3 | rebelliousvanilla
March 19, 2009 at 01:01
Actually the MRM is just an agenda pushing thing and it’s as political as feminism, which is a bit disappointing. I appreciate your honesty though - that you don’t want equality, but to reverse the world to when women had no rights(like vote, property etc). It must be fun to own people.
And you don’t show the intellectual abilities to get to even half of what Ayn Rand achieved.

Ayn Rand = hot shit! Take note!

Ayn Rand was pretty patriarchal herself to be honest. I remember reading how she said women should never be president because women being in charge of a man would not be good for her mental health.

Is this like when Hillary Clinton mis spoke? WTF!

"I shamefully admit that I made a mistake… A mistake of trusting society and thinking that Men Rights Movements are anything different than feminism. It’s just reverse feminism. Instead of bitter women who hate men, we have bitter men who hate women ... "

It must be quite easy to form a poor opinion of the MRM after a quick look at it. It all too often does appear to be anti-women. That's why it is essential that the MRM gets its act together and start to manage its image better.

I remember in my first month or so on this site I had pretty much the same opinion. I remember posting something very similar on the subject on Yahoo Answers, and I believe I recall a few members here who were quite livid about it. In RV's defense, as well as my own, I can say that there are men in the men's rights movement who really do hate women, just as there are women in the feminist movement who really do hate men. You can argue that point if you like, but it's as true now as it was nearly a year ago when I made that comment on Yahoo Answers.

I will say that after being on this site for almost a year, I've noted that the admins have been doing a good job keeping the most inflammatory members in check. They've stepped things up several notches, in my view. Since I joined, I've noted that some of those most inflammatory members are no longer with us. (Yay!) And I've observed that there are far more members here who are not "anti-female" than there are those who are.

To a newbie, however, the shock of seeing even just one or two members making frequent hateful anti-female posts makes it seem like they are many...but the fact is, they are really only a few.

It doesn't make those folks any more likable. They do tarnish the movement. But I'm confident in the courage and integrity of other male members here to keep things in line. There are a few here that really impress me with the way they handle the posts of both sexes..with a sharp and balanced eye and with calm, collected, insightful (and moving) expression. Marx, Percy, and others like them- you're gems in this movement. Kudos!

Quote from Percy

It must be quite easy to form a poor opinion of the MRM after a quick look at it. It all too often does appear to be anti-women. That's why it is essential that the MRM gets its act together and start to manage its image better.

This is not about the MRM having a tarnished image.

7 | Amfortas
March 19, 2009 at 12:53
One more thing -
“For instance, feminists pushed things too far now because of their angry state at men. ”
What were/are they angry about?
Guilt perhaps? Women’s guilt, projected onto men?
Maybe if the cream of several generations of women were mown down, killed, maimed, defending their menfolk , they would have something to be angry about. But it was men who made that sacrifice.



8 | rebelliousvanilla
March 19, 2009 at 12:55
Well, men loved women just how women love men nowadays. It’s pretty funny that you ignore the fact that even slaves get water, food, medicine and are forced to do chores.
The first wave feminism was from middle of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. This is the wave that it’s ok and that brought women equal rights(what I advocate). The thing that happened after WW2 is just a power grab and a lobbyist association.
Basically, your education argument just proves my theory. And about Queen Elisabeth… That’s a pretty stupid point, considering that men were responsible for a lot more wars, the Crusades and so on. Both World Wars were triggered by men. Is this a reason to vilify men now?
They were angry because they were more or less commodity. I could write more, but I have class.
And men didn’t die defending women. They died defending either some other man above them or their assets - which include women.




9 | Amfortas
March 19, 2009 at 13:27
Yes, I missed the humour about slaves. I still can’t quite grasp it. I missed discussing the climate in Europe in the middle ages too. Lack of space.
As for ‘first wave’ in the 19C, I missed the part where those feminists were advocating - nay, demanding - equal rights for small girls to climb and sweep chimneys with the 8 year old boys. And I missed their demands to be on the fishing boats with the menfolk - they still seem silent on that today. The coal mines were curiously devoid of women too.
Yes, men were reponsible for wars, except those started by women monarchs. But when an enemy appears off your coast or wandering down your country lane, it was the men - the MEN - who did the DEFENDING. They were defending their wives and children. Please DO NOT dismiss men’s reasoning, which you know little of, so easily.
Not that you want to give them a jot of credit.




10 | rebelliousvanilla
March 19, 2009 at 21:10
There’s a difference between a right and choosing a job. By your reasoning, women should keep children since they give them birth, by the way. I didn’t see men trying to give birth so I don’t see why they’d keep the kids.
Also, you forget the fact that a ton of women got raped due to wars started by men monarchs. It was pretty common for the armies to rape the women of the other state/tribe/whatever if they caught them. Do you want a tissue or something while you cry about how men were screwed in the middle ages? It’s not like they were treated like commodity, raped and then killed by the other armies and so on.
And yes, today a prisoner gets the same thing that women got through the ages, until the last 150 years. Actually, at least a prisoner today gets his food cooked and does nothing all day.




11 | Amfortas
March 20, 2009 at 07:26
I just cannot follow this - “There’s a difference between a right and choosing a job. By your reasoning, women should keep children since they give them birth, by the way. I didn’t see men trying to give birth so I don’t see why they’d keep the kids.” - help us out a bit. The logic system you are using is not one I am familiar with.
As for rape, I didn’t mention it because I am responding to the issues you raised and you didn’t raise it. But I am against rape and do not support it’s use in war. As an ex-military man myself, I don’t even like the idea of killing in wars. But as a woman you have not had to face those awful considerations.
This is a Bramah - “Do you want a tissue or something while you cry about how men were screwed in the middle ages? It’s not like they were treated like commodity, raped and then killed by the other armies and so on.”
They weren’t? A joke, shirley? men were just as much ‘owned’ by the Aristocracies, with the Ladies in silk dresses. Men had WORSE than rape - tortured, maimed, limbs cut off, killed. They are not worse to you? Please say it isn’t so.
Can you stick to the point?




12 | rebelliousvanilla
March 20, 2009 at 07:56
Yes, but even though men were “owned” by the Aristocracies, women were “owned” in their family too. And women weren’t really excused from being tortured, maimed and so on.

Quote from TERA

I remember in my first month or so on this site I had pretty much the same opinion. I remember posting something very similar on the subject on Yahoo Answers, and I believe I recall a few members here who were quite livid about it. In RV's defense, as well as my own, I can say that there are men in the men's rights movement who really do hate women, just as there are women in the feminist movement who really do hate men. You can argue that point if you like, but it's as true now as it was nearly a year ago when I made that comment on Yahoo Answers.

I will say that after being on this site for almost a year, I've noted that the admins have been doing a good job keeping the most inflammatory members in check. They've stepped things up several notches, in my view. Since I joined, I've noted that some of those most inflammatory members are no longer with us. (Yay!) And I've observed that there are far more members here who are not "anti-female" than there are those who are.

To a newbie, however, the shock of seeing even just one or two members making frequent hateful anti-female posts makes it seem like they are many...but the fact is, they are really only a few.

It doesn't make those folks any more likable. They do tarnish the movement. But I'm confident in the courage and integrity of other male members here to keep things in line. There are a few here that really impress me with the way they handle the posts of both sexes..with a sharp and balanced eye and with calm, collected, insightful (and moving) expression. Marx, Percy, and others like them- you're gems in this movement. Kudos!

_______________________________________________

She's hung by her own words, especially the ones taken from the 24 Responses posted under her March 17th, 2009 blog. One of her tactics is to repeatedly draw analogies between women and slaves or women and prisoners, complete with snotty assertions that the slaves and prisoners get better treatment. The rape of women constantly trumps the sacrifices of men, from the digging of coal to the defense of their country.
If you're defending her, you're backing the wrong horse. And don't dare try to impute blame to any of the men on the website. Her profile shows she joined last March 14th. She posted the blog entry about reverse feminism and bitter woman-haters (misogynists) three days later. She obviously had these sentiments before she joined.

Quote: "If you're defending her, you're backing the wrong horse. And don't dare try to impute blame to any of the men on the website."

My post (above) refers only to the original comment about "reverse feminism" and her observation that there are men in the movement who hate women, just as there are women in the feminist movement who hate men. That's it, that's all, nothing more.

You posted the conversation she and Percy had after my original post. I wasn't even aware that it existed before I wrote what I wrote. But it doesn't change my thoughts on the original matter. Now that I've read what you've posted since, I have thoughts on that, which I already sent you in a PM.

Personally, in reference to what she and Percy were talking about (the time frame, the era)- I'm no expert on such things, but, if history tells us anything, it shows that men were often viewed and treated as commodities. They worked the fields, they were slaves, they were forced to fight (militarily and otherwise), they were captured, prisoners of war, and forced to fight again for a country or territory not even their own....I don't agree that men somehow had it easier than women. Men had it worse in many ways.

Quote from bababob

_______________________________________________

She's hung by her own words, especially the ones taken from the 24 Responses posted under her March 17th, 2009 blog. One of her tactics is to repeatedly draw analogies between women and slaves or women and prisoners, complete with snotty assertions that the slaves and prisoners get better treatment. The rape of women constantly trumps the sacrifices of men, from the digging of coal to the defense of their country.
If you're defending her, you're backing the wrong horse. And don't dare try to impute blame to any of the men on the website. Her profile shows she joined last March 14th. She posted the blog entry about reverse feminism and bitter woman-haters (misogynists) three days later. She obviously had these sentiments before she joined.

Have women ever made any sacrifices (similar to what men have made) besides you know settling for a $5,000 ring instead of a $10,000 one?

Quote from TERA

I remember in my first month or so on this site I had pretty much the same opinion. I remember posting something very similar on the subject on Yahoo Answers, and I believe I recall a few members here who were quite livid about it. In RV's defense, as well as my own, I can say that there are men in the men's rights movement who really do hate women, just as there are women in the feminist movement who really do hate men. You can argue that point if you like, but it's as true now as it was nearly a year ago when I made that comment on Yahoo Answers.

I will say that after being on this site for almost a year, I've noted that the admins have been doing a good job keeping the most inflammatory members in check. They've stepped things up several notches, in my view. Since I joined, I've noted that some of those most inflammatory members are no longer with us. (Yay!) And I've observed that there are far more members here who are not "anti-female" than there are those who are.

To a newbie, however, the shock of seeing even just one or two members making frequent hateful anti-female posts makes it seem like they are many...but the fact is, they are really only a few.

It doesn't make those folks any more likable. They do tarnish the movement. But I'm confident in the courage and integrity of other male members here to keep things in line. There are a few here that really impress me with the way they handle the posts of both sexes..with a sharp and balanced eye and with calm, collected, insightful (and moving) expression. Marx, Percy, and others like them- you're gems in this movement. Kudos!

_____________________________________________

Got your PM. I reacted to the stuff in bold print. Thanks for the clarification.

Quote from bababob

_____________________________________________

Riddle me this. How does exposing strongly feminist rhetoric on one of our female supporter's blogs warrant references to inflammatory and anti-female members on this site ... you know ones who need to be kept in line by other members, and who are checked on by the administrators?

Don't tell YOU what to do? OK, but I'll just let you tell Me what to do. Sure! I do not need to get a hold of myself, much less make a "Try" at doing so.

What are you talking about? I didn't tell you what to do, except to say "don't tell me what to do"... oh yes, and I did say something about getting a hold of yourself...I deleted both those comments, in case you didn't notice.

Quote from TERA

What are you talking about? I didn't tell you what to do, except to say "don't tell me what to do"... oh yes, and I did say something about getting a hold of yourself...I deleted both those comments, in case you didn't notice.

________________________________________________

I didn't read your last PM before I wrote my last post. I apologize and hope you can forgive me. (I'm fuhklempt! ... It's late here ... Time for bed.)
P.S. I revised my post as I wrote you I would.

Quote from bababob

________________________________________________

I didn't read your last PM before I wrote my last post. I apologize and hope you can forgive me. (I'm fuhklempt! ... It's late here ... Time for bed.)

It's o.k. I shouldn't have got so defensive. It's late here, too...lol! Time for me to hit the hay as well!

When I first joined this site, I did notice that some members here actually do hate women. So I can't say I blame anyone for picking up on that. However, I wasn't stupid enough to paint the entire site like that. After all, I can't imagine men being allowed on a woman's forum, unless he's one of them "Yes Ma'am" types.

The fact that she wrote that blog three days after joining this site tells you what kind of person she is. I have noticed that Rebellious seemed very full of herself in a lot of her posts. It always seemed like she really thought she new things about the world that the rest of us don't, and she's like what... eighteen? I remember her writing in a "conspiracy theory" about how she knows so much about the economy and yadda yadda.