Confronting Woman-Bashing in the Men's Movement

[senach]

You really (seriously) don't want a reply from me on this.

But I agree that Timocrat should be able to vent as any other man.

Indulge me

[Percy]

So the plan is to lock them up in cages and talk to them until they give in?

Now, there's an idea.

Good to see someone takig it seriously.

[Aug9th-LiveOrDie]

I dont talk bad about ladies
I dont talk bad about women
I talk bad about bitches and hoes
and a lot of bitches have a y chromosome

[julie]

Indulge me

I checked out your profile and noticed you are new to the site. Sorry to miss your introduction soooo,

I don't think this is my place to say anything. I don't really know for sure what hards are. Maybe some of them are not what I think they are.

[christianj]

In the little state that I hibernate in I have yet to come across one strident feminist. The women with whom I have raised the topic with are aghast or simple dismiss them as a joke..

Feminism is in the minority, some say as low as 5% of the total population, even NOW is howling about having only half a million drones on their books..

So if that is the case, by continually caning the piss out of women serves no purpose as the assumption is that all women are feminists which is definitely not the case. How many women would check out this site and for what reason. Do we frighten them off because of the ongoing generalised hate fest from a few ?
That is not to say that we cannot continue our process of re-indoctrination but it does mean that some will have to re-adjust their written material..

It's a lesson or bitter pill I had to swallow as well, why should I have to be the only one ?

[Garak]

It's a lesson or bitter pill I had to swallow as well, why should I have to be the only one ?

It was your choice to go soft, doesn't mean you can ask it of others.

[julie]

It's a lesson or bitter pill I had to swallow as well, why should I have to be the only one ?

Because you're special.

[Percy]

Feminism is in the minority, some say as low as 5% of the total population, even NOW is howling about having only half a million drones on their books..

Yes, but it is akin to the situation that pertained in Nazi Germany. Few were in the 'Party' but the majority of the population voted them in and were complicit.

Much of our society is ' Gender Socialist' as compared to National Socialist. They spout the Agitprop and demean that part of the population that is deemed 'impure' - men instead of Jews.

Just as there was an underlying anti-semitism in Germany, so in our wider, international society there is an anti-male sentiment. One does not often find the 'strident' Feminist but even here in this small State Cj, one finds the Judy Jacksons and the rest of the female politicians (including the one's who try to suicide after seducing their drivers) who spout feminist crap at the drop of a hat.

I once had a conversation with Peg Putt in a cafe in Salamanca about the 'Safe at Home' laws and she could not have cared less that men were locked up on the word of a woman. She even had the gall to say that the Police didn't take much notice of it. I asked her if she was happy with Police deciding for themselves which laws to apply and which to ignore and she had the damned nerve to say I should be happy with that considering that I did not like that Law.

[Percy]

It was your choice to go soft, doesn't mean you can ask it of others.

To suggest Cj is 'soft' or even going soft is laughable, Garak. Has someone been at your breakfast worms?

("Shredded Worm - a REAL Cardassian breakfast !" - from the Cardassian TV Ads)

[Garak]

To suggest Cj is 'soft' or even going soft is laughable, Garak. Has someone been at your breakfast worms?

("Shredded Worm - a REAL Cardassian breakfast !" - from the Cardassian TV Ads)

He said it himself and he wants us to follow suit. Let me guess, trying to convert feminists is now hard?

[bababob]

Sounds like a great plan but the results are in and the amount of effort per newly converted ally doesn't seem worth the price Karl pays for the server. Sometimes it's hard to tell an ally from the enemy.

Maybe we should research propaganda removal techniques.

5% the population is feminist? That's because the rest live in my cuntry.

Bravo Billy! You hit the nail on the head. People need to read and hear about misandry (there are women who try to claim it's a phoney, made-up word). They need to know that both misandry and misogyny are not common adjectives or political ones, but clinical diagnostic terms that should be reserved for licensed professionals to use; that harassment is not merely sexual and not reserved exclusively for women; that domestic violence is a sword that swings both ways. We've got to stop allowing these pockets of hysteria to exist in the field of law. Fighting misinformation, disinformation, fallacy and propaganda is the way to go!

[christianj]

He said it himself and he wants us to follow suit. Let me guess, trying to convert feminists is now hard?

Ahhh! your just a learner..

You are obviously being selective in your reading..

I am a passionate hater of anything feminist, but I have chosen to attack the cause and not the affect..

There is a difference..

Nothing is gained through generalisations, we have to be more selective in our criticisms. There is no advantage to getting the entire opposite sex offside. We do need them to make changes as well as men..

You can cane the piss out of anyone here if you like but just be aware that there will be opposition..

[Timocrat]

No one has suggested that 'winning' women to our side should be our first strategy.

To suggest it should be the last is to ignore the reality of man's forums. To claim it is 'Wrong', is to deprive us of a legitimate tactic and condemn its use as against the MRM's Geneva Convention.

This is a war we are in. A soldier is faced by an enemy in the field and he has some choices. He can destroy (kill) or render incapable (wound), capture or 'turn'. The situation and available skills often determine that action, although strategic direction may sway the decisions.

But, let us suppose for a moment that the strategic direction IS to take that last option as a main drive. Is it so useless?

The British faced the first of the communist threats in the far east - in Malaya. This was well before Vietnam. The British response, which included all the usual strategic options and tactical opportunities, adopted psychological warfare as a main strategy. It deliberately concentrated effort on 'turning' the enemy troops. It was overwhelmingly successful. The war was won in comparatively quick time and with comparably little loss of life. Compared to Vietnam which cost 50,000 American lives and a similar number from all of the other allies and which was lost.

Our 'situation' here is this: a woman comes to this board. We have choices. Killing and wounding are not viable expectations. Using arguement and fact, we can convince many of the Truth. We can gain an ally and so weaken the enemy.

In the media, we find a woman who speaks the truth and with very little effort, we can encourage her. She speaks to her fellow women. We can quote her arguements, some of which will be put in a way that we might not usually use. It is an additional source of ammunition.-Percy

My point was countering their strategy. As stated earlier they wish to divide us, get things by having a new group to replace the Jews, silence all criticism of them and more. Since you agree that winning women to our cause should not be our first strategy we are in agreement.

As for my winning women last, this was meant in relation to dealing with feminism's allies. As stage 2 of 4, that means winning women comes at the end of stage 2, and therefore is not the very last, but the last ally to take away from feminism and get on our side, or in the middle (not the first of feminism's allies to sway to neutral or to our side). Men who jump over themselves to make such women feel comfortable here, and then preach equality are an oxymoron in action.

As Garak implies Soft & tired Hard MRA men move to want to sway women often enough due to not getting other men to follow their vision. These men should try giving in to another man's vision over finding women & softs to follow their vision in replacement to men.

Women make less of a fuss, will talk nice, give postive feedback and make Softs and tired Hards feel much better about things.

Glenn Sacks is married, as I am. Glenn Sacks has money, as I do (sorry Julie I was talking of the movement in relation to the estblishment, not my own situation). I have boys, Glenn has many girls. His job means he must attract women listeners, and mine has no such underlining needs. My underlining need is to save my boys, not protect my girls. That is why Softs with girls need women aboard earlier, more often and over other unmoveable men. I could go on how I'm different than Glenn but risk bragging.

Moslem men work much better together because they humble themselves on the floor before someone else several times every day, but we have western men who will not bow before any other man on any given day, yet will snivel before women for the most pathetic reasons one can think of, as to ignore the reasons many men will grovel before women, and will not bow to other men, is to miss the whole bit nature plays in this situation.

We need to be very careful of which women are brought in for we have much in our nature to let them in with distorted or lowered qualifications, just as we have too high and distorted qualifications at work with other men and how they must all bow to each of our visions. When any man humbles himself before another we need to sit up and take notice and not bad mouth him. Better to humble yourself before a better man , than snivel before any woman who comes a flirting your way, or try to endlessly surround yourself with other Softs, manginas, women and confused young men and call yourself a leader.

Yet as I have said on other occasions many women bend like reeds, and fall right back into place when they speak to another friend (or bend with everyone else too), so unless they are standing beside you when the sh1T hits the fan you are not sure they are really on your side. Women run in battle, as Amazonians (according to recorded history shot arrows from a far and rode away from any real battle).

Comparing them to direct war Percy is not clear. Cold War conflict is a better comparison, and then the "useful idiots" are what win the cold war for either side in the end. I don't plan to be a useful idiot of the estblishment or any Soft who used to be a radical feminist supporter in the past like Warren Farrel. There is indirect blood on such Soft Man hands, and it will never wash off to men like me. And what I would do to such men if they laid their guilt trip on me face to face about "bashing women" cannot be expressed on a family channel like this one. To then compare verbal nastiness with this quiet indirect blood on their hands is the height of irony. The nice guy, who helped kill men, is better than the nasty venting man, who doesn't hold back on treating women equal for real with words, is an equation that will never add up to me for it is not logical.

[shaazam]

By attacking women, you actually validate what feminists say. This is why the Men's Movement will be meant to failure if they don't remove the extremists parts of it. It's just a blowback effect.

"Women can and should be welcome in the MRM. But they should never lead it."
That's about how society worked for most of it's time and that's why I don't support the MRM anymore. I mean, I support equal rights and stop judicial biases, but I don't identify myself with any men rights movement. They're the same as feminism.

"equal right" the feminit wimyn would never accept equal rights with men; the forty years of the rise to ascendancy of femininitism was all about removing any rights men had vis a vis with wimyn men have obligations nowdays to wimyn and most overtures of men towards wimyn have been criminalised

judicial bias - it is endemic in the feminit courts especially the Family Court its decrees render men as peonage slaves to his ex wife; access to his kids are only by her indulgence - his expensive attained court orders for access to his kids sure !!!! if she agrees ha ha

think not in feminit politically correct weasel words equality affirmative action discrimination sexual harassment and such but lookat effects and outcomes - who is benefitting from the application of the dogma and you will see the feminitism is a comprehensive shell trick perpetrated on men by the feminits and their lackey manginas

winners are grinners - not many male grinners exit from the hearing of the Family Court star chamber

[Percy]

We are in agreement on a lot of issues, Timo, and I appreciate the issue you raised about Moslem men bowing down before a 'higher' being.

Who does the Grail serve?

Yes, MRAs must recognise the more effective MRAs. Yes, we should beware of feet of clay. I am content in myself to recognise also that people can have a change of heart and do not automatically discount the good a man does just because once he was 'on the other side'. (Farrell). St Paul was a bit of an uncompromising lad in his earlier days too.

You make such a lot of sense, my friend, but you are practicing the 'Hard' to the extent that some of the 'soft' usefulness is reviled or simply lost as a strategic asset.

Maybe just a little more tolerance is needed in the first instance. It is a way; one among many.

I tend to get the measure of the women who come here before deciding what my eventual response is to be. I encourage those who show willingness to debate and see the logic and understand the points raised. I am willing to hear women's perspectives as long as they adhere to basic principles of Truth and Integrity.

I am not averse to using the flat of the sword to whack them from time to time (as with some of the illogical and histrionic men here) and have used the edge, with some force, on others who are, as you say, here to simply cause division and discord with no intention of meeting us half way on a ground of Truth

The edge of the sword - the devastating arguement or personal and revealing observation of Character - is the nearest we can get on a forum such as this to a 'kill' or an incapacitating wound.

Meanwhile there is opportunity for honing skills, confronting arguements and agitprop. And, importantly, for developing some humour and entertainment on a forum that needs some levity from time to time.

A last point. I can respect some of my enemies. I can even like them as people. I often prefer the singer to the song, while recognising that even though I have some favourite MRA refrains appropriate to being a man in a difficult gender-split world, the songs sung by some MRAs are shite themselves and the singers are talentless wannabees. It is the same with some women who call themselves feminists - and who are clearly just confused, agitprop-ridded 'modern' women. I like some of them. I don't like their songs much but they themselves are salvageble women and I take the time to throw them a line.