An Outline For Masculism

[Tom Smith]

QIMNews Men
Position Statement
August 21, 2001

By Tom Smith (QIM)

In the Fall of '99 I published and discussed here and on all the major
men's forums the "Masculist Manifesto"
(http://www.geocities.com/qim/manifestohtml.htm)
It is a statement of the political objectives of Masculism and kicks ass
and everyone knows it.

Now it's time to present a proposal for a comprehensive view of
Masculism, not just it's political objectives, though those objectives
need be consistent with masculism itself. Since the publishing of the
Manifesto, and I suggest because of it, there is more discussion of
masculism and people calling themselves "Masculist" on the net. It's
time to clarify Masculism.

Masculism isn't feminism in pants. The only thing in common with
feminism is that it's an ideology (defined: "The body of ideas
reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group,
class or culture"). An "ideology" for men is long overdue.

Before one gets too prickly over the specifics of Masculism, it must be
remembered that feminism contained much that most women didn't beleive in
yet they followed the feminists, as well as many men, eventhough the men
were excluded and derided by official feminist ideology. It was economic
self interest and a percieved, though certainly not proved, victimization
and oppression that caused many people to follow the feminists. Always
keep that in mind when approaching Masculism, though I assure you it will
be much more just and reasonable, simply because men create it.

CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM

SPIRITUAL

Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to create
religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations. This is a
fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned or
eliminated by anyone, especially women. Masculism therefore acknowledges
and respects religion as critical to men's lives. Even atheism smacks of
religion when a group of men get together under it's auspices. Since we
live in a culture that was created by the Judeo-Christian traditions,
Masculism endorses God and supports an increase of His presence in our
public life, but in keeping with the "spirit of the consititution".

POLITICAL

Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist"
if it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality),
serves to promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness for
men and their families.

PSYCHOLOGICAL

Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.

CULTURAL

The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of
men and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this
country, thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
system.

ECONOMIC

In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
systems.

SEXUAL

Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.
Understanding sex differences is critical for every aspect of life and
should be studied and government policies should conform to what we
learn.

Please feel free to critique my "outline".

Tom Smith
Founder of The American Union of Men (AUM)

[Parg2000]

<CUT>

>
>SPIRITUAL
>
>Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to create
religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations.

{Parg} What men actually HAD was a "prounounced" NEED to invent a reason why
women could not lead. <G> Women already KNEW the nature of the Goddess within
them.

This is a >fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned
or
>eliminated by anyone, especially women.

{Parg} Women tend to laugh at bitter boys who think they are the _god_ because
they get up at a podium and say a few words in latin.
It's just a joke to women in the know.

Masculism therefore acknowledges >and respects religion as critical to men's
lives.

{Parg} Religion is certainly "critical" to men's vaulted position in life. <G>

Even atheism smacks of >religion when a group of men get together under it's
auspices.

{Parg} You must have missed the information that today, as women do everything
else men do, women are more active in religion than are men. Women have more
or less taken it over to use for purposes of their own.

>POLITICAL
>
>Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist" >if
it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality), serves to
promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness for
>men and their families.
>

{Parg} The destruction of feminism would necessitate the killing of women who
are feminists. Go for it! My daughter works at the same level as her male
counterparts; she would never consider stepping down. Bring it on...hon!

>PSYCHOLOGICAL
>
>Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
>masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
>to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.

{Parg} Boys aren't going to BE boys at the expense of everyone else, hon. Get
used to it.

>
>CULTURAL
>
>The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of >men
and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this country,
thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
>system.
>

{Parg} There are, today, more women than men and men who value female equality
for the women they love. I've raised my son to NOT want a doormat, and today
he calls himself a feminist.

>ECONOMIC

>>In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
>organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
>presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
>economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
>system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
>mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
>have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
>for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
>systems.
>

{Parg} Sounds like one of those who demonstrated at the trade talks. I
consider myself a compasionate capitalist, hon. Every western nation existing
today has some capitalism sprinkled tenderly with social programs, and WOMEN do
VOTE.

>SEXUAL
>
>Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
>Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism. >Understanding
sex differences is critical for every aspect of life and >should be studied and
government policies should conform to what we
>learn.
>

{Parg} Women aren't about to give up their roles just because sexist men find
women unfit for those roles. Poor baby must have had his job taken by an
'inferior' woman. <G>

>
>Please feel free to critique my "outline".

{Parg} I just did. I found it lacking in the most fundamental ways. <G>

[Hombre]

I normally don't bother to reply to Parg considering that most of you have
killfiled her anyway, but since this post's tactics are more unique then
most of hers I figured why not.

"Parg2000" <parg...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20010821093815...@mb-fe.news.cs.com...

> <CUT>
> >
> >SPIRITUAL
> >
> >Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to create
> religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations.
>
> {Parg} What men actually HAD was a "prounounced" NEED to invent a reason
why
> women could not lead. <G>

There have always been women leaders.

> Women already KNEW the nature of the Goddess within
> them.

I just called my sister to ask what the nature of the goddess inside her is.
She has no idea. :-)

>
> This is a >fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be
demeaned
> or
> >eliminated by anyone, especially women.
>
> {Parg} Women tend to laugh at bitter boys who think they are the _god_

I don't know how it's even possible to be blind to this irony. Parg, is it
the nature of the goddess inside you that allows you to do this?

>because
> they get up at a podium and say a few words in latin.

Feminist sors, vehementi imanis et inanis.

> It's just a joke to women in the know.

No, you're just a joke to the women in the know.

>
> Masculism therefore acknowledges >and respects religion as critical to
men's
> lives.
>
> {Parg} Religion is certainly "critical" to men's vaulted position in
life. <G>

Not mine. :-)

>
> Even atheism smacks of >religion when a group of men get together under
it's
> auspices.
>
> {Parg} You must have missed the information that today, as women do
everything
> else men do, women are more active in religion than are men. Women have
more
> or less taken it over to use for purposes of their own.

Why the decline in religion? According to Parg, it's dem evil wimmens fault!

>
> >POLITICAL
> >
> >Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist"
>if
> it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality),
serves to
> promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness for
> >men and their families.
> >
> {Parg} The destruction of feminism would necessitate the killing of women
who
> are feminists.

No it won't.

> Go for it! My daughter works at the same level as her male
> counterparts; she would never consider stepping down. Bring it on...hon!

You have quite the imagination Pargy. :-)

>
>
> >PSYCHOLOGICAL
> >
> >Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
> >masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
> >to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.
>
> {Parg} Boys aren't going to BE boys at the expense of everyone else, hon.
Get
> used to it.

Feminazis won't be able to push their hate filled agenda at the expense of
everyone, honey pie spongecake. Get used to it.

> >
> >CULTURAL
> >
> >The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of
>men
> and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this
country,
> thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
> >system.
> >
> {Parg} There are, today, more women than men and men who value female
equality
> for the women they love. I've raised my son to NOT want a doormat, and
today
> he calls himself a feminist.

10 years ago I called myself a feminist. Don't worry, there's still hope for
him. :-)

>
> >ECONOMIC
>
> >>In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
> >organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
> corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
> >presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
> >economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
> >system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
> >mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
> >have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
> >for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
> >systems.
> >
> {Parg} Sounds like one of those who demonstrated at the trade talks.

Ah, one of those. (???)

>I
> consider myself a compasionate capitalist, hon.

And we should care, why?

> Every western nation existing
> today has some capitalism sprinkled tenderly with social programs, and
WOMEN do
> VOTE.

That's an interesting thought. Now perhaps you can show how it relates to
the post you were replying to.

>
> >SEXUAL
> >
> >Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
> >Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.
>Understanding
> sex differences is critical for every aspect of life and >should be
studied and
> government policies should conform to what we
> >learn.
> >
> {Parg} Women aren't about to give up their roles just because sexist men
find
> women unfit for those roles. Poor baby must have had his job taken by an
> 'inferior' woman. <G>

Converse accidents are arguably the basis of hate groups.

>
> >
> >Please feel free to critique my "outline".
>
> {Parg} I just did. I found it lacking in the most fundamental ways. <G>
>

I'm sure Tom's grinning that you found it lacking too. :-)

> >
> >Tom Smith
> >Founder of The American Union of Men (AUM)
> >

Hombre - Feminist sors, vehementi imanis et inanis

[Wyatt]

Hombre <Hombr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I normally don't bother to reply to Parg considering that most of you have
> killfiled her anyway, but since this post's tactics are more unique then
> most of hers I figured why not.

<large snip>

Good stuff. However, I suspect Parg will distort
your reply. Some people have such a closed mind
you have more chance of getting a washing machine
to fly than changing it.

Wyatt

[Hombre]

"Tom Smith (QIM)" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.15ebc9505a4d0f4798972e@news...

> QIMNews Men
> Position Statement
> August 21, 2001
>
> By Tom Smith (QIM)

Hi Tom!,
I think you are wise to want to put out a comprehensive view of masculism
especially as more and more people seem to be becoming interested in it. I
feel it is important that we make this outline as strong as possible, and as
such I am going to be attacking it as best I can. I hope you understand my
reasoning. I am also going to offer suggestions of topics you might want to
consider addressing a little more thoroughly in this outline.

>
> In the Fall of '99 I published and discussed here and on all the major
> men's forums the "Masculist Manifesto"
> (http://www.geocities.com/qim/manifestohtml.htm)
> It is a statement of the political objectives of Masculism and kicks ass
> and everyone knows it.
>
> Now it's time to present a proposal for a comprehensive view of
> Masculism, not just it's political objectives, though those objectives
> need be consistent with masculism itself. Since the publishing of the
> Manifesto, and I suggest because of it,

"I am the movement!" - Napoleon Bonaparte :-)

> there is more discussion of
> masculism and people calling themselves "Masculist" on the net. It's
> time to clarify Masculism.
>
> Masculism isn't feminism in pants.

I think it is absolutely vital that we clarify this point, and it's a good
one to start with. Men's issues are not the same as women's issues, why
would masculism be like feminism? Also, we should clarify that masculism is
more then just anti-feminism. There are a lot of men's issues that have
nothing to do with feminism, and masculists do not dissapprove of everything
that feminism has done. However, feminism has caused a lot of problems for
innocent men and as such anti-feminism is a large part of masculism.

> The only thing in common with
> feminism is that it's an ideology (defined: "The body of ideas
> reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group,
> class or culture"). An "ideology" for men is long overdue.

Amen!

>
> Before one gets too prickly over the specifics of Masculism, it must be
> remembered that feminism contained much that most women didn't beleive in
> yet they followed the feminists, as well as many men, eventhough the men
> were excluded and derided by official feminist ideology.

The idea was that most people agreed with the major changes they believed
the feminists wanted to cause. They may have disagreed with some of the
specific ideas, but they were willing to overlook them in favor of what they
believed would be beneficial change. This is why I feel it's important for
masculists as a group to overlook right/left wing positions and work
together for the sake of the ideology.

> It was economic
> self interest and a percieved, though certainly not proved, victimization
> and oppression that caused many people to follow the feminists.

Machiavelli said that "There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor
more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a
new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by
the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in those who would profit by the
new order, this lukewarmness arising partly out of fear of their
adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the
incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they
have had actual experience of it."

Self interest has always been the key to overcoming this lukewarmness. As we
approach the topic of wide-spread education of masculism, we need to
remember to demonstrate the benefits for both men and women so that they
will feel the self interest needed to try out the ideology.

> Always
> keep that in mind when approaching Masculism, though I assure you it will
> be much more just and reasonable, simply because men create it.

Tom, it's quotes like this that I would search for if I were an enemy of the
movement. The reason is because it is attackable on many levels. First, it
fails Farrell's test of switching the group men for any other group and
seeing if it sounds biased. Secondly, one could very easily point to the
nazis as a group created primarily by men and show how according to your
statement the nazis must have been just and reasonable. Also alot of the
things we're fighting against were created mainly by men, are you trying to
say we're fighting against things that are just and reasonable?
Another important point one could make is that masculism hasn't been created
entirely by men.
Finally, I feel that masculism benefits greatly from the women who support
it and I wouldn't want them to feel pushed away. I know that if I were a
woman, statements like that would cause me to feel pushed away from the
movement because one is required to believe that men are more just and
reasonable then women in order to accept it.

>
> CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM
>
> SPIRITUAL
>
> Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to create
> religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations.

You are probably unaware of this, but your statement comes dangerously close
to old nazi propaganda. When you choose to make generalizations you should
do so very carefully and probably explain a little more thoroughly then this
why you have done so. I find 4 problems with this statement. First off, I'm
taking it for granted that you cannot come anywhere close to actually
proving the idea that men have a more pronounced spirituality. Secondly not
all societies were created by religion (Mongolia and China being the most
obvious examples). Third, religions have also destroyed civilizations.
Fourth, women were also active participants in the creation of civilizations
and their contributions should not be discounted.

> This is a
> fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned or
> eliminated by anyone, especially women.

Especially who? Masculism is not about dividing men and women, it supports
bringing them closer together. It is vital that we don't make statements
that could easily be intrepretted by the average person as being otherwise.

>Masculism therefore acknowledges
> and respects religion as critical to men's lives.

I disagree. Many masculists are anti-religion. I personally agree with you
that religion should be more a part of people's lives, but that is
completely seperate from masculism. I feel most people who reject religion
do so for what they feel are good reasons, and religions need to hear these
people and address their concerns in order to have more influence. I feel
that to divide masculists on the basis of religion is no better then to
divide them on the basis of left right politics.

> Even atheism smacks of
> religion when a group of men get together under it's auspices. Since we
> live in a culture that was created by the Judeo-Christian traditions,
> Masculism endorses God and supports an increase of His presence in our
> public life, but in keeping with the "spirit of the consititution".

Atheism isn't a religion by any stretch of the imagination. Also masculism
does not choose which religion is best based on which one created our
culture. To me, masculism has very little to do with religion at all, other
then the fact that often we find ourselves fighting for the same causes.

>
> POLITICAL
>
> Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist"
> if it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality),
> serves to promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness for
> men and their families.

I think it's important to expound a little more on this and state what the
main political goals of masculists are. I believe they include...
1. Changing the divorce and paternity laws so that they are more equitable,
including eliminating the "primary parent" myth as well as changing the
focus from "best interest of the child" to "most fair to everyone according
to their rights and level of responsibility".
2. Remove sexism against men from every step of the legal process, from
creation through enforcement, trial, sentencing, and prison conditions.
3. Make circumcision of male babies a felony offense as it is for female
babies in most countries (including the US).
4. Remove tax exempt status from organizations which discriminate against
men, women, or any other birth-group (save perhaps age) in any way.
5. Force the government to spend equitably on men's programs as it does on
women's, most notably with regard to health expenditures.
6. Eliminate the sexual harassment, VAWA, AA, and other laws that clearly
violate the constitution. Make sexual harassment a provision under the
general harassment laws and require as solid of a claim to penalize sexual
harassment as any other form of harassment.

I believe that covers the most basic ones.

>
> PSYCHOLOGICAL
>
> Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
> masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
> to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.

I would go further then that and include the study of the psychological
matriarchy, which kids are growing up with as a topic worthy of study. Also,
while I agree that we should value what's traditionally been referred to as
"masculine", we should also allow for and value what are called "feminine"
traits in men and boys.

>
> CULTURAL
>
> The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of
> men and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this
> country, thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
> system.

This seems to be more of a tactic to accomplish our goals rather then a goal
itself. When I think of the cultural goals of masculism, what first comes to
my mind is to get our cultures to consider the inner worlds of men and boys,
so that people will be capable of empathizing with them. Also getting rid of
the desperate belief that every woman must always be innocent and good.
These seem like good cultural goals for masculists.

>
> ECONOMIC
>
> In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
> organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
> corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
> presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
> economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
> system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
> mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
> have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
> for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
> systems.

I fully agree.

>
> SEXUAL
>
> Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
> Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.
> Understanding sex differences is critical for every aspect of life and
> should be studied and government policies should conform to what we
> learn.

Perhaps this would be better categorized as "biological differences"? The
idea of sexual goals for masculism sounds more like a subset of cultural
goals with it's aim being to change how society views men's and women's
sexuality. This would include not demonising men or calling us pigs because
we are sexual creatures, treating sex as something a woman and man give each
other and not just one gives the other, and eliminating the idea that men
can't be pretty or beautiful and that those who desire to are gay.

>
>
> Please feel free to critique my "outline".

Since it's an outline of masculism, it's "our outline" and as such I felt an
obligation to critique. Thanks for the work you put into this and I hope you
will consider my recommendations.

>
> Tom Smith
> Founder of The American Union of Men (AUM)
>

Hombre - Feminist sors, vehementi imanis et inanis.

[Tom Smith]

In article <Mcvg7.2665$Cf5.2...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
Hombr...@yahoo.com says...

Yeah, I certainly was "grinning" through the whole thing. Thank you
Hombre for your responses that revealed the innanity of feminist
discourse. Can you believe that we have had this kind of intellect
ruling the country for thirty years?

Tom

[Tom Smith]

In article <Ulxg7.2679$Cf5.2...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
Hombr...@yahoo.com says...

>
> "Tom Smith (QIM)" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.15ebc9505a4d0f4798972e@news...
> > QIMNews Men
> > Position Statement
> > August 21, 2001
> >
> > By Tom Smith (QIM)
>
> Hi Tom!,
> I think you are wise to want to put out a comprehensive view of masculism
> especially as more and more people seem to be becoming interested in it. I
> feel it is important that we make this outline as strong as possible, and as
> such I am going to be attacking it as best I can. I hope you understand my
> reasoning. I am also going to offer suggestions of topics you might want to
> consider addressing a little more thoroughly in this outline.

"Attack"!! Alright, that's the Masculist spirit!

> > In the Fall of '99 I published and discussed here and on all the major
> > men's forums the "Masculist Manifesto"
> > (http://www.geocities.com/qim/manifestohtml.htm)
> > It is a statement of the political objectives of Masculism and kicks ass
> > and everyone knows it.
> >
> > Now it's time to present a proposal for a comprehensive view of
> > Masculism, not just it's political objectives, though those objectives
> > need be consistent with masculism itself. Since the publishing of the
> > Manifesto, and I suggest because of it,
>
> "I am the movement!" - Napoleon Bonaparte :-)

Yep, and I have my hand tucked into my coat also.

> > there is more discussion of
> > masculism and people calling themselves "Masculist" on the net. It's
> > time to clarify Masculism.
> >
> > Masculism isn't feminism in pants.
>
> I think it is absolutely vital that we clarify this point, and it's a good
> one to start with. Men's issues are not the same as women's issues, why
> would masculism be like feminism? Also, we should clarify that masculism is
> more then just anti-feminism. There are a lot of men's issues that have
> nothing to do with feminism, and masculists do not dissapprove of everything
> that feminism has done. However, feminism has caused a lot of problems for
> innocent men and as such anti-feminism is a large part of masculism.

I used as a goal of Masculism "the destruction of feminism". I agree
that anti-feminists are concerned about masculism turning into the lying
and government ripp off that feminism is and have addressed this issue
frequently the past few years with anti-feminists. My thumbnail way of
approaching this is by saying the men and women are different and
therefore so will their advocacy attempts be different. Brevity is
critical so that it gets read by the most people, so with that in mind
please feel free to add to it.

> > The only thing in common with
> > feminism is that it's an ideology (defined: "The body of ideas
> > reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group,
> > class or culture"). An "ideology" for men is long overdue.
>
> Amen!
>
> >
> > Before one gets too prickly over the specifics of Masculism, it must be
> > remembered that feminism contained much that most women didn't beleive in
> > yet they followed the feminists, as well as many men, eventhough the men
> > were excluded and derided by official feminist ideology.
>
> The idea was that most people agreed with the major changes they believed
> the feminists wanted to cause. They may have disagreed with some of the
> specific ideas, but they were willing to overlook them in favor of what they
> believed would be beneficial change. This is why I feel it's important for
> masculists as a group to overlook right/left wing positions and work
> together for the sake of the ideology.

That's one of the beauties of an ideology for men, as well as being a
"secular island" for the non seculars. These two elements alone served
feminism well, and with masculism and men's proclivity to be passionate
about both religion and politics, it is essential.

> > It was economic
> > self interest and a percieved, though certainly not proved, victimization
> > and oppression that caused many people to follow the feminists.
>
> Machiavelli said that "There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor
> more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a
> new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by
> the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in those who would profit by the
> new order, this lukewarmness arising partly out of fear of their
> adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the
> incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they
> have had actual experience of it."

Great quote, and it captures the tenor of living under feminism and our
uphill battle in fighting it.

> Self interest has always been the key to overcoming this lukewarmness. As we
> approach the topic of wide-spread education of masculism, we need to
> remember to demonstrate the benefits for both men and women so that they
> will feel the self interest needed to try out the ideology.

Economics has to be part of it, which is the bottom line when it comes to
"self interest". I have left room for that. But unlike feminism,
masculism has to address in a more forceful way the good of society. I
feel that the religious emphasis is important in this regard.

> > Always
> > keep that in mind when approaching Masculism, though I assure you it will
> > be much more just and reasonable, simply because men create it.
>
> Tom, it's quotes like this that I would search for if I were an enemy of the
> movement.

Yeah, and how did you like the "especialy women" quote? I like putting
those in there just to piss off feminists.

> The reason is because it is attackable on many levels.

Yep, and I respond, "Bring it on".

> First, it
> fails Farrell's test of switching the group men for any other group and
> seeing if it sounds biased.

Remember, Farrell was a feminists when I was knocking heads with the
consciousness raisers in the mid seventies. Also, his "Myth of Male
Power" didn't do the trick now did it? But it did earn him the moniker
of "Masculist" and a leader of the movement.

> Secondly, one could very easily point to the
> nazis as a group created primarily by men and show how according to your
> statement the nazis must have been just and reasonable.

Oh good, the opposition bringing up the Nazi's. More reason to do this
sort of thing.

> Also alot of the
> things we're fighting against were created mainly by men, are you trying to
> say we're fighting against things that are just and reasonable?

No, no, no, feminism wasn't "created by men", it was created by a bunch
of bitter-slut-marxist politicos and lesbos in NYC in the late sixties.
It took over the radical Left because of those pussy politico men on the
Left in the late sixties who were a small and despised group in the
rebellion by most and were considered a necessary evil in organizing the
demonstrations. That's a fact jack, I was there.

> Another important point one could make is that masculism hasn't been created
> entirely by men.

Yep, and it can be proved by plugging "masculism" into any search engine
or library data base.

> Finally, I feel that masculism benefits greatly from the women who support
> it and I wouldn't want them to feel pushed away.

They already feel "pushed away" by the pussy's who call themselves men in
this country who don't say boo to feminism.

> I know that if I were a
> woman, statements like that would cause me to feel pushed away from the
> movement because one is required to believe that men are more just and
> reasonable then women in order to accept it.

It's all that feminist brainwashing you have had over the years. Not to
worry, I've been doing this for twenty years and the girls love it.

> > CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM
> >
> > SPIRITUAL
> >
> > Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to create
> > religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations.
>
> You are probably unaware of this, but your statement comes dangerously close
> to old nazi propaganda.

No, I'm not aware of this, but thanks for helping me get prepared. I
suspect the same could be said by plugging in "religious" as opposed to
"nazi". It all dependes on where you're comming from.

> When you choose to make generalizations you should
> do so very carefully and probably explain a little more thoroughly then this
> why you have done so.

Remember, it's got to be short, so go ahead and give it a whirl.

> I find 4 problems with this statement. First off, I'm
> taking it for granted that you cannot come anywhere close to actually
> proving the idea that men have a more pronounced spirituality.

Maybe another phrase would help. Like men have been proven to "talk to
God" and have other people listen. How's that?

> Secondly not
> all societies were created by religion (Mongolia and China being the most
> obvious examples).

You mean those feudal fiefedoms of a hundred years ago? I'd think
Confuscious and Buddha would take issue with this.

> Third, religions have also destroyed civilizations.

Yeah, boy did they do a number on the pagans!!

> Fourth, women were also active participants in the creation of civilizations
> and their contributions should not be discounted.

Their efforts at cooking, cleaning and nurturing the kids, as well as
filling in now and then in the monarchy, should certainly be given it's
due.

> > This is a
> > fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned or
> > eliminated by anyone, especially women.
>
> Especially who? Masculism is not about dividing men and women, it supports
> bringing them closer together. It is vital that we don't make statements
> that could easily be intrepretted by the average person as being otherwise.

The "average people"? You mean the zombies that have swallowed feminism
hook, line and sinker? Listen, if they can get sucked into that
horseshit, then they will absolutley love masculism.

> >Masculism therefore acknowledges
> > and respects religion as critical to men's lives.
>
> I disagree. Many masculists are anti-religion.

"Anti-religion"? Does that mean "pro-atheist", which is religion in
wolf's clothing? Sorry charlie, the religious (Judeo-Christians) are in
the majority and the majority rules. Our constituion will take care of
the rest as it has for 200 years.

> I personally agree with you
> that religion should be more a part of people's lives, but that is
> completely seperate from masculism. I feel most people who reject religion
> do so for what they feel are good reasons, and religions need to hear these
> people and address their concerns in order to have more influence. I feel
> that to divide masculists on the basis of religion is no better then to
> divide them on the basis of left right politics.

Well, I know this is a prickly issue for many, but what I'm suggesting
here, considering the fact of our constituion, only amounts to prayer at
football games and Christmas Carols at Christmas time in public schools.
Let's not get all feminist hysterical over this.

> > Even atheism smacks of
> > religion when a group of men get together under it's auspices. Since we
> > live in a culture that was created by the Judeo-Christian traditions,
> > Masculism endorses God and supports an increase of His presence in our
> > public life, but in keeping with the "spirit of the consititution".
>
> Atheism isn't a religion by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh yeah? That's not my experience. It is not only a religion, but
presently it is a state sponsored religion under feminism.

> Also masculism
> does not choose which religion is best based on which one created our
> culture. To me, masculism has very little to do with religion at all, other
> then the fact that often we find ourselves fighting for the same causes.

When I became an antifeminist in the early eighties, I would have taken
the same position. But then I contemplated the differences between men
and women especially in the ways they organize. It struck me that men
have a more passionate nature that requires a strong beleif before they
go anywhere. This is usually manifested in this country in the
patriarchal religions, and more recently in some "New Age" efforts. You
see, one of the problems we have had with resistence to feminsm is that
the religious see themselves as the primary opponents to feminism. We
know that they haven't been able to do the job and it appears they never
will, masculism needs them and therefore needs to accomodate them. They
also need a secualar tool like masculism to combat the secualar feminism.
It's really quite simple in a political sense.

> > POLITICAL
> >
> > Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist"
> > if it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality),
> > serves to promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness for
> > men and their families.
>
> I think it's important to expound a little more on this and state what the
> main political goals of masculists are. I believe they include...
> 1. Changing the divorce and paternity laws so that they are more equitable,
> including eliminating the "primary parent" myth as well as changing the
> focus from "best interest of the child" to "most fair to everyone according
> to their rights and level of responsibility".

Too vague in a legal sense. I think it best to leave the deatails to men
and women advocates and since feminists want "mother custody", masculists
should advocate "father's custody". This also has the function of
suppressing shot gun divorces if it were to become a reality.

> 2. Remove sexism against men from every step of the legal process, from
> creation through enforcement, trial, sentencing, and prison conditions.

This is important and certainly should be a part of masculist advocacy.
However, it smacks of feminist type advocacy and is a natural approach by
masculists anyway, so why highlight it?

> 3. Make circumcision of male babies a felony offense as it is for female
> babies in most countries (including the US).

Oh geeze. Wading into patrriarchal religious ground once again eh? You
don't get it. Feminism promoted itself in opposition to patriarchal
religion and used that to eliminate classical secualr education and have
replaced it with feminist education. C'mon Hombre, smell the roses.

> 4. Remove tax exempt status from organizations which discriminate against
> men, women, or any other birth-group (save perhaps age) in any way.

What organizations might that be? Why are we advocating for women when
they rule over us? What planet do you live on?

> 5. Force the government to spend equitably on men's programs as it does on
> women's, most notably with regard to health expenditures.

Fuck "legal equity", that's the essence of the mess we are in now.
"Legal Equity" only covers the goodies that men produce and gives them to
women, it doesn't cover all the sacrifices men make for women.

> 6. Eliminate the sexual harassment, VAWA, AA, and other laws that clearly
> violate the constitution. Make sexual harassment a provision under the
> general harassment laws and require as solid of a claim to penalize sexual
> harassment as any other form of harassment.

The Manifesto covers this and all these things are too specific for a
"Outline of masculism", but more appropriately addressed by individual
masculist organizations in their position papers. My personal view as
that tho correct the damage of feminism, civil rights should only include
men and AA might be a good way to put things back in
balance...temporarily. I kept all this vague in the Manifesto
intentionally by stating "repeal of feminist laws of the past thirty
years".

> I believe that covers the most basic ones.
>
> >
> > PSYCHOLOGICAL
> >
> > Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
> > masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
> > to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.
>
> I would go further then that and include the study of the psychological
> matriarchy, which kids are growing up with as a topic worthy of study.

I agree, this is very important to future generations to guard against
any further episodes of matriarchy.

> Also,
> while I agree that we should value what's traditionally been referred to as
> "masculine", we should also allow for and value what are called "feminine"
> traits in men and boys.

The advancement of civilization has automatically increased the
"feminization of men". An awareness of this is important, but not much
else.

> > CULTURAL
> >
> > The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of
> > men and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this
> > country, thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
> > system.
>
> This seems to be more of a tactic to accomplish our goals rather then a goal
> itself.

It's both.

> When I think of the cultural goals of masculism, what first comes to
> my mind is to get our cultures to consider the inner worlds of men and boys,
> so that people will be capable of empathizing with them.

Too "touchy feely" feminist. Yuck. But you can do that if you'd like.

> Also getting rid of
> the desperate belief that every woman must always be innocent and good.
> These seem like good cultural goals for masculists.

This has been a function of feminism and if you kill feminism you kill
male denigration and put the focus more on women once again. It's a
critical aspect of masculism that this be done. Feminism has allowed
women totally off the hook on most areas of responsibility. It's time
to put them back on the hook and examine the "sins of women".

> > ECONOMIC
> >
> > In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
> > organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
> > corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
> > presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
> > economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
> > system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
> > mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
> > have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
> > for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
> > systems.
>
> I fully agree.
>
> >
> > SEXUAL
> >
> > Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
> > Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.
> > Understanding sex differences is critical for every aspect of life and
> > should be studied and government policies should conform to what we
> > learn.
>
> Perhaps this would be better categorized as "biological differences"?

Too narrow.

> The
> idea of sexual goals for masculism sounds more like a subset of cultural
> goals with it's aim being to change how society views men's and women's
> sexuality.

Are you kidding? and your the one that doesn't want to wade into
religion? That's the problem with you atheists, your religion is the
only valid one. This is a religious matter, you know, separation of
church and state.

> This would include not demonising men or calling us pigs because
> we are sexual creatures, treating sex as something a woman and man give each
> other and not just one gives the other, and eliminating the idea that men
> can't be pretty or beautiful and that those who desire to are gay.

You're not a cross dresser are you Hombre? All this stuff will resolve
itself quite naturally when men adopt the identity of "masculist". With
that mantle, they regain their balls for the first time in thirty years.
They can wear dresses if they like and rib eachother. Remember, I'm an
early fan of Mel Feit.

> > Please feel free to critique my "outline".
>
> Since it's an outline of masculism, it's "our outline" and as such I felt an
> obligation to critique. Thanks for the work you put into this and I hope you
> will consider my recommendations.

Thank you Hombre, I appreciate your recommendations. The major hangup
seems the religious attachment to masculism. I knew this would be
difficult, but putting aside any personal considerations, which are
heavily Christian, I can't see any way around it even if I were an
atheist. I feel it has to be done, but in as disciplined and secular way
as possible, with full cognizance of the ample protections the
Constitution gives us.

I also appreciate the work that you and others here have done to develop
advocacy for men, and any outline of masculism is for all those folks to
revise and expand on. But I think I have covered most of the ground of
masculism while balancing Left-Right concerns and secular-nonsecular
concerns as well. As with the Masculist Manifesto, it's a bold start.

Tom
PS Farrell, are you out there? I need some help for crissakes.

[Stephen Morgan]

In soc.men, Tom Smith (QIM) wrote:
> QIMNews Men
> Position Statement
> August 21, 2001
>
> By Tom Smith (QIM)
>
> In the Fall of '99 I published and discussed here and on all the major
> men's forums the "Masculist Manifesto"
> (http://www.geocities.com/qim/manifestohtml.htm)
> It is a statement of the political objectives of Masculism and kicks ass
> and everyone knows it.
>
> Now it's time to present a proposal for a comprehensive view of
> Masculism, not just it's political objectives, though those objectives
> need be consistent with masculism itself. Since the publishing of the
> Manifesto, and I suggest because of it, there is more discussion of
> masculism and people calling themselves "Masculist" on the net. It's
> time to clarify Masculism.

Oh that. Yes. That's become something of a madness with you, hasn't it?
-- Stephen Fry, "Fascism"

> Masculism isn't feminism in pants. The only thing in common with
> feminism is that it's an ideology (defined: "The body of ideas
> reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group,
> class or culture"). An "ideology" for men is long overdue.

Stephen And for the women?
Hugh Gayle. There is no place for women in our
thousand year order.
Stephen But Leonard, women do have certain useful
functions.
Hugh Such as?
Stephen News reading.
Hugh Why do you always insist on calling it that?
Stephen It excites me.
-- Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie, "Fascism"

> Before one gets too prickly over the specifics of Masculism, it must be
> remembered that feminism contained much that most women didn't beleive in
> yet they followed the feminists, as well as many men, eventhough the men
> were excluded and derided by official feminist ideology. It was economic
> self interest and a percieved, though certainly not proved, victimization
> and oppression that caused many people to follow the feminists. Always
> keep that in mind when approaching Masculism, though I assure you it will
> be much more just and reasonable, simply because men create it.

No.

> CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM
>
> SPIRITUAL
>
> Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to create
> religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations. This is a
> fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned or
> eliminated by anyone, especially women. Masculism therefore acknowledges
> and respects religion as critical to men's lives. Even atheism smacks of
> religion when a group of men get together under it's auspices. Since we
> live in a culture that was created by the Judeo-Christian traditions,
> Masculism endorses God and supports an increase of His presence in our
> public life, but in keeping with the "spirit of the consititution".

Not all Masculists are Americans.

> POLITICAL
>
> Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist"
> if it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality),
> serves to promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness for
> men and their families.
>
> PSYCHOLOGICAL
>
> Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
> masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
> to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.
>
> CULTURAL
>
> The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of
> men and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this
> country, thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
> system.

You make it sound so easy...

> ECONOMIC
>
> In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
> organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
> corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
> presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
> economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
> system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
> mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
> have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
> for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
> systems.
>
> SEXUAL
>
> Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
> Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.

Why call it masculism?

> Understanding sex differences is critical for every aspect of life and
> should be studied and government policies should conform to what we
> learn.
>
>
> Please feel free to critique my "outline".
>
> Tom Smith
> Founder of The American Union of Men (AUM)

--
...but as records of courts and justice are admissible, it can easily be
proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed and were a scourge
to mankind. The evidence (including confession) upon which certain women
were convicted of witchcraft and executed was without a flaw; it is still
unimpeachable. The judges' decisions based on it were sound in logic and
in law. Nothing in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than
the charges of witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death. If
there were no witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute
of value.
-- Ambrose Bierce

[Stephen Morgan]

In soc.men, Parg2000 wrote:
> <CUT>
> >
> >SPIRITUAL
> >
> >Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to create
> religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations.
>
> {Parg} What men actually HAD was a "prounounced" NEED to invent a reason why
> women could not lead. <G> Women already KNEW the nature of the Goddess within
> them.

Do you consider men to have a "goddess within" or are you being sexist,
rebellious one?

> This is a >fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned
> or
> >eliminated by anyone, especially women.
>
> {Parg} Women tend to laugh at bitter boys who think they are the _god_ because
> they get up at a podium and say a few words in latin.

The Pope is the only Christian who considers himself God (although many
of the females have been taken in by this "goddess" shite).

> It's just a joke to women in the know.

As you and your "goddess" worshipping ilk are a joke to men and women in
the know.

> Masculism therefore acknowledges >and respects religion as critical to men's
> lives.
>
> {Parg} Religion is certainly "critical" to men's vaulted position in life. <G>

Liar.

> Even atheism smacks of >religion when a group of men get together under it's
> auspices.
>
> {Parg} You must have missed the information that today, as women do everything
> else men do, women are more active in religion than are men. Women have more
> or less taken it over to use for purposes of their own.

Feminists have taken over most things. We will have to change that.

> >POLITICAL
> >
> >Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist" >if
> it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality), serves to
> promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness for
> >men and their families.
> >
> {Parg} The destruction of feminism would necessitate the killing of women who
> are feminists.

No, it wouldn't.

> Go for it! My daughter works at the same level as her male
> counterparts;

Your imaginary daughter who only got her job through AA, no doubt.

> she would never consider stepping down.

No, she'd never get another job now AA is gone.

> Bring it on...hon!
>
> >PSYCHOLOGICAL
> >
> >Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
> >masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
> >to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.
>
> {Parg} Boys aren't going to BE boys at the expense of everyone else, hon. Get
> used to it.

Boys will be boys, it's that simple.

> >CULTURAL
> >
> >The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of >men
> and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this country,
> thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
> >system.
>
> {Parg} There are, today, more women than men and men who value female equality
> for the women they love.

Proof?

> I've raised my son to NOT want a doormat, and today
> he calls himself a feminist.

Ah, so he has chosen to be a doormat?

> >ECONOMIC
>
> >>In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
> >organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
> corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
> >presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
> >economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
> >system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
> >mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
> >have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
> >for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
> >systems.
>
> {Parg} Sounds like one of those who demonstrated at the trade talks. I
> consider myself a compasionate capitalist, hon. Every western nation existing
> today has some capitalism sprinkled tenderly with social programs, and WOMEN do
> VOTE.

SO do MEN. Down with democracy!

> >SEXUAL
> >
> >Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
> >Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism. >Understanding
> sex differences is critical for every aspect of life and >should be studied and
> government policies should conform to what we
> >learn.
>
> {Parg} Women aren't about to give up their roles just because sexist men find
> women unfit for those roles.

He was talking about science, not sexism.

> Poor baby must have had his job taken by an
> 'inferior' woman. <G>

Why you say?

[Hombre]

"Tom Smith (QIM)" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:MPG.15ec7bd330f273dc989730@news...

> In article <Ulxg7.2679$Cf5.2...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
> Hombr...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > "Tom Smith (QIM)" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.15ebc9505a4d0f4798972e@news...
> > > QIMNews Men
> > > Position Statement
> > > August 21, 2001
> > >
> > > By Tom Smith (QIM)
> >
> > Hi Tom!,
> > I think you are wise to want to put out a comprehensive view of
masculism
> > especially as more and more people seem to be becoming interested in it.
I
> > feel it is important that we make this outline as strong as possible,
and as
> > such I am going to be attacking it as best I can. I hope you understand
my
> > reasoning. I am also going to offer suggestions of topics you might want
to
> > consider addressing a little more thoroughly in this outline.
>
> "Attack"!! Alright, that's the Masculist spirit!

I am masculist hear me roar! hehe

>
> > > In the Fall of '99 I published and discussed here and on all the major
> > > men's forums the "Masculist Manifesto"
> > > (http://www.geocities.com/qim/manifestohtml.htm)
> > > It is a statement of the political objectives of Masculism and kicks
ass
> > > and everyone knows it.
> > >
> > > Now it's time to present a proposal for a comprehensive view of
> > > Masculism, not just it's political objectives, though those objectives
> > > need be consistent with masculism itself. Since the publishing of the
> > > Manifesto, and I suggest because of it,
> >
> > "I am the movement!" - Napoleon Bonaparte :-)
>
> Yep, and I have my hand tucked into my coat also.

Since we're on the subject, here's a trivia question for you. What was the
most important tool Napoleon used to take over France?

Thanks. I found The Prince to be rather dull and full of not especially
novel ideas (I doubt if they were novel even back when he wrote them).
However it does have a lot of great quotes.

> > Self interest has always been the key to overcoming this lukewarmness.
As we
> > approach the topic of wide-spread education of masculism, we need to
> > remember to demonstrate the benefits for both men and women so that they
> > will feel the self interest needed to try out the ideology.
>
> Economics has to be part of it, which is the bottom line when it comes to
> "self interest". I have left room for that. But unlike feminism,
> masculism has to address in a more forceful way the good of society. I
> feel that the religious emphasis is important in this regard.
>

I agree that economics is going to be part of it, and that masculism does
need to address itself in a more forceful way. I think two other "self
interest" factors that will be motivating especially to men would include
the right to parent your own children and the ability to be respected for
what we are.

> > > Always
> > > keep that in mind when approaching Masculism, though I assure you it
will
> > > be much more just and reasonable, simply because men create it.
> >
> > Tom, it's quotes like this that I would search for if I were an enemy of
the
> > movement.
>
> Yeah, and how did you like the "especialy women" quote? I like putting
> those in there just to piss off feminists.

Would you rather piss off the intelligent feminists or the dumb ones? :-)

>
> > The reason is because it is attackable on many levels.
>
> Yep, and I respond, "Bring it on".
>
> > First, it
> > fails Farrell's test of switching the group men for any other group and
> > seeing if it sounds biased.
>
> Remember, Farrell was a feminists when I was knocking heads with the
> consciousness raisers in the mid seventies. Also, his "Myth of Male
> Power" didn't do the trick now did it? But it did earn him the moniker
> of "Masculist" and a leader of the movement.
>
> > Secondly, one could very easily point to the
> > nazis as a group created primarily by men and show how according to your
> > statement the nazis must have been just and reasonable.
>
> Oh good, the opposition bringing up the Nazi's. More reason to do this
> sort of thing.

While that would certainly allow great opportunity for all kinds of ad
hominems thrown at our critics one of them might ask you to actually
disprove the point itself. How would you reply?

>
> > Also alot of the
> > things we're fighting against were created mainly by men, are you trying
to
> > say we're fighting against things that are just and reasonable?
>
> No, no, no, feminism wasn't "created by men", it was created by a bunch
> of bitter-slut-marxist politicos and lesbos in NYC in the late sixties.

I wasn't referring to feminism.

> It took over the radical Left because of those pussy politico men on the
> Left in the late sixties who were a small and despised group in the
> rebellion by most and were considered a necessary evil in organizing the
> demonstrations. That's a fact jack, I was there.
>

I don't doubt it.

> > Another important point one could make is that masculism hasn't been
created
> > entirely by men.
>
> Yep, and it can be proved by plugging "masculism" into any search engine
> or library data base.
>
> > Finally, I feel that masculism benefits greatly from the women who
support
> > it and I wouldn't want them to feel pushed away.
>
> They already feel "pushed away" by the pussy's who call themselves men in
> this country who don't say boo to feminism.

And if we make anti-woman statements, they'll feel pushed away by us too.

>
> > I know that if I were a
> > woman, statements like that would cause me to feel pushed away from the
> > movement because one is required to believe that men are more just and
> > reasonable then women in order to accept it.
>
> It's all that feminist brainwashing you have had over the years. Not to
> worry, I've been doing this for twenty years and the girls love it.
>

Lol. I've had a lot of success using the "bad guy" approach to courtship
also. I once picked up a girl who was sober while I was falling over drunk
by insulting her boyfriend and telling her that she was immature and her
boobs were small. The humorous thing is that my insults were entirely
accidental.

>
> > > CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM
> > >
> > > SPIRITUAL
> > >
> > > Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to
create
> > > religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations.
> >
> > You are probably unaware of this, but your statement comes dangerously
close
> > to old nazi propaganda.
>
> No, I'm not aware of this, but thanks for helping me get prepared. I
> suspect the same could be said by plugging in "religious" as opposed to
> "nazi". It all dependes on where you're comming from.
>

Religious propaganda doesn't scare the masses like nazi propaganda does. The
nazis believed that the good germans had a more pronounced spirituality then
the Jews, which was why they built the german civilization while the Jews
were busy manipulating economic systems so that they would control the
resources.

> > When you choose to make generalizations you should
> > do so very carefully and probably explain a little more thoroughly then
this
> > why you have done so.
>
> Remember, it's got to be short, so go ahead and give it a whirl.
>

Well, if it had been my generalization...

> > I find 4 problems with this statement. First off, I'm
> > taking it for granted that you cannot come anywhere close to actually
> > proving the idea that men have a more pronounced spirituality.
>
> Maybe another phrase would help. Like men have been proven to "talk to
> God" and have other people listen. How's that?
>

Better, yet still seemingly unrelated to masculism.

> > Secondly not
> > all societies were created by religion (Mongolia and China being the
most
> > obvious examples).
>
> You mean those feudal fiefedoms of a hundred years ago? I'd think
> Confuscious and Buddha would take issue with this.

No, I was referring to the modern countries. China was created by "godless
commies" and Mongolia was created by Genghis Khan, an atheist.

>
> > Third, religions have also destroyed civilizations.
>
> Yeah, boy did they do a number on the pagans!!
>

That's not really a bragging point for religions. Yes, some pagan cultures
were extremely barbaric, not all of the civilizations destroyed by religions
were though.

> > Fourth, women were also active participants in the creation of
civilizations
> > and their contributions should not be discounted.
>
> Their efforts at cooking, cleaning and nurturing the kids, as well as
> filling in now and then in the monarchy, should certainly be given it's
> due.

Exactly.

>
> > > This is a
> > > fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned or
> > > eliminated by anyone, especially women.
> >
> > Especially who? Masculism is not about dividing men and women, it
supports
> > bringing them closer together. It is vital that we don't make statements
> > that could easily be intrepretted by the average person as being
otherwise.
>
> The "average people"? You mean the zombies that have swallowed feminism
> hook, line and sinker? Listen, if they can get sucked into that
> horseshit, then they will absolutley love masculism.

Yes they will, as long as our outlined goals sound better to them then our
oppositions.

>
> > >Masculism therefore acknowledges
> > > and respects religion as critical to men's lives.
> >
> > I disagree. Many masculists are anti-religion.
>
> "Anti-religion"? Does that mean "pro-atheist", which is religion in
> wolf's clothing?

I don't think we are using the same definition of religion. I'm referring to
any organizations that teach spiritual tenets and has a moral code for it's
followers to adhere to. Atheism fails to meet this standard. To be
anti-religion means that someone is opposed to these organizations, usually
because they are opposed to some of the things the organizations have done.
Not all atheists are anti-religion.

> Sorry charlie, the religious (Judeo-Christians) are in
> the majority and the majority rules. Our constituion will take care of
> the rest as it has for 200 years.

Might makes right? I believe that anyone who stands up to the unfair
treatment of men is a masculist, regardless of their political, religious,
or any other position.

>
> > I personally agree with you
> > that religion should be more a part of people's lives, but that is
> > completely seperate from masculism. I feel most people who reject
religion
> > do so for what they feel are good reasons, and religions need to hear
these
> > people and address their concerns in order to have more influence. I
feel
> > that to divide masculists on the basis of religion is no better then to
> > divide them on the basis of left right politics.
>
> Well, I know this is a prickly issue for many, but what I'm suggesting
> here, considering the fact of our constituion, only amounts to prayer at
> football games and Christmas Carols at Christmas time in public schools.
> Let's not get all feminist hysterical over this.
>

I agree with your stance on those issues, but they are not masculist issues.
Personally they aren't especially important to me either, which is why I
don't get "feminist hysterical" about them.

> > > Even atheism smacks of
> > > religion when a group of men get together under it's auspices. Since
we
> > > live in a culture that was created by the Judeo-Christian traditions,
> > > Masculism endorses God and supports an increase of His presence in our
> > > public life, but in keeping with the "spirit of the consititution".
> >
> > Atheism isn't a religion by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> Oh yeah? That's not my experience. It is not only a religion, but
> presently it is a state sponsored religion under feminism.
>

Not all atheists are feminists. I think it'd be more accurate to say that
feminism itself is the state sponsored religion.

> > Also masculism
> > does not choose which religion is best based on which one created our
> > culture. To me, masculism has very little to do with religion at all,
other
> > then the fact that often we find ourselves fighting for the same causes.
>
> When I became an antifeminist in the early eighties, I would have taken
> the same position. But then I contemplated the differences between men
> and women especially in the ways they organize. It struck me that men
> have a more passionate nature that requires a strong beleif before they
> go anywhere. This is usually manifested in this country in the
> patriarchal religions, and more recently in some "New Age" efforts. You
> see, one of the problems we have had with resistence to feminsm is that
> the religious see themselves as the primary opponents to feminism. We
> know that they haven't been able to do the job and it appears they never
> will, masculism needs them and therefore needs to accomodate them. They
> also need a secualar tool like masculism to combat the secualar feminism.
> It's really quite simple in a political sense.
>

In this area I agree. I see most major religions challenging the feminists
in a lot of the same ways myself and my masculist friends do. We should work
together and cooperate in a harmonious spirit to achieve our goals. I would
like to see a lasting partnership maintained between masculism and religion.
This is not accomplished by pointing fingers at members of the wrong
religions and accusing them of not being masculists.

>
> > > POLITICAL
> > >
> > > Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a
"Masculist"
> > > if it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality),
> > > serves to promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness
for
> > > men and their families.
> >
> > I think it's important to expound a little more on this and state what
the
> > main political goals of masculists are. I believe they include...
> > 1. Changing the divorce and paternity laws so that they are more
equitable,
> > including eliminating the "primary parent" myth as well as changing the
> > focus from "best interest of the child" to "most fair to everyone
according
> > to their rights and level of responsibility".
>
> Too vague in a legal sense. I think it best to leave the deatails to men
> and women advocates and since feminists want "mother custody", masculists
> should advocate "father's custody". This also has the function of
> suppressing shot gun divorces if it were to become a reality.
>

I thought we were the advocates?

> > 2. Remove sexism against men from every step of the legal process, from
> > creation through enforcement, trial, sentencing, and prison conditions.
>
> This is important and certainly should be a part of masculist advocacy.
> However, it smacks of feminist type advocacy and is a natural approach by
> masculists anyway, so why highlight it?
>

It's an important part of the masculist effort, and this is supposed to be a
comprehensive outline of masculism.

> > 3. Make circumcision of male babies a felony offense as it is for female
> > babies in most countries (including the US).
>
> Oh geeze. Wading into patrriarchal religious ground once again eh? You
> don't get it. Feminism promoted itself in opposition to patriarchal
> religion and used that to eliminate classical secualr education and have
> replaced it with feminist education. C'mon Hombre, smell the roses.
>

Are you kidding? Feminists haven't said anything positive about ending male
circumcision whatsoever, they've barely broached the topic at all. And most
circumcisions are not done for religious reasons. Tell me, can you think of
any other healthy part of a babies body that could be cut off at birth that
you wouldn't consider cruel? Before you start arguing the medical reasons I
should warn you that as of last April the AMA reversed it's decision and no
longer recommends circumcision of infant males on medical grounds. I think
it's the traditionalist education that's warped your view on this. All
throughout Europe and especially in Canada, uncircumcised men are the norm.
They don't seem to have any problems because of it at all.

> > 4. Remove tax exempt status from organizations which discriminate
against
> > men, women, or any other birth-group (save perhaps age) in any way.
>
> What organizations might that be? Why are we advocating for women when
> they rule over us? What planet do you live on?

NOW for one. We're advocating for equality. You don't know?

>
> > 5. Force the government to spend equitably on men's programs as it does
on
> > women's, most notably with regard to health expenditures.
>
> Fuck "legal equity", that's the essence of the mess we are in now.

The mess isn't because of legal equity, it's because the government believes
what feminists claim is legal equity. If we really had legal equity we
wouldn't be in such a mess.

> "Legal Equity" only covers the goodies that men produce and gives them to
> women, it doesn't cover all the sacrifices men make for women.

Obviously we need to change the way feminists have defined it then.

>
> > 6. Eliminate the sexual harassment, VAWA, AA, and other laws that
clearly
> > violate the constitution. Make sexual harassment a provision under the
> > general harassment laws and require as solid of a claim to penalize
sexual
> > harassment as any other form of harassment.
>
> The Manifesto covers this and all these things are too specific for a
> "Outline of masculism", but more appropriately addressed by individual
> masculist organizations in their position papers. My personal view as
> that tho correct the damage of feminism, civil rights should only include
> men and AA might be a good way to put things back in
> balance...temporarily. I kept all this vague in the Manifesto
> intentionally by stating "repeal of feminist laws of the past thirty
> years".
>

It might be too specific for a brief outline, but why keep it vague in the
manifesto?

> > I believe that covers the most basic ones.
> >
> > >
> > > PSYCHOLOGICAL
> > >
> > > Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that
men's
> > > masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for
society
> > > to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine
life.
> >
> > I would go further then that and include the study of the psychological
> > matriarchy, which kids are growing up with as a topic worthy of study.
>
> I agree, this is very important to future generations to guard against
> any further episodes of matriarchy.
>
> > Also,
> > while I agree that we should value what's traditionally been referred to
as
> > "masculine", we should also allow for and value what are called
"feminine"
> > traits in men and boys.
>
> The advancement of civilization has automatically increased the
> "feminization of men". An awareness of this is important, but not much
> else.

I believe it deserves some psychological examination, but I agree that it's
hardly a major issue for the masculist cause.

>
> > > CULTURAL
> > >
> > > The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of
> > > men and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this
> > > country, thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present
matriarchal
> > > system.
> >
> > This seems to be more of a tactic to accomplish our goals rather then a
goal
> > itself.
>
> It's both.
>
> > When I think of the cultural goals of masculism, what first comes to
> > my mind is to get our cultures to consider the inner worlds of men and
boys,
> > so that people will be capable of empathizing with them.
>
> Too "touchy feely" feminist. Yuck. But you can do that if you'd like.
>

I don't think masculists fully appreciate this as much as they should. When
a newspaper article writes about a man who murdered his wife it prints "Mr.
X murdered his wife." When it reports a woman killing her husband it more
likely says "Fed up with years of neglect, Mrs. X had turned to booze as a
desperate measure to end the depression her husband's action were causing
her. Finally, unable to cope anymore, a drunken Mrs. X killed her husband in
a fit of despair". This sort of reporting happens so often that we become
trained to think that way. Try going up to someone and telling them about a
woman who killed her husband. The first thing they want to do is know the
details of that woman's inner world "Was she abused?" "What made her so mad
at her husband?". Now go tell another person about a man who killed his wife
and try explaining his emotional reasons for doing so. A likely response
would be "It's a husband who murdered his wife, that's all I need to hear."
We need to get people to realize that they do this so that they can start
"unbrainwashing" themselves from this pattern of thinking.

> > Also getting rid of
> > the desperate belief that every woman must always be innocent and good.
> > These seem like good cultural goals for masculists.
>
> This has been a function of feminism and if you kill feminism you kill
> male denigration and put the focus more on women once again. It's a
> critical aspect of masculism that this be done. Feminism has allowed
> women totally off the hook on most areas of responsibility. It's time
> to put them back on the hook and examine the "sins of women".

Power corrupts. An examination of the sins of women will show most of them
are in areas where they have the most power.

I want to work with various religions, not define masculism as one.

>That's the problem with you atheists, your religion is the
> only valid one.

I'm not an atheist.

> This is a religious matter, you know, separation of
> church and state.

If I had put this under the category of "legal goals" you'd have a point
here. It's a cultural goal, and has nothing to do with the state.

>
> > This would include not demonising men or calling us pigs because
> > we are sexual creatures, treating sex as something a woman and man give
each
> > other and not just one gives the other, and eliminating the idea that
men
> > can't be pretty or beautiful and that those who desire to are gay.
>
> You're not a cross dresser are you Hombre?

Not yet. :-)

> All this stuff will resolve
> itself quite naturally when men adopt the identity of "masculist".

Only if masculists quite naturally work for it.

> With
> that mantle, they regain their balls for the first time in thirty years.
> They can wear dresses if they like and rib eachother. Remember, I'm an
> early fan of Mel Feit.

Who?

>
> > > Please feel free to critique my "outline".
> >
> > Since it's an outline of masculism, it's "our outline" and as such I
felt an
> > obligation to critique. Thanks for the work you put into this and I hope
you
> > will consider my recommendations.
>
> Thank you Hombre, I appreciate your recommendations.

You're welcome. :-)

> The major hangup
> seems the religious attachment to masculism. I knew this would be
> difficult, but putting aside any personal considerations, which are
> heavily Christian, I can't see any way around it even if I were an
> atheist. I feel it has to be done, but in as disciplined and secular way
> as possible, with full cognizance of the ample protections the
> Constitution gives us.

This may surprise you but I am also a Christian. A religious masculist joint
effort is absolutely fine by me, in fact I encourage it. But to define
Christianity as part of the masculist outline is to adopt a needlessly
exclusive attitude. Let me once again repeat that if someone wants to stand
up for men's rights we should embrace them as a fellow masculist, regardless
of other concerns.

>
> I also appreciate the work that you and others here have done to develop
> advocacy for men, and any outline of masculism is for all those folks to
> revise and expand on. But I think I have covered most of the ground of
> masculism while balancing Left-Right concerns and secular-nonsecular
> concerns as well. As with the Masculist Manifesto, it's a bold start.
>

It is indeed. Thank you again and please don't take my critiques personally.

> Tom
> PS Farrell, are you out there? I need some help for crissakes.

Have you tried his website? I contacted him once through there and it took a
couple weeks but he wrote back.

[Hombre]

"Stephen Morgan" <ncav...@crosswinds.net> wrote in
message

<snipping all but the point I wanted to address>

> > Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter
and
> > Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.
>
> Why call it masculism?

That's an excellant question. I believe that calling it masculism is correct
because it approaches the issue of equality from a men's rights viewpoint. I
would call it a subset of egalitarianism, and considering the state of
things today the one in my opinion that should be given the most focus by
egalitarians. Not that I am in the belief that feminism is a subset of
egalitarianism because it is quite obviously not. But I believe a form of
feminism could be created as a such a subset it just wouldn't bear any
resemblance to what we now know as feminism.

I consider myself an egalitarian first, and because I am egalitarian I
choose to be a masculist.

[Tom Smith]

In article <kvDg7.37$Q6....@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,

Hombr...@yahoo.com says...
>
> "Tom Smith (QIM)" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.15ec7bd330f273dc989730@news...
> > In article <Ulxg7.2679$Cf5.2...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
> > Hombr...@yahoo.com says...
>

> > > > By Tom Smith (QIM)

> > > "I am the movement!" - Napoleon Bonaparte :-)
> >
> > Yep, and I have my hand tucked into my coat also.
>
> Since we're on the subject, here's a trivia question for you. What was the
> most important tool Napoleon used to take over France?

Gee, I just saw a history channel program on Napoleon, let me think...He
got his start in the successful Italy campaigne and then...ah, I got it!!
He married some bitch in a high place that paved the way...right?

I married an Art History Professor who was a feminist, Hombre. Does that
fit the bill? That was in '78, we divorced in '79.

> > Great quote, and it captures the tenor of living under feminism and our
> > uphill battle in fighting it.
> >
>
> Thanks. I found The Prince to be rather dull and full of not especially
> novel ideas (I doubt if they were novel even back when he wrote them).
> However it does have a lot of great quotes.

I read it and liked it.

> > Economics has to be part of it, which is the bottom line when it comes to
> > "self interest". I have left room for that. But unlike feminism,
> > masculism has to address in a more forceful way the good of society. I
> > feel that the religious emphasis is important in this regard.
> >
>
> I agree that economics is going to be part of it, and that masculism does
> need to address itself in a more forceful way. I think two other "self
> interest" factors that will be motivating especially to men would include
> the right to parent your own children and the ability to be respected for
> what we are.

No doubt. I think I covered that with father custody in the Manifesto
and the psychological section of the outline.

> > Yeah, and how did you like the "especialy women" quote? I like putting
> > those in there just to piss off feminists.
>
> Would you rather piss off the intelligent feminists or the dumb ones? :-)

Both are fun, though I particularly like jacking up the bright ones
because they have farther to fall.

> > Oh good, the opposition bringing up the Nazi's. More reason to do this
> > sort of thing.
>
> While that would certainly allow great opportunity for all kinds of ad
> hominems thrown at our critics one of them might ask you to actually
> disprove the point itself. How would you reply?

I'm aligned with some "ultra orthodox" Jews in Israel on a new spiritual
phenomenon. I have also lived and worked with Jews all through my life.

> > They already feel "pushed away" by the pussy's who call themselves men in
> > this country who don't say boo to feminism.
>
> And if we make anti-woman statements, they'll feel pushed away by us too.

Alright, alright, I'll lighten up. You have to remember that I have been
at this for twenty years while working with feminists on my job, and
butting heads with them at every opportunity. They were the ones in
control, and I was the insurgent. Boy, did I lose alot of jobs over this
horseshit.

> > It's all that feminist brainwashing you have had over the years. Not to
> > worry, I've been doing this for twenty years and the girls love it.

> Lol. I've had a lot of success using the "bad guy" approach to courtship
> also. I once picked up a girl who was sober while I was falling over drunk
> by insulting her boyfriend and telling her that she was immature and her
> boobs were small. The humorous thing is that my insults were entirely
> accidental.

Mine usually were too <smile>. Good work Hombre, I didn't have that
opportunity myself, but would like to think I would have done what you
did.

> > > > CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM
> > > >
> > > > SPIRITUAL
> > > >
> > > > Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to
> create
> > > > religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations.
> > >
> > > You are probably unaware of this, but your statement comes dangerously
> close
> > > to old nazi propaganda.
> >
> > No, I'm not aware of this, but thanks for helping me get prepared. I
> > suspect the same could be said by plugging in "religious" as opposed to
> > "nazi". It all dependes on where you're comming from.
> >
>
> Religious propaganda doesn't scare the masses like nazi propaganda does. The
> nazis believed that the good germans had a more pronounced spirituality then
> the Jews, which was why they built the german civilization while the Jews
> were busy manipulating economic systems so that they would control the
> resources.

Oh, I see now what you are getting at. Plug in corporate boys for Jews,
minus fascism and extermination camps, then you got where I'm comming
from.

> > Yeah, boy did they do a number on the pagans!!
> >
>
> That's not really a bragging point for religions. Yes, some pagan cultures
> were extremely barbaric, not all of the civilizations destroyed by religions
> were though.

Most of the pagans came over peacefully and through sincere attraction to
Christianity. But that's neither here nor there when it comes to
masculism.

> > > Fourth, women were also active participants in the creation of
> civilizations
> > > and their contributions should not be discounted.
> >
> > Their efforts at cooking, cleaning and nurturing the kids, as well as
> > filling in now and then in the monarchy, should certainly be given it's
> > due.
>
> Exactly.

Well, that's a refreshing response after years of getting jumped on and
mearly killed by feminists when I said these tongue and cheek things.

> > The "average people"? You mean the zombies that have swallowed feminism
> > hook, line and sinker? Listen, if they can get sucked into that
> > horseshit, then they will absolutley love masculism.
>
> Yes they will, as long as our outlined goals sound better to them then our
> oppositions.

We'd have to be incredible fuck ups to do that Hombre.

> > Sorry charlie, the religious (Judeo-Christians) are in
> > the majority and the majority rules. Our constituion will take care of
> > the rest as it has for 200 years.
>
> Might makes right? I believe that anyone who stands up to the unfair
> treatment of men is a masculist, regardless of their political, religious,
> or any other position.

Agreed, and it's clearly stated in the "political" section of the
outline. You have to remember that I used the phrase "endorsing God" in
the masculism outline under "spirituality", and also gave reasons. You
said yourself that many atheists are supportive of religion. That's all
I'm doing.

> > Well, I know this is a prickly issue for many, but what I'm suggesting
> > here, considering the fact of our constituion, only amounts to prayer at
> > football games and Christmas Carols at Christmas time in public schools.
> > Let's not get all feminist hysterical over this.
> >
>
> I agree with your stance on those issues, but they are not masculist issues.

Poor baby Jesus in the manger getting attacked on all sides by the
feminists while us masculists say it's "not our issue". I want custody
of baby Jesus from those evil feminist witches who stole Him!! But
that's a personal thing and is not part of the outline.

> Personally they aren't especially important to me either, which is why I
> don't get "feminist hysterical" about them.

Well that's good to hear <smile>

> > Oh yeah? That's not my experience. It is not only a religion, but
> > presently it is a state sponsored religion under feminism.
> >
>
> Not all atheists are feminists.

90% perhaps?

> I think it'd be more accurate to say that
> feminism itself is the state sponsored religion.

That's for sure. I stand corrected.

> > When I became an antifeminist in the early eighties, I would have taken
> > the same position. But then I contemplated the differences between men
> > and women especially in the ways they organize. It struck me that men
> > have a more passionate nature that requires a strong beleif before they
> > go anywhere. This is usually manifested in this country in the
> > patriarchal religions, and more recently in some "New Age" efforts. You
> > see, one of the problems we have had with resistence to feminsm is that
> > the religious see themselves as the primary opponents to feminism. We
> > know that they haven't been able to do the job and it appears they never
> > will, masculism needs them and therefore needs to accomodate them. They
> > also need a secualar tool like masculism to combat the secualar feminism.
> > It's really quite simple in a political sense.
> >
>
> In this area I agree. I see most major religions challenging the feminists
> in a lot of the same ways myself and my masculist friends do. We should work
> together and cooperate in a harmonious spirit to achieve our goals. I would
> like to see a lasting partnership maintained between masculism and religion.

What the fuck do you think I'm trying to do? That's exactly my intent.

> This is not accomplished by pointing fingers at members of the wrong
> religions and accusing them of not being masculists.

I'm not trying to point fingers and thought I was carefully not doing
that. We can reword it if you'd like.

> > > > POLITICAL
> > > >
> > > > Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a
> "Masculist"
> > > > if it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality),
> > > > serves to promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness
> for
> > > > men and their families.
> > >
> > > I think it's important to expound a little more on this and state what
> the
> > > main political goals of masculists are. I believe they include...
> > > 1. Changing the divorce and paternity laws so that they are more
> equitable,
> > > including eliminating the "primary parent" myth as well as changing the
> > > focus from "best interest of the child" to "most fair to everyone
> according
> > > to their rights and level of responsibility".
> >
> > Too vague in a legal sense. I think it best to leave the deatails to men
> > and women advocates and since feminists want "mother custody", masculists
> > should advocate "father's custody". This also has the function of
> > suppressing shot gun divorces if it were to become a reality.
> >
>
> I thought we were the advocates?

For what? Right now we are talking about advocacy for a masculist
ideology. Father's rights is a specialized area under that umbrella. I
have told them that masculism has to go the route of father's custody for
various reasons. They may want to soften that since they are dealing
with feminists who have all the power and have no choice but to ask for
less. But the goal is father's custody and all boats will rise as we
chip away at the feminists, more like club away if you get my drift.
They don't seem to understand "chipping", which the father's rights guys
have done for thirty years and have lost huge chunks of ground.

> > This is important and certainly should be a part of masculist advocacy.
> > However, it smacks of feminist type advocacy and is a natural approach by
> > masculists anyway, so why highlight it?
> >
>
> It's an important part of the masculist effort, and this is supposed to be a
> comprehensive outline of masculism.

Alright, alright...what section should we put it in? Political?

> > > 3. Make circumcision of male babies a felony offense as it is for female
> > > babies in most countries (including the US).
> >
> > Oh geeze. Wading into patrriarchal religious ground once again eh? You
> > don't get it. Feminism promoted itself in opposition to patriarchal
> > religion and used that to eliminate classical secualr education and have
> > replaced it with feminist education. C'mon Hombre, smell the roses.
> >
>
> Are you kidding? Feminists haven't said anything positive about ending male
> circumcision whatsoever, they've barely broached the topic at all. And most
> circumcisions are not done for religious reasons. Tell me, can you think of
> any other healthy part of a babies body that could be cut off at birth that
> you wouldn't consider cruel? Before you start arguing the medical reasons I
> should warn you that as of last April the AMA reversed it's decision and no
> longer recommends circumcision of infant males on medical grounds. I think
> it's the traditionalist education that's warped your view on this.

No Hombre, it's my cute pointy penis that has warped my view of this.
This issue is too small (I'm not speaking of my penis, though I am
envious of the black guys) for my outline of masculism, but if you want
to make a bigger outline, than why not? As a matter of fact, that may be
a good idea to complement the abridged version I did here. Let's do
that.

> All
> throughout Europe and especially in Canada, uncircumcised men are the norm.
> They don't seem to have any problems because of it at all.

It looks ugly to me and I want the girls to think my thing is pretty
<smile>.

> > > 4. Remove tax exempt status from organizations which discriminate
> against
> > > men, women, or any other birth-group (save perhaps age) in any way.
> >
> > What organizations might that be? Why are we advocating for women when
> > they rule over us? What planet do you live on?
>
> NOW for one. We're advocating for equality. You don't know?

See, this again smacks of feminist advocacy. I've gone around and around
with the guys on the Right about all this, and they are justifiably
nervous about masculism going the route of feminism. We can do this sort
of thing, but I don't want to make a big issue of it. It also highlights
this whole "legal equality" number which is the centerpiece of feminism
that we have to attack. We lose consistency and confuse people if we go
that route.

> > > 5. Force the government to spend equitably on men's programs as it does
> on
> > > women's, most notably with regard to health expenditures.
> >
> > Fuck "legal equity", that's the essence of the mess we are in now.
>
> The mess isn't because of legal equity, it's because the government believes
> what feminists claim is legal equity. If we really had legal equity we
> wouldn't be in such a mess.

BTW, I'm a "representative" (LA division) of the men's health network and
am a great fan of Ed Bartlett's. The trouble with "legal equality" is
that there is no way to control and make equal everything, as a matter of
fact it is just impractible and ends up unjust. We need to get the
government out of it other than on an individual basis like men's health
and other areas. It's not a "legal equality" issue, but a "fairness"
issue.

> > "Legal Equity" only covers the goodies that men produce and gives them to
> > women, it doesn't cover all the sacrifices men make for women.
>
> Obviously we need to change the way feminists have defined it then.

Yeah, like changing it to "egalitarianism".

> > The Manifesto covers this and all these things are too specific for a
> > "Outline of masculism", but more appropriately addressed by individual
> > masculist organizations in their position papers. My personal view as
> > that tho correct the damage of feminism, civil rights should only include
> > men and AA might be a good way to put things back in
> > balance...temporarily. I kept all this vague in the Manifesto
> > intentionally by stating "repeal of feminist laws of the past thirty
> > years".
> >
>
> It might be too specific for a brief outline, but why keep it vague in the
> manifesto?

The Manifesto is also covering huge chunks of ground, and trying to do it
in a way that is "inclusive" of the whole spectrum of anti-feminists.
Mystery and possibility have to be part of any of these sweeping and
ambitious efforts. Hombre, we are talking about half the population and
one of the most critical areas of human life. Look at what thirty years
of feminism has done, just think what masculism will do. Feminism was
revolutionary and was stated as such by the early feminists who I heard
with my own ears say it. They were successful and implimented their plan
and are now going beyond it. Masculism will be at least as much a
revolutionary change as feminism, probably much more so. We are trying
to correct the mistakes of the last thirty years, but in doing so we are
changing a tide that has been building for hundreds of years.
Maculism will change everything and it's not going to be retro, it will
be quite fresh and new.

> > > When I think of the cultural goals of masculism, what first comes to
> > > my mind is to get our cultures to consider the inner worlds of men and
> boys,
> > > so that people will be capable of empathizing with them.
> >
> > Too "touchy feely" feminist. Yuck. But you can do that if you'd like.
> >
>
> I don't think masculists fully appreciate this as much as they should. When
> a newspaper article writes about a man who murdered his wife it prints "Mr.
> X murdered his wife." When it reports a woman killing her husband it more
> likely says "Fed up with years of neglect, Mrs. X had turned to booze as a
> desperate measure to end the depression her husband's action were causing
> her. Finally, unable to cope anymore, a drunken Mrs. X killed her husband in
> a fit of despair". This sort of reporting happens so often that we become
> trained to think that way. Try going up to someone and telling them about a
> woman who killed her husband. The first thing they want to do is know the
> details of that woman's inner world "Was she abused?" "What made her so mad
> at her husband?". Now go tell another person about a man who killed his wife
> and try explaining his emotional reasons for doing so. A likely response
> would be "It's a husband who murdered his wife, that's all I need to hear."
> We need to get people to realize that they do this so that they can start
> "unbrainwashing" themselves from this pattern of thinking.

You convinced me, put it in the long outline, or we can put it in this
one but we have to do it in a sentence or two and get the point accross
clearly. I'll work on it.

> I want to work with various religions, not define masculism as one.

Ok, this is important. "Endorsing God" is not "worshipping, loving,
shoving Him down people's throats etc". Listen, beleive in Him or not,
but you can't deny that God has been men's only real freind for 6000
years. He's the first Masculist!! Ok, you don't even have to beleive
that, just see Him as a harmless figment of peoples imagination that has
served to elevate men and that it is nice to have around for our
masculist efforts in the future. We are just "endorsing", not
"promoting" or "embracing". You get it?

> >That's the problem with you atheists, your religion is the
> > only valid one.
>
> I'm not an atheist.

Jewish? That's where all that nazi stuff came from.

> > This is a religious matter, you know, separation of
> > church and state.
>
> If I had put this under the category of "legal goals" you'd have a point
> here. It's a cultural goal, and has nothing to do with the state.

Us masculists aren't the fucking State, the States feminist jack boot is
on our necks and choking us. If feminism can promote itself by
"attacking" God and putting the Goddess on the seat next to Him, we can
"endorse" God and put the Goddess in paganism where she belongs.

> > With
> > that mantle (masculist), they regain their balls for the first time in thirty years.

> > They can wear dresses if they like and rib eachother. Remember, I'm an
> > early fan of Mel Feit.
>
> Who?

Mel Feit was one of the first public anti-feminists, at a time when the
only men's advocates where father's rights guys. He appeared on Donahue
a few times, wearing a dress to make his points. He was the most
articulate and effective of all the men's movement guys in the eighities,
using the tactics of Abbie Hoffman from the sixties. Trouble was that he
was the only leftist in the movement that made it in front of the
cameras, and one of the few Leftist in the movement at all back then.
The father's rights guys were mostly on the right, but that seems to be
changing.

Hi organization is the National coalition of free men or something like
that. He's still around, and probably posting here and in other forums
anonymously.

> This may surprise you but I am also a Christian. A religious masculist joint
> effort is absolutely fine by me, in fact I encourage it. But to define
> Christianity as part of the masculist outline is to adopt a needlessly
> exclusive attitude.

I'm not doing that!! Where the heck did you get that idea. All I said
was "God" and mentioned "patriarchal religions". Even the pagans are
patriarchal and have a God figure they like.

> Let me once again repeat that if someone wants to stand
> up for men's rights we should embrace them as a fellow masculist, regardless
> of other concerns.

Right on!

> > Tom
> > PS Farrell, are you out there? I need some help for crissakes.
>
> Have you tried his website? I contacted him once through there and it took a
> couple weeks but he wrote back.

Good idea, I'll check him out. He's posted on some groups I'm on, but it
was just informational stuff.

Thanks Hombre. I name you the information officer for the Masculism
Outline.

Tom

[Tom Smith]

In article <slrn9o5sms....@wildcard.ntl.com>,
ncav...@crosswinds.net says...

OK, what is this discoursee about, I don't get it.

> > Before one gets too prickly over the specifics of Masculism, it must be
> > remembered that feminism contained much that most women didn't beleive in
> > yet they followed the feminists, as well as many men, eventhough the men
> > were excluded and derided by official feminist ideology. It was economic
> > self interest and a percieved, though certainly not proved, victimization
> > and oppression that caused many people to follow the feminists. Always
> > keep that in mind when approaching Masculism, though I assure you it will
> > be much more just and reasonable, simply because men create it.
>
> No.

I use "bravado" on occasion, it's a masculist thing.

> > CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM
> >
> > SPIRITUAL
> >
> > Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to create
> > religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations. This is a
> > fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned or
> > eliminated by anyone, especially women. Masculism therefore acknowledges
> > and respects religion as critical to men's lives. Even atheism smacks of
> > religion when a group of men get together under it's auspices. Since we
> > live in a culture that was created by the Judeo-Christian traditions,
> > Masculism endorses God and supports an increase of His presence in our
> > public life, but in keeping with the "spirit of the consititution".
>
> Not all Masculists are Americans.

Good point. I'll think about that.

> > POLITICAL
> >
> > Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist"
> > if it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality),
> > serves to promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness for
> > men and their families.
> >
> > PSYCHOLOGICAL
> >
> > Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
> > masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
> > to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.
> >
> > CULTURAL
> >
> > The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of
> > men and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this
> > country, thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
> > system.
>
> You make it sound so easy...

Thanks.

> > ECONOMIC
> >
> > In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
> > organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
> > corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
> > presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
> > economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
> > system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
> > mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
> > have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
> > for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
> > systems.
> >
> > SEXUAL
> >
> > Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
> > Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.
>
> Why call it masculism?

What do you suggest?

[Stephen Morgan]

That's a euphemism. A euphemism for sex.

> > Hugh Why do you always insist on calling it that?
> > Stephen It excites me.
> > -- Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie, "Fascism"
>
> OK, what is this discoursee about, I don't get it.

It's a sketch called Fascism from a comedy show called "A Bit of Fry and
Laurie", with Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie. This sketch is from the first
series, filmed in 1989. It's hilarious, really, the BBC is very good.

Here's the whole thing:

http://www.geocities.com/mmemym/bits1/fal0048.htm

Fascism

Hugh and Stephen are in white tie, drinking brandy,
perhaps in a clubby sort of place. Maybe a portrait of
Hitler above a mantelpiece.

Hugh Gayle?

Stephen Yes, Leonard?

Hugh How are we going to do it, I wonder?

Stephen Do what?

Hugh How are we going to make Fascism popular in this
country? Popular and exciting.

Stephen Oh that. Yes. That's become something of a

madness with you, hasn't it?

Hugh I believe it has become something of a madness
with me.

Stephen And yet, if anyone were to ask me, I would never
say you were a mad person.

Hugh I believe I pay you well enough for that service?

Stephen Indeed yes. I didn't mean ...

Hugh Perhaps it's that little touch of madness that keeps
us all sane.

Stephen Yes. I doubt it.

Hugh But how are we to do it? How are we to make
Fascism exciting and important?

Stephen We must reach out to the young people.

Hugh You think?

Stephen Certainly. After all, the young people are the
cornerstone of our society. The young people
are the future.

Hugh Yes. Or at least they will be.

Stephen No. They are.

Hugh Are they?

Stephen Yes. They will be the present, but they are
the future.

Hugh Well well. So how can we make fascism live
among the young people?

Stephen We could advertise.

Hugh Gayle, my dear old mucker, what are thinking
of? Advertise?

Stephen I am thinking, Leonard, that we must use today's
tools for today's job.

Hugh Go on.

Stephen If we are to be successful.

Hugh Yes.

Stephen In our venture.

Hugh Yes?

Stephen That's it, I'm afraid.

Hugh I see. And what are today's tool, in your opinion?

Stephen Oh there are so many tools around today. Look
at advertising. Pop music. Films. Magazines.
Everywhere images of sexuality and coolness.

Hugh Coolness.

Stephen Coolness. Hipness. Laid backness. Not being a
pratness.

Hugh And so we must make fascism ...

Stephen Cool.

Hugh Cool.

Stephen First, we must invent a fashion in clothing.

Hugh Mmm. There must be leather.

Stephen Leather, yes.

Hugh And lace.

Stephen Leather and lace, yes.

Hugh With cotton facings.

Stephen Excellent. Already you see, we have a look.

Hugh And where shall we find them, these young
people?

Stephen Wherever blood and money and sexy talk flow
freely, there will you find the young.

Hugh And what will we say? How will we persuade them
to surrender their ice-skating and their jazz music
and turn to Fascism?

Stephen Mm. Leonard, I wonder if you're not a little out
of touch.

Hugh Gayle, please. You are my lieutenant. My
side-plate.

Stephen Indeed.

Hugh Tell me what I must say.

Stephen You must say to the young people - Oh young
people. You who are young and thrusting and
urgent, there is a beat, a sound, a look that's new,
that's you, that's positively yes!

Hugh They'll laugh at me.

Stephen At first ... and ultimately, yes. But in the middle,
they'll listen.

Hugh Hmm. Alright. Boys and girls, dig what I am about
to say. Fascism is cool. Fascism is leather and lace
with cotton facings.

Stephen Good.

Hugh Throw away those transistor radios. Come on
out from those steamy parlours where the coffee
is cheap and the love is free. Join us in our
movement.

Stephen And while their bodies jerk and jig to the music
of those words, we must somehow introduce
the subject of segregating races and abolishing
elections.

Hugh We could give away sachets of face-cream in our
magazines.

Stephen And for the women?

Hugh Gayle. There is no place for women in our
thousand year order.

Stephen But Leonard, women do have certain useful
functions.

Hugh Such as?

Stephen News reading.

Hugh Why do you always insist on calling it that?

Stephen It excites me.

Hugh Now on the subject of racial purity, perhaps a
national advertising campaign?

Stephen Excellent.

Hugh I will present it.

Stephen Oh but you can't.

Hugh And why not pray?

Stephen Because God doesn't exist.

Hugh No, I mean - and why not ... (Pause) pray?

Stephen Because God does not ... (Pause) exist.

Hugh Never mind. Why can't I front this national
advertising campaign?

Stephen Because your grandmother was a quarter Italian. I
shall present the commercials.

Hugh You? You, whose godfather is Jewish?

Stephen At least my sister didn't marry a Welshman.

Hugh Better marry a Welshman than eat Greek yoghurt.

Stephen Rather Greek yoghurt than Cornish ice-cream.

Hugh Stop, stop! Don't you see? They are turning
us against each other. We shall present the
commercials together.

Stephen Yes. Together.

Hugh Our slogan shall be - "Good old Fascism. As true
today as it's always been."

Stephen But Leonard, my dear old acquaintance, surely this
is a new Fascism?

Hugh Alright. "New Ph balanced Fascism, a whole new
world of natural goodness, right there in the cup."

Stephen Cup?

Hugh Why not?

Stephen What about - "Maureen Lipman with some letters
from you about new Fascism".

Hugh Would she do it?

Stephen I don't see why not.

Hugh I have it. "If you thought Fascism was just goose-
steps and funny hats, then take a look at what
we've been doing. Available in matchpots too."

Stephen Das Sieg wird unser sein, as they say in Germany.

Hugh Do you hate anyone enough to give them your last
pot-noodle?

Stephen Fascism. Half the fat, all the taste. That's the
Fascist promise.

Hugh From Lenor.

Stephen It's Ideal.

Hugh I wish I was young.

Stephen Me too.

> > > Before one gets too prickly over the specifics of Masculism, it must be
> > > remembered that feminism contained much that most women didn't beleive in
> > > yet they followed the feminists, as well as many men, eventhough the men
> > > were excluded and derided by official feminist ideology. It was economic
> > > self interest and a percieved, though certainly not proved, victimization
> > > and oppression that caused many people to follow the feminists. Always
> > > keep that in mind when approaching Masculism, though I assure you it will
> > > be much more just and reasonable, simply because men create it.
> >
> > No.
>
> I use "bravado" on occasion, it's a masculist thing.

Well, okay.

> > > CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM
> > >
> > > SPIRITUAL
> > >
> > > Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to create
> > > religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations. This is a
> > > fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned or
> > > eliminated by anyone, especially women. Masculism therefore acknowledges
> > > and respects religion as critical to men's lives. Even atheism smacks of
> > > religion when a group of men get together under it's auspices. Since we
> > > live in a culture that was created by the Judeo-Christian traditions,
> > > Masculism endorses God and supports an increase of His presence in our
> > > public life, but in keeping with the "spirit of the consititution".
> >
> > Not all Masculists are Americans.
>
> Good point. I'll think about that.

We don't have any Constitution here. We don't have any seperation of
religion and state. The Queen is head of the Church of England and the
State.

> > > POLITICAL
> > >
> > > Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist"
> > > if it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality),
> > > serves to promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness for
> > > men and their families.
> > >
> > > PSYCHOLOGICAL
> > >
> > > Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
> > > masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
> > > to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.
> > >
> > > CULTURAL
> > >
> > > The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of
> > > men and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this
> > > country, thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
> > > system.
> >
> > You make it sound so easy...
>
> Thanks.

It wasn't actually a compliment, you know.

> > > ECONOMIC
> > >
> > > In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
> > > organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
> > > corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
> > > presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
> > > economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
> > > system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
> > > mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
> > > have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
> > > for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
> > > systems.
> > >
> > > SEXUAL
> > >
> > > Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
> > > Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.
> >
> > Why call it masculism?
>
> What do you suggest?

No idea.

> > > Understanding sex differences is critical for every aspect of life and
> > > should be studied and government policies should conform to what we
> > > learn.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please feel free to critique my "outline".
> > >
> > > Tom Smith
> > > Founder of The American Union of Men (AUM)
> >

[Tom Smith]

In article <slrn9o6meh....@wildcard.ntl.com>,

I got a kick out of it. You know of course that the knee jerk reaction
to the idea of a "men's movement" is fascism? And for good reason. Now
that I think of it, that's what Hombre was fishing around for about the
nazi stuff. I guess it's just one of many obstacles making the idea of a
men's movement seem impossible. That's why I'm here, I only deal with
the impossible.

Oh Jeeze, you poor Brits. Well, if we are successful here than we'll
help you guys, just like in the two world wars.

> > > > POLITICAL
> > > >
> > > > Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist"
> > > > if it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality),
> > > > serves to promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness for
> > > > men and their families.
> > > >
> > > > PSYCHOLOGICAL
> > > >
> > > > Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
> > > > masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
> > > > to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.
> > > >
> > > > CULTURAL
> > > >
> > > > The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of
> > > > men and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this
> > > > country, thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
> > > > system.
> > >
> > > You make it sound so easy...
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> It wasn't actually a compliment, you know.

No, I didn't know. I'm kind of like a pollyanna marketing guy like with
Stephen and Hugh.

>
> > > > ECONOMIC
> > > >
> > > > In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
> > > > organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
> > > > corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
> > > > presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
> > > > economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
> > > > system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
> > > > mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
> > > > have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
> > > > for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
> > > > systems.
> > > >
> > > > SEXUAL
> > > >
> > > > Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
> > > > Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.
> > >
> > > Why call it masculism?
> >
> > What do you suggest?
>
> No idea.

The guys on the Right want to call it "patriarchist", "patriarch",
"patriarchy". But like Stephen, I want it to be modern and cool in order
to seel it to the kids, and well every other mindless zombie. I'm not
arrogant, just old.

Tom

[Tom Smith]

In article <BXFg7.75$Q6.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
Hombr...@yahoo.com says...

Egalitarianism, that's the ticket!!

Tom

[Stephen Morgan]

Good.

> You know of course that the knee jerk reaction
> to the idea of a "men's movement" is fascism?

Not really.

> And for good reason.

What is the position of women in your thousand year order? Anything
other than "news reading"?

> Now
> that I think of it, that's what Hombre was fishing around for about the
> nazi stuff. I guess it's just one of many obstacles making the idea of a
> men's movement seem impossible. That's why I'm here, I only deal with
> the impossible.

Most people would say dragons controlling the world from giant
subterranean realms is impossible.

That's not at all funny. Besides, I like this being a religious state,
even if Elizabeth II is no James I. See:
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kinginde.htm

I'm a Christian, which makes me as Royalist as I am anti-feminist.

> > > > > POLITICAL
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist"
> > > > > if it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality),
> > > > > serves to promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness for
> > > > > men and their families.
> > > > >
> > > > > PSYCHOLOGICAL
> > > > >
> > > > > Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
> > > > > masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
> > > > > to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.
> > > > >
> > > > > CULTURAL
> > > > >
> > > > > The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of
> > > > > men and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this
> > > > > country, thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
> > > > > system.
> > > >
> > > > You make it sound so easy...
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> > It wasn't actually a compliment, you know.
>
> No, I didn't know. I'm kind of like a pollyanna marketing guy like with
> Stephen and Hugh.

Nothing too bad about a bit of blind optimism.

> > > > > ECONOMIC
> > > > >
> > > > > In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
> > > > > organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
> > > > > corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
> > > > > presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
> > > > > economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
> > > > > system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
> > > > > mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
> > > > > have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
> > > > > for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
> > > > > systems.
> > > > >
> > > > > SEXUAL
> > > > >
> > > > > Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
> > > > > Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.
> > > >
> > > > Why call it masculism?
> > >
> > > What do you suggest?
> >
> > No idea.
>
> The guys on the Right want to call it "patriarchist", "patriarch",
> "patriarchy". But like Stephen, I want it to be modern and cool in order
> to seel it to the kids, and well every other mindless zombie. I'm not
> arrogant, just old.

See these "Fry and Laurie" sketches:
Orthodoxy: http://www.geocities.com/mmemym/bits1/fal0039.htm
The Cause: http://www.geocities.com/mmemym/bits2/fal0115.htm

Destroy Feminism! Destroy Republicanism! Destroy other things!

[Daniel Fifth]

"Hombre" <Hombr...@yahoo.com> writes:

> "Tom Smith (QIM)" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.15ebc9505a4d0f4798972e@news...

[Much snipped]

> > there is more discussion of
> > masculism and people calling themselves "Masculist" on the net. It's
> > time to clarify Masculism.
> >

> > It was economic

> > self interest and a percieved, though certainly not proved, victimization
> > and oppression that caused many people to follow the feminists.
>
> Machiavelli said that "There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor
> more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a
> new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by
> the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in those who would profit by the
> new order, this lukewarmness arising partly out of fear of their
> adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the
> incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they
> have had actual experience of it."
>
> Self interest has always been the key to overcoming this lukewarmness. As we
> approach the topic of wide-spread education of masculism, we need to
> remember to demonstrate the benefits for both men and women so that they
> will feel the self interest needed to try out the ideology.

Excellent point.

> > Always
> > keep that in mind when approaching Masculism, though I assure you it will
> > be much more just and reasonable, simply because men create it.
>
> Tom, it's quotes like this that I would search for if I were an enemy of the
> movement.

It's true that enemies would love to use such a quote against
Masculists.

But nevertheless, what he said is true. Yes, even if it makes women
feel bad to hear it. As groups, men and women have incredibly
different track records on gender issues. Men have a history of far
too much chivalry, Feminist lies notwithstanding, whereas women
created and supported Feminism.

And you know what? Due to their guilty knowledge of their own
behavior, Feminists would accuse us of saying men are better
regardless whether we said it. So why bother ducking? Let the truth
ring out.

> The reason is because it is attackable on many levels. First, it
> fails Farrell's test of switching the group men for any other group and
> seeing if it sounds biased.

It may sound biased, but it's also clearly true. If you think about
it for a while, you'll realize the implications of this.

> Secondly, one could very easily point to the
> nazis as a group created primarily by men and show how according to your
> statement the nazis must have been just and reasonable.

Whoa, back way up. The Nazis had huge female support. The notion of
the Nazis as a male movement is very false. It's the product of
wartime propaganda (with the usual "male = bad"), and then Feminist
and PC attitudes.

> Also alot of the
> things we're fighting against were created mainly by men, are you trying to
> say we're fighting against things that are just and reasonable?
> Another important point one could make is that masculism hasn't been created
> entirely by men.

I think you've misunderstood him. But it's true that Feminists would
make the same misunderstanding. He's not saying that everything
created by men is good. He's saying that men have a far, far, far
better track record on gender fairness. It might be beneficial to
state it more clearly.

> Finally, I feel that masculism benefits greatly from the women who support
> it and I wouldn't want them to feel pushed away. I know that if I were a
> woman, statements like that would cause me to feel pushed away from the
> movement because one is required to believe that men are more just and
> reasonable then women in order to accept it.

That is an issue I wrestled with, as an Antifeminist and a
misogynist.

> > CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM

I believe that a statement of our goals should be *audacious*,
*optimistic* and *unyielding*. In that spirit I present my comments
below.

> > This is a
> > fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned or
> > eliminated by anyone, especially women.
>
> Especially who? Masculism is not about dividing men and women, it supports
> bringing them closer together.

It seems to me it should primarily support winning the war against
Feminism. Fixing Feminist damage can come afterwards.

> It is vital that we don't make statements
> that could easily be intrepretted by the average person as being otherwise.

I think it is more important that we not bury truths about the gender
war under a pile of feel-good jello. Both for the sake of attracting
the right people, and for our own clarity of purpose.

> >Masculism therefore acknowledges
> > and respects religion as critical to men's lives.
>
> I disagree. Many masculists are anti-religion.

I am.

> I personally agree with you
> that religion should be more a part of people's lives, but that is
> completely seperate from masculism. I feel most people who reject religion
> do so for what they feel are good reasons, and religions need to hear these
> people and address their concerns in order to have more influence. I feel
> that to divide masculists on the basis of religion is no better then to
> divide them on the basis of left right politics.

Yes. I suggest we drop the religion section altogether.

> > POLITICAL
> >
> > Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist"
> > if it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality),
> > serves to promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness for
> > men and their families.
>
> I think it's important to expound a little more on this and state what the
> main political goals of masculists are. I believe they include...
> 1. Changing the divorce and paternity laws so that they are more equitable,
> including eliminating the "primary parent" myth as well as changing the
> focus from "best interest of the child" to "most fair to everyone according
> to their rights and level of responsibility".
> 2. Remove sexism against men from every step of the legal process, from
> creation through enforcement, trial, sentencing, and prison conditions.
> 3. Make circumcision of male babies a felony offense as it is for female
> babies in most countries (including the US).
> 4. Remove tax exempt status from organizations which discriminate against
> men, women, or any other birth-group (save perhaps age) in any way.
> 5. Force the government to spend equitably on men's programs as it does on
> women's, most notably with regard to health expenditures.
> 6. Eliminate the sexual harassment, VAWA, AA, and other laws that clearly
> violate the constitution. Make sexual harassment a provision under the
> general harassment laws and require as solid of a claim to penalize sexual
> harassment as any other form of harassment.
>
> I believe that covers the most basic ones.

Agreed. I think we should also add c4m (choice for men).

> > PSYCHOLOGICAL
> >
> > Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
> > masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
> > to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.
>
> I would go further then that and include the study of the psychological
> matriarchy, which kids are growing up with as a topic worthy of study. Also,
> while I agree that we should value what's traditionally been referred to as
> "masculine", we should also allow for and value what are called "feminine"
> traits in men and boys.

Agreed.

> > CULTURAL
> >
> > The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of
> > men and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this
> > country, thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
> > system.
>
> This seems to be more of a tactic to accomplish our goals rather then a goal
> itself. When I think of the cultural goals of masculism, what first comes to
> my mind is to get our cultures to consider the inner worlds of men and boys,
> so that people will be capable of empathizing with them. Also getting rid of
> the desperate belief that every woman must always be innocent and good.
> These seem like good cultural goals for masculists.

Yes, and get rid of the dynamic of blaming a nearby man whenever a
woman does wrong, for instance Andrea Yates. Our goal should be to
make society see that as the bigotry it is.

Other important cultural goals:

to eliminate the anti-male bias in the media, including news,
entertainment, and advertisements.

to eliminate the demonized view of male sexuality that makes men an
easy target for sexual accusations. For similar reasons, our goals
should also include eliminating the "virtuous maiden" view of women's
sexuality that has made sexual accusations so powerful, in favor of a
realistic view.

an end to officially sanctioned propaganda against men, for instance
state-sanctioned and school-sanctioned anti-male "education".

an end to pseudo-science levied against men, for instance slanted
government statistics, and research grants controlled by Feminists or
that have Feminist bias.

> > ECONOMIC
> >
> > In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
> > organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
> > corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
> > presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
> > economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
> > system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
> > mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
> > have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
> > for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
> > systems.
>
> I fully agree.

I believe we should go further. Economically, women control most of
the wealth, while they never did most of the work.

Our economic goals should include:

the elimination of governmental wealth-transfers from men to women,
including employment quota systems, disparate-impact social security,
and disparate aid to groups composed disproportionately of women.

rectifying the situation where men spend to entertain women on dates
and courtship, or if it can't be rectified, compensating men in
general for it, perhaps by tax rebates.

an end to the unrealistic assumption that women can do most jobs as
well as men, and the unrealistic assumptions that disparate employment
implies that women have been discriminated against.

the removal of preference for women in education.

rectifying unfairly lessened employment opportunities for men which
resulted from preference for women in education.

rectifying "seniority" type situations in employment that resulted
from unfair preferences for women.

> > SEXUAL
> >
> > Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
> > Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.
> > Understanding sex differences is critical for every aspect of life and
> > should be studied and government policies should conform to what we
> > learn.
>
> Perhaps this would be better categorized as "biological differences"? The
> idea of sexual goals for masculism sounds more like a subset of cultural
> goals with it's aim being to change how society views men's and women's
> sexuality. This would include not demonising men or calling us pigs because
> we are sexual creatures, treating sex as something a woman and man give each
> other and not just one gives the other, and eliminating the idea that men
> can't be pretty or beautiful and that those who desire to are gay.

But of course, there is another "SEXUAL" category that is going
unspoken, and which the men's movement has barely broached. Men are
sexual creatures. Sex is important to men in a way that it is not to
women.

Our goals should include:

the elimination of laws and social disapproval against prostitution,
pornography, and other victimless sexual substitutes.

educating boys realistically on sexual matters, and such education not
being subordinated to the female viewpoint.

the elimination of the attitude that men's sexual feelings are
shameful, "animalistic", threatening to women, etc.

creating a society where women share askout, or failing that, where
men are not at risk when they askout, for instance of shaming or of
sexual harrassment accusations.

The elimination of circumcision may belong here as well.

And I'm sure there's more.

HEALTH

Our goals should include:

rectifying the 7-year death gap, through research, outreach, and other
means.

reach-out programs to persuade men to seek medical attention as
appropriate.

an end to government-mandated health insurance favoritism for women.

> > Please feel free to critique my "outline".
>
> Since it's an outline of masculism, it's "our outline" and as such I felt an
> obligation to critique. Thanks for the work you put into this and I hope you
> will consider my recommendations.

Thank you both for the work you put into this. I hope you will
consider my recommendations as well.

--

[Daniel Fifth]

Tom Smith (QIM) <q...@yahoo.com> writes:

>
> I used as a goal of Masculism "the destruction of feminism". I agree
> that anti-feminists are concerned about masculism turning into the lying
> and government ripp off that feminism is and have addressed this issue
> frequently the past few years with anti-feminists.

The more I think about this, the more I think it's a bad stance. Not
just a little bit bad, but terrible. It's far too late to be thinking
like that.

First, I take it you are referring to the John Leo types who are quick
to say "The last thing "we" need is a men's movement whining."
(whatever his exact words were).

If that doesn't set off warning bells in your head, it should.

Such people are unwittingly fighting a rear-guard action for the
Feminists. The Feminists get what they want for women, and then their
position is all the stronger when men can't climb on. And these
so-called "Antifeminists" *help keep men off*!

What the Leos don't understand or don't care about is that by
assisting a one-sided situation, they keep it from ever improving.
They give the Feminists no reason to compromise or retreat. Quite the
opposite.

What do you suppose it means to Feminists when the Leos, for instance,
oppose expanding the VAWA to include men? The Leos have no chance of
really stopping the VAWA, so that's not a consideration. Yet it does
dissuade some men away from asking for equal treatment. It only
improves the Feminist position.

Why should we want to appease people who think like that?

They are *NOT OUR FRIENDS*. They have some honest Antifeminist
sentiment, and they may *potentially* be our allies, but at the moment
they are just using us.

Sure they are "fed up" with Feminism, but they have turned that
sentiment into amorphous traditionalist bellyaching. And they are
happier to throw that bellyaching towards a politically weak target,
Masculists, than at a politically strong one, Feminists.

Now let's think strategically. Consider what the Leos would do if
men, in earnest, demanded equal consideration.

Attacking us in earnest would mean siding with the Feminists. They
might do it anyways. If so, let them turn and be damned. Who needs
false friends like that? They haven't been helping us anyways, and
they've shown they are ineffectual. (So are we Masculists, of course,
but we need not remain so).

But I suspect they'd continue kvetching about Feminists as before.
They'd kvetch about us too, as the new thing in town. After a while
most of them would come to terms with the fact that we are simply not
the threat that Feminists are. Some with a misandrist bent would give
the "guys" a harder time than they ever gave the "girls" - so what
else is new? A few might even take our part if we showed some
backbone. But I think most often, they'd be uneasy allies against
Feminist doings, on a case by case basis. Works for me.

Let's put them in that position.

--

[Tom Smith]

In article <lr84rqz...@my-deja.com>, dfi...@my-deja.com says...

> Tom Smith (QIM) <q...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >
> > I used as a goal of Masculism "the destruction of feminism". I agree
> > that anti-feminists are concerned about masculism turning into the lying
> > and government ripp off that feminism is and have addressed this issue
> > frequently the past few years with anti-feminists.
>
> The more I think about this, the more I think it's a bad stance. Not
> just a little bit bad, but terrible. It's far too late to be thinking
> like that.
>
> First, I take it you are referring to the John Leo types who are quick
> to say "The last thing "we" need is a men's movement whining."
> (whatever his exact words were).

Oh yeah, don't worry, I have knocked heads plenty over that shit. It's
the traditionalists "stiff upper lip" horseshit that has been one of many
reasons they have not only been ineffective with feminism, but have
actually fed it.

But there are some areas these guys have a point, in the sense that
masculism has to avoid using certain lying and the government arm
twisting that feminism used. "Reflecting" feminist tactics is a good
approach, as a kind of teaching mechanism. I forget specifically what
the above was addressing however.

I read your other response to this Daniel and appreciated it. I don't
have time now, but I will reply later. Warning, we will knock heads over
C4M and the religious linkage. I know it's a biggie with you, and maybe
it can be motified somehow, but it's a centerpiece to the whole thing
that I think is essential. Maybe some of my explanations can soften
things or provide alternatives.

Tom

[John LaVoy]

"Tom Smith (QIM)" wrote:

> Now it's time to present a proposal for a comprehensive view of
> Masculism, not just it's political objectives, though those objectives
> need be consistent with masculism itself. Since the publishing of the
> Manifesto, and I suggest because of it, there is more discussion of
> masculism and people calling themselves "Masculist" on the net. It's
> time to clarify Masculism.
>
> Masculism isn't feminism in pants. The only thing in common with
> feminism is that it's an ideology (defined: "The body of ideas
> reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group,
> class or culture"). An "ideology" for men is long overdue.

I'm still on the fence. I have been around long enough to have seen things
start out, get big, fade out, and drop off. There is an inherent risk in
defining a movement. While you say it has nothing in common with feminism
except this, that similarity alone is pretty scary.

> Before one gets too prickly over the specifics of Masculism, it must be
> remembered that feminism contained much that most women didn't beleive in
> yet they followed the feminists, as well as many men, eventhough the men
> were excluded and derided by official feminist ideology. It was economic
> self interest and a percieved, though certainly not proved, victimization
> and oppression that caused many people to follow the feminists. Always
> keep that in mind when approaching Masculism, though I assure you it will
> be much more just and reasonable, simply because men create it.

This is a bad start. You can't replace one loony ideology with another loony
ideology. IT will not be more reasonable becuase men start it, it will be
more reasonable because it's adherents act and think more reasonably.
Starting off like that is a sure death sentence.

>
> CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM
>
> SPIRITUAL
>
> Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to create
> religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations. This is a
> fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned or
> eliminated by anyone, especially women. Masculism therefore acknowledges
> and respects religion as critical to men's lives. Even atheism smacks of
> religion when a group of men get together under it's auspices. Since we
> live in a culture that was created by the Judeo-Christian traditions,
> Masculism endorses God and supports an increase of His presence in our
> public life, but in keeping with the "spirit of the consititution".

YOu are off the end of the boardwalk. Many men are decidedly not religious.
Your attempt to establish a religious element in your movement is just like
Goddess worship. To go even furhter and establish a particular religion to
align with masculism is just bias. You are suggesting we exchange the mental
tyranny of feminism for the mentla tyranny of masculism. No Thanks

>
> POLITICAL
>
> Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist"
> if it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality),
> serves to promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness for
> men and their families.

Does it have to do all three of those things? OR is one enough. It seems
like you havee been so influenced by feminism that you can't help but
recreate it. If masculism serves to promote men, then it is just feminism
with a dick.

>
> PSYCHOLOGICAL
>
> Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
> masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
> to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.

This one is right.

>
> CULTURAL
>
> The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of
> men and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this
> country, thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
> system.

Need I say more? You are interested in replacing a burdensome irrational
movement with a different burdensome irrational movement.

> ECONOMIC
>
> In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
> organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
> corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
> presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
> economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
> system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
> mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
> have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
> for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
> systems.

I...think...so. What?

> SEXUAL
>
> Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
> Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.

Good. That makes sense.

> Understanding sex differences is critical for every aspect of life and
> should be studied and government policies should conform to what we
> learn.

there shouldn't be any government polices related to sex differences.

Tom, if you ever read the Lord of the Rings by Tolkien you would remember
this. The foces of evil cannot imagine that anybody would want to overthorw
them and not set something up in their place. You are proposing something
that looks and feels a lot like feminism, but has goals with which you agree.

[Hombre]

"Tom Smith (QIM)" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:MPG.15ecd96b75e48cae989732@news...

> In article <kvDg7.37$Q6....@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
> Hombr...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > "Tom Smith (QIM)" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.15ec7bd330f273dc989730@news...
> > > In article <Ulxg7.2679$Cf5.2...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
> > > Hombr...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > > > > By Tom Smith (QIM)
>
> > > > "I am the movement!" - Napoleon Bonaparte :-)
> > >
> > > Yep, and I have my hand tucked into my coat also.
> >
> > Since we're on the subject, here's a trivia question for you. What was
the
> > most important tool Napoleon used to take over France?
>
> Gee, I just saw a history channel program on Napoleon, let me think...He
> got his start in the successful Italy campaigne and then...ah, I got it!!
> He married some bitch in a high place that paved the way...right?
>
> I married an Art History Professor who was a feminist, Hombre. Does that
> fit the bill? That was in '78, we divorced in '79.

Lol, well that wasn't quite what I was getting at. I am not trying to
dissuade you from doing anything because Napoleon did it. He was one the
most most successful men in history, and I think we should study how he
became so. I would say that the most important tool to him taking over
France was good PR. We need good PR. Bravado is fine, and ignoring what is
politically correct is fine too, but when producing a document outlining who
we are, good PR is more important.

>
> > > Great quote, and it captures the tenor of living under feminism and
our
> > > uphill battle in fighting it.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks. I found The Prince to be rather dull and full of not especially
> > novel ideas (I doubt if they were novel even back when he wrote them).
> > However it does have a lot of great quotes.
>
> I read it and liked it.
>

That's one thing I've noticed about masculists. We all seem to be well read
on topics that it's politically incorrect to study. :-)

> > > Economics has to be part of it, which is the bottom line when it comes
to
> > > "self interest". I have left room for that. But unlike feminism,
> > > masculism has to address in a more forceful way the good of society.
I
> > > feel that the religious emphasis is important in this regard.
> > >
> >
> > I agree that economics is going to be part of it, and that masculism
does
> > need to address itself in a more forceful way. I think two other "self
> > interest" factors that will be motivating especially to men would
include
> > the right to parent your own children and the ability to be respected
for
> > what we are.
>
> No doubt. I think I covered that with father custody in the Manifesto
> and the psychological section of the outline.
>
> > > Yeah, and how did you like the "especialy women" quote? I like
putting
> > > those in there just to piss off feminists.
> >
> > Would you rather piss off the intelligent feminists or the dumb ones?
:-)
>
> Both are fun, though I particularly like jacking up the bright ones
> because they have farther to fall.

Then use your bravado only when it doesn't compromise PR. (And use lot's of
it then :-) )

>
> > > Oh good, the opposition bringing up the Nazi's. More reason to do
this
> > > sort of thing.
> >
> > While that would certainly allow great opportunity for all kinds of ad
> > hominems thrown at our critics one of them might ask you to actually
> > disprove the point itself. How would you reply?
>
> I'm aligned with some "ultra orthodox" Jews in Israel on a new spiritual
> phenomenon. I have also lived and worked with Jews all through my life.
>

Lol. Ok, that'll work on a feminist, but what about a linear thinker who's a
little harder to derail?

> > > They already feel "pushed away" by the pussy's who call themselves men
in
> > > this country who don't say boo to feminism.
> >
> > And if we make anti-woman statements, they'll feel pushed away by us
too.
>
> Alright, alright, I'll lighten up. You have to remember that I have been
> at this for twenty years while working with feminists on my job, and
> butting heads with them at every opportunity. They were the ones in
> control, and I was the insurgent. Boy, did I lose alot of jobs over this
> horseshit.

You're doing great as long as you just don't let anyone fool you into
believing that feminist = woman. Especially a woman! ;-)

>
> > > It's all that feminist brainwashing you have had over the years. Not
to
> > > worry, I've been doing this for twenty years and the girls love it.
>
> > Lol. I've had a lot of success using the "bad guy" approach to courtship
> > also. I once picked up a girl who was sober while I was falling over
drunk
> > by insulting her boyfriend and telling her that she was immature and her
> > boobs were small. The humorous thing is that my insults were entirely
> > accidental.
>
> Mine usually were too <smile>. Good work Hombre, I didn't have that
> opportunity myself, but would like to think I would have done what you
> did.
>

There's a certain kind of woman who just can never resist falling for that
kind of thing. I've honed my predatory instincts to find them quickly.

> > > > > CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM
> > > > >
> > > > > SPIRITUAL
> > > > >
> > > > > Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to
> > create
> > > > > religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations.
> > > >
> > > > You are probably unaware of this, but your statement comes
dangerously
> > close
> > > > to old nazi propaganda.
> > >
> > > No, I'm not aware of this, but thanks for helping me get prepared. I
> > > suspect the same could be said by plugging in "religious" as opposed
to
> > > "nazi". It all dependes on where you're comming from.
> > >
> >
> > Religious propaganda doesn't scare the masses like nazi propaganda does.
The
> > nazis believed that the good germans had a more pronounced spirituality
then
> > the Jews, which was why they built the german civilization while the
Jews
> > were busy manipulating economic systems so that they would control the
> > resources.
>
> Oh, I see now what you are getting at. Plug in corporate boys for Jews,
> minus fascism and extermination camps, then you got where I'm comming
> from.

I understand where you're coming from just fine. I'd just like to see you be
a little more careful with how you describe it is all.

>
> > > Yeah, boy did they do a number on the pagans!!
> > >
> >
> > That's not really a bragging point for religions. Yes, some pagan
cultures
> > were extremely barbaric, not all of the civilizations destroyed by
religions
> > were though.
>
> Most of the pagans came over peacefully and through sincere attraction to
> Christianity. But that's neither here nor there when it comes to
> masculism.
>

Okay, I'll drop it.

> > > > Fourth, women were also active participants in the creation of
> > civilizations
> > > > and their contributions should not be discounted.
> > >
> > > Their efforts at cooking, cleaning and nurturing the kids, as well as
> > > filling in now and then in the monarchy, should certainly be given
it's
> > > due.
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> Well, that's a refreshing response after years of getting jumped on and
> mearly killed by feminists when I said these tongue and cheek things.

Why tongue in cheek? It's true wrt the division of labor of the pilgrims who
founded our country in almost all situations.

>
> > > The "average people"? You mean the zombies that have swallowed
feminism
> > > hook, line and sinker? Listen, if they can get sucked into that
> > > horseshit, then they will absolutley love masculism.
> >
> > Yes they will, as long as our outlined goals sound better to them then
our
> > oppositions.
>
> We'd have to be incredible fuck ups to do that Hombre.

Don't be so sure. They aren't very smart and are used to thinking along PC
lines and being hell-bent on attacking both anything that is not PC and
anything that might possibly be interpretted as attacking women, such as
suggesting they aren't completely disadvantaged in every way. Creating a
mass change in consciousness will be a very delicate operation.

>
> > > Sorry charlie, the religious (Judeo-Christians) are in
> > > the majority and the majority rules. Our constituion will take care
of
> > > the rest as it has for 200 years.
> >
> > Might makes right? I believe that anyone who stands up to the unfair
> > treatment of men is a masculist, regardless of their political,
religious,
> > or any other position.
>
> Agreed, and it's clearly stated in the "political" section of the
> outline. You have to remember that I used the phrase "endorsing God" in
> the masculism outline under "spirituality", and also gave reasons. You
> said yourself that many atheists are supportive of religion. That's all
> I'm doing.
>

Perhaps rather then saying we endorse God, which will cause a lot of
skeptics to immediately believe us logically inept, it would be better to
state that we endorse the efforts religions are making wrt the family and
fatherhood? Belief or non-belief of God isn't a masculist issue.

> > > Well, I know this is a prickly issue for many, but what I'm suggesting
> > > here, considering the fact of our constituion, only amounts to prayer
at
> > > football games and Christmas Carols at Christmas time in public
schools.
> > > Let's not get all feminist hysterical over this.
> > >
> >
> > I agree with your stance on those issues, but they are not masculist
issues.
>
> Poor baby Jesus in the manger getting attacked on all sides by the
> feminists while us masculists say it's "not our issue". I want custody
> of baby Jesus from those evil feminist witches who stole Him!! But
> that's a personal thing and is not part of the outline.

Jesus could never be stolen by feminists, no matter how hard they try.
Christians will always find feminism revolting.

>
> > Personally they aren't especially important to me either, which is why I
> > don't get "feminist hysterical" about them.
>
> Well that's good to hear <smile>
>
>
> > > Oh yeah? That's not my experience. It is not only a religion, but
> > > presently it is a state sponsored religion under feminism.
> > >
> >
> > Not all atheists are feminists.
>
> 90% perhaps?

I would guess considerably lower, like 40%.

I know, I'm supporting the idea. I just wanted to let you know that some
masculists might not like the manner in which you're doing it. Since two
have now said they don't, my opinion is starting to become validated. We
should say that endorsing God is a personal thing that we leave to every
masculist to decide on their own, but we are working with religions for our
goals, and not just Christianity either.

>
> > This is not accomplished by pointing fingers at members of the wrong
> > religions and accusing them of not being masculists.
>
> I'm not trying to point fingers and thought I was carefully not doing
> that. We can reword it if you'd like.

I'd like to see a few more masculists (or egalitarians or anti-feminists,
however you currently choose to lable yourselves) get involved in this and
give their opinions on this. This should be a democratic endeavor, and we
should vote on things like this.

Ok, I see what you mean now.

I'd like to include it because I believe it will be the easiest one to solve
and it will help get us going with a good name in the public eye.

>(I'm not speaking of my penis, though I am
> envious of the black guys) for my outline of masculism, but if you want
> to make a bigger outline, than why not? As a matter of fact, that may be
> a good idea to complement the abridged version I did here. Let's do
> that.

Sure. I think we should be more specific about our what our purpose of each
outline is though before we begin.

>
> > All
> > throughout Europe and especially in Canada, uncircumcised men are the
norm.
> > They don't seem to have any problems because of it at all.
>
> It looks ugly to me and I want the girls to think my thing is pretty
> <smile>.
>

As long as it's your choice, great!

> > > > 4. Remove tax exempt status from organizations which discriminate
> > against
> > > > men, women, or any other birth-group (save perhaps age) in any way.
> > >
> > > What organizations might that be? Why are we advocating for women
when
> > > they rule over us? What planet do you live on?
> >
> > NOW for one. We're advocating for equality. You don't know?
>
> See, this again smacks of feminist advocacy. I've gone around and around
> with the guys on the Right about all this, and they are justifiably
> nervous about masculism going the route of feminism. We can do this sort
> of thing, but I don't want to make a big issue of it. It also highlights
> this whole "legal equality" number which is the centerpiece of feminism
> that we have to attack. We lose consistency and confuse people if we go
> that route.
>

You're right. If we're going to keep right wing groups from getting paranoid
about us being like feminists, we should make sure they don't think we're
just trying to "get their money" as well. If they ask about this point out
that it would actually end up saving them money and drying the feminist
coffers, the main funding for democrats. That'll get their support.

> > > > 5. Force the government to spend equitably on men's programs as it
does
> > on
> > > > women's, most notably with regard to health expenditures.
> > >
> > > Fuck "legal equity", that's the essence of the mess we are in now.
> >
> > The mess isn't because of legal equity, it's because the government
believes
> > what feminists claim is legal equity. If we really had legal equity we
> > wouldn't be in such a mess.
>
> BTW, I'm a "representative" (LA division) of the men's health network and
> am a great fan of Ed Bartlett's. The trouble with "legal equality" is
> that there is no way to control and make equal everything, as a matter of
> fact it is just impractible and ends up unjust. We need to get the
> government out of it other than on an individual basis like men's health
> and other areas. It's not a "legal equality" issue, but a "fairness"
> issue.

That's exactly what would result from making them spend equally. Eventually
people would question why the government was spending money on these
programs at all and have it drop them save the areas you mentioned.

So we can't call punk rock the official masculist genre to oppose feminist
folk songs? :-(

Cool.

> > I want to work with various religions, not define masculism as one.
>
> Ok, this is important. "Endorsing God" is not "worshipping, loving,
> shoving Him down people's throats etc". Listen, beleive in Him or not,
> but you can't deny that God has been men's only real freind for 6000
> years. He's the first Masculist!! Ok, you don't even have to beleive
> that, just see Him as a harmless figment of peoples imagination that has
> served to elevate men and that it is nice to have around for our
> masculist efforts in the future. We are just "endorsing", not
> "promoting" or "embracing". You get it?
>
> > >That's the problem with you atheists, your religion is the
> > > only valid one.
> >
> > I'm not an atheist.
>
> Jewish? That's where all that nazi stuff came from.
>

No, you were just phrasing things in a similar way to Goebbels.

> > > This is a religious matter, you know, separation of
> > > church and state.
> >
> > If I had put this under the category of "legal goals" you'd have a point
> > here. It's a cultural goal, and has nothing to do with the state.
>
> Us masculists aren't the fucking State, the States feminist jack boot is
> on our necks and choking us. If feminism can promote itself by
> "attacking" God and putting the Goddess on the seat next to Him, we can
> "endorse" God and put the Goddess in paganism where she belongs.
>

Copying the tactics that have made feminism a joke is a bad idea. Leave
religious matter to individuals to consider on their own.

>
> > > With
> > > that mantle (masculist), they regain their balls for the first time in
thirty years.
> > > They can wear dresses if they like and rib eachother. Remember, I'm
an
> > > early fan of Mel Feit.
> >
> > Who?
>
> Mel Feit was one of the first public anti-feminists, at a time when the
> only men's advocates where father's rights guys. He appeared on Donahue
> a few times, wearing a dress to make his points. He was the most
> articulate and effective of all the men's movement guys in the eighities,
> using the tactics of Abbie Hoffman from the sixties. Trouble was that he
> was the only leftist in the movement that made it in front of the
> cameras, and one of the few Leftist in the movement at all back then.
> The father's rights guys were mostly on the right, but that seems to be
> changing.
>

Politics are changing, both parties have always been changing, many feel
that the concept of direction (as in left or right) is an absurd way to
describe one's political ideology. Masculists should keep this in mind and
make sure our philosophy can adapt to whatever changes may come.

> Hi organization is the National coalition of free men or something like
> that. He's still around, and probably posting here and in other forums
> anonymously.
>
> > This may surprise you but I am also a Christian. A religious masculist
joint
> > effort is absolutely fine by me, in fact I encourage it. But to define
> > Christianity as part of the masculist outline is to adopt a needlessly
> > exclusive attitude.
>
> I'm not doing that!! Where the heck did you get that idea. All I said
> was "God" and mentioned "patriarchal religions". Even the pagans are
> patriarchal and have a God figure they like.

Depends on which pagans you're talking about.

>
> > Let me once again repeat that if someone wants to stand
> > up for men's rights we should embrace them as a fellow masculist,
regardless
> > of other concerns.
>
> Right on!
>
> > > Tom
> > > PS Farrell, are you out there? I need some help for crissakes.
> >
> > Have you tried his website? I contacted him once through there and it
took a
> > couple weeks but he wrote back.
>
> Good idea, I'll check him out. He's posted on some groups I'm on, but it
> was just informational stuff.
>
> Thanks Hombre. I name you the information officer for the Masculism
> Outline.

We should have organization like this. Not just for the outline but for
soc.men as a whole. What are we afraid of, being efficient? Though I don't
think I'd be the best information officer for this group. I'd nominate Phil
Lewis, who I've seen bring us more information then anyone. I'd be more
inclined to work in the areas of either PR or scrutiny.

>
> Tom

[Tom Smith]

In article <lr8vgjh...@my-deja.com>, dfi...@my-deja.com says...

> "Hombre" <Hombr...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > "Tom Smith (QIM)" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.15ebc9505a4d0f4798972e@news...
>
> [Much snipped]

> And you know what? Due to their guilty knowledge of their own
> behavior, Feminists would accuse us of saying men are better
> regardless whether we said it. So why bother ducking? Let the truth
> ring out.
>
> > The reason is because it is attackable on many levels. First, it
> > fails Farrell's test of switching the group men for any other group and
> > seeing if it sounds biased.
>
> It may sound biased, but it's also clearly true. If you think about
> it for a while, you'll realize the implications of this.

Implications like equating sex differences to say racial differences?
That's the slight of hand that allowed feminists their power. Sex
differences are huge compared to racial or other differences.

> > Also alot of the
> > things we're fighting against were created mainly by men, are you trying to
> > say we're fighting against things that are just and reasonable?
> > Another important point one could make is that masculism hasn't been created
> > entirely by men.
>
> I think you've misunderstood him. But it's true that Feminists would
> make the same misunderstanding. He's not saying that everything
> created by men is good. He's saying that men have a far, far, far
> better track record on gender fairness. It might be beneficial to
> state it more clearly.

Men excel consistently in many of the traditional areas valued by
society, like technology, business and religion to name a few. Feminists
will argue that this is due to discrimination, but after thirty years of
free access, this is getting harder to argue.

> > Finally, I feel that masculism benefits greatly from the women who support
> > it and I wouldn't want them to feel pushed away. I know that if I were a
> > woman, statements like that would cause me to feel pushed away from the
> > movement because one is required to believe that men are more just and
> > reasonable then women in order to accept it.
>
> That is an issue I wrestled with, as an Antifeminist and a
> misogynist.

Don't flatter yourself Dan, you love them as much as any of us here.

> > > CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM
>
> I believe that a statement of our goals should be *audacious*,
> *optimistic* and *unyielding*. In that spirit I present my comments
> below.
>
> > > This is a
> > > fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned or
> > > eliminated by anyone, especially women.
> >
> > Especially who? Masculism is not about dividing men and women, it supports
> > bringing them closer together.
>
> It seems to me it should primarily support winning the war against
> Feminism. Fixing Feminist damage can come afterwards.

Yep, my Masculist Manifesto was meant to address both goals, destroying
feminism and clearing the way for later interventions. The key to the
latter is eliminating laws that "mandate sexual" equality which are based
on social sciences claiming that there are no substantial sex
differences, that racial and sex differences are the same. All kinds of
creative interventions are available with those obstacles out of the way,
and yet women still have the right to vote and have a say in what those
interventions are. John Knight isn't as nice about it as my vision for
masculism <smile>. See girls what a nice egalitarian guy I am.

> > It is vital that we don't make statements
> > that could easily be intrepretted by the average person as being otherwise.
>
> I think it is more important that we not bury truths about the gender
> war under a pile of feel-good jello. Both for the sake of attracting
> the right people, and for our own clarity of purpose.

Here, here!

> > >Masculism therefore acknowledges
> > > and respects religion as critical to men's lives.
> >
> > I disagree. Many masculists are anti-religion.
>
> I am.
>
> > I personally agree with you
> > that religion should be more a part of people's lives, but that is
> > completely seperate from masculism. I feel most people who reject religion
> > do so for what they feel are good reasons, and religions need to hear these
> > people and address their concerns in order to have more influence. I feel
> > that to divide masculists on the basis of religion is no better then to
> > divide them on the basis of left right politics.
>
> Yes. I suggest we drop the religion section altogether.

Cut the heart out of masculism? No way! OK, I'll say it again. You
can't go up against what is essentially a State supported religion,
feminism, that promoted itself by attacking the patriarchal religions
which were in turn marginalized as a result, and all of it resulting in
the pormotion of feminism. This gave feminism moral authority at the
expense of male moral authority and the repercussions have been extreme
all through the society. They attack God and promote the Goddess, we
attack the Goddess and "endorse" God. It's just fucking common sense.
I'm not all that bright and I see it. What the fuck is wrong with you
guys? Do you have some hangups about this? A bad experience with a
priest or something? What's the deal?

I know how hard you guys have worked on this, and to be honest I would
have normally supported it except for some personal experiences, of which
the murder of two of my children through abortion is actually the least
of it. Abortion goes to the heart of some serious ethical problems that
we will be facing increasingly in the future. Some of those problems
haven't even emerged yet, but they certainly will. So looking into the
future and what will be important than, we need to be on the mark with
this abortion issue. Anyway, it's mostly a female issue so why should
you even give a fuck. Are you worried like the materialistic feminists
that babies might get in the way of getting a DVD player? If you are,
than fuck you, you know zilch about life and should have ten babies to
teach you.

> > > PSYCHOLOGICAL
> > >
> > > Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
> > > masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
> > > to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.
> >
> > I would go further then that and include the study of the psychological
> > matriarchy, which kids are growing up with as a topic worthy of study. Also,
> > while I agree that we should value what's traditionally been referred to as
> > "masculine", we should also allow for and value what are called "feminine"
> > traits in men and boys.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > > CULTURAL
> > >
> > > The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of
> > > men and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this
> > > country, thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
> > > system.
> >
> > This seems to be more of a tactic to accomplish our goals rather then a goal
> > itself. When I think of the cultural goals of masculism, what first comes to
> > my mind is to get our cultures to consider the inner worlds of men and boys,
> > so that people will be capable of empathizing with them. Also getting rid of
> > the desperate belief that every woman must always be innocent and good.
> > These seem like good cultural goals for masculists.
>
> Yes, and get rid of the dynamic of blaming a nearby man whenever a
> woman does wrong, for instance Andrea Yates. Our goal should be to
> make society see that as the bigotry it is.

Society doesn't listen to you unless you have power or money, we as an
interest group for men have neither.

> Other important cultural goals:
>
> to eliminate the anti-male bias in the media, including news,
> entertainment, and advertisements.
>
> to eliminate the demonized view of male sexuality that makes men an
> easy target for sexual accusations. For similar reasons, our goals
> should also include eliminating the "virtuous maiden" view of women's
> sexuality that has made sexual accusations so powerful, in favor of a
> realistic view.
>
> an end to officially sanctioned propaganda against men, for instance
> state-sanctioned and school-sanctioned anti-male "education".
>
> an end to pseudo-science levied against men, for instance slanted
> government statistics, and research grants controlled by Feminists or
> that have Feminist bias.

All are excellent goals. Nix the "pseudo-science" number, I have seen
masculists and others abuse it. Just call it lies or very "soft
science". There's a need for soft science if it isn't controlled by a
political group the way the feminists have controlled it. Without the
feminists, it becomes much less a problem.

> > > ECONOMIC
> > >
> > > In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
> > > organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
> > > corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
> > > presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
> > > economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
> > > system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
> > > mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
> > > have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
> > > for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
> > > systems.
> >
> > I fully agree.
>
> I believe we should go further. Economically, women control most of
> the wealth, while they never did most of the work.
>
> Our economic goals should include:
>
> the elimination of governmental wealth-transfers from men to women,
> including employment quota systems, disparate-impact social security,
> and disparate aid to groups composed disproportionately of women.

We should keep the door open to reverse that process, "redistributing"
wealth from female to male. There are huge inequities in the system now
and we should look to the future for remidies and have options. How
about taking women out of the Civil rights act and putting just men in
it? I beleive we have a good argument for men as a group having thier
civil rights violated by women <smile> Take that Society!! Where the
heck is he anyway?

> rectifying the situation where men spend to entertain women on dates
> and courtship, or if it can't be rectified, compensating men in
> general for it, perhaps by tax rebates.

Didley stuff.

> an end to the unrealistic assumption that women can do most jobs as
> well as men, and the unrealistic assumptions that disparate employment
> implies that women have been discriminated against.

The Masculist Manifesto's "repeal of the sex discrimination clause in
CRA'64". Also repeal of the Equal Pay Law '63.

> the removal of preference for women in education.
>
> rectifying unfairly lessened employment opportunities for men which
> resulted from preference for women in education.
>
> rectifying "seniority" type situations in employment that resulted
> from unfair preferences for women.

Good points.

> > > SEXUAL
> > >
> > > Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
> > > Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.
> > > Understanding sex differences is critical for every aspect of life and
> > > should be studied and government policies should conform to what we
> > > learn.
> >
> > Perhaps this would be better categorized as "biological differences"? The
> > idea of sexual goals for masculism sounds more like a subset of cultural
> > goals with it's aim being to change how society views men's and women's
> > sexuality. This would include not demonising men or calling us pigs because
> > we are sexual creatures, treating sex as something a woman and man give each
> > other and not just one gives the other, and eliminating the idea that men
> > can't be pretty or beautiful and that those who desire to are gay.
>
> But of course, there is another "SEXUAL" category that is going
> unspoken, and which the men's movement has barely broached. Men are
> sexual creatures. Sex is important to men in a way that it is not to
> women.
>
> Our goals should include:
>
> the elimination of laws and social disapproval against prostitution,
> pornography, and other victimless sexual substitutes.

Bad idea. We have to take the morality spotlight off us and put it on
women. Legalizing their sins is not the way to do it. Sex is money
alright, and women are cashing in prostitution or no prostitution. It's
time to take the money out of sex for women, and put that power in men's
hands where it belongs.

> educating boys realistically on sexual matters, and such education not
> being subordinated to the female viewpoint.
>
> the elimination of the attitude that men's sexual feelings are
> shameful, "animalistic", threatening to women, etc.
>
> creating a society where women share askout, or failing that, where
> men are not at risk when they askout, for instance of shaming or of
> sexual harrassment accusations.
>
> The elimination of circumcision may belong here as well.
>
> And I'm sure there's more.
>
>
> HEALTH
>
> Our goals should include:
>
> rectifying the 7-year death gap, through research, outreach, and other
> means.
>
> reach-out programs to persuade men to seek medical attention as
> appropriate.
>
> an end to government-mandated health insurance favoritism for women.

Excellent.

> > > Please feel free to critique my "outline".
> >
> > Since it's an outline of masculism, it's "our outline" and as such I felt an
> > obligation to critique. Thanks for the work you put into this and I hope you
> > will consider my recommendations.
>
> Thank you both for the work you put into this. I hope you will
> consider my recommendations as well.

Thanks Dan. I hope you will consider and think about the religious issue
and if you come up with a way to address it I'd be happy to hear it.

Tom

[Tom Smith]

In article <3B842636...@pobox.upenn.edu>, jla...@pobox.upenn.edu
says...

Yeah, I can cut that out, I just put it in there for fun.

> > CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM
> >
> > SPIRITUAL
> >
> > Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to create
> > religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations. This is a
> > fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned or
> > eliminated by anyone, especially women. Masculism therefore acknowledges
> > and respects religion as critical to men's lives. Even atheism smacks of
> > religion when a group of men get together under it's auspices. Since we
> > live in a culture that was created by the Judeo-Christian traditions,
> > Masculism endorses God and supports an increase of His presence in our
> > public life, but in keeping with the "spirit of the consititution".
>
> YOu are off the end of the boardwalk. Many men are decidedly not religious.
> Your attempt to establish a religious element in your movement is just like
> Goddess worship.

Thank you, you have proved my point.

> To go even furhter and establish a particular religion to
> align with masculism is just bias.

I didn't point to any one religion, just the masculine head of most
religions commonly referred to as "God". It could be Buddha or even Kali
if you'd like. This masculine head of most religions most certainly has
a home in masculism.

> You are suggesting we exchange the mental

> tyranny of feminism for the mentla tyranny of masculism?

That's exactly what I'm suggesting, but you don't seem to have much
faith in the differences between the sexes that would result in a very
different movement than feminism. Hey John, I'm a guy and not a girl.
Please respect that.

> No Thanks

Maybe in a few years you will catch on.

> > POLITICAL
> >
> > Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist"
> > if it fulfills the destruction of feminism (mandated sexual equality),
> > serves to promote men and conforms to addressing justice and fairness for
> > men and their families.
>
> Does it have to do all three of those things? OR is one enough. It seems
> like you havee been so influenced by feminism that you can't help but
> recreate it. If masculism serves to promote men, then it is just feminism
> with a dick.
>
> >
> > PSYCHOLOGICAL
> >
> > Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
> > masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society
> > to make the necessary adjustments for men to live a full masculine life.
>
> This one is right.
>
> >
> > CULTURAL
> >
> > The political and cultural goal of Masculism is to create a network of
> > men and men's organizations equivelant to what women now have in this
> > country, thereby creating a patriarchy to replace the present matriarchal
> > system.
>
> Need I say more? You are interested in replacing a burdensome irrational
> movement with a different burdensome irrational movement.

You call it "burdensome and irrational". You are unfairly projecting
feminism onto masculism.

> > ECONOMIC
> >
> > In this process, an arrangement will need to be worked out between these
> > organizations and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the
> > corporate male elite, who are essentially eunuch's of the BIG BUCK. They
> > presently support and endorse feminism because it has been in their
> > economic interests. Masculism supports capitalism as the best economic
> > system for humans, but also sees social programs as the regulatory
> > mechanisms that we now have for our economic and other interests that
> > have served us well. But a healthy capitalist system is a prerequisite
> > for effective soical poragrams and therefore should not overburden those
> > systems.
>
> I...think...so. What?
>
> > SEXUAL
> >
> > Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. Egalitarianism is another matter and
> > Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.
>
> Good. That makes sense.
>
> > Understanding sex differences is critical for every aspect of life and
> > should be studied and government policies should conform to what we
> > learn.
>
> there shouldn't be any government polices related to sex differences.

The main goal of masculism is eliminating policies that favor women,
which is esentially the elimination of all government sex policies.
However, there is over thirty years of bias to men and the door should be
open to remedy the situation.

> Tom, if you ever read the Lord of the Rings by Tolkien you would remember
> this. The foces of evil cannot imagine that anybody would want to overthorw
> them and not set something up in their place. You are proposing something
> that looks and feels a lot like feminism, but has goals with which you agree.

I'm just trying to provide an alternative. Others can do the same and we
can chose which one is best. Without an alternative, we will be arguing
here for centuries as the noose of the matriarchy continues to tighten
around our necks.

Tom

[tom parker]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:45:05 GMT, Tom Smith (QIM) <q...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <3B842636...@pobox.upenn.edu>, jla...@pobox.upenn.edu
>says...
>>
>>
>> "Tom Smith (QIM)" wrote:
>>

<snip>

>> > CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM
>> >
>> > SPIRITUAL
>> >
>> > Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to create
>> > religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations. This is a
>> > fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned or
>> > eliminated by anyone, especially women. Masculism therefore acknowledges
>> > and respects religion as critical to men's lives. Even atheism smacks of
>> > religion when a group of men get together under it's auspices. Since we
>> > live in a culture that was created by the Judeo-Christian traditions,
>> > Masculism endorses God and supports an increase of His presence in our
>> > public life, but in keeping with the "spirit of the consititution".
>>
>> YOu are off the end of the boardwalk. Many men are decidedly not religious.
>> Your attempt to establish a religious element in your movement is just like
>> Goddess worship.
>
>Thank you, you have proved my point.
>
>> To go even furhter and establish a particular religion to
>> align with masculism is just bias.
>
>I didn't point to any one religion, just the masculine head of most
>religions commonly referred to as "God". It could be Buddha or even Kali
>if you'd like. This masculine head of most religions most certainly has
>a home in masculism.
>

Points of interest, Tom - Buddha never claimed to be a deity, nor did
he say anything one way or the other about God/Gods. AFAIK, Buddhists
that do accept the idea of deities accept female as well as male
deities. Kali is a Hindu Goddess. However, I think the Buddhist and
Hindu precept ions of Diety are quite a bit different from what most
Westerners mean when they say "God".

<snip>

tparker
"...a man's first duty is to his own conscience
and honor; the party and country come second to
that, and never first."
Mark Twain

[Tom Smith]

In article <r5ch7.500$Q6.6...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,

Hombr...@yahoo.com says...
>
> "Tom Smith (QIM)" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.15ecd96b75e48cae989732@news...
> > In article <kvDg7.37$Q6....@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
> > Hombr...@yahoo.com says...

> > > Would you rather piss off the intelligent feminists or the dumb ones?
> :-)
> >
> > Both are fun, though I particularly like jacking up the bright ones
> > because they have farther to fall.
>
> Then use your bravado only when it doesn't compromise PR. (And use lot's of
> it then :-) )

Ok, I'll try to get more business like with this. I was just having
alittle fun.

> > > > Oh good, the opposition bringing up the Nazi's. More reason to do
> this
> > > > sort of thing.
> > >
> > > While that would certainly allow great opportunity for all kinds of ad
> > > hominems thrown at our critics one of them might ask you to actually
> > > disprove the point itself. How would you reply?
> >
> > I'm aligned with some "ultra orthodox" Jews in Israel on a new spiritual
> > phenomenon. I have also lived and worked with Jews all through my life.
> >
>
> Lol. Ok, that'll work on a feminist, but what about a linear thinker who's a
> little harder to derail?

What this issue points to is a nervousness about a men's movement being
or deteriorating into fascism. This is a legitimate concern in the
context of men's nature and other recent insurgencies like nazism. How
would I allay these fears? For one thing, I've attempted to make clear
in the economic section that we weren't out to overthrow the economic
system. The nazi's went that route too didn't they? I don't know
Hombre, what do you suggest? We do have an extraordingary constitution,
but that doesn't help in other countries does it? Maybe we could be good
"role models". One can't control for everything.

> > Alright, alright, I'll lighten up. You have to remember that I have been
> > at this for twenty years while working with feminists on my job, and
> > butting heads with them at every opportunity. They were the ones in
> > control, and I was the insurgent. Boy, did I lose alot of jobs over this
> > horseshit.
>
> You're doing great as long as you just don't let anyone fool you into
> believing that feminist = woman. Especially a woman! ;-)

While I had lots of feminists around in my work life, there were many
other women and some feminists also that I got on with and liked very
much. I sometimes leave that out when talking about feminists.

> > > > The "average people"? You mean the zombies that have swallowed
> feminism
> > > > hook, line and sinker? Listen, if they can get sucked into that
> > > > horseshit, then they will absolutley love masculism.
> > >
> > > Yes they will, as long as our outlined goals sound better to them then
> our
> > > oppositions.
> >
> > We'd have to be incredible fuck ups to do that Hombre.
>
> Don't be so sure. They aren't very smart and are used to thinking along PC
> lines and being hell-bent on attacking both anything that is not PC and
> anything that might possibly be interpretted as attacking women, such as
> suggesting they aren't completely disadvantaged in every way. Creating a
> mass change in consciousness will be a very delicate operation.

The delicate part is comming up with something here that provides a
viable alternative to feminism. There have been guys on other forums
commenting on this who for some reason don't even think we need to do
that. They act like they have enough charisma and intellectual power to
charm anyone away from feminism, saying that all we need to do is get our
rap down and use tacitcs in the book "The Art of War". Those mens.

> > > > Sorry charlie, the religious (Judeo-Christians) are in
> > > > the majority and the majority rules. Our constituion will take care
> of
> > > > the rest as it has for 200 years.
> > >
> > > Might makes right? I believe that anyone who stands up to the unfair
> > > treatment of men is a masculist, regardless of their political,
> religious,
> > > or any other position.
> >
> > Agreed, and it's clearly stated in the "political" section of the
> > outline. You have to remember that I used the phrase "endorsing God" in
> > the masculism outline under "spirituality", and also gave reasons. You
> > said yourself that many atheists are supportive of religion. That's all
> > I'm doing.
> >
>
> Perhaps rather then saying we endorse God, which will cause a lot of
> skeptics to immediately believe us logically inept, it would be better to
> state that we endorse the efforts religions are making wrt the family and
> fatherhood?

I got enough of a negative response on this to know that I have to do
something. Even Imparl hasn't jumped in here on this to help out, and he
should have been the first to do just that. Morgan wasn't too thrilled
either. Those damn Christians <smile>.

(Looking to the sky) "But God, I won't forsake you".

> Belief or non-belief of God isn't a masculist issue.

Was the word "belief" in the outline next to God? The word was
"endorse".

OK, here's one alternative. "Masculism recognizes and supports the
special role that spirituality and religion have in men's lives and
attempts to balance the advocacy of men and women religious."

How's that?

> > Poor baby Jesus in the manger getting attacked on all sides by the
> > feminists while us masculists say it's "not our issue". I want custody
> > of baby Jesus from those evil feminist witches who stole Him!! But
> > that's a personal thing and is not part of the outline.
>
> Jesus could never be stolen by feminists, no matter how hard they try.
> Christians will always find feminism revolting.

You've gotsta be kidding. Some of the worst feminists are Catholics for
crissakes. Of course they had a head start with Mary, but the
protestants did pretty good without her and have even changed the
language of the Bible to make it "gender neutral" or "inclusive". Alot
of protestants don't even know that because they hardly ever read the
Bible.

> > What the fuck do you think I'm trying to do? That's exactly my intent.
>
> I know, I'm supporting the idea. I just wanted to let you know that some
> masculists might not like the manner in which you're doing it. Since two
> have now said they don't, my opinion is starting to become validated.

Acknowledged. It has happenned on other forums also. I hope my
alternative above is closer to your liking

> We
> should say that endorsing God is a personal thing that we leave to every
> masculist to decide on their own, but we are working with religions for our
> goals, and not just Christianity either.
>
> >
> > > This is not accomplished by pointing fingers at members of the wrong
> > > religions and accusing them of not being masculists.
> >
> > I'm not trying to point fingers and thought I was carefully not doing
> > that. We can reword it if you'd like.
>
> I'd like to see a few more masculists (or egalitarians or anti-feminists,
> however you currently choose to lable yourselves)

The identity part of it is critical. If people calling themsleves
"Masculist" catches on, then it advertises itself. You know, marketing,
PR and that sort of thing.

> get involved in this and
> give their opinions on this. This should be a democratic endeavor, and we
> should vote on things like this.

I hope alot of the people are following this and can give imput after we
have hashed it out a bit, or at least give a thumbs up or down later. We
need to get this ball rolling and this is a good first step. All boats
rise if something like this catches on.

> >(I'm not speaking of my penis, though I am
> > envious of the black guys) for my outline of masculism, but if you want
> > to make a bigger outline, than why not? As a matter of fact, that may be
> > a good idea to complement the abridged version I did here. Let's do
> > that.
>
> Sure. I think we should be more specific about our what our purpose of each
> outline is though before we begin.

The long version is not much of a problem because we have talked about
all the issues and agree on most. But for the short version the two
sticking points are God and abortion. It would be good to have both long
and short versions of the Outline, but they need to be consistent.

> > > All
> > > throughout Europe and especially in Canada, uncircumcised men are the
> norm.
> > > They don't seem to have any problems because of it at all.
> >
> > It looks ugly to me and I want the girls to think my thing is pretty
> > <smile>.
> >
>
> As long as it's your choice, great!

OK Hombre, when I'm born again, I want to be circumscribed so that my
thing looks "pretty".

> > > > > 4. Remove tax exempt status from organizations which discriminate
> > > against
> > > > > men, women, or any other birth-group (save perhaps age) in any way.
> > > >
> > > > What organizations might that be? Why are we advocating for women
> when
> > > > they rule over us? What planet do you live on?
> > >
> > > NOW for one. We're advocating for equality. You don't know?
> >
> > See, this again smacks of feminist advocacy. I've gone around and around
> > with the guys on the Right about all this, and they are justifiably
> > nervous about masculism going the route of feminism. We can do this sort
> > of thing, but I don't want to make a big issue of it. It also highlights
> > this whole "legal equality" number which is the centerpiece of feminism
> > that we have to attack. We lose consistency and confuse people if we go
> > that route.
> >
>
> You're right. If we're going to keep right wing groups from getting paranoid
> about us being like feminists, we should make sure they don't think we're
> just trying to "get their money" as well.

No, no, no, you've got me all wrong. I want to rip off those
motherfuckers more than the feminists do. I don't care about the rich
guys on the Right, just the less well to do. The rich guys don't give a
fuck about all this, they have been making out like bandits precisely
because of feminism. Let me tell you alittle secret, alot of the anti-
feminists on the Right are actually counter-insurgents. While some may
sing a good anti-feminist tune, the real tune they like and will fight
for the best, is the tune to The Big Green. Anti-feminism is just a
hobby to them.

We have the counter-insurgents on the Left too, but there's fewer of them
and they are more easily identified. Plus they are totally powerless and
less rigid. The anti-feminists on the Right are kind of spoiled, they at
least have people who give them alittle support. Us Leftist anti-
feminist are a true phenomenon. We not only get zero support, but have
been frequently pummeled by our own people on the Left.

> If they ask about this point out
> that it would actually end up saving them money and drying the feminist
> coffers, the main funding for democrats. That'll get their support.

They'd much rather deal with the feminists than us. Oh, your talking
about the anti-feminists on the Right. What true conservatives should be
mostly concerned about at this time is the deterioration of the society
and the loss of freedom under feminism. If they are more worried about
some rabble rouser like me making liberalism popular again, then they
aren't true conservatives who care about the future of this country, and
they aren't putting anti-feminism first.

> > Maculism will change everything and it's not going to be retro, it will
> > be quite fresh and new.
> >
>
> So we can't call punk rock the official masculist genre to oppose feminist
> folk songs? :-(

I was thinking more along the lines of Eminem and Trick Daddy, though the
Limp Bizkit is looking pretty good too.

That's another thing I wanted to bring up. With Eminem especially, the
sucker has made millions of dollars off anti-feminism and I think it is
high time we called him on it. These young fuckheads think it is freedom
of speech that they are champions for and then cuddle up to the feminists
for anal intercourse and to hear what hero's they are for saying fuck and
shit. The fact is that Eminem's popularity was due to his reporting and
reflecting what is happening in society from a masculist perspective,
albeit he may not have been conscious of it. If we had some semblance of
a movement, than we could call these guys on what they are doing or at
least make others aware.

> > Jewish? That's where all that nazi stuff came from.
> >
>
> No, you were just phrasing things in a similar way to Goebbels.

Well excuse me, can I help it if I was raised in a large extended German-
American family? This happenned one other time and it was about this
religion thing also. I really don't give a fuck, I think we are all too
obsessed with the nazi's anyway.

> > > > This is a religious matter, you know, separation of
> > > > church and state.
> > >
> > > If I had put this under the category of "legal goals" you'd have a point
> > > here. It's a cultural goal, and has nothing to do with the state.
> >
> > Us masculists aren't the fucking State, the States feminist jack boot is
> > on our necks and choking us. If feminism can promote itself by
> > "attacking" God and putting the Goddess on the seat next to Him, we can
> > "endorse" God and put the Goddess in paganism where she belongs.
> >
>
> Copying the tactics that have made feminism a joke is a bad idea. Leave
> religious matter to individuals to consider on their own.

I understand how the religious issue is debateable, but I swear we will
get nowhere if we don't use the tactics that feminists used. They used
insurgency tactics that were designed and tested by Marxist men and are
extremely effective. That doesn't mean we need to use all the tactics,
but there are plenty we can and should use and in ways that are different
and distinctively "Masculist". This is an insurgency for crissakes, we
don't have the luxuries of money and power. If we keep sitting around
here like perfect gentlemen, nothing will happen.

> > Mel Feit was one of the first public anti-feminists, at a time when the
> > only men's advocates where father's rights guys. He appeared on Donahue
> > a few times, wearing a dress to make his points. He was the most
> > articulate and effective of all the men's movement guys in the eighities,
> > using the tactics of Abbie Hoffman from the sixties. Trouble was that he
> > was the only leftist in the movement that made it in front of the
> > cameras, and one of the few Leftist in the movement at all back then.
> > The father's rights guys were mostly on the right, but that seems to be
> > changing.
> >
>
> Politics are changing, both parties have always been changing, many feel
> that the concept of direction (as in left or right) is an absurd way to
> describe one's political ideology. Masculists should keep this in mind and
> make sure our philosophy can adapt to whatever changes may come.

Excellent point. There may be some unpleasant choices that we need to
make precisely because we have an eye to the future. Looking to the
future is also critical in the kind of language we use.

> > Thanks Hombre. I name you the information officer for the Masculism
> > Outline.
>
> We should have organization like this. Not just for the outline but for
> soc.men as a whole. What are we afraid of, being efficient? Though I don't
> think I'd be the best information officer for this group. I'd nominate Phil
> Lewis, who I've seen bring us more information then anyone. I'd be more
> inclined to work in the areas of either PR or scrutiny.

Well, either Lewis or Snyder. Neither may have the time to be involved.
I'd like to see a group effort on this too, it's important. We have all
been round and round on the issues and agree on most. We can easily air
specific issues to single out for more discussion if needed and we always
have a quorum. With this group and involving other groups, we at least
have a chance of forming a legitimate consensus to back up whatever we
come up with. If we were successful, it would be a big step to uniting
anti-feminists and giving them legs.

I have to tell you though, the guys on the Right seem to have their
hearts set on "Patriarchy". Maybe they are not even Rightist, but
something about masculism causes them to shut down. I have tried every
angle within conscience to reach out to them, but maybe they just need
more time. But I have checked it out thoroughly enough to know they
aren't being rational about this, but acting on some knee jerk thing. I
suspect the reasons are different for each. But we will nevertheless
need to include their righteous concerns whether they come along or not.

Tom

[Tom Smith]

In article <3b856b38....@NEWS.W-LINK.NET>, park...@w-link.net
says...

When they move to America, you can't get them to stop from proclaiming
the name of God.

> Kali is a Hindu Goddess.

He's a he-she, and one vioent motherfucker. I threw Kali in to see if
anyone would pick up on it. Good work Tom.

> However, I think the Buddhist and
> Hindu precept ions of Diety are quite a bit different from what most
> Westerners mean when they say "God".
>

I have been a student of the East for some time. It's not all that
different actually, they tend to asceticism and monkishness more in
practicing their religion and they are mostly men who do. Buddha is
worshipped like a God, very much like Jesus.

Tom

[Daniel Fifth]

Tom Smith (QIM) <q...@yahoo.com> writes:

> In article <lr8vgjh...@my-deja.com>, dfi...@my-deja.com says...
>
> > "Hombre" <Hombr...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > > "Tom Smith (QIM)" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.15ebc9505a4d0f4798972e@news...
> >
> > [Much snipped]
> > And you know what? Due to their guilty knowledge of their own
> > behavior, Feminists would accuse us of saying men are better
> > regardless whether we said it. So why bother ducking? Let the truth
> > ring out.
> >
> > > The reason is because it is attackable on many levels. First, it
> > > fails Farrell's test of switching the group men for any other group and
> > > seeing if it sounds biased.
> >
> > It may sound biased, but it's also clearly true. If you think about
> > it for a while, you'll realize the implications of this.
>
> Implications like equating sex differences to say racial differences?

No, implications like misogyny. You guys were supposed to realize "It
sounds misogynist, but... but it's true! Maybe there's something to
misogyny!" It doesn't work as well when I have to lead you there by
the hand.

> > > I personally agree with you
> > > that religion should be more a part of people's lives, but that is
> > > completely seperate from masculism. I feel most people who reject religion
> > > do so for what they feel are good reasons, and religions need to hear these
> > > people and address their concerns in order to have more influence. I feel
> > > that to divide masculists on the basis of religion is no better then to
> > > divide them on the basis of left right politics.
> >
> > Yes. I suggest we drop the religion section altogether.
>
> Cut the heart out of masculism?

No, drop the religion section. We can continue each saying it in our
own way if you like.

> No way! OK, I'll say it again. You
> can't go up against what is essentially a State supported religion,
> feminism, that promoted itself by attacking the patriarchal religions
> which were in turn marginalized as a result, and all of it resulting in
> the pormotion of feminism.

Your sentence doesn't seem complete. I expected "You can't X
... without Y", Y bearing some resemblance to your "SPIRITUALITY"
subheading.

> This gave feminism moral authority at the
> expense of male moral authority and the repercussions have been extreme
> all through the society. They attack God and promote the Goddess, we
> attack the Goddess and "endorse" God. It's just fucking common sense.
> I'm not all that bright and I see it. What the fuck is wrong with you
> guys? Do you have some hangups about this? A bad experience with a
> priest or something? What's the deal?

Tom, I'm not trying to offend you, but I think it is your position
that is unrealistic.

Before I start, I want to make sure you know that none of this is
directed at you personally.

First, I don't think you realize just what the religious segment looks
like to some of us. I grew up in a religious household, and there's
*NO WAY* I'm ever going back to that. I don't like it when they
proselytize; it's obnoxious. I don't like people assuming that
everyone should on board with religious stuff. And it's not just
pushing their religion. Generally the very same people love to
proselytize their personal version of The Big Picture, and it's always
something that, if you don't share their faith, looks like blind
faith. And I don't think I'm the only guy here who feels this way.

Now, I've kept my trap shut about this, many many times. I
stringently limit myself to innocuous statements like "Well, I for one
am not a believer". I hold my peace for the good of the movement.
But if the misunderstanding is as drastic as this, I'd better speak
out. I will never be a member of a religious movement.

Second, when I hear from religious guys, I get a very strong sense
that their loyalties are not with us. Sure, they're outraged over
Feminism, but not for the reasons we are. They don't care that it's
unfair to men. They are mad that it violates scripture, or their view
of the family, or some other traditionalist vision.

Third, I see how spirituality has misled men in the past, with Iron
John, and with Promise-Keepers. So many men, so much energy wasted.
Let's not let it happen again.

And fourth, the religions are not on our side. I grew up Catholic. I
know there are far more nuns than there are brothers, priests and
deacons, total, and I see why. I saw the whole female attitude, from
the young girls in CCD with me who resonanted with all the sexual
prohibitions that left us boys in befuddled dismay, to the old women
who were maybe 90% of the people at weekday mass when I used to play
the organ. I hear the Pope apologizing for how the church "has
historically treated women badly", when he bloody well knows better.
Yes, the RCC won't give in on the woman priest issue or abortion.
Small deal. They still don't like us and won't do anything for us.

Will the other major first-world religions do more? Judaism, with MGM
and 90% Democrat vote, don't even ask. Protestantism? A little, with
the Promise-Keepers. But PK did not help men's liberation, it sucked
up their energy and focused them away from political power. The
remaining major religions have little presence here. So the religions
won't help us.

For these reasons, please drop the "SPIRITUALITY" subheading.

> > Agreed. I think we should also add c4m (choice for men).
>
> I know how hard you guys have worked on this, and to be honest I would
> have normally supported it except for some personal experiences, of which
> the murder of two of my children through abortion is actually the least
> of it. Abortion goes to the heart of some serious ethical problems that
> we will be facing increasingly in the future.

That horse is long gone. It also has nothing to do with c4m, which is
coherent even if abortion is banned.

> Some of those problems
> haven't even emerged yet, but they certainly will. So looking into the
> future and what will be important than, we need to be on the mark with
> this abortion issue. Anyway, it's mostly a female issue so why should
> you even give a fuck. Are you worried like the materialistic feminists
> that babies might get in the way of getting a DVD player? If you are,
> than fuck you, you know zilch about life and should have ten babies to
> teach you.

Sorry, it's got to be c4m. Charity with other people's money isn't
charity.

[snip stuff we mostly agree on]

> >
> > Yes, and get rid of the dynamic of blaming a nearby man whenever a
> > woman does wrong, for instance Andrea Yates. Our goal should be to
> > make society see that as the bigotry it is.
>
> Society doesn't listen to you unless you have power or money, we as an
> interest group for men have neither.

That's means. I thought we were talking about ends.

> > Our goals should include:
> >
> > the elimination of laws and social disapproval against prostitution,
> > pornography, and other victimless sexual substitutes.
>
> Bad idea. We have to take the morality spotlight off us and put it on
> women. Legalizing their sins is not the way to do it.

That is essentially a religious position.

Even if I read it as a sociological or PR argument, I don't think it
works in today's society.

> Sex is money
> alright, and women are cashing in prostitution or no prostitution. It's
> time to take the money out of sex for women, and put that power in men's
> hands where it belongs.

That is at least an economic argument. But it's wrong. If
prostitution (narrow sense) gave women more power, it wouldn't be
illegal. The other sexual substitutes don't even need women (per
individual consumer, anyways).

But if (as I doubt) you want to suggest that this goal elevate porn
etc above prostitution, I'm all for it.

>
> > > > Please feel free to critique my "outline".
> > >
> > > Since it's an outline of masculism, it's "our outline" and as such I felt an
> > > obligation to critique. Thanks for the work you put into this and I hope you
> > > will consider my recommendations.
> >
> > Thank you both for the work you put into this. I hope you will
> > consider my recommendations as well.
>
> Thanks Dan. I hope you will consider and think about the religious issue
> and if you come up with a way to address it I'd be happy to hear it.

Thanks, Tom. I have addressed it, but I suspect you will not be happy
with my views.

--

[Tom Smith QIM]

Daniel Fifth <dfi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:<lr8g0ah...@my-deja.com>...

> Tom Smith (QIM) <q...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Implications like equating sex differences to say racial differences?
>
> No, implications like misogyny. You guys were supposed to realize "It
> sounds misogynist, but... but it's true! Maybe there's something to
> misogyny!" It doesn't work as well when I have to lead you there by
> the hand.

Accepting that there are sex differences and that one sex may excel
over another in certain areas, is not misgoynist. However, there is
pleny of reason for men to be resentful of women in general after
thirty years of feminism, since feminism managed to gain many of their
loyalties or at least quiet submission. But that happenned with many
men also.

> > > > I personally agree with you
> > > > that religion should be more a part of people's lives, but that is
> > > > completely seperate from masculism. I feel most people who reject religion
> > > > do so for what they feel are good reasons, and religions need to hear these
> > > > people and address their concerns in order to have more influence. I feel
> > > > that to divide masculists on the basis of religion is no better then to
> > > > divide them on the basis of left right politics.
> > >
> > > Yes. I suggest we drop the religion section altogether.
> >
> > Cut the heart out of masculism?
>
> No, drop the religion section. We can continue each saying it in our
> own way if you like.

I read your comments below on this and see where you are comming from.
Please understand, though I am a major fan of God, I swear that I'm
not doing this for that reason. I have explained the reasons, but for
some reason they just flew by you. Feminism's attack on patriarchal
religions was a centerpiece of their movement and functioned in all
kinds of ways to promote them. As masculists, we can not allow this
to go unaddress when such a large percentage of men are religious.
Just because you aren't doesn't mean others aren't religious.

Some kind of statement of intent in masculism to provide a counter
offensive to feminism's religious strategy is critical. This is way
too big and involves too many men to be left out, not to mention the
strategic neccessity.

I also think you have a misperception of how this can be done. Maybe
I can fill it in for you below.

> Tom, I'm not trying to offend you, but I think it is your position
> that is unrealistic.
>
> Before I start, I want to make sure you know that none of this is
> directed at you personally.
>
> First, I don't think you realize just what the religious segment looks
> like to some of us.

You don't realize what your lack of religion looks like to some of us.

> I grew up in a religious household, and there's
> *NO WAY* I'm ever going back to that. I don't like it when they
> proselytize; it's obnoxious.

Walk away.

> I don't like people assuming that
> everyone should on board with religious stuff.

Likewise, some poeple resent having no religion forced on them.

> And it's not just
> pushing their religion. Generally the very same people love to
> proselytize their personal version of The Big Picture, and it's always
> something that, if you don't share their faith, looks like blind
> faith. And I don't think I'm the only guy here who feels this way.

Yeah, so what?

> Now, I've kept my trap shut about this, many many times. I
> stringently limit myself to innocuous statements like "Well, I for one
> am not a believer".

So I say "I am a beleiver". The circles I have traveled in most of my
life were with people like you and the response was, "So fucking
what?" Like you they never gave a shit and that was that.

> I hold my peace for the good of the movement.

Well, I hold my peace with you guys too for the sake of the movement.
But that doesn't mean I make myself blind to the realities we are
dealing with.

> But if the misunderstanding is as drastic as this, I'd better speak
> out. I will never be a member of a religious movement.

What the fuck does all this have to do with you being a member of a
religious movement? Masculism is simply an ideology for the purpose
of united action. It's not a religion, but like all modern ideologies
it will have a quasi religious tint to it. Maybe it's that aspect you
are aware of and concerned about.

You should also be aware that the "religious" here have not endorsed
this either. They were afraid, I imagine, that at least my use of God
was out of step in making masculism too close to religion, therefore
treading on their ground. In my most recent revision of the statement
concerning this, I left out God and secularized the statement. Did
you read that? It was in my last email to Hombre.

> Second, when I hear from religious guys, I get a very strong sense
> that their loyalties are not with us. Sure, they're outraged over
> Feminism, but not for the reasons we are. They don't care that it's
> unfair to men. They are mad that it violates scripture, or their view
> of the family, or some other traditionalist vision.

I know what your talking about and agree, the traditionalists, who
tend to be religious, have a tendency to have their heads up their ass
when it comes to an insurgency against feminism. But they are sincere
in wanting to end feminism, but they just don't have a clue to what's
happenning and how to do it.

That being said, you can beleive they are in big trouble in their
churches because of feminism and if something isn't done about it
soon, they won't have any churches. Right now, the churches have
become feminist advocacy groups. You may want us to say, "Fuck the
churches, we didn't need them anyway." But is that strategically
sound or is it proper to ignore a huge segment of men and their
righteous needs?

> Third, I see how spirituality has misled men in the past, with Iron
> John, and with Promise-Keepers. So many men, so much energy wasted.
> Let's not let it happen again.

Million Man March also. What these movements proved is simply the
necessity of spirituality in a men's movement. You can deny the
importance of spirituality for yourself, but can you deny it for men
in general in light of history or even the present? When you look at
the trouble we have had of putting together a men's movment, you start
to realize that men only organize at this high level THROUGH RELIGION.
Even the early feminists set up a religious arrangement with their
"consciousness raising" groups, which by the way were very effective
in bringing loads of men and women into the fray. All men are
spiritual, even you are. It's critical to their organizing as well as
to their personal lives. I'm not too happy with the churches either,
but maybe masculism can help those folks make things better. Maybe it
can get us all pulling in the same direction, both religious and non
religious.

> And fourth, the religions are not on our side. I grew up Catholic. I
> know there are far more nuns than there are brothers, priests and
> deacons, total, and I see why.

Many good Cathlics are aware of this problem and want to correct it.
It's weakening the Cahtolic Church fast in this country. Spiritual
vocations should be an issue in the men's movement.

>I saw the whole female attitude, from
> the young girls in CCD with me who resonanted with all the sexual
> prohibitions that left us boys in befuddled dismay, to the old women
> who were maybe 90% of the people at weekday mass when I used to play
> the organ. I hear the Pope apologizing for how the church "has
> historically treated women badly", when he bloody well knows better.

This is not only a problem with the pope, but the protestants are
advocating for women too in an even more feminist way.

> Yes, the RCC won't give in on the woman priest issue or abortion.

Probably the two things that best prove it's righteousnes, especially
the abortion issue. The Catholics hit the mark and were the only
religion to do it other than those wonderful proseltyzing
fundementalists. Praise the Lord!!

And don't give me any shit, I'm listening to your atheist drivel here.

> Small deal. They still don't like us and won't do anything for us.

As JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask instead
what you can do for your country". Whether you like it or not,
religion is a big part of men's lives here in the US of A and feminism
has been beating men and women religious unmercifully. After
witnessing this beating and possibly being more aware of the
consequences it has on the rest of society, there is no way I will be
a part of a men's movement that doesn't take this on, and take it on
as boldy as possible. I swear to God, this is absolutely not a matter
of personal religion with me, just my pure and righteous masculist
soul screaming out for justice!!!!!!!!!

> Will the other major first-world religions do more? Judaism, with MGM
> and 90% Democrat vote, don't even ask. Protestantism?

It's not my concern how they respond to our efforts, my concern is to
capture the major men's issues in masculism and do it in such a way
that it's righteousness reverberates through the decades.

> A little, with
> the Promise-Keepers. But PK did not help men's liberation, it sucked
> up their energy and focused them away from political power.

Like the mythopetics, they weren't thoroughly versed on the problem
and didn't make the necessary adjustments. The assumption which
skewed them the wrong way was that men have power. Men don't have
power and to pretend they do looks ridiculous. Asking their wives to
forgive them after thirty years of feminism, boggled my mind. The
early Christians who acted meek like them were at least solidly in a
patriarchal society. Those guys were trying to be like the early
Christians, but they were't only exiled from their own societies, but
even their families.

> The
> remaining major religions have little presence here. So the religions
> won't help us.

So says the atheist. Who should we beleive?

> For these reasons, please drop the "SPIRITUALITY" subheading.

I'm sorry that you don't see how critical this issue is, we all have
blind spots. It's not only that I can't take this out, but I can't be
a part of any men's movement that isn't smart enough to take this
issue on. Putting God aside ("OK God, sit over here a second and make
yourself scarce"), just for strategic and righteous reasons we have to
address this. What spiritual people do with it or think about it is
not my concern.

> > > Agreed. I think we should also add c4m (choice for men).
> >
> > I know how hard you guys have worked on this, and to be honest I would
> > have normally supported it except for some personal experiences, of which
> > the murder of two of my children through abortion is actually the least
> > of it. Abortion goes to the heart of some serious ethical problems that
> > we will be facing increasingly in the future.
>
> That horse is long gone. It also has nothing to do with c4m, which is
> coherent even if abortion is banned.

I haven't read the C4M threads. I'm apparently missing something.

> > Some of those problems
> > haven't even emerged yet, but they certainly will. So looking into the
> > future and what will be important than, we need to be on the mark with
> > this abortion issue. Anyway, it's mostly a female issue so why should
> > you even give a fuck. Are you worried like the materialistic feminists
> > that babies might get in the way of getting a DVD player? If you are,
> > than fuck you, you know zilch about life and should have ten babies to
> > teach you.
>
> Sorry, it's got to be c4m. Charity with other people's money isn't
> charity.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe I need to know more
about C4M before I can comment further.

> [snip stuff we mostly agree on]
>
> > >
> > > Yes, and get rid of the dynamic of blaming a nearby man whenever a
> > > woman does wrong, for instance Andrea Yates. Our goal should be to
> > > make society see that as the bigotry it is.
> >
> > Society doesn't listen to you unless you have power or money, we as an
> > interest group for men have neither.
>
> That's means. I thought we were talking about ends.

Yes we are talking about means too. By providing an alternative to
feminism, masculism, we want to attract more people (means) by
providing the vision (ends). It also keeps our efforts more
consistent and understandable and therefore better communicated to the
people.

> > > Our goals should include:
> > >
> > > the elimination of laws and social disapproval against prostitution,
> > > pornography, and other victimless sexual substitutes.
> >
> > Bad idea. We have to take the morality spotlight off us and put it on
> > women. Legalizing their sins is not the way to do it.
>
> That is essentially a religious position.

Wait a minute. I came to this as a matter of taste. It's distasteful
to objectify another human being in such selfish ways and with no
intimate goals. Can't one be a civilized person with taste and not be
accused of being religious? That being said, the majorities "tastes"
are often legislated. It was distasteful to the majority that I was
selling marijuana in the early seventies so I was put in jail. I
personlly feel that selling sex is much more distasteful.

> Even if I read it as a sociological or PR argument, I don't think it
> works in today's society.

Well, we have been through an extraordinary time of sexual hedonism,
you may be surprised how styles in this area could change.

> > Sex is money
> > alright, and women are cashing in prostitution or no prostitution. It's
> > time to take the money out of sex for women, and put that power in men's
> > hands where it belongs.
>
> That is at least an economic argument. But it's wrong. If
> prostitution (narrow sense) gave women more power, it wouldn't be
> illegal. The other sexual substitutes don't even need women (per
> individual consumer, anyways).

It's the general discounting of the importance of intimacy that has
set up the situation for serial marriages and men being used as
breeders and tossed as fathers. Devalueing sexual intimacy is the
source of many of our problems. It's how we express affection the
most. If intimacy is devalued between men and women, then might not
it also be devalued with children? Day care? Plopping the kid in
front of the TV? Throwing the father out of the house just because
it's time for a fresh and effective sexual mate? Listen, thirty more
years of this and you will be amazed at how low we can go.

> But if (as I doubt) you want to suggest that this goal elevate porn
> etc above prostitution, I'm all for it.

Porn is sick...um, I mean in very "bad taste". I'm sorry to hear that
you get pleasure out of that sort of thing. Seek professional help.

> > Thanks Dan. I hope you will consider and think about the religious issue
> > and if you come up with a way to address it I'd be happy to hear it.
>
>
> Thanks, Tom. I have addressed it, but I suspect you will not be happy
> with my views.

Geeze Dan, if I was a church goer, I'd take you to church. I
appreciate your comments and I'm sure there are many others who have
wondered about this the way you have. Hombre and I are working on the
spiritual section to see if we can get it somewhere that it needs to
be. Your spiritual views have been well represented in feminism,
isn't it time for others to be represented while at the same time
providing an alternative to the feminist approach?

Tom

[Stephen Morgan]

I don't think you're being religious enough. Glorify God in all things,
you know.

Lying is a sin.

> This is not only a problem with the pope, but the protestants are
> advocating for women too in an even more feminist way.

Treacherous and rebellious.

> > Yes, the RCC won't give in on the woman priest issue or abortion.
>
> Probably the two things that best prove it's righteousnes, especially
> the abortion issue.

Righteousness on two issues, rebelliousness on a hundred others.

> The Catholics hit the mark and were the only
> religion to do it other than those wonderful proseltyzing
> fundementalists. Praise the Lord!!

I prefer fundamentalists to the others.

> And don't give me any shit, I'm listening to your atheist drivel here.
>
> > Small deal. They still don't like us and won't do anything for us.
>
> As JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask instead
> what you can do for your country". Whether you like it or not,
> religion is a big part of men's lives here in the US of A and feminism
> has been beating men and women religious unmercifully. After
> witnessing this beating and possibly being more aware of the
> consequences it has on the rest of society, there is no way I will be
> a part of a men's movement that doesn't take this on, and take it on
> as boldy as possible.

Kill 'em all?

> I swear to God,

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou
shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's
throne:
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it
is the city of the great King.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one
hair white or black.
-- Matthew 5:33-36

> this is absolutely not a matter
> of personal religion with me, just my pure and righteous masculist
> soul screaming out for justice!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Will the other major first-world religions do more? Judaism, with MGM
> > and 90% Democrat vote, don't even ask. Protestantism?
>
> It's not my concern how they respond to our efforts, my concern is to
> capture the major men's issues in masculism and do it in such a way
> that it's righteousness reverberates through the decades.
>
> > A little, with
> > the Promise-Keepers. But PK did not help men's liberation, it sucked
> > up their energy and focused them away from political power.
>
> Like the mythopetics, they weren't thoroughly versed on the problem
> and didn't make the necessary adjustments. The assumption which
> skewed them the wrong way was that men have power. Men don't have
> power and to pretend they do looks ridiculous. Asking their wives to
> forgive them after thirty years of feminism, boggled my mind. The
> early Christians who acted meek like them were at least solidly in a
> patriarchal society.

Meekness is good, no matter the society.

> Those guys were trying to be like the early
> Christians, but they were't only exiled from their own societies, but
> even their families.

The early Christians were killed and outlawed.

> > The
> > remaining major religions have little presence here. So the religions
> > won't help us.
>
> So says the atheist. Who should we beleive?
>
> > For these reasons, please drop the "SPIRITUALITY" subheading.

Please change the "spirituality" subheading to a "religion" subheading.

> I'm sorry that you don't see how critical this issue is, we all have
> blind spots. It's not only that I can't take this out, but I can't be
> a part of any men's movement that isn't smart enough to take this
> issue on. Putting God aside ("OK God, sit over here a second and make
> yourself scarce"), just for strategic and righteous reasons we have to
> address this. What spiritual people do with it or think about it is
> not my concern.
>
> > > > Agreed. I think we should also add c4m (choice for men).
> > >
> > > I know how hard you guys have worked on this, and to be honest I would
> > > have normally supported it except for some personal experiences, of which
> > > the murder of two of my children through abortion is actually the least
> > > of it. Abortion goes to the heart of some serious ethical problems that
> > > we will be facing increasingly in the future.
> >
> > That horse is long gone. It also has nothing to do with c4m, which is
> > coherent even if abortion is banned.
>
> I haven't read the C4M threads. I'm apparently missing something.

Choice bad.

Two wrongs = one right?

> > But if (as I doubt) you want to suggest that this goal elevate porn
> > etc above prostitution, I'm all for it.
>
> Porn is sick...um, I mean in very "bad taste". I'm sorry to hear that
> you get pleasure out of that sort of thing. Seek professional help.

It's normal.

> > > Thanks Dan. I hope you will consider and think about the religious issue
> > > and if you come up with a way to address it I'd be happy to hear it.
> >
> > Thanks, Tom. I have addressed it, but I suspect you will not be happy
> > with my views.
>
> Geeze Dan, if I was a church goer, I'd take you to church. I
> appreciate your comments and I'm sure there are many others who have
> wondered about this the way you have. Hombre and I are working on the
> spiritual section to see if we can get it somewhere that it needs to
> be. Your spiritual views have been well represented in feminism,
> isn't it time for others to be represented while at the same time
> providing an alternative to the feminist approach?
>
> Tom

[Daniel Fifth]

q...@yahoo.com (Tom Smith QIM) writes:

> Daniel Fifth <dfi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:<lr8g0ah...@my-deja.com>...
>
> > Tom Smith (QIM) <q...@yahoo.com> writes:

> > > > > I personally agree with you
> > > > > that religion should be more a part of people's lives, but that is
> > > > > completely seperate from masculism. I feel most people who reject religion
> > > > > do so for what they feel are good reasons, and religions need to hear these
> > > > > people and address their concerns in order to have more influence. I feel
> > > > > that to divide masculists on the basis of religion is no better then to
> > > > > divide them on the basis of left right politics.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. I suggest we drop the religion section altogether.
> > >
> > > Cut the heart out of masculism?
> >
> > No, drop the religion section. We can continue each saying it in our
> > own way if you like.
>
> I read your comments below on this and see where you are comming from.
> Please understand, though I am a major fan of God, I swear that I'm
> not doing this for that reason.

I'm sorry, but after reading what follows, I can't believe that.

> I have explained the reasons, but for
> some reason they just flew by you.

Sorry, Tom, but what you take to be "explained the reasons" seems to
me hand-waving. *You* have a view that Feminism is centrally about
anti-religion. You have not established any reason I should see it
that way.

> Feminism's attack on patriarchal
> religions was a centerpiece of their movement and functioned in all
> kinds of ways to promote them.

But I don't see any such thing. Their anti-religion has been quite
peripheral. True, Feminists are stuck in battle with Christians over
abortion, but that seems quite unplanned. Aside from that, mere
peripheral skirmishes over women priests and such.

> As masculists, we can not allow this
> to go unaddress when such a large percentage of men are religious.
> Just because you aren't doesn't mean others aren't religious.
>
> Some kind of statement of intent in masculism to provide a counter
> offensive to feminism's religious strategy is critical. This is way
> too big and involves too many men to be left out, not to mention the
> strategic neccessity.
>
> I also think you have a misperception of how this can be done. Maybe
> I can fill it in for you below.
>
> > Tom, I'm not trying to offend you, but I think it is your position
> > that is unrealistic.
> >
> > Before I start, I want to make sure you know that none of this is
> > directed at you personally.
> >
> > First, I don't think you realize just what the religious segment looks
> > like to some of us.
>
> You don't realize what your lack of religion looks like to some of us.

False appearance of symmetry. If my freedom from religion looks like
something to you, that says something imperialistic about you and your
religion, and says nothing about me.

And to completely dispose of the false symmetry, let's just note that
you're the one who wants a subheading supporting your religion. I
never suggested a subheading supporting Atheism. Perhaps I should,
and then we could compromise by ejecting both of them.

In the name of peace, I'm not going to stir things up further by
responding point by point to your antagonistic religious spiel that
followed. You are welcome to pretend that you "won", but you would be
wrong.

However, I am acutely aware of the lack of respect it demonstrated.
You have demonstrated, here and now, that religion is divisive to
Masculism, and that the religious pseudo-Masculists place their
religious agenda infiniitely far above Masculism. If you understood
no other reason for rejecting the "SPIRITUALITY" section, understand
that.

[I am snipping some offensive stuff here that I'm sure you regret
writing. If you *meant* any of that, then we have a problem]

> > > > Agreed. I think we should also add c4m (choice for men).
> > >
> > > I know how hard you guys have worked on this, and to be honest I would
> > > have normally supported it except for some personal experiences, of which
> > > the murder of two of my children through abortion is actually the least
> > > of it. Abortion goes to the heart of some serious ethical problems that
> > > we will be facing increasingly in the future.
> >
> > That horse is long gone. It also has nothing to do with c4m, which is
> > coherent even if abortion is banned.
>
> I haven't read the C4M threads. I'm apparently missing something.

Yes. The public good of supporting children in a certain style does
not rise to the level of a compelling state interest. Which is what
is supposed to be required before fining fathers (or confiscating
money in any other way)

And if it did, the same would have to apply to all parents. The govt
would also have to poke its big fat nose into every parent's life to
make sure they were supporting their children to the same degree.

> > [snip stuff we mostly agree on]
> >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and get rid of the dynamic of blaming a nearby man whenever a
> > > > woman does wrong, for instance Andrea Yates. Our goal should be to
> > > > make society see that as the bigotry it is.
> > >
> > > Society doesn't listen to you unless you have power or money, we as an
> > > interest group for men have neither.
> >
> > That's means. I thought we were talking about ends.
>
> Yes we are talking about means too. By providing an alternative to
> feminism, masculism, we want to attract more people (means) by
> providing the vision (ends).

Yes, exactly.

> > > > Our goals should include:
> > > >
> > > > the elimination of laws and social disapproval against prostitution,
> > > > pornography, and other victimless sexual substitutes.
> > >
> > > Bad idea. We have to take the morality spotlight off us and put it on
> > > women. Legalizing their sins is not the way to do it.
> >
> > That is essentially a religious position.
>
> Wait a minute. I came to this as a matter of taste. It's distasteful
> to objectify another human being in such selfish ways and with no
> intimate goals. Can't one be a civilized person with taste and not be
> accused of being religious?

Let's not be disingenuous. Last time you said it was about "morality"
and "sins". And anyways, Masculism's goals shouldn't include
reflecting any particular person's tastes per se.

> That being said, the majorities "tastes"
> are often legislated. It was distasteful to the majority that I was
> selling marijuana in the early seventies so I was put in jail. I
> personlly feel that selling sex is much more distasteful.

Sorry to hear it.

> > Even if I read it as a sociological or PR argument, I don't think it
> > works in today's society.
>
> Well, we have been through an extraordinary time of sexual hedonism,
> you may be surprised how styles in this area could change.

I doubt the pill would be uninvented.

[snip antagonistic anti-porn diatribe]

> > > Thanks Dan. I hope you will consider and think about the religious issue
> > > and if you come up with a way to address it I'd be happy to hear it.
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Tom. I have addressed it, but I suspect you will not be happy
> > with my views.

> Your spiritual views have been well represented in feminism,

Wrong. Now, I'll certainly admit that Feminists like Cleo Kocol tried
to use Atheists, just as they try to use religious - and met
considerably more resistance from the Atheists, I might add.

But it's long been noticed that Atheists tend to be predominately men,
and often Libertarian, which is hardly Feminist. There was a time
when you could barely find a female Atheist. (Yes, there was MMO'H,
but she was far in the minority) Now that religion is weaker, there
are a few self-described female Atheists, but even now females who
leave traditional religion usually become "pagans" or "Gaians" or
similar neo-religions.

I could far more easily compare religion to Feminism, but I doubt
you'd listen.

This will probably be our last exchange on the topic. Don't let my
restraint fool you: your proselytizing is utterly unwelcome. I
deleted more cutting responses than you'll ever know. Feel free to
claim "victory", but you will be wrong.

--
Don't let religion suck the life out of Masculism

[Daniel Fifth]

ncav...@crosswinds.net (Stephen Morgan) writes:

You and Tom are both demonstrating that religion is divisive to
Masculism.

--

[Tom Smith]

In article <slrn9oes6h....@wildcard.ntl.com>,
ncav...@crosswinds.net says...

> In soc.men, Tom Smith QIM wrote:
> > Daniel Fifth <dfi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:<lr8g0ah...@my-deja.com>...
> > > Tom Smith (QIM) <q...@yahoo.com> writes:

> > > The
> > > remaining major religions have little presence here. So the religions
> > > won't help us.
> >
> > So says the atheist. Who should we beleive?
> >
> > > For these reasons, please drop the "SPIRITUALITY" subheading.
>
> Please change the "spirituality" subheading to a "religion" subheading.

Will do.

Tom

[Andre Lieven]

From taking a peek at this thread, I would add that its isn't necessary
to construct a whole philosophical base upon which everyone has to
agree on all of it's available components.

So, let the men who want to include religion or spirituality into
their mix, and those who don't, won't.

That seems to me to be the true meaning of tolerance.

Andre

--
" The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some
other way, and terminate in beauty and forgiveness "
David Gelernter, " 1939 "

[Tom Smith]

In article <9m9cft$elo$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
says...

> Tom Smith (q...@yahoo.com) writes:
> > In article <slrn9oes6h....@wildcard.ntl.com>,
> > ncav...@crosswinds.net says...
> >> In soc.men, Tom Smith QIM wrote:
> >> > Daniel Fifth <dfi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:<lr8g0ah...@my-deja.com>...
> >> > > Tom Smith (QIM) <q...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> > > The
> >> > > remaining major religions have little presence here. So the religions
> >> > > won't help us.
> >> >
> >> > So says the atheist. Who should we beleive?
> >> >
> >> > > For these reasons, please drop the "SPIRITUALITY" subheading.
> >>
> >> Please change the "spirituality" subheading to a "religion" subheading.
> >
> > Will do.
>
> From taking a peek at this thread, I would add that its isn't necessary
> to construct a whole philosophical base upon which everyone has to
> agree on all of it's available components.

Good point Andre, and one we need to continually remind ourselves of.
What is most important with something like this is brevity,
comprehensiveness, goals, an internal integrity, and righteousness.

> So, let the men who want to include religion or spirituality into
> their mix, and those who don't, won't.

Even the ones who don't want it in the mix should be able to see the
necessity of it in the context of the situation. I don't think atheists
are terribly put upon these days, so maybe they can afford some sympathy
for the beleivers who have taken the brunt of feminist attacks.

> That seems to me to be the true meaning of tolerance.
>
> Andre

Amen.

Tom

[Tom Smith]

Here's the first revised version of the Outline. I took out some
unnecessary stuff, put in some of the suggestions and expanded on some
things.

Tom

QIMNews Men
Position Statement
August 26, 2001

OUTLINE FOR MASCULISM Revised Part I

By Tom Smith (QIM)

In the Fall of '99 I published and discussed here and on all the major
men's forums the "Masculist Manifesto"
(http://www.geocities.com/qim/manifestohtml.htm)

It is a statement of the political objectives of Masculism.

Now it's time to present a proposal for a comprehensive view of

Masculism, not just it's political objectives. Since the publishing of
the Manifesto, and I suggest because of it, there is more discussion of

masculism and people calling themselves "Masculist" on the net. It's
time to clarify Masculism.

Masculism isn't feminism in pants. The only thing in common with

feminism is that it's an ideology (defined: "The body of ideas
reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group,
class or culture"). An "ideology" for men is long overdue.

Before one gets too prickly over the specifics of Masculism, it must be

remembered that feminism contained much that most women didn't beleive

in, yet they followed the feminists, as well as many men, eventhough the
men were excluded and derided by official feminist ideology. It was

economic self interest and a percieved, though certainly not proved,
victimization and oppression that caused many people to follow the

feminists. Always keep that in mind when approaching Masculism, though I
assure you it will be much more just and reasonable.

CRITICAL IDEAS THAT COMPRISE MASCULISM

RELIGIOUS

Men have a more pronounced spirituality which has caused them to create

religions which in turn has led to creating civilizations. This is a

fact of history and a great pride of men that shouldn't be demeaned or

ignored. Masculism therefore acknowledges and respects religion as
critical to many men's lives.

POLITICAL

Anyone advocating men's interests in the political realm is a "Masculist"

if he fulfills the goal of destroying feminism (mandated sexual

equality), serves to promote men and conforms to addressing justice and

fairness issues for men and their families.

PSYCHOLOGICAL

Masculism promotes the psychological interests of men, meaning that men's
masculine nature is encouraged to be studied, expressed, and for society

to make the necessary adjustments for men to live full masculine lives.
"Social construction" theories (feminist theory) in the social sciences
are to be resisted. Special attention needs to be given to all media to
promote a masculist view of men and encourage a more critical examination
of women. Thirty years of feminism has produced a white washing of women
in the media and a demonization of men and masculinity.

CULTURAL

A cultural goal is to establish a linkage to the different classes of
men. Presently we live in a modified matriarchy where women represent
the lower classes of men and are co-power brokers with the corporate
class of men. Men need to assume the "co-power broker" function.

ECONOMIC

An arrangement will need to be worked out between the lower classes of
men and the controlling economic interests as embodied in the corporate
male elite. The latter presently support and endorse feminism because it
has been in their economic interests. Masculism supports free
enterprise, but also sees social programs as desirable regulatory
mechanisms, much as we now have for our economic and other interests. A
healthy free enterprise system is a prerequisite for effective social
programs and therefore social programs should not overburden those
systems. Masculism endorses remdial use of social programs and
governemnt policies to correct the civil rights and economic injustices
to men under thirty years of feminism.

SEXUAL EGALITARIANISM

Men and women aren't LEGALLY equal. To be "legally" equal requires that
sex differences be no greater than racial differences. This linkage of
racism to sexism is the slight of hand that feminism has used to obscure
the truth. The difference between the sexes are much greater than that
between the races, and cannot be "socially constructed" out of existence,
nor can they be made equal by laws. The posture of "mandating sexual
equality" has skewed the whole population away from honestly dealing with
sex differences and has resulted in a deteriorating realationship between
the sexes. A primary goal of Masculism is to repeal all laws mandating
sexual equality, which will also eliminate the corrosive effects of
feminist advocacy on the population. Egalitarianism is another matter

and Masculism encourages a further develpment of egalitarianism.
Understanding sex differences is critical for every aspect of life and
should be studied and government policies should conform to what we
learn.

Please feel free to critique my "outline".

Tom Smith

[Andre Lieven]

Tom Smith (q...@yahoo.com) writes:
> In article <9m9cft$elo$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> says...
>> Tom Smith (q...@yahoo.com) writes:
>> > In article <slrn9oes6h....@wildcard.ntl.com>,
>> > ncav...@crosswinds.net says...
>> >> In soc.men, Tom Smith QIM wrote:
>> >> > Daniel Fifth <dfi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:<lr8g0ah...@my-deja.com>...
>> >> > > Tom Smith (QIM) <q...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> > > The remaining major religions have little presence here. So the
>> >> > > religions won't help us.
>> >> >
>> >> > So says the atheist. Who should we beleive?
>> >> >
>> >> > > For these reasons, please drop the "SPIRITUALITY" subheading.
>> >>
>> >> Please change the "spirituality" subheading to a "religion" subheading.
>> >
>> > Will do.
>>
>> From taking a peek at this thread, I would add that its isn't necessary
>> to construct a whole philosophical base upon which everyone has to
>> agree on all of it's available components.
>
> Good point Andre, and one we need to continually remind ourselves of.
> What is most important with something like this is brevity,
> comprehensiveness, goals, an internal integrity, and righteousness.

Indeed.

>> So, let the men who want to include religion or spirituality into
>> their mix, and those who don't, won't.
>
> Even the ones who don't want it in the mix should be able to see the
> necessity of it in the context of the situation.

Well, as an atheist, though not a particularly devout one <g>, I can
see a utility for it, but I really do not see a necessity. In fact,
since many people are somewhat put off by the active promotion of
a religion, while dealing with societal wide issues, I can see good
reasons for not going this way.

For example, the anti-abortion folks are tied in with religious groups.
This appears to have one effect which is that people less inclined
towards religion, move away from that position.

> I don't think atheists are terribly put upon these days, so maybe they

> can afford some sympathy for the believers who have taken the brunt of
> feminist attacks.

Oh, we atheists still get a bit more then our share of mud.

It just seems to me that you don't want to turn this into a religious
crusade, as many people who may well be sympathetic and interested in
your positions, may not wish to go to that point for them.

>> That seems to me to be the true meaning of tolerance.
>>
>> Andre
>
> Amen.

Cool.