Critique of the Axioms Maxims and principles of Feminism
Critique of the Axioms Maxims and principles of Feminism
If our old adversary feminism, had principles, axioms, tenets or maxims to which it adheres, what would they be?
A suggestion list please. I would like to have a go with a critique of these…
IE, ‘equal pay for equal work’, ‘our bodies, our selves’, ‘biology is not destiny’… feminism is such a slippery mess I would like to pin it down and examine it intellectually. Any more succinct quotable startements please…. with a source if you have one…Longer paragraphs OK. too
My posts, so far, are my credentials.
John, we don’t have a preview option. I am favouring the edit option because I can’t see what I post as a comment.
Comment by julie — Wed 25th February 2009 @ 7:05 pm
Sugestion – “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle”
……………………………………………………………
Actually I think the truth is –
a woman without a fish is like a man without a bicycle!
Just ask Julie!
LOL!
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 25th February 2009 @ 8:45 pm
OK, I’ve turned the comment preview plugin back on.
However, please don’t make off-topic comments to contact me, use the contact form or email me directly.
Comment by JohnPotter — Wed 25th February 2009 @ 10:27 pm
I think you need a psychiatrist. lol
Comment by julie — Wed 25th February 2009 @ 11:59 pm
Good idea. I was thinking about the matter only yesterday. Feminism’s claimed goal is/was to achieve equal rights for women in law, freedoms and opportunities. In practice, its adherents have worked instead for female privilege and domination. They have required society to function and men to behave only in ways that women prefer. Men’s perspective, interests, sexuality, contribution, strengths have all been demonized and denigrated, while at the same time continuing to be exploited. Most western countries have ensured that women are treated at least equally in law, but pre-existing legal privileges (such as having a male assaults female offence but not the converse) have remained. In addition, new laws for the last three decades or so have been based almost entirely on women’s world views and preferences, and the belief that women still needed special help to become equal.
Aside from biological realities one of the only remaining bastions of western feminism is the fight to equalize income. This fight is based largely on erroneous propaganda in which no calculation is included to reflect the fact that women legally own half, and with recent law changes considerably more than half of what their husbands or long-term male partners earn and is spent on assets. The fight disregards the fact that strong laws are already in place requiring women to be paid equally for equal work. Instead, it seeks to impose a welfare model that expects women to be paid equally regardless of the kind of work they choose to do, conveniently ignoring major issues such as supply and demand, accident risk and damage to health all of which tend to increase the value of the kind of roles men are prepared to provide but women generally avoid.
Feminism now cannot credibly claim to be a doctrine seeking equality. It is a doctrine seeking female domination, privilege and enslavement of men to the service of women.
Comment by blamemenforall — Thu 26th February 2009 @ 11:15 am
I summarise Feminism this way:-
The first feminists wanted women to GET EQUAL
The later feminists wanted women to GET EVEN! (revenge)
Comment by John Brett — Thu 26th February 2009 @ 4:54 pm
Although this is not of femme alliance origins the idea of ‘women and children first’ seems to fit, if only for the implied message that men are not part of the first and therefore are the ‘last’. Women have long and willingly bathed in the protection of men, but the vice of the versa seems to be missing here. Perhaps ‘women and children only’ is the implied message.
Comment by Vince — Sat 28th February 2009 @ 5:45 am
Here’s one for you artpos.
Marylynne French famed feminist author said –
“All men are rapists, and that’s all they are”
Comment by skeptik — Sat 28th February 2009 @ 4:41 pm
My quote:
All men are not bad and neither are all women
Comment by rigormortis — Sat 28th February 2009 @ 7:57 pm
I can recommend http://www.femininezone.com/
I think that it is important to recognise that MOST women do not subscribe to the man-hating feminism, MOST women value the welbeing of tghe men in their lives.
Comment by John Brett — Sun 1st March 2009 @ 11:35 am
Hi artpos,
Perhaps much of the criticism sought can be found in this remarkable essay.
It is one I return to occasionally to keep myself awake lest I fall back into the cultural slumber encouraged by feminists (who these days often don’t call themselves feminist but give themselves away by their attitudes and behavior).
Comment by skeptik — Sun 1st March 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Excellent essay!
Comment by julie — Sun 1st March 2009 @ 8:38 pm
Why do you think it’s excellent Julie?
Comment by skeptik — Sun 1st March 2009 @ 11:03 pm
Because men were seriously questioning their value after Vietnam War and they were going to do something about the way they were treated by society. I think it was building up from WWI for men.
I liked the essay because it walks you through what happened and it confirms what I thought was going on.
Comment by julie — Sun 1st March 2009 @ 11:22 pm
John,
you said –
“I think that it is important to recognize that MOST women do not subscribe to the man-hating feminism, MOST women value the well-being of the men in their lives”.
I take it you’re referring to NZ women and I wish that I could totally agree with you here.
However, whilst I agree that most women don’t consciously subscribe to man hating feminism I really don’t think most NZ women value the well being of men in their lives very much at all.
To the contrary the vast majority I meet in NZ appear so self absorbed as to be very ignorant of men’s well being issues.
We are after all talking about the sex that has their own magazine
called “Me” (the name says allot!)
They have their own ministry, their own departments in universities, their own clinics,
business, education and legal associations,
health funding streams, media channels etc.
On top of which I can recall in recent times how every day it has been possible to come across terrible denigration of the male sex usually by women.
We even had to find a way to describe this phenomenon! – Many settled on naming it the demonizing of men.
As I have been waiting for almost 30 years for it I would dearly love to see the evidence of the majority of women in NZ taking a break from their self absorption and focusing on valuing their menfolk (as more than walking ATMs and selfless sacrificial protectors).
I’d love to see the masses of NZ women pushing for sufficient health funding that male life expectancy become even close to NZ women’s.
Likewise I’d love to see NZ women en masse lobbying for NZ men to have the same level of reproductive, parental and relationship rights that they enjoy.
I’d love to see masses of NZ women pushing to have a ‘justice’ system that gives women the same level of punishment for the same crimes that men commit instead of them getting sentences that are punishment-lite and if they do go to prison going to relatively luxurious remand.
As much as I wish it were so I doubt you’ll be able to muster more than a few women who advocate such things John.
Sadly the inescapable conclusion I reach therefore after waiting decades for masses of NZ women to awaken to their menfolk’s well being issues is this –
Give it up.
Life’s too short.
It’s a pointless excercise.
Accept the fact that Women of voting age hold the power because they far outnumber men of voting age in NZ and by and large they simply don’t give a shit about men.
So much for the ‘caring’ sex.
Were the majority of NZ women to really value NZ menfolk’s well-being things would simply be very different and the sex related disparities which blight NZ men would begin to disappear rather than continue as they have for decades now.
I believe therefore the greatest service I can do for the men of NZ is to ask them to accept these facts about NZ women and support one another to forge lives of their own as independently of NZ women as possible.
If this has the effect that it awakens NZ women to begin to wonder where all the men have gotten to and then begin to get curious about their cultural and social blindness towards men then all well and good.
If it doesn’t have that effect then at least men will be valuing themselves.
That’s a much better outcome than waiting like Mommy’s boys for the leftover scraps to be delivered by women who kid themselves their generous and loving but who’ve shown over decades now that they’ve grown used to gorging themselves.
If it doesn’t then
Comment by skeptik — Mon 2nd March 2009 @ 2:48 am
Try “women and their children”.
Comment by gwallan — Mon 2nd March 2009 @ 7:16 pm
Julie,
What’s it like being one of the dominant sex?
Comment by skeptik — Mon 2nd March 2009 @ 9:33 pm
Just think of what it is like for you where you live. And then reverse the roles.
Comment by julie — Mon 2nd March 2009 @ 10:24 pm
Julie,
Your answer makes no sense to me.
Comment by skeptik — Mon 2nd March 2009 @ 10:38 pm
Julie,
You are assuming that I feel dominant where I live. That’s a weird idea.
How you get such a weird idea is anyone’s guess.
If you don’t want to explain what it’s like for you being one of the dominant sex in NZ just say so.
Comment by skeptik — Mon 2nd March 2009 @ 10:47 pm
What’s in it for you being so involved in MENZ Julie?
Are you hoping to get some business helping men once you’ve competed your social work studies?
Comment by skeptik — Mon 2nd March 2009 @ 10:59 pm
Your question makes no sense to me either.
Comment by julie — Mon 2nd March 2009 @ 11:10 pm
You are assuming I feel dominant where I live.
Comment by julie — Mon 2nd March 2009 @ 11:11 pm
Do I do social studies?
Comment by julie — Mon 2nd March 2009 @ 11:12 pm
Julie,
are you saying therefore that you don’t think you and other women dominate NZ these days?
Comment by skeptik — Mon 2nd March 2009 @ 11:21 pm
Julie, Of course you’ve recently been doing Social Studies.
You’ve mentioned it on MENZ.
Comment by skeptik — Mon 2nd March 2009 @ 11:22 pm
I think both sexes dominate NZ. I also see a lot of tradition over here.
Comment by julie — Mon 2nd March 2009 @ 11:25 pm
My mistake. I do have social papers in my study.
But no! … to the rest.
Is there something you are trying to tell me but are instead looking to find a way to say it?
Comment by julie — Mon 2nd March 2009 @ 11:36 pm
Julie,
It’s simply seems very odd to me that a NZ woman would be hanging around a site like MENZ let alone making input through spreading articles and comments.
That’s an extremely rare event you must admit.
Then to say that you think men dominate NZ society as well as women. Even stranger!
That seems an incredible idea given the poor state of NZ men legally, educationally, socially and healthwise vis-a-vis NZ women after decades of feminist hegemony.
I’m very clear that I’m involved in MENZ because I have a vested interest as man to defend myself and NZ menfolk from feminists and their sympathizers who’ve wreaked terrible damage on NZ men for decades.
I’m wondering many things about you though.
What’s in it for you to get involved with MENZ?
Are we men here part of your Social Science study?
Are you hoping to get a job in the social services helping men in NZ?
Are you afraid for the well-being of your late teen sons?
How would you benefit if men in NZ enjoyed being as empowered as women in NZ?
You never know, the answer to these questions might inspire other NZ women to become more male sensitive.
God knows we could do with masses of women like that in NZ.
That’s especially the case as women of voting age in NZ through outliving their male counterparts by at least the length of 2 election cycles therefore demographically and politically dominate NZ society.
Jeepers, if we could get masses of women onboard the cultural ‘oil tanker’ called feminist NZ might actually start to change direction and there’d be a great blessing.
Comment by skeptik — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 12:13 am
.
Comment by julie — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 12:41 am
?
Comment by skeptik — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 12:45 am
What’s that miniscule dot I see on the horizon?
Why yes it’s a NZ woman!
Comment by skeptik — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 4:57 am
#17
The only reason this is a rare event is because some of us here are rude, unwelcoming and up themselves. I also suspect that Julie has a thicker hide than most, greater strength of convition, more passion and a stronger belief that people are better working together than in gender bunkers sniping at each other.
Perhaps part of her social studies was that she learnt something from WW1. Maybe even that while blokes fought their kids suffered at home in their absence. Many here could learn that if they fought less with their ex (and didn’t treat all women like the hun) they would be doing more for their kids and might even enjoy them more. 🙂
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 7:28 am
#20
Call me a skeptic if you like.
Might that miniscule dot on the horizon be your brain mate??
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 7:35 am
I didn’t mean to leave just a dot. I was going to edit it to answer it but while I was doing that, I felt that I wouldn’t answer as well if I had rested first.
I took what you wrote seriously Skeptic.
Comment by julie — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 8:44 am
That was a bit mean. 2 wrongs don’t make a right. (wink)
But you are right also in that men are not going to give women a fair go when they are upset with women. That’s just common sense.
I think that most of us working with couples in the community see that seperation is a difficult thing for both men and women. I guess it is hard for some of us to be radicals because of this.
Comment by julie — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 8:51 am
Has anyone found a man supporting… not blaming… hint or comment from ‘julie’…the not-very-forthcoming-one: at least about herself.
Comment by artpos — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 9:47 am
Better THIS essay: http://www.geocities.com/remarksman/Hise.html
Comment by artpos — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 9:54 am
#21
I ask some finely honed relevant questions and in comes the cavalry to rescue the perceived damsel in distress. Armed to the gills with cheap shot slander and insult it stomps around huffing and puffing it’s self importance.
In the process millions of men who fought and died to save their families from facism get defamed and dishonored and the usual passe feminist claim of a man being anti-women gets dusted off and hurled at a brother.
Sad.
Julie,
shrink into self righteous indignation all you like, conspicuous is the fact that you still haven’t answered the questions I have asked.
That’s a pity because I I’ve stated earlier in this thread –
“You never know, the answer to these questions might inspire other NZ women to become more male sensitive.
God knows we could do with masses of women like that in NZ.
That’s especially the case as women of voting age in NZ through outliving their male counterparts by at least the length of 2 election cycles therefore demographically and politically dominate NZ society.
Jeepers, if we could get masses of women onboard the cultural ‘oil tanker’ called feminist NZ might actually start to change direction and there’d be a great blessing”.
Comment by skeptik — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 11:50 am
I guess if I stay within the rules I can make comment as anyone can.
Comment by julie — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 5:16 pm
NZ is already changing direction. Those that actioned including yourself made the difference.
Comment by julie — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 5:20 pm
BTW, I also think it is fair for Allan to step in if your buddy artpos can. Sad how Allan and I use our real names but you guys don’t. I guess then you guys can spit anything without retribution while we can’t. Not a very fair fight if you ask me.
Comment by julie — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 6:17 pm
Julie,
You’ve assumed artpos is a buddy.
I’ve never met the guy.
Years of experience of being shafted in NZ by fems and their
sympathisers means that it’s imperative for many guys who are outspoken
to NOT give their real names.
I don’t expect you to understand that very well as the fact is you’re not
a NZ male and therefore won’t have suffered the way NZ men have for
the last few decades.
I’m confident that when it’s safe to more men to speak openly with their
given names it’ll happen.
But look what happens in the meantime.
It’s certainly discouraging of guys using real name identification.
Ive noticed that on several occasions – when guys disagreed with you
on MENZ threads – you’ve climbed right into them with insults and horrendous accusations –
womanhater etc. You can deny these things if you like, but I’ll just dig
them out of previous threads. (It’s to your credit by the way that you
didn’t do that this time but instead went into your shell).
In like fashion to your online behavior of recent days gone by however
your self appointed ‘champion’ Allan gets insulting and abusive in throwing the
the terms ‘up themselves’ and ‘miniscule brain’ around.
I’m not asking for these things to be moderated out of the dialogue mind you,
just pointing to some very instructive facts to support a further contention
of mine which is this :
Supposing I had furnished you with my real name on this thread and feathers
got ruffled.
Supposing rumours and gossiping ensued branding me any number
of falacious terms and got around to the nearest fem who could do me
harm – a bank manager who could turn down a loan request,
a work colleague or boss who suddenly ‘mysteriously’ becomes
unsupportive or even downright hostile and obstructive.
These are the kinds of things I’ve seen happen time and again AND been on
the boot end of in lovely little ‘ol femmy NZ.
Doors get closed as femmy rank and file operate their networks.
Now you can claim it’s unfair that some men choose to write under a
pseudonym here.
Too bad.
I can entirely sympathize with their need for anonymity especially when they
make paradigm bridging analysis like artpos has.
I repeat the claim that being virtually a lone woman involved in MENZ your
answering some straight questions with straight
answers might be very beneficial in helping other NZ women to awaken to
sensitivity towards NZ men’s issues.
Indeed under safety of a psuedonym I’d go further now thanks to artpos
and say that as NZ women outnumber NZ men by at least two voting cycles
until the vast majority of NZ women start actively advocating for their
menfolk, NZ men are sunk.
The questions put to you previously still remain Julie and for reasons
I’ve stipulated above are very important –
What’s in it for you, a woman, to get involved with MENZ?
Are we men here part of your Social Science study?
Are you hoping to get a job in the social services helping men in NZ?
Are you afraid for the well-being of your late teen sons?
How would you benefit if men in NZ enjoyed being as empowered
as women in NZ?
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 8:00 pm
You can’t have your answer Skeptic. I have always liked you and to be honest I have always said if any man in this can destroy me it is you.
But you will never befriend me and I will always be a fool in your eyes.
I didn’t get into this when my life was great. I got into this at one of the worst times.
I will always look at you as the thorn that can destroy me as a person. And fuck you I know you will do it if you want to.
Why do I do this?
I do it it until you destroy me. I will try and make as much progress I can until you do.
Comment by julie — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 8:45 pm
Julie,
Silence as a response to straight questions bespeaks something to hide.
Hiding things invites suspicion.
Suspicion negates trust.
See anything in there about you’re earning trust?
Saying friendship will never happen is true as long as you remain elusive about your motives to hang around the MENZ site. After all do you really think I’d be self respecting if I wanted to befriend someone who clings to the shadows?
You reckon you got into this at one of your worst times eh?
It must have been a long worst time then.
What was it? a year? or two? of outbursts of emotional and verbal abuse (in writing) when you didn’t get your own way.
Just check back through previous threads to confirm this………..and look there it is in your last posting on this thread in black and white for all to see…..you’ve slipped back into the old abuse pattern again with your “you’ll destroy me’ and “fuck you” comments.
Melodramatic claims and verbal abuse are no substitute for reasoning……..and no earner of respect either.
artpos,
I hope you’ll keep posting your ideas.
I may not always agree with you but I respect the way you think outside of the tired old conventions of the vast majority of NZers I know – (who appear stuck like other post modern westerners) in a Kafkaesque boomer-mind time-warp.
I like the way you push the envelope in your attempts to find social solutions.
Keep pushing please as intractable problems require fresh thinking rather than the tired old failed cliches of those who have run out of new ideas.
Comment by skeptik — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 10:19 pm
Ummm.
End of discussion. You are what you are.
I won’t stop posting until you stop me. Unless Johnp does.
Comment by julie — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 10:45 pm
And there it is friends.
No expression of remorse from Allan and Julie for their insulting abusive outbursts.
Is this the face of modern NZ you want to show to the world?
(MENZ gets readers from all over the globe)
Julie,
Don’t kid yourself.
I’ve no intention of stopping you from posting at MENZ.
It’s not within my power to do so, and even if I could I wouldn’t as you serve a useful purpose here.
However you’ve just been outed as a woman hanging around the MENZ site who won’t say why she does so, refuses to debate the demography issue artpos raises and is prone to abusiveness when she has a mind.
Still a great posting from artpos showing the demographic hegemony enjoyed by women in NZ –
and hardly a naysayer of that fact!
Goodonya artpos.
At the end of the day when all the hissy steam clears the cold hard facts will prevail.
Comment by skeptik — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 11:28 pm
Skeptic,
Lots of people round here know me, my reputation and the work I do for blokes wanting contact with their kids.
You seem to be a johnny come lately or are someone who has rebranded himself.
Perhaps you might like to do some work before you start slagging people off. Julie also works hard. Frankly I get bored by these newbies who think they can change the workld by being offensive.
Allan
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 11:43 pm
OK, Skeptic, (not that it is my say but I agree anyhow), bring on your best of overseas anti feminists.
Let’s see if you can turn NZ young men against women. Have the show to be the role models of our young. I put my money on the side saying you can’t do it., But if you can I will back off.
But if you can’t then you guys back off.
Is that a fair fight?
Comment by julie — Tue 3rd March 2009 @ 11:46 pm
Allan,
Johny come lately by about several decades!
Have done lots of MRA work and continue to do so.
If you took the trouble to read my posts more closely you’d see I’ve mentioned experiencing misandry in NZ for decades several times on this and other threads too.
Go ahead and check it out.
It pays to do your homework see?
And you’ve some amazing nerve calling me offensive after #21 and #22.
Julie,
your wager is ridiculous.
Where you get the idea that I have the remotest interest in turning young NZ men against young NZ women is anyone’s guess!
That’s a bizarre idea!
For the record I’d love to see young NZ men and women getting along swimmingly.
I simply don’t believe that can successfully happen under current and longstanding feminist hegemony.
I mean really!!! Come on!!
Think about it!
Anyone for another 50 years of what feminist boomers have produced? –
‘No fault’ unilateral 50%+ divorce rates, 300,000 defathered kids, building more prisons, Men overpunished/Women underpunished or unpunished in our ‘justice’ system, unconstitutional Family court gulags where no due process goes on and judges can and do rule like despots, Men sentenced to periodic detention (Anger management programs) without evidence, Men’s health underfunded and men’s longevity thereby still 2 voting cycles behind women’s, many feminists in power hogging the public purse whilst still stupidly and/or mischeiviously with their fem ‘statistics’ saying NZ men are the ones socially on top?
err………………………well……………..no…..unless you’re a feminist man hater or VERY socially unaware.
That took about a nanosecond to answer right?
It’s such a no brainer!
So do you really think that with the likes of artpos and other guys contributing here coming through that young NZ guys won’t work it out for themselves? That they’re so dense!!?
That they’ll need me and some mythical army of MRA troopers from overseas to rescue them as you imagine!
What a hoot!
As for it being a fair fight Julie…….it never was………….and never could be in feminist NZ.
Go figure guys.
Comment by skeptik — Wed 4th March 2009 @ 12:34 am
So you think it is a no win for your side eh?
Then back off.
Comment by julie — Wed 4th March 2009 @ 1:25 am
OK, this hurts to say this to you. Have the site Skeptic. Don’t waste it.
I’ll just join the men who succeed in action behind the scenes.
I guess my heart hurts for you not caring as men in NZ do but then you have your own feminism to fight in Korea.
Comment by julie — Wed 4th March 2009 @ 1:40 am
Julie,
You say “have the site”.
I don’t think cyberspace works that way.
As for referring to Korea again you’ve lost me completely.
Comment by skeptik — Wed 4th March 2009 @ 11:25 am
I to have found it strange that Julie (being a female) hangs in menz
issues It leaves me wonder if there is a hidden a gender to her presents
Comment by Jason — Wed 4th March 2009 @ 12:11 pm
I have been fascinated by what has happened when (allegedly) women have been involved in men’s internet groups. Few now remain; “Julie” is an exception. (Of course, we cannot be sure of anything about any poster unless he/she is known personally to us or others whose word we can trust). The women seemed often to become embroiled in spats with male contributors. Is this because of some insurmountable gender difference? Or because some of the women were deliberately trying to cause rifts and destabilization in the movement?
Looking through the history of Julie’s posts it seems she previously stuck up for a male poster who was often out of line, using abusive language and threatening or recommending violence. She actively encouraged him and opposed others’ efforts to improve the quality and safety of his contributions. Why would anyone interested in an effective men’s movement support those who behave in ways dangerous to the credibility and image of the movement?
Comment by blamemenforall — Wed 4th March 2009 @ 2:26 pm
Dear Readers,
I know Julie.
She originally attended the North Shore Mens Centre seeking assistance with her male progeny.
Thus she has a vested interest in welfare for the male gender.
She has contributed a lot within the past couple of years.
Organising attendance of Judy Turner, Jim Bagnall and myself on a podium to advance issues facing men in the Glen Eden community is a sample of what she has done.
Attendance in supporting members of the “fathers coalition” is also worthy of note.
I stand alongside her, without chivalrous intent.
She has walked the walk, talked the talk, and further, provided direct action to counteract the social imbalance and demonization of men, seeking a more favourable position for the male.
Kindest Regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
(09)271 3020
Comment by Paul Catton — Wed 4th March 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Paul,
You say Julie has a vested interest in the male gender.
I get the impression that she has a vested interest in her own sons well-being certainly.
But she wouldn’t be the first mother in history to have ambitions for her sons which turn out in the longer term to be self serving.
Sadly the stronger impression I’m left with from seeing many of her postings at MENZ is that she’ll put out provocative hot button pusher statements which naturally get strong responses then she’ll lash out with melodrama and verbal abuse as a reaction to hearing respectfully and strongly expressed counter-views she disagrees with. Then when that doesn’t work to cower her debatee who refuses to be bullied she’ll claim ‘victimhood’ and threaten abandonment as a form of self righteous retribution.
From what I can gather this has gone on for a couple of years or so.
That’s a strongly established pattern of behavior right there.
Therefore despite all your words about work she’s done to advance men’s issues I question the wisdom of having ANYONE associated with the Men’s Rights Movement who uses slander, insults and verbal and emotional abuse as a method of engagement in debating men’s issues.
As other commentators have rightly pointed out it creates unneccesary divisiveness, paints the Men’s Rights Movement in a bad light (which the fems will just lap up as ambrosia!) and attracts the suspicion that she’s stirring things up to slow the Men Rights Advocacy down.
I’d like nothing more than to believe that Julie was a respectful woman working hard advocating for Men’s Rights in NZ purely out of genuine concern and respect for men, not a self serving agendas I’ve alluded to mind you.
As I’ve said several times before at MENZ God knows we could do with many women in NZ like that. Even finding one woman like that regularly on the MENZ threads would be a great boon and encourage other women to come forward.
But responding with inflamatory and quite often male-bashing comments and then ‘poor victim’ cut and run is a long way from cutting it with me and apparently other readers who are now also watching closely with mounting reservations.
They like I need to see more evidence of sensitive comment, fair play and thoughtful responses to be convinced she fits the role.
Another thing I think worth stressing here is that MENZ gets viewed by a global audience so the value of appropriate role-modeling can be useful to people far and wide…………and the damage very considerable where a blind eye is turned.
Comment by skeptik — Thu 5th March 2009 @ 1:30 am
Thanks for your kind words Paul. I think that you as a person and your case has contributed a lot towards men’s rights in NZ also.
But the reality is that I am getting bitter lately. I think I have had a good run in the last 3 years even though I was unable to be the ‘right’ type of female needed.
I came from another field into this and I don’t have the right sensitivity for broken men. This is because most men I know (and women for that matter) need to take responsibility.
Different strokes for different folks.
I am sure the courts are biased towards men still although I don’t here complaints much of this offline. I hear a lot more positive remarks and to be honest I think that the Father’s Coalition has made remarkable forward leaps.
I still think that men can make progress and I think they are doing well in this area.
I also know that Indian women are protesting about feminism and that men would like NZ women to do the same but I don’t think I can help in that area because of my involvement with single parents. But I do hope other women who can be more sensitive towards men join the men’s movement and help them heal and even get other women to be more sensitive for men offline.
I think I would be better just to work with the community now. I know all I need and I don’t have much use for online words any more. They just seem to be angering more these days than making me care more.
I DO hear what Skeptic and others are saying to me. And I think 3 years is not so bad to give.
Comment by julie — Thu 5th March 2009 @ 8:21 am
I disagree. Women don’t need to join the men’s movement. Men and women need to work together under one banner. Only then will we see big changes.
Comment by Scott — Thu 5th March 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Sad that we have yet another woman departing (and being strongly pushed) from this forum. Julie is well known for her work, her networking and her ability to listen actively and to ask questions.
I don’t know sceptic at all. Does any one here? Perhaps he is the agent provocateur? Is he male or female seeking to shit stir? Who knows?
He says he has done lots of MRA work. I wonder what that is?
Personally I am not interested in so called Men’s Rights stuff. For me it is Human Rights stuff for all and whatever is good for kids. As a bloke I’m happy to stick up for myself. I don’t think being noisy will get me or others anywhere. The gender warrior image and pretending women are our enemy is completely stupid in my view. Given the homophobia of some here I suspect many share my view.
Thats why I’m into parenting stuff as my main work and volunteer focus.
Comment by allan Harvey — Thu 5th March 2009 @ 4:50 pm
So now we are all Broken asses JULIE well with that comment
all i can say to you is you have made the right choice
GOOD BYE lol
Comment by ticktacks — Thu 5th March 2009 @ 5:00 pm
Don’t be so silly.
We would not be making progress if men who have had a hard time are broken,.
Comment by julie — Thu 5th March 2009 @ 5:13 pm
Look guys, there is always going to be men who don’t like women caring.
Comment by julie — Thu 5th March 2009 @ 5:16 pm
I know skeptik.
He was a member of Men’s Centre North Shore before even I joined, and yes, I can confirm he has done considerable MRA work over the years.
Far from being “the enemy”, some of my best friends happen to be women (OK, I admit I would prefer that my daughter didn’t marry one) – women will always be welcome on MENZ.
I’m very happy for Julie to continue to stir up debate (as long as she stays on-topic), and I hope she keeps contributing.
Comment by JohnPotter — Thu 5th March 2009 @ 6:10 pm
Dear Julie,
Keep on caring, keep on posting, keep on commenting.
Mens dysfunction in obtaining parity in the modern world that has been corrupted by radical feminism is solely our collective fault through perhaps overall being stubborn or naif.
Jim Bailey, Ben Easton, do fantastic work challenging Systemic abuse.
However, people call them loose cannons, thus dissassociate etc…
St. Jim Bagnall himself was criticised by UOF Executive for his upfront stance in taking on the System in public.
I get tired of silly and petty infighting over methods, who, how, what & where which combat the social engineering (demonizing men) that has resulted in a now degenerated society of the occidental nations.
I publicly (and when fiscally able), back all who wish to challenge this doctrine of the demonization of men.
Tis a bad, bad world we live in today, Communism collapsed with the wall, Capitalism collapsing around our ears, I don’t have the answers to any final solution yet will try to continue to provide support, advice when able and asked.
I would suggest Julie, you continue the same, ignore negativity and griping.
Kind Regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
(09)271 3020
Comment by Paul Catton — Thu 5th March 2009 @ 7:18 pm
Allan,
So much for Julie being pushed away from MENZ!
She’s back WITHIN 8 HOURS!
How pushed away is that?
And after her saying –
“I think I would be better just to work with the community now. I know all I need and I don’t have much use for online words any more. They just seem to be angering more these days than making me care more.”
Now I find when someone says one thing and does the opposite I tend to stop taking them seriously. Instead I tend to think they’re just either trying to mess with people’s heads or they don’t know their own minds or perhaps both.
Whichever way it cuts that’s not a strong reliable ally to have in my book for Men’s rights, Human Rights or any kind of Rights at all.
As for her being well known for active listening.
No.
Not here online.
Very seldom asks for clarification.
Never seen a paraphrasing of someones views.
Can’t recall seeing an expression of empathy recently either.
Definitely NOT an active listener here it seems.
One other thing.
In the thread you didn’t debate against my views but stooped to inferring that my brain was miniscule and that I’m a shit stirrer.
Well, insults just bounce off and I can’t help but notice that’s just the sort of insulting abuse that Julie has often been known to dish out here online.
Birds of a feather flock together it seems.
Now, again, I’m not asking for your comments to be moderated by JP.
Call me all the names under the sun. Keep the abusive insults coming thick and fast if you like.
Tell me to go get fucked again.
Go ahead have a good vent.
Don’t you think that will just cheapens your view in the eyes of readers?
especially after announcing you’re into ‘human rights’!
Oh the irony!
Julie,
I notice there’s no apology from you either for the abusive terms you’ve been volleying off, merely the statement
“I DO hear what Skeptic and others are saying to me”.
Well, I’m far from convinced that you do hear that well.
It looks like the onus is on you to prove it by paraphrasing us Julie because someone who has a habit of inciting arguments through inflamatory remarks then sinks to abusive comments when challenged about those remarks, and who appears to say one thing then does the opposite 8 hours later doesn’t seem like a person who can listen that well………..
and look you’ve even started the cycle all over again!
Straight back to winding folks up with the insensitive inflamatory ‘broken men’ comment which I think ticktack has every right to feel irritated by.
Then in light of your online histoy here of regular insults and about faces followed up by even more inflamatory nonesense –
“Look guys, there is always going to be men who don’t like women caring” as though the problem is the guys and nothing to do with you!”
Where’s the humility and connection in that? (rhetorical question)
So if all goes according to schedule you’ll be challenged about labeling men who disagree with you about being ‘broken’ or some other thing,
then you’ll volley off some insults,
then huffily state you’re leaving,
then as though all is well you’ll be back to stir things up some more.
It’s all getting very repetitive and predictable.
I sit here wondering how long we will have to wait until your next online flaming occurs?
One final thing for now –
This pattern of yours I’ve taken the trouble to outline…….
Seeing as your the only woman who contributes to MENZ on a regular basis how does that reflect on your sex Julie. Say I was visiting the MENZ site from India or Iceland or wherever, would it bespeak of respectful womanhood in NZ or give some other impression?
Comment by skeptik — Thu 5th March 2009 @ 10:32 pm
Dear Skeptic,
Yet again you are being derisive.
Hence, albeit perhaps of many a turmultuous year, John Potter reports upon your activism and credibility, this does not extend to achievement, zilch, is it any wonder with decades of perhaps from your input, circumstances have not changed perspectively?
I have no time for bun fights and do not engage either, positivity is required for furthering our issues.
Denigration of Julie wether imagined or real detracts from reality faced by our peers.
Refocus and redirect your abilities towards the area that will be most significant,
You are articulate, astute and have the ability to grasp where this is presently
Kindest Regards
Paul Catton
East Auckland Refuge for Men and Families
(09) 271 3020.
Comment by Paul Catton — Thu 5th March 2009 @ 11:14 pm
Paul,
No, not derisive, just incisive.
I’ve grown tired of seeing a perfectly good website hijacked and many really good ideas pilloried with insensitive abuse instead of debated reasonably and respectfully.
This at a time when men are in deepening crisis in NZ, indeed everywhere feminism has spread it’s tentacles and new ideas are needed more than ever!
Soothing noises from some that ‘men are making headway in NZ’ just don’t mesh with too many horrifying facts and figures.
Go ahead and make your claims that I’m somehow totally unsuccessful in getting results.
Call me derisive.
In fact be like Allan and Julie and hurl abuse for all I care.
I’m confident there are folks who would attest to my achieving helping to enlighten them allot about men’s issues they had absolutely no idea of.
Search back through the threads and you’ll see even Julie has done so.
Others would attest to my practical help – men I’ve helped in the face of rapacious feminism.
I see no need to refocus nor take back anything I’ve said with regards to Julie.
Thank-you for the compliment that I am articulate and astute.
Comment by skeptik — Thu 5th March 2009 @ 11:54 pm
I will apologise Skeptic. “Sorry!”
I personally think that we will not see men’s issues acting the way women’s issues had in the past. It will show in time when the men have built it. Just one day it will be right.
The next 10 years are going to show a lot of changes but all of it will be when things are in place. Nothing gets promoted when no work is happening.
I also think it is fine for you to tell men to be independent of women or move overseas to stay away from feminist laws or to marry other ethnic women.
These are all things that can make men individually happy if these things are important to men.
But I have more heart for the men that work to make a difference. For the sacrafices they give for they too could be caring for their own lives but instead step up and say, “Something is wrong here and I am as responsible as everyone else to fix it”.
Comment by julie — Sat 7th March 2009 @ 2:21 pm
Julie,
you don’t say what you’re apology is for.
What do you think you did wrong?
I’d like you to understand that not only –
“it is fine for men to be independent of women or move overseas to stay away from feminist laws or to marry other ethnic women”.
but also that’s their way of saying and taking action on the belief that –
“Something is wrong here (in NZ and other feminist countries) and I am as responsible as everyone else to fix it”.
Comment by skeptik — Sat 7th March 2009 @ 10:42 pm
Too many things to be sorry for Skeptic. I am not going to write a long list. As long as I know how to fix my words and actions and do so, things will be OK for all involved.
And yes I understand what you are saying #43.
Comment by julie — Sat 7th March 2009 @ 11:15 pm