Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, AND IT IS TIME THEY DID.

[LJ_Reloaded]

Alarmed? You ought to be.

It's a quote by Nobel Prize winning feminist author Doris Lessing.

The only thing I would add to her quote is... we also need to fight against the traditionalists who want to keep men trapped in the age old gender role of expendable assets. Neither modern feminists nor traditionalists want to make men less expendable.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...uthor_who_wrote_the_golden_notebook_dies.html

https://24.media.tumblr.com/ec88fb41fa9f570cfff69f054afaf7a9/tumblr_n1bjxtXz261rjeii0o1_500.jpg

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/14/edinburghfestival2001.edinburghbookfestival2001

"I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed," the 81-year-old Persian-born writer said yesterday.

"Great things have been achieved through feminism. We now have pretty much equality at least on the pay and opportunities front, though almost nothing has been done on child care, the real liberation.

"We have many wonderful, clever, powerful women everywhere, but what is happening to men? Why did this have to be at the cost of men?

"I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men.

"You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives."

Lessing said the teacher tried to "catch my eye, thinking I would approve of this rubbish".

She added: "This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing.

"It has become a kind of religion that you can't criticise because then you become a traitor to the great cause, which I am not.

"It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.

"Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did."

 

[renard_ruse]

Several times in just the past week, I've seen the word traditionalist used as an attempted slur on internet boards.

I'm assuming Huffington Post told the libbots to start using this as a slur. I'm not sure how you can turn an inherently positive word into a slur. I think its going to fail, and they'll move onto to some other effort in a few weeks. Either way, anti-liberal traditionalists are not wedded to terminology and we'll just come up with another term for "all that is good in the world" to describe ourselves. Another EPIC Huffington Post FAIL!

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Several times in just the past week, I've seen the word traditionalist used as an attempted slur on internet boards.

I'm assuming Huffington Post told the libbots to start using this as a slur. I'm not sure how you can turn an inherently positive word into a slur. I think its going to fail, and they'll move onto to some other effort in a few weeks. Either way, anti-liberal traditionalists are not wedded to terminology and we'll just come up with another term for "all that is good in the world" to describe ourselves. Another EPIC Huffington Post FAIL!

Traditionalists feel that there should be rigid gender roles for men and women. This is in direct contradiction of the concept of individual liberty which you Conservitards keep saying we should worship.

It's you assholes who issued death threats at me for opposing the draft. Make no mistake the only reason why one of you death threat mongering traditionalist punks isn't laying crippled in a hospital for the rest of their miserable lives is because they failed to show up when I came to visit them in Plano, Texas.

Pray this economy never collapses, though, because when it does, both the feminists and the traditionalists are going on their own trail of tears.

 

[Queersetti]

It's you assholes who issued death threats at me for opposing the draft.

Dude, that was ten years go. Half the posters on this board were still school kids then.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Dude, that was ten years go. Half the posters on this board were still school kids then.

And you think attitudes have changed?
Really?

You have more faith in humans than I do.

 

[pointless]

i just have to say i have a fondness for unintentionally humorous things, so thank you for your silly thoughtlessness.

 

[Queersetti]

And you think attitudes have changed?
Really?

You have more faith in humans than I do.

Attitudes are not the point. The point is, you are blaming people who weren't even here for stupid shit that long gone posters said. Just one of many examples of how your behavior doesn't match your philosophy.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Attitudes are not the point. The point is, you are blaming people who weren't even here for stupid shit that long gone posters said. Just one of many examples of how your behavior doesn't match your philosophy.

You were here back then. Did you call them out?

 

[Queersetti]

You were here back then. Did you call them out?

Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. Who remembers?

Again, however, not the point. I am under no obligation to defend you, no matter how badly you are flailing around trying to defend yourself.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Females are for fucking, they serve no other purpose. Turn the lights off and theyre helpless, except in bed. Laugh at them like a gladiator laughs at death.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. Who remembers?

Again, however, not the point. I am under no obligation to defend you, no matter how badly you are flailing around trying to defend yourself.

No, you're not obligated to be a decent human being and speak up when you see people issuing death threats. You certainly didn't speak up when your pal Rhys joined the crowd threatening to skin and rape NativeAlien for opposing their post floods on the Playground.

The only time shortsighted assholes like you ever speak up is when your buddies get slighted. Doesn't matter if they started the shitfest.

And... I'm trying to defend myself? Is this the same delusion that you had when you accused me of not wanting to fuck women because I said I'd set them free from an OBVIOUSLY captive harem situation?

LOL. Trying to defend myself. I almost forgot just how important you guys think you are.

 

[Queersetti]

No, you're not obligated to be a decent human being and speak up when you see people issuing death threats. You certainly didn't speak up when your pal Rhys joined the crowd threatening to skin and rape NativeAlien for opposing their post floods on the Playground.

The only time shortsighted assholes like you ever speak up is when your buddies get slighted. Doesn't matter if they started the shitfest.

And... I'm trying to defend myself? Is this the same delusion that you had when you accused me of not wanting to fuck women because I said I'd set them free from an OBVIOUSLY captive harem situation?

LOL. Trying to defend myself. I almost forgot just how important you guys think you are.

So, I am of no importance, but it is imperative that I make my opinion known on every incident that occurs on the board. I can't imagine how much pressure there is on the important people. They must have to monitor things 24/7.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Men are the expendable gender. Sucks to be us but when/if the shit hits the fan there can be no other way about it. A relatively few number of men can repopulate an area if need be, the opposite cannot be said of women. We're also bigger and stronger. The only way around this is that we don't have a population problem (certainly not under population) and women in theory own a third of the wealth in the nation and should do a third of the work defending it if the need arises.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Men are the expendable gender. Sucks to be us but when/if the shit hits the fan there can be no other way about it. A relatively few number of men can repopulate an area if need be, the opposite cannot be said of women. We're also bigger and stronger. The only way around this is that we don't have a population problem (certainly not under population) and women in theory own a third of the wealth in the nation and should do a third of the work defending it if the need arises.

Perhaps when the shit hits the fan, we need to go on strike and let the women share in the expendability. If women can't step up and humanity goes extinct, then fuck it. I'd rather see that than men keep being the expendable gender.

Bitch, save yourself from that damned fire.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

For all intents and purposes females are socially antithetical cuz their bio destiny is child rearing, and the male destiny is bringing home the bacon. Crises will inevitably correct our present social folly.

That is, sooner or later somebody's gonna wrestle the bacon away from the fags and niggers and old maids who control the government, and the galz wont be in the vanguard that does it.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

Men are the expendable gender. Sucks to be us but when/if the shit hits the fan there can be no other way about it. A relatively few number of men can repopulate an area if need be, the opposite cannot be said of women. We're also bigger and stronger. The only way around this is that we don't have a population problem (certainly not under population) and women in theory own a third of the wealth in the nation and should do a third of the work defending it if the need arises.

While that's technically correct if you only factor in the evolutionary need to breed, it doesn't take into account the current situation. And that's where the problem lies.

As you noted, we don't have a lack of people in the world. Therefore, if that's the only factor being considered, women's value has dropped significantly. Simply put, we don't need them for breeding/rearing young, and they can't do the fighting or heavy lifting, so what real value do they have?

I remember reading from a woman's rights advocate that, to paraphrase, every time she crossed the golden gate bridge, she said of prayer of thanks for the men who built it. She went on to note that if the women's rights groups were right and that women were basically nothing more than slaves throughout all of history, with no say in government or culture, that means that it was men who built the great works of history..... and they get no credit for that.

I thought it was rather eye-opening because I had never considered that view before, but it does make sense. If, as we've heard, women have been oppressed for all of time, who built the greek art and science? Who built the roman aqueducts? How many women were on the crews that built Hoover dam or the skyscrapers in Manhattan? Yet they will tell you all day long, as the OP pointed out, that men are inherently violent and responsible for all the horrors of the world. No mention of the other side of that coin.

Bill Burr, the comedian, did a great skit on the subject. Women complain about equal pay.... but they don't complain when the ship's sinking and everyone cries out, "Women and children first!". Where's the equality then? Yea, a thousand years ago we needed women to keep the species going. But we certainly don't today. Yet, the most vile and disgusting woman is supposed to be saved at the sacrifice of the most noble man.... simply because of her gender? And women don't complain about it. You don't see women's rights groups up in arms over the "discrimination". You don't see men getting credit for the sacrifice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwPg2oarG_c#aid=P8v_E6Ie-lw

 

[badbabysitter]

I remember reading from a woman's rights advocate that, to paraphrase, every time she crossed the golden gate bridge, she said of prayer of thanks for the men who built it. She went on to note that if the women's rights groups were right and that women were basically nothing more than slaves throughout all of history, with no say in government or culture, that means that it was men who built the great works of history..... and they get no credit for that.

I thought it was rather eye-opening because I had never considered that view before, but it does make sense. If, as we've heard, women have been oppressed for all of time, who built the greek art and science? Who built the roman aqueducts? How many women were on the crews that built Hoover dam or the skyscrapers in Manhattan? Yet they will tell you all day long, as the OP pointed out, that men are inherently violent and responsible for all the horrors of the world. No mention of the other side of that coin.

Yet, you missed the entire point of what she was saying... she goes on statitng that men are the ones that were responsible for this... while you blissfuly ignore that while we should be thankful for the world men built... we should not remember that it's only because women weren't allowed a role in building that world.......something you instantly forget

Bill Burr, the comedian, did a great skit on the subject. Women complain about equal pay.... but they don't complain when the ship's sinking and everyone cries out, "Women and children first!". Where's the equality then?
Yea, a thousand years ago we needed women to keep the species going. But we certainly don't today. Yet, the most vile and disgusting woman is supposed to be saved at the sacrifice of the most noble man.... simply because of her gender? And women don't complain about it. You don't see women's rights groups up in arms over the "discrimination". You don't see men getting credit for the sacrifice.

Because..women and children first....is a myth

http://news.discovery.com/history/us-history/titanic-women-children-120413.htm

- The code "women and children first" went down with the Titanic 100 years ago, says a new study.

- Women and children die to a much larger extent than men in maritime disasters.

- Women fared worse in shipwrecks involving Union Jack ships.

The chivalrous code "women and children first" appears to have sunk with the Titanic 100 years ago.

Long believed to be the golden standard of conduct in a shipwreck, the noble edict is in fact "a myth that has been nourished by the Titanic disaster," economist Mikael Elinder of Uppsala University, Sweden, told Discovery News.
PHOTOS: Titanic Treasures On Auction

Elinder and colleague Oscar Erixson analyzed a database of 18 peace-time shipwrecks over the period 1852 – 2011 in a new study into survival advantages at sea disasters.

Looking at the fate of over 15,000 people of more than 30 nationalities, the researchers found that more women and children die than men in maritime disasters, while captains and crew have a greater chance of survival than any passengers.

Being a woman was an advantage on only two ships: on the Birkenhead in 1852 and on the Titanic in 1912.

Indeed, it was the sinking of the troopship HMS Birkenhead off the coast of South Africa in 1852 that inspired the tradition of "women and children first."

The story goes that the soldiers' commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Seton, ordered his men to help get the women and children on board the three lifeboats as the Birkenhead began sinking in shark-infested waters. Not a single woman or child lost their life, thanks to the soldiers who stoically stood on deck as the ship went down.

Going down in maritime history as the Birkenhead Drill -- women and children first -- their sacrifice deeply influenced the behavior on the Titanic.

When the luxury liner sank in the North Atlantic on April 14, 1912, the captain E.J. Smith admonished the men to "Be British," letting women and children leave first.

In the best romantic tradition, he did go down with his ship. Overall, 1,496 of the 2,208 people aboard died as the 46,000-ton vessel plunged to a depth of 12,400 feet.

"Women had a quite remarkable survival advantage over men, 73.3 percent compared to 20.7 percent. First class passengers had ha survival rate of 62 percent, second class 41.8 percent and third class 25.4 percent. Children had a higher survival rate than adults," Elinder and Erixson wrote in a paper titled "Every man for himself!" published by the Research Institute of Industrial Economics.

It was the last time that women benefited from the Birkenhead tradition.

Continuing their investigation, Elinder and Erixson found that women had a lower chance of survival in 11 out of 18 shipwrecks. Women fared worse also in recent times, during the sinking of the Russian river cruise MV Bulgaria in 2011. They had a survival rate of 26.9 percent, opposed to 60.3 percent of men.

Overall, children appear to have the lowest survival rate.

"Women and children first was a very patchy, uneven goal in 19th and 20th century shipwrecks. It had strong class, nationality and ethnicity elements, which meant that 'ladies first' was more often practiced," Lucy Delap, fellow and director of studies in history at the University of Cambridge, UK, told Discovery News.

Delap, who was not involved in the research, noticed that the migrants and pilgrims of low socio-economic status who traveled by ship were very often not given the dignity of being divided into men and women.

"They were simply regarded as mobs, crowds or 'cargo.' You very rarely had women and children of this class and racial background being given precedence in shipwrecks," she said.

Elinder and Erixson also found that the crew and the captain had the best odds of survival on average -- a rule confirmed by the recent Costa Concordia disaster.

"Only seven out of 16 captains went down with their ship," said Elinder
NEWS: Wireless Could Have Saved Passengers on Titanic

The study dismissed previous theories according to which selfish behavior dominated on fast sinking ships, while socially determined behavioral patterns were more likely to re-emerge on slowly sinking vessels.

"We found that women have a disadvantage independently of whether the ship sinks quickly or slowly," the researchers said.

What really seems to matter is the behavior of the captain, who has the power to enforce normative behavior.

"His policy, rather than the moral sentiments of men, determines if women are given preferential treatment in shipwrecks. This suggests an important role for leaders in disasters," the researchers wrote.

Indeed, the "women and children first" order was given for only five times out of 18 sinkings.

Also, women would have been better off if they had avoided British ships. In contrasts with the notion of British men being more gallant than men of other nationalities, women fared worse in shipwrecks involving Union Jack ships.

"Based on our analysis, it becomes evident that the sinking of the Titanic was exceptional in many ways and that what happened on the Titanic seems to have spurred misconceptions about human behavior in disasters," Elinder and Erixson concluded.

 

[Adre]

This is one of those threads I'll be happy I never read and instead used the time I saved for something like whacking off.

 

[Sean Renaud]

To the above the short answer is they get no credit, even where deserved. Even if your writing makes a huge assumption. Just because they didn't get any credit doesn't mean they weren't there. If you think there weren't women around helping on most if not all of those issues you're sorely mistaken.

Perhaps when the shit hits the fan, we need to go on strike and let the women share in the expendability. If women can't step up and humanity goes extinct, then fuck it. I'd rather see that than men keep being the expendable gender.

Bitch, save yourself from that damned fire.

If women do step up and get killed humanity goes extinct. That is the problem. Fortunately the majority of people (especially those who understand things like science, evolution and breeding) simply disagree with you and would rather the species go on instead of fucking ourselves all over a misguided desire to beat and kill women.

 

[badbabysitter]

Perhaps when the shit hits the fan, we need to go on strike and let the women share in the expendability. If women can't step up and humanity goes extinct, then fuck it. I'd rather see that than men keep being the expendable gender.

Bitch, save yourself from that damned fire.

Dude, women have been trying to step up to exactly what you claim they don't.. and every single time they do take a few guesses as to who is telling them they can't

 

[Sean Renaud]

Dude, women have been trying to step up to exactly what you claim they don't.. and every single time they do take a few guesses as to who is telling them they can't

For a number of semi-valid and completely ignorant reasons.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

... it's only because women weren't allowed a role in building that world.......something you instantly forget

Um, you're reading comprehension skills aren't very good, are they? Nowhere did I forget anything. The entire point of what she was saying was that men built that. That's all. If, in fact, "women weren't allowed a role in building that" then it means that men built it. Period. The how or why of women's non-involvement is irrelevant to the point that she's making. The quote in the OP states that women's lib types constantly demean men as being violent and don't recognize men's achievements and/or positive traits.

Even today, women are not doing construction jobs. One of my favorite shows on tv "Rehab Addict" has a wonderful lady host that goes around fixing up old houses. She and I have the same tastes so it's fun to watch.... but you rarely see another woman on the crews that are doing the hard labor.

When's the last time you saw a woman picking up the garbage? Or running a street-sweeper? Yea, I'm sure you'll find some oddball study that says men are blocking women from being grease-monkeys...

Because..women and children first....is a myth

Way to take something incredibly literal!

Not only should you be celebrating the fact that men allowed women to die right beside them, you conveniently ignore the fact that it's a common expectation for men to put themselves in harms way for their wife/girlfriend and children. How many times have you heard of a woman waking her husband up in the middle of the night because she heard a noise downstairs? Or, how many women ask a male coworker to walk them to their car at the end of the night shift because it's dangerous out there? Been down both of those roads more than a few times.

However, for women to demean men for their violent tendencies is just a convenient way of hiding their own involvement in that violence. If you look throughout nature, you'll see male animals fighting/competing against other males for the attention of the female - because it takes only one, remember?!

The female chooses the best, but in order for the male to be the best, he must be the strongest, fastest, most competitive of the bunch. Whatever their mating ritual, it's always a competition between the males.

So, it is through the female selection that males have been bred to be competitive.

If you watch two bulls fighting, the biggest, strongest, most cunning wins and breeds with the female. The female would knock out, or run away from, any young bull that thought to mate with her, forcing the young bulls to fight for a position of strength and dominance so they can earn the right to breed.

On top of that little tidbit, if really want to judge men from an evolutionary standpoint, you must be intellectually honest and judge women the same way. We no longer have a need for protecting the population because it would take something unimaginably serious to jeopardize our numbers. So, women have no value as breeders.

If you get pregnant, cool. If you live your entire life without getting pregnant, that's cool too. The value of a woman as breeding stock is nullified by the lack of a need for that ability - just like the buggy whip makers.


The gist of the OP wasn't that men are angels.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

To the above the short answer is they get no credit, even where deserved. Even if your writing makes a huge assumption. Just because they didn't get any credit doesn't mean they weren't there. If you think there weren't women around helping on most if not all of those issues you're sorely mistaken.

Sean, you're making an assumption that women were there, working side by side with the guys, but where's the evidence for that? The women's rights groups say that they were oppressed and kept out of such things, so are they wrong? If women were there but just didn't get credit, so what! How many hundreds of men were also slaving away on those projects and didn't get credit?

If women do step up and get killed humanity goes extinct. That is the problem. Fortunately the majority of people (especially those who understand things like science, evolution and breeding) simply disagree with you and would rather the species go on instead of fucking ourselves all over a misguided desire to beat and kill women.

No. It would take an event of extraordinary magnitude to jeopardize the species. As I said earlier, if men are disposable because "it only takes one", women must be equally disposable because we have no realistic need for their singular ability.

 

[badbabysitter]

Um, you're reading comprehension skills aren't very good, are they? Nowhere did I forget anything. The entire point of what she was saying was that men built that. That's all. If, in fact, "women weren't allowed a role in building that" then it means that men built it. Period. The how or why of women's non-involvement is irrelevant to the point that she's making. The quote in the OP states that women's lib types constantly demean men as being violent and don't recognize men's achievements and/or positive traits.

You're still missing the point of what both her and I are saying...yes, men built the world on which we should be grateful..what you're completely ignoring is that women were not allowed...you want us to be thankful for bother building the world and not be allowed to have taken a part in it...sorry, but I'm not going to thank you for not being considered an equal

Even today, women are not doing construction jobs.

Yes they are..maybe not where you work, but there's a site down the street where I see a couple women working the job

One of my favorite shows on tv "Rehab Addict" has a wonderful lady host that goes around fixing up old houses. She and I have the same tastes so it's fun to watch.... but you rarely see another woman on the crews that are doing the hard labor.

And why do you suppose that is... shit, I work in a field that desperately needs men , but they aren't in it either...why? Because it's not traditional for men to work in these roles... dont harp against women not lifitng a hammer when men can't bother to work in support services

When's the last time you saw a woman picking up the garbage?

This morning

Or running a street-sweeper?

I wouldnt know, I dont watch street sweepers... see above as to why I dont see men in other roles

Way to take something incredibly literal!

Because you made a direct literal reference.. back pedaling won't save you

Not only should you be celebrating the fact that men allowed women to die right beside them, you conveniently ignore the fact that it's a common expectation for men to put themselves in harms way for their wife/girlfriend and children.

And of course women never do that right?

How many times have you heard of a woman waking her husband up in the middle of the night because she heard a noise downstairs?

And you wouldn't wake your partner if there's a threat... that's just douchey

Or, how many women ask a male coworker to walk them to their car at the end of the night shift because it's dangerous out there?

Mayhap because being raped on the way to their car isnt a threat to men?

Been down both of those roads more than a few times.

However, for women to demean men for their violent tendencies is just a convenient way of hiding their own involvement in that violence.

No one is doing that here at all

If you look throughout nature, you'll see male animals fighting/competing against other males for the attention of the female - because it takes only one, remember?!

And these same animals kill other males to assert their dominance...and eat their own feces.. your point being?

The female chooses the best, but in order for the male to be the best, he must be the strongest, fastest, most competitive of the bunch. Whatever their mating ritual, it's always a competition between the males.

And women are to blame for this....how?

So, it is through the female selection that males have been bred to be competitive.

that completely contradicts what you said.. males compete with males.. but now its the fault of women that they do so... somehow the males never play a role in what they do, ..how convenient

If you watch two bulls fighting, the biggest, strongest, most cunning wins and breeds with the female. The female would knock out, or run away from, any young bull that thought to mate with her, forcing the young bulls to fight for a position of strength and dominance so they can earn the right to breed.

They also graze... just so you know.. we're human beings.. we dont have to act like animals

On top of that little tidbit, if really want to judge men from an evolutionary standpoint, you must be intellectually honest and judge women the same way. We no longer have a need for protecting the population because it would take something unimaginably serious to jeopardize our numbers. So, women have no value as breeders.

I'm not the one judging..if anything, men are irrelevant from a breeding viewpoint.. women live longer and we're on the brink of not needing men at all for their ability to ejaculate.. on the other hand.... we still need women to give birth...so your entire arguement about evolution is so flawed as to be laughable

If you get pregnant, cool. If you live your entire life without getting pregnant, that's cool too. The value of a woman as breeding stock is nullified by the lack of a need for that ability - just like the buggy whip makers.

and like wise for men

The gist of the OP wasn't that men are angels.

the gist of the Op is that men are the real victims...it's a common LT refrain.. he fails to see both men and women as both getting the shaft

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sean, you're making an assumption that women were there, working side by side with the guys, but where's the evidence for that? The women's rights groups say that they were oppressed and kept out of such things, so are they wrong? If women were there but just didn't get credit, so what! How many hundreds of men were also slaving away on those projects and didn't get credit?

No. It would take an event of extraordinary magnitude to jeopardize the species. As I said earlier, if men are disposable because "it only takes one", women must be equally disposable because we have no realistic need for their singular ability.

Where's the evidence? The jobs got done. Hundreds of men didn't get credit, boo fucking hoo, one did, pretty much every single fucking time.

It would take an extinction level event to jepordize the species. Something insane beyond belief. However that doesn't change the fact that if your sending a space shit with four people your better off with one guy and three women than the flip side assuming your goal is repopulation. That's not an opinion that's a current fact.