New Policy--The Word 'Nazi' Is Hereby Banned from My Blog
April 17th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"Godwin's law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one...Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, especially fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form."--Wikipedia
Take a good look at the picture of Hitler--it's the last time you'll see or hear of him on my blog. I have long grown weary of Nazi analogies from blog commenters--we've had 750 different ones in the past year, according to my blog software.
I am banning the word "Nazi," "feminazi," and the name "Hitler." There are several reason for this:
1) The analogies are almost always spurious and often silly.
2) Reflecting the weakness of the American educational system and America's insularity, the individual involved usually does not know anything about the Nazis themselves, but simply doesn't know of any other tyrant to substitute, or thinks that other readers won't know of any. Usually "Nazi" is simply a way of saying "evil," with no particular reason to cite the Nazis in particular.
3) My family came from the town of Bialystok, once in Russia and now in eastern Poland. It was one of the first cities hit when Hitler invaded Russia on June 22, 1941, and the city was completely leveled. Between that and the Holocaust, most of my family was wiped out. When I visited Bialystok in 1984, I had my family's old address and other information, but the city had been so leveled and rebuilt that the information I had made no sense to anybody. Comparisons between this and anything happening to anybody in the United States today are beyond ludicrous.
"));
18 queries. 0.802 seconds.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I am hereby announcing that I am banning the word "Nazi," "feminzai," and the name "Hitler."
I think this will interesting. Feminists like to attack people the use the word feminazi. I wonder what they will do once people stop using it?
And on a side note I have to admit that I used to use that word alot myself when I first started posting here but as I read I realized the extreme or radical feminist made more sense.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
So is this the post where we can demonstrate that the analogy is correct?
I'll save the lengthy explanation for later. No need to type it all out just to get deleted.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Amen Glenn - i am 100% in agreement with this
April 17th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Glenn, You're diplomatic efforts noteworthy..
I personally like the the phrase "lace curtain writers", to more effectivelly charecterise what exactly is happenning in this "gender war".
April 17th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Demonspawn Says "So is this the post where we can demonstrate that the analogy is correct?"
Ugh, you're right, I did promise I'd do one post where people could defend the use of "Nazi." Sigh...well, this might as well be it. OK, go ahead.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
"feminzai,"
So will you also be banning derogatory words towards males? "immature boy" or some such?
April 17th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Preda Says " "feminzai," So will you also be banning derogatory words towards males? "immature boy" or some such?
A perfect example of the idiocy that surrounds this issue--comparing "Nazi" to "immature boy."
April 17th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Glenn,
Preda did not compare Nazi to immature boy, he compared femnazi to to immature boy. Very big difference.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Peter Says "Preda did not compare Nazi to immature boy, he compared femnazi to to immature boy. "
Fair point. It's not quite as iditoic as I thought--my apologies.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Suggest use Napoleon - as used in our Brit wartime sitcom Dad's Army , wherein usage of Hitler would have been in poor taste ...
April 17th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Glenn is rolling over to the PC people. that totaly sucks cause I love His site. This is bad because censoring is anti-American, and socialists goes for it. I know You want to stay on the high road, but you are loosing those that have something significant to add. Everywhere else You can see the now banned words, but not here. You are really getting weak in My eyes, but its Your site and Ill still come here and read what the now Censored posts say. I dont think it will make things better, especially the discourse. All You neutered and now censored men can talk with guarded intentions, whipped by women and now Glenn Sacks.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I say good. Being white, male, and on some issues right of center, I often find myself being the first labeled a N___, especially if I say anything un-PC about race.
One interesting thing that men are laboring under is that the labels needed for the sake of brevity don't exist. Take the word "bitch". Many people complain that it is a demeaning word. My response to that is when Gloria Steinem begins substituting the phrase "emotional abuse" I will accept her new definition. The lack of mainstream Media Coverage surrounding men's rights has essentially retarted the dialog and hence the language.
One reason I often use the word feminist as a pajoritive on this blog is how do you describe the very real phenomenom of partisan women who act collectivly in their own narrow self interest. See what I mean? I sometimes use gender racist but somehow it just does not roll off the tounge.
Glenn, you have a great blog. The quality of the postings is usually quite good. I think it is a direct result of the job you are doing moderating. I think all of us are pissed off about something (divorce, custody, un-equal rights) otherwise we would not be attracted to this topic. The trick is to be effective.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I do agree that the use of Hilter and other Nazi references can and often are used in terrible taste, but when used it gives us the reader insight into the intellectual value of the writer. The loss of its use is actually detrimental to the readers who will loose insight of the writer. And since when has poor taste been qualitative for censorship?
April 17th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Frankly we should all respect what Glenn says on this - we should be able to deconstruct over- feminist arguements without use of the Nazi analogy
April 17th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Glenn, so is your name 'Sacks' an adoptive name from when your family emigrated? What was your Polish name?
April 17th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Controlling expression of speech on any level especially when implemented in this context is never good. Glenn, with all due respect, I believe this will start to put your blog in similar character with ones like feministing.
As for the context that Nazi or Hilter or any of the other banned speech that you assume is not what the speaker is fully understanding or necessarily meaning I also disagree. I for one, often use the Nazi as an analogy to present a concept not a comparison.
For example, People often say about someone who has a bad attitude "It is just how he is, that is her personality" The retort of "Well that is what the Germans would say about Hitler, it is just how he is." Accepted that this is extreme, this analogy gets across the point that just because that is how a person is, it does not make it ok.
Glenn, this is your blog and you can do what ever you like. Controlling expression of speech based on personal opinion is perhaps the worst kind as it forces your beliefs and morals down on everyone else. Your enforcement of general social graces is admirable and maintains a civil forum therefore easy to accept. I, for one, find this type of Controlled speech reprehensible and believe it to be well beneath you.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
How about we use "Gal qaeda" or "the Galiban" instead? Hey I'm trying...
April 17th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Well, a little background on me to start. I have studied the Holocaust quite a bit as a student. It was something that was of interest to me. Later in life, I spent several years working in a Jewish community center as the A/V tech, so I've watched several presentations on the Holocaust and Nazism. I am not an uninformed person in this regard.
That said, there are more similarities between Feminism and Nazism than there are differences. The biggest difference is the Holocaust.. that it hasn't happened (yet?). Both are propaganda spreading hate groups that gain political power by targeting the ills of society on a socially accepted hated group (Jews in Hitler's case, Men in Feminism's case). They then use that political power to restrict the activities of the targeted group, criminalize many of that group's behaviors, and over-claim the damage caused by said group (hence the feminist manipulation of statistics to spread hate). Both were based on Marxist principles. Both use the hated group as the scapegoat for the lack of advancement of the preferred group.
As for the Holocaust aspect of the comparison, we have seen inklings of that as well. Marlyn French and other Feminists have advocated for population control of the males in our species. To date, I have not heard of any mainstream Feminist group that has distanced themselves from those remarks nor admonished those who said them. Feminism's current plan is to criminalize as much male behavior as possible to remove men from society via incarceration. The reason this is used is feminism lacks the political power to have the same type of concentration camps as Germany had. It could also be because they don't need them; our goverment is more than happy to hand over men's work to women via child support, alimony, and other female subsidies. To encamp men might not be the ultimate goal as that would reduce the amount of money being transfered from male to female hands at government gunpoint.
So no, this is not 1944-ish Nazism to which Feminism is being compared, more like 1938-1939 Nazism. You know, back when Hitler was Time magazine's "Man of the Year."
I have no doubt that within a decade or two, if things go unchecked, some people will be asking why the men didn't fight back much like they asked why the Jews didn't.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I've never used the N word that Glenn just banned on his blog. I just realized that I used the word "boy" in a negative manner. I called Greg Abbott "boy".I will quote what I wrote: "Greg Abbot, you are really doing a fine job "for the children" boy.'
I would really like to apologize because, I really didn't mean to insult boys.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
That was not that unique anyway. I have always used" feminuts" which I think is more original, and appropriate. I have been blasted for mentioning Russians here too, so I am trying to stick to simple stuff. I am not fond of the word nazi either, so thanks Glenn.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
@Demonspawn
Well said and thanks for such a well written post.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Yes, George, Zackimoff was the name, shortened to "Sacks" at Ellis Island. My grandparents weren't Poles, they were Russians--Bialystok was part of Russia at that time.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Glenn,
The reason for calling someone a femnazi is the entire logical fallacies that are called to mind when someone says that namely:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-fear.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
and a bunch of others if it is used as name calling
the same way calling a male an 'immature boy' dependant on his video game hobbies(larger industry than hollywood), never being married, not wanting to have kids, not wanting to date, marriage strike, etc.
What we should do is define what 'nazi' means. then if a person is acting like those definitions then it should be ok to call them a 'nazi'.
we should be able to call a spade a spade. Lets define what the term means on this site and if someone is acting like that, we should be able to say it.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
since i can't edit my post.
are we also going to get rid of posts where people don't have an argument and go and attack the character of the person they are arguing against instead of their points?
as in "bill you are just bitter, go and get laid"
April 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Men being carted off to work camps, having there children stolen from them, extorted for everything they have, constant persecution, the huge male depression and suicide, the corrupt Government and courts, the militarization of local police, the hundreds of men released from prison from DNA evidence 20-30 years later, false accusations of abuse, the incarceration nation ,this is a Holocaust against men. Then there is the abortions, I would tend to agree that feminism is like those Germans back in the 40s. Even worse, thats why I think the words are appropriate. Dont censor Me Glenn. Dont take Our voice.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I, for one, am for the banning of these words. WWII, the Nazi's, the Holocaust, Hitler, et al do not have much emotional pull for me; but I do realize that if I call someone a 'Hilter' or a 'Nazi' I am basically calling them an evil totalitarian that has it our for a specific group. Maybe I think that of feminists, maybe I don’t.
What I do think is this: use of the term Nazi, Hitler, feminazi and such is meant to be inflammatory and shut down a reasonable debate. I believe this site, at its best, is a site where people who are amenable to the MRA movement/issues can have an intelligent discussion. Glenn can invite feminists to post here so we can debate them, bounce ideas off them, receive their ideas, and form a better opinion of public policy as it relates to men/fathers. Cheap tactics that are used to shut down debate (which we are all to willing to point out feminists doing) necessarily preclude that, and shouldn’t be used here. If Hitler, Nazi, and feminazi are the most common forms of this kind of behavior; then it seems right to limit that behavior.
Later,
B
April 17th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Thank God, I was getting tired of pointing out how very unlike Hitler and the Nazis any feminists are (Valerie Solanas is probably the only exception to this rule)
Especially having studied the Nazis myself, it's easy to see how tedious the analogies are.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Go limit your own behavior, let people speak. dont change the definition of words (thats what feminists do), dont censor words, dont silence people.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Good move.
I would take it a step further. Some commentators on this Web site make very astute observations. But there are others -- too many -- who are content to just lob hate bombs without anything more.
I see this blog as capable of accomplishing important things, things that can help change the way things are, principally because the moderator comes off as very reasonable. If you've ever talked to him, or heard him on the radio, the guy has a sense of humor, a sense of balance. He's not some angry nutcase, and that's how the radicals on the other side want to portray "men's rights" advocates. And if the movement ever wants to speak to a larger audience (and I'm NOT talking about feminists -- I'm talking about middle America), and convince people that fathers ARE gender stereotyped in ways that hurt them -- and hurt their children -- we really, absolutely, positively need to stop talking about the world in broad-stroked, black and white terms. Most of the world is gray, and to get people outside of the MRA world to acknowledge that men ARE gender stereotyped, we need to cut out the blanket assertions such as "women have ALL the privileges, men have ALL the responsibilities," etc. -- OK, get angry with me -- but nobody outside the group here buys that kind of sweeping, unsubstantiated assertion. Hell, I can cite a thousand ways women do have more privileges, but I can also cite examples of how it cuts the other way, too. These pontifications don't ring true to most people. And you know what? We hurt the cause when we come off as unreasonable. WE DO NOT NEED TO REACH THAT FAR -- we are far more effective when we concentrate on specific issues (like the boys in Texas, for example), and show how that problem is hurting some boys just because they are boys. We don't need to sprinkle every campaign with these far-fetched characterizations.
That doesn't mean we need to pretend to accept the "patriarchy" abstract, which is meaningless in mainstream America -- besides which, it's silly and anti-male. And we certainly don't buy the unfactual assertions often posited to "prove" men are culturally flawed and oppressive to women (e.g., that one-in-four college women raped; the 77 cents gender wage gap; the two percent false rape claims -- all silly, and wrong), but we DO need something often lacking in the comments section of this blog: reasonableness. Reasonableness -- like the moderator has.
If you are content to just vent to one another, and if you don't care how it comes off to the world at large that has no idea fathers are being discriminated against, then keep it up. If, on the other hand, you want to actually convince people, you need to stay focused on point, and talk facts that can be backed up.
Sure, we all need to vent now and again -- me included -- and a lot of guys here are justifiably angry. But you can't win a war like this if you're coming across to third parties as a nutcase. And unfortunately, that's how some of us come off. Me included sometimes, I am sure.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Actually AR, this is Glenn's blog. He gives people the opportunity to post but that is not our right. We must abide by any rules entailed by that.
Not constantly comparing everything to Hitler seems pretty reasonable to me.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
That's what I've attempted to do. When you define Nazi as a set of actions and beliefs, rather than the results of them, then replace "Jew" with "Male/Man" you will find the movements disturbingly similar.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
My family comes from Rotterdam, their house was levelled in the first days of the war. (And by pure coincidence I bought a DVD set in Huntsville, and on one of the DVD there was some original footage from the luftwaffe of the bombing of my family home) During the war aunts and cousins from the Jewish side of my family were transported to Germany, never to be seen again. I agree with you Glenn that just using the words nazi or other words only to attach some negative emotional label upon someone else makes no sense. However, as explained for instance in ‘Liberal Fascism’ by Jonah Goldberg (published 2007) depending on the context some comparisons between the process whereby thinking gradually becomes more and more extreme as was the case in Germany among other countries and other forms of thinking in extremes as seem to happen in what might be called extreme feminism might remind us of the possible consequences if we wilfully choose to ignore such possibilities. It’s part of our humanity, whether we like it or not. Using phrases like ‘Do we need men’ or the language used in the SCUM manifesto are either attacked by a society or no one really seems to care and chooses to be silent about it. If, however, the central themes of this worldviews becomes common thinking there might be cause for some concern, at least by some of us. So, I would welcome a better alternative to keep us vigilant, without resorting to just ‘bad language’, but also without just mere falling back on not using the N-word. I would applaud ‘in context banning’ but not ‘out-of context’ banning.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I understand its Glenns blogg, Im asking for the free expression of ideas and thoughts. I know others dont agree with everything others say, but Ill not shut them down for there opinion. Keep it free Glenn. Dont silence men from expressing there issues with others. Besides Id also like to say that censoring is Un-American.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Demonspawn Says:
April 17th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Demonspawn, Great post and you make very valid points.
However, I think the problem is when someone uses the nazi terminology we lose credibility, and the mens rights movement needs all the credibility we can get so people are willing to listen to what we have to say.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Actually, Currently Glenns policy is that no person is to be attacked or insulted by others. If the Nazi terms are used to attack or insult another person then I am fine with removing the post. But to simply disallow the freedom of anyone to express them self in a way they see fit without insults or profanity is somewhat draconian in nature.
If we the readers do not hear some posters speak in this way, how are we to filter out who to ignor and who's opinion we need to laugh at.
I fully understand that this is Glenn's blog and I am subject to his rules. Glenn has, with good cause, removed some of my posts that I have written. I have responded to Glenn agreeing with his removal of those posts followed with and apology. I was emotional, angry and inappropriate. This, on the other hand, I see leading us down the path of what most feminist blogs do to men and anyone with whom they do not agree with or is not in line with their viewpoint. I think this will be putting Glenn's blog in a bad light and not be beneficial to the readers in general. Freedom of expression is critical to meaningful evaluation and eventual change.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Well Glenn, I think there are some valid comparisons between the way the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) treated people in Germany in the 30's and the way socialist minded gender feminists are treating people in America today. I think terms you are banning are valid and relevant, although they've have become trite with over use.
http://tinyurl.com/3jxujp
http://tinyurl.com/3hn597
My cousin was killed July 4, or July 5, 1944 in France on the first big push out from Normandy beach so yes, lots of people have connections to that war. He was killed by artillery and buried at Henri Chapelle in Belgium.
While I certainly understand the need to control purely ad hominem attacks, it appears to me that blanket censorship is not the answer. While ad hominem attacks are certainly the tool of feeble argumentation, I don't see blanket censorship as much better.
All that being said, my sincerest condolences to you and yours on the horrible loss of so many members of your family to the whims of an insane fool and tyrant (A.H.).
It has been said that if we forget history we are condemned to repeat it, so I humbly ask, "How can we remember history if we censor it?"
Sincerely/Respectfully, Ray
April 17th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
To me personally, the only offensive word/term on this site is “deadbeat dad.” But I wouldn’t ask nor expect it to be banned; or any other word for that matter.
I had no idea this (insert banned n-word here)-thing was such an issue...
My father's side is Prussian Jew. The (insert banned n-word here)'s abolished the state/kingdom in the early 1900’s. My grandmother will not speak of the holocaust, or allow it around her. It is sometimes hard to believe what my father says on the matter as well. So I can’t say what the impact was to my family. Regardless, the use of (insert banned n-word here) analogies, they never offended me. Not sure how “banning” the word will remove its emotional effect. If we use any of the words that have become synonymous with (insert banned n-word here), such as tyrant, fascist, dictator, etc., it would seem the emotional impact would be the same.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Another cowardly rollover in the face of 'political correctness' as I see it. I'd say sorry Glenn, but when it comes to thuggery and tyrrany, I don't tend to mince my words. *** Both my wife and I's my paternal grandfathers spent part of their youth or adulthood in Poland, but neither was there during the war. I'm VERY familiar with the history of Poland from 1939 to 1991 or so. My wife's fathers mindset about going back was to essentially sign over some private land that belonged to his relatives in Poland, presumed killed off. *** To equate people who discriminate, injure and even kill based on the use of indocrinating with gross falsehoods and the misuse of government, even engage in a form of democide as I see it, deserve to have their disgusting, selfish, and hateful behavior compared to relevant examples. *** Another just voice significantly silenced by intellectually dishonest, sexist, threatening thugs and child predators (primary exploitation and maltreatment).
April 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Glenn, much respect for your insistence on reasoned discussion of the issues. In that spirit, on this forum I will never again name the author or party affiliation of this quote:
"[government] must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." (pp. 404-406, "Mein Kampf") I personally believe that it's completely fair and topically relevant to compare this quote to Hillary Clinton's "It Takes A Village to Raise A Child", but in deference to Glenn, I won't make that comparison here.
Also, I would like to suggest a couple of alternate characterizations that could be applied to opponents of parental equality:
1) "Megalogynist" - the opposite of a misogynist; one who believes that the female gender is inherently superior and advocates the complete domination of males by females in every societal context.
2) "Dictatorship of the Hysteriat" - an oppressive regime implemented for or dedicated to the complete domination of males by females in every societal context. See also, "Tittietalitarian".
April 17th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Glenn-
I think this is the right move. I for one found the Nazi references an embarrassment -- especially on a site that is many people's first introduction to our issues.
And I'm sure the Nazis are all glad that people won't be comparing them to feminists anymore.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I enjoyed reading what everyone had to say on this subject.
I think Glenn has good intentions by making this decision. Although, we all know what the road to hell is paved with. I think the overuse of the word Nazi does get old and is usually meaningless rhetoric. Why emulate feminists when it comes to meaningless rhetoric? Using the word “feminazi” is a way to paint people as “extremists”.
I would propose that people only use the analogy of German National Socialism to illustrate obvious parallels with modern-day Feminism. Hitler never needs to enter the conversation. I agree with a previous commentator that the parallels outnumber the differences.
I also belief, that 45,000,000 children in the U.S. alone, not counting the total worldwide, is testament to the brutality of feminist beliefs. If you consider the potential loss to mankind, as a result of these needless deaths, the possibilities are endless.(Not to mention that these kids never got a chance to live) The preservation of our civilization may have ended as a result of a death due to the practice of abortion.
The last time I used the word Nazi on this blog, was when Glenn said the Principle in the school where he once taught, made the statement that the policy used to discriminate against boys, with regard to physical touching between students, was defended by saying, “This is the policy we’ve been instructed to enforce”. I said that that was the exact same excuse given by Nazis at the Nuremburg trials. I personally don’t see anything wrong with that analogy.
Will that be banned?
Could I get by with saying, “That’s what officers of the Third Reich used in their defense in Nuremburg”? Or, how about, “Leaders of the German National Socialist Party used a similar defense”?
An interesting footnote is that The German National Socialist party was notorious for banning opposing views. I’m sure we all remember learning about the book burnings.
But in the final analysis, it’s Glenn’s blog and he can do what he wants to.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Hillary Clinton's "It Takes A Village to Raise Children Whom Become 25% of the World's Prison Population"?
April 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
@Tim O'Brien
Your statement "And I'm sure the Nazis are all glad that people won't be comparing them to feminists anymore" made me laugh and as of right now you have the absolute best reason for banning its use! Its not right to insult Nazi's by comparing them to feminists. How beautiful a statement.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Thanks for finally getting around to this, Glenn.
I am of a mixed mind on this, and don't think I'll be able to form any definite conclusions until I see what is in store in Part II, where you will, as I understand it, provide some alternatives that are less inflammatory, and more apt to a reasoned discussion. I recall tossing out a few ideas on this in the past, but I won't risk "stealing any thunder" while awaiting the further discussion.
In the meantime, let me note:
On the one hand, references to Hitler and Nazis can be seen as overblown and counter-productive in discussions attempting to characterize a non-violent (?) socio-political movement such as feminism -- simply because of the Holocaust and the devastation caused by WWII. The intentional and methodical slaughter of millions, and the deaths of millions more from war, simply cannot be equated with anything else -- less our complete revulsion at the enormity of the offense against humanity and civilized society be diluted and cheapened. Because Hitler and the National Socialists cannot be separated from this most extreme "baggage," any attempt to use them for comparison to a lesser situation is inaccurate and silly, and could be viewed as callous and even offensive.
On the other hand, as is previously noted on this thread, and as I have posited in the past, if the analogy is limited to the National Socialists' pre- "final solution" social and political campaign against the Jews (and Gypsies, and others), then the comparison of that hate-mongering philosophy of social division to the efforts of modern feminism becomes quite defensible indeed, in my humble opinion. However, I have to agree that the vast majority of posters who make the Nazi references here do not make any attempt to limit the comparison, and I will acknowledge that reasonable minds can differ as to whether any attempt to limit the comparison is useful. But, if there is no reasonable basis for anyone to compare radical feminists with Nazis, then why do SO many people have that comparison come to mind?
@ "the city had been so leveled and rebuilt that the information I had made no sense to anybody. Comparisons between this and anything happening to anybody in the United States today are beyond ludicrous."
-- Glenn, I realize that your experience had to be profoundly affecting, but this is a bit of a strawman argument, don't you think? I don't recall anyone arguing that feminism has led, or is leading, to leveled cities ... .
Finally, I wonder at the wisdom of an outright ban on certain terms. This is awfully close to a "ban" on certain thoughts or ways of thinking. Persuasion is a lot more effective than prohibition, in my opinion. Also, I notice that, because of your consistent criticism, and the "policing" of the comments by fellow posters, the use of these terms appears to be declining in frequency, at least with respect to certain individual's use of the terms. Think about your kids. Wouldn't you like them to avoid certain behaviors because they understand why, rather than just because they have been forbidden?
It's your site. Do what you think is best.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I agree with Tim. I come here because of Glenn's reasonableness. I have been disillusioned by many blogs where the author is clouded by bitterness and inflexibility, where the author is unable to consider issues from the other side. One of the things I like about Glenn the most is that he does exactly this. I am very concerned about men's issues. I am very concerned about everybody's issues. When I hear somebody saying something that is hateful towards women it hurts me too. It also hurts what we are supposedly working for -- equality. If I thought this was not about equality and fairness I would be gone. Not only that, but I would be against it, too.
I get the feeling with a lot of people, that whatever the facts they would fight for their own group, against the 'enemy'. This is wrong. Wrong from the feminists and wrong from anyone.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Glenn,
You are starting down a very slippery slope if you decide to ban language and certain words.
"Nazi" is just a cultural symbol for "evil." (Very few people have ever studied the history of Germany and how "National Socialism" evolved.)
People toss out the word "Nazi" like they toss out the word "whore."
Femi+Nazi = an expression of the potential evils of feminism expressed by non-feminists.
Once you constrain language, you have admitted you are censoring thought and expression.
That would be quite unlike you, from what I've seen so far.
Wanna tell your kids what words and thoughts they cannot explore?
Do not go there man.
Metaphors.
Just metaphors.
Words cannot hurt you...
April 17th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
True hard core misandrist Feminists should be called **Fundimentalist Feminists** and as with other hardcore fundimentalist movements They'll even like the appelitation. The rest of the open minded world will see them as what they are, closed minded fanatics who hold their ideas as a unquestionable faith that is sacroscant. Anyone who questions the movement is libel to be set upon as if by a pack of starved jackels for Sin of Blasphemy.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
How about Femikamikazi?
April 17th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Glenn,
I must say that I am a bit surprised by this thinking and position, though I tend to skip peoples' rants on this site, and regard them as reflections of the searing pain which they are suffering, rather than insults to the pain suffered by others.
Ranters aside, clearly there are many here who appreciate the parallels between inter-group exploitative phenomenon and can see quite clearly the value of the analogy. Some who can see value in this analogy are well educated -- and some extremely well educated. And some of these may have family who suffered directly and permanently under the forces you seek to declare as unmentionable, but do not seem to take offense at the analogy -- rather they see it for its insight-offering potential, which in my view may in fact be very considerable.
Above, you write:
"Comparisons between this and anything happening to anybody in the United States today are beyond ludicrous."
Perhaps they are ludicrous taken as literal, point-by-point comparisons of atrocities by scale and specific type. But if you wish to ban this analogy, will you also ban analogies to slavery? Some might take the view that what writers here have suffered who analogize their fates to slavery is nothing like what American slaves suffered. Are their writings thus a racist, insensitive insult to the horrid suffering of America's slaves -- which in my personal view is still being suffered in many ways by their descendents? Or are their writings an effort to distill out important and significant parallels which may in fact have considerable value to those seeking insight on the phenomenon of concern to those who write and visit here?
The value in these analogies might be found if one thinks about the famous "scientific method" which is taught in grade schools as consisting of three parts: "explain", "predict", "control".
To the extent that certain current day phenomenon show fundamental structural traits which analogize quite well to the fundamentals of other large scale inter-group abuses, such analogies may have extremely high predictive value Glenn.
The fact that the horrors inflicted by the unmentionables went through a full life cycle from their often subtle beginnings to a fulminant end -- with attendant detailed historical examination, is important to keep in mind for at least three reasons: (1) it means that today we have much higher granularity data about the full depth and breadth and multitudinous facets which such a large scale atrocity program can in fact involve -- including in particular its early "leading" indicators of what may be to come, because (2) many people take the view that the "war on fathers" in the U.S. is in fact, at a very EARLY stage in its lifecycle and will not end until we see far, far worse things happening than the already terrible things -- and very high and lamentable rate of bloodshed -- which is observable today, and (3) because of the full detail available, such analogies may provide much better predictive insights as these relate to other atrocities and how to mitigate their progress.
Analogies -- which in this context, are essentially case experiences of possibly and/or partially similar social phenomenon -- and I would note that the exact nature of the atrocities does not need to be identical for there to be MAJOR lessons to be gleaned from studying situations in which one "group" treated another "group" atrociously -- are used for very good reasons by social scientists and economists who otherwise find themselves lacking in statistically significant cross-sectional and/or logitudinal datasets of the types more available in fields like medicine and biology. We don't have a sample of 10,000 well documented cases where one group in a free society engaged in government sanctioned abuse and exploitation of another group. We don't have 1000 cases. We don't have 100. We don't even have 10 with the same level of high-granularity data. In fact, we probably do have any with anything close to this level of documentary detail.
In the U.S., family-court sponsored tyranny has caused much, much bloodshed, but it has done it in a more subtle and indirect -- and sick -- way. Insidiously, many, many adult males have been driven to suicide -- and familicide -- by the American "family" court system. Subtle killing of "men", and subtle driving of men to kill their own families, so as to achieve economic rewards for some, hatred or revenge rewards for others, and still other "rewards" (power/control/sadistic satisfaction) for others, and doing so on a large scale, is definitely not so "in one's face" as is explicit killing of a religious/genetic group via organized roundups and horrid large scale murders.
But is it not murder, nonetheless?
(Surely you are aware that Americans who have seen the visuals associated with the Vietnam war -- all the gore which Americans never saw before -- will not tolerate the "same type" of horrid, bloody war being fought again by American men. But the wagers of war, by using fuel-air bombs from a distance -- with no TV cameras in sight -- can kill as many or more of the not-actively-engaged "enemy" than they ever could by getting Americans killed in Vietnam via conventional foot-soldier intensive combat. So is such a war less atrocious? Today it may seem so to those unaccepting of a Vietnam-style conflict. But as truth becomes more clear, this "less offending" way of waging war and engaging in large scale killing, might be unmasked as having been even more offensive to those same Americans than what transpired in Vietnam.)
Interesting that one can easily see all manner of parallels between men in the U.S. being victimized, and those victimized by the now "unmentionables". Some examples beyond the oft-cited ones include
- targeting of a group which is, on average, more economically successful (just like men being targeted by women who are under guidance/control of quasi-government "professionals" )
- targeting of a group which is, on average, more educated and intelligent (average Jewish IQ, according to my psych 101 class years ago is/was 112 -- average male IQ is 5+ points higher than average female IQ -- Lawrence Summers was considerably more subtle and sensitive in guiding researchers to this question before being knocked off by those who cannot hear criticism of women without lashing out brutally at the speaker -- even an academic)
- seizing and liquidating the assets of the targeted group to fund the war on the targeted group
- enlistment of lower-level functionaries who "need their jobs" and don't have any particular hatred for the targeted group, but aren't sufficiently in possession of their own conscience to stop and say "no", I will not injure another
But what I think is most valuable about maintaining the freedom to analogize to the best-documented (and yes, most horrific) abuse of one "group" by another which we have in the entire Western world, is its predictive utility.
And sadly, what these proper analogies predict, Glenn, is that what is being done to fathers in America will likely get much, much worse before it gets better.
And as it gets worse and more explicit and larger in scale Glenn, you may find very sadly, that the use in this forum of a specific analogy to the wide-ranging horrors perpetrated by the unmentionables on their target groups over a half century ago, is an analogy which is so much more accurate than any of us would have predicted in our worst nightmares.
In my humble estimation, it is unwise to under-weight the potential of greed, power-lust and group-self-protection as behavior-shaping forces among individuals who have clawed their way to power dominance positions within "free" societies such as ours. Clearly, the tyrannical family courts of America are not getting better in their treatment of their targeted group, they are getting worse. And if you study those states and sub-state regions where targeting of males is among the worst in the nation, you will see that the trend is not towards improved treatment of fathers, quite the contrary.
And here is a final conceptual indicator as to how much worse this situation could get -- and how much more appropriate the analogy to the unmentionables will become:
What percentage of Americans do you believe have what YOU would regard to be a fulsome, accurate, and active awareness of the nature and degree of abuse of fathers and families being carried out in this country, and in particular, in the most atrocity-intensive regions of this country? It must be a number considerably less than 10 percent, right? Five percent? Two percent?
Sadly, the smaller that percentage is, the more headroom this system has to get much, much worse before it gets better.
(Similarly, when only a single digit percentage of Americans had gotten wind of the big financial gains to be had from "dot com" stocks, that fraudulent phenomenon of human greed-driven madness had much, much further to go before it could go no more, didn't it?)
And as it does continue to trend as much worse for fathers and children in America as it untimately can get, you may even find yourself invoking the very same analogy which you currently seek to banish others from using.
Just a thought.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Even though the word Nazi is perfectly applicable to the likes of Valerie Solanas, the words "female supremacist" are more properly applicable to most other feminists. A Nazi thinks he's superior and that his inferiors should be wiped out, a supremacist retains his feeling of superiority but substitutes segragation for extermination. Personally, i get the feeling (male intuition, dont'cha know) that what most feminists would like to see is a sexual caste system where men do the dirty and dangerous work and women get the safe, influential positions in law, business etc. In Australian terms, this would mean to send the women to Uni and the men to Tafe( thats a technical college for you Americans). But i digress somewhat. If nothing else, banning Nazi et al will force posters to more accurately articulate their views, and let's face it, given how little encouragement men get to use their verbal skills, we should all be trying to become more artculate, not less so. With some luck, soon we will all be using pretentious terms like "et al".
Demonspawn is right, though, im sure a lot of feminist bilgewater would be at home in Nazi rhetoric if you replace "jews" with "men".
As for the idea of banning stuff like "Your'e just bitter, go get laid." I wouldnt mind that at all as it has even less intellectual value than the unjudicious use of Nazi analogies, and it's a bloody waste of my time to have to sift through such irrelevancies in order to get at the facts.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Here is a laugh for you affirming that some are ignorant bigots. I was in a rest stop stall not too long ago and the other people had to think I was nuts because I started laughing out loud. It was the racist graffiti that I was laughing at, not that the racism was funny it was that they "thought" they used the nazi symbol to accentuate the point but unfortunately this uninformed bigot drew the swastika mirror image to that of WWII Germany which in many cultures is a sign of peace including some American Indians and several European Countries like the Ukraine.
b
April 17th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Glenn,
Although I hate the word myself and I appreciate what you are trying to do this is a slippery slope.
The point is to have true equity there are many other words that could / should fall into this ban.
I left or leftist offencive, it is not my fault that I am left handed and I do not appreciate the negative connotation.
I believe if I remember correctly that I have seen "treated like a redheaded step-child" I ti also not my fault that I am redheaded and it is not to fault of others that they are step-children.
These are just a couple off the top of my head.
b
April 17th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Look, I understand that the comparisons sometimes used here (re: Feminism & Naziism) don't pass muster, but more often than not they do. Kudos to many of you in this very thread... Demonspawn... and A.G. who wrote:
Men being carted off to work camps, having there children stolen from them, extorted for everything they have, constant persecution, the huge male depression and suicide, the corrupt Government and courts, the militarization of local police, the hundreds of men released from prison from DNA evidence 20-30 years later, false accusations of abuse, the incarceration nation ,this is a Holocaust against men. Then there is the abortions, I would tend to agree that feminism is like those Germans back in the 40s. Even worse, thats why I think the words are appropriate. Dont censor Me Glenn. Dont take Our voice.
I strongly disagree that comparing (appropriately) situations to the efforts and philosophies of the Nazis will "hurt our credibility." Such a comparison pales in comparison to those used by the femikamikazis and, more often than not, the analogies are used in appropriate contexts.
After reading AG's post, I can't see any reason to ban the use of the word or analogies because it seems most times I see it here, it's done intelligently and accurately. Oh, wait... I can see ONE reason. "It's Glenn's blog." Is that gonna be it?
April 17th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Bill Calling for Castration of Sex Offenders Passes Louisiana Senate
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,351386,00.html
dont think its like Nazis? This is whats coming to men soon. Would they cut the hands off shoplifters( mostly women)? No they wont. the parallels are there.
I for one think this is a Nazi law, not that its from Germany but because its gendeside for a whole class of people.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Commie, pinko, and combined with bastard fall into this category. I have seen these here also.
b
April 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Oh crap! I just noticed i spelt articulate wrongly in my previous post. How's that for irony?
April 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
I have long argued although it sounds hypocritical that the more a word becomes "a word that shall not be spoken" the more power it has.
Think about it.
Other wise ban, Rusky,
Nepoleon
Josef Stalin
Emperor Hirohito
Nero
Benito Mussolini
Attila the Hun
Fidel Castro
Genghis Khan
Saddam Hussein
Ayatollah Khomeini
Mao Tse-tung
Nikolai Lenin
Just to name a few
b
April 17th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
As a blonde, blue eyed, tall man with germanic features, I have been called Nazi probably as much as anyone. Combine that with my natural tendency to discuss genetic/envirionmental interactions, and there is that much more cause for the inaccurate claim.
But I have never been particularly bothered by it. I have been told by large black men at the gym that as a blonde, I was inherently weak and inferior, and have been criticized or made fun of in just about every way imaginable along those lines.
I still oppose the restriction on vocabulary of any of the N-words. I feel it is a sign of a weak mind to be unable to discern the true meaning of words. So give the weak minds their freedom to be idiotic, and may it be the end of them. Why must we protect their fragile, useless, grey matter?
I throw my hat in with Samuel Clemmens aka Mark Twain on this matter. I was looking for a good quote from the man on censorship, but all I came up with was:
"My swearing doesn't mean any more to me than your sermons do to you."
- comment made to Rev. Joe Twichell, quoted in Mark Twain and Hawaii, by Walter Francis Frear
April 17th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
My analogy between feminism, and nazism,...
When the nazi-machinery was dismantled, the russian soldiers arrested some of the paradigm architects, which were college professors.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
New law coming [seriously] anyone arrested by the feds is going to have to submit to a DNA test in an effort to curb VOLENT crime.
Lets see that includes:
White collar crime
computer hacking
forgery [or possession]
refusing to cooperate with the Selective Service
the list goes on for the no violent offenders and in the case of the selective service it only includes men hmmmmmmm
b
April 17th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I knew this would be interesting. I think the reason that Glenn is so bothered by the word and references to it is because he is tired of seeing poeple just throw out the words without any attempt to back them up or explain them. Something like "You don't want men to have birth control bills? You're a n _ _ _!!!!," is not only an unintelligent look into the mind of the one that said but it also casts an image of unintelligence of those in his company. Yes his disclaimer says that comments to his posts are not reflecting his own veiws but what do we see on almost a daily basis from feminists? Someone goes onto a feminist site and posts something and the first thing out of their mouth is to accuse them of quoting from Glenn or someone else that doesn't agree with them when its not always true.
So while I can understand the likes of Demonspawn that can back up their words with logical comparisons you gotta look at the bigger picture. And thank you Demonspawn and others like you that when asked to back up your comparison you didn't just smuggly say, "If you don't know then I really feel sorry for you." (which frankly sounds like something a feminist would say and in fact I have seen feminists act that way).
And besides if we sling that word around with wreckless abandon we'll start to sound like feminists. I don't want to have to make a Nazi Panic Button to go along with the Patriarchy Panic Button.
MichaelClaymore:
Personally, i get the feeling (male intuition, dont'cha know) that what most feminists would like to see is a sexual caste system where men do the dirty and dangerous work and women get the safe, influential positions in law, business etc.
As far as I can see Micheal we are already halfway there.
roy:
Metaphors.
Just metaphors.
Words cannot hurt you...
Well roy since words and metaphors are a conveyance of your thoughts words can indeed be very damaging if your conveyance is misunderstood.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
AnonymousPamphleteer,
Wow, dude! Good stuff!
April 17th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
College is a great time to spread propaganda. As new adults leave the home and begin to seek a new identity separate from family they are the most vulnerable to radical ideas on flimsy grounds due to several reasons. The first is lack of world experience. The young adult doesn't have a full grasp of how the world works and therefore is more inclined to believe things which are not true. One of the strongest factors is a sense of group identity. As family is left behind, the young adults will instinctively seek out a new group to belong to, and will adopt the social beliefs of said group in order to belong.
That's why a lot of feminists are just parrots which regurgitate the same slogans they've heard rather than critically thinking people. Feminism does not stand up to critical thought.
The scary part is that most of those leaders, just like Hitler, had record levels of public approval.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Couldn't agree with this decision more. Should have been done a long time ago. I know people can be hard-headed on certain issues, but I usually expect concrete, not titanium steel like on this one... so completely ludicrous and offensive on the face of it, that it makes the rest of the movement look crazy/stupid just for being in the same room.
Now you should set up a word-filter that replaces 'Nazis' with 'bunnies' or something as a form of aversion training, the only course of action that might have any effect at all. FYI - this type of training also works to keep a dog from shitting on your rug.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
With out a doubt, no question on their leadership, dynamics, charisma, I can even admire it from afar but . . . you know the rest . . .
b
April 17th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Bernie:
I have long argued although it sounds hypocritical that the more a word becomes "a word that shall not be spoken" the more power it has.
That is a valid point Bernie. And this is why many women now proudly claim the title "b!tch" when at one time it was "a word that shall not be spoken".
And one more thing that may not have come up yet. Due to the devious nature of feminism I'm sure that there are some that would break their arms patting themselves on the back and claim this as a "victory". Deep down we all know this is an attempt to make our discussion more intelligent but deep down we also know that they will do their damndest to paint this up as "striking a significant blow against The Patriarchy".
April 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Dr. Mengele anybody?
A Yale student who claims she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" and then took drugs to induce miscarriages for her senior art project says she will showcase the stomach-turning display next week — complete with her own blood samples and videos from the terminated possible pregnancies.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html
Yale Art Student Claims She Used Blood Samples, Video of Self-Induced Abortions for Senior Project
April 17th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
the term "Nazi" itself is inappropriate as is "Hitler". They are not totally relevent and are very tired terms in many sites all over the internet.
However, "feminazi" is a completely different case. It is more specific, relevent and much less tired, and is found in dictionaries.
The onyl good part of this is that it should encourage terms such as "misandry" to be used more often - which has the opposite problem in society compared to "Nazi" as unfortunatly most people have never even heard of it, let alone used it.
Perhaps we can campaign for the word to be more widely used/understood.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Sounds like "indoctrination" to me. Here comes the slope and barsin may be bringing the wax paper!
b
April 17th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I met Fidel once in 1981, when I worked for Maurice Bishop , Prime Minister of Grenada.
Fidel was really funny and he liked to snorkel.
He was not particularly good at spearing fish.
Best two communists I ever met!
Maybe they were merely socialists, like Hillary and Obama?
April 17th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
WOW! LOL
b
April 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I agree with Glenn's decision regarding this, especially with regards to NAZI, but I do think "Galiban" is creative and I may have to steal it and use it elsewhere.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Bernie,
Thanks for pointing out the use of commies, pinko's etc. I used one of those words here before, felt as though I offended you, and appologized. Your input here is thought inspiring, and insightful. If we can't get our point across without name-calling something is wrong.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
While I don't think calling a feminist a Nazi is correct; I do think the comparison is a valid one
Let's do that comparison shall we?
Much of the Nazi theory is based on either lies or manipulations of history.
Much of the feminist theory is based on either lies or manipulations of history.
The scapegoating used by the Nazis to fuel their political rise is based on the belief that the Jews undermined the Aryan race and caused them to lose the First World War.
Feminists "scapegoat" men while maintaining that women are superior to men in many ways. And that the only reason women have not enjoyed political and economic power is because they were oppressed and undermined by men.
The Nazis created a society that felt that all the Jews should be incarcerated because they were evil and a danger to the "master race".
Feminists have insisted that men are a danger to women and that a man's basic constitutional rights should be denied him if it means protecting a woman. The result has been to increase the prison population of men from several hundred thousand in the early 80's to over 7 million today.
Nazis advocated sterilization and eventually genocide of Jews. They "Nazified" their school systems and denied Jewish children a basic education. Eventually they tried to exterminate them all.
Already prominent feminists have advocated sterilization and even genocide of males. Currently, feminists are succeeding at the "feminization" of our school systems. They are forcing boys to act more like girls and in the process undermining boys' educations. The long term economic effect of these programs will disenfranchise males for generations to come.
Nazis used fear tactics and shaming to dehumanize Jews. "Jews carry disease, are genetically defective, and anyone who does business with a Jew is just as evil.
Feminists use fear tactics and shaming to dehumanize men. "Men are prone to violence. Male aggression is defective. Marriage is slavery for women. Women should abandon their marriages. Women cannot be feminists unless they identify themselves as lesbians."
Nazis denied Jews et al political participation through violence and intimidation and eventually through statutory means.
Feminists have used intimidation and shaming to achieve statutory privileges for themselves and increased criminalization of men. In so doing have expanded their biological numerical superiority in the electorate by legally disenfranchising male voters. Women have insisted that all violence towards women be stopped while ignoring violence against men.
Nazis forced their undesirables (Jews, Gays, Communists etc.) into work camps where they performed the most hazardous of duties.
Feminist, through socialization as well as through affirmative action force men into the death professions.
Because of the dehumanization of Jews et al the "Aryans" enjoyed a super legal status. They could beat Jews and steal or destroy Jewish property with impunity.
Because of the dehumanization of men at the hands of Feminists women can beat men and steal or destroy their property with impunity. Even murder of men is lightly treated if not forgiven outright.
The Nazis greatly limited Jewish reproductive rights.
Feminists greatly expanded female reproductive rights and created a culture of fear of men to deny them their reproductive and parental rights.
The Nazis claimed they were victims of the Jews and other European nations. They also claimed they were superior to everyone.
Feminists claim they are victims and yet superior to men. (Anything you can do I can do better.)
Nazis attempted to rid the world of Jews et al. They had absolute control of government and military as well as technological superiority over their rivals so they were able to implement these plans themselves.
Feminists lack the political and military control to round up every man and put him to death. The fact that women produce children who are male represents an existential barrier to feminist ideology. So while outright genocide may not be possible that does not mean that Y chromocide is not possible. Already the scientific and philosophic groundwork is being laid.
http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/667/b
Human Y Chromosome, Sex Determination, and Spermatogenesis—A Feminist View
Jennifer A. Marshall Graves
In the above link Graves argues that the Y chromosome is basically a copy of the X chromosome and is unnecessary. She claims that nature is already doing away with the Y chromosome with a "hint hint" and a "wink".
Of course this is your site Glenn and you've done an excellent job of it. So if it is your wish to rid the blog of "Nazi" references then I welcome the change because expanding our ability to describe what is happening in the world will only help us. However, I hope you come up with some excellent alternatives to expressing what I think is currently most aptly expressed by the "Nazi" or "fascist" comparison. Without a new nomenclature sufficient to the task you will greatly limit expression.
Of all things I think suppression of expression is the antithesis of your goals.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
What is the media lace curtain???
http://www.menweb.org/lacecur1.htm
April 17th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Perhaps it is time to try to come up with an anti-feminist phrase that does not need to include "Nazi?"
What would that be?
The value of the "Nazi" reference is that it refers to a time in history when tyranny was accepted and the result was terrible.
So, given VAWA and a billion dollars a year to persecute fathers and men --- what do you call it? Feminism?
Misandry is obvious, but nobody knows what that word means.
Tells you something, right?
April 17th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Bill C you do not offend me [and I certainly understand the reference] it is more a point of order, it is prejudicial and racist only if there are exceptions. If you can call a white person a cracker, but you cannot call a south of the boarder person a beaner or a black person nigger or jewish person kike or what have you, THERE is true racism and prejudice.
I ask that no one get all up in my face about these examples because they are in context and not used as racial prejudice.
b
April 17th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
So much for freedom of speech.
PC crap is nonsense.
I will be visiting your site less and less.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
An interesting fact about past atrocities against the Russian people is that Stalin is said to be responsible for at least 22 millions Russian deaths. (Some people estimate the number as high as 100 million) (There is plenty of debate.)
The Nazis were responsible for estimates that range from 20 to 27 million.
Maybe “femicommies” would be more appropriate.
History is full of examples like this. Maybe it’s time to give the Nazis a break.
@ AP
Well said.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Glenn,
In addition to what I said above, I am concerned how this move will be played up by our ideological opponents to our disadvantage. Are you creating a mountain out of what is really not more than a mole-hill? I can see it now: "MRA's are all so over-the-top that even one of their own, Glenn Sacks, had to ban the constant anti-feminist Nazi rhetoric! See, I told you they were all just a bunch of out-of-control, hate-spewing extremists, and apparently Sacks has had to concede the point and take some long-overdue action to rein in those animals!"
April 17th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
i don't want roy calling me a "cayjun" anymore either ...
April 17th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
NICE!
B
April 17th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
I think the reason people are using Nazi references is because people DO understand what it means rather than "do not" understand it. And by referencing the actions of the Nazis during WWII and before we remind people of what happened and show them how it is happening again.
We do the victims of the Nazis no favors by preventing the mentioning or comparison of Nazis to real world events. In fact, by constantly bringing it up we remember those victims, we re-enforce the negative of the Nazis, we educate the ignorant and we punish those who currently engage in a similar same hate based political system.
What the Nazis did in WWII should echo forever and reverberate in everyone's ears and minds. By censoring their mention on your website Glenn you halt that echo.
That said I'm wondering if any of the following will be allowed in the new lexicon? Maybe Glenn will ad them.
Feminasty
Fasciminist.
Gendercidal Womaniac
Femifascist
Miss-andrist
Phalli-phobia
Phallicide
Gyna-logical
Y-Chromosome Deficient
Gyna-thuggery
April 17th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
.... or questioning my ancestry :)
April 17th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Georgia Girl : You might call me dumb, but what is a 'cayjun' and why can everybody call you a cayjun except Roy ?
April 17th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I guess that it is difficult to convey feeling in the written blog without using extreme words, I am sorry but the lace curtain just does not convey the intimidating emotions and feelings of fear stirred that it instills and so deserves.
OMG RUN it is lace i am so afraid! . . . .?
b
April 17th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Glenn,
Recognizing absolutely that this is your blog and your may of course do with as you wish... I think there's a point you should consider:
Your ancestors in Europe might have been able to better prepare for the nightmares inflicted upon them had they had a common meeting hall to express and discuss their common insights, observations, experiences, etc.
The valid comparisons between Feminism and Nazism have been presented here and they are inarguable.
Now it is time for men to have that common meeting hall to express and discuss our common insights, observations and experiences.
Your blog IS THAT MEETING HALL your family never had.
This is where we, whom have suffered at the hand of feminism and its social policies and programs, come to express and discuss our common insights, observations and experiences.
It would be repetitive to discuss comparisons of Feminism and Nazism after demonspawns and pamphleteers posts (very well said gentlemen) have so eloquently done so.
It would not be repetitive to consider a very possible future where men are carted away in the night for male behaviors which have been redefined to consitute criminal acts... a reality presently increasing in scope in state and federal legislatures at the behest of feminist agendas. Legislative acts bribing federal and federal entities to zealously enforce these laws with huge grants of yours mine and ours tax dollars (CAPTA and VAWA Title III would be an example here) and providing motivation to create crime, by redefining until behaviors until they constitute criminal acts, where it does not exist.
Please Glenn, do not do to us, what European gov'ts did to your ancestors.
Squelch the voice of the targeted group (ie men in general and fathers in particular) to enable to oppressive group (feminists) to sieze control unimpeded.
I did not not shed my blood in Iraq to come home and face false allegations and watch fabricated excuses be used as grounds to eject me from my childrens lives... but that's exactly what happened (and I suspect I am far from alone in this regard).
Your blog is our meeting hall to compare notes, and compare successful strategies and tactics used to remain a part of our childrens lives.
And as has been mentioned, censoring is a slippery slope, when one word has been successfully banned for its social connotations, where does it end (ask Pol Pot and Idi Dada Amin).
Gunner Retired
April 17th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
no, you're not dumb
roy meant cajun
but nevermind ...
April 17th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
The term 'Cajun', a contraction of 'French Arcadian' dating back to the forced relocation of the settlers in French Arcadia to the Missisppi river basin (thought to be a despicable and harsh place to live) on the Gulf Coast hundreds of years ago.
The history is available on the internet for more specific information of the event in American history.
Gunner Retired
April 17th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
crawfish . . . mmmm, mmmm.
b
April 17th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Glenn,
I agree with you and applaud this move. But before explaining why, I would like to point something out -
In point of fact, comparisons between feminists and Nazis is indeed apt with regard to the relative platforms of the parties prior to WW II. I think that even a cursory perusal of the Nazi Party platform upon their rise to power makes this point clearly. Jonah Goldbergs most excellent book "Liberal Fascism" sets forth in painstaking detail the case I have always put forth - Nazism was short for National Socialism. The operative word was socialism. The German variant differed from Soviet Socialism only in that Soviet Socialism was international in its philosophical scope, while National socialism believed the bonds of shared community and culture were stronger than the "proletariat" bond between a factory worker in Pittsburgh and one in Minsk. It is a fascinating and eye opening read - yes, the minimum wage, national health care, care for the elderly, the forced subjugation of the rights of individuals for "The common good" and the destruction of capitalism were all part of the Nazi Party platform, and until the invasion of Russia in 1942, Hitler was the toast of the intelligentsia (along with Stalin and Mussolini) in the United States. That same intelligentsia today uses it as a slur against against people who are the polar opposite of Nazis, while advocating for loudly for those (and many more) policies that are right out of the gosse steppers playbook .
The only thing that makes me angry about that book is it makes the case I have always wanted to make. Well, I guess I chose to have adventures instead of write for a living, so thats a bad on me. Good work, Jonah.
All that said, good move, IMHO. When I hear people use the term "Nazi" in an educated way - that is to say hear it used by someone who knows something more about what the Nazis were, what they stood for and can make real comparison based on historical fact between their social vision and the ones held so dear by so many in this country today, I will respect that and find it thought provoking. Too many use it as a convenient slur without taking a look at what sacred cows they hold dear that they would be shocked to find are in common with the Nazis. That just sounds dumb.
Another word people throw around without giving any thought to its true meaning is "censorship." Censorship is the federal government, under color of authority (force) forbidding certain words or thoughts. There are many examples of this in our society today.
"Property Rights," (another target of the Nazis, and of the federal government on both sides of the fence today) is best demonstrated with this scenario - Lets say a guy has a website. He owns it, it is his, people come and go from it and comment on it. He owns it, you see - all that occurs or does not occur on it happens at his pleasure. Something is happening on it he doesn't like, so he says it won't happen anymore.
A Nazi would suggest his property is subject to the will of those who come and go on his private property - that his rights exist at the whim and pleasure of the mob. A "Not A Nazi" would say your site, your rules.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Glenn-
!) I'm Jewish
2) I'm a physician
3) I'm opposed to abortion
With that said, it's not inappropriate to compare the feminist movement to the Nazi movement. Ponder the loss of life in the last 35 years, and the differences become blurred.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
MD in Sacramento--I don't agree with your views on abortion, but I think the abortion question is largely irrelevant to the use of "Nazi," etc. on this blog. The overwhelming percentage of times "Nazi," etc. are used, it is not used in reference to abortion.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
But abortion is a big part of the feminazi plan, so its still relevant. The term fits even if You dont like it. Dont censor Us Glenn, its against every freedom America has.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Gunner:
That’s a lot to put on a guy’s shoulders. Maybe we just need to find a new meeting hall.
I agree with the Wolfman that it’s Glenn’s property and therefore his decision entirely.
I think the overwhelming consensus to this point is that it shouldn’t be done, but demanding it from Glenn is like walking into a guy’s house and telling him how to run his life, in order to facilitate the public good.
In America it just doesn’t work like that.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Gunner Retired makes excellent points.
I would like to offer something from the news of the Supreme Court's arguments of today, as reported in The Times-Picayune, which is under the headline "Supreme Court debates execution in child rape case" below.
Personally, I can certainly agree with the sentiment of stringing up an actual child rapist if one had evidence which was beyond any doubt whatsoever. But I can also see how such morally-sensible sounding laws could be horribly abused in the context of an ever-worsening targeting of the male gender in America, especially when one considers what is written about so often in this blog -- false accusations of various types.
What about a false child rape accusation? A woman who inflicts a penetrative lesion upon a toddler, and then accuses a man of having done so? And this man would face the death penalty due to the "heinous" nature of the falsely alleged crime?
Weren't blacks in the deep South executed for allegedly raping white women not so long ago?
So folks, sorry to repeat my point that things could get far, FAR worse for fathers and their children in America before they get better, but imagine a tidal wave of States adopting "death penalty" interpretations of a host of ugly crimes against women and children -- which crimes are not murders. And imagine these could be "crimes" defined by current political "trends" to use the term used by our own Supreme Court judges below -- TRENDS -- can you fathom the implications of them speaking about death penalties being invoked due to TRENDS? And imagine that these crimes were of a type where false accusations could be easily made, and difficult to disprove. And imagine innocent men being liquidated in court of all of their assets, and then put to their deaths over a money- or custody- motivated false accusation.
Now Glenn, would "trend" based legal interpretations permitting death penalties against males for a range of unattractive crimes -- many being potentially intrafamilial in nature -- move us a step or two further in the direction of the distant extreme scenario of full group roundups and executions?
If you say "no", or if you say, "sure, but still miles from roundups and mass executions", I want you to think very carefully about my next three paragraphs. Very carefully.
Many would be stuck on the "genetic-group" or "religious-group" aspect as the relevant difference here, and not see there being any similarity whatsoever. That may well be an illusion Glenn. Do you think that some might take the view that the "individual, case-by-case" treatment of the falsely accused, is simply a process-model modification which enables the efficient targeting those worth targeting with false accusations, so as to have their assets taken by the gangsters profiting through rigged courts and asset-stripping show trials? I mean why waste court time on men with no assets, right? So individual accusations are, curiously enough, a way to single out those who can afford to pay, right? Those who are worth looting? If gangsters are using courts as the forum to loot those in the targeted group, and it is a perfectly self-financing activity which "equitably" spreads gold into the pockets of members of the "party" in power, is that such a non-viable alternative process model for what may in fact have been one of the major "rewards" sought by some of those unmentionables who used a different "marketing" premise (racial purity) to manipulate a country into helping them achieve the same end of looting an economically successful group?
Do you really think Glenn that racial purity was the motive of the unmentionables? Could it have been that simple greed for the loot taken by so many at the top of that evil empire from their targeted group was a major motivation? Could it have been the primary motivation? Surely it was for some, was it not? But if they adopted racial purity as the "noble motive" for their actions, they would of course have the inconvenience of having to kill entire families wouldn't they? Even ones without any assets of particular interest, right? But under this guise they would, despite the inconvenience, still be able to take the assets of the most successful members of the group, right Glenn? So is it possible Glenn, that economic motives were among the most driving ones among the unmentionables, but the official "noble motive" or cover story if you will, required a wider killing footprint in order to execute on the more "rewarding" looting plan of these psychopaths?
I think it is quite possibly the case that much of the real motivation for "racial purification" by the leaders of the unmentionables was in fact economic -- i.e., greed. And they packaged their campaign in such a way as to cause them the "need" to kill many more than the actual asset-holders and economic participants/competitors who were the true target of their money and power lust. And was it really that hard for the unmentionables to implement that wider killing footprint? Very sadly, it was not.
The ability of individuals to stand by -- or profit from -- the destruction of their fellow human beings, provided that such destruction has been "approved" by society, should never be underestimated. Psychologists sometimes call it "bystander apathy". Combine this with psychopathy of some of those in power over our courts, and you could wind up with legalized murder as a punishment for hard-to-prove and hard-to-disprove crimes. One step further to the worst atrocity in human memory.
The casual dialogue among our Supreme Court Justices about whether they should or should not go with "the trend" of applying the death penalty to more and more non-murder types of cases should give all Americans real pause.
This should give all pauls over any ideas of limiting even the most alarmist use of analogies to the unmentionables. Because frankly, there is every indication that, under color of law, very powerful elements of American government are unwittingly and perhaps with the best of intentions to "improve" our country and reduce horrid crimes, putting in place the types of enabling mechanisms needed by the perversly-intended for the further brutalization of American males --- types of mechanisms in which those of the unmentionable perspective would surely see the potential for horrid exploitation of men, and great profit for themselves.
Here is The Times-Picayune article:
Supreme Court debates execution in child rape case
Thursday, April 17, 2008
By Bill Walsh
WASHINGTON -- Members of the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative wing Wednesday vigorously defended Louisiana's toughest-in-the-nation law allowing the death penalty for those who rape children.
The death sentence imposed on Patrick Kennedy, 44, of Harvey, would bring the first execution in the United States since 1964 of someone for any crime other than murder and presents the court with the chance to settle long-simmering questions about just how far capital punishment should reach.
Louisiana is one of five states to allow the death penalty in child rape cases. Unlike the others, however, juries in Louisiana can impose death on first-time offenders.
In oral arguments Wednesday, Jeffrey Fisher, the attorney arguing the case for Kennedy, said that the Supreme Court long ago decided the question. In 1977, the court ruled in a Georgia case that the death penalty for the rape of a woman constituted "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the 8th Amendment.
But Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts indicated they didn't feel bound by the Georgia decision, especially when the Louisiana case concerned an 8-year-old child, rather than an adult, placing it in a category of especially heinous crimes.
Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, generally regarded as liberal, questioned whether the Georgia case ruled out the possibility that rape could be punishable by death.
"You're saying (the Louisiana law) is off the charts because you cannot have a death penalty for rape," Ginsburg told Fisher. "And I suggested that's not so clear."
Scalia likewise challenged Fisher's contention that capital punishment should be reserved for murderers.
"What about treason?" Scalia asked. "Do you think treason is worse than child rape?"
Justice Stephen Breyer took the lead in challenging Louisiana's statute, which was upheld last year by the state Supreme Court. Breyer said that allowing the execution of child rapists would prompt state legislatures to extend the application of capital punishment to all manner of crimes.
"I'm not a moralist. I'm a judge. As a judge, I look at the law. It seems for 43 years no one has been executed but for murder," Breyer said. "If I accept your argument, have I then opened the door so that states will find lots of different crimes which are seriously horrible?"
"Just the way they used to," Scalia interjected.
"Perhaps at the time, 200 years ago, that's true," Breyer replied.
Justice David Souter raised concerns that the Louisiana law was too broad. He said that because Louisiana didn't narrow the class of child rapes that could be punishable by death, as it has done in murder cases, juries and prosecutors would be given dangerously wide discretion about when to seek the ultimate penalty.
Yet juries in Jefferson Parish, where Kennedy was convicted in 2003, have since opted to impose life sentences on child rapists rather than death. In December, a jury in Caddo Parish handed down the only other death sentence in Louisiana -- and the nation -- for raping a child. The victim was 5 years old.
No one disputed that Louisiana's law is the broadest in the nation. But Juliet Clark, an assistant district attorney in Jefferson Parish, said the state took steps to narrow it by allowing a death sentence only when victims are younger than 12.
That seemed to be good enough for the chief justice.
"Why isn't it sufficient narrowing that they make the death eligibility for rape of a child under 12 as opposed to under 16?" Roberts asked.
The justices frequently consider the "evolving standards" of society in deciding cases, but there was sharp disagreement in court Wednesday over the direction of the trend when it comes to capital punishment in child rape cases.
Fisher, Kennedy's attorney, noted that the same number of states now allow capital punishment for rape as they did three decades ago, although the individual states have changed. Also, in recent years, at least three other states -- Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee -- considered passing similar laws, but opted not to.
Chief Justice Roberts looked at the figures differently. He said that since Louisiana passed its law in 1995, four other states have followed its lead, suggesting that the national trend is in the direction of including child rape among those offenses punishable by death.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
AP @ 8:25pm: "What about a false child rape accusation? A woman who inflicts a penetrative lesion upon a toddler, and then accuses a man of having done so? And this man would face the death penalty due to the "heinous" nature of the falsely alleged crime?"
Just reading that made me quiver followed by anger at the thought of someone doing this to a child. This feeling lasted for only a second as they are really just words. Then, I imagine someone that doesn't let this feeling go - they prosecute a man - then find out they were wrong. There's that feeling again.
Agreed.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
"Those who do not remember history are destined to repeat it"
Keeping the memory of the Nazis alive is probably the greatest way to honor those who died because of them. When Nazis are mentioned on this site their are many voices of reason that rein in the comparisons. It also sharpens the debate by having more people being able to use ideas precisely. Freedom of speech is productive.
Deaths in WW2 were mostly sudden and brutal. Men don't live under that same type of stress today. Our stress is of a less acute more insidious nature but an analysis of the numbers can reveal some interesting things. For example:
In the US every year 2.4 million people die. 1.2 million men at an average age of 75 years and 1.2 million women at an average of 80 years. A 5 year gap spread over those 1.2 million men is 6,000,000 man years less than the same cohort of women. Or dividing by 75 years the equivalent of 80,000 men's lives per year. If feminism has been giving us equality for 40 years that is 40 years x 80,000 man lives/years or the equivalent of -3.2 million man lives lost - in the time span since feminism started. A lot of years when grandfathers could have passed on lessons to grandsons. A loss to society . That's just the US. Take the numbers where you want to go. The drip drip adds up and shouldn't be discounted. Genetically we are meant to live the same amount of time as we did before the 20th century.
I got some of the numbers for this calculus from the USA Today website. Here is an excerpt :" Men are catching up. American men now live just five years less than women. by Kim Painter " It's easy for her to say JUST.
Nazi references should stay, if this decision is up for reconsideration.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Kevin Merck,
DSS (in it's myriad of guises) does it on a VERY regular basis, go visit any military enlisted housing group within a half hour drive of a CPS/DFCS/DCS/DYFS/etc office (that would be most military enlisted housing groups, they seem to go hand in hand) and ask around how many have had a DSS worker follow a child home from the mini-mart/playground/bus stop/etc and preach to the parent about how to raise the child. You could tell a DSS worker from a across the playground, watching children, particularly the less than fashionably attired children (remember, these are young families on a sailors pay) or dirty (kid on a playground, gee...) and writing in a binder (talk about clear off a playground quickly!!!).
I was there at Murphy Canyon Navy Housing when sailors left the service rather than remain living there. I know of several instances wherein said DSS worker followed a child home... and the family packed up and moved out that night, returning to the service members home state. With neighybors packing the remainder of the familys household goods in the following days and arranging for shipment at the servicemembers expense (in lieu of PCS transshipment).
There was room to argue that at the time, Murphy Canyon was Califs largest supplier of caucasion babies for the state adoption racket, with young Navy families blackmailed into forfeiting parental rights in lieu of facing fabricated neglect/abuse charges in court. (which NO junior or mid grade enlisted member has the financial means to effect a legal defense against).
Roosevelt Terrace (substandard housing) in SF Bay was almost as bad, but I had the good fortune to pull a unit up at Hamilton AFB (did I just date myself here?).
Gunner Retired
April 17th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Folks, writers are building the paradigm we live in..
Paradigm constructionists are powerfull people, and the pen is mightier than the sword.
Behold, What Dr.Warren Farrel has coined..."The Lace Curtain.."
"Our hypothesis is that worthy victims will be featured prominently and dramatically, that they will be humanized, and that their victimization will receive the detail and context in story construction that will generate reader interest and sympathetic emotions. In contrast, unworthy victims will merit only slight detail, minimal humanization, and little context that will excite and enrage."
—E. S. Herman and N. Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent:1
April 17th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
A lot of people on this thread have been saying they should be able to use Nazis because, according to them feminists are, in fact, Nazis.
I have a similar request. I would like to be able to use the term "misogynistic f--ckbend"; I do not think it describes all MRAS, but there are some for which it is a perfectly accurate descriptor.
/sarcasm
April 17th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Sorry Gunner,
What I meant to say is that it isn’t the way it’s supposed to work in America, but we all know the truth is a lot different. That’s why I say it’s Glenn’s call, and I know you did too, at the beginning of your last comment.
Let’s just see what happens.
I know the government preys on our children. Those kids they’re taking for the adoption racket should be coming from single females hijacking the system for a free ride, not the people who die to protect our freedom.
The only problem is the multitude of parasitic lawyers, social workers and all the rest who make their living exploiting the mothers, fathers and children of unwed parents. The states depend on that money for a large part of their budgets. It’s not going to be easy to stop them from preying on our children when there’s so much money involved.
And of course we all know about the divorce racket and how they prey on those families.
The catalyst for most of this is Roe vs. Wade. Women have the power of “God” in our society and Roe vs. Wade gave it to them.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I'm wondering if I am (we are) misconstruing what Glenn is asking of us.
To call someone a Nazi is already against the rules as it falls under making personal attacks.
However, I think comparing feminism to fascism is reasonable and valid. The explanations of this already given on this thread bear that out.
Is there a compromise to be had hear between the wishes of Glenn and the needs of his patrons?
Can we refrain from calling someone a Nazi while still being able to make accurate analogies.?
April 17th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
I kind of agree with Glenn's sentiment here. The problem is that allowing people to post anything doesn't really do the men's movement any favours. It just allows our critics more opportunities to point to dumb comments and say 'look, what a bunch of dumb losers they are'. So imposing some discipline is actually more helpful in the long run.
I don't think I have used the term feminazi here. Although I have repeatedly said that the women's movement is a fascist movement. And I don't recant from that. After all, fascism is a much broader concept than Nazism.
Any movement that believes so strongly in state-directed social engineering, as well as compromising basic rights like the presumption-of-innocence and due process in criminal matters, and silencing and marginalising critics is clearly suffering from a fascist state of mind.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
How about gyno-socialists instead of feminazi?
April 17th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
It is so interesting to read all your pleas to Glenn to use the term “nazi” or “feminazi” or “Hitler” to describe feminists or feminist “tactics”.
I really love how you are pretending that he is trying to censor your ideas or that he is becoming all PC! I really don’t know of many other places where you could express your feelings about women and especially feminists in such a manner. You can say things here that you really can’t say in public.
Plus, I don’t think Glenn has said that any subject is off the table. Just one word. If you cannot express yourselves without calling feminists Nazis, then maybe you need a thesaurus. Some have already been suggested. (I hate to admit it, but I kind of like “feminuts”.)
FYI, there is another N-word that I am assuming is also banned here (and everywhere) because it is racist and stupid. And yet you are managing without it. Imagine that.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
jeana said: Plus, I don’t think Glenn has said that any subject is off the table. Just one word. If you cannot express yourselves without calling feminists Nazis, then maybe you need a thesaurus. Some have already been suggested. (I hate to admit it, but I kind of like “feminuts”.)
You apparently didn't read the original blog entry. Three words are banned and it seems their related analogies. This is a broad ban that includes not only these words but also (it seems) legitimate comparisons.
I will settle for femifascist though.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Jean says " Three words are banned and it seems their related analogies. This is a broad ban that includes not only these words but also (it seems) legitimate comparisons."
It's not a "broad ban," it's a very narrow ban and if we can't articulate our issues without throwing around the "Nazi" nonsense then our movement ought to pack it up and quit.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Jeana says "I really love how you are pretending that he is trying to censor your ideas or that he is becoming all PC! I really don’t know of many other places where you could express your feelings about women and especially feminists in such a manner. You can say things here that you really can’t say in public."
Thanks for acknowledging the fact that men are heavily constrained from expressing negative attitudes about women in most areas of society.
There is a massive double standard in contemporary gender politics. Women are allowed to villify men as much as they wish and blame men for all their problems. Yet men are not allowed to criticise women or point to areas where women need to change their attitudes. This is what peeses us all off, just a teensy weensy bit.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I'm sad to see the word go. it totally sums up the attitude of your average feminist. I know a lot about the holocaust and I even visited Dachau concentration camp outside of Munich and I believe it is about the best word to describe feminists and their evil policies. They are simply insane, out of control and have no restraint. I believe history will bear out the striking similarities between feminism and you know the word.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Did you ever think how incredibly inappropriate it is to compare us to Nazis? I agree with another poster who said that when you resort to comparing feminists to Nazis, not only do you look kind of psycho (well, he didn’t say that but I will), but you really don’t do your movement any good. You appear to be way, way, way off the deep end and the rest of your arguments are easy to ignore.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
I think this is a very wise decision... it forces people to be more logical and less emotive in the articulation of their positions.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Georgia -- "i don't want roy calling me a "cayjun" anymore either ..."
That implies you are ashamed of your heritage, or that Louisiana folks need to be hidding something.
So, are you?
Just for the record, there would be no decent blues music in this country without the "cayjun" influence.
I can't find an insult anywhere in what I said.
That girl writes really well and she does not need sympathy from anyone reading her prose.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I actually think that Glenn is doing you guys a favor by this. I really don’t read other blogs like this (except that MAID one one time), or feminist sites either, but I could really imagine them having a field day with your Nazi comments. And you are all so creative in your associations and ideas (women are responsible for global warming and possibly the coming fall of western civilization, for instance), that it’s really not going to hurt you in any way.
It’s like when people use rape analogies, which I hate. When people say things like, “it’s like a gang rape”, I feel like asking, “Why don’t you ask a rape victim if she would rather actually be raped or yelled at by a bunch of people? There’s really no comparison. It’s demeaning to those who suffered under horrific conditions to compare what they went through to something that barely has more than a shadow of a similarity, and really only then, metaphorically.
I wonder if you ask an actual victim of Nazis, an actual Holocaust survivor, what they would say of the comparison.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
"All You neutered and now censored men can talk with guarded intentions, whipped by women and now Glenn Sacks."
...or...you can stick to words that won't immediately derail the thread. Go look up Godwin's Law.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
jean said: Did you ever think how incredibly inappropriate it is to compare us to Nazis? I agree with another poster who said that when you resort to comparing feminists to Nazis, not only do you look kind of psycho (well, he didn’t say that but I will), but you really don’t do your movement any good. You appear to be way, way, way off the deep end and the rest of your arguments are easy to ignore.
Here's a heads up for you feminist. I don't give a flying fornication what you think.
As a feminist you have no moral ground to lecture anyone on the proper use of language or analogy. Your ideology is of hatred and blame.
Sell crazy somewhere else.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Glenn said: It's not a "broad ban," it's a very narrow ban and if we can't articulate our issues without throwing around the "Nazi" nonsense then our movement ought to pack it up and quit.
I'll look forward to Part 2 to see what you come up with.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Jean V,
Really? All of us have an ideology of hatred and blame? How do you know what my ideology is?
And I wasn't lecturing you. I gave my opinion and some advice. And I bet that if you asked people if they thought feminists were like Nazis, most would say no. At least I hope so.
Nazis did horrible, horrible things to people. Can't you come up with any other comparison?
April 18th, 2008 at 12:04 am
I have a terrible Chivalrous soft spot for the girls who post on Glenn's blog.
I cannot seem to get over it.
Several of these woman are extremely gifted writers.
They piss me off.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:05 am
History will decide if the femi-nazi analogy was appropriate.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:27 am
jeana said:Nazis did horrible, horrible things to people. Can't you come up with any other comparison?
I could, but I'm also not allowed to use the words BXXXh or CXXT.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Jean V., I have often wondered how any of you refrain from using those words. Especially the c-word. You know that it shows such hatred for women to use that word. It goes way beyond complaining about what some feminist said or did.
Surely you can come up with something less offensive. And by the way, why do you need to use any other word than "feminist"? I think the b-word is acceptable (although I don't like it) but the c-word is hate speech. What similar word to women have to call men that is that terrible?
April 18th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Jeana,
Get off it. Boo hoo. OMG!! The "C" word!!! Fit of the vapors for ALL!!
Glenn,
You refer to "Nazi nonsense." However, with all due respect, you have never laid out a cogent case for rejecting the analogy. Come on. You are better than this. Lay it out.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Nick,
You say, "There is a massive double standard in contemporary gender politics. Women are allowed to villify men as much as they wish and blame men for all their problems. Yet men are not allowed to criticise women or point to areas where women need to change their attitudes. This is what peeses us all off, just a teensy weensy bit."
You can say virtually ANYTHING you want here. All you guys do is criticize women! It is your main hobby. But you should try to do it in a sane way. I will agree that women can get away with criticizing men more than the reverse. I can see how that might irritate you a teensy weensy bit. So you have this site to say anything you want, in virtually any way you want to say it.
It is much easier to see or empathize with someone's point of view if they are not calling you a terrorist or Nazi.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Jay R,
You may think c&&t is an ok word, but it is the most demeaning thing you can call a female. I don't think there's a female alive who would disagree with that. I'd rather be called a Nazi.
At least when I'm called a Nazi (at least 4 times since I've been here), I think the person is just spurting nonsense. When they use that other word, it shows real hatred. I don't expect you to get it since there's no similar word for men. But it is unsettling.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Jeana,
Do you have to practice to achieve this level of ignarance?
"He's such a d!ck!" "What a pr!ck!"
What do you mean, no similar word? Does "feminist" equal "brain-dead"?
April 18th, 2008 at 1:01 am
"Ignarance." Great.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Jay R,
No "feminist" does not equal "brain-dead"; thanks for asking.
It is amazing that I can have a conversation with any of you without once referring to you as a "dick" or a "prick". And I don't think those words are anything near "c#$t".
Don't you think that the opinion of the person who is offended by your slurs should carry more weight than the guys doing the slurring?
April 18th, 2008 at 1:13 am
I'll ask a few. Yes, I know a few personally. From previous conversations with them, they might just be inclined to agree.
Yet I've noticed you haven't rebutted any of the arguments presented.
VAWA did horrible things to people. IMBRA made all men suspected rapists/abusers. Again, rebut the arguments if you think they are false.
Nonsense? Again, the arguments have not even been rebutted.
Glenn, the biggest disagreement that I'm going to have with you is that you think we should "play nice" and come to agreement with Feminists. It's not going to happen. Therefore, I see no vested interest in "playing nice" with them. Feminists are our oppressors. We've all seen it; even when feminists get "equality" they still press for even more female advantage. What makes you think they are going to stop? They aren't, until men rise up and stop them.
It's time to stop thinking of this like a disagreement. It's a war. Until men start fighting back, our rights and some of our livelihoods, and even some of our lives, are going to pay the price. We are in no more of a position to sue for peace than Jews in 1939 Germany.
Feminism is going to drive for laws that clamp down even harder on men. More men will individually revolt (i.e. Darren Mack) because they have nobody on their side.. nowhere else to turn. Feminists will use that as fuel for even more male-restrictive laws. That is our future until we see this as a war and battle to be fought rather than a disagreement to be appeased.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Most feminists simply want to address concerns important to women. The evidence for rampant man-hate among feminists simply is not there, so calling them Nazis comes across as deeply misogynistic. I suppose I should give many of those who bleat the "feminazi" drek the benefit of the doubt and assume they are simply misguided, but sometimes it is difficult.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Hey guys - allowing idiots to post/publish their most inflammatory, hateful and unfair arguments, does not seem to damage social movements. If it did, the N.O.W. national board would have silenced Marcia Pappas of NOW-NYS by now.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:19 am
"It is amazing that I can have a conversation with any of you without once referring to you as a "d--k" or a "p---k" [LETTER DELETIONS MINE]. And I don't think those words are anything near 'c#$t'".
Jeana, I'm happy you don't use those two words to describe the men here. But I disagree with your last statement, as well as your decision to "bleep" out the last word but not the two used to slur men. All three of those words are used a.) to describe a private part of a man's or a woman's body, and/or b.) to denigrate the man or woman himself/herself. They are all equivalent with one another.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:20 am
This needs a whole new category of logical fallacy.
What is Latin for "appeal to victimization" ?
Your opinion is worth no more weight because YOU DECIDE to be offended.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Harq - read "Herland" by Charlotte Perkins-Gilman. Or accept my synopsis: 'Once there was a Utopia. It was Utopia because there were no men. Then, 4 men arrived and Utopia was destroyed'
Sounded like man-hate to me.
So, my 'gender issues in lit' class report on that book, was a detailed compare/contrast with the DYStopia of Huxley's "Brave New World". I got an "A". Fun
April 18th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Jeana said: What similar word to women have to call men that is that terrible?
Oh how about:
Rapist, child molester, oppressor, defective, victimizer and a thousand other hateful and untrue insults and slights over the last 40 years hurled against all men. Of course I imagine you think men aren't hurt by any of these words. After all we are just dumb beasts of burden. We don't have feelings.
The notion that you think after 40 years of female hatred towards men you think we should be all warm and fuzzy towards feminists can be summed up to one thing--female privilege.
jeana said: When they use that other word, it shows real hatred. I don't expect you to get it since there's no similar word for men. But it is unsettling.
What goes around comes around. "Unsettling" is the purpose of it. You deserve to be unsettled. You deserve to realize that feminist misandry has a consequence. You need to know that there are men who don't like women and even hate them and the reason they feel this way is because of the things Feminists have done. That for every woman to blames men there are men who resent it and who won't forget it. For every father who has his children ripped from him or who is falsely accused of rape or abuse we all see it. Each transgression ups the ante of contempt towards women.
It should be unsettling jeana. That feeling up upset is your body's warning mechanism that is telling what you are doing is wrong and you are approaching danger.
Keep it up.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:26 am
In reviewing some of the many posts on this thread, I feel compelled to point out what seems to be a split in the use of the "Nazi" term or analogy.
One group (and I count myself in this group) seems to see important parallels between the undertakings and impacts of those who operated over 50 years ago under the authority of, or as part of, this evil regime. This group of participants in this blog are parsing through the details of the Nazi regime and finding possibly significant parallels or differences between that regime and era, and the current regime/s which exploit and suppress men and other groups for various reasons.
The other group (and I do not count myself in that group) seems to be just very pissed at the visible and perhaps too obvious target of "feminists" or as they call them "femnazis" and far too ready to blame them for so many if not all of the problems which are afflicting men and fathers in this country at this time.
So, I guess I would like to take a stab at a defining analogy at this juncture, which is as follows:
"Preserving the master race" is to "German Nazis"
as
"Feminism" is to "Exploiters of fathers and families in U.S. Family Courts"
In other words, I see "Feminism" as the moral-justification smokescreen which is blatantly used by the real villains in the vile family court rape-and-pillage enterprise so as to provide them cover for the dirty business in which they are engaged.
Similarly, I see the absurd marketing spin of "preserving the master race" as the moral-justification smokescreen used so many years ago by the real villains of Nazi Germany so as to provide them with cover for their rampant economic looting of a target group for the personal profit and relative empowerment of the Nazi leader/looters.
As I have written here before, is see "Feminists" as a straw-man (woman). A decoy. A moral justification which is likely more often used by male lawyer/looters of fathers and families than it is used by any female.
So in this blog it would seem that there is a social analytical use of "Nazis" which by many indications is highly useful to those who write and visit here. And, there an unrelated "venting' use of "Nazi", "femnazis" and the like.
To my eyes, those who are engaging in the "venting" use of this term are showing that they have been duped by the "decoy" of feminism, because feminism per se is largely irrelevant to the real grand-scale larceny occurring on this human stage centered around American family courts.
Meanwhile, those who are plumbing the depths of analogic comparisons between this and prior suppressive regimes, including the Nazis among others, are doing exactly what any educated person would do when confronted with a disturbing modern day inter-group exploitation such as that going on between family courts and fathers.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Jean V,
“It should be unsettling jeana. That feeling up upset is your body's warning mechanism that is telling what you are doing is wrong and you are approaching danger.”
The word I was going to use and then deleted wasn’t “unsettling” but “frightening”. It is very frightening when a guy uses that word. You can say “men are dicks” as a joke (not that it’s right) but your favorite word implies so much more. It’s also very crass and low-life.
And I am not doing anything wrong. That feeling I get is my body telling me “here’s a psycho freak to stay away from”.
And I'm not sure I said you should feel warm and fuzzy toward us. But hatred is pretty extreme.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Harq al-Ada: Most feminists simply want to address concerns important to women. The evidence for rampant man-hate among feminists simply is not there, so calling them Nazis comes across as deeply misogynistic. I suppose I should give many of those who bleat the "feminazi" drek the benefit of the doubt and assume they are simply misguided, but sometimes it is difficult.
There is an entire body of misandrist writing that feminist have not rejected. There are hundreds of laws against men that feminists have passed.
The evidence for rampant man-hate is there. It is part of our culture. It exists in media, literature, and social custom.
You can't "spin" it away.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:44 am
Jeana, I would only call you a terrorist or a Nazi if you were here saying that I need a vagina to be a good parent. I've never seen that from you.
What would you say about the author of this quote:
"Patiarchy's chief instittion is the family. It is both a mirror of and a connection with the larger society; a patriarchal unit within a patriarchal whole. Mediating between the individual and social structure, the family affects control and conformity where political and other authorities are insufficient... serving as agent of the larger society, the family not only encourages its own members to adjust and conform, but acts as a unit in the government of the patriarchal state which rules its citizens through its family heads." (Kate Millet, "Sexual Politics", 2.3, 1969)
Actually, on reading that again, Nazi doesn't fit. "Anarchist" is much more appropriate. To Miss Kate here, society, government and family are all oppressive and evil, and "Patriarchy" is her word for all of them working together. Funny though that today, the people who cry "Patriarchy" are the same ones who vote for higher taxes to fund larger government with more influence over our personal and family lives.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:46 am
"The word I was going to use and then deleted wasn’t 'unsettling' but 'frightening'. It is very frightening when a guy uses that word. You can say 'men are dicks' as a joke (not that it’s right) but your favorite word implies so much more."
The word you speak of isn't my "favorite word," but isn't it true that what a word implies differs from person to person? Some people see nothing wrong with "d--k" or "p---k," but I get P'd off when I hear them.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:50 am
jeana said: The word I was going to use and then deleted wasn’t “unsettling” but “frightening”. It is very frightening when a guy uses that word. You can say “men are dicks” as a joke (not that it’s right) but your favorite word implies so much more. It’s also very crass and low-life.
And I am not doing anything wrong. That feeling I get is my body telling me “here’s a psycho freak to stay away from”.
And I'm not sure I said you should feel warm and fuzzy toward us. But hatred is pretty extreme.
Hillary Clinton said in a speech (paraphrasing) that men's lives are not as important as women's feelings.
She is a mainstream feminist and that speech IS hate plain and simple. If she is able to espouse this hatred and still run for President then I'd say that feminist hatred of men has become so common place as to be unnoticeable.
It is very frightening when a guy uses that word.
You should be frightened when you push a man to the point where he uses such language. It's frightening because you know you've reached the limit of the protection that female privilege provides you.
You can say “men are dicks” as a joke (not that it’s right) but your favorite word implies so much more.
This is not my "favorite" word. I never said it was. Don't mischaracterize me.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Demon,
Here is what I think of your view that we are like Nazis.
“The biggest difference is the Holocaust.. that it hasn't happened (yet?).” When I get the memo from NOW about the coming slaughter of men, I’ll give you a heads-up, ok?
“Both are propaganda spreading hate groups that gain political power by targeting the ills of society on a socially accepted hated group (Jews in Hitler's case, Men in Feminism's case).” And Feminists in MRA’s case.
“They then use that political power to restrict the activities of the targeted group, criminalize many of that group's behaviors, and over-claim the damage caused by said group (hence the feminist manipulation of statistics to spread hate).” What activities are we restricting? Your need to have unprotected sex without consequence? Doubtful that we are responsible for criminalizing “many” of your behaviors. Some, yes, but you should talk to Congress since they are the legislative branch of government, and not NOW.
“Both were based on Marxist principles.” I keep hearing this here. I have not been convinced. Just saying it doesn’t make it so.
“Both use the hated group as the scapegoat for the lack of advancement of the preferred group.” Like Republicans use Liberals as the reason for every ill in society? Like our government uses Muslims as an excuse to fuel a “war on terror”? Like extremist Christians use gays/lesbians/liberals as a scapegoat for hurricanes and disease? Like MRAs use Feminists as the scapegoat for the supposed oppression of men?
“As for the Holocaust aspect of the comparison, we have seen inklings of that as well. Marlyn French and other Feminists have advocated for population control of the males in our species” I don’t know who she is but anyone advocating killing a gender is not dealing with a full deck. The rantings of a few individuals does not a generally accepted opinion make.
“Feminism's current plan is to criminalize as much male behavior as possible to remove men from society via incarceration.” Actually, only the rotten men should be incarcerated. Women too. We have more people in prison than anywhere else in the world. I haven’t seen NOW’s plans to incarcerate you. Oh, that’s because we’re planning on exterminating you. It would be inefficient to do both I guess.
“The reason this is used is feminism lacks the political power to have the same type of concentration camps as Germany had.” Wait—I thought we had all politicians and judges under our thumbs. I thought we controlled every aspect of society. So all we need is a little tiny bit more power and we’ll start a concentration camp? How could any American do that? Oh wait, we already have a concentration camp. It’s in Guantanamo.
“It could also be because they don't need them; our government is more than happy to hand over men's work to women via child support, alimony, and other female subsidies.” Gosh, I must have fallen off the list because the last I checked, I am not receiving an alimony check (probably because I’ve never been divorced, but still), child support, welfare…Oh wait, I was allowed to get 6 weeks paid (at 60% of my salary) after my son was born. And then I was allowed to take 6 more weeks off unpaid. I might very well have destroyed my corporation (and mankind) in the process. My God, I didn’t realize what I was doing!
“To encamp men might not be the ultimate goal as that would reduce the amount of money being transfered from male to female hands at government gunpoint.” Does this refer to men not paying child support and being forced to? Are you talking about taxes, which, last time I checked, were not less for me because I am female. Gunpoint? I’m guessing that is hyperbole.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:58 am
bmmg39,
Here's some advice: if you hear someone say "d--k" or "p---k," then say back to them in a calm manner, "You know, that word is really offensive to me" and walk away. People are more used to saying both those words and need to be reminded that they are demeaning. Spread awareness. If it offends you, say so.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Jean V,
"You should be frightened when you push a man to the point where he uses such language. It's frightening because you know you've reached the limit of the protection that female privilege provides you."
If any man used that word about me specifically, I'd never have anything to do with him again. I have never "pushed" anyone to say that. I have heard guys use that word, though, when other, less volatile words would do just fine. It's just pure hate.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:02 am
The argument about whether feminists hate men or not is yet another case where they simply change their arguments depending on what they can get away with. They will peddle endless anti-male propaganda, until people start calling them on it. Then they will look with wide-eyed innocence and say 'we have nothing against men'.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:04 am
"People are more used to saying both those words and need to be reminded that they are demeaning. Spread awareness. If it offends you, say so."
That's exactly what should be said, Jeana. I agree with you.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:09 am
That's too bad.
For one think, Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, Ph.D.'s, make the comparison in their scholarly book "Legalizing Misandry". Also, the comparison is usually made by people on here with reference to mindset or mentality (the same way Nathanson and Young use it), not the leveling of towns or some such thing. Finally, making an analogy between two things 'A' and 'B' is just that - an analogy. It is generally designed to specifically point out one commonality or similarity (which is based on the topic of discussion). It does not imply 'A' equals 'B'. That would be an equivalence, not an analogy.
Actually having written that, maybe now I can see where it is a good idea to ban it. After all, 90% of people reading this blog probably make the same mistake with analogies. So they are bound to misinterpret it and get carried away.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Demon,
"Your opinion is worth no more weight because YOU DECIDE to be offended." Wrong again. I am offended because certain words carry a lot of hatred with them. Should Blacks be offended by the n-word? It's just a word, after all. Why the fuss? In Arizona, they renamed "Squaw Peak" after a Native American woman who was killed in Iraq. People are still crazed about it. "Piestewa Peak" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but "Squaw" is incredibly demeaning to Native American women. And the dolts I live around can't seem to get it. You may not be offended, but the group you are targeting is offended. Try to empathize.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:18 am
I really like jeana's arguments. They remind me all over how feminists like to take harmless characteristics of their opponents and play them up as important and criminal, like using the N-word.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:25 am
Stephen M,
"harmless characteristics"? By this you mean calling me a "feminazi" or a "c--t"? I think it is entirely relevant to compare a demeaning word used to define a female with a demeaning word used to define a race or a demeaning word used to define sexual orientation. I really don't think it's that hard to understand. And I think it is appropriate to include demeaning words to define men (even if they're true). :)
April 18th, 2008 at 2:25 am
The last sentence was a joke, fyi.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:34 am
Now I understand feminism. They are a collection of people so weak that a word has the power to control their minds and emotions and force them to be offended. They don't choose to be offended, the words FORCE them to be offended.
Is that what you really want to say about yourself?
April 18th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Jeana said...
" Marlyn French and other Feminists have advocated for population control of the males in our species” I don’t know who she is" Jesus Christ, woman, why do you support feminism if you are so ignorant as to who is leading you? I suppose Solanas, Dworkin, Daly et al are also unknown to you. Never ceases to amaze me how little feminists know about feminism.
"Harq al-Ada said: Most feminists simply want to address concerns important to women. The evidence for rampant man-hate among feminists simply is not there, so calling them Nazis comes across as deeply misogynistic."
Even if it was true that the evidence is not there, how does calling them Nazis come across as "deeply misogynistic"? How does a supposed mis-characterization of a subset of womanhood imply a hatred of all women, or even that one hates the members of that sub-set as women as opposed to hating them as people? This isn't just an attempt to stigmatize users of the word Nazi as a bunch of woman-hating, slack-jawed neanderthals is it?
April 18th, 2008 at 2:41 am
Guys,
Susan Faludi wrote two books. "Backlash - The Undeclared War Against American Women", and "STIFFED - The Betrayal of the American Man". She won a Pulitzer Prize for "Backlash".
I STRONGLY urge you all to go get a copy of "Stiffed", and read from page 594 to 610. Think of it however you want - if it helps you to think that you've "stolen" the "enemy's" playbook, go right ahead.
She makes some interesting points, and she (a self-identified feminist and award winner) says that the feminist movement has been framed as a struggle of women against their "enemy", men, and that feminism used a "masculine" model (identify, engage, conquer) in their struggle. But then she says that OUR problem now is that we have no enemy to identify, engage or conquer. She's wrong there - our enemy is the DIVORCE INDUSTRY.
We're men. We identify problems and we FIX them - we don't waste time crying about who did what and how did it get broken. Assigning blame for the problems is just as useless as exploring our feelings about them. Screw all that. We know what the problem is, we know what the solution is, let's get to work on FIXING the problem, the way we know how.
"Divorce Industry" is a much more suitable "enemy" than Feminism, because we know who is in the divorce industry, and it operates under rules that can be challenged and changed. Feminism is a nebulous cloud of interlocking ideologies with no official linkage to the laws and practices that oppress us (no law says 'give custody to women 84% of the time', but it happens). Consequently, fighting it is like trying to punch smoke, or nail jello to a wall. We're smarter than that. The comparisons above between Feminism and Terrorism are exactly right in one respect - neither present a target that can be conquered, so victory is impossible against either.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:46 am
jeana wrote
" 'Squaw' is incredibly demeaning to Native American women"
How so? What does the word mean? I've always wondered.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:49 am
jeana's response to Demon,
Here is what I think of your view that we are like Nazis.
“The biggest difference is the Holocaust.. that it hasn't happened (yet?).” When I get the memo from NOW about the coming slaughter of men, I’ll give you a heads-up, ok?
Jeana, no one has accused feminists of genocide. However, the links to gender-cide are evident in feminist literature. Even the link I posted earlier which suggest that the Y chromosome is redundant and obsolete lays the a scientific justification for it's destruction.
“Both are propaganda spreading hate groups that gain political power by targeting the ills of society on a socially accepted hated group (Jews in Hitler's case, Men in Feminism's case).” And Feminists in MRA’s case.
Unlike Feminists, MRA's back up their claims with real science and real stories. We don't make history up to suit our cause. Glenn's site is full of real stories of real people who have been screwed over by policies that women's groups have advised the government to adopt.
“They then use that political power to restrict the activities of the targeted group, criminalize many of that group's behaviors, and over-claim the damage caused by said group (hence the feminist manipulation of statistics to spread hate).” What activities are we restricting? Your need to have unprotected sex without consequence? Doubtful that we are responsible for criminalizing “many” of your behaviors. Some, yes, but you should talk to Congress since they are the legislative branch of government, and not NOW.
You avoid the issue of the many federally funded women's groups that set policy and write additions and amendments to laws that Congress then passes. (often without review) Your claim that it's Congress' fault is nothing more than passing the buck. Typical gyno-logic. Women help write the laws, have a majority of the vote so they elect the politicians and yet shouldn't bear any responsibility for who those laws hurt/help.
Some activities that are restricted are: time with our children. reduced enrollment to universities due to emphasis on female education and gyno-centric teaching practices. A choice not to become a parent. And many many more.
Jeana the fact that you cannot see how feminists have work to dehumanize and criminalize men shows just how much you hate men. You can't see the hate because you don't think it's wrong. To you all is right with the world so long as men are hurt. There is a term to describe people like you jeana, "Empathy Dysfunction".
“Both were based on Marxist principles.” I keep hearing this here. I have not been convinced. Just saying it doesn’t make it so.
Read some Marx then. The parallels are there.
“Both use the hated group as the scapegoat for the lack of advancement of the preferred group.” Like Republicans use Liberals as the reason for every ill in society? Like our government uses Muslims as an excuse to fuel a “war on terror”? Like extremist Christians use gays/lesbians/liberals as a scapegoat for hurricanes and disease? Like MRAs use Feminists as the scapegoat for the supposed oppression of men?
The ACLU has defined "scapegoating' as a form of bigotry. The Red Herrings you throw out here imply that you believe that feminist scapegoat men. So then you agree with Demon.
BTW there is a difference between Feminists blaming men for things men never did (scapegoating) and MRA's pointing to an active AND STATED campaign by feminists to restrict basic constitutional rights of men and increase female privilege.
“As for the Holocaust aspect of the comparison, we have seen inklings of that as well. Marlyn French and other Feminists have advocated for population control of the males in our species” I don’t know who she is but anyone advocating killing a gender is not dealing with a full deck. The rantings of a few individuals does not a generally accepted opinion make.
Your denials are irrelevant. It's like a German who lived next to Auschwitz saying to an American soldier, "I didn't know what was going on there." (haha I can still do it on this thread) You are part of 40 years of misandry. You can't pick and choose. You can't claim ignorance.
“Feminism's current plan is to criminalize as much male behavior as possible to remove men from society via incarceration.” Actually, only the rotten men should be incarcerated. Women too. We have more people in prison than anywhere else in the world. I haven’t seen NOW’s plans to incarcerate you. Oh, that’s because we’re planning on exterminating you. It would be inefficient to do both I guess.
You response here borders on hysteria. You deny that women's groups have actively pursued longer sentences for men. That rape activists have stated openly that they would rather many innocent men go to prison for rape they didn't commit if it means women are safer. You are oblivious. It's painful to watch you discredit yourself here.
“The reason this is used is feminism lacks the political power to have the same type of concentration camps as Germany had.” Wait—I thought we had all politicians and judges under our thumbs. I thought we controlled every aspect of society. So all we need is a little tiny bit more power and we’ll start a concentration camp? How could any American do that? Oh wait, we already have a concentration camp. It’s in Guantanamo.
This is a nation of laws not men. You don't need all the politicians and judges under you thumb. You only need a culture of bias towards men. Once the laws have been passed you don't need to micromanage. Furthermore, many of the judges and politicians are under your thumb. It has been a long stated goal of feminists to get as many women in the courts as possible so as to control them. Thanks to affirmative action they've achieved that goal.
“It could also be because they don't need them; our government is more than happy to hand over men's work to women via child support, alimony, and other female subsidies.” Gosh, I must have fallen off the list because the last I checked, I am not receiving an alimony check (probably because I’ve never been divorced, but still), child support, welfare…Oh wait, I was allowed to get 6 weeks paid (at 60% of my salary) after my son was born. And then I was allowed to take 6 more weeks off unpaid. I might very well have destroyed my corporation (and mankind) in the process. My God, I didn’t realize what I was doing!
Irrelevant straw man argument. You seem to say because you aren't benefiting that no woman is benefiting. Surely you are capable of a more effective argument? I guess posting in your cloistered feminists sites has made you weak and sickly. You can't rely on the moderators to delete your opponents here. Improve!
“To encamp men might not be the ultimate goal as that would reduce the amount of money being transfered from male to female hands at government gunpoint.” Does this refer to men not paying child support and being forced to? Are you talking about taxes, which, last time I checked, were not less for me because I am female. Gunpoint? I’m guessing that is hyperbole.
This does refer to child support, maintenance and alimony. It also refers to AFDC, WIC and federal funds that give millions of federal dollars to women's groups. Money which is not given to men's groups. It also refers to affirmative actions which forces the hiring and early (unearned) promotion of women in the best occupations. And since women have custody of the children in most cases they are getting the deduction aren't they?
As for the gunpoint I don't think it is "hyperbole". When the Sheriff comes to arrest a person for non-payment they are bringing their guns with them.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:53 am
jeana said: Try to empathize.
Pot. . . Kettle. . . Black.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:04 am
Just woke up form a good night’s sleep and this thread has become even more fascinating.
Georgia Girl and Gunner Retired : thank you for your explanation, I feel a little bit less ‘thick’.
Jeana (sorry I misspelled your name last time) Yes, but the content of the argumentation still is more than I expected.
I have to go to work now, and tonight I’ve a gig so unfortunately I’ll be missing the ongoing discussion on this subject. However, one of the songs we’ll be playing is about the subject it goes like this :
Caged Voice - Ivo Vos 29 june 2005 E minus
They talk about democracy and freedom all the time
Them masters of the universe they really blow your mind
A writer in the old days would never have foreseen
The twisting of the words today on a scale we've never seen
Science as a weapon, psyops is in place for you and me
Billions of our taxes to keep our country free
from independent reasoning and another way to see
Your mind another marketplace to sell you their idea
of what life's all about today and what it's to be free
Choices as a luxury, their choices as the only way to be
chorus :
Instead hearing your opinion they trick you in their choice
All they wanna hear from you is only your caged voice
And what they call new order is only the remains
of medieval practices deployed
on a global scale
And what I know as framing is sold to us as truth
Media without evidence turn bad things into good
And if I make up my own mind and say I disagree
They say I just don't understand they say they'll make me see
a tunnelvisioned mindset as the explanation of the world for me
A power is emerging , it's growing in the street
It'll tear down all the barriers so you and I can meet
And talk on equal footing, discussing our ideas
of what we want our world to be and what it really needs
Questions as a roadmap, answers to be found by you and me
chorus
Please have consideration, it'll take longer than you think
It'll take some generations, we're only on the brink
It took thousand years to find out, that we only have ourselves
to care for our own planet, to creep out of our shelves
A whole world to embrace, a whole world to be loved by you and me
Clash of civilizations, sure it's gonna be
a painful slow destruction of destructors we will see
it won't be without fighting with our selfishness and greed
we have to overcome ourselves but I'm sure we will succeed
A whole world to be saved, a whole world to be saved by you and me
bridge
chorus
exit
April 18th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Wrong again, can and do when appropriate.
b
April 18th, 2008 at 3:17 am
At this point in time I don't believe the term "Nazi" or analogies to nazism are really necessary. I do believe the terms "feminism" and "feminist" are becoming sufficiently perjorative on their own. And I certainly don't mind assisting in that process.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:34 am
"There is an entire body of misandrist writing that feminist have not rejected. There are hundreds of laws against men that feminists have passed."
I think third-wave feminists ignore the excesses their often more radical foremothers because they mostly respect the work the earlier generation did. As to whether they embrace all their ideas, they certainly do not--young feminists have not allowed second-gens to browbeat them into endorsing Hillary, for example.
"How does a supposed mis-characterization of a subset of womanhood imply a hatred of all women, or even that one hates the members of that sub-set as women as opposed to hating them as people?"
It doesn't. The reason that unilaterally hating people who support women's rights is misogynisitic is because it essentially an admission that one hates women's rights.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:54 am
jeana Says:
April 17th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I wonder if you ask an actual victim of Nazis, an actual Holocaust survivor, what they would say of the comparison.
I would be that they would state that they wished the rest of of world would have listened to them and heeded the warning signs BEFORE 6-8 million jews were executed during the Isolationism and "oh let the through a little weight around and they will be satisfied "pre war era" [if you can call it that I thought it was war that others were ignoring] and they will stop. Tell that to the survivors, Poland, Russia [who had to burn their own villages to ward of the advance of the Germans into Russia], Ethiopia not to mention Albania, Manchuria, Siberia, Manchukuo, Chezkslovakia, to make a small list.and at the hands and help of Italy and Japan,. I would bet that they wished that some one would headed them off at the pass BEFORE or as all this nonsense started.
I believe the people here are just trying to and gallantly do the same, and that is ACT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE and it eventually comes down to the lack of all human rights and freedoms.
Seems evidently clear to me. May sound radical but better be prepared rather than sorry later.
Oh yeah I guess that I have the right to make that observation because of my heritage linked to many of these countries and the fact that I have lost all contact wit all of my family over there, but I am not a survivor of the loss of all my family that was left behind. I am a no man with no identity but what I have made here, my roots are gone, but that is not painful according to others who are not in my position.
b
April 18th, 2008 at 4:01 am
jeana Says:
April 18th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Jean V., I have often wondered how any of you refrain from using those words. Especially the c-word. You know that it shows such hatred for women to use that word. It goes way beyond complaining about what some feminist said or did.
Surely you can come up with something less offensive. And by the way, why do you need to use any other word than "feminist"? I think the b-word is acceptable (although I don't like it) but the c-word is hate speech. What similar word to women have to call men that is that terrible?
Just go to any feminist site and get an education.
Dick
Prick
Dick-head
how about the male c-word cock [and its variants}?
There are many others so lest all not insult the others inelegance her by pretending that they do not exist.
b
April 18th, 2008 at 4:08 am
))) NOTE (((
I would like to emphisize that I only use these words in context and not in my typical posts before this is twisted and slanted into something that it is not. I do not like to use these words but when there is a conspicious attempt to deny that they exist some have to be reminded of the uglyness that does befall men and others than women.
b
April 18th, 2008 at 5:22 am
Dear Glenn,
In principle, it's bad to ban words. People use what words they have to try to make their points.
Yet, it's probably true that most people using the word Nazi have not read much about the 1930s in Germany and they are making thoughtless slurs.
The encroachment of tyranny in Germany--in what had been a democracy--was an amazing historical event. There are serious parallels between our time and that time. Our enemies are always banning words, and we laugh at them for it. But I admit it's your blog, and you have to use your time wisely.
I recommend as worthy of attention and study two books about the gradual encroachment of tyranny in Germany's legal system One is "The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945" by Lucy S. Dawidowicz. The other is "Hitler's Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich" by Ingo Muller, Harvard University Press.
A quote that describes the Muller book well: "Leaders of the Third Reich were put on trial after World War II, with the argument being that the Nazi government acted in a criminal manner. Within Germany, however, those institutions responsible for punishing crime and upholding justice were themselves integral components of the Nazi machine. Without the active and even eager complicity of lawyers, judges, professors, and everyone else involved with criminal justice, the injustices of the Third Reich might never have happened."
These two books shed considerable light on the process by which a legal system is gradually subverted to political purposes. And many of us think that is going on today in the U.S. Some historical parallels are worth looking at.
JM
April 18th, 2008 at 7:45 am
jeana Says:
" I have often wondered how any of you refrain from using those words. Especially the c-word. You know that it shows such hatred for women to use that word.
... the c-word is hate speech."
So... Jane Fonda's use of this word during an interview on national television was hate speech?
How about the Vagina monologues, do they also employ hate speech, or are they just full of anti-male bigotry?
As for examples of hate speech directed at a particular gender, please refer to Glenn's recent post concerning Michelle Rodriguez and the postings on www.feministing.com
Perhaps the moderators of their blog should also consider banning a few words.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Dear Glenn,
In principle, it's bad to ban words. People use what words they have to try to make their points.
Yet, it's probably true that most people using the word Nazi have not read much about the 1930s in Germany and they are making thoughtless slurs.
The encroachment of tyranny in Germany--in what had been a democracy--was an amazing historical event. There are serious parallels between our time and that time. Our enemies are always banning words, and we laugh at them for it. But I admit it's your blog, and you have to use your time wisely.
I recommend as worthy of attention and study two books about the gradual encroachment of tyranny in Germany's legal system One is "The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945" by Lucy S. Dawidowicz. The other is "Hitler's Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich" by Ingo Muller, Harvard University Press.
A quote that describes the Muller book well: "Leaders of the Third Reich were put on trial after World War II, with the argument being that the Nazi government acted in a criminal manner. Within Germany, however, those institutions responsible for punishing crime and upholding justice were themselves integral components of the Nazi machine. Without the active and even eager complicity of lawyers, judges, professors, and everyone else involved with criminal justice, the injustices of the Third Reich might never have happened."
These two books shed considerable light on the process by which a legal system is gradually subverted to political purposes. And many of us think that is going on today in the U.S. Some historical parallels are worth looking at.
JM
April 18th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Harq al-Ada: "It doesn't. The reason that unilaterally hating people who support women's rights is misogynisitic is because it essentially an admission that one hates women's rights." Shame, shame. To make the leap from "unilaterally hating people who support women's rights" to that the person must "hates women's rights" isn't valid. It might be reasonable to assume; but it seems that one might dislike feminists due to their poor arguement style. One thing I've seen the casual feminist (and a lot of casual MRA's) do is make emotional arguements that 'seem' right. Often these arguements are based on a set of facts that, if properly investigated, do not support their findings.
Another reason one might not like feminists, yet still be fine with women's rights, is the content/delivery of the message of women's rights that feminists use. Hell. this whole thread is about the delivery of the MRA message, not the message itself. Maybe feminists have a little they could do on this topic themselves.
Probaly the most plausable reason is that the people who use this language are quite angry over the injustices they have endured, or their loved ones have endured, due to social policy that has been championed by the feminist cause. There are men who can't see their children because while child-support enforcement has become en vouge, child visitation enforcement has not. While there are federal laws that prohibit people from possesing fire arms if they have a restraining order against them, there isn't a similar series of efforts to stamp out bogus TRO's. While there are plenty of laws that protect rape victims, it took one year and a huge media sh-tstorm to find out Crystal Gayle Magnum was extorting three rich kids on a false rape claim. Maybe the anger isn't from the fact that needed protections for women are in place; but, rather, the necessary counter-balances to prevent abuse are not there, or they are actively campainged against (the judge who rooted out bad restraining orders was shamed in the national media and removed from the bench).
Harq al-Ada I like the posts I've seen from you, so far, but this conclusion you draw doesn't seem to have much merit.
Later,
B
April 18th, 2008 at 9:38 am
This has to be one of the most disheartening threads I've ever read. I read it, and it's no wonder that the men's movement makes such little progress over so many years.
I'm not even sure how to put this without insulting people, but I hope it is taken constructively. It's truly astounding how pig-headed and stubbornly unaware some posters are of how they're perceived by the outside world. You have to understand that Glenn's blog is one of the first hits Google lists when someone searches one of our issues. As a result, this blog is the very first acquaintance many people from mainstream America have with our side of the story.
So there are parallels between nazism and feminism -- OK we get it. But my question is, why is that particular analogy so absolutely precious that people will repeatedly instate it to the exclusion of any other analogy when it's so likely to just kill any curiosity a person might have about learning more about us? I mean really, there aren't any other analogies to make, or how about just stating your argument?
Glenn is banning those references as a last resort. Glenn and others like myself have repeatedly asked for voluntary moratorium and explained why. Those requests were ignored and mocked -- so now we have a ban.
Now if it's so absolutely necessary to make the Nazi comparisons and you can't think of any other effectvie way to get your points across, then go start your own blog.
You just have to ask yourself, what are you trying to accomplish? We are in a fight here, I understand that. But it's also kind of like Judo. When you clumsily run at your opponent, they'll simply step out of the way and watch you hit the ground.
And so it is with this type of debate. Make a clumsy reference to Naziism and guaranteed all they have to do is step aside and watch you eat dirt. So if you're really not seriously trying to accomplish anything and hold your absolute right to use ineffective metaphors to a higher value than, say, reforming family law, then have at it! I'm a goal oriented person, so I just don't understand why anyone would want to cling so mightily to something that doesn't work.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Jeana,
I have nothing against maternity leave, but denying the fact that it is a burden on men is ignorant. Someone covered your work. The business paid you 60% for a job you were not doing for the first 6 weeks, and then either hired a temp or overworked someone else to cover for you while you were at home. Do we, as a society, need it? Yes. Should we ignore the fact that it is clearly and truly (especially in your case since you have already boasted of not being married) benificial to women at an expense to everyone? No. I am not saying you were destroying the "corporation" but not everyone is so lucky as to be a huge corporation. A woman working for a company with 10 employees gets the same. That is a 10% reduction in manpower..that is a hard blow to absorb.
I also have to argue that the comparison of feminism to Nazi's is probably more appropriate if you look at ALL of feminism and ALL off the Nazi party. What percentage of Germany were self proclaimed Nazi's by 1943? Not all of them carried a gun, not all of them were Hitler or Himmler...but they identified as Nazi's because it made their lives easier and they got a benefit from it.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Appologies to Jeana, it says you have never been Divorced, not never been Married....It sank in wrong when I read it. Congratulations, something worth boasting about in 2008. Did your husband receive an equal amount of leave for the new baby?
April 18th, 2008 at 10:05 am
@Tim,
While I do understand and agree with your belief that the use of a Nazi reference is not always necessary but in some cases it is fair to do so. A persons choice to use an analogy is their right to do so, regardless of you or anyone else's liking of it. (Yes, I am well aware that Glenn also reserves the right to ban it) What we are seeing here is that its use is in fact an accurate analogy but one that is not to the liking of you and Glenn and some others. To ban it, when used accurately, puts this blog in the same category of all feminist blogs where they too censor analogies and speech they do not agree with or like. The key difference is that they ban speech that is not in line with the feminist mentality where this ban will just pry a further divide amongst an already weak MRA front. I for one will stop visiting the site if such a ban is imposed.
Instead of banning it, educate the persons using it so that they will understand that it may be counter productive in what they are trying to accomplish.
The biggest problem that we face as MRA's is the complete lack of loyalty to our own cause and each other. The women band together and support each other regardless of how insane there feminist contemporaries statements may be, in return they are extremely successful. We are so full of in fighting that nothing gets accomplished. Just look at the F4J infighting. Any feminist was surely sitting back and just laughing as we destroy ourselves. Look at the number of posts to this topic compared to others of meaning for the MRA cause. Off the charts with responses to this! If we were only as passionate in supporting each other and our own cause as we are about fighting over this. Censorship is Censorship, the end. If Glenn wants to censor in the very effective way that the feminists do, I am all for it. Lets face it, we can learn a lot from them. Just look at how successful they have been. Nope, we are men, instead we will re invent the wheel. We are sad as a group, as it appears that the very basic concept of collaboration is outside of our reach. Notice how few women are MRA's and how many men are or have been feminists, both today and in the past.
We are loyal to everyone but ourselves. Feminism could not have been successful without the help of men.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:20 am
This is Glenn's site and I will respect his rules. In another thread he pointed out to me that he receives a large number of hits, so obviously he is reaching an audience greater than just MRAs. It would be foolish for me to argue with his strategy in regards to the way he runs his site or conducts his appearances.
Since this thread was approved to talk about the issue I submit the following.
The problem is not that MRAs overuse the word Nazi, it is that we do not use it enough. Just to pick one issue, if men outlived women by 5-7 years and the federal government and every state government had multiple agencies devoted to male health but none to female health, what do you think the reaction of NOW, feminist professors, and the like would be? They would claim it was a sure sign that America was a patriarchal society and that obliviously men hated and enslaved women. This is not supposition on my part as that is exactly the tactic that feminists have used in the past for issues much less severe than a 5-7 life expectancy gap.
If men were louder and angrier we would accomplish more. Nothing would be more effective in producing change than large groups of men chanting "NAZI" in front of women studies departments or government buildings. Sometimes you have to be loud and obnoxious to get them to listen to you. Right now we are simply ignored. This kind of strategy worked for feminists, it would work for MRAs too.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Censoring any given phrase will do nothing to improve the image of the men's rights movement. People who are turned off by such obvious abuse of an analogy weren't going to be swayed anyway. All that censoring accomplishes is clearly communicating to the world that your argument isn't strong enough to survive an obvious troll. You communicate to the entire world that men shouldn't be trusted to say their peace because it might tarnish someone's precious image of how people should communicate. You've adopted a dangerous position here Glenn. Worse, you've made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that you, one of the premier advocates for men's rights, don't trust your own people. You've done more to damage the men's rights movement here then any poster could have. You've reduced the entire population of men to nothing more than children in need of control. Good Job!
April 18th, 2008 at 10:26 am
"large groups of men chanting "NAZI" in front of women studies departments or government buildings"
This is a great idea! I dream of it and the incredible effect it would have! Can you even imagine the media it would get?
Na, I have a better idea, lets be chivalrous and fight with each other. After all, its not nice to call a female a nazi any more than it is to fight with her!
April 18th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Peter said
"While I do understand and agree with your belief that the use of a Nazi reference is not always necessary but in some cases it is fair to do so."
Yay it's fair!
Yeah, and....
Sorry to be tough on you, but look at it like this: I'm about to bust out the Nazi reference. Let's see, I know that in so doing I'll likely turn away a fairly reasonable person only just looking into our issues that could be a valuable ally.
Do I use it or not? What am I trying to accomplish?
If you're trying to make allies, you don't use it. If you're just trying to be a little drama queen, then you use it. Simple as that and you've made your choice.
It has no value to the movement, but plenty of value to the particular invoker. What does that tell you?
April 18th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I haven't been able to get through all of the posts, but there are some really good ones demonstrating the parallels of feminism with pre-Final Solution Nazism (e.g., Demonspawn, AP, et al. [to use a pretentious abbrev.]). And since the Nazis of WW-II are most notorious for their Final Solution, the comparison, while valid to people who understand Nazism, just doesn't make it with J.Q. Public. They don't understand Nazis well enough to get it; all they know is that feminists aren't rounding men up into concentration camps. Yet.
I think the current parallels between feminism and Nazism are found almost exclusively in the realm occupied by hate groups, so I would suggest that if people feel the need to use strong rhetoric, then perhaps they should use terms that highlight that linkage. "Female supremacist," "female chauvinist," "misandrist," etc., come immediately to mind.
I also very much like Camille Paglia's term "Talibabes."
April 18th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I think I'm gonna take a stab at why Glenn (and a lot of posters here) want to get rid of the Nazi references. There is an I think reasonable fear that the constanct use of Nazi references will turn into the MRAs old broken record. It would really pain me to see a single word get attached to MRAs.
Think about it like this. Is it possible for feminsts to talk about women's issues without using misogyny, patriarchy, and its derivities? From what I've seen I'm leaning towards no.
The fear is that MRAs (or at least the ones here) will get Nazi references so ingrained in their heads they will basically become as bad as the feminists that cannot have a discussion about women's issues without using misogyny, patriarchy, and its derivities.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I think the "ladies" at UNH may disagree with that. Seems like they want to join the party.
I was part of tha "earlier generation". There were radical man haters among them. They were barely tolerated and that only because they attracted publicity. THAT movement achieved much, particularly during the seventies. It was a positive movement focussed on the qualities and potential of women rather than the awfulness of men. It was the radical rump of the movement that led it into the eighties. The moderate majority had achieved what it wanted without resorting to the hatred the radicals espoused.
The radicals and haters BECAME the modern movement almost by default. They were not the ones responsible for the gains made by women. They became the movement as passion waned among the majority, took the credit for the wins of others, and persisted with their hatred. Their simplistic message, though constant repetition, entered a public consciousness and unconsiousness which already, by necessity, was less compassionate towards men.
Modern feminists are able to operate in a framework that already does much of the "hatred" of men for them. In fact they have allowed themselves to become so absorbed in the patriachy that they have become little more than it's womens auxilliary. They have actually taken on the behavior of something that only ever existed in their simplistic theories.
Earlier feminists understood that men were overprotective of women and stiffled them as a consequence. And yet today we have become more protective of women than ever before. Feminists have not once since the late seventies actually advocated anything not involving disparate treatment of the genders. What else should one expect from a consistant reliance on alleged weakness?
I don't hate anyone(apart from my maternal g/father but that's another story). If you are unable to distinguish between hating an ideology and what it's actions/outcomes and hating a group of human beings I must question whether you are capable of rational debate at all.
The accusations of misogyny become more and more tiresome. They're no different to default claims of "discrimination" in any instance of different outcome. Absolutely no thought applied at all. Do not pass GO but DO collect two hundred dollars. Reflex action.
Sorry Harq...won't work any more.
During my lifetime I have seen and heard feminists excusing, defending, supporting, enabling and promoting the most vile and outrageous acts by individuals and groups based simply on their gender. Where there are victims of these acts they have been almost exclusively male. All too often those same feminists would vilify those victims. The few non male victims are likely the only ones most people have heard of.
During this time they have gained a great deal of ideological clout in a number of areas. These areas are not and should not be gendered. Unfortunately that tends to be the impact feminism has on everything it touches. It effectively runs a closed shop. It thus practices gender apartheid(another word worthy of a ban I guess), one of the things it claims to oppose. God help any men who want something in the absence of women.
"Only five percent of men are victims of intimate partner violence therefore they don't need any help or recognition. Look here...OUR studies of victims found no male victims at all."
We are creating a universe wherein women MUST by decree be equal to men but men will not necessarily be given equality with women.
95% of the homeless...whining, loser males.
85% of suicides...loser, whining males.
95% of occupational death and injury...foolhardy, whining males.
75% of the victims of all violence...wimpy, whining males.
95% of the homeless...ew!
75% of the victims of all violence...violent, whining males.
...
ad nauseum
...
MISOGYNIST, MISOGYNIST, MISOGYNIST, MISOGYNIST!!!!
Tell you what Harq...I'll consider the genders equal when fifty percent of workplace deaths are men. Or fifty percent of the homeless. When the genders are sharing hardship as well as benefit equally then I'll be satisfied. Sound fair?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Having written a bit above about how there are disturbing --and worsening -- parallels between Nazi Germany and certain forces and events playing out in the U.S., it seemed appropriate to do the basic exercise of checking the contemporary definition of the term "Nazi".
Doing this exercise really begs the question as to why it would be appropriate to tell posters here they could not call other organized groups "fascist", for example, which is one of the common definitions (and certainly all would agree, one of the most common contemporary street uses of the term "Nazi")
American Heritage Dictionary offers these definitions of "Nazi", "fascist" and "fascism". On this basis alone, it seems hard to justify imposing vocabulary restrictions on people who are trying to say what is on their minds, no matter what one might think about their ideas. While one could swap in "fascist", "fem-fascist" and "fascist dictator" for the apparently offending terms, authoritative American dictionaries do not require this.
And finally, given that a fascist is defined through the below chain of meanings to mean one who undertakes to exercise "oppressive dictatorial control" over others, I would worry that Glenn's obviously well-intentioned effort to clean up others' writings may be setting Glenn up for being labeled as engaging in "oppressive dictatorial control" over the allowed, non-profane word choices of guests in this blog. Seems a bit of a double bind. Here are the definitions:
Na·zi
n. pl. Na·zis
1. A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler.
2. often nazi An adherent or advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism; a fascist.
fas·cist n.
1. often Fascist An advocate or adherent of fascism.
2. A reactionary or dictatorial person.
fas·cism n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:07 am
It’s been my observation that coming to this blog is like entering a room full of people in a public place and walking around listening to the conversations taking place. Some of them are interesting discussions and some of them are groups of people trying to be heard over each other’s voices. Some listen to what the others have to say and some are merely waiting for their chance to speak.
I think maybe the best solution to this problem may be to give each of these groups a room of their own. In one room you could have a topic to be commented on with one or two comments from each person allowing everyone a voice.
In the other room would be where people can carry on the practice of mindless “chit chat” where no one is ever the wiser. They can endlessly carp over every minute detail, of any irrelevant issue, to their hearts content. The use of the word Nazi would be welcomed with open arms, no matter how inappropriate to the subject, and feminists can make personal attacks about your love life just to get some kicks.
I think it’s a better idea than banning certain words because some use them in what others may consider inappropriate context. I know it’s not an original idea. As a matter of fact I’ve heard other people make the suggestion on this blog but Glenn didn’t comment.
Maybe it could work by allowing each commentator two comments per subject. A third comment would kick the person over to the “chat room” for further discussion. Or you could just decide to do all your business in the “chat room” if you choose.
Any thoughts?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Constant and continouos cries of 'nazis!' and 'hitler' are the warning sign that you've wandered into the children's portion of the internet. I'm sure people can find parallels between goatse man and feminists if they really wanted to, but I have no interest in participating in that.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Kevin,
Good suggestion.
Maybe letting other posters simply rank (thumbs up/thumbs down) posts which they feel are worth some quick rating feedback might be a way to signal those who keep ranting with wrong-headed phrasemaking that they are losing ground. Such a feedback loop would seem likely to modify behavior, or at least offer a sanction of misguided behavior, so that the credibility of the blog as a sane-minded group (on average) is maintained, while the integrity of the blog is protected from compromise by any practices of word-choice suppression.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:39 am
AP
With all due respect,
The problem I have with your suggestion is that it gives likeminded individuals a means to “gang up” on people with unpopular views. I know a lot of people on this blog don’t see eye to eye with me and I could really care less about their “opinion” of my honest view. I don’t badger people I disagree with (usually) (I’m only human) and I don’t want to be badgered for mine. Giving people a thumbs up/down or hiding their comments as “spam” seems unfair to me.
I’m talking about giving people a voice, not behavior modification to pressure conformance to a majority consensus.
Do you see my point?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:54 am
It's important because SOME of us learned from history and do not wish to watch it be repeated.
Again, more than one feminist has called for the culling of men. These proponents have not been discredited within the movement. Do I need to wait for male disarmament and concentration camps to make the connection?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Fair enough.
But be warned: if others insist on the absolute right to invoke the Nazi metaphor, then I will invoke MY absolute right to mercilessly make fun of you for doing so.
I'm sorry, but the Nazi thing is really adolescent.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
And yet you have not rebutted the arguments linking the two together.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
"I'm sorry, but the Nazi thing is really adolescent."
Several posters have presented excellent analyses concerning the appropriateness of the 1930's National Socialist analogy. Unfortunately, neither Glenn, Tim O'Brien, nor anyone else has yet to articulate WHY the analogy is "adolescent" or factually inappropriate.
Glenn, still waiting .... Or is this a "because I said so!" situation?
April 18th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I must join the it is your blog Glenn and I'm willing to play by the rules or play somewhere else. Frankly I obey rules I disagree with far more strongly than this one you are laying down so... whatever.
I must also agree with those who say the unmentionable word is not always the best choice of analogy and often comes across as specious.
Were this an election or trial I'd have to side with Anonymours Pamphleteer with the runner-up to Demonspawn.
Until someone can show as strongly that feminsim IS NOT like National Socialism that is.
But again, I'm a guest and enjoy the privleges I'm extended here and am willing to play by the rules to keep them.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
It's adolescent for several reasons:
-it's all about you and nothing about your point. That is, the metaphor is so melodramatic, that any opponent will be able to take the focus off your argument and put it right on your ridiculous metaphor. It's more about how you want to show off your supposed vast knowledge of history rather than gaining an ally or some ground.
-It's so worn out as a metaphor for totalitarianism and intolerance that it takes not one iota of creativity or original thinking to whip it out.
-It will result in not one single bit of insight.
-It's an insult to anyone who actually lived through the holocaust.
Sheesh. Why not challenge yourself to come up with something better?
April 18th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
It's more about warning the listener about the ultimate consequence of feminism. 1944-ish Nazism is where feminism will finally lead us. They've stated it as a goal. No feminist leadership has come out and said "that was wrong"
Sloagns rarely do. Insight takes far to many words to be made in a single sentance.
How many have you asked? Or, is this just you doing other people's thinking for them?
You forget, I know a few Holocaust survivors personally. (And every single one of them I know is a JPFO supporter... "next time I'll fight back")
April 18th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
It doesn't. The reason that unilaterally hating people who support women's rights is misogynisitic is because it essentially an admission that one hates women's rights.
No. It's essentially an admission that one doesn't like you.
(And by the way you (conveniently) ignore all the men who support and have supported feminism. But like us, you aren't concerned about them are you?)
And I find it amazing that you think we should like you. You (and your ilk) come in here all smug and flouting your feminist street cred and then proceed to act like you know it all. You insist that we see your point and support the "good" things feminists do. (there are some) But you ignore all the bad things that feminists have done and are doing and deny any responsibility.
You are the embodiment of unaccountability and I detest that.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Tired of PC writes to Glenn Sacks: "You've done more to damage the men's rights movement here then any poster could have."
That's about the stupidest thing I've read in a month, and I've read quite a few stupid things in the last month. Glenn Sacks has been one of the pioneers who have put men's rights and men's issues on the map. He didn't cause a change in the "Verizon/dad" ad campaign by shouting the word "NAZI" at people, either. He made his case, rationally but firmly, which caused more people to take him seriously than if he had accused everybody of being "feminazis," "bitches," or "c--ts." I don't agree with every one of GS's positions (just as I don't agree with ANY other person on EVERYTHING), but I find it outrageous that you would accuse him of doing damage to the MRM, simply because he's challenging you to come up with a different line of argumentation.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Furthermore, the analogy MIGHT work if it were brought out of the broom closet only once in a while, and introduced with far more delicacy than that with which it's being used here.
If one were to say,
"There are, disturbingly, a small fraction of feminists -- or people who refer to themselves as feminists, anyway -- who have actually made horrific statements about actually eradicating men from the planet. I do not believe they speak for all or most feminists, but feminists should join us in condemning such blatant hate speech, for it resembles that of those throughout history who have, at one time or another, actually attempted to eradicate a group of people..."
...then the point could be made. But simply throwing the "N--i" word around haphazardly is NOT helpful, and is in fact likely HARMFUL, because someone who might be sympathetic to our causes will come to this blog, see the "N--i" word being tossed about, and figure, "I can't believe I was thinking of joining those people," and won't be around to see you make whatever good point you think you have.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Looks like Glenn isn't the only one talking about the Hitler taboo.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/15/whitler115.xml
April 18th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Speaking of using different metaphors I want to relate something that happened to me a week ago.
I was in a Meijer grocery store and was on my way out when an old lady got my attention and said, "First stop talking to yourself." (I was trying to remember if I got all the stuff I needed and was verbalizing my list.) "And second will you help me with these water bottles?"
The fact that she insulted me in one breath and then asked me to help her in the next greatly irritated me. However, in a unusually nimble moment of verbal retort I told her, "Why don't you call Gloria Steinem and get her to lift it for you?" And kept on walking. She was shocked.
We are dealing with the same kind of people here on this website. The gyno-socialists come on here and flaunt their hatred of men with impunity and then expect us to be all warm and fuzzy towards them. They enjoy a privilege of free speech that their sisters would never offer any of us.
If using fascist references is now verbotten then that's fine. But you must also understand that we (MRA) don't have a Men's Studies class on every campus. We don't get millions of dollars from the government to fuel propaganda and formulate effective campaigns and slogans. It's all pretty much piecemeal. And thanks to the gyno-socialists' efforts fewer and fewer men are able to get a college education thanks to the hostile environment created there. (Got "Take Back The Night"? Got Duke Lacrosse Rape Case? etc. etc.)
So coming up with some snappy phrases to articulate the despair, hopelessness, and sometimes anger that I feel; or to point out the injustices created by gyno-fascism without relating it to other fascists for whom society has vowed "Never Again!" is going to be a little difficult.
That said I hope you bring the goods in Part II Glenn.
It's hard enough to deal with the Anti-Y Chromosome elitists on this website as is.
Tying one had behind my back won't make it easier.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Glen I am in fully support of you in this. Most of the time I have seen this in the comments section it is usually used in a derogatory and spurious manner to insult the other side. When this is done in this fashion it only reduces our arguments to the same name calling and insults instead of constructive points and discussions.
My 2 Cents.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
There were, disturbingly, a small fraction of Nazis -- or people who refer to themselves as Nazis, anyway -- who have actually made horrific statements about actually eradicating Jews from the planet. I do not believe they speak for all or most Nazis, but Nazis should join us in condemning such blatant hate speech, for it is the history which is repeating itself.
Most Nazis, like most Feminists, were just along for the ride and enjoying the privileges the movement gave them. Should we give the current rank and file Feminists more or less condemnation than the rank and file Nazi's of history? Public support by an unthinking populace is what made both movements possible. At least this time around we have history to point to which will point out a highly likely end result. It won't look exactly the same, mind you, but it will lead to the incarnation, execution, and slavery of men in even greater degrees than current.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Your analogy fails because, unlike N--is, not all feminists are supremacists. It's a broad word; many feminists support men's rights and consider them to be equivalent with women's rights. Quite often, it's the traditionalist, conservative, anti-feminist woman who is most antagonistc towards men, saying that it is the duty of men to buy her dinner, open the door for her, let her go first at all times, and even be willing to die if it will get her out of danger -- all while she owes none of these courtesies to him.
Our enemies here are not feminists, but rather misandrists. You can be the first without being the second, and vice versa.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
@Tim
Thank you so much for your very mature retort to my comments. Your very intellectual response of "Yay it's fair!
Yeah, and...." has certainly swayed my opinion on this issue. Humm, in this situation did you convert me to agree with you? Have you won me over to your side of the argument? This is exactly the problem with banning the use of any type of speech, it only allows you to apply your belief and feelings on a specific topic with which you defend by saying:
"If you're trying to make allies, you don't use it." By your own approach we can only use tactics that you approve of even if they do not accomplish what you claim is your goal. You clearly have not accomplished your goal in using your childish tactics in this argument. But, we must only use your chosen technique because it is in alignment with your approved method. Humm, I may have an issue with that.
You claim that you want allies, here I am. I am on your side, yet you chose to push me away with your clearly better approach.
Please, either your methodology applies to all tactics or none. Based on your own chosen approach to this argument, you have made your choice, none. Nazi references stay by your own logic and fair implementation.
By the way, fair and reasonable is the basis for meaningful civilization and social interaction not to mention the desired application of law. So yes, I say Yey, its fair.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Glenn used a rather striking photo of the leader of the German National Socialist Workers Party to effectively illustrate the insanity of the man behind the movement that cost the world 50 million of its people.
Here is a photo gallery of one of the leaders of the American National Socialist Workers Party. (Democrat) Look at all the pictures before you judge their intent. In my opinion, some of the pictures flatter this leader, and some of them don’t.
All of them are authentic.
It’s a glimpse into the world of one of the leaders of the party which has cost the lives of 45-50 million people in the U.S. alone.
http://www.zombietime.com/really_truly_hillary_gallery/
April 18th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Nor were all members of the Nazi party.
Oscar Schindler was a Nazi too, lest you forget.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Glenn you Nazi! Stop telling people what they can and can't say!
;) I kid, I kid.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
"No. It's essentially an admission that one doesn't like you."
Aw, now you've hurt my feelings.
"(And by the way you (conveniently) ignore all the men who support and have supported feminism. But like us, you aren't concerned about them are you?)"
This is both a non-sequitur and inaccurate. I AM a man who supports feminism.
"And I find it amazing that you think we should like you. You (and your ilk) come in here all smug and flouting your feminist street cred and then proceed to act like you know it all. You insist that we see your point and support the "good" things feminists do. (there are some) But you ignore all the bad things that feminists have done and are doing and deny any responsibility."
1. I do not deny that feminists do bad things. That is why I am hesitant to take on the feminist label despite agreeing with many feminist positions.
2. I am not asking you to agree with every feminist position. But to unilaterally label them evil, despite the variance among them, suggests no approach that supports women's rights from a female perspective is acceptable to you. Therein lies the misogyny.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
bmmg39 Said: Your analogy fails because, unlike N--is, not all feminists are supremacists. It's a broad word; many feminists support men's rights and consider them to be equivalent with women's rights.
Your analogy fails because not all Nazi's were supremacists. Nor did they want the extermination of Jews, Homosexuals, and Communists. Schindler was a Nazi. But we lump him in will all the rest now don't we?
It's is your FEMALE PRIVILEGE which makes you believe you should be treated better.
Well you will get no female privilege from me sister.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Harq al-Ada Said: Aw, now you've hurt my feelings.
I doubt it. You would have to have a conscience first.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
"Female" privilege? "Sister"? I'm a male MRA, bro.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Hard-core Nazis: Want to enslave and kill Jews, gays, etc. See these people as evil and a threat to society. Most Nazis don't fit this description.
Radical Feminist: Advocates culling male population, forcible restriction on male fertility through castration, etc. Sees men as evil and a threat to society. Most Feminists don't fit this description.
Most Nazis: Not "haters." Focus on promoting the interests of the Aryan race. What's wrong with that? If other groups have problems, well they must have brought it on themselves and they should fix it. The extreme Nazis don't represent the views of most Nazis. ("I've never heard of Eichmann. Who is that?")
Most Feminists: Not "haters." Focus on promoting the interests of women. What's wrong with that? If men have problems, well they must have brought it on themselves and they should fix it. The extreme feminists don't represent the views of most feminists. ("I've never heard of Solanis, Brownmiller, Dworkin, or McKinnon. Who are they?")
"Good" Germans: Most of the population. Not Nazis. Never even thought about it, really. Not into politics, but it does seem like National Socialism has been good for Germany, so isn't it beneficial? Don't people who hate Nazis hate Germany?
Most Women (and the men who would like them to be happy, and thus in the mood to have sex): Most of the population. Not "feminist." Never even thought about it really. Not into politics, but it does seem like Feminism has been good for women, so isn't it beneficial? Don't people who hate Feminism hate women?
Good Germans enabled Most Nazis who enabled Hard-core Nazis. The eventual result? Tyranny and disaster.
Most women (and men) enable feminists who enable radical feminists. The likely result? .... Well, in what direction do YOU think things are going?
Fair comparison of the social structures and processes involved? I think so. (I hope this doesn't reveal me to be an adolescent who is incapable of otherwise expressing rational thought ...)
April 18th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Glenn,
I disagree with your statements but its your blog so if you want to ban the words go ahead. My great grand parents fled Hitler's Germany with what they could carry in their suitcases after all the bribes were paid. Not really as practicing Jews but with one in the wood pile two or three generations removed. And really, Jews only accounted for a half or 1/3 of the ethnic races labeled subhuman that were exterminated. I know that they get all the glamor but eastern Europeans got wiped out pretty good if they were on German controlled soil. So, race was a factor but it wasn't just one race and it had a lot to do with actual biological features. Your nose was wrong or your eyes were shaped wrong, off you go to the work camp till you couldn't move. Bullets became too costly to use once you couldn't work for the nation and compensate for your existence so they worked with gas,acid, or just buried you alive. I do know my history 6 or 7 million people died, they weren't all Jews and they were dehumanized and degraded to the point of non-existance before they died.
From my point of view, it very much parallels Germany in how fathers are being treated right now. You take one fourth of the population and single it out for a biological feature, isolate it, make it work almost exclusively to support the other 75%, and treat it like a subhuman till it disappears. Seems, like a valid premise to me. You then give total power to 1/4 of the population to control 50% of the population through propaganda, manipulation, and deceit and I don't really see how it is not a valid premise. You may not agree with those of us who see the connection but don't tell me that the connections are not there. I will have to admit that the Hilter I see twice a week is not as smart, doesn't have the charisma, and can't grow much of a mustache even compared to the little one on the orginal.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
“Our enemies here are not feminists, but rather misandrists. You can be the first without being the second, and vice versa.”
Well said, bmmg39 .
April 18th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Contemporary American Feminism is synonymous with misandry.
Contemporary American Feminism has no likeness to the original feminist doctrine and I take offense to the insult of comparison. First wave feminism was a noble cause. Today it is a supremacist organization with a nazi mentality.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
AnonymousPamphleteer, Kevin, that is tantamount to group think, ie if you are not a feminist you are not progressive, this is a peer pressure tactic that does not allow free and independent thought. I know your intentions were pure but I do not believe this would work in the altruistic way you think it would.
b
April 18th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Bernie,
Also, all of my posts would ge thumbs down. So I'm against it too.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
@Jenna
While I may not agree with all your posts I would not give you a thumbs down simply because I don't agree with your point of view. Many posters here I may originally disagree with but so many of them also make me think and potentially modify my opinion, you included. It would be terribly small/close minded to be otherwise. So please keep posting, insight and others views are the best source we have for information and change. It is for this very reason that I do not support the censorship that Glenn is considering.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I have noticed that when the thread tends towards politics and social theory, the girls usually bail out.
Why is that?
You get a hundred posts from men, and almost nothing from Glenn's excellent harem.
Gotta step up girls, if you want R-E-S-P-E-C-T. (Homage to the Queen of Soul.)
Take a chance.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
LOL, I do not intend to be mean here but you know as you I pull no punches, but you are probally right mostly anyway.
jeana, you ARE a card!
(-;
b
April 18th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
So, I guess we will have to develop our own blog language just like other blogs. How about feminisomethings and HeWhoShallNotBeNamed. Is that better? It even has quite the ring:
"Hail HeWhoShallNotBeNamed!" (Just take a good breath before you type it :))
April 18th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
James,
What does Voldemort have to do with any of this????
April 18th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Its not surprising that Glenn would bow down to the PC Police in this matter. If we can't even call a spade a spade anymore, then what is next?
April 18th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
That is more than just a little peach fuzz, that is better than I can do, and am quite frankly impressed.
However if some one came in to apply for a job with greasy hair, uncombed, ketchup stained shirt, dirt on the knees, tear in the pants, it would be a legitimate observation on whether or not to hire and this would also apply to observations about personalities and the comments people make, not fair but sometimes holds true, I do not like it either but it could be a reasonable ascertation. (mind you I do not do this and have learned from people from all walks of life and have found that many walks change to the extreme very rapidly)
One must of course have the wisdom to be able to understand exceptions to the rule like if you see some one like this and they just crawled out from underneath their car after working on it their unkempt look is of course more than reasonable.
b
April 18th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
harq says "It doesn't. The reason that unilaterally hating people who support women's rights is misogynisitic is because it essentially an admission that one hates women's rights."
It does not follow that hating people who suport women's rights is an admission that one hates women's rights. I could hate everyone who supports men's rights and still be in favor of men's rights.
Your use of the word unilateral is suspicious. Either you dont know what the word means or you are deliberately trying to avoid debunking by purposely muddling your meaning. If we dont know what you said its harder to take you down. I doubt you're that clever, but one never knows.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Jeana,
BTW keep posting, I like to see if my belief system can stand up to your sometimes challenging views. I still do learn from you even if I mostly disagree.
b
April 18th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I learn things here even though I also mostly disagree. Especially from rational statements. I doubt any of you would listen to a crazed feminist who called you Oppressors, etc. You would just ignore them.
The guy who had an idea about chanting "NAZI" outside of a women's study class has it all wrong. The attention that would bring would be clearly negative and would only hurt you. But having a protest or putting pressure for a men's studies class that emphasized not how women are holding you down (try hard to keep your personal views in check!) but rather the things about society that makes it increasingly difficult for a man these days (and historically as well).
Most of history is about men--men doing good things and men doing bad things (wars). But not as much about pressures that society places on men. Not at all about the family court system. I really had no idea what some of you go thru. You should get attention so your feelings can become apparent. But screaming "Nazi" isn't going to work!!
April 18th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
jeana Says:
April 18th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
-----------
Agreed that is why I do not do that but who am I to tell any one else how to use their freedom of speech?
Would I say to some one that I think that it is inappropriate and counterproductive, absolutely, just as I have done here on this blog.
b
April 18th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Whenever I bring this up I bring up direct correlations between the NAZI party and feminist dogma/political practices/social engineering. I do this both because I'm (admittedly not much) more knowledgeable about that subject than say, Cambodia. So is nearly every other person here.
Analogies are shortcuts, showing past outcomes and likely future ones. If you disagree with the analogies, fine. But I've seen a lot of the NAZI arguments you refer to, and the main difference is that I am merely trying to show that it IS quite possible for this type of thing to happen to men, and that we have favourable social conditions, or will soon, for the criminalization of maleness. Some say we're already there, but I disagree.
The desired outcome might not be the same Glenn, but the damn mentality is DEFINITELY there. And that, I believe, is all I was trying to show. Of course, my memory sucks, and I tend to rant, but that's really the point of my argument.
That said, it's your blog. Censor all you like. When I start to think I have to filter my words through the "accepted speech" list, I'll join the others that will leave. But until, I'm having fun.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
AnonymousPamphleteer Says:
April 18th, 2008 at 1:26 am
In reviewing some of the many posts on this thread, I feel compelled to point out what seems to be a split in the use of the "Nazi" term or analogy.
One group (and I count myself in this group) seems to see important parallels between the undertakings and impacts of those who operated over 50 years ago under the authority of, or as part of, this evil regime. This group of participants in this blog are parsing through the details of the Nazi regime and finding possibly significant parallels or differences between that regime and era, and the current regime/s which exploit and suppress men and other groups for various reasons.
The other group (and I do not count myself in that group) seems to be just very pissed at the visible and perhaps too obvious target of "feminists" or as they call them "femnazis" and far too ready to blame them for so many if not all of the problems which are afflicting men and fathers in this country at this time.
So, I guess I would like to take a stab at a defining analogy at this juncture, which is as follows:
"Preserving the master race" is to "German Nazis"
as
"Feminism" is to "Exploiters of fathers and families in U.S. Family Courts"
In other words, I see "Feminism" as the moral-justification smokescreen which is blatantly used by the real villains in the vile family court rape-and-pillage enterprise so as to provide them cover for the dirty business in which they are engaged.
Similarly, I see the absurd marketing spin of "preserving the master race" as the moral-justification smokescreen used so many years ago by the real villains of Nazi Germany so as to provide them with cover for their rampant economic looting of a target group for the personal profit and relative empowerment of the Nazi leader/looters.
As I have written here before, is see "Feminists" as a straw-man (woman). A decoy. A moral justification which is likely more often used by male lawyer/looters of fathers and families than it is used by any female.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Google "Frankfurt School"
April 18th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
# Harq al-Ada Says:
April 18th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
"No. It's essentially an admission that one doesn't like you."
Aw, now you've hurt my feelings.
"(And by the way you (conveniently) ignore all the men who support and have supported feminism. But like us, you aren't concerned about them are you?)"
This is both a non-sequitur and inaccurate. I AM a man who supports feminism.
"And I find it amazing that you think we should like you. You (and your ilk) come in here all smug and flouting your feminist street cred and then proceed to act like you know it all. You insist that we see your point and support the "good" things feminists do. (there are some) But you ignore all the bad things that feminists have done and are doing and deny any responsibility."
1. I do not deny that feminists do bad things. That is why I am hesitant to take on the feminist label despite agreeing with many feminist positions.
2. I am not asking you to agree with every feminist position. But to unilaterally label them evil, despite the variance among them, suggests no approach that supports women's rights from a female perspective is acceptable to you. Therein lies the misogyny.
------------------------------------------------------
Hate to bring up that oh-so-not-appropriate analogy...but feminists are being painted with the same brush that average Germans were when the truth became known about NAZI Germany. We know the truth before the general public....don't expect them to react any differently. In fact, given mob mentality and what it has accomplished for feminism, I'd say feminists should be scared out of their wits right now.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
I think the whole premise that we have to be better than or take a higher road than the feminists is just disturbing to me. You can decide you don't like guys ranting about Nazis all day long or chanting Nazis outside of woman's issues class all you like. But, why can't we be equal again? Why the velvet gloves? A mom can keep her children barely breathing and keep custody. A dad can not match the kids socks to her shirt and it shows how inept he is?
Why the different rules? Woman groups can do much more extreme things than run around calling people Nazis, they have positioned themselves much more like Stalin actually in the last 30 years though. They are either controlling every family committee as chair in every state or they have the power to block legislation if it makes it to the domestic committee.
Revolution is ugly and going to get uglier, think about that Glenn cause your shooting the tunnel. If the wave is too much turn it into another focus on the family blog and talk about how everybody just needs get along and to have faith in each other. History shows different as much as ideals would love to persuade us..
April 18th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Opps, am I supposed to use the word Stalin? I think he killed more of his own people than Hitler.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
@Jenna
While I may not agree with all your posts I would not give you a thumbs down simply because I don't agree with your point of view. Many posters here I may originally disagree with but so many of them also make me think and potentially modify my opinion, you included. It would be terribly small/close minded to be otherwise. So please keep posting, insight and others views are the best source we have for information and change. It is for this very reason that I do not support the censorship that Glenn is considering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm copying and pasting this and responding because THIS is why I am here....THIS, right here. I enjoy my exchanges with Jeana and Melissa (gone, but not forgotten) and the like, precisely because it makes me think my positions through, and question my own motivations/reasoning. It's helped me get through some really disastrous times (thanks for the patience by the way people), but more importantly it's helped my awareness of multiple viewpoints grow. Seeing as how I have no idea whether or not I make sense to people sometimes, I hope to be partially responsible for at least one person at least considering men as human beings, deserving of the same rights and freedoms as women.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:41 am
(jeana) -- "I doubt any of you would listen to a crazed feminist who called you Oppressors, etc. You would just ignore them. "
Jeana, I listen to normal woman every day. (They are typically deranged and in therapy...)
You are smart so answer me this ---
What is YOUR proposed solution for the Gender Wars?
April 19th, 2008 at 1:05 am
It would make me more determined to debate the point that neither gender has a mortgage on oppression.
Agreed. At the same time we - all of our civilisation - must be wary of forgetting the lessons history teaches us. Deliberately evading those lessons seems foolhardy to me.
@Glennn...
Is it the label "Nazi" you object to or analogies to the sociology of pre-war Europe?
Is this another self inflicted "wedge"?
Make that two people plus an undertaking that they do the same. That way the snowball may have a chance in Hell after all.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:17 am
JOIN THE RESISTANCE!!!!
Turn off the flow of agit-prop from the television, and seek out education, and educate others..
Defund the the near complete feminist hedgemony's "media lace curtain"
Challenge police manipulations of what the meaning of is, is, in order to manufacture more feminist hysteria.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Factory said -
Hate to bring up that oh-so-not-appropriate analogy...but feminists are being painted with the same brush that average Germans were when the truth became known about NAZI Germany.
Factory,
This is one example of your very thoughtful posts, and I do appreciate them. But I believe you are wrong here -
To avoid the oh-so-not-appropriate analogy, I will say simply that not a single societal movement that ever gained as much power as the feminists can fail to cite at least one or two positive changes in society as a result of their influence. Mussolini is never mentioned but that someone doesn't say "he made the trains run on time" (thats a myth, but you get my point). The person we don't talk about turned a shattered economy and a devastated people into a world power and was (along with Mussolini and Stalin, as I have said), the toast of the American Left for the majority of his reign. Ho Chi Minh drove out the foreign invaders and achieved independence for his people (with their blood, I might add - he was certainly a good leftist). Many of their supporters honestly did not know what was going on. That is perhaps hard for us to believe in the days of the internet and instantaneous global communication, but it is true.* I could go on, but I'll just say that each of these people (and every other one like them) could produce before the... lets say "final judgment" at least thousands of people who were better off after they came to power than they were before.
They were still evil, bad, wrong, morally bankrupt examples of the worst in human nature, who achieved their power by appealing to the worst in human nature.
We would not (and should not) parse their unfortunate tenures in history searching for a baby in the bathwater, and no credible person would entertain the thoughts of one who would (although I do hasten to add that such parsing has taken place and its fruits advanced as public policy by many who are quick to throw the "Nazi" slur against those who oppose them - projection is a fascinating phenomena).
There is no baby in the feminist bathwater. If you believe women are moral, spritual and intellectual equals of men, subject only to variations caused by the weakness to which all human flesh is heir, that does not make you a feminist. It makes you a sensible human being who believes in truth, freedom and equality (before the law, not of results) for all. I would go a little further and submit that such an outlook is prerequisite for one to claim the mantle of human being in the first place.
That is not the agenda of feminism in practice, their caterwauling misinformation to the contrary notwithstanding. At least since Susan B. Anthony said "To women, their rights and nothing less, to men, their rights and nothing more" the agenda has been the acceptance of women as mens moral, spiritual and intellectual superiors. That makes a person a feminist.
When people use the "Nazi" slur against feminists, what they mean to say is "Totalitarian." This was a term coined not by Hitler, but by Mussolini, and a concept embraced in the United States as the gold standard for society by many. The word initially, and for a dreadfully long time, had only the most positive connotations attached to it.
To call a movement whose leaders hold that "the personal is political," who believe that (for example) the orgasm is a glorious celebration of womanhood when achieved with 1. Another woman ideally, 2. Failing that, a minority (preferably third world) male, but the "eroticization of oppression" when experienced with a white male (and to a degree the third world male, they get mushy here) "Totalitarian" is not at all inappropriate. This is not the most extreme example, neither is it one of the few - it is just the one that comes off the top of my head.
* I do not accept that excuse these days for those reasons.
April 19th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
And recently another American voice started to worry :
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/080417
April 19th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Glenn, congratulations. I left the NCFM on precisely this point: a vocal group within the NCFM insisted that comparisons of feminists with the Nazi war machine was historically accurate, and that it would further the cause mens movement and NCFM to use this comparison in their public writings. I disagreed, and was insulted for my trouble.
I will not pay an organization to be insulted by its members. But more to the point: I did not want to be associated with an organization whose president refused to take the position that Glenn is taking here. Instead the president dismissed my concerns and wished me good luck in my endeavors.
April 19th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Ex post facto editing:
Glenn, congratulations. I left the NCFM on precisely this point: a vocal group within the NCFM insisted
that comparisons of feminists with the Nazi war machine were historically accurate, and that it would further
the cause of the mens movement and the NCFM to use this comparison in their public writings.
I disagreed, and was insulted for my trouble.
I will not pay an organization to be insulted by its members. But more to the point: I did not want to be associated
with an organization whose president, along with a substantial number of its membership, refused to take the position that Glenn is taking here. Instead the president dismissed my concerns and wished me good luck in my endeavors.
April 19th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
The subject of Nazis, and Hitler, always brings to mind the despicable holocaust deniers.
I’ve never understood what could make a person deny something that’s so well documented historically. The only thing I’ve been able to come up with is that they don’t see it as a holocaust because they could care less about the victims or are so anti-Semitic that they feel the carnage was somehow justified. I guess the only thing you can attribute it to, is their perspective of the world, and the people in it.
If you show them photos of the camps, and the terrible carnage, they still deny it ever happened. These people are delusional and in my opinion dangerous. If they are capable of denying such a well documented event as the holocaust, what else are they capable of?
There are millions of holocaust deniers in America. They are the people who call themselves “pro-choice”. If anyone thinks this isn’t a holocaust you are just as delusional as the people who think Hitler’s concentration camps didn’t exist. If you show these people photos of aborted children, unceremoniously discarded into trash-dumpsters, they still try to deny that there is a human tragedy occurring that, at the very least, equals the holocaust.
If you show them one of the pictures of a mangled child who never had a chance to live they’ll get angry and call you an extremist, and try to silence you with laws prohibiting your protest, and they’ll make every attempt imaginable to silence you or sensor you.
I won’t post a link that will show you what I’m talking about. If anyone has the courage to see first hand what I’m talking about, Google “abortion photo” and see for yourself. If the holocaust photos give you nightmares; be prepared for the worst carnage you’ve ever seen, and it’s all in the name of “A woman’s right to choose”.
April 19th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Look which Socialist Dictator is coming over for dinner!
Jeana asks: "Did you ever think how incredibly inappropriate it is to compare us to Nazis? I agree with another poster who said that when you resort to comparing feminists to Nazis, not only do you look kind of psycho (well, he didn’t say that but I will), but you really don’t do your movement any good. You appear to be way, way, way off the deep end and the rest of your arguments are easy to ignore."
PK responds: Indeed, there are valid comparisons to the ways the NAZIS united Germany behind their socialist agenda by bashing Jews as "privileged" that are remarkably similar to the feminist and leftist agenda.
On the other hand, Jeana, Nazism had one thing you didn't: The ability to pick up a check. OK, I know I harp on that a lot but really, how can we pretend that women can get rid of men when they can't even pay for dinner? Or for that matter, live without "child" support, man-subsidized welfare, and income through marriage. Men still run things as feminists smugly, and correctly, remind MRA's. Feminism has reached a pinnacle where even as women now comprise a majority college students, women are not increasing their work hours. The tide has turned and women now clearly want Ward Cleaver to take care of them.
It's funny because feminist hatred for their providers and protectors reminds me of girls that scream at their father: "I hate you! I hate you! I wish you were dead!" and then in the next moment scream that he's being a jerk and "abandoning" her for not rushing to pick her up from skating practice ("The jerk said something about going to the hospital for chest pains. What a WHINER!")
April 19th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
The Myth of the Nice Feminists
WolfmanMac quotes "To women, their rights and nothing less, to men, their rights and nothing more" -- Susan B Anthony
PK: Thank you Wolfman! I often hear well-intentioned (but naive, IMO) MRA's say that feminism used to be well intentioned, blah blah blah, and now they're wandered away from the true path but if this goes back to Susan B, that helps to settle the matter that feminism was always about viewing the world in terms of getting goodies for women ("rights" that extend to special socialist goodies) and attacking men (saying that their "rights" aren't really rights since they impose upon women's right to do as they please.) It's like "what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine".
Feminists see the world in terms of getting stuff from men and justifying that decision. It's amazing that they bother to justify themselves but this has to do with two things:
1) Women are emotional creatures. If they can convince themselves they didn't really throw a baby down a well, and nobody finds out otherwise, then it didn't happen, see? Gravity did it, not her! Plus, she was so busy that day and it's all such a blur...
2) Feminists need to rationalize their actions because... they rely upon men to implement their plans. Pesky, oppressive men. We're just too darned handy! Other than the fact that we support, protect, and listen to women we're absolutely worthless!
Anyways, I agree with Glenn about the ban and don't think it's anymore restrictive than some of his other rules.
April 19th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
It is telling that the leading men's activist is doing precisely what he should be doing: distancing himself from the language of Hitler and from that faction within the men's movement that condones and employs Hitler comparisons.
This is for me an affirmation of how counterproductive it is for the men's rights movement to persist in the practice of comparing feminists with Nazis. This is not a question of selling out or succumbing to politocal correctness, as some suggest. This has to do with years of experience attempting to effectively reach large audiences with the concerns of men's rights activists and of men generally.
April 20th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Demonspawn writes “What we're disappointed with, Glenn, is your lack of rebuttal on the Nazi post.”
Both here and in the comments section of the post at http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2067, Demonspawn and Jay R. are upset that I refuse to engage in a debate over whether the term “Nazi” is appropriate to use in referring to modern feminists. I have refused because it’s a stupid argument which is a waste of my time, and my time is limited and valuable. If you want me to spend my time on it, you’ll pay me for my time.
My time costs $95 for 30 minutes. My Pay Pal page is at http://www.glennsacks.com/paypal/ . If you’d like to debate me over Nazis and feminists, you can pay me at Pay Pal, and then we will have the argument here on the blog, in the comments section, at a set time that is convenient for the three of us. After a half hour, if you want to continue, you can pay me again and we’ll continue.
If you really believe in this Nazi analogy, you can put your money where your mouth is. But to demand that I waste my time with a junior high school argument, sorry—that would be a rather poor business decision on my part.
I'm also closing comments on this at this time. You’ve had 250 comments to make your point, which is certainly sufficient and, given the low quality of the argument, extremely generous on my part. If anybody has anything noteworthy to say on this subject, you can write me at glenn@glennsacks.com and I will consider posting it or reopening discussion.
From this point forward, use of the words “Nazi,” “Feminazi,” and “Hitler” will cause your post to be sent to moderation.