Re: Feminist Rebecca Front 'Lazy Gender Stereotype' of Men

On Feb 16, 1:15 pm, retardsman <remarks...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:57 am, Masculist <mascul...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 15, 11:05 pm, "Society" <Soci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"MCP" <gf010w5...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> reported in messagenews:t%Mcn.37219$Wb4.479@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/

That link already points to something else entirely.

Here's the correct permanent link:
<http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4570>

  [Feminist Rebecca Front 'Lazy Gender Stereotype' of Men
  by] Robert Franklin, Esq.

     it should surely alert us, as women, to the fact that
     if we demand respect from men, we must also give
     respect to them.

  Well, that's a concept.  This article

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/gender.familyandr...>
  expresses just that type of common-sense sort of notion
  (The Guardian, 6/12/08).  My only question is why feminists have such a
hard time grasping that one
  simple thing. [...]

Here's the answer, Mr. Franklin: feminists only consider females
worthy of respect - in the core of their belief system, feminists
do not even consider men to be people.  Observe carefully the
next time you encounter a feminist who says "feminism is about
equality." That feminist is not at all talking about equality for
_men_ even though you can be sure the feminist believes (maybe
very sincerely indeed!) that this definition of feminism applies
to all people.  So, if the feminist ignores the equality of _men,_
then we can see that feminists don't include men in the feminist
definition of people.  Period.

  [...] How much criticism was there of Rep. Carol Shea-Porter
  (D-N.H.) when she talked blithely of "sending the men home"
  so that the women of the Congress could pass healthcare
  legislation.  Aside from the jaw-dropping stupidity
  of her statement,

...as in who does she think will be paying for her fantasy "health-
care legislation" after she and her girlfriends seated in Congress
pass a bill - hmmm?

  why did she assume that misandry is OK?  Maybe because it is.

Maybe so, Mr. Franklin.  It always has been before, hasn't it?

  Maybe because in fact there is no outcry except from a few
  men's and fathers' rights advocates, and we know about them,
  don't we?  All misogynists, right?

That's what MRAs are called.   "Misogynists."  This sort of
name-calling only exposes the ignorance and bigotry of the
people who throw the word around.

  But seriously, decades ago, a lot of men heard feminists
  say "gender equality" and replied "yes!"

Uh huh.  Little did "a lot of men" pay attention "decades ago"
to the inherent sexism in anyone who called themselves
"feminists."  In the U.S. we now have laws that punish merchants
who operate using bait-and-switch tactics.  Feminists, however,
remain above the law.

  The idea that men and women should be not only legally equal
  but equally respected sounded in deeply felt notions of fairness.  Who
knew that the very people who claimed
  the mantle of gender equality only a few decades ago,
  would now find excuse after excuse after excuse for the most
  disgraceful misandry and anti-male inequality.  In 1969, at the height
of the war in Viet Nam, I was impressed
  to hear feminists calling for women to be drafted
  alongside men.  Who hears that call now?

Ha!  Other esquires who were alive back then knew full well
that to hear such thing was to hear mere feminist posturing.
Those girls knew full well that extending the military draft
to females was political poison and would never happen in
_their_ lifetime.  Their duplicity was fully exposed in the
following decade when Phyllis Schlafly stood up against the
so-called Equal Rights Amendment waaay back in the 1970s
(were you alive back then Mr. Franklin?) and said the ERA
would require women to be drafted.  "No it doesn't!" cried
the feminists.  So much for the feminist claim about being
for 'equality,' eh?

Who hears those erstwhile warriors for gender equality
rail against radical inequalities in education, workplace deaths, crime
victimization, deaths in war, child custody, incarceration
for minor drug possession and other nonviolent crime,
homelessness and health insurance?  When did a feminist last demand that
women be required to register with the
Selective Service System?

The sexism and female supremacism of feminists is obvious
to the most casual observer.  Unfortunately, most folks don't
pay attention.  Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty
and feminists are snatching liberty away from those who
aren't vigilantly observing what feminists do that doesn't
match up with what feminists say.

Occasionally a feminist will say that they've just got too much
else to do to pay attention to men's issues.  Well, those aren't
just men's issues; they're women's issues too.

Feminists are so intent on squashing men that if a few 'eggs'
are broken to make the feminist social 'omelet'...

Every man who's in prison for pot possession is a man
who's not helping a woman pay the bills [...]

Oh, it's prison or slavery to women for men, eh Mr. Franklin Esq.?

--
   It's her country, let her defend it.

let her also support and pray for it, we'll see how that goes



Are you "Nick Danger" Society?  I just posted a quote of yours from
this and this thread to my Facebook page.  Now if only I could get ray
to let me do the same then I just might start a revolution <smile>

Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

huh? suddenly i'm not senor leper?

what's next, a column at MND?  ;O)

as for faces, helen's a piker, measly thousand ships

we ain't fakin, whole lotta shakin goin on- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – An earthquake of magnitude 6.7 hit near the
China-Russia border on Thursday, but its epicenter was extremely deep
and there were no immediate reports of casualties or damage.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100218/wl_nm/us_russia_quake


no answer from smitty or elsewise so i hadda chat up myself :O)
.

Relevant Pages