The Steps to War Part III
There are a few other characteristics that I would like to define as important to discourse. These are qualities that I feel are important to develop in order to reach your goals. Developing these qualities and adhering to these during the course of your dealings with the enemy may be a determining factor in whether or not the war is won. Keep in mind that you represent an IDEA. Keep in mind that you work against another IDEA.
There are going to be civilians watching as the war rages around them, comfortable in not making a choice. Part of your purpose is to convince others that your idea is the RIGHT idea. At the very least, you have to make sure that your enemies' ideas are not accepted. You must also have the wither-all to inspire civillians to action, and the only way to that is to set an example. Keep the following in mind when you deal with others. Your primary duty at this point and time is to convince as many civilians as possible that ascribing to your views is the right course of action in order to protect their interests (And it IS!)
Attempting any serious debate with many feminists will ONLY lead you in circles ad infinitum. If you absolutely must attempt debate with feminists, make sure it is only to make them clarify their views so that it exposes them and makes plain to any civilians that this is indeed a misguided and destructive ideology.
Hence the "War is deception" quote. HONOR: This includes both Integrity and Personal Responsibility. Don't Lie. Someone is only as good as their word. If you create a falsehood while fighting this war then you have failed yourself and your teammates. Purposely misrepresenting the facts, even for the "greater good" shows a distinct lack of character. Once the lie is found out, you and your team, as well as any ideas you represent are no longer
The Steps to War Part II
There are many times I have seen the prospective MRA or proported MGTOW begin a tirade about one point or another and totally misrepresent the point they are trying to make, or misrepresent themselves. This is an unfortunate circumstance, as it muddies the intellectual waters from which real discourse emerges.
I would suggest finding resources that focus on facts, or focus on ideological differences between one viewpoint and another. You better know more than the party line, and be prepared to think critically about your viewpoints and how they relate to empirical and experiential evidence. You must operate under the assumption that the enemy is already prepared to argue by making consistently logical statements. You must also operate under the assumption that the enemy knows the territory you are approaching. Do not run into the fray without being prepared to discuss the matter at hand. You must be armed with the knowledge of the relevant subject being discussed. Do your research before making any statements.
You must be comfortable facing criticism of your views. There will be people who disagree with you on all manner of things, and the reactions you receive with each statement you make will be varied. Do not allow yourself to be sidetracked by the "feeling" of having your views attacked, no matter how vehemently. This is simply a part of of the psychology of warfare.
Be prepared for real debate. There are some excellent rules right here on how to approach a debate. Following these rules will help you get your point across in a non-threatening manner that effectively disarms your opponent of the ability to rebut effectively. Be prepared for some of your debates to be lengthy, and be prepared to shuffle words like pieces on a chessboard. http://www.truthtree.com/debates.shtml
The Steps to War Part I
Know your limitations. On the field of battle, you have a certain topography to work with. You have no control over this topography. It defines the absolute limit to what you and your enemy can do. Since our battlefield is shaped by ideas and their expression in language, these terms are of grave importance to the participants. Be aware that the law (our topography) may change through the course of the battle, much like hills can be leveled by bombing runs, or rivers can be crossed by building bridges. Hate Speech Law & Legal Definition
Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women. Free Speech [Libel] Law & Legal Definition
Free speech means the right vested on a person where by s/he can speak freely. Free speech also includes the right to write and publish ones own sentiments.
The following is an example of a state statute (Wisconsin) defining free speech.
According to Wis. Const. Art. I, § 3, every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous be true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends,
Quote from Richard We will force you to have sex (for the good of society) Summary-introduction
Below I will make a structuralist-functionalist sketch of how society has regulated sex and reproduction so as to be in tune with the capacity of a given society, and to try to explain how various sexual “deviant” practices have arisen in contemporary western societies (focusing on the USA and UK) with reference to sexualization of children/pregnancies and sadomasochism (BDSM).
WARNING! This is a long post, but one worth reading (-: In the beginning….
In order for society to exist people must have food and shelter – and then the ability to reproduce. The ability to reproduce is governed physically by the availability of food and shelter (or famine), while intellectually/psychologically by a dominant ideology which regulates societal attitudes to sex and reproduction. From God to law….
In the era before known civilization, as man enjoyed his innocence in the cave, he had an animal like status – survival was based most likely on clans/tribes and sex/reproduction on either an alpha male system or an orgy system. (“Sperm Wars”)
As civilization emerged, values and norms began to govern sex and reproduction which was quickly replaced by the laws and the same time religion. At the heart of EVERY religion is a mechanism which regulates sex and reproduction. Mans rational side began to champion over his emotional side and the family as opposed to the clan began to become the building block of society. Flash forward a few thousand years….Sex in medieval Europe
In the high medieval era sex began to be seen by religion – in Europe at least – as something sinful and bad. “Pleasures of the flesh” were seen as a direct road to hell and damnation. Why? Why did religion go from regulating sex to oppressing it?
In the early years of Christianity there was no major shortage of food. The Roman
Supposedly, Gandhi once said, “We need to be the change we wish to see in the world.” An excellent quote, that goes towards the concept of Zeta Masculinity. We know that masculinity needs to change, and it is time that we do it. We have already broken down masculinity. Now it is time to build it back up again.
I have come up with seven values which I find ideal for redefinition masculinity. They are knowledge, collectiveness, self-fulfillment, understanding of emotions, assertiveness, and fluidity. Many of which involve more of a balance in oneself than traditional notions of masculinity. Some are merely modifications of the old ways while others are complete overhauls.
It is important to emphasize this is my take on modern masculinity, not that of the whole world. You may have different answers and values, perhaps additional ones that I have not thought of, that does not make anyone necessarily incorrect, as the future of masculinity is entirely up for discussion and debate. More here Now on Facebook
Since the dawn of civilized society masculinity has been used as a tool in order to constrict and construct. By creating a rigid code of conduct mankind was able to create empires, cure diseases, and populate the planet. At the same time far too many men were driven to early graves by the forces of society, or worse their own hands. There are clearly problems within the ideas of masculinity, and in order to confront them we must dismantle masculinity as a whole.
The first thing to note is that the prominence and importance of masculinity varies between cultures. Countries with more emphasis on masculinity such as Japan seem to be having the biggest rebellions (with the rise of the “herbivore”). The most prominent protestors to traditional masculinity seem to be those that are just below the top regarding an emphasis on masculinity. Those on the bottom as well seem to have a certain level of protest in the recent years due to what has moved from a lack of concern to hostility towards masculinity. Countries in the middle of the scale seem to have fewer problems. While correlation is not causation, there is still a pattern.
It is safe to assume, that there is a healthy amount of importance that a society can put towards masculinity. And while less appears to be is better, when we begin to completely reject masculinity we see more problems emerge. It is also little surprise that countries with more emphasis on masculinity also have larger issues regarding a male identity crisis.
After doing a bit of searching I found masculinity has a few major concepts within it that are found within a large variety of cultures: material success, power, self-centeredness, assertiveness, independence, suppression of emotion, and honor. See the rest here My facebook page is getting fans when I am not posting on AVfM? What?
Life is a journey not a destination, Fathers are patient and persistent. Collectively we have been on this quest from the beginning. We are not born learnt but learning, pray we never stop. We may not overtly ask for directions, we are constantly searching our world for answers and new perspectives: we are constantly adding wisdom, knowledge, constantly challenging ourselves and others to grow and building our judgment and when all collected, amoungst other things when we leave this earthly world, for we are only temporary custodians, we pass it to others; our legacy. Even then, at least for some of us, our quest is not finished, only moved to a new plateau. Where we start is not of our choosing, the path we follow is. Some have sought to distract us men, right from the start, the themes of distraction appear recurrent. Amazing as it may be, men have been told what they do and don't know at various times, With so many trying to distract us and to despise what we know, Surprising not, it is, that few Brothers offer to mentor, initiate, give of their learning. Over time there have been those rhetorical questions designed to prompt our thoughts, Men have negotiated their boundaries, between themselves and others, it would seem it is still in process, Others, to distract us or dissuade us or direct us in an errant way put forth their political diatribe, I want what you have, I want it as mine 'tis their true call though cleverly disguised. Be wise, my son, and bring joy to my heart. Then I can answer anyone who treats me with contempt The prudent see danger and take refuge As iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, And the hearts of the children to their fathers Through out time, at one juncture and others, men have acted as Brothers managed to work in harmony
Updated 23rd-May-2011 at 01:13 PM by BobV01
Really, the other day I was stuck with watching six kids. Since the person (female) who was meant to watch them was too lazy to do it.
I had spent a few hours with the kids (cousins), and all I really needed to do was let them play some video games and watch some kid friendly cartoons I have on my computer and just sit with them and talk to them. Give them some attention and settle a few fights that may come up.
Now, it did suck that I didn't have a decent size television or a better moniter for my computer and some extra controllers to keep four twerps from crying since "they didn't play" even though they did play. Also, some more outdoor toys would have been great so one kid wouldn't be so upset because another one wouldn't share. And to top it all off, lots of food. All of this would have made the job easier.
Despite this, I think being a stay at home parent has to be the one of the coolest things ever. I say that for males and females, but only if you can actually have the money AND the time to pull it off. In other words a full time stay at home parent. No daycare, no shitty babysitters, and full attention for the kids when they aren't at school. As in no using your DVD player/Cable TV as a pacifier so you can do whatever you want (whether it's just peace or to do something selfish).
Since if I do have kids, I want to be part of a lot of things they do. Make watching cartoons with dad a good memory not just something I can use to just play Zelda in the other room without my kid bugging me.
Also, I do know that babysitting and parenting are different, but if dealing with kids isn't as hard or demeaning as feminists say it is, why did women want to get out of just a fun and easy job in which the payment is knowing you are putting great people in the world by being the parents of said person.
Or maybe I lack the true experience of actually handling kids? I mean, a few
So I am going to take anarchist thought and apply it to my activism I have jotted down a few thoughts and I have posted them down below.
I take what I want from a bunch of radical ideas and tendencies while rejecting any aspects of them that I don’t find useful or worthwhile. So I want to reject becoming a messiah of any category, label, or ideological division. I'm interested in social war and autonomy with anyone who shares that same aim, anarchist, insurrectionary, or neither. There’s the saying that in the supermarket of ideas you should take what you find relevant and discard the rest. This should be done without buying into the complete package of an ideology. Steal what you need and burn the rest.
However, insurrectionary anarchism, which is just one anarchist methodology, makes the most sense to me as a tactic and a strategy in opposing the social order. I embrace insurrection as a dynamic and uncompromising attack against everything that makes us not free. It appeals to me because it poses itself against the failures of cooperation with the state, the Left, pacifism, reformism, fetishizing armed struggle, and so on that are prevalent thoughout history.
I think affinity is the best basis for organizing ourselves. Affinity is generally misunderstood because the term was used a lot in the anti-globalization movement in reference to organizing for various summit protests. To these people affinity was synonymous with people you simply know or who you are friends with, which completely empties the word of any meaning. Affinity is deep reciprocal knowledge of people’s ideas, perspectives, personal relations, how they work, and so on.
It’s a way of directly relating to each other that involves delving into our similarities and differences in terms of what we think constitutes the present social order and how to go about combating it. People try to develop affinity with one another with the perspective of building
I do not apologize for my personal views. I do not see the point. People disagree, I disagree. We get on with our lives. Despite my personal views regarding social issues and my personal politics. I do not apologize. I don't apologize for having an extreme disdain for statism, immorality as I see it, or even my views on the ideal society.
I think strict gender roles are unhealthy and immoral. I think most sexism comes from unfair stereotypes which are related to gender role. I advocate androgynous approaches to humanity instead of a binary imposed by those who have a sexist agenda.
I advocate for liberation and not purely legal equality. I argue for a society built with the twin pillars of love and freedom. I believe in the inherent worth of all human beings. I believe that the horrors done in the name of "equality" and "peace" are the worst horrors done to humanity.
I believe morality comes from within and not some bullshit rulebook. I believe that humanity isn't flawed due to some crime committed by our ancestors.
Justice comes from love and not some barely comprehensible ideal that can mean anything. I believe that despite my differences with everyone else, I can help make a positive difference in the lives of men, women. and children.
If you have a problem with any of this: Fuck you. I don't have to conform to what you want me to be or how you envision that I should believe or act. My opinions are just that--opinions. They are not facts. I form opinions everyday about different social issues and other issues every single day. I don't have to apologize to make you feel better or to crush my own opinions. Musings of a Pro-Human Woman: PSA: To everyone who has a problem with me.
antimisandry.com is a voluntary-sector organisation supported mainly by member reader donations.
If you wish to reduce the advertisements, sign up and log on as a registered member.