'My husband reads your site and is angry at me because 'my feminism' caused all these problems for men'
December 27th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesI'm not sure why, but I often get letters from women asking me how to handle issues with their husbands or ex-husbands. In most cases, I do not feel qualified to answer these letters. I am not a mental health professional, and I have no training in these areas. Occasionally, however, there are letters that I feel that I am qualified to answer. The unusual letter below is an example. Hannah, a woman in Texas, recently wrote:
"Dear Glenn,
"I am sure you are extremely busy, but I hope you will have time to read my email. I will try to be brief. When I was in college, I took a course entitled 'Feminism and Philosophy.' It was many years ago so I can't recall what specifically was taught, but since I am an idealist who believes in equal opportunities and rights for all people, I labeled myself as a feminist. I did nothing else to support this cause and I certainly did not advocate discrimination against men.
"Fast forward 18 years to now. My husband has begun reading your website and others and is educating himself on male discrimination. He is extremely angry at me because 'my cause' caused all these problems for men and I 'supported' it. He has been educating me on male discrimination and it is opening my eyes. I no longer wear the label 'feminist' but my personal beliefs and hopes for equality for ALL people have not changed. My problem is that my husband's anger is overwhelming and he refuses to acknowledge that I really can see how men are actively discriminated against. I have read a lot of your site. My question for you is, what do you think I can do to show my husband that I do see many of the problems men are facing, and that I advocate fair treatment for all people male/female/white/black/all religions, etc? Please help!!! Thanks for reading.
"Regards,
Hannah"
My response is below:
Dear Hannah,
I read this letter and almost fell off my chair. If all is as you describe it, I think your husband is being very unfair to you, and feel free to let him know that I said so. A few points:
1) When you were a feminist in college in the 1980s, it was not an unreasonable thing to do. The feminist movement had legitimate grievances, and many college students of that era, including myself, were sympathetic.
2) It is ludicrous to hold someone such as yourself personally responsible for the excesses and problems that feminism has created.
3) Many of the problems men and fathers face today were not created simply by feminism. Some of them were created by chivalrous males and conservatives. Some of them were created by lawyers and government bureaucrats. Some of them were created because the average man is far more likely to be concerned about an injustice or problem that a woman faces than one faced by a man. Some of the injustices happen because men, as a whole, have not done much to defend themselves. Feminists certainly bear part of the blame for the problems that men and fathers face today, but only part.
4) I think that many of the husbands reading this blog would be grateful and thankful to have a wife such as yourself, who has made a real effort to try to understand men's and fathers' issues. It seems to me that you do not need to do anything to "show your husband that I do see many of the problems men are facing." It seems that you already have.
[Late note: Hannah's husband has responded to my response to his wife--see my post Hannah's Husband Fires Back, Calls My Advice to His Wife 'Disturbing and Disappointing'.]
"));
19 queries. 0.521 seconds.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
So true. I have a girl in my politics class. I jokingly call her the angry feminists, because a) she's not angry, ever and b) she doesn't know much about feminist theory or practice.
She's an idealistic type who believes in equality for all, yet is silent when it comes to gender discussions in class. I end up arguing with a few other people in my class, but not her, she has nothing to say. Really, she's just more into the 'image' of feminism, listening to 'riot grrrl' etc. She couldn't name her favourite feminist icon when I asked her, that's what I'm talking about.
I'm sure if she delved deeper into gender politics, she too would cast off the term feminist, as so many idealistic men and women have to, because that's not what feminism means any more. In fact it never really did, but the lack of balance means that they have the ability to self define and twist all gender issues to women-as-victim.
The real problem is not that feminists have created problems for men, because they havn't. The problem is that feminists are the only voices on gender and so can misinform people that only women have, and have had any problems.
In fact, for most men, their gender is doing BETTER today than it ever was. Consider the millions of men who died as peasants and during the industrial revolution. The unions, while not gendering the problem, as they would have done with women, have dealt with it well. The millions of men dying at war are gone, the last world war is history, that part of our history is over. Men never getting to see their kids growing up is mostly a thing of the past, with women in the workplace men finally share that privilege.
The problem is that, especially in the case of men and their kids, the archaic attitudes remain the same, if you consider the lack of knowledge about anti-male legislation, where the female equivalent would be across the headlines.
I agree, one cannot hold one person, or even a group of people responsible for anything. One can onyl argue on principle, about specific points. Hannah, if you read this; try www.ifeminists.com, it sounds like your kind of thing.
And try just showing your husband Glenn agrees with you, and that there are other women's advocates who agree with him. Try Christina Hoff Summers and others like her (sorry my mind is blank atm)
December 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I have heard it said that many men who get chewed up by the family & divorce courts end up "having problems with women". Having been chewed up like this, I am not in the least bit surprised. The bias is clear and strong but denied to the hilt by those that benefit from it. It is human nature to generalize to the larger group and see them as responsible and it takes a positive effort to maintain sight of the falsity of that position and the risk that it poses to efforts to right the wrongs.
Hannah's husband seems to be taking out his outrage on the nearest approximation he can find to what he sees as the oppressive force. This is a shame as he presumably doesn't have the excuse that he's suffered the ministrations of the family courts, although perhaps there are other factors. It would be better if he put his energies into making whatever change he can.
Presumably, he is reading this. In which case my advice to him would be to stop being angry at the person who is, for now, most likely to stand by him and get out there and do something about it. He could write letters, start a grass roots campaign, support any of his male friends who may have suffered wrongly; all these things are positive contributions and better than alienating someone who could perhaps be his closest ally.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I’d like to hear the husband respond to this post. If he really keeps up with the website he will know about this post.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
"Hannah's husband seems to be taking out his outrage on the nearest approximation he can find to what he sees as the oppressive force."
Don't you think that that's what many people here are doing? Although Glenn responded reasonably to Hannah, he rmisses the point. Much, if not most of what is discussed here reflects misdirected anger and comprises woman bashing and outright misogyny. And, when anyone tries to point that out, especially if they are female, they are automatically dismissed as feminazis, gender feminists, or outright manhaters, which in turn fuels even more vitriol and anti-woman "activism" (which also turns into direct personal attacks and threats).
For example, check out what is still going on at a number of other threads here. Some folks are speculating as to my real identity and referring people to the ignorecindyross website put up by SPARC. Rather than actually promoting "shared parenting" and "gender equality", SPARC sponsors a website dedicated to harassment, libel and threats to an individual woman who portrayed not only as a "radical feminist", but a threat to American families and children (!!) And, if you have seen the guestbook at this site (which is administered by Mike Rogers of WA, AKA the Death Psychic), which presently appears to be down, the primary person who used to post there, was none other than James Smith (AKA Sinkiss, Sin, Advocat and other identities) . Sinkiss not only has his own blog dedicated to harassing Ross other women and NAFCJ, but posts here as a poor victimized "Dad", without any mention of his history of arrests for violence, nor of his own deviant sexual behavior (e.g., soliciting men as a sex slave ).
What that says to me -- and many others -- is that most people who post here aren't interested in equal rights for anyone, nor are they even interested in advocating for normal men's rights. They are outright violent and perverted crazies who use sites like this one to justify their own malicious hatred of women and sociopathic and violent tendencies.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
The next “scientific study” funded by VAWA will clearly demonstrate a distinct correlation between men participating in websites like this one and a marked increase in domestic violence.
December 27th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
..many men would love to have a wife that stands behind him..as men now have alot of work to do!!
..What I would say to the husband...refine you're anger.........act, and not react!!
there are really very few feminist's who can be held accounteable for the societal chaos we now find ourselves in the midst of...(there are a few ..."voices" that are more screeching and hysterical than others..but)
.I believe one of the most significant factor's that has led to modern anti-male..Kangaroo courts...
IS EDUCATION.......
..Basic critical thinking 101...is now a quaint scholarly persuit of days gone by!!
..a little bit of critical thinking, and one would start to see the media bias..."lace curtain" for what it is...
men only act and re-act to what they see around them....and if they are constantly exposed to some form of Women as victim..agit-prop of some form or the other...then they will naturally seek to protect who they see as the victim!!
so when we manipulate numbers....whether it's domestic violence statistics,..or hiding the true percentages of false rape accussations...or overlooking fatherless statistics....we create simply a culture ,not acting out of reality...but out of un-truths... and the resulting hysteria..
December 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
...KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.....Go back to college...even as a non-traditional.... adult student
December 27th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
..canarsee..you're assesment of who posts her can be easilly assinged to some of the venomous..hysterically anti-male posters on some of the womyn's sites.
I say let these women spout incorrect misleading agit-prop..all they want....
But also let them be held accounteable to all the men who have been harmed by the anti-male culture they have fomented!!
December 27th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
@Kevin Merck
Joking aside, VAWA was originally intended to include the results of the APA Presidential Task Force on Domestic Violence, which identified use of so-called PAS as violence against women which endangered children. What this means is that since most of the people who tout PAS are men (and second wives) who participate in websites like this, essentially VAWA Section 201 Findings did show the correlation of increase in violence via men connected to MRA and FR groups, and sought to both identiy and stop this systemic problem via inclusion in the VAWA.
Despite all the rhetoric about bias against men, I personally believe that this is the real reason MRAs are against VAWA. Includion of Section 201 Findings would have made it a federal crime to use PAS to hinder prosecution of abuse offenders, while using false allegations of PAS as an excuse to shift blame to women reporting abuse.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
..canarsee..you must be getting a check somewhere...from some feminist pork bureaucracy..
Maybe thats why you are so willfully blind to the matriarchal chaos that has resulted from removeing fathers/men from society!!
December 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Canarsee Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
["Hannah's husband seems to be taking out his outrage on the nearest approximation he can find to what he sees as the oppressive force."]
Why should anyone listen to someone who takes this email as prima-facie proof of abusive behavior without hearing both sides?
Enough of the she-said already. Can’t we at least engage in some good old-fashioned he-said/she-sad, or are we just going to take every woman’s word for the gospel truth from now on.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
My personal experience is that any facts that cast women in a less than flattering light and uttering them aloud are seen as anger against women mostly by women.
It seems likely that the gentleman's anger at his wife is misplaced.
It also seems likely that he may be finding a bunch of things that he has been "manning up and not complaining about" were legitimate concerns and fair complaints. It can take awhile to get right with that change in your world view.
Personally reading Myth of Male Power was a tremendous relief to me, "It isn't just in my head." But I was accused for a couple of months after reading that with being angry at women (only by women though.) It might have been real anger and it might have been my seeing the hypocrisy they were operating under and not letting them get away with it.
December 27th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
A major goal of the Family Rights movement needs to be converting anger to planning and misinformation to information.
Interesting, that was one of the best posts I have ever read from Canarsee. Unfortuneately, she is still focusing on fear-characterizations. It is as if she says without self awareness: "OMG, there are men who are very very angry at the Family Law industry and radical feminists. Therefore, everyone who seeks to end the reign of terror the Family Law industry and radical feminists is really abusive and dangerous."
Well, in a way, the Allies in WWII were dangerous to the Nazi regime. But really, Canarsee just seeks to demonize/ignore the real victims here: the real and good fathers, and the children who might be top citizens if they could just get the fathering they want so badly.
There are studies galore, there is scientific technique, there is political dogma. But in the end, there should be common sense. Do we really believe the majority of either sex is predispositioned to harm the opposing sex? I submit that anyone that anwers yes to this question is most likely anwering for themselves, and we can take it at that. Thus, Canarsee is saying that she IS a problem, and IS a danger to the male gender. The same can be said for Sinkiss, etc. They need to be marginalized.
Certainly on this site Canarsee is marginalized. On Feminiisting.com, Canarsee seems to be in the majority. I think the schtick at Feministing is selling hate. That is why critique is so poorly received. I always felt that Tom Leykis sold hate. I can't stand listening. I would say that Glenn trys to stay balanced, but in reality ends up selling hate to some degree. It may be unavoidable. I personally want to see that converted to action, not hateful action, but strategic action.
Until such time as the genetics of human pschology no longer rely on both mothering and fathering (dont hold your breath) let us not try to intellectually take apart what evolution has put together. And in the case that special interest groups have destroyed it for a generation, let us take apart the special interest groups damage.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
The main problem I have against the Violence Against Women Act is that the name itself gives the notion that only women need protection against violence. Yes women may be at a greater risk of being victims of violence than men but the very name of this act basically tells male violence victims that they don't matter.
It would seem that Hannah has just run into a problem that men come across very often with dealing with feminists. I personally agree that the scales between men and women are not equal but I diverge from many feminists on two points.
1. Men do not hold all the cards in society (in America at least) against women. There are many things a woman can do that a man simply cannot get away with just as there are many things a man can get away with that a woman would not be able to get away with. In fact I will go as far as to say that neither gender is holding all the cards. The extremists of both sides love to put up the smokescreen that the other side has all the privilege in order to cover their tracks as they secure all the privilege for themselves.
2. In a situation in which a portion of the population is a victim of discrimination , abuse, acts of cruelty, etc. giving them a blank check to do whatever they want is not the way to bring about "equlity". I've been blasted before by women that think just becuase they have been oppressed by men they somehow deserve the right to treat men that same way. That's not equality, that's vengence.
And one more thing. Discriminating against someone based on their gender is sexism no matter which gender is the victim. I nearly laugh with women try to claim that due to men having the historical upper hand (and I do agree they have) when the discrimination is male-against-female its sexism but when its female-against-male it is only prejudice. Notice how in that explanation all of a sudden one form of discrimination is somehow worse than the other? Yes those are the women that want "equality".
December 27th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Kevin Merck wrote:
[Can’t we at least engage in some good old-fashioned he-said/she-said]
I believe it is impossible for a very objective reason. Unfortunately Glenn does not allow me to state that reason for others to consider (and possibly disprove).
December 27th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
BASTA! Says: "Unfortunately Glenn does not allow me to state that reason for others to consider (and possibly disprove)."
Someone reading this might think you’re being censored or something, which isn’t true. You keep writing that the letter is a fake or part of a conspiracy or something, and I told you twice that it is authentic, and to leave it alone. If you want to debate the content, or disagree with my response, feel free, but enough conspiracy theories.
On the larger point, in my response, I wrote “If all is as you describe it,” as is done in any advice column or similar form. If the husband believes his wife didn’t represent his feelings properly, he’s free to write in.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Wow, thank Canarsee,
I never knew that VAWA originally wanted to make it a felony to try to father (by fighting against PAS). Can you or someone please tell me which groups wanted this provision? Perhaps we can have them labeled as an anti-Constitution terrorist organization and toss them in Guantanamo for the gentlemen of Al Qaeda to play with. Ah yes, equality...unisex cells. There doesn't seem to be a need to segregate the groups, does there.....
Ah, oops, having a bit of fun at the expense of the hate mongerers....
Really though, which groups wanted to make it a felony to use PAS in court?
December 27th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Glenn Sacks wrote:
[You keep writing that the letter is a fake or part of a conspiracy or something, and I told you twice that it is authentic]
I know you believe so, but based on my experience with feminist subversion tactics I reserve myself the right to disbelieve even if *you* believe. That said, I *will* take your word if you say you have an independent proof that the hubby exists, and the circumstances are *at worst* misrepresented by Hannah but otherwise roughly factual. I don't even want to see that proof, all I ask for is your word that you have it.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Stephen M Weiss Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
[Wow, thank Canarsee,
I never knew that VAWA originally wanted to make it a felony to try to father (by fighting against PAS). Can you or someone please tell me which groups wanted this provision? Perhaps we can have them labeled as an anti-Constitution terrorist organization and toss them in Guantanamo for the gentlemen of Al Qaeda to play with. Ah yes, equality...unisex cells. There doesn't seem to be a need to segregate the groups, does there.....
Ah, oops, having a bit of fun at the expense of the hate mongerers....]
From what I’ve seen of your contribution to this website you have no room to talk about hate mongers. Your posts are filled with hate and childish rhetoric, in my opinion, of course.
Why not stick to discussing the topic and refrain from childish innuendo?
Doesn’t Glenn ever chastise you for this type of insulting remark?
December 27th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Kevin, Glenn never censors anything on here. Better so in my opinion, there's far to much of that on the feminist blogs.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I, too, will not be so quick to judge or condemn Hannah's husband. In this case, I think that Glenn may be chivalrously reading more into the letter than even Hannah intends, and therefore fails to address Hannah's sincere question when he says, "It seems to me that you do not need to do anything to "show your husband that I do see many of the problems men are facing."" I think Hannah does indeed need to SHOW her husband that she is now sympathetic to his concerns, to SHOW her husband that she understands why he is so angry, and to SHOW that she is his active ally, and no longer the unthinking, silent ally of his enemy. Her question to Glenn shows that she, at least, understands this.
Hannah says, "I labeled myself as a feminist. I did nothing else to support this cause and I certainly did not advocate discrimination against men." "He has been educating me on male discrimination and it is opening my eyes." "what do you think I can do to show my husband that I do see many of the problems men are facing, and that I advocate fair treatment for all people ?"
These comments and the rest of Hannah's letter indicate to me that Hannah is personalizing her husband's "overwhelming" anger to an inappropriate degree -- probably because she, like most loving wives, tends to take personal responsibility for her husband's happiness. Meaning, if he is unhappy or angry, then she feels that she must somehow be responsible. He may be very angry, but it appears that only some of that anger has been directed at her. The rest is directed at the fraud and hatred of the gender feminism which has infected society and systematically disadvantaged men. Unfortunately, Hannah just can't help feeling that all of the anger is funneled at her ("He is mad at feminists. Feminists are women. I am a woman. He must be mad at me.")
As for the anger which Hannah's husband has actually directed at her personally, Hannah as much as admits that it was legitimate, and even necessary to her growth as a human being. Her preconceived, blinkered, fairy-tale notions about feminism blinded her to the fact that men have suffered greatly as a result of its hate-mongering. The quote "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing" applies to Hannah, and to countless other people (women and men) who have done nothing while evil has triumphed with respect to the relative erosion of men's rights and the corresponding increase in misandry. BUT FOR HER HUSBAND'S RIGHTEOUS ANGER, HANNAH WOULD NEVER HAVE "OPENED HER EYES" TO REALITY. She acknowledges that her husband was trying to educate her, not just berate her for her thoughtless tolerance, and thus implicit support, of the evils being perpetrated in the name of feminism and "equality."
Now that Hannah has been shaken up enough by her husband's legitmate expression of anger to open her mind enough to even consider that men face problems of their own, she sees that her husband has, in effect, been begging her to drop her casual allegiance to his enemy and to embrace his concerns as a loving ally. She knows that when she shows her husband that her first allegiance is to him, and that he need not worry about whether he has her support and validation, his anger with her will evaporate, and will be replaced with a sense of delighted gratitude. When she is able to soothe him in this way (which is why she asked for the advice Glenn never gave), she can expect that her relationship will be strengthened, and likely that her husband's overall level of outrage will lessen a bit, and be more positively directed. Even something as simple as sending a letter to the editor in support of men's rights could be enough to show her support for her husband's concerns.
In sum, while no one deserves to be the representative "punching bag" for a despised group, I suggest that Hannah's letter should be taken as evidence that men's anger with feminism and its abuses should NOT be hidden from the women in their lives. When used constructively, anger can be a powerful force as an agent of change in now deep-seated attitudes and prejudices. Unfortunately, good women will continue to do nothing and will thus allow evil to triumph in their name until their men give them sufficient motivation to "open their eyes." It does no good to infantilize women by "protecting" them from the anger of men who have a legitimate grievance, especially with respect to issues where "the personal is political" indeed.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Kevin Merck Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I’d like to hear the husband respond to this post. If he really keeps up with the website he will know about this post.
= = =
Sign of the apocalypse Kevin and I agreeing again! LOL
b
December 27th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
callum Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
[Kevin, Glenn never censors anything on here. Better so in my opinion, there's far to much of that on the feminist blogs.]
I think Glenn does a good job of trying to make sure that the discussion stays focused on the issues.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
menscollegeactivist.org Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
...KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.....Go back to college...even as a non-traditional.... adult student
= = =
We all have things to learn including me but this is a good example of how I can help you hone your arguments more intelligently. I think that you can be great for our cause but need more discipline (again as we all do but lets all help each other out in this respect so we all can be more effective) This is not a slam but a perspective thing for you to help you out before (at a particular age [because I know you said that you are young])
You have been mislead and that is regarding your quote to rhetoric "Knowledge is power"
I will answer after you or others have
Here is another example finish the statement correctly "Practice makes . . . . . . ."
I will finish that later also
b
December 27th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
From Kevin:
I think Glenn does a good job of trying to make sure that the discussion stays focused on the issues.
Yes I believe he does as well. The topic may sway a little off course but it my time here (only a month or so) I've never seen any threads decend into a barrage of constant barrage of childish insults that are passed off as intelligent comment like I've seen on the few feminists sites I've been to. Nor have I ever seen Glenn chasitise (by singling out, deleting posts, or blocking IPs) dissenting posters while letting his pet posters have free reign to sling insults.
Thats why I come here. The worst thing that will happen here if I dissagree with the majority opinion is a debate.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Well said Jay. I'm not sure that I have anything to add. I especially like this line:
Jay: "Unfortunately, good women will continue to do nothing and will thus allow evil to triumph in their name until their men give them sufficient motivation to "open their eyes." It does no good to infantilize women by "protecting" them from the anger of men who have a legitimate grievance, especially with respect to issues where "the personal is political" indeed."
I do think that the husband should be careful not to focus all of his anger on her...however she should also be careful not to be oversensitive. Much of the problem could be in the tone of his arguments. If his usual approach is to attack "you feminists" (reference to her) vs. "feminists" (reference to the feminist mainstream) then his tone is probably suspect. However, if he does simply attack "feminism" for the hypocritical movement it has become, then perhaps she is just being over-sensitive since she herself said that she no longer views herself as a feminist.
I agree with Kevin...it would be great to see the other side here.
It also might be worth while for "Hanna" to comment here so she can connect with the other female MRAs here. Many deal with wives/girlfriends who can easily miss the intentions of the masculinist movement (and instead focus on the strawmen provided by CRoss et al) and seeing how she handles the eyeopening can lend a lot of insight to others.
December 27th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Im going to write a similar letter to feministing i think. My wife is angry at me.....
December 27th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
leta Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Im going to write a similar letter to feministing i think. My wife is angry at me.....
= = =
NICE!
I am taking 1000:1 odds that it never sees the light of day, LOL
b
December 27th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Kevin said of Stephen M Weiss: "From what I’ve seen of your contribution to this website you have no room to talk about hate mongers. Your posts are filled with hate and childish rhetoric, in my opinion, of course.
Huh? What on earth are you on about? You went berserk a bit back when I mentioned the Nazi-Jewish connection. I was not hateful nor childish, it was just trying to figure out why the constitutional protections have failed. Is it my strong point that the main problem is the out of control judiciary which fails to enforce the constitution? You have said the same, so I believe we agree on that.
I really don't get your point. I think the only negative reaction this site causes in me is the relatively high fraction of very angry posts which demonize women. I visited Feministing.com and found they were worse, though demonizing men. Are you saying my concern over the demonization of the opposite sex is hateful? If so, that is convoluted. That is it isn't it? You do hate women, and you hate when I say the family rights movement should not hate women. You feel my implicit scorn for your lack of control over your emotions.
Ok, I am guilty of that. I am scornful of a lot of the hateful posters. Please accept my apologies. Sincerely. Men have every right to feel strong negative emotions regarding these issues.
We are part of a movement to correct some of the damage that a gender war has caused, and for the moment, we are on the same side. I will try harder to be sympathetic to women haters. I was so scared of women for a year after my divorce. They would start to talk about sex with me late at parties, and I would clam up, then just walk away. I just couldn't deal... Anyway,....
December 27th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Canarsee:
"Much, if not most of what is discussed here reflects misdirected anger and comprises woman bashing and outright misogyny."
"What that says to me -- and many others -- is that most people who post here aren't interested in equal rights for anyone, nor are they even interested in advocating for normal men's rights. They are outright violent and perverted crazies who use sites like this one to justify their own malicious hatred of women and sociopathic and violent tendencies."
- First, picture my hand going to my face to stifle a big . . . YAWN!
- Second, I believe the only reason you are here is to cause unrest. Your posts rarely, if ever, contain any cogent remarks or criticisms. You write on a second grade reading level. As I said before, you are a LIGHTWEIGHT. You are a mere rabble rouser.
And then there's this . . .
"Despite all the rhetoric about bias against men, I personally believe that this is the real reason MRAs are against VAWA. Includion of Section 201 Findings would have made it a federal crime to use PAS to hinder prosecution of abuse offenders, while using false allegations of PAS as an excuse to shift blame to women reporting abuse."
- Again, this is just an assertion, not an argument. Actually, it' not even much of an assertion; it's just an opinion.
Canarsee, if you are ANTI-FATHER and ANTI-MALE, why don't you just save your breath in the future and state in a forthright manner what you believe and be done with it? You don't need to quote sections of the VAWA. You don't need to spew feminist agit-prop or ideological backwash. We've all heard it before, from both sides. You are probably not making anyone here very angry. More than likely, all your posts do is make people roll their eyes in boredom.
BTW - I notice that you didn't offer the woman any advice. Actually, you barely acknowledged her existence. You don't really care about this woman's plight at all. As a matter of fact, since she appears on the surface to be somewhat of an equity feminist and a fair minded person, you're probably offended by her. You're probably offended by any letter from a woman that doesn't follow your ideological language guide. That's a sure sign of a person who has let dogma hijack her ability to reason. Poor you.
This is the way you argue:
Canarsee: "You must be an abuser!"
Responder: "I don't appreciate being called names. I think I'm going to opt out of this discussion."
Canarsee" "What are you a wimp!?"
That is what you do. You are like a child who shoves another child, knowing that if the other child shoves back, he or she will get in trouble. If they don't shove back, you call them a wimp. If they do shove back, you cry and run for the teacher. Pretty cowardly.
Here's my question: What's your reason for shoving? Be honest.
____________________________________________________
Danny:
"I nearly laugh with women try to claim that due to men having the historical upper hand (and I do agree they have) when the discrimination is male-against-female its sexism but when its female-against-male it is only prejudice. Notice how in that explanation all of a sudden one form of discrimination is somehow worse than the other? Yes those are the women that want "equality"."
-- I see you understand the language game, my friend. Nice criticism.
BTW - If this woman's letter is an accurate account of what's going on, I think it does a pretty good job of saying what she wants to say. Why not just print it out and hand it to her husband? I get her point in reading it. Additionally, I'm very impressed by the lack of whining and victimization language. She simply puts forth her case, and asks for help. I commend Glenn on his even-handed response as well. Nicely done.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Yes Metalman, you have accurately characterized Canarsee. I asked her before to admit her interest in the PAS thing, and she wouldn't, even when cornered. Well, okay, the 2nd grade reading level is way off. It's probably more like 6th grade from a gifted family, but you weren't far off. For sure, my 12 year old writes slightly better.
So no one knows who was pushing the Felony Fathering in VAWA? I wonder if I can look that up.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Kevin Merck Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Canarsee Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
["Hannah's husband seems to be taking out his outrage on the nearest approximation he can find to what he sees as the oppressive force."]
Why should anyone listen to someone who takes this email as prima-facie proof of abusive behavior without hearing both sides?
BTW
I’m still waiting for a response to this fair question.
December 27th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Kevin, how do you know that there has not been a response? Perhaps one of the posts was her husband. Does the post have to explicitly say it is from her husband?
December 27th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Canarsee Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
"Hannah's husband seems to be taking out his outrage on the nearest approximation he can find to what he sees as the oppressive force."
Don't you think that that's what many people here are doing? Although Glenn responded reasonably to Hannah, he rmisses the point. Much, if not most of what is discussed here reflects misdirected anger and comprises woman bashing and outright misogyny. And, when anyone tries to point that out, especially if they are female, they are automatically dismissed as feminazis, gender feminists, or outright manhaters, which in turn fuels even more vitriol and anti-woman "activism" (which also turns into direct personal attacks and threats).
No I do not. This is on the web. Perhaps there are breaches of etiquette but there is no physical violence and here on line is a more constructive way to deal with anger.
What that says to me -- and many others -- is that most people who post here aren't interested in equal rights for anyone, nor are they even interested in advocating for normal men's rights. They are outright violent and perverted crazies who use sites like this one to justify their own malicious hatred of women and sociopathic and violent tendencies.
Case closed. what you sad above only lowers you to the standards of what you are complaining about, that was not constructive and/or has not done any good.
What is good for the goose . . .
b
December 27th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
3) Many of the problems men and fathers face today were not created simply by feminism. Some of them were created by chivalrous males and conservatives. Some of them were created by lawyers and government bureaucrats. Some of them were created because the average man is far more likely to be concerned about an injustice or problem that a woman faces than one faced by a man. Some of the injustices happen because men, as a whole, have not done much to defend themselves. Feminists certainly bear part of the blame for the problems that men and fathers face today, but only part.
Sounds a little like blaming the victim here Glenn.
Also the woman in question is only fearful because her relationship with the wallet with a penis is now threatened. She's worried he won't want to work 50 -60 hours a week to support her lifestyle anymore.
To a man the Men's Movement is an awakening. To women it is a slave rebellion.
As for the woman in question--your husband has every right to be angry. Anger is a valid emotion which every person has a right to express.
December 27th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Don't feed the trolls. Canarsee=Butch=CRoss - she has never responded to an argument in an intelligent manner without resorting to strawman tactics and misdirection (and changing her name like the spineless individual she is). Don't feed the trolls.
She continues to pontificate about the virtues of her beliefs yet she does not defend those beliefs with fact. She continues to attack anyone that does not agree with her for being a woman-hater without really considering the arguments. She demands evidence but never responds in kind..and she never pulls apart the evidence provided to her without using misdirection. Unlike Melissa and some of the other visitors to this site, she is gutless...don't feed feed her...better yet, just talking about her. Trolls hate that.
December 27th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I see that you are correct Lance.
December 27th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Stephen M Weiss Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
[Kevin, how do you know that there has not been a response? Perhaps one of the posts was her husband. Does the post have to explicitly say it is from her husband?]
I have no idea what you are talking about. Please take a Valium and call me in the morning.
December 27th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Thanks Jay R {post@4:47}for expressing what I have become to incensed to type. I have reason to be EXTREMELY SUSPICIOUS of Feminist interference and believe its a healthy and TIMELY trait, especially as of the last few weeks {I SEE FEMINIST!} Women have voices and power so that their concerns are heard pretty much @ the speed of sound. Let them educate other women (highly useful for MRM & FR's) using the moderate non-angry tone they applaud and ACT on their newly informed concerns. as a Black man, I cannot afford to let my guard down and cue the *We are the World music}. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. I'm happy for the moderates as I previously thought I WAS. But seeing men so willing to bend over AGAIN. Maybe I'm not.
*BUT FOR HER HUSBAND'S RIGHTEOUS ANGER, HANNAH WOULD NEVER HAVE "OPENED HER EYES" TO REALITY*
to borrow from Callums ilk "Stop Blaming the Victim"
December 27th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I apologize:
to borrow from {Canarsees} ilk "Stop Blaming the Victim"
getting confused w/ all the posing nowadays. And I'm done capping :)
December 27th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
"Don't feed the trolls."
You got it, Lance. Understood.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
"2) It is ludicrous to hold someone such as yourself personally responsible for the excesses and problems that feminism has created."
So who does get held accountable ?
Women are the one single sex that it advantaged and now they see the light they deny they were or are accountable..They helped and promoted and paid for it...
Not acceptable.. Damage done.
Too late..
December 27th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Hmm Christian J. Accountability for governmental misconduct has been at issue for ages. At the very least, no one single wife of an angry father has enough power to do much, so holding them accountable serves no purpose.
I personally feel that holding the family law firms, judiciary, and non-profits accountable is worth looking at, but in reality, there is not much chance of a real payback. I can't see the pattern in America of that happening.
The only justice is to make damn sure that fathers, mothers, and family's interests are protected in a balanced non-violent fashion in the future.
December 27th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
"The real problem is not that feminists have created problems for men, because they havn't."
That is the most dishonest statement in the history of the world.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
"In fact, for most men, their gender is doing BETTER today than it ever was."
That's another pathological lie. It appears there's a real inability on the part of that poster to tell the truth.
Men are:
99.999% of American combat deaths and casualties (historically)
http://thewall-usa.com/information.asp
http://thewall-usa.com/women.asp
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm
97%+ since the 1st Gulf War (DOD)
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/female.aspx
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm
"The numbers of wounded women and female amputees, meanwhile, are considerably less than their male counterparts--at least 378 wounded versus 17,490; 11 amputees versus over 400--but they are historic for modern day warfare."
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2755/context/archive
A Pentagon study published in March on the mental health of soldiers returning from deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan found that more than one- third of U.S. soldiers received psychological counseling. A statistic buried in the study: 23.6 percent of women reported a mental health concern compared with 18.6 percent of men.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2755/context/archive
(currently, women are not even required by law to register for selective service, but even retarded or physically disabled men are, in addition to all the healthy ones)
94% of industrial deaths and accident (NIOSH)
(Even though murder is the leading workplace cause of death for women, a statistic often used by gender feminists, that number is only a percentage of the 6% of workplace deaths that women comprise. In other words, "a fraction of a small fraction.")
December 27th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Men are:
76% of homicides DOJ
80% of Suicides CDC
# Suicide took the lives of 30,622 people in 2001 (CDC 2004).
# Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death for all U.S. men (Anderson and Smith 2003).
# 24,672 suicide deaths reported among men in 2001.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/suifacts.htm
24,672 / 30,622 = .8056952
(or in other words, over 80% of all suicide deaths in 2001 were male)
also:
http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec15/ch205/ch205a.html
"Suicide ranks 11th among causes of death in the US, with 30,622 completed suicides in 2001. It is the 3rd leading cause of death among people 15 to 24 yr. Men ≥ 75 yr have the highest rate of death by suicide. Among all age groups, male deaths by suicide outnumber female deaths by 4:1."
http://www.glennsacks.com/distraught_fathers_courthouse.htm
"The other most common suicide victims are divorced and/or estranged fathers like Derrick Miller. In fact, a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother, and three times more likely to commit suicide than a married father. According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major:
"Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children. Most of the men I deal with never saw their divorces coming, and they are often treated very unfairly by the family courts.'"
December 27th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Of the top fifteen leading causes of death by disease, men lead in 12 categories, are tied in two and trail in one. Even though more women die of heart disease each year, men die of heart disease many years earlier.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/finaldeaths03_tables.pdf
93% of the prison population is male with over 60% having no High School education. America has now passed Russia as the country that has the largest percentage of its population incarcerated, yet we still claim to be the freest country on earth.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/
205 (and growing) wrongly convicted people have been exonerated by DNA evidence since the beginning of the Innocence Project.
204 of the wrongly convicted were men.
Most of them had charges of rape against them.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
As we see in the Duke Lacrosse rape case fiasco, false accusers are rarely prosecuted and when they are it is only as a misdemeanor (at most), while rape itself is vigorously prosecuted as a felony.
One attorney speaking at premiere for the movie, After Innocence, estimates that there are between 20,000 and 100,000 wrongly convicted still in prison.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
We hear a lot about the historical oppression of women's voting rights, but few if any women who were born in the 20th century were every without the right to vote in their lifetime, upon reaching legal voting age. On the other hand, around 2400 hundred California men (42% of CA men killed in Vietnam) gave their life for their country without being allowed by their country to vote. The exact number is 2,381. Four of the twelve Iwo Jimo flag raisers died for their country without their country ever allowing them the right to vote.
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/blumhorst/2005/blumhorst052805.htm
http://www.thewall-usa.com/names.asp
"The youngest Vietnam KIA is believed to be Dan Bullock USMC, at 15 years old.
At least 5 men killed in Vietnam were 16 years old.
At least 12 men killed in Vietnam were 17 years old.
There are 120 persons who listed foreign countries as their home of record.
At least 25,000 of those killed were 20 years old or younger.
The oldest man killed was 62 years old."
If you do a full count on all the men in the 20th century who died for their country without being allowed to vote the numbers will be staggering.
In America there are over 270 women's commissions, but only one for men in New Hampshire.
There are over 700 Women's Studies programs on colleges and universities throughout the United States teaching thousands or tens of thousands of classes from the gender feminist perspective, but not one program or class, teaching men's studies from the masculist perspective.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Men are a significant percentage of domestic violence (26% of intimate partner homicides), yet are denied service at most tax payer funded domestic violence shelters. In contrast, women get every veteran's benefit a man does, yet comprise less than 3% of combat deaths or casualties and a woman makes the cover of Time magazine (person of the year/2003 standing in front of two men.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2003/200312225a.jpg
It appears to me American men are routinely treated like 2nd class citizens in their own country. CDC lists male victims of domestic violence at more than 34%, but men injured in Iraq (and all other men) are by law in California excluded from domestic violence shelter services. They would have a lot of trouble getting in a CA shelter if some evening the little misses puts a frying pan to their head. Only one shelter in Lancaster, CA accepts men and it has been extensively harassed for doing so.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Someone online pointed out in a post that some people say breast cancer is a greater concern in women than prostate cancer in men based on reported deaths overall. Are we considering that men today die on average 6 years sooner than women? I read somewhere that around 1920 the death rates were roughly equal. The death rates for prostate and breast cancer are similar, but because men die of other things more frequently-accidents ,war, heart disease etc., there are fewer men left to die of prostate cancer. “This would be akin to saying people from a nation like Zimbabwe are immune to Alzheimer’s- but in fact they die of other things before they can get old enough to contract Alzheimer’s.”
The Socialist/Communist wage gap myth based on the "comparable worth" paradigm:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/04/23/the-gender-feminist-wage-gap-myth-appears-to-be-growing-legs/
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/04/23/gender-feminist-wage-gap-myth-appears-to-be-growing-legs-part-ii/
December 27th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Spending Gap:
http://www.amazon.com/Pocketbook-Power-Hearts-Coveted-Consumer/dp/0071418601/sr=1-1/qid=1167804358/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6478055-3977644?ie=UTF8&s=books
or
http://tinyurl.com/sf342
Pocketbook Power: How to Reach the Hearts and Minds of Today's Most Coveted Consumer - Women
Bernice Kanner
From the Back Cover
Not too long ago, legendary adman David Ogilvy chided his peers for talking down to women. He berated those who ignored women or discounted them, misconstruing men's higher paychecks to mean greater spending clout. And he was right. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, women--who comprise just over 51 percent of the U.S. population, making them the largest consumer segment in the country--control six trillion dollars in buying power annually. Statistics show that:
Women make 88 percent of all U.S. retail purchases. Some experts even predict that, by 2020, women will control most of the money in America.
Women control 88 percent of all purchases.
Women handle 75 percent of family finances. 43 percent of those with assets over $500,000 are women.
One out of every 11 women in America owns a business.
Women influence two out of every three of the 3 trillion dollars spent in the U.S. each year!
Men die on average about 5 years earlier than women, but no compensation is made in the Social Security System's retirement age for this disparity.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
"Glenn never censors anything on here."
Actually, I don't think that's entirely true. Perhaps I just can't find it in all the muck, but Glenn seems to have removed an especially nasty and childish personal attack on me. ;-)
Anyway, I found this just a little while ago and was surprised when I read it...I'm wondering what y'all's take is:
http://www.tmz.com/2007/12/27/b2k-singer-recants-rape-allegations/
BTW, I have my reasons for having used different names, but this is the one I'm going to use here. What I do find interesting, though, is that while you still may have disagreed with me, more folks were at least open to hearing me out -- and responding "normally" -- when they thought I was a man, or they didn't know who I really was than when they just made the assumption that I was a manhating feminist (I'm NOT!). I am still wondering what that's really about...
December 27th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
There will only ever be equality according to feminists when women have it better than men in every measurable category. why?
They consider situations where women have advantage as "equal".
December 27th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
That's not a complete list of male oppressions above. This site has filters and settings that restrict postings. Needless to say, there's a vile, lying, man-hater posting in this string, spewing gender feminist tripe, and there isn't enough space allowed by this site to debunk and refute all the vile misandrist lies she/he/it/they are posting. She/he/it/they/ often sound like they are just mentally regurgitating gender feminist, and/or women's studies brainwashing. It just doesn't get any more foolish than that.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
...a manhating feminist (I'm NOT!).
Sounds like one, quacks like one, walks like one.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Ray Says: "This site has filters and settings that restrict postings."
Posts that have a lot of links in them get caught in the spam blocker. I took the time to fish out about 10 of your posts, but please, no more posts with links tonight.
December 27th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
"...a manhating feminist (I'm NOT!). "
That should have had quotes on it in my post above.
That poster is, in effect, posting in ways that man-hating, gender feminists do, yet denies being one. No wonder people look at gender feminists as psycho members of an insidious, misandrist hate-movement.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Canarsee Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
["Hannah's husband seems to be taking out his outrage on the nearest approximation he can find to what he sees as the oppressive force."]
Why should anyone listen to someone who takes this email as prima-facie proof of abusive behavior without hearing both sides?
I’m still waiting for an answer.
December 28th, 2007 at 12:24 am
if we don't hold feminists accounteable for this climate of anti-male hysteria....then who???
..We can at least hold the non-profit, victim, hysteria ,think tanks; finnacially responseable to the men who have been harmed from false accussations!!
We know that constant exposure to women as victim agit-prop causes a climate of anti-male hysteria...And we can easilly fallow the trail to see where the agit-prop is coming from!!!
December 28th, 2007 at 12:51 am
For future reference GS, would it be easier if Ray were to have provided a single posting with all of the links? I too tend to try to include links with my evidence as much as possible (and I'm trying to do that more now). I would prefer that I don't drive you too crazy! I also wonder about the sophistication of your filter. Since often the same links are rehashed, it would be useful if the software would allow you to designate certain links as "all clear" to automatically clear future postings that include them.
Ray, you wouldn't have a site or something that has all of these do you? While I'm still going through the links, it looks like you have done your homework. It would be nice to have them all in one place.
Incidentally, watch how the Troll again tries to change the subject without herself refuting any of the links or evidence provided by Ray or anyone else who responded to her. This is standard troll fare and it shows that she is not really invested in the conversation and she is merely trying to get everyone's panties in a bunch. With this newest posting, perhaps since the Troll feels that her overtures may be ignored, she decided to cite another "Duke Case" to either try to get on our good side, or she is assuming that we will give the guy a pass because he is a guy (again, betraying her lack of respect for our position since most of us would not do so). It is an interesting study folks. Let's see what she does next (I feel like I am at the zoo or in the Hobbit - I can't decide which!).
December 28th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Also Ray, I have heard that in Amish populations, men and women live to the same age as well. I can't find the reference right now though so take it as such! I'm still looking though so we'll see what I can come up with...
December 28th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Ray Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
(Even though murder is the leading workplace cause of death for women, a statistic often used by gender feminists, that number is only a percentage of the 6% of workplace deaths that women comprise. In other words, "a fraction of a small fraction.")
= = =
Yeah but does that work place death include military service and how would that raise it for men?
b
December 28th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Ray Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Someone online pointed out in a post that some people say breast cancer is a greater concern in women than prostate cancer in men based on reported deaths overall.
= = =
Furthermore because men are not told to go for brest cancer screening and ar not affored the same drugs afforded to women by the same insurance companies many more men proportionally die of brest cancerthan women.
Rod Roddy was just one of the men you might know
b
December 28th, 2007 at 1:21 am
According to the American Cancer Society the percentage of those men and women that die from the cancer are 32.4% and 18.5 percent respectively. That is almost double the number of men proportionally.
b
December 28th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Lance and Ray,
While this is slightly off topic, you mentioned having a common site which contained links to research. I was already thinking that we need a research library for statistics. I visitied the VAWA site, and I found a really great how-to for activism. Yeah, it was for supporting VAWA, but it was well done, and can certainly be used to debunk VAWA and the courts in general. Ah, the double edged sword...
December 28th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Bernie Misiura Says:
December 28th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Ray Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Someone online pointed out in a post that some people say breast cancer is a greater concern in women than prostate cancer in men based on reported deaths overall.
= = =
Again on that about 1 in 8 women 12% will get breast cancer and 1 in 5 men will get prostrate cancer 20% and almost equal mumbers die with prostraite cancer being 41,800 and breast 40,110
b
December 28th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Bernie Misiura Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
menscollegeactivist.org Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
...KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.....Go back to college...even as a non-traditional.... adult student
= = =
We all have things to learn including me but this is a good example of how I can help you hone your arguments more intelligently. I think that you can be great for our cause but need more discipline (again as we all do but lets all help each other out in this respect so we all can be more effective) This is not a slam but a perspective thing for you to help you out before (at a particular age [because I know you said that you are young])
You have been mislead and that is regarding your quote to rhetoric "Knowledge is power"
I will answer after you or others have
Here is another example finish the statement correctly "Practice makes . . . . . . ."
I will finish that later also
b
= = =
Back to this
Knowledge is empowerment (power and control are only an illusion)
Practice makes better
b
December 28th, 2007 at 7:15 am
To Jean Valjean -
Did you know that Zyprexa is an extremely efficacious treatment of paranoid schizophrenia without the risks of tardive dyskinesia?
Seriously, you're getting a little crazy now. I don't hate all men just because one slapped me around. I don't view all men as abusers - so why are you so sure that all women are mercenary? AND (rant building) I happen to be the one who works up to 84 hours per week.
My husband was falsely accused of the most heinous crimes, lost everything he had and you don't see him with all this raw hatred. Could it be that some here are CHOOSING to remain angry because they are afraid of the alternative - namely, deciding to LIVE again?
December 28th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Bernie Misiura Says:"Ray Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
(Even though murder is the leading workplace cause of death for women, a statistic often used by gender feminists, that number is only a percentage of the 6% of workplace deaths that women comprise. In other words, "a fraction of a small fraction.")
= = =
Yeah but does that work place death include military service and how would that raise it for men?
b"
My understanding is that the workplace death toll does not include Military. I think I caught that in "Why Men Earn More" or somewhere amongst this: http://stats.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm#2006
Here is 2006 data: http://stats.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0220.pdf
It seems to be down- 5275 of 5703.
I think counting Military Deaths pushs it upwards of 98% even when there isn't a war going on. Again I think I read that in Farrell's book, "Why Men Earn More" or maybe "Myth of Male Power."
December 28th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Pathologizing the men here isn't going to help the woman there, Rosemarie. And it strikes me as being more than a little projective on your part that you'd rather do the former than the latter.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:07 am
RE: Rosemarie's post
"To Jean Valjean -
Did you know that Zyprexa is an extremely efficacious treatment of paranoid schizophrenia without the risks of tardive dyskinesia?"
-- Pathologizing is something a lot of women do. They pick up the language from the therapeutic industry. It's a tactic to convict someone as crazy while ignoring any valid points they may have (if they have any). This is becoming common in male/female relationships. Since women in general are far more likely to seek talk therapy than men, they become familiar with psychological lingo and utilize it in their relationship conflicts. It's basically a tactic to emotionally blackmail someone into giving you what you want. It's an easy strategy to pick up from watching Dr. Phil, etc. All men should become aware of this tactic and learn how to defend themselves against it. (This is just my opinion, by the way. Women are not the only people who emotionally blackmail. My theory is that most men do not have a strong knowledge of psychological theories or lingo, and are therefore not as equipped to use the technique pf pathologizing as women are. Just a thought.)
"Could it be that some here are CHOOSING to remain angry because they are afraid of the alternative - namely, deciding to LIVE again?"
-- Who said that none of the people who post here have decided to 'live again?' I'd like to see some posts from men here describing how they're living right now. I'm sure Rosemarie would be surprised. Plus, rhetorical questions are usually not that effective in a discussion forum.
-- Additionally, like Canarsee, Rosemarie did not directly address Hannah's issue at all. Isn't that what this post is really about? Like most gender feminists, she is really not concerned with the every day problems of women. She is only concerned with coming here to pathologize men, call people names, make snide, cutesy remarks, and submit half-baked assertions. I haven't been a part of this community long, but it's already starting to get old.
I DARE Rosemarie and Canarsee to do the following:
1) Address Hannah's issue directly and some up with some practical advice for her.
2) Read this entire forum again, find an argument (not an assertion) you disagree with, and respond with your own argument. In your response, you cannot call people names or pathologize. When you use an unsupported opinion or assertion, you must indicate as such. You do not have to use statistics or studies. Your argument does not even have to be that good. All that counts is the effort.
If Rosemarie can put down her DSM-IV for ten minutes and think of something, I'm willing to hear it. If Canarsee is willing to think about what she's saying for more than five seconds, I'm willing to hear that too.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:57 am
In Rosemarie's defense (and I do agree with many of the assertions against her in this particular post - she did come off sounding pretty dismissive with her psycobabble) I have known her to be fairly supportive of men's rights issues and I wouldn't lump her in with the CRoss'es of the world just yet. In fact, her fundamental point is quite valid: we piss and moan about how many feminists generalize....we shouldn't support such activities within our own midst (which is probably why Jean didn't get a lot of comments in support of his statements). On the other hand, she also tends to be a bit more oversensitive - especially compared to many of the other female MRAs that frequent this board - and may take one person's venting to be indicative of a larger problem.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:33 am
@metalman and Lance,
The attack on Rosemarie is the kind of thing that frustrates me about some of the people here. I personally don't have a lot in common with Rosemary either, and in fact we disagree on many issues. However, I am going to come to her defense here. I I think that Metalman is really off base in attacking Rosemary and I believe he is only doing it because she is a woman.
I believe Lance is correct that Rosemarie is generally very supportive of the men here. I also think the post that metalman finds offensive was actually directed at the post that Glenn took down, which people like metalman may not have seen. (It was a nasty and inappropriate comment directed at me, to the effect that I must be ugly and fat and expressing glee that I was going to live longer than a man because I would be so lonely and bitter in my long life.)
P.S. to metalman: While you may be here to argue, I am here to "assert", as are most other people, both male and female. Perhaps you should stop being so argumentative and just pick up your dictionary. Assert: 1. To declare; affirm 2. To maintain or defend (rights, etc.) -- Assert oneself : to insist on one's rights, or on being recognized.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:51 am
I asked Canarsee if she would address Hannah's post directly or come up with any suggestions for her. She has not done so yet.
- Anything?
-- Hannah, if you're reading this, I'm just trying to get the women here to give you some support.
__________________________________________________________________________________
December 28th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
@metalman:
To my knowledge, Hannah has not posted here, nor has she asked me for my suggestions. Her letter, which apparently was sent directly to Glenn and he posted here, specifically asked for Glenn's help. And while I think that you are being disingenous about telling Hannah that you are trying to het her support from women, I don't think that is even what SHE is asking for.
In re-reading her letter, I think she mostly is asking Glenn to convince her husband that she isn't the type of malicious, nasty, vindictive manhating bitch that people here identify as "feminists". I'm not quite sure that Glenn can actually do that, especially since he doesn't know either of these people personally. I also think that Hannah is asking Glenn to take a stronger stand against woman-bashing and blaming. I don't think Glenn is willing (or able) to exactly do that either, because there isn't really that clear line between anti-feminist and anti-woman sentiment.
However, in re-reading what I just wrote so far, I realized that I actually do have a suggestion for Hannah: She should ask her husband to stop reading this blog and to start talking to her about what is bothering him. And if he can't do that, perhaps she should convince him to take a kick-boxing class. Better yet, she should take a class with him. It's quite therapeutic and they can both get out their anger and frustration by imagining they are beating the tar out of whomever they like while they are sparring or using a punching bag.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
metalman Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
"Don't feed the trolls."
You got it, Lance. Understood.
Funny how the “trolls” answer the people who accuse them of being trolls.
No intent to imply anything here, just an observation.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I have a better idea for Hannah. She can go out in the real world, speak up when she encounters misandry, and deal with the consequences of speaking up (ostracisation, damage to reputation at work, possible loss of job and definitely at least one staff member targeting her for her beliefs). She can try and live by the same standards she holds her husband to (she can get his advice on how she would expect him (or frankly society would expect him) to behave, then act in that manner.
In short, she can try walking a mile in his shoes. To be fair, he should "walk a mile in hers" too.
I'd like to hear her letter to Glenn after doing that. And his for that matter.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Canarsee, you're free to assert whatever you want. Me, I'm free to attach absolutely no value or signifigance to your posts. I can view them as the blog equivalent of a flyer in the newspaper.
And that's exactly what I do. Like Metalman said, you're a lightweight, and not addressing anything that anyone ever says proves you're a waste of time too. I'm just sayin'.
December 28th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I thank Canarsee for her reply. You see? If you give someone a clearly defined, concrete task, you usually get an answer. I don't necessartily agree with the answers, but at least they're concrete. The last pararaph of the reply even sounds halfway sane. And it only took two requests!
The second paragraph, as we can see, is more of the usual all women are victims, all men who disagree with me are bashers , all people who question feminism are woman-haters, blah blah blah. It's basically just filler, like the two or three throw-away songs on an album.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Ray,
Thanks for the information!!
December 28th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Lewis Says:
December 28th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Bernie Misiura Says:"Ray Says:
December 27th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
(Even though murder is the leading workplace cause of death for women, a statistic often used by gender feminists, that number is only a percentage of the 6% of workplace deaths that women comprise. In other words, "a fraction of a small fraction.")
= = =
Yeah but does that work place death include military service and how would that raise it for men?
b"
My understanding is that the workplace death toll does not include Military. I think I caught that in "Why Men Earn More" or somewhere amongst this: http://stats.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm#2006
Here is 2006 data: http://stats.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0220.pdf
It seems to be down- 5275 of 5703.
I think counting Military Deaths pushs it upwards of 98% even when there isn't a war going on. Again I think I read that in Farrell's book, "Why Men Earn More" or maybe "Myth of Male Power."
= = =
Thanks that is important for others to know. I am sure you realized the conspicious abscence of this fair fact but I wanted to expose others to it . . .
b
December 28th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Well, I think that both Rosemarie and Jean Valjean are correct in a lot of what they said.
For example, Jean Valjean said:
"As for the woman in question--your [Hannah's] husband has every right to be angry. Anger is a valid emotion which every person has a right to express".
This is true. Hannah's husband has every right to be angry. Angry about how men and boys are treated in the justice system, in the divorce and child support industries, and in the depiction in the media of men and boys being at best dumb and incompetent and pretty much worthless. He has every right to be angry about how men's and boys' issues have vanished from media and social consciousness, while women's and girls' issues have dominated news and television. Men have higher rates of suicide, men have lower rates of graduating college with a 4-year degree than women, when was the last time you saw a blue ribbon on a product championing research in prostate cancer....I'll bet it has been a hell of a lot longer than the last time you saw a pink ribbon. Those are just some (but certainly not all) of the issues that Hannah husband should certainly feel angry about.
However, in Hannah letter she said:
"My husband has begun reading your website and others and is educating himself on male discrimination. He is extremely angry at me because 'my cause' caused all these problems for men and I 'supported' it. He has been educating me on male discrimination and it is opening my eyes. I no longer wear the label 'feminist' but my personal beliefs and hopes for equality for ALL people have not changed. My problem is that my husband's anger is overwhelming and he refuses to acknowledge that I really can see how men are actively discriminated against ".
In the letter, Hannah acknowledged that she saw how men are being discriminated against. This is good. Hell, this is great. Look you guys, to rid ourselves of the femisupremacist ideology that this society is embracing, we WILL need the help and support of women like Hannah...women who believe in equality between the sexes (what use to be the ideology of the original feminist) but oppose the femisupremacist goals that now define the modern feminist of today. To continue to be angry at someone who finally understands that there is a big problem on how men are treated today is counterproductive and really just shooting yourself in the foot. Which brings me to Rosemarie's quote:
"My husband was falsely accused of the most heinous crimes, lost everything he had and you don't see him with all this raw hatred. Could it be that some here are CHOOSING to remain angry because they are afraid of the alternative - namely, deciding to LIVE again?"
She is right about this. Many of us here are angry....and justifiably so. But letting it fester into cheap-shots, name calling and just plain hatred is not only counterproductive, but lowers you to the level of those who post on feministing or other man-hating blogs. Here at Glenn's site we are better than that, at least l would like to think so. And we should hold each other to a higher standard because ultimately our cause is right, and hatred will pollute this. So, Rosemarie is right. We should not let the damage that has been done to us personally, financially, etc. by the femisupremacist ideology get in the way of our life and happiness. This does not mean that you don't continue to champion the cause of equality for both men and women, that you won't get angry when you see or hear about injustices, etc. But that you choose to let the negative feelings go. Remember, anger is suppose to be a motivating force, and not a state of being. Channeling it in the right and positive way can be a catalyst of great change. But letting it fester only harms you.
Canarsee said:
“Don't you think that that's what many people here are doing? Although Glenn responded reasonably to Hannah, he rmisses the point. Much, if not most of what is discussed here reflects misdirected anger and comprises woman bashing and outright misogyny.”
Canarsee, when men talk about being dead-broke dads but being wrongfully labeled as dead-beat dads and express a little anger toward that, that is NOT misogyny. When men have a problem with their children being turned against them via PAS and not being able to be anything more to their children than a wallet for the mother, that is NOT misogyny. When men bring up the fact that there is clear evidence of false accusations in rape cases and domestic violence cases yet the media doesn’t talk about that, that is NOT misogyny. When men talk about how we just want there to be awareness about women also being equally abusive, but the media depicting this as some kind of joke and not domestic violence at all, but rather something only men do to women, this is NOT misogyny. When men recognize and have a problem with the fact that their boys are being left behind in school grades and graduating college while the girls are excelling, yet media attention is much more focused on girls and their education, this is NOT misogyny. When men are almost always depicted in the media as being idiots, incompetent, losers, insensitive and violent while women are predominantly depicted in a higher light, and men talk about that on this site and have a problem with that…that is NOT misogyny.
Seriously, if you believe in equality between the sexes like you say, you should really think about this.
December 28th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Good Post Al
Canarsee: I feel that kickboxing between a man and wife is a bad idea. It is kind of like when big predators learn they can kill and eat humans. They lose their inhibition and are a big problem.
To have man and women practice combat against each other develops the habit of using physical force on each other. Then this tends to come out in times of anger as well.
I am naturally a wrestler by sentiment, and when I found that my 2nd girlfriend was quite willing to engage in full force wrestling, I thought it was great when I was 19. That was until she punched me in anger in the face one day. Not good.
Then my ex wife started getting into kickboxing around the time we were breaking up. Yeah, she wanted to spar. I understood the deal by then, and I didn't want to. She figured that after a few years of kickboxing instruction, she could beat me up. Well, it was not a good way to think for her. Yeah we sparred, but I am not a boxer, and I am a full force wrestler. I really dont know how to spar. I am a full foot taller than her and solid muscle. Even though we 'agreed' not to hit in the face,she kept hitting me in the face, cutting my lip pretty good, so I unloaded on her deltoid once or twice. Well, she was pissed at me for a month. And what do you know, when the divorce came around she keeps coming after me with her fists. I knew to run, and did that, never letting her touch me, but she threw stuff at me, right in front of the kids. Then, what do you know, she puts her next boyfriend in jail for assault. The guy had a clean record before her. Big surprise. I would have warned him about her, but he was an ass to me, so I never got the chance.
So, don't playfight between the sexes. It breaks down the inhibitions.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Hooray for Hannah. I understand both her and her husband. He should lighten up on her because it's obvious that she understands the discrimination men face. Still, I was very much like the husband. After I discovered what a fraud feminism was I couldn't believe that a woman could be truly sympathetic with the male's plight. I berated any woman or man that had a single sympathetic thing to say about feminism. I believe Hannah should stop trying to convince her husband that she understands. She has done enough of that. I hope the husband channels his anger in the right direction so that he can find some peace and help the cause. I want to share a quote that was made by Queen Victoria in the late 1800's. I think it's amazing that she could see the damage to society that feminism would cause:
"I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were women to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection."
Queen Victoria advocated whipping feminists. But after the fact, I feel that leading feminists should be lynched publicly and their followers warned. I also believe that many people who support feminism should be obligated to seek remedial feminist deprogramming to remove any idea that feminism ever had anything to do with equal rights. I may seem harsh but femiskunks are no better than Nazi war criminals. There, I've vented.
December 28th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
A MESSAGE TO CANARSEE
Some men make very strong statements against feminists. But I believe you should delve a little deeper. Being a man, I'm sure that the percentage of men on this board and in society who are misogynists is small. Maybe 10 percent. My point is that men are outraged at feminist crimes against humanity. And the fact that they control the lawmakers lead men to feel frustrated and squelched at times. I sympathize with the great majority of extreme feelings against feminism that the men have. Feminists are far more guilty of hate than the men in this society are. My biggest problem with people who tell the men to pipe down or go on and on about "not all women are this way" is that they are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of berating men I believe they should be chastising their sisters for all the damage they've caused.
Canarsee, I have nothing against you. I just hope that you let the men vent and understand that most of them are quite civilized. Additionally, I suggest you investigate the true root of feminism. I believe you fail to see it as the hate movement, pure and simple, that it really is and that it has nothing at all to do with equality or equal rights.
Feminists don't believe in equality because women refuse to do the dirty and physically demanding jobs that men do and they still feel entitled to chivalry. They like to pick and choose equality like in a cafeteria.
Feminists also don't believe in equal rights because the results of feminism are obvious: Men have no rights and women have far too many. And they're not even close to being satisfied with their bumper crop of rights.
I hope you see the light soon.
December 28th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
A MESSAGE TO DANNY
Name one thing that men get away with. There are none. Feminists hoped that the pill and abortion would open the way for them to have sex and move on like some men do. They also hoped to be able to have multiple sex partners without any consequences.That's what they call empowerment. The truth is men are not only held responsible for their own behavior but they also take the heat for womens' irresponsible behavior. When was the last time a feminist took responsibility for her own screw ups? You stated:
"The extremists of both sides love to put up the smokescreen that the other side has all the privilege in order to cover their tracks as they secure all the privilege.
Danny, there are so many things wrong with such a view. A major reason feminism succeeded thus far is because of male chivalry. When men had power women were treated very well. But now that feminists have the power (Not some power, but the power) they've proven to be greedy,hateful, deceitful and treacherous. I'm inclined to believe that men are basically more civilized than women. You mention the use of smokescreens. Men are basically straight forward. Feminists cornered the market on smokescreens. I haven't met an honest feminist yet.
Also, men are not asking for a blank check because we don't need one. We're the resourceful ones, remember. You're confusing us with those irresponsible feminists who bellyache about having no rights when they possess all of them. Extreme feminists and extreme masculists are not at all alike. Given the chance, feminists would castrate all men or reduce the population of men to 10% to maintain reproduction. Since extreme feminists are as murderous as the Nazis, I take them at their word and refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, men are still protective of women even after their huge double-cross in the name of equality. So please stop comparing psycho femiskunks to frustrated, embittered and disenfranchised men who are only recently waking up to the multiple crimes of feminists.
WOMEN WERE NEVER OPPRESSED!
That is the biggest lie in history. Would you please get that bogus idea out of your head? Pampered, yes. Oppressed, no way. I personally never oppressed women. Neither did my father or his father and so on. And I'll bet you can say the same about you own male ancestors. Have you fallen for the "good old days" of the matriarchy in Europe that was corrupted by those rotten patriarchs con job?
Danny, please wake up and smell the coffee. Do a google search on feminism. Type in "what's wrong with feminism" and if you have an open and fair mind you will discover that feminism is the worst movement in the history of mankind. It deserves this label because of the attack on the family which is the biggest crime of all.
December 28th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Kevin: "Funny how the “trolls” answer the people who accuse them of being trolls."
Agreed....against my better judgement, I ended up finally responding to her:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1592#comment-114164
As far as kickboxing with your wife....sounds good to me depending upon the maturity level (and trust) of both parties. In karate I would spar with men or women - didn't care. And I never gave someone a pass because she's a she.
I do know that I wouldn't spar with my wife if we were already having problems though. That just seems like asking for trouble!
There was actually an excellent Battlestar Galactica episode that had some great male/famale sparing going on. Obviously a big difference between reality (especially ours) and fiction, but it did provide another view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfinished_Business_(Battlestar_Galactica)
December 28th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Kevin: "Funny how the “trolls” answer the people who accuse them of being trolls."
Agreed....against my better judgement, I ended up finally responding to her:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1592#comment-114164
December 29th, 2007 at 3:31 am
Hey Lance,
I love Battlestar Galactica too! The fight with Starbuck and the first mate was great! But, like you said, real life is really different.
And yeah, somewhere in the definition of maturity level would be a woman who could spar and not feel violated if she got some bad bruises. But, that situation has not, so far, existed in the women that I know who want to 'spar'.
I spend a lot of time thinking about fitness and all that, as well as seeing what women atheletes can and can not do. I have, both on the swim team, and in bicycling, had to eat dust after women atheletes! But, I recognise that a woman's strength is in fitness and longevity, and grace. The lack of heavy testosterone seems to mean about 1/3 the ready strength to weight ratio, but better power to weight ratio over several hours.
So, watching Starbuck, my conclusion was she had no lack of testosterone! :) But, I loved the performance!
December 31st, 2007 at 2:14 pm
All,
I am the guy that Hannah is talking about. I am her husband. Glenn and Basta I assure you I am real and she is my wife. It is my intent to reply to everyone in the near future. I prefer to spend my time with my wife and child during the holidays than getting upset and debating with all of you. Plus, some time to think before acting is always considered wise.
Happy New Year all!
December 31st, 2007 at 5:05 pm
TheGuyHannahISTalkinAbout:
Have a good New Year, man.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
In discussions like these, apparently it's very easy to forget some basic "facts of life": 1)for better or worse, men & women need each other;don't think so, try doing without each other and see what happens to the future of humanity., 2) honest, tactful communication is the key;understanding and positive results can't be reached when both parties are screaming at and carelessly flinging accusations at one another (especially when children are involved). 3)mutual respect and love for each other goes a long way;this includes self-respect (a dying concept, not to be confused by narcissism/egoism) and treating others as you would want to be treated. If Hannah and her husband can work through their issues (and it sounds like they can), then there is hope for the rest of us. The million dollar question is do we have the courage to do so? Imagine...
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Q. Omowale:
Marriage is dead. The only FACTS of life in our society are that you have to work, pay taxes, and die someday. There is no law that we have to propagate the species. It would be nice if we stuck around forever, but things come and things go.
Get real. Quit watching the old Disney movies. There is no legal and financial incentive for a man to get married anymore. Read some Stephen Baskerville.
Honest, tactfull communication? Tell that to the Gender Feminists who post here. Come on dude, haven't you heard anything we said?
I feel like I've been watching Deepak Chopra!
January 4th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Q. Omowale:
Honesty and tactful communication is impossible with feminists and women who have been poisoned by feminism. Feminists have never and will never play fair because they are inherently bullies and terrorists.
You talk about both parties screaming at and carelessly flinging accusations at each other: The world was doing just fine until women picked this fight with men. There never was a battle of the sexes because if there was women would have lost in the first round. Women are completely out of line with all this feminism crap and men are finally waking up to it and doing something about it. And as far as accusations go, the feminist accusations are crap and the men's accusations are fact.
You say that mutual respect and love for each other go a long way.
Every man on this blog knows this. It's those ignorant femiskunks who think they can kick a man in the teeth and that he should reward her with flowers and candy. Men don't use dirty feminist tactics. Most of us play fair which is a concept that feminists would never consider. Please don't imply that men would stoop to a degraded level that feminists wallow in daily. You seem to think that your average man is just as guilty as femitrash.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Stephen:
"Men don't use dirty feminist tactics. Most of us play fair which is a concept that feminists would never consider."
People rarely talk about the HUGE problem of emotional abuse perpetrated by women against men. It's a big problem, way bigger than physical abuse.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Stephen said: "Men don't use dirty feminist tactics"
You are correct. They empower their women by getting them pregnant!
January 5th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Canarsee,
You ignorance is laughable. Thanks for the giggle. What happened to female sexual empowerment? For the most part there are very little birth control options for men. So women have the CHOICE to get pregnant. If a woman gets pregnant it is by her choice not by his enforcement. I also love how you use possessive for your description of men with women. "Thier women." Only when is serves our purpose do you allow the suggestion that women are objects owned by men!. You represent your own hypocrisy and ignorance continuing to reinforce mens argument. Keep talking girl, keep talkin!
January 5th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
@Peter
I'm glad I've got you laughing, because my comment WAS intended as a joke. I specifically directed it at Stephen because in another thread (about the Norwegian gov. minister), HE was the one who said that the way to empower a woman was by getting her pregnant.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Peter:
Ignore Canarsee if you can. She's just here to stir up trouble and promote gender feminist propaganda. She's not here to argue or reason.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Peter:
Although, I have yo say, you did wipe the floor with her.
January 6th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Peter:
Although, I have to say, you did wipe the floor with her in pointing out her gender-feminist double speak.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:47 am
[...] my recent blog post 'My husband reads your site and is angry at me because 'my feminism' caused all these problems for m..., Hannah wrote me a letter saying that she had been a feminist while in college and that now, 18 [...]
January 7th, 2008 at 6:10 am
# Canarsee Says:
January 5th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Stephen said: "Men don't use dirty feminist tactics"
You are correct. They empower their women by getting them pregnant!
Canarsee well I hope no body gets you prego there is enough faulty DNA around...
May 24th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
qualified website visitors...
...
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:56 am
ePN Trust...
ePN Trust...