Started by foldedintobeauty, Mar 14, 2008, 02:49 PM
Alright, I believe you. I just wanted a straight answer is all. When people start to refuse to answer it is annoying and suspicious, and I have had enough of people not answering questions. As to the rest, that all sounds correct. I have long held that a major flaw in thinking that single parents can do as well as married ones is just what you described-perspective. It is hard enough with two parents. I really have a hard time following what this has to do with the thread, which thanks to folded has really not had a true focus from the start. Please stop acting like I am unable to see reality. I have two sons and have been married 13 years, and have much experience including being a single mom for a few years. So assuming I have no perspective or experience is not a good way to have me pay attention to your posts. I have given you absolutely no indication I am unable to see reality.
I will try and be easier to understand from now on.
From now on I will treat you as a woman who understands the big picture. I did just want to use the site to dump crap on and I had sort of hoped to make enemies. It just seemed a logical (OK, illogical) solution to my problem of having to make commitment.
I guess life was too comfortable for me and others (many others) that a revolution just seems so radical.
SO why did you want to make enemies? I can understand the dumping on bent, as I occasionally will hit pandagon or feminista to argue. But why do you want us to hate you?
I guess life was too comfortable for me and others (many others) that a revolution just seems so radical.Yes, as women we do have it quite comfortable, and many women I know do not want things to change. I can understand that, no one wants to give up advantages. However, if you believe in true equality, and if you have men in your life you love (I have my husband, sons, and many family members and friends who are good men) you can see that things need to change, even if it means some discomfort.
The men's movement, by and large, seek real equitable solutions such as 50/50 joint custody, parity in spending for education, medical research, selective service, etc. I can see most of the MRAs, having gotten what they fought for, being willing to trade places with women.
Don't fool yourself. The men's movement has no backbone. It is no creation of a better picture. It is only a side that pulls down the other side. Think about it. When the left wing is in power what does the right wing do? It pulls down the left wing. And when the right wing is in power what does the left wing do? Pull down the right wing. The men's movement is not in power yet. We have no idea what they will do. In my country I had joined the men's political party but quit because they stand for nothing. They only ride on the back of an anti movement. So what will happen when the anti movement wins? What will they do?
Quote from: julieDon't fool yourself. The men's movement has no backbone. It is no creation of a better picture. It is only a side that pulls down the other side. Think about it. When the left wing is in power what does the right wing do? It pulls down the left wing. And when the right wing is in power what does the left wing do? Pull down the right wing. The men's movement is not in power yet. We have no idea what they will do. In my country I had joined the men's political party but quit because they stand for nothing. They only ride on the back of an anti movement. So what will happen when the anti movement wins? What will they do? MRAs most certainly stand for something. And no its not just some "anti" movement. Its an awakening. Its convincing other men that, as women gained freedom from traditional roles that were shackles, so we can gain freedom. If women think being a wife and mommy is some opprssive role with no choices then why can't men see that working the same crappy job for 40 years is also oppression. Why do we men have to play the part in a play that closed a long time ago.
Also MRAs do have to take an anti-stand against someone who is activily being bigotted toward men. Maybe now men are just reacting to bad things, wish them to change then will go back to their lives again. That is not an un-noble thing. If invaded, farmers beat their plows into swords, rise up then return to farm. I'd prefer that movement to one that continues to fight when the fight is over.
If MRAs are just an anti-movement, what are feminists? The fight is over. Its done. Stick a fork in it. But feminists continue playing women-firsters. That to me is more of a destructive movement than men who rise up, fight then go back to their lives when the job is done.
This is something I think is often misunderstood. The men's rights movement isn't really a movement at all. It's a reaction. We are very reactionary, and we are definitely more interested in correcting injustice than we are in exploring our inner selves (aside from an inordinate interest in dating advice). This is not a bad thing, since who do you "react" to once you attain your goals? This defacto abolishment of the movement at the end of it's useful life, this "planned obsolescence" if you will, should reassure rather than alarm.
That is a part of feminism. A part of socialism. That is what you will get if you go along with the flow. Less hours and more time with your family. Did you not know that it was the women's movement that made men and women work for 40 hours. Before then if was far more hours just like the Chinese.
What has the black/brown movement in USA done? Sure they pulled down the white for ages. But then they realised they needed to build there own empire.
Think about it. Did feminist actually protest against males or did they protest pro women?
OK, so they are not perfect. But you need the radicals in any movement. Without the radicals you don't get the moderators. It will be the moderators who will come out on top. Men can't be cashing in as radical feminists did. The circumstances today will not accept it.
You are not going to get people idolising women hate books or attending women hating seminars. They are not yet in that position.
I know and most radical men that I know; know (hope that makes sense) that we are never going to get recognition for our work. It won't be us that goes into the history books. Don't you be fooled that men and women don't know that this is a day to cash in on men's issues.
So you were a long time men's rights activist? And you found what? When you got into the mechanisms that you were put into an impossible position?
I never saw feminism with real, tangible goals.
Double standards abound in feminism, which are not found in the MRM.
The MRM has very clear goals, in part due to feminism. Feminism set standards, both of what could be and what to avoid. We now want equal spending for medical research, DV shelters, gender specific education, etc. These have all been established by feminism, so we want the same consideration. We also want the same consideration in the law- the same choices, freedoms, and chances for men to parent their kids.
In a way we have feminism to thank. They brought these issues to the front, gave men something to react to, and broke them from being forever content to continue sacrificing themselves. Of course, before feminism, women were standing right along side men doing the same thing, so it is hard to pin down whether a MRM would have been needed without feminism.
OK, is julie also foldedintobeauty? If yes, why is she allowed to have two usernames. It is confusing.