Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground Forums => Main => Topic started by: outdoors on Aug 07, 2007, 07:15 AM

Title: proof and point
Post by: outdoors on Aug 07, 2007, 07:15 AM
 i have been trying to get funding for a men's alternative safe house and have been met with sarcasm by some and enthusiasm from others in my town-but no funding.
I also have been exposing the truth as to the lies concerning domestic abuse against men- and met with vigourous opposition by some and again support from others.
I don't know if i would call it luck or not(not for the men )but with two throat slashings of men in the last few months in my town  by women,things are really starting to take shape in my favour.These two stories made the news and have really opened some eyes as to the need for a mens safe house,and all of a sudden i don't sound like i am such a radical in my mission.
the first woman was offered two years probation and to refrain from alcohol and drugs for that period-which she quickly refused.She ended up getting 3 months jail time,because of the 3 months she has already spent doing "dead time"..6 months for cutting a man's throat,i am not impressed-any man doing the same type of crime would have been givin 6 years NOT 6 months.The other womans court date is coming up.I also wonder why these women were not charged with attempted mascucide instead of agravated assault.
Why am i getting more support from women than i am from men?

anyways i had to blow off some steam-thanx;
                outdoors
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: dr e on Aug 07, 2007, 07:43 AM


Why am i getting more support from women than i am from men?

anyways i had to blow off some steam-thanx;
                outdoors


This is one of the most eye-opening annd frustrating parts about trying to make changes in a real world environment.  The men often times are less helpful and supportive than the women.  It is the men we have to fight in order to get services.  The reason for this which is also the reason that feminists have had such an easy time in getting legislation passed and services funded, is because men are genetically, hormonally and socially programmed to take care of (provide and protect) women.  Men are asleep in a sea of provide and protect and refuse to wake to the humanist idea that men are also in need sometimes.

I hear your frusttration and can only nod my head with a similar experience.  For all of our upset with the feminists it is the sleeping and bigoted men in power who are a huge force that is against us.

Sounds like you are doing some great work!
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: typhonblue on Aug 07, 2007, 10:35 AM

The reason for this which is also the reason that feminists have had such an easy time in getting legislation passed and services funded, is because men are genetically, hormonally and socially programmed to take care of (provide and protect) women. 


Having lived in a culture in which 'provide and protect women' seemed to be the last thing on men's minds, I have to disagree.

A few weeks ago I heard a story about a medic deployed in the middle east. A clinic had opened up offering free health care. The medic came in to take appointments and found all the men standing first in line with the women standing after them. She quickly 'corrected' this injustice with a, no doubt selfrighteous, shrill call of 'Women and Children FIRST!"

There are cultures where women are expected to do the heavy lifting, expected to provide equally and expected to do for themselves.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: dr e on Aug 07, 2007, 03:19 PM


The reason for this which is also the reason that feminists have had such an easy time in getting legislation passed and services funded, is because men are genetically, hormonally and socially programmed to take care of (provide and protect) women. 


Having lived in a culture in which 'provide and protect women' seemed to be the last thing on men's minds, I have to disagree.

A few weeks ago I heard a story about a medic deployed in the middle east. A clinic had opened up offering free health care. The medic came in to take appointments and found all the men standing first in line with the women standing after them. She quickly 'corrected' this injustice with a, no doubt selfrighteous, shrill call of 'Women and Children FIRST!"

There are cultures where women are expected to do the heavy lifting, expected to provide equally and expected to do for themselves.


Putting women first is not necessarily related to providing and protecting. Here's a test for the culture you lived in and observed.  Would the men allow their women to have sex with strangers visiting town?  Why not?  Remember treating someone as if they are your property doesn't mean you are not providing and protecting.  Did the men take pride in being the protector and provider?  I would bet yes.  What do you think?

Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: typhonblue on Aug 07, 2007, 04:41 PM

Putting women first is not necessarily related to providing and protecting. Here's a test for the culture you lived in and observed.  Would the men allow their women to have sex with strangers visiting town?  Why not?


It's not that they wouldn't let them have sex with strangers visiting town. It's that they would drown them or stone them to death if they did.

I think that's one reason why their population is 2-1 male-to-female.

Quote
Remember treating someone as if they are your property doesn't mean you are not providing and protecting.  Did the men take pride in being the protector and provider?  I would bet yes.  What do you think?


No, I don't think so. But it's difficult to say as the upper class didn't work and in the lower class both women and men worked. In the middle was basically a bunch of bachelors working for themselves.

And being too accomodating towards women-- carrying heavy loads, opening doors, being courteous-- was seen as not macho.

I think if the modern western he-mangina visited and bragged about how hard he works to support his wife, they'd probably laugh at him and call him a pussy-whipped weenie. If there was any pride in providing for and protecting women, I didn't see signs of it.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: dr e on Aug 07, 2007, 04:53 PM
Typhon - Ruling with an iron fist does not indicate that they are not merged with the idea of providing and protecting.  Mistreating people and treating them poorly doesn't necessarily indicate someone who is not interested in providing and protecting.  Look at it like this:  They are interested in providing and protecting their PROPERTY.  The women were a part of their "empire" over which they ruled.  The basics of being a King is to provide and protect and insure the kingdom is viable.  There are good kings and bad kings, selfish and selfless but they all have dominion over their kingdoms and have a vested interest in "providing and protecting."  IOW's they have a vested interest in the success of their kingdom

If your example had been of a band of men who were only living life for their own interests and picked up women as they went and then dumped them when they felt finished with them I would say that you have a good point.   
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: MAUS on Aug 07, 2007, 05:10 PM

i have been trying to get funding for a men's alternative safe house and have been met with sarcasm by some and enthusiasm from others in my town-but no funding.
I also have been exposing the truth as to the lies concerning domestic abuse against men- and met with vigourous opposition by some and again support from others.
I don't know if i would call it luck or not(not for the men )but with two throat slashings of men in the last few months in my town  by women,things are really starting to take shape in my favour.These two stories made the news and have really opened some eyes as to the need for a mens safe house,and all of a sudden i don't sound like i am such a radical in my mission.
the first woman was offered two years probation and to refrain from alcohol and drugs for that period-which she quickly refused.She ended up getting 3 months jail time,because of the 3 months she has already spent doing "dead time"..6 months for cutting a man's throat,i am not impressed-any man doing the same type of crime would have been givin 6 years NOT 6 months.The other womans court date is coming up.I also wonder why these women were not charged with attempted mascucide instead of agravated assault.
Why am i getting more support from women than i am from men?

anyways i had to blow off some steam-thanx;
                outdoors


Outdoors, I worked a summer internship at a United Way when Iwas attending University. I have issues with United Way....and if they insist on supporting misandrist groups I am going after THEIR funding next.

Tell me, outdoors,were you rejected by the United Way?......If you were I will make them regret it.

Outdoors, this is my favourite song on that theme...The Los Angeles equivalent to Skid Row in Portland Oregon is Fifth Street, and men who are discarded are "On The Nickle"....turn off your video monitor and turn up the sound....if their is ever a compliation album made of MRA music, I would ask Tom Waits personally for permission to include this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or49SRsV9E4&mode=related&search=
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: outdoors on Aug 07, 2007, 06:41 PM
Maus-i just fired a letter to united way-thanx-they were never even a suggestion to me.My local m.p.p. gave me some places such as s.o.w. and victim assistance program but funding from v.a.p. is halted till 2008,as for s.o.w. i didn't even apply as i am not a dyke and i don't hate men,so i figured i wouldn't waste my time-but maybe i will yet,just to see what they have to say-lol-i also was refered to a few abused gay help-lines and womens groups, but again-no help for the straight guy.
I think i know enough people around my town that am going to start going around and asking people for donations-its the only way.I already have the food bank, support and their encouragement.As more men are becoming hungry and homeless by the day
I will let you know when i get a response from the united way.
Salvation army  also was very understanding to my cause as they help the "down and out",but again came up dry when it came to funding.
I was also told the trillium foundation might be help but seeing as the ex's father is the director and a feminist supporter-again i didn't bother.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: typhonblue on Aug 07, 2007, 08:40 PM

Typhon - Ruling with an iron fist does not indicate that they are not merged with the idea of providing and protecting.  Mistreating people and treating them poorly doesn't necessarily indicate someone who is not interested in providing and protecting.  Look at it like this:  They are interested in providing and protecting their PROPERTY.  The women were a part of their "empire" over which they ruled.  The basics of being a King is to provide and protect and insure the kingdom is viable.  There are good kings and bad kings, selfish and selfless but they all have dominion over their kingdoms and have a vested interest in "providing and protecting."  IOW's they have a vested interest in the success of their kingdom

If your example had been of a band of men who were only living life for their own interests and picked up women as they went and then dumped them when they felt finished with them I would say that you have a good point.   


I'd be the first to say that men can 'lead' for the benefit of women. But that wasn't what I was seeing. It was more then 'women are property', it was more like 'women are basically worthless aside from what they can provide men.'

The problem I have with what you're saying is that I see a big distiction between men who see women in terms of what women can do for them and men who see _themselves_ in terms of what they can do for women.

The first attitude does exist. And men in societies like that don't measure their manhood based on how well they 'provide for and protect' women. In fact I think they see whatever they do for women to be a nuisance and a drain--as well as potentially effeminate behavior--rather then a point of pride.

Again, men don't really provide for women and they don't protect them either, in the lower classes women work to provide for their families. There really is not much of a middle class, but I suppose the employed permenant, never-getting-married bachelors, _working for themselves_ might count as middle class. And in the upper class no body works, they just get oil money.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: devia on Aug 08, 2007, 12:03 AM
Open it yourself.

Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: shiva on Aug 08, 2007, 02:33 AM
Have to agree with Typhonblue on this one. Practically any research on tribes and races of people soon reveals that there have been plenty of societies in which the men don't provide for or protect their women or children, and basically live at their expense parasitically. There are examples of the reverse as well, but it's not looking like they are the majority. Until recently they weren't, at least. History has so many examples of bad ideas all across the board.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: dr e on Aug 08, 2007, 03:16 AM
Okay Typhon let's break this down and make it easy.  Two questions:

Do the men in your examples provide the women with clothing, food, shelter and the other necessities of living?  Yes or no?

Do the men in your examples protect the women from rape, murder, or some other intrustion from outside sources that might injure them in some way?  Yes or no.

If you answer yes to both then these men provide and protect. 
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Aug 08, 2007, 05:24 AM

Open it yourself.


Devia.... What a very typical feminist response.

Is it that you just cannot get it?  Or is it that you just refuse to...

There are systems in place.  Millions out there for assistance.  Why should HE have to?  Shouldn't it be equally allowed, offerd, and disbursed?

It is one thing to complain that all the drive-in theaters are gone now... and someone saying, "well then, open one up!"  It is entirely another thing to say it about social programs (monies) that are SUPPOSED to be for THE PEOPLE... not just one half "justified" by lies, deception, and MISinformation.

TMOTS
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: outdoors on Aug 08, 2007, 06:59 AM
Devia-I already have made it known that i have a safe house available to men and thier children. Still gotta feed them,still have to provide toiletries etc..oh,and lets not forget hydro and things like that.
Even the people that i have told are skeptical and i don't really know if they are telling any-one about it.ie the hosp.  other councilling services in the area,and all the local churches
they all wanna know where the safe house is and what organization is running it.
I have to tell them it wouldn't be a safe house if every-one knew where it is-so i won't tell them.
As far as an organization my response is-why do men need an organization to be safe?
Any place ,organization or not, is better than nothing.
I think the biggest problem is that the fems would hate to see something like this open as it would put an end to the lies of"only women are victims" and thus put a wrench in their exclusive funding-I mean god forbid that the fems are not put on a pedestol and treated above and foremost to male victims of domestic violence.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: typhonblue on Aug 08, 2007, 11:51 AM

Okay Typhon let's break this down and make it easy.  Two questions:

Do the men in your examples provide the women with clothing, food, shelter and the other necessities of living?  Yes or no?

Do the men in your examples protect the women from rape, murder, or some other intrustion from outside sources that might injure them in some way?  Yes or no.

If you answer yes to both then these men provide and protect. 


The upper class women get the benefit of oil money, just like the men. The lower class women provide materially for the family _with_ men.

I suppose in the upper classes you could say the men are 'providing' because they allow women to benefit from oil money, but they don't do a stich of labor or put any effort into it.

Coupling that with what I know of their attitudes towards women, if they _had_ to make an effort to support a woman living in greater luxury to themselves, they _wouldn't_.  So, no.

As for the rape. There isn't any protections against rape. The women are compelled to take responsibility for protecting themselves from rape by modifying their dress and behavior. And when women are raped, they are usually blamed for having been raped and punished as adulterers.

Again, no.

It's really hard to explain the depth of how little they care about women unless you've lived there. There is no 'provider or chivalrous pride', women are valued only for what they give to men and any sense that a woman is living for herself--instead of accomodating men--is usually punished rather swiftly.

Even something as basic as escaping from a burning building without wearing sufficently modest clothing. Women are expected to burn to death before they assault male eyes with their _very_ minimal nudity.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: dr e on Aug 08, 2007, 12:12 PM
Again you are confusing whether they "care" about them with whether they provide and protect.  So you are saying that the men don't lift a finger to protect their women?  I find that hard to believe.  You mean to tell me that the average schmo family is as likely to have a woman providing for the men as it is to have the men providing for the women?  Somehow I find that pretty hard to believe.  Forget the oil money.  That doesn't speak to the cultural norm like an average family would. 

Isn't this the same culture that has honor killings? 
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: typhonblue on Aug 08, 2007, 12:37 PM

Again you are confusing whether they "care" about them with whether they provide and protect.  So you are saying that the men don't lift a finger to protect their women?  I find that hard to believe.  You mean to tell me that the average schmo family is as likely to have a woman providing for the men as it is to have the men providing for the women?  Somehow I find that pretty hard to believe.  Forget the oil money.  That doesn't speak to the cultural norm like an average family would. 

Isn't this the same culture that has honor killings? 


The average schmo family is bedouin. They're living off the land in what we would consider abject poverty. And, yes, women are providing just as much as men in that situation (if not more because men are often unemployed.) As for lifting a finger to protect their women... From what? The only threat to these women comes from the men themselves, and no, one man won't stop another man from beating on, raping or killing that man's female relatives.

The _other_ average schmo family is a bachelor living in the city and working for himself. I'm not exaggerating when I say that most men don't marry in that culture.

Yep, honor killings. Mostly target women.

Around the world most families are two-provider families, with the woman putting in as much effort as the man. Around the world, women are expected to pull their own weight. Men don't hold doors open for them, nor do they carry their packages. In some places if a man was beating on a woman in public, they'd probably arrest the woman for public indecency (allowing a man to touch her.)

Haven't you ever wondered why, when you look at education aimed at high-paying fields: engineering, programming, medicine... the majority of the women in those fields are from Asia, India and the middle east? From conservative, male-favoring cultures that, if they are going to pay for a daughter's education, won't pay for one in which she will end up more comfortable, but less well paid.

The west's notion of male providership, even male protection (since most war-focused societies, fight to defend the honor of men, not for the protection of women), is an anomoly. A blip on the radar provided for by the Christian condemnation: men must sacrifice for their wives as Christ sacrificed for the church.

When you're in the middle of one of the most insane notion ever created by man, of _course_ it looks sane and the arguments all make sense.

But once you step outside...

Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: dr e on Aug 08, 2007, 12:54 PM


Again you are confusing whether they "care" about them with whether they provide and protect.  So you are saying that the men don't lift a finger to protect their women?  I find that hard to believe.  You mean to tell me that the average schmo family is as likely to have a woman providing for the men as it is to have the men providing for the women?  Somehow I find that pretty hard to believe.  Forget the oil money.  That doesn't speak to the cultural norm like an average family would. 

Isn't this the same culture that has honor killings? 


The average schmo family is bedouin. They're living off the land in what we would consider abject poverty. And, yes, women are providing just as much as men in that situation (if not more because men are often unemployed.) As for lifting a finger to protect their women... From what? The only threat to these women comes from the men themselves, and no, one man won't stop another man from beating on, raping or killing that man's female relatives.

The _other_ average schmo family is a bachelor living in the city and working for himself. I'm not exaggerating when I say that most men don't marry in that culture.






Wow.  Fascinating stuff.  I had no idea of the extent of anti-female behaviors that go on there.  Thank you for giving me a lesson.

It is absolutely mind boggling that the feminists aren't throwing a fit over this stuff.  Instead what we see is them supporting Muslim cultures.  Are they simply ignorant or are they consciously choosing their agenda? 
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: typhonblue on Aug 08, 2007, 01:00 PM


Wow.  Fascinating stuff.  I had no idea of the extent of anti-female behaviors that go on there.  Thank you for giving me a lesson.

It is absolutely mind boggling that the feminists aren't throwing a fit over this stuff.  Instead what we see is them supporting Muslim cultures.  Are they simply ignorant or are they consciously choosing their agenda? 


This is one of the things that first pissed me off about feminists.

They don't acknowledge the reality unless it's to say 'women in the west are just as oppressed.'

I remember hearing that once from a western feminist. Lets just say it didn't help my dissillusionment in the movement any.

Why don't they care? The same reason why there are more rape services for rich white women then poor, non-white women. Because feminism is a movement for one group of women, every other group of women is either irrelevant or finds their concerns co-opted to inflate the poor-rich-white-girl agenda.

Besides, where would western women be without oil from the middle east?
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: shard43 on Aug 08, 2007, 01:11 PM

Haven't you ever wondered why, when you look at education aimed at high-paying fields: engineering, programming, medicine... the majority of the women in those fields are from Asia, India and the middle east? From conservative, male-favoring cultures that, if they are going to pay for a daughter's education, won't pay for one in which she will end up more comfortable, but less well paid.


As someone who is from that side of the globe, I will say that in my experience, times are a-changing. Daughters are often treated better than sons by parents, girls always treated better than boys by schools, and less sacrifices expected of women in the workforce than of men.

Women seem to pull their share when they come to the US, since a secretary can't get a visa. But there is a sharp delineation between the professional women who are on their own visa and/or working, and the women who come over on dependent visas, who are much more likely to stay home. The professional women are also much rarer, and they have the three options after having a baby or after marrying, depending on how rich they are :-

1. Work full-time.
2. Stay at home full-time.
3. Some combination of the above.

Women seem to be less "have-it-all" over there, but there is not the same kind of pressure on daughters as there is on sons to join a high-paying, early-death profession.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: typhonblue on Aug 08, 2007, 01:13 PM


Haven't you ever wondered why, when you look at education aimed at high-paying fields: engineering, programming, medicine... the majority of the women in those fields are from Asia, India and the middle east? From conservative, male-favoring cultures that, if they are going to pay for a daughter's education, won't pay for one in which she will end up more comfortable, but less well paid.


As someone who is from that side of the globe, I will say that in my experience, times are a-changing. Daughters are often treated better than sons by parents, girls always treated better than boys by schools, and less sacrifices expected of women in the workforce than of men.


Yes, that's true.

Are you talking about the Middle East and India or Asian nations?
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: poiuyt on Aug 08, 2007, 11:06 PM
Quote
Wow.  Fascinating stuff.  I had no idea of the extent of anti-female behaviors that go on there.  Thank you for giving me a lesson.

It is absolutely mind boggling that the feminists aren't throwing a fit over this stuff.  Instead what we see is them supporting Muslim cultures.  Are they simply ignorant or are they consciously choosing their agenda? 


1 On account of whose feeble authority or say so does a middle eastern nation stand as misogynist ? One also must be weary of accepting the formative-years-opinion on saudi arabia of a westerner who addmittedly at the time espoused feminism.

2 The practice of mohameddan-chauvenism makes them no less freinds of women and children than teuton-chauvenism makes westerners more freinds of the same!!! 
 
3 Here are links from which an unbiased and unprejudiced perspective can be acquired on the middle east and many other nations to include Saudi Arabia.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sa-saudi-arabia

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
Amogst the lowest national rape-rates eh

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/dem_fem_min-democracy-female-ministers
Amongst the highest national female leadership rates eh
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: dr e on Aug 09, 2007, 03:33 AM
Interesting links poiuyt.  If you think Typhon is in error I hope you will explain how and why.  Very curious that they have the lowest rape per capita and one of the highest involvmenet of women in their government.  Looks like there is likely more to this story and I would be curious to hear your side.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: dr e on Aug 09, 2007, 03:59 AM
Here is an interesting viewpoint that claims men in Saudi Arabia have traditionally been the providers.   Looks pretty clear to me.

http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/Newsletters/SAF_Essay_09.htm

Quote
Despite the furious pace of change and modernization that has occurred in Saudi Arabia over the last half century, the traditional extended family - parents, siblings, aunts and uncles, cousins and grand and great grand parents still form the basic unit of the society. Within the extended family, traditional respect for age, gender roles of men outside the home as providers and women in the dominant role inside the home are changing but still intact. The influence of the extended family thus carries over into social life, business and politics. Socially, the Saudis still tend to socialize, marry, and conduct business together.


and this:

Quote
Gender Roles: Traditional gender roles in Saudi society share a number of common characteristics with other traditional societies, the most notable of which is that men's roles are outside the home as family providers, protectors, and managers, and women's roles are in the home. Men are predominant outside the home -- in business and public affairs and business, and women are to a large degree predominant within the home, particularly in parental decisions. Increasingly, however, the lines of distinction are being blurred. For example, as the population explosion has greatly reduced the per capita income, many young wives are finding employment outside the home, and husbands are assuming duties in the home unthinkable a generation ago.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: poiuyt on Aug 09, 2007, 06:01 AM
Quote from: Dr Evil
The reason for this which is also the reason that feminists have had such an easy time in getting legislation passed and services funded, is because men are genetically, hormonally and socially programmed to take care of (provide and protect) women.  Men are asleep in a sea of provide and protect and refuse to wake to the humanist idea that men are also in need sometimes.

I hear your frusttration and can only nod my head with a similar experience.  For all of our upset with the feminists it is the sleeping and bigoted men in power who are a huge force that is against us.


Your original observation, given due to outdoors frustration with males sabotaging his efforts to open a mens DV shelter, acknoledging automatic mens provide and protect responseS to women and children is universaly correct [including amongst mohameddans.]

A FEW OBSERVATIONS SHOULD GIVE CONTEXT TO MOHAMEDAN STYLE CHAUVENISM VERSUS TUETON CHAUVENISM FROM WHICH WE ALL SUFFER AS MALES

1 Right now the so called rabid patriarchal taleban have executed the two male south koreans they've held as hostages for some time but are negotiating the position of so many held women. Secondly, the Sunni taleban variant in iraq who were viscious cut throats to male captives in many cases released female captives. Or at worst let them die of bullets not blades. Thirdly even the saudi executions of criminals are in majority of men. They are chauvenist bigotts but not misogynist.

2 The polygammy of mohamedans is not born of venal lasciviousness but of a provide and protect chivalry approriate to their conditions ie arabia and most of the third world until discovery of mineral resources were dirt poor places indeed. Ten or twenty wives and their kids had provisions and protection from the big strong mullah against others and the elements they would otherwise not have had. Chauvenists bigotts not misogynists.

3 The development of arranged marriages and honour killings, the counterpart to western shot-gun marriages and other cultural abominations, had to do with dissuading rif-raff, fly-by-night scoundrels, male and female, who having no personal account, resource or consequence to their name from posterity. Dissuade that is from engaging in sexual or other behaviours, the responsibilities of which would fall to others, ie the providers and protecters. Chauvenism not misogyny.

4 The withdrawal of mohamedans and middle easterns, male or female, from casual touching, nudity, kissing, talking to strangers or excessive open laughter in public are all cultural resrictions and codes designed to maintain integrity between the sexes, politness between strangers, and other good morals related to an honest and clean way of living. That is in spite of external and elemental conditions.

In short an honest anthropologist visiting the middle east and studying the strictures of arabian culture or religion will understand everything as developed in service of maintaining integrity and order amongst a poverty ridden people.

Amongst middle easterns and most mohamedans the prevailing egalitarian stricture is:
"you shall not enjoy the privilege of life options the responsibilities of which have any chance of falling to others. Otherwise parasites, dependants, theives and liars find sanctuary and a suitable environment to propagate themselves ".

Conversely amongst middle easterns and arabian cultrure the egalitarian code is:
"all life options the responsibility of which fall to you, are yours. And no person or group through majority election or ballot is permited to undermine this".
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: dr e on Aug 09, 2007, 07:18 AM
Thank you poiuyt for pointing this out.  Very helpful stuff.  I really should have taken the time yesterday to do a 3 minute google search and I would have found just what I needed to know.  My bad. 

My experience over the last few years has shown me clearly that we have two enemies: radical feminists who hate men and sleeping men who feel protective of women and girls and disdainful for any man who might show the slightest need.  By far the worse of the two is the men.  The radical feminists can be shown to be ignorant and bigoted in short order but the persistent and pernicious attitudes of the men live on no matter what.  Their attitudes are "under the radar" and not being questioned or observed.  They are usually not directly related to the issue at hand so their chivalrous attitudes don't show up in the discussions.  But like a noxious gas they permeate and change everything.   They are almost impossible to alter and they are sadly in large numbers, especially in our elected officials.  We really need an F4J type approach here in the states to start waking up some of these men. 
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: outdoors on Aug 09, 2007, 07:29 AM
 I agree dr.e-its the men who are the biggest problem.As one fellow activist said,and i quote"feminists get away with it,because we let them". If all men stood up and said something,anything, this war on men would not be so out of hand and we as men would not have such an up-hill battle now.


"Maus"
this is the answer i recieved;

"The United Way funding is directed solely to registered not for profit organizations - Applications are received in the spring each year and reviewed



Our funding is for the delivery of services and not for capital acquisitions and as such if you were asking if we would fund the construction or renovation of appropriate facilities, I would suggest not likely, however if you were asking if we would fund appropriate program delivery it may be possible dependent on the funds we have available annually.



I am attaching the link to our web site for this information for you."



http://unitedway-tbay.on.ca/funding.htm

if you look at the application-most of the questions would be hard if not impossible to answer. Do i just guess?
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: typhonblue on Aug 09, 2007, 10:48 AM

Your original observation, given due to outdoors frustration with males sabotaging his efforts to open a mens DV shelter, acknoledging automatic mens provide and protect responseS to women and children is universaly correct [including amongst mohameddans.]


If muslim chivalry was of the same strength and nature of Teutonic Chivlary (adopted and expanded by Christianity) then how do you explain the following phenomena:

1. Honor killings targeting mostly women.

2. The expectation that women must uphold their behavioral code _before_ their own lives.

Quote
A FEW OBSERVATIONS SHOULD GIVE CONTEXT TO MOHAMEDAN STYLE CHAUVENISM VERSUS TUETON CHAUVENISM FROM WHICH WE ALL SUFFER AS MALES

1 Right now the so called rabid patriarchal taleban have executed the two male south koreans they've held as hostages for some time but are negotiating the position of so many held women. Secondly, the Sunni taleban variant in iraq who were viscious cut throats to male captives in many cases released female captives. Or at worst let them die of bullets not blades. Thirdly even the saudi executions of criminals are in majority of men. They are chauvenist bigotts but not misogynist.


That is because female executions are done by the men of the family, not the government.

Look at the sex ratio in Saudi Arabia:

Saudi Arabia    1.2    1.05    1.04    1.33    1.13

Compared to parity, that is a lot of missing women. Where are they?

I think it's an uphill battle to argue female-favoritism in a society that practices female infanticide, female sex-selective abortion and honor killings.

Quote
4 The withdrawal of mohamedans and middle easterns, male or female, from casual touching, nudity, kissing, talking to strangers or excessive open laughter in public are all cultural resrictions and codes designed to maintain integrity between the sexes, politness between strangers, and other good morals related to an honest and clean way of living. That is in spite of external and elemental conditions.


It also reduces the scope of female sexual power.

Quote
In short an honest anthropologist visiting the middle east and studying the strictures of arabian culture or religion will understand everything as developed in service of maintaining integrity and order amongst a poverty ridden people.


Saudi Arabia has no economy. The only economy that exists is providing consumer services to the huge amount of people that recieve oil money.

Bedouin men and women live traditional lifestyles, in a traditional lifestyle the man may have dominion outside of the home but that does not mean the woman is not providing _in_ the home. In fact saying as such could amount to applying our fifties-created notion of 'providership' to a situation in which it makes no sense(almost complete absense of jobs.)

Producing goods for sale, animal husbandry, gathering-- all these are done by bedouin women to support their families. They aren't sitting in a tent filing their nails and getting window treatments.

*edit* The other thing is... do they mean 'provide for the family' or 'provide for their wife'. Big difference.

As for women being part of the legislature. That's just bizarre as Saudi Arabia is a totalitarian regime. There _is_ no legislature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consultative_Assembly_of_Saudi_Arabia

Contradicts the nationmaster report entirely. Of course it's wikipedia.

How can our notion of chivalry exist in a society where a woman is expected to uphold her behavioral code over her own life?
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: shiva on Aug 10, 2007, 03:33 AM
@ dr e:

Quote
It is absolutely mind boggling that the feminists aren't throwing a fit over this stuff.


Yeah, I've always wondered why they never kick up a fuss over girls who are legitimately being discriminated against on basis of gender. The ones who have it rather good, they cry about.

@ TB:

Quote
1. Honor killings targeting mostly women.

2. The expectation that women must uphold their behavioral code _before_ their own lives.

When these two laws are in place, there's usually the inference that the women must fight to stop a man from raping them, but never disobey men, and must be killed if they are raped. Is this similar to this people you're talking about? The laws sound similar but the application may differ. That's a stupid law... "Fight off someone bigger and stronger than you, but stop fighting if they command/order you to, but don't do this with them..." LOL.



Quote
Bedouin men and women live traditional lifestyles, in a traditional lifestyle the man may have dominion outside of the home but that does not mean the woman is not providing _in_ the home. In fact saying as such could amount to applying our fifties-created notion of 'providership' to a situation in which it makes no sense(almost complete absense of jobs.) Producing goods for sale, animal husbandry, gathering-- all these are done by bedouin women to support their families. They aren't sitting in a tent filing their nails and getting window treatments.


In tribes all around the world (some gypsy, some african, etc.) with skewed family dynamics like this, i.e the women are sole providers, things are even more off-kilter. The women are supposed to work the lands, raise the children, chop the wood, keep the animals, make the clothes, make the food, keep the husband provided for in the home. In a lot of these circumstances the male provides nothing whatsoever other than sex (and sometimes an occasional beating.) Sometimes money, but a lot of these people have land and knowledge and are self-sufficient. At least, the poorer of them. It's not an uncommon scenario at all.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Aug 10, 2007, 05:33 AM
So outdoors, could you please tell us more about your shelter? Is it in a residence? What services do you provide? What situations have the men come from? What protection do you offer the men there? Do many of them have children?

Thank you for being so active and seeking to provide this much needed service to men.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: outdoors on Aug 10, 2007, 09:20 AM
 i am trying to help men and their children out of situations from violent women-this is very frowned upon around here by some-but has opened a lot of eyes as to the
problem of violent women and how the system arrests only the men.Yes, it is in a couple of differen't residences-as i am not alone in my thinking.I know when i needed a place to go for help and to get away,there was absolutely nothing for men and their children-anywhere.A lot of these guys have children that have been exposed to the abuse of these violent and controlling females(victims).The only protection that i can offer so far is to get them into a place where no one knows where they are.So far i have had a lot of calls but no one yet has taken me up on these resources-they just wanna talk-but these guys feel better in knowing there is now help for them.I think it is the social attitude,that men are tough and if they try and get help they will feel frowned upon.I am trying to change this.It is working but is a very slow process-trying to break the social stigma,that men are not deserving of such a place- by mostly other men!
I have been working with a few groups that i suggested they provide motel or hotel accomadations for men in need-but they felt men should not be alone in these situations-so no funding.
They have how-ever suggested a place for transients to go and for men in crisis to use these kinda services to which i said-no. men in these situations do not need to be thrown in with transients as they are already feeling bad enough -nevermind degrading them even more by getting them to succumb to the levels of street bums,and these are no places for children to go.
It is a tough battle but my nose is to the ground and i am pushing on.
As far as changing the local social opinion that men do not need help as much as women-I have a few councillors and even a phsycologist that back me and have even gone so far as to do out-lines for me on how to help men when in crisis,(volunteered time).They all also agree -men actually need more help than women in a domestic or divorce situation-as men are not supported by any groups or peers and are usually left standing on their own(I know)to figure things out.
I think just getting rid of all the exclusive help for women brochures and advertisments was a big step,they are all gender nuetral now. I still go around and check and still bring attention to these places that have only man -bashing brochures.I simply point out that these brochures are from "hate groups" and ask them if they have ever visited their sites.Once these people do visit sites such as stepitup.on or freinds,family and nieghbours.ca-they can see the hate for them-selves and their brochures are removed immediately.
Its slow but it is working.

there is nothing more satisfying than having my hand shook by a complete stranger for doing what i am doing.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: typhonblue on Aug 10, 2007, 10:01 AM

Quote
Bedouin men and women live traditional lifestyles, in a traditional lifestyle the man may have dominion outside of the home but that does not mean the woman is not providing _in_ the home. In fact saying as such could amount to applying our fifties-created notion of 'providership' to a situation in which it makes no sense(almost complete absense of jobs.) Producing goods for sale, animal husbandry, gathering-- all these are done by bedouin women to support their families. They aren't sitting in a tent filing their nails and getting window treatments.


In tribes all around the world (some gypsy, some african, etc.) with skewed family dynamics like this, i.e the women are sole providers, things are even more off-kilter. The women are supposed to work the lands, raise the children, chop the wood, keep the animals, make the clothes, make the food, keep the husband provided for in the home. In a lot of these circumstances the male provides nothing whatsoever other than sex (and sometimes an occasional beating.) Sometimes money, but a lot of these people have land and knowledge and are self-sufficient. At least, the poorer of them. It's not an uncommon scenario at all.
[/quote]

This is the reverse of what's happened in the west. Western industrialization basically removed the function of women as providers-in-the-home. Everywhere else the contraction of space(no land to patrol and hunt) and the movement away from hunter-gatherer to small-scale agrigarian on an acre of land or less, removed men's roles.

The fact that these people emphasize boy's education--or consider a man to be a provider outside the home-- has nothing to do with them not wanting women to provide. Women are still expected to provide in traditional ways, via the home economy.

This emphasis on female providership, may be why when these traditional people immigrate to places where women are given more opportunities to provide outside the home--and a lot fewer opportunities to provide IN the home-- these families seem to loose the aspect of 'women should do women's work' in favor of 'women should provide as best they can for their families'. And their daughters take those opportunities for women to earn outside the home a far greater degree then western women, who have little cultural emphasis on being providers for their families.

The treatement of women in the west with deference and consideration is unique. The emphasis on men's providership without equal providership given by the woman via the home economy is likewise unique. Western women are indescribably lucky to live in the social situation they do (of course all we seem to do with our extra time is complain.)
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Aug 10, 2007, 10:04 AM
So where do you check for pamphlets- hospitals, courts, doctors offices, etc?

How do you keep your phone lines secure-ie keep from having nut jobs track you down?

Where do you advertise services?

And yes, I can certainly understand men's own hesitation being the hardest thing to overcome. Men tend not to ask for help unless they know help is there and works. Add in social lies that only women are victims and give abusers all the power of the law and you have people too scared to come forward.



Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: Cordell Walker on Aug 10, 2007, 10:08 AM
I still wouldnt trade places with a bedoiun no matter how male chauvinist thier culture is.

what I found intersting TB is your observation on industrialization;  with the computer age and microeconomics plus what I think is going to be the rush  for fuel efficient te nology/alternate fuel.............the economy could swing to a more industrial rather than service in the near future


Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: outdoors on Aug 10, 2007, 12:24 PM

So where do you check for pamphlets- hospitals, courts, doctors offices, etc?

How do you keep your phone lines secure-ie keep from having nut jobs track you down?

Where do you advertise services?

And yes, I can certainly understand men's own hesitation being the hardest thing to overcome. Men tend not to ask for help unless they know help is there and works. Add in social lies that only women are victims and give abusers all the power of the law and you have people too scared to come forward.





I check every-where and anywhere.I advertise at the hospital and diff councilling services etc. by word of mouth and then let those places make it be known-with their money and not mine..I have had posters up but they are torn down and some even shredded and thrown into a pile.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: MAUS on Aug 11, 2007, 08:57 AM

I agree dr.e-its the men who are the biggest problem.As one fellow activist said,and i quote"feminists get away with it,because we let them". If all men stood up and said something,anything, this war on men would not be so out of hand and we as men would not have such an up-hill battle now.


"Maus"
this is the answer i recieved;

"The United Way funding is directed solely to registered not for profit organizations - Applications are received in the spring each year and reviewed



Our funding is for the delivery of services and not for capital acquisitions and as such if you were asking if we would fund the construction or renovation of appropriate facilities, I would suggest not likely, however if you were asking if we would fund appropriate program delivery it may be possible dependent on the funds we have available annually.



I am attaching the link to our web site for this information for you."



http://unitedway-tbay.on.ca/funding.htm

if you look at the application-most of the questions would be hard if not impossible to answer. Do i just guess?



For the sake of the bookeeping, auditing, and accountability that United Way is obliged by law and by it's own operating policies to follow, you must first register your endevour under the non-profit registration proceedures of your provincial jurisdiction.

Outdoors, you strike me as a doer and a guy who takes the bull by the horns and the sort of soldier who if he breaks ranks, it will be to get on with engaging the fight...all of which I greatly admire. Now then, you should recruit from the walking wounded men you are helping and rallying....because they are the ones with a stake inthe matter...someone with experience in administrative paperwork to attend to the requirements that the U-Way laid out for their support. Then get your GOOGLE search engine fired up and find out where Womyn's groups apply for funding. My ex had a CD-rom just loaded with this stuff that she got from a feminist friend involved with the NDP....the research for that listing was paid for by SOW Canada so just make an inquiry there about that report and pose as a woman when you ask...don't say you are doing it for a men's shelter (hey...call me Mac....short for Machiavelli).
Whine bitterly about cuts in funding to women's programs just for a good smoke screen. Then ask at the various provincial level Status of Women offices for the same information.....the CD I refered to was produced in Nova Scotia so you might ask there first.

Men built the pyramids one rock at a time, one inch at a time, one crisis at a time. After you get some tangible progress you will be pleasantly supprised at how you will then be able to Tom Sawyer people into doing things for this project. Just be patient and persistant. The need is not going to go away any time soon so you have picked for yourself which dragon you are going to slay and which hill you are going to make your last stand on.
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: typhonblue on Aug 11, 2007, 12:03 PM
What province are you in, outdoors?
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: outdoors on Aug 11, 2007, 01:06 PM
I live in "occupied" ontario
Title: Re: proof and point
Post by: typhonblue on Aug 14, 2007, 03:21 PM

Why am i getting more support from women than i am from men?


Because women are allowed to love men.

Ontario? Damn.