iFeminism is a scam

[scarbo]

I've been following that thread, too, and no, I don't think your remark was it.

[Stallywood]

Lord that site makes me sick. Calling the Mens groups women haters, and inciters of violence. And then others jump into defend it. Makes me sick. Lord why did I LOOK?

Stally

[CaptDMO]

Despite the site giving me the heebie jeebies, I lurked and posted again (can't seem to give up smoking, either, and I know that's bad for me).  
Guess I'll never learn. :roll:

lol, I'm never sure whos posting under what name over there. I see some of the same stuff delivered in the same style and I suspect (warning; conspiricy theory) self promoting points of view with a mere change of shoes. I find it useful and warranted to consider certain personae as one and NOT wast too much time re-reading the stuff that  is clearly ghosts and echos . I find this true at several fem sites. I do not have, nor need,- the IT,desire, or time to track this stuff down. I've gotten better at cut and paste of my own stuff so I don't have to use up my resources opining- YET AGAIN- on stands I've made to the same counterpoint, made under  different name(s).

I'm not that good of a liar and I can't keep track of my marbles. Lose 'em all the time.  As such, I use only one name everywhere. Of course sometimes this is like a drop of blood in the water. As soon as I post, no matter what I post, the sharks circle and the feeding frenzy begins.  I can easily stand up to that, what's annoying to me is schizoid reinforcement of the desperate-clinging to life preservers. A different sort of straw men.

I can be fairly lazy as well. Bless those of you that have the strength to deconstruct -point by point- the ravings of lunatics only to face "Yeah, but .....tomatos are really vegatables because the school system considers catsup a vegtable in the FDA approved nutrition pyramid." (sorry, non sequiter, but that was the point)

Train wreck-no, well, compared to other places that exist by radfem logic I think it's more of a fender bender. But then, I too,can't seem to give up smoking .

[Roy]

I read the thread and thought that Ms. McElroy made one good point, that being, there is a school of thought within the MRA movement -- maybe call it the "Mass Revenge Club" -- that appears to want to punish all women, legally overturn basic civil rights (i.e. voting), and enact further retributions and sanctions based solely on gender.

She argues that this is a path towards more government intrusion into private matters, and would result in dangerous restrictions on individual rights. (More importantly, she suggests it will doom the men's movement.)

This opinion seems pretty logical, given that MRA's have denounced feminism as a hate movement that seeks to criminalize all men based merely on their membership in a given gender.

Where I have some confusion with Wendy McElroy's logic is in her insistence that women who have not actively supported radical feminism should be somehow "given a pass," and that they are individuals, and not members of the sisterhood.

That just doesn't cut it, because passively accepting feminist tyranny is only a degree or two less complict than being an active proponent.

And, whether you march with NOW or just watch on the sidelines, if you're female, you enjoy the same unfair advantages of bad feminist laws and widespread social prejudices against men.

Like the good Germans who maintained their civility while their Jewish neighbors were being loaded onto railway cattle cars, iFeminists seem to be focused on debating ettiquette during a gendercide.

[Dr. Feelgood]

I read the thread and thought that Ms. McElroy made one good point, that being, there is a school of thought within the MRA movement -- maybe call it the "Mass Revenge Club" -- that appears to want to punish all women, legally overturn basic civil rights (i.e. voting), and enact further retributions and sanctions based solely on gender.

That's nice, so what is your username on her board?

[Quasimodo]

Things seem to have gotten worse since my short post. Brad seems to think 25-50% of MRAs are closet misogynists. (That idiot Brian thinks MRAs are 99% misogynist.) And Wendy...

Wendy wrote on pg. 2 of the thread:

Men's rights will fail. it doesn't seek a better society. It seeks to hurt all women in order to damage those responsible for gender inequity.

I can't take my eyes off this car wreck. Must -- God help me! -- read the rest of the thread. I'm goin' in.

[Sir Jessy of Anti]

Holy shit, she has Amberitis

[jaketk]

Things seem to have gotten worse since my short post. Brad seems to think 25-50% of MRAs are closet misogynists. (That idiot Brian thinks MRAs are 99% misogynist.) And Wendy...

Wendy wrote on pg. 2 of the thread:

Men's rights will fail. it doesn't seek a better society. It seeks to hurt all women in order to damage those responsible for gender inequity.

I can't take my eyes off this car wreck. Must -- God help me! -- read the rest of the thread. I'm goin' in.

thank GODsomeone else read that line the same way i did! thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

[Galt]

What the heck is going on here? ... :

http://www.ifeminists.net/interaction/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2329

Beste
Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 83
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:02 am    Post subject: Another example of misandry  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Men in trouble now that even their sperm isn't necessary


Quote:
If more men were supported in lowering their expectations of themselves to be clever in more practical ways, they might also be more valued. I think the man without suit or glory is a gem, and needs to be encouraged as a role model. Watch out any woman who has thoughts of living in a world without them. Your drains will not get fixed.


Back to top      


Kafka
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 317
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:50 am    Post subject:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's Beste's relationship to she that cannot be named least she troll your board for umpteenth days? I'm asking because Beste historically has come in to do that sort of thing, and take each side of the argument as it fits her that cannot be named agenda of the day.

Back to top      


Beste
Joined: 08 Apr 2004
Posts: 83
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:15 am    Post subject:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kafka wrote:
What's Beste's relationship to she that cannot be named least she troll your board for umpteenth days? I'm asking because Beste historically has come in to do that sort of thing, and take each side of the argument as it fits her that cannot be named agenda of the day.


You do realise that you giving yourself away by posting this? And that she who that cannot be named might come down to get you.

You should stick to the topic at hand. What do you think of the article?

Back to top      

--------------------------------------------------------------------

My bold above.

I've got my suspicions, because I've already had a bizarre thing with Kafka and Wendy.  Subject to Wendy's revisions and bannings.

But there are questions upon questions ....

1) How does this tie in with Dan's theory of the conspiracy with the Council on Foreign Relations and the Illuminati?  (LOL - kind of kidding).

2) Why is Kafka so motivated for certain issues?

3) I think I know the "person who won't be named".  But I'll wait for a possible comment from Beste.

4) Why don't we ever see Kafka and Wendy together??  LOL

[Galt]

I'd like to also add that on one of the many instances that Wendy said she got death threats and all the rest from MRAs, I posted four words:

"Any real-world examples?"

That was the whole post.  That's it.

My post was instantly deleted, and I was banned.

Quite a question, I guess.

[Galt]

My personal opinion is that Wendy's message board is the dumbest thing that she could have done - because a WHOLE lot of people are going to catch on to the difference between her opinions on Fox News and her REAL opinions on her website.  And reject her ultimately.

Her niche is a woman on men's side.  But if you look at what she really thinks (ostensibly what she writes day-to-day on her website ...), she's got to also know, even unconsciously, that she's earning money from men who are almost desparate to have women AND SOCIETY understand what they are also going through.

From that point of view, it is pathetic that a mediocre writer (at best, really at best) is pulling in her money from hypocrisy.

[Galt]

I really (honestly) don't want to overstep my bounds here with Dr. Evil's website.

I am so aggravated by what goes on there that I'm thinking about starting a separate website against her, but if I'm overstepping the bounds with my comments here, I'd like to ask for a PM from Dr. Evil.  I really respect your website, and I don't want to damage it for you.  I think this website is very valuable, and I don't want to get into trouble with opinions here.

[dr e]

I've been following your assessments Galt.  As far as I can tell they are just your opinions about another board.  We used to do similar sorts of things with the MS and NOW boards so I don't think it is so out of line.  Probably best to avoid  personal attacks or smears but I don't see that so far.  I also don't want to get into a board war of posting he said she said stuff.  

It does seem a bit odd to delete posts that are the reason for someones banning.  I guess my preference is to leave all posts up to let people judge for themselves and to be able to go back and learn something from whatever mess may have happened.  Deleting it seems to create a climate of uncertainty and I would guess that that would lead to the fear of not knowing what the boundaries might be.

[Beste]

I really (honestly) don't want to overstep my bounds here with Dr. Evil's website.

I am so aggravated by what goes on there that I'm thinking about starting a separate website against her.

Galt

Why do hate her so much? I've just been banned from her forum but I still don't hate her. I feel she's soft on feminism and her criticizms of mens rights are somewhat unwarranted.

I do not believe that she is disingenuous about  her brand of feminism and that  if more  were like her, we would not facing the same problems as we are today.

[Galt]

I also don't want to get into a board war of posting he said she said stuff.  

Fair enough - and I understand that.  I think I'll leave it ...