When the anti-black racist rantings of Michael Richards became public knowledge, there was a loud public outcry as there should have been.
However, I wonder if there would have been anything similar if a public figure made similar hate speech against men. In fact, I’m pretty sure there would not have been such outrage. In all likelihood, a comedian engaging in hate speech against women would have at least received some harsh criticism.
There have always been both man-haters and woman-haters. However, the feminist movement has led to a strong social disapproval of anti-female sentiments. No similar outrage is attached to the expression of negative feelings toward men. French actress Bridget Bardot was once asked what she liked most in a man and she replied, “his absence.” In another statement, she said, “beasts wouldn’t do the things [men] do.” An actor who expressed this type of negativity toward women could expect to be deluged with criticism.
The reason misogynist statements occasion great outrage while misandrist hate speech rate barely a shrug is that there is a general perception that men are the dominant or privileged sex, i.e., “it’s a man’s world,” and are therefore fair game. The more complicated truth is that societies are bisexist, consisting of both privilege and special burdens for both sexes in different areas. In many respects, men are an oppressed group. As an oppressed group, they are entitled to be offended when they are denigrated. Furthermore, sensitive and thinking women should also be offended at misandrist sentiments and stereotypes.
While feminism has led to a greater sensitivity to misogyny, feminism should not be blamed for the existence of misandry. Slogans like “men are such BEASTS” and “they’re only after one thing” were not invented in the 1970s when the second wave of the feminist movement broke and I’d wager that they were around before the suffragettes began agitating.
However, misandry IS a form of prejudice. As such, it deserves to be rejected by good people of both sexes and criticized when it is expressed.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
amfortas said,
But women have taken umbrage to new heights. Misogyny has been roundly condemned and legislated against. Misandry, however, has been raised to public and commercial Policy over the past few decades. It has gone too far. It makes a mockery of demands for equality.
I fear for women. The results of their acceptance and promotion of anti-male behaviour and the gleeful applause for those who rant against men, simply for being men, will cause them great pain in the near future. Men will turn against women. The women’s misandric slur that men hate women will become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
December 15, 2006 at 6:04 am
Ray Blumhorst said,
That statement is very, very largely “Hogwash,” IMO.
While it is true there has been some misandry before feminism, it is also true that women’s studies programs, women’s commissions, the domestic violence industry, the sexual harassment industry, etc., etc. etc. (all tools of radical/gender feminism) have institutionalized man-hating and taken it to new heights.
I’m not making a mountain out of a molehill, when I say that radical/gender feminists have (proportionally) taken man hating from molehill size status to Mount Everest proportions throughout the Western world.
December 15, 2006 at 11:35 am
Denis said,
Feminism IS directly responsible for misandry and women in large measure bought everything they were sold by the feminists. There has been an absence of women questioning the lies and hate they have been taught by feminists. Your claim that feminism should not be blamed is absurd.
Below is a collection of quotations by feminists that I posted on MND years ago (and can now be found on numerous men’s sites).
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”
Ice And Fire - Andrea Dworkin
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.”
Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students - Catherine Comin
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are.”
Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign.) - Marilyn French
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
Ms. Magazine Editor. - Robin Morgan
“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”
Ms. Magazine Editor. - Robin Morgan
“‘To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”
Scum Manifesto - Valerie Solanas
“(Rape) is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear”
Against Our Will p.6. - Susan Brownmiller
“We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable.”
- Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women
” How will the family unit be destroyed? …[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.”
In “Female Liberation” - Roxanne Dunbarr
“Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it “Her”. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination.”
Pornography: Men Possessing Women - Andrea Dworkin
“The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. The cadaver is dressed up and made up and laid down and ritually violated and consecrated to an eternity of being used.”
- Andrea Dworkin
“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.”
- Andrea Dworkin
“The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked aberrations - for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe, or commune based on father-right - these institutions are real and they must be destroyed.”
- Andrea Dworkin
“My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don’t even need to shrug. I simply don’t care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don’t matter.”
The Woman’s Room - Marilyn French
“The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together…. Whatever its ultimate meaning, the breakup of families now is an objectively revolutionary process…. No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children….”
“Functions of the Family,” WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 - Linda Gordon
“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression…”
- Sheila Jeffrys
“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”
Former Congresswoman - Barbara Jordan
“You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs.”
(Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.) - Catherine MacKinnon
“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.”
- Catherine MacKinnon
“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”
From Sisterhood Is Powerful, (ed), 1970, p. 537 - Robin Morgan
“All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck”
Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000.
December 15, 2006 at 11:40 am
PolishKnight said,
Bravo! Denise’s claim that misandry wasn’t invented by feminism comes across as an excuse similar to Saddam’s lawyer saying he didn’t invent genocide. Feminism is literally a movement dedicated to the interests of women. To say that feminism is about gender equality is like saying the KKK is about eliminating racial inequality (towards protostant whites.)
Feminism is a hate movement, plain and simple. It exploited equality issues like a shield in order to disguise it’s own anti-equality agenda but that’s just part of it: It also exploited children as power tools (welfare and social programs to benefit single women) and racial issues (shed croc tears for minorities to justify special privileges schemes mostly for white women).
There are an increasing number of anti-feminists out there not only because the depravity and stench of feminism is now so clear that it’s undeniable to most rational human beings, but also because women themselves are not benefitting so much as men are hurt. It doesn’t help women to bash their benefactors and to reward the most irresponsible of female behaviour.
But even so, our culture is still so incredibly sick and twisted that outsiders such as my wife are shocked at the notion of women bearing children into poverty for profit in the welfare and family court systems. She can’t seem to understand why someone would want to harm a child not only due to morality, but also long term personal interest: How does this help the woman?
Feminism seemingly has the motto: Engage in destruction of men, children, and society. Why? Because they CAN!
December 15, 2006 at 11:52 am
Ray Blumhorst said,
I guess it just must be really hard for some women to see the oppression of men through the dense forest of special privileges that all western women bask in.
December 15, 2006 at 1:56 pm
BobH said,
Denise, go read “Who Stole Feminism” by Christina Hoff Summers, “Ceasefire” by Cathy Young and “Heterophobia” by Daphne Patai. Better yet, go read “The Scum Manifesto”, written in 1967.
Bigotry against men is largely a creation of the last 40 years, created by women who are alive today. Unfortunately, these feminazis have been so effective that this bigotry held by almost all American women.
December 15, 2006 at 2:22 pm
amfortas said,
Most of the men here who shout out their utter dismay used to be the ordinary man in the street too, just like you, the ordinary woman. The other OMITS who don’t shout out are a mixed bunch, some seething in anger and frustration, kept silent by the conspiracy against their voices. They dare not speak out for fear of exploding; for fear of the swift punishment; fear of the loss of job; fear of the loss of their wife, their children; their dignity permanently impaired. Others are the walking dead. Their spirit has been so damaged that they engage in displacement activity 25 hours a day, not daring to look over their shoulder to see the bloody teethed monster they know is right behind them. Then there are the ones who like frogs have been in the water for so long, water slowly brought to the boil. They are the walking dead too but simply don’t know it, so used to the heat and thinking it normal. Hypnotised. There are some who prefer a fiction, believing that their particular woman-they-love is ‘different’. Blinded by the usual natural functions of attraction and desire, they point-blank refuse to hear others warning of the fall as they wander along the cliff edge. They have a sort of hubris too - ‘it couldn’t happen to me’.
The women in the same boat as you, the ones who say - “While feminism has led to a greater sensitivity to misogyny, feminism should not be blamed for the existence of misandry.”- the ordinary woman in the street, they are hypnotised too, in denial, refusing to hear the voices, refusing to see the history, so busy shouting out that they are soooo empathetic that they do not have time to actually feel what others are feeling, particularly men, so busy ‘multi-tasking’ that they do not manage even the One Simple Act of loving without being diverted to 100 other things in an instant. Their subverting hubris will not permit them to examine their own faults, their own complicity. They prefer the fiction of their super-status while all that is valuable to a human being is washed down the drain. Most however prefer the most common strategy - blame the men.
The OMITS loves women. God alone knows why. OMITS doesn’t. The men here who are shouting out their anger, me included, these are the men who are answering the exortations of a generation of women who have complained that men don’t express their feelings. This is how we feel. And you say we can’t blame feminism. So what is left, Denise. You?
December 15, 2006 at 7:19 pm
DadWithGirls said,
A multi-billion dollar industry based on obvious misandry?
Is it a feminist conspiracy?
No.
Because that would require more strategic organization than any female cabal has ever achieved.
But, if you pay off the male politicians, co-opt the male media whores, and sell a lot of gynocentric product…
it all starts to make sense, right?
December 15, 2006 at 9:45 pm
mirwalk said,
The Ugly Truths.
Warning Rant about to ensue.
I am a young male and I am somewhat naïve. Even though my innocence has yet to be betrayed by a woman, I see the horrors befalling my fellow man. From womb to tomb we suffer the pain of being a male. Few of us make it out unscathed and many more are left crushed. There are many ugly truths facing us but we refuse to look.
Starting in early childhood, we are no longer allowed to indulge ourselves in play. Our aggressiveness is thwarted leaving us with little idea how to handle the feelings coursing through our bodies. Ridiculous rules are imposed that go against even rudimentary logic. Don’t hit the girl. But she hit me. It’s not right to hit a girl. Even now with demands with equality you think that would be even. If everything is supposed to be equal then it shouldn’t matter. Same would go with race. Why is it a hate crime? Why not just a crime? But I digress.
Next comes schooling. We are forced to sit still, not compete, be very emotional, and doing activities we have no interest in. If we try to resist or expel our energies we are disciplined and berated. If this continues we even risk medication as it is now considered abnormal for a boy to act this way. The one pressure release we had is recess. Where we can compete and perform athletic endeavors that allow us to be more like ourselves. Even then this is slowly disappearing, starting with discipline against our acts, to then removal of recess altogether.
It continues as we get older. Where we learn about sexual harassment, and the punishment potential it hands to women. If you so much look at someone in a way they don’t like then you get punished. Name-calling is right out as well. Though nobody seems to care if it is done back to boys. After schools sports start coming into play, however even this is under attack. Reductions in funding have these disappearing from the landscape. Sports used to teach young men focus, teamwork, dedication, and a host of other qualities. Now it is removed because the other sex doesn’t care about sports.
Time marches on and so does the discrimination. We come to dating and the wonderful horrors that it unleashes. Everything from false allegations of sexual abuse and rape, and destruction of self-esteem. Women control the relationship, men approach and can be approved or rejected. If the woman wants to control the man, she has at her dispostal threats of false allegations for many crimes. Unlike a male’s threats of violence that can be avoided this can be used to get federal courts to follow him for you. Men are expected to pay for dinner, hold open doors, and treat any girl like a lady. But men do not receive any favors in return.
College is one big problem for men. Women get indoctrinated into the feminist ranks and hate everything about men. We are soon seen as nothing but gateways into getting what they want. Need a nice house or car? Marry a rich guy. You’re a girl you deserve it! If you need to crush him to get it, then no worries. He’s a man! He is unimportant. Not to mention that men are going to college less and less. Who would blame them, does anybody head to a location where they are unwelcome? (Well I guess feminists do… but this does not apply to us)
Next comes in the marriage, where a woman holds onto most of the reigns. If she tires of the man she can simply boot him out of house, take his kids, and a good section of his paycheck. This is all done legally without any wrongdoing on the man’s part. He loses contact with his children and most of his biggest possessions. If she needs all this to take care of the kids, why not give it to the man who can take care of the kids without her help?
In the workplace men face many barriers to having a good job. Again false allegations of abuse abound. There are some lawyers that refuse to take women as apprentices for fear of such an accusation. Men must censor their speech to keep from offending anyone who may be in earshot. Never ask the women to get a sense of humor or to grow a thick skin as that would be horrible. The Glass ceiling is a much touted problem of females, though they don’t realize a majority of men never reach those positions anyway. Usually, those positions are filled by men who have sacrificed most of their lives to the company and spend most of their waking hours doing their jobs. Though if a women can’t get the same position while being a stay at home mom, then there must be rapant discrimination!
When it comes to justice men still get shafted. In any sexual matter we are seen as guilty until proven innocent. Her mere word is enough to put us away. Unless we have evidence that shows to the contrary her word overrides ours. In divorce men have one heck of a time getting the children even if they are far better qualified than the woman. If a man and woman do the same crime, they will spend different amounts of time. Men will usually get many years for what women would only get many months. Battered wife syndrome is used to explain why the victim was killed, but the victim can’t offer a rebuttal. The thought pattern seems to be, do the crime, we’ll think up an excuse later.
Even the media and politicians only see men as aggressors and troublemakers. If anything happens to a woman by a man, then the man is seen as enemy #1. If a woman does something to a man then she was justified. Even if she molests a young boy the coverage says he was lucky for the favor. Even then if she gets pregnant from raping the boy then she can sue for child support. The victim is being raped twice. The media also paint men as abusers, rapists, and pedophiles. See a little kid in trouble? Don’t help! Get a woman or you may be seen as a pedophile.
Politicians are no better. They are willing to slap dads who have been kicked out of their families with monetary penalties, ankle bracelets, and even go to throwing them in jail for not paying for the privilege of being screwed over. Make sure they can’t make a living of course by taking away driver’s licenses and business licenses, it doesn’t matter if you just didn’t have the money to pay the bills to begin with. Maybe you are homeless and destitute that is no reason not to pay!
In all the dangerous and hazardous occupations the employees are mostly men. In the neighborhood of 90% of all these workers are men. We take it to make more money than we could at other jobs. Why? So we can take care of our families. Of course if our wife gets unhappy, then we get the boot. Can we change jobs now that we don’t have families to take care of? No! They still need that money even if you are no longer allowed to be a father. Men are the only ones who must sign up for the draft if Congress ever wants to bring it back.
Finally, it all ends in the tomb. Keep in mind though that men will reach it a few years ahead of a woman. Mainly due to men having to work hard all those years, with no one paying attention to men’s health issues. No it is much better to pay all that attention to women although they already live years more than we do.
So at the end of it all, you must ask yourself. Why do we do it? Is it mere love? Or is it the antiquated notion of chivalry? It certainly isn’t the thanks we get. Which are almost nil by the way. Why do we put up with it?
Signed,
One disillusioned male,
Mirwalk
You get a glimpse of what men percieve happening to them. Each step forward for women has been accompanied by destroying one right for men. Not by taking their rights back from men, but instead of taking out things in addition to it. We see everything we say or do being used as ammuntion against us. One mis-step and we are suddenly the worst villan of all time and unworthy of redemption. If we never mis-step then we are but mediocre men in many eyes and nothing to be admired.
December 15, 2006 at 10:40 pm
mirwalk said,
December 15, 2006 at 10:41 pm
fourthwire said,
“While feminism has led to a greater sensitivity to misogyny, feminism should not be blamed for the existence of misandry.”
No, Denise Noe. Feminism should be blamed for PROMOTING and INSTITUTIONALIZING misandry throughout America.
The NOW-sows are man-haters, pure and simple. Those are the very individuals who claim to represent women regarding a wide variety of issues.
December 16, 2006 at 11:50 am
DcFather said,
The first step in reducing widespread misandry is to stop making excuses for females, especially feminists. If you can’t say women, even feminists, never do anything wrong, then your only choice is to blame men, and that is a form of misandry right there, just another promotion of the status quo.
Generally speaking, it’s true, men are only after one thing, because we get everything else we need on our own. Women, on the other hand, want a lot more than sex from men, starting with gobs of support, especially financial. So therefore women want far more from men than men want from women, and that somehow makes men worse than women? I know, let’s change the laws so that women have to get everything for themselves except sex, and men have everything handed to them by women in exchange for sex. That’ll teach those nasty men who only want sex a good lesson now, won’t it?
December 16, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Will Malven said,
The “What about me?” society is a direct result of putting ourselves ahead of God and doing what is clearly God’s will for us; service and compassion towards others.
If you are secure in your Faith, then what others say about you should not matter. Feminism isn’t a “cause” it is a symptom. Misandy and mysogyny are not sources of the problem, they are a result of the problem.
In all of our nation’s history, we have become the most selfish generation. We have forgotten that God is the source of all happiness, not wealth, not relationships, not high-tech toys, but a good relationship with God.
One only has to look to Europe to see what results when secularism becomes the dominant religion.
All the arguments above are variations of “What about me?”
What about God?
December 16, 2006 at 1:30 pm
DcFather said,
Re: Men only want one thing
Men used to want more than one thing, such as a clean house, dinner on the table, and from a really good one, some children. But those have all been converted into instruments of female oppression, victimhood, and entitlement. What misandry is all about, more than just hatred towards men, is turning whatever we do into a form of victimizing women. If we want just one thing, we’re no good. If we want more, then we’re no good for that either. Problem is, it never seems to matter to the powers that control whether or not we’re even allowed to “visit” our own children that everything and anything we do is wrong.
December 16, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Denis said,
By “we” I am going to have assume The Baby Boomer generation. It is true that the Boomers are the most selfish generation in the history of this country. Their parents handed them a country and a life full of possibility and they certainly took it for all they could. At the expense of succeeding generations.
“Feminism isn’t a “cause” it is a symptom. Misandy and mysogyny are not sources of the problem, they are a result of the problem.”
Misandry is THE result of modern feminism. And feminism has not developed in a vacuum during the years the Boomers came of age, namely the 60s and 70s. But The Boomers did not predate feminism and feminism is NOT a symptom of the selfishness of them. Feminism in America has been around since the mid-1800s and found it’s birth in the Women’s KKK (WKKK).
To read more about this you can read a column I wrote in 2005 called “Margaret Sanger-More Feminist Hate”.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/11/19/margaret-sanger-more-feminist-hate/print/
It was approximately 100 years prior to the coming of age of the Boomers when feminism started to show it’s true nature. These include the belief in the superiority of women, racism against blacks, it’s elitism and contempt for the poor, it’s manipulation and deception of men.
The Boomers simply intensified this hate movement and forced it upon the entire country.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/11/19/margaret-sanger-more-feminist-hate/print/
December 16, 2006 at 4:29 pm
fourthwire said,
Those men and women who do not understand the historical basis, fundamentals, and actual nature of feminism in America cannot have much hope of understanding feminists’ corrosive role in our society, including their decades-long effort to promote and institutionalize misandry in this nation.
The Men’s Rights Movement faces a major obstacle just educating society members, overcoming feminist myth incorporated as dogma, let alone convincing the chronically obtuse about the actual history and nature of feminism and misandry.
cheers
December 16, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Ray Blumhorst said,
I’m not buying for one second a straw man attempt to blame all people’s “selfishness” for misandry, and thereby draw blame away from gender feminism for creating all the misandry (man-hating) that male‘s live under in today’s society. Gender feminists don’t follow the traditional concept of God and most likely never will. When they are not advocating for witches or goddesses as “God,” they seem to be embracing atheism. Meanwhile, they wreak havoc in churches and synagogues, schools, colleges and universities all across the western world with their antifamily agenda. They work overtime in religious institutions through such original, anti-family, gender feminist vehicles as domestic violence programs, sexual harassment laws, etc.
As far as that Godly concept of “selflessness,” unfortunately, I just don’t see very many “religious” women exercising that these days. They seem quite willing, however to demand men be responsible for them at the level of comfort they want, or just file for divorce and get the nanny state to get it for them, shaking down the ex-husband. Considering that the divorce rate is as high in churches/synagogues as elsewhere in society (with women filing the majority of divorces), a selflessness advocate has their your work cut out for them in any religious institution‘s women‘s group. Many “religious women” today appear to be a lot more into themselves than any religious beliefs taught in a “House of God.”
Newsflash: “Religion is not the only social institution influencing people’s behavior these days.” IMO, “selflessness” advocates should be worrying a lot more about all the gender feminist man-hating crap that is being taught to “religious” women in college and university liberal arts curriculum if they are truly worried about major sources of selfishness. Our society, today more than ever, is teaching that men have responsibilities (selflessness), women have privileges (selfishness) Women (and some men) in all walks of life seem to be buying heavily into the gender feminist agenda yet don’t even recognize that it is gender feminism, that is creating and spreading all the man-hating.
I’m just not buying into men as the disposable sex anymore. The vast majority of vital stats proves that has been men’s role. I’ve seen a lot of religious men who’ve made every sacrifice, then were taken to the cleaners through man-hating, gender feminist methodologies in various societal institutions, and now they’re just trying to survive under all the man-hating going on in their worlds. I’m offended to hear those poor men called “selfish.” No wonder 24,000 men a year (75% of suicides) decide to commit suicide. Living with all the gender feminist man-hating abuse and battering is bad enough, but then having to hear abuse (calling all men selfish), offered as advice on top of it, is another very heavy burden for men to bear indeed.
Perhaps “selflessness” advocates should worry first about gender feminism’s attack on church/synagogues, where men are first and foremost in the crosshairs. If you consider my caring about true equality under law for both sexes to be selfishness so be it.
December 16, 2006 at 9:56 pm
amfortas said,
The two most clear aspects of God in the world are Love and Truth. Most other aspects of God are quite obscure. But these two aspects are the ones that are under devastating attack.
The arch- enemy of God is the Princess of Lies. (Yes. Old Beelzebub has had a sex-change!)Lies are the stock in trade of Femonazis. Sure, others lie too and many aspects of evil have stalked the world since time immemorial. This is the latest attack-effort. It is one that strikes at the root of humanity, rather than simply pit one tribe against another. It is likely to be the most effective and devastating attack against the children of God, yet. It has the capacity to bring to an end the increase in children, the continuation of humanity. The rump of humanity that may well come will be from a loveless world of test-tube babies, all narcissistic consumers, and effective slaves of various States, all combined. The States of course, run by totally evil people.
Women have for countless generations been the focus of love, the ‘carriers’ of a special, highly personal love, particularly for children. They are God’s gateway to humanity. They bring children into the world and give the fierce, generative, personally nurturing love of God to them. Men have a special Love too. They bring the protective, providing, growing, developing, expanding love of God to both women and children. Men are the co-creators - with God - of the World. Women are the co-creators - with God - of the children of God.
Feminism is a scourge. Women - in general - are so taken in by the promises, the false promises, of the Princess of Lies, that they have willingly cooperated with the Princess to get the ‘right’ to be mass consumers, unfettered by Love for anything but themselves. Unfettered by men. Women happily, gleefully, lie about men. They encourage lies about men. They BUY the lies about men.
There are exceptions of course. Some good women still walk the Earth. Some even speak out. (tipping a wink here, Denise). They get fewer by the year while the little princesses increase by the minute. Humanity is on the brink of disaster and women must wake up, speak up, or humanity will be lost.
God has time. He can start again elsewhere in the vast Universe.
December 17, 2006 at 6:14 am
Will Malven said,
I will point out the origin of the feminist movement. The turn of the century (20th) push for communism was the source of Margaret Sanger’s push toward feminism and her belief in abortion as a means of population control (not so much volume as source).
The push to destroy the family was (and is) the primary necessity before a communist society could be brought into fuition. This was especially so in America where the family ties and the ties to Church and community made achievement of a secular state-run society so difficult.
Every move by the Left from the turn of the century onward has advanced that goal, whether it was the instituion of feminism, abortion “rights,” the welfare state, social security, medicare, government funding of college tuition, “universal medical care,” all of those are tools to strip the family of unity and strength. The feminism of today is an abomination to be sure, but it is only one of many such efforts to undermine the family.
The characterization, by Hollywood and the Paleo-media, of the father as a bumbling idiot, or as a wife-beating drunk, or as a incestuous pervert, is designed to destroy the family. The same is true of those with strong religious beliefs.
Evangelists are portrayed as money-grubbing hypocrites, the faithful are portrayed as simple-minded idiots, or hypocritical busybodies. Though some of this has been aided by the actions of some of our religious leaders, their fall from grace-priests who abuse, pastors who accrue great wealth, etc.-is also a symptom of a society which has lost it’s way.
Even priests cannot be completely immune to the images with which the American people are bombarded daily. For many in America, death has become surreal, blood and gore which used to be so rare and shocking, has become fair for the nightly dinner-time newscasts. Most of the people I know who saw the 9-11 attack on television felt a surreal fascination with it and commented that it looked like a Spielberg production.
That we can be shocked at all by events which occur is a testiment to the strength of our God given moral compass.
So I again maintain; feminism is but a symptom of a far greater and more pernicious threat, secular humanism and Liberal politics.
December 17, 2006 at 10:29 am
Will Malven said,
We do agree. Particularly your last two paragraphs. I just don’t wish to have God abandon us to start again.
December 17, 2006 at 10:31 am
Denis said,
Every move by the Left from the turn of the century onward has advanced that goal, whether it was the instituion of feminism,abortion “rights,” the welfare state, social security, medicare, government funding of college tuition, “universal medical care,” all of those are tools to strip the family of unity and strength.
I’m not ready to call feminism an institution but I am ready to call it the driving force for marxism, secular humanism, and liberalism and THE dominant political force in the second half of the last century. These three idealogies found their pathway into American society via feminism. Abortion rights and the welfare state are certainly extensions of feminism. They are not distinct from it. Saying that “social security, medicare, government funding of college tuition” are part of an agenda to destroy the family is absurd. Social security was the result of an economic system that failed 25% of it’s working families in the Great Depression. The elderly were left to fend for themselves in poverty and malnutrition. Quite a few starved to death or were unable to get the basic healthcare they needed to survive. Try lecturing those people that they were better off in old age fending for themselves because the government wasn’t gonna “come and destroy their families with social security”. Yea right. I suppose you are going to call the Glass-Steagall Act and FDIC a part of the agenda to destroy the family. Get real.
It is true that in some circles in the mid-1800s that marxism was getting some attention. This was afterall around the time that the Communist Manifesto was published. But Sanger never got her idealogy from Marx. Her’s was a female-supremacist movement. And she had plenty of company in the WKKK. I’m sure many ex-Klan members are rolling over in their graves with the thought that the uneducated among us are saying they were Marxists.
“The turn of the century (20th) push for communism was the source of Margaret Sanger’s push toward feminism and her belief in abortion as a means of population control (not so much volume as source).”
As one who knows the history of Sanger far better than you, I can tell you that that statement is patently absurd. She was not a disciple of Marx and she certainly did not get her inspiration from him. He was a female-supremicist first and foremost. It was the Baby Boomers who used feminism as a means to advance the marxism, secular humanism, and liberalism we see today.
And Denise, I’m not bothering to try and educate you nor the ignorant among us. My commentary is for the many eyeballs reading and interested in getting fact-based information rather than the same ol’e same ol’e dribble from partisan idealogues.
December 17, 2006 at 12:48 pm
DadWithGirls said,
Well, I think I’ve already confessed that I am not a Christian. (I left the Episcopal Church at age 13 after completing catechism classes. I discovered that I did not wish to belong to a so-called religion that would let anybody in … if they passed a one-page multiple-choice test.)
Christianity today is a major tool for oppressing men.
Feminism has been mainstreamed into pop-religion.
If any guys hereabouts still attend church — what do you experience?
December 17, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Denis said,
I do agree that a lot of Christianity, particularly the Protestant side, has had a lot of invasion from feminism (as well as from the Gay Agenda which also has it’s current activism directly linked from feminism-they are often one in the same). I’m Catholic, and unlike the majority of American Catholics I actually adhere to Church Doctrine. The Catholic Church has had some problem with feminism, but it’s greatest problem is in not speaking out more strongly against this scurge. At times we’ve had church leaders speak out publicly only to backpaddle when the feminist hysteria is unleashed. Often church leaders lament the plight of families, children, marriage, but rarely connect these to the marginalization of men and fathers. However, I’ve had some success in my own church in opening the eyes of our local church leaders in making these connections, and the current Pope also gives me some hope. Some of his recent writings address these topics more directly and I predict future Popes will be a lot like him considering current world affairs (a potentially looming conflict between Islam and Christianity) and the on-going secularization of the west. Also, the Catholic Church is the last remaining adversary of abortion and so can expect continuing hostility from secular forces such as feminism. It’s not likely that the Catholic Church and feminism will ever find common ground to the same extent that the Protestant side has. Regards.
December 17, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Denis said,
“The Men’s Rights Movement faces a major obstacle just educating society members, overcoming feminist myth incorporated as dogma, let alone convincing the chronically obtuse about the actual history and nature of feminism and misandry.”
Thanks fourthwire for the kind words. MND has too many “writers” blinded by their belief in their own(absent) brilliance. It’s to be expected by partisan hacks. And for Denise to try and downplay feminism’s role in the spread of misandry in another column is a real hoot. What has happened is that these “columnists” have taken out too much oxygen regarding the topic of men’s rights and have replaced it with predictable partisanship. Neither the left or the right is any damn good for men and fathers. I’m tired of their empty yacking. There is too much bs from kool aid drinkers here. A while back Mike was gracious enough to offer to put me on the columnist list but between running my business (and tax time is coming) I have been
pre-occupied. I’d like to take Mike up on the opportunity and perhaps I will. But in the meantime fourthwire keep posting. We need intelligent and passionate commentary such as yours. cheers brother
December 17, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Will Malven said,
The Marxist movement found fruition in the unionization movements early in the century. As Janice Rogers Brown said in her speech “A Whiter Shade of Pale” which so distressed the Liberals on the Judiciary Committee in the Senate during her hearings:
“I want to suggest that the belief in and the impulse toward human perfection, at least in the political life of a nation, is an idea whose arc can be traced from the Enlightenment, through the Terror, to Marx and Engels, to the Revolutions of 1917 and 1937. The latter date marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution.”
Roosevelts “Great Society” was the culmination of the first wave of socialism (communism-light). Feminism was pushed by the Left as a tool in their bid to destroy the family structure in America, but it was not the dominant force. The communists and socialists were the driving force. The women’s movement was simply a convenient weapon and it was simple to generate enthusiasm among the young women in America, just as it was possible to drive the young men via the draft resistance movement.
It is naive not to see this movement for what it actually is. Marxists in America may have faced a few setbacks over the last couple of decades, but they are relentless and have never ceased their efforts. Our universities and schools are over run by their brainwashed students.
December 17, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Denis said,
“The turn of the century (20th) push for communism was the source of Margaret Sanger’s push toward feminism and her belief in abortion as a means of population control (not so much volume as source).”
You make the false connection between Sanger and the “turn of the century push for communism” and you call me suspect. And presumably you used my column I cited previously to make your false connection. That’s a hoot.
The labor unions were a their zenith in the 50s and 60s and have been on a steep downward trajectory ever since. Their influence in politics is negligible and has been for 30-40 years. Feminism started it’s ascendency in the 60s and has not waned in political and cultural influence one bit since then. It has grown bigger and bigger. As far as Roosevelt and “communist light” I’m aware of communist influence in the government but that does’nt prove anything against my position. You may consider social security, medicare, and college aid communist plots to destroy the family and you would be in a virtually negligible minority holding that ideological viewpoint. The fact is that when you go to a social secuirty office, get medicare, or college financial aid there is no communist boogey man trying to “destroy” your family. And the net affect of these has not destroyed families. Feminism has destroyed far more families. Listen to the men on this site. Yours is purely ideological partisanship.
Ask anyone who has been in a university the last 25 years and they will tell you that feminism is the most active and aggressive ideology on campus. During the 60s feminism incorprated marxism (it became the pathway). Today on campus you will only see marxism to any significant extent when it is a part of feminist activism. This has been true for a long time-certainly since the 70s.
Look at the secondary, (even kindergarten), schools. Indocrination is via feminism not someone pushing communism. Look at the workplace. Feminism has dominated business with forced hiring, promotion, and aggressive and unfair (to men) “sensitivity training” (propaganda) and one-way sexual harrassment enforcement all to the benefit of women and at the expense of men.
Look at family court. Again it’s all feminist control of the courts and domination of the “friends of the court”.
Look at law enforcement. Again, it’s all feminist control including via the VAWA. The feminists drove VAWA through. Not the marxists, not the secular humanists, not the libersls. These all voted for it via the pathway of feminist political domination over the issue.
Look at the media. Again it’s feminist domination. Denise’ denial of the role of feminism and the spread misandry is absurd. It wasn’t the marxists, secular humanists, or liberal who were the pathway for spreading this misandry. It was the feminists. The marxists, secular humanists, and liberals all jumped on board but it was the feminists driving the bus. She is an ideologue as well. You both can hold your views with the fanaticism of a Holocaust Denier. At the end of the day it is not for you or Denise of which I speak. It is for the younger guys who have been sold down the river by the Baby Boomer men and women who brought the steep ascendency of feminism into mainstream American life-and along with it: marxism, secular humanism, and liberalism.
December 18, 2006 at 8:46 am
Will Malven said,
Why would I cite one of your “columns? Your information and opinions are so jaded by your hatred for the feminists, that they are unreliable. Look at your last rant you have feminism on the brain…Law enforcement is “all feminists control?”
Your right, the labor movement was at their zenith during the 50’s and 60’s, but the Left has been unrelenting in their pursuit of Marx’s dream. The Democrat party is laced with Marxists. As for labor unions having virtually no political enfluence, ask the Democrats. Check with your local school board. The NEA and the AFT are in full form. Check with the civil service, the AFSCME and AFGE are very powerful forces. One might say that unions for all the rumors of their demise, have a disproportionate influence on government policy.
As for my being in a minority because I see that middle class welfare has been the Left’s single most effective tool in seducing Americans to the socialist/communist agenda, like I care. As William Penn once stated, “Right is right even if everyone is against against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.” You apparently mistake the popularity of a policy for the rectitude of it.
There are a lot of true Conservatives out there who believe that socialist policies, like Medicare, and Social Security, are wrong as they build a dependence on the government. That is the antithesis of what our Forefathers envisioned.
As you have proven time and again, you are clueless. Your grasp (or lack thereof) of the evolution and continued march of Marxist-Leninist economics is amazing. That you can assert that “feminism” is the driving force for it is equally amazing. It is simply one of the tools they use.
Lastly, you were correct, I was mistaken in my attribution of Sanger to the communist party. My mistake based on a faulty memory of something I had read some time ago. Like most of the arguments you bring up, Sanger is unimportant except as an advocate of murder of the unborn. Although she is held in high esteem by the feminists, she is not cogent to the entire feminist discussion, so I have not read anything about her lately.
Lastly, I never said that feminism wasn’t a) dangerous, and b) pervasive in our schools; only that it is not and never has been the central driving force behind the destruction of our way of life, merely one of the tools being used in that war.
December 18, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Denis said,
oh please. if you can’t keep up that’s not my problem. Take some Viagra. You have’nt managed to get it up in years I can tell. Don’t take it
out on me. Did I jerk your widdle chain? Poor baby.
“Why would I cite one of your “columns? Your information and opinions are so jaded by your hatred for the feminists, that they are unreliable. Look at your last rant you have feminism on the brain…Law enforcement is “all feminists control?””
Simply put you follow my introduction of Sanger into the “debate” (debates are supposed to be challenging) with a broad statement on Sanger without any support or reference point…as in like…everything you “write”. And if you see me saying law enforcement is “all feminists control”
then you need to go back to school and learn how to read as well. Geeez you are friggin’ dense.
“Your right, the labor movement was at their zenith during the 50’s and 60’s, but the Left has been unrelenting in their pursuit of Marx’s dream. The Democrat party is laced with Marxists. As for labor unions having virtually no political enfluence, ask the Democrats. Check with your local school board. The NEA and the AFT are in full form. Check with the civil service, the AFSCME and AFGE are very powerful forces. One might say that unions for all the rumors of their demise, have a disproportionate influence on government policy.”
And if you had a clue of what I have explicitly repeated over and over you would see that I acknowledge the presence of Marxist, secular humanists, and liberals. Nobody in the Democratic Party is running on their association with Marxism but PLENTY are running on their association with feminism. Feminism is the pathway not Marx…I’ll keep repeating that central point until even a dim-wit such as yourself can hear it. Pull your head out
open your eyes and read what I’m saying. Or don’t. It’s for the followers of this site to decide who’s got their head up their ass.
As you have proven time and again, you are clueless. Your grasp (or lack thereof) of the evolution and continued march of Marxist-Leninist economics is amazing. That you can assert that “feminism” is the driving force for it is equally amazing. It is simply one of the tools they use.
And as you have proven time and again, you say things without any evidence to back it up. That’s why you are such a piss poor writer. Your
pseudo-intellectualism works with your college drop out buddies but not with the readers here.
“Lastly, I never said that feminism wasn’t a) dangerous, and b) pervasive in our schools; only that it is not and never has been the central driving force behind the destruction of our way of life, merely one of the tools being used in that war.”
I know what you are saying you idiot. The problem is you are’nt reading what I’m saying. I’ve just cited several examples how you’ve done this.
and I’m sure you’re gonna go on doing this. You’ve done it from the beginning. Someone as ideologically partisan and warped in their capacity to interpret what is clearly put in front of you is not to be taken seriously. And I don’t. Get a new job Wil. Writing ain’t your thing. And don’t get one involving reading either.
December 18, 2006 at 7:50 pm
DadWithGirls said,
You seem to have a credible grasp of U.S. history.
What is your take on the late 1800’s early-mid 1900’s American “populist” movement?
That was not about organized communism, right? (The Bolsheviks were just a sideshow then.)
Maybe communalism?
I could refute your conspiracy theory about the illusionary contemporary leftists and neo-communists with one simple fact –
Fewer than 10% of Americans have any informed knowledge about Marxism and its beliefs.
Sadly, only 5% have any knowledge of what democracy means.
You are fighting a shadow.
And, you are winning!
December 18, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Will Malven said,
You lack the depth of mind to comprehend the difference between what is being presented and what is truly meant.
Example: “Nobody in the Democratic Party is running on their association with Marxism but PLENTY are running on their association with feminism. Feminism is the pathway not Marx…”
Of course nobody is running on their association with Marx because if the did so openly they would be alienated by the people. Therefore they use the tools of “feminism,” “gay rights,” “diversity,” “economic democracy,” and every other hot button topic as tools to advance their underlying agenda. That you lack the sophistication to understand this can’t be helped, you are simply to monolithic in your thinking to be capable of such a minor leap of comprehension.
Once more I will attempt to break through that wall of hatred and limited intellect to instruct; one of the vehicles in the Left’s agenda is feminism, but the engine driving it is Marxism. Anyone claiming to be a Conservative ought to know that, most do.
December 18, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Will Malven said,
Excellent question, truly so. The populist movement was not about “communism” per se but is was of the same cloth. Marx published the Manifesto in 1848, and though that work encapsulated the various theories into one [in]coherent paper, the concepts behind socialism and communism had been circulating for some time. Some even from the time of the French Revolution and even (Joe, say it ain’t so!) in the writings of Thomas Paine The Rights of Man. Egalitarianism is nothing new, it’s simply the with Marx began the concerted push toward the Utopian dream. Marx-Engels works somehow galvanized the movements in the early 20th century. Cetainly Lenin and Trotsky were Marxists (I’m not quite so sure about Lennon:)).
As for the “refutation” of my arguments: “Fewer than 10% of Americans have any informed knowledge about Marxism and its beliefs.”
How many does it take? How many instigated the Bolshevik Revolution? 10%? If that.
Besides, it’s not a matter of the people knowing what Marxism is, in fact if your agenda is the institution of Marxism, it is better that as few people as possible know what that entails. The key to a Marxist Revolution is an un-educated, un-informed populace.
Given that audience, the Utopian dreams of a totally “egalitarian state,” a “classless society,” and vacuous phrases like “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” become an easier sell. It take an educated discerning mind to understand the inherent flaws of Socialist and Marxist theories.
Why do you think our educational system has been so badly damaged? Do you really believe that to be an accidental occurence?
December 18, 2006 at 10:52 pm
fourthwire said,
Malven…… you are apparently trying to think with your ovaries again…… and you are in no way shape or form competent to judge anyone’s “depth of mind” (does your English teacher know about that little gem?…;-)) concerning the nature of feminism.
“Once more I will attempt to break through that wall of hatred and limited intellect to instruct; one of the vehicles in the Left’s agenda is feminism, but the engine driving it is Marxism.”
Instead of “attempting to break through that wall of hatred” you ought to remove your head from your rectum and try LEARNING, if only for the novelty of it.
The nature of feminism is not necessarily driven from “the left”, “the right”, or “the middle” but through “gender politics”.
And you’re apparently not bright enough to grasp that point……..
……. but several decades of inhaling your own rectal fumes apparently were not particularly conducive to your learning about the nature of feminism.
Hell, if you simply paid attention to half of what individuals such as Denis or Dave Usher post, even “geniuses” like yourself have an even chance of working it out.
December 18, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Will Malven said,
once again, you publish a masterpiece of saying absolutely nothing except personal invective. You can attack me personally all you want, but it will never make you correct (or intelligent). If you are incapable of making at least a passing attempt at any arguments above the 3rd grade level I would be astounded.
By the way, I would talk to a psychiatrist about that anal fixation of yours, with enough therapy that can be overcome.
I have yet to have seen anything resembling an intellectual argument from you. It seems you too lack the depth of mind (mental capacity, ability to think and discuss logically, wit, brains), knowledge or maturity to carry on a discussion with adults.
(hint: derision is not an argument, sarcastic dismissal is most often a sign of someone lacking a reasoned response)
December 19, 2006 at 7:16 am
Will Malven said,
This statement:
“The nature of feminism is not necessarily driven from “the left”, [sic] “the right”, [sic] or “the middle” but through “gender politics”.[sic]“
shows a complete lack of understanding as to the nature of feminism and a pathetically naive view of Liberalism and the political agenda of those on the Left.
December 19, 2006 at 7:26 am
Denis said,
“diversity,” “economic democracy,” and every other hot button topic as tools to advance their underlying agenda.”
Wil-go back and closely look at what I wrote. The above is what I have been saying from the beginning. This is exactly The Pathway. How you could possibly have not gotten this before now is exasperating. Why did you question it earlier when you said:
“Denis, if you believe that feminism was the driving force for marxism and that marxism, secular humanism, and liberalism “found their pathway into American society via feminism,” particularly in the last half of the 20th century then your grasp of American political history is suspect.”
Again, go back and read what I said. Wil-I did not say that Marxism FOUND IT’S WAY INTO America via feminism. In the beginning I told you that modern feminism came about via the WKKK in the mid-1800s and that Sanger and all other female-supremicist WKKK members were NOT Marxists (go to #21):
“It is true that in some circles in the mid-1800s that marxism was getting some attention. This was afterall around the time that the Communist Manifesto was published. But Sanger never got her idealogy from Marx. Her’s was a female-supremacist movement. And she had plenty of company in the WKKK. I’m sure many ex-Klan members are rolling over in their graves with the thought that the uneducated among us are saying they were Marxists.”
I made the above position clear from the beginning.
Since the middle of the last century, marxism, secular-humanism, and liberalism, have found their way into this society via the pathway of feminism.
I am going to start from the beginning. All, please bear with me on some repetition.
I said:
“But The Boomers did not predate feminism and feminism is NOT a symptom of the selfishness of them. Feminism in America has been around since the mid-1800s and found it’s birth in the Women’s KKK (WKKK).”
“To read more about this you can read a column I wrote in 2005 called “Margaret Sanger-More Feminist Hate”.”
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/11/19/margaret-sanger-more-feminist-hate/print/
“It was approximately 100 years prior to the coming of age of the Boomers when feminism started to show it’s true nature. These include the belief in the superiority of women, racism against blacks, it’s elitism and contempt for the poor, it’s manipulation and deception of men.”
Wil said:
“Once again Denise,
I will point out the origin of the feminist movement. The turn of the century (20th) push for communism was the source of Margaret Sanger’s push toward feminism and her belief in abortion as a means of population control (not so much volume as source).”
So I introduce Sanger and you follow up with a completely fabricated statement that has the grand ambition of proving “The turn of the century (20th) push for communism was the source of Margaret Sanger’s push toward feminism…”
No substantiation. So yea, I’m thinking you used my column as a source for this fabrication. Whether you did or not is not as important as you making up a fabrication to justify your grand claim. Why should people trust your grasp of history? Why should they believe anything you say?
I lay out a number of areas where men have seen there rights attacked by feminists in #26 above.
You reply with:
“Denis my boy, slow down, take a breath, take a midol. You’re about to explode.”
How do you know I’m about to explode. Do you always attach an emotional state to someone who cites numerous and specific points? There was no emoting in my post whatsoever. Do you think you have special powers to know what someone is thinking or what their state of mind is? Have you discussed this with a therapist?
In #27 you said:
“Your right, the labor movement was at their zenith during the 50’s and 60’s, but the Left has been unrelenting in their pursuit of Marx’s dream. The Democrat party is laced with Marxists. As for labor unions having virtually no political enfluence, ask the Democrats. Check with your local school board. The NEA and the AFT are in full form. Check with the civil service, the AFSCME and AFGE are very powerful forces. One might say that unions for all the rumors of their demise, have a disproportionate influence on government policy.”
How do you know there are marxists in these unions? How do you know there are marxists in the social security office out to destroy my family? No substantiation (again). And remember, I may agree or disagree, but you can’t expect me to really believe what you say simply by saying it… do you? Give me substantiation, proof, references.
So far you sound like Elmer Fudd always looking for that “kwazzy wabbit”.
In 2004 here were the top ten PAC spenders:
1.EMILY’s List $22,767,521
2.Service Employees International Union $12,899,352
3.American Federation of Teachers $12,789,296
4.American Medical Association $11,901,542
5.National Rifle Association $11,173,358
6.Teamsters Union $11,128,729
7.International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $10,819,724
8.National Education Association $10,521,538
9.American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees $9,882,022
10.Laborers’ International Union of North America $9,523,837
Emily’s List is a powerful feminist group. Go to each of the labor union PACs, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8. Do a search for women’s groups, feminists. See what you find. Then do one for marxists. See what you don’t find. You’ll see lots of women’s rights but nothing about Marxists. Big surprise there. Marxism comes in via feminism.
Again I repeat: Since the middle of the last century, marxism, secular-humanism, and liberalism, have found their way into this society via the pathway of feminism.
Feminism is powerful. It is the pathway by which “marxists, secular humanists, and liberals” move their agenda. THAT is a point I made at the beginning.
In 27 you said:
“Law enforcement is “all feminists control?””
But this was a reply to what I said:
“Look at law enforcement. Again, it’s all feminist control including via the VAWA. The feminists drove VAWA through. Not the marxists, not the secular humanists, not the libersls. These all voted for it via the pathway of feminist political domination over the issue.”
I notice how you conveniently left out the context of what I said:
“Again, it’s all feminist control including via the VAWA.”
Go to:http://www.mediaradar.org/alert_ai1.php and you will read the following:
The 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the most widely-recognized standard of human rights. Article 2 of the Declaration specifically notes, “Everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, [or] sex.” Article 16, Section (3), is also pertinent: “The family is the natural and fundamental unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”
Six of the Declaration’s articles or sections reveal how domestic violence laws, particularly the Violence Against Women Act, violate the human rights of men:
1.Article 7: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”
2.Article 9: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.”
3.Article 11, Section (1): “Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”
4.Article 12: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor to attacks on his honor and reputation.”
5.Article 16, Section (1): “Men and women of full age…have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage, and at its dissolution.”
6.Article 17, Section (2): “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”
You are off in Social Security offices and labor unions looking for marxists when we men’s right’s activists know that it’s the feminists who are the biggest problem. They get things done. They get things pushed through Congress. And we men pay the price. But you’re out there hanging around in Social Security Offices. Do as you wish Wil.
I don’t need a big, bright, blinking neon sign that reads: “MEN’S RIGHTS: THE GOP DOESN’T “GET IT” EITHER.
Because I got you Wil. You are the perfect case study on why the problem in NOT just those on the left when it comes to men’s rights, but also those on the right. You are all so damn tone deaf to men’s issues.
And the other problem with your reply: “Law enforcement is “all feminists control?”” is that you were being intellectually dishonest by doing so. Why should I believe anything you say when you fabricate “facts” like you did with Sanger, or outright misrepresent my point? I thought you would have known about the VAWA. It has been spoken of heavily on this cite. I gave you more credit than you deserved. Know this: It is a great threat to men. And the threat is from the feminists Wil. But you go on looking under those desks at the Social Security office, and you go look for the marxists in the labor unions. We’re all gonna be busy with the real threat to our lives: the feminists. And it was’nt Social Security, or Medicare, or college aid that ruined the lives of some of the men here. No, it was the VAWA with law enforcement’s help, it was Family Court, it was Affirmative Action, it was the education system, ALL being dominated by feminists.
And another thing Wil, when you’re not making up your fabrications to fit your intended outcome, or misrepresenting what someone says, or being intellectually dishonest, you eventually resort to personal insults. Why should anyone respect you in return? It is no wonder you are out commenting on other people’s columns. Nobody bothers to give your’s much attention except once in awhile when another columnist gives you a “sympathy post”.
I gotta say one more thing about what you said:
“As for the “refutation” of my arguments: “Fewer than 10% of Americans have any informed knowledge about Marxism and its beliefs.””
Where did you get that 10% figure? Did you make it up? Because I’m feeling pretty special. I actually know quite a bit about marxism. The Frankfurt School was a school of Marxism in Frankfurt Germany in the early 1900s. When Hitler came to power these Marxists left Germany (since he hated Marxists). They set up shop in the U.S., at Columbia University in NYC. Much of the radicalism that came about in the 1960s can be sourced to graduates of this school. They were all Marxists who infiltrated the government, the media (especially Hollywood), academia (especially academia), and the news media. Their legacy lives on today-with many of you Baby Boomers.
December 19, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Denis said,
I would like to clarify this:
The Frankfurt School was a school of Marxism in Frankfurt Germany THAT BEGAN in the early 1900s.
December 19, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Will Malven said,
Apparently you are as incapable of reading as you accuse me of being, The 10% figure as a quotation lifted from Dadwithgirls, as was the entire statement 31 in which it was found by you.
Marxists in the Soc Sec office? Where pray tell did I make that statement?
Lastly, I can’t believe that you are searching for “Marxists” at those sites and expecting to find any information. Leftist never admit who they are (except for the really wacko extremists who know they have not chance of ever being elected) but if you examine the policies which they espouse, they are collectivist, Marxist proposals, all designed to undermine our economic system as well as our social, moral and political systems.
I truly believe that we have been talking cross purposes. You are POed at me because some time ago I made a derogatory statement that in retroflection was undeserved. Because I like to “pick at scabs” I have continued to take cheap shots where the have been offered.
You believe that feminism is the pathway that all other pernicious movements have used to inculcate themselves into our system. In a way, I agree with you. I merely maintain the the driving force for all of those movements, including the feminist movement, is Marxism. A strong desire to eliminate over time the concepts of freedom and private ownership of property.
Everytime a government program provides money to its citizens (Soc Sec, Medicare, Pell grants, Welfare, etc.) it is building dependence upon it within the populous.
It is the “Tytler” (now under some suspicion as to authorship) quote come to fruition; It is Juvenal’s “Panem et Circenses.”
Dependence upon government inevitably brings with it a lessening of freedom. We have become progressively less free as the New Deal programs and the GReat Society programs have become entrenched in our society. EVery government handout is a nail in the system of government our forefather fought so valiantly to leave us. It mocks every drop of blood spilled on every battle field in every war this nation has fought.
Through social spending programs, we are gradually surrendering the very rights the people who write here are claiming to defend.
Once more I apologize for yanking your crank…sometimes people are just a$$holes because they enjoy it.
Though Hitler hated Marxists, his regime and Mussolini’s were based on socialism which is really Marxism-light. Yes I know Marx despised socialists, but they were basically espousing the same thing; differing only by degrees.
Pax?
December 19, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Will Malven said,
December 19, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Denis said,
Wil said:
“Marxists in the Soc Sec office? Where pray tell did I make that statement?”
In #19 you say:
“Every move by the Left from the turn of the century onward has advanced that goal, whether it was the instituion of feminism, abortion “rights,” the welfare state, social security, medicare, government funding of college tuition, “universal medical care,” all of those are tools to strip the family of unity and strength.”
Above you claim it is the “Left” who is responsible for “social security, medicare, government funding of college tuition”
and then in #25 you say:
Feminism was pushed by the Left as a tool in their bid to destroy the family structure in America, but it was not the dominant force. The communists and socialists were the driving force.
And then above you define the “Left” at the end as “communists and socialists”. And correctly so.
So by extension you claim the communists and socialists are responsible for social security, medicare, government funding of college tuition, and more.
Above in #19 and #25 is where you ultimately made the statement. Above. I guess you have trouble remembering not only what I say but what you say yourself.
“err “nail” in the coffin of…”
Do explain, as I don’t understand the statement above.
It sounds like you are claiming a victory here and I’m not gonna concede that.
December 19, 2006 at 10:55 pm
amfortas said,
Denise?
December 20, 2006 at 12:32 am
Will Malven said,
simply a correction “EVery government handout is a nail in the system of government our forefather fought so valiantly to leave us.
EVery government handout is a nail in the coffin of the system of government our forefather fought so valiantly to leave us.
God, you are so paranoid!
As for the Marxist in the soc. sec. office, there probably are some, but what I am saying is that the programs themselves are socialist programs.
There are Marxists throughout the government, some, possibly most, don’t even think that they are Marxists, they probably believe they are just compassionate people, but the programs they support are Marxist through and through.
Some of them are not so well camouflaged:
Pelosi, Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, Levin, Nadler, Clinton, and on, and on, and on.
December 20, 2006 at 7:37 am
amfortas said,
Again, I find myself in agreement. Same goes for femonazis. There are many blind people who have a part that seems quite compassionate and helpful but who do not see the consequences of their actions. They take the money, do their job, believe they are doing the right thing and are oblivious to the damage they do. Drones.
December 20, 2006 at 7:58 am
Will Malven said,
as an aside, are the gun laws “down-under” as grim as we’ve been told: bolt-action rifles only, draconian laws for possession?
December 20, 2006 at 8:09 am
amfortas said,
Well the powers that be reckoned that having automatic weapons was a no no, and banned them. They also tightened up the licencing system so it was harder to get a gun of any sort. Except for crims of course. They get’em easy it seems.
Now, personally, I reckon that if one or two of the people visiting Port Arthur that day had been carrying guns - for personal protection, shooting rabbits, signposts, that sort of thing - then someone just might have reduced the number of the dead and included young Martin amongst them. But there we go. Who gives a f*ck what I say. Certainly John Howard doesn’t.
December 20, 2006 at 8:48 am
amfortas said,
December 20, 2006 at 8:58 am
Denise Noe said,
Well we’ve all had a good rant and a lot of hot words to say, arguements over commies on pin-heads, history in the re-making, but the main issue has been Denise’s opinion that feminism hasn’t been the main cause of modern misandry. After all the dust and bellowing, what does Denise have t