Are you a woman basher?
Are you a woman basher?
Post by guestman on Dec 13, 2005, 3:56pm
Interesting perspective by Glen Sacks. What do you think of it?
Confronting Woman-Bashing in the Men’s Movement
By Glenn Sacks
It is said “choose your enemies carefully, for someday you’ll resemble them.” The men’s and fathers’ movement is gaining in strength and slowly making progress. However, there is a disturbing fringe element whose woman-bashing very much resembles the vicious man-bashing which men and fathers have endured for the past three decades. It is important that men’s and fathers’ activists confront this fringe rather than turn a blind eye to it.
What are the characteristics of the woman-basher?
Characteristic #1: The woman-basher believes that all women, or virtually all women, are the problem.
For example, in a recent issue of Transitions, the newsletter of the National Coalition of Free Men, a front cover cartoon depicts a pretty bride (representing a woman on her wedding day), and then a hideous, multi-headed monster (representing a woman in divorce court, presumably because she has won custody of the children and driven the father out of his children’s lives). The caption reads “This is a female. She will destroy your life in ways you never thought possible.” Most NCFM leaders and members immediately recognized the unjustness of the cartoon, and realized that it was, in fact, a perfect mirror of the radical feminist “all men are rapists” position.
Another woman-basher (WB) expressed similar thoughts in a later issue, writing that for men, bad things “will happen if you engage in risky behavior such as having sex, having a child, getting married, or [having] anything resembling a relationship with a woman.” The writer cautions that those who dismiss these inevitabilities are “the future victims.”
Characteristic #2: WBs believe that men don’t ever really oppose woman-bashing or woman-blaming, but oppose it publicly only because they’re forced to do so.
After the cover cartoon was published, there was a storm of protest from NCFM members and leaders, and the issue was hotly debated in the pages of Transitions. Many WBs, however, assumed that these protests (and the ensuing anti-woman-bashing measures taken by the Board of Directors) were made because we were afraid of our wives’ reproach or because we feared offending some by not being politically correct. The idea that most NCFM members and leaders opposed the cartoon out of simple fairness and decency did not seem to occur to them. This is similar to the feminist view that any woman who opposes feminism can’t really be against feminism, but is instead the dupe or the captive of evil, reactionary males.
Characteristic #3: WBs believe that even those females who have helped us do so out of dubious motives.
When syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker recently launched a misguided attack on Russell Yates, one men’s chatroom participant derided Parker as a “Giggling ditz-bunny” who is “another Cathy Young, another Wendy McElroy – one of those women whose image of herself is so pompously filled with patronizing goodwill towards the poor little men that she can’t even imagine how sexist and anti-male she sounds.”
Another noted that male-friendly female writers like McElroy are simply like the “farmer [who] always fattens up the turkey before Thanksgiving.” The farmer is always “meticulously friendly” but has “malevolence in her heart.” We are also told that McElroy’s ideology is that of “friendly fascist feminism” and that women like this don’t bash men because they instead try to “neuter them politely.”
An outside observer would never guess that the WBs are speaking of the small minority of writers who have actually made a real effort to discuss men’s issues at a time when it hasn’t been popular to do so.
Characteristic #4: WBs believe that for 30 years women have won at the expense of men and that men can only win now at the expense of women.
As Warren Farrell says, when only one sex wins, both sexes lose. There is no way that men or women can move forward from this point unless they move forward together and on an equitable basis.
Characteristic #5: WBs dismiss women’s contributions to our movement because “it’s often women who speak up for us only because Lace Curtain censorship doesn’t allow men to do it.”
Lace Curtain censorship is real, and yes, many men have been silenced, but this doesn’t discredit the efforts of those women who have spoken out. It is important that we don’t mistreat them, as the feminists did to the many men who helped the cause of women’s liberation. Dianna Thompson, the Executive Director of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children (ACFC), says:
“I can understand men’s frustration. It’s unfair that women are typically able to talk more about gender issues than men can. If I talk about the way current child support guidelines are excessive and unfairly burdensome to fathers, people will listen. If a man says the same thing, people will look at him and say ‘He’s just trying to get out of paying.’ It’s not fair and I don’t like it, but I’m not the one who made these rules. Women in the fathers’ movement didn’t make these rules.”
Women who have helped men and fathers often find themselves in an impossible double-bind–they are labeled traitors by feminist-minded women, and at same time are disparaged by WBs. Trudy Schuett, publisher of the Desert Light Journal, has been denounced by feminists as a “fathers’ rights whore,” and Susan Faludi has implied that pro-father women are Uncle Toms. Kim Gandy, the president of the National Organization for Women, says that the relationship between men and women in the fathers’ movement is similar to the way “a man charged with rape will hire a woman lawyer to represent him.”
Conversely, some women in the fathers’ movement report that there are men who contact fathers’ groups and are displeased when a woman answers the phone or when a female activist is chosen to help them.
Since some men apparently have forgotten those many women to whom we owe a debt of gratitude, I have begun to compile a list of male-friendly women activists and writers who deserve recognition. To view the list, click here.
Characteristic #6: WBs believe that when male-friendly women writers or activists show support for the mainstream feminist view of a gender issue, it is indicative of their bad intentions.
Young, McElroy, and Parker have together tackled a laundry list of men’s issues, yet when they’ve disagreed with men’s activists (such as Young and Parker’s recent attacks on Russell Yates), some WBs have been quick to accuse them of selling-out or of double-dealing. In reality, when these women have disagreed with men’s activists they’ve sometimes been right. More importantly, disagreement and independence (as well as concern about legitimate women’s issues) don’t indicate betrayal or malevolence. And while I disagree with Young on the culpability of Russell Yates, her central point–that fathers’ activists should not defend fathers simply because they are fathers–is a valid one.
Characteristic #7: WBs use personal experience (having children stolen in a divorce, being the victim of false accusations or of domestic violence, etc.) to justify anti-female bigotry.
This is a dangerous practice, because it parallels the despicable way feminists have used victimhood to justify man-hate. One need only to look at the hate-filled feminist head case Andrea Dworkin, reputedly the victim of sexual abuse, to see where this leads. Pain and victimization need to be channeled into reasonable and dedicated political action, not woman-bashing.
A healthy response to victimization is to emulate McElroy, a former victim of severe domestic violence. Rather than turning her personal victimization into anti-male bigotry, she has used it to gain insight into the lives of all victims of domestic violence, male and female.
Characteristic #8: WBs believe that feminism has caused all of men’s and fathers’ current problems.
WBs blame feminism but ignore an equally destructive force–men’s chivalrous tendency to blame men first and women last. It is this attitude which has created what Farrell calls “the machinery of male protection,” whose victims are almost always male.
For example, in a discussion of the Texas District Attorney who is considering filing charges against Russell Yates “because of all the e-mails she received” a WB wrote “Who do you think sent those mails? Women.”
I can say from my experiences defending Russell Yates in the Houston Chronicle and on radio talk show programs throughout the Southwest that this is a misguided assumption. The most vociferous attacks on Russell (and on me) came not from women, but from men, most of whom have deeply imbibed the “always blame the man” ethic of our time. Russell ought to hope for an all-female jury.
Characteristic #9: WBs believe that women aren’t worth the trouble
One WB recently wrote about “a tale I’ve heard from a number of friends. F–king women in the feminist era is so dangerous that it’s not worth the effort, and, anyway, most women are so damned lousy in bed that they aren’t worth the trouble.” This writer could perhaps find a soulmate in feminist bigot Germaine Greer, who recently said “God knows how many women already have no use for their men, who are all too often idle and incompetent both as wage-earners and around the house, uninterested in the children and hopeless in bed.”
Characteristic #10: The WBs believe that their “radical” rhetoric and posture helps the men’s movement achieve its goals, just as the radicalism of Malcolm X helped Martin Luther King achieve his moderate civil rights goals.
Some WBs justify or even celebrate woman-bashing by referring to the Civil Rights Movement model, whereby white racists knew that if they didn’t give the moderate King what he wanted, they’d have to deal with the radical Malcolm.
Setting aside the fact that the above assumptions about King and Malcolm aren’t actually historically accurate, there is one fatal flaw with this model. At the time of the Civil Rights movement, most Americans acknowledged that blacks had been mistreated and oppressed. Thus, while Malcolm X could be criticized for his radical views, nobody could deny that the source of his rage was legitimate.
WBs do not, and in many ways should not, enjoy the same legitimacy. Men, as a whole, are still often viewed as oppressors or at least as advantaged. In practical terms, woman-bashing from our quarter often doesn’t sound like the noble defiance of the oppressed, but instead like the unjust rage of the “privileged” whose privileges are under attack. Thus woman-bashing marginalizes and delegitimizes all wings of our movement.
To be fair to the WBs, with a few exceptions, their woman-bashing is not the product of genuine misogyny, but is instead reflective of the frustration of a generation of men who have grown up in a relentlessly misandrist popular culture, and who have had almost no forum within which to oppose it. It is also true that over the past three decades we have become so unaccustomed to hearing criticism of women, that legitimate criticism is often labeled “woman-bashing” or “misogyny.” But there’s a important difference between criticizing certain female behaviors or demanding fairness from women, and the “all women are out to destroy men” attitude of some WBs.
Besides being unjust, woman-bashing could be disastrous for our movement. After 30 years of being on the receiving end of gender abuse, the time is ripe for gender reconciliation and a serious attempt to address men’s concerns. The injustices committed again men (particularly fathers) by our courts and our media are so outrageous that most people will support us if we can get the truth out to them. Even many feminist dissidents are tired of man-bashing and victimology, and have rejected anti-male feminism. The special courage–the male courage–of the heroes of September 11 has helped remind us of the many unique and critical contributions that men make to our society. We will change society, as long as we are reasonable and fair.
Late in his life Malcolm X said “the enemy is not whites. The enemy is racism.” The men’s and fathers’ movement needs to make sure it never sees females as the enemy, but only misandry–whether from females or from males. If not, we’ll become like the bigoted feminists that this movement was formed to oppose.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by chrisvet on Dec 13, 2005, 4:24pm
Women are not the problem, the political system is.
End of story. Period.
It roots everything that frustrates us today.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by knighterrant on Dec 13, 2005, 4:30pm
However it’s understandable that men object to women acting like attention whoring divas because it’s rather annoying
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by chrisw79 on Dec 13, 2005, 4:34pm
Solid critical thinking. Point 9’s a little weak to my thoughts, since it seems more anecdotal, but the rest of the points make good use of evidence and reasoned discourse.
“I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally.” – WC Fields.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by John Ross on Dec 13, 2005, 4:50pm
I agree with the article.
As someone with some successful history of effecting legal change, I say from experience that “bashing” is counterproductive because it lowers your credibility and makes potential converts less interested in joining.
We men need to avoid name-calling and stick to the positives, of which there are many.
Instead of saying “Ameriskanks are out of control,” which is nonspecific name-calling, we should say “Our family courts need to remove the inducements to break up families. Boys raised in two-parent homes are MUCH less likely to become criminals. Girls raised in two-parent homes are much less likely to become single mothers and give the world more fatherless boys that will grow into criminals.”
As Chief has pointed out, when cupcake decides to cash out, she often discovers that her new life without hubby isn’t all roses.
The men’s movement should benefit both genders by restoring the concept of partnership, where EACH has responsibilities.
I don’t think if the legal system changes to give women fewer entitlements you will say women “lost,” because by losing some entitlements they will gain something a lot of them seem to want: men who will decide marriage is no longer an unacceptable risk.
JR
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by JimP on Dec 13, 2005, 6:22pm
I completely agree. It’s true that American women are the worst in the world, by far. But it’s not the women that are the problem. It’s America (and based on what I’ve read on this board and elsewhere most other english speaking countries). You take 100 decent foreign women that would make great wives if they were to stay in their home country, move them to the U.S. and in no time at all 95 of them will become as bad as the worst of the Ameriskanks.
What it is about living in english speaking countries that turns most of the women into unbearable bitches? I really don’t know, though the legal system comes to mind, first and foremost.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by Jamie on Dec 13, 2005, 6:51pm
Funny, when I said what this entire thread says – American is the problem, not women, and what Jim P says – I’m called a troll. But a man says it, it’s ok.
Just sayin’.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by chrisvet on Dec 13, 2005, 8:00pm
Thats because you lost your credibility the first day you opened your mouth.
Therefore, now matter what you say, we’ll tell you to get lost.
Want respect? Get on your hands and knees and lick my toes.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by Just a guy on Dec 13, 2005, 8:07pm
Dec 13, 2005, 8:00pm, chrisvet wrote:Thats because you lost your credibility the first day you opened your mouth.
Therefore, now matter what you say, we’ll tell you to get lost.
Want respect? Get on your hands and knees and lick my toes.
Toes? Your being rather polite…
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by toadman on Dec 13, 2005, 10:36pm
“To be fair to the WBs, with a few exceptions, their woman-bashing is not the product of genuine misogyny, but is instead reflective of the frustration of a generation of men who have grown up in a relentlessly misandrist popular culture, and who have had almost no forum within which to oppose it. It is also true that over the past three decades we have become so unaccustomed to hearing criticism of women, that legitimate criticism is often labeled “woman-bashing” or “misogyny.” But there’s a important difference between criticizing certain female behaviors or demanding fairness from women, and the “all women are out to destroy men” attitude of some WBs.”
-Agreed
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by chrisvet on Dec 13, 2005, 11:38pm
Demanding fairness is irrelevant; voting the political system out is the only viable option.
Women don’t listen to “reason” at the expense of compromising their power. Thinking they do would be a gross overestimation by believing they possess empathy.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by toadman on Dec 13, 2005, 11:57pm
Very true chris. Looking at it again I agree that any negotiation is a pipe-dream. You can’t teach a pig to sing. It’s an exercise in frustration and only annoys the pig. Making waves about the current regime only guarantees Hillary the nomination.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by chrisvet on Dec 14, 2005, 12:17am
The article is a good piece of extremely diplimatic material.
It however leaves out 2 crucial pieces of information:
1. Women are indoctrinated with victim mindsets and have entitlement complexes. (via school systems, court systems, and all forms of media)
2. Big gov’t is ultimately the wedge that drives the sexes apart via self-perpetuating special interest groups funded by income tax.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by Niall NLIT on Dec 14, 2005, 4:50am
Glenn Sacks is totally wrong and so are the men on here who agree with him.
The wimmins movement did not get to the position of total power it now has by playing nice. They went to war and they went nuclear. If we ‘play nice’ the wimmin might throw us a bone to keep us quiet but that will be about it. The sooner men realise it is a war and that if they want to win then they must FIGHT the better.
Losing credibility my ass. Who are you trying to be credible with? The media? Government? NOW? As they say in New York fergeedaboudit!
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by khankrumthebulgar on Dec 14, 2005, 7:00am
Last night I met Bart Simpson and he and I had a two hour conversation. It was very interesting. Bart and I share a common belief that it is not our Women that is the problem. It is the culture that is broken. We need to arrive at some solutions that will allow Women who have an investment in their children and whose political beliefs are Conservative or Libertarian to join us to effect some positive changes.
We must remember it is a small group of Women perhaps 2% who have not only screwed Men and Children over they have ultimately lead many Women to a life of deep disappointment and loneliness. Not knowing or acknowledging their choices and listening to the Feminists has been the cause they instead run the script embedded in their subconcious by Oprah and the other Spin Sisters. Without realizing they spout off anti-Male venom even. The Legal System of Family Courts is out of control. It flys in the face of all concepts of Constitutional Law and Equality.
We owe it to our Daughters, Grandaughters, Nieces, and our Sisters to offer some constructive alternatives that are satisfying to both genders. The problem is we lack currently a strategy to do so.
Big Government is the problem. NYMOM a Single Mother Divorcee is typical of many Feminists. She actually believes Government “Allows” Entrepreneurs to make profits. That somehow it is “The Government” that makes our economy go. She has been brain washed into the idea that it is DC that makes this country work.
Most of what I see is DC screwing up what the people do on their own initiative. I agree with Ronald Regan’s words the scariest words are “I am from the Government I am here to help you”.
Government should get out of our Marriages and Families. Hell the idiots could not make the Mustang Ranch make money. They have lost money on Asset Seizure auctions on luxury Vehicles they seized, they lost money. Most of what I see is self serving interest who have abandoned principle long ago. Expediency and Self enrichment is king in our nation’s capital.
Look at what has happened when the GOP has gained control. They are funding a bridge in Alaska so Carribou don’t have to swim from Island to Island. It is pork barrel politics at its worst. It is writing a blank check to Developers and Contractors.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by TyHigs on Dec 14, 2005, 7:09am
Where is Antiriad???
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by Niall NLIT on Dec 14, 2005, 7:49am
It may be 2% of women that have driven this change but nearly all women are complicit as fellow travellers. Ask any women if she in favour of VAWA and she will say yes. She will say this because she is against violence against women, she has never read the act she does not know it is totally anti-male and only peripherally about stopping violence against women she just knows the title of it and thinks its a good thing.
When the non-feminazis start marching and VOTING for male rights then they will start to get my sympathy. Until then if they are not a part of the solution they are part of the problem.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by Snakey on Dec 14, 2005, 8:04am
Agree. I take harder line on this, for what it’s worth (usually it’s worth words on message boards, not a whole lot else.) I’m not going to finger-wag at incredibly angry men and say ‘now, behave’, because those men have likely had their hearts ripped out. For when it’s time to play within the rules, sure, play nice – there’s a time and place for everything. But the hard line stance makes the most sense to me: women are the problem. They’re the problem because of other problems, but they’re complicit in their own corruption, because it’s fun and more satisfying to them. Let em burn.
——————————————————————————–
Are you a woman basher? No, I’m a lie basher
Post by Truthslayer on Dec 14, 2005, 11:15am
I respect Mr. Sacks view, but I think Gonzokid did a better job.
Tell me, Eva, is it okay if we’re annoyed at that? Irritated? Mad? Angry? Maybe even enraged? Okay if we don’t believe in a system or institution that we were promised glorious things about, and which ripped out great chunks of our hearts and souls, leaving voids which can never, ever, be filled? Is that okay with you, Eva? Do we have your permission, here, to be just a tetch aggravated that this was done in the name of “Feminism?” Might we even dislike it a little bit, even for a few minutes in the morning before anyone else gets up?
Very big of you.
Maybe we might also be a little disgusted that so many women are “Janie Come Latelies” to the party, especially when they couldn’t be bothered years earlier out of simple fairness and justice and waited until – how did you put it? They realized that “Making divorce and custody settlements more equitable helps women who want families because punitive settlements discourage men from marrying and becoming fathers” and that “feminism has probably hurt women more than it helped them.” You’ll have to pardon me a bit here, Eva. See, where I sit, it sounds like there is a lot of women who supped at the table of feminism in years gone by, but now want to get out of paying the bill for it. It sounds like a lot of women didn’t believe the water was rising until it was sloshing on them – and of course, now we men, once again, are expected to “do something” and make it all better.
You can reference a lot of “Pro Male” women writers for that one Eva – preaching at us how it is high time men stood up for themselves. But, by golly, do it in a “nice” way, and don’t be mad about it, okay, boys?
I have to say, I’d be a lot more impressed over all the high sounding talk about men taking responsibility if this hadn’t come after years of urging – by women – to suck things up, to be a man, to not “judge” women by their “pasts” and make generalizations – those very things which would be the things to make us avoid poisonous women.
A more cynical man than me might think we men have had smoke blown up our asses for years by women wanting us to wait until they had theirs secured before we finally rose up and said, “Screw this bullshit…” and commenced to cracking skulls, whether literally or figuratively. Such a man might even regard the common sentiments of “Well, this is terrible, but we have to deal with this carefully, and it will take some more time while (Holy, holy, holy!) THE SYSTEM(tm) grinds away. Chill out, guys, bide your time and we’ll get it sorted out and all will come right in the end.” as a continuation of do-nothing empty words.
What becomes really aggravating in all this is the subtext and notion that there is some collective debt all men owe all women, which is not reciprocated; that absent conclusive proof to the contrary, men should give any woman the benefit of the doubt for being women, and no matter how often a man gets burned, with each and every woman that comes along, the slate must be washed clean. I reverse, though, it’s okay to collectivize men, and require each man to prove himself worthy of that kind of respect. Women want to be women, and of worth for their femininity alone – but when women collectively fall short, then it is time to “treat them as individuals.” We men are the go to guys when women have problems, and let there be bad men, it’s our responibility to police our own, to go that extra mile to “show her” that we’re not like all the other guys. Because, gosh darn it, she’s a woman, and worthy of that respect, and she’s been burned before and has a right, as a delicate flower, to be re-assured – and we ought to be a little more empathetic, we insensitive louts. Guess what hapens when that is reversed, though?
There is a broad picture one looks at when you get hammered by a corrupt system, Eva, and sadly, feminists, your sisters, have created a world in which a relationship is a minefield for men, but a gold-mine for women if they are willing to work the system. Too many women take it entirely too personally when we men get tired of playing a rigged game, of being the ones upon whose shoulder falls the responsibility of sorting the wheat from the chaff.
The men’s movement is chock full of us guys who have seen first hand past the romantic notions of marriage, by being chewed up and spit out by the family courts. For some of us, we have a couple tours of duty, and we know just how bad it can be. Divorce is a nightmare for men, and in the event of breakups of marriages there is a legal nuclear option that women hold, and are for practical purposes universally unwilling to surrender – we are expected to “trust” that she would never do that.
Past the anger and bitterness of those of us in the Men’s movement, though, the desires and goals of the men’s movement are pretty simple – and pretty clear. We want to be accounted as worthy a parent, and not subjected to the knee-jerk discrimination in the family courts. We want due process when accused, and a clean slate when acquitted. We want to be more than a wallet, a walking ATM, and we want these “equal” women to step up and throw their shoulder into the load of supporting families. We want consistant treatment – if acting the father makes us a father, and not acting one makes us not one, we don’t want to be hammered ten years down the road for support for some child we never knew we had, let alone were never a father to, because some feminism-addled chick decided years ago she wanted to be a mother and didn’t need a man – but changed her mind when reality bit her in the ass. Conversely, if Biology is the determinant, we don’t want to be mandated support for some offspring of another man we were tricked into, and made a fool of, into thinking it was our own.
We’re just sick of the spin that the moral and ethical thing for a man to do is whatever makes a woman’s life work for her; and more so, we are sick to death of being told that because we want women to have real equality, which includes all the bad of equality to go with all the good they are unwilling to give up, that we are somehow anti-woman and re-issued feminists.
Someone send a copy of this to Mr. Sacks and see if he STILL has the same view.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by skeptos on Dec 14, 2005, 11:35am
A good article. It would indeed be quite depressing to think that all women are innately our enemies. It’s still depressing to think that a large fraction of women in this society have been warped by a decadent popular culture to the point where they have little value as potential mates. But at least there’s the possibility that things will one day change.
Skeptos
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by thechief on Dec 14, 2005, 11:42am
The article is beyond right.
You can come home from school and rant all night long about how all women are the enemy, about how society is going to hell in a handbasket. You can make up statistics to back yourself up all day long. But when the rubber hits the road, you’re going to be very alone. Why? SOME OF US STILL LIKE WOMEN. As I’ve said before, those of us who have been burned the worst (Khan, the veteran of two divorces, Curiepoint, had to live in his car for awhile, JR, did everything in the world for his wife and she STILL cashed out on him, Me, wife went totally psychobitch) seem to have the healthiest attitude. It’s the posters on this board who are the most conspicuously silent on their past with women (if any) who seem to be the most virulently anti-woman. And they do it for the same reason a woman cashes out on a man–BECAUSE THEY CAN.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by TyHigs on Dec 14, 2005, 12:03pm
” It’s the posters on this board who are the most conspicuously silent on their past with women (if any) who seem to be the most virulently anti-woman. And they do it for the same reason a woman cashes out on a man–BECAUSE THEY CAN.”
LOL
TheChief, where would you like me to start?
If I didnt know better, I’d think you were saying that a man has to be married first in order to comment on the nature of American women.
But I must have misunderstood you. Nevermind..
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by thechief on Dec 14, 2005, 12:25pm
Commenting’s fine. But I still find it ironic that it’s (some of) the guys who have never been married who bring the biggest flamethrower. It’s sort of like limousine liberals who complain with pious, self-righteous outrage about poverty, make the broadest statements about the causes and cures, when they’ve never had to live within a budget or worry about where their next meal is coming from one day in their lives…
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by TyHigs on Dec 14, 2005, 12:41pm
Perhaps we are just more perceptive than you are. So not as much is needed to reach the same conclusion.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by Snakey on Dec 14, 2005, 1:25pm
It’s also that we’re younger, went through a different education system, far more feminized than the one you went through, and maybe some of us have been demonized from age 6 on. It’s also that since your formative years Chief, the culture had not yet decayed to the point it had in our formative years. This meant the women of our generation were much more vicious and shameless, and you haven’t had to deal with them in the same settings we have.
Say your piece, sure. Your high and mighty tone is misplaced, though.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by ThaPhenom on Dec 14, 2005, 3:49pm
It could also be that some of us grew up with parents who divorced.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by LifeIsWaiting on Dec 14, 2005, 4:10pm
Dec 14, 2005, 7:00am, khankrumthebulgar wrote:Last night I met Bart Simpson and he and I had a two hour conversation. It was very interesting.
Would love to hear the podcast. Is it available?
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by SingleMan on Dec 14, 2005, 4:51pm
Dec 14, 2005, 12:25pm, thechief wrote:Commenting’s fine. But I still find it ironic that it’s (some of) the guys who have never been married who bring the biggest flamethrower. It’s sort of like limousine liberals who complain with pious, self-righteous outrage about poverty, make the broadest statements about the causes and cures, when they’ve never had to live within a budget or worry about where their next meal is coming from one day in their lives…
This is total Horse-Shit. Hey Chief, did you ever think that many of the men on this board would love to have been able to marry and have children, but feminism has ruined the women of our generation?
You don’t have to stick your hand in a fire to know that it is going to burn you! The men of this generation have every right to be angry, because, if we are on this board, we are resigned to the fact that it is just plain stupid to marry an american woman.
As for the original article, it sounds like a bunch of feminist shaming language to me. Also sounds like it may turn some men off from the men’s rights movement. I normally respect what Glenn writes and says, but calling people “women bashers” is a blatent feminist trick equating all men to abusers.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by Craig on Dec 14, 2005, 7:30pm
Dec 14, 2005, 4:50am, Niall NLIT wrote:Glenn Sacks is totally wrong and so are the men on here who agree with him.
The wimmins movement did not get to the position of total power it now has by playing nice. The went to war and they went nuclear. If we ‘play nice’ the wimmin might throw us a bone to keep us quiet but that will be about it. The sooner men realise it is a war and that if they want to win then they must FIGHT the better.
Losing credibility my ass. Who are you trying to be credible with? The media? Government? NOW? As they say in New York fergeedaboudit!
Ya see, Niall, this is the kind of stuff I’m talking about.
Look at the FIRST thing you said – he’s wrong and so is everyone that agrees with him. If you can’t see that for what it is, narrow-minded, confrontational, angry, opinionated bullshit, then I won’t be able to convince you otherwise.
A real man does not need to disrespect other people in disagreement. Why can’t you show respect for people who disagree with you?
Your bad attitude reflects poorly on the rest of us.
FWIW, I agree with the article. If we are going to fight the prejudice against us, we can’t do it with anger and insults. When it comes down to rationalizing and reasoning, women are no match for us. When we are strong enough, and do not have to stoop to insults to make our point, we will make progress.
We are fighting injustice. When you fight the unjust, you have to rise above your adversaries. Not sink to their level.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by playerintraining on Dec 15, 2005, 1:01am
Dec 14, 2005, 1:25pm, Snakey wrote:It’s also that we’re younger, went through a different education system, far more feminized than the one you went through, and maybe some of us have been demonized from age 6 on. It’s also that since your formative years Chief, the culture had not yet decayed to the point it had in our formative years. This meant the women of our generation were much more vicious and shameless, and you haven’t had to deal with them in the same settings we have.
Say your piece, sure. Your high and mighty tone is misplaced, though.
I agree. The Chief’s condescending tone is a perfect example of what Glenn Sack’s alludes to when he writes:
“WBs blame feminism but ignore an equally destructive force–men’s chivalrous tendency to blame men first and women last. It is this attitude which has created what Farrell calls “the machinery of male protection,” whose victims are almost always male.”
Paradoxically, couldn’t Glenn’s whole essay be interpreted as a prime example of this chivalry?
Chief,
I can agree with you that some of the things written here (ie. Muslims have the right idea on how to handle women), are so over the top as to be silly.
Having said that, you seem a bit arrogant when you criticize the younger guys for being so negative about women.
Every time I go out to have a drink during some weekend, I see some woman exploiting some man for her personal gain. Often, the woman does her best to either get 2 men to fight over her, or attempts to humiliate him in some other way.
Oh, I forgot to mention–these are women who are either engaged or married, who do some of these things.
Simply put, there is no good way for a man to handle this situation. He looks like a coward or a hotheaded fool.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
To inflict such cruelty is something I cannot understand. Why do women do it???
Do I have your permission to get angry at that? Does my lack of interest in dealing with female bullshit make me less of a man?
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by chrisvet on Dec 15, 2005, 2:37am
Dec 14, 2005, 8:04am, Snakey wrote:Agree. I take harder line on this, for what it’s worth (usually it’s worth words on messageboards, not a whole lot else.) I’m not going to finger-wag at incredibly angry men and say ‘now, behave’, because those men have likely had their hearts ripped out. For when it’s time to play within the rules, sure, play nice – there’s a time and place for everything. But the hardline stance makes the most sense to me: women are the problem. They’re the problem because of other problems, but they’re complicit in their own corruption, because it’s fun and more satisfying to them. Let em burn.
I hear u buddy. I don’t tend to give women the pleasure of taking my energy to hate them for being anti-male bitches. Let em burn? From the context of saying “fuck you, stand on your own 2 feet and pick up your own mess” – the absolutely.
Hate takes too much energy. (as crazy as this sounds, when you forgive people and understand they only act a certain way because of circumstances around them, it takes a big load off ones mind.)
What I’m really saying, is women will never hand that power back. It must be taken through a fight (which I’m sure you agree), but more importantly a vote.
Thats the single most important message that must get through to all men. If 22% of men will never marry in 2005, it’ll be 29% in 2010. Point being, this is a tremendous opportunity in our history to take advantage of an oppressed group. (men.)
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by chrisvet on Dec 15, 2005, 2:45am
Dec 14, 2005, 11:42am, thechief wrote:The article is beyond right.
You can come home from school and rant all night long about how all women are the enemy, about how society is going to hell in a handbasket. You can make up statistics to back yourself up all day long. But when the rubber hits the road, you’re going to be very alone. Why? SOME OF US STILL LIKE WOMEN. As I’ve said before, those of us who have been burned the worst (Khan, the veteran of two divorces, Curiepoint, had to live in his car for awhile, JR, did everything in the world for his wife and she STILL cashed out on him, Me, wife went totally psychobitch) seem to have the healthiest attitude. It’s the posters on this board who are the most conspicuously silent on their past with women (if any) who seem to be the most virulently anti-woman. And they do it for the same reason a woman cashes out on a man–BECAUSE THEY CAN.
The problem as I have always seen it is our genetic weakness – our dicks.
It’s hard to beat the strongest force (next to food and shelter) when many men think of sex continuously when they’re not getting it.
As far as posters NOT talking about women, you’re in the middle of something major, – a wife who killed herself.
JR has his ex wives. Most guys here didn’t grow up with “your” quality of women – which by todays standards were much better than the crap our young men have today.
Sure, your “X’s” were psycho’s, thats understandable. But many of these guys are 90% of those guys out there who are Shunned because they are niceguys.
50 years ago, hell even 25 years ago it was much different. They were valued. Now, they’re kicked in the nuts and ridiculed and treated unfairly throughout the school system, media, and political system.
If you can understand that, then you can understand why you’re going to see waves of angry young men who need effective leaders to twist that anger into a fight to change the system.
These guys are even different than myself. Even Niceguys had Girlfriends when I was growing up 20 years ago.
The Matriarchy has changed all that. They are no longer “needed.”
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by chrisvet on Dec 15, 2005, 2:49am
Dec 14, 2005, 12:25pm, thechief wrote:Commenting’s fine. But I still find it ironic that it’s (some of) the guys who have never been married who bring the biggest flamethrower. It’s sort of like limousine liberals who complain with pious, self-righteous outrage about poverty, make the broadest statements about the causes and cures, when they’ve never had to live within a budget or worry about where their next meal is coming from one day in their lives…
Their generation of women rejects them.
Did yours? no. Did mine? no.
Things are so different I feel like I’m on another planet – and rightly so.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by Snakey on Dec 15, 2005, 2:53am
Quote:Hate takes too much energy. (as crazy as this sounds, when you forgive people and understand they only act a certain way because of circumstances around them, it takes a big load off ones mind.)
Good point, CV. As is:
Quote:What I’m really saying, is women will never hand that power back. It must be taken through a fight (which I’m sure you agree), but more importantly a vote.
This is why, while I take a harder line stance, the softer line stance is probably more powerful in the present system … maybe not closer to the truth of the matter, which as men we’re seeking out as the end, not the means, but more valuable for actual change, for stopping the practices of the family court.
I suppose it’s a good cop/bad cop routine: both work in tandem, or could do.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by mija on Dec 15, 2005, 12:55pm
Dec 15, 2005, 1:01am, playerintraining wrote:
Dec 14, 2005, 1:25pm, Snakey wrote:It’s also that we’re younger, went through a different education system, far more feminized than the one you went through, and maybe some of us have been demonized from age 6 on. It’s also that since your formative years Chief, the culture had not yet decayed to the point it had in our formative years. This meant the women of our generation were much more vicious and shameless, and you haven’t had to deal with them in the same settings we have.Say your piece, sure. Your high and mighty tone is misplaced, though.
I agree. The Chief’s condescending tone is a perfect example of what Glenn Sack’s alludes to when he writes:
“WBs blame feminism but ignore an equally destructive force–men’s chivalrous tendency to blame men first and women last. It is this attitude which has created what Farrell calls “the machinery of male protection,” whose victims are almost always male.”
Paradoxically, couldn’t Glenn’s whole essay be interpreted as a prime example of this chivalry?
Chief,
I can agree with you that some of the things written here (ie. Muslims have the right idea on how to handle women), are so over the top as to be silly.
Having said that, you seem a bit arrogant when you criticize the younger guys for being so negative about women.
Every time I go out to have a drink during some weekend, I see some woman exploiting some man for her personal gain. Often, the woman does her best to either get 2 men to fight over her, or attempts to humiliate him in some other way.
Oh, I forgot to mention–these are women who are either engaged or married, who do some of these things.
Simply put, there is no good way for a man to handle this situation. He looks like a coward or a hotheaded fool.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
To inflict such cruelty is something I cannot understand. Why do women do it???
Do I have your permission to get angry at that? Does my lack of interest in dealing with female bullshit make me less of a man?
I’m a borderline women basher, but I gotta stick up for the normal ones. I would agree but it’s not JUST the female population that’s full of bullshit. We ALL gotta own up and take responsibility.
True women have set the standard. On any given day, women are far more cruel than a man.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by chrisvet on Dec 15, 2005, 2:39pm
Huh? Responsiblity? The govt already hijacked that via excessive taxation funding “State Daddy”, “Police State” and ridiculous ineffective programs.
In 2005, Responsibility is a fabricated Mask-Label given to men to justify our Slave Status via coercive govt measures. (eg, shot gun aimed at our heads.) All these govt employees are highly paid and have NO REASONS to give up their jobs. (a long long story.)
“Step up to the plate”, “Be a Man”, and “Show some responsiblity” are all SHAMING tactics in light that we REALLY HAVE NO CHOICE. (thats why women are bitches, our importance or “power” as protector provider was replaced.)
You’re asking me to take responsiblity for a group of narcissitic anti-male emasculated “chip on their shoulder” ameriscanks? Nada, neva, fuggedabout it. They do that when they ass-rape me every year with taxes.
The only thing I’m responsible to is my own prosperity, my own generousity (directed at who I see fit), and my overall well being by making the correct decision to make the wisest possible mate selection choices.
If that includes relocation, so be it.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by Willie Molson on Dec 16, 2005, 9:16am
To answer the OP’s question, no, I don’t remotely consider myself a woman basher. I am a humanist, and to be a humanist means, at least to me, to be an eternal optimist on the human experiment on our planet.
While there are differences between men and women, we are, as human beings, far more alike than different. The problem with male female relations in this country, and most Western countries, are the laws which have allowed women to escape accountability for their actions. Make the laws more equitable, and I believe the genders’ behaviors will dovetail more in line with our common humanity.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by Niall NLIT on Dec 19, 2005, 10:09am
‘A real man does not need to disrespect other people in disagreement’
Another feminazi troll talking out what ‘real men’ do. There must be somewhere they plug in to the collective and get uploaded as they all say the same thing all the time.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Are you a woman basher?
Post by Allah on Dec 19, 2005, 10:17am
I think the term “misogynist” is bandied about as indiscriminately as “racist,” “homophobe” or “anti-Semite” -it’s a weak retort from those who know that they are defeated intellectually, but resort to branding someone with the present-day weight of what calling someone a “heretic” in the Middle Ages or “Communist” in the 1950s would have done.
Misogyny? Only if you consider a court system in which a woman can lie about abuse and torment a man and lead him to financial and emotional ruin to be misogyny.
Only if you consider a popular culture in which men are made out to look like dolts (unless they’re gay in which case they’re sacrosanct).
Yes, there are genuine women haters out there. I don’t know the origins of their sentiments, but I don’t think that the men at this forum have a blanket hatred of the opposite sex. They hate a perverse societal structure promulgated by academia, entertainment and the judiciary system, not women per se. I believe that the majority of men here have been burned and are still looking for a good woman, rare she is, but she’s out there and it takes Herculean effort to find her.
I will concede that there are some dregs in the male population who don’t bother to look closely at themselves before condemning women and they are very similar to the 300 lbs. feminist who wonders why she can’t get a man, but I don’t think that that is the norm.
What is considered “hating” is often just an objective look at one’s surroundings when one is de-programmed. The de-manginification of a man is a fascinating thing. Live and you learn.
——————————————————————————–
