The vicious cycle, or why aren't we organised?
Andrew Usher
considered it, but our movement shows a distressly low degree of
organisation. Could you name one entity representative of the men's
movement? - I do not believe so. None of our groups have much money -
I do not think any have real paid employees (although that's not
inherently a good thing). Why don't they? Speaking for myself, and
hopefully other men as well, I would not wish to give money to any
organisation that I don't think will make a difference. How is this
cycle broken out of?
Now the other thing that is an obvious stumbling block is that we
disagree on so much. This shouldn't be fatal, though, think of all the
political movements of the past - and except for feminist ones, they
have been built primarily by men. So why can't we come up with a list
of things that almost all of us would agree upon, and could endorse?
Do we have any core principles, besides 'men/fathers are getting
screwed'?
Now any such list would have to be strictly limited, which likely
means that it could not be prepared by one person. For example, as
some of you may know from my history, I am pro-circumcision and I
could not endorse any statement opposing circumcision. On the other
hand, I hardly consider it essential and would work with those that
oppose circumcision for common goals.
Andrew Usher
Viking
look at why feminism happened (high-paying, low-skilled jobs moved
overseas and technology made women's work at home vanishingly simple,
which led to women going to work).
The males will never organize. They will always be slaves. The best
solution is to accept the reality by saying: if they want to be
slaves, they can be my slaves. Use the system to exploit them. Start a
business, become a landlord, loan money; gain that power.
I mean, how can you fight for sheep who oppose your very efforts to
fight for them? They want to be slaves, and will resist your efforts
to free them--ultimately destroying you if you let them.
If they want to be slaves, they can be my slaves.
Masculist
Good questions and ones we have been struggling with here and
elsewhere for 35 years. The first problem is knowing the enemy and
confronting HER. The West is now emerging from 40 years of intense,
albeit informal, feminist propaganda. It's mostly lies and myths but
is now taken as the gospel truth by the great unwashed masses. The
academy, the usual place to air and find truth, has been in the iron
grip of the feminists for this whole time and they monitor and enforce
their suppression of the truth (witness Larry Sommers of Harvard)
using women's studies which sits in the center of the academy like a
little chapel.
In order to break this grip and START to seek the truth, which of
course will serve men and the feminists know it, is to take the enemy,
the feminists, on directly. That means knowing the history of
feminism, agreeing on what it's main tenets are and then agreeing on
the best agenda, or ideology if you will, to take on feminism BOTH on
the Left and Right. Yes, the feminists on the Right need a wake up
call. They are in fact running the whole show while appearing to be
opposing it. Great gig.
Another problem is how the power of feminism is hidden to most
people. It's the most powerful and organized interest group in the
country including the corporate boys or military-industrial complex,
yet people don't have a clue about it and the media and academy never
talk about it. It also exerts it's power on both the Left and Right
with no opposition. The truth is that without feminism we would have
a totally different government. It is the primary of tool of the
ruling elite and that should help explain to you why we are having so
much trouble getting attention and support. Opposing feminism is the
most radical and revolutionary thing that could happen in the USA.
That's a fact.
Here's what I came up with in my "Masculist Manifesto":
THE MASCULIST MANIFESTO
BY Tom Smith (QIM) (Q...@yahoo.com)
Definition of Masculism: A men's movement ideology that advocates for
the abolition of political and cultural assumptions of equality
between sexes. A realistic approach to sex differences that attempts
to identify those differences and how they are best expressed in the
social and political melieu. Supports the establishment of a modern
partriarchy and assumes that we are now living in a matriarchy.
POLITICAL GOALS:
Elimination of discrimination based on sex in the civil rights act
of 1964.
Assumption of Father's Custody instead of Mother's Custody.
Father's custody will help reduce the divorce rate while encouraging a
positive view of men. Also ending provisions supported by government
for child support and instead replacing it with the government "safety
net".
An end to drug and substance laws which victimize men. Increase in
government support for rehabilitating substance abusers. Support of
a government sponsored war to improve men's health.
Expansion of social programs and the transformation of them using
masculist approaches.
Re-masculinization of the military.
Encouragement of the use of Supported Communication (SC) for
people with autism, four out of five of which are male. SC is
presently banned in most places which effectively muzzles men with
autism.
Criminal justice laws to be liberalized to end unnescessary long
sentences and provide humane prisons and rehabilitative programs.
Added legal protections to avoid innocent people being accused and
prosecuted for sex offenses.
Support for the legal freedom to express religious sentiments and
knowledge in public forums within the spirit of the Constitution.
The elimination of feminist laws and programs of the past thirty
years.
The abolition of abortion.
We've discussed this (Masculist Manifesto) here and some people have
problems with certain aspects of it or think it comes down too hard,
but it takes on feminism like nothing else proposed and that is what
is important. Remember that the feminists had a much more radical
agenda 35 years ago that now is the status quo. Women on the Right
didn't support it then but now do (ie Laura Bush). So if men think
this too radical to sell, remind them of feminism 30 years ago.
A united front against feminism would start to open the doors to truth
in the academy and elsewhere. The rest will take care of itself.
Isn't Viking a true man? I got a kick out of his solution.
Tom Smith
The American Union of Men (AUM)
Mark Borgerson
@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, MASC...@gmail.com says...
>
> The elimination of feminist laws and programs of the past thirty
> years.
in gender-neutral language. I think it is the application of the
law in our system, rather than the letter of the law that needs
changing.
>
> The abolition of abortion.
Wouldn't this provision, along with the assumption of Father's
Custody, result in a lot of men becoming fathers against their
will? Perhaps you need a C4M provision as well.
Mark Borgerson
Viking
<MASC...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Isn't Viking a true man? I got a kick out of his solution.
Heh. Thanks Tom. Over the years as a MRA I got frustrated when I saw
more resistance coming from the males than the females. And although
I'll always speak out (and write in) about misandry, I just can't
defend those who won't defend themselves.
Andrew Usher
> > The abolition of abortion.
>
> Wouldn't this provision, along with the assumption of Father's
> Custody, result in a lot of men becoming fathers against their
> will? Perhaps you need a C4M provision as well.
I think his point 'Also ending provisions supported by government
for child support and instead replacing it with the government "safety
net"' implies abolishing court-ordered child support, which would
practically effect the goal of C4M. Nonetheless, I definitely disagree
with including this in a manifesto - it's too controversial and
unnecessary.
Andrew Usher
Mark Borgerson
@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, k_over...@yahoo.com says...
Does custody automatically go to the father if we presume custody
to be awarded to the father? If neither parent wants to raise
the child, upon whom does the burden of raising the child fall?
If the father gets custody, and there can be no child support
from the mother, does he receive assistance from the government
safety net?
Mark Borgerson
Masculist
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:19:10 -0700 (PDT), Masculist
>
> >Isn't Viking a true man? I got a kick out of his solution.
>
> Heh. Thanks Tom. Over the years as a MRA I got frustrated when I saw
> more resistance coming from the males than the females. And although
> I'll always speak out (and write in) about misandry, I just can't
> defend those who won't defend themselves.
Shame the suckers, and if that doesn't work, then make jokes about
them being slaves! As an American Man, it's beyond absurd watching my
fellow American Men getting screwed so bad by the very people these
assholes seem to worship...women! Slavery is what they deserve
alright Viking.
Smitty
Masculist
> In article <857cd06b-dcbb-46f9-99be-f98bde598269
In my "Masculist Trinity" there are three parts of which the Manifesto
is Part I. In the other parts I argue that religion has traditionally
been a masculine domain and as such needs to be included in secular
masculist advocacy. I suggest some ways that can be done, but it's
fluid.
> > The elimination of feminist laws and programs of the past thirty
> > years.
>
> Many of the laws used to discriminate against men are already written
> in gender-neutral language. I think it is the application of the
> law in our system, rather than the letter of the law that needs
> changing.
The laws were made to address women's perceived grievances, and
judges, as well as law precedence arguments, don't apply them to men
and therefore we have this inequality. I think for them to apply to
men, men would needed to be included in civil rights legislation. I'm
taking a libertarian approach here instead by eliminating women from
civil rights legislation and getting the government out of the whole
thing. Then men can do what they need to do to assure everyone has a
fair shake. It's part of men's nature to do this with women
especially, but it's part of women's nature to try to kill men with
their extra power. The past 40 years of "mandated sexual
equality" (second wave feminism) proves my point.
>
> > The abolition of abortion.
>
> Wouldn't this provision, along with the assumption of Father's
> Custody, result in a lot of men becoming fathers against their
> will? Perhaps you need a C4M provision as well.
Nah, any good man who has had kids know's this fear of parenthood is
bogus and only serves feminists. I'm getting sick of homosexuals and
bachelors running this society at the behest their feminist masters.
It's time for family men to run it again, not only for the glory of
all men but for the best interests of women and children.
It's time for women to start paying their morality dues too and not
only on abortion issues.
Tom
Masculist
> On Apr 15, 3:10 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > The abolition of abortion.
>
> > Wouldn't this provision, along with the assumption of Father's
> > Custody, result in a lot of men becoming fathers against their
> > will? Perhaps you need a C4M provision as well.
>
> I think his point 'Also ending provisions supported by government
> for child support and instead replacing it with the government "safety
> net"' implies abolishing court-ordered child support, which would
> practically effect the goal of C4M.
Very perceptive.
> Nonetheless, I definitely disagree
> with including this in a manifesto - it's too controversial and
> unnecessary.
Come on Andrew, get real. It's the most popular anti-feminist cause
of the past 35 years and rightfully so. The whole democratic party
sold us men down the river just to keep abortion legal. Just for that
reason we should try to put every women in jail who has an abortion!
I see this issue as the only true "litmus test" for anti-feminists
<smile>. The second one would be father's custody. Let the religious
on the Right try to fight that one!
Feminism plays both the Left and Right and we need to do the same and
on the same issues! It's really a no brainer unless one secretly has
some affections for feminism.
What about feminism do we want to preserve? Now remember, we are
talking about the legal and political feminism, not the touchy feely
cultural variety of which this country was well along the path to
consummating even before the second wave feminists took over the Left.
Smitty
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > I think his point 'Also ending provisions supported by government
> > for child support and instead replacing it with the government "safety
> > net"' implies abolishing court-ordered child support, which would
> > practically effect the goal of C4M.
>
> Very perceptive.
>
This is actually the way I would prefer, as it doesn't add another
system of
paperwork; but if it is done, there must be no exceptions at all as I
stated
in the other thread.
> > Nonetheless, I definitely disagree
> > with including this in a manifesto - it's too controversial and
> > unnecessary.
>
> Come on Andrew, get real. It's the most popular anti-feminist cause
> of the past 35 years and rightfully so. The whole democratic party
> sold us men down the river just to keep abortion legal. Just for that
> reason we should try to put every women in jail who has an abortion!
>
What would that accomplish? We don't want to put people in jail. I
agree that
abortion is a feminist cause, but that doesn't mean we need to oppose
it.
Remember, our goal is to help men, not to antagonise women.
> Feminism plays both the Left and Right and we need to do the same and
> on the same issues! It's really a no brainer unless one secretly has
> some affections for feminism.
>
I don't. But I do know that we can't just get rid of women.
> What about feminism do we want to preserve? Now remember, we are
> talking about the legal and political feminism, not the touchy feely
> cultural variety of which this country was well along the path to
> consummating even before the second wave feminists took over the Left.
Nothing; but we have to have a constructive program to appeal to
anyone,
not just tearing down what the feminists have done.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> I'm not sure how that works if the mother doesn't want the child.
> Does custody automatically go to the father if we presume custody
> to be awarded to the father?
I suppose.
> If neither parent wants to raise
> the child, upon whom does the burden of raising the child fall?
This should hardly ever happen. I imagine it should be the same as
today.
> If the father gets custody, and there can be no child support
> from the mother, does he receive assistance from the government
> safety net?
Of course, single fathers should get the same support as single
mothers do.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > Support for the legal freedom to express religious sentiments and
> > > knowledge in public forums within the spirit of the Constitution.
>
> > How does this apply to Men's Rights? Isn't it a separate issue?
>
> In my "Masculist Trinity" there are three parts of which the Manifesto
> is Part I. In the other parts I argue that religion has traditionally
> been a masculine domain and as such needs to be included in secular
> masculist advocacy. I suggest some ways that can be done, but it's
> fluid.
Where might this 'Masculist Trinity' be found?
I don't think this is true. Religion has been feminised but that's a
side effect
of the feminisation of our culture, not its cause.
> The laws were made to address women's perceived grievances, and
> judges, as well as law precedence arguments, don't apply them to men
> and therefore we have this inequality. I think for them to apply to
> men, men would needed to be included in civil rights legislation. I'm
> taking a libertarian approach here instead by eliminating women from
> civil rights legislation and getting the government out of the whole
> thing.
The fundamental reason for discrimination against men is that both men
and women have accepted it as the way things are. Getting rid of the
laws
can't change that in itself.
> Then men can do what they need to do to assure everyone has a
> fair shake.
What, exactly, do you mean by this?
> > > The abolition of abortion.
>
> > Wouldn't this provision, along with the assumption of Father's
> > Custody, result in a lot of men becoming fathers against their
> > will? Perhaps you need a C4M provision as well.
>
> Nah, any good man who has had kids know's this fear of parenthood is
> bogus and only serves feminists.
Do you not agree that the ability to force men into fatherhood
benefits women?
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> On Apr 16, 9:59 am, Masculist <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think his point 'Also ending provisions supported by government
> > > for child support and instead replacing it with the government "safety
> > > net"' implies abolishing court-ordered child support, which would
> > > practically effect the goal of C4M.
>
> > Very perceptive.
>
> This is actually the way I would prefer, as it doesn't add another
> system of
> paperwork; but if it is done, there must be no exceptions at all as I
> stated
> in the other thread.
>
> > > Nonetheless, I definitely disagree
> > > with including this in a manifesto - it's too controversial and
> > > unnecessary.
>
> > Come on Andrew, get real. It's the most popular anti-feminist cause
> > of the past 35 years and rightfully so. The whole democratic party
> > sold us men down the river just to keep abortion legal. Just for that
> > reason we should try to put every women in jail who has an abortion!
>
> What would that accomplish? We don't want to put people in jail.
The feminists have no compunction about putting us in jail. After
Suffrage we got prohibition. After civil rights for women and their
take over of the Left, we got a draconian drug war. Let's not forget
them sending us off to corporate wars like Vietnam and Iraq. The
latter was the first in PEW polling history that had more women
support it than men. They also are the ones who push the war against
crime, another cause that dimantled criminal justice reform of past
years and left men in jail for longer periods. Oh, how about the
destruction of the family that is virtually killing our sons not to
mention thier fathers?
> I
> agree that
> abortion is a feminist cause, but that doesn't mean we need to oppose
> it.
> Remember, our goal is to help men, not to antagonise women.
Fuck them. They've been "antagonizing" us for over a hundred years.
But we aren't selfish, greedy and hateful of the opposite sex the way
they are. It's in our genes to protect and satisfy them. Men will
NEVER stoop as low as they have in the political sex war. It's
important however for them to understand the fire they are playing
with. Their sex protects them now from the usual consequences of
political warfare, but that can change and they should be reminded of
it.
> > Feminism plays both the Left and Right and we need to do the same and
> > on the same issues! It's really a no brainer unless one secretly has
> > some affections for feminism.
>
> I don't. But I do know that we can't just get rid of women.
No one is suggesting that we "get rid of women". Anyway, men love
women eventhough women genetically hate men.
> > What about feminism do we want to preserve? Now remember, we are
> > talking about the legal and political feminism, not the touchy feely
> > cultural variety of which this country was well along the path to
> > consummating even before the second wave feminists took over the Left.
>
> Nothing; but we have to have a constructive program to appeal to
> anyone,
> not just tearing down what the feminists have done.
I agree and we need to talk about that more. We've concentrated here
on what issues to focus on that need change and can most effectively
counter feminism. As for how to attract women to our cause, I'm
starting to think that is what religion did. God appears to be the
intermediary but we can always help.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Masculist
> On Apr 16, 9:52 am, Masculist <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Support for the legal freedom to express religious sentiments and
> > > > knowledge in public forums within the spirit of the Constitution.
>
> > > How does this apply to Men's Rights? Isn't it a separate issue?
An objective view of religion and history would bring one to the
conclusion that religion has traditionally been about "men's rights".
At least the monotheistic religions. There's plenty of evidence that
paganism of pre history and later are about solidifying "women's
rights" and that we would all be in that sorry state if God hadn't
gotten our attention. Female hegemony, political or cultural, has
been at the center of all revivals and new religions. Think Jesus and
John the Baptist.
> > In my "Masculist Trinity" there are three parts of which the Manifesto
> > is Part I. In the other parts I argue that religion has traditionally
> > been a masculine domain and as such needs to be included in secular
> > masculist advocacy. I suggest some ways that can be done, but it's
> > fluid.
>
> Where might this 'Masculist Trinity' be found?
Here...
The Masculist Trinity
http://www.geocities.com/qim/masculisttrinity.htm
> I don't think this is true. Religion has been feminised but that's a
> side effect
> of the feminisation of our culture, not its cause.
True, but when religion becomes "feminized" it becomes pagan. Most of
our Christian denominations are in fact pagan. Even the more stable
ones like the Catholic Church lean heavily toward paganism and at the
lower levels of the hierarchy might as well be pagan considering what
they are doing helping the feminists instead of resisting them.
> > The laws were made to address women's perceived grievances, and
> > judges, as well as law precedence arguments, don't apply them to men
> > and therefore we have this inequality. I think for them to apply to
> > men, men would needed to be included in civil rights legislation. I'm
> > taking a libertarian approach here instead by eliminating women from
> > civil rights legislation and getting the government out of the whole
> > thing.
>
> The fundamental reason for discrimination against men is that both men
> and women have accepted it as the way things are. Getting rid of the
> laws
> can't change that in itself.
The reason why men and women are so clueless is that the major
institutions like the academy and media are dominated by hard core
feminist ideologue's whose job is to make sure everyone is clueless.
The men with money know this and it serves their interests as well.
> > Then men can do what they need to do to assure everyone has a
> > fair shake.
>
> What, exactly, do you mean by this?
If we don't have civil rights for women and other government
intervention, then men can exert their influence in small and large
groups like women are doing now with government help. They are freed
to help other men instead of being forced by the government to help
Jane and her ethnic slaves.
> > > > The abolition of abortion.
>
> > > Wouldn't this provision, along with the assumption of Father's
> > > Custody, result in a lot of men becoming fathers against their
> > > will? Perhaps you need a C4M provision as well.
>
> > Nah, any good man who has had kids know's this fear of parenthood is
> > bogus and only serves feminists.
>
> Do you not agree that the ability to force men into fatherhood
> benefits women?
In this feminist dominated society yes.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> An objective view of religion and history would bring one to the
> conclusion that religion has traditionally been about "men's rights".
> At least the monotheistic religions. There's plenty of evidence that
> paganism of pre history and later are about solidifying "women's
> rights" and that we would all be in that sorry state if God hadn't
> gotten our attention. Female hegemony, political or cultural, has
> been at the center of all revivals and new religions. Think Jesus and
> John the Baptist.
Interesting - I've never heard of such ideas. Jesus was a feminist?
> > I don't think this is true. Religion has been feminised but that's a
> > side effect
> > of the feminisation of our culture, not its cause.
>
> True, but when religion becomes "feminized" it becomes pagan. Most of
> our Christian denominations are in fact pagan. Even the more stable
> ones like the Catholic Church lean heavily toward paganism and at the
> lower levels of the hierarchy might as well be pagan considering what
> they are doing helping the feminists instead of resisting them.
I'm aware of this problem. I don't know how to change it, though - I
wouldn't,
because I'm not religious. To me it often seems that religion is just
a distraction.
> > The fundamental reason for discrimination against men is that both men
> > and women have accepted it as the way things are. Getting rid of the
> > laws
> > can't change that in itself.
>
> The reason why men and women are so clueless is that the major
> institutions like the academy and media are dominated by hard core
> feminist ideologue's whose job is to make sure everyone is clueless.
> The men with money know this and it serves their interests as well.
Absolutely. But now that they have accomplished this it's largely
self-
perpetuating. Anyone with a contrary opinion doesn't get admitted, so
it would take (it seems to me) a very strong public reaction against
feminism to change this.
> If we don't have civil rights for women and other government
> intervention, then men can exert their influence in small and large
> groups like women are doing now with government help. They are freed
> to help other men instead of being forced by the government to help
> Jane and her ethnic slaves.
The free market does not result in fairness - that's just capitalist
bullshit, which
should be plain to see. The whole reason we're in this mess is that
men don't
see themselves (males) as an interest group.
> > > Nah, any good man who has had kids know's this fear of parenthood is
> > > bogus and only serves feminists.
>
> > Do you not agree that the ability to force men into fatherhood
> > benefits women?
>
> In this feminist dominated society yes.
Well I don't then see how you can say that a 'fear' of fatherhood
serves feminism.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > Come on Andrew, get real. It's the most popular anti-feminist cause
> > > of the past 35 years and rightfully so. The whole democratic party
> > > sold us men down the river just to keep abortion legal. Just for that
> > > reason we should try to put every women in jail who has an abortion!
>
> > What would that accomplish? We don't want to put people in jail.
>
> The feminists have no compunction about putting us in jail. After
> Suffrage we got prohibition. After civil rights for women and their
> take over of the Left, we got a draconian drug war. Let's not forget
> them sending us off to corporate wars like Vietnam and Iraq. The
> latter was the first in PEW polling history that had more women
> support it than men. They also are the ones who push the war against
> crime, another cause that dimantled criminal justice reform of past
> years and left men in jail for longer periods. Oh, how about the
> destruction of the family that is virtually killing our sons not to
> mention thier fathers?
I hate all this stuff as much as you but fail to see how criminalising
abortion solves anything. We don't have to be, and we can't be, as
bad as they are!
> > I agree that
> > abortion is a feminist cause, but that doesn't mean we need to oppose
> > it. Remember, our goal is to help men, not to antagonise women.
>
> Fuck them. They've been "antagonizing" us for over a hundred years.
> But we aren't selfish, greedy and hateful of the opposite sex the way
> they are. It's in our genes to protect and satisfy them. Men will
> NEVER stoop as low as they have in the political sex war.
You're right, and we shouldn't try.
> It's important however for them to understand the fire they are playing
> with. Their sex protects them now from the usual consequences of
> political warfare, but that can change and they should be reminded of
> it.
> No one is suggesting that we "get rid of women". Anyway, men love
> women even though women genetically hate men.
> > > What about feminism do we want to preserve? Now remember, we are
> > > talking about the legal and political feminism, not the touchy feely
> > > cultural variety of which this country was well along the path to
> > > consummating even before the second wave feminists took over the Left.
>
> > Nothing; but we have to have a constructive program to appeal to
> > anyone, not just tearing down what the feminists have done.
>
> I agree and we need to talk about that more. We've concentrated here
> on what issues to focus on that need change and can most effectively
> counter feminism. As for how to attract women to our cause, I'm
> starting to think that is what religion did. God appears to be the
> intermediary but we can always help.
Yeah, women are more religious than men, aren't they? Even in so-
called
partriarchal religions, I think, women are more devoted even as men
have
the leadership positions.
Also, we don't really _need_ to attract women to our cause, we need
only
to not directly attack them; for if we get enough men, women will
follow.
Andrew Usher
Ethan
why do we have to make it out as if we men are victims???
women always follow men when we are right.
Masculist
> On Apr 18, 12:15 pm, Masculist <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Come on Andrew, get real. It's the most popular anti-feminist cause
> > > > of the past 35 years and rightfully so. The whole democratic party
> > > > sold us men down the river just to keep abortion legal. Just for that
> > > > reason we should try to put every women in jail who has an abortion!
>
> > > What would that accomplish? We don't want to put people in jail.
>
> > The feminists have no compunction about putting us in jail. After
> > Suffrage we got prohibition. After civil rights for women and their
> > take over of the Left, we got a draconian drug war. Let's not forget
> > them sending us off to corporate wars like Vietnam and Iraq. The
> > latter was the first in PEW polling history that had more women
> > support it than men. They also are the ones who push the war against
> > crime, another cause that dimantled criminal justice reform of past
> > years and left men in jail for longer periods. Oh, how about the
> > destruction of the family that is virtually killing our sons not to
> > mention thier fathers?
>
> I hate all this stuff as much as you but fail to see how criminalising
> abortion solves anything. We don't have to be, and we can't be, as
> bad as they are!
We'd have to have sex changes to be as bad as them. Our problem is
being TOO good to them while they ream us in every imaginable way.
They were even taslking about giving us the death penalty for drugs
for crissakes and here we are ringing our hands over whether to
"criminalize" them for killing our children? Let's keep this in
perspective.
> > > I agree that
> > > abortion is a feminist cause, but that doesn't mean we need to oppose
> > > it. Remember, our goal is to help men, not to antagonise women.
>
> > Fuck them. They've been "antagonizing" us for over a hundred years.
> > But we aren't selfish, greedy and hateful of the opposite sex the way
> > they are. It's in our genes to protect and satisfy them. Men will
> > NEVER stoop as low as they have in the political sex war.
>
> You're right, and we shouldn't try.
The point is Andrew, even if we tried to be as bad as them in the sex
war we couldn't do it.
>
>
> > It's important however for them to understand the fire they are playing
> > with. Their sex protects them now from the usual consequences of
> > political warfare, but that can change and they should be reminded of
> > it.
> > No one is suggesting that we "get rid of women". Anyway, men love
> > women even though women genetically hate men.
> > > > What about feminism do we want to preserve? Now remember, we are
> > > > talking about the legal and political feminism, not the touchy feely
> > > > cultural variety of which this country was well along the path to
> > > > consummating even before the second wave feminists took over the Left.
>
> > > Nothing; but we have to have a constructive program to appeal to
> > > anyone, not just tearing down what the feminists have done.
>
> > I agree and we need to talk about that more. We've concentrated here
> > on what issues to focus on that need change and can most effectively
> > counter feminism. As for how to attract women to our cause, I'm
> > starting to think that is what religion did. God appears to be the
> > intermediary but we can always help.
>
> Yeah, women are more religious than men, aren't they?
No, they aren't more religious, they just control the religions
nowadays. I saw the feminists take over my church lock stock and
barrel in my lifetime. I was raised in the United Church of
Christ...Obama's church. The feminists encouraged my generation of
women to do just that and they did. The process started long before
us with the first wave feminists who successfully made the American
Church in their image by the time we were born. Then the second
wavers moved in during our lifetime. Now what men want to be a part
of that? Not many and that is why not many are in church, but that
doesn't mean they aren't religious. Remember the Hippies? That was
actually a fundementalist movement and the feminists knew it and went
after the hippies first in 1970. They attacked us as "sexists" and
then coopted the whole thing in the Seventies to serve them. Ergo the
gentle hippie.
> Even in so-
> called
> partriarchal religions, I think, women are more devoted even as men
> have
> the leadership positions.
I think you'll find that's not true, but I have no way to prove it.
> Also, we don't really _need_ to attract women to our cause, we need
> only
> to not directly attack them; for if we get enough men, women will
> follow.
I've said the latter frequently too, that is women WILL follow, but as
for attacking women, they do need alittle taste of reality in all this
and some attacking is appropriate.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Masculist
The truth is Ethan we are victims. Sorry, but your old lady has been
beating on you and the rest of us <smile>
> women always follow men when we are right.
Exactly and it's an important point.
Tom
Masculist
> On Apr 18, 12:43 pm, Masculist <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > An objective view of religion and history would bring one to the
> > conclusion that religion has traditionally been about "men's rights".
> > At least the monotheistic religions. There's plenty of evidence that
> > paganism of pre history and later are about solidifying "women's
> > rights" and that we would all be in that sorry state if God hadn't
> > gotten our attention. Female hegemony, political or cultural, has
> > been at the center of all revivals and new religions. Think Jesus and
> > John the Baptist.
>
> Interesting - I've never heard of such ideas. Jesus was a feminist?
Heck no. I'm saying that his time was similar to ours and that he was
in effect an anti-feminist. John the Baptist was killed at Salome's
request to her rich sugar daddy Herod. That incident launched Jesus'
ministry. What he taught was contrary to the feminine aspects of
Judaism, ie the dietary laws and alcohol temperance.
> > > I don't think this is true. Religion has been feminised but that's a
> > > side effect
> > > of the feminisation of our culture, not its cause.
>
> > True, but when religion becomes "feminized" it becomes pagan. Most of
> > our Christian denominations are in fact pagan. Even the more stable
> > ones like the Catholic Church lean heavily toward paganism and at the
> > lower levels of the hierarchy might as well be pagan considering what
> > they are doing helping the feminists instead of resisting them.
>
> I'm aware of this problem. I don't know how to change it, though - I
> wouldn't,
> because I'm not religious. To me it often seems that religion is just
> a distraction.
Well to me Atheism is a distraction. To each his own but what is
important to us anti-feminists is to cripple feminism and form he
coalitions that will.
> > > The fundamental reason for discrimination against men is that both men
> > > and women have accepted it as the way things are. Getting rid of the
> > > laws
> > > can't change that in itself.
>
> > The reason why men and women are so clueless is that the major
> > institutions like the academy and media are dominated by hard core
> > feminist ideologue's whose job is to make sure everyone is clueless.
> > The men with money know this and it serves their interests as well.
>
> Absolutely. But now that they have accomplished this it's largely
> self-
> perpetuating. Anyone with a contrary opinion doesn't get admitted, so
> it would take (it seems to me) a very strong public reaction against
> feminism to change this.
Very perceptive Andrew. Can you imagine how men would respond if they
knew the truth about feminism and it's power?
> > If we don't have civil rights for women and other government
> > intervention, then men can exert their influence in small and large
> > groups like women are doing now with government help. They are freed
> > to help other men instead of being forced by the government to help
> > Jane and her ethnic slaves.
>
> The free market does not result in fairness - that's just capitalist
> bullshit, which
> should be plain to see. The whole reason we're in this mess is that
> men don't
> see themselves (males) as an interest group.
Exactly. The elite, which now is mostly women, is ruling over us
without us having any advocacy or representation. Half the population
doesn't have a say and is essentially a slave to the rest of the
population. And the funny part of if is that that half of the
population seems to have a gene that causes them to either not see it
or think it's OK!
> > > > Nah, any good man who has had kids know's this fear of parenthood is
> > > > bogus and only serves feminists.
>
> > > Do you not agree that the ability to force men into fatherhood
> > > benefits women?
>
> > In this feminist dominated society yes.
>
> Well I don't then see how you can say that a 'fear' of fatherhood
> serves feminism.
That's the trouble with you atheists, you have no appreciation for the
power of the Father.
Tom
> Andrew Usher