporarily skew towards women, in contrast to the overwhelmingly male-oriented slant it’s been at for a very long time.

I’m not sure what you’re looking for in “back up” — I can’t predict the future. I can only look back at other fights for rights, and note that there were always activists at the time who perhaps overreached in their ambitions (just as there were always activists who wanted to turn the clock back completely), but a medium was eventually found.

I think it’s completely irrational to assume that the gender balance can be guessed at, leaped to, and then established correctly on the first try. For instance, there are examples of courts being far too biased towards mothers in custody disputes just because they’re mothers. That will change in time as the stereotypical gender roles stop being assumed, and judges start looking at the actual parenting involved, which can only be a win/win situation as far as I’m concerned.

Personally, I think that things HAVE settled to a large degree, at least with the people I know. Maybe it’s not true with the older generations, but for 20-somethings, we’re balancing our lives differently. People have started to evaluate work based on enjoyment, and bargaining with bosses to get more family-related flexible time. One guy I know works three days at the office, one at home while taking care of his daughter, and his wife works three twelve-hour shifts and then is with the family for the other four days (for those interested, she is the main breadwinner as a sports producer). Between them, they get quality time with their daughter while also getting to bring in revenue and do work they enjoy.

So as far as I can see, everything’s in the process of changing. Maybe not in the US, but out here it’s not just about spouses accomodating each other’s work schedules, it’s about employers realising that supporting a family emotionally and financially is something they have to take into account.

Message Edited by Pelican on 08-25-2006 08:59 AM

08-25-2006 08:52 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Angelus
Contributor
Angelus

Pelican wrote:
I admit that in an effort to achieve equilibrium, sometimes those fighting for equality might overreach, as happens in every cause. But that’s not a drawback at all — how do you set a boundary without being able to identify what is officially “too much”? It just means that those occasional inequalities will temporarily skew towards women, in contrast to the overwhelmingly male-oriented slant it’s been at for a very long time.

I’m not sure what you’re looking for in “back up” — I can’t predict the future. I can only look back at other fights for rights, and note that there were always activists at the time who perhaps overreached in their ambitions (just as there were always activists who wanted to turn the clock back completely), but a medium was eventually found.

I think it’s completely irrational to assume that the gender balance can be guessed at, leaped to, and then established correctly on the first try. For instance, there are examples of courts being far too biased towards mothers in custody disputes just because they’re mothers. That will change in time as the stereotypical gender roles stop being assumed, and judges start looking at the actual parenting involved, which can only be a win/win situation as far as I’m concerned.

Personally, I think that things HAVE settled to a large degree, at least with the people I know. Maybe it’s not true with the older generations, but for 20-somethings, we’re balancing our lives differently. People have started to evaluate work based on enjoyment, and bargaining with bosses to get more family-related flexible time. One guy I know works three days at the office, one at home while taking care of his daughter, and his wife works three twelve-hour shifts and then is with the family for the other four days. Between them, they get quality time with their daughter while also getting to bring in revenue and do work they enjoy.

So as far as I can see, everything’s in the process of changing. Maybe not in the US, but out here it’s not just about spouses accomodating each other’s work schedules, it’s about employers realising that supporting a family emotionally and financially is something they have to take into account.

Your cause is bullsh*t. This has been documented. It’s easy for you to not consider the unjustness drawn upon innocent bystanders to be a drawback- because it will never happen to you or your kind. You, like all feminists, are morally blind.

You have made decisions that will affect all our people for generations without consulting anyone or giving them a real choice in the matter. You are nothing but a fraudulent criminal at the end of the day. I respect the Nazis more than I respect the feminists- at least they had their hate for jews straight in the open and admitted it.

Make no mistake. I see through your lies. You are not interested in equality. You are feminists, from the word feminine. Your only concern is women- you are female supremacists. Your insane ideology is holding our entire society captive… everything we can achieve, all the inventions we have invented, all the sacrifies of the past… you are putting it all in danger so you can try your idiotic social ingeneering on society to turn it into what you wish were.

No, I don’t give a **bleep** about your feminist “theories”, your “ideas”. Stop talking bullsh*it. Enough is enough. I’m not going to pay for something I never did. I’m not going to let you trick me into giving up my rights anymore. You are not shaming me into submission anymore. You did it in the past, quite skillfully, but the trick is getting old my dear.

Men are waking up. And as soon as we realize we don’t owe you, we stop apologizing to you. The moment we stop apologizing to you, the game is over for you fembots. You can cry all you want, THE GAME IS OVER. We will stand tall and proud. We are about to show you what being strong and independent really means.

08-25-2006 09:17 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican
Ah — hello, Godwin’s Law.

As your post isn’t actually discussion but instead a diatribe, I’ll just say that “feminism” IS the search for equality, not an attack against men. Women want the same rights and opportunities as their male counterparts. There’s no hate in that.

08-25-2006 09:41 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Angelus
Contributor
Angelus

Pelican wrote:
Ah — hello, Godwin’s Law.

As your post isn’t actually discussion but instead a diatribe, I’ll just say that “feminism” IS the search for equality, not an attack against men. Women want the same rights and opportunities as their male counterparts. There’s no hate in that.

Who has the authority to define what is equality and what isn’t? The feminists? I don’t think so. Not anymore. Not when I get feminists in this board saying they don’t give a poop about what happens to men because it’s all about their own sex. And don’t even try to pull the don’t generalize card, because maybe that isn’t what the feminists say every day on tv, but that’s what their actions say. Actions define character.

Your claim that feminism doesn’t constitute an attack on men rings hollow when you claim innocent men hurt by feminism’s “overreachings” are akin to collateral damage in a fight for “equality”. As I said- I dont’ swallow your lies. Try reading the SCUM Manifesto- recently quoted by a Feminist Initiative party member in a radio show in Sweden, as well in Graffitis in stockholm. Try reading the feminist quotes that were posted recently here- now that’s a good one. And no, i’m not going to believe these are few screw loosers, those that are quoted in that thread are largely the freaking forerunners of the movement.

As for women wanting the same rights and opportunities as men- you got them some time ago. Seems like you don’t want equal rights and equal opportunity anymore, you want more privileges and equal outcome. But I do agree with you- there is no hate in wanting equal rights and equal opportunity.

Then why are you women reacting with such hate to Mr. Noer? Why are you calling for his censorship? Doesn’t he have a right to free speech – the most basic right of all, on which all other rights depend – the right to speak his mind, just as Maureen Dowd has the right to publish her book “Are Men Necessary”?

I may think Maureen Dowd is obnoxious for writing such a book, but I will fight to the death for her right to publish it and for people to read it. And you know why? Because truth is on our side and truth will prevail. That’s why we are not afraid and we will win.

You are morally blind.

Message Edited by Angelus on 08-25-2006 10:20 AM

08-25-2006 10:18 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
yohan
Contributor
yohan

<Pelican:
“feminism” IS the search for equality, not an attack against men. Women want the same rights and opportunities as their male counterparts. There’s no hate in that>
—–
What a lie is this?
Are you not ashamed to say that?

Read through the thread in this forum about feminist quotes….if these quotes, done often in written form by leading feminists are without hate against ALL men, even male children, then tell me, what else might you call that? It is hate, open hate.

Feminism is NOT the search for equality, but it is the search for advantages for women – this does not necessarily mean equality. Far away of that.

If feminists try to control, how men are searching for their future wives -is this equality?

Or feminists, who make false rape allegations to bring innocent men behind bars – is this equality?

All this is covered by laws, which are protecting women, even if the wrongdoing is done by the woman and not by the man…

Your stupid talk, that feminism is about equality, is absurd and ridiculous.

A person, who is about equality, is called a democrat, by the way, and surely not a feminist…

08-25-2006 10:28 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Serin
Newbie
Serin

Pelican wrote:
Ah — hello, Godwin’s Law.

As your post isn’t actually discussion but instead a diatribe, I’ll just say that “feminism” IS the search for equality, not an attack against men. Women want the same rights and opportunities as their male counterparts. There’s no hate in that.

Feminism is not a search for equality. If it were, NOW would not vehemently protest against shared parenting, the recently dismissed “Roe V. Wade for Men,” and a gender inclusive VAWA. Feminism is, and always has been since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, about securing more privileges for women. Feminists don’t want just an extra scoop of ice cream – they want the whole gallon, and rights to the factory that packaged it.

-Serin

08-25-2006 11:19 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Pelican
Regular Contributor
Pelican
There’s not much I can do about perception, guys. If you read my posts, I’m not calling for the censure of Noer — I just think that it was a rather shoddy piece of journalism where legitimate points (such as “Men, don’t expect a woman to change”) were totally obscured by an editorial slant that came across as very anti-woman. I think that the “rebuttal” is a PR job that was hastily written when the original article went down badly.

Again: I have no problem with Noer’s underlying point, which is that if you want to be a work-focused man and yet come home to a family home without spending a lot of time contributing, you’re going to have to make sure your wife isn’t also a work-focused person. This is common sense. Women are reminded that we can’t change men, and it’s good advice going the other way. You can’t marry someone with the expectation that they will magically mellow into the person you’d like them to be 5 years on.

As for the perception of feminism… Really, not much I can do about it. If you’re the type who takes Abu Ghraib as an example of all US troops in Iraq, or sees the Black Panthers as the typical example of antiapartheid activists, then you’re likely to also pick up on the most vocal and strident feminists and then claim they speak for all women who want equal rights. They don’t, obviously. But you’re all clearly reading from the same playbook, which wilfully ignores the actual definition of feminism, so I’m not going to worry about it too much.

08-25-2006 07:08 PM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
yohan
Contributor
yohan

<Pelican: you’re likely to also pick up on the most vocal and strident feminists and then claim they speak for all women who want equal rights>

Yes, as you said – your own words – these are FEMINISTS –
if you do not like feminists of this kind, then clearly speak out against their feminist quotes and these persons, who are publishing man-hating literature.

You might read some examples of them in a thread in this forum.

Yes, the most vocal and strident feminists are NOT into equality – a fact.

If you are into equality, all you ‘feminists’ have openly to reject and expell such radical people from the feminist movement.

But you remain silent about them and tolerate them, maybe even support them.
Therefore your arguments about feminism and equality are untrustworthy.

Message Edited by yohan on 08-26-2006 01:10 PM

Message Edited by yohan on 08-27-2006 01:02 PM

08-25-2006 11:08 PM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

Angelus wrote:
It really makes no difference to me, as long as men know what you are up to and can make intelligent decisions. And that is, at the end of the day, what bothers you Martha.
Nope. I love when men make intelligent decisions.

That’s why the Forbe’s article bothers you so much. You know truth will set men free. You don’t want men to be as free as women.
Oh please, no one is ever free. You think women are free when they finally are able to work in addition to raising and loving their children? No. They still have responsibilities and duty.

Your obsession with “freedom” indicates the level at which you interact with the problem: all you’re concerned about is achieving less responsibility.

Pathetic, that is.

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-26-2006 07:09 PM

08-26-2006 07:08 PM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

married wrote:
Marta2003 wrote:
>
> I have a man in my life. He works. I work.
> And neither of us want children.

Evolution seems to be working.
Another retard who thinks ideas are passed on through breeding.

Ugh.

08-26-2006 07:10 PM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

Serin wrote:
Feminism is not a search for equality. If it were, NOW would not vehemently protest against shared parenting, the recently dismissed “Roe V. Wade for Men,”
I wrote to NOW castigating them for that. I also wrote to the men’s organization who sponsored the suit in support.

I can’t do much more than that.

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-26-2006 07:23 PM

08-26-2006 07:14 PM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
yohan
Contributor
yohan

Serin wrote:
Feminism is not a search for equality. If it were, NOW would not vehemently protest against shared parenting, the recently dismissed “Roe V. Wade for Men,”
Marta2003:
I wrote to NOW castigating them for that. I also wrote to the men’s organization who sponsored the suit in support.
I can’t do much more than that.

————————————————————————–

Good to hear that you feel somewhat, that feminism is not a search for equality.
NOW is a good example for a man-hating organization.

What else do you expect from an organization, whose leading feminists consider Valerie Solanas, writer(?) with a vocabulary from ‘squishy asses’, ‘men’s **bleep**’ up to lesbian ‘instinct’, SCUM manifesto producer (gassing all men), stalker, prostitute and convicted killer as the ‘first outstanding champion of women rights’ and ‘one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement’?

Oh yes, you can do more, instead of accusing all men, why do you not openly reject such a radical feminist organization?

I understand why men do not want to marry an US-career woman.
What do you expect from a career woman, who cheers NOW and its lesbian radical leaders?

08-26-2006 11:26 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
Marta2003
Regular Contributor
Marta2003

yohan wrote:
Good to hear that you feel somewhat, that feminism is not a search for equality.
That’s not what I said. I said that in this particular instance, some feminists were wrong. I said nothing about other feminists or other issues.

Oh yes, you can do more, instead of accusing all men, why do you not openly reject such a radical feminist organization?
Because I’m too busy doing other stuff to read up on them. I’m certainly not a member and I don’t hold them up as a good organization. I don’t know enough to do so.

What I know is that in regards to reproductive rights for men, they simply have it wrong.

I understand why men do not want to marry an US-career woman.
What do you expect from a career woman, who cheers NOW and its lesbian radical leaders?
I’m 100% sure that most career women are too busy to “cheer” for NOW, much less know if they are associated with lesbian radical leaders, and to what degree.

Feminists aren’t homogenous and they can’t be expected to answer for every other feminist, anymore than every Christian should be forced to answer for Eric Randolph and his clinic bombing.

Be reasonable.

Message Edited by Marta2003 on 08-27-2006 02:34 AM

08-27-2006 02:33 AM

Re: Matriarchy Tightens Reins of Censorship around Michael Noer
yohan
Contributor
yohan

yohan wrote:
Good to hear that you feel somewhat, that feminism is not a search for equality.
Mareta2003: That’s not what I said. I said that in this particular instance, some feminists were wrong. I said nothing about other feminists or other issues.

——————-

All what I see is how hopelessly you argue around this and that

…this particular instance… some feminists, but… I said nothing about….

Maybe all of you feminists should make a guideline what you really want…but it seems you do not know what you want. Better shut up than to produce drivel…

About your comment – be reasonable – …

I am reasonable and I say it again, feminism is NOT into equality – far away of it.

09-03-2006 12:13 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: