A question for the anti-feminists


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – A question for the anti-feminists

A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Listen, guys (and gals), let’s cut through all this rhetoric and hysteria for a bit, okay? We’re all arguing opinions and emotions and beliefs, but I don’t think any of us really understand the other side’s goals.  I’d like you to tell us all what you want.

You don’t need to go into what you’re mad about, or why you hate or resent or mistrust women (or just feminists), here, or what terrible injustices have occurred. You’ve done that quite a bit, and you’ll surely be doing it even more. This thread is meant for something else. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH with a men’s movement? Be specific. Don’t say “make some changes in this oppressive gynarchy.” Don’t even say “Change the unfair divorce and custody laws.” Tell us exactly which laws you want to change. AND, most importantly, tell us what you want to replace them with. Tell us exactly what you would change in our social, domestic, political, commercial, and professional worlds. For “bonus points,” tell us what you’re doing or are willing to do to make these things happen.

So, again, that’s:

1) VERY SPECIFICALLY, what would you change in our current systems?

2) VERY SPECIFICALLY, what would you set up in place of the old way?

3) How will you reach these goals?

09-02-2006 12:52 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Termi0n
Regular Contributor
Termi0n

IshWishDish wrote:
Listen, guys (and gals), let’s cut through all this rhetoric and hysteria for a bit, okay? We’re all arguing opinions and emotions and beliefs, but I don’t think any of us really understand the other side’s goals.  I’d like you to tell us all what you want.

You don’t need to go into what you’re mad about, or why you hate or resent or mistrust women (or just feminists), here, or what terrible injustices have occurred. You’ve done that quite a bit, and you’ll surely be doing it even more. This thread is meant for something else. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH with a men’s movement? Be specific. Don’t say “make some changes in this oppressive gynarchy.” Don’t even say “Change the unfair divorce and custody laws.” Tell us exactly which laws you want to change. AND, most importantly, tell us what you want to replace them with. Tell us exactly what you would change in our social, domestic, political, commercial, and professional worlds. For “bonus points,” tell us what you’re doing or are willing to do to make these things happen.

So, again, that’s:

1) VERY SPECIFICALLY, what would you change in our current systems?

2) VERY SPECIFICALLY, what would you set up in place of the old way?

3) How will you reach these goals?

LOL. So you think you’re the teacher here? You want us to write an essay for you?

Dont tell this woman sh-t. Till she learns not to order men around. Stupid broad.

Women want fried ice. -Arab Proverb

09-02-2006 01:03 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

LOL. So you think you’re the teacher here? You want us to write an essay for you?

Why, oh why am I answering this like I’m having a conversation with a coherent adult? Probably because I know other people are reading this, too, and they might be worth the effort. No, I don’t want you to write an essay for me. I want you to explain your goals. For you. You might just get a hell of a lot farther with bringing new people into your movement if they know just what the hell they should join up for. And the benefit to me (and other feminists) in reading it is that we could finally determine whether we even have anything of real substance and relevance to fight about, or if this is all just a big stupid blame-fest among two groups of people who, in some cases at least, actually have the same goals.

Dont tell this woman sh-t. Till she learns not to order men around. Stupid broad.

Yeah! Nobody tell her the secret password! No girls in the club! Lord almighty, Termi0n, how old are you? I didn’t order anyone around. I asked a question and requested an answer. You’re ordering men around.  And women, too, since much as I know it must pain you, there are female supporters of the men’s movement, and many of your fellow men welcome them into the fold with open arms. I’m sure the men especially don’t like taking orders from women, but if they have any stomach at all, I expect they don’t care to be ordered around by men all that much either.

And I’m just curious: all that “stupid broad” business you drop, Tourette’s-like, at the end of every post: is that meant to make me feel bad about myself, to make you feel better about yourself, or just to impress the other boys on the playground?

Well, I think most of you probably know Termi0n for the troll he is. For those of you who haven’t caught on to that yet, maybe you can see that the attitude displayed in his  quotes above is the surest way to ensure your movement ends up in history’s dustbin. How are you going to make change if you’re too paranoid and hostile to even talk about it?

09-02-2006 01:40 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms
(1) Rebuttable presumption of shared custody after divorce in all 50 states, or at least most of them.

(2) Leveling of the playing field of federal, state and local funding for gender-specific research and social services.

– e.g. A department of Men’s Health at HHS.
– e.g. Vermont’s “Ladies First” health service should have a male counterpart (established with no male counterpart, thanks to Howard Dean)

(3) Legislation to eliminate paternity fraud in all 50 states.

(4) Every University which receives federal funding and uses to run a “Women’s Studies” department should have a comparable Men’s Studies department.

(5) Gender-neutral language in VAWA and gender balancing of programs which funds from VAWA go to support.

(6) Repeal of rape shield laws which withhold alleged victims; identity from the public (possibly preventing citizens with exculpatory testimony from coming forward) and the victims’ sexual history from the defense and jury. For example, where the victim may have lied or decieved other in the past about her sexual activities, pregnancies and so forth. This is not the 60’s anymore, so coming forward openly with a rape accusation is not as bad as it used to be.

(7) More severe punishment for false accusations of crimes leveled at specific individuals when the accusations are discovered to be false by detective work or evidence found during the course of an investigation, and not by voluntary self-admission.

I could think of many many more things, but that’s it for now.

Message Edited by juliandroms on 09-02-2006 01:58 AM

09-02-2006 01:57 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Jman
Contributor
Jman

That’s really classic, one says “I’m upset about this situation. I demand things to change!”

Other says “Ok , what is it you want?”

The reply back, “Stop ordering me around!”

“Well how I’m I supposed to change things around if I don’t know what you want?”

“Stop telling me what to do!”

Goodness, one would start thinking that one doesn’t really want anything to change, but just go around crabbing. It’s more typical of a baby to go around crying tell their need is figured out and meet by someone else. Atleast you have some sympathy for a baby, that’s the extend of their capablities.

I’ve heard of good movements started by people wanting to go in a good direction. I’ve heard bad movements started by people wanting to go in a direction that proved to be folly. But I’ve never heard of a movement, that was started by arguements that really proposed no direction.

One thing I’d say is that one thing more important by the system is the character of the people in it. But if differences need to be resolved by the legal system, there is usually is never a good ending and more so in a divorce, usually only a pick between bad decisions.

If men really want to be the head of the household, he is going to have to get ready for orders. If he is just, wise, and humble, people will feel free to trust him enough to submit to him. If you think you can run a family by just going away to a job and making the money, you better think again. Have you ever had a boss, that really has no clue what you do or how your system operates, decides one day he is going to come in and change everything, but then leave the next day. Chances are he’ll screw things up more than help. He would be good at overseeing, to see if your going off course, but he is in no way capable of really being an active partner. If you think you can just go to work, what you do is make your wife the leader.

If you want to have people submit to you, you have to set the direction. You have to be humble enough, for others to trust that you are not going to screw them over. You have to have to show that you are just enough to know when someone is doing something right or wrong, and love enough for others to know you want whats best for them, and have mercy enough to encourage others to correct the situation. You cannot go sitting there crabbing and crabby reacting to a situation, but proactive enough to expect and work to the proper change. If you want to be the head of the house, you have to remember you have to be the hardest working and most discipled one of the household. You cannot sit and go for the easy way out.

09-02-2006 02:23 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Obviously things are not going well in the West. Birth rates plummeting, women unhappy, men are still generally happy, but we also stand the most to lose.

95% of on the job deaths are men.
75% of suicides are men.
90% of the time custody goes to the woman
75% of single mothers live below the poverty line
85% of criminals in the prison system come from single mother households
Single mother households suck up resources rather than create them. Hence why women are dependent on men.

So basically kill feminism and things will straighten out. First things first, I would kill alimony and child support. Thus exposing women’s true dependence on men, their fathers, and their mothers and friends.

We Men’s Rights want men that are men, and women that are women. Not this Mangina effeminate gay talk.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-02-2006 02:42 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

juliandroms:

Well, how about that; we may be getting somewhere. I can tell you that I for one am totally in agreement with points 1-5 and 7, and I suspect that the majority of moderate third-wave feminists would be as well.  The sixth one is a little trickier. I don’t know if I could support that one. On the one hand, I agree it should be as easy as possible to find any exculpatory evidence available, and it might even have the same affect on the prosecution’s side (making it easier to find “witnesses”/previous victims who can help establish a history of sexually violent behavior), so I’m willing to entertain the notion. I’d have to be convinced that our legal system has evolved to the point where it treats alleged rape victims with the same respect and consideration it gives to all other victims of violent crime. As for the sexual history part, I’d need to know it would never again be used to assert that it couldn’t have been rape because the woman was promiscuous before I could support that.

Great post, juliandroms.

09-02-2006 02:42 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

First things first, I would kill alimony and child support. Thus exposing women’s true dependence on men, their fathers, and their mothers and friends.

We Men’s Rights want men that are men, and women that are women. Not this Mangina effeminate gay talk.

Hmmn. So judging from the contrast between PatVerIch’s post and juliandrom’s, we clearly have every reason to believe that beliefs, goals, and motivations (not to mention intellectual development) are all as varied within the men’s movement as they are within the women’s. I’d say this experiment in communication is succeeding already.

09-02-2006 02:48 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

I can tell you that I for one am totally in agreement with points 1-5 and 7, and I suspect that the majority of moderate third-wave feminists would be as well.

That’s nice, but if it is the case, how do you explain that third-wave feminists are behind most of it. For example, the reauthorization of VAWA was last year despite assertions it should be gender neutral from Men’s rights groups. Can’t blame feminists 20 years ago for that.

You just can’t ignore that if the current generation of feminists are against it, then why-is-it-in-place.

The real on-topic issue would be some attitudes towards men who simply wish to avoid something which is detrimental to them. What are we going to do about that? Uh, not take the attitude seriously and avoid it anyway. The solution to that one is not simple, and will not be achieved as long as feminism is the only gender lobby around. An institution of a “men’s lobby” has become necessary.

I also find it ironic that you are asking us what we want so we can “negotiate” with you, when it would appear you have failed *women* by setting up a system which prevents *them* from getting what they want.. I mean, most of the effects, like massive divorce rates and men not wanting to have their lives ruined as a result were pretty predictable.

I doubt your request will be taken very seriously with this reputation in place. Personally, I’d rather just make it obvious that this has happened and let your cause die from the inside out. Then I’ll negotiate with members of a more egalitarian and responsible movement or perhaps, oh I don’t know, the goverment directly.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-02-2006 03:51 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-02-2006 03:48 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
tomshh
Regular Contributor
tomshh

Simple, TRUE EQUALITY.

Once women start dying in the front lines by the thousands.

Once women have to dress with decency in the office again.

Once women have to follow the same laws as men.

Once women are held accountable for their childish actions.

Once the divorce courts and family courts are truely 50/50.

Women will be begging to be allowed back into the kitchen.  They can never be men’s equals, and if we force them to try, they will beg out.

09-02-2006 03:59 AM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – A question for the anti-feminists

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

This about sums it up:

“Your rights, your responsibility”.

That’s true equality. But adherence to that will kill feminism.

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-02-2006 04:13 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Anti_Feminist
Regular Contributor
Anti_Feminist

That question is the equivalent of a robber asking: well make a list of all the things you think I’ve taken and we’ll discuss maybe giving some back!

The answer is we can make lists until the cows come home but we are not entering negotiations until you show us you are going to take responsibility for your hate crimes against men. Just fixing it is not going to be a get out of jail free card for causing it in the first place. If you take some initiative make a list yourself and do the best you can to fix it we’ll give you credit for that and work toward a mutually beneficial society. if you don’t make a list your self we are not going to fight for real equality (why should we be the only gender to do that?) were going to do what women did and take everything, but we’ll be a lot better at it than you were!

09-02-2006 05:57 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius
Divorce laws needs to change. Eithier women are equal and can work or women are not equal depend on a husband and are entiteld on everything he makes and owns in the event of a divorce. A man should only be held liabel for child support for his biological kids. The end of all one sided acts like the VAWA act how about an violence against people act instead which demands that the agressor gets arrested when the police is called, not the man. Innocent untill proven guilty even if it is a woman accusing a man of violence. There is nothing a man can do to defend himself against false accusations of violence that keep him from his home and children. A 50% chance to obtain custody for the children in the even of divorce. A man who fathers a child should not be liabel financially by default only because the woman “forgot” to abort. A man needs to get to choose to. But thats not what i really want id rather see the abolition of abortion. It would be nice to have rights as a provider in a marriage a woman can go crying to a judge if he does not pay up but a man can do nothing about a wife that decides to go celibate to not clean or cook. I hope the change of divorce laws will change the attidude of women demanding a partner that accepts everything that she feels is fair and equal in other words, a doormat. If he does not turn out to be a doormat he gets dragged through divorce hell. Ill update if more comes to my mind.

09-02-2006 08:29 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms
“Well, how about that; we may be getting somewhere. I can tell you that I for one am totally in agreement with points 1-5 and 7, and I suspect that the majority of moderate third-wave feminists would be as well.”

You’d be wrong. And the spokepeople for feminists, The National Organization of Women, opposes men on all of these points very vigorously.

“The sixth one is a little trickier. I don’t know if I could support that one. On the one hand, I agree it should be as easy as possible to find any exculpatory evidence available, and it might even have the same affect on the prosecution’s side (making it easier to find “witnesses”/previous victims who can help establish a history of sexually violent behavior), so I’m willing to entertain the notion. I’d have to be convinced that our legal system has evolved to the point where it treats alleged rape victims with the same respect and consideration it gives to all other victims of violent crime.”

There is no reason why it should. Other victims of violent crime almost always have injuries that could never be accounted for as having occured consentually. Finding a man’s s*men in a woman’s v*gina is not de facto evidence of rape. All it vouches for, is that sex occurred and that the man ejaculated. For the forseeable future, consensual sex between men and women is still legal. Yet, victims’ advocates will still argue in court that “alleged victims” should be referred to by lawyers and judges as “victims” even without physical evidence (other than the woman’s tesimony) to support in an incontrovertable fashion that she was indeed a victim of assault.

“As for the sexual history part, I’d need to know it would never again be used to assert that it couldn’t have been rape because the woman was promiscuous before I could support that.”

The basis of our legal system is “innocent until proven guilty.” Plainly stated, in trial, the rights of the accused come before the rights of the accusor. That is as it should be.

Remember that chivalry is no basis for law, and it appears that public sentiment in sexual assault cases has swung firmly in the opposite direction.

http://www.slate.com/id/2148546/

Message Edited by juliandroms on 09-02-2006 08:58 AM

09-02-2006 08:56 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
My good friend Ish said…

“Tell us exactly what you would change in our social, domestic, political, commercial, and professional worlds. For “bonus points,” tell us what you’re doing or are willing to do to make these things happen.

So, again, that’s:

1) VERY SPECIFICALLY, what would you change in our current systems?

2) VERY SPECIFICALLY, what would you set up in place of the old way?

3) How will you reach these goals?”

1) The elimination of the Violence Against Women Act and all of its sister laws. The laws of the United States of America are to be applied to all citizens equally, Sex nonwithstanding.

The elimination of No Fault Divorce, and the re-instatement of Fault based divorce.

This would force the man and the woman to discuss and negotiate extensively before marriage, and both parties would know ahead of time that the offending party to the covenant will be punished for his/her transgressions.

In addition, the couple would be more secure, simply because divorce would be harder to obtain.

Basically, the Constitution has all the tools that are needed for an Equitable society… but the courts and police simply ignore the phrase “Equal Protection under the Law”.

So government agencies that violate this need to also be held to account.

That’s not an exhaustive list, but those are my main goals in brief.

09-02-2006 09:23 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Termi0n
Regular Contributor
Termi0n

IshWishDish wrote:
LOL. So you think you’re the teacher here? You want us to write an essay for you?

Why, oh why am I answering this like I’m having a conversation with a coherent adult? Probably because I know other people are reading this, too, and they might be worth the effort. No, I don’t want you to write an essay for me. I want you to explain your goals. For you. You might just get a hell of a lot farther with bringing new people into your movement if they know just what the hell they should join up for. And the benefit to me (and other feminists) in reading it is that we could finally determine whether we even have anything of real substance and relevance to fight about, or if this is all just a big stupid blame-fest among two groups of people who, in some cases at least, actually have the same goals.

Dont tell this woman sh-t. Till she learns not to order men around. Stupid broad.

Yeah! Nobody tell her the secret password! No girls in the club! Lord almighty, Termi0n, how old are you? I didn’t order anyone around. I asked a question and requested an answer. You’re ordering men around.  And women, too, since much as I know it must pain you, there are female supporters of the men’s movement, and many of your fellow men welcome them into the fold with open arms. I’m sure the men especially don’t like taking orders from women, but if they have any stomach at all, I expect they don’t care to be ordered around by men all that much either.

And I’m just curious: all that “stupid broad” business you drop, Tourette’s-like, at the end of every post: is that meant to make me feel bad about myself, to make you feel better about yourself, or just to impress the other boys on the playground?

Well, I think most of you probably know Termi0n for the troll he is. For those of you who haven’t caught on to that yet, maybe you can see that the attitude displayed in his  quotes above is the surest way to ensure your movement ends up in history’s dustbin. How are you going to make change if you’re too paranoid and hostile to even talk about it?

The qestions you’re asking for have already been answered several times. Men have explained what they want, why they want it, for the past week and you and the bitch brigade still doesn’t get it.

Like Anti-Feminist said: “That question is the equivalent of a robber asking: well make a list of all the things you think I’ve taken and we’ll discuss maybe giving some back!”

We dont owe the feminazi’s anything. They owe us. They arent in a position to be making demands.

Message Edited by Termi0n on 09-02-2006 11:52 AM

Women want fried ice. -Arab Proverb

09-02-2006 11:51 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

That’s nice, but if it is the case, how do you explain that third-wave feminists are behind most of it. For example, the reauthorization of VAWA was last year despite assertions it should be gender neutral from Men’s rights groups. Can’t blame feminists 20 years ago for that.

Well, first off, I said moderate third-wave feminists. There are feminists who are conservative, feminists who are liberal (which is not the same thing as a “liberal feminist,” but that would be a huge digression), feminists who are radical, moderate, etc. etc. etc.

Second, in a way you can blame feminists 20 years ago for that. Second wave and third wave refer to eras, but they can also refer to motivations, goals, and methods. Besides, it’s not like all the sixties radicals have just fallen off the planet, and (while I am not dogging the second wave, here; I’m well aware of their vast contribution to my life as a woman), most feminism being implemented on any institutional level is still pretty second-waveish. There’s a sizeable generation gap between the “waves”. If I had to guess, I’d say it’s a problem of baby boomers vs. generation X’ers. “Progressive” baby boomers have always been more focused on activism, government and legal reform, and a somewhat “militant”/us-versus-them approach to changing the system, and in all areas of life, they’re not exactly known for saying “Okay, we had our shot and took our turn; let’s see what you ‘kids’ can do.”  Gen X’ers (of which I am one), on the other hand, tend to be more apathetic, mistrustful of any institution, and more willing to step across party lines. As the first generation to grow up with feminism, civil rights, etc. “in the air we breathe,” we’re also more likely to take our freedoms and equality for granted. “Generation Y” is also part of the third wave, but they’re still pretty young and haven’t had a chance to really establish an identity within it yet (I’m hoping they’ll do a lot more with it than we have, though). The upshot is, the second-wave feminists tend to look at the third-wave feminists and say, “You guys aren’t radical enough, and you don’t seem very serious at all! We must have ‘spoiled’ you! Guess it’s still up to us!” and they continue to dominate the movement at all but the pop culture level (which I’d best not get into, or I’ll rant). So yes, I stand by my statement that I don’t think most moderate, third-wave feminists would have any major problems with a push for gender-neutrality in the legal system.

You just can’t ignore that if the current generation of feminists are against it, then why-is-it-in-place.

To belabor my point, because the current generation of feminists are not the ones making policy. Any of you in your forties and younger who ever feel a little frustration about the continued baby boomer domination of the market or government should be able to relate.

The real on-topic issue would be some attitudes towards men who simply wish to avoid something which is detrimental to them. What are we going to do about that?

Are you referring to the furor over Noer’s article? If so, I don’t know how many times we can say this. We Do Not Care Who You Choose To Marry Or If You Choose To Marry. Our anger at the article comes from two things: 1) It used bad science and made huge assumptions to suggest that marital problems are all the fault of the wife. 2) It characterized women in the context of marriage as commodities rather than participants in a “marketplace.” We have no control over who you marry, we don’t want any control over who you marry, and we don’t care whether you ever marry. It’s your life.

09-02-2006 12:15 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Once women start dying in the front lines by the thousands.

Well, that’s disturbing. I’m all in favor of equal rights and responsibilities in terms of combat duty (once again, your foe on this one is not feminists; it’s conservatives). But I don’t want to see anyone – men or women – dying in the front lines by the thousands. You make it sound like you’re not so much interested in protecting men from unfair treatment as you are wreaking vengeance on women. Really. Read that statement up there again. Is that really what you want?

As for the rest of your post, I’m fine with all that (yes even the “decency in the office” one; nothing irks me quite like young professional women who don’t have the sense to dress professionally in the workplace – not because they should be “decent”, but because everyone should know that if you want to be taken seriously as an adult professional, you need to present yourself as such; girls who wear midriff shirts in a corporate environment are just shooting themselves in the foot). I’d love to see all of this come to be, not only because it’s just fair, but because if we had completely equal standards for men and women, guys like you would have to stop saying things like “Women will be begging to be allowed back into the kitchen.  They can never be men’s equals, and if we force them to try, they will beg out”, or accept the consequence of looking really really stupid.

09-02-2006 12:28 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
jewels
Contributor
jewels

Wow. I never realized women were so awesomely powerful over all living things on the earth.  These guys admit that absolutely everything wrong with the world today is women’s fault – that is some awesome power in her hands.  To actually be in charge of the world.

Ever since that apple deal when Adam went whimpering to God and said “don’t blame me, it’s all that woman’s fault”  men set the stage for the blamemeister fest.

09-02-2006 12:33 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Termi0n
Regular Contributor
Termi0n

jewels wrote:
Wow. I never realized women were so awesomely powerful over all living things on the earth.  These guys admit that absolutely everything wrong with the world today is women’s fault – that is some awesome power in her hands.  To actually be in charge of the world.

Ever since that apple deal when Adam went whimpering to God and said “don’t blame me, it’s all that woman’s fault”  men set the stage for the blamemeister fest.

The lesson there is Men are not to obey their wives. Ever.

” And unto Adam he said: Forasmuch as thou hast obeyed the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying: See thou eat not thereof: cursed be the earth for thy sake.”

Women want fried ice. -Arab Proverb

09-02-2006 12:46 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.
Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – A question for the anti-feminists

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
dflynn5656
Contributor
dflynn5656
IshWishDish –

The core of the problem is the addition of feminsm to our culture – let me sum it up with the quote from happymom a couple days back (right here). I think you will find all the changes you need right in her text – she said:

HappyMom
Visitor
Posts: 8
Registered: 08-28-2006

HappyMom

Reply 1 of 31

Viewed 210 times

Ladies, your anger is misplaced. Men aren’t the problem here. They haven’t changed. They don’t have a hidden agenda to enslave you in a life of domestic misery. They want a warm, loving, welcoming, secure home in which they can raise children. This is what they have always wanted.

You were unfortunately hoodwinked into believing that you were too good for that and that somehow there was a better life out there for you. Life is what it is. Men and women are fundamentally different. You have no control over these things. God made us this way and no one can change these truths.

Feminism is anti-woman and anti-male and anti-children. It is a selfish political agenda to further the depravity of our society and advance the careers of its staunches supporters. It has worked because many women bought it hook, line and sinker. At its core was a desire to undermine traditional marriage, which is rationed and therefore controlled by men.

Men leading the household is not and never was a bad thing. The job for women has always been to find a good man to commit us and we then submit to him as we are commanded to do by the Lord Jesus Christ. If you used your head found a decent guy, and treated him right, you house would be full of joy and harmony.

At some point, Betty Freidan and others decided women needed to aspire to the role of the man. Ever since then, all hell has broken loose in romatic relationships. Women and children have suffered the most.

Take heed to what these guys are saying if you ever want to raise your own happy family.

Elise

09-02-2006 12:51 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Hujo
Contributor
Hujo
The only way to accomplish these things for men is to get feminist control out of the media,
http://forums.forbes.com/forbes/board/message?board.id=respond_marry_career_woman&message.id=6616

(Stagnating our greater knowledge and removing our means to better ourselves)

out of our schools,
http://hottopictalk.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=214&sid=1f6c3c5988573e48ad70355cc91adff3
(Also. No men’s studies)

(Taking advantage of all the female friendly policies to promote women’s achievement while using their clout to keep boys down)

out of our governments,
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/s-misc/stevenson062303.htm
http://tinyurl.com/cl93u
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1135.html

(Weather it be removing men from the language of policies, trying to jail men that would create awareness to men’s issues, or blaming men in general and trying to tax them all for the small % of men who rape)

Out of or family coarts
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_flash_skin/779461

The female barrister says it all “were not biased, just the men have to realize that they are failures as fathers, moms are better parents and that only men are abusive”
Paraphrasing.

They will never work with us, as they have only been working against us weather stagnating our knowledge by controlling the media, or arguing against supporting boys in school, to trying to label mra’s as hate groups,

or exaggerating rape stats or pretending men are not the victims of violence by using decades old studies that never included men in the research.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html
http://hottopictalk.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=231

When we are infact victims of DV almost as much as women.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm

Feminists have only proven there goals are to demonize men, denigrate our image, eradicate our culture, and stagnate and stifle men’s progress.

What we want is for feminism to die so we can have an equal society for men and women.

Message Edited by Hujo on 09-02-2006 01:02 PM

09-02-2006 12:54 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

That question is the equivalent of a robber asking: well make a list of all the things you think I’ve taken and we’ll discuss maybe giving some back!

The answer is we can make lists until the cows come home but we are not entering negotiations until you show us you are going to take responsibility for your hate crimes against men.

Okay, here’s a little scenario for you:

Bob is sitting at his desk at work.

Guy in Cubicle Next to Bob’s:  Hey, do you have a quarter?

Bob: I will not hand over my wallet to you! You’ll have to put that gun to my head and shoot me before you’ll get one cent from me!

GiCNtB: Um, I don’t… have… a gun… I was just gonna show you a trick…

See guys, I’m not negotiating with you, either. I can’t. I have no more individual power over this situation than any of you, and I’m only here as myself, not an official representative of any organization or party. I’m not some influential policy-maker; I’m not even a member of NOW. I’m just a stranger on an internet message board who’s trying to understand your position. This is not a negotiation. It is a conversation.

As for the robber simile made by Anti_Feminist, no it’s not equivalent to that at all.

1) I’m not a “robber.” You may feel that as a woman I’ve been the recipient of advantages taken at your expense, but I’m still not the one who took them from you, and despite what some of you seem to think, there is no vast conspiracy among all women. The attitude you display here is no different – and not one iota better or more justified – than that of women who claim that “all men are rapists.”

2) Not having personally taken anything from you, I’m not offering to give anything back.

A more accurate metaphor:

You tell me that members of my family have stolen from you. I ask you to give me some evidence of this and tell me what was taken. If I see that your story is at least more believable than the possibility that you’re trying to trick me into helping you steal from my family, I’ll want to help you get your stuff back and hold my family accountable for what it’s done. There’s only so much help I can offer, though, as I am not a policeman.

09-02-2006 12:56 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

(1) Rebuttable presumption of shared custody after divorce in all 50 states, or at least most of them.

That negates who has been the primary care-giver and, more importantly, endangers the child if a parent is abusive.

2) Leveling of the playing field of federal, state and local funding for gender-specific research and social services.

– e.g. A department of Men’s Health at HHS.
– e.g. Vermont’s “Ladies First” health service should have a male counterpart (established with no male counterpart, thanks to Howard Dean)

I totally agree with this. However, like the women, the men should show there is an audience and have to take the initiative, raise the money, earn the grants, etcetra. It can happen; we see what Viagra rakes in while most insurance companies won’t even cover birth control for women.

(3) Legislation to eliminate paternity fraud in all 50 states.

How do you eliminate paternity fraud or any kind of fraud? They couldn’t even “eliminate” men running out on their pregnant girlfriends. I agree there should be a law and consequences, though. But not based on the myth that 30% of men are not the real fathers of their children.

(5) Gender-neutral language in VAWA and gender balancing of programs which funds from VAWA go to support.

The language in VAWA is pretty much gender-neutral. One thing though: in order for funds to go to programs for men, they have to exist first. Men should take the initiative to gather funds and donations and basically make shelters, etc., on a shoe-string like the women had to. It wasn’t easy as 1-2-3. Homosexual men have learned that. They’ve also learned that most shelters are a actually under-funded.

(6) Repeal of rape shield laws which withhold alleged victims; identity from the public (possibly preventing citizens with exculpatory testimony from coming forward) and the victims’ sexual history from the defense and jury. For example, where the victim may have lied or decieved other in the past about her sexual activities, pregnancies and so forth.

Disagree. In fact, I think it should cover children who have been sexually abused too. The case should be determined on its merits; not whether or not she (or he) has slept with 50 people or lied at some point.

This is not the 60’s anymore, so coming forward openly with a rape accusation is not as bad as it used to be.

This is just disengenuous. Just look at the OC Rape Case from a couple of years ago. The defense basically stalked Jane Doe to her new school, posted fliers letting everybody know who she was, and went through her garbage. Called her a sl*t at trial and said she should be charged with a crime. The woman who found the video of her being raped while she was passed out (and assumed she was dead) became a pariah for exposing this of those Golden Boys. In my own state when a girl died from a date-rape drug, the guys were set free because it was an accident. They walked during graduation. In Texas, a man won an appeal on the grounds that the woman he raped was a “nymphomaniac” and therefore would always want sex. So he couldn’t possibly have raped her, right?

(7) More severe punishment for false accusations of crimes leveled at specific individuals when the accusations are discovered to be false by detective work or evidence found during the course of an investigation, and not by voluntary self-admission.

I agree with this. But I see that as just a general idea. Look at John Mark Kar. He can’t be charged with a false confession because he didn’t tell it to USA cops.

Hmmn. So judging from the contrast between PatVerIch’s post and juliandrom’s, we clearly have every reason to believe that beliefs, goals, and motivations (not to mention intellectual development) are all as varied within the men’s movement as they are within the women’s. I’d say this experiment in communication is succeeding already.

I didn’t even bother with Pat’s. What, gay men aren’t men now? Way to alienate the heck out of the gay men in the men’s movement.

But I don’t want to see anyone – men or women – dying in the front lines by the thousands. You make it sound like you’re not so much interested in protecting men from unfair treatment as you are wreaking vengeance on women. Really. Read that statement up there again. Is that really what you want?

Agreed. Lets also not forget that it is men who keep women from combat anyway. And, yes, women do die in wars. They are the spoils of wars that they aren’t even allowed to fight in.

Hujo – isn’t that a copyright infringment? To take Hot Topic’s (for anybody who doesn’t know, that is a clothes store chain for over-priced, manufactured goth and counter-culture) name and logo?

09-02-2006 01:04 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
jewels
Contributor
jewels

Termi0n wrote:

The lesson there is Men are not to obey their wives. Ever.

” And unto Adam he said: Forasmuch as thou hast obeyed the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying: See thou eat not thereof: cursed be the earth for thy sake.”

You are so predictable.  You’re the type who hides behind the apron of religion for your last defense when all else fails.  Amazes me how men who are the biggest cheaters, drinkers, wife/children abusers, and cutthroat business deals while outside of church, suddenly become real “religious” when their trying to get their woman in line.  The kind of men like the church deacons who would hit on me when their wife wasn’t looking, who use their church members to prey upon for their businesses and social status. Many wolf in sheeps clothing.  Mary Magdalene was Jesus closest and dearest disciple. Ever since then men have been calling her a PROSTITUTE out of their fear and jealousy even though the Catholic church refuted their lie long ago.

09-02-2006 01:13 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

dflynn5656:

I’ve already read and responded quiet extensively to HappyMom’s post on its own thread, and I stand by my responses posted there. As it relates to the conversation on this thread,  I support equality; I definitely do not support the implementation of any policy, legal or social, that denies women the same rights and freedoms had by men.

09-02-2006 01:14 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Hujo
Contributor
Hujo
Hujo – isn’t that a copyright infringment? To take Hot Topic’s (for anybody who doesn’t know, that is a clothes store chain for over-priced, manufactured goth and counter-culture) name and logo?

Its a long story, short niethie me nor the board admin are from the us I am canadian he is swedish, he pirated that logo on an image search not knowing what it was, and you cant own a phrase like “hot topic” the board is changing.

So are you gonna argue my points or just nit pic as a way to win an argument?

Message Edited by Hujo on 09-02-2006 01:28 PM

09-02-2006 01:19 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
PANDORASBOX123
Regular Contributor
PANDORASBOX123

Mary Magdalene was Jesus closest and dearest disciple. Ever since then men have been calling her a PROSTITUTE out of their fear and jealousy even though the Catholic church refuted their lie long ago.
Good point Jewel–Did you know that  many chapters from the Bible have been left out and are locked away at the Vatican–not for public view? That’s another story…..

09-02-2006 01:24 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Termi0n
Regular Contributor
Termi0n

jewels wrote:

Termi0n wrote:

The lesson there is Men are not to obey their wives. Ever.

” And unto Adam he said: Forasmuch as thou hast obeyed the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying: See thou eat not thereof: cursed be the earth for thy sake.”

You are so predictable.  You’re the type who hides behind the apron of religion for your last defense when all else fails.  Amazes me how men who are the biggest cheaters, drinkers, wife/children abusers, and cutthroat business deals while outside of church, suddenly become real “religious” when their trying to get their woman in line.  The kind of men like the church deacons who would hit on me when their wife wasn’t looking, who use their church members to prey upon for their businesses and social status. Many wolf in sheeps clothing.  Mary Magdalene was Jesus closest and dearest disciple. Ever since then men have been calling her a PROSTITUTE out of their fear and jealousy even though the Catholic church refuted their lie long ago.

No I’m not that type and I dont believe any of the men here are either.

And women in the western world have caught up to men and even gone beyond them in reguards to drinking, abusing, cheating, etc.. Its not right on either side but you cant say men are the biggest perpetrators anymore.

Women want fried ice. -Arab Proverb

09-02-2006 01:39 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor

jewels wrote: Wow. I never realized women were so awesomely powerful over all living things on the earth.

You say that like it’s not something you think is true, which obviously it can’t be if made into a caricature.

There’s a story about Winston Churchill, which may be apocryphal, in which he’s giving a speech and is being heckled by a woman in the audience.

At some point he takes a brief break between paragraphs, and she stands up and says quite loudly “I’ll have you know Mr. Churchill, in fifty years we women will run the world!”

After a lengthy pause he says “What, still?”.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-02-2006 01:44 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – A question for the anti-feminists

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
dflynn5656
Contributor
dflynn5656
Yes IshWishDish – you responded by calling Elsie a poser.

And you said –

“So, Elise, you can see why I believe it is you who have been “hoodwinked.” Not because you (presumeably) don’t work; many feminists are stay-at-home moms, too. It’s because you truly believe that being a woman means you’re only capable of one thing, because you truly believe you’re unworthy of a man’s love and respect unless you give him utter possession of your mind body and soul, and because you believe, as you’ve been told, that freedom has made women and children unhappy.”

IshWish – you fail to understand the modality of failure here. Now rather than thinking up your rebutal – try listening (just once in your 92 posts). You’ve posted FAR too many times to not get the point here (this late in the game).

IshWish – men and women are NOT interchangeable. Equal but NOT interchangeable.

Do you understand what that means?

THAT is the central failure of your philosophy. Happiness is NOT the same life mission for women as it is for men. You claimed in your rebutal of Elisie to have a Christian upbringing. Really?

Every Christian knows the fundamental truth of men and women’s differences. Only the Godless share YOUR confusion. Perhaps you could better understand the feminist dilema by actually attending the church you claim upbringing in.

I AM a Christian – and unlike your comment about Elsie “I’m not sure why I doubt you authenticity” you said – I can say for sure why I doubt yours IshWish.

But if you attend church, you won’t meet any feminsts there – because they are actually at war with God, not men.

David

09-02-2006 01:44 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
LL
Contributor
LL

Argh!  I wrote something that was very long and then I lost it all when my computer froze!

And I was making a nice and extensive list that had to do with MRA’ism and Feminism.

Don’t you hate when that happens.

09-02-2006 02:08 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Hujo
Contributor
Hujo
http://www.vanderbiltorbis.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/03/44306f27ab836

Here is a good article on the subject.

Its pretty simple feminism was needed but now because of its power and influence it has become harmful. Why? Because it is powerful mainstream form of humanism but it concerns itself with only the improvement of one group, it is no longer identifying itself, its pushed all the boundaries it could, yet it is still alive and powerful and it ignores men and indeed fights to stifle support going to them ie boy crisis. MRA’s are needed to chip away at the moral blind spot feminism has left us with regarding men, to push the boundaries to improve our image, to cast off feminist analysis and definitions of us and define our self’s, to tweak the biased system where its needed.

I am not opposed to women or women’s equality, feminists will find that mra’s only rally against areas where feminists ether effect them or fight them, twisting rape and violence stats and ignoring men in the study of these phenomenon effects men by demonizing them and leaving them in the dark, feminism has to change in this area, family courts have to change, men have to receive equal study in education, mens status has to be measured, we want to change our image in the media.

I am not sure how all this ads up to rolling back any clocks as it is a step forward, I am convinced the feminist furor over the men’s movement has more to do with career feminists, those that make a living of off feminism name, the ones with power and influence, they realize what the men’s movement could mean to their paycheck as public support moves more toward helping both men and women their funding/audiance and career opportunities will suffer.

I think the solution is for society to embrace pure humanism as the new feminism as it stands up for women’s rights gay rights minority rights but also men, it stands for progress and equality for all. I don’t think we will ever get to that point as a society unless feminism is challenged and people start to realize there was something very wrong about focusing on the status of one gender so long after equality was achieved, I cant help but see that in those generations born after the 70’s how feminism has been stealing humanism away from men, stagnating them demonizing them, shaming them, and eradicating thier culture. It would be my hope that the men’s movement can bring societies focus to EVERYONE having their space and say and every one being treated with respect and considered.

Unlike the way it is in the NOW

09-02-2006 02:40 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

(1) Rebuttable presumption of shared custody after divorce in all 50 states, or at least most of them.

That negates who has been the primary care-giver and, more importantly, endangers the child if a parent is abusive.
He did say “rebuttable,” though. I would of course hope any such proposition would be examined very carefully by parties without gender-bias and with complete focus on the best interests of the children rather than either parent. Based on what I’ve seen in real life, I think which parent has the best income and the best attorney is a much more decisive factor than the parents’ respective genders, though, so since it’s been well established that husbands usually have higher income than their wives, presumption of shared custody could actually end up working in many women’s favor.

I completely agree.

Agreed. Lets also not forget that it is men who keep women from combat anyway. And, yes, women do die in wars. They are the spoils of wars that they aren’t even allowed to fight in.

Excellent point. I’d be suprised, though, if many of the MRAs are going to be willing to acknowledge or discuss the actual experience of women in war zones.  Personally, I’ve always thought “If there’s going to be combat in my homeland, ABSOLUTELY make me a soldier! At least then I’d be armed and protected by the Geneva Convention!”

This post made some good points.

09-02-2006 04:44 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish
There’s a story about Winston Churchill, which may be apocryphal

Most stories about WC are apocryphal, and most of them seem to involve him turning his phenominal wit to the task of putting some uppity harpy in her place.

Remember you can be witty and still be wrong.

09-02-2006 04:48 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

IshWish – you fail to understand the modality of failure here. Now rather than thinking up your rebutal – try listening (just once in your 92 posts). You’ve posted FAR too many times to not get the point here (this late in the game).

IshWish – men and women are NOT interchangeable. Equal but NOT interchangeable.

dflynn, it’s not a matter of “getting it.” I understand exactly what you and HappyMom and others are saying. I promise none of you are going to come up with a way to say it that I hadn’t already heard dozens of times before I even hit puberty. What you lot don’t seem to be able to “get” is that I and many others do get it. WE JUST DON’T AGREE WITH YOU. WE THINK YOU ARE WRONG. And we have no problem with you living your life according to biblical principals or conservative principals or whatever principals you like. We just will not allow you to force us to follow those principals, as WE BELIEVE THEY ARE INCORRECT. Now as angry as that seems to make you, imagine how furious you’d be if people came into your home and forced you to adhere to a religion other than your own, live your life according to values not your own, and accept a position in life other than the one you’ve chosen and achieved for yourself. Because that’s what you seem to want to do to us. If that’s not what you want to do, then why do you care so much if we disagree with you?

You claimed in your rebutal of Elisie to have a Christian upbringing. Really?

Yep, really. I’m the granddaughter/great-granddaughter of three fundamentalist pastors. I grew up going to church three times a week, going door to door in my neighborhood and telling people about the savior just for fun, and spending the summer at Bible camp singing “I wish I had a little black box to put the devil in.”  And I love my family, and they love me. I have enormous respect for them, because they are sincere in their faith and genuinely strive to follow the word of their god in every aspect of their lives. I just don’t agree with them.

I hope you’re not under the impression that all children of devoutly Christian families grow up to be Christian themselves. Many of us make different choices once we’re old enough to think for ourselves. Sadly, many react to the oppression of their upbringing by shooting too far to the other extreme, though. Of all the former Christian “kids” I know, the one with the most zealously religious family history was working in a gay nightclub when last I saw him (which is fine with me, though not his parents) and shooting up a lot of heroin (which is not fine with me, thus I haven’t spoken to him in more than five years; I hope he’s alright or at least alive). We can do our best to help them along, but we cannot and should not control who are children will ultimately become. That goes for other adults, too.

09-02-2006 05:14 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Argh!  I wrote something that was very long and then I lost it all when my computer froze!

And I was making a nice and extensive list that had to do with MRA’ism and Feminism.

Don’t you hate when that happens.

That really sucks LL. I kinda suspect the forbes site briefly went a little tweaky. Can you at least give us the high points?

09-02-2006 05:16 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Its pretty simple feminism was needed but now because of its power and influence it has become harmful… It would be my hope that the men’s movement can bring societies focus to EVERYONE having their space and say and every one being treated with respect and considered.

I really like this post, Hujo, but will you acknowledge that there are clearly many people who consider themselves MRAs posting here who quite blatantly are not interested in humanistic equality and instead want either theologically based or self-interest based male domination of society? Anticipating your most likely response, yes, I do and repeatedly have acknowledged that there are self-described feminists who have an anti-male agenda. They tend to be very loud, because zealots are always very loud. But they are not representative of most feminists. And I still have yet to see any of the MRAs such as yourself who believe in an end to all gender-bias stand up and distance themselves from these men.

The idea of “humanism” as an alternative to feminism is terrific, but “humanism” is already an established idea, and a focus on gender equality tends to get lost in its depths when people try that tactic. The problem is, all the good words are taken. Maybe we should try to think of one.

09-02-2006 05:27 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

IshWishDish wrote:
There’s a story about Winston Churchill, which may be apocryphal

Most stories about WC are apocryphal, and most of them seem to involve him turning his phenominal wit to the task of putting some uppity harpy in her place.

Remember you can be witty and still be wrong.

Yes, but some of those stories sure are funny.

Mary Astor: Mr Churchill… YOUR DRUNK!

Churchill: Madame… I may be drunk, but in the morning I shall be sober.

When you wake up, you’ll still be ugly.

ROTFL!

09-02-2006 06:13 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
hero
Contributor
hero

Jewels wrote:

Mary Magdalene was Jesus closest and dearest disciple. Ever since then men have been calling her a PROSTITUTE out of their fear and jealousy even though the Catholic church refuted their lie long ago.
——————————————————————————————————–
You believe that crap that you read in The DaVinci Code?!? Are you really that retarded?

09-02-2006 06:33 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – A question for the anti-feminists

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Yes, but some of those stories sure are funny.

Yeah, they really are. And since I can enjoy a good slam on its own merits without having to politically load everything, here’s my favorite:

woman (to Winston): If you were my husband, I’d poison your food!

Winston: Madam, if I were your husband, I’d let you!

09-02-2006 06:41 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

He did say “rebuttable,” though.

Why bother to put a kid through that when it could be judged on a case-by-case basis? Like it already is? At least that is what I think. Plus, it isn’t really about “fiarness” for many of these so-called MRA/FRAs. Even Darren Mack wouldn’t settle for joint-custody; he killed his daughter’s mother.

Oh, gosh. The inevitable Bible discussion came up.

09-02-2006 06:43 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

My good friend Mamo said…

The elimination of No Fault Divorce, and the re-instatement of Fault based divorce.
I definitely don’t support that, and I’m guessing the more liberal MRAs wouldn’t either. Consider the likelihood that, if you guys are right about the current gender and divorce climate, a re-institution of Fault based divorced would probably make divorces much more damaging to men, not less.

Personally, I think we need to improve the quality of marriage in America, not its frequency or indestructibility. If it were up to me, I’d make it easier to get a divorce and harder to get married. Maybe people wouldn’t enter into so many ill-advised marriages in the first place if it was a bit more challenging to accomplish it. If people were not marrying people they’re almost doomed from the start to divorce, you’d see a lot less single-parent households, a lot less alimony and child support, and a lot less spousal abuse. I’d also want to see a model for divorce that doesn’t require the couple to take on oppositional roles. When I got married to my first husband, we pretty much walked into the courthouse, handed over a little money, signed some paperwork, recited some vows, and voila. We could have done it on a whim. When we divorced, we not only had way more red tape to go through, but we discovered the legal system was designed to practically force us to try to screw each other over and mistrust one another. We had no animosity; we had just realized we’d made a mistake and still felt very fondly of and protective of one another. But the legal requirements as they are make it very hard for even the most amicable divorcing couple to “make it a clean fight.”

And I realize no conservative in the world is gonna support this.

09-02-2006 07:00 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Why bother to put a kid through that when it could be judged on a case-by-case basis? Like it already is?

Oh, I definitely don’t like to see kids on witness stands; I may need to do a little research to see some percentages if they’re available on how frequently men actually petition for primary custody and so forth. It’s always been my perception that most divorces are unpleasant as hell but not usually so acrimonious as the ones described here. I’d think that in most cases, there are no concerns of abuse or endangerment, and both parties want and expect some level of joint custody. I’m terribly middle-class, though, so that may be sheltering me. The worst divorce I ever saw personally, though, was between a rich corporate lawyer and his stay-at-home wife. In any event, I’d like to see that both ideologies are putting the child’s interests first, and I am concerned that, while I see feminist mothers pushing very hard to pursue the best interests of the child, I don’t hear much from the MRAs about what’s fair for anyone other than themselves. It makes me think very much of the two women who went before Solomon with the contested baby. I assume everyone knows that story?

At least that is what I think. Plus, it isn’t really about “fiarness” for many of these so-called MRA/FRAs.

Clearly very true, and I’d understand that; every movement has its madmen and monsters, but why do the rest of them never speak up to distance themselves from the hate-speech?

09-02-2006 07:18 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
“The elimination of No Fault Divorce, and the re-instatement of Fault based divorce.
I definitely don’t support that, and I’m guessing the more liberal MRAs wouldn’t either. Consider the likelihood that, if you guys are right about the current gender and divorce climate, a re-institution of Fault based divorced would probably make divorces much more damaging to men, not less.

Personally, I think we need to improve the quality of marriage in America, not its frequency or indestructibility. If it were up to me, I’d make it easier to get a divorce and harder to get married.”

/TotallyAgree on the harder to get married part. It is WAY too easy now-a-days to get married.

Speaking only for myself, and those that feel as I do,

Fault based divorce is the answer. It kills three birds with one stone.

1) The happy couple will make double da-mn sure that this is the One.

2) Both parties will feel more secure in the knowledge that one person can’t unilaterally end the marriage, and subject the unwilling party to a hellish divorce process.

3) Punish the offender, therefore helping the legitimacy of the Divorce Court’s decision.

For a lot of we men, I think the main issue here is JUSTICE.

If I were a cheating drunken no account scoundrel, then I deserve to get hammered in divorce court.

But if I did nothing wrong, and I ended up in Divorce Court, then I would be truly pissed off.

Justice is the main issue here, as the current regime is anything but.

09-02-2006 07:31 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
LL
Contributor
LL

That really sucks LL. I kinda suspect the forbes site briefly went a little tweaky. Can you at least give us the high points?

I just re-wrote it in the topic “What needs To Happen”.

09-02-2006 08:14 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms

DontMarryNoer said:
>”He did say “rebuttable,” though.
>
>Why bother to put a kid through that when it could
>be judged on a case-by-case basis? Like it already is?

No it’s not judged on a case by cases basis. In the United States, judges are not allowed to award shared physical custody. By law (a law supported primarily by feminists) they are only allowed to award primary physical custody and visitation (typically once every other weekend visitation).

Hundreds of thousands of kids in this country are living in shared custody arrangements and are thriving wonderfully, yet judges are not allowed to order such arrangements where one parent wants it and the other one (usually the mother) does not. The law doesn’t allow it.

You obviously don’t know what you are talking about.

Message Edited by juliandroms on 09-02-2006 08:38 PM

09-02-2006 08:23 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

IshWishDish wrote:
Listen, guys (and gals), let’s cut through all this rhetoric and hysteria for a bit, okay? We’re all arguing opinions and emotions and beliefs, but I don’t think any of us really understand the other side’s goals.  I’d like you to tell us all what you want.
Here we have an example of sheer female idiocy. Men argue with reason and common sense. Women argue about opininos and emotions and beliefs. This is why women are stupid enough to buy into astrology and tarot cards. The reason why women don’t understand men is because THEY’RE TOO STUPID to understand. Men fully understand the feminist viewpoint, that’s why it’s so easily deconstructed and exposed for the fraud it is. Men are the ones making the coherent logical arguments. Women are too stupid to keep up. That is obvious from the posts. So we’re just humoring you with the explanation, knowing full well you’re too stupid to even comprehend it.

You don’t need to go into what you’re mad about, or why you hate or resent or mistrust women (or just feminists), here, or what terrible injustices have occurred. You’ve done that quite a bit, and you’ll surely be doing it even more. This thread is meant for something else. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH with a men’s movement? Be specific. Don’t say “make some changes in this oppressive gynarchy.” Don’t even say “Change the unfair divorce and custody laws.” Tell us exactly which laws you want to change. AND, most importantly, tell us what you want to replace them with. Tell us exactly what you would change in our social, domestic, political, commercial, and professional worlds. For “bonus points,” tell us what you’re doing or are willing to do to make these things happen.

Well it’s obvious that pussified men and feminazis on the bench (courts) have to GO. And weeding out the pusssies is like pulling teeth. It seems like there has to be a revolution at some point. We’re having a revolution of thought and somewhere along the line, this will require a revolution in action. Men have to be brave enough to vote out the pussified males in office. Men have to teach their sons how not to become pusssies because the default philosophy right now leads young boys towards feminism.

Forget about this short-sighted female idiocy of doing away with certain laws. These laws are in place because the root of the problem has not yet been dealt with. The judges on the bench are PUSSSIES. They need to be replaced by REAL MEN WITH BALLS who will fight for the male agenda. We need men who care about justice, not about keeping their balls in a woman’s purse. In fact, we need to get rid of all women period from the judge’s seat. Women are too stupid to comprehend the concept of justice as proven in this forum. The judges are furthering the feminist agenda by siding with women in court. This ridiculous trend needs to change. We need to get male judges siding with males from now on. And no they shouldn’t worry about injustice. They should worry about leveling the playing field at this point. Feminists aren’t concerned with justice, neither should we be concerned with their welfare until men have a taste of justice. When ALL men are FINALLY treated failure in the court system, THEN we’ll worry about women being treated fairly.

09-02-2006 08:37 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Tellafriend, nobody’s actually listening, sweetie. The pro-fem side figured out ages ago that you’re either a raving loon or a garden variety troll. Even the MRA side doesn’t like you. You’re the only MRA poster on the whole board I’ve seen actually get dissed by his own side. One of them even accused you of being a feminist sock-puppet. Hell, the only reason I ever even respond to your posts is because, sometimes, it’s kinda fun to poke you. Naturally, you’re welcome to keep it up. I wouldn’t stop you if I could; it’s a free internet, and like I said, winding you up is a nice form of stress-relief. You’re like a pull-string toy. “Lil’ Misoggie.” Pull the cord and hours of fun he-man-woman-haters babble comes pouring out.

To paraphrase a t-shirt a friend of mine has:

“You’re a misogynist? That’s so cute!”

09-02-2006 09:24 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

To belabor my point, because the current generation of feminists are not the ones making policy.

Gen X’ers (of which I am one), on the other hand, tend to be more apathetic, mistrustful of any institution, and more willing to step across party lines.

blah blah.. it’s not my fault (even though I’m a part of it).. blah blah. Can’t-take-resp-ons-ibility-for-my-actions-uh.

Let me get this straight, you don’t agree with it, but you go along with it? I’m definitely going to have to say “bull” on this one, until I actually *see* this supposed minority of “moderate feminists that believe in gender equality”, actually stand up to radical feminists, like people that truly believe in gender equality are. Until then your hate movement is a failure that hasn’t helped women at all, uh that is not women that aren’t eternally single, massive bulldyke’s like almost all radical feminists are (case in point Andrea Dworkin).

Fact is, if that’s in place the only thing that will reasonably cause a “moderation” in policy is institution of a men’s rights lobby that acts just as radical as your second wave feminist mistresses. I won’t “like it” but I guess I’ll have to “go along with it”. Your logic.

Our anger at the article comes from two things: 1) It used bad science and made huge assumptions to suggest that marital problems are all the fault of the wife.

Statistics are not “huge assumptions”. The only thing that “suggested” it was all the wife’s fault was the study that said “women will be unhappier if the husband doesn’t make more”. A study was cited that asserted “men will be unhappier if their wife earns more” as well. Naturally, narcissistically unable to see any of your own fault you decided to have a massive whinge and get an article that gave good advice for men censored. You’re showing your true “second-wave” feminist colours there.

2) It characterized women in the context of marriage as commodities rather than participants in a “marketplace.”

This is an “interpretation” of the article from a “feminist perspective”, that is “if we can find something that doesn’t worship women it must be against them.” It is clearly not objective.

So these reasons are bull as well. What’s the *real* reason?

Basically my conclusion after reading this thread is that you are a world class pathological liar. I hope you weren’t trying to convert me to this “moderate third-wave feminism” and get me to join NOW to serve radical feminists like you do….

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-03-2006 02:30 AM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – A question for the anti-feminists

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
IshWishDish wrote: …Remember you can be witty and still be wrong.
Duh.

I take it you think Churchill was wrong.
Or do you just think the subject of female power is taboo?

Since I haven’t seen anyone else post the link to it…
If Men Have All the Power, How Come Women Make the Rules? Enjoy!

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-03-2006 03:14 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Well, Happy_Bullet, your post was all paranoid babble, not to mention wildly hypocritical and devoid of substance, so I’m not bothering to respond to it in depth. I’ll just reassure you that I’m not trying to convert you to anything. Not only do I not believe in such tactics, I’d be profoundly embarrased to have you on my side. You speak of feminism as a movement which uses claims of a desire for equality to cover a core of rank despicable hatred, when clearly you yourself are guilty of that same offense. What’s worse, you’re apparently even aware of that, and you’re completely comfortable with it. You harp about taking responsibility, but you blame every problem in your own life on this vast conspiracy. I’ve seen many here assert that if feminists really got the equality they “claim to” want, they’d be miserable, for they’d have no more victimhood to hide behind. I think this is a fantastic description of you, Happy_Bullet. In your rabid paranoia, blame tactics, and unprovoked personal attacks, you embody everything you claim to despise women for. You sound deranged. I’m completely through trying to respect you or take you seriously. You don’t deserve it.

And now I’m done with you. The rest of this post is addressed to the thread as a whole.

I’ve never been what’s called “radical” in my politics. I do believe that second wave feminists did work that was truly needed, but I’ve felt certain that the third wave should stop working from the position of the powerless victim struggling to protect itself from an assailant and begin working from a perspective more akin to a young person moving out into the world for the first time: learning how to be (and enjoy being) free, self-reliant, and responsible. I’ve never considered “men” a threat to myself or my freedom, and I’ve never considered men “the enemy.” I’ve been talking to some of the MRAs on here like LL, mamonaku, and juliandroms to name a few, because my feminism comes largely from not wanting to see or be seen in terms of gender, and I believe that if men are unhappy enough to form a movement, it’s worth looking into to see if maybe something’s really wrong. As it happens, they have convinced me that there are problems worth addressing in the lives of men today. While I may not (and probably never will) agree with all the things they’ve brought up (or with their beliefs about the source of many of those problems), the perspective they’ve given me will certainly inform the way I view issues of gender and fairness in the future. I hope to continue learning from them, and I hope they’ll allow themselves to learn from this experience as well.

For the first time in my life, though, due to seeing the feelings and desires of people like Happy_Bullet, I’m actually starting to wonder if my willingness to reach out across the party line is naive. I’ve felt resentful toward “the system” plenty of times, and I’ve felt resentful towards individuals of both sexes plenty of times, too, but I never really felt resentful – or afraid – of MEN until now. I’ll examine it, and I’ll base any changes in my outlook on the men’s rights movement on a careful look at a larger picture, not on my gut reaction to several guys on a message board. But most women (and even many men) won’t. They’ll just see a lot of unbelievably hateful speech, and they’ll see that even the moderates among the movement never seem to question or criticize the behavior of those men (and they’ll interpret silence as agreement, or at least consent), and they’ll decide the men’s rights movement is more about hatred and self-interest than equality or justice. I think it’d be a shame if that happened, because I do think that there are a few truths and some very valid ideas to explore here. The problem is, I myself am questioning your true motives as a whole, and that’s mostly because when Happy_Bullet, MartianBachelor, Termi0n, and the many others like them spew out this deplorable unconstructive hate, you don’t seem to care or mind in the least. Yes, they’re free to say it, but you’re also free to refute it (since after all, it does go completely against everything you keep claiming the men’s movement is about), or at least acknowledge it. And you never do.

09-03-2006 04:05 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Hujo
Contributor
Hujo
Ishwishdish–
“will you acknowledge that there are clearly many people who consider themselves MRAs posting here who quite blatantly are not interested in humanistic equality and instead want either theologically based or self-interest based male domination of society?”

What I see going on here is a childish battle of the sexes being perpetuated by both the men and the women, neither of which are giving themselves titles of feminist or mra. Everyone is just trying to out do and intellectually slap the other while getting of topic and saying things they might not really mean.

The posts by men that are more thought out and touch on mens rights or how mens rights relate to this article, aren’t really the popular posts.

Ishwishdish—
“Anticipating your most likely response, yes, I do and repeatedly have acknowledged that there are self-described feminists who have an anti-male agenda. They tend to be very loud, because zealots are always very loud. But they are not representative of most feminists.”

It is fair to say it is representative of feminists with institutionalized power, that is the real point, feminism is the thing that’s forcing men in general to have to rally against the feminist system, feminism is the deep rooted corrupt part of the system that has to be removed, its influence on society is massive, when feminists get overzealous, we have man taxes being created (Sweden) or people that believe in men’s rights awareness being labeled hate groups and feminist government agencies cooking up plans to throw them in jail(Canada) or articles that empower men by giving them greater knowledge about the realities of marriage/divorce/family court and child support industries, articles that detial how this process is observably a losing investment for men are being suppressed and the authors of said articles being chastised and the owners of publications being forced to apologize so as to not get branded, OMG, sexist by our feminist controlled media, all for giving honest opinion best on the facts found in numerable studies!(usa) (Examples for these points can be found in my first post in this thread)

Compared to feminists mra’s are the underdogs in terms of funding, influence, political alliances and status as a group in society, feminism is institutionalized power and it is corrupt.

Like LL said in his letter, we have men that are waking up to these double standards, men are realizing equality is not what feminism was about and that our system that supposably gives us all these privileges is actually very anti-male biased NOW, we have been hoodwinked and it does create anger. Hopefully if the men’s movement is *allowed* to spread awareness by our femi governments and femi media, those angry men will be able to learn about the unfair system and channel their energy in a positive way that helps create change, leaving them in the dark would not be the best idea, but as we see here at forbes feminists would like to maintain a media that does just that.

Ishwishdish–
“And I still have yet to see any of the MRAs such as yourself who believe in an end to all gender-bias stand up and distance themselves from these men.”

O’rly?
http://news.mensactivism.org/node/5776#comment-506
(start at the begining of this comment thread and see mine and others reaction to “Bert”)
Also.
http://www.glennsacks.com/confronting_women_bashing.htm

Ishwishdish–
“The idea of “humanism” as an alternative to feminism is terrific, but “humanism” is already an established idea, and a focus on gender equality tends to get lost in its depths when people try that tactic. The problem is, all the good words are taken. Maybe we should try to think of one.”

In my opinion the established “humanitarian” organizations are not humanistic but feminist.
http://hujoblogger.blogspot.com/2006/08/are-men-human.html

Pure humanism will not be established till we give men the same support, funding and concern we now give women children and animals. There is much work to be done.

Message Edited by Hujo on 09-03-2006 05:56 AM

09-03-2006 05:47 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

IshWishDumbBish, your idiocy is comical.

There’s a shirt for idiot women like you: “I’m with stupid,” complete with arrow.

Run along now and fetch your stick you dumb biitch

09-03-2006 06:19 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

No it’s not judged on a case by cases basis.

Yes, custody is judged on a case-by-case basis.

In the United States, judges are not allowed to award shared physical custody. By law (a law supported primarily by feminists) they are only allowed to award primary physical custody and visitation (typically once every other weekend visitation).

This is only in theory and has more to do with rules for attending school. If you live in one community then you *must* go to a certain one; therefore you can’t also “live” in another area. But there is nothing that says after school the child cannot see their father. My parents, for example, after my mother won primary custody? I could have seen my dad everyday after school and on the weekends and during the whole summer. But my dad, understandably, didn’t want to alter his work shedule (see? He actually doesn’t have a sense of entitlment and realizes his decisions effect the outcome). So it didn’t happen. Rather, I got to see him every weekend, whenever he wanted to stop over, holidays, summer, etc. But it was his call due to his decision with work. I get that.

What FRAs don’t like is that, after not being the primary care-giver during the marriage, they are continued to be viewed as such once divorced. Thereby generally not awarded primary custody … even if it means frequent, daily visits. It is more about money. Just ask Darren Mack.

What feminists don’t support, most of the time (feminists have many differing ideas as to what they do support), is presumptive joint-custody. And that is darn wise. No child should have to put in a situation where they are, at any time, in the presence of an abusive parent for any amount of time. Whether or not an FRA is going to throw a fit over money (because that is more important to him) or not. It never bothered him during the marriage when he couldn’t stand to be at home and listen to his two-year old cry. It shouldn’t now.

09-03-2006 10:50 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
PANDORASBOX123
Regular Contributor
PANDORASBOX123

“I’m with stupid,” complete with arrow.

<<<<<<<Very stupid

09-03-2006 11:36 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms

Jesus, you’re an idiot. Did you go to school?

Message Edited by juliandroms on 09-03-2006 11:40 AM

09-03-2006 11:40 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
PANDORASBOX123
Regular Contributor
PANDORASBOX123

LOL——You are sooooooooooooo attractive when you write like that……

09-03-2006 11:43 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
tellafriend wrote: IshWishDumbBish, your idiocy is comical.

Yea, she left you off her blacklist, tellafriend.
Really hurts to be forgotten like that, doesn’t it?
All the wasted effort…

I’d a thought you be at the head of the line for her little firing squad, which would of course have been manned by her recruits, of which there don’t seen to be any. Hmmm…

P.S. – good post Hujo; thanks for the links – even though I never could find Bert’s “D*mn, I’m pissed” piece.

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 09-03-2006 03:16 PM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-03-2006 01:51 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
juliandroms
Regular Contributor
juliandroms
Who cares?

Wasn’t talking to you. Your posts aren’t worth reading.

09-03-2006 03:32 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – A question for the anti-feminists

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

MartianBachelor wrote:
tellafriend wrote: IshWishDumbBish, your idiocy is comical.

Yea, she left you off her blacklist, tellafriend.
Really hurts to be forgotten like that, doesn’t it?
All the wasted effort…

I’d a thought you be at the head of the line for her little firing squad, which would of course have been manned by her recruits, of which there don’t seen to be any. Hmmm…

P.S. – good post Hujo; thanks for the links – even though I never could find his “D*mn, I’m pissed” piece.

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 09-03-2006 12:41 PM

Yeah. hahahahahah. As if a biitch’s opinion matters. This is the same reason why women were sent out of the room when men decided to discuss serious matters.

Women who take themselves seriously are like little children thinking they are adults. It becomes a comical parody.

Men respond to common sense that’s why I can’t be ignored and she’ll throw a tantrum knowing that people are reading me and there’s nothing she can do about it except stamp her foot and cry.

09-03-2006 03:43 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
I for one enjoy your posts immensely – once I’ve translated them into Martian.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-03-2006 05:15 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Ishwishdish–
“will you acknowledge that there are clearly many people who consider themselves MRAs posting here who quite blatantly are not interested in humanistic equality and instead want either theologically based or self-interest based male domination of society?”

What I see going on here is a childish battle of the sexes being perpetuated by both the men and the women, neither of which are giving themselves titles of feminist or mra. Everyone is just trying to out do and intellectually slap the other while getting of topic and saying things they might not really mean.

So… then… should I take that as a “no?” Like all message boards, this one has a huge bulk of very adolescent “tennis match” style debate, where the objective is not to communicate, convince, or learn, but to win. Oh well. Call that the dull average. I’m talking about the posters above that mark who do generally engage in more sincere discourse who state unambiguously that they believe the wrong of feminism is not simply that it has marginalized men, but that it has empowered women (who they believe, either for “moral” or simply selfish reasons belong in a position definitively below, or at least restrictively different, from that of men). I’m also talking about the posters below that mark: vividly hostile posters who make little attempt to discuss ideas or issues and instead hurl angry accusations, insults, and borderline threats. And yes, very many of the regular posters here, including posters of all three “levels”, do identify themselves as feminist or MRA.

And are you seriously suggesting these guys just get “carried away,” and don’t really mean it? When they post the same stuff over and over and over again over spans of several days? Really? I remember a time myself when I fought doggedly to only believe the best of all my fellow “feminists” and women in general, no matter what evidence I saw to the contrary. I think I used to say stuff exactly like that.

The posts by men that are more thought out and touch on mens rights or how mens rights relate to this article, aren’t really the popular posts.

Well that’s just a truism of all message board “flame wars.” If you write a really thorough, insightful, constructive, reasonable post, the people who agree with you won’t feel they need to add anything, so most of them won’t respond, unless it’s to say “great post!” or something like that. The people who disagree with you won’t find it such an easy target or sincerely won’t have much to criticize, so they’ll mostly avoid it, unless it’s just to throw out some asinine trollish insults.

feminism is the thing that’s forcing men in general to have to rally against the feminist system

But men in general aren’t rallying against the system. Your movement so far is very much on the fringe.

Compared to feminists mra’s are the underdogs in terms of funding, influence, political alliances and status as a group in society

Then go out and get some funding. Feminist and feminist-friendly nonprofits – like all nonprofits – work very hard to raise their funding from businesses and private contributors. Are you under the impression that Planned Parenthood or NOW are recieving big chunks of government money? What’s more, many people contribute to feminist organizations not because of a personal sympathy with feminist ideals as much as an appreciation of the good work those organizations have done to better the lives of people. And they benefit people other than themselves (children, battered women – most of whom are not feminist – and the impoverished). Feminist organizations today are also, true to their abolitionist roots, increasingly focused on allying themselves with other causes such as equal rights, human rights, gay and lesbian groups, literacy programs, and many others. Are MRA organizations also making an effort to be a part of the entire community, or are they just focusing on their own interests?

Politically, feminism does have more clout than MRA, because it’s more established. Thirty years ago, how much political clout did feminism have? Things happen slowly in politics. as for influence and social status, the majority of Americans are either oblivious to or varying degrees of annoyed and scornful about contemporary feminism. The same is true of MRA. As for the minority who do feel an allegiance to one cause or another, feminists have more clout because more people agree it deserves support.

Hopefully if the men’s movement is *allowed* to spread awareness by our femi governments and femi media…

If you truly believe the truth is being supressed, don’t just whine about not being “allowed” to speak out. Do what feminists did and get out there and force the world to hear what you have to say. Like feminists did, you’ll get a lot of hate and fury directed at you for it, but if you keep it up, and if your words ring true to enough people as the feminists’ words did, you’ll gain ground and accumulate some clout.

O’rly?
http://news.mensactivism.org/node/5776#comment-506
(start at the begining of this comment thread and see mine and others reaction to “Bert”)
Also.
http://www.glennsacks.com/confronting_women_bashing.htm

I looked at your links. The second one was terrific. I’m encouraged to see there’s a relatively high-profile voice of reason among MRA. I wish I saw this attitude more than in fleeting glimpses among the “rank and file.” I’ll definitely be looking at Glenn Sacks in the future, so thanks.

The first one did showcase some signs of intolerance toward bigotry among some of the MRAs on that board, yourself included. Other than a couple of notable exceptions, though, most of the criticism of “Bert” seemed to focus not on “that kind of hate and hostility is not what this movement is about,” but on “stop it; you’re making us look bad and giving the feminazis what they want.” In fact, there seemed to be as many people supporting his attitude as there were outright condemning it. And the attitude toward a female MRA introducing herself to the discussion was basically “welcome aboard! now prove to us you’re not a feminazi spy, and prostrate yourself in contrition for the evils of your sex, and maybe we’ll believe you’re really one of the rare “good” women.”

Here’s another link:
http://creativedestruction.wordpress.com/2006/08/15/more-boy-crisis-the-connecticut-mastery-test/#comments
The more respectable MRAs here have said many times that MRA is not about hating or oppressing women, and that feminism is about hating and oppressing men. I urge everyone to go look at the first link posted by Hujo (which, as he recommended it to show the sincerity of MRA non-misogyny, I think we can assume is by no means on the “low” end of civility within the movement) and to also go look at the discussion forums in the link I’ve provided above (which I just found the other day while surfing/looking for some info. You won’t find me posting on there, because I’m not a member). Now the point of this exercize is not to see if you agree or disagree with each side’s take on the issues; you’ve probably already done that. The point is to observe the way the members of these groups talk about and talk to the other gender. If you want to be thorough, which is always good, don’t limit it to those two links; look at other discussion forums among both MRA groups and feminist groups. Unless everyone just totally hides from this challenge, people will probably respond by posting some quotes they cherry-picked on the “opposition’s” discussion groups that exemplify what they want you to believe makes up the bulk of that group’s discourse. Don’t waste time doing that or reading it. Do your own “homework.”  Look at what real people are actually out there saying, and decide for yourself which movement’s members are really the most hostile toward the opposition and the opposite sex.

Also, neither of the links you provided, Hujo, are from this forum. And since you posted them rather than show any part of this discussion where MRAs have rebuked the misogynists in their midst, nor did you actually do it yourself in this forum, my point remains.

And in the interest of fairness, I’ll agree that as usual, you’ve had some other worthwhile things to say in this post; I’m just not responding to those things directly at this time, because they’re all points that have been made by you and others and responded to here by me and others already.

09-03-2006 05:35 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Yea, she left you off her blacklist, tellafriend.

Blacklist? I specified a few people I personally find least defensible, and that’s a “blacklist?” Sheesh, and they say we’re sensitive…

I left him off because I was talking about people who are actually participating here. Telly’s just a common troll. if anything, you should be flattered that so far, I think you actually mean what you say.

I’d a thought you be at the head of the line for her little firing squad, which would of course have been manned by her recruits, of which there don’t seen to be any. Hmmm…

Yeah, that’s because I’m not recruiting. You might want to consider actually finding out what words mean before you use them. You can just check Dictionary.com or Wiktionary.

09-03-2006 05:42 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish
Men respond to common sense that’s why I can’t be ignored and she’ll throw a tantrum knowing that people are reading me and there’s nothing she can do about it except stamp her foot and cry.

Aw, pumpkin! Nonono, I’m not ignoring you! I was just having a grown-up talk, but here’s some attention for my favorite widdle troll.

And you have no idea how happy it makes me that people are reading you, but I’m sure the other intelligent feminists on here feel the same way. All the PSAs and book tours and benefit concerts in the world can’t do half as much as guys like you to make us look good.

(I know, I know, everyone; I should stop feeding him, but he’s so cute!)

09-03-2006 06:00 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
DontMarryNoer
Regular Contributor
DontMarryNoer

Things happen slowly in politics. as for influence and social status, the majority of Americans are either oblivious to or varying degrees of annoyed and scornful about contemporary feminism. The same is true of MRA. As for the minority who do feel an allegiance to one cause or another, feminists have more clout because more people agree it deserves support.

Men’s Rights Activism has been officially around since right after the first official wave of feminism. It is over-whelmingly a reactionary movement that raises legitimate questions but lays it at the feet of the wrong people (it is powerful men who keep other men down to perpetuate male power, for example) and have an abrasive, entitled approach to things, which puts people off. They spend more time and money trying to roll back the clock on others instead of looking at the forest for the trees and improving things for themselves. Those who do, however, are over shadowed as it is more about who screams and blames women/feminism/political correctness/minorities the loudest. Many who have joined became pro-feminists and, in fact, pro-feminism is part of the men’s movement.

The reason why MRAism never made real strides is because it would require the powerful men to give up their power and for men in general to give up their priviledges and advantages which often leads to indirect consequences (like everything) because those indirect consequences are what MRAs cite as proof of the myth of male power. They confuse loss of privilidge with loss of power so issues that really effect men poorly get unnoticed. There is also the in-fighting, disagreements over racial issues, homosexuality, and back-biting to be alpha-males. In general, it seems they are so used to having things handed to them that they don’t really know what to do or don’t want to surrender their power – or look like a “wuss” – to do it.

Women on the other hand risked their well-being, their little money, their good names, and their lives. Despite all the disagreements within. Even many men did.

09-03-2006 06:22 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Men’s Rights Activism has been officially around since right after the first official wave of feminism.

When I said it hadn’t been around as long, I should have said it hadn’t had mainstream visibility for as long. I for one had never taken MRA seriously enough to really look at it before now, as what I saw of it sounded like a relative handful of men, mostly divorced and out-of-wedlock fathers trying to avoid paying child-support and “angry white males” longing for the return of the “good ol’ days.” At this point in my effort to learn more about this movement, my perception is that there are indeed some valid and worthwhile points to be addressed in the movement’s agenda, but that its actual “constituency” primarily is divorced fathers and out-of-wedlock fathers trying to avoid paying child-support and “angry white males” longing for the return of the “good ol’ days.” That doesn’t make the legitimate iniquities they point out any less worthy of a movement’s attention, but I strongly doubt that this movement is the one to do it.

09-03-2006 06:43 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

IshWishDish wrote:
Yea, she left you off her blacklist, tellafriend.

Blacklist? I specified a few people I personally find least defensible, and that’s a “blacklist?” Sheesh, and they say we’re sensitive…

I left him off because I was talking about people who are actually participating here. Telly’s just a common troll. if anything, you should be flattered that so far, I think you actually mean what you say.

I’d a thought you be at the head of the line for her little firing squad, which would of course have been manned by her recruits, of which there don’t seen to be any. Hmmm…

Yeah, that’s because I’m not recruiting. You might want to consider actually finding out what words mean before you use them. You can just check Dictionary.com or Wiktionary.

You’re an idiot woman who has the reasoning capacity of a donut. And I’m supposed to give credence to your idiocy?

You’re a typical dumb biitch spouting the typical dumb biitch nonsense that has already been reasonably refuted by myself and other men on here. You act like a dumb biitch so you get treated like a dumb biitch. If you learned to make a coherent post without making personal attacks, without acting like a professional victim or without throwing emotional tantrums all over the place, THEN I would be forced to take you seriously.

But again, you’re an idiot woman spouting the same ridiculous rhetoric that is characteristic of most feminists. When you change your tune and prove that you can make a coherent thought, I’ll try to consider you as more than just a dumb biitch yapping.

Until then, you’re still just a DUMB BIITCH YAPPING NONSENSE.

09-03-2006 08:17 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

IshWishDish wrote:
Men respond to common sense that’s why I can’t be ignored and she’ll throw a tantrum knowing that people are reading me and there’s nothing she can do about it except stamp her foot and cry.

Aw, pumpkin! Nonono, I’m not ignoring you! I was just having a grown-up talk, but here’s some attention for my favorite widdle troll.

And you have no idea how happy it makes me that people are reading you, but I’m sure the other intelligent feminists on here feel the same way. All the PSAs and book tours and benefit concerts in the world can’t do half as much as guys like you to make us look good.

(I know, I know, everyone; I should stop feeding him, but he’s so cute!)

Hey dumb biitch. Here’s a stick.

Fetch the stick, dumb biitch!
Now play stupid! GOOD DUMB BIITCH!

Now play angry 40 yr old, menopause mustache bra burning feminazi ! GOOD DUMB BIITCH!
Now babble incoherently! GOOD DUMB BIITCH!

See you are good for something. Pure entertainment.
Now sit there and act confused.. GOOD DUMB BIITCH!!

We’ll play more later. You look all tuckered out, Princess. Time for your nappy-poo!

Message Edited by tellafriend on 09-03-2006 08:22 PM

09-03-2006 08:20 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
black?list  /’blæk?l?st/
1.a list of persons under suspicion, disfavor, censure, etc.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/)

‘nuf said!

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 09-03-2006 06:44 PM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-03-2006 08:37 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – A question for the anti-feminists

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
From the book “No Contest” by Alfie Kohn.

Unfortunately, bringing about structural change of any kind requires overcoming enormous resistance. It is much easier to describe how change can be blocked than how it can be furthered. For those so inclined, then, here are five simple ways to perpetuate the status quo:

How to Prevent Social Change

#1: Limit Your Vision

The long-standing American tradition of ignoring the structural causes of social and individual problems was mentioned in Chapter 7. By pretending, for example, that psychological disturbance has nothing to do with the societal forces that shape personality development, you can help see to it that those forces continue unabated. It follows that all intervention should be done at the individual level. It is fine to help, say, homeless people on a case-by-case basis, but inquiring into the policy decisions and economic arrangements that have brought about their predicament would only serve to invite drastic change — and that is what we want to avoid at all costs. Similarly, if we continue to treat each example of corporate wrongdoing (from illegal dumping of toxic wastes to bribing of public official) as if it has occurred in a vacuum, then we can manage to preserve the system responsible for these acts.

#2: Adapt

The best way to keep the status quo intact is to make sure that individuals adjust themselves to serve its needs. Such adaptation once was enforced by crude, authoritarian methods of ‘re-education’. Today this is hardly necessary. A wealth of advice is available on how to become successful — what to wear, how to negotiate, and so forth — and virtually all of it proceeds from the premise that you should adjust yourself to conditions as you find them. Adaptation is a critical part of the self-help model: you must succeed within the institutions and according to the rules that already exist. To do well is to fit in, and to fit in is to fortify the structures into which you are being fit.

#3: Think About Yourself

Implicit in any exhortations to succeed by ‘giving them what they want’ is the suggestion that you should be totally preoccupied with your own well-being. The more you limit your concerns to yourself, the more you help to sustain the larger system. But this does not apply merely to material success. Even therapeutic and spiritual enterprises are useful for preserving the status quo because in encouraging you to attend to your own needs, they effectively direct attention away from social structures. Groom yourself and let the rest of the world go on its way — what better strategy is there for perpetuating existing structures? A few people may argue, it is true, that personal growth can be a route to social change. But most of the human potential movement will not require you to wrestle with this question, since social change is irrelevant to its goals and techniques.

#4: Be “Realistic”

Fortunately, it is not necessary for you to defend the larger system. You can even nod in sympathetic agreement with someone who indicts it. But it is crucial that this nodding be accompanied by a shrug. Phrases such as ‘like it or not’ and ‘that’s just the way it is’ should be employed liberally in order to emphasize that nothing can be done about the larger picture. Such protestations of powerlessness are actually very powerful, of course, since they make sure that things are left exactly as they are. Every person who is encouraged to take such a stance is another person rescued from social activism.
Occasionally a critic will refuse to resign himself to the way things are or to believe that we are helpless to make change. Such an individual should immediately be labeled ‘idealistic’. Do not be concerned about the vaguely complimentary connotations of having ideals. It will be understood that an idealist is someone who does not understand ‘the world as it is’ (‘world’ = ‘our society’; ‘as it is’ = ‘as it will always be’). This label efficiently calls attention to the critic’s faulty understanding of reality or ‘human nature’ and insures that he is not taken seriously. Those who are ‘pragmatic’, by contrast, know that we must work within the confines of what we are given. After all, if alternative models really were workable, we would already be using them.
Appeals to realism have the value of allowing you to avoid messy discussions about the value of a critic’s position (and thus of the status quo). Why bother with such issues when you can dismiss his vision as ‘well-meaning but unworkable’? Challenging the rightness of what he is proposing will only slow him down; it is the appeal to practicality that produces the knockout. Call someone wrongheaded or even evil and a lengthy discussion may follow. Call him utopian or naive and there is nothing more to be said. This method of dismissing models of change is uniquely effective since it sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people insist that an alternative arrangement cannot work, they will be right. Its failure then can be cited as substantiation of one’s original skepticism.

#5: Rationalize

It is easier for critics to oppose existing institutions when those who defend and profit from them are obviously opposed to social change. You can make it more difficult for these critics — and salve your own conscience at the same time — by claiming that your real reason for acting as you do is to ‘change the system from within’. Like most people who talk this way, of course, you do not actually have to make change. On the contrary, even if this really were your goal, you would be permitted to work only for insignificant reforms that never come close to challenging the structures themselves. By becoming part of these structures, you can proceed to seek personal aggrandizement while at the same time contributing your talents to something you profess to find problematic. (A variation on this maneuver is to claim that you are going to do so for only a short time — as if it were a simple matter to leave the fast lane and get over to the exit ramp.) If you are audacious enough, you can even rationalize your participation as the most effective way to change the system. The more people who accept this reasoning and follow your example, the more secure is that system.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-03-2006 09:05 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Wow, Martian! That was a very interesting bit of reading. I may have to check out that book. These are worthwhile things to ponder for anyone of any ideological persuasion.

I’m not exactly sure why you posted it here, though. That’s not meant in a snarky argumentative way; I’d really like you to just let us know what your purpose was.

Even though you did just copy-and-paste the whole thing, thanks for the great post!

09-03-2006 09:49 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish
black?list  /’blæk?l?st/
1.a list of persons under suspicion, disfavor, censure, etc.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/)

It’s pretty meaningless outside the context of some body of power, though.

Hey, did you look up recruit while you were there?

09-03-2006 09:53 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

IshWishDish wrote:
Ishwishdish–
“will you acknowledge that there are clearly many people who consider themselves MRAs posting here who quite blatantly are not interested in humanistic equality and instead want either theologically based or self-interest based male domination of society?”

What I see going on here is a childish battle of the sexes being perpetuated by both the men and the women, neither of which are giving themselves titles of feminist or mra. Everyone is just trying to out do and intellectually slap the other while getting of topic and saying things they might not really mean.

So… then… should I take that as a “no?” Like all message boards, this one has a huge bulk of very adolescent “tennis match” style debate, where the objective is not to communicate, convince, or learn, but to win.

Here you see this stupid biitch trying to take the moral high ground by snubbing all the other posters. And yet what do you see in the next couple of posts? A stupid elitist biitch trying TO WIN. DESPERATELY engaging in this “adolescent” behavior in a pathetic attempt to belittle me. Here you see the complete IDIOCY of women on display. They are like hypocritical children who are too DUMB to understand the nature of their own hypocrisy. It requires MEN to faithfully and constantly point it out to these idiots.

So while this dumb biitch CLAIMS to interested in her so-called moral objectives, in actual practice we can see this dumb biitch is nothing more than a typical feminist hypocrite with selective hearing. She can hear everyone else’s problems, but when it comes to her own, she remains completely and faithfully oblivious. This is the running theme of idiot women and feminism in general.

Oh well. Call that the dull average. I’m talking about the posters above that mark who do generally engage in more sincere discourse who state unambiguously that they believe the wrong of feminism is not simply that it has marginalized men, but that it has empowered women (who they believe, either for “moral” or simply selfish reasons belong in a position definitively below, or at least restrictively different, from that of men).

Or maybe COMMON SENSE reasons as already pointed out. But just like a dumb biitch you have selective hearing problems and you completely mischaracterize the argument. Your complete idiocy is INHERENT. That’s why it’s so difficult to reason with a dumb biitch like you. 90% of the problem lies in your denial. You’re like an alcoholic who refuses to admit she’s got a problem. And this is the reason why you’ll never effectively cope with your idiocy. You keep denying it. But then again, denial is a defining attribute of women.

It MUST BE FACED. You must face the mirror and say to yourself, “my name is IshWishDish.. and .. I’m …an ..IDIOT!”.. You can do it. Be strong, Danielsan.

I’m also talking about the posters below that mark: vividly hostile posters who make little attempt to discuss ideas or issues and instead hurl angry accusations, insults, and borderline threats.

Oh… you mean like.. the idiot poster down below?.. Oh wait, that’s you making those insulting remarks. But wait. didn’t you just chastise and scold those who engage in such behavior?.. Ohhh that’s right. YOU’RE A COMPLETE EFFING MORON. You’re SUPPOSED to be oblivious to your own hypocrisy. Now it all makes sense.
And to top it all off, if you don’t like something, suddenly it becomes “borderline threatening.” Again, this is more typical female idiocy which seeks to demonize the enemy(men). Such mischaracterization language is typical of emotional morons who are immune to common sense. This is why women make such great professional victims. They take themselves so seriously, they have become the authors of their own political correctness at the cost of their own credibility. Whereas this dumb biitch believes her “arguments” are based on logic, everyone’s arguments are mischaracterized as threats and insults.

“Ugh, men, BAD! Fire, GOOD! Me, woman. Me make strawman. Me attack strawman. Strawman die. Me show I am right. Me celebrate 3 brain cells. Me do victory dance! woowowoowowow!”

Here’s a newsflash princess: the TRUTH will ALWAYS be an “insult” to women and a “threat” to the entrenched hypocrisy of feminism. You can demonize and mischaraterize the behaviors and words of men all you want. Common sense always has the last laugh. Your idiocy is exposed for what it really is.

And yes, very many of the regular posters here, including posters of all three “levels”, do identify themselves as feminist or MRA.

And are you seriously suggesting these guys just get “carried away,” and don’t really mean it? When they post the same stuff over and over and over again over spans of several days? Really? I remember a time myself when I fought doggedly to only believe the best of all my fellow “feminists” and women in general, no matter what evidence I saw to the contrary. I think I used to say stuff exactly like that.

Again, as an idiot feminist, your goal is to believe everything you hear. You’re just like women who defend their friends in public regardless of their behavior simply for the fact that they’re “Friends”. If my friends did something I thought was stupid, I, as a MAN, would realize that they should and would be accountable for their OWN BEHAVIOR. I wouldn’t step in and defend them simply because they’re my “friends.” Men don’t typically hold each other to such low standards. Men respond to common sense. Some of the things said on here are feminist in nature because under the light of evaluation, they simply crumble. Just because they’re men, I don’t choose to believe them. I see common sense and reason and I attribute these characteristics to men because men generally express such qualities.

Women on the other hand express emotional hypocrisy and typical feminist mischaraterizations of arguments presented. i.e. You’re too stupid to even argue the point being presented, let alone understand it. You’re arguing strawman perspectives and assigning demonic actions to male behaviors instead of responsibly accepting blame for your own actions and acknowledging the errors in judgment you’ve made. This is the reason why feminists refer to men as “sexual predators”. Just one example of the demonization of male sexuality perpetuated by feminism. Just another mischaracterization in a long line of mischaracterizations.

The posts by men that are more thought out and touch on mens rights or how mens rights relate to this article, aren’t really the popular posts.

Probably because idiot women are too dumb to comprehend them or they’re too much in denial to face them. We all know that women are notorious for being in denial because they have such fragile self-esteem. That’s why we need fat cows on Dove billboard ads touting how cool it is to be large and in charge. Women will protect their self-esteem AT ALL COSTS, sacrificing the truth in the process.

And just like an idiot woman, she remains oblivious to the attitudes and insulting behaviors of her fellow females. Instead of lecturing and scolding them for shirking their responsibility to address others with respect, she faults the men for DARING TO RESPOND in a similarly disrespectful manner. If anything, there are many pussified men on here who show way too much respect to these idiot women by faithfully taking the time to reason with these dumb biitches by posting examples, forming prodigiously coherent arguments, citing research, etc. Such men are not even aware of their rivals inherent contempt, falsely assuming that common sense will reach their childish minds, not realizing that without firstly being respected, they can never garner credibility or effectively educate the oblivious.

Well that’s just a truism of all message board “flame wars.” If you write a really thorough, insightful, constructive, reasonable post, the people who agree with you won’t feel they need to add anything, so most of them won’t respond, unless it’s to say “great post!” or something like that. The people who disagree with you won’t find it such an easy target or sincerely won’t have much to criticize, so they’ll mostly avoid it, unless it’s just to throw out some asinine trollish insults.

Again, this dumb biitch is assuming that her posts are coherent. And she has already used a typical female tactic in demonizing the enemy before it has even had a chance to give a response. It would be akin to saying, “I’m right and anyone who responds is wrong or just jealous.” This is infantile reasoning at its finest. Welcome to the female brain.

feminism is the thing that’s forcing men in general to have to rally against the feminist system

But men in general aren’t rallying against the system. Your movement so far is very much on the fringe.

Men are against the system you dumb biitch. You’re just too stupid to effectively or coherently characterize a man’s position because you’re an idiot woman who isn’t conditioned or designed to think logically or coherently. If i say I’m going left, an idiot women like you would think, “he’s going to my house because everybody loves me so he must be headed in my direction because my fragile self esteem is at stake and everything hinges on how i feel. weeeeee!”

You dumb biitch, stop trying to read things into our words that aren’t there. Yeah we know your self-esteem is at the top of your agenda. But reason and common sense are at the top of a man’s agenda. This isn’t a male cause, you complete IDIOT. This is a functional cause that REQUIRES a male to institute and effectively carry out. When males are treated fairly under the law, then we’ll have a FUNCTIONAL society. To mischaraterize the desire for justice as a “male agenda” is something typical of idiot women who don’t realize that our welfare directly affects their own welfare. Just as healthy adults do a better job of taking caring of their children than unhealthy adults, men who are treated fairly tend to treat women fairly. Idiot women just don’t realize these because they’re too dumb to comprehend the overall scope of the problem. Just like children require adults to see to their future, women require men to care for their long term perspectives.

09-03-2006 09:53 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

(IshWishDish’s idiocy continues)

Compared to feminists mra’s are the underdogs in terms of funding, influence, political alliances and status as a group in society

Then go out and get some funding. Feminist and feminist-friendly nonprofits – like all nonprofits – work very hard to raise their funding from businesses and private contributors. Are you under the impression that Planned Parenthood or NOW are recieving big chunks of government money? What’s more, many people contribute to feminist organizations not because of a personal sympathy with feminist ideals as much as an appreciation of the good work those organizations have done to better the lives of people. And they benefit people other than themselves (children, battered women – most of whom are not feminist – and the impoverished). Feminist organizations today are also, true to their abolitionist roots, increasingly focused on allying themselves with other causes such as equal rights, human rights, gay and lesbian groups, literacy programs, and many others. Are MRA organizations also making an effort to be a part of the entire community, or are they just focusing on their own interests?

Again, this is typical feminist idiocy masquarading as philanthropy. IF women really cared about other oppressed groups, they wouldn’t be busy hating men and trying to oppress them through shaming their necessities (sex) or mischaraterizing their behaviors (“blah blah blah, you’re controlling and abusive” –translation: you’re not giving me my way and you’re trying to make me do things that will benefit my welfare in the long run but aren’t necessarily pleasing me this very second. wah! no i won’t eat my vegetables! waaaahhh!) You can’t help people if you can’t empathize with them or their problems. And you can’t help people if you’re entrenched and blinded by your own problems. Idiot women are seeking to take the functional rule of men in leading the masses. That’s like having a cat for president. You have to be competent in order to lead people.

Here’s a clue that you’re too stupid to lead people: if you have to go to the bathroom in groups in order to feel secure or because you’re too insecure to go pee pee by yourself, you’re NOT qualified to lead people. This disqualifies women right off the bat.

Politically, feminism does have more clout than MRA, because it’s more established. Thirty years ago, how much political clout did feminism have? Things happen slowly in politics. as for influence and social status, the majority of Americans are either oblivious to or varying degrees of annoyed and scornful about contemporary feminism. The same is true of MRA.

Wrong. This dumb biitch is assuming that men and women think alike. You dumb biitch, men are SUPERIOR to women in the mental arena as proven time and time again. To mischaracterize men’s desire for justice and put it on the same level as feminist idiocy/hypocrisy is just plain comical. Women are too short-sighted to understand how they collectively shot themselves in the foot by pussifying men into following their childish have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too dogma.

As for the minority who do feel an allegiance to one cause or another, feminists have more clout because more people agree it deserves support.

Wrong again idiot. Feminism feels its “deserving” because it’s an elitist attitude that allows fat fugly women to feel special. And the feminist doctrine rests on the fragile self-esteem of women. Women will do anything to make themselves feel better at the cost of the truth. This is why dumb biitch inflate their boobs, lips, sand paper their faces, tan indoors, paint themselves like indians on the warpath, etc. And they want a man who’s “honest”?..hahahahaha nice! How about you learn how to present yourselves honestly before you require honesty of others.

Hopefully if the men’s movement is *allowed* to spread awareness by our femi governments and femi media…

If you truly believe the truth is being supressed, don’t just whine about not being “allowed” to speak out. Do what feminists did and get out there and force the world to hear what you have to say. Like feminists did, you’ll get a lot of hate and fury directed at you for it, but if you keep it up, and if your words ring true to enough people as the feminists’ words did, you’ll gain ground and accumulate some clout.

They didn’t ring true. They rang LOUD. Just like loud naggy biitches don’t make arguments with common sense or reason. They make them with emotion and sex. Men were raised as PUSSSIES. Men adopted pussified attitudes from their mothers and teachers. These men got into power and perpetuated the feminist agenda which has infected our legal system today.

It’s not because their words rang true. It’s because men have a legal gun put to their head.

O’rly?
http://news.mensactivism.org/node/5776#comment-506
(start at the begining of this comment thread and see mine and others reaction to “Bert”)
Also.
http://www.glennsacks.com/confronting_women_bashing.htm

I looked at your links. The second one was terrific. I’m encouraged to see there’s a relatively high-profile voice of reason among MRA. I wish I saw this attitude more than in fleeting glimpses among the “rank and file.” I’ll definitely be looking at Glenn Sacks in the future, so thanks.

The first one did showcase some signs of intolerance toward bigotry among some of the MRAs on that board, yourself included. Other than a couple of notable exceptions, though, most of the criticism of “Bert” seemed to focus not on “that kind of hate and hostility is not what this movement is about,” but on “stop it; you’re making us look bad and giving the feminazis what they want.” In fact, there seemed to be as many people supporting his attitude as there were outright condemning it. And the attitude toward a female MRA introducing herself to the discussion was basically “welcome aboard! now prove to us you’re not a feminazi spy, and prostrate yourself in contrition for the evils of your sex, and maybe we’ll believe you’re really one of the rare “good” women.”

Here’s another link:
http://creativedestruction.wordpress.com/2006/08/15/more-boy-crisis-the-connecticut-mastery-test/#comments
The more respectable MRAs here have said many times that MRA is not about hating or oppressing women, and that feminism is about hating and oppressing men. I urge everyone to go look at the first link posted by Hujo (which, as he recommended it to show the sincerity of MRA non-misogyny, I think we can assume is by no means on the “low” end of civility within the movement) and to also go look at the discussion forums in the link I’ve provided above (which I just found the other day while surfing/looking for some info. You won’t find me posting on there, because I’m not a member). Now the point of this exercize is not to see if you agree or disagree with each side’s take on the issues; you’ve probably already done that. The point is to observe the way the members of these groups talk about and talk to the other gender. If you want to be thorough, which is always good, don’t limit it to those two links; look at other discussion forums among both MRA groups and feminist groups. Unless everyone just totally hides from this challenge, people will probably respond by posting some quotes they cherry-picked on the “opposition’s” discussion groups that exemplify what they want you to believe makes up the bulk of that group’s discourse. Don’t waste time doing that or reading it. Do your own “homework.”  Look at what real people are actually out there saying, and decide for yourself which movement’s members are really the most hostile toward the opposition and the opposite sex.

Also, neither of the links you provided, Hujo, are from this forum. And since you posted them rather than show any part of this discussion where MRAs have rebuked the misogynists in their midst, nor did you actually do it yourself in this forum, my point remains.

Let me guess, this dumb biitch is going to take her own words to heart and debunk the feminazis in here, starting with herself? Yeah that’ll happen along with her facial hair receding. Don’t hold your breath

And in the interest of fairness, I’ll agree that as usual, you’ve had some other worthwhile things to say in this post; I’m just not responding to those things directly at this time, because they’re all points that have been made by you and others and responded to here by me and others already.

In the “interest of fairness”, I’ll say that you’ve responded like the typical dumb biitch I expected you to be. Congratulations!

Message Edited by tellafriend on 09-03-2006 10:14 PM

09-03-2006 09:55 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

Well, Happy_Bullet, your post was all paranoid babble, not to mention wildly hypocritical and devoid of substance, so I’m not bothering to respond to it in depth.

Woo.. can anyone say ad hominem shame tactics? Thanks for confirming the sterotype of feminists as unable to logically argue points, rather attempting to shut down arguments with ad hominem attacks. You also tried a classic one, an attempt to manipulate men by saying “ooh I’m scared” and “you guys are nice, help me with these other guys that don’t like me.” There’s your lack of independence and victim mentality.

Before asking why no knights in shining armor are coming to your aid, have a look at why you aren’t doing the same for them in relation to your radical feminist mistresses. Maybe also have a look at how your movement has resulted in men who “rescue women” being “rewarded” for it and you’ll see very little incentive and fairly major disincentive.

A summary of my post was that I’m not going to be taking your word for it, you’re going to have to put your money where your mouth is. That obviously made you upset. You have STATED you are completely comfortable with a group of people with an us vs them mentality and who have instituted the enormous entitlements grab that is feminism. You say you’re not with that, but your actions and some contradicting statements you have made (ie. “they’ve done great things”) show otherwise. So I called you a liar, it’s not an “unprovoked personal attack”. You lied. Understand?

You’re going to have to excuse me for not trusting a supporter of women who have put policy in place who “says” she wants to move in a different direction. You’ll get this a lot. Men now know they do well to judge by actions rather than words.

You speak of feminism as a movement which uses claims of a desire for equality to cover a core of rank despicable hatred, when clearly you yourself are guilty of that same offense.

Excuse me for not respecting a supporter of a hate movement that has seen people widely marginalised, abused, driven to poverty, turned into slaves and jailed unfairly. What did you expect? Because you “say” you’re different now, I’d be all forgiving?

You seem to have trouble with being responded to in kind. I’ve seen you make ad hominem attacks on other people on here, then when confronted with it saying things like “well saying I’m making an ad hominem attack is an ad hominem attack so you’re a hypocrite”. Sure I “hate” feminism, feminism is breeding a generation of men and women that hate it. The big difference between feminists and anti- feminists is that anti-feminists only hate feminist women, feminists hate all men. Note the causality.

The fact is, feminism is basically a goner. People have cottoned on that all feminism really is, is a “lobby” that demands as many “rights” (read: privileges) as it can get it’s hands on. There is no parallel men’s lobby. Thus things will never be “equal” until that happens. You feigned interest, but uh oh, what we are proposing really WILL bring about equality and you’ll have to work for your “entitlements” like everyone else. You don’t like that do you?

Feminism was sold to men (and women) as being all about equality and lovey-dovey “we’ll all be happier” stuff. Well that hasn’t happened. It is obvious. That is why certain people in your movement are saying things like “okay well maybe it’s got a bit out of hand, but… now we really *are* about equality.”

Umm yeah right. I guess we won’t need to take action ourselves then.

This is why feminism needs to be OPPOSED, rather than negotiated with.

I’m happy to work with women towards gender egalitarianism, but I am not prepared to work with liars who will just use “equality” as a means to manipulate people. Men interested in working with women on this issue should be watchful for this occuring, particularly from recanting feminists who know their movement is in trouble. More and more people are cottoning on to the rather simple manipulation tactics used.

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

I’m going to be initiating another thread with your “reason” for not liking the Noer article, because it is more proof feminists don’t have equality in mind. Let’s face it, the reason you can’t respond to what I say about it is because I’m right.

p.s.

The reason you’re scared is because your movement has managed to get men treated so badly that we are now going completely against our instincts to oppose you. That’s not happened *ever* in the history of our species and you instinctively sense you need our cooperation. Smarter women will be way ahead of you and reject feminism for it’s hate and the hate it causes.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-04-2006 05:29 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-03-2006 10:03 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
BTW I just spent the last 15 minutes laughing my balls off at Tellafriend’s responses to your posts.

What you truly deserve is an opposing Men’s lobby with Tellafriend as the head to oppose you and veto all your crap initiatives and .. on here it looks like you’ve got it!!

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-03-2006 11:18 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
IshWishDish wrote: …Even though you did just copy-and-paste the whole thing…

From where, pray tell – and how would you know anyway?

I typed it all in.
It’s come in handy over the years.

I was hoping to essentially hit the Reset button on the thread because things were getting terribly bogged down in tedious trivial matters IMO, but I see that was a ridiculous fantasy.

Alfie Kohn has his own website, w/lots to read: http://www.AlfieKohn.org

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-04-2006 02:02 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Martian, you misunderstood me. I wasn’t criticizing you for cut/pasting rather than typing. I was expressing regret that you didn’t include any of your own thoughts/responses/etc. to the passage you quoted. I wanted to know what you, the one who posted it, thought of it.

Believe me, I’m all for a bit of a reset. And for the record, from this moment on, I for one will not be responding to posts that are:

1) extremely hostile in tone; There’s no call for it in an adult conversation…

as well as…

2) lacking in any contribution to the dialogue; I’m really only interested in conversation that actually enlightens.

At rjmck’s request, I’ve agreed to stop responding to trolls, so it seems sensible within the spirit of that not to take part in the increasingly long winded flame-war that’s going on in this thread (and which includes the poster primarily in question – Happy_Bullet – egging on the very troll we’ve been asked to ignore). The only remotely relevant topics these posts have even referred to are all stuff that’s already been gone over time and time again, and while they may still need addressing, “are-too-am-not” isn’t a constructive way to do it in the least. Mostly the poster is just getting increasingly frenzied in his efforts to insult me as an individual. The only response really possible to these posts would be a defense of myself, since that’s the only thing those posts are really about. And I’m not very interested in defending myself here; I’m not here to talk about me. So I’m not responding to those posts, and this is the last time I’m even going to refer to them. If any poster, Happy_Bullet included, brings up a nonpersonal point/claim/argument/question/etc. which has not already been repeatedly said and responded to, then I will of course respond.

So back to the conversation; Martian, I’ll definitely take a look at AlfieKohn.org.  Thanks!

09-04-2006 08:56 AM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Hujo
Contributor
Hujo
Ishwishdish
I am refering to both men and women that are acting childish here, you assume i was standing up for the men only when i was very clearly not, plenty of women here making statments about what “real men” do or about “man children” or about “little boys”. Just as silly and anti-male as the men you are talking about being anti-women.

And you asked me to prove mra’s do distance themselfs from woman haters, i showed you a thread with commenters and a movment leader that does that.

You would ignore the movment as a whole just to justify smearing mra’s as haters using selective commenters on messege boards and not the messege behing the sites or the leaders of the movment?

then you ignore my other points about feminism creating a need for the mm because “the points have been discussed elsewhere”? I know why feminism is stronger, but the point is its now corrupt…..hence the need for the MRA’s

I love women, I just think feminism is creating to many negitives to go unchallenged.

Is someone only interested in smearing mra’s?

Message Edited by Hujo on 09-04-2006 09:38 AM

Message Edited by Hujo on 09-04-2006 09:48 AM

09-04-2006 09:33 AM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – A question for the anti-feminists

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Mamonaku
Regular Contributor
Mamonaku
Ishwish said,

(The MRA population)”primarily is divorced fathers and out-of-wedlock fathers trying to avoid paying child-support and “angry white males” longing for the return of the “good ol’ days.” That doesn’t make the legitimate iniquities they point out any less worthy of a movement’s attention, but I strongly doubt that this movement is the one to do it.”

Whats Up Wish??

Just so you know, MRAs are the more organized part of our team. I’m happy to say that all the races of MEN are well aware of these kinds of issues.

Tired Black Man, is the unoffical MRA site that focuses on black men specifically.

Check out this site. It has a very interesting movie clip that you might want to see.

http://www.castlestudio.net/tbm/

In addition to the divorced and the out of wedlock types, there are a great many single guys who vist MRA/Anti-Feminist type sites. Eternal Bachelor is one of my personal favs:

http://eternalbachelor.blogspot.com/

The fact is that a lot of young guys like myself know what’s going down… they are just very good at lying to get them some Sugar, if you know what I mean!

Guys are fed up Ma’am. More and more Men are unplugging from the Fematrix everyday.

Scary.

Message Edited by Mamonaku on 09-04-2006 12:43 PM

09-04-2006 12:42 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Hujo
Contributor
Hujo
Ishwish said,

(The MRA population)”primarily is divorced fathers and out-of-wedlock fathers trying to avoid paying child-support and “angry white males” longing for the return of the “good ol’ days.” That doesn’t make the legitimate iniquities they point out any less worthy of a movement’s attention, but I strongly doubt that this movement is the one to do it.”

Holy ignorant bigot! Here ishwishdish is using anti-male stereotypes and popular blind-liberal demagogy to smear the men’s movement! Priceless!

Men are deadbeats; white men are all conservative traditional bigots, that’s what the men’s movement is! She forgot anti-gay, and also we eat babies!

In addition to using the deadbeat father stereotype, feminists like Ish would use the crimes of the elite in a past we had no control over to try and keep young men stagnant and powerless.

Just another illogical staple in feminist rhetoric, young white women feel the past they were not part of gives them entitlement to be misandristic, and ethnocentric towards all white men, they are bigots that feel all white men are privileged and all white men are oppressive, therefore they feel white men young and old should have no cultural voice, Ish feels we should keep our heads bowed forever in shame.

Not my past and not my elite.

Just more examples of how pcism and feminism did nothing but create a new set of double standards and bigotry, no progress, just a reversal of ignorance.

Message Edited by Hujo on 09-04-2006 01:25 PM

09-04-2006 01:24 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

IshWishDish wrote:
BOK BOK BOK BOK.. BOK BOK BOK…BOK BOK…BOOOOK…BOK BOK BOK BOK!

Believe me, I’m all for a bit of a reset. And for the record, from this moment on, I for one will not be responding to posts that are:

1) extremely hostile in tone; There’s no call for it in an adult conversation…

Translation: I’m a dumb biitch who will hypocritically insult the men on here, but when I’m put in my place, I will cry like the good professional victim that I am. The expression, “If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen” doesn’t apply to me because cooking is the devil’s work. And I might break a nail doing it.

as well as…

2) lacking in any contribution to the dialogue; I’m really only interested in conversation that actually enlightens.

Translation: If you don’t speak in confusing hypocritical female language, no light bulbs will get screwed in.

At rjmck’s request, I’ve agreed to stop responding to trolls,

Translation: I’m a dumb biitch who needs another dumb biitch to think for me. I go to the bathroom in a group, so it only makes sense that I rely on someone else to think for me.. Btw, does anyone have a spare tampon they can lend me. I seem to be on permanent heavy flow here.

so it seems sensible within the spirit of that not to take part in the increasingly long winded flame-war that’s going on in this thread (and which includes the poster primarily in question – Happy_Bullet – egging on the very troll we’ve been asked to ignore).

Translation: I’m preparing for Halloween by wearing my southern belle costume. This year I’m planning on enhancing my Moral Indignation theme by putting a mint julep in my right hand and a stern wagging finger in my left. Infidels beware–I’m on the warpath.

Also some crude juvenile vandal has broken into our supply of “I am woman, hear me roar” t-shirts and spraypainted them over with “I Am Indigation, hear me gasp!” Once the offending parties are caught, they will be severely lectured to and glaringly pouted at (possibly in the same lecture.)

The only remotely relevant topics these posts have even referred to are all stuff that’s already been gone over time and time again, and while they may still need addressing, “are-too-am-not” isn’t a constructive way to do it in the least. Mostly the poster is just getting increasingly frenzied in his efforts to insult me as an individual. The only response really possible to these posts would be a defense of myself, since that’s the only thing those posts are really about. And I’m not very interested in defending myself here; I’m not here to talk about me.

Translation: ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME. you. ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME.

So I’m not responding to those posts, and this is the last time I’m even going to refer to them. If any poster, Happy_Bullet included, brings up a nonpersonal point/claim/argument/question/etc. which has not already been repeatedly said and responded to, then I will of course respond.

Translation: I will now tilt my nose at an overly dignified 45 degree angle and ignore you beastly men.

…I’m ignoring you…. *stamping foot*… I SAID I’m ignoring you! Pay attention to me *holding breath and crossing arms* … HELLO??? I’M IGNORING YOU!!!! I WILL NOT TALK TO YOU ANYMORE. You have been warned… you are being ignored.

Hey, I’m morally superior because I’m still ignoring you. Okay really for reals this time. No I mean for REALSY REALS. Okay like after this sentence then I will ignore you FOREVER. And then you and your little dog, Toto, will be sorry! Okay ready on the count of 3, I will really start ignoring you.. okay ready.. 1….2…3….okay i’m now OFFICIALLY ignoring you! Okay is everyone paying attention to me yet because I’m about to be morally indignant and ignore someone right now. That’s right I will no longer be addressing this person. They will completely lose the benefit of my staggering intellect. BECAUSE I’M IGNORING THEM!!!!! Okay, now you’re pushing it buster. Do you want me to super dooper ignore you? Cuz I will! I am NOT bluffing. I WILL ignore you and you WILL be sorry! Did you hear me?.. you better be paying attention to me because I said I’m going to ignore you.

And I MEAN IT! *cute pouty face* (well.. as cute a pouty face as a haggardly  50 yr. old woman with excess facial hair can muster)

So back to the conversation; Martian, I’ll definitely take a look at AlfieKohn.org.  Thanks!

Translation: Like TOTALLY!

Ahhhhhhhhh so refreshing to have a dumb biitch lecture men on the social etiquette of proper debating tactics and style. This entire debate is almost color coordinated with my sock drawer now.

09-04-2006 03:22 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

(The MRA population)”primarily is divorced fathers and out-of-wedlock fathers trying to avoid paying child-support and “angry white males” longing for the return of the “good ol’ days.” That doesn’t make the legitimate iniquities they point out any less worthy of a movement’s attention, but I strongly doubt that this movement is the one to do it.”

Regarding the responses to this, my quote as it appears above leaves off a pretty key part of my original quote: the part where I stated that this is the perception which I’m getting from observing MRA. Also, I never once said all MRAs are like this, and I’ve certainly never said all white males or all males are anything. I have in fact said most men don’t seem to share MRAs resentments.

And even as you framed it, my quote hardly compares to a great many statements made by most of you about feminists.

Now can we please stop arguing feminists vs. MRAs and get back to the original topic of this thread: what should change in the present legal and cultural systems to decrease gender bias and make life better for men and women who don’t give a flying fig about feminists or MRAs? Anyone who feels we’ve already said all there is to say about that should probably move on to other threads. If we as self-identifying members of our respective movements cannot sustain a conversation about the goals of those movements without rapidly lapsing into “my team vs. your team” attacks and defenses of only the movements themselves, we should step aside and stop getting in the way of the real activists.

Mamonaku, I’ll check out your links.

09-04-2006 05:37 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
IshWishDish
Regular Contributor
IshWishDish

Is someone only interested in smearing mra’s?

Well, now that you’re asking… I’m sure someone is, but that someone wouldn’t be me.

I did see this post before you edited it, and let me just say your choice of edit shows class and maturity.

09-04-2006 05:48 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Hujo
Contributor
Hujo
“What should change in the present legal and cultural systems to decrease gender bias and make life better for men and women who don’t give a flying fig about feminists or MRAs?”

The end of feminism? The start of something fair?

C’mon ish, to say mra are all deadbeat dads and angry white men? What does race have to do with anything, when you yourself say that “I can see valid issues for MEN” you are only choosing to see a few people in order to judge the whole movement as sexist, a movement that scares you because as a feminist it means admitting your wrong.

All I see you doing, when you are not ignoring points that expose feminisms corruption, is ignoring the positives being shown to you about the MM. You’re taking the silliness that’s gone on, on this board, as being a representative of what mra’s are about. You do have conservatives in the movement that have opinions about women I don’t share, but the idea’s and goals behind the movement, those presented by the main organizations and sites, are very egalitarian and liberal, when ya know, you actually check out the movement and read a bit about it. Go to the mra sites listed in this thread there are no “barefoot and pregnant” forums, no “women out of the work place” forums, because it is a movement for men’s equality and men’s rights, not a movement interested in forcing women into traditional roles, there are indeed forums detailing feminisms negatives, forums rallying against the medias lace curtain. However your main point of contention about mra’s seems to be a few guys being jerks on Forbes message boards? This is what you use to brand the men’s movement as misogynist?

Our anti-feminist examples run along the lines media control, biased legal systems, corrupt feminist government agencies, marriage being an observable study-able losing investment for men financially and emotionally, and how feminists would deem an article for men like this sexist, and how that abuse of femi-power harms men by leaving them in the dark.

C’mon.

Mra’s are only a counter to feminisms corruption as well as a challenge to males traditional roles, this means we will be questioning events in our life like marriage without the pc conditioning or the out dated chivalry mindset that has been holding us back all this time.

And didn’t you feminists want us to step out of our “ridged patriarchal molds” in the first place? But that’s only when it benefits you, or makes women look good…right.

09-04-2006 06:46 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

IshWishDish wrote:

Now can we please stop arguing feminists vs. MRAs and get back to the original topic of this thread: what should change in the present legal and cultural systems to decrease gender bias and make life better for men and women who don’t give a flying fig about feminists or MRAs? Anyone who feels we’ve already said all there is to say about that should probably move on to other threads. If we as self-identifying members of our respective movements cannot sustain a conversation about the goals of those movements without rapidly lapsing into “my team vs. your team” attacks and defenses of only the movements themselves, we should step aside and stop getting in the way of the real activists.

What this stupid biitch is really trying to say is that she’s angry that all the men posting reasonable replies are making her look stupid by refuting her ridiculous attempts at being coherent.

But if we REALLY want to cut to the chase, I can translate this dumb biitch into English in two words and 41 punctuation marks:

“YOU’RE MEAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

09-04-2006 08:00 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet
I’m going to save this thread and refer to it from time to time as the epitome of feminist manipulativeless.

IshWishDish, you have mostly, in this thread, attempted to put men on this board into two different categories and set them against one another. This includes using classic, “damsel in distress” appeals, giving approval to certain groups of men in an attempt to pit them against other groups to whom you give disapproval (going so far as to make a list), blatant lying about your lack of support for “second-wave feminism” (frankly if third wave feminists are like you, then the only difference between them and second-wave feminists is that they sometimes “say” they don’t support radical policy.. LOL) and worst of all “pacing and leading”, agreeing with some comments, only to interject your own radical feminist viewpoints into the mix later.

This has proven to serve as a stark reminder of what happens when you let a feminist into politics. They’ll start out with equality, as first-wave feminists did, men will allow them to have some influence as a result, then they start interjecting “oh but what about the poor wikkle womyn” comments, and before you know it they have massive superiority and entitlement complexes and the whole thing is blatantly skewed.

This has shown me that if there is to be a men’s lobby, it is to be populated by MEN or at the very least accompanied by women who completely reject feminism or guess what, with manipulative women like you around, it will end up a FEMINIST LOBBY.

Other than that, the only way to have a truly gender egalitarian movement is if a requirement is that participants are already married.

The last thing the men’s movement needs is “help” from feminists that refuse to acknowledge the error of their ways. I find it amusing that you seem to think we care about your approval, attempts to get us to compete for it, or claims that you are scwwaared. IT’S NOT LIKE WE’RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT GARBAGE. Get used to men having woken up.

It’s funny how feminists can be completely blind to the amount of people that hate their guts and never say anything because they don’t want some enormous histrionic argument on their hands. You probably see men on the street and you say hi to each other because the guy is being polite and think he is in love with you because of what a strong independent womyn you are. Meanwhile they truly despise you. I’d hazard a guess that even other women despise you because they find you a little “overbearing”. You would be, of course, completely oblivious.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-05-2006 04:14 AM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-04-2006 10:37 PM

Re: A question for the anti-feminists
tellafriend
Regular Contributor
tellafriend

Happy_Bullet wrote:
I’m going to save this thread and refer to it from time to time as the epitome of feminist manipulativeless.

IshWishDish has mostly, in this thread, attempted to put men on this board into two different categories and set them against one another. This includes using classic, “damsel in distress” appeals, giving approval to certain groups of men in an attempt to pit them against other groups to whom she gives disapproval, blatant lying about her lack of support for “second-wave feminism” (frankly if third wave feminist are like her, then the only difference between her and second-wave feminists is that they sometimes “say” they don’t support radical policy.. LOL) and worst of all “pacing and leading”, agreeing with some comments, only to interject her own radical feminist viewpoints into the mix later.

This serves as a stark reminder of what happens when you let a feminist into politics. They’ll start out with equality, as first-wave feminists did, men will allow them to have some influence as a result, then they start interjecting “oh but what about the poor wikkle womyn” comments, and before you know it they have massive superiority and entitlement complexes and the whole thing is blatantly skewed.

If there is to be a men’s lobby, it is to be populated by MEN or at the very least accompanied by women who completely reject feminism or guess what, with manipulative women like IshWishDish around, it will end up a FEMINIST LOBBY.

Other than that, the only way to have a truly gender egalitarian movement is if a requirement is that participants are already married.

The last thing the men’s movement needs is “help” from feminists that refuse to acknowledge the error of their ways. I find it amusing that she seems to think we care about her approval, attempts to get us to compete for it, or claims that she is scwwaared though. IT’S NOT LIKE WE’RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT GARBAGE.

It’s funny how feminists can be completely blind to the amount of people that hate their guts and never say anything because they don’t want some enormous histrionic argument on their hands. She probably sees men on the street and they say hi to each other because the guy is being polite and she thinks he is in love with her because of what a strong independent womyn she is. Meanwhile they truly despise her. I’d hazard a guess that even other women despise her because they find her a little “overbearing”. She would be, of course, completely oblivious.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-04-2006 10:41 PM

If you’re trying to imply that she’s a Dumb Biitch ™, then you’re being a little too precise. It almost makes me want to distract myself with a shiny object and change the subject to something more substantial… like … nail polish.

09-04-2006 11:30 PM

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

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: