The harm comes from the feminist inspired public mores and feminism unbalanced government enforcement of hate speech. So you see, it is definitely the feminist inspired public aspects of misandry that are offensive and harmful to men, not the private everyday asides that fall on mostly deaf ears.

Please understand the qualitative difference between the two things, and understand and admit the role of feminism in promoting the harmful type of misandry.

Gosh, I thought that was also the key to a successful American presidential election!

Gents, whether you’re a commie, a socialist, a libertarian, a Republicrat, a Demopublican, or even a zenpriest or a fred or a gonzo or a mike …

In the end (in the absence of true American leadership and a real democratic process) — all we have is the quality of our conversations.

If the quality is sufficiently sustained, eventually you get revolution.

Or, evolution.

I always get those terms confused…..

One is good, right?

Denise?

(Denise) Amfortas, I don’t usually add my own comments to my posts. I made an except awhile back because people expressed skepticism about my alimony arrangements. I’ll make a second exception this time.
I have to admit I’m disappointed that posters have latched on to my observation that feminism can’t be blamed for the existence of misandry. My main point was that misandrous comments should be cause for the same offense that misogynous comments are.
I don’t equate feminism and misandry largely because I grew up hearing a lot of man-hating remarks which were not from feminists. They were usually from women who were either oblivious to feminism, opposed to it, or for whom feminism was a dirty word. The comments were not “mild” but were “bleepety bleep men!” and “they’re all alike,” and “can you name a one of ‘em who’s any good?” The same women who made these remarks often despised feminism. I have a brother who has worked as a cook all of his life and heard misandrous comments from waitresses, most of whom either disliked feminism or were indifferent to it. Brigette Bardot, whom I quoted in my essay, has written against women holding political office.
In my own life, I’ve met one woman who proclaimed herself both a feminist and a man-hater and one lesbian who apparently was anti-male. I recognize that statements from Andrea Dworkin and Susan Brownmiller are strongly misandrist. Indeed, they kind of remind me of what my conservative, anti-feminist mother and grandmother and many other women might say if their IQ scores were kicked up to 115.
I think that when you talk about misandry only in relationship to “feminists,” you let off the hook many people who make man-hating remarks who don’t identify with the feminist movement. You should condemn man-hating and anti-male sterotyping regardles of whether the person making them identifies as a feminist or not.
I also feel that the feminist movement has many intrinsic limitations in its appeal to women but am saving the reasons for that for a future column!
I hope you’re doing well, amfortas. You seem to be a bit friendly to me and I appreciate that regardless of what disagreements we may have.

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.

as an aside, are the gun laws “down-under” as grim as we’ve been told: bolt-action rifles only, draconian laws for possession?

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.

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.

Denise?

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.

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?

I would like to clarify this:

The Frankfurt School was a school of Marxism in Frankfurt Germany THAT BEGAN in the early 1900s.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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?

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.

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!