Quote from Fruit_Cake

i was reading today and i though this was a really interesting and insightful definition of what it is to be a masculist by otis. http://waragainstwomen.blogspot.com

You really surprise me, fruitcake. I had you pegged as a mangina but seems you could be an okay guy after all!

Quote from celtish

You really surprise me, fruitcake. I had you pegged as a mangina but seems you could be an okay guy after all!

He's a girl.

Nah! It's dead easy.

I have a friend who was a Spitfire pilot during WW2. (hey, no cracks about age, OK?) He reckoned that when he and three others took on a lone Jerry Fokker, they had to be careful who it was they were shooting at. But when a bunch of Fokkers swooped on one lone Spit, it was a turket shhot. If you saw a plane, it wasn't you, so you shot at it.

Same with being an MRA. We are surrounded by the enemy. Its a 'target-rich' environment.

Just shoot the fokkers.

Just concentrate on the main enemy...FEMINISM.

The inconsistent feminist & the inconsistent susie homemaker (chivalry & equality when it suits them) are the real enemy.

As soon as it gets hot being a feminist in the future you won't be able to find anyone to hold the candle for the other side, but they will all still be there in the grey zone. I have met very few of these loud forum feminist trolls, but the other kind of mixing types (the best of both worlds) are everywhere. All you do by attacking their name is allow them to rename themselves as we have seen with communists who turn into socialists who rename themselves as liberals to rename themselves as environmentalists and onto progressives. They will join any cause and distort it, so you must target the bad effeminate character.

Otherwise it will take decades more to deal with them as they have almost taken over the Christian church and you will have a hard time using feminist and the church in the same sentence without using long digressions to explain what you mean by this mix.

If we center on the bad character there will be no where to hide, and they can wear nun robes, be named empowered woman and it won't save them from the hammer that's to drop. By going too much with the outside you play their game as they will change titles like clothes and you will be left destroying the last feminist robe that has no one wearing it ,while surrounded by women saying they never were a feminist for they are now a _________ ( place your new name here).

They are like water or sludge in their indirectness, and until you see that we will be swinging at robes long vacated. Look how many manginas have tried to do the same with the MRA cause! They are like sludge too. Sludge flows downhill as our culture now flows, so dig a whole in the flawed character and they will flow into the ground whence they came.

You really surprise me, fruitcake. I had you pegged as a mangina but seems you could be an okay guy after all!

i could be an okay guy, given a few cuts and stitches here and there. There is a usual misogynistic internet custom of everyone is a man unless you make a cute little sickly feminine gender statement with pink frilly knickers around it.

anyway, i didn't write that quote, otis did, but thanks celtish.

Quote from timocrat

The inconsistent feminist & the inconsistent susie homemaker (chivalry & equality when it suits them) are the real enemy.

without examples, tim it is difficult to know what type you are talking about. maybe your talking about me, maybe you arent.

but i agree with you, people change names to suit them, when the old one stops being fashionable. but aren't people allowed to change their ideas too? sometimes people learn you know.

i think the reason i like otis's quote is he is explaining the difficulty and the fine line that you have to walk to maintain your ideas, and not be attacked for it.

The main gripe I have with feminism which I have is it's dogmatic approach to masculinism as opposed to feminism.

Anyone is allowed to be a feminist, even men - and membership of the feminist cause is to be applauded. It is never to be publicly criticised, although many will claim to be non supporters as such, but that has to be done in private from what I can gather. I'm still trying to get my head round the "post feminism" thing - I suspect it means that women (in particular) say that they support "some" of the aspects of "the cause" - but they are the ones that suit them. The ones thy don't like or support are those original claims of feminism (if I am indeed right here) that would most probably result in women being accountable for their actions, and the shouldering of "responsibility" - which to me sounds like it's a dirty word in the realms of feminism.

As for masculinism - well, that's to be totally and irrevocably denied. Now that really IS a dirty word! According to the rules of today memberhip of any masculinist cause, or the mere suggestion of publicising or declaration of a need for men's rights, as such, means you are a retard, a neanderthal, insecure, lacking "manhood (interpret that in anyway you wish) or you are an out and out misogynist.

In Style magazine (part of the Sunday Times delivery) recently in that weird ASsk Mrs Mills column, a guy wrote in to compalin about "Mrs Mills" constant sniping at the male gender, and her general theme of "woman always right" / "man always wrong" thing, and all she could do in response was to refer to his penis, and even then suggested he diverted all his attention to other guy's penises! That low form of attack really is the frequently used tack by so many media type women in circumstances such as this.

Fruit Cake you are still being deconstructionist. Are we simply talking about change or change of high principles? Do you change your philosophy or theology to fit your desires? That is the question at hand.

Women change to fit their desires and thus are more likely to be tyrannical souls. Men (the newer sex) have more power to act on such things and can be both more dangerous and better than the first or older save yourself at any cost sex. Yet when the state becomes effeminate we collaspe in a slow decline or malaise of super high levels of corruption.

You can see this played out in the US election, where change is fashionable and people have no idea of what the change is or will mean. Fashion has now reached politics, and we need a new wordrobe with good hair Rommey or Edwards. Neither of these men are likely to win, but that isn't the point for all seem to talk like women, except McCain who still has a policy not much different than the rest. Ron Paul is almost there, but because he is so harsh in not apealing to women in so many ways he has to have the war as silver bullet.

As far as the media coverage here in the Uk about the American political battles now gathering momentum, the focus on the odious (to my mind) Hillary Clinton seems to be far out of proportion. I am pissed off with all the limelight being directed at this bossy woman, as if she is the front runner, which we all know is not the case. The BBC and the Daily Telegraph behave as if she is the only bloody candidate in the whole Presidential race. To be fair, the DT did mention the queeny strop this woman threw when she was challenged by one of the guys, the name of whom I can't remember - not Barack - the other guy! Forgive me - I'm only a Brit. It's also strange how she is always referred to a Hillary, while the guys are always called by their last names. Is that also some kind of discrimination? One informal and friendly, the other official and faintly hostile? Or am I being too sensitive here?

I hope that after New Hampshire we will hear nothing more about Clinton!

If feminism is a political movement then I would think many people will find something in it that they agree with. And some things that they don't.

It is like have a left wing political party and a right wing political party.

The majority of people swing either way depending on the issue at hand.

For instance, some may swing left on the prostitution issue but will swing right on the abortion issue.

It must be also that there are far right wing people and far left wing people that will close their mind and ears to anything that is from the other side regardless of what the issue is.

At the end of the day people are going to be themselves and this is more true as they get older and wiser and trust in their own judgement or have figured out that following other peoples ideals does not fit right with them completely.

Thus MGTOW which is basically following in what is right for you on each issue and women falling between tradition and modern. Chivalry and independence. But then women can also be chivalrous towards men. And men swing back and forth between needing to be taken care of and needing to be left alone.

It is a confusing battle to try and make people be certain ways.

Quote from timocrat

Are we simply talking about change or change of high principles? Do you change your philosophy or theology to fit your desires? That is the question at hand.

i dont know tim this kind of conversation goes above my head. I get a headache when i try to think about it. However, I have learnt to respect people that can have conversations like that instead of being intolerant of them.

i think some people must have very high intellects but sometimes they can go so far into their own thoughts and ideas that they lose touch with the rest of the population.

or maybe they rest of the population loses touch with them, i dont know.

in my opinion, you are very much like that and also celtic is too, very high intellect but sometimes you need people to stop you from flying away into whatever world it is you seem to have so much fun in

thats why i think otis is a very hands on person, its easy for me to follow him, but im starting to learn more now.

the focus on the odious (to my mind) Hillary Clinton seems to be far out of proportion. I am pissed off with all the limelight being directed at this bossy woman, as if she is the front runner, which we all know is not the case. The BBC and the Daily Telegraph behave as if she is the only bloody candidate in the whole Presidential race.-Mercian

100% correct! It's the same on all the networks everywhere, the establishment has lined up behind her. The other night she had all the old hacks standing behind her. Ms. Albright the moron was there. It will be good to have a real house cleaning of both the old guards in the Clintons and Bushes.