A woman spews absolute garbage, cites inacurate statistics, and blatently lies and she get an “above-the-fold” and nare an eyelash is batted.

Nice!

TMOTS

Dear Sir,

Modern communication has enabled the unprecedented spread of reputation, even unto the distant shores of Australia. Your newspaper’s reputation, however, has taken a substantial king–hit since you allowed Abigail Lavin to author misandric drivel in your pages.

Unsupported by facts, mendacity to the fore, her completely unprofessional hate-opinion-piece simply repeats lies purporting to show men to be brutes but which have been dismissed by all authorities. Lavin plagiarised her falsehoods and opinion from a report to the United Nations, a body which has refused to adopt the report due the drivel contained in it. Rarely does the UN simply ‘note’ a report. 30,000 emails were received by Ambassador Bolton condemning the report.

Does your newspaper get such a response?

I hope your authority can be brought to bear and she is fired. Your reputation cannot take another hit as she has given. Let us all pray she does not take up surgery.

(Mt real name went here)

BA, BA(Hons) MSc (Psychol)

Dear Editor,

Good evening.

I observe that feminist Abigail Lavin authored “Dowry Disgrace” with unsupported statistics, and with an unbalanced opinion.

This gives the The Weekly Standard lower credibility. And I do not want that.

I want The Weekly Standards staff to print the truth supported by facts with balance.

Sincerely,
Mark Ruffolo, MS, MBA

An MND poster (amfortas)has cited — Jacques Derrida!
(July 15, 1930 – October 8, 2004) he was an Algerian-born French philosopher, known as the founder of deconstruction.

(JD) — “the entire history of the concept of structure, before the rupture of which we are speaking, must be thought of as a series of substitutions of centre for centre, as a linked chain of determinations of the centre. Successively, and in a regulated fashion, the centre receives different forms or names. The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix (…) is the determination of Being as presence in all senses of this word. It could be shown that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the centre have always designated an invariable presence – eidos, archē, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) alētheia, transcendentality, consciousness, God, man, and so forth.”

Man, this MND site is getting deep! Who is next? Lacan? Nietzsche? Jung? Dr. Laura?

Postmodernists are now flocking to this URL.

I hope Mike LaSalle is ready for the onslaught…

An MND poster has cited — Jacques Derrida!
(July 15, 1930 – October 8, 2004) he was an Algerian-born French philosopher, known as the founder of deconstruction.

(JD) — “the entire history of the concept of structure, before the rupture of which we are speaking, must be thought of as a series of substitutions of centre for centre, as a linked chain of determinations of the centre. Successively, and in a regulated fashion, the centre receives different forms or names. The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix (…) is the determination of Being as presence in all senses of this word. It could be shown that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the centre have always designated an invariable presence – eidos, archÄ“, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) alÄ“theia, transcendentality, consciousness, God, man, and so forth.”

Man, this MND site is getting deep! Who is next? Lacan? Nietzsche? Jung? Dr. Laura?

Postmodernists are now flocking to this URL.

Plug you ears, cover your eyes, shut your mouth….

Truth tried hard.
Was Tried. Hard.
Derided, Derrida-ed,
denied existence;
perjured,
Falsely accused,
she struggled
as she was garrotted.

Died hard.

If Republicans had made pro-family reforms, millions of men, second wives, and even single mothers would have ignored the war (which directly affects very few of them), and voted their own pocketbooks. Voters are selfish: they will vote their own personal interests if you give them one to vote on. Republicans failed to deliver even one good personal reason for their constituency to vote FOR them.

Republicans lost on very slim margins. It would not have taken much for them to retain their majority. There many men, women, and grassroots activists who got Republicans elected in 1994 that are furious with them. And, the fact that Republicans blame us for their loss makes us even more furious with them, because they did not listen to us or do what they said they would do. They could have easily kept their majority, and even grown it had they kept the voters happy at HOME.

There were many things driving voter rejection of Republicans. Family values was a substantial part of this rejection. It is a shame that pollsters did not ask about it (you cannot report what you do not ask). Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot or a bought-and-paid-for neocon.

Last, if MRA’s had any money after being stripped of home, family, and income, I’m sure they would be donating to the National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center.  Since you have volunteered, where is your donation?

I doubt that domestic violence, men’s rights, or feminist ambitions to colonize the Third World even registered on the average voter’s mindset.

It will never be possible to get politicians to vote against women’s issues, because they are terrified of the effective feminist lobby that claims to have 500,000 active American women members – an insignificant fraction of the female population.

Though the newly-formed National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center at (www.nfvlrc.org) is forcefully advocating that MRA’s need to hire seasoned D.C. professional lobbyists if they want to have any chance of influencing laws and policies.

(David R. Usher’s brief critique of journalistic practices deserves its own complete essay.)