Master debaters needed at Kerry forum!

[bluegrass]

I've had to take a little break from there for a while to catch my breath.

There are some huge messages of perspective floating around there from many of the women:

"We own the relationship"

"We own the children."

"Behave yourself and be a good employee."

[Phebe]

As for putting the blame on women for divorce, well, maybe if men appreciated their wives more, they wouldn't be faced with women divorcing them for lack of appreciation. "


Ummmmmmmm.........remind me what is wrong with that? Looks like a sensible statement to me.

[Galt]

<<Ummmmmmmm.........remind me what is wrong with that? Looks like a sensible statement to me.>>

Sounds good, but if a man flipped it around to how wives should act, he'd have the whole NOW hit squad on him.

[Phebe]

Actually, there are books about that now for women. The burden of which is that we shouldn't be so critical and should try harder to make husbands happier.

That way around seems reasonable too.

People used to know this stuff, but somewhere it got forgotten and everybody decided it was somehow a good idea to criticize each other constantly.

[Galt]

<<That way around seems reasonable too.>>

Ouch.  I was looking for a fight and here you go again being reasonable.  It's depressing.

[Phebe]

Ooops, I forgot.   :twisted:

[SouthernGuy]

Ummmmmmmm.........remind me what is wrong with that? Looks like a sensible statement to me.

Lack of appreciation isn't something the you can easily quantify. It is a generic term that women use to justify divorce when they get bored or become tired of having to compromise in the marriage. (i.e., princess syndrome)

You don't hear of men initiating divorce because we don't "feel appreciated." We know that in general, we simply aren't appreciated and we deal with it, it's part of life. Remember Chris Rock's rant about how nobody gives a f*ck about daddy?

SG

[Quasimodo]

Back to the John Kerry Forum----

It really burns me that there is no Men's Forum over there. It burns me that the wide topic of men's issues has been confined to a single thread in the Civil Rights Forum. It also burns me that Sandra is using heavyhanded tactics to silence some voices even in the confines of that thread. It absolutely chars me to a crisp that these harpies with John Kerry's ear will ensure that he is never even aware of the dissatisfactions of men. But we can burn back:

the forums are:

Fighting for America's Veterans and Troops

Restoring Jobs and Rebuilding Our Economy

Strengthening America's Schools foor the 21st Century

Affordable Health Care for Every American

Ensuring Civil Rights for All Americans

Iraq and Foreign Policy

Homeland Security, Defense and 9/11

Energy and the Environment

Working for Small Businesses - the Engine of Our Economy

and, lest we forget, Women's Issues

Each and every one of these topics has a men's rights angle -- some more obvious than others, e.g., Health Care. Small Business, for instance, has something like a 60%+ female start-up rate while the number of male-owned small business startups is receding. Foreign Policy is receiving feminist input into the rebuilding of Iraq and favoring women. I don't even have to mention the Veteran's section. If we use our imagination, we can guarantee they'll be at least one men's issue thread in every forum. (Maybe we should just skip the Women's Issue Forum: we don't want to alert the mods to what we're doing.)

[Quasimodo]

One other thing. The name of the threads should not include words like "Men's Rights," "Men's Issues," or anything that would red-flag it to the mod-censors.

[BikerDad]

Okay guys, lets get a grip:

There's no point in wasting time over there.  This is because, even if Kerry is elected, and he comes on gangbusters for men's rights, he'll still have the entire Democrat Party, which is completely infused with the radical feminists stench, populating his administration.  It is an oft neglected point, but every Presidential election is as much about the PARTY as it is about the individual candidate, perhaps even more about the Party.  The candidate can shift the course of the party, but that's about it.

It may serve as good training, "live fire exercises" in a sense, to engage in the discussion over at Kerry's forums, but its unlikely to have any effect whatsoever on either Kerry or his supporters, because those are, by and large, the most ideologically driven of the lot.  You may get lucky and enlighten some moderate lurkers, but don't expect much from "the management" or most others there.

Okay, so I'll correct myself.  There's little, rather than no, point in spending time there.  A more productive goal would be to find forums where those who are persuadable and can be educated congregate.

[Quasimodo]

I don't know. I think I would settle for "shifting the course of the party."

If nothing else, our presence over there let's him know we are here. One of our goals during this election should be to let both parties know that we are here. Both candidates are vote-whores enough to come off their high horses and deal with us if we make enough noise. It's the same concept as when you write a letter to a television station: for every letter they get they assume that 100 (or 1000) people feel that way. In the case of a national election the multiple might be 100,000. In fact, if the Kerry wraiths can't come up with answers to our probing questions, they might see a turning of the whole board, a result which would surely catch Kerry's attention.

And yes, win or lose, if either candidate comes out for even one of our positions, that position will gain a visibility in the press and the public's eye that a century on the Web won't provide. Just like gay marriage.

[BikerDad]

In fact, if the Kerry wraiths can't come up with answers to our probing questions, they might see a turning of the whole board, a result which would surely catch Kerry's attention.

Therein lies the fatal flaw.  You are assuming that the "Kerry wraiths" will turn.  They won't.  The vast majority of folks posting on the site are committed ideologues, and the facts don't matter if they run counter to their ideology.  Since these self-same people CONTROL the boards, the effort involved to "turn" the board would be truly herculean.  It MAY be possible, but frankly, methinks the same effort would secure far greater results elsewhere.

Here's a great reading on the nature of ideologues:

Escape from Ideology

[Quasimodo]

You misunderstand. I don't expect those wretched moderators to change. Just enough of the posters. Reading through the threads, a number of posters have been informed and changed their initial position. It is a herculean task with small chance of success, but the payoff may be big. This election is very important for MRAs because it may be our last chance in 4 years to be heard. (And we might get Hillary in '08.)

[fembasher]

quiet on kerry forum? where is everyone?

[RockyMountainMan]

As for putting the blame on women for divorce, well, maybe if men appreciated their wives more, they wouldn't be faced with women divorcing them for lack of appreciation. "


Ummmmmmmm.........remind me what is wrong with that? Looks like a sensible statement to me.

What is wrong is the presumption that divorce is mainly the result of men's  lack of appreciation of women.  Of course, spouses should should appreciate each other.  But this isn't the cause of divorce.  Women, and men but most predominately women, cite reasons like "I've grown differently", "I'm emotionally dissatisfied", "I'm bored", or "I don't FEEL appreciated" etc.

This excuses that emotions are generated by the person doing the emoting.  No one is necessarily making them feel that way.  These things usually reflect more on the person making the complaint since they are self-generated emotions.  Divorcing for these reasons reflect immaturity, a lack of committment on part of the complainer, and a lack of willingness to grow as a person and become self-actuated (or self-astisfied).