Glenn Has 'Sold Out to the Feminists and Chivalrists'
February 8th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesIn response to my blog post 'Hillary has been using her husband as an attack dog against Obama, but escapes criticism because of her gender', Bill, a reader, posted a blog comment suggesting anti-Clinton bumper stickers which read "Anyone BUT the bitch!"
I wrote Bill back and explained that I've set my blog software to moderate comments which contain the word "bitch" as well as "f***", "sh**", c*** and a few others, and told him, "Feel free to repost without the word 'bitch.'"
I didn't think much of it at the time but apparently my action was of greater political significance than I realized. Bill wrote me the following letter, and agreed to have it on the blog:
Bill's Letter
Glenn, you're probably being deliberately obtuse by classifying "bitch" in the same category as "s***" "f***" and other ACTUAL obscenities. Shame on you.
"Bitch" is an obscenity to you (through your control of the censorship software) because you buy into "political correctness", Glenn.
Some women ARE "bitches" (and even some men!).
And when one can no longer refer to women (or men) who behave as "bitches" in a straightforward, efficient description of them, based on their actions and behavior, then you have lost touch with reality.
Mind you, I don't believe that someone ought to be respected simply because they were born with one set of genitals or the other.
That's the sort of nonsense that feminists and chivalrists would have one believe.
And I also do not believe that properly describing one individual as a "bitch" demeans an entire gender.
Again, that's the sort of nonsense that feminists and chivalrists might try to sell you.
Some women ARE "bitches" (and if you doubt me on this point, walk into a roomful of feminists and openly state that men deserve equal civil, social, criminal, and reproductive rights to women's - you would undoubtedly be presented with simultaneous examples of "bitches").
What is censorship? In this context, it's your blog software being set to recognize "bitch" as an obscenity.
In fact, "bitch" is a word with multiple meanings, including one which any dictionary will tell you means "a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman."
And yes, you are engaging in "censorship," most likely to avoid hurting the feminists' and chivalrists' feelings in this case.
So the next time that you assure your loyal readers that you do not "censor" their posts very often, at least be honest enough that through the control of your "censorship" software settings, you are likely censoring quite a bit more often than you would care to be proud of.
Me, I thank the powers that be that men like Marc Rudov and Tom Leykis are willing and able to call a spade..... or in this case a bitch for who and what she is.
They have NOT sold out to the feminists and chivalrists, as I believe that you have, Glenn.
"));
19 queries. 0.683 seconds.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Pfft, bitch is a slur. If you can't criticise your opponents without throwing obscenities at them you don't deserve that privilege.
It's FAR too easy to dismiss something that somebody says by attacking them personally. It's called 'ad hominem' and is the domain of very immature debators.
Leave the slurs to Marcotte, and try and criticise your opponents properly.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Here's an idea, consider my reasoned, polite argument above.
Now I'm going to do the same with obscenities.
Fuck you you evil bastard, you're shitty scum.
Doesn't really have the same gravity does it? Almost makes me sound immature.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Bill is obviously venting here and I am sure he doesn't really believe Glenn is a sell out. His points are well taken with regard to hard core feminists but what Bill needs to realize is that profanity wins precious few arguments so he should concentrate on stronger arguments rather than insults.
For the record, Bill was correct regarding just how much some feminists hate us but his manner of insult was not helpful.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Glenn-
I wish we had more sellouts like you so we could actually get some sh*t done.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
While some women can be b*tches it does not serve any purpose in this forum.
People will just look at you as an angry male that didn't get his way, rather than someone who has something legitimate to say about the current violation of individual rights that are taking place in our system.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I would agree with ken, bill is probibly venting a little, and may he get it all out, and get on with the business of reform.
After venting for a while, someone brought it to my attention that polite, refined, Academic type agression is much more effective than a vulgar rant.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
One of my posts got caught by that too. There's other words to express the concept. No big deal.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Using that word to describe another person is inappropriate, in my opinion. I think we’ve all done it, and in my case have regretted using it.
How would Bill like someone describing his mother or sister as a b*tch? I know I wouldn’t like it, and maybe that’s chivalry, but it’s unnecessary to use that word to describe behavior when so many other words can be used.
On the other hand, using that word to describe a given situation is not offensive, in my opinion. (e.g. … life is a b*tch and then you die)
February 8th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
When they call us Fathers "Deadbeats" they are doing the same thing. they take away Our humanity, We are no longer a Father, Brother or Husband. Its like when they call a black person the N word. It is a label to be despised, We become a thing, an object, not a person. Deadbeats is there way of making Us look bad, and they sell there Domestic Relations programs to the public because the public see only deadbeats also. They couldest do that if they labeled Us as Fathers, Fathers are loved and cherished. Its the same thing the Nazis did to the Jews. Now We are not going to the gas chamber but they took our licenses our every resource and incarcerating us by the bus load, not counting the the suicides of Fathers, and the fact that it is slavery,but it is the same technique.
I also agree, some women are BICHIS
February 8th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
That word is appropriate on some men's blogs but not this one. Personally, I'd like to use it occasionally like when I read some of the stories of female on male treachery but I can't and that's okay. But I can see that if you allowed that word it will be over-used and the quality of this site will go downhill. Even in real life that word isn't used much except in hip hop and I don't listen to that, so I don't miss the use of that word. This is Glenn's site and he can allow what he wants, Even without the use of that word imho this is still the best MRM blog I can think of. And as far as Glenn selling out, not even close.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
In any discussion it is critically important to keep as cool a head as possible and refrain from making arguments against the person instead of argueing against their position.
When you name-call you shift focus from the position itself to the individual supporting that position which might be a psychologically appealing way to approach the discussion... but it isn't intellectually convincing.
Always try and focus on the position... otherwise you just get drawn into an insult fest.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
BTW,
I used the word bullsh*t and that was edited. I was surprised at that action, especially because of the context I used it in, but it’s Glenn’s blog.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
If the word Bitch did not exist it would have to be invented.
How else do you categorize abusive behavior that uses feminine idocyncracies? We could use NOW's definition which is _________________________ (crickets chirp) ________________________.
*There is nothing OK about screeching. I won't blow a whistle at you and please don't be shrill at me. It hurts my ears.
*I won't bug you and please don't nag at me. I don't like to talk as much as you so respect my need for silence every once in a while.
*And please don't take it personally and resort to emotional blackmail. My moods don't always reflect what you are feeling. If you insist on pinning me down emotionally and demand that I tell you how I feel please don't get upset when I tell you. It makes me want to talk less not more.
* Don't be a social banker and gossip. Respect my privacy the way I respect yours.
* I respect your choice, respect mine.
*This is our house not yours.
The word bitch actually serves a useful purpose because it is short hand for the things that women can never seem to articulate well.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Slow down Bill. Here's the thing about the word bitch. That word has lost a lot of its power thanks to the many women that now wear the word like a badge of honor (kinda like how some black people have done with the word nigger but with not as much success). And if you're confused on that just watch any "reality" show that has a "bad girl" character type.
And yes, you are engaging in "censorship", most likely to avoid hurting the feminists' and chivalrists' feelings in this case.
I don't think the reason he avoids the word is fear of hurting feelings. I get the feeling that because the way women are twisting the meaning of the word these days Glenn (as well as myself and probably others) don't want to add fuel to the fire by complimenting them on their attitudes. You may think you are just calling them out on how they act but think you are just complimenting them.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
"Pfft, bitch is a slur. If you can't criticise your opponents without throwing obscenities at them you don't deserve that privilege. It's FAR too easy to dismiss something that somebody says by attacking them personally. It's called 'ad hominem' and is the domain of very immature debators."
Yes but it's important to remember that one's argument is only fallicious if they argue that someone's position is wrong BECAUSE s/he is a "bitch". If someone presents a logically sound argument and also says: 'by the way Mrs. X is a bitch' then that argument is NOT an ad hominim attack.
Bill is right. Glenn has been on a politically correct moderating streak lately and has seemed to abandon his more tolerant additude towards a free and open discussion. Ironically those who are the biggest PC nazi's usually tend to be farthest left politically; And the left in this country is one of the loudest voices' for freedom of expression. It might be a good idea for glenn to look back and recognize what policies made his blog the powerhouse it's becoming in the first place.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
A.R. Says:
February 8th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
“When they call us Fathers "Deadbeats" they are doing the same thing. they take away Our humanity, We are no longer a Father, Brother or Husband. Its like when they call a black person the N word. It is a label to be despised, We become a thing, an object, not a person. Deadbeats is there way of making Us look bad, and they sell there Domestic Relations programs to the public because the public see only deadbeats also.”
I couldn’t agree with you more on that point A.R., and I think that’s exactly the reason we need to behave better than they do. Why let them drag us down to their level. I’ve been that low many times in the last few years, dealing with my personal struggle, and it doesn’t feel good to reach that low.
I pray everyday for the strength to rise above the kind of “hatemongering” we are dealing with and for me it’s been a real struggle. It’s very tempting to wallow in the mud with these female chauvinists, but we only come up just as filthy as they are.
Kevin Merck
February 8th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I have been frustrated at having to use the language which is not as concise or as precise as I like. I too would like to be able to call a duck a duck and so forth.
But it is wise to be mindful of the form your message takes as you can have your message not heard for all the noise the form is making. I give as an example flag burning-- whatever you were against will get lost in a completly unrelated debate and your aim will be considerably deflected.
It is a reasonable point that the other side certainly seems to be in control of the language and thus in control of the debate. I looked in an online Thesarus and there is no synonym for the b-word so no way to say- a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman without saying it just like that. That the b-word is not allowed but there then isn't a word for it may create the impression that they don't exist.
How was it I saw it explained?
"What is the word for crossing the street against the light?"
"Jaywalking."
"What is the word for crossing the street with the light?"
"There isn't one. It is just crossing the street."
"So there is a word for what they don't want you to do but no word for something that just is?"
It is not an unreasonable suggestion, in my opinion, that by making the b-word a non-word as it were, there is an attempt to make it okay to be "a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman" or "a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman" I have to wonder if feminists just want that to be something that just is, that doesn't bear any negatives that isn't wrong.
However, I do not think Glenn is a sell out for making us be mindful of our language.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Sellout Sacks. Cute.
I can just imagine making the argument for that next important piece of legislation...
"those bitches don't deserve...".
February 8th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Bottom line is that you can't define your boundaries based on someone else's behavior. They make sense or they don't. You don't discard them simply because someone else doesn't have good ones.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
A.R: Just a bit of advice. Don't compare your opponents to Nazis. I must have said this a hundred times but it's an amateur mistake that people use when they have no real criticisms to make.
Don't drop to the level of our opponents.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
The use of the word in question does not help us.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
To change culture you can do what Leykis and Rudov do.
To have the credibility to change laws, you must be a bit more formal.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Kevin: That's a wonderful post. I think that in the end, the MRM will benefit from not wallowing in the mud with the misinformation, lies, and cheap shots of the 'other side.'
I agree with AR, also. I hadn't thought of it like that before, but "deadbeat" is a cheap-shot term that can serve just the same type of purpose as b**ch. It brings to mind the idea that fathers who argue against the current family law system are just trying to escape from their responsibilities. What a nasty way for them to "win" their points. The testimony from the Wisconsin DV advocate worked just the same way --- acting like these men who want custody of their kids are all just a bunch of manipulative abusers.
From now on, I'm typing d**dbeat. :)
February 8th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
It often seems that I must mind everything I say not because it might be untrue or unfair or wrong but because I'm white and male.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Lewis, you are probably right at some level, unfortunately.
I do not mean to take away from what you are saying, but I do think it works both ways. I often find that I can't show emotion because I am female and it will be viewed as though I am just hysterical and out of control.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Thanks Betsy.
Why not just discard the word altogether?
Calling someone a … b*tch … or a … n*gg*r … is still calling them a slur. You’re just disguising the use of it. Why not think of fathers as “victims” being deprived of the *equal protection* of our laws. Not that I think we want to wear the “victim jacket” the way many women do, but rather, because it’s an actual depiction of the undeniable truth.
Kevin Merck
February 8th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I have never understood the American obsession with profanity.
I suspect it goes all the way back to our terrible Puritan heritage, and in its modern form it is almost religious.
You can use words intelligently, or you can abuse them.
How is calling a woman a "bitch" any more or less steroetyping than calling a man a "stud." (I could have used "wimp" but the point is still made.)
Language is power.
Otherwise, we'd still be yelping like chimpanzees .... (who actually have a fairly sophisticated jargon).
February 8th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
callum, I don't believe that you understand the importance of the word feminazi. It's one of our greatest weapons. Matter of fact it's a great substitute for the b-word because they've turned that word into a compliment.One time I googled feminazi and it lead me to a feminist site. They were having cows right and left over that word. It seemed like everyone on that site hated the f-word. Feminists hate the truth and the f-word is the truth about them. They also hate it when someone belittles them and doesn't take them seriously. Deep down they know their ideology is bogus so the f-word makes them uncomfortable because they know that they're not fooling everyone.
I just can't seem to drive it home to MRAs that this is a war and words like feminazi are weapons. Some people say "But you're making fun of the Jews by comparing feminists to Nazis. Feminists aren't nearly as bad as the Nazis."
Feminists aren't as bad as the Nazis because FEMINISTS ARE WORSE THAN THE NAZIS. Stop cutting them so much slack. At least the Nazis believed in the family and their own nation. Feminists destroyed marriage and family and sold their nation down the river. What can be worse than that?
I believe MRAs should become more militant and brutal towards feminists. And to those that think I'm on my 'feminists are responsible for everything bad' I say if we reformed the feminist inspired laws then most of the battle is won. We're not going to get anywhere by playing too much defense. We need to destroy our oppressors and the biggest one is feminism.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Dont compare them to Nazies? Didt You see the part about everything BUT the gas chambers?
Yes men are slaves
Yes men have had there working papers confiscated\licenses\drivers license\passports
Yes they have taken every last resource
Yes they are working men to death (literally)
Yes they have turned the public against Fathers/Jews
Yes they have begun a persecution on a whole group of people
NEXT a war on Deadbeats
Dont minimize what others feel, thats censorship
February 8th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I'll say for him what I said for me...don't censor him, let everyone else yell at him, it should work itself out. Between the situation involving me and RubyThea, and now this one...I'm thinking Glenn is actually listening to complaints about censoring, and trying to get a response from the community. What is this now, twice in a row...someone complains, he uncensors (decensors? someone invent a word for me, please) the comment, and lets the reader community deal with it. Glenn...have there been other complaints about censoring, or is this a recent thing? Seriously, if a comment is immature or offensive, I think that most readers here will handle it pretty well. Both recent examples of censoring have also resulted in some barely-related-yet-positive discussion. Censorship has been discussed, but so has chivalry and the definition of offensive language. Useful discussion, especially given the context.
That said, why on earth did you people get more angry at me (not referring to Glenn here, or those who actually read my posts)?? I didn't use 'bad words', or call names...I spent too much time typing, I think, and many of you didn't read what I had to say, instead jumping to conclusions. I was taken *less* seriously than Bill. Maybe there is something to be said for being brief, if you're going to bother disagreeing with someone. (I'm being sarcastic, sort of)
February 8th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
And in its comparison to the B word to the word Deadbeat, it is a legit comparison. It is how they spin it to dehumanize a Father.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Stephen Says:
"Feminists aren't as bad as the Nazis because FEMINISTS ARE WORSE THAN THE NAZIS. Stop cutting them so much slack. At least the Nazis believed in the family and their own nation. Feminists destroyed marriage and family and sold their nation down the river. What can be worse than that?"
This is perhaps the most ridiculoud statement I've ever read on this blog.
One group took part in an attempt to extinguish the lives of entire cultures and populations through a directed genocidal campaign. They created death camps where they experimented on their prisoners in some of the most gruesome fashions ever witnessed by mankind.
When feminists start sewing twins together "to see what will happen"... and start forcing men to head into gas chambers... then maybe we'll talk.
Until then I think you need to seriously reconsider your perspective here because frankly you have no idea what you are talking about.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Good grief guys you sound like a bunch of sissys. aren't we all grown up here. My ears haven't been virgin for a long time now. And it is a sell out to censer the B word. Lets not offend atitude makes Me sick. I don't care if someone else is offended. Thats why were men. The MRA is not a politically correct movement anyways. Next You bunch of girlymen will want to go out and have a Im sorry for being man pity party.
Give me a break....this is adult problems and there will be adult language thrown around.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Glenn, I thnk you are being too over-protective of the "fair" sex, and that your PC is showing on this one. I agree that the most effective arguments eschew profanity and obsenity. However, there is nothing obscene or profane about the word "b*tch" (a female dog, originally). The tem is commonly used in prime-time TV, and is used by women as well as men. There is a HUGE difference between that term and "c*nt" for instance. The B-word is the equivalent of "bastard." Are you going to moderate that term also? How about other terms that have specific negative connotations about females, such as whore, harpy, harridan, shrew, etc.? And how about terms that have specific negative connotations about men such as neanderthal, deadbeat, bum, jerk, dog, etc. Are they also to be "moderated"?
At what point does the banning of certain words cross over to banning ideas themselves? Are we eventually to be prohibited from expressing any negative thoughts that concern females generally, irrespective of whether a "vulgar" word is involved?
Finally, I think that context is the deciding factor. "Pappas of NOW NYS is a b*tch for calling men gang-rapists." "A woman who uses her kids to punish her husband is a b*tch." These are unobjectionable, in my opinion. "I disagree with Sue's comment. She's a b*tch!" is an ad hominem attack, and is inappropriate.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
'feminists are worse than Nazis'
You're joking right? Do you actually comprehend what you just said?
Don't trivialise the plight of the millions who suffered under the Nazis.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Interesting. My first attempt to post on this topic disappeared after I hit "submit comment." Now I have re-typed it and submitted again. This time my comment is "awaiting moderation." This has happened a few other times in the past. No "dirty" words or other violations of the "rules" involved.
What's up with this?
February 8th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Jason:
Let’s have that talk after you check out this link.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/LateTermAbortions/abortedbaby05.html
Kevin Merck
February 8th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Callum,
Some people just will never "get it". They are unable to look beyond the little bit of trouble they run into in their own lives to truly comprehend the horrors some others have been subjected to.
The fact that they can even compare feminists to a group that is known to have injected chemicals into the eyes of children to see if they could alter their eye color is mind boggling.
The two groups are orders of magnitude apart.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Bill you are an ignorant moron.
Hows that for calling a spade a spade. Or would just chalking you up to being one more assclown in the world be more accurate. ( I apologize to the rest of the group for the language but I was making a point)
Glenn is he ONLY person I have found yet who is actually willing to stand up and put himself out there is defense of fathers. Between himself and Steven Baskerville they ave done more to advance fathers rights then any other 10 people you can name.
If you dont agree with the positions then dont bring up the site. he doesnt get paid for this Bill. He runs this site out of the generosity of his character. he doesnt ask fordonations and he allows us and those with opposing viewpoints to have debates based on rational thought and all he asks is that we keep it intelligent. Calling some woman a B***h is not following those guidelines.
Heres a thought Bill. Go out, spend you own money, put up your own site, maintain it and then you can post to your hearts content. The rest of us, while we might not always agree with Glenn, still show him the resepct due him as the founder of the site and as the moderator of the blog web board.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Jay--I fished your comment out of the moderation box. I'm not sure why it got stuck--sometimes comments get picked up for reasons that are unclear. I don't like it, because it grinds up time fishing them out.--GS
February 8th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Im suffering right now
Dont trivialize what Im feeling.
I havent seen My sons in 2 years and theres a warrent for Me in there home town for support, even though Im wage attached for years now.
I dont like someone telling Me how to think and speak!
So yeah I think its a sell out to PC wimps and the fems
and I am saying it with all respect to the cause, but yeah people have already died, the courts are corrupt, and our children are growing up to be whores and brutes because of the way things are going and its going to get worse
If you dont feel the war I feel I wonder how much commitment to the MRA you actually have.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Kevin,
Please look at the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mengele
While abortion might be a grotesque process it just isn't the same as what went on in these death camps. Imagine for a moment if someone just took you from your home and decided to see what happened if they chopped your arms off and reattach the left one to the right side and the right one to the left side.
That is the kind of stuff that went on in the death camps... as vile as abortion might be it just isn't the same.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Feminists have murdered millions of babies worldwide. That makes them worse than the Nazis. Or do you consider abortion a simple procedure. Plus, they've demonized half the population on earth and you think they're one step above the Nazis. Spend 20 years behind bars because a feminist falsely accused you of rape then tell me how humane they are. I guess 50 million abortions in America don't count as genocide. Only in America.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Glenn,
There is perhaps NO ONE on this planet who sees things precisely as I do. And believe it or not, I attempt to condemn inappropriate behavior as opposed to individuals, though my success is finite.
I personally don't tend to use the word 'bitch'. I myself seek to avoid name-calling since that is how people seek to discredit you, especially as one who is intended to be discredited by may status as a non-custodial parent, presumed bad father, presumed 'deadbeat dad' (typically a creation of sexist and grossly malfeasant government), presumed child molester, presumed domestic batterer (code for 'wife beater', 'female beater'), presumed lazy bum, presumed rapist, ... did I leave anything out? However, in some cases, I find certain terms such as mainstream feminist, radical feminist, socialist, Marxist, child predator, etc. highly appropriate, and more importantly discriptive by definition for the behavior the people I typically engage in, knowingly or otherwise.
On one VERY left chat I used to comment on, I used to have a single parent get VERY upset with my comments about statistics relating to child exploitation and maltreatment. The other people on the chat resented me as well. However, I would brush calmly aside the inappropriate names they assigned me, agreed with the ones that were appropriate, cite sources on virtually all my data with weblinks, etc. In the end, the only person who openly argued with me was this one single parent and solely with name calling, no challenge of my facts.
Mike
February 8th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
"callum, I don't believe that you understand the importance of the word feminazi. It's one of our greatest weapons."
You honestly think that calling Marcia Pappas a feminazi will actually make an indifferent public think 'yes, she is comparable to one of the most despicable men in history, I am now concerned about men's rights'
Because you don't seem to be concerned about men's rights Stephen, rather you seem to have a crazed vendetta against those who call themselves feminists.
The only reason I criticise feminism (apart from the anti-science part) is it's negative effects on men. If you ask me if I believe in equality of the sexes, then yes, I am a feminist.
Am I worse than Hitler?
February 8th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
A.R. Says …
Dont compare them to Nazies? Didt You see the part about everything BUT the gas chambers?
Yes men are slaves
Yes men have had there working papers confiscated\licenses\drivers license\passports
Yes they have taken every last resource
Yes they are working men to death (literally)
Yes they have turned the public against Fathers/Jews
Yes they have begun a persecution on a whole group of people
NEXT a war on Deadbeats
Dont minimize what others feel, thats censorship
Thanks A. R.
That my friend is the “unadulterated truth”.
Well said!!!
February 8th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Stephen,
I don't know what to say other than you just don't understand.
I also hope that you can remain blissfully ignorant of what the people who went through those experiences had to deal with.
If you are against certain feminist stances that is fine... just do me and everyone else a favor and leave the comparison to the nazi's out of it as you are fundamentally wrong on so many levels it would take me pages and pages of text to explain... even then I don't think you'd really understand because you just don't want to.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
No your less of a man if you agree with feminism
February 8th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Betsy Barton Says:"Lewis, you are probably right at some level, unfortunately.
I do not mean to take away from what you are saying, but I do think it works both ways. I often find that I can't show emotion because I am female and it will be viewed as though I am just hysterical and out of control.
Fair point.
I would say I can relate to difficulties in what feelings I'm allowed to express and what circumstances I'm to allowed to express them in but being a man and therefore not having feelings... ;-)
I also have to jump on the d**beat bandwagon. We wouldn't see headlines in the press reporting on a "Roundup of Fathers who have fallen behind on their child support payments." (aside from the length)
Non-sequitir-- Is there a word for 'people who cheat on their taxes'?
February 8th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
In response to Jason Says at 1:53 pm …
I understand your horror over Nazi atrocities. The photos we were shown in the fourth grade are forever blazed into my psyche and they will never be forgotten. I was shocked and horrified by the crimes of Nazis to the point of many sleepless nights wondering what the world could have done, and failed to do, in order to stop this holocaust.
I am no less shocked and horrified by the images of aborted children.
Kevin Merck
February 8th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
While I agree that the term B**tch in question can be useful as shorthand, the accepted usage is quite varied in America. In political or media speech, it is not used.
The situation we face is so serious that we do not have the luxury to be sloppy or lazy in our complaints. Our complaints are detailed proofs of unconstituional injustice. We are not just bitching and whining. We must speak the language of the intended audience, the lawmakers, press, and evenminded people.
Secondly, personal attacks are weak, and our case is strong. We do not need them.
Thirdly, our most valid points are really not about writing off an individual or their viewpoint. I see Bill's viewpoint, and it is not really that far out. But, keeping Glenn's site at the level of Tom Leykis is to critically weaken it. It might make the site fun, for some, but the present direction is MUCH more powerful!
February 8th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
This is my last post on this topic because the subject is censorship [of the word 'B*tch']. To those who see abortion as nowhere near as bad as say gas chambers, have you ever watched a live abortion on video perhaps? And remember that the fetus has all the nerve endings that you have. How would you like to be slaughtered? When they feel all that pain from being ripped apart, tell them that their pain isn't real. Have you ever seen a picture of an aborted fetus? Take a look at one and tell me that their wasn't great suffering going on. What was once a live human being is now five pieces of waste material for stem-cell researchers. I once read an account of a baby that survived an abortion. After the baby made it out of the mother's womb the doctor beat it and tried to strangle it. Somebody stopped this murderous act. So I suppose you can get away with anything as long as the fetus is in the womb.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
[...] there's a criticism of me that I delete so I can make it into a full post, as I did with Glenn Has 'Sold Out to the Feminists and Chivalrists', 'The quality of this site has gone downhill', and numerous [...]
February 8th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Kevin,
Sure... but the way people are expressing it one would think that feminists are lining up pregnant women and ripping the babies from their womb with their own hands.
If they ever did something like that on a nation wide scale that was governmentally accepted then I'd see direct reason to make the comparison.
As it stands they aren't forcing anyone to have an abortion... the nazi's didn't just advocate for giving jews the right to commit suicide... they forced them to die, they forced them to suffer, they forced them to endure lives of suffering beyond the comprehension of just about everyone in modern day society.
There is a huge difference between the two modes of behavior.
The comparison I see here reminds me of Britney Spears' recent comment to a homeless guy that he had it better than she did.
She just didn't get it... and neither do some of you.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I don't use the word bitch myself, but often see feminists use it to attack women they do not like. I don't believe bitch is the same as n*, and I don't believe bitch has been reclaimed.
I also recall being totally shocked the first time I saw Aliens to see Ripley, a feminist icon, protect Newt and call the Queen Alien, "Stay away from her, you bitch!" From then on, I saw lots of strong women in fiction call others bitch.
I do understand your censorship of it, because it is more commonly used as a slur and keeps people from listening to us, but I actually do agree that as a culture, as a species, we all do know that "bitch" actually really and truly does accurately describe a common and ugly set of female behaviors.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Jason:
There is another possibility Jason.
Let me explain …
Many women have had abortions because they grew up in a world where it was always legal. They grew up thinking that the unborn child is just a “fetus” and is not really a human being.
Upon having an abortion many of these women instinctively realized that they had done something terribly wrong. Many of these women deeply regret being misled by feminists.
I understand your reasoning, and you have a somewhat valid point. But, whether you think abortion compares to Nazi atrocities, or not, nothing will change the fact that far more children have been killed by abortion than Nazis ever dreamed of killing in their death camps.
Aren’t the victims just as dead?
The other possibility Jason is that maybe the person who doesn’t “get it” is you.
Kevin Merck
February 8th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
the comparison I used was in that the word deadbeat is how they dehumanize a father. You see everyone wants to be heard and then they run with there own arguments. there are a lot of voices in the MRA . there are those that say the gov is the beast of revelations, those that say its about human rights (natural rights to your family). there are those that see it as a constitutional issue, those that see it as a feminist conspiracy and those that see it as gender bias, and on and on.
If you begin to sensor those voices then You are weakening Your forces, dividing the people that should be on your side. I dont use the foul language much myself but Im sure not afraid to give someone an earful when they start giving me lip and they wont forget it either. Any one that would say that guy is not one of us because(pick your dehumanizing label here). Cares more about how they look then the cause. Take as many different views as you can get. And if you are a cowboy you know you will step in cowsh*t, its just part of the gig. Besides Im not that offended by the word b*tch and I dont care if someone else is offended. The only ones that get offended probably are b*tches anyways. They say deadbeat I say B*TCH .so what
February 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Kevin,
The point is that you can discuss the vile nature of the abortion process without having to draw any comparison to the nazi's whatsoever.
If the process is as objectionable on it's own as you obviously feel, then you don't need to borrow from the horrors of some other historical event.
If I discuss the horrors of the holocaust I certainly don't need to say "by the way... it's as bad as an abortion" to get my point across... what happened was horrible enough to stand up to scrutinization all by itself.
If someone has a problem with a particular feminist stance or abortion or anything else... then feel perfectly free to describe why... if they have a good point they won't need to draw comparison to other horrors, they would have made their point obvious just by describing the situation.
As I said, I personally hope that no one ever again has to experience what went on in those death camps... I certainly know that I will never fully comprehend the horror of the experience... as a result I try to be sensative to the fact that I have no means to draw comparison to it as I can only imagine how terrible it truly was.
Being against abortion or feminism is fine... but you don't need to draw comparisons to other groups to make a point.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
callum, you created a strawman with that Marcia Pappas quote. And yes, the word feminazi will help in the eyes of the public because they live in a world where almost everything supports feminism. I only heard the term six months ago and it sure had an effect on me.
"Because you don't seem to be concerned about men's rights Stephen, rather you seem to have a crazed vendetta against those who call themselves feminists."
callum, that is so very rich. Talk about a stretch. I finally realize it's the men holding back the MRM. Allow me to dismantle your view piece by piece: I use the word feminazi so it means I'm not concerned about men's rights. I can't figure out the connection there indeed if one even exists. Yes, I have a vendetta against feminists. But so wrong with that? And it's anything but crazed. Also, callum, that equality of the sexes thing is utter nonsense. There is no such thing. But feminists were smart to use the idea of equality as a Trojan horse for their horrors in waiting. Men and women will never be equal in ability, emotion, reproduction and in so many other things. Feminists saw a problem where there was none and created a heap of real problems.
Jason, I fully understand and that's why I'm butting heads with the PC indoctrinated people on this post. After Hitlery and Company take over the White House you will know what I mean. Btw, her cabinet is going to be 90% female feminists. And she's going to choose a male VP as lap dog. Then the fun will really begin.
Kevin Merck, thank you because you get it. I not only saw the holocaust in school but I also visited Dachau concentration camp outside of Munich in Germany. They did some horrible things in those camps. But they're also very creative in the abortion business too. Many people who can't make the connection between the holocaust and abortion are far too indoctrinated by feminist "logic."
February 8th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
"Glenn is he ONLY person I have found yet who is actually willing to stand up and put himself out there is defense of fathers. Between himself and Steven Baskerville they ave done more to advance fathers rights then any other 10 people you can name." The other mike
I applaud glenn not only for his fathers rights advocacy, but for mens rights in general.
Masculist XY
February 8th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
My initial effort again having disappeared after "submit comment," I will try again:
Jason and Callum,
Your somewhat casual dismissal of the death of 50 million babies is troubling... Did Hitler personally march all those Jews into the chambers?
Notwithstanding the millions of dead babies, perhaps you would be more comfortable if folks limited their comparison of feminism with the Nazis only to the period before the "final solution" was put into effect -- back when it was just in the planning stages. You have read about the feminists who advocate "culling" the male population to 10% of its present level, right? And about the feminists who advocate mass sterilization of young men, in order to prevent their indiscriminate and "irresponsible" breeding? So, apart from the fact that this culling and sterilization have not yet occurred, what bases of distinction do you find?
If you don't like comparison to the Nazis at all, then what organized hate-group do you think makes an apt comparison? The KKK, pehaps?
If you do not see feminism as an organized hate group, then, I am afraid, it is you who do not "get it."
February 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Wow 31 Nazi references so far. That has to be a new record! I don't think Stephen Ambrose wrote the word Nazi that many times during his whole career.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
A.R., I would like for the b-word to be available to us on this board but if it was allowed I'm sure it would be overused. Have you ever listened to someone whose conversation was 90% profanity? They are annoying as hell. People like too much of a good thing. I just want you to see that the loss of that word is no great loss. Leave the ranting and raving ad hominem attacks and name calling to the feminists. Our intelligence level is much higher than theirs. They're a bunch of lemmings. We think and speak creatively.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Im offended by the label deadbeat,
February 8th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
DEADBEAT.A dehumanizing label, a thing to have contempt for, not a person or a man.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I speak My mind and if I think some wacko chick is a b*tch Ill say so.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
"You bunch of girlymen will want to go out and have a Im sorry for being man pity party."
I consider myself androgynous (having both masculine and feminine traits), and I am not sorry for being male. One of the challenges of masculism, as opposed to traditional gender role advocacy, is getting back in touch with the emotional side of ourselves which was stripped away in youth before we were taught to serve women, be disposable, and "take it like a man."
Herb Goldberg's masculist classic "hazards of being male" was often times about helping men get in touch with their lost emotional half..........and he was very much against those "new age" men who apologized for having a penis. In fact, he even discussed this very topic in the book.
Some men find refuge in the mens movement because they could not fit in with the traditional macho culture. These men want to be liberated, not put down. I just don't think calling a sensitive man a "girly man" is any more constructive than calling a macho man a thoughtless jerk.
I believe the mens movement should welcome all types of men (betas and alphas). It takes all types of men to make the world go round.
Masculist XY
Masculist XY
February 8th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Like I said every one wants to be heard. And you want everyone to talk like you. I agree its not a nice thing to say, I agree sometimes it makes you sound uneducated, I agree its probably not something you want people to remember you for.
but Im a grown up and if someone wants to say how they feel and thats what they say, Im a grown up. Its not like we are dropping the F bomb. Its not something to alienate a fellow in the trenches with you. And it is censoring to placate someone that is offended. Im offended. Dont censor me.
And Glenn is great but Im not with you on this one Glenn. Your cowing to PC wimps and the fems
February 8th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Tim,
My effort here has been to direct the conversation away from that subject specifically because it has nothing to do with this issue... or pretty much any other issue here.
Unfortunately I've been unsuccessful.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Jay R.,
I'm not casually dismissing anything... I just see no reason for the comparison when first of all it isn't even accurate... and second of all if there are horrible things going on unrelated to it, then they cannot be discussed upon the basis of their own merits can they not?
As a matter of fact, a positions strength is often a function of how often someone has to draw credability from external sources to make their point.
If these issues are as strong as you and others suggest... let them stand on their own two feet without using inappropriate historical comparisons as a crutch.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Please--no more comments about abortion and/or the Nazis. Let's get back to the original subject of the blog post.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
are you going to ban the word feminazi now?
I think that would be censoring too.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Good point Masculist XY, we're a group of individuals not a herd of lemmings. Some men are naturally macho and shouldn't be punished for it. The same applies to sensitive men. But I believe we should fight the excesses of both types. Too many macho guys are insecure and have to 'prove' their manhood by beating up on beta men. Some sensitive men want to make men see things their way. I think we should make the best of both opposites. I miss not being allowed to use the b-word but I understand the sensitivity behind it. Our inability to use that word isn't going to hurt our movement. But I don't understand the sensitivity and objection to referring to feminists as Nazis. This gives me another chance to point out another horror about feminism. Women are taking advantage of their 'victim' status by killing innocent men for convenience. Have you heard the story about the woman who poisoned her Marine husband with I believe it was arsenic. The poison that is difficult to detect. She did it so she could get money for implants. But I guess there's no problem with seeing men as disposable.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
It's counterproductive as it alienates potential allies, especially females, who are absolutely crucial to our success. It's that kinda crap that will keep us consigned to the wilderness for another 30 years. The suffragettes would have achieved nothing without men, and we'll accomplish nothing without women on our side.
There are places for it though, if that's what you really need to do -- places where absolutely nothing constructive happens to advance men's rights. In my opinion, Glenn has created a serious, results-oriented community and there's just no room for that kind of childishness here. Go elsewhere. Come back when you've sobered up.
I'm a fan of the benevolent despot model of moderating because I've seen it work plenty of times. Any online community naturally tends towards chaos the larger it gets, no matter what the subject, and if Glenn followed the advice of the no-censorship crowd, chaos is exactly what this place would become. I almost hope he starts censoring posts that mention censorship.
He's gone out of his way to be fair and lenient. I think the only thing missing is a comments policy in fine print above or below the comments box, to prevent the issue coming up again and again.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Glenn, my post appeared the same time as yours so the words got through. When I got ready Masculist XY's 3:04 pm post was the last one. I'll stick with the post and will make more effort in the future.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Normally I wouldn’t even bother with this since it is so far off topic but . . .
Stephen said:
“And remember that the fetus has all the nerve endings that you have.”
Wrong – completely and utterly, even when considered from the temporal perspective. The nervous system develops along a physiological gradient . In fact, it is still developing (even for some time after you are born) – plasticity, in fact, continues throughout life, and is a key component of nervous system development for quite some time after birth – without tissue remodelling you would most likely never function normally. As a simple example, do you remember anything between the time of your birth and your first birthday? The answer is NO and that is precisely because your nervous system (brain, brain stem, spinal cord (inclusive of afferent, efferent fibers), both from the autonomic and sympathetic subsystems are still developing (ie undergoing tissue remodelling etc) and all of the interconnections (not just synaptic junctions) aren’t yet mature.
Another good example is in the use of anamnestic anesthetics, you feel the pain of simple surgical procedures but you have no recollection of them when the anesthetic wears off and therefore, as far as you are concerned, you didn’t really feel the pain at all.
This is not a comment on abortion – only on the sweeping, bold and wrong statement often wheeled out by the anti-abortionists.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
coming from a woman I doubt that. You have dehumanized a baby to a fetus. a thing. a parisite inside of your body to be destroyed. that statement you made offends me.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
A.R. said:
“that statement you made offends me.”
It is a statement of fact. I am offended by propagandists. I am also offended by the way men are treated by the family court system – should I be offended by that fact. It is simple, you criticize the feminists for their “propaganda” and then in the same breath want to criticize someone who actually is trying to help formulate a valid argument.
I am concerned with getting the facts right. If you are in effect “lying” about an issue and then wonder why you don’t get traction, you shouldn’t be surprised – at this if you aren’t on solid ground - regardless of the topic.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Sorry guys, but the next comment on abortion gets deleted--I've asked you to get back to the topic.
However, I will do this--If someone would like to write a letter to me stating their view on abortion--say 500 or 750 words--I will consider using it as the basis for a blog post soon, so those interested in the subject can have the debate. The letter can be pro-life or pro-choice but must be credible and contain no references to "Nazis", "feminazis" and the like.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
the point is censoring, and I say that they FEMINISTS use words that are lies and offensive to dehumanize men, when we say something like b*tch its all the bad men being mean. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ITS A DUCK! why say We cant use the same tools they do, because it offends them. Too bad.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Well, A.R., at least we're back on topic...
February 8th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
The only people offended by the word FAT is fat people, the only women that are offended by objectifying women as sex objects are ugly women, yet they want this attention. Its like where we are now. shes not a slut, shes a single mother. Sometimes the label does fit, People used to say that person is a divorce stay away from them, now there is no shame in it at all.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
It's been my experience that the most dangerous gender feminists are also the most subtle with their misandry. How do you think they've shepherded such sexist bills into law? Buffoons like Marcotte et al. are not nearly on that level, and sniping at that ilk on their own level is a waste of time.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
A.R. You see everyone wants to be heard and then they run with there own arguments. ... If you begin to sensor those voices then You are weakening Your forces, dividing the people that should be on your side.
I see it as quite the opposite - when you namecall, you aren't being heard at all. It waters down the message and causes the argument to become suspect. In a movement as disorganized and lacking in "movement" as this one, and with so few people actually *doing* anything towards "movement," validity in arguments is paramount.
A.R. Any one that would say that guy is not one of us because(pick your dehumanizing label here). Cares more about how they look then the cause.
Weren't you the one who said at 2:01pm, No your less of a man if you agree with feminism? Hmmmmm.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
A.R. your argument that we shouldn't use the term b*tch in order to no offend the feminists is in line with Bill's original post, but completely ignores the many cogent points since.
Bill's argument was a strawman, though at least he was posting without having seen the rest of our arguments. Yours is a repetition strawman. It is the most common type of feminst argument.
Can you review the arguments that have NOTHING to do with offending feminists and post back?
I would appreciate it, sincerely,
February 8th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
A.R. the point is censoring, and I say that they FEMINISTS use words that are lies and offensive to dehumanize men, when we say something like b*tch its all the bad men being mean. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ITS A DUCK! why say We cant use the same tools they do, because it offends them. Too bad.
Let me ask you, A.R., do you have any respect for the voice of feminists? No? Then why in the WORLD would you want to speak like them or use the same tools as they use?
For god's sake man, have some respect.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
My point is Im not worried about what someone feels when I say something. And when you want to tell someone how to say something arnt you really censoring what they say?
February 8th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Jason (and Callum),
This thread (I want to ensure I'm on topic) concerns the use of language which some find inappropriate in a "civilized" discussion -- much like the concept of "fighting words." Glenn perceives "b*tch" to be a word which necessarily detracts from a civilized discussion. I only mildly disagree -- I personally prefer being more "creative" in my verbiage -- and I greatly respect that it is Glenn's decision to make, along with the decision of what's on topic. (I just have trouble warming to the implication that how I can express myself here should be limited by what I perceive to be feminist notions of political correctness... .)
You specifically decry "inappropriate historical comparisons." I agree in principle that the same are counter-productive; we need look no farther than the "herstory" concocted by the feminists to justify their Putsch. You particularly object to any comparisons made to "recent German history" (heaven forbid I give someone another word to count), notwithstanding gender feminists' public advocation of sterilization and culling of men. Ok, fine. It is certainly true that feminism is not yet responsible for the deaths of millions of adult men. Directly, at least.
You have taken it upon yourself to say which historical comparison, and thus what language, is INappropriate when criticizing gender feminists (any other obsequious definition of "feminist" is useless and absurd; reduced to anyone who doesn't think women should spend their lives chained naked to a kitchen stove and regularly beaten and raped. Great. We're ALL "feminists" then. Gah!).
Using your knowledge of history, NOW I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTION: "what organized hate-group do you think makes an apt [appropriate historical] comparison" to gender feminism?
And if you don't think that gender feminists have constituted a hate-group which has systematically sought to demonize and disadvantage men as a group (don't forget that sterilization and culling stuff!), then I wonder what you are doing here, and even more, where have you been ....
February 8th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
A.R. The only people offended by the word FAT is fat people,
I disagree. Ask my children. In our home the word "fat" is a bad word. We don't use it. Period. And we're all of average or slightly below average weight.
A.R. the only women that are offended by objectifying women as sex objects are ugly women, yet they want this attention.
Again, not in my house. The women in my house are HIGHLY offended by objectification, and if you saw them, ugly is not a word you would use to describe them.
To get back on point, IMO the *only* appropriate use of the word b*tch is in reference to female dogs. Otherwise it's a slur, and not a particularly useful one at that. Kinda like that term "deadbeat" ....
February 8th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
When someone tells me they are ready to kill themselves ( and I have heard it from men in our situation) Im not going to sit there and tell them dont use bad language or no one will care. I understand the frustration and depression and anger.......and hopelessness and I understand what they mean. And it resonates with me (and a lot of men) it dose not hurt this blog,were not in front of a formal court or congress, were men having table talk about a big issues and stratigizing.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
FAT is a bad word, you got to be kidding me.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
would you rather be called fat or obese?
February 8th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
A.R. it dose not hurt this blog,were not in front of a formal court or congress, were men having table talk about a big issues and stratigizing.
It doesn't hurt this blog? It doesn't hurt the cause? You're not *really* saying that on the blog of one of the most influential men in this movement, are you??
And you're not strategizing or talking ... you're b*tching about how you're allowed to b*tch ;^). Maybe you should quit b*tching and actually *do* something.
(Did I get my point across?)
February 8th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Barsin said:
“Buffoons like Marcotte et al. are not nearly on that level, and sniping at that ilk on their own level is a waste of time.”
I agree.
Alex33 said:
“In a movement as disorganized and lacking in "movement" as this one, and with so few people actually *doing* anything towards "movement," validity in arguments is paramount.”
You’ve got that right – validity (especially when it comes to facts). Emotive arguments are certainly useful tools WHEN they work. Unfortunately, (I suggest) they are more effective when it comes to women and their issues than men.
It seems to me that “considered”, sound rational argument, with a firm founding in “facts” is the most difficult to refute by legislatures. Knee-jerk hysteria by certain interest groups has completely buried any notion of equal treatment before the law and I fear that the only way to reverse this is by judicious application of continuous, determined, rational argument. Ranting isn’t going to win the day –
As Miles put it:
“I can just imagine making the argument for that next important piece of legislation... "those bitches don't deserve...".
February 8th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
A.R. would you rather be called fat or obese?
Neither one if you're namecalling.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Let's try this again ... maybe this will get through moderation.
A.R. it dose not hurt this blog,were not in front of a formal court or congress, were men having table talk about a big issues and stratigizing.
It doesn't hurt this blog? It doesn't hurt the cause? You're not *really* saying that on the blog of one of the most influential men in this movement, are you??
And you're not strategizing or talking ... you're b****ing about how you're allowed to b**** ;^). Maybe you should quit b****ing and actually *do* something.
(Did I get my point across?)
February 8th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Profanity and person insults are the sign that a person has no cogent argument. Your right not to print this stuff.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
what if Im describing a suspect or someone that I was pointing out. There is my piont your offended by fat and obese because why? You have sold out to PC also. All of a sudden people cant say what they want and the message is lost.
Im not trying to offend anyone here so please dont be offended. I read this blogg almost everyday and I think highly of the posters here, but you have got to get thicker skin if you are going to get somewhere, not hide behind PC crap.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Maybe if we all spent a little less time focused on the feminists and a little more time on the MRM, we might actually *get* somewhere.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Alex "Maybe if we all spent a little less time focused on the feminists and a little more time on the MRM, we might actually *get* somewhere."
Right now the movement would be more effective , at this point in the game, by simply "raising awareness".
Broach discussions with others about mens/fathers rights, and mention they might find Glenn Sacks website interesting.
If you plant 20 seeds, 5 may take root.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Oh, Alex, Alex, Alex ...
But for the feminists, there would be no need for the MRM. Gender equity (equality is impossible) would have been obtained long ago but for the feminists' one-sided, continuing power-grab. Instead we have gender war -- so far mostly waged against men who are too mulish to even know the depths of their own degradation. The MRM and feminism (feminism IS as feminism HAS DONE) cannot co-exist. We will never get anywhere unless we remember that the MRM and anti-feminist (NOT anti-woman, for the 1,000th time) activism are two sides of the same coin. Don't be naive.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I still think we need a really good, quick, succinct party line which we repeat often for the 95% of the public that does not yet know that the last 20 years of feminism has been dangerous sexism.
We have new readers at the rate of some exponential number, and they don't all know about the last 20 years of feminist sexism and what it has done.
And yet, that is what this blog does, builds the mind network that will destroy the entrenched injustice that feminism and the Family Law Machine have wrought.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Jay R said:
“Instead we have gender war -- so far mostly waged against men who are too mulish to even know the depths of their own degradation.”
Jay R, not sure whether “mulish” is a descriptor that can be broadly applied here. Sure there are some, but I really believe that more men are simply unaware (and not because of their intransigence) of what is going on (they don't even believe me when I bring it up) – it doesn’t get enough press – and when it does it is quickly supplanted by more newsworthy issues such as Britney’s latest hangnail or any number of well-organized and vocal women’s groups shut it down.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Alex33 And you're not strategizing or talking ... you're b*tching about how you're allowed to b*tch ;^). Maybe you should quit b*tching and actually *do* something.
(Did I get my point across?)
Get this Alex.....3 weeks ago I made the calls for the LA chapter of F4J members to remind and encourage them to show up for our monthly meeting and I made about 100 calls. most were good and reasonable men. But one was too emotional to show up, he would have a breakdown if he was reminded of his situation, another man was just too angry to be involved because of some B*TCH that named him the father when He wasnt and hes is now a slave. We just added another RIP to our page the next week because a Father blew His head off. Dont tell Me Im B*TCHING, and dont tell others how to think and feel when they are being destroyed.
Im the secretary for www.F4JLA.ORG and I wonder what you contribute to the cause besides your opinions
February 8th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Did I get My point across?
February 8th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Celia,
We pretty much agree. Your use of "mulish' is probably more accurate than mine. I meant to emphasize the lack of awareness typical of someone who is "in the traces" -- so busy pulling the load that there is little time or ability to be aware of anything else.
Having said that, I have encountered, I am afraid, more than a little intransigence when broaching the topic of gender issues with my male friends over the years. They often really don't want to know about it. Frankly, many of them, in my impression, would rather accept the view that they are potential oppressors, than accept the reality that they are largely powerless. The former strips them of justice; the latter strips them of their sense of strength and worth.
Feminists have told men that they are "in charge," and so are always responsible for all of women's problems. Men often are reluctant to embrace MRM issues, because in doing so, they have to come to grips with the very disturbing knowledge that they are anything but "in charge" of most everything -- except working to make money for their family. They don't want to have to come to grips with the fact that male "power" is a myth. It's deflating and makes them feel bad, bad, bad. And they've got work to do -- they simply can't afford to feel bad.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Here's what I think:
It's a word. It's one of thousands.
If you have a problem with a word, you have the problem. It is not my responsibility to tailor language to what you deem acceptable. I'm sorry that you were brought up thinking that other people are responsible for the emotions you feel, but they're not, I'm not... the only person responsible for them is YOU.
Therefore, censoring any words simply creates a coddling enviroment where people can blame others for their shortcomings rather than placing blame where it belongs.. on themselves. Coddling people prevents personal growth as it removes the need for it. You help nobody by censoring, instead you keep them weak.
And if you are too weak to take a word, are you strong enough to take an idea?
February 8th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Jay R said:
“I meant to emphasize the lack of awareness typical of someone who is "in the traces" -- so busy pulling the load that there is little time or ability to be aware of anything else.”
Gotcha – good point. I took it as the other meaning (as per stubbornly refusing to see the truth). You have a very good point w/r to most working too hard to pay attention, and this coupled with my observed disbelief in the truth of the matter compose the recipe for disaster in which men now find themselves. I continue to be amazed that most men don’t realise how bad it really is until they are stabbed in the face with the proverbial rusty fork – the realization comes too late.
Hopefully this site will continue to grow and prosper!
February 8th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Jay R Says "Men often are reluctant to embrace MRM issues, because in doing so, they have to come to grips with the very disturbing knowledge that they are anything but "in charge" of most everything -- except working to make money for their family. They don't want to have to come to grips with the fact that male "power" is a myth. It's deflating and makes them feel bad, bad, bad. And they've got work to do -- they simply can't afford to feel bad.
I think that hits the nail on the head. My experience is often similar.
Demonspawn Says "If you have a problem with a word, you have the problem. It is not my responsibility to tailor language to what you deem acceptable. I'm sorry that you were brought up thinking that other people are responsible for the emotions you feel, but they're not, I'm not... the only person responsible for them is YOU.
While I agree with you it does not remove the necessity to be courteous.
A sense of decorum is rarely out of place.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I would draw everybody's attention to the perjorative use of the words "white" and "male", often intersected by "privileged", in the recent Duke debacle. All used as slurs against the individuals concerned as well as all who, only by birth, fit into those categories.
Glenn I'd be a little more accepting of the language. Make individual judgements based on context if possible but don't deny the passion it demonstrates. It's worth remembering that it was the dwindling of passion among the mainstream that allowed the radicals to control the direction feminism took after the seventies. Look where that got us.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I really don't think the issue is virgin ears, political correctness, concern for feminist feelings or an oversenitivity to profanity. I think the issue is more along the lines of policing ourselves for this reason - feminists have had phenomenal success at selling the idea that all men are rapists waiting for a place to happen, all men seeth with rage when confronted with a successful woman, men want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and the only way men are going to allow any women out of the kitchen is through the use of government force to compel them. So government force has worked, but see girls? Now they are enraged at us because we are succeeding when given equality.
We can go all night examining all the things wrong with this argument, and every comment will be true. But noones mind will be changed when feminists like Marcotte can point to one- ONE - example and say - here is what we are fighting against - but for us, girls, these savages would rape you, enslave you, murder you, stalk you, maybe even (gasp) want to MARRY you. Now that is B.S. and everybody (including, I believe, a not insignificant number of feminists) know it. But they are working for (and to a great degree have achieved) government policies based upon the least common denominator. Most women (at least enough to keep the feminists in power) believe that least common denominator is the norm, and it doesn't take much convincing to keep them thinking that way.
I am not blameless - I have let my anger choose my words. But I'm going to change that. I cannot believe it will be to the detriment of what we hope to achieve if I do. Others can go their own way, and I won't blame them - maybe, the ones who cry for anger are right. I'm not God, I can't say for sure they aren't. But I just don't think so. I think feminism in aprticular (and all manifestations of cultural Marxism in general) can, should, must be defeated with reasoned argument. Ghandi would have picked up a gun if he thought that was the best way - he was a pacifist out of pragmatism - he knew they couldn't win with guns. I think we find ourselves in the same boat. I realize noone is suggesting we pick up guns, but I think the point is clear. I'm going to work at allowing feminists to caricature themselves while trying to caricature me - Im not going to caricature myself for them. I believe I can be perfectly polite, respectful, reasonable and rational, and still achieve my greatest ambition - being burned in effigy by a feminist group. Hopefully on a campus.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
This discussion has provided thought provoking insight into everyones perceptions of "words". I see reason to be able to use b***h in discussion, because it truly expresses the feelings and frustrations of the writer. I also see the use of the word taking away from the seriousness of the work that needs to be done. To me, if the topic of the blog is to promote the work of mens rights, then serious logical discussion does not lend itself to the use of the emotional context of the word. It cheapens the efforts of the work to be done. If the topic of the blog lends itself to venting frustration, then the "b" word and others is bound to happen. Bottom line, based on the recent topics of his blogs, Glenn was encouraged to establish ground rules for discussion in his blogs and he determined the need to establish the boundaries of his blogs. Whether or not we agree with his rules, it is his site and just about every blog around has guidelines.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Denise, I personally do not see the contest as being about expressing logic or frustration; though that is a typically female way of thinking.
It could be "both/and", instead of "either/or" -- right?
The best thing Glenn has going for him is not a need to censor or moderate....
He has a pretty unique assembly of volunteer posters with such interesting voices that the challenge is to try to figure out if can become a community, a movement, a profitable enterprise.
Emphasis on "profit," because that is the nature of the thing.
How much advertising revenue does it require to support this site per month?
I have no idea.
Should we all be paid per word for contributing?
Is it important to click on the ads?
Cyber-commerce?
I would appreciate, though I have no right to demand, an understanding from Glenn about what he wants this site to become.
What is the strategy?
At what level of profitability does it become more than a risky experiment?
February 8th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
"I still think we need a really good, quick, succinct party line which we repeat often for the 95% of the public that does not yet know that the last 20 years of feminism has been dangerous sexism."
I suggest the following, as a starter to be discussed and improved:
Feminism is about institutionalizing women's interests over those of men and children, just as caucasianism is about institutionalizing white people's interests over those of people of color.
Perhaps we could have a separate thread just for that?
There's also a shorter form that happens to serve as a much less objectively objectionalbe alternate version of 'feminist', which I've been using for years now: 'femelitist'.
IME, it certainly gets the point across, without being in the least bit attackable for being an exaggeration or false comparison.
And when people challenge you on it, you can simply ask them to name one -- just one -- issue of discrimination against men and favoring women that has been commonly and generally identified as a 'feminist' issue *per se*.
They won't be able to, of course, since there are none.
And then you can go into the larger form above, drawing and explaining the similarity between 'feminism' and 'caucasianism'.
The rageaholics who have too much of their own self-definition invested in the label 'feminist', and/or too much emotional attachment to it, can be socially ostracized and dismissed simply by characterizing them as such, and should be. It's the reachable rational people who should get the majority of one's attention and focus, rather than wasting it on the stupid petty conflict junkies who love to fight with you.
As to the original point, it's ludicrous to censor the word when someone can simply substitute 'b1tch' or 'beyotch' or 'biznatch' or any of hundreds of other immediately recognizable variations and thereby force one to search through every post for potential filter avoidance. It's probably better to just ask people not to use it, and rely on the community to self-moderate.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
While feminist theory is based largely upon the intellectual meanderings of the Frankfurt School, which is Marxist in origin as well as philosophy, it's propaganda techniques were lifted directly from the NAZI party, again, primarily via the Frankfurt school.
"During his period of imprisonment (actually quite comfortable) Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in which he outlined his political philosophy, which was revolutionary insofar as it demanded the radical restructuring of society. He called for the destruction of existing political and social structures and the élites which supported them. He disdained civic order, liberal and Marxist ideas and launched into a virulent attack on middle class values, capitalism, the professionals, intellectuals and upper classes. There was a consistently barbaric anti-Semitism throughout. All of these groups had to be uprooted and the impoverished masses the young in particular, had to be mobilized for that purpose."
Nope, no similarities to feminism there....
"Hitler makes it clear in Mein Kampf that effective propaganda is
* aimed at the masses
* aimed at the emotions, not the intellect
* set at the intellectual level of the most limited in the audience
* designed so that the bigger the audience, the lower its intellectual level
The intellectual capacity of the broad masses is only very limited, their understanding small, their forgetfulness on the other hand great. As a result of these three facts every effective propaganda has to be limited to only a very few points and to repeat these slogans until every last person is able to picture what is intended by a particular word. As soon as this basic principle is sacrificed for the sake of comprehensiveness, the effect will be dissipated, as the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered to them. "
Nope, none there either....
"Zimbardo
To study the rôles people play in prison situations, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison. They advertised for students to play the rôles of prisoners and guards for a fortnight. Zimbardo selected the 21 applicants who seemed the healthiest, maturest and most 'normal'. At random 11 were assigned the rôle of 'guards', 10 the rôle of 'prisoners'.
The guards were given an official-looking uniform; the prisoners something like a prison uniform and toothbrush, towels and bedlinen. No personal belongings were allowed in the cells.
Zimbardo and the guards worked out a set of rules which prisoners were expected to memorise and follow. Prisoners were required to work to earn their $15 per day and were allowed prisoners twice per week, Guards were allowed to give certain rewards for good behaviour.
On the first day, the 'count' of the prisoners (carried out three times per day) took ten minutes. By the second day, the 'count' time had increased as the guards started to use it to harass the prisoners and by the fifth day the 'count' occupied several hours as the guards berated the prisoners for minor infractions of the rules.
Instead of protesting, some of the prisoners began to act in depressed, dependent ways, just like many real prisoners and inmates of institutions. They deteriorated into learned helplessness, becoming ever more surly and depressed. The more they acted in that way, the more they were mistreated. By the end of the sixth day, the situation had deteriorated to such an extent, with guards inventing new rules to make the prison regime more punitive, that Zimbardo called a halt.
The analysis of the results showed that the subjects simply 'became' the rôles they played. More than a third of the guards behaved in such a hostile manner consistently, that Zimbardo described their behaviour as sadistic. This was despite the fact that the rôles were assigned at random and there was absolutely no prior evidence that any of the subjects was inclined to behave as they did. " http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/socinf/powersoc.html
You're right...it's absolutely ludicrous to think it's even possible.
Of course, since you don't have the right - or the ability either come to think on it - to MAKE me think a certain way, I'll just keep on holding my own opinion. To suggest that holding this opinion is offensive to Jews is, well, offensive to me. Ask yourself this question just for kicks....how come all the Jews didn't leave German-occupied areas when they still had the chance?
Could it be because they couldn't imagine that what happened next was possible? How are you so damn sure that we aren't experiencing a taste of what Jews felt in the early 1930's? Were you there? Because if so I'm SO going to pick your brain as much as I can. If you weren't, then you're opinion is no weightier than mine.
Do I think there's gas chambers in the near future? No, not at all. Do I think that given the chance of "culling" the male population for the "common good, to protect the children", that feminism is capable of pulling back from the brink? Not so much. It's a scary thought that seems wildly unrealistic, but having actually spoken to several who WERE there (for instance my neighbor is Polish, and grew up in a ghetto in Warsaw, both of her parents were gassed and a German soldier shot her brother in the head right in front of her), to the best of their knowledge they had never heard of anyone who expected it to happen, and stayed anyway.
On the other hand they can usually list off those who were dumbfounded when they found out the truth....in two words in fact.
Almost everyone.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
I won't even mention the collective national guilt that Germany holds. I had my theory validated by a few German tourists (who the hell else would come to Saskatchewan as a tourist :) ), basically the German people feel guilt because the citizens knew there was something hinky going on, but didn't know quite what. That didn't stop them from happily reaping the benefits, just don't look too hard at what's going on. In a nutshell.
Sound familiar?
February 9th, 2008 at 12:25 am
designed so that the bigger the audience, the lower its intellectual level
The IQ of the group is that of the lowest individual divided the number of members of the group.
In spite of my apparent misanthropy this approximates the view of many who are actively engaged in politics including many elected representatives. Just don't ask any of them to go on the record about it.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Deamonspawn: Therefore, censoring any words simply creates a coddling enviroment where people can blame others for their shortcomings rather than placing blame where it belongs.. on themselves. Coddling people prevents personal growth as it removes the need for it. You help nobody by censoring, instead you keep them weak.
I disagree. Using slurs to get your point across, as b*tch in this instance *is* a slur IMO, does nothing to place blame where it belongs, except on the person who chooses to use slurs because they have nothing of value to add to a debate.
Censoring slurs allows the strong to shine through, and keeps the weak ... well ... silent.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Stephen M. Weiss: And yet, that is what this blog does, builds the mind network that will destroy the entrenched injustice that feminism and the Family Law Machine have wrought.
You are absolutely correct. The Family Law Machine does nothing but destroy families. And yes, more recent feminist conversions of original feminist ideals have created this injustice.
But please don't lump all feminists together as there are still those out there who adhere to the original ideals ...
...4Eqlty
February 9th, 2008 at 1:42 am
I never called anyone a bitch in my life. I have too much respect for female dogs (especially labrador retrievers) to use it to describe any person. Perhaps the FCC should be abolished because one day I heard the Elton John song,'the Bitch is Back' blaring on the radio and my two year old at the time started singing along. >>>> This idea of 'name calling' is so junior high and MRA should not be in competition with feminist name callers for better zingers. I'm reminded of Lenny Bruces' talk on the word 'nigger' and how he said to embrace it and repeat it over and over until the word loses it's power and meaning. It's just a word. Since the early 60's much of what Lenny spoke about has come true in the black community. >>> Nazi, Fascist and other Political labels are a completely other thing. They describe ideology and true stations in our history. Like the NOW feminists of today and how they embrace the same core values of these historical political groups. I think it offers illumination and hope because we all know these political groups couldn't and didn't prevail in the long run. Sure it was a hard fight, and there did exist a time when millions of people were proud to call themselves Nazis, but in the end good won over evil and the Nazis were left with shame and confusion. Keep hope alive.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Jay R: they have to come to grips with the very disturbing knowledge that they are anything but "in charge" of most everything -- except working to make money for their family. They don't want to have to come to grips with the fact that male "power" is a myth. It's deflating and makes them feel bad, bad, bad. And they've got work to do -- they simply can't afford to feel bad.
White males have been elected to the highest "in charge" position in our country as if they were 98% of the population. Do you even remotely think Hillary will be named "in charge" of this country?
Women are making .77 to a man's $1 according to Forbes. And this hasn't changed in the last 5 years.
If that isn't a power fact, I don't know what is.
As an aside, my wife's company is merging with one of the largest financial powerhouse's in the country (US). Her company is 40k+ employees across 40+ countries. Less than 10% are women in executive positions.
When they merge with their financial powerhouse, they will own more than 34% of the financial market on Wall Street. Do you know how many women they have named in their executive ranks? Not ... even ... one ...... And you would be SHOCKED if I told you who they her company bought out .....
February 9th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Wolfman:I'm going to work at allowing feminists to caricature themselves while trying to caricature me - Im not going to caricature myself for them. I believe I can be perfectly polite, respectful, reasonable and rational, and still achieve my greatest ambition - being burned in effigy by a feminist group. Hopefully on a campus.
Excellent.
Very well said.
Well, except for the burning part.
But still ....
February 9th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Roy:The best thing Glenn has going for him is not a need to censor or moderate....
I disagree. Censoring or moderating slurs fits perfectly with what I view Glenn's goals to be - making this movement believable and credible. Unlike any among us, Glenn has gone to lengths to gain that credibility.
Watering it down with slurs only weakens his position.
February 9th, 2008 at 4:47 am
Jay R asks:
"Using your knowledge of history, NOW I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTION: "what organized hate-group do you think makes an apt [appropriate historical] comparison" to gender feminism?"
Exactly why do we need an alternate organization to compare them to at all?
If gender feminism has objectionable stances (and I think most would agree they do) then we can discuss those directly without having to compare it to anything else.
If our position is strong we do not need to borrow the credability of some historically recognized hate group and say "look... they are just like them!!!"
If the argument is sound all we need to do is lay out the facts and it should be obvious that the conclusions we draw are valid.
Let's put it this way... if I have a strong argument I don't need to say "I know I'm right because someone famous agrees with me"... all I have to do is make my points and my job is essentially done.
If you have problems with feminism or gender feminism then lay out your objections and bring up the issues that are important for making your case. To do that effectively there is no need to use profanity or comparisons to any other group whatsoever.
February 9th, 2008 at 4:56 am
Dan M,
There are some people out there who would claim that by virtue of being born with a y chromosome you are a vile human being even before you've done anything vile.
Such a stance is utterly without merit.
Similarly you cannot hold a political group accountable for what one day they might possibly do if given the chance.
In order to hold them guilty of such serious crimes they actually have to commit them first. Until then they are innocent of the charges.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:03 am
Dan M,
Also... I'd like to point out that your comparison with regard to propaganda and how it is best disseminated could just as easily be used to classify the fundamentalist religious groups within this country in a similar manner.
* aimed at the masses
* aimed at the emotions, not the intellect
* set at the intellectual level of the most limited in the audience
* designed so that the bigger the audience, the lower its intellectual level
All you've essentially established is that many groups with social adgendas use the same propaganda tactics... and that isn't very surprising.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:29 am
"B*tch" is not a precise term. It's a vague insult; I never know precisely what the phrase means.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Denise, I personally do not see the contest as being about expressing logic or frustration; though that is a typically female way of thinking.
It could be "both/and", instead of "either/or" -- right?
Roy, I never see discussion in the blogs as being a "contest". And I strongly disagree with your statement that the expression of logic or frustration, being "typically female way of thinking" and I'll leave it at that. You are right about the "both/and", instead of "either/or". Basically, what I was trying to get across was the fact that Glenn set the boundaries for his blogs, whether or not we agree with them. For the most part, we can get across our thoughts concerning a subject without having to use slurs. The slurs, whatever they may be, or to whom they are being addressed, can weaken an otherwise strong argument. Obviously, there are many people who agree with this thought, based on the number of comments concerning this blog. The same is true for the people who disagree. Bottom line, I respect Glenn enough to keep my comments within the boundaries he has set up, even though I disagree with some of them. However, if someone feels strongly enough to go beyond those guidelines, which he/she has the right to, just don't be surprised Glenn removes the discussion out the general discussion of that particular blog.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Alex33: Are you being deliberately obtuse? Your posts above could be from a fresh-from-women's-studies ingenue, visiting here for the first time!
>"White males have been elected to the highest "in charge" position in our country as if they were 98% of the population. Do you even remotely think Hillary will be named "in charge" of this country?"
Get your facts straight. According to a recent L.A. Times article, 16% of elected office-holders are female. The female majority of the electorate elected them. Do you object to women being able to vote for a man if they so choose?
As for Hillary, if she gets elected, then yes, she will be "in charge" of the country in the same way that any other POTUS is "in charge." If you are asking if she will be elected, then I hope not, but I acknowledge that at present she has a pretty good chance -- as a result of all the men who will be willing to vote for her.
> "Women are making .77 to a man's $1 according to Forbes. And this hasn't changed in the last 5 years. If that isn't a power fact, I don't know what is."
Well, despite the information consistently provided on this blog, you don't know much. The "wage gap" represents the quantification of women's ability to work less, and at less dirty, dangerous jobs than men. The 77 cents on the dollar is for across-the-board full time work by men versus women. Men comprise 95% of all work place deaths. Men work significantly longer hours than women. Men work 90% of all overtime hours. Under the circumstances, you would still expect that women earn as much?! Ridiculous! Yes this is a "power fact" -- power and choice for women! Men have the "power" in the form of an obligation to work longer and harder than women -- mostly in order to provide for their families.
As for the "glass ceiling" comment regarding the number of executives, see above. Men work longer, harder, and take more risks and make more sacrifices. It is hardly surprising that they would be the majority of upper management. And don't forget who these "masters of the universe" work for -- the shareholders. Guess who holds the majority (approx. 65%) of that wealth? That's right -- women. Men earn it; women spend it. Who has the power?
Alex, why are you here if you are not willing to learn?
February 9th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Re: "Please don't lump all feminists together"
I see no baby in the bathwater of idenitity politcs period, certainly not in feminism.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:58 am
I can think of no better support for my previous statement than Alex - I do not wish to offend, but your tired rehashing of at best long debunked and at worst completely irrational feminist talking points underscores the point more effectively than I ever could. Do you labor under the delusion that 50% of well paid pipleline workers in Alaska are not women because women are not being hired at the same rate as men? They aren't applying for those jobs, man! The truth has been demonstrated time and again by far more capable voices than mine (including the AAUW) that less than 1/4 of the exiting gap of 23 cents (thats less than 6 cents) cannot be attributed directly to choices women voluntarily make. Thats right - we MAY be discriminating to the tune of 6 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR. They can't even say that for sure.
Women have for awhile now made up over 50% of the voting populace of this country - if women aren't getting elected, its because women are not electing them.
Finally, how in the world is my life made better because somebody, somewhere with the same genitals I have has power? And if persons like yourself do feel so passionately that "white male privilege" is actually a force in peoples lives, prove it - give your job, give your money, give all that you have worked for (oops, meant to say "acquired on the backs of minorities and women by illegitimate male privilege) away to members of those groups. If white male privilege (or male privilege of any color) exists, you should have no trouble earning it all back in short order. This would accomplish much overnight - you can instantly elevate a member of one of those groups to middle class status, make a statement to the rest of society that this can be done overnight if "we all pull together, my oh my" and demonstrate the courage of your convictions. My goodness, we could solve all the problems of women and minorities if everyone who believes white male privilege accounts for the success of white males and the downtrodden status of everyone else did that-and you'd prove us all wrong too.
But I'm not holding my breath.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Jason (and Callum),
> "Jay R asks: "Using your knowledge of history, NOW I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTION: "what organized hate-group do you think makes an apt [appropriate historical] comparison" to gender feminism?"
And you respond, "Exactly why do we need an alternate organization to compare them to at all? "If gender feminism has objectionable stances (and I think most would agree they do) then we can discuss those directly without having to compare it to anything else."
This side-step is a disappointing, but not surprising, response. Why the need for comparison? Effective, efficient communication, is why. I can just see you explaining the "objectionable stances" of gender feminism -- starting from scratch each time, reinventing the wheel, baking each "brick" of your argument before inserting into the wall. Anyone who has several hours to track your arguments will be very impressed, I'm sure. Most people, though, will have wandered off with a dazed look on their faces long before you ever get to the "punch line." Look at the above comments about effective propoganda. The rule: Keep It Simple, Stupid! E.g., "Hillary has all the personal charm of Attila the Hun." You may disagree or not, but that gets the point across quickly and effectively.
Now that I've smoked you out on this point, and you have no alternatives to offer, I trust you willl desist criticizing others' use of "inappropriate" historical analogy. Here's mine: "Feminism has done for women what the KKK has done for white people."
February 9th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
"This side-step is a disappointing, but not surprising, response. Why the need for comparison? Effective, efficient communication, is why."
I can effectively and efficiently communicate my points without having to borrow from any other event whatsoever. If you cannot maybe your position isn't as strong as you think it is.
What you are doing is trying to usurp the psychological and emotional baggage that is attached to those historical events or recognized hate groups and attach it to a current event or group in the hopes that you can force people to agree with you because if they do not then they are supporting someone or something related to a recognized horror.
You are trying to short circuit the conversation by essentially declaring that anyone who might dissagree with you're position on these issues must invariably support genocide or slavery.
In so doing you are committing a logical fallacy which may be "effective and efficient" but is also invalid and disingenuous.
I hold myself to a higher standard than trying to manipulate people with psychological games... and so should you.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Jay R,
As a further note... if you *really* need to develop quick catch phrases you can just as easily use comparisons to works of fiction.
That is infinitely more valid than the sorts of comparisons you are trying to make as while comparing someone to the "wicked witch" may not be the nicest thing to do... at least every one who reads it isn't being sucked into some kind of psychological ploy.
There are numerous ways you can make the kinds of statements you want to make without resorting to innapropriate comparisons... I suggest using those instead.
If all you are trying to do is achieve brevity and get to your point quickly then you should see no problem using fictional comparisons over historical ones.
If on the other hand you are actually trying to play psychological games then you would object to fictional references and cling to the historical ones so you can usurp their emotive potency for your own adgenda.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Jay R: According to a recent L.A. Times article, 16% of elected office-holders are female.
Last I checked, women were at least 50% of the population. And if you noticed, I said, "as if they were 98% of the population."
Think of it this way - if women were 16% of the population, then your 16% of elected office-holders being female would be equal.
The 98% comes from the disproportionate number of men and women in elected positions.
Jay R: Under the circumstances, you would still expect that women earn as much?! Ridiculous!
Yes, I do, in comparable jobs. That's equality, even if you don't like it.
Jay R: Yes this is a "power fact" -- power and choice for women! Men have the "power" in the form of an obligation to work longer and harder than women -- mostly in order to provide for their families. ... Guess who holds the majority (approx. 65%) of that wealth? That's right -- women. Men earn it; women spend it. Who has the power?
Do you realize what a victim you sound like?
Jay R: Alex, why are you here if you are not willing to learn?
I *am* here to learn, as I hope others are as well, you included Jay R. But from what I can tell, you seem to be stuck in your POV and are completely unwilling to budge.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Denise: The slurs, whatever they may be, or to whom they are being addressed, can weaken an otherwise strong argument.
I also think the use of this particular word, b*tch, brings up a particularly negative stereotype of women (yes, I know I'm going to get slammed for saying it's a stereotype - don't waste your breath). I think it serves to reinforce what seems to be so prevalent here, and in the MRM - this underlying hatred for women. If you don't like the word hatred, then try anger for women.
And here is where I think the basic premise for the MRM is flawed. You demonize the feminist movement for it's hatred of women. Yet so much of the thinking within the MRM is no different than precisely what you slam the feminists for - discrimination against and heaping blame on one group of people ... men.
What makes anyone think the MRM is going to get anywhere using those same tactics?
Now one answer to this question might be, "Well the feminists were certainly successful, so we can be too." But at what cost? (And, dare I say, two wrongs don't make a right.)
I think the MRM should use what has been successful for the feminist movement, excluding the exclusionary tactics. Quit harping on why life is so bad, organize, use influence, and make the changes without doing it to the detriment of women.
And I don't believe all feminists hate men, or even a large majority of them hate men. I think that's how their general principals are viewed, but I don't think it's the case. Somebody on one of the threads mentioned something about feminists having this hatred for the XY chromosome ... or wanting to destroy it or something like that. Surely many of these feminists are having children. Are we to believe they are selectively aborting their male children? Are we to believe they are putting them up for adoption and only keeping the female children? That's rediculous. So even going to far as to say that feminists hate men - the argument just doesn't hold water.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Alex - why would anyone support a political organization that believes masculinity needs to be "reconstructed" if they liked masculinity?
February 9th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
(Feminists are not killing their male children or even putting them up for adoption, so this proves that feminists do not hate men.)
Perhaps those who do hate are able to make an exception for their biological children.
The attack on the two-parent family, which has been done to allow women to maintain power and control over their children to the exclusion of fathers, may explain why girls are now more successful than boys scholastically.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Alex33, in light of your posts, in which you fluidly confuse the concept of "women" with "feminists," and then feel free to spout off about "hatred" of women expressed on this site, and where you simply ignore information inconsistent with your views, it appears that your feminist mind-set is preventing you from full appreciation of the content of my posts. From now on, I will have to think of you by the nom de plume, "Nikstlitslepmur," which is "Rumpelstiltskin" in reverse: In the fairy tale he could spin straw into gold; on this blog you can spin gold into straw (enough to make an army of straw-men).
>"Guess who holds the majority (approx. 65%) of that wealth? That's right -- women. Men earn it; women spend it. Who has the power?" Do you realize what a victim you sound like?
Why no, actually, I don't. I do realize, however that I am having a discussion with someone who thinks that they can respond to substantive argument and information by employing name-calling and "shaming" tactics.
None are so blind as those who will not see. ...
February 9th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Jason@ "If all you are trying to do is achieve brevity and get to your point quickly then you should see no problem using fictional comparisons over historical ones."
Let's see, now. First you objected to "inappropriate" historical comparisons. Then when asked to identify an appropriate historical comparison, you failed to see the utility of any such comparison. In response to my point that they facilitate efficient, effective communication, you now say that fictional comparisons would be the way to go, instead.
Ok, sure, I'm game. Whatever. I'm just trying to see what position you are finally going to adopt. Now that you have identified fiction as a fertile field for apt comparisons to sum up the negative effects of gender feminism (remember, that's the subject), I will again, with all due respect, ask you to put up, or shut up, on the issue: What fictional scenario would aptly and succinctly communicate the essence of gender feminism's impact on men?
While you ponder, I will admit my disappointment that you ducked an opportunity to agree or disagree with my assertion that gender feminism has done for women and gender relations what the KKK did (and is still doing, unfortunately) for white people and race relations.
I am also reminded somehow, of Senator Gaseous A. Windbag, who, responding to his opponent's argument, uttered the now famous retort, "Ahem, harumph, and in conclusion ... barf!"
February 9th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Denise -- "And I strongly disagree with your statement that the expression of logic or frustration, being "typically female way of thinking" and I'll leave it at that."
"and I'll leave it at that..."
girl, this is precisely what drives men to desperation when we are attempting an intelligent debate with a person we are usually treating to a nice dinner.
You can't just "leave it like that" and expect to be respected as a voice worth listening to....
It's like saying .... "whatever!" and walking away with a door slam.
This may seem trivial -- but there is a pattern of women posters choosing -- yes, CHOOSING -- to dodge and run away when they are uncomfortable.
Is that the female perogative?
February 9th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Jason:
Actually my point was sort of two fold. One, the propaganda tactics of NAZI Germany were widely adopted and highly effective...the mere fact that others have adopted these tactics in no way diminishes the point. However, your apparently over-literal reading of my posts suggests the main thrust of this point was lost on you....namely that many of the goals are shared between the two entities (directly), while others can be word substituted quite effectively. You, however, chose this to infer that feminists all want to kill all men. This reading, frankly, makes you a ninny in my book. I would hope you can comprehend more than actual words say, it IS after all normal to do so.
My second point was that given the similarities both in temperment (in early NAZI Germany, not in full-swing mode), as well as stated goals (deconstructionism for one), comparison is neither invalid nor irresponsible. Your mileage may vary. You also have to take into account that the NAZI party was very socialist, and thus naturally has similarities with feminism because of this...
The whole "b1tch debate" touches on this as well. Words are merely symbols whose meaning and order are commonly accepted. The purpose of words is - when taken it their purest form - to convey ideas. The tendency in society is to use the shortest cut possible to convey meaning, resulting in slang....which eventually will usually mutate into another language. Roughly. The word b1tch (without the 1 in there) conveys a very concise meaning to nearly everyone, and is therefore a highly efficient means of communication. As such, it's silly to "ban" it's use.
Can we all just agree that Glenn can delete whatever posts he wants, for whatever reason, and simply dispense with the rule-making already? I'm pretty sure Glenn would rather that, I know I would, and I suspect there are precious few here that even care....really, if someone is trying to use this blog for a vendetta of some sort, I don't care how carefully worded it is, it's still a vendetta. Similarly, if someone is being a bitch, I want to be able to say so. If I'm being a dick, I'm more than OK with being told so.
I don't know, maybe I'm crazy but I don't write everything like it's an academic dissertation. I'm very well spoken in real life, and tend to use an extended vocabulary (rather than big words), but I recognize the fact that not everyone even UNDERSTANDS the word. Match your diction to your audience is my advice to anyone, but don't lose your personality in the process.
And that brings me to my final point. This whole "take the high road" approach to men's rights thing is pretty much utter bullshit. Noticeably, it's primarily our feminist visitors that espouse this approach. That's like trusting your Mom for dating advice (if you're a guy). I read some of the posts above and all I see is the guy at the table that everyone can't stand, with his beard and tweed jacket, lecturing everyone about the REAL facts. All done nicely, with a smarmy, condescending smile on his face the whole time. I'm not going to name names, but I'm sure it's obvious to all. Hardly the way to win popular support. Tom Leykis has a pretty big audience though....I'm just sayin'.
I'll read even the most obnoxious post from the most militant gender feminist if it's entertaining to read. Even the most ardent supporter of men's rights loses me after about the third paragraph of facts and statistics, it's like those nature shows that always make you go to sleep....
February 9th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Jay R,
"What fictional scenario would aptly and succinctly communicate the essence of gender feminism's impact on men?"
There are many you could use... and depending upon your audience different choices might be more effictive than others.
If they are Harry Potter fans use the term "deatheaters" or something like that... or maybe compare them to the horde of orcs devestating the world in the Lord of the Rings... or the empire in starwars.
There are hundreds of fictional examples that can get across the same sort of point in terms of making your point in a short sound bite.
The benefits of such statements is you'll never get lashback of how the comparison isn't fair or is a mischaracterization because ultimately the emotional weight carried with the comparison is much less.
There aren't any people from wizards around to be insulted by the fact that you are comparing a group to one that laid seige to their fictional existance.
If people don't like the comparison they have much less to say about it... plus you can have some fun coming up with creative comparisons that you think poke fun in a fairly innocuous manner.
As for gender feminism... I don't need to compare them to anyone to know that many of the things they have said and believe are harmful to all of society... their sins stand on their own two feet.
February 9th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Oh, and further to the NAZI discussion....from http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/5910/FatherMag/ResponseToMorgan_2.htm
"The war against fathers (men generally and western civilization along with it) was intense and is still too fresh in our minds for Laura Morgan to ignore the intent to cause harm. (Is it over yet?) The public discussions and political speeches were more characteristic of lynch mobs with pitchforks and torches than policy debate. It was a period in which the heroines of poverty, poor single mothers would be offered support for education to help in their emergence from poverty, but not poor men. Single fathers would be forced to work and to pay even if unemployed. Women were to be helped. Men were to be punished. It was a time of such blatant and sinister political extremism that when Congress was debating the closing of military bases as part of the post-Cold War reforms, an alternative proposal by Senator Christopher Dodd (D - CT) was to transform the bases into forced labor camps for fathers who fell one or two months behind in child support payments."
Yeah....I'm nuts.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Dan M,
Actually the difference between you and I is clear on many levels, the most important of which at the moment is that we were politely requested to stear the topic of conversation away from certain regions and you have chosen to completely ignore that request.
We are guests on this site and as guests we have a responsibility to respectfully adhere when the host asks for something.
Clearly you do not care... nor do you care for comporting your arguments in a reasonable fashion... just picking and grabbing at any argument that you think will carry the most force without regard for whether or not it is reasonable.
There are two ways to wage a war... one is to destroy everything in your path and see what's left when you are through... the other is to specifically target the enemy with precision strikes, limiting the damage done as much as possible.
I strive to use the precise method where all of my arguments are targeted solely at the positions of my opponent... you are advocating the carpet bombing method and then saying that the ends justify the means.
I do not agree.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Jason said...
There are two ways to wage a war... one is to destroy everything in your path and see what's left when you are through... the other is to specifically target the enemy with precision strikes, limiting the damage done as much as possible.
With all due respect Jason the fisrt IS the approach used by feminism and the second is impossible with feminists because of their generalisations - see number one.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Gwallan,
"With all due respect Jason the fisrt IS the approach used by feminism and the second is impossible with feminists because of their generalisations - see number one."
You do not defeat your opponent by mimicing the things about your opponent that you do not approve of.
The real issue is this.
There are some people out there that no matter how well articulated your points are... no matter how much evidence is on your side... that will *never* be convinced.
These are the people who are extremists, and to be honest we shouldn't strive to be convincing those people of anything because it is ultimately a waste of time.
The people you should want to win over are the vast majority who are moderates... those who can be swayed by well reasoned arguments.
Those people won't see lowering our standards as a positive... all we achieve by fighting in the mud is to look as dirty and unappealing as those we argue against.
If instead we keep our cool, make well reasoned arguments and call people on their unfair or unsubstantiated stances then an outside observer will immediately recognize that while our opponent is covered in mud, we have remained fairly clean.
We aren't going to convince extremists of anything... so that shouldn't be the focus so far as I am concerned.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Here is one that some friends and I like to use to see how bad censoring has become on other sites, sorry I have not read the rest of the comments have been otherwise engaged lately
Flintstones, meet the Flintstones, They're a modern stoneage family.
From the, town of Bedrock, They're a page right out of history.
Let's ride, with the family down the street, Through the courtesy of Fred's two feet.
When you're, with the Flintstones, Have a yabba dabba doo time, A dabba doo time, You'll have a gay old time
b
February 10th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Not bad it passed the test
b
February 10th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Oops after my 1223 I posted what my test is and that is awaiting moderation . . . it is my considered opinion that the word nanny has gone a bit overboard
b
February 10th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Jason it's the extremist feminists who have been setting the rules since the early eighties. Well reasoned arguments have not worked in all in that time. They didn't work then and they will not work now. Personally I prefer ridicule to angry outbursts but that's just me.
This period in history will correct itself in time. The only question in my mind is how long it will take. The longer it takes, and the more anger and frustration that is built up, the harder it will go on both feminists and women. The angry comments are nothing more than a manifestation of that anger and a demonstration of it's growth. If they were not there I would be more concerned.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for that anger. I'm an observer only in this. It is entirely predictable and well within the scope of normal human reaction. It surprises me it has taken so long.
Fact is it matters little how well reasoned and "cool" our approach feminists will always portray it as angry, mysoginist, hateful etc. See the recent attacks on Glenn by various feminist bloggers. He did the right thing - highlighted THEIR stupidity and let others blow off steam a little but otherwise just kept doing his thing.
You do not defeat your opponent by mimicing the things about your opponent that you do not approve of.
Who says I don't approve. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Just because their ideology is unbalanced doesn't mean their tactics are. The problem with men is that they have been TOO compliant. I say it's a good thing that is changing.
Your argument with Dan M really devolves to whether the examples history provides us with should be referenced. I would point to another historical lesson - appeasement NEVER works against an entrenched enemy.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:19 am
Jason:
"Actually the difference between you and I is clear on many levels, the most important of which at the moment is that we were politely requested to stear the topic of conversation away from certain regions and you have chosen to completely ignore that request."
Actually, yes I did. Mostly to illustrate that even the topics we "shy away from" have value in them. The obvious fear connected with the argument is more rooted in avoidance of being labelled some other form of "supremacist" than it is of being made to look foolish. There are many many similarities, sure, but the real point is no one even addresses the points, they simply plug their ears and yell racist. In short, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of some of our more "reasoned" posters, as well as showing just how scary group psychology can be. Is that somehow wrong? Or am I not taking a suitably deferential tone?
----
"I strive to use the precise method where all of my arguments are targeted solely at the positions of my opponent... you are advocating the carpet bombing method and then saying that the ends justify the means."
And I'm absolutely certain that you would destroy me in an academic debate, no question. The problem is, academic debate bores the living hell out of....oh....99.99999999999% of the public the VAST majority of the time. I engage in outlandish hyperbole and offensive stances, I purposely refuse to "cite examples and details" because I argue nebulous ideas more than specific data. I get that this approach makes you uncomfortable, seeing as how it's diametrically opposed to your own views on the subject. What I am telling you is that there's the right way to do things, and then there's the effective way to do things. You continue to appeal to the head all you want, I won't get in your way....I agree with you. I'll keep going for the heart myself, since I'm a cynic that believes people are emotion driven.
If nothing else, hopefully someone gets a kick out of reading my drivel....
February 10th, 2008 at 1:23 am
"appeasement NEVER works against an entrenched enemy."
Finer words have never been ....er.... typed.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Gwallan,
"Jason it's the extremist feminists who have been setting the rules since the early eighties. Well reasoned arguments have not worked in all in that time. They didn't work then and they will not work now. Personally I prefer ridicule to angry outbursts but that's just me."
Movements of any form take time to build momentum... the point is that once momentum has been obtained we then have a decision to make... do we seek to set things right... or do we seek revenge.
I want to set things right... that ultimately means taking a somewhat dispassionate stance and really trying to look at what is in the best interest of society at large.
Some people want revenge for the social injustices they have dealt with... while I can understand the drive for retribution, ultimately that won't lead us where we want to be.
Sometimes our first inclination... our gut reaction to lash out and be emotive may seem like the most satisfying way to handle things, but in the final analysis it isn't going to get us anywhere.
What it basically comes down to is the following... you don't encourage non-violent behavior by saying "if you continue to be violent I'm going to beat you to a bloody pulp".
It isn't easy to walk the high road... but it's the only way to get where we want to be.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:31 am
"Fact is it matters little how well reasoned and "cool" our approach feminists will always portray it as angry, mysoginist, hateful etc. See the recent attacks on Glenn by various feminist bloggers. He did the right thing - highlighted THEIR stupidity and let others blow off steam a little but otherwise just kept doing his thing. "
And every time they do so they are the ones who look foolish.
That is the point.
If Glenn actually did possess those traits he wouldn't be nearly as effective.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Dan M says:
"I engage in outlandish hyperbole and offensive stances, I purposely refuse to "cite examples and details" because I argue nebulous ideas more than specific data. I get that this approach makes you uncomfortable, seeing as how it's diametrically opposed to your own views on the subject. What I am telling you is that there's the right way to do things, and then there's the effective way to do things."
The thing that scares me about that method is that it is uncontrolled... how do you stop things from swinging too far in the other direction if you do manage to win people over with exaggeration that is meant to provoke people to negative emotion?
That is essentially what we are dealing with today where so many people have negative feelings about men and they have no idea where they even stem from... men are just the bad guy... they are evil... and there is no understanding for where those feelings really come from.
When we look back though we see where they stem from... they are born out of constant exageration and the use of emotive psychological tactics designed to manipulate people.
I agree with you that those methods can be very effective... we have seen time and time again that they are extremely potent at generative social change. The problem is that they are too effective because the changes never stop where they should... they always overshoot the mark by a huge margin leaving behind broken societies in their wake.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Sorry, one final point there Jason.
Using plain language tends to bother people too, because it means you can't mask the meaning with jargon. Collateral Damage is a good example. When I say that I have talked to a woman who grew up in the Warsaw Ghetto, and saw her brother shot in the head right in front of her....I mean it...I actually did. And she has told me story after story in exactly that tone. Like the time her and a bunch of refugees (OK, prisoners really) were walking (yes, walking) to Warsaw under guard, every once in a while the guards would scatter and a Stuka would strafe the line of people. Apparently, the guards joked about the "target practice" the pilots were getting - this while the "refugees" were busy arranging the bodies of their loved ones for removal by crews later (sure sure). These were things that happened. They are simple fact, and they're horrible. And couching the holocaust in some reverent church like tone does NO ONE any good. Ask most any victim what lesson they hope humanity takes away from the holocaust, I'm betting something along the lines of "Hope it never happens again" comes out of their mouth...that's been my experience so far. I'm saying it IS possible, however unlikely, that something similar could happen....like an elected politician seriously suggesting forced labour camps for "deadbeat dads" behind on child support. I say this because I have spoken extensively with several people who were THERE at the time.....I heard them say that they knew things were bad, but not THAT bad, then everything happened so fast there was no time to react. What do they tell you?
I like meeting people, I like hearing their stories, and getting to know the person they are. It's fascinating. And sometimes you run across a neighbor that gratefully told story after story, grateful because I was around 19 at the time, and she was eager to pass on first hand experiences, personal experiences. Don't presume to call me irreverent or racist or any other variation on the thinly veiled anti-semite accusations, I have seen people cry remembering the events of a half century ago, remembering sisters or brothers or parents that they KNEW were being mercilessly slaughtered or worse. And as regards the experiments I definitely recognize the vileness of it all, do YOU recognize that much of that "research" led to several medical advances that are today saving lives? Only a moron would assume this is a ringing endorsement of NAZI actions, but SOME good came from those poor people's suffering, I won't deny them that dignity (however small).
I'll be frank, my academic qualifications are nil, I have zero interest in formal research, and I don't give a flying f*ck if someone thinks I'm over the top. I'm not usually a ranting lunatic, and after reading a few posts it should be fairly apparent when the humour switch is on in my posts. If not, I'll improve the clarity a bit more. But seriously, please stop nitpicking and misconstruing simultaneously, it makes the responding posts too long....
February 10th, 2008 at 1:50 am
I see your point Jason. But I take the position that feminism has given to me in return. I'm concerned with men's rights, and men's rights only. They want advocacy and help, they have their own organizations (mild understatement) to turn to. I'm not going to moderate my demands because it MIGHT swing some imaginary pendulum too far. I want equal rights, and equal protection under the law. If women develop some kind of collective guilt like the Germans or something, well, they made their bed, and they can lie in it. Same goes for any other "pendulum" argument. Bite the hand that feeds.......
February 10th, 2008 at 3:51 am
Jason said...
Movements of any form take time to build momentum... the point is that once momentum has been obtained we then have a decision to make... do we seek to set things right... or do we seek revenge.
Who here has been "seeking vengeance"? It is feminist pursuit of vengeance that brought us here in the first place. Standing tall on your moral pillar only makes it easier for them to kneecap you.
What it basically comes down to is the following... you don't encourage non-violent behavior by saying "if you continue to be violent I'm going to beat you to a bloody pulp".
I would draw a different analogy. If you keep whacking me in the face sooner or later I'm going to whack back. THAT is what we are seeing today - countless men who have been slapped once too often.
If Glenn actually did possess those traits he wouldn't be nearly as effective.
Are you sure? Glenn personally doesn't possess those "traits" but his moderation allows the expression of them. Is he effective because of that or in spite of it? Consider that the expression of those more extreme viewpoints within Glenn's environment may actually serve to demonstrate that his is the moderate, and therefore more acceptable, position.
That is essentially what we are dealing with today where so many people have negative feelings about men and they have no idea where they even stem from... men are just the bad guy... they are evil... and there is no understanding for where those feelings really come from.
When we look back though we see where they stem from... they are born out of constant exageration and the use of emotive psychological tactics designed to manipulate people.
These "feelings" about men are not borne of feminism although feminism has certainly used them to advantage. Men have always been the more disposable of the genders. Our culture has thus been predisposed toward less compassion and greater callousness for men to protect it's own fundamental sensibilities. One of the reasons teenage boys have, and cause, so many problems is that they exist in a transition state between, as children, worthy objects of compassion and, as men, being less or not at all worthy.
Dan M said...
I see your point Jason. But I take the position that feminism has given to me in return. I'm concerned with men's rights, and men's rights only. They want advocacy and help, they have their own organizations (mild understatement) to turn to. I'm not going to moderate my demands because it MIGHT swing some imaginary pendulum too far. I want equal rights, and equal protection under the law. If women develop some kind of collective guilt like the Germans or something, well, they made their bed, and they can lie in it. Same goes for any other "pendulum" argument. Bite the hand that feeds.......
The bolded bit is important. We should be operating WITHOUT reference to feminists or women. I was an active, radical feminist until some four years ago when my pursuit of fair treatment for male sexual assault victims pushed me away(or at least caused them to push me away). What feminists have done was always without reference to mens needs collectively or individually. I see no reason for the mens movement to operate any differently. I can understand Jason wanting to walk the high moral ground. Unfortunately that simply results in two sets of rules. It's a bit like a football match where one side can't be tackled.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:54 am
Damn. Nested tags don't work. The bolded bit from Dan's post was...
I'm concerned with men's rights, and men's rights only.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Dan M,
What I hope you realize is that the following statements you made are mutually exclusive:
"I'm concerned with men's rights, and men's rights only."
and
"I want equal rights, and equal protection under the law."
You can never be concerned with the rights of one group alone and achieve any sort of equality because by definition you are ignoring all other groups.
Equal protection under the law is a VERY worthy goal... but to get there you need to be concerned with human rights and look where some people are getting the shaft and others are sitting pretty.
As it stands you probably have a very good idea of where men are coming up short... but the only way to achieve equal rights is to constantly keep in mind where each group is in a global sense.
That was the ultimate failing of many women's groups so far as I am concerned... that by their myopic concern for women only they have continued to absorb privilege after privilege without even noticing or caring that in many instances they've stepped over the line.
Being oblivious to the other side and so totally focused upon oneself leads to a very strange existance... let me give you an example.
A friend of mine who I work with is constantly complaining how much harder it is to be a women where we work than a man because she always has to be concerned with getting hit on or expected to clean up after the men. That being said, what I find so very interesting about her position is the following... if she is so concerned about getting hit on by the men at work, exactly why have her last two relationships been born out of office romances?... and secondly, if she is so concerned about being portrayed as the mother figure, why does she feel it is alright to patronize her office coworkers by refering to them as "boys" or "children".
The point is that she is so self absorbed with her own issues that she is completely blinded to the fact that there might be another side to things... she just doesn't see it because she's become so used to viewing the world through "men have it easy, women have it rough" goggles.
Once you concern yourself with only one group it is impossible to achieve equal anything precisely because you've ignored the other groups that you are supposed to be seeking equality with.
Let's put it this way, if I gave you a scale with two sides and asked you to balance out equal portions on both ends it would be very easy. However, if I just gave you the plate from the scale and told you that you needed to weigh up an equal amount to a plate that I had in another room that you weren't allowed to see, your chances for success drop to about zero.
February 10th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
My apoligies for the last comment on "More on moderating my blog I was wrong I actually posted on this blog . . . Glenn Has 'Sold Out to the Feminists and Chivalrists' . . . and the comments are there. Odd though when I searched Glenns site for my posts I received the message "no posts found" Must have been a glitch.
Sorry guys . . .
Darn I was ready for a good debate ( :
b
I just wanted to make sure my appology was posted somewhere so I put it here because the posting was closed on the other site.
February 10th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Wow, you made it to the end of this thread. Here's your prize.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Denise -- "And I strongly disagree with your statement that the expression of logic or frustration, being "typically female way of thinking" and I'll leave it at that."
"and I'll leave it at that..."
girl, this is precisely what drives men to desperation when we are attempting an intelligent debate with a person we are usually treating to a nice dinner.
You can't just "leave it like that" and expect to be respected as a voice worth listening to....
It's like saying .... "whatever!" and walking away with a door slam.
This may seem trivial -- but there is a pattern of women posters choosing -- yes, CHOOSING -- to dodge and run away when they are uncomfortable.
Is that the female perogative?
February 10th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Denise -- "And I strongly disagree with your statement that the expression of logic or frustration, being "typically female way of thinking" and I'll leave it at that."
"and I'll leave it at that..."
girl, this is precisely what drives men to desperation when we are attempting an intelligent debate with a person we are usually treating to a nice dinner.
You can't just "leave it like that" and expect to be respected as a voice worth listening to....
It's like saying .... "whatever!" and walking away with a door slam.
This may seem trivial -- but there is a pattern of women posters choosing -- yes, CHOOSING -- to dodge and run away when they are uncomfortable.
Is that the female perogative?
Sorry about the previous post. I hit submit, instead of typing.
Roy,
Point well taken. I was afraid, the comment might have been taken the wrong way after I read what I posted. I did not want to start a discussion about the remark made about the "logic and frustration being a typically female way of thinking", because I wanted to stay on track of the subject being discussed, instead of going off in another direction.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
OK, first, let me point out that being concerned only about one thing doesn't automatically mean the exclusion of awareness of others. In other words, not everyone has Asperger's Syndrome.
When I say I am only concerned with men's rights, I mean that I will not waste one iota of concern for any perceived injustice for women. This will change when I see more than a half dozen women actually start to give a sh*t about men (outside their wallets and their penis that is). Until the stock response to men's rights concerns is better than "Oh, you're one of THOSE", I refuse to lift a finger to help any women's issues. Would you ask the enemy for help fighting them? Me either. I also refuse to ask if my ideas are OK with them, and whether or not my language offends. Sorry, I'm not at all concerned with whether or not I offend you until I respect your opinion (no need to agree, just respect).
There is a huge gaping gulf of a difference between self-absorbed and self-respecting. I believe I am entitled to the same things as every other person in my country, that I deserve it. I don't, however, think men deserve some sort of "reparations" like special programs.....beyond actually attaining parity with current programs. Cut the existing or add the new, whatever...but parity. I want the same legal reproductive rights as women, including "abortion". By abortion, I mean that men should be able to completely sever themselves from responsibility as well as rights of a parent in the case of unwanted pregnancy, and that this should have a 3 month window (or whatever the current window for women to obtain an abortion). This means NO child support, NO help at all to women impregnated this way (usually by trickery). She has the right to choose to keep or abort or adopt out the child, and men being able to opt out does not affect the range of choices available to women at all.
This will never happen though, unless our population could be demonstrably GROWN by doing so. It's not in ANY nation's interest to shrink in size, as China is beginning to find out, and here in NA we rely on immigration to make up the difference...an undesirable way to grow a nation, since huge influxes of immigrants tend to change the culture into which they are brought. Taken in smaller doses, this can be a positive influence, but nearly every article I have read on the subject suggest too much is a bad thing. This is why relaxed immigration laws are such a tempting and scary thing for most politicians, it's both good and bad at the same time.
There really is a lot more to this subject than simply money. Both of our nations can't address the real issue (family court abuses, cultural misandry, DV machine) because it would expose their money machine, which they're addicted to. But the result is too many broken families scare people off from marriage.....so, allow - nay - encourage women to use government resources to have children ON THEIR OWN! Now the gov't can get more CS money...no marriage fees or extra taxes, but hey, it's better than nothing. Sure the father might be via a sperm bank, but that's no problem....pass a law to make them responsible. Oops, dropping sperm bank donations.....hmmm. I know, immigration!
All the while whistling in the dark past the structures they erected to appease feminist pressure groups.
THOSE are the real problem. You want pretty much instant well-behaved society (at least in female/male regards)? Abolish child support/alimony/any kind of "after relationship" support, and universal paternity testing at birth. Add to that the right to "abort" for men and it's a slam dunk.
Issues of reproductive control and child rearing are at the heart of the whole series of unjust practices done in the name of the children. Take those two pillars, the rest won't matter.
Which is why I both agree with your stance, and disagree with you as to it's viability.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Dan M: Represent, Brother, Represent!
February 11th, 2008 at 1:17 am
All these Nazis must be brought to justice for the sake of America.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Dan M says:
"When I say I am only concerned with men's rights, I mean that I will not waste one iota of concern for any perceived injustice for women. This will change when I see more than a half dozen women actually start to give a sh*t about men (outside their wallets and their penis that is)."
I now understand your perspective a bit better and see where you are comming from. I'm also a bit apprehensive sometimes about just accepting statements of injustice from women simply because in many cases they are contributing factors to the situation they find themselves in (such as my friend who hates being flirted with at work but uses work as the pool from which she selects men for romantic relationships).
Men also sometimes contribute to the causes of their own problems, but i've found they are usually willing to acknowledge their involvement and take some responsibility for whatever situation they might be in. It isn't always just "look what life did to me"... it's more akin to "life threw me a curve ball, but I also didn't handle it as best as I could have". I have a much easier time being sympathetic to those who can see things from the latter perspective.
Ultimately I think you and I probably agree on most issues... we just have different preferences on the best way to approach those issues. While I do wish that you would keep in mind that many times exaggeration and rhetoric can be dangerous political tools, I also acknowledge that they can be very effective.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Denise --" I was afraid, the comment might have been taken the wrong way after I read what I posted."
This is a clear example of how women use their "victim power" and their understanding of male chivalry to manipulate ...
Oh, I was confused.... I was afraid ........ maybe I did not make sense.
(This is not in any way personal against Denise.)
But look closely at the distraction that she employs to keep from having to discuss the topic.
It is the textual equivalent of the "hair flip" and saying "whatever...!"
Play the "I was afraid card?"
Why not just call 911?
February 12th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Bitch, like several other words, is a slur that plays right into the other sides hands. There is nothing that will make the mainstream public look at father's rights advocates as a bunch of immature boys like throwing about bitch and "C You Next Tuestday" and a thousand other words. Raise the debate, don't lower it.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Swearing is the language of a person who cannot think of something else to say. This comes from a guy who swears like a frickin sailor and wishes that he could come up with better things to say.
Bitch is an inappropriate word to use in intelligent debate. Bill is VERY correct in saying that there ARE bitches out there, but that doesn't mean that we need to say it in a discussion forum.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Jay R:in which you fluidly confuse the concept of "women" with "feminists," and then feel free to spout off about "hatred" of women expressed on this site, and where you simply ignore information inconsistent with your views
I do see that there is hatred of women expressed in some people's comments, even if you are "blind" to them. And I don't believe I have confused the concept of "women" with "feminists." It is what I believe some people here, and in the MRM are doing. But I will make sure I pay attention to my own expressions, and the lens I view things through, to see if *I* am also confusing the two.
I said: Do you realize what a victim you sound like?
Jay R said: Why no, actually, I don't. I do realize, however that I am having a discussion with someone who thinks that they can respond to substantive argument and information by employing name-calling and "shaming" tactics.
So why is it that when a woman writes about her experience (i.e. DV ... Sharon & Amanda as recent examples), she's playing victim, but when men complain about feminists, or how one-sided laws are against fathers, and they get called on it, it's name-calling?
Jay R: None are so blind as those who will not see. ...
Intelligence plus character ... that is the goal of true education.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Jason: That was the ultimate failing of many women's groups so far as I am concerned... that by their myopic concern for women only they have continued to absorb privilege after privilege without even noticing or caring that in many instances they've stepped over the line.
This is my concern for the MRM, which Jason put so eloquently.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
(Many) women do not have the slightest hesitation in calling men names: "Commitmentphobe", "Loser", etc.
And (some) women do not have the slightest hesitation in making false accusations of raype--what is worse, calling a woman a "B-word" or falsely calling a man a raypist?
February 12th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Burton Says:
February 12th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
(Many) women do not have the slightest hesitation in calling men names: "Commitmentphobe", "Loser", etc.
And (some) women do not have the slightest hesitation in making false accusations of raype--what is worse, calling a woman a "B-word" or falsely calling a man a raypist?
= = =
Not the point . . . as women complain that they have to work twice as hard as men to proove themselves (choke) men HAVE to (twice as hard) not stoop to the level of the women who do such things to proove that we are better than them thus gaining credibility
b
February 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
So what are we going to call our version....Politically Correct, the Sequel?
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:48 am
Bill is an idiot. Any word can be an obscenity. It's the context in which it is used. Not a dictionary definition and definitely not a meaningless allusion to a cultural norm that has nothing to do with the context in which he used this word as a profanity. Kudos Glenn.