I've been lurking around Hugo's website for a while - in the last few weeks, I've ascertained what the current issues are that feminists are campaigning for:-
1. Women want to be seen as (and I quote) 'full human beings'.
2. Women have the right to be topless in public.
Hmmm 8)
Some issues MRAs continually raise:-
1. The right to see your children (at all)
2. Suicide rate of men
3. Death rate of men in the workplace/war
4. Unfair divorce laws that can end up imprisoning men
5. Unfair DV laws that can end up imprisoning men
Obviously the feminists are dealing with some much heavier issues than us MRAs..... :roll:
"Women have the right to be topless in public. "
Don't you mean, "women want the right to be topless in public, and not be seen topless by males; excepting in such cases as the individual woman wants to attract the attention of an individual well-off male for financial gain or an individual attractive male to sexually satisfy her; or the individual female wants to attract the attention of any male who will look for ego-boosting purposes"?
"Women have the right to be topless in public. "
Oh, but this not an excuse to rape women, no, of course not. Of course, "topless" doesn't contribute in anyway to a woman's potential to be raped. Heaven forbid a woman would need to be responsible in anyway for any actions that might contribute to her "not" being raped. That would be oppressive to all of womanhood.
http://www.lacaaw.org/notinvitation.html
Of course erotic pole dancing is not sending a sexual message. Of course getting drunk and having sex is not a woman's responsibility, although a woman getting drunk, driving drunk and killing someone is her responsibility.
Hmmm, I guess if a man looks at a woman's bare breasts we'll have a big sexual harassment law suit, especially if it's on a college campus. Of course it would be an issue of what's a woman's right. :roll:
Another feminist double standard. Suggestive or nude items can't be posted at work, even in all male departments, but they reserve the right to cause havoc in traffic whenever they choose.
Good point IMHO.
2. Suicide rate of men
I think that is mostly because men are better at it, instead of just looking for attention. What's more likely to kill you, Tylenol or a Ruger?
Just saying...
2. Suicide rate of men
I think that is mostly because men are better at it, instead of just looking for attention. What's more likely to kill you, Tylenol or a Ruger?
Just saying...
well if you want to kill yourself, then you chose the lethal method, if you just want to get attention then you choose tylenol. Its not that men are better at it, they just mean to do it.
I guess I have at least one point of agreement with them.
I think should have the right to go topless also.
I suppose men should have the right to go bottomless.
Actually, women already have the right to go topless.
I mean they probably would get hassled some.
But, I doubt they would get a felony as would a man probably would who
went around bottomless.
IMHO wrote:
I've been lurking around Hugo's website for a while - in the last few weeks, I've ascertained what the current issues are that feminists are campaigning for:-
1. Women want to be seen as (and I quote) 'full human beings'.
2. Women have the right to be topless in public.
Hmmm
Some issues MRAs continually raise:-
1. The right to see your children (at all)
2. Suicide rate of men
3. Death rate of men in the workplace/war
4. Unfair divorce laws that can end up imprisoning men
5. Unfair DV laws that can end up imprisoning men
Obviously the feminists are dealing with some much heavier issues than us MRAs.....
lol
Very well said!!
Also, whenever we do line up male and female concerns, it is very telling just what both genders are facing
I recall one feminist back at college, who said she felt she lived in a patriarchal society becuase whenever a woman cheats, she's a slut, yet whenever a man cheats, he's a stud
I turned to her and mentioned that whever a couple divorce, the woman gets the house, the kids and a large chunk of his future earnings, and, further, that feminism plays a key role in pushing for male disadvantagment over female gain
Needless to say, she called me a chauvinist and walked away :roll:
Incidentally, I've never met a feminist who will give credit to men's issues and concerns, and would rather harp on about very irrelevant, self-centered 'issues' and 'inequalities'
And yes, as I sit here typing this I am groaning
Loudly
(Though not in a sexual way I assure you)
As a woman I have to say that Hugo is about the worst pussy I've ever seen. His whole being seems to be one big excuse.
That being said I enjoy reading Amp's blog even when I disagree. Both feminists but whole different types of animals. Ok... one's an animal and ones the kind of creature a person is likely to step on.
I don't know what Hugo's is, but I gather it is a feminist site or board?
Feminists also make a very big deal about the woman's "right" to an abortion. (Never a word from them about what the man might want for his developing offspring). It is perhaps feminism's most enduring mainstay cause. Something very questionable in my eyes about people who campaign so long and hard for the "right" to kill their unborn.
I also wonder how many of those same (left-wing) campaigners would at the same time be opposed to the death penalty for murderers. :o
I also wonder how many of those same (left-wing) campaigners would at the same time be opposed to the death penalty for murderers
I also wonder how many "prolife" people are for the death penalty.
Does't make a whole heck of sense does it?
I also wonder how many of those same (left-wing) campaigners would at the same time be opposed to the death penalty for murderers
I also wonder how many "prolife" people are for the death penalty.
Does't make a whole heck of sense does it?
I'm one...
I also wonder how many of those same (left-wing) campaigners would at the same time be opposed to the death penalty for murderers
I also wonder how many "prolife" people are for the death penalty.
Does't make a whole heck of sense does it?
Sure it does. The death penalty is only applied when a person commits a heinous crime, e.g., kidnapping and murder, etc., while in the case of abortion (what pro-lifers usually address) the woman is murdering an innocent human (according to their definition of human life). The fetus has committed no crime, while the death penalty recipient most certainly has been convicted of one (acknowledging that errors are made and innocent men are convicted).
Big difference between executing a murderer and extinguishing an innocent human life.
I've been lurking around Hugo's website for a while - in the last few weeks, I've ascertained what the current issues are that feminists are campaigning for:-
1. Women want to be seen as (and I quote) 'full human beings'.
2. Women have the right to be topless in public.
Hmmm 8)
I'm all for women going topless, breastfeeding in public, etc., as long as I maintain my right to look at them and even stare if I so choose.
However, IMHO you forgot another 'big issue' for the crybabies over at Hugo's and elsewhere: Body image. Boys are committing suicide in record numbers while the femibabies over at Hugo's and elsewhere obssess about girls' concerns re. being 'too fat,' etc. Sheesh :roll:
Some issues MRAs continually raise:-
1. The right to see your children (at all)
2. Suicide rate of men
3. Death rate of men in the workplace/war
4. Unfair divorce laws that can end up imprisoning men
5. Unfair DV laws that can end up imprisoning men
Us MRAs are so selfish - we shouldn't be wasting our time with our trivial concerns and be focusing our efforts on helping women and girls deal with their issues re. their bodies. After all, bras are sooooo abusive and oppressive... ;)
I also wonder how many of those same (left-wing) campaigners would at the same time be opposed to the death penalty for murderers
I also wonder how many "prolife" people are for the death penalty.
Does't make a whole heck of sense does it?
Nope It doesn't make me wonder at all. I can see the difference between the murder of an unborn child and the excution of a criminal after the due process of a jury trial and an average of 10 years worth of appeals. Just for the record I think abortinon in the case of rape and incest and for legitimate medical reasons is okay. However FEMS would never limit it to that because a womans RIGHT TO CHOOSE is their biggest cash cow. In fact most of what is termed as womens rights movement is an on going scam to bilk money out of someone. Weather it be the government in funding for womens studies programs, the abortion mills, or the DV\divorce industry if you follow the money you get to the real truth.
2. Suicide rate of men
I think that is mostly because men are better at it, instead of just looking for attention. What's more likely to kill you, Tylenol or a Ruger?
Just saying...
Or another way to look at it is... men get things done instead of dithering.
I think society has pretty high expectations of men. When I was coming up, I always felt a lot of pressure to earn the respect of people around me. If I did not get any traction on my self development efforts... who knows what could have happened.
Now that I am older and have overcome or achieved many things, I am confident in myself and do not give a crap about society's expectations.
Guys like Hugo only claim to be "pro-feminist" because they think it will help them get laid .. and of course they are mistaken because no woman wants to have sex with man who has no back bone and is sporting a larger Vagina than herself
Retracted. Couldn't prove my statement.
TMOTS
Hugo does come across as incredibly idealistic - it's like he's suffering a crisis of conscience (brought on by his shady past) and has become overbearingly considerate to the rights of individuals he perceives to be 'oppressed' and perhaps these groups of people are ones he's f**ked over in the past (he was a self-confessed 'womaniser').
In his defence, he does come across as absolutely sincere (if deluded).
As a woman I have to say that Hugo is about the worst pussy I've ever seen. His whole being seems to be one big excuse.
This is a pretty accurate characterization of Hugo, but what amazes me is that Hugo has made a lucrative career out of being a pussy. He even seems to relish in his role as house pussy for the feminists. To me it's really pathetic, but I can also understand why: For all their bluster, IMO most feminist women are very insecure people and therefore are intimidated by strong, self-assured men who won't take any shit from them or anyone else. Thus, they surround themselves with boot-licking sychophants like Hugo in order to affirm the sense of superiority in the world.
That being said I enjoy reading Amp's blog even when I disagree. Both feminists but whole different types of animals. Ok... one's an animal and ones the kind of creature a person is likely to step on.
Yes indeed, they are different animals and frankly I have a lot more respect for Hugo. At least he has consistent priciples that he sticks with; Barry/Amp on the other hand is inconsistent and many times is disingenuous and IMO lacks integrity. He presents himself as academically legitimate but fails to abide by fundamental academic principles. With Hugo, what you see is what you get, while IMO Amp is a slippery serpent.
Yes indeed, they are different animals and frankly I have a lot more respect for Hugo. At least he has consistent priciples that he sticks with; Barry/Amp on the other hand is inconsistent and many times is disingenuous and IMO lacks integrity. He presents himself as academically legitimate but fails to abide by fundamental academic principles. With Hugo, what you see is what you get, while IMO Amp is a slippery serpent.
Agreed - I had long debates (really, arguments) with 'ampersand' on iFeminists a few years ago, and he comes across as truculant, angry. He seems to enjoy being outrageous whereas Hugo is at least is more thoughtful and sincere (seriously). There's a good thread over at Hugos now about how you can disagree but still respect the 'opposition' - he's getting a lot of shit off feminists there for saying this is so (he even calls Glenn Sacks a friend of his). I disagree with Hugo on 99% of things, but I'll agree with him here.
Yes indeed, they are different animals and frankly I have a lot more respect for Hugo. At least he has consistent priciples that he sticks with; Barry/Amp on the other hand is inconsistent and many times is disingenuous and IMO lacks integrity. He presents himself as academically legitimate but fails to abide by fundamental academic principles. With Hugo, what you see is what you get, while IMO Amp is a slippery serpent.
Agreed - I had long debates (really, arguments) with 'ampersand' on iFeminists a few years ago, and he comes across as truculant, angry. He seems to enjoy being outrageous whereas Hugo is at least is more thoughtful and sincere (seriously). There's a good thread over at Hugos now about how you can disagree but still respect the 'opposition' - he's getting a lot of shit off feminists there for saying this is so (he even calls Glenn Sacks a friend of his). I disagree with Hugo on 99% of things, but I'll agree with him here.
I saw that thread and while not encouraging anyone to go there and increase Hugo's hit counter, and thus his huge ego, I have to say that 1) the feminists' posts say a lot more about their level of intolerance than we ever could hope to; and 2) Gonz is doing a great job in pointing this out.
Also, I too did the dance with ampersand over at iFeminists a few years back (along with the intolerant and intolerable Brian Tomlinson) and had a similar experience as you.
I don't know what Hugo's is, but I gather it is a feminist site or board?
Feminists also make a very big deal about the woman's "right" to an abortion. (Never a word from them about what the man might want for his developing offspring). It is perhaps feminism's most enduring mainstay cause. Something very questionable in my eyes about people who campaign so long and hard for the "right" to kill their unborn.
I also wonder how many of those same (left-wing) campaigners would at the same time be opposed to the death penalty for murderers. :o
Lately I've begun to wonder if support for abortion isn't largely just a matter of people reacting to trigger words. In other words, they have an emotional reaction to phrases like "woman's right" which thereby determines their judgement. I'd bet if men were just as capable of getting pregnant, and there was no gender consideration to this than most of the "pro-choice" activists would be either unconcerned about or against abortion. In fact, that it happens to be women who get pregnant should have no bearing on whether or not an abortion is an acceptable thing to do, yet the "pro-choice" movement has discovered, (whether deliberately or by accident), that the focus on the words "women" and "rights" get many more people to react by supporting them.
The gender of the person who is pregnant is immaterial, yet many people form their opinions on this issue on that basis because of the trigger words. I imagine this is common, and also that the people who form their opinions that way tend to spend less time on the real meat of the issue when they discuss it, and more time repeating the trigger words that convinced them. Curse those... "LEFT WING CAMPAIGNERS"! :wink:
The death penalty is only applied when a person commits a heinous crime.
That seems a bit naive to me. In the same category as only men who rape are thrown in jail for it, police only use force against the violent protestors, and only terrorists need to worry about government spying.
The death penalty is only applied when a person commits a heinous crime.
That seems a bit naive to me. In the same category as only men who rape are thrown in jail for it, police only use force against the violent protestors, and only terrorists need to worry about government spying.
Good point Hombre, however, if you carefully read my entire response you'll see that I do acknowledge that there are a significant number of innocent men who are executed. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough from my original post. The issue of eliminating false allegations and preventing punishment of the innocent (almost always men) is very important to me.
Lately I've begun to wonder if support for abortion isn't largely just a matter of people reacting to trigger words. In other words, they have an emotional reaction to phrases like "woman's right" which thereby determines their judgement. I'd bet if men were just as capable of getting pregnant, and there was no gender consideration to this than most of the "pro-choice" activists would be either unconcerned about or against abortion. In fact, that it happens to be women who get pregnant should have no bearing on whether or not an abortion is an acceptable thing to do, yet the "pro-choice" movement has discovered, (whether deliberately or by accident), that the focus on the words "women" and "rights" get many more people to react by supporting them.
The gender of the person who is pregnant is immaterial, yet many people form their opinions on this issue on that basis because of the trigger words. I imagine this is common, and also that the people who form their opinions that way tend to spend less time on the real meat of the issue when they discuss it, and more time repeating the trigger words that convinced them. Curse those... "LEFT WING CAMPAIGNERS"!
Good point hombre - add to that a long list too:-
IF:-
- women had by far the highest suicide rate
- women lost custody of their children as easily as men do now
- women died 5-7 years younger than men
- women were 97-99% of soldier casualties in a war
- women were 92-93% of those killed at work
- women were battered by their husbands but the media and more importantly the law ignored them and focussed on men being battered by women
.......we'd see feminists frothing at the mouth about these issues. Because it's actually men who suffer mainly the above issues, feminists (who supposedly are for equality) completely ignore them in the main. Instead, they are concerned about women not being able to go topless, and not being treated as 'full human beings' (whatever that nebulous statement means).
Something very questionable in my eyes about people who campaign so long and hard for the "right" to kill their unborn.
Exactly. How can you even consider wanting to be associated with someone who is such a slug they're willing to kill their own child for personal comfort? "I'm not ready to be a parent. I want to travel around and party and stuff." I would die myself before I let my child die.
However, IMHO you forgot another 'big issue' for the crybabies over at Hugo's and elsewhere: Body image. Boys are committing suicide in record numbers while the femibabies over at Hugo's and elsewhere obssess about girls' concerns re. being 'too fat,' etc. Sheesh :roll:
Right, except that if males were to look at topless women it would then be construed as objectification of women and attempted rape. Plus, it would cause huge problems (no pun intended) for the bra industry which has made a ton of money making breasts look bigger and better than they really are.
Mr. Bad wrote:
However, IMHO you forgot another 'big issue' for the crybabies over at Hugo's and elsewhere: Body image.
Do not forget about young men taking steroids to look more muscular and manly, only to have their liver fall out at 40. Boys also take steroids because of expectations and drive to succeed in sports to prove one's worth.
Hugo, hell. He's been a piker this past week. Did you catch the dust up in the femherroid blogosphere on whether giving head is a feminist act?
Talk about trivial concerns.
As a woman I have to say that Hugo is about the worst pussy I've ever seen. His whole being seems to be one big excuse.
As a man, I could not agree more! That so-called excuse for a man....!
I've met "pussy's" that had more balls than him!
I've met "manginas" with more testosterone per decilitre of blood than he has.
He gives new meaning to the word "simpering".
I wouldn't even call him a rectal faced chimp because he's a disgrace to all the other rectal faced chimps out there!
Fatuous, phony, fagged-out fop!
Hugo, hell. He's been a piker this past week. Did you catch the dust up in the femherroid blogosphere on whether giving head is a feminist act?
Talk about trivial concerns.
Sounds like a seminal debate that must have been very difficult to swallow at any length.
Tastes great vs less filling.
no2fembots
Don't insult gay men by putting them in the same category as him.
I'm not sure "what" he is but I do know he seems to need to apologize to everyone and everything (his late chincilla rant says it all).
While I can't say I haven't met a gay guy carrying around a pink poodle I can say that 99.99% of gay men I have met do not carry around pink poodles. Hugo is a pink poodle type if person.
I say he's a person whose trying to please everyone and by default not pleasing anyone.
I say he's a person whose trying to please everyone and by default not pleasing anyone.
He's riding on a massive guilt trip from his past.
Look.
Hugo is as wrong as a penguin in the Sahara on a lot of issues.
Unlike the vast and overwhelming majority of feminists, though, I would not accuse him of not believing what he says.
That's my chief gripe with feminists - say one thing, do a different thing knowing the rhetoric is a load of bullshit, and then figure out how to sell it. Their little rhetorical trick of refusing to define feminism is just one example of their paucity of intellectual honesty.
Diasgree with Hugo all you want. I will be there with you. Call him a traitor to his sex, even. But unlike most feminists you can have a conversation with him, and not have to worry about him squirming away with amphiboly and dual meanings. If he says he believes something, he really believes it. If you ask him what he means by something, he will tell you without some pathetic excuses like "Feminism is for whoever claims it, and means what they want it to mean - EXCEPT FOR THAT RIGHT WING CUNT LAURA BUSH! FEMINIST MY ASS! SHE'S NO FEMINIST! And nobody assigns feminist credentials, or can say someone isn't a good feminist or not, because that itself would be anti-feminist.."
Well Gonz, Hugo hasn't gotten around to banning you just yet. Give him time. After being banned myself for a non-infraction I don't have much respect for him. He banned me for posting a message during the same minute he posted his warning about not going off topic. I never saw his message until after I posted. He banned me. He never offered any explanation or any means of feedback to hear my side of things. I think you could hear a similar story from many here. The word "integrity" simply does not come to mind in relation to Hugo.
Look.
Hugo is as wrong as a penguin in the Sahara on a lot of issues.
Unlike the vast and overwhelming majority of feminists, though, I would not accuse him of not believing what he says.
I hear you Gonz, but there are lots of delusional people who truly believe what they say. I suspect that Jim Jones, Charlie Manson, et al. honestly believed what they said. But still they were off-the-scale delusional and wacked-out. Now I don't think that Hugo's a Jim Jones, and he's certainly no Charlie Manson, but he is one fucked-up Pink Poodle fella who just can't seem to get over the fact that when he was a kid the other children teased him. Therefore, in his adult life he feels he has to kowtow to a bunch of reptiles who sell him out every time he steps out of line simply to get the validation his huge but wounded ego desperately needs.
I agree with E. on this - you're still there but sooner or later, like he did with me, he'll make up some unstated rule that you violated last week and then apply it retroactively in order to justify giving you the boot. As E. says, "integrity" is not a word that comes to mind when thinking of Hugo. Massively insecure and screwed-up are more like it.
Individuals who run forums can ban people as they wish. It is their own personal space and says nothing about their integrity.
Imagine if 50 or so posters from a feminist board started posting here on a regular basis, by numbers they would have the majority of the posts and it would be their voice that was being heard. This would not be Evil's design for his board, hence he would rid himself of the problem.
Individuals who run forums can ban people as they wish. It is their own personal space and says nothing about their integrity.
Imagine if 50 or so posters from a feminist board started posting here on a regular basis, by numbers they would have the majority of the posts and it would be their voice that was being heard. This would not be Evil's design for his board, hence he would rid himself of the problem.
If you are saying I would ban them due to their ideology I say that's a crock of bullshit. If they can post within the rules they are welcome here. If things got to the point where it was only feminists posting I might be tempted to close the entire thing down but I can't imagine I would ever ban people simply because of their ideology. You have completely missed the mark.
Not to hijack the thread, but this statement:
Do not forget about young men taking steroids to look more muscular and manly, only to have their liver fall out at 40. Boys also take steroids because of expectations and drive to succeed in sports to prove one's worth.
is untrue. There is not one scientific study that directly links steriod use in adult males to anything but acne, hair loss, and swollen breast tissue. I challenge anyone to find a death related to steriods. Not, Lyle Alzado - he died of brain cancer but tried to blame it on steriod use. His own doctor has stated on record that there was no evidence steriods killed him.
Show me the bodies of the people who are dying from steriods, because there is a shitload of men using them.
Use in young males, before puberty is over is not recommended because it causes hormonal imbalances and can change the way growth plates finish expanding. Use of a male hormone by women is obviously bad, just look at women who do.
Note that I do not recommend useing them at all unless you educate yourself about them, and use them properly.
Some source links: HBO Real sports piece
http://www.elitefitness.com/articledata/hbosteroids/HBO-Real-Sports-steroid-special.avi
How congress overreacted:
http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/collins/wrong-prescription.htm
I do not take steriods, btw. It just burns me up to see the nanny government take something like testosterone suppliments away from men because people "think" they are bad.[/quote]
no2fembots...Don't insult gay men by putting them in the same category as him.
I'm not as accepting of homosexuality as I once was. I do admit to a bias to my bigotry, however.
I support homosexual men who are men, not prancing feminized twats swishing about and and lisping about, meeting in outdoor treed areas for anonymous "sex". SICK! They, although deviant in behavior, have relationships, work jobs, buy houses and are not in thrall to women. So, I can - and do - support them.
I do not support the feminized deviant variant. The Fag Hag. They, due to their arrested emotional development, almost exclusively urban (artificial) "lifestyle" and highly liberal political bent, are very antithetical to men's rights. MY rights!
Hugo strikes me as the feminized boa-around-the-neck-lisping-mincing-simpering variant.