Is relaxing drug laws a men's issue?
dd...@bellsouth.net
altering drugs are illegal. Prisoners are disproportionately male. Is
relaxing drug laws a men's issue?
Andrew Usher
No, I say that drug laws are not really a men's issue, except insofar
as they are more sharply enforced against men, which is not specific
to drug laws.
There are of course other ostensibly gender-neutral laws that _should_
be men's issues: DV laws, of course, and the age of consent - which I
have written about repeatedly.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> dd...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Many people imprisoned in America are there because many mind and mood
> > altering drugs are illegal. Prisoners are disproportionately male. Is
> > relaxing drug laws a men's issue?
>
> No, I say that drug laws are not really a men's issue, except insofar
> as they are more sharply enforced against men, which is not specific
> to drug laws.
Huh? I don't know about enforcement issues but I do know men love
drugs more than women and women love to put men in jail for drugs and
use it in custody disputes while they get off the hook for worse
morality issues like whoring themselves all over the place.
Yes Denise, it is widely accepted in men's advocacy that drugs are
most definitely a men's issue. "Women whoring themselves all over
the place" is also a men's issue. <smile>
Tom
Andrew Usher
> > No, I say that drug laws are not really a men's issue, except insofar
> > as they are more sharply enforced against men, which is not specific
> > to drug laws.
>
> Huh? I don't know about enforcement issues but I do know men love
> drugs more than women
Well I don't; I consider the use of intoxicants barbarous. I may not
support entirely the war on drugs, but I don't have that much sympathy
for drug offenders.
> and women love to put men in jail for drugs and
> use it in custody disputes while they get off the hook for worse
> morality issues like whoring themselves all over the place.
What?? What is 'whoring themselves all over the place' and how it it a
crime?
> Yes Denise, it is widely accepted in men's advocacy that drugs are
> most definitely a men's issue.
Your personal views do not equate to 'widely accepted'. I have never
heard anyone but you say that drugs are specifically a men's issue. I
don't try to speak for the whole men's movement myself and you
shouldn't either.
> "Women whoring themselves all over
> the place" is also a men's issue. <smile>
Now that is true (sort of).
Andrew Usher
retardsman
> > Many people imprisoned in America are there because many mind and mood
> > altering drugs are illegal. Prisoners are disproportionately male. Is
> > relaxing drug laws a men's issue?
>
> No, I say that drug laws are not really a men's issue, except insofar
> as they are more sharply enforced against men
well if "laws" are "more sharply enforced against men" -- and drug
laws, like all laws, are -- then i'm afraid, Andrew Usher, that makes
drug laws rather a "men's issue"
if males, collectively, were dreaming up a gazillion excuses to put
females in cages, you can be certain that thousands of orgainzations
-- in amerika alone -- would be making it a Woman's Issue
did you ever consider not saying anything unitl you actually have
something to say?
just a thought . . . though, god knows, a extremely unpopular one on
this planet
, which is not specific
> to drug laws.
>
> There are of course other ostensibly gender-neutral laws that _should_
> be men's issues: DV laws, of course, and the age of consent - which I
> have written about repeatedly.
>
> Andrew Usher
in amerika, the Law is a woman's mouth
Masculist
> Masculist wrote:
> > > No, I say that drug laws are not really a men's issue, except insofar
> > > as they are more sharply enforced against men, which is not specific
> > > to drug laws.
>
> > Huh? I don't know about enforcement issues but I do know men love
> > drugs more than women
>
> Well I don't; I consider the use of intoxicants barbarous.
What's "barbarous" about ingesting intoxicants? One gets alittle
dizzy that's all. What's truly barbarous is using one's body (sex)
for money and power yet it's not discouraged but encouraged in our
society.
> I may not
> support entirely the war on drugs, but I don't have that much sympathy
> for drug offenders.
That's your problem Andrew, you need more "sympathy".
> > and women love to put men in jail for drugs and
> > use it in custody disputes while they get off the hook for worse
> > morality issues like whoring themselves all over the place.
>
> What?? What is 'whoring themselves all over the place' and how it it a
> crime?
Welfare used to have strict rules in many States about mothers who
received benefits having guys over to their place.
> > Yes Denise, it is widely accepted in men's advocacy that drugs are
> > most definitely a men's issue.
>
> Your personal views do not equate to 'widely accepted'. I have never
> heard anyone but you say that drugs are specifically a men's issue. I
> don't try to speak for the whole men's movement myself and you
> shouldn't either.
Men's advos generally accept the idea of the drug war being a men's
issue but don't discuss it much because how to resolve it is
complicated.
Tom
Masculist
In a representative government where most grass roots orgs are either
specifically for women's rights and issues or controlled by them while
there's practically none for men, how can it be any other way? Plus
these orgs are often funded at taxpayer expense. Men are essentially
disenfranchised and totally at the mercy of women and powerful men.
Andrew struts around being sensitive to the girls and acting as if we
really have power and control. What's up with that?
Tom
Andrew Usher
> > in amerika, the Law is a woman's mouth
>
> In a representative government where most grass roots orgs are either
> specifically for women's rights and issues or controlled by them while
> there's practically none for men, how can it be any other way? Plus
> these orgs are often funded at taxpayer expense. Men are essentially
> disenfranchised and totally at the mercy of women and powerful men.
Well, that's exactly why we have to do something. It wasn't always the
case, and it doesn't have to always be.
> Andrew struts around being sensitive to the girls and acting as if we
> really have power and control. What's up with that?
Now this is a slander. I've never said any of that, I just try to
promote realistic thinking.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > Well I don't; I consider the use of intoxicants barbarous.
>
> What's "barbarous" about ingesting intoxicants? One gets alittle
> dizzy that's all.
You know, God (or Nature) gave us a mind for a reason. I figure there
has to be something wrong with intentionally messing it up with drugs.
> What's truly barbarous is using one's body (sex)
> for money and power yet it's not discouraged but encouraged in our
> society.
Well, it ought to be discouraged. It is a kind of prostitution, and
the idea certainly comes from primitive culture where there were no
rules in place to restrict it.
> > I may not
> > support entirely the war on drugs, but I don't have that much sympathy
> > for drug offenders.
>
> That's your problem Andrew, you need more "sympathy".
I can't have sympathy for anyone and everyone. I think the reason we
have sympathy at all is a practical one, and feeling sympathy for
people that aren't deserving of it is an error.
> > > and women love to put men in jail for drugs and
> > > use it in custody disputes while they get off the hook for worse
> > > morality issues like whoring themselves all over the place.
> >
> > What?? What is 'whoring themselves all over the place' and how it it a
> > crime?
>
> Welfare used to have strict rules in many States about mothers who
> received benefits having guys over to their place.
Well, OK. Those probably weren't enforceable very well anyway. I don't
see any particular relation to drug laws.
> > Your personal views do not equate to 'widely accepted'. I have never
> > heard anyone but you say that drugs are specifically a men's issue. I
> > don't try to speak for the whole men's movement myself and you
> > shouldn't either.
>
> Men's advos generally accept the idea of the drug war being a men's
> issue but don't discuss it much because how to resolve it is
> complicated.
Well we can't avoid things just because they're complicated. I'm more
inclined to think that you're just projecting your personal issues
onto all men. Can't you see any problem with that?
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> Masculist wrote:
> > > Well I don't; I consider the use of intoxicants barbarous.
>
> > What's "barbarous" about ingesting intoxicants? One gets alittle
> > dizzy that's all.
>
> You know, God (or Nature) gave us a mind for a reason. I figure there
> has to be something wrong with intentionally messing it up with drugs.
It's not what you put in your body that defiles you, it's what comes
out of your body that defiles you...Jesus
Yes I know, he was talking about the Jewish dietary laws but as one
commentator on this parable said...
"If we want to understand Jesus’ impact on the Pharisees in this
passage, we must imagine someone standing up in a meeting of the
Women’s Christian Temperance Union (which vehemently opposed alcoholic
beverages of any type) and saying, “It doesn’t matter what a man
drinks.”
Yes, they drank like fish back in Jesus day and while they denounced
fall down drunkenness many in his day would now be classified
alcohlics and denounced and jailed by the Temperance types.
Also remember Jesus made water into wine for a three day wedding
party.
I don't encourage drug use, just the opposite, but I denounce these
Christian temperance types and their latter day allies, the Marxists,
for trying to control everyones bodily intake.
> > What's truly barbarous is using one's body (sex)
> > for money and power yet it's not discouraged but encouraged in our
> > society.
>
> Well, it ought to be discouraged. It is a kind of prostitution, and
> the idea certainly comes from primitive culture where there were no
> rules in place to restrict it.
Yeah, and those cultures were matriarchies. You have no problem
putting men in jail for intoxicants but only weant to discourage women
for their much more immoral behaviors. You dig?
> > > I may not
> > > support entirely the war on drugs, but I don't have that much sympathy
> > > for drug offenders.
>
> > That's your problem Andrew, you need more "sympathy".
>
> I can't have sympathy for anyone and everyone. I think the reason we
> have sympathy at all is a practical one, and feeling sympathy for
> people that aren't deserving of it is an error.
Who decides who is deserving? You?
> > > > and women love to put men in jail for drugs and
> > > > use it in custody disputes while they get off the hook for worse
> > > > morality issues like whoring themselves all over the place.
>
> > > What?? What is 'whoring themselves all over the place' and how it it a
> > > crime?
>
> > Welfare used to have strict rules in many States about mothers who
> > received benefits having guys over to their place.
>
> Well, OK. Those probably weren't enforceable very well anyway. I don't
> see any particular relation to drug laws.
Enforceability is in the will. You dig up the will to put your
brothers in jail for innocent crimes while tread lightly with women on
their more immoral behaviors.
> > > Your personal views do not equate to 'widely accepted'. I have never
> > > heard anyone but you say that drugs are specifically a men's issue. I
> > > don't try to speak for the whole men's movement myself and you
> > > shouldn't either.
>
> > Men's advos generally accept the idea of the drug war being a men's
> > issue but don't discuss it much because how to resolve it is
> > complicated.
>
> Well we can't avoid things just because they're complicated. I'm more
> inclined to think that you're just projecting your personal issues
> onto all men. Can't you see any problem with that?
And you're not eh? Yes, I see BIG problems with your approach vis a
vis men. It smacks of the marxists I know.
As for me having a personal problem with your attitude toward
drugs...suckers like you locked me up for 2.5 years and then made me a
second class citizen for thirty years afterwards due to a felony
conviction and jailing. Try to get jobs, and even worse, hold onto
them with that shit hanging over your head decade after decade.
As for how men in the men's movement feel about this...very few have
supported the war on drugs. Most are libertarian on this issue and
want no drug laws. The father's Rights guys know the feminists are
intentionally using this shit to deprive men of custody and
visitation. They know it's a BIG problem.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Masculist
> Masculist wrote:
> > > in amerika, the Law is a woman's mouth
>
> > In a representative government where most grass roots orgs are either
> > specifically for women's rights and issues or controlled by them while
> > there's practically none for men, how can it be any other way? Plus
> > these orgs are often funded at taxpayer expense. Men are essentially
> > disenfranchised and totally at the mercy of women and powerful men.
>
> Well, that's exactly why we have to do something. It wasn't always the
> case, and it doesn't have to always be.
It's been the case in this country since 1850 with the formation of
the Republican party but in other forms for hundreds of years before
that.
> > Andrew struts around being sensitive to the girls and acting as if we
> > really have power and control. What's up with that?
>
> Now this is a slander. I've never said any of that, I just try to
> promote realistic thinking.
My apologies. I know you are trying.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Stephen Morgan
> On Dec 27, 4:53 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > dd...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > > Many people imprisoned in America are there because many mind and mood
> > > altering drugs are illegal. Prisoners are disproportionately male. Is
> > > relaxing drug laws a men's issue?
>
> > No, I say that drug laws are not really a men's issue, except insofar
> > as they are more sharply enforced against men
>
> well if "laws" are "more sharply enforced against men" -- and drug
> laws, like all laws, are -- then i'm afraid, Andrew Usher, that makes
> drug laws rather a "men's issue"
The logical course would be to abolish all such excess laws.
Stephen Morgan
> As for how men in the men's movement feel about this...very few have
> supported the war on drugs. Most are libertarian on this issue and
> want no drug laws. The father's Rights guys know the feminists are
> intentionally using this shit to deprive men of custody and
> visitation. They know it's a BIG problem.
All used to be legal, you know.
Used to give out smack on the NHS, specifically to those who were
addicted due to being prescribed heroin during the war and even before
the war for asthma and other minor ailments.
Then the USG came along, pressured our gov into illegalificating it
all. The addicts were still addicts and they had to go to the black
market. Organised crime took off. Legalise drugs and give them as
medicine to addicts and the drug dealers will have to find honest
employment. I don't like drug dealers.
Masculist
wrote:
> On 29 Dec, 19:32, Masculist <mascul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As for how men in the men's movement feel about this...very few have
> > supported the war on drugs. Most are libertarian on this issue and
> > want no drug laws. The father's Rights guys know the feminists are
> > intentionally using this shit to deprive men of custody and
> > visitation. They know it's a BIG problem.
>
> All used to be legal, you know.
>
> Used to give out smack on the NHS, specifically to those who were
> addicted due to being prescribed heroin during the war and even before
> the war for asthma and other minor ailments.
After the Civil War here many were addicted to morphine. Drugs were
legal then. No problemo.
> Then the USG came along, pressured our gov into illegalificating it
> all. The addicts were still addicts and they had to go to the black
> market. Organised crime took off. Legalise drugs and give them as
> medicine to addicts and the drug dealers will have to find honest
> employment. I don't like drug dealers.
I was a drug dealer for a year but had to quit because I didn't like
drug dealers either. Too much criminality for my tastes. Yeah, I
want that whole thing shut down. It's not only corrupting and
victimizing the people but our government and many other governments.
Great to see you Steve!! I hope all is reasonably well with you.
Tom
retardsman
> On Dec 29, 12:51 pm, Stephen Morgan <grauniad2libe...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On 29 Dec, 19:32, Masculist <mascul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As for how men in the men's movement feel about this...very few have
> > > supported the war on drugs. Most are libertarian on this issue and
> > > want no drug laws. The father's Rights guys know the feminists are
> > > intentionally using this shit to deprive men of custody and
> > > visitation. They know it's a BIG problem.
>
> > All used to be legal, you know.
>
> > Used to give out smack on the NHS, specifically to those who were
> > addicted due to being prescribed heroin during the war and even before
> > the war for asthma and other minor ailments.
>
> After the Civil War here many were addicted to morphine. Drugs were
> legal then. No problemo.
oh it was a problemo alright but not nearly as big a problemo as using
drug laws to cage men en masse and to destroy fatherhood and
masculinity -- leave us remember that it was the WOMENS "temperance
union" that demonized guys by the millions and established major
organized crime in america
isnt it a coincidence that it was the political organizing of females
that led to our current gulag -- a gulag For Men Only, to be sure
isnt it also interesting that the current locus of Der Matriarchy is
Chicago, GynoGangland Central -- first the women organize and
criminalize maleness, then their scumbag gangboys show up to "run the
businesses" and then voila! the same Chicago produces Obie and the Mom-
in-Chief, those soulless stooges of the matriarchate, to complete the
betrayal of the amerikan male
Andrew Usher
> > > No, I say that drug laws are not really a men's issue, except insofar
> > > as they are more sharply enforced against men
> >
> > well if "laws" are "more sharply enforced against men" -- and drug
> > laws, like all laws, are -- then i'm afraid, Andrew Usher, that makes
> > drug laws rather a "men's issue"
>
> The logical course would be to abolish all such excess laws.
Well, perhaps; I certainly see the argument for it. But one of my
preoccupations is to get us not to confuse general political issues
with men's issues, precisely because that may unnecessarily turn off
potential supports. I would never make my socialist economics central
to the men's movement, not my support for circumcision (I do, of
course, oppose likewise any effort to make _opposition_ to
circumcision part of the men's movement). So that's why I do this.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> On Dec 29, 3:53 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Masculist wrote:
> > > > Well I don't; I consider the use of intoxicants barbarous.
> >
> > > What's "barbarous" about ingesting intoxicants? One gets alittle
> > > dizzy that's all.
> >
> > You know, God (or Nature) gave us a mind for a reason. I figure there
> > has to be something wrong with intentionally messing it up with drugs.
>
> It's not what you put in your body that defiles you, it's what comes
> out of your body that defiles you...Jesus
Well, of course I'm not a Christian, but anyway one could easily hold
that just because there's no _religious_ problem with it, it's still
not right.
> I don't encourage drug use, just the opposite, but I denounce these
> Christian temperance types and their latter day allies, the Marxists,
> for trying to control everyones bodily intake.
I don't much like the puritanical tone either but you have to realise
that the original temperance movement was motivated by the very real
damage that alcohol was causing.
> > > What's truly barbarous is using one's body (sex)
> > > for money and power yet it's not discouraged but encouraged in our
> > > society.
> >
> > Well, it ought to be discouraged. It is a kind of prostitution, and
> > the idea certainly comes from primitive culture where there were no
> > rules in place to restrict it.
>
> Yeah, and those cultures were matriarchies. You have no problem
> putting men in jail for intoxicants but only weant to discourage women
> for their much more immoral behaviors. You dig?
No I don't. I don't make the law. If I did, many drugs would be legal,
and even for 'hard' drugs, only the dealers would go to jail. I _do_
support prostitution being illegal but the more extended behavior
can't be defined with sufficient rigidity for legal use.
> > > > I may not
> > > > support entirely the war on drugs, but I don't have that much sympathy
> > > > for drug offenders.
> >
> > > That's your problem Andrew, you need more "sympathy".
> >
> > I can't have sympathy for anyone and everyone. I think the reason we
> > have sympathy at all is a practical one, and feeling sympathy for
> > people that aren't deserving of it is an error.
>
> Who decides who is deserving? You?
I think I am in control of my own mind, and I decide who gets my
sympathy. I am only saying that one should blindly give 'sympathy'
without rational consideration.
> > > Welfare used to have strict rules in many States about mothers who
> > > received benefits having guys over to their place.
> >
> > Well, OK. Those probably weren't enforceable very well anyway. I don't
> > see any particular relation to drug laws.
>
> Enforceability is in the will. You dig up the will to put your
> brothers in jail for innocent crimes while tread lightly with women on
> their more immoral behaviors.
Same comment. We can't punish all 'immoral', improper, or harmful
behavior.
> > Well we can't avoid things just because they're complicated. I'm more
> > inclined to think that you're just projecting your personal issues
> > onto all men. Can't you see any problem with that?
>
> And you're not eh? Yes, I see BIG problems with your approach vis a
> vis men. It smacks of the marxists I know.
>
> As for me having a personal problem with your attitude toward
> drugs...suckers like you locked me up for 2.5 years and then made me a
> second class citizen for thirty years afterwards due to a felony
> conviction and jailing. Try to get jobs, and even worse, hold onto
> them with that shit hanging over your head decade after decade.
Well, OK, I'm sorry, you know I'm no fan of that. But I do think you
voluntarily chose to get involved with drugs and you should bear some
responsibility. We masculists don't like women dodging responsibility
and we shouldn't like men doing it, either.
That said, you are entirely right that it is a big problem that
criminals can't get and keep jobs. But it's not limited to drug
offences, is it? I'd like to solve that problem. As I have mentioned,
the guaranteed income solves much of it, although unfortunately
politicians today, if they passed it, would probably deny it to
criminals, especially 'sex offenders', for political capital. I
dislike it not only because it is unfair, causes men to return to
crime, and hurts the economy, but it also has particular impact on
men. This is not only because more men are affected, but also because
of the usual economic disparity between men and women, and that some
men are thereby put in the grossly undignified position of having to
be supported by their wives.
> As for how men in the men's movement feel about this...very few have
> supported the war on drugs. Most are libertarian on this issue and
> want no drug laws.
I know. This still doesn't make it a men's issue.
> The father's Rights guys know the feminists are
> intentionally using this shit to deprive men of custody and
> visitation. They know it's a BIG problem.
Yeah, but this problem isn't really because of the drug laws, but the
custody laws.
Andrew Usher
retardsman
> Masculist wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 3:53 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Masculist wrote:
> > > > > Well I don't; I consider the use of intoxicants barbarous.
>
> > > > What's "barbarous" about ingesting intoxicants? One gets alittle
> > > > dizzy that's all.
>
> > > You know, God (or Nature) gave us a mind for a reason. I figure there
> > > has to be something wrong with intentionally messing it up with drugs.
>
> > It's not what you put in your body that defiles you, it's what comes
> > out of your body that defiles you...Jesus
>
> Well, of course I'm not a Christian, but anyway one could easily hold
> that just because there's no _religious_ problem with it, it's still
> not right.
>
> > I don't encourage drug use, just the opposite, but I denounce these
> > Christian temperance types and their latter day allies, the Marxists,
> > for trying to control everyones bodily intake.
>
> I don't much like the puritanical tone either but you have to realise
> that the original temperance movement was motivated by the very real
> damage that alcohol was causing.
no it wasnt
why should he "have to realize" something you dont have the Faintest
Fucking Cloo of yourself?
eh there, mr shell answerman?
the original Temperance Movement was motivated by womens' age-old
drive to control and subjugate males by criminalizing male behavior
(while excusing themselves from the same standards, see domestic
violence, see sexual assualt, see false accusation, ad infinitum)
that true interest of the Temperance Movement was -- like the Feminist
Movement -- to ally females collectively with evil male influences
(organized crime, corrupt government, and self-serving "law
enforcement") in order to increase the wealth and power of these
sectors vis a vis the average boy/man
......while using the War on Drugs as just another front for the real
war, the War on God, Fatherhood, Sonship, and Maleness generally
>
> > > > What's truly barbarous is using one's body (sex)
> > > > for money and power yet it's not discouraged but encouraged in our
> > > > society.
>
> > > Well, it ought to be discouraged. It is a kind of prostitution, and
> > > the idea certainly comes from primitive culture where there were no
> > > rules in place to restrict it.
>
> > Yeah, and those cultures were matriarchies. You have no problem
> > putting men in jail for intoxicants but only weant to discourage women
> > for their much more immoral behaviors. You dig?
>
> No I don't. I don't make the law. If I did, many drugs would be legal,
> and even for 'hard' drugs, only the dealers would go to jail. I _do_
> support prostitution being illegal but the more extended behavior
> can't be defined with sufficient rigidity for legal use.
>
> > > > > I may not
> > > > > support entirely the war on drugs, but I don't have that much sympathy
> > > > > for drug offenders.
>
> > > > That's your problem Andrew, you need more "sympathy".
>
> > > I can't have sympathy for anyone and everyone. I think the reason we
> > > have sympathy at all is a practical one, and feeling sympathy for
> > > people that aren't deserving of it is an error.
>
> > Who decides who is deserving? You?
>
> I think I am in control of my own mind,
you think Rong, as your "analysis" above illustrates clearly
nor do you have the humility, courage, or common sense to understand
how undeveloped your faculties actually are, and how shaped they
already have been by forces you -- also -- dont understand
Andrew Usher
<snip stupidity>
Now you can go fuck yourself. I'm tired of your pseudo-intellectual
bullshit. You've just committed a monstrous logical error (or worse,
lied) when you implied that the temperance movement had no real
complaints - sure, they were only women drumming up hatred of men for
no reason, you know, that's why so many men listened to them, GET A
FUCKING CLUE.
Maybe it's over your head, but just because feminists are our enemies
does not mean they are constantly, consciously plotting against us at
every possible turn. I don't exactly like Jews but that doesn't mean I
have to believe in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'.
You accuse me of lacking the very qualities that you demonstrate a
lack of. You know what? I don't understand everything. But one think I
do understand is that dealing with morons like you as just as tiresome
as dealing with women. Enough!
Andrew Usher
Masculist
"Souless stooges of the matriarchate". Perfect.
Tom
Stephen Morgan
> On Dec 29, 12:51 pm, Stephen Morgan <grauniad2libe...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On 29 Dec, 19:32, Masculist <mascul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As for how men in the men's movement feel about this...very few have
> > > supported the war on drugs. Most are libertarian on this issue and
> > > want no drug laws. The father's Rights guys know the feminists are
> > > intentionally using this shit to deprive men of custody and
> > > visitation. They know it's a BIG problem.
>
> > All used to be legal, you know.
>
> > Used to give out smack on the NHS, specifically to those who were
> > addicted due to being prescribed heroin during the war and even before
> > the war for asthma and other minor ailments.
>
> After the Civil War here many were addicted to morphine. Drugs were
> legal then. No problemo.
I don't actually support drug use, it's just that the illegalising is
a bigger problem.
> > Then the USG came along, pressured our gov into illegalificating it
> > all. The addicts were still addicts and they had to go to the black
> > market. Organised crime took off. Legalise drugs and give them as
> > medicine to addicts and the drug dealers will have to find honest
> > employment. I don't like drug dealers.
>
> I was a drug dealer for a year but had to quit because I didn't like
> drug dealers either. Too much criminality for my tastes. Yeah, I
> want that whole thing shut down. It's not only corrupting and
> victimizing the people but our government and many other governments.
I think your government is the biggest drug dealer of all, Tom.
> Great to see you Steve!! I hope all is reasonably well with you.
Oh, you know, mustn't grumble.
Stephen Morgan
But you should take a holistic approach. Feminism is a tool of the
rich, so socialist economics is very relevant. The surgical abuse of
the young is a relevant issue too, as FGM is for feminists. All issues
that adversely effect men are men's issues.
Stephen Morgan
> I don't much like the puritanical tone either but you have to realise
> that the original temperance movement was motivated by the very real
> damage that alcohol was causing.
The was once a slogan "Votes for women, chastity for men". The
movement was all about penalising men.
Masculist
> retardsman wrote:
>
> <snip stupidity>
>
> Now you can go fuck yourself. I'm tired of your pseudo-intellectual
> bullshit. You've just committed a monstrous logical error (or worse,
> lied) when you implied that the temperance movement had no real
> complaints - sure, they were only women drumming up hatred of men for
> no reason, you know, that's why so many men listened to them, GET A
> FUCKING CLUE.
Ha, ha ha! See ray, the Temperance movement was also supported by
many neurotic mommy boys too so it couldn't have been all bad <smile>
That's tellin him Andrew.
> Maybe it's over your head, but just because feminists are our enemies
> does not mean they are constantly, consciously plotting against us at
> every possible turn.
True, most feminists are just useful idiots, it's the Lesbians and
their eunuch marxists who are really the ones plotting every day.
> I don't exactly like Jews but that doesn't mean I
> have to believe in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'.
>
> You accuse me of lacking the very qualities that you demonstrate a
> lack of. You know what? I don't understand everything. But one think I
> do understand is that dealing with morons like you as just as tiresome
> as dealing with women. Enough!
Ray a "moron"? Are you nuts? You should wash his feet with your
hair.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Masculist
Oh, you mean the "gynocracy" we live in? Yes, you're right there.
Tom
retardsman
> On Dec 29, 5:58 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > retardsman wrote:
>
> > <snip stupidity>
>
> > Now you can go fuck yourself. I'm tired of your pseudo-intellectual
> > bullshit. You've just committed a monstrous logical error (or worse,
> > lied) when you implied that the temperance movement had no real
> > complaints - sure, they were only women drumming up hatred of men for
> > no reason, you know, that's why so many men listened to them, GET A
> > FUCKING CLUE.
>
> Ha, ha ha! See ray, the Temperance movement was also supported by
> many neurotic mommy boys too so it couldn't have been all bad <smile>
> That's tellin him Andrew.
>
> > Maybe it's over your head, but just because feminists are our enemies
> > does not mean they are constantly, consciously plotting against us at
> > every possible turn.
>
> True, most feminists are just useful idiots, it's the Lesbians and
> their eunuch marxists who are really the ones plotting every day.
>
> > I don't exactly like Jews but that doesn't mean I
> > have to believe in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'.
ah, so youre an Enlightened antisemite!
you hate Those Evil Jews -- but goldarnit, youre a Reasonable Hater,
you dont hate them so much that you embrace the protocols
LOL!
the same interests and families who were behind Women and their
"temperance" Movement were behind Seneca Falls in 1848, and NOW in the
Sixties, and our "A Womans Nation" today
you should stop hating jews long enough to study the formation and
multi-century operations of the various East India companies
theyre still v much in bizness today, at the highest levels of western
governments, militaries, and intelligence orgs (ever hear of skull and
bones? scroll and key? non-jewish btw)
and it was these intergenerational interests, largely -- and not the
moral outrage of millions of downtrodden women -- who gave the world
all the modern women's movements, from "rights" at seneca falls to
temperance to our modern gynogulag, which is v dependant on the Drug
War in its decimation of men and masculinity
the same interests who are behind global feminism control the
manufacture, distribution, and sale of drugs worldwide
these same interests then profit from the massive intelligence,
interdiction, enforcement and "corrections" ma-sheens in said War on
Drugs
a War waged almost entirely on BOYS and MEN . . . isnt that a strange
coincidence!
but, but . . . the grrrls were only trying to help! ;O)
Woman is always eager to clean Man's closets -- with the collusion of
her goons -- but never interested in mucking out Her own
that aint enough tho, cause then the same groups that run the Global
Drug Trade profit from building and maintaining our massive gulag
systems to "rehabilitate" the male victims they created -- torturig
and caging guys in the name of that Wonderful Womens Morality for
which you argue so vehemently
the idea that the Temperance Movement grew out of womens grassroots
"oppression" is as ignorant as imagining modern feminism arose from
the terrible life conditions of twentieth century american females
theres a germ of truth there, granted: alcoholism, especially in the
decades following the disastrous Civil War, was a big problem; and
some early 20th century females indeed DID have difficult life-
conditons
but youve been Duped: "Temperance" resulted directly in mass male
criminalization and demonization, and thus in mass female empowerment,
in concert with a HUGE and currently immovable Organized Crime
infrastructure -- likewise, Womens Liberation resulted directly in yet
more mass male criminalization and demonization, and gave us our
Global Gynogulag
you should stick to Hating Jews, there, Andrew Usher, and try not to
branch out too hastily into other avenues of stupid
>
> > You accuse me of lacking the very qualities that you demonstrate a
> > lack of. You know what? I don't understand everything. But one think I
> > do understand is that dealing with morons like you as just as tiresome
> > as dealing with women. Enough!
>
> Ray a "moron"? Are you nuts? You should wash his feet with your
> hair.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> > Andrew Usher- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ick
retardsman
wrote:
yep, every "improvement to society" they trot always sounds so
Reasonable and Wonderful, and always results the same -- in the
disenfranchisement and destruction of males
whats up, stephen? taking a break from the goddess-worshippers over
at rigint?
Andrew Usher
> > Well, perhaps; I certainly see the argument for it. But one of my
> > preoccupations is to get us not to confuse general political issues
> > with men's issues, precisely because that may unnecessarily turn off
> > potential supports. I would never make my socialist economics central
> > to the men's movement, not my support for circumcision (I do, of
> > course, oppose likewise any effort to make _opposition_ to
> > circumcision part of the men's movement). So that's why I do this.
>
> But you should take a holistic approach.
I do take a holistic approach for myself - but I do realise that I
can't expect to get others to agree with me in all things, and
therefore must be able to sever them.
> Feminism is a tool of the rich, so socialist economics is very relevant.
Well, in the US at least, most masculists are on the right, it seems.
I agree, though, that feminism is 'a tool of the rich' and thus
associated with capitalism. I've tried before (see
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/f548708c14bc323c
) to write about how, contrary to initial appearances, socialism is
masculist and capitalism feminist.
> The surgical abuse of the young is a relevant issue too, as FGM is for feminists.
As I just stated, I'm pro-circumcision so you'd better not talk to me
about how it's 'surgical abuse' or whatever. I think I have good
reasons for that position but can't prove it logically, because you
start from an axiom that involuntary surgery without an immediate
medical purpose must be bad. What I can say is that there is no way
that circumcision is feminist. Also, that although you might paint it
as a unique moral issue, in fact opposition to infant circumcision is
almost always correlated with opposition to the circumcised state as
such.
> All issues that adversely effect men are men's issues.
Well, this is a possible definition, but I don't consider it a useful
one. Practically all social and political issues can adversely affect
men; we need to distinguish.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > I don't much like the puritanical tone either but you have to realise
> > that the original temperance movement was motivated by the very real
> > damage that alcohol was causing.
>
> The was once a slogan "Votes for women, chastity for men". The
> movement was all about penalising men.
Because of their behavior, not because they were men. In my book,
drunkenness is not a part of masculinity, or at least not one that
anyone should defend.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > You accuse me of lacking the very qualities that you demonstrate a
> > lack of. You know what? I don't understand everything. But one think I
> > do understand is that dealing with morons like you as just as tiresome
> > as dealing with women. Enough!
>
> Ray a "moron"? Are you nuts? You should wash his feet with your
> hair.
No, I'm serious. I don't mean that word only as an insult but to
express his level of intelligence. It took me but a few posts to
realise that his IQ is not sufficient to have a constructive
conversation with me - unlike you and some others here. Men like him
are only useful as 'foot soldiers', not as thinkers; and as long as he
keeps up his annoying pretensions to profundity, I'll have to
criticise him.
Andrew Usher
retardsman
> Stephen Morgan wrote:
> > > I don't much like the puritanical tone either but you have to realise
> > > that the original temperance movement was motivated by the very real
> > > damage that alcohol was causing.
>
> > The was once a slogan "Votes for women, chastity for men". The
> > movement was all about penalising men.
>
> Because of their behavior, not because they were men.
uh huh, the gynogulag's mancages are full of males because Men are
Evil, not because females are essentially exempted from the law (their
"law") that they inflict on males
men are disproportionately arrested vis a vis women becuse of mens
terrible "behavior"
men are disproportionately charged, tried, convicted, sentenced, and
imprisoned vis a vis women because of mens terrible "behavior"
same "crime" committed, female gets probation, male goes into a cage
-- but thats not because theyre male, its not because we live under
the gynogulag, its because of mens horrible "behavior" eh Andrea?
youre a good apologist for the matriarchy, but you cant even keep your
lies straight
In my book,
> drunkenness is not a part of masculinity, or at least not one that
> anyone should defend.
>
> Andrew Usher
Andrea youre either a feminist, a spook, or both
you best hope youre not a male because i will certainly be asking god
to hold you to the standards of "male behavior" that you demand of
men, but not of women
Ted
> Masculist wrote:
> > > You accuse me of lacking the very qualities that you demonstrate a
> > > lack of. You know what? I don't understand everything. But one think I
> > > do understand is that dealing with morons like you as just as tiresome
> > > as dealing with women. Enough!
>
> > Ray a "moron"? Are you nuts? You should wash his feet with your
> > hair.
>
> No, I'm serious. I don't mean that word only as an insult but to
> express his level of intelligence. It took me but a few posts to
> realise that his IQ is not sufficient to have a constructive
> conversation with me
You have to read through many many posts to find a joke this good.
Keep it up Andrew Usher! Where do you get them from?
Ted
>
> As I just stated, I'm pro-circumcision so you'd better not talk to me
> about how it's 'surgical abuse' or whatever. I think I have good
> reasons for that position but can't prove it logically, because you
> start from an axiom that involuntary surgery without an immediate
> medical purpose must be bad.
Well, yes.
Andrew Usher
> > No, I'm serious. I don't mean that word only as an insult but to
> > express his level of intelligence. It took me but a few posts to
> > realise that his IQ is not sufficient to have a constructive
> > conversation with me
>
> You have to read through many many posts to find a joke this good.
> Keep it up Andrew Usher! Where do you get them from?
I don't know who you are, but that's not funny. This shit is serious,
and I'm trying to take it seriously. If it comes down to it, I will
abandon someone rather than allow him to pull down the discussion;
else our movement is nothing more than a farce.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
Yes, and as long as you hold to that axiom, it's trivial to 'prove'
that circumcision is bad. It's also trivial to 'prove' creationism by
using the axiom that God must have made everything we see.
Andrew Usher
Stephen Morgan
They called me a contrarian, but even I only have so much appetite for
a fight.
Stephen Morgan
> I think I have good
> reasons for that position but can't prove it logically, because you
> start from an axiom that involuntary surgery without an immediate
> medical purpose must be bad.
That's pretty much my position, yeah.
> What I can say is that there is no way
> that circumcision is feminist.
The feminist position of society allows it to happen, although not to
females.
> Also, that although you might paint it
> as a unique moral issue, in fact opposition to infant circumcision is
> almost always correlated with opposition to the circumcised state as
> such.
I'm not particularly opposed to that. I feel quite an affinity for
James Shelby Downard's approach.
Ted
> Ted wrote:
> > > No, I'm serious. I don't mean that word only as an insult but to
> > > express his level of intelligence. It took me but a few posts to
> > > realise that his IQ is not sufficient to have a constructive
> > > conversation with me
>
> > You have to read through many many posts to find a joke this good.
> > Keep it up Andrew Usher! Where do you get them from?
>
> I don't know who you are, but that's not funny.
Excellent stuff...
Ted
True, true.
Masculist
Ha, ha, Andrew thinks ray is stupid and that I'm intelligent! I have
a 115 IQ and ray I suspect has one over 130. I worked with and
studied IQ's and it was with prisoners who i lived with and was able
to observe daily. I became quite proficient at guessing people's
IQ's. You do OK too Andrew but need more work in the wisdom and
knowledge area specifically on these men's issues.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Masculist
He seems too sincere to be a spook. He's probably young and still
somewhat of a newbie.
> you best hope youre not a male because i will certainly be asking god
> to hold you to the standards of "male behavior" that you demand of
> men, but not of women
Hear, hear!
Tom
retardsman
wrote:
> On 30 Dec, 21:45, retardsman <remarks...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 30, 11:00 am, Stephen Morgan <grauniad2libe...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Dec, 23:11, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't much like the puritanical tone either but you have to realise
> > > > that the original temperance movement was motivated by the very real
> > > > damage that alcohol was causing.
>
> > > The was once a slogan "Votes for women, chastity for men". The
> > > movement was all about penalising men.
>
> > yep, every "improvement to society" they trot always sounds so
> > Reasonable and Wonderful, and always results the same -- in the
> > disenfranchisement and destruction of males
>
> > whats up, stephen? taking a break from the goddess-worshippers over
> > at rigint?
>
> They called me a contrarian,
translation: i cant defend my bigotry, so my supremacist prejudices
must be your fault
but even I only have so much appetite for
> a fight.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
i rarely read anymore over there for that reason -- shit it's too
tiring just WATCHING you keep running into the Wall
they are so full of themselves and the certainty of their Correctness
-- hilarious, really ..... they think theyre gonna solve the Mysteries
of the Universe when they cant even tolerate an Inkorrect Opionion for
five minutes lol
somewhere the bible talks about this place "wearing the saints out"
and reading rigint, i can sure dig it
happy new year stephen and, if you like, many happy returns
retardsman
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
useta be young and confoozled guys like that would just follow elders
around all day and learn by observation
assuming there was an elder to be found which is quite an assumption
but young guys are too smart and hip and "independent" for that now
teevee tells them so! :O)
you should start a school, for boys between 13 and 30, they just
follow you around saint barbara all day then STFU and listen at night
save me lotta wear n tear on the fingies!
Happy New Year tho o course no Happy for me until they really are New
Andrew Usher
> > No, I'm serious. I don't mean that word only as an insult but to
> > express his level of intelligence. It took me but a few posts to
> > realise that his IQ is not sufficient to have a constructive
> > conversation with me - unlike you and some others here. Men like him
> > are only useful as 'foot soldiers', not as thinkers; and as long as he
> > keeps up his annoying pretensions to profundity, I'll have to
> > criticise him.
>
> Ha, ha, Andrew thinks ray is stupid and that I'm intelligent! I have
> a 115 IQ and ray I suspect has one over 130.
And mine is over 150. If Ray really is that smart, he certainly does
not show it, I don't know on what basis you 'suspect' he is but it
can't be his posts here!
> I worked with and
> studied IQ's and it was with prisoners who i lived with and was able
> to observe daily. I became quite proficient at guessing people's
> IQ's.
Interesting. I think of myself as being good at that, too, though
admittedly it's not as though I've proved it. You don't have some
special method, do you?
> You do OK too Andrew but need more work in the wisdom and
> knowledge area specifically on these men's issues.
Well, I can always learn more. Honestly I don't know how much good
experience does - it seems that your particular experiences have
biased you at least as much as they've enlightened you. That's from my
perspective of course.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > you best hope youre not a male because i will certainly be asking god
> > to hold you to the standards of "male behavior" that you demand of
> > men, but not of women
>
> Hear, hear!
He can go ahead. I do try to hold myself to high standards, and I am
confident that, if there is a heaven in the conventional sense, I am
getting there.
It's not true, either, that I don't apply the same standards to women.
I do; I just don't expect them to be able to follow any.
Andrew Usher
Stephen Morgan
> On Dec 31, 8:43 am, Stephen Morgan <grauniad2libe...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 30 Dec, 21:45, retardsman <remarks...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 30, 11:00 am, Stephen Morgan <grauniad2libe...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On 29 Dec, 23:11, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I don't much like the puritanical tone either but you have to realise
> > > > > that the original temperance movement was motivated by the very real
> > > > > damage that alcohol was causing.
>
> > > > The was once a slogan "Votes for women, chastity for men". The
> > > > movement was all about penalising men.
>
> > > yep, every "improvement to society" they trot always sounds so
> > > Reasonable and Wonderful, and always results the same -- in the
> > > disenfranchisement and destruction of males
>
> > > whats up, stephen? taking a break from the goddess-worshippers over
> > > at rigint?
>
> > They called me a contrarian,
>
> translation: i cant defend my bigotry, so my supremacist prejudices
> must be your fault
To be fair I do automatically pick fights with dominant systems of
belief.
> but even I only have so much appetite for
>
> > a fight.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> i rarely read anymore over there for that reason -- shit it's too
> tiring just WATCHING you keep running into the Wall
>
> they are so full of themselves and the certainty of their Correctness
> -- hilarious, really ..... they think theyre gonna solve the Mysteries
> of the Universe when they cant even tolerate an Inkorrect Opionion for
> five minutes lol
>
> somewhere the bible talks about this place "wearing the saints out"
> and reading rigint, i can sure dig it
>
> happy new year stephen and, if you like, many happy returns
Same to you.
Masculist
Teevee is just a symptom. It was the destruction of fatherhood that
caused this specific problem and that started long before we were
born. Remember "Rebel Without a Cause"? That was the main theme of
that movie. My dad didn't talk much but he made a point of
encouraging me watch two things in the Fifties...that movie and Bishop
Sheen. He knew the score.
> you should start a school, for boys between 13 and 30, they just
> follow you around saint barbara all day then STFU and listen at night
>
> save me lotta wear n tear on the fingies!
Yes, I'm in the thick of it here (saint barbara) and have thought
about this intensely, and yes, about the effects on your "fingies" and
many others here and elsewhere. But as you said, they are too "smart
and hip" to listen to an old guy or to even consider he might have
wisdom they need. They hardly know history anymore to even give them
any perspective plus Dad Is Dead. It's a huge problem because our
only hope is to put a bug up their ass so they do a paradigm change
and then act. This problem will take decades to resolve, maybe even
centuries, but we can't even get a start on those who will need to do
the work. I'm working on it. There has to be a way. God is
definitely on the case so an opening will develop.
> Happy New Year tho o course no Happy for me until they really are New
Yeah, I know what you mean. At least here on soc.men there's some
hope thanks particularly to folks like you, especially you. That's
hope enough. Happy New Year to you ray and thanks from all of us.
Tom
Masculist
> Masculist wrote:
> > > No, I'm serious. I don't mean that word only as an insult but to
> > > express his level of intelligence. It took me but a few posts to
> > > realise that his IQ is not sufficient to have a constructive
> > > conversation with me - unlike you and some others here. Men like him
> > > are only useful as 'foot soldiers', not as thinkers; and as long as he
> > > keeps up his annoying pretensions to profundity, I'll have to
> > > criticise him.
>
> > Ha, ha, Andrew thinks ray is stupid and that I'm intelligent! I have
> > a 115 IQ and ray I suspect has one over 130.
>
> And mine is over 150. If Ray really is that smart, he certainly does
> not show it, I don't know on what basis you 'suspect' he is but it
> can't be his posts here!
Ray is sooooo smart that he is able to fool someone with a 150 IQ.
Smart people sometimes sacrifice creativity for linear intelligence,
or just aren't wired for creativity. Ray has creativity to the max
plus he's plenty bright. It's obviously his idiosyncratic writing
that throws you off when in fact it's his ability to do that and
connect with many others that demonstrates a healthy intelligence.
> > I worked with and
> > studied IQ's and it was with prisoners who i lived with and was able
> > to observe daily. I became quite proficient at guessing people's
> > IQ's.
>
> Interesting. I think of myself as being good at that, too, though
> admittedly it's not as though I've proved it. You don't have some
> special method, do you?
If I know the person enough I check them out on mechanical tasks to
observe their visual spatial prowess. Just simple work tasks often
suffice for this. Verbal and conceptual abilities can be checked in
simple conversation or in writing and they correlate well to IQ. When
I did it with prisoners in the old days I could go into depth on these
variables and check them with their IQ's since I was in charge of
administering those test to them. I did those observations in a more
scientific way then but it became kind of intuitive in later years
using less observation data.
> > You do OK too Andrew but need more work in the wisdom and
> > knowledge area specifically on these men's issues.
>
> Well, I can always learn more. Honestly I don't know how much good
> experience does - it seems that your particular experiences have
> biased you at least as much as they've enlightened you. That's from my
> perspective of course.
Well, you're wrong. Maybe experience does that more to others but I
was trained and worked diligently in a scientific way in regards to
human behavior and experience. Plus due to my "outsider" life coupled
with psychological abilities and knowledge, I was able to maintain a
high level of objectivity. Feedback also helped. I was always a very
friendly and honest guy and got plenty of feedback.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > Ha, ha, Andrew thinks ray is stupid and that I'm intelligent! I have
> > > a 115 IQ and ray I suspect has one over 130.
>
> > And mine is over 150. If Ray really is that smart, he certainly does
> > not show it, I don't know on what basis you 'suspect' he is but it
> > can't be his posts here!
>
> Ray is sooooo smart that he is able to fool someone with a 150 IQ.
Well, the main criterion I'm using is the ability to have novel
insights, whether I agree with them or not, and make me think about
something in a new way. That's real intelligence. He has not shown any
real insight. On the other hand, I don't just say I'm smart, I prove
it by having new perspectives continually. I'll tell you now (I
mentioned it before but got no reply) about my greatest insight
related to men's issues.
It was the comparison of the termination of a marriage with the
termination of employment. It was this that got me to logically
justified criticism of wage-slavery and therefore, the capitalist
system, and ultimately put forth the basic income as the best
practical remedy (so far as I can see). Now I will compare the two,
and denote the poorer of the parties (in employment, that may be
assumed to be the employee) A, and the other B. in divorce, A is
expected to get considerable compensation from B (and that isn't
wholly a gender bias, since we often make awards to the man, as well);
with employment, A may get nothing (or almost nothing) from B upon
termination, and we're supposed to consider that acceptable. With
marriage, A is not necessarily expected to do any hard work, and is
considered to be entitled to supprot; with employment, A is expected
to do whatever work is demanded, and not consider himself entitled to
anything. This last is just a description, essentially, of the
difference between non-arbitrary and arbitrary power (see my post
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/msg/76ab5d295d1a5999 ). In
marriage, A knows (esp. if A is the woman) that the marriage will not
be terminated for light reasons, and that she can get away with quite
a lot; in employment, A knows it can be terminated for any reason or
none - and behaves accordingly. (Arbitrary power again.)
So it seems as though there is a very large disconnect between the
two. If anything, it seems A should get more in the case of
employment, and yet the opposite is true to a great degree. So, if
party A is treated too favorably in divorce, which we likely agree on,
we can still say (and must) that he is treated far too unfavorably in
employment. If you say, that life isn't fair, and that 'justifies' the
unfairness of employment, I do not know why the same wouldn't justify
unfairness in divorce and thus a man should be able to dismiss his
wife with no compensation as if she were an ordinary employee.
> Smart people sometimes sacrifice creativity for linear intelligence,
> or just aren't wired for creativity. Ray has creativity to the max
> plus he's plenty bright. It's obviously his idiosyncratic writing
> that throws you off when in fact it's his ability to do that and
> connect with many others that demonstrates a healthy intelligence.
Well, writing style does affect how others see you. If he refuses to
change, fine, but he must accept that many people are going to look at
his writing and decide that he is either stupid or crazy.
> > > I worked with and
> > > studied IQ's and it was with prisoners who i lived with and was able
> > > to observe daily. I became quite proficient at guessing people's
> > > IQ's.
>
> > Interesting. I think of myself as being good at that, too, though
> > admittedly it's not as though I've proved it. You don't have some
> > special method, do you?
>
> If I know the person enough I check them out on mechanical tasks to
> observe their visual spatial prowess. Just simple work tasks often
> suffice for this.
Well, I can't do _that_ over the Internet.
> Verbal and conceptual abilities can be checked in
> simple conversation or in writing and they correlate well to IQ.
I think that's what I do - not quantitatively of course, I'm not sure
how you would.
> > > You do OK too Andrew but need more work in the wisdom and
> > > knowledge area specifically on these men's issues.
>
> > Well, I can always learn more. Honestly I don't know how much good
> > experience does - it seems that your particular experiences have
> > biased you at least as much as they've enlightened you. That's from my
> > perspective of course.
>
> Well, you're wrong.
Well, I knew you'd say that. See below -
> Maybe experience does that more to others but I
> was trained and worked diligently in a scientific way in regards to
> human behavior and experience. Plus due to my "outsider" life coupled
> with psychological abilities and knowledge, I was able to maintain a
> high level of objectivity.
I have a hard time believing that anyone that can come out with your
views about autism has a high level of objectivity. They certainly
seem like a (feminine) sort of wishful thinking.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> marriage, A knows (esp. if A is the woman) that the marriage will not
> be terminated for light reasons, and that she can get away with quite
> a lot; in employment, A knows it can be terminated for any reason or
> none - and behaves accordingly. (Arbitrary power again.)
>
> So it seems as though there is a very large disconnect between the
> two. If anything, it seems A should get more in the case of
> employment, and yet the opposite is true to a great degree. So, if
> party A is treated too favorably in divorce, which we likely agree on,
> we can still say (and must) that he is treated far too unfavorably in
> employment. If you say, that life isn't fair, and that 'justifies' the
> unfairness of employment, I do not know why the same wouldn't justify
> unfairness in divorce and thus a man should be able to dismiss his
> wife with no compensation as if she were an ordinary employee.
I'm sorry I missed this post Andrew. I'll reply.
This is an interesting way to arrive at an anti-feminist posture but
as time goes on and the feminists strangle us with power and
propaganda, I can see where younger folks would come at this in a
round about way. I did too and I'm much older. My generation was
feeling the noose tighten when we were young.
Your approach was actually the rationale for men receiiving higher
wages before CRA'64 was passed. After that the gig was up and now we
have the opposite effect...women making more. But the difference is
there was no compensatory element when the feminists got extra
goodies. They still retained their privilege within the family and
with divorce and custody. So in effect now we have women in men's old
position of privilege in the labor market while men are still
required to be "responsible" to the level of men in the Fifties when
they made more money.
These dynamics were all recognized after CRA'64 but were used as a
rationale to pass ERA. The idea was that as this dual standard
oppressed men they would then get on board for ERA in order to equal
the burden. Trouble is ERA never passed and things became even more
skewed in favor of women to the point now where men are effectively
their slaves, both in the family and economy.
> > Smart people sometimes sacrifice creativity for linear intelligence,
> > or just aren't wired for creativity. Ray has creativity to the max
> > plus he's plenty bright. It's obviously his idiosyncratic writing
> > that throws you off when in fact it's his ability to do that and
> > connect with many others that demonstrates a healthy intelligence.
>
> Well, writing style does affect how others see you. If he refuses to
> change, fine, but he must accept that many people are going to look at
> his writing and decide that he is either stupid or crazy.
True, but many others who are literary will see it as very creative
and effective.
> > > > I worked with and
> > > > studied IQ's and it was with prisoners who i lived with and was able
> > > > to observe daily. I became quite proficient at guessing people's
> > > > IQ's.
>
> > > Interesting. I think of myself as being good at that, too, though
> > > admittedly it's not as though I've proved it. You don't have some
> > > special method, do you?
>
> > If I know the person enough I check them out on mechanical tasks to
> > observe their visual spatial prowess. Just simple work tasks often
> > suffice for this.
>
> Well, I can't do _that_ over the Internet.
See below.
> > Verbal and conceptual abilities can be checked in
> > simple conversation or in writing and they correlate well to IQ.
>
> I think that's what I do - not quantitatively of course, I'm not sure
> how you would.
Well, it's a combination of how much knowledge they have and how they
bring concepts together for pertainent insights. Doing it this way
can make for accurate IQ's but in standard deviations (15 points) so
it's not really exact but in the "ball park".
> > > > You do OK too Andrew but need more work in the wisdom and
> > > > knowledge area specifically on these men's issues.
>
> > > Well, I can always learn more. Honestly I don't know how much good
> > > experience does - it seems that your particular experiences have
> > > biased you at least as much as they've enlightened you. That's from my
> > > perspective of course.
>
> > Well, you're wrong.
>
> Well, I knew you'd say that. See below -
>
> > Maybe experience does that more to others but I
> > was trained and worked diligently in a scientific way in regards to
> > human behavior and experience. Plus due to my "outsider" life coupled
> > with psychological abilities and knowledge, I was able to maintain a
> > high level of objectivity.
>
> I have a hard time believing that anyone that can come out with your
> views about autism has a high level of objectivity. They certainly
> seem like a (feminine) sort of wishful thinking.
Ha, ha, I accused my "Boys" of being feminine for similar reasons.
The truth is my Boys and I are about as masculine as you can get. You
may never see that but hopefully you will.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> This is an interesting way to arrive at an anti-feminist posture
Actually my argument was meant to be a way to get from an anti-
feminist posture to an anti-capitalist one; it actually strengthened
my faith in both i.e. the unfairness both of divorce and of
employment.
> but
> as time goes on and the feminists strangle us with power and
> propaganda, I can see where younger folks would come at this in a
> round about way. I did too and I'm much older. My generation was
> feeling the noose tighten when we were young.
If people come at it in a round-about manner, it's just because we
can't talk about it openly. If we were like any other major political
movement, most people would come to us either through our advertising
or through simple word of mouth. Instead every man has to figure this
stuff out himself, which is a severe disadvantage for us.
> Your approach was actually the rationale for men receiiving higher
> wages before CRA'64 was passed.
The rationale was that men's wages had to support a family while
women's didn't. Note that this was also often used to justify
preferential treatment of married men against single men - which I
suppose most masculists wouldn't like (and I certainly don't).
> So in effect now we have women in men's old
> position of privilege in the labor market while men are still
> required to be "responsible" to the level of men in the Fifties when
> they made more money.
Right, and the best solution would be to alter the whole system as I
don't see much prospect for changing things back.
You know, the key thing to understand is that the 'labor market' isn't
an example of a free market at all, especially not today. In a true
free market (economically speaking), the buyer and seller have a
similar amount of power, and neither cares much about the identity of
the other.
> These dynamics were all recognized after CRA'64 but were used as a
> rationale to pass ERA. The idea was that as this dual standard
> oppressed men they would then get on board for ERA in order to equal
> the burden. Trouble is ERA never passed and things became even more
> skewed in favor of women to the point now where men are effectively
> their slaves, both in the family and economy.
The ERA was irrelevant. Had it passed, I don't think anything would be
different today.
> > > Verbal and conceptual abilities can be checked in
> > > simple conversation or in writing and they correlate well to IQ.
>
> > I think that's what I do - not quantitatively of course, I'm not sure
> > how you would.
>
> Well, it's a combination of how much knowledge they have and how they
> bring concepts together for pertainent insights. Doing it this way
> can make for accurate IQ's but in standard deviations (15 points) so
> it's not really exact but in the "ball park".
Well then, that's pretty much how I do it, too.
> > I have a hard time believing that anyone that can come out with your
> > views about autism has a high level of objectivity. They certainly
> > seem like a (feminine) sort of wishful thinking.
>
> Ha, ha, I accused my "Boys" of being feminine for similar reasons.
> The truth is my Boys and I are about as masculine as you can get. You
> may never see that but hopefully you will.
On what grounds? I use the word 'feminine' to mean behavior associated
with women - anthropomorphising sympathy with animals is well known to
be a feminine trait, and the same should go for the autistics you
speak of.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> On Jan 5, 1:34 pm, Masculist <mascul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is an interesting way to arrive at an anti-feminist posture
>
> Actually my argument was meant to be a way to get from an anti-
> feminist posture to an anti-capitalist one; it actually strengthened
> my faith in both i.e. the unfairness both of divorce and of
> employment.
You're stuck on the Marxist dream. Forget it, capitalism won thanks
to their use of feminism as a counter insurgency. IMO, that is one
good thing to come out of feminism.
> > but
> > as time goes on and the feminists strangle us with power and
> > propaganda, I can see where younger folks would come at this in a
> > round about way. I did too and I'm much older. My generation was
> > feeling the noose tighten when we were young.
>
> If people come at it in a round-about manner, it's just because we
> can't talk about it openly. If we were like any other major political
> movement, most people would come to us either through our advertising
> or through simple word of mouth. Instead every man has to figure this
> stuff out himself, which is a severe disadvantage for us.
Yes, you are right. I call it "sexual blindness" that causes this
difference in our movement as opposed to others. It's why feminism is
such a boon to the ruling class.
> > Your approach was actually the rationale for men receiiving higher
> > wages before CRA'64 was passed.
>
> The rationale was that men's wages had to support a family while
> women's didn't. Note that this was also often used to justify
> preferential treatment of married men against single men - which I
> suppose most masculists wouldn't like (and I certainly don't).
Buzz...wrong. Most masculists come from the father's rights movement
and aren't silly utopian marxist young men.
In fact I think masculists should be and are strongly anti-marxist.
It should be a main tenent of masculist ideology.
> > So in effect now we have women in men's old
> > position of privilege in the labor market while men are still
> > required to be "responsible" to the level of men in the Fifties when
> > they made more money.
>
> Right, and the best solution would be to alter the whole system as I
> don't see much prospect for changing things back.
Eliminate CRA'64, at least for women, and then men can organize
exlcusively and build a new patriarchy that would encourage wage
differentials between men and women. Tax differentials as well! Hey
Andrew, see there's hope for your utopian socialism...tax the shit out
of women to fund it! We're not calling it marxism however.
> You know, the key thing to understand is that the 'labor market' isn't
> an example of a free market at all, especially not today. In a true
> free market (economically speaking), the buyer and seller have a
> similar amount of power, and neither cares much about the identity of
> the other.
I agree something has to be done about the employment situation in a
New Masculist society. I'm open to ideas about that for a New Left.
> > These dynamics were all recognized after CRA'64 but were used as a
> > rationale to pass ERA. The idea was that as this dual standard
> > oppressed men they would then get on board for ERA in order to equal
> > the burden. Trouble is ERA never passed and things became even more
> > skewed in favor of women to the point now where men are effectively
> > their slaves, both in the family and economy.
>
> The ERA was irrelevant. Had it passed, I don't think anything would be
> different today.
Probably not but politically it would have strengthened the enemy
marxist feminists.
> > > > Verbal and conceptual abilities can be checked in
> > > > simple conversation or in writing and they correlate well to IQ.
>
> > > I think that's what I do - not quantitatively of course, I'm not sure
> > > how you would.
>
> > Well, it's a combination of how much knowledge they have and how they
> > bring concepts together for pertainent insights. Doing it this way
> > can make for accurate IQ's but in standard deviations (15 points) so
> > it's not really exact but in the "ball park".
>
> Well then, that's pretty much how I do it, too.
>
> > > I have a hard time believing that anyone that can come out with your
> > > views about autism has a high level of objectivity. They certainly
> > > seem like a (feminine) sort of wishful thinking.
>
> > Ha, ha, I accused my "Boys" of being feminine for similar reasons.
> > The truth is my Boys and I are about as masculine as you can get. You
> > may never see that but hopefully you will.
>
> On what grounds? I use the word 'feminine' to mean behavior associated
> with women - anthropomorphising sympathy with animals is well known to
> be a feminine trait, and the same should go for the autistics you
> speak of.
I meant it in a different way. The truth is Andrew that you and most
of us "normals" would benefit from the autistics "anthropomorphising
sympathy" for us.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > Actually my argument was meant to be a way to get from an anti-
> > feminist posture to an anti-capitalist one; it actually strengthened
> > my faith in both i.e. the unfairness both of divorce and of
> > employment.
>
> You're stuck on the Marxist dream. Forget it, capitalism won thanks
> to their use of feminism as a counter insurgency. IMO, that is one
> good thing to come out of feminism.
Only in the USA does capitalism seem to have won completely, and I
believe that can't last given the current economy. Besides, capitalism
and feminism are both our enemies: strategies used by the ruling
classes (as you agree) to dominate men like us.
> > If people come at it in a round-about manner, it's just because we
> > can't talk about it openly. If we were like any other major political
> > movement, most people would come to us either through our advertising
> > or through simple word of mouth. Instead every man has to figure this
> > stuff out himself, which is a severe disadvantage for us.
>
> Yes, you are right. I call it "sexual blindness" that causes this
> difference in our movement as opposed to others. It's why feminism is
> such a boon to the ruling class.
This blindness is due only to the prejudices embedded in our
(society's) common discourse, that we should be able to fight.
> > > Your approach was actually the rationale for men receiiving higher
> > > wages before CRA'64 was passed.
>
> > The rationale was that men's wages had to support a family while
> > women's didn't. Note that this was also often used to justify
> > preferential treatment of married men against single men - which I
> > suppose most masculists wouldn't like (and I certainly don't).
>
> Buzz...wrong.
So you are saying, therefore, that you (and most masculists) would
approve of single men being discriminated against?
> Most masculists come from the father's rights movement
> and aren't silly utopian marxist young men.
By _your definition_, I am not Marxist.
> In fact I think masculists should be and are strongly anti-marxist.
> It should be a main tenent of masculist ideology.
There's no reason we should even be using the term 'Marxist'. It's
nothing but confusing.
> > > So in effect now we have women in men's old
> > > position of privilege in the labor market while men are still
> > > required to be "responsible" to the level of men in the Fifties when
> > > they made more money.
>
> > Right, and the best solution would be to alter the whole system as I
> > don't see much prospect for changing things back.
>
> Eliminate CRA'64, at least for women,
Yeah, but how much practical difference would that make? Judges now
routinely ignore the written law in favor of politically correct
causes; how do we change that?
> and then men can organize
> exlcusively and build a new patriarchy that would encourage wage
> differentials between men and women. Tax differentials as well! Hey
> Andrew, see there's hope for your utopian socialism...tax the shit out
> of women to fund it!
No, Tom, think about it. If we apply such high taxes to women they'll
just quit working to become dependent on men again; that's not what
you want, is it?
> We're not calling it marxism however.
And neither am I.
> > You know, the key thing to understand is that the 'labor market' isn't
> > an example of a free market at all, especially not today. In a true
> > free market (economically speaking), the buyer and seller have a
> > similar amount of power, and neither cares much about the identity of
> > the other.
>
> I agree something has to be done about the employment situation in a
> New Masculist society. I'm open to ideas about that for a New Left.
Then you should be on my side. I'm the only guy here trying to talk
about it, as I did first in my post about the basic income. I'm not
entirely sure how to proceed either, other than the guaranteed income
that I believe in, but my socialism doesn't require we have a complete
picture of the society we're working toward.
> > The ERA was irrelevant. Had it passed, I don't think anything would be
> > different today.
>
> Probably not but politically it would have strengthened the enemy
> marxist feminists.
I doubt it. After all, once the ERA passed, the momentum for further
measures would probably slow down. Anyway, it's now a moot point.
> > > > I have a hard time believing that anyone that can come out with your
> > > > views about autism has a high level of objectivity. They certainly
> > > > seem like a (feminine) sort of wishful thinking.
>
> > > Ha, ha, I accused my "Boys" of being feminine for similar reasons.
> > > The truth is my Boys and I are about as masculine as you can get. You
> > > may never see that but hopefully you will.
>
> > On what grounds? I use the word 'feminine' to mean behavior associated
> > with women - anthropomorphising sympathy with animals is well known to
> > be a feminine trait, and the same should go for the autistics you
> > speak of.
>
> I meant it in a different way. The truth is Andrew that you and most
> of us "normals" would benefit from the autistics "anthropomorphising
> sympathy" for us.
Well I first used the word 'feminine', so it meant what I mean by it.
I don't wish to debate you any farther on this issue, it's clear that
you can't look at it rationally, and it's not germane to masculism
anyway.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> On Jan 7, 11:29 am, Masculist <mascul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Actually my argument was meant to be a way to get from an anti-
> > > feminist posture to an anti-capitalist one; it actually strengthened
> > > my faith in both i.e. the unfairness both of divorce and of
> > > employment.
>
> > You're stuck on the Marxist dream. Forget it, capitalism won thanks
> > to their use of feminism as a counter insurgency. IMO, that is one
> > good thing to come out of feminism.
>
> Only in the USA does capitalism seem to have won completely, and I
> believe that can't last given the current economy. Besides, capitalism
> and feminism are both our enemies: strategies used by the ruling
> classes (as you agree) to dominate men like us.
If feminism is a "strategy used by the ruling class to dominate men"
than since the Marxists took to feminism like a fish to water does
that make them the "ruling class"? It sure does and they are the
first to go under when the Bastille is stormed. Listen, the Marxists
fell into the trap the capitalists laid out. They are finished Andrew
and it's time to find a new pony for this race. It's masculism.
So Andy Marxist, let's discuss the new political policies of masculism
so that you can become Andy Masculist. It's a New Age.
> > > If people come at it in a round-about manner, it's just because we
> > > can't talk about it openly. If we were like any other major political
> > > movement, most people would come to us either through our advertising
> > > or through simple word of mouth. Instead every man has to figure this
> > > stuff out himself, which is a severe disadvantage for us.
>
> > Yes, you are right. I call it "sexual blindness" that causes this
> > difference in our movement as opposed to others. It's why feminism is
> > such a boon to the ruling class.
>
> This blindness is due only to the prejudices embedded in our
> (society's) common discourse, that we should be able to fight.
You're brainwashed in social contruction. Forget it, that's old and
stupid stuff, let's move forward to a more scientific approach which
acknowledges biological and social sexual differences.
If you have ears hear me...Andy, we can't get on with this discussion
if you keep insisting on clinging to a failed and defeated ideology.
Focus on masculism.
> > > > Your approach was actually the rationale for men receiiving higher
> > > > wages before CRA'64 was passed.
>
> > > The rationale was that men's wages had to support a family while
> > > women's didn't. Note that this was also often used to justify
> > > preferential treatment of married men against single men - which I
> > > suppose most masculists wouldn't like (and I certainly don't).
>
> > Buzz...wrong.
>
> So you are saying, therefore, that you (and most masculists) would
> approve of single men being discriminated against?
<smile> We're all discriminated against. The question is how much and
who.
> > Most masculists come from the father's rights movement
> > and aren't silly utopian marxist young men.
>
> By _your definition_, I am not Marxist.
Well, that's a start. How about by your definition?
> > In fact I think masculists should be and are strongly anti-marxist.
> > It should be a main tenent of masculist ideology.
>
> There's no reason we should even be using the term 'Marxist'. It's
> nothing but confusing.
Oh jeeze, I've heard the same thing about feminism. I'm not confused
at all about what is marxist. I saw the shitheads take over the Left
and then use their feminists to whip us even worse than if the Right
was in charge. It was a total betrayal of my generation of men.
> > > > So in effect now we have women in men's old
> > > > position of privilege in the labor market while men are still
> > > > required to be "responsible" to the level of men in the Fifties when
> > > > they made more money.
>
> > > Right, and the best solution would be to alter the whole system as I
> > > don't see much prospect for changing things back.
>
> > Eliminate CRA'64, at least for women,
>
> Yeah, but how much practical difference would that make?
A huge difference. I saw what that law did the past 45 years and it
turned the country on it's head.
> Judges now
> routinely ignore the written law in favor of politically correct
> causes; how do we change that?
New laws?
> > and then men can organize
> > exlcusively and build a new patriarchy that would encourage wage
> > differentials between men and women. Tax differentials as well! Hey
> > Andrew, see there's hope for your utopian socialism...tax the shit out
> > of women to fund it!
>
> No, Tom, think about it. If we apply such high taxes to women they'll
> just quit working to become dependent on men again; that's not what
> you want, is it?
Have you ever heard of traditionalism? It's usually associated with
the religious. You should get to know some sometime. They have lives
they think are important and needs and such. They have been oppressed
for 45 solid years in their attempts to live their lives the way they
believe healthy. Is it fair to them that they be forced to live lives
like feminists, marxists and atheists by discouraging the organization
of society according to their princiiples? Of course not. They are
citizens too and can organize to create a society they think is best.
Women are always "dependent on men". Civilization would collapse is
women were in charge.
> > We're not calling it marxism however.
>
> And neither am I.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...etc. We need to make
sure it doesn't do those things and that the asshole marxists don't
have a way to run their manipulative game to take over what we are
doing. They need to go through re-education camps and then have an
eye kept on them.
> > > You know, the key thing to understand is that the 'labor market' isn't
> > > an example of a free market at all, especially not today. In a true
> > > free market (economically speaking), the buyer and seller have a
> > > similar amount of power, and neither cares much about the identity of
> > > the other.
>
> > I agree something has to be done about the employment situation in a
> > New Masculist society. I'm open to ideas about that for a New Left.
>
> Then you should be on my side. I'm the only guy here trying to talk
> about it, as I did first in my post about the basic income. I'm not
> entirely sure how to proceed either, other than the guaranteed income
> that I believe in, but my socialism doesn't require we have a complete
> picture of the society we're working toward.
Yeah, this is a huge problem and I'm at a loss as to what to do too.
I just want to keep it separate from marxists and marxist ideology.
Somehow we have to also do it with an eye to satisfying the
libertarians. Yeah...what a stretch.
> > > The ERA was irrelevant. Had it passed, I don't think anything would be
> > > different today.
>
> > Probably not but politically it would have strengthened the enemy
> > marxist feminists.
>
> I doubt it. After all, once the ERA passed, the momentum for further
> measures would probably slow down. Anyway, it's now a moot point.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > I have a hard time believing that anyone that can come out with your
> > > > > views about autism has a high level of objectivity. They certainly
> > > > > seem like a (feminine) sort of wishful thinking.
>
> > > > Ha, ha, I accused my "Boys" of being feminine for similar reasons.
> > > > The truth is my Boys and I are about as masculine as you can get. You
> > > > may never see that but hopefully you will.
>
> > > On what grounds? I use the word 'feminine' to mean behavior associated
> > > with women - anthropomorphising sympathy with animals is well known to
> > > be a feminine trait, and the same should go for the autistics you
> > > speak of.
>
> > I meant it in a different way. The truth is Andrew that you and most
> > of us "normals" would benefit from the autistics "anthropomorphising
> > sympathy" for us.
>
> Well I first used the word 'feminine', so it meant what I mean by it.
> I don't wish to debate you any farther on this issue, it's clear that
> you can't look at it rationally, and it's not germane to masculism
> anyway.
I'm totally rationale on this subject and you are the one who is
prejudicial. You simply don't have a clue about autism or it's
treatment. Hey, it is a rather difficult subject for most and
inaccessible to most.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > Only in the USA does capitalism seem to have won completely, and I
> > believe that can't last given the current economy. Besides, capitalism
> > and feminism are both our enemies: strategies used by the ruling
> > classes (as you agree) to dominate men like us.
>
> If feminism is a "strategy used by the ruling class to dominate men"
> than since the Marxists took to feminism like a fish to water does
> that make them the "ruling class"?
There are no Marxists anymore. There are Jews still, and Jewish power
structures, and they are part of the ruling class, but in some ways
act like they aren't because they're Jews.
> So Andy Marxist, let's discuss the new political policies of masculism
> so that you can become Andy Masculist. It's a New Age.
YOU are the one obsessed with Marxism.
> > This blindness is due only to the prejudices embedded in our
> > (society's) common discourse, that we should be able to fight.
>
> You're brainwashed in social contruction. Forget it, that's old and
> stupid stuff, let's move forward to a more scientific approach which
> acknowledges biological and social sexual differences.
I do acknowledge such. As I recall though, you denied one important
gender difference that I admit.
> If you have ears hear me...Andy, we can't get on with this discussion
> if you keep insisting on clinging to a failed and defeated ideology.
> Focus on masculism.
I do, much more than you do. My socialism is masculist; you can rebut
that, of course, but not with your old canards about 'Marxism'.
> > So you are saying, therefore, that you (and most masculists) would
> > approve of single men being discriminated against?
>
> <smile> We're all discriminated against. The question is how much and
> who.
Answer the question. Do you or don't you think unmarried men should be
discriminated against?
> > > Most masculists come from the father's rights movement
> > > and aren't silly utopian marxist young men.
>
> > By _your definition_, I am not Marxist.
>
> Well, that's a start. How about by your definition?
I don't use the term, so the question doesn't apply. By a strictly
economic standard, though, I may not be that far from Marx - but he
wasn't that far from the mainstream of socialism in his time.
> > > In fact I think masculists should be and are strongly anti-marxist.
> > > It should be a main tenent of masculist ideology.
>
> > There's no reason we should even be using the term 'Marxist'. It's
> > nothing but confusing.
>
> Oh jeeze, I've heard the same thing about feminism. I'm not confused
> at all about what is marxist.
Then why can't you give a reasonable definition?
> I saw the shitheads take over the Left
> and then use their feminists to whip us even worse than if the Right
> was in charge. It was a total betrayal of my generation of men.
Your generation betrayed itself. Maybe you weren't guilty, but most
men your age did support the leftist agenda. They DID believe the lies
that the left continues to spew about race and sex and a few other
things.
> > > Eliminate CRA'64, at least for women,
>
> > Yeah, but how much practical difference would that make?
>
> A huge difference. I saw what that law did the past 45 years and it
> turned the country on it's head.
I realise what happened, but that wasn't because of one law change, it
was primarily a cultural change.
> > Judges now
> > routinely ignore the written law in favor of politically correct
> > causes; how do we change that?
>
> New laws?
OK, but we can't get those laws passed under anything like a
democratic system without changing the culture first.
> > No, Tom, think about it. If we apply such high taxes to women they'll
> > just quit working to become dependent on men again; that's not what
> > you want, is it?
>
> Have you ever heard of traditionalism? It's usually associated with
> the religious. You should get to know some sometime. They have lives
> they think are important and needs and such. They have been oppressed
> for 45 solid years in their attempts to live their lives the way they
> believe healthy. Is it fair to them that they be forced to live lives
> like feminists, marxists and atheists by discouraging the organization
> of society according to their princiiples? Of course not. They are
> citizens too and can organize to create a society they think is best.
Do you think it would help men, though, if women quit working
independently? I don't, all else being equal.
> Women are always "dependent on men". Civilization would collapse is
> women were in charge.
Well women are taking over, and maybe civilisation is collapsing. And
we're sure not going to fight it with old battles from the 1960s.
> > > > You know, the key thing to understand is that the 'labor market' isn't
> > > > an example of a free market at all, especially not today. In a true
> > > > free market (economically speaking), the buyer and seller have a
> > > > similar amount of power, and neither cares much about the identity of
> > > > the other.
>
> > > I agree something has to be done about the employment situation in a
> > > New Masculist society. I'm open to ideas about that for a New Left.
>
> > Then you should be on my side. I'm the only guy here trying to talk
> > about it, as I did first in my post about the basic income. I'm not
> > entirely sure how to proceed either, other than the guaranteed income
> > that I believe in, but my socialism doesn't require we have a complete
> > picture of the society we're working toward.
>
> Yeah, this is a huge problem and I'm at a loss as to what to do too.
> I just want to keep it separate from marxists and marxist ideology.
> Somehow we have to also do it with an eye to satisfying the
> libertarians. Yeah...what a stretch.
Guess what? That is socialism. You can't get away from it!
> > > I meant it in a different way. The truth is Andrew that you and most
> > > of us "normals" would benefit from the autistics "anthropomorphising
> > > sympathy" for us.
>
> > Well I first used the word 'feminine', so it meant what I mean by it.
> > I don't wish to debate you any farther on this issue, it's clear that
> > you can't look at it rationally, and it's not germane to masculism
> > anyway.
>
> I'm totally rationale on this subject and you are the one who is
> prejudicial. You simply don't have a clue about autism or it's
> treatment. Hey, it is a rather difficult subject for most and
> inaccessible to most.
You are obviously not unbiased on the subject. If you can't admit at
least that, you're dishonest.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> On Jan 8, 2:20 pm, Masculist <mascul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Only in the USA does capitalism seem to have won completely, and I
> > > believe that can't last given the current economy. Besides, capitalism
> > > and feminism are both our enemies: strategies used by the ruling
> > > classes (as you agree) to dominate men like us.
>
> > If feminism is a "strategy used by the ruling class to dominate men"
> > than since the Marxists took to feminism like a fish to water does
> > that make them the "ruling class"?
>
> There are no Marxists anymore. There are Jews still, and Jewish power
> structures, and they are part of the ruling class, but in some ways
> act like they aren't because they're Jews.
How can I argue with this nonsense? I won't try.
> > So Andy Marxist, let's discuss the new political policies of masculism
> > so that you can become Andy Masculist. It's a New Age.
>
> YOU are the one obsessed with Marxism.
I admit, it's personal with me to an extent because of what happened
in my generation. You wouldn't know or understand.
> > > This blindness is due only to the prejudices embedded in our
> > > (society's) common discourse, that we should be able to fight.
>
> > You're brainwashed in social contruction. Forget it, that's old and
> > stupid stuff, let's move forward to a more scientific approach which
> > acknowledges biological and social sexual differences.
>
> I do acknowledge such. As I recall though, you denied one important
> gender difference that I admit.
I forget. What was that?
>
> > If you have ears hear me...Andy, we can't get on with this discussion
> > if you keep insisting on clinging to a failed and defeated ideology.
> > Focus on masculism.
>
> I do, much more than you do. My socialism is masculist; you can rebut
> that, of course, but not with your old canards about 'Marxism'.
I won't allow you or others stupdity about marxism to do to future
generations what it did to mine.
> > > So you are saying, therefore, that you (and most masculists) would
> > > approve of single men being discriminated against?
>
> > <smile> We're all discriminated against. The question is how much and
> > who.
>
> Answer the question. Do you or don't you think unmarried men should be
> discriminated against?
I do. Why should they be on equal footing when they are only
supporting one person while married men are supporting two or more and
are creating future generations?
> > > > Most masculists come from the father's rights movement
> > > > and aren't silly utopian marxist young men.
>
> > > By _your definition_, I am not Marxist.
>
> > Well, that's a start. How about by your definition?
>
> I don't use the term, so the question doesn't apply. By a strictly
> economic standard, though, I may not be that far from Marx - but he
> wasn't that far from the mainstream of socialism in his time.
I'm not a socialist, I'm a Liberal.
> > > > In fact I think masculists should be and are strongly anti-marxist.
> > > > It should be a main tenent of masculist ideology.
>
> > > There's no reason we should even be using the term 'Marxist'. It's
> > > nothing but confusing.
>
> > Oh jeeze, I've heard the same thing about feminism. I'm not confused
> > at all about what is marxist.
>
> Then why can't you give a reasonable definition?
How about the book "Rules for Radicals"?
> > I saw the shitheads take over the Left
> > and then use their feminists to whip us even worse than if the Right
> > was in charge. It was a total betrayal of my generation of men.
>
> Your generation betrayed itself. Maybe you weren't guilty, but most
> men your age did support the leftist agenda. They DID believe the lies
> that the left continues to spew about race and sex and a few other
> things.
I think here in this statement we at least have a solid foundation for
future activism.
> > > > Eliminate CRA'64, at least for women,
>
> > > Yeah, but how much practical difference would that make?
>
> > A huge difference. I saw what that law did the past 45 years and it
> > turned the country on it's head.
>
> I realise what happened, but that wasn't because of one law change, it
> was primarily a cultural change.
It was those damn marxists who did it.
> > > Judges now
> > > routinely ignore the written law in favor of politically correct
> > > causes; how do we change that?
>
> > New laws?
>
> OK, but we can't get those laws passed under anything like a
> democratic system without changing the culture first.
True, and that is the real trick.
> > > No, Tom, think about it. If we apply such high taxes to women they'll
> > > just quit working to become dependent on men again; that's not what
> > > you want, is it?
>
> > Have you ever heard of traditionalism? It's usually associated with
> > the religious. You should get to know some sometime. They have lives
> > they think are important and needs and such. They have been oppressed
> > for 45 solid years in their attempts to live their lives the way they
> > believe healthy. Is it fair to them that they be forced to live lives
> > like feminists, marxists and atheists by discouraging the organization
> > of society according to their princiiples? Of course not. They are
> > citizens too and can organize to create a society they think is best.
>
> Do you think it would help men, though, if women quit working
> independently? I don't, all else being equal.
Women will never "quite working independently" either in the home or
elsewhere and neither is it desirable but they shouldn't take
resources away from fathers trying to create the next generation.
Some fairness in our social structure needs to be added. The question
is how to do that and still maintain a high level of freedom for
everyone. I think a differential sex tax system is the best way to
go. Politically it is impossible now, but that is where a cultural
change would help. Women have to be convinced of the need for this.
> > Women are always "dependent on men". Civilization would collapse is
> > women were in charge.
>
> Well women are taking over, and maybe civilisation is collapsing. And
> we're sure not going to fight it with old battles from the 1960s.
True.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > You know, the key thing to understand is that the 'labor market' isn't
> > > > > an example of a free market at all, especially not today. In a true
> > > > > free market (economically speaking), the buyer and seller have a
> > > > > similar amount of power, and neither cares much about the identity of
> > > > > the other.
>
> > > > I agree something has to be done about the employment situation in a
> > > > New Masculist society. I'm open to ideas about that for a New Left.
>
> > > Then you should be on my side. I'm the only guy here trying to talk
> > > about it, as I did first in my post about the basic income. I'm not
> > > entirely sure how to proceed either, other than the guaranteed income
> > > that I believe in, but my socialism doesn't require we have a complete
> > > picture of the society we're working toward.
>
> > Yeah, this is a huge problem and I'm at a loss as to what to do too.
> > I just want to keep it separate from marxists and marxist ideology.
> > Somehow we have to also do it with an eye to satisfying the
> > libertarians. Yeah...what a stretch.
>
> Guess what? That is socialism. You can't get away from it!
Well socialism denotes a system wide change. Why can't it be piece
meal?
>
> > > > I meant it in a different way. The truth is Andrew that you and most
> > > > of us "normals" would benefit from the autistics "anthropomorphising
> > > > sympathy" for us.
>
> > > Well I first used the word 'feminine', so it meant what I mean by it.
> > > I don't wish to debate you any farther on this issue, it's clear that
> > > you can't look at it rationally, and it's not germane to masculism
> > > anyway.
>
> > I'm totally rationale on this subject and you are the one who is
> > prejudicial. You simply don't have a clue about autism or it's
> > treatment. Hey, it is a rather difficult subject for most and
> > inaccessible to most.
>
> You are obviously not unbiased on the subject. If you can't admit at
> least that, you're dishonest.
I could say the same thing about your views on this and add that you
don't know shit about caring for autistics. I do.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Grizzlie Antagonist
<masc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 8, 3:06�pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Answer the question. Do you or don't you think unmarried men should be
>> discriminated against?
>
>I do. Why should they be on equal footing when they are only
>supporting one person while married men are supporting two or more and
>are creating future generations?
Oh boy, listen to the "Masculist".
Listen to the guy who claims to hate "pussies". It isn't enough that
he wants to be ruled by the Biggest Pussy of Them All -- the feminazi
from Alaska.
No, that isn't enough. He also wants Palin's Police to crack open the
heads of men smart enough to avoid the marriage trap and enslavement
to Pussy.
Unmarried men are Smitty's hippies.
>> Do you think it would help men, though, if women quit working
>> independently? I don't, all else being equal.
>
>Women will never "quite working independently" either in the home or
>elsewhere and neither is it desirable...
Yes, it IS desirable.
But listen to the "Masculist". He favors "independence" for women.
Ted
wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:33:42 -0800 (PST), Masculist
>
> >On Jan 8, 3:06 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Answer the question. Do you or don't you think unmarried men should be
> >> discriminated against?
>
> >I do. Why should they be on equal footing when they are only
> >supporting one person while married men are supporting two or more and
> >are creating future generations?
>
> Oh boy, listen to the "Masculist".
The Masculist has a point. Children are usually seen as an asset to
their parents (absent child support of course) but you could also see
them as future taxpayers, an investment in society generally. So some
subsidy by the rest of society is justified.
>
> Listen to the guy who claims to hate "pussies". It isn't enough that
> he wants to be ruled by the Biggest Pussy of Them All -- the feminazi
> from Alaska.
>
> No, that isn't enough. He also wants Palin's Police to crack open the
> heads of men smart enough to avoid the marriage trap and enslavement
> to Pussy.
No, no cracking open of heads. Just a few dollars here and there...
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
>On Jan 10, 10:01�am, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 11:33:42 -0800 (PST), Masculist
>>
>> <mascul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 8, 3:06�pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Answer the question. Do you or don't you think unmarried men should be
>> >> discriminated against?
>>
>> >I do. �Why should they be on equal footing when they are only
>> >supporting one person while married men are supporting two or more and
>> >are creating future generations?
>>
>> Oh boy, listen to the "Masculist".
>
>The Masculist has a point. Children are usually seen as an asset to
>their parents (absent child support of course) but you could also see
>them as future taxpayers, an investment in society generally. So some
>subsidy by the rest of society is justified.
In the first place, people who raise children already have enough
financial incentives vis-a-vis people who dont' via tax
credits/deductions and the like.
A single male taxpayer without any dependents will have a good portion
of his taxes diverted to a public school system that he isn't in a
position to take advantage of.
In the second place, if children ever were an asset to society at
large, that is no longer true.
>> Listen to the guy who claims to hate "pussies". �It isn't enough that
>> he wants to be ruled by the Biggest Pussy of Them All -- the feminazi
>> from Alaska.
>>
>> No, that isn't enough. �He also wants Palin's Police to crack open the
>> heads of men smart enough to avoid the marriage trap and enslavement
>> to Pussy.
>
>No, no cracking open of heads. Just a few dollars here and there...
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
Andrew Usher
> > There are no Marxists anymore. There are Jews still, and Jewish power
> > structures, and they are part of the ruling class, but in some ways
> > act like they aren't because they're Jews.
>
> How can I argue with this nonsense? I won't try.
If you don't understand how Jewish influence works, you're missing a
big part of the picture. Again, read MacDonald's book if you can.
> > YOU are the one obsessed with Marxism.
>
> I admit, it's personal with me to an extent because of what happened
> in my generation. You wouldn't know or understand.
Well, your generation is over with. That's all I'm saying.
> > > You're brainwashed in social contruction. Forget it, that's old and
> > > stupid stuff, let's move forward to a more scientific approach which
> > > acknowledges biological and social sexual differences.
>
> > I do acknowledge such. As I recall though, you denied one important
> > gender difference that I admit.
>
> I forget. What was that?
When I said that women are naturally suited to care for children and
you replied, essentially, that the example of yourself 'proves' that
men are equal there, not only in ability to care for children, but
also in desire to. Hogwash.
You further said that it was normal for men to care for young children
before the sexual revolution and I don't believe I ever quite got you
to admit this error. I've heard enough stories, including those in my
own family, to know that it just wasn't done: when a wife with young
children died, unless the husband could have servants to care for
them, the children were immediately sent to female relatives.
> > I do, much more than you do. My socialism is masculist; you can rebut
> > that, of course, but not with your old canards about 'Marxism'.
>
> I won't allow you or others stupidity about marxism to do to future
> generations what it did to mine.
It's already been done, and now our challenge is to reverse it. Who is
to blame originally no longer matters.
> > Answer the question. Do you or don't you think unmarried men should be
> > discriminated against?
>
> I do. Why should they be on equal footing when they are only
> supporting one person while married men are supporting two or more and
> are creating future generations?
See GA's response. I can not believe that anyone calling himself a
masculist would make this statement.
> > I don't use the term, so the question doesn't apply. By a strictly
> > economic standard, though, I may not be that far from Marx - but he
> > wasn't that far from the mainstream of socialism in his time.
>
> I'm not a socialist, I'm a Liberal.
What is a 'Liberal'? The only meaning that is current is the
mainstream of the left - and they are now more anti-male than anyone
else.
> > > Oh jeeze, I've heard the same thing about feminism. I'm not confused
> > > at all about what is marxist.
>
> > Then why can't you give a reasonable definition?
>
> How about the book "Rules for Radicals"?
Written by a Jew !
> > Your generation betrayed itself. Maybe you weren't guilty, but most
> > men your age did support the leftist agenda. They DID believe the lies
> > that the left continues to spew about race and sex and a few other
> > things.
>
> I think here in this statement we at least have a solid foundation for
> future activism.
That's right, and we need to go outside the conventional political
spectrum because of that. I see no hope in the present Republican
party, which has become nothing more than the party of big money which
is always willing to screw over the common people - especially white
men.
> > > > Judges now
> > > > routinely ignore the written law in favor of politically correct
> > > > causes; how do we change that?
>
> > > New laws?
>
> > OK, but we can't get those laws passed under anything like a
> > democratic system without changing the culture first.
>
> True, and that is the real trick.
And the first thing to do is adopt rhetoric that deals with what's
actually going on.
> > Do you think it would help men, though, if women quit working
> > independently? I don't, all else being equal.
>
> Women will never "quite working independently" either in the home or
> elsewhere and neither is it desirable but they shouldn't take
> resources away from fathers trying to create the next generation.
Look, economics says that if you raise taxes on something, you get
less of it, if it can be substituted. Thus raising taxes of women is
an incentive for them to quite working if they can - and we know they
can. In today's society, that will just further increase the burden on
men with no compensating advantage.
> Some fairness in our social structure needs to be added. The question
> is how to do that and still maintain a high level of freedom for
> everyone. I think a differential sex tax system is the best way to
> go. Politically it is impossible now, but that is where a cultural
> change would help. Women have to be convinced of the need for this.
Ha! You actually think you can convince women that they need to
sacrifice for men!
> > Guess what? That is socialism. You can't get away from it!
>
> Well socialism denotes a system wide change. Why can't it be piece
> meal?
It can be either. In Europe they've gotten a lot by piece-wise change,
but it hasn't worked here. If we want to solve things by gradual
change, we need to see serious progress (and I'm referring to both
socialism and masculism); otherwise one can only hope for a
revolution.
> > > I'm totally rationale on this subject and you are the one who is
> > > prejudicial. You simply don't have a clue about autism or it's
> > > treatment. Hey, it is a rather difficult subject for most and
> > > inaccessible to most.
>
> > You are obviously not unbiased on the subject. If you can't admit at
> > least that, you're dishonest.
>
> I could say the same thing about your views on this and add that you
> don't know shit about caring for autistics. I do.
Tom, do you get a better judgement of someone's character by asking
his father or by asking an unrelated acquaintance? Do you see the
parallel?
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
wrote:
> >> Do you think it would help men, though, if women quit working
> >> independently? I don't, all else being equal.
>
> >Women will never "quite working independently" either in the home or
> >elsewhere and neither is it desirable...
>
> Yes, it IS desirable.
I actually agree that it would be desirable, in the abstract, to have
a society in which most married women did not work regular jobs. But
in our present condition we can't do it.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
Actually I meant it was desirable for them to be in the workplace if
that is what they want but we need compensatory strategies, ie
taxation, and some protections in the work place. If anybody is
harrassed in a work force with many women, it's men.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > I actually agree that it would be desirable, in the abstract, to have
> > a society in which most married women did not work regular jobs. But
> > in our present condition we can't do it.
>
> Actually I meant it was desirable for them to be in the workplace if
> that is what they want but we need compensatory strategies, ie
> taxation,
I don't get why we absolutely need higher taxes on women or how that
'compensates' for anything.
> and some protections in the work place. If anybody is
> harrassed in a work force with many women, it's men.
Well, yes, but first we need to get rid of current anti-male
harassment law.
Andrew Usher