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
Finals are this week. I only plan on making 1 blog post this week. However, I plan to show some other content on my FB page. One thing I plan on doing also is creating an "Intro to Men's Rights" window people can click on and see a lot of basic stats and writings of mine that are more introductory than anything else. Your assignment: Go through my blog and pick the pieces you want people to read first!
riseofthezetamale.blogspot.com Facebook page is becoming a success?
1. Re: No poll from me 2. Please delete my blog 3. Truly, 4. Bob Bob, I know you are offended by Lady Caff and her support of deviance, but she has a gun and is pointing it in the same direction as we are - against feminism and misandry. I do not support deviance or homosexual behaviours either but I am quite able to recognise an ally when I see one and when I observe them shooting at the enemy. Please do argue with deviance. Do argue against homosexual behaviours. But do not make the error of confusing the sinner with the sin. Sir Percy, You will see that Brother Marx is copied in, two birds with one writing. If you can not take the time to read this completely, that is your choice, feminism and misandry is a rather complex thing. I understand differentiating between the sinner and the sin, and your words are well put. Someone else has written that I think not in haste, which is another apt thought for me to consider. Catherine the person does not offend me truth to tell, she most certainly if truly she is sexually deviant, is not the first I have met. I have friends who are homosexual, we have even collaborated, a couple are dear friends to me. I know some of the LGBT advocates. I am simply to old to be naive to the ways of the world. I doubt her credulity, that, about me, is certainly true and I highly suspect an agenda that is contrary to antimisandry, men, and Fathers. I know of the schism between Mens Rights and Fathers Rights, I can telephone or write or email the senior elder of both camps: most amusing is when one or the other writes to me to tell me what the other said, no longer a boy I am none the less the junior in the middle, but both sides concede this point or that, agree to disagree, and yet know there is common ground. In comes however a third faction, which I believe is properly called sexual deviance: gay men seeking legitimacy by linking
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.