Why is it that every man . . .

[Stella_Omega]

I suppose, for the sake of clarity, I would prefer that there be an umbrella movement that embraces rights for everyone as individuals as it's specific goal, rather than trying to make men's rights an afterthought in a movement dedicated to advancing women's interests first (and in the case of the more extremist members, to the actual detriment of men).

There are extremeist members in every movement, Sev. The object is to outnumber the extremeists so that their influence is limited...

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

There are extremeist members in every movement, Sev. The object is to outnumber the extremeists so that their influence is limited...

Fair enough, but it's a little discouraging when the extremist branch of the particular movement is screaming for the very blood of the same people that the rest of it is trying to recruit and include.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I suppose, for the sake of clarity, I would prefer that there be an umbrella movement that embraces rights for everyone as individuals as it's specific goal, rather than trying to make men's rights an afterthought in a movement dedicated to advancing women's interests first (and in the case of the more extremist members, to the actual detriment of men).

It's called Equal Rights Movement, perhaps...
There was an amendment about it, but it wasn't ratified.

 

[rgraham666]

I would prefer that there be an umbrella movement that embraces rights for everyone as individuals as it's specific goal,

There is.

Humanism. At least as I understand it.

 

[3113]

Interesting comeback. However, would you say the same of a group that was founded specifically to defend the rights of men? Would it represent you? It sounds like you would, and if so, you would be admirably consistent. Just a question.

You mean like equal rights for fathers to have custody and see their children? Abso-fuckin'-lutely. Or equal rights for guys to get equal pay at Hooters? Abso-fuckin-lutely.

There aren't many male groups that need equal rights, but, yes, abso-fuckin'-lutely. What's fair is fair, what's right is right. And what benefits them benefits me, as it emphasizes gender equality.

Gay rights also helps me with that, but more directly so, since I'm bi. Just to give an example of a community of which I'm an actual member and direct beneficiary.

I don't see how, not unless you want to marry a guy. And I know you don't. So what good does rights for gays to have benefits for their partners do you?

Again, I recognize the validity of the practical effect that you described, but it's not the PURPOSE of the women's movement.

You're very out of touch if you think the women's movement is still just trying to get votes for women or urge them to move out the kitchen and get a job. The rights of your wife-to-be to have maturnity leave and you to have paternity leave if the two of you decide to have a kid is thanks to the women's movement. And THAT is very much a part of it's purpose.

It would help if you acknowledge the validity of my distinction between such overlap and specific agendas to that effect.

And it would help if you would admit that there's a difference between movements that take men out drumming to find their inner maculinity and the worship of the cock (of benefit for men only) and movements that in benefiting their own "members" end up benefiting all...and often develop, change and mature to include that all...rather than keeping the club "boys" or "girls" only.

 

[3113]

Fair enough, but it's a little discouraging when the extremist branch of the particular movement is screaming for the very blood of the same people that the rest of it is trying to recruit and include.

It's always discouraging. Especially as the loudest voices get on the news and the rational ones rarely get heard. That's what happened back in the day--the women's movement tried to insist they wanted rights for mothers, and the only voices the news would listen to were those screaming that women should have careers.

So the movement got saddled with a reputation of being anti-stay-at-home-mom.

And I'm afraid that the loudest voices I'm currently hearing are not women screaming for men's blood...it's men screaming that they shouldn't have to be PC! Damnit! They should be able to treat women badly, hate gays, make jokes about minorities, etc.

That's what I hear--and have heard very recently and often. I see a new surge in misogyny in tv movies, on the news, and from guys preaching on street corners. It's very discouraging. It makes me not want to like men. I think, why should the feminist movement bother with these assholes? I hear about men forcing women to cut off their clits, wear burkas, about men stalking, abusing, killing women. And I wonder...why bother with this gender?

Should I let these men discourage me, Sev? Keep me from wanting to help fathers get equal rights to see their kids...beause, I mean, those guys don't represent me. And I don't directly benefit if they get to see their kids. So why should I care?

 

[cantdog]

Good edit, 3113!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It's always discouraging. Especially as the loudest voices get on the news and the rational ones rarely get heard. That's what happened back in the day--the women's movement tried to insist they wanted rights for mothers, and the only voices the news would listen to were those screaming that women should have careers.

So the movement got saddled with a reputation of being anti-stay-at-home-mom.

And I'm afraid that the loudest voices I'm currently hearing are not women screaming for men's blood...it's men screaming that they shouldn't have to be PC! Damnit! They should be able to treat women badly, hate gays, make jokes about minorities, etc.

That's what I hear--and have heard very recently and often. I see a new surge in misogyny in tv movies, on the news, and from guys preaching on street corners. It's very discouraging. It makes me not want to like men. I think, why should the feminist movement bother with these assholes? I hear about men forcing women to cut off their clits, wear burkas, about men stalking, abusing, killing women. And I wonder...why bother with this gender?

Should I let these men discourage me, Sev? Keep me from wanting to help fathers get equal rights to see their kids...beause, I mean, those guys don't represent me. And I don't directly benefit if they get to see their kids. So why should I care?

I don't know of too many anti-woman TV shows, aside from on Saudi TV or something like that. I know of many anti-male TV shows, such as According To Jim, Everybody Loves Raymond, Yes, Dear, and other network sitcoms. If I see woman-bashing, I'll condemn it as I do the male-bashing on these and other shows.

PC is often expanded to included censorship, which is where it gets a bad rap. Censorship naturally produces a backlash. This is inevitable.

And if the feminist movement is truly a movement for the rights of both sexes, why still call it feminist? That and the existence of groups like SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) doesn't exactly attract men to join.

Frankly, the so-called "men's movement" is a poor substitute for an equivalent. An actual umbrella group to include men would be nice, but I don't see one yet. Does Andrea Dworkin, who claims that all penetrative sex is rape, and that prostitution and pornography should be illegal, represent me? Hardly.

The only movement of men that I know of doesn't attract me, because it is so clearly anti-woman, and therefore isn't the individualist movement that I would like to see established. That's the so-called Domain of Patriarchy, led by Robert Sheaffer.

There's also Warren Farrell and his movement, but they don't seem to have much impact.

I'm not interested in restoring patriarchy, any more than I am interested in setting up a matriarchy. Both are flawed social systems, based on the supremacy of one sex over the other.

When I referred to gay rights, I meant in its present, more inclusive form of the Gay, Lesbian, BISEXUAL, and Transgender community. As a bisexual man, that includes me by definition.

Oh, and Stella, I am beginning to think that we men might need the ERA as much as women in the near future. Talk about being shortsighted in fighting something, eh? Perhaps it's time to try again, eh?

 

[SophiaY]

There are extremeist members in every movement, Sev. The object is to outnumber the extremeists so that their influence is limited...

Nope, got to disagree.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

It's radicals that help us redefine our world. The only question is which set of radicals we should support and listen to.

 

[rgraham666]

Nope, got to disagree.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

It's radicals that help us redefine our world. The only question is which set of radicals we should support and listen to.

That particular aphorism has never failed to scare the shit out of me.

As it should. No matter which set of radicals it is, as a card carrying heretic, I'll be one of the first up against the wall

 

[SeaCat]

I know that, Cat. My apologies for catching you in the backwash there. My bad.

No problems. No insult meant, none taken.

Cat

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

That particular aphorism has never failed to scare the shit out of me.

As it should. No matter which set of radicals it is, as a card carrying heretic, I'll be one of the first up against the wall

Precisely. Be they anti-male, anti-capitalist, or simply anti-freedom, you and I are bound to be doomed by such. Even the anarchists worry me: just look at yevkassem!

Though I trust that Goldwater didn't mean it in THAT way. He was a strict defender of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

[SophiaY]

Hmm, perhaps I wasn't clear... Positive change never comes from the moderates, but rather is pushed into being by the radicals among us.

You have to believe deeply, with passion, to break the status quo, to be willing to risk, go the edge -- witness the Civil Rights movement, or the fight against AIDS.

Yes, being reasonable, moderate in temper is nice -- but sometimes you do have to anger, to kick ass -- or be willing to have your ass kicked.

All right, I am delicately stepping off my soap box...(laughing)

 

[rgraham666]

Hmm, perhaps I wasn't clear... Positive change never comes from the moderates, but rather is pushed into being by the radicals among us.

You have to believe deeply, with passion, to break the status quo, to be willing to risk, go the edge -- witness the Civil Rights movement, or the fight against AIDS.

Yes, being reasonable, moderate in temper is nice -- but sometimes you do have to anger, to kick ass -- or be willing to have your ass kicked.

All right, I am delicately stepping off my soap box...(laughing)

You always have to beware that old Taoist saying, "What you resist, you become."

And the people that advanced civil rights or AIDS did the most good by being moderates.

The Black Panthers didn't really do much. The thousands of people who simply did the good thing did.

 

[Liar]

The Black Panthers didn't really do much. The thousands of people who simply did the good thing did.

I guess that a combination of both is the most effective. The radicals to draw attention to an issue, and the moderates to do something substantial about it.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Hmm, perhaps I wasn't clear... Positive change never comes from the moderates, but rather is pushed into being by the radicals among us.

You have to believe deeply, with passion, to break the status quo, to be willing to risk, go the edge -- witness the Civil Rights movement, or the fight against AIDS.

Yes, being reasonable, moderate in temper is nice -- but sometimes you do have to anger, to kick ass -- or be willing to have your ass kicked.

All right, I am delicately stepping off my soap box...(laughing)

There are radicals and then there are radicals. Radicals like Thomas Jefferson are a bit different from radicals like Vladimir Lenin. Radicals like Abraham Lincoln are very different from those like Adolf Hitler. The sort of radicals who populate the women's movement remind me more of Joseph Stalin than of Susan B. Anthony. If by radical, you mean Frederick Douglass, I have no problem with you. If by radical, you mean Valerie Solaris (founder of the man-hating group SCUM), then I consider my very freedom and life itself to be in jeopardy.

Like I said, there are radicals and radicals.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Well this thread looks like its managed to steer far and away from the original subject ...

 

[rgraham666]

Well this thread looks like its managed to steer far and away from the original subject ...

And this surprises you, why?

 

[NoJo]

I dont recall this thread ever having a topic

 

[Halo_n_horns]

And this surprises you, why?

The opening topic was a really good one and legitimate to say the least. One that the men in the audience seemed to dismiss pretty rapidly as if there wasn't actually a topic here. A couple of the women did as well. I don't get that mentality. I've seen considerably more trivial topics on these threads get stuck to for days like monkey shit thrown at glass (yes, I've seen monkey shit thrown at glass by a monkey and it sticks very well). Yet something that questions the nature of man as a gender is so easily and blatantly beaten around the bush until everyone simply has their back turned to the bush and are walking away.

Surprised? No. That was part of the nature of man, by gender and as a figurative whole. It was predictable. Just had to bring it up.

 

[Recidiva]

The opening topic was a really good one and legitimate to say the least. One that the men in the audience seemed to dismiss pretty rapidly as if there wasn't actually a topic here. A couple of the women did as well. I don't get that mentality. I've seen considerably more trivial topics on these threads get stuck to for days like monkey shit thrown at glass (yes, I've seen monkey shit thrown at glass by a monkey and it sticks very well). Yet something that questions the nature of man as a gender is so easily and blatantly beaten around the bush until everyone simply has their back turned to the bush and are walking away.

Surprised? No. That was part of the nature of man, by gender and as a figurative whole. It was predictable. Just had to bring it up.

Of course, had it been phrased "Some men" or "Some people" instead of "Every Man", it would have been more accurate and interesting.

Otherwise it's a rant.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

Of course, had it been phrased "Some men" or "Some people" instead of "Every Man", it would have been more accurate and interesting.

Otherwise it's a rant.

Perhaps "every" man was a bit too blanketing. But a rant? No. I'm not seeing that at all. Anyone who does is oversimplifying the original subject and again dismissing it as less than it really is.

This was a thread with a huge potential for some really good, if not great conversation. Being of the male gender I was pretty interested to see where it would go. Alas, it did little more than break down into a very sublime version of the flaming that happens over at the GB. Maybe I was just expecting too much from people who quite often try so hard to come off as such intellectuals?

Ho-hum, I guess.

 

[Recidiva]

Perhaps "every" man was a bit too blanketing. But a rant? No. I'm not seeing that at all. Anyone who does is oversimplifying the original subject and again dismissing it as less than it really is.

This was a thread with a huge potential for some really good, if not great conversation. Being of the male gender I was pretty interested to see where it would go. Alas, it did little more than break down into a very sublime version of the flaming that happens over at the GB. Maybe I was just expecting too much from people who quite often try so hard to come off as such intellectuals?

Ho-hum, I guess.

You're disagreeing and choosing to do so dismissively. Sounds familiar.

Yes, the GB is the root of all evil.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

You're disagreeing and choosing to do so dismissively. Sounds familiar.

Yes, the GB is the root of all evil.

Perhaps my sarcasm was too sublime as as well ...

Jiminy Cricket when did it get so thick in here???

 

[Recidiva]

Perhaps my sarcasm was too sublime as as well ...

Jiminy Cricket when did it get so thick in here???

Yes, I'm sure it's too much for me. You're way too intellectual.