Messages

31

Main / Amber and the mens' movement

Dec 17, 2003, 08:39 PM

http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20898#20898

I have in fact already gotten emails in the past day of supportive people telling me they don't want to see me banned.  They also write in their emails that they agree with me:  the reason why I am hated is because I advocate personal responsiblity, which is not a tenet of men's rights activism.

32

Main / A running list of MRA behavior

Dec 17, 2003, 08:37 PM

My arguments against the MRA are not baseless nor are they ad hominems.  In this case, it is calling a spade a spade.  Unlike them calling me a feminist apologist, my points against them are valid.  They have no justification for their attacks on me other than a) I am young or b) naive.  None of their attacks on me have anything to do with the content of my articles.  If they want to take me point by point, fine.  I'm not scared of clarity and truth - in fact, I love it.  It's spin and propaganda that frightens me, which is what they are full of.  Anyway, this is the thread where I will build my case agaisnt MRA.  Notice none of the threads at the MND forums attempt to bring up my *points*.  As I said, it is all irrelevant things like my age.  I am building a case here of what *points* the MRA make that make me make my charges against them.  Interestingly enough, while there are posters here who have posted recently, none of have touched this thread.

33

Main / Amber and the mens' movement

Dec 17, 2003, 08:32 PM

Whatever.  The men's movement is a hate movement as was feminism.  Anything grounded in "group rights" like this is.  It is by definition - and every bit of empirical evidence shows that this movement is a group of victimized or victim minded men who have nothing but hatred - not hatred for feminism but women especially conservative women.

Any and all "Objectivists" should know this.

34

Main / The 21st Century Joan of Arc

Dec 17, 2003, 08:24 PM

This was posted at mensnewsdaily.com, you know - several several weeks ago.

But, anyway, take all my charges against feminism in this article, and the bogus concept of "women's rights" and flip them around and apply them to the men's movement and "men's rights", and it's exactly the same thing.

35

Main / The 21st Century Joan of Arc

Dec 17, 2003, 07:16 PM

Gee ... what's this?  I wrote this last August.  I dare say ... yes, it looks like it ... why it's an article that advocates women be virtuous!  How about that!  I can't believe my eyes - little old misandrist me doesn't believe women be able to do whatever they want and men do everything.  SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!

Eat it, men's rights activists.

36

Main / Challenge to the hate-Amber club

Dec 17, 2003, 07:10 PM

Hey Amber, if you read the guy's history you will see it is hyperbole.  He wasn't being serious - his point was more that these boards even obsess about such things in the first place, and that they should get back to talking about the subject matter.

I know that.  As I said, they are wi/o direction and that guy nailed it.

37

Main / A running list of MRA behavior

Dec 17, 2003, 07:05 PM

Lalalalalalala ... here is more ...

Fred Reed wrote this article in response to that woman who wrote that article about men in their late 20s who won't marry.  He said this woman was a hateful woman and women like her, who had "chips" on their shoulder were running around all over the US - and that men need to get out and move to Europe.

Really.  A woman who wants men to marry women.  Ya, sounds like an angry evil feminist to me.  

It's very obvious what his beef is.  It's NOT the angry feminist, who are in fact turning girls into women with "chips" on their shoulders.  It's the CONSERVATIVE woman, who wants men to get married.  The fact is:  these men do not EVER want to get married.  They want to move to Europe, where marriage is basically dead, so they can just have access to women w/o bourgeois constraints.

It's funny the targets MRA pick.  It's not feminist women - for all intensive purposes, they AGREE WITH MOST FEMINIST PRINCIPLES.  It's the conservative women.

38

Main / A running list of MRA behavior

Dec 17, 2003, 07:02 PM

Humming again .... here is another one ...

One guy emaild me once, in hateful response to one of my articles.  In the email he said to me that because feminism has put things in such favor of women "women aren't allowed to have any self interest" anymore.  Then in another email he also told me women's place is in "submission" to men.

Pffffft!!!  I took that to some of my Christian friends and asked them if women were supposed to be obedient, docile, completely submissive dolt-like wives.  They just laughed their asses off.

Typical behavior of a men's rights activist - he mostly considers female self interest not feminism to be the enemy.  And, a guy like this ... mostly, he is nothing but a tyrant.  I emaild him back and told him people who speak of altruism like that are tyrants - they don't speak of altruism for them but for other people.  This guy gets to blame feminism and try to justify it as reason for his own neurotic need.

39

Main / A running list of MRA behavior

Dec 17, 2003, 06:59 PM

I was asked to "be specific" about what men's rights activists do that I loathe.  Frankly, I already have.  My work on it is easily available on the internet.  But, anyway, I'll start a running list of their behavior right here on this thread.  If you want to state what MRA "accomplishments" are too, then list them. [And I suppose trying to get me banned/killed will be one of them ... pffffft!   :laugh2:] I'll give you examples of what they do, the emails they send me, the articles they write, etc.  


Lalalalala <hummging a song> ... god, this is so easy ...

Here is my first example.

I was talking to a "men's rights activist."  One who has complimented me on having an "individual mind" in fact.  He told me what I thought of a guy who couldn't get health insurance as he needed surgery to prevent some disease from getting worse.  

Well I didn't tell him, but I think it is a guy who totally evaded responsiblity.  A guy who waited until the shit hit the fan, and then when wet in it said ... "GEE I SHOULD HAVE PLANNED AHEAD!"

Then he moaned to me, right away, that "were I a woman I could have gotten insurance."  Well, that may be true, but it's regardless.  It's wrong a woman gets it because of the corrupt law and it would be wrong for the guy too.  

Just one example of a "men's rights activist."  Basically a guy that goes, "Hey look, women are getting away with evading personal responsiblity so we want to too!"

40

Main / Challenge to the hate-Amber club

Dec 17, 2003, 06:51 PM

My age is an asset.  I'm well aware of this.  That is why I have a push right now to get my stuff published to the masses.  At 23/24, they can't start investigating my personal life to try and find dirt.  I don't have 3 divorces, 5 kids and 4 step kids under my belt.  If you are going to talk about sexuality, it is better to have a young, feminine woman doing it.  It's easier for a woman to do it than a man.  If a man is going to do it from an Objectivist angle, he had better be quite a man.  He would have to be masculine, which actually, talking about sexuality, romantic love, etc., might compromise his masculinity in the eyes of the public.  And in fact I've seen just that.  I watched an Objectivist man try to talk about masculinity once - and he himself was a pussified wimp - and it totally didn't work.  

So far, the only people who harp on me about my age are, ironically, older people with BAGGAGE!  Older people's advice to younger people is disgusting.  My one young friend came up to me and older architects were telling him being an architect is tough work, it's not do-able ... give up now.  And this is taken as "maturity," the height of "wisdom," - a oh-so-insightful bit of advice that men are impotent and life is hopeless. Sorry, but this isn't "MATURITY."  This is baggage.

I am  an idealist but not because I'm young; it's because I'm an Objectivist.  I may have been at a university, but I was still an engineering major, which is nothing to shake a stick at.  I also worked 20-25 hours a week to pay the rent.  I wasn't exactly a liberal arts major that did nothing except theorize about ideas all day - I was expected to produce results.  I worked with my hands; I worked on projects - it prepares young professionals.  It was one of the best schools in my field.  This is not a valid argument against me.  

Even if it was, it doesn't matter.  If you are going to throw out these random personal insults, like I am young, naive, and idealistic - back them up.  What is naive about me?  What is so Utopian and un-doable about what I say?  I know lots of older people that I've worked with on various things.  I ask them if they think I am naive.  They all say no.

Anyway, not a drop of this matters.  I only wrote for MND because Dan sent my stuff in.  I've thought about whether or not I should continue as I thought perhaps it might be better if people didn't have access to things I said outside of a professional editor, etc.  I mean ... if you think that stopping me from writing at MND is going to be the end of me or the end of my world, you're nuts.  I'm a little more resilient than that.

But whatever.  You guys need to get a life not to mention direction.  Maybe you could go boycott a feminist or something.  The fact that you hate me reveals just about everything about you.  The fact is:  I advocate virtue.  Yes, I do advocate virtue for men and women.  I have an entire article called The 21st Century Joan of Arc which advocates virtue in women and lambasts feminists for enabling women to become victims.  So go f*ck yourselves with the idea that I let women off the hook - I don't, you just wish I did so that way my message of virtuous men won't be so grating on your ears.  That's exactly what the men's movement is:  a bunch of guys who want to evade responsiblity and moral character, which is why they hate me so much.  

And you know damn well what I'm saying is true.

41

Main / Challenge to the hate-Amber club

Dec 17, 2003, 06:27 PM

God this is hilarious.  The hate Amber club is, apparently, preparing to ban and/or kill me over on the MND forum.  

What exactly did I do?

My last 3 articles were

1)  The US is the world's liberator - an anti Chomsky article
2)  Experience Means Baggage - a pro marriage, anti-left article
3)  Morals:  The Anti Drug - a pro morals article

What exactly in there has anything to do with anything that they would get pissy about???  Unless they are a bunch of anti-war, anti-marriage, anti-morality dirtbags?

I don't even get their virulent hatred of me.  I wrote ONE article specifically targetted at the men's rights movement called Gender Healing.  EVEN ANGRY HARRY liked that article.  

Well, anyway, these guys are funny - and very irrelevant.  Below is the funniest comment.  

"Who is this Amber chick? Is she like the arch-enemy of Men's Right's? Damn...I've been involved in this thing called Men's Right's for awhile now and thought men were making headway. Are we really doomed now???
Is she even bigger than Hillary? How did I miss this??"

42

Main / Saddam Interrogation

Dec 17, 2003, 06:15 PM

My CIA buddy was just on O'Reilly.  

They talked about Saddam's interrogation.  Mr. Simmons said that they are going to force Saddam to watch tapes of his crimes over and over until he breaks down.

Sounds like a good plan to me.  

O'Reilly asked about truth serum.  Simmons said it was fair game, but it seemed like he was trying to convince O'Reilly that it likely won't be necessary

43

Main / 2003 Top Ten Campus Follies

Dec 17, 2003, 02:56 PM

http://www.yaf.org/press/12_16_03.asp

2003 Top Ten Campus Follies

"Gender Blind" Dormitory and "Discriminatory" Flyer Top List

Our nation's education system continues to be weighted down with incidences of bias and political correctness. Young America's Foundation compiled a list of the top ten most shameful campus events in America's education system in 2003:

10. Gonzaga University (Spokane, WA) administration officials censored a conservative student group's flyer advertising a Young America's Foundation organized lecture because the word "hate" was used on the flyer. The flyer in question featured the topic of guest speaker Dan Flynn's speech, "Why the Left Hates America," which is also the title of his book. The administration first approved the flyer then rescinded the approval after some professors purportedly complained of the use of the word "hate." Furthermore, in a letter obtained by the Foundation, Gonzaga's Office of Student Activities informed the conservative student group that a complaint was made against the group because some individuals felt "the Left Hates..." printed on the flyer was "discriminatory." The letter did not identify who raised objections to the flyer.

9. Park Ridge elementary school officials in Nampa, Idaho told an 11-year-old student to stop wearing his patriotic military theme T-shirt to school. The T-shirt depicts a monument at the Fort Lewis military base in the state of Washington. It shows "Iron Mike" hoisting a rifle with a star in the background. After public pressure, school officials reversed their decision and admitted the T-shirt did not fit under the school's policy prohibiting clothing depicting guns or gangs.

8. Students at Smith College, an all-female school in Massachusetts, voted to remove all feminine pronouns from the school constitution and replace them with gender-neutral ones. The editing of the constitution is part of an effort to make transgender students feel more welcome on the campus.

7. The president of the University of Arizona sent out a formal letter to the class of 2003 stating that tortillas will not be allowed at their commencement. Throwing tortillas is a tradition at the university's graduation ceremony, but the university president thought the tradition was disrespectful to many of the school's Hispanic and American Indian community members. Members of the Chicano/Hispano Student Affairs (CHSA) organization said they know the tradition is celebratory and not meant to offend.

6. A group of teachers and parents at Jefferson Elementary School in Berkeley, California is pushing to rename the school because Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder. Supporters of the name change say that it is insensitive to leave the name of a slaveholder on a building with a large black student population.

5. A 14-year-old New Jersey student was suspended for five days for drawing a picture of a stick figure U.S. Marine shooting a Taliban fighter.  School officials said the student was being punished for the drawing, that it was "highly inappropriate," and the school took it "very seriously."  The student's dad and step-dad are in the military.

4. The Roger Williams University (RI) administration froze funding and attacked a conservative campus organization for advocating diversity of thought through the group's publication, The Hawk's Right Eye. The university's president, Roy Nirschel, sent an email to all students and faculty denouncing the paper and claiming the organization flirted with racism and "crossed seriously over the lines of propriety." He went on to state that while the university affirms "the right of campus organizations to hold different points of view and to disagree, the university will not condone publications that create a hostile environment for our students and community" and added that the university is "too busy for hate." Student activist Jason Mattera says the harassment by administration officials began when his group published articles in their newspaper countering attacks on Christianity, freedom of association, and diversity of thought made by two university sponsored guest speakers this fall. The guest speakers were Judy Shepard, mother of slain homosexual Matthew Shepard, and James Dale, a gay man excluded from the Boy Scouts. Shepard stated during her Welcome Week speech that "churches are damaging us as a society. They don't allow us to grow." Dale castigated the Boy Scouts and trivialized its right of free association.

3. A professor at Citrus College in Glendora, California forced students in her Speech 106 class, a required course, to write anti-war letters to President Bush and penalized their grades after some refused. When several students asked if they could write letters supportive of Bush's policies instead, the professor refused and informed the students their grades would suffer if they wrote such letters. The college sanctioned the professor and apologized to the students.

2. Professor Nicholas De Genova of Columbia University stated during a six-hour university teach-in on the war in Iraq that he would like to see "a million Mogadishus"--a reference to the eighteen American soldiers who were ambushed and killed in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993.

#1. Wesleyan University in Connecticut now offers a "Gender Blind" dormitory floor for incoming students who aren't sure what sex they are. Students who ask for the floor will have roommates appointed without regard to their sex, perceived or otherwise. The rooms will be set aside for transgender students, described as those students born with ambiguous genitalia or who don't identify with their physical sex.

44

Main / Emotional Sophistication not Suffocation

Dec 16, 2003, 10:31 PM

Emotional Sophistication not Suffocation

Today it is popular to think that emotions and reason are antagonistic to each other.  The belief is emotions and reason are severed from each other, and one must choose one or the other.  One is either a wild, untamed brat or a boring, passionless robot.  This is the reason-emotion dichotomy.

The robot, deeming emotions to be nothing but wild, untamed possessors of man, seeks to deal with them the same way "liberals" want to deal with guns:  by completely eradicating them.  

The only way to maintain objectivity, the robot believes, is to completely deny all emotions within oneself.  Otherwise they will be thrown into a chaotic abyss where they cannot run their lives correctly or make sound decisions.  

The opposite side of this dichotomy is fully advocated on college campuses; they are the ones who have a vested interest in perpetuating this dichotomy.  Reason, most college professors preach, belongs to the boring and uptight.  It is the passion-less yet practical older couple down the street; it is the boring accountant.  Reject this, they say, and follow your "reptilian" brain.  

Ironically, those who adopt the emotion side of the reason-emotion dichotomy do so also, they believe, to maintain objectivity.  Reason, they believe, necessarily means lies, fraudulence, and evasion.  Emotions and intuition, to them, are genuine.  

Indeed, this is the entire crutch underlying this whole false dichotomy.  The reason-emotion dichotomy will come crumbling down as soon as a person answers this question:  what is objectivity?  

Objectivity is the philosophical recognition that reality is external to oneself and that the human mind comprehends that reality. Subjectivists abandon reality in favor of the mind; intrinsics abandon the mind in favor of reality.  Subjectivists believe truth is in human consciousness - an arbitrary preference; intrinsics believe truth is in reality but no amount of human thought processes it - it happens through faith or revelation. Objectivity rejects both.  Objectivity is like a laser scanning information.  It is a mind focused on reality - coming to valid conclusions that.

There is only one thing that blocks objectivity:  dishonesty.  That is - anything that stops a person from evaluating reality with an honest lens intent on finding out something is.  

Emotions do not cloud objectivity.  A person can be consumed with rage, love, fear, or ecstatic joy, so as long as their mind is willing to evaluate the facts of reality honestly, they maintain objectivity.  For an example of this, think of a military officer being raided by an enemy, who might be consumed with urgency and anxiety, but still gathers data correctly and leads his troops as best his mind can.  Objectivity deals with how a mind functions.  Unless a person is drunk, massively confused, or worse - has a mind that was produced by today's educational system, they can maintain objectivity.  Objectivity does not mean to approach an issue with no personal stake at hand or without emotion; it means a willingness to understand the facts of reality correctly.  

Those who adopt the emotion side of the reason-emotion dichotomy have no hope of objectivity.  They live in their inner world and hate the outer world.  They may be fiercely honest with their emotions, but they are never honest with reality.  

Neither emotions nor certainly the mind stop a person from objectivity.  A person who believes this must re-evaluate their premises.  

Professors have a vested interest in advocating the reason-emotion dichotomy.  It gives them an excuse:  to be in favor of emotion one thus must allegedly reject reason.  They do not love emotion; they hate reason.  The robots are in the same camp, however.  They do not love reason; they hate emotion.    

Reason and emotion are not antagonistic to each other.  Reason guides emotion.  The goal is not to suffocate emotion but to manage it. The completion of an adult is not to turn into Mr. Spock; nor will the human race be completely "evolved" when our reptilian brain is weeded out.  Life without fear and anger may perhaps be nice, but life would not even be worth living without love, passion, joy.

An emotional response, even an automatic one, to one's surroundings is a healthy thing.  Ayn Rand called this is a sense of life.  She defined it as "pre conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence."  Man's reactive mind, i.e. his automatic response to his surroundings, does not need eradicated but programmed.  When evaluating the world, there is no reason to be cold or unresponsive to it.  If it weren't for man's reactive mind, things like love at first sight would be impossible.

(Love at first sight is not the product of someone who has no convictions and just miraculously finds something he, for no apparent reason, regards as beautiful. It is a product of man's fundamental convictions and understanding of what he finds to be virtuous, which is then executed simply and effortlessly upon seeing his love.)

Many great people who contributed great things on this earth embraced emotion. Imagine the accomplishments of George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., or Ronald Reagan without the emotional element.

Embracing emotions as guided by reason sets one on the path to real emotional maturity:  emotional sophistication not emotional suffocation.

45

Main / Feminism is about the reduction of women's rights.

Dec 16, 2003, 10:19 PM

Yet, as per our other conversation, you were unable to think of any corresponding duties women might owe society equal to what you think men should owe.

No, I just stopped reading those posts as MRA make me want to vomit and I'm not giving you guys more time than I already have.  

Why does it matter?  God, see how warped you men's rights activists are?  First of all, for the goddam last time I DO NOT ADVOCATE THE DRAFT.  Regardless, let's say I said it's men's duty to serve their country in wartime, as a moral responsiblity or something ... so what?  See how your men's rights activists mind work?  The very first thing you say is "But what should women do!"  It is basically like a child crying that he has to do a chore and asks what his sister is doing.

I don't know ... raising children or something petty like that.  God, get over yourselves ok?  

I understand you are being pragmatic, but so am I. Your lack of imagination on this subject speaks volumes.

WTF?

You don't think women should be nurses or doctors or anything during wartime? I'm sorry, but you attempt to refute history with no valid counter-argument.

Sure, nurses ... in civilian clothes as they always have, not in military outfits.  I've said this repeatedly.  I'm not sure if you don't know my argument, can't understand it, or what.

This is the article I was talking about.  Gee, if you spent 3 seconds doing an internet search you could have found it.  :roll:  It is called "In Defense of John Walker's Parents."  

http://www.glennsacks.com/in_defense_of_jw_parents.htm

Here is Sacks exposing his utter leftism:

Charge #3: They caused their son's problems because, like so many Northern California liberals, they were overly "tolerant" and they gave their son no values.

This charge is based on the utterly fanciful notion that if parents firmly implant a moral and political value system in a child, when that child becomes a teenager he or she will always follow it instead of rebelling against it.

Anyway, you are resorting to all sorts of ad hominems.  You're picking apart my every word.  And you aren't standing up to Gozokid for being such an overbearing prick.  I'm not talking to you about this issue anymore.  I've said what I had to say.  All I have to say regarding these men, if you choose to get further sucked into their grotesque mindset is:  I told you so.