Lets CELEBRATE SEXISM!

Started by Tigerman, Aug 03, 2005, 03:11 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Tigerman

Sadly I find that far too many MRA's (myself included in ungaurded moments) are arguing whatever case they are arguing but using feminist concepts as if they were quite legitimate. One such key word is 'SEXISM'.
The rail(by feminists) against 'sexism' stems from their false conception that all sex differences (aside from obvious anatomical diffs.) are the result of 'socialisation'. This is simply not true but feminists are not concerned about the truth of the issue what they ARE concerned about is gaining the power and influence to be able to effect the social engineering processes within our society\culture. Wherever a society occurs so does social engineering in one form or another because social engineering (to greater or lesser extents) is an actual by-product of social organisation.
It is important that MRA's are quite cognisant of this simple fact because rather than decry what we perceive as 'social engineering' we should in fact be arguing vigourously for the kind of social engineering that is in ACCORD (or to use my favourite metaphor 'to go with the GRAIN') with our actual natures rather than trying to thwart nature artificially by trying to impose strictures on behaviour and hiring practices by insisting that we meet a set of standards based on an absolute FALLACY (i.e. that all sex diffs are caused by socialisation alone).
Admitting to our (natural) sexist natures doesn't mean we should be also divorced from behaving with fairness,decency and all the other virtues - it just means that we stop using fallacious concepts to criticise what is perceived by some to be unwonted behaviour or attitudes. Let us use correct language and reason ebcause feminisms capacity to hi-jack know no bounds and if left unchecked we will onloy end up creating another 'tower of Babel'.
The 'Lets Celebrate SEXISM' title is meant to intimidate feminists and those who have not thought through the implications of it's use.
We ARE sexist creatures created by a 'sexist' nature - that doesn't mean we cannot act with consideration and fairness towards the opposite sex and it is very important to understand that.

justsomeguyuknow

It's very hard for me to play a game (and that's exactly what this life is, a game), politely or gracefully when your opponents constantly cheat, and manipulate the existing rules to their (her) advantage. Unfortunately that's what men and women by their very natures are, and have always been, opponents.
Like it or not
It's even more difficult to remain composed and fair-minded  when they (she)  bold-face lie about having any complicity in this trickery and deciet, accomponied by an innocent look and a fluttering of lashes.  I find it most insulting to us both...

Usually the blame is shifted back to me (him) anyway.
i.e. "You made me act that way" , "You make it so hard for me to love you." and other such ridiculous redirection and shiftless blame ducking statements.
Let's not pretend we (he) can be fair or polite when the deck is stacked so securely and squarely in thier (her) favor. They (she) will use it to their (her) advantage and flutter their (her)  lashes at you. Make no mistake about that.
Until the existing rules are scrapped and RE-WRITTEN so that TRUE equality is achieved for all,(meaning legislation benefits all men, women and children equally, and one must succeed under his own merit as opposed to being handed government set-asides for being minorities, women and children (i.e. not white men). Until it's not simply one gender (her) empowered over the other (him)), I refuse to play nice. In fact I expect to have to play even dirtier and meaner in the future, just like they (she) will in hopes of beating them at their own game. To use the femi-nacular.
Reason and good graces haven't worked for decades now, and you can't appease a tyrant anyway. You must in fact S.Y.G. if you ever expect to have any hope of success in this matter. If that means I have to hurt lil Suzy-Q's feelings along the way...I'm more than happy with that!  
After all she pretty much stomped,  killed, and destroyed mine when I was a kid.
Her's are a small price to pay for my voice to be heard!!!

Please direct all hate back to HELL where it was born.
Thank you for your attention.
- A woman's promises are written in water-

Men's Rights Activist

"The rail(by feminists) against 'sexism' stems from their false conception that all sex differences (aside from obvious anatomical diffs.) are the result of 'socialisation'. This is simply not true but feminists are not concerned about the truth of the issue what they ARE concerned about is gaining the power and influence to be able to effect the social engineering processes within our society\culture."

Yes, and herein, submitted below, I very, very admantly defend your contention.  Seriously, does anyone notice any parallels herein, between the ideology of WWII era Nazis, and today's gender feminists?

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/blumhorst/2004/blumhorst06704.htm
Quote
"Given that California has 31 Women's Commissions and hundreds, if not thousands of Women's Studies classes, while having none for men, it is no wonder that men in California today suffer under sexist and hostile environments in their workplaces: in their schools and colleges, in their government, and yes even in their homes and churches."


Quote
"In a desire to govern righteouslyCalifornia has been involved in some of the most egregious human rights violations in the history of America. One would think they would learn from their history."

"A little over a year ago, then Governor Gray Davis, and Attorney General Bill Lochyer issued formal apologies to California sterilization victims and their families. "Our hearts are heavy for the pain caused by eugenics." Davis said. "It was a sad and regrettable chapter in the state's history, and it is one that must never be repeated." In more than 30 states, over 60,000 Americans were sterilized by the abhorrent pseudoscience known as eugenics. California in it's zeal sterilized 1/3 of those 60,000 Americans."


Quote
http://www.pipeline.com/%7Ergibson/caeugenics.html
"Forced Sterilization Once Seen as Path to a Better World
Decades of files on mental patients reveal how a foundation of noted leaders hoped to influence the fate of the human race."


"The Human Betterment Foundation not only promoted the sterilization of the mentally ill, but it also advocated voluntary sterilization of the blind and disabled at public expense, as well as people with cancer, heart and kidney disease and tuberculosis. The number of people who should be sterilized "are numbered not in the thousands, not in the hundreds of thousands, but in the millions," Popenoe wrote.

When Gosney died in 1942, the foundation was known worldwide. Hundreds of thousands of its studies, pamphlets and books were distributed to policymakers, schools and libraries. Its work informed a wide audience, from government officials developing their own sterilization programs to high school students writing term papers.

"You were so kind to send ... new information about the sterilization particulars in California," Dr. Fritz Lenz, one of Nazi Germany's leading eugenicists, wrote Gosney in 1937. "These practical experiences are also very valuable for us in Germany. For this I thank you."

In a 1934 article for the Journal of Heredity, Popenoe dismissed suspicions that the Nazis were motivated by dreams of racial purity. He lauded Hitler as a visionary, quoted from "Mein Kampf" and concluded that Germany's effort was in "accord with the best thought of eugenicists in all civilized countries."

The Germans returned the compliment. When Sacramento banker and Human Betterment Foundation board member Charles M. Goethe visited Germany in the mid-1930s, leaders in the Nazi sterilization movement praised the writings of Gosney and Popenoe.

"You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinion of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program," Goethe wrote Gosney. "I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60,000,000 people."


Quote
"Once again we see California's elected representative, Sheila Kuehl, pushing the gender feminist concept that gender is socially constructed, and not something one is born into.

State Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, wrote the legislation that aligns the state's education code with its hate crime statutes. She said Ahrens' concerns were ridiculous. http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=2350&issue=850
"If they have a transgender student, they can simply do what virtually every other district who's faced this has done, and make certain that they're accommodated in a way that doesn't make other people uncomfortable or makes them uncomfortable," Kuehl said.  Aside from the financial impact to the district, children who are beginning to understand that their gender identity differs from their biological sex could be harmed if not protected by discrimination rules, said Roslyn Manley, a member of the county Human Relations Commission's Transgender Task Force."

In a pamphlet titled, "School Safety and Violence Prevention For Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgendered Students," and prepared by the California Safe Schools Commission they explain AB537 through a question and answer dialogue. I find it telling that Heterosexuals are excluded from the title of that bulletin, but not surprising. In another bulletin, Question & Answer Guide On California's Parental Opt Out Statutes, Q & A #7 reads thusly:

"Q. Do parents have the right to notice and to opt their children out of diversity education programs that include discussions of sexual orientation or other controversial policies?

A. "No. State law explicitly provides that "instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family law and do not discuss human reproductive organs or their functions is not subject to the parental notice and opt-out laws. California Education Code 51932 (b). Thus, where issues of sexual orientation or gender identity are raised in school programs other than HIV/AIDS or sexual education, such as programs designed to encourage respect and tolerance for diversity, parents are not entitled to have notice of or the opportunity to opt their children out of such programs."


Quote
"...California's elected representative, Sheila Kuehl, pushing the gender feminist concept that gender is socially constructed, and not something one is born into.  I find that opinion to be largely antithetical to the case history presented by Wendy McElroy in her recent article at Men's News Daily titled, Death By Theory.
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mcelroy/2004/mcelroy052704.htm
Further support to Wendy's article may be found in the book by Dr. Steven E. Rhoads titled, Taking Sex Differences Seriously. On Pp's. 2 & 3 Dr. Rhoads talks about other failed experiments (all boys) where "efforts" made to socially construct (reassign) gender (most including going to the extreme of surgery on sexual areas) failed miserably."

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mcelroy/2004/mcelroy052704.htm
"The little boy that Bruce Reimer was never had a chance. As an adult, he chose suicide on May 4 rather than live in unbearable torment. Underlying his death is a theory that still impacts children across North America: that sexual identity comes from nurture not nature and, so, can be entirely determined by proper social conditioning."

"In 1966, Reimer's mother took her 8-month-old identical twins to a local doctor in Winnipeg, Canada, for circumcision. The procedure went badly for Bruce, leaving him without a sex organ."

"For Money, Bruce was a perfect candidate for the experiment because his identical twin brother would act as a control for the experiment.

At that time, surgery to reassign gender had never been performed on a boy born with normal genitalia. Bruce's testicles were removed, and he underwent 12 years of social and hormonal treatment to become "Brenda.'"

"Every textbook on gender included Money's experiment and grants poured into his pocket. Doctors began to surgically "reassign" the gender of babies born with ambiguous genitals. Feminists declared human beings to be "psychosexually neutral" at birth and campaigned to change everything from children's stories to the curricula of schools in order to change the gender identity being taught to children. Money's research supported their contention that patriarchal conditioning, not nature, was entirely responsible for women's roles in society."

For years, David remained silent while Money's version of the research was applauded by feminists and continued to influence public policy on gender. Then, in 1997, biologist Milton Diamond and psychiatrist Keith Sigmundson published a report in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, which exposed the John/Joan case as a failure and fraud. To the extent that the case proved anything, it proved the opposite of what Money claimed. John/Joan suggested that maleness developed in the womb; gender could not be reassigned through medical and social conditioning.

Money's response? The report was "part of the anti-feminist movement."


Quote
"Political correctness is running amok in our society, and government, and it is high time for our new Governor to reign it in as it regards the demonization of all things male or heterosexual.  While Governor Schwarzenegger is at it, I believe it would be appropriate for him as Governor of California to issue an apology to all the innocent people that abhorrent, gender feminist pseudoscience, and government, have targeted, and hurt by playing God with people's humanity and sexuality. History has repeated itself indeed, only now it is definitely "Herstory" as much as "History.'"
Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!

angryharry

Hello Justsomeguyyouknow

Quote
Until the existing rules are scrapped and RE-WRITTEN so that TRUE equality is achieved for all,(meaning legislation benefits all men, women and children equally, ...


How would you assess this 'equality'?

e.g. see ...

http://www.angryharry.com/esEqualityNotAchievable.htm

http://www.angryharry.com/esAPermanentGenderWar.htm

I agree with Tigerman. Sex differences exist and they should be accommodated to.

And I suspect that seeking 'equal fairness' would be a better idea than seeking 'equality' - though the very act of seeking any 'balance' is, in and of itself, the very cause of much well-funded hostility these days.

And I also agree with Tigerman's view that we ignore the true nature and desires of ***decent*** men at our peril.

But I am fairly sure that there are now more than enough cognitive cluster bombs around to ensure victory on this front.

In my view, it is just a question of exploding them in the minds of enough people!

And not, necessarily, the majority of people.

Nope. Not at all.

Perhaps just tens of thousands.

Thereafter, the chain reaction would be huge.
ttp://www.angryharry.com ... the only site in the entire world with the aforementioned domain address

Russ2d

I have been saying the same thing for YEARS Tigerman, you and I are in complete agreement.

My retort to someone calling me sexist has always been, "Well then I am in good company because nature is."

I would like to say to one of the other posters men and women are NOT opponents. That is a bunch of crap. Our differences are complimentary and not a conflict.

What is a conflict is when a culture decides to create rules that are contrary to biology, such as ours has. Equality as it is defined (not being equal protection under the law) is a delusion that the advocators have no choice but to try to FORCE upon us with lies, quotas and rigged standards (more lies), tyrranical laws, redefinitions of facts-embellishments and so on.

The so-called battle of the sexes is a bunch of BS. It's not a battle of the sexes but a battle of rational men and women versus the irrational as well as those with agendas (with the usual motives of money, power etc)

justsomeguyuknow

Until the existing rules are scrapped and RE-WRITTEN so that TRUE equality is achieved for all,(meaning legislation benefits all men, women and children equally, and one must succeed under his own merit as opposed to being handed government set-asides for being minorities, women and children (i.e. not white men). Until it's not simply one gender (her) empowered over the other (him)),

I believe I made my "assessment" quite clear.  and please, if you would quote me sir, me please use my entire post.

please direct all hate back to HELL where it was born
thank you for your attention

-A woman's promise is written in water-

angryharry

Hello justsomeguyuknow

Maybe I misunderstood.

Perhaps you would give me just one example of an unfair law which you would like to see changed, and tell me how you would change it so that there was "TRUE" equality - especially in practice.

And with reference to such a law, whose notion of 'equality' would you accept, and how would this equality be assessed?

I think that what you are really suggesting is that the laws should be completely blind to gender and colour etc, and, of course, I think that in many cases this would solve many problems, but there are also many areas where this would not work so easily.

However, you also mention government handouts to women and children. Would you deny an impoverished single mother and her children **any** form of help?

You also say that legislation should benefit all men, women and children equally. Can you give me an example of what you mean by this?
ttp://www.angryharry.com ... the only site in the entire world with the aforementioned domain address

angryharry

Using "help in domestic violence situations" as a VERY SIMPLE example of the greater issue, imagine that we managed to come up with a law that ensured that if a person turned up at a domestic violence shelter then, regardless of gender, they were offered the same amount of help.

That sounds fair and equal.

But this is the kind of thing that would happen.

The feminists would be up in arms. Women are more vulnerable than men. They are more often killed by their partners and seriously hurt.  They often have the burden of the children. They are usually smaller than the men. They are more fearful. If they are full-time homemakers they might be denied money by their violent partners. Men who are violent towards their partners are usually more violent to the children. And the children must come first!

On and on it would go.

So. The women would end up with more resources.

True; the above would be a better deal for men compared to the current state of affairs. But, no way could it be called 'equality'.

And the continual juggling of all the variables to try to make things 'equal' would be an impossible goal.

And the above was an attempt at a very simple solution to a problem that is really quite uncomplicated compared to most of those facing men; viz; please just give men some help in domestic violence situations!

As I said in my piece on angryharry, the best that one can hope for is that men and women are 'happy with the deal'.

But, being happy with the deal requires that the various pressure groups - such as the feminists - stop stirring up all the hatred.

But they will forever keep stirring this up because this is how they make their living, and because a lot of them hate men.

For example, they will simply expand the definition of domestic violence - something that they have already been doing for 30 years.

Tigerman's viewpoint that the 'psychology' of the people needs to be addressed rather than their 'equality' is bang on target.

And I would also agree with his view that the psychology of decent men has to be ************IMPOSED************* on to society at large.

This would make people much happier.

Furthermore, ****IMPOSING**** this psychology is the very **route** to victory!

In other words, if we can change the psychology of the people so that they view the world through the eyes of a decent man, the rest will follow.
ttp://www.angryharry.com ... the only site in the entire world with the aforementioned domain address

Tigerman

Angry Harry seems to have grasped the essential issue rather well when he says:-

Quote
And I also agree with Tigerman's view that we ignore the true nature and desires of ***decent*** men at our peril.

But I am fairly sure that there are now more than enough cognitive cluster bombs around to ensure victory on this front.

In my view, it is just a question of exploding them in the minds of enough people!

And not, necessarily, the majority of people.

Nope. Not at all.

Perhaps just tens of thousands.

Thereafter, the chain reaction would be huge.


To this end I have already for some time been active in getting people to think more critically about the (false) assumptions underlying the concepts of 'equality' - I have been doing this in my everyday life (i.e. in gatherings with work colleagues,in bars,resteraunts and in Taxis etc.) by boldly making contraversial pronouncements starting out with words like "I am a sexist and so are YOU and in fact whatever it was you believe created us all is ALSO a SEXIST..." It is then also only a short step to explain that the whole feminist edifice (of 'equality rights' etc) is actually built on a total denial of REALITY. I then add that the rejection of feminist ideals does not mean that we have to abandon the principles of fairness,justice and common sense - quite the reverse in fact because the assault on reason and common sense caused by feminism's distortions would have been removed. Now I know some people who know me think "Uh ohh - here he goes again on his bloody soapbox" but the interesting thing is that when I get time to spend with them one to one - by then they have usually had time to notice whether on the news or in the press how unchallenged feminist notions are affecting how issues are being dealt with. The thing that impresses me most however is how ready people are to hear this message of reason because by now even the 'average joe' (as my US cousins would put it) has noticed inconsistencies in feminist positions i.e. such as their lack of concern or support for family court reform where it is undeniable that fathers face enormous bias - where is the feminist concern for 'equality' there..etc".
On here I am aware that on the whole I am preaching to the choir - but my main reason was to publicise a strategy that I have been using in my real life for some time with much success in terms of changing the way people think about issues that are affected\infected by feminism - and what better way to challenge the spell cast by the butt naked empress but by ridiculing it's chief accusatory 'weapon' aka 'Sexism'. :)

Go Up