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.
Despite the beliefs of some, you can be a progressive and not a feminist.
I know this because I am one. It gets me shit from every direction, but I stand by being both a progressive and an MRA.
Modern progressivism has a few main concepts. Those being the desire to change and modify institutions as needed, strong and smart business regulations, a concern for the collective good, the expansion of education, and the challenging of tradition. Obviously economic and social progressivism tends to be (fairly) separate. So it is clear you can be economically progressive, but not socially progressive. I am talking about social movements and am going to focus on social progressivism.
Feminism has been around for about 90 years and it has been incredibly powerful for at least 40. If you really wanted to, you could perhaps argue that that because of its inability to change, institutionalized feminism is anything but progressive. But I am not going to go that far. However, because of its inflexibility, and the fact progressivism outdates feminism I can say with ease that the two do not go hand in hand.
There is no “purity test” for progressivism. Progressivism doesn’t have a minimum requirement. You can be progressive on some issues and a bit more conservative on others.
But the general rule of thumb for progressive gender politics is that traditional gender roles have to go, and last time I checked that was a cornerstone of the MRM. In a sense, men’s rights can play a big roll in socially progressive movements. New institutions, laws, and making a better justice system are all core aspects of men’s rights, as well as progressivism. more here my almost successful facebook page that you all should have liked already
Quote from Richard Bearing in mind the fact we have a few bi’s and gender queers (for a lack of a better word) on this fourm, this is living testimony to the fact that gays and lesbians, while preaching love and toleranace and “rights” in fact are as bigoted and prejduicd as anyone else. They reject gender queers to the extent that many have sought a refuge on this forum, and in fact more in common with hetros than gays. In the light of this do we even need to consider any form of tactical alliance with them?
Gays and lesbians, it seems, have a lot in common with communism and feminism. Communism offered the promise of equality, but the reality turned out horribly different. Similarly feminists said their liberation would result in mens liberation as well. In both cases, while terrible things were being done, yet many continued to believe such ideologies. Indeed it is interesting to note that while reports were flooding out of Russia that Stalin was starving millions to death, western intellectuals dismissed such reports are capitalist propaganda. Today, feminists use exactly the same tactics. It also seems, from the reports I am reading on this fourm, that gays, etc hide behind terms and ideas like equal rights, but for them, the use of such concepts are purely instrumental.
We were screwed over by the feminist promise – but we wont be screwed over by any other one – gay or otherwise.
Feckless, in the light of not just my opnion, but everyone on this forum, straight, gender queer or otherwise, I think its time you put away your idealism and look at the real politik
Its time, we, the majority reasserted our rights, our powers.
Quote from Richard Let me sum up. You want me to give gays the "right" (not priviledge) to adopt children who have been taken away from my fellow (hetro) men, by a legal system no one trusts or believes, and which is sanctified by psychologists who are baised?
Feck, I think you need to re-examine where your beliefs are leading us.
This is why I say, fathers must have real rights and then – if any kids are left over – we can talk about adoption.
"Never before in history have slaves been so well fed, thoroughly medicated, lavishly entertained. But we are slaves nonetheless."<CITE>-- Edward Abbey</CITE>
First, on many of the issues over which mainstream libertarians are divided, I end up on what would generally be perceived as the “left” side of the issue: very minarchist, anti-militarist, anti-intellectual-property, anti-punishment (so a fortiori anti-death-penalty), anti-big-business, pro-secularism, pro-gay-rights, etc. I am however, anti-abortion(in most cases) and anti-immigration(as in illegal) which is often seen as a rightist position.
If the struggle really is defined as "liberty vs. equality," then I will always favor liberty and fall to the Right for that. But debating that is akin to debating "slavery vs. hierarchy."
Liberty and equality are on the same side - the left side. They are both against legally-enforced and -protected hierarchy. Liberty vs. coercion, equality vs. hierarchy - either way it's phrased, it's the same battle. Equal liberty is the only real form of liberty, and the only desirable form of equality.
So here are other ways to state my left-libertarian principles:
1. I reject the coercion and hierarchy of the State's centralized bureaucratic structure, including the military;
2. I reject monopolies of land, natural resources, and "intellectual property," created and preserved by the State, and the loss of opportunity and depression of wages that this form of inequality brings;
3. I reject any State-sanctioned disinctions between individuals for the purposes of either forced segregation or forced assocation based on race, ethnicity, religion, or gender;
4. I reject the use of State coercion to enforce or "protect" certain values or a "way of life" which wouldn't otherwise survive in the normal course of peaceful human
Are you hanging by a thread,
or swinging from a rope?
Don't think we don't see your scars
Are you afraid of who you are?
Are you afraid of who you are?! --Atreyu, Gallows A recent article at the Spearhead dealt with nature versus nurture and how gender roles developed. I'm... impressed that the article put what I have been struggling to express for a while into words. Though I personally disagree with some of the articles conclusions I feel compelled to actually write about choice as a concept.
I will agree that putting everything to genetics is a bad idea, it's not true for one, and for another it would make morality impossible. I can accept that I am genetically predisposed towards certain behaviors, but I also accept that I have the ability to fight my urges. Genetics influence a lot of things, but they don't influence culture or choices, but they can influence the character of our choices and culture.
Ethical choice demands that we do the honorable and correct thing, and avoiding terrible choices. "Morality was not brought down from Mount Sinai carved on tablets- moral is a function of the human soul, as old as mankind itself." -Carl Jung
Humans naturally do know how to behave, how to care for others and protect others. They know how to love, make bonds, nurture, and live. If you ask people today about the natural goodness of humanity, most of them will laugh at you and point to this atrocity or that war, as proof that anyone who believes in our "natural goodness" is just being naive. But this, is a function of the dominant myth that people have been taught to believe. Many will ignore all of the natural wonders and goodness that we are capable of, in favor of the horror that we are capable of, and use that one-sided perspective as their guideline for defining what is "human". That situation is, to me, intolerable.
I have faith in
father(fa·ther) http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1246392?rskey=M9Kv4O&result=1#m_en_us124639 2 Pronunciation:/ˈfäTHər, / noun 1 a man in relation to his natural child or children. a male animal in relation to its offspring. (usually fathers) literary an ancestor. (also founding father) an important figure in the origin and early history of something: Dorsey should be remembered as the father of gospel music a man who gives care and protection to someone or something: the prince is widely regarded as the father of the nation the oldest or most respected member of a society or other body. (the Father)(in Christian belief) the first person of the Trinity; God. (Father)literary used in proper names, especially when personifying time or a river, to suggest an old and venerable character: Father Thames 2 (also Father)(often as a title or form of address) a priest: pray for me, Father 3 (the Fathers or the Church Fathers)early Christian theologians (in particular of the first five centuries) whose writings are regarded as especially authoritative. verb [with object] be the father of: he fathered three children (usually as noun fathering) treat with the protective care usually associated with a father: the two males share the fathering of the cubs be the source or originator of: a culture which has fathered half the popular music in the world (father someone on) make a woman pregnant: he fathered a child on a one-night stand assign the paternity of a child or responsibility for a book, idea, or action to: a collection of Irish stories was fathered on him archaic appear as or admit that one is the father or originator of: a singular letter from a lady, requesting I would father a novel of hers Phrases like father, like son proverb a son's character or behavior can be expected to resemble that of his father
So recently, I was interacting with a buddy on twitter and was accosted by a couple of prochoice femtards who exhibited all of the normal (lack of) debate skills shown by the left generally, and by feminists especially, and who gladly donned the mantle of fascist barbarians if that was what was necessary to change the spelling to womyn. The actual tweets, with the actual twitter screen names, followed by my highly enlightening comments, follow.... Note: I have adopted "twitter" style to identify the speaker - the speaker, the one tweeting, is identified by the @ symbol. I.e., when you see @objectifychicks, I am the speaker. Also note that I have, for ease of reading, occasionally converted twitter abbreviations to their English signifier (i.e, "2" to "to," "shd" to "should," etc.), and have added punctuation and capitalization throughout for ease of reading.
@Auragasmic I never see pro-lifers tweeting about capital punishment or war. #duh #prochoice You will notice that nothing that a femtard ever says shows any insight or evidence of an ability to think independently. This is actually true of ALL of the left, but it is particularly evident in feminists. If they haven't heard someone else say it, and if it is not a political slogan which can essentially fit on a t-shirt or bumper sticker, they are incapable of expressing it. So tell ya what, let's trot out the old "pro-lifers don't care about capital punishment" argument, shall we? Nobody's ever brought that one up before!!! Hint to all femtards: the reason why some people who are pro-life support capital punishment and war, but do NOT support abortion, has everything to do with the twin issues of helplessness and innocence. I do not expect
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.