Attack on Men's Rights.

[InternetDevil]

First let me remind you what MR movement is about.  We stand for nothing more and nothing less then gender equality -- equal rights, equal responsibility, equal accountability.  And that is a traditional value -- at least since "All people are created equal" was written in our Constitution in 1787.  We also believe that everyone should have basic human rights -- including presumption of innocence and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and torture.

    What makes us the way we are?  After all many men today suffer ugliest forms of discrimination, but few become masculists.  You see, only a few people who are most aware of their human rights and human dignity can not be forced to or manipulated into accepting their rights being violated.

    We do not hate women.  I would not appreciate a poor person from China hating me just because I am a privilaged American.  Nor do I expect any woman to tolerate anything less then respect from me.  I love my wife.  My sister had a lot more courage and self-respect then I did.

    Unfortunatly, some women want men to be silent about discrimination they experience, and thus allow the discrimination to grow.  (Do not worry, given the small number of men in our movement it should grow tremendously for at least 20 years until enough men speak up.)  And they do not want the men who have suffered discrimination to express our greviences (also a traditional value dating at least from 1787).

    There are two approches to fighting men's rights -- the more honest one described in School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse by Status of Women Canada.  Section 319 Canadian Criminal Code imposes 2 years sentence for hate speach.  I would suggest increasing it to 25 years and putting few Canadian masculists in Kingston.  That would galvanize men's movement -- which is after all about constitutional rights.

    Then there is a dishonest approch.  Pretend to be antifeminist and accuse us of "whining just like feminists".  Try to persuade us that all group movements are evil (was not civil rights movement a minority group movement?)  And most importantly -- persuade us that "real men" take violation of their rights in silence.  But let me tell you something: REAL MEN are the men who stand up for themselves.  That is why I will address some issues which are missed in Amber vs. MR discussion.

    Now Amber obscessively attacks men's movement as she once attacked feminism.  I think she needs a target to attack for some strange psychological reasons.  I think she mentioned drinking and hangovers.

    My main argument against Amber's attaks on men's movement is the moral bankruptcy of the attaker.  She accuses others of tyrany yet tries to impose her values on others.  She is an atheist who talks about her premarital sex life and then praises traditional values.  Is that not hypocricy?  

    She characterises a whole religion as evil.  Do we not call it bigotry in 2003?  As a Jew I have strong theological differences with Christians.  For instance, I do not believe in being patient when I am abused or loving those who hate me.  But I respect Christians who do.

PS.  Did Amber mention in 2001, that it would be OK if women did not have a right to vote?

[Sir Jessy of Anti]

"There are two approches to fighting men's rights -- the more honest one described in School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse by Status of Women Canada. Section 319 Canadian Criminal Code imposes 2 years sentence for hate speach. I would suggest increasing it to 25 years and putting few Canadian masculists in Kingston. That would galvanize men's movement -- which is after all about constitutional rights."

This is a very dangerous and stupid thing to say.  First off, if the law was amended like the report suggests to include speech against women instead of gender  that would be blatent tyranny against men.  Why do you suggest such foolishness?  Do not count me a part of any agenda you claim to have.  This is no doubt the single most wrong thing I have heard in a while.  The honest thing to do - is to cut the funding off for organizations like this that do not respect equal treatment under the law.  This study cost taxpayers 75K and was a complete waste of every penny.   This point was even discussed in the legislature on national TV.  This report in itself set feminism back 20 years, and boy am I glad everyone who read it can see what they are about.

[The Gonzman]

Jess, I think he spoke of it as a means to GALVANIZE the Men's Movement.  Much in the same way I mean it when I say I think women should be subject to the draft.

Why?  Do I believe women should be drafted, and in combat?  No.  In fact, I think they are not only useless in a military setting, but a liability.  I don't think they should be in the military at all.  But - first time some spoilt little princess fills out a draft card, watch that shit change in short order.  No woman beyond the first year would ever fill out another draft card.  But no man would either.  

We've failed, until recently, to make feminism cost something for women.  Every demand has been quietly met in hope it would be enough.  Time to start presenting the bill.

Watch it suddenly become attractive to return the booty.

[Sir Jessy of Anti]

1) It's much different.  He is suggesting imposing a new tyranny on us simply to attempt to rally us.  We are already rallying, we don't need the tyranny thankyoumuchly.

2)  At least with the draft, you are already subject to an unconstitutional abridgement of your rights.  You are simply saying you want equality under the law, or no law at all; whereas he is saying he wants to impose inequality under the law.  Completely different IMO.