Political Issues

http://melancholicfeminista.blogspot...checklist.html

I found a link to this list on a fe-man-ist blog (hint it is a blog for manginas)

Just for the fun of this I will address this list...

The Male Privilege Checklist1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

No! in fact I have been turned down due to female applicants. It took me 3 years to even get a decent job...


2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex - even though that might be true. (More).

True but for a different reason. I can be confident because I worked so damm hard to get the job...


3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.

Is this a question? And yes most likely it will be because of my sex as I am a good employee.


4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities.

Umm actually I can. I been told I am stupid and useless countless of times because I am a male...


5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).

Possible, but I have been sexually harassed several times before on a job


6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

On the contrary, people either don't notice or demand that I work harder in a job for doing the same thing as a woman.


7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low. (More).

I like how you added the prison remark. True my odds of being raped are lower, but the odds that I will be murdered are much much higher. In addition I know around an equal amount of female and male rape survivors...


8. I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.

Hell yes I was!


9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.

Oh yes it will. You are not considered a "man" by modern standards unless you are married/settled down w/ kids and have a well paying job. If you dont have that you are ill-responsible, relationship avoided, big baby etc. Is this a question from the 1950's?


10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.

If your friends wont the government sure will...


11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent. (More).

When has a guy ever been excessively been praised for raising kids? Look at any tv commercial and Mom is the one who is always right...


12. If I have children and pursue a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.

True. However many will criticize me for being ill responsible if i don't invest all of the money earned into the children and wife whereas a mother can spend flamboyantly with no social concequence


13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.

This doesn't apply to men or women


14. Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more likely this is to be true.

I'm not foolish enough to vote for somebody merely due to their gender.


15. I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see “the person in charge,” I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

On the contrary. Almost all of the supervisors I have worked under were female and often their bosses or the owner is female too. I have no expectations however any noticeable stupidity will generate a bias from me, male or female.


16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters. (More).

No, I was just forced into doing the hard work as opposed to my sisters who weren't required to do anything....


17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.

I was homeschooled and had little media growing up...


18. As a child, ...

http://antimisandry.com/feminist-mis...ine-44401.html


Once upon a time women were considered property to their husbands... They were to listen to him and do as he told. Of course slaves/servants/maids did the dirty work but she was bound by marriage to obey him. She was considered intellectually inferior...

Once upon the same time men were considered property to the country... They were to listen to it and do as it told. Of course slaves/servants/maids did the dirty work but he was bound by citizenship to obey his country. He was considered intellectually inferior and merely a working pawn...

social constraints limited them; and oppressed they were by today's standard...

There is no humor in true oppression. To be subject to someone else by force, is against a human's will to be free. Throughout history, oppression has been displayed in many situations from the nazi's of WW2 to a controlling spouse of today;oppression comes on many levels. There is one thing though, it is still oppression no matter how you look at it. If one feels oppressed, they have(or should have) the right to protest it.

Welcome to the age of equality where we can openly speak out about oppression both as an individual and as a group. We can fight for better lives and free expression and gain the support of everybody around us...

unless we are one of the 50% that do not have ovaries (and being heterosexual is a bonus)

In our feminist infused culture, one would assume that all would get equal rights. Equality for all! That was the idea before feminism took over the WRM(women's rights movement). Feminism has always been about the advancement of women (often at the expense of men). Men's issues are not relevant to feminists because "it" happens in less numbers to men than to women (according to their stats). They go so far as to outright ignore real studies to prove that women have it worse off. Most feminists view women/girls between 12-35 as individuals (few leaders too) and the rest of us as collective groups. They play the numbers game with these groups by manipulating statistics and using small studies to prove their points instead of more accurate national studies. To them, the individual doesn't matter.

Many, if not most feminists openly laugh at the oppression of men and condemn men for feeling oppressed. They encourage men to "man up" or "take it like a man". The rape victim doesn't matter because he is in the minority. The 6,5" guy who was beat up by his wife doesn't matter because he is in the "minority". The father who tried everything to please his wife but got run over by her in a divorce and lost both his family and his assets doesn't matter because... The man falsely convicted of rape, the boy abused by his mother, the man who has been laid off twice merely so he could be replaced by women...

This isn't made up! This happens to hundreds, possibly hundreds of thousands or millions of men daily. Both statistically and in my personal life I have known more abused, controlled, and manipulated men than sardines in a tin (which is what feminists equate male opression too).

Now don't get me wrong, women are abused too (and I have known a few). However I don't see that as women being oppressed as a whole but as individuals. Same with males. Each man is a human begin, and if one is oppressed, that is one too much.

So why is it that feminists laugh at MRA's? Did not the very roots of feminism come from a collective group of people that felt genuinely oppressed? Shouldn't they feel empathy for their fellow "man" and try to address his complaints in a compassionate matter?

They don't and they will not. Because we are men. Because we are their oppressors. Because we are privileged. Because we are stupid, heartless, and rapists, sexists, destroyers, etc we cannot be oppressed...

So what am I feeling then, if it is not oppression, and why is she trying to control me?


(so much for my grammar in this post)

Lets use an example (not a real statistic) and say that In-n-Out sells just burgers, fries, or a combo (Burgers and fries). 65% of what they sell is a combo, 25% of what they sell is just burgers, and the remaining 10% is just fries. This however could be interpreted many ways depending on how you want to use this "statistic".

Objectively one could say that 90% of the sales include a burger as part of the sale. If you happen to want to convince more people to buy combos you could say that only 65% of the sales are combos. Then you could bend, manipulate, and otherwise "misinterpret" the statistic. One could say that 90% of In-N-Out's sales are burgers, 90% of burgers sold nationwide are from In-N-Out, 90% of customers (or the population) prefers burgers to fries, 9 in 10 burgers sold are from In-N-Out, and only 10% of the sales are fries.

Lets put a real stat in In-N-Outs shoes. In 2001 the CDC surveyed over 14,000 Adults (between 18-28) with over 11,000 who answered the Dv questions... Roughly only 25% of the relationships had Dv with 50% of the DV being Mutual combat, 30% was perpetrated by Women, and 20% was perpetrated by men. How has this been interpreted? 70% of DV is committed by by men, 70% or (the majority) of DV victims are women, 70% of all men commit DV, 1 in 4 women will experience DV (presumably perpetrated by a man)... etc

Lets look at that last one? According to the survey about 6 for every 100 men is the sole perpetrator of Dv and only about 13% are involved in a relationship where they are violent. How is it then that 25% of women have been victims of DV? Does it mean that 13% of men have been closely involved with 25% of the women? If there were 60 women for every 100 men it would make more sense but there isn't... It is more in the range of 101 women for every 100 men... It is a fallacy designed to victimize women by saying 1 in 4 women will be effected to push this agenda if misandry (yes I used the word)

This and many other studies prove that the majority of men are calm civil and caring and not inherently evil...

Lets play a Game... Match the sentence with its corresponding line...

(1) We are both too drunk to think,

(2) I can abort a baby as it is my decision,





(A) so/but consent isn't necessary...

(B) so/but not having the ability to consent still means NO...

One problem merely is the fact that we live in a safety driven PC society. Everything is done for "safety" and part of that IS treating everybody guilty until proven innocent (in our case guilty for being men)...

Everybody knows her. She is an active member of some homeowners association in suburbia. She doesn't work, and lives off her rich hubby's paycheck. She has nothing better to do than micromanage problems that are not her own. One day her little Tommy falls off a see saw (while she is talking to her girlfriends and not paying attention) and needs stitches from hitting his head on it.

She files a lawsuit against the city and WINS. The city freaks out (not wanting another lawsuit) and removes all of the seesaws from every park and creates an ordinance that no playground in the city can have a see saw. But look on the bright side now the playground is "safer". Anybody who asks otherwise is condoned for not caring about the children even if they present a reasonable argument (kids learn physics and mechanics, they learn to interact with others, etc)...

Lets take the moral of the story and apply it to something else... Rape. 1 Man rapes one woman (as sick as it is) in a city of 10,000. Somebody concerned about rape goes to an ad agency to create an campaign on the prevention of rape. The ad campaign states that to be completely safe you must never trust a man (not a shady guy smoking weed in a alley, but all men). Now all men are guilty of possibly being rapists. Men now cannot easily protest this as they would be unsympathetic to the victim of the rape even if some of them were victims themselves (from a female attacker). I don't really need to say more as the threads on this forum obviously address this...

My personal opinion is that a Safety Society (a feminine trait really) is actually self destructive mechanism that kills itself by hating a majority of it.

Ben Franklin- Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety...