Politically Incorrect Antifeminist Artwork
Andre' Marcel Emil Nel
around the mouth.
But otherwise I think it is an accurate depiction of the extremely angry
extremely radical feminist that I've known and held in contempt... The ones
that make men accountable and women not... The ones that want to eliminate
gender bias by practicing it... I guess there's nothing wrong with gender
bias in theory -- in their opinion-- it is just in the application in which
it goes wrong??!! Right practice. It is just used on the wrong group!
Hope this thing helps men mark safe areas where they can't be blamed for
some females unhappiness and be attacked for not listening (allows the women
to slap, slug or throw something without penalty of the law in most states)
or not considering her feelings...(allows the women to heap on verbal and
emotional abuse without penalty... she helps you consider her feelings by
hurting yours!).
http://nosnarlingbitches.home.comcast.net
Skippy J. Eviltwin
Better yet, forget about the snarling bitches and enjoy some *nice*
politically incorrect anti-feminist artwork:
http://www.artcollection2.hpg.ig.com.br/jjbinks/gilelvgren1.htm
Skippy
Fido
news:PFoeb.365$%h1.380@sccrnsc02:
> Well I think this artwork hits the mark except for a few things like
> foam around the mouth.
While I have been actively involved in men's issues and gender issues for
several years, this "artwork" is precisely the reason I tend to steer
clear of so many of the men who talk loudly about these issues...
That poster is not only unfunny, it is also aesthetically unpleasing, and
would obviously only be displayed by someone who had shit for brains. I
doubt if the person who came up with that idea was capable of even
dressing themselves, never mind being able to be an intelligent advocate
for a complicated political issue.
Kindest Reagrds - Fido
ba...@psyber.com
: That poster is not only unfunny, it is also aesthetically unpleasing, and
: would obviously only be displayed by someone who had shit for brains. I
: doubt if the person who came up with that idea was capable of even
: dressing themselves, never mind being able to be an intelligent advocate
: for a complicated political issue.
I take it you didn't like it.
"If you don't like the message, attack the messenger".
Ad hominem attack: "attacking the person's character instead of the content
of their argument. Not necessarily just name-calling, this
argument suggests something defective about the source. For example:
"Jimmy is stupid, so his argument is invalid."
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~stellas/ArgumentFallacies.html
b.
Andre Lieven
> "Andre' Marcel Emil Nel" <ame...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:PFoeb.365$%h1.380@sccrnsc02:
>
>> Well I think this artwork hits the mark except for a few things like
>> foam around the mouth.
>
> While I have been actively involved in men's issues and gender issues for
> several years, this "artwork" is precisely the reason I tend to steer
> clear of so many of the men who talk loudly about these issues...
Unfortunately, in the climate of societal misandry that exists, any
group working for equal rights and responsibilities for both men and
women will get a share of kooks.
No group is often exempt from such, so to judge the most by the few,
would be to make an error.
> That poster is not only unfunny, it is also aesthetically unpleasing, and
> would obviously only be displayed by someone who had shit for brains. I
> doubt if the person who came up with that idea was capable of even
> dressing themselves, never mind being able to be an intelligent advocate
> for a complicated political issue.
I just skip by such obvious loon posts.
The point, though, remains, that the misandry that is common is
accepted, wheras the relative few occurences of this sort of
loon are the ones many focus on, to try to deny the wider
point.
Neither is acceptable, but, to most of society, one is, and
its not this sort.
> Kindest Reagrds - Fido
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Strontium
-
Rambler stood up at show-n-tell, in blg4f3$jk...@imsp212.netvigator.com, and
said:
> "Fido" <tomch...@gwi.net> wrote in message
> news:P6icnfk_kbi...@gwi.net
>> <ba...@psyber.com> wrote in news:m3Heb.164$7H5...@news.randori.com:
>>
>
> <snip stuff>
>
> Fido, I notice all of your posts on 'men's issues.'
>
> Do you have pointers for resources on child custody and alienation and
> things such as that vis-a-vis father's time with kids? Could I
> trouble you to post or mail them to me?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rambler
--
Strontium
"If you get tired, of satellite fliers. And, fame, has let you down.
Under the wire. And, over the Moon, I'm around... When you gonna grow
up?" - Angie Aparo
Rambler
news:CoWdnby3LI-...@giganews.com
> He would just bore you with male natzi shit
Is that related to 'nazi' sh*t?
I am looking for resources, resources that say that kids *need* both
parents, that courts do take access seriously, that a parent who is deemed
to be blocking access is abusing or harming the child because the child
needs that access, that connection. Scientific studies, psychological
studies, court cases, etc. etc. etc.
My belief (sorry if this is a genderalization) is that the norm is that kids
go with Mom's, and that the questions that are asked for change of custody
from Dad to Mom is different than from Mom to Dad. I guess what I am trying
to counterbalance is the belief that I will be asked to prove why it is
*not* okay for the mother to not provide access. After all, it is only two
or three or four days a week that she does it, so what is the harm in that.
I guess to a certain extent I am preparing for this thing to be my last
gasp - perhaps not true, but I know (or feel) that since I have elevated the
stakes because of what was going on, that if the judge does not come out at
a minimum with a strong condemnation of the ex's attitude and approach, then
she (and her mother) will use that to bolster their actions to deny contact.
Couple things that I just don't get. Recently (since filing) I have
actually had the ex initiate the telephone call twice - once when she was
over at her mother's taking care of her mother's cat (with the kids - ex-MIL
was not there) and once (today in fact) where the kids called early, most
probably because the eldest had a friend over and wanted to go do something
so there was a "call Dad first" thing. Where in the h*ll was this for the
past 12 months, why is it that only legal action engenders this in her, and
why is it that this behaviour cannot occur when she is not at home (and by
she I mean the kids, because I could care less where she is). She
disappears with the kids every Sunday - and usually, I am told after the
fact (I have stopped asking, because I do not want to put the kids on the
spot - "where were you?"), she/they are at her Mom's. Why can't this type
of behaviour occur when the kids are there? The relatively few times I have
gotten calls when ex-MIL is around (they at her's or she at their's), the
kids are markedly quieter and much more antagonistic towards me. Go figure.
End of rant (or at least this one).
Rambler
Bufferoverflow1
Moms who block access are child abusers and don't realize the full extent of
the harm they are doing to their children.
Fido
news:blg4f3$jk...@imsp212.netvigator.com:
> "Fido" <tomch...@gwi.net> wrote in message
> news:P6icnfk_kbi...@gwi.net
>> <ba...@psyber.com> wrote in news:m3Heb.164$7H5...@news.randori.com:
>>
>
> <snip stuff>
>
> Fido, I notice all of your posts on 'men's issues.'
>
> Do you have pointers for resources on child custody and alienation and
> things such as that vis-a-vis father's time with kids? Could I trouble
> you to post or mail them to me?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rambler
For starters, go to the Children's Rights Council web site (gocrc.org) for
a wealth of support and information for co-parenting. Send them $50 and
become a member if you want.
Also read Judith Wallerstein's "controversal" book about children and
divorce: *The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce* Wallerstein has studied
divorce and tracked children of divorce extensively for over 25 years.
In *The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce* Wallerstein comes to the conclusion
that it is beneficial that children have continuing contact with both
thier parents even in situautions of mild and moderate conflict. While
that would seem to be only common sense to almost everyone on the planet,
it has been considered a "controversal" position by the divorce indusytry,
which has vigorously promoted the concept of primary custody, and
resulting absolute control by the primary parent.
Best - Fido
Mr. F. Le Mur
<iamrambler...@yahooREMOVESPAM.com> wrote:
->I am looking for resources, resources that say that kids *need* both
->parents, that courts do take access seriously, that a parent who is deemed
->to be blocking access is abusing or harming the child because the child
->needs that access, that connection. Scientific studies, psychological
->studies, court cases, etc. etc. etc.
They're out there - try a google search. Whether or not they'll do
you any good is another matter. FYI, some people say it's a good
idea to document the case on a day-by-day basis; witnesses are good,
too. If the mom likes to start 'scenes,' get a police escort.
But it amounts to this: what you decribed is pretty common, and
"They" really don't want to mess with it.
ba...@psyber.com
:>
:> Ad hominem attack: "attacking the person's character instead of the
:> content of their argument. Not necessarily just name-calling, this
:> argument suggests something defective about the source. For example:
:> "Jimmy is stupid, so his argument is invalid."
:>
:> http://www.english.upenn.edu/~stellas/ArgumentFallacies.html
: You idiot.
: Best - Fido
See. There ya go again. Attacking the messenger vs. providing an
objective critique of the message.
b.