False feminist logic !!
caesarjbsquitti
The feminist ideology, appears to contain many flaws.
Here is one.
"Most victims of violence in family are women, then we legitimize
programs that stop violence against women - (ignoring men, and
children)."
Well the issue is abuse, not violence. Then again most victims of
violence in society in general are men.
Now compare this to the current drive by lesbian feminists, who have
aquired alot of power through the family violence programs, the drive
of lesbian feminists to suggest (falsely) that all people must be
equals, treated equally, and that two lesbians are the same as a
husband and wife.
Well logically, most all children are created in heterosexual unions.
In fact ALL children are created in heterosexual unions.
So how can we on the one hand justify, a corrupt social program of
stopping violence in society because as they (falsely)claim most women
are victims and on the other hand justify any suggestions that two
lesbians or two homosexuals are the same as a husband and wife, when
not 1 child has been conceived in their relationships.
Seems like the schools of philosophy in this country have been asleep
at the wheel, or have been taken over by this cult-feminist logic...
Caesar J. B. Squitti
THE JESUS CHRIST CODE ! ©
http://www.jesuschristcode.com
Jude
"caesarjbsquitti" <ord...@squittis.com> wrote in message
news:1117339669.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Inconsistant feminist logic !
Here is one.
Caesar J. B. Squitti
THE JESUS CHRIST CODE ! Š
http://www.jesuschristcode.com
Want some cheeze with that whine? Pathetic man whinning about women
receiving attention or consideration for being victims of men's abuse
ESPECIALLY in domestic affairs! If you didn't notice, Caesar, even though
you're right that more men are victims of violence OVERALL because men are
more violent than women in GENERAL, at least one man has a chance to defend
himself against another man vs. a man and a woman! Women are just not,
generally, as violent.
PLUS, I've done a little research on domestic violence. Even though women
are tending to be more "violent" in the homeplace, their "violence" almost
always boils down slapping AT and UP at a bigger man, scratching, etc. The
absolute SAME charge of domestic violence has been leveled toward women for
slapping her husband/live-in boyfriend as when he has puts her in the
hospital with multiple broken bones. There is NO distinction between the
severity of the offense in domestic violence, AND the skewed numbers in
statistics don't take this absurdity into account!
Be a man and quit whinning about women.
Oh, also noted is your characteration of women feminists as lesbians. Geez,
can ANYBODY come up with a NEW way to demonize feminists? It's ALWAYS the
same BORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRING "man-hating, lesbian" angle!!!
Jani
"caesarjbsquitti" <ord...@squittis.com> wrote in message
news:1117339669.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>The feminist ideology, appears to contain many flaws.
>Here is one.
>"Most victims of violence in family are women, then we >legitimize
>programs that stop violence against women - (ignoring men, >and
>children)."
Are you quoting from something here? If so, what?
>Well the issue is abuse, not violence. Then again most victims >of
>violence in society in general are men.
What's your distinction between "abuse" and "violence"? The two often
overlap. And yes, as far as I know the group most at risk *overall* from
violent attack is men aged 18 - 25, but the groups most at risk from
*domestic* violence are women, of all ages, and children.
>Now compare this to the current drive by lesbian feminists, >who have
>aquired alot of power through the family violence programs,
In the first place, "lesbian" and "feminist" are not synonymous. In the
second, if these "lesbian feminists" have gained so much power, how is it
that abuse by men against women still occurs in domestic environments?
>the drive
>of lesbian feminists to suggest (falsely) that all people must be
>equals, treated equally, and that two lesbians are the same as a
>husband and wife.
Feminism certainly argues that individuals are entitled to equal
opportunities and treatment, regardless of gender. It doesn't, however, say
that individuals are the *same* as one another, since clearly they're not.
"Husband and wife" indicates a heterosexual marriage, whereas a lesbian
couple would be in a same-sex marriage. The similarity lies in the equal
civil rights, not in the biology of the individuals concerned.
>Well logically, most all children are created in heterosexual >unions.
>In fact ALL children are created in heterosexual unions.
Biologically, that's certainly true.
>So how can we on the one hand justify, a corrupt social >program of
>stopping violence in society because as they (falsely)claim >most women
>are victims
No-one is saying "most women are victims". Most *victims of domestic abuse
are women and children*, which is a quite different assertion.
>and on the other hand justify any suggestions that two
>lesbians or two homosexuals are the same as a husband and >wife, when
>not 1 child has been conceived in their relationships.
What of the heterosexual husband and wife who are infertile, either by
choice or otherwise?
>Seems like the schools of philosophy in this country have been >asleep
>at the wheel, or have been taken over by this cult-feminist >logic...
Seems like you have very little understanding of what you're talking about
...
Jani
Jani
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote in message
news:fnlme.29044$8S5...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:4299c81c$0$315$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> This guy has been around for ages. He doesn't change his tune and most
> likely won't ever.
Fine, if he wants to believe nonsense, that's his prerogative. I'm just
pointing out that if you want to talk about "ideology", "feminism", "social
programs", "domestic abuse", etc, then it helps if you understand the
terminology.
You just hope that they would just stop whinning. Geez,
> it gets on my nerves to hear men whine about women getting more attention
> about being abused when they get abused also. I don't think I've ever
> heard
> a woman say that men don't get abused. It's a matter of numbers and
> severity.
As several of us were saying in the rape thread, it's primarily a matter of
control. Young men tend to be high-risk for overall violence, because
they're usually the ones at the bottom of several pecking orders in
power/control dynamics. They get beaten by an abusive parent, get out of the
house to escape it, and gravitate towards some variant of a gang culture
which has much the same hierarchy. Ever watched lads outside the pub on a
Friday night? the amazing thing is that most of them *don't* end up spitting
blood and teeth on the pavement. Not to mention that much the same power
issues which lead to women being raped just for "being there" also lead to
lads being beaten up (and, indeed, sometimes raped as well) simply for
walking down the street.
Jani
caesarjbsquitti
> THE JESUS CHRIST CODE ! ©
> http://www.jesuschristcode.com
>
> Want some cheeze with that whine? Pathetic man whinning about women
> receiving attention or consideration for being victims of men's abuse
Alot of women are victims of other women...!
You have failed to understand the damage of this half-truth to both men
and women...while some 'cult-feminists' seem happy about this...
> ESPECIALLY in domestic affairs! If you didn't notice, Caesar, even though
> you're right that more men are victims of violence OVERALL because men are
> more violent than women in GENERAL, at least one man has a chance to defend
> himself against another man vs. a man and a woman! Women are just not,
> generally, as violent.
The real issue is abuse, and it is a community issue...cult-feminists
have manipulated logic to polarize the issue, making it a male verses
female issue...it is not !
Mothers abused by daughters ?
>
> PLUS, I've done a little research on domestic violence. Even though women
> are tending to be more "violent" in the homeplace, their "violence" almost
> always boils down slapping AT and UP at a bigger man, scratching, etc. The
> absolute SAME charge of domestic violence has been leveled toward women for
> slapping her husband/live-in boyfriend as when he has puts her in the
> hospital with multiple broken bones. There is NO distinction between the
> severity of the offense in domestic violence, AND the skewed numbers in
> statistics don't take this absurdity into account!
>
> Be a man and quit whinning about women.
>
> Oh, also noted is your characteration of women feminists as lesbians. Geez,
> can ANYBODY come up with a NEW way to demonize feminists? It's ALWAYS the
> same BORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRING "man-hating, lesbian" angle!!!
Problem is that some, some lesbian feminists have hijacked women's
services for their own purpose...
Quit looking at this problem as a male verses female issue, but at a
community issue where some people are profiting from the breakup of
families....remember nothing is perfect...and we have creatd a
parasitic system of male veses female...
It is tragic that at the same time, some lesbians want to be 'equal' to
married couples...and some state that you see the breakdown of the
traditional family...they are not good for women...(problem is that
they are part of the problem...like a cancer....)
Start thinking more critically, and not in the cult-femnist philosophy
of black and white thinking....you appear to reflect that...
Jude
> THE JESUS CHRIST CODE ! Š
> http://www.jesuschristcode.com
>
> Want some cheeze with that whine? Pathetic man whinning about women
> receiving attention or consideration for being victims of men's abuse
Alot of women are victims of other women...!
You have failed to understand the damage of this half-truth to both men
and women...while some 'cult-feminists' seem happy about this...
Tell me what I have failed to understand.
> ESPECIALLY in domestic affairs! If you didn't notice, Caesar, even though
> you're right that more men are victims of violence OVERALL because men are
> more violent than women in GENERAL, at least one man has a chance to
defend
> himself against another man vs. a man and a woman! Women are just not,
> generally, as violent.
The real issue is abuse, and it is a community issue...cult-feminists
have manipulated logic to polarize the issue, making it a male verses
female issue...it is not !
I agree in so far that abuse is abuse, no matter who commits it.
Mothers abused by daughters ?
>
> PLUS, I've done a little research on domestic violence. Even though women
> are tending to be more "violent" in the homeplace, their "violence" almost
> always boils down slapping AT and UP at a bigger man, scratching, etc.
The
> absolute SAME charge of domestic violence has been leveled toward women
for
> slapping her husband/live-in boyfriend as when he has puts her in the
> hospital with multiple broken bones. There is NO distinction between the
> severity of the offense in domestic violence, AND the skewed numbers in
> statistics don't take this absurdity into account!
>
> Be a man and quit whinning about women.
>
> Oh, also noted is your characteration of women feminists as lesbians.
Geez,
> can ANYBODY come up with a NEW way to demonize feminists? It's ALWAYS the
> same BORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRING "man-hating, lesbian" angle!!!
Problem is that some, some lesbian feminists have hijacked women's
services for their own purpose...
AND, strickly because of numbers, within the content I'm sure there are more
hetero women doing the hijacking, or else you'd have others believe that 1/2
of the gay population has taken over feminism!
Quit looking at this problem as a male verses female issue, but at a
community issue where some people are profiting from the breakup of
families....remember nothing is perfect...and we have creatd a
parasitic system of male veses female...
I DON'T look at the problem exactly like male vs. female. Okay, I'll agree
it's an community issue for sure. Believe me I KNOW no man or woman is
perfect including myself.
That parasitic system you speak of, I think I'm aware to what you're
alluding to and I agree here again that marriage should NOT be a system by
which men and women use one another
It is tragic that at the same time, some lesbians want to be 'equal' to
married couples...and some state that you see the breakdown of the
traditional family...they are not good for women...(problem is that
they are part of the problem...like a cancer....)
Caesar, gay people can hurt our marriages... only men and women can hurt the
"tradition" family. Just fyi, I have a gay younger sister and we're close.
She isn't negative toward men although she is free to recognize and speak
about abuse no matter who the abuser is and that abuser is sometimes men.
Would you have her NEVER speak out against abuse. Let's say I was abusing
my wife and she spoke out. Would a lot of men misinterpret her anger and
angst as man-hating?
Start thinking more critically, and not in the cult-femnist philosophy
of black and white thinking....you appear to reflect that...
Well, Caesar, I'm pretty much a free thinker as one COULD be in this life.
Historically speaking, men have abused each other and women more than vice
versa. I'm not sure what the problem is with the abusers, how much of it is
natural leanings toward assertiveness that has gone awry or how much of it
is the background of these individual men.
I also know that some extreme feminists say all men are evil but, believe
me, I have heard in the privacy of many situations men saying the same thing
about women. The good guys and gals need to NOT identify with the bad ones
in the bunch. When women talk about men abusing women, I don't fit myself
in that category and therefore don't feel the necessity to defend men in
general.
Okay, before I go. SURE, I, as well as most others, KNOW that there are
women abusers. Hell's bells. I had one of them for a girlfriend once! lol
I'm married to a bleeding heart now, who cries at the thought of somebody
getting hurt on the opposite side of the globe!
Last thing... :) Don't get hung up on it. Have a life. I've noticed in
the years I've been around the ngs, you've stuck on this subject quite a
bit. Don't feel you personally have to defend the whole of mankind if a
woman talks about being abused so much so you have to jump in and say women
are abusers to. It will look like you're minimizing some woman's pain and
that can't be good.
Jude
Affirmative, I've witnessed much of that during highschool and mostly in
college. It turned me off. Constant head games and competition. I
eventually quit hanging around large groups mainly becuase of how people
started acting in them. I prefer people in small groups where it seems to
me that they maintain a bit more of their sanity.
caesarjbsquitti
Violence is not the focus, abuse is...
Some violence is abuse, some is self defense...
Some violence is a reaction to provocation...
Some violence is a reaction to what Dr. Bernes called the 'rapo'
game...
Simply put, you press the buttons of the other until you get the
response that 'you' wanted, and you win the game...
It is obvious that all this sexist, bigoted, biased terminology
suggests that cult-feminists were able to corrupt the field of
study....
Caesar J. B. Squitti
Jani
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote in message
Welcome to geekdom :-)
Or neopaganism :-)
Jani
Jani
Which terminology are you saying is "corrupted"? Violence, family, abuse,
defence, reaction?
Do you actually *think* about anything you post, or do you just squawk and
hit the keyboard?
Jani
Jude
The ONLY thing that is constant is that these men are ALWAYS blaming the
feminists for EVERYTHING that is a problem between the genders today. If
there is a wound and a person calls out the fact that there is wound, what
is the problem? The wound itself or the people who make people look at the
wound? There is NOTHING that is "man's" fault or "woman's" fault to these
newest critics of women's rights. It's ALL (usually female) LESBO
feminists who have lied to women to MAKE them believe that they lot in life
had negative qualities to it.
The picture is: Men and women were in equal partnership creating bliss and
blessedness each and every day. THEN, along came these these raging dyke
women rights feminists (who hated men terrible) and created the biggest lie
ever told to womankind! They convinced all these blessed and blissful women
that they were unhappy with their lot, that they were dependents from their
birth to their death, that they HAD to put up with whatever men told them to
put up with, that they had no say in taking birth control pills and were
slaves to their womb's capacity to bear children in the dozens, etc. etc..
Some women then started wearing buttons that said "A woman needs a man like
a fish needs a bicycle" and burning their bras! This did NOT make the
patriarch happy to say the least. Yet, the women persisted, spurred on by
these man-hating lessies behind the scenes! They started to want to be
independent of men as they had been historically. They wanted to be
financially independent and have a say in their OWN future, be it in
marriage or not! WOW, it's NEVER been the same since. Such pliable and
easily molded women are a thing of the past and some men just can't stand
it. The rest of us see the advantage it is to have an more equal partner,
in mind, spirit and attitude!
Eric Fisher
at least one man has a chance to defend himself against another man vs.
a man and a woman!
<><><><<>
above are 2 of the most old-timey sexist comments i have seen.
are you suggesting that women are defenseless, helpless little fixtures
in the mans home?
are you suggesting that society should ignore violence by women?
you do you have a problem with accusing others of "whining".
are you one of those wanna-be "macho" old men who think "real men"
should ignore their feelings and the things they are compassionate
about?
hmm....
sensitivity training?
Mark T
> The picture is: Men and women were in equal partnership creating bliss
> and
> blessedness each and every day. THEN, along came these these raging dyke
> women rights feminists (who hated men terrible) and created the biggest
> lie
> ever told to womankind!
I am a (male) feminist who also is a member of the Men's movement.
Both are valid.
The differentiation is based on the wounding of both. Those who are
denigrated on the basis of gender or sexuality (male and female) are usually
the victims of males (sad but true). Testosterone is not a substiturte for
brains.
There are many good feminist books available (my wife has most of them).
Start with Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex".
Females should look at the other side through the work of Warren Farrell.
Start with "The Myth of Male Power".
Mark T
> are you suggesting that women are defenseless, helpless little fixtures
> in the mans home?
> are you suggesting that society should ignore violence by women?
... like one of my fellow men's movement mates whose wife drove a car
throughh the living room wall trying to kill him. PMS as a defense.
The gentle submissive female is a myth like "gentle Jesus meek and mild" ...
who overturned the mony changer's tables ... and had a whip!
Read the work of that strange Christian lady Dorothy L Sayers (who had a
baby out of wedlock which was put in an orphange)??? Visit
http://www.sayers.org.uk/.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dorothy Leigh Sayers was born at Oxford on 13th June 1893, the only child of
the Rev. Henry Sayers, of Anglo-Irish descent. Her father was at the time
headmaster of Christ Church Cathedral School, and she was born in the
headmaster's house. She was brought up at Bluntisham Rectory,
Cambridgeshire, and went to the Godolphin School, Salisbury, where she won a
scholarship to Somerville College, Oxford. In 1915 she graduated with first
class honours in modern languages. Disliking the routine and seclusion of
academic life she joined Blackwell's, the Oxford publishers, worked with her
Oxford friend Eric Whelpton at L'École des Roches in Normandy, and from 1922
until 1931 served as copywriter at the London advertising firm of Bensons.
In 1923 she published her first novel, Whose Body, which introduced Lord
Peter Wimsey, her hero for fourteen volumes of novels and short stories. She
also wrote four other novels in collaboration and two serial stories for
broadcasting. Writing full time she rose to be the doyen of crime writers
and in due course president of the Detection Club. Her work, carefully
researched and widely varied, included poetry, the editing of collections
with her erudite introductions on the genre, and the translating of the
Tristan of Thomas from mediaeval French. She admired E C Bentley and G K
Chesterton and numbered among her friends T S Eliot, Charles Williams and C
S Lewis.
She married Arthur Fleming in 1926. In 1928 her father died at Christchurch
in the Fens, his last parish, and she bought a cottage at Witham, Essex, to
accommodate her mother. On the latter's death a year later she moved in
herself and bought the house next door, No 22 Newland Street, to throw the
two houses into one. There she worked until her death in 1957.
Gaudy Night was to be the culmination of the Wimsey saga, but her friend
Muriel St Clare Byrne persuaded her to collaborate in putting Lord Peter on
the stage in Busman's Honeymoon. The play was successfully launched in
December 1936, and she gave up crime writing except for the book of the play
and three short stories. With her new financial security she turned
thankfully to the work for which she had been trained.
The stage fascinated her. She had already been asked to write a play, The
Zeal of Thy House, for the Canturbury Festival. She followed this with six
more, up to the Colchester Festival play, The Emperor Constantine in 1951.
The most momentous was The Man Born to be King, written for broadcasting in
children's hour at the request of the BBC. Her presentation of Christ's
voice speaking modern English raised a storm of protest and revolutionised
religious play-writing. Opposition stimulated her. She would never
compromise where her art was concerned.
Her theology was traditionally Anglican with emphasis on doctrine. Every
available moment of her time was spent writing, to the small hours of the
morning. Letters, articles and essays streamed from her pen. The war led her
to write Begin Here, followed by The Mind of the Maker, in which she
compares the human with the Divine creator. She explored by-ways of
knowledge, delighted in puzzles and enjoyed many a fight which she conducted
with wit and good humour. Her formidable presence, magnificent brain and
logical presentation put her in great demand as a lecturer. She worked with
the Rev. Patrick McLaughlin at the St Anne's centre for Christian discourse
and became in 1952 churchwarden of her London parish, St Thomas-cum-St
Annes.
She found her culminating role after the war. Dante's writings had long
intrigued her. Now she taught herself old Italian and made a translation in
terza rima of The Divine Comedy unmatched for its popularity and the clarity
of its notes. She also found time to finish her translation of the Song of
Roland from the old French. But she unexpectedly died from heart failure on
17 December 1957 while engaged on Dante's third volume, Paradiso, and her
friend Dr Barbara Reynolds completed her work. To the end she drove herself
hard, living the philosophy she expressed in these words:
"The only Christian work is good work, well done"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jude
"Mark T" <wh@tfunwithfundies0001> wrote in message
news:429b...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
I'm perfectly aware that men can be emotionally wounded. However, we're NOT
talking about that. We're talking about the issue of abuse. Not all
emotionally wounded people abuse.
I'm also a male feminist. So, what's your point?
caesarjbsquitti
the trap of labelling people, ourselves included as 'feminists',
without describing what type of feminist you are...moral ?,
conservative ?, immoral ?, liberal ?, ....
It is like being political...what specifically are your values....
Feminism was able to unite people of polar opposite values under the
false 'umbrella' of women's rights....
By the way, it is tragic to see how cult-feminists have exploited the
violence statistics to isolate men, and then moved on to describe the
many other forms of abuse...that include financial, etc.etc.etc..
Society has failed to see the cancerous cells within this body...and
the result is what we have ....a form of chaos replicating
itself....pity !!
Caesar J. B. Squitti
Jani
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote in message
aaaaaaaand breathe :)
Jani
Jani
> As author of several sub categories of feminism, let us not fall into
> the trap of labelling people, ourselves included as 'feminists',
> without describing what type of feminist you are...moral ?,
> conservative ?, immoral ?, liberal ?, ....
Feminism (or, probably, post-feminism is more appropriate) says that
individuals should be treated as individuals, regardless of gender.
>
> It is like being political...what specifically are your values....
>
> Feminism was able to unite people of polar opposite values under the
> false 'umbrella' of women's rights....
Why would it be false, in an era when women clearly did not have equal
rights?
>
> By the way, it is tragic to see how cult-feminists have exploited the
> violence statistics to isolate men, and then moved on to describe the
> many other forms of abuse...that include financial, etc.etc.etc..
I don't know what you mean by "cult feminists". Post-feminism acknowledges
multiple masculinities, not all of which (obviously) are oppressive or
abusive.
>
> Society has failed to see the cancerous cells within this body...and
> the result is what we have ....a form of chaos replicating
> itself....pity !!
Sorry, you seem to be off on one there. What do you mean?
Jani
Jude
>
> "caesarjbsquitti" <ord...@squittis.com> wrote in message
> news:1117507076....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > As author of several sub categories of feminism, let us not fall into
> > the trap of labelling people, ourselves included as 'feminists',
> > without describing what type of feminist you are...moral ?,
> > conservative ?, immoral ?, liberal ?, ....
>
> Feminism (or, probably, post-feminism is more appropriate) says that
> individuals should be treated as individuals, regardless of gender.
Only to a particular extend where that kind of balance CAN be applied.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to all things relatiave to men and women!
> > It is like being political...what specifically are your values....
> >
> > Feminism was able to unite people of polar opposite values under the
> > false 'umbrella' of women's rights....
So what? That is true about a LOT of "rights" organization. Do you think
ALL black people have everything in common?
> Why would it be false, in an era when women clearly did not have equal
> rights?
> >
> > By the way, it is tragic to see how cult-feminists have exploited the
> > violence statistics to isolate men, and then moved on to describe the
> > many other forms of abuse...that include financial, etc.etc.etc..
HOW can anybody isolate men? What do you mean by isolating us? It IS a
historic fact that men have commited more violence than women. NOBODY knows
ALL of the story behind this fact.
I'm a white man. Does it hurt me to admit there are white racists? No, it
doesn't. Does it hurt me to admit there are, by extreme numbers, more
violent men than women? No, because I'm not GUILITY!!!
> I don't know what you mean by "cult feminists". Post-feminism acknowledges
> multiple masculinities, not all of which (obviously) are oppressive or
> abusive.
Only fringe militant feminists have ever said that "all men" are oppressive
or abusive! This is a sore point with me with the men's movement. YOU
make sweeping indictments against ALL feminists by calling them
"cult-feminists" and have leveled ALL manner of ill against them YET you
condemn when it's done to you by militant feminists!!!
I see you and your elk in JUST as negative light as the fringe militant
feminists!!!
> > Society has failed to see the cancerous cells within this body...and
> > the result is what we have ....a form of chaos replicating
> > itself....pity !!
>
> Sorry, you seem to be off on one there. What do you mean?
>
> Jani
Phhhhhhhh, feminism is the cancer most probably and the body society. You
see, ALL social ills find their way back to feminists!
Jude
hehehehe... I'm breathing.... breathing.... lol
Ya know, I went to the men's groups to see what issues were being discussed
there. I never was around so many woman haters and whinners in my LIFE!
EVERYTHING was some woman's fault but ESPECIALLY feminist's fault.
EVERYTHING negative that existed between ANY man and ANY woman could be
traced (according to these guys) back to feminism!!! A few tried to stick
to the issues but most were there to bash women but only pretending they
were there to confront feminists. After awhile I had had enough. NO woman
on the groups were listened to and if any woman spoke of any painful
experience, it was brought into question as to it's honesty or minimized
whereas the whinning men would take women's and other men's greetings and
consolation. The whole experience left me feeling like I needed a shower!!!
lol
Feather Forestwalker
hehe, Jude,
I've been to a men's group like that once. It was an anger management
group and it seemed to me that every male in the room wanted to minimize
the abuse I received at the hands of my youngest son's father. . .and
the group leaders, a man and a woman, went along with it. I attended
four more times after that. . .and discovered that I simply couldn't
stomach it.
Same is true for some women's groups I attended; many women in
attendance were so anti-male, it was a wonder I made it through some of
the weeks-to-months long sessions!
God bless,
Feather
Jude
"Feather Forestwalker" <fea...@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:Jr5ne.335$W77...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
THAT would be the fringe element, as they say. I DO believe that, at least
most, these men and women have been very hurt and have simply imploded into
self-centeredness. I regret to know that any been hurt to such a degree
but, you can't allow that pain to evolve into a violent expression.
Jani
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote in message
>
> "Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:429cdc6a$0$287$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>>
>> "caesarjbsquitti" <ord...@squittis.com> wrote in message
>> news:1117507076....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > As author of several sub categories of feminism, let us not fall into
>> > the trap of labelling people, ourselves included as 'feminists',
>> > without describing what type of feminist you are...moral ?,
>> > conservative ?, immoral ?, liberal ?, ....
>>
>> Feminism (or, probably, post-feminism is more appropriate) says that
>> individuals should be treated as individuals, regardless of gender.
>
> Only to a particular extend where that kind of balance CAN be applied.
> Obviously, this doesn't apply to all things relatiave to men and women!
It's surprising how many things are ordered according to gender, when they
don't need to be. Consider, for instance, the tendency of family courts to
award custody of small children to the mother, rather than to the parent
most suited to taking care of the child. Or the gender-based assumptions in
the men's and women's support/therapy groups that you and Feather mentioned.
>
>> > It is like being political...what specifically are your values....
>> >
>> > Feminism was able to unite people of polar opposite values under the
>> > false 'umbrella' of women's rights....
>
> So what? That is true about a LOT of "rights" organization. Do you think
> ALL black people have everything in common?
>
>> Why would it be false, in an era when women clearly did not have equal
>> rights?
>> >
>> > By the way, it is tragic to see how cult-feminists have exploited the
>> > violence statistics to isolate men, and then moved on to describe the
>> > many other forms of abuse...that include financial, etc.etc.etc..
>
> HOW can anybody isolate men? What do you mean by isolating us? It IS a
> historic fact that men have commited more violence than women. NOBODY
> knows
> ALL of the story behind this fact.
In very, very over-simplified terms, western society tends to link
masculinity with physical strength *and the demonstration of it*. I bet
most of us have, amongst our friends and acquaintances, at least one man
generally described as a "gentle giant" or similar, who's never needed to
raise a finger to anyone because it's so self-evident that if he did, he'd
smash them to smithereens. For most men that isn't the case, and so they're
constantly being nudged into proving that they *do* have the capacity to
establish superiority over others through physical strength.
>
> I'm a white man. Does it hurt me to admit there are white racists? No,
> it
> doesn't. Does it hurt me to admit there are, by extreme numbers, more
> violent men than women? No, because I'm not GUILITY!!!
Like I said, masculinities are complicated. It gets even more complicated if
you bring race/ ethnicity into it *wry grin*. The socio-cultural-economic
group with the greatest degree of advantage is white middle-class males, and
that group has acquired and maintained its advantage because of racism in
society. It doesn't mean that any individual white male is, himself,
racist - that's a matter of personal belief and atttitude - only that the
social group to which he belongs has *benefited* from racism.
>
>> I don't know what you mean by "cult feminists". Post-feminism
>> acknowledges
>> multiple masculinities, not all of which (obviously) are oppressive or
>> abusive.
>
> Only fringe militant feminists have ever said that "all men" are
> oppressive
> or abusive! This is a sore point with me with the men's movement. YOU
> make sweeping indictments against ALL feminists by calling them
> "cult-feminists" and have leveled ALL manner of ill against them YET you
> condemn when it's done to you by militant feminists!!!
Well, not me .. are you getting the attribs mixed up, here? :)
>
> I see you and your elk in JUST as negative light as the fringe militant
> feminists!!!
There are points, in the history of feminism, where nothing would have got
*anywhere* if it hadn't been for people pushing the envelope. What a lot of
men don't seem to see is that post-feminism isn't concerned with "votes for
women" and such, it's to do with the rights of the *individual*. And that
works in favour of men just as much as women.
>
>> > Society has failed to see the cancerous cells within this body...and
>> > the result is what we have ....a form of chaos replicating
>> > itself....pity !!
>>
>> Sorry, you seem to be off on one there. What do you mean?
>>
>> Jani
>
> Phhhhhhhh, feminism is the cancer most probably and the body society. You
> see, ALL social ills find their way back to feminists!
That's usually the view of those who don't understand feminism, true ;)
Jani
Mark T
> It's surprising how many things are ordered according to gender, when they
> don't need to be. Consider, for instance, the tendency of family courts to
> award custody of small children to the mother, rather than to the parent
> most suited to taking care of the child.
A very important point for lone fathers.
> In very, very over-simplified terms, western society tends to link
> masculinity with physical strength *and the demonstration of it*. I bet
> most of us have, amongst our friends and acquaintances, at least one man
> generally described as a "gentle giant" or similar, who's never needed to
> raise a finger to anyone because it's so self-evident that if he did, he'd
> smash them to smithereens.
Likewise there are women who are stronger than some males. Maitland's
Founding Mother, Molly Morgan (transported twice to Australia - once for
theft, second time for bigamy) could out fight and out whip any man in town.
Molly also set up the first hotel / brothel in town.
> There are points, in the history of feminism, where nothing would have got
> *anywhere* if it hadn't been for people pushing the envelope. What a lot
> of men don't seem to see is that post-feminism isn't concerned with "votes
> for women" and such, it's to do with the rights of the *individual*. And
> that works in favour of men just as much as women.
Yep!
Jani
"Mark T" <wh@tfunwithfundies0003> wrote in message
news:429e...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Jani" wrote:
>
>> It's surprising how many things are ordered according to gender, when
>> they don't need to be. Consider, for instance, the tendency of family
>> courts to award custody of small children to the mother, rather than to
>> the parent most suited to taking care of the child.
>
> A very important point for lone fathers.
And one of the instances where it is *so* important to look at the
individual circumstances and *not* what society assumes about gender roles.
If you asked every *individual* whether they'd be best fitted to be
breadwinner, domestic nurturer, combination within pair-partnership,
combination within extended partnership, and let them answer honestly,
there'd be some surprising answers.
>> In very, very over-simplified terms, western society tends to link
>> masculinity with physical strength *and the demonstration of it*. I bet
>> most of us have, amongst our friends and acquaintances, at least one man
>> generally described as a "gentle giant" or similar, who's never needed to
>> raise a finger to anyone because it's so self-evident that if he did,
>> he'd smash them to smithereens.
>
> Likewise there are women who are stronger than some males. Maitland's
> Founding Mother, Molly Morgan (transported twice to Australia - once for
> theft, second time for bigamy) could out fight and out whip any man in
> town. Molly also set up the first hotel / brothel in town.
Is she seen as a female heroic figure, or as a kind of pseudo-male?
Jani
Mark T
>> Likewise there are women who are stronger than some males. Maitland's
>> Founding Mother, Molly Morgan (transported twice to Australia - once for
>> theft, second time for bigamy) could out fight and out whip any man in
>> town. Molly also set up the first hotel / brothel in town.
>
> Is she seen as a female heroic figure, or as a kind of pseudo-male?
I see her as a female heroic figure. The official local history books think
she is not worthy of too much discussion. Many local items are named after
her.
http://www.huntervalleygenealogy.com/maitland/MollyMorgan.htm
http://www.winecountry.com.au/mediaKit/stories/notables.htm#molly
Jude
Agreed. I can't tell you how many times I've been told "Be a man," when it
relates to women and not dominating them. For some, when one doesn't
dominate, one is "hen pecked." It IS possible to have a relationship where
there is no distinquishable dominate partner and each situaiton is dealt
with on an individual basis, sometimes when I need/want gets priority
sometimes not.
> > I'm a white man. Does it hurt me to admit there are white racists? No,
> > it doesn't. Does it hurt me to admit there are, by extreme numbers,
more
> > violent men than women? No, because I'm not GUILITY!!!
>
> Like I said, masculinities are complicated. It gets even more complicated
if
> you bring race/ ethnicity into it *wry grin*. The socio-cultural-economic
> group with the greatest degree of advantage is white middle-class males,
and
> that group has acquired and maintained its advantage because of racism in
> society. It doesn't mean that any individual white male is, himself,
> racist - that's a matter of personal belief and atttitude - only that the
> social group to which he belongs has *benefited* from racism.
The point I was making to Caesar is that it is NO shame for non-guilty men
to recognize and admit that there are exists a class of men who are
incredibly sexist and yet another class that is abusive and violent toward
women ONLY because of the constant push to be in control. On some of these
men groups they're constantly saying women don't admit there are bad women
out there who abuse men, and I have found that to be NOT true. In the
overall approx. year I spend on the groups relative to gender and women/men
rights, I never saw a woman post that there were no evil women in the world
BUT I saw MANY man post that women and/or feminists were the worst evil that
men had to put up with as well as saying ALL social ills can be traced back
to women's movements!
> >
> >> I don't know what you mean by "cult feminists". Post-feminism
> >> acknowledges multiple masculinities, not all of which (obviously) are
oppressive or
> >> abusive.
> >
> > Only fringe militant feminists have ever said that "all men" are
> > oppressive or abusive! This is a sore point with me with the men's
movement. YOU
> > make sweeping indictments against ALL feminists by calling them
> > "cult-feminists" and have leveled ALL manner of ill against them YET you
> > condemn when it's done to you by militant feminists!!!
>
> Well, not me .. are you getting the attribs mixed up, here? :)
No, I was addressing Caesar's comments. I guess I was piggybacking. Sorry.
Jani
"Mark T" <wh@tfunwithfundies0004> wrote in message
news:429e75f3$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
she was tried. I had to look up Diddlebury, though (there are a *lot* of
these little villages in Shropshire, all about the size of a postage stamp).
I see it's near Craven Arms, which I did visit fairly often, back in the
day, so I probably passed through Diddlebury in one of my attempts to find a
short-cut :)
Jani
Jani
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote in message
Course it is. A lot of early feminist theory wasn't saying that women ought
to be "dominant", just that they should be aware that "submissive" wasn't
the *only* option. That, in itself, was enough to horrify the men of the
time.
>
>> > I'm a white man. Does it hurt me to admit there are white racists?
>> > No,
>> > it doesn't. Does it hurt me to admit there are, by extreme numbers,
> more
>> > violent men than women? No, because I'm not GUILITY!!!
>>
>> Like I said, masculinities are complicated. It gets even more complicated
> if
>> you bring race/ ethnicity into it *wry grin*. The socio-cultural-economic
>> group with the greatest degree of advantage is white middle-class males,
> and
>> that group has acquired and maintained its advantage because of racism in
>> society. It doesn't mean that any individual white male is, himself,
>> racist - that's a matter of personal belief and atttitude - only that the
>> social group to which he belongs has *benefited* from racism.
>
> The point I was making to Caesar is that it is NO shame for non-guilty men
> to recognize and admit that there are exists a class of men who are
> incredibly sexist and yet another class that is abusive and violent toward
> women ONLY because of the constant push to be in control.
Yes, true, and I think we're talking about two slightly different issues
here. My bad, I got sidetracked.
On some of these
> men groups they're constantly saying women don't admit there are bad women
> out there who abuse men, and I have found that to be NOT true. In the
> overall approx. year I spend on the groups relative to gender and
> women/men
> rights, I never saw a woman post that there were no evil women in the
> world
> BUT I saw MANY man post that women and/or feminists were the worst evil
> that
> men had to put up with as well as saying ALL social ills can be traced
> back
> to women's movements!
You (generic "you", there, not you personally :) have to stand back and take
a historic overview. Did the kind of feminism which Dorkin and McKinnon
promulgated cause division and damage? Yes, quite probably. Did their
theories come out of nowhere, then, making trouble where there was no need
to? Absolutely not. Women's movements, civil rights movements, men's
movements - *all* revolutions are the product of inequalities in the social
infrastructure. Social ills go *way* back.
>> >
>> >> I don't know what you mean by "cult feminists". Post-feminism
>> >> acknowledges multiple masculinities, not all of which (obviously) are
> oppressive or
>> >> abusive.
>> >
>> > Only fringe militant feminists have ever said that "all men" are
>> > oppressive or abusive! This is a sore point with me with the men's
> movement. YOU
>> > make sweeping indictments against ALL feminists by calling them
>> > "cult-feminists" and have leveled ALL manner of ill against them YET
>> > you
>> > condemn when it's done to you by militant feminists!!!
>>
>> Well, not me .. are you getting the attribs mixed up, here? :)
>
> No, I was addressing Caesar's comments. I guess I was piggybacking.
> Sorry.
Heh, s'ok. I'm just not used to being on the receiving end of the comments
like the one above. Me, sweeping indictments against feminists? Improbable,
to say the least :-)
Jani
Jude
Of course, no problem.>
> On some of these men groups they're constantly saying women don't admit
> > there are bad women out there who abuse men, and I have found that to be
> > NOT true. In the > > overall approx. year I spend on the groups
relative to
> > gender and women/men rights, I never saw a woman post that there were
> > no evil women in the > > world BUT I saw MANY man post that women and/or
> > feminists were the worst evil that men had to put up with as well as
saying
> >ALL social ills can be traced back to women's movements!
>
> You (generic "you", there, not you personally :) have to stand back and
take
> a historic overview. Did the kind of feminism which Dorkin and McKinnon
> promulgated cause division and damage? Yes, quite probably. Did their
> theories come out of nowhere, then, making trouble where there was no need
> to? Absolutely not. Women's movements, civil rights movements, men's
> movements - *all* revolutions are the product of inequalities in the
social
> infrastructure. Social ills go *way* back.
Totally in agreement.
Also, I DO believe that the "fringe" element of any group has most probably
been the most EXTREMELY hurt on both emotional and physical level (as in
victim of rape, incest, domestic violence, long term verbal abuse, etc.) and
are striking out. Perhaps, TO THEM, it DOES feel like "they" are ALL beasts
(either men or women depending whose is striking out.)
Did you know that Dworkin just died last month? She believed that all men
had some element of woman hating in them and were basically oafs.
Jani
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote in message
>
> "Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:429f8075$0$311$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
[]
>> You (generic "you", there, not you personally :) have to stand back and
> take
>> a historic overview. Did the kind of feminism which Dorkin and McKinnon
>> promulgated cause division and damage? Yes, quite probably. Did their
>> theories come out of nowhere, then, making trouble where there was no
>> need
>> to? Absolutely not. Women's movements, civil rights movements, men's
>> movements - *all* revolutions are the product of inequalities in the
> social
>> infrastructure. Social ills go *way* back.
>
> Totally in agreement.
>
> Also, I DO believe that the "fringe" element of any group has most
> probably
> been the most EXTREMELY hurt on both emotional and physical level (as in
> victim of rape, incest, domestic violence, long term verbal abuse, etc.)
> and
> are striking out. Perhaps, TO THEM, it DOES feel like "they" are ALL
> beasts
> (either men or women depending whose is striking out.)
Possibly - although the ones who are the most hurt, are often the ones who
no longer have a "voice", and rely on the advocacy of those who aren't so
damaged.
>
> Did you know that Dworkin just died last month? She believed that all men
> had some element of woman hating in them and were basically oafs.
Yes, I saw that she'd died. Rather good article on her which might interest
you -
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/dworkintribute.htm
Most of the women who criticised her, especially in the 70s, did so because
their *own* ideas about male and female gender roles and behaviours were
being challenged. They didn't wanted to admit that yes, some men were
abusers, and what was more, they were enabling it.
Jani
Jude
Excellent. I don't believe she hated men. She was angry but not hateful.
I don't blame her ONE bit! I try to put myself in other people's position
and how it must feel like to be given a certain set of rules, certain
pressures, certain realities, certain inevitiabilities. I once went to her
web site and wrote you a note, afterwhich I was sent (believe it or NOT!!!)
porn. I emailed her webmaster back and forth several times and we concluded
that these nasty pigs has some type of spyware and had traced me. Anyway,
she was fighting the Porn Slaves, she was fighting an awful big fight.
YES, and unlike some other men, I DO believe ABSOLUTELY that there is a
direct tie between fringe porn and violence to women.
> Most of the women who criticised her, especially in the 70s, did so
because
> their *own* ideas about male and female gender roles and behaviours were
> being challenged. They didn't wanted to admit that yes, some men were
> abusers, and what was more, they were enabling it.
>
> Jani
I do mourn her passing. She had a very painful life and sought to make this
world a little better for women and men by trying to make people look at the
violent ways in which some of us live.
Jani
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote in message
No, she didn't hate men, she hated violence *by* men, and that included the
porn industry. Interestingly, even when you have women in management in the
sex industry, you quite often find that they become "quasi-men", in that
they're still perpetrating the male-dominated ethos.
I try to put myself in other people's position
> and how it must feel like to be given a certain set of rules, certain
> pressures, certain realities, certain inevitiabilities. I once went to
> her
> web site and wrote you a note, afterwhich I was sent (believe it or
> NOT!!!)
> porn. I emailed her webmaster back and forth several times and we
> concluded
> that these nasty pigs has some type of spyware and had traced me. Anyway,
> she was fighting the Porn Slaves, she was fighting an awful big fight.
>
> YES, and unlike some other men, I DO believe ABSOLUTELY that there is a
> direct tie between fringe porn and violence to women.
It's not so much porn itself, as the way it fits into the structure of
society as a whole. Porn isn't about individuals expressing themselves
sexually in an equal relationship, it's about reinforcing power structures.
There was a nice post on another ng, about the distorted ideas perpetrated
by porn videos - one of them was that young and beautiful women prefer to
have sexual encounters with unappealing middle-aged men, usually in
extremely uncomfortable gymnastic contortions. What signal does *that* send,
to both sexes?
>
>> Most of the women who criticised her, especially in the 70s, did so
> because
>> their *own* ideas about male and female gender roles and behaviours were
>> being challenged. They didn't wanted to admit that yes, some men were
>> abusers, and what was more, they were enabling it.
>>
>> Jani
>
> I do mourn her passing. She had a very painful life and sought to make
> this
> world a little better for women and men by trying to make people look at
> the
> violent ways in which some of us live.
That's a point so many anti-feminists don't understand; feminism isn't about
"equal rights for women", except in areas where they don't *have* such
rights. It can just as easily be about equal rights for *men*, where men are
the disadvantaged group.
Jani
Jude
I think this has also been true of some of the women leaders of the world.
If they're not ACTING like men in certain ways, they wouldn't be allowed to
lead. Yeah, they better LOOK feminine but they have to ACT like men where
it counts. Case in point Thacher and the South American Islands.
> I try to put myself in other people's position
> > and how it must feel like to be given a certain set of rules, certain
> > pressures, certain realities, certain inevitiabilities. I once went to
> > her
> > web site and wrote you a note, afterwhich I was sent (believe it or
> > NOT!!!)
> > porn. I emailed her webmaster back and forth several times and we
> > concluded
> > that these nasty pigs has some type of spyware and had traced me.
Anyway,
> > she was fighting the Porn Slaves, she was fighting an awful big fight.
> >
> > YES, and unlike some other men, I DO believe ABSOLUTELY that there is a
> > direct tie between fringe porn and violence to women.
>
> It's not so much porn itself, as the way it fits into the structure of
> society as a whole. Porn isn't about individuals expressing themselves
> sexually in an equal relationship, it's about reinforcing power
structures.
> There was a nice post on another ng, about the distorted ideas perpetrated
> by porn videos - one of them was that young and beautiful women prefer to
> have sexual encounters with unappealing middle-aged men, usually in
> extremely uncomfortable gymnastic contortions. What signal does *that*
send,
> to both sexes?
THAT'S why I said "FRINGE" porn. I'm not ready to say that ALL porno is
degrading to female first but also to males who apparently WANT such
relatedness. Obviously, there is fringe porn devoted to the degradation of
women that appeals to a class of men out there. It's really so incredibly
sad. Unfortunately, though, I believe there is a coorelation between the
fringe porn and sexual violence against women. I don't believe it MAKES
that happen but FEEDS that "property" in those men who have the capacity for
it and want to feed it. Why should we allow an industry to feed the sick
desires of such men or women for that matter if it were found out that there
were a class of women who wanted to feed such desires!
Jani
"Jude" <Ju...@thebayou.here> wrote in message
Funny how Thatch automatically springs to mind, isn't it? :) Interesting
comparison exercise - Thatcher and Indira Gandhi. Indira took an existing
concept of matriarchy, and utilised the idea of a strong mother figure as
the basis for her political power; Thatcher couldn't do that because in
Britain "strong mother figures" were found mainly in the working-class
cultures she was marginalising. The Brit female cultural stereotypes usually
associated with her are the ones with male power devolved into a relatively
asexual persona - nanny, school matron, and so on. And, since most of the
(male) Cabinet had been through the public school system and been duly
terrorised into submission by such figures, the power structure was already
there.
Not sure how you're defining "mainstream" and "fringe", here, but the post I
cited was referring to straight adult porn, not BDSM or other variants. That
was Dworkin's whole point, that what's offered in porn as "normal", because
it's vanilla, perpetrates to both men *and* women the idea that this is
"what people do". Unless the individual watching the video knows perfectly
well from their own extensive experience that it *isn't*, then they take
that attitude on board. And, in a society which is amazingly double-minded
about sex, it's very unlikely they would have that sort of experience, to
counter what they see on the screen.
It's really so incredibly
> sad. Unfortunately, though, I believe there is a coorelation between the
> fringe porn and sexual violence against women. I don't believe it MAKES
> that happen but FEEDS that "property" in those men who have the capacity
> for
> it and want to feed it. Why should we allow an industry to feed the sick
> desires of such men or women for that matter if it were found out that
> there
> were a class of women who wanted to feed such desires!
I had a similar argument with someone who said that child porn was
acceptable provided the actual *actors* were over age. I couldn't get him to
see that whatever their age, it still legitimised the *idea* that sex with
children was OK, and that's not an idea you want to convey. People don't sit
there and apply a rational literary critique to a porn video, but they *do*
absorb the subconscious messages it sends. Isn't human psychology wonderful
*wry grin*
Jani
Jude
I'm smiling becuase I TOO thought of Thatcher and Indira Gandhi as two
opposed ways of approaching a basically male world and dealing it with two
ways! :)
I agree. Thatcher would have NEVER made to the position of power she held
if she did not rule AS most men have been documented as ruling, with the
show of power first instead of last resort, with noted exceptions.
Well, lol, I'm NOT very knowledgeable about porn. I tend to think of
"normal" porn as just the enactment of the sex act within a plot of sorts.
> It's really so incredibly
> > sad. Unfortunately, though, I believe there is a coorelation between
the
> > fringe porn and sexual violence against women. I don't believe it MAKES
> > that happen but FEEDS that "property" in those men who have the capacity
> > for
> > it and want to feed it. Why should we allow an industry to feed the
sick
> > desires of such men or women for that matter if it were found out that
> > there
> > were a class of women who wanted to feed such desires!
>
> I had a similar argument with someone who said that child porn was
> acceptable provided the actual *actors* were over age. I couldn't get him
to
> see that whatever their age, it still legitimised the *idea* that sex with
> children was OK, and that's not an idea you want to convey. People don't
sit
> there and apply a rational literary critique to a porn video, but they
*do*
> absorb the subconscious messages it sends. Isn't human psychology
wonderful
> *wry grin*
>
> Jani
You were dealing with a sick guy if he said that child porn was okay if the
ACTORS were not children. It was appealing to that desire... duh. You
see, I get exasperated when I deal with people like that or anybody that is
so incredibly ignorant.
Human psychology? lol Downright scary sometimes!