One of my more recent articles called "Experience Means Baggage" sparked quite a thread on the mensnewsdaily.com forums.
Basically, they accused me of being a feminist who wants to "tell men what to do." Well, I've noticed that among mens rights activists, like feminists, men do not want to be "told what to do." They want to do whatever they want. They are like little kids.
Anyway, one guy says he "went ballistic" over me. My article specifically has the premise that marriage is a good thing. BECAUSE of this, I state that going in and out of relationships before marriage and having lots of sex is a bad thing. It doesn't lead to a good marriage. That somehow makes me a feminists. :?
Here is what it comes down to: men's rights activists hate marriage. They do not want to ever get married. Their goal is NOT to clean up the mess known as divorce court. They LIKE that being the way it is. For them, it is an EXCUSE not to get married.
Their problem is not that I am a supposed feminist, a young person who doesn't know anything, or anything of the sort. Their problem is that I advocated marriage.
Don't worry, men's rights activists. I would never hold any of your feet to the fire as I would never be interested in dating any of you. I can't think of a woman of self esteem who would.
The position that I advocated in my EMB piece is also a Christian belief. It is something that the Bible has advocated for 2000 years. Yet, somehow, my position is naive based on the ad hominem that I am young, therefore what I say has no truth at all.
Come on: is the true nature of men's rights activism not being exposed? What the fuck has to happen until your eyes are opened up?
I find it ridiculous in particular that they accuse me of being a feminist. I mean ... COME ON, can't they at least provide a semi-intelligent critique of me. It is the evidence of small minds. They don't like what I am saying, so they need to pigeon hole me into something they hate - feminism. Even though I don't fit that mold, and precisely because they can't hate me for any valid reason, they need to associate me with feminism, making it easier to hate me.
By all means, start a boycott at MND to get my columns off. It doesn't really matter. Within a year, I'll have bigger, better publications. I'll still send my articles to Mike if he wants them. I have a large fan base, including the very editor at MND, much to the MRA chagrin, I'm sure. I'm not sure if you leftist twits realized it, but the site is a CONSERVATIVE site. You know, CONSERVATIVES advocate things like MARRIAGE and morals and strong foreign policy, etc. These are not things MRA favor.
I'm not sure how much exposing has to be done until people realize this movement is just a hate movement. However, I am fully confident that most intelligent people can see that already, including most female and many male posters here. This is all the time I am giving to the MRA from now on ... they are, for the most part, irrelevant.
By the way is "JG" on MND "Galt"?
Oh, one other thing, that piece called EMB has MASSIVE APPEAL to people under 30, as evidenced by the fact that people on this board under 30 all liked it. Mike has said before he wants to attract the under 30 crowd, and a young person like me can do just that.
Ok one other thing before I head off. The MRA were all complaining that I am telling "men" what to do. But my article EMB was mostly gender neutral. It was aimed at men and women. Yet for some reason, that gets twisted into evil female giving men all the responsiblity and women all the free ride ... :roll: Also, logically, this kind of argument is aimed at WOMEN. It is WOMEN who mostly have to say "no" to sex - to stop the hook up scene I so despise - WOMEN who have to say "no I'm not living with you if we aren't married" ... etc.
Their arguments are so incredibly bogus.
One of my more recent articles called "Experience Means Baggage" sparked quite a thread on the mensnewsdaily.com forums.
Basically, they accused me of being a feminist who wants to "tell men what to do." Well, I've noticed that among mens rights activists, like feminists, men do not want to be "told what to do." They want to do whatever they want. They are like little kids.
Anyway, one guy says he "went ballistic" over me. My article specifically has the premise that marriage is a good thing. BECAUSE of this, I state that going in and out of relationships before marriage and having lots of sex is a bad thing. It doesn't lead to a good marriage. That somehow makes me a feminists. :?
Here is what it comes down to: men's rights activists hate marriage. They do not want to ever get married. Their goal is NOT to clean up the mess known as divorce court. They LIKE that being the way it is. For them, it is an EXCUSE not to get married.
I don't think you should over-react to some guys on a BB. Nor do I think you should label them typical of all men's rights activists. That's just a generalization, an excuse for lazy thinking.
Their problem is not that I am a supposed feminist, a young person who doesn't know anything, or anything of the sort. Their problem is that I advocated marriage.
Don't worry, men's rights activists. I would never hold any of your feet to the fire as I would never be interested in dating any of you. I can't think of a woman of self esteem who would.
The position that I advocated in my EMB piece is also a Christian belief. It is something that the Bible has advocated for 2000 years. Yet, somehow, my position is naive based on the ad hominem that I am young, therefore what I say has no truth at all.
Come on: is the true nature of men's rights activism not being exposed? What the fuck has to happen until your eyes are opened up?
Funny, you really should ask yourself that sometime. What has to happen before you realize just how disenfranchised the law makes some men, and how their voice is an important aspect of overall HUMAN rights?
I find it ridiculous in particular that they accuse me of being a feminist. I mean ... COME ON, can't they at least provide a semi-intelligent critique of me. It is the evidence of small minds. They don't like what I am saying, so they need to pigeon hole me into something they hate - feminism. Even though I don't fit that mold, and precisely because they can't hate me for any valid reason, they need to associate me with feminism, making it easier to hate me.
Well, many of these men are disenfranchised, and thus angry at the current state of affairs. It is unfortunate that they believe you to be a feminist; I do not. However, women-firsters of all stripes exist including
traditionalists and feminists.
You'
By all means, start a boycott at MND to get my columns off. It doesn't really matter. Within a year, I'll have bigger, better publications. I'll still send my articles to Mike if he wants them. I have a large fan base, including the very editor at MND, much to the MRA chagrin, I'm sure. I'm not sure if you leftist twits realized it, but the site is a CONSERVATIVE site. You know, CONSERVATIVES advocate things like MARRIAGE and morals and strong foreign policy, etc. These are not things MRA favor.
NOT IN THEIR CURRENT STATE! Have you heard what these men are saying regarding the double standards, one-sided affair that marriage has become (outrageous DV laws, family court, custody etc.)? Many of these men would favour a marriage that gave individuals equal rights (especially equal custody and paternal rights).
I'm not sure how much exposing has to be done until people realize this movement is just a hate movement. However, I am fully confident that most intelligent people can see that already, including most female and many male posters here. This is all the time I am giving to the MRA from now on ... they are, for the most part, irrelevant.
By the way is "JG" on MND "Galt"?
Well, I can't see it. I can see a lot of anger that feminist policy and
continuous degradation of our human rights causes though.
*BTW, I think your opinions should not be stiffled.
Let me add an addendum too, Amber. Many of these men are fighting for equal custody arrangements, presumption of joint custody (etc.), all of which are MORE likely to stabilize the divorce rate. These men are fathers who just want the presumption that they are equally important in a childs life. Many other younger men will not committ to marriage or relationships today because the moment they do, their rights under law are no longer what they were before. Some of these men are angry individuals who have been hurt deeply by corrupt DV laws, CS laws, debtors prisons and family courts.
They are probably as equally concerned with the institution of marriage as you are - they are just rejecting the VALUE PROPOSITION.
One of my more recent articles called "Experience Means Baggage" sparked quite a thread on the mensnewsdaily.com forums.
Basically, they accused me of being a feminist who wants to "tell men what to do." Well, I've noticed that among mens rights activists, like feminists, men do not want to be "told what to do." They want to do whatever they want. They are like little kids.
Which begs the question, then - why aren't you over there defending yourself, instead of taking cheap shots over here? Ah. It's certainly easier then actually engaging and meeting with logic rather than over-emotional, estrogen laden rhetoric
Anyway, one guy says he "went ballistic" over me. My article specifically has the premise that marriage is a good thing. BECAUSE of this, I state that going in and out of relationships before marriage and having lots of sex is a bad thing. It doesn't lead to a good marriage. That somehow makes me a feminists. :?
No, what is objected to over there is your preachiness, your double standards, and your refusal to engage in debate. Any criticism of your position is taken as a personal attack. Therefore, why do anything else? Might as well get hung for the cow as for the calf.
Here is what it comes down to: men's rights activists hate marriage. They do not want to ever get married. Their goal is NOT to clean up the mess known as divorce court. They LIKE that being the way it is. For them, it is an EXCUSE not to get married.
Nice reach in logic. The first two are true. If the third changes, this may change. The last is your imagination, which has no factual basis, except that it is what color the sky is in Amber's world.
Their problem is not that I am a supposed feminist, a young person who doesn't know anything, or anything of the sort. Their problem is that I advocated marriage.
No, the problem is your assumpotion that some people may just not want to get married, or do it again. They did their time for God and Country, and got burned, or watched far too many people got burned.
Obviously, YOU want to get married. Nothing against that, marriage is a good deal for women. All the choices in the world, license to commit paternity fraud, if you get in a snit, alimony and a big fat child support check are virtually assured - hell, you don't even have to take a last name. What's yours is still yours, and you have at least a 50% claim to all that's his. What's not to like? It's the greatest racket women have going. A lot of states are even worse
The reverse is true for men, but somehow you see that refusal to accomodate your wants with some kind of character flaw. Fact is, with things the way they are, men are fuckin' idiots if the play in such a rigged game And until, as in "If and When," it gets cleaned up, why do it?
Elsewhere you've already demonstrated your blinkered and point blank refusal to be accountable to a mate in matters of paternity, so I certainly can't see you signing some biunding prenup to set his mind at ease - which pretty much says that you'd expect him to pick up a set of loaded dice and take his chances.
Don't worry, men's rights activists. I would never hold any of your feet to the fire as I would never be interested in dating any of you. I can't think of a woman of self esteem who would.
Have no fear. No man with a lick of sense would want to marry a feminist like yourself, who believes in special privileges for yourself based on your plumbing. Stick to the ignorant college boys, at least until the tits and the ass start to sag. Biology sucks, doesn't it? Here I am almost twice your age. In twenty years I'll be even more af a stud muffin, and you'll be a hag.
The position that I advocated in my EMB piece is also a Christian belief. It is something that the Bible has advocated for 2000 years. Yet, somehow, my position is naive based on the ad hominem that I am young, therefore what I say has no truth at all.
Considering your previously openly stated bigotry against religion in general and Christianity in particular (With the possible exception of your bile against jews, but thats probably just religious bigoty reacting with your racism) words like "self serving" and "hypocrite" just spring to mind.
Come on: is the true nature of men's rights activism not being exposed? What the fuck has to happen until your eyes are opened up?
What, that they're taking a principled stand and not whoring themselves out to roll out the red carpet for someone who occasionally spouts empty words in their direction if it suits her narcissism? Shocking.
I find it ridiculous in particular that they accuse me of being a feminist. I mean ... COME ON, can't they at least provide a semi-intelligent critique of me. It is the evidence of small minds. They don't like what I am saying, so they need to pigeon hole me into something they hate - feminism. Even though I don't fit that mold, and precisely because they can't hate me for any valid reason, they need to associate me with feminism, making it easier to hate me.
You're a feminist because you're real big on the traditional roles, responsibilities and restrictions on men, but are notably silent when it comes to those of women. You pay only token lip service to the rights of men, if at all. Can it be any plainer than that? Shall I break out the crayolas?
By all means, start a boycott at MND to get my columns off. It doesn't really matter. Within a year, I'll have bigger, better publications. I'll still send my articles to Mike if he wants them. I have a large fan base, including the very editor at MND, much to the MRA chagrin, I'm sure. I'm not sure if you leftist twits realized it, but the site is a CONSERVATIVE site. You know, CONSERVATIVES advocate things like MARRIAGE and morals and strong foreign policy, etc. These are not things MRA favor.
Au contraire. MRA's indeed favor it. Just a real marriage as a partnership of equals, and not with the man as the female lackey, praying day-by-day that she doesn't decide to move on and fuck him out of what he built, take his kids, and make him pay for the privilege.
But, like most feminists, dealing with a man on equal footing scares the shit out of you, doesn't it?
I'm not sure how much exposing has to be done until people realize this movement is just a hate movement. However, I am fully confident that most intelligent people can see that already, including most female and many male posters here. This is all the time I am giving to the MRA from now on ... they are, for the most part, irrelevant.
Whatever you say, little girl. Except for the next few posts, and your sniping and cheap shots, and so on, and so forth.
Where I come from, it's called getting into a snit because you have only empty rhetoric for your arguments, so you're just going to give the silent treatment. Very mature, little girl. You've proved their point far more ably than they ever could.
Yeah, I know, I'm ignored now. BFHD.
<<You're a feminist because you're real big on the traditional roles, responsibilities and restrictions on men, but are notably silent when it comes to those of women. You pay only token lip service to the rights of men, if at all.>>
I think that's kind of the core of it (or at least one of the cores).
In this regard there is little difference between feminists and traditionalists.
<<In this regard there is little difference between feminists and traditionalists.>>
Actually - there isn't much when I think about it.
The feminists focus on "equal rights" while assuming the traditional roles of men.
The "traditionalist" females focus on the traditional roles of men while assuming "equal rights".
Kinda the same. I put quotation marks around "equal rights" because many here know what that code word really means. (For the uninitiated, it means "equality" when feminists get an advantage and "traditional" when feminists get an advantage).
This idea of the lack of accountability for women seems to run through both camps, though.
Somebody got to Amber's goat. Damn.
No ... any group calling itself "mens right" groups as opposed to an INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FOR MEN AND WOMEN group ... is innately evil. It will produce exactly what is going in the mens rights activist movement ... a bunch of victim minded men seeking nothing more than protectionism.
I'm glad they are my enemy ... just as I am glad that fascists, etc., consider me an enemy.
And here is my ultimate challenge to the mens rights activists who are going nuts over my article called Experience Means Baggage:
If you REALLY do care about marriage and want to geniuinely clean up divorce .. then why, in my article, in which I clearly come out in favor of strong marriages ... of preparing and doing those things that set up for a solid marriage, by holding out for a man, which creates a stronger marriage ... did you not embrace this?
It seems a young girl advocating setting up strong marriages, not ones that lead to divorce would be embraced by them. But it's not. They went nuts over it.
Hmmm? Can you answer that?
I saw Galt replied to this thread. God, you have no idea how glad I am that I have him on ignore ... I can already hear one of his anti-woman, anti-chivalry, anti-marriage rants ... :roll:
Also I wanted to say congratulations to the mens rights activists on the board. You got closet quite flabbergasted on your views on paternity testing. She now can quite clearly see the MRA for what it is - probably one of the nicest not to mention most rational females you will ever meet. GOOD JOB - KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK PISSING OFF EVERY LAST GOOD FEMALE OUT THERE!!!
And here is my ultimate challenge to the mens rights activists who are going nuts over my article called Experience Means Baggage:
If you REALLY do care about marriage and want to geniuinely clean up divorce .. then why, in my article, in which I clearly come out in favor of strong marriages ... of preparing and doing those things that set up for a solid marriage, by holding out for a man, which creates a stronger marriage ... did you not embrace this?
It seems a young girl advocating setting up strong marriages, not ones that lead to divorce would be embraced by them. But it's not. They went nuts over it.
Hmmm? Can you answer that?
Simple. We don't HAVE marriage in this country. What we have is some legal arrangement which stole name of the sacred covenant of marriage, and broke it down to a temporary contract of convenience. You can put all the lipstick on that pig you want.
Marriage doesn't even resemble what it was even fifty years ago, let alone what is was a hundred years ago.
You've offered nothing in there but platitudes. You've never BEEN married, fer chrissake. And you stand their preaching to men who have been through it, lost it all, and wonder why they're asking you what the fuck you know?
Have you ever actually sat down with a divorced man who has lost everything he worked for, his family, his dreams, his kids? You ever done it without a chip on your shoulder and listened to him, without a hundred "yeah buts?" Ever watch one of them take the exact same school picture and put one on every wall of their house because he otherwise only gets to see his flesh and blood every two weeks - unless mommy decides she doesn't feel like granting him his visitation this time? Watch him be damned for having one job and not enough money to pay child support, and doubly damned for having a second job and not having time left over for his kid?
Ever gather among a group of friends at a 20th year reuinion, and find almost all of them have the exact same story? The only ones who don't are almost to a man either gay or never married?
Good God. You honestly just don't have a clue, do you?
No ... any group calling itself "men's right" groups as opposed to an INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FOR MEN AND WOMEN group ... is innately evil. It will produce exactly what is going in the men's rights activist movement ... a bunch of victim minded men seeking nothing more than protectionism.
I'm glad they are my enemy ... just as I am glad that fascists, etc., consider me an enemy.
Do you feel the same way about
women's rights and all that entails?
Fem-i-nism at least describes the situation aptly: Women-firsterism. Traditionalism also has similar expectations. You seem unable to argue this point.
I would argue women's rights and men's rights are part of
human rights, and as such should be considered in the context of human rights.
You seem to want to argue that only women have human rights worthy of note.
Now will you respond to the charges, or not? We won't think much of you if you don't (which quite frankly is disappointing).
P.S. We are not responsible for the confusion that Closet may undergo as a result of the cognitive dissonance experienced from reading multiple opinions. I would be glad to explain
my opinions and why they are what they are if she so desires. I too, think she is an awesome person. You seem to be saying
that men are not individuals if they attempt to point out bias.
If you REALLY do care about marriage and want to genuinely clean up divorce .. then why, in my article, in which I clearly come out in favor of strong marriages ... of preparing and doing those things that set up for a solid marriage, by holding out for a man, which creates a stronger marriage ... did you not embrace this?
Some of us quite clearly
DID.
Good God, girl! You started something with this thread.
All I'm gonna say is I agree with some of your articles and disagree with others.
From what I can gather by reading what the others post about you, when it comes to the people that disagree with your posts you seem to have a closed mind and an unwillingness to concede they might be right.
Even partially.
There are legitimate reasons many men have the opinions that they do.
Now....y'all continue as you were....
Whatever you say, little girl.
God, you are the most condescending, angry person I think I've ever met.
yes, SJA, I have and DID say the same thing about feminism, i.e. the stupid notion of "women's rights" OVER AND OVER AGAIN, especially when in COLLEGE, where I started an ANTI FEMINIST club.
I disintctly remember an article I wrote when my club was first trying to gain status as a club. My mission statement said "we advocate individual rights and will focus specifically on gender issues." I got told that this was "too much like the mission statement of the feminist clubs" therefore I could not have a new club. I wrote this big long article about it, and how the feminist notion of "women's rights" is GROUP rights and is distinctly DIFFERENT from a person who says "we will advocate individual rights as applied to gender issues."
Anyway, you guys are so completely ignorant of my history and activism. You are reacting to one or two articles of mine - for no good reason at all. It doesn't matter. None of what I say matters when trying to get through to people who have the type of brain that a brute like gonzokid has. And, no, I will not edit that previous sentence unless Dr Evil calls on Gonzo to edit his posts where he called me a hag, and on and on.
From what I can tell, gonzokid hates me for nothing other than being a 23 yr old female. The fact that he presented as an "argument" to me the idea that I'll be a "hag" in 20 years while he'll be a stud in 20 years is just ... bizarre first of all, and proof of the fact that since I am young and therefore relatively sexually attractive, he hates me.
Whatever. You have issues gonzokid. Major, major issues. Yes, I am closeminded mortal. See why I am closeminded? Would you want to deal with a brute like this? Would you want to deal with psychoes from an interent forum IMing you over and over, trying to yell at you (nyet)? Would you put up with people calling you names? I'm justified in ignoring the people I ignore. They offer little to me ... why should I consider their hateful, non-valuable opinions? Anyway, that ignore list now includes Gonzo. And before you start calling me closeminded ... go through all his posts to me, and see if he has anything valuable to say to me. Is this something I'm supposed to be "open" to? Pssshhhha! It's only going to cause good. Gonzokid is not the kind of person you can have a rational conversaion with. Me ignoring him is a good thing, as it will just cause the forum to go to the shitter if I engage with him or anyone like him.
Anyway, I'm done talking about this ... as my position on mens rights activists is very clear, and, well, I'm the one who has some access to media to get my articles out there, and am going places, and many of the rest of you seem to instead to prefer to do nothing but hate on people and try to destroy people... and, well, you're NOT going anywhere ....
Actually Amber, from that one post I can now better understand where your coming from. I can, to an extent, understand and sympathize. That doesn't mean you should completely close yourself to the occasional bit of constructive criticism.
<I know! I know! It's do hard to filter from all the destructive criticism. Life's weird like that.>
On another note- I find your Objectivist worldview to be an interesting filter. But I'll admit I am pretty much ignorant as to what it's all really about.
The only -ist I adher to is that of being an Individual Realist.
Or was that Real Individualist....
Ack! Whatever.....
Got news for you, little girl. I'm published too. :jump:
Oh, horrors, I'm on ignore. Woe is me, I've angered a feminut. Alas, alack, whatever shall I do?
You go right ahead and call me all the names you want - notice to Doc Evil, too, I really don't give a fat rat's behind if someone does "name call" me, so please don't edit on my account.
God allmighty. Take a midol. You and Karen DeCoster are two of a kind.
I got a question for everyone?
I Karen DeCostner the woman who was on Time Magazine about a decade ago when she was the "poster child" for Date-Rape? I am curious. The reason is, she was the person who came to my campus when I was in college. After I had stopped dating a girl like 3 weeks earlier the girl went to a lecture with Karen DeCostner and THAT NIGHT decided that our sex was a "rape experience". I have a kinda personal hatred of this chick. She told the women at our college that "if you had sex, and didn't like it, it was probably rape". (*that was in the college newspaper) The fact that the lying scumbag who I had dated had to RADICALLY CHANGE HER STORY was irrelivant. The fact that the local ADA HERSELF told me that she would argue against charges is just a mark of my "bedevilling wit". I really really really have an axe to grind against this PROPAGANDIST.
sorry ... just had to toss this in.
Steven
Are you sure this person was Karen De Coster ??
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/coster1.html
I think so.
I remember at the time remembering her name. I thought her last name was "COSTNER" and I am pretty sure it was Karen for a first name. I COULD be wrong, but I doubt it.
Steven
LSBeene, to quote you:
She told the women at our college that "if you had sex, and didn't like it, it was probably rape".
Then that qualifies me to accuse several women of rape.
Interesting thing when you turn rhetoric around on its fat ass. It becomes The Absurd.
Steve, I don't think this is the same person. She would have had to have undergone a radical political shift in order to be the person she is today. I just can't see it.
Also I searched the Time archives (since 1985) and found nothing.
LSBeene, to quote you:
She told the women at our college that "if you had sex, and didn't like it, it was probably rape".
Then that qualifies me to accuse several women of rape.
Interesting thing when you turn rhetoric around on its fat ass. It becomes The Absurd.
You'll like this then: 8)
http://www.mattweeks.com/calscrape.htm
"Can you imagine the implications of this in the hands of an overly litigous society and a particularly liberal activist section of the country? Instead of the usual shouted utterances mid-coitus, partners will now have to be screaming, "I'M GIVING MY CONSENT TO THIS! I'M DISAVOWING ANY LEGAL LIABILITIES TO YOU! YES!!!""
:lol:
Since I do visit this board somewhat frequently I believe that I can at least state my opinion in the matter. Here is how I see things:
In our modern society, females have already established the right to do whatever they want and *choose* to be able to do whatever they want. In other words, *being* a woman means to have the RIGHT to *have* rights, freedoms and privileges and the RIGHT to *choose* when to apply these rights, freedoms and privileges when they see fit.
Now that that is established, people, like Amber, want to "reinforce" the gender roles. Females should stay as females (i.e. a "person" with the right to have freedoms, privileges and choices) and males should stay as males (i.e. retain their roles as a masculine person, provider, protector and cater to the needs/comforts of women).
So, Amber's form of "Men's Rights" is to have the genders act within their own roles, completely oblivious to the idea that today, being a "woman" already means to be virtually free of responsibility, while having choices, rights and freedoms.
That is what it looks like from Amber's articles that I have read.
R
Actually, I think it's worse than that. She wants to further increase men's responsibilities ... just because she wants to.
For example: Men today still have the right to choose whether to get married or not.
A writer named Darren Blacksmith wrote an article calling marriage into question. She blew a massive fuse against him on these boards, laying into him with cussing insults. I've also been called a misogynist (among other names) because I think that marriage is really something to consider today for men, and I have seen those attacks on other people for the same reason.
It almost seems as if the fact that men can choose ANYTHING to structure their life in the way they want infuriates her - they have responsibilities, after all, and her future husband better toe the line.
There are other examples of this desire to actually further restrict men's ability to make any decision at all in their lives.
I agree Galt. We should point them out so she understands what it is that we take issue with. Then again, because she already KNOWS everything and can't possibly just have an OPINION, she probably won't listen.
Hey Sir Jesse and Beste and others,
I really thank you for looking into this for me. I may be wrong on the ID. Let me help you out. I may be talking about 2 different people or the same person.
1) The TIME MAGAZINE (or NEWSWEEK) (1991 or 1992 I think) issue came out about the time WILLAIM KENNEDY SMITH was being falsely accused. The woman on the cover was in black in white, with her arms defiantly crossed accross her chest and this was the "coming out" of the date-rape thing. Also, HBO or SHOWTIME did a movie about her experience.
2) there was a speaker at our school, and I THOUGHT, and I did say I could be wrong, that it was Karen DeCostner. But if I was wrong, then I happily admit it. I know that a false allegation tore holes in my life, and I don't want to falsely paint someone with a brush of evil when they don't deserve it.
But, either way, I truly appreciate you guys taking the time to help me out and set me straight. I demand honest and forthcoming accounts/facts/statistics from others, and I hold myself to the same standard.
with regards
Steven
I'm not sure how much exposing has to be done until people realize this movement is just a hate movement. However, I am fully confident that most intelligent people can see that already, including most female and many male posters here. This is all the time I am giving to the MRA from now on ... they are, for the most part, irrelevant.
First we need to expose your
well documented quotes:
1) Characterising a whole religeon as evil.
2) Vulgarity.
Yeah, Amber swears a lot on here, and she does not like Jesus. She must be a very unhappy girl to not like Jesus.
God, you are the most condescending, angry person I think I've ever met.
Only to twits when I have had it with suffering their foolishness gladly.
First we need to expose your well documented quotes:
1) Characterising a whole religeon as evil.
2) Vulgarity.
Not just a whole religion, whole religions in the plural. And a race that comprises one.
While she erroneously gets in a snit about me calling her a hag (Which I didn't - just pointed out that in twenty years she will be one, while I'll be even sexier in a Sean Conneryesque way) She doesn't seem to upset about me calling her a bigot and a racist.
Of course, the best defense against libel is always the truth, isn't it?
No offence Gonzokid.. but I'm 36 and have every intention of stil looking good (not a hag) when I'm 43.
Not every woman is a cheesepuff scarfing piece of lard once they hit 30.
Sad thing is the majority of men grow the gut and lose the hair, and the majority of women grow everything including walmart momo's once they settle down. The sexy 40 year old male is as rare a creature as it's female counterpart, regardless of what is taught you on the idiot box..
By the way, I found the answer.
The woman who came to my campus and helped raise the date-rape hysteria was:
Katie Koestner
And the Time Magazine Cover I was talking about can be seen at THIS site. You will all probably smack your foreheads and say: "oh sh*t, I know this magazine cover, how the heck could I forget?"
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/archive/covers/0,16641,1101910603,00.html
She was the one who told the women in the audience: "if you had sex and you didn't like it, or later regretted it ... it may have been rape" (close approximation)
THE NEXT DAY the woman who I had had sex with 6 weeks earlier and who had broken up with 3 weeks earlier decided that our sex was rape.
I demand accurate facts and, although I dislike Karen DeCoster, I must not cast accusations upon the innocent. I got the name wrong guys, I apologize.
Steven Beene
No offence Gonzokid.. but I'm 36 and have every intention of stil looking good (not a hag) when I'm 43.
Not every woman is a cheesepuff scarfing piece of lard once they hit 30.
Sad thing is the majority of men grow the gut and lose the hair, and the majority of women grow everything including walmart momo's once they settle down. The sexy 40 year old male is as rare a creature as it's female counterpart, regardless of what is taught you on the idiot box..
Yeah, but that is her real fear. Biology is against her, and if some man doesn't "do his duty" to marry her, give her the life she expects handed to her on a silver platter, and makes her life work for her according to her plan, it can only be (obviously) because we socialist women-hating MRA's poisoned them and ruined it for her.
It's called killing the messenger, and despite her delusions to the contrary, the institution of marriage is cold and rigor mortis has long since set in. It's empirically demonstrable as a sucker bet and a bad deal for men, but somehow we are SOB's for not wanting to drink the poison.
Reason 844 of Why the Amber!(tm) is a Feminist. She thinks such things are her due as a possessor of the sacred boobs and the Holy Vagina. And once she leaves the sheltered life of college and hits the real world, she's going to be in for a very rude awakening when she finds out real men have higher standards than her mere plumbing.
So, Amber's form of "Men's Rights" is to have the genders act within their own roles, completely oblivious to the idea that today, being a "woman" already means to be virtually free of responsibility, while having choices, rights and freedoms.
That is what it looks like from Amber's articles that I have read.
R
So, in other words, just because I am a woman - I am automatically evil.
:roll: God, you men just need to eat it. I seriously mean that. From Galt to the a$$holes on MND forums, you are all so thwarted in your world of females = get to do whatever they want and men = saintly victimized group that you're just ... .ugh ... you're very UGLY!
Blah. I need a break from this forum. I'm leaving, temporarily. Hopefully, for good. Go grunt in your world of "We as men are discriminated against and oppressed and women get to do whatever because they are pretty world" and your "Amber is evil because she .... I don't know ... doesn't write articles that spout our agenda all the time" ... miserable world.
Ya, and, as usual, this place will just go to the shitter wi/ a bunch of whiny, morally ugly men b*tching about the world. :roll:
:vomit: :vomit: :vomit:
Meanwhile, I'll go and make a name for myself. Bye assholes. :D :D
:spam: ber,
You got what you deserved.
Good riddance and this time don't come back.
Enough Amber.
Don't let the door knob hit you in the ass on the way out. :x
Amber said:Meanwhile, I'll go and make a name for myself.
Amber,
I think you already have, and it is not the name you wanted to make for yourself. And you have done this in front of millions and millions of users on a global scale. Congratulations!
So, in other words, just because I am a woman - I am automatically evil.
:roll: God, you men just need to eat it. I seriously mean that. From Galt to the a$$holes on MND forums, you are all so thwarted in your world of females = get to do whatever they want and men = saintly victimized group that you're just ... .ugh ... you're very UGLY!
Men are ugly - well, finally the true colors come out!
Blah. I need a break from this forum. I'm leaving, temporarily. Hopefully, for good. Go grunt in your world of "We as men are discriminated against and oppressed and women get to do whatever because they are pretty world" and your "Amber is evil because she .... I don't know ... doesn't write articles that spout our agenda all the time" ... miserable world.
Translation: :sm12: I got criticized! I got picked on! You guys are meanies, so I'm running away crying!
:xyxwave: Buh-BYE! Gonzo: 83, Whiney-ass Feminazis 0 - glad to see ya got the sense to know when yer whupped!
Ya, and, as usual, this place will just go to the shitter wi/ a bunch of whiny, morally ugly men b*tching about the world. :roll:
:vomit: :vomit: :vomit:
Meanwhile, I'll go and make a name for myself. Bye assholes. :D :D
I'll be there to welcome you to the world of the published.
Assuming, of course, you make it here with me.
And here is my ultimate challenge to the mens rights activists who are going nuts over my article called Experience Means Baggage:
If you REALLY do care about marriage and want to geniuinely clean up divorce .. then why, in my article, in which I clearly come out in favor of strong marriages ... of preparing and doing those things that set up for a solid marriage, by holding out for a man, which creates a stronger marriage ... did you not embrace this?
It seems a young girl advocating setting up strong marriages, not ones that lead to divorce would be embraced by them. But it's not. They went nuts over it.
Hmmm? Can you answer that?
Simple. We don't HAVE marriage in this country. What we have is some legal arrangement which stole name of the sacred covenant of marriage, and broke it down to a temporary contract of convenience. You can put all the lipstick on that pig you want.
Marriage doesn't even resemble what it was even fifty years ago, let alone what is was a hundred years ago.
You've offered nothing in there but platitudes. You've never BEEN married, fer chrissake. And you stand their preaching to men who have been through it, lost it all, and wonder why they're asking you what the fuck you know?
Have you ever actually sat down with a divorced man who has lost everything he worked for, his family, his dreams, his kids? You ever done it without a chip on your shoulder and listened to him, without a hundred "yeah buts?" Ever watch one of them take the exact same school picture and put one on every wall of their house because he otherwise only gets to see his flesh and blood every two weeks - unless mommy decides she doesn't feel like granting him his visitation this time? Watch him be damned for having one job and not enough money to pay child support, and doubly damned for having a second job and not having time left over for his kid?
Ever gather among a group of friends at a 20th year reuinion, and find almost all of them have the exact same story? The only ones who don't are almost to a man either gay or never married?
Good God. You honestly just don't have a clue, do you?
Gonzokid pretty much says it all here and in other posts above. (Good show GK - BTW, are you gonzo over at MND?)
Amber, I also hang out here and at MND (although I'm much more active over on the MND boards than here), and my problem with your articles and posts (can't really call them arguments) is that you seem to really not have a clue. Let's face it, you're a 20-something college girl who is trying to preach about marriage to us guys who've been there, done that and have been raked over the coals. You on the other hand argue for conservative values, etc., which frankly, only provide for privilege and advantage for women in our modern world. In many ways, you would like to take us back to the past of the 1950s (when I was a kid) with respect to how men treat women, etc., but keep all of your Y2K+ perks that feminists have provided for you. The problem most of guys over at MND (especially us older fellows) have with that is we see this ploy for what it is: Having your cake and eating it too. In fact, there was a very good article by that title by the computer programmer in Indiana just a few days ago over there, which sums up your problem pretty well.
Go there, read it and get a clue.
Gonzokid pretty much says it all here and in other posts above. (Good show GK - BTW, are you gonzo over at MND?)
Amber, I also hang out here and at MND (although I'm much more active over on the MND boards than here), and my problem with your articles and posts (can't really call them arguments) is that you seem to really not have a clue. Let's face it, you're a 20-something college girl who is trying to preach about marriage to us guys who've been there, done that and have been raked over the coals. You on the other hand argue for conservative values, etc., which frankly, only provide for privilege and advantage for women in our modern world. In many ways, you would like to take us back to the past of the 1950s (when I was a kid) with respect to how men treat women, etc., but keep all of your Y2K+ perks that feminists have provided for you. The problem most of guys over at MND (especially us older fellows) have with that is we see this ploy for what it is: Having your cake and eating it too. In fact, there was a very good article by that title by the computer programmer in Indiana just a few days ago over there, which sums up your problem pretty well.
Go there, read it and get a clue.
Thank you. Gonzo, Gonzoman, Gonzokid, The Gonzo Kid, and Pete Jensen, the computer dude from Indiana are all one and the same.
:-)
So, Amber's form of "Men's Rights" is to have the genders act within their own roles, completely oblivious to the idea that today, being a "woman" already means to be virtually free of responsibility, while having choices, rights and freedoms.
That is what it looks like from Amber's articles that I have read.
R
So, in other words, just because I am a woman - I am automatically evil.
I have no idea where THIS came from. I never once, in any post, on any forum, on ANY topic, stated that Amber, or ANY woman is "evil". Now you are just making stuff up to make me look like the villain.
"We as men are discriminated against and oppressed and women get to do whatever because they are pretty world"
But this EXACTLY what males have been put through for decades!!:
(Feminist point of view) "We as women are discriminated against and oppressed and men get to do whatever because they are pretty world"
[Whatever 'pretty world' means.....]
(One confused) Renegade
GONZO !!!!???!!??
GONZO!? Did YOU write "having cake and eating it too"!?
In the words of George S. Patton : "you magnificent bastard!!"
I loved that article. I saved a link to it in my satire section of my Men's Activism writing folder on my computer. Wow, .... but you know ... it's still not your BEST work. Wanna know, IMHO, what is? The one time, I KNOW YOU REMEMBER THIS ONE, where you ripped into that fe-MALE on Men's Activism ... : "may your mistress beat you only lightly, may your yoke be of velvet, go, go you mangy cur, leave us. And let us quickly forget that we ever called you a man".
Dude I was literally laughing my ass off and read it in two parts because I was laughing so hard.
We have different writing styles, but I appreciate yours. That piece still sticks in my head.
"having your cake and eating it too" was good too. Nice going man!
Steven
Gonzo is awesome! Don't stop writing man.
Damn! Gonzo is Pete Jensen!!!? What a magnificent piece of well-stated writing!
If that's true...[assuming the prostrate position, arms waving in utmost respect]
<loading BFG....click>
Thank you Dr. Evil
NEO is on the scene
Hey guys
Thank you. Gonzo, Gonzoman, Gonzokid, The Gonzo Kid, and Pete Jensen, the computer dude from Indiana are all one and the same.
:-)
Then I want to tell you that you are one of the best writers around regarding men's rights issues. I enjoy all of your various personae; as I said, keep up the good work!
Mr. Bad, aka "Chris" over at MND
From what I can tell, gonzokid hates me for nothing other than being a 23 yr old female. The fact that he presented as an "argument" to me the idea that I'll be a "hag" in 20 years while he'll be a stud in 20 years is just ... bizarre first of all, and proof of the fact that since I am young and therefore relatively sexually attractive, he hates me.
Men's rights.
Women's rights.
Children's rights.
Amber, keep writing. It is not easy. Your critics "will" change over time, but you will allways have critics. Yes you are young, and your writing is less multidimenssional than a more mature writer would produce. The point is your are a writer and your critics are not.
Just keep stroking
Amber wrote:From what I can tell, gonzokid hates me for nothing other than being a 23 yr old female. The fact that he presented as an "argument" to me the idea that I'll be a "hag" in 20 years while he'll be a stud in 20 years is just ... bizarre first of all, and proof of the fact that since I am young and therefore relatively sexually attractive, he hates me.
First, Amber does not seem to understand the concept that women age a lot quicker than men. Men are basically studs forever.
Second, Amber,
you don't have it going on; please, if someone is attracted to you, they really need to get out more and see the rest of the world or put their glasses back on.
Second, Amber, you don't have it going on; please, if someone is attracted to you, they really need to get out more and see the rest of the world or put their glasses back on.
If we HAVE to have this ongoing idiocity could we please keep it civil? And yes, I'm also talking to you Amber.
This whole theme is getting really lame people. We all know Amber's agenda. It's Evil's board so if you don't want to read Amber's stuff then don't read it. This horse is dead - could we let it rest in peace now?
Quote:
"First, Amber does not seem to understand the concept that women age a lot quicker than men. Men are basically studs forever. "
I don't think it's so much a case of men aging slower, as it is that an aging man is still sexy. Why the double standard? Because the 'sexy' woman is a figment of men's and women's collective imagination where the 'sexy' man is a model of an actual man.
Of course, that's only in western society, where women are supposed to have silky smooth skin, firm large breasts, red lips, long, black eye-lashes, long, fine hair, thin, but not muscular figures with long legs and wide hips and thin waists, etc etc etc... most of that is enhanced or made-up completely with makeup and wonderbras and corsettes, and high-heals... etc...
Men wear what is functional, do not wear makeup, and do not enhance their bodily features with clothing that squeezes them here and pushes them there. (there are of course acceptions)
Example: A man with a wrinkly face is sexy (Clint Eastwood, Sean Connery, etc...) while a woman with a wrinkly face is old and unnattractive (Mother Theresa, Margeret Thatcher, etc) ... it's hard to name many women with wrinkly faces, because they work so hard to prevent anyone from seeing them, so my examples are kinda poor... I mean those women may be unattractive for other reasons than just their faces, am I right?
Women become unattractive to men because men value youth. Men become attractive to women because women value power and success and confidence. Something mature men have in quantities - at least compared to younger men. On average.
Before anyone gets started on how shallow that makes men look - we also value intelligence, kindness etc etc etc but then so do women so I left that out.
yeah but I thought we were talking about physical attractions...
besides, the idea that men want only young women or the idea that is prominent, that women are most attractive betweent he ages of 16 and 22... is largely a social construction, due to shaving legs, wearing makeup, wonderbras, etc, all the things I listed in my last post... that's my point.
Women saw their way to power as being through men, so they tried to present themselves as super-feminine. .. now that this has backfired, women try to blame it on men's narrow-view of attraction towards women.
that is why I said it's because of the propagation of a false image by both men and women... women wear the damned makeup, but men get more excited about it... its both.
I am talking about physical attractiveness Nic. Just like a fat gut was a sign of success once-upon-a-time, a man's age is visible in his face and the clothes he wears. You'll never hear a woman rhapsodize about how hot the old geezer is who cleans her apartment lobby is - but stick him in a nice suit and let her get the impression that he's well off. Well, you get the idea.
I don't see any of this as a bad thing or indicative of shallowness in women. Everybody makes snap decisions about attractiveness based on what they look for.
As for men liking made-up women in heels etc...well, maybe to some guys I guess. Lots of us think it's stupid. I prefer a fresh face without embellishment. Is it possible you're confusing media representations of attractiveness with what real men and women actually appreciate?
Quote:
"but stick him in a nice suit and let her get the impression that he's well off."
That's more under the banner of 'hidden agenda' and 'lying her ass off'
... don't think that young bimbo wife of Rodney Dangerfield's is actually sexually attracted to him, NO! He's attracted to her, she's attracted to his money!
...
Quote:
"Is it possible you're confusing media representations of attractiveness with what real men and women actually appreciate?"
I'm just suggesting that the line is severely blurred.
Amber wrote:
From what I can tell, gonzokid hates me for nothing other than being a 23 yr old female. The fact that he presented as an "argument" to me the idea that I'll be a "hag" in 20 years while he'll be a stud in 20 years is just ... bizarre first of all, and proof of the fact that since I am young and therefore relatively sexually attractive, he hates me.
First, Amber does not seem to understand the concept that women age a lot quicker than men. Men are basically studs forever.
Second, Amber, you don't have it going on; please, if someone is attracted to you, they really need to get out more and see the rest of the world or put their glasses back on.
No, Amber misses the point.
All Amber has for her is her desire for marriage and a family.
Tick ... tick ... tick..tick, tick, ticktickticktick...........
Trouble is, that isn't going to last forever. She has - what? - another 20 years, tops? Then that dream is gone, forever.
I'm twenty years older than her. Hell, in twenty years I'll still be able to be a new daddy. :-)
Right now she has looks and fertility to offer for that. In twenty years, it'll be gone., and all the King's horseman, and all the King's men...
Amber needs to learn (and men for that matter) that she is not bargaining from a position of power. We can pass over a whole generation of spoiled little princesses and be okey-dokey. And every man-jack can still have
HIS dream of a family. Women like Amber would be wise to remember that, and sweeten her attitude a whole mess - or reqign herself to settling for some nancy-boy who'll slobber over her and compromise himself for her because she bears the holy love-muffin. Oh, yeah. There's a real go-getter of a man; nothing says "pantywaste" like being pussy-whipped.
Ain't biology grand?
Gonzo,
Indeed: let's see what this and the next generation does to adapt to the "me me me me" female that dominates and seeps into every nook and cranny of men's lives in the Western World.
I have my theories, and have already stated them elsewhere here.
Women have no idea what's coming.
Right here, right now.