This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Amber
Most Jews I know are not offended by Christmas references.
This is nonsense and I'm sick of arguing this issue. I find it funny that "kal" accuses me ad hominems over and over again then calls me ignorant and naive.
I have a newsflash for you kal: even men heavily involved in men's rights activism admit other men's rights activists are socialists.
As far as marriage goes, go take a look at the MND forum. Look at who they hate. They hated my article called "experience means baggage." Why? Why would they hate a girl coming out and advocating doing wise things to make strong marriages. Because they hate marriage.
They also hate Tom Sylvester. Why? What in the world has Tom Sylvester done? Here is a tip: he is a strong promarriage advocate.
Other people on this board have made the same comments I have made. Alicia called them what they were a long time ago: the reverse version of feminists. Closetrighty has been able to see them for what they are: a hate movement. Karen DeCoster has come out against them often.
They're a bunch of leftists. Anyone who is conservative is hated by them. Feminism is not their enemy. Conservativism is.
Now would you please stop obsessing over me? My position is my position. I told Mike a long time ago that I wasn't going to write any articles criticizing the men's movement again. I'll leave them alone, so as long as they stop harrassing me and threating to organize a ban/boycott against me (which will be futile anyway) - for doing nothing but writing pro-marriage, pro-morality articles.
Anyway, I'm done with this stupid "men's rights" debate. As I said, I find their movement to be irrelevant. The healthy majority of them are victim-minded and angry. This includes men on this board. They would rather shout down writers like me or Tom Sylvester than do anything to make any change. Are you going to tell me what POSITIVE change - and GOOD ACTIVISTS out there are making a difference? The ones you say that are not victims ... where are they? What government law are they helping redirect? What congresspeople are they lobbying to clean up the divorce industry? The fact is, none of that is going on. They are not targetting any politicians or trying to change the law. They do do a lot of hating though. That pretty much is all they are full of.
Hear that Amber? They provide a voice for women. Men simply want a voice too, without people like you calling them evil and victimist.
Fine, but it is still not done in the name of "women's rights."
Here is the list of similarities in mra and feminists.
1.) They are both socialists
2.) They both hate marriage
3.) They both hate chivalry
4.) They both play the victim card
5.) They both really don't like it when you hold them to standards
6.) MRA is filled with misogyny; Feminists are filled with misandry.
You mention Erin Pizzey as an example of unbiased research for men's rights activism. Erin did not advocate for men; Erin distinctly advocated for women and provided women's shelters to battered women.
I read an article by a MRA once that came out and said the split should be 50:50: fathers should get primary custody of their children half the time and mothers the other half. This is strikingly similar to feminists who say engineering professions should be 50:50 male to female.
Beste's usual unbiased poll ... :roll: No, they should not be let back here.
Ho hum ... waiting for BOZOKID to respond to this. :roll:
When I started my club I said "Individual rights as applied to gender issues." It would be "Individual rights as applied to men's issues." "Men's rights" like "women's rights" is evil from the starting gate.
Besides that: here is a tip. The only men the men's movement are gathering are victimized men. Men who were ripped in divorce; men who had their kids taken away from them; men in jail for being falsely accused of hitting or raping a woman. These men do not make good activists. The best activists are not victims. Victims, especially ones without any kind of resolve, only want to hate things. The only thing the kind of people they are picking up are good at is the start of a hate movement. Re-routing the image and purpose of the movement isn't just a matter of being ethical; it is a matter of being effective.
Come on, dammit, this is interesting. Someone else posted this elsewhere.
"I went through POW camp at Howard AFB, '92. Two weeks of escape and evasion (eating grubs, yummy!), and two weeks or interrogation resistance. I got a broken jaw that never healed straight. Doesn't bother me, just looks funny in pictures at some angles. When I point it out to my friends, sometimes they are really amazed, guess it doesn't show so much in everyday life. Need to get that fixed someday.
For me, the worst thing I can remember was the asphixiation. When I started to clam up, they decided that those who won't talk don't need air. Big 55 gallon drum of water. I must have taken a dozen wet naps. After it was over I got to meet the doctor who made sure I didn't drown.
Did they give you those zip-ties for the all-nighters? A really good puch or kick would get you a zip-tie on your pocket, when the next guy took over, he kinda had an idea where the last guy left off. I was really simple-minded, and didn't negotiate enough. I got the nickname "Prom Date" - pocket *full* of zip-ties. Yea, yea, I know 'did you put out' - already heard all of the prom-date jokes.
How about AFLQV? Air Force Loves Quick Victories! .... ..... .... ... . .!
Gettin' the stuffins kicked out of you for two weeks solid really is a life-changing experience. I 'lacked the intellectual flexibility required to trade information for mercy.' I was too stupid (I like to call it single-minded) to believe that they would quit beating me if I talked. And me and one of my buddies learned about clostrophobia; "Don't put me in the box! Don't put me in the box!" (they put us in the box) Zzzzzzzzz. That was great.
I remember telling myself "The information you contain is the only reason they are keeping you alive". When that quit working (the idea of death didn't seem so bad after day 3), I kept telling myself "They wouldn't kill you mercifuly. They would keep you alive, only then you'd be no use to them, and they could do anything they wanted." These two mental tricks kept me quiet the whole time, as far as I remember.
They broke me too, but (I'm not making this up) I do not remeber the event where I divulged. Did I block it out? I don't know. I remember being in a semi-concious state a lot of the time, just in miserable pain. Got TSSPI, then spent two years in Juan Valdez's magical burro land. Beautiful country, though. Became a believer there."
I hate different "brands" of feminism. Women who start going "Wait wait wait ... don't give up feminism ... let's just REDEFINE IT ... and TAKE IT BACK ... " ... grrrRRRRrrrr, they make me want to :vomit: No, feminism needs completely dismantled from the inside out. You know what it reminds me of? It reminds me of Shirin Ebadi coming out and saying "No no no ... the problem isn't ISLAM ... it's the WRONG version of Islam ... please please please give Islam a chance, let's just REDEFINE it."
Anyway, these women are enablers. Sommers, McElroy, etc. In this respect, I think they do more harm than good.
Anyway, just a random, drive-by thought from Amber[TM].
Question for Amber: If we started an organization called the Independent Men's Forum, and had the same principles, would you call us evil MRA's?
No but perhaps evil IMFers. Just kidding.
If you had the stated mission statement was that you advocate individual rights for men and women, the whole ballpark would change. If such a thing were to happen, it would not be a mere name change. People who fundamentally understand the importance of individual rights would have a correct movement. It would look completely different - not just in name. Yes, it would be rational and appropriate.
For instance, I consider the IWF to be a part of the women's movement, albeit a much more venerable organization than what that phrase would normally conjure up.
Ummmm ok. The IWF questions feminist dogma over and over again. It advocates career women, but it advocates that women themselves be capable and competent enough to get jobs on their own merit not through the government. If you call that the "women's movement" then, well, whatever. It is more a Republican movement than it is a women's movement.
My response to Amber's response:
I am wondering if the problem isn't a question of labels then. I am starting to think that what I define as "Men's Rights Activist" and what you define it as are different.
I remember this speech teacher I had who I had a lot of respect for. She was strong in personality and articulate in speech. She and I got along very well. One day I asked her if she was a "feminist" as she had a lot of strong opinions on men and women. She responded "first ... you define what you think a feminist is, and then I will tell you if I am a feminist or not". That answer has always stuck with me, and I think it is why we can't see eye to eye now.
To ME, an MRA is a person who is advocating for equality when feminists have distorted what "fair" and "unfair" are. To me, an MRA is a person who educates other men on potential dangers that face them in today's society, and lets them know where the "landmines" are. To me, an MRA is someone who writes letters and sends E-mails in support of men's groups or of legislation that will reverse legislation that feminists have put in place that is inherently unfair.
And on a personal note I, like you, have a lot of desire for traditional relationships. I also believe the "disposable relationship" of today (like the "baggage" article you wrote) has distorted what men and women think they are "supposed" to want.
What ya think?
No, I think definitions have objective meanings, not arbitrary definitions. This is exactly what feminists did. "Feminism" never had an objectivie definition, so anyone and everyone would become a "feminist" - even if they were a libertarian or Marxist. It's goal was to maintain popularity and never get pinned down to a position. You could say "feminists don't advocate morality." And they will come back "Well not MY brand of feminism." Then another person could come with a different and opposite critique, "I don't like feminism because they force their morals of anti-pornography on other people." And someone could be right there, "Well not MY brand of feminism." So you can never argue feminism head on as they are always dodging in and out of accusations. You can think of it like a CIA op trying to find Saddam Hussein, and every time they get him, he morphs into some different figure, and says, "Hey look I'm not Saddam Hussein!"
Men's rights are not a valid concept. Period. Individual rights are.
Sorry, but you would have got upset had I not responded.
I know; it needs expanded. These were my rough ideas and outline. I was hoping for feedback.
I don't think "intuition" is a bad thing. I prefer to call it being "perceptive." If you are highly sensitive to something, you can often see/understand that something almost instantly. A doctor can spot a disease quickly; a therapist can spot some mental problem easily; a stylist can see bad fashion quickly; with my trained eye - I can tell what kind of man I like instantly or what I don't. It is not "intuition" I suppose. It is taking things from the conceptual to the preceptual level, which is what man's epistemology should do. [Think of it as learning a foreign language in a conceptual way at first, then being able to do it effortlessly later].
I am like a bull dog.
"Look ... your kind of story is exactly how feminists got their movement started. They took a lot of women who felt like victims, or were victims, and extrapolated their situation on to the population at large. They gained a lot of sympathy by taking REAL issues - like women being raped and then not getting justice - and made a huge propaganda out of it.
I am going to tell you what I would have, had I could have, said to women who were victims thus caught up in feminism: don't get caught up in the movement. They used female pain and exploited it - turning it into a hate movement.
Situations like yours were artifically created victim-cases. Men cannot and will not as easily play the victim card. So they had to do something awful to men in order to get them to join the socialist bandwagon, which necessarily means turning men into victims, and haters, and who feel like they are "owed" something as all socialists believe. That is exactly what I see happening.
I have said before: anything that is done in the name of "group" rights is evil. It is by definition a protectionist movement. This is exactly what the men's movement is and will continue to turn into. Look at all their fundamental tenets: they are the exact same thing as feminists. Look at how many MRA hate women - just like feminists. Were I accusing the feminists of hating men, they would tell me the same thing the MRA are trying to tell me - hey, we don't ALL hate men you know! Whatever, it doesn't matter. MRA also hate marriage and want to destroy chivalry. Here is why: because those pupeteering the strings know feminism is going to collapse shortly. It cannot stand public scrutiny - hardly any women consider themselves feminists anymore. They need to continue to wreak havoc on society and destroy things under a different name now, which is what guys like you - innocent victims - are going to help them do.
In your case, I would not suggest that a men's movement is necessary: but objectivite law and individual rights. You should be hacking away at feminists in the way that organizations like the IWF does - by exposing and showing their stupidity and advocating individual rights. You should challenge the collectivist notion of "women's rights." A movement should not, as the mens rights activists are doing, look at the protectionism women get and go "hey we want it too!" You may say you do not, but the fact is most MRA do.
The IWF does things for men often. The very reason why they started is because feminists were trying to ruin Clarence Thomas's career. This is an appropriate method to deal with it; not "mens rights" activism.
So there, that is my answer to you. "