Exclusion of Males Spreading
A previous post discussed the misuse of a publicly funded swimming pool by banning males and allowing only females at the complex for several prime hours each week. Now we read that a girls’ school netball tournament has been banning men from any presence or role, including the girls’ fathers.
In both cases this gender discrimination involved religion. The swimming pool people made it clear that any woman could attend during the female-only periods but it’s not clear whether this school netball tournament would allow non-Muslim women to be present in any role.
This is an interesting situation. Feminists generally criticize Muslim practices as discriminating against women but in this case the feminists will probably support their Muslim sisters in banning men even though they probably have not asked the girls if they want their fathers to support them from the sidelines. Any man present will only be looking for opportunities to rape, after all.
But isn’t discrimination on the grounds of gender illegal? Why is it seen as acceptable to discriminate against men in so many spheres where similar exclusion of women would simply not be tolerated. Is the problem that men are too stupid to protect their own interests or too complacent to speak up?
We encourage any men living nearby these places and brave enough to test these bans by a bit of bothering. Men could turn up at the swimming pool and demand their rights to use the amenity they pay for and not to be discriminated against on the basis of their gender. And men could attend the netball tournament similarly, although if it’s a private school it may only be possible to protest outside. It would be good tv to see men being manhandled by security staff or police as this gender discrimination is enforced.
I put up a post the other day, about an excluded male, who had written a book.
The response was typical – metaphorically disposed of would be a good outcome.
Everyone has a story, even Dean Witcliffe, and as more of us are excluded, the only difference now between him and us is we didn’t do jail time for our ‘crime’ but we are socially restricted as if we are on probation.
At 68 even with stage iv prostate cancer, Wickliffe is still much more alive than the hundreds of male suicides that aren’t.
We shouldn’t be afraid to investigate his or others’ experiences.
Downunder @1: Yes, fair comment. It’s humane to have an open mind with some preparedness to have compassion towards people even if they have harmed others. However, we all draw a boundary somewhere between person who acts under provocation, duress or desperation vs antisocial selfish dangerous person who makes a career out of stealing and operational violence. Witcliffe may well fall into the latter category! Even then, we can learn and are foolish not to learn from his experience and perspectives.
@2 MoMa; I well know the intended meaning of the word “Humane”, but I contend that the meaning we are maent to see in it is opposite to it’s reality. However humans act must be humane IMO. Humans rarely act the way we are meant to understand from the word “Humane”.
My second comment is that my girls would have been excluded by any ban of males/fathers from school netball. As a custodial father, transporter, and supporter I was essential in enabling them to attend. They did Netball and Marching – I felt most menaced when taking them to Marching.
Easy FIX
Get the kids to boycott
“If my father can’t watch me play sport then I don’t need to come either”! simple
It’s nice that you have a simple answer for everything Buster, you’re simply amazing.
Here is an item in the Herald today. Okay, he held white nationalist views, but thats not the point. One day our views might be treated the same way? Guy goes to his GYM, minds his own business, tries to avoid interaction with a supposed female academic [who aparently does not agree we all have a right to our opinions and beliefs}. There is easily enough reason to doubt her academic credentials right there. He tries to avoid contention – but she persists and so he is banished from his GYM. As I see it, this is not about White Nationalism, but about ones rights to ones opinions, and one’s right not to be molested. I also suspect there is a Feminist gender objective in her behaviour. Is it likely that us similarly assailing extreme feminists in this way, that the result might be gender equal – ie: the same. Not Bl**dy likely! Now there is a case for “male only” facilities and zones if ever I saw one.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11860879
Jerry @6: Quite right. If a male at a gym challenged and criticized a woman for spreading extreme femaleist views, or for violently protesting against and sabotaging men’s conferences, or even for being a National-Socialist, the male would be the one to have his gym membership cancelled and he would be at high risk of facing fallacious criminal charges of harassment or worse.
Professor Fair (!) boasted that she told Spencer “As a woman, I find your statements to be particularly odious”. Why would being a woman make a white nationalist’s statements any more odious? White nationalists don’t tend to have views that demean women, quite the contrary, and their potentially odious views are aimed equally at both men and women from other races. She may as well say “As a woman I’m particularly annoyed that it’s raining”. Is she implying that women somehow are more affected by things than men are? Or is she making a point that nobody had better dare to annoy any woman in any way.
She went on to tell her victim ” moreover, I find your presence in this gym to be unacceptable, your presence in this town to be unacceptable”. (She probably thought that, as a woman, her opinions really matter…). It’s fascinating that her attitude and expectation was just like that of the Nazis she claims to find odious, who found the presence of Jews to be unacceptable.
Our femalist era is incredible. It would be entertaining if not for the terrible damage to so many victims and to the foundations of our civilization.
It looks like Professor Fair (actually, she’s only an Associate Professor..) is even more odious than we thought. A complaint was made last year against her rude, aggressive and demeaning online bullying of a Muslim woman who happened to explain publicly why she voted for Mr Trump. However, Georgetown University still employs her now. Imagine if a male Associate Professor had called a Muslim woman “wretch”, a “clueless dolt”, a “fame-monger”, a “slut”, told her to “fuck off” and to “go to hell”, compared her to Adolf Hitler, and said “I’ve written you off as a human being”. Does anyone think that male Associate Professor would still have a job? In the femaleist era women have become so arrogant that they believe they are above normal rules of decency, and indeed western societies have been indulging them in that belief. Girls can do anything, and get away with it. That’s going to change.
Jerry @6 – what do you mean one day!? Your /our views are treated the same way. I spoke with a lawyer friend today (female) and when I mentioned that I had Allan Harvey as a MacKenzie friend she said “not one of those nut-balls” (Hey no offence Allan, don’t shoot the messenger 🙂 ).
I have emailed Christine Fair, asking her to explain herself, but don’t expect an answer – just wanted her to know she is infamous. don’t hold your breath but if i receive a response I’ll let you know.
Exclusion of males spreading.
We have seen the cancer of feminism spreading for decades.
Look what happens when a rose tinted view of the world male joins politics.
Has more quality and attributes than Adern but not wanted.
He obviously wasn’t going to sell his soul.
No White Ribbon.
No self demasculation.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11860861
Fair’s “as a woman” prefix is most commonly used by feminists to describe the entitlement they are bestowed to uphold a dominant perspective without facts or reason.
All and any statements after the prefix are to be -considered (think known) to be unquestionably- right.
With the prefix ‘as a woman’ they don’t need to actually be saying anything – ‘true’ as such, to be assured to be correct.
‘As a woman’ also conveys that on any topic, no male opinion is further required, all male thoughts are irrelevant.
Its like the cabin boy deciding what colour the ship should be painted, its just not going to happen.
‘As a woman’, entitlement, is totally limitless, without restrictions from boundaries of any social or even geographical nature.
Its wisdom is bestowed to any female that that utters it, its always followed by a pause, it requires no wand, it is usually conveyed with the left hand gesturing towards the empty space between the breasts with head slightly to the side so as to indicate a childishness or physical frailty.
Most often its uttered when no convincing data is within recollection of the given moment.
It does not actually mean the women using the phrase is actually totally stupid or without any valid issue entirely, its mostly used when facts are not available in the um -thinky box.
Anyone who questions any of the logic above should realise,-your having these thoughts because of the patriarchy, its your misogyny preventing yourself from being enlightened and succumbed to femminotism.
And because your all -bastards.
For more on this consult the great leader,
Virginia Woolf.
Who wrote the famous entitlement doctrine for all others to claim,
“As a woman I have no country.
As a woman I want no country.
As a woman,”
-“My country is the whole world”
@11 you’ve given my morning coffee a fair dose of sweetness.
Knowing one’s enemy, for too many, is in the um – hardy box.
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/distinguished-georgetown-prof-spreads-personal-info-political-opponents-intimidate-them
Precious, rude or damaging behaviour by anyone tends to devalue what they say in the eyes of other people.
If women are complaining that their evidence isn’t listened to, surely they should be trying to stop such antisocial behaviours or at least to publicly disown it.
Maybe women don’t want to be listened to, as they aren’t confident about what they say either and they just want to be led?
I certainly think that any witnesses past record of not upheld evidence should be readily available to the defence.
Oh for old fashioned common sense and mutual respect.
University professors are full of Marxist crap. The most stupid people you can ever meet have wasted their time and money on a BA and at the same time fkd their minds up. Her rude behaviour is there for everyone to see and is more a comment about herself than her target. I’d rather see the real person than a censored version
Interesting comment Doug @15
Are you saying she is a ‘mini-media’ reporting on her version of the individual, as opposed to a journalists twist on reality on behalf of Feminism?
Doug @15; I think your comment about professors is a too sweeping. Indeed although she may have the title, in my view she could not act that way, or say those things if she had an academic mind and was serious about academic rigor. So in my view she is not a professor. I know some and they do not fit your description. I have not studied Marx, and your comment has roused my interest. Did Marx support feminism and academic {what?} fraud?
I don’t know about her except from the comments that were noted by someone else, but ‘she’ could well be a troll. A lot of feminist ideas came from Marx. He was an agent for the world elite (paid by the mega industrialist Engels who had children working in his own mines). His name didn’t even appear on the communist manifesto until 20 years after he died. That’s because he didn’t write it. He got his own housemaid pregnant and didn’t pay her in cash wages. She worked for her board. Marx himself never wanted for anything. My experience at university (yes I went there like an idiot) is that a lecturer who did not preach Marxism and feminism was an exception
Doug, I think this statement is misleading:
In 1884, Engles published an influential book, based on the work of Marx and an American lawyer named Lewis Morgan: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. It is available online here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/
Engles’ basic theory is that for most of human history, human social organisation was based on matrilineal clans. The nuclear family is supposedly a recent invention by men aimed at disempowering women and enabling patriarchal oppression.
There are more details on Wikipedia for those interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_the_Family,_Private_Property_and_the_State.
As far as I know, this is the theoretical underpinning of the modern feminist anti-family agenda.
I’m also wondering why you say that Marx was “an agent of world elite”. Isn’t Marxism about overthrowing the ruling classes?
You could probably add to that the separation of sex from reproduction, which is a more visible change that can be historically confirmed in the rise and fall of civilisations.
Human behaviour is primarily motivated by survival and modified by its surroundings.
The fertile minds of the world are equally capable of a range of fantastic to realistic philosophy as they are of fiction to non-fiction literature.
Unfortunately the results tend to prove the point rather than the reasoning.
Fremenist Philosophy, might be the where-to-from-here model?
[email protected]; I do not understand the term “Freminist”. I googled it and found hashtag, twitter and game references – none of which relate to my universe – in fact I am not on social media at all – except perhaps MENZ if you describe it that way. So I am confused as to the definition of “Frenimist”. Help me out please.
21, although I’d like to believe its only a temporary psuedo-solution, The MGTOW movement is progressing.
Sorry. I was being fLippant.
Feminist society is a fantasy land based in desire. It is a documented phenomenon in the failure of Rome.
Equally Free-men-ist society would be a myth. Men are not free in society, but parties to a social contract.
@Jerry the #fremenist hashtag, is probably best described as the social media equivalent of the political party we once had in NZ called the Blokes Liberation Front.
25, The BLF.?
Can you tell us more about it?
It was a registered political party, i.e. more than 500 nembers, last century (lol) and the official record would be in the electoral office.
The guys that set it up would be in their old age now, but their details would be readily available in the records.
Mr Brady, one of the main characters, last I heard was living in the central North Island, Tauramanui I think.
Well I’m playing “catch up” here. I am just starting to check our Marxism, but based on the little I’ve found so far, I think Marx makes an error in likening classism to sexism against women. I opinion is that our reality is dictated by dumb luck lottery at conception. Classism is to do with resourses and luck, not the same type of lottery at conception. As for “Frminism” so far I think its too close sounding to “Feminism”. Indeed my first searches of Freminism brought definitions for “Feminism”. BLF sounds interesting.
I’m fairly sure Chis Brady is still alive, but he’d be retired, refining the art of home brewing, and playing Beatles records 8 days a week.
That’s the guy, Chris Brady.
I think the only stumbling block to getting the leadership off him, would be an absolute guarantee not to go into coalition with the Mcguillicuddy Serious Party.
29, sounds like a great guy.
I have found a blokes liberation front registered business address for Christopher Leo Brady.
And an address on Waiheke island.
Im on the island myself so I will pop by after work on the off chance he might still be there and share some ancient his-story.
Perhaps if i take over a couple of lion reds, he might pull out the good stuff.
A political party is a tantalising idea – BUT what are the chances it can bring about any change? guess it fizzled first time around since I never heard of it before. Then who will vote for it? I don’t believe all males will, and not all males who have tangled with the IRD and the court will either. I can think of a number of reasons its not likely to be electable. Much will be made of allegations against members. Never mind they are false, they still smear us as untrustworthy and doubtful – I reckon there will be a lot of that. Sure, some women will vote for it – I imagine that group will mainly comprise of Mums who have seen their sons done down and they are alienated from Grand-children. But Our country does not care about them or listen to them. In effect they are regarded as Non-women. Then there are odd-balls like me. I have to be on the fence. My philosophy is not to be drawn into the “Us vs them” or “male vs female” idea which the feminists dictate. I don’t want feminists to set the rules for me. I have girls and I want them to prosper and be respected every bit as I would want if they had been sons.
Maybe a party would establish a media point of contact for the male opinion….. In my view that could be useful and achievable – but then in the feminist media, I suspect all media releases which are published will be lampooned and undermined by the so called journalist putting it up on websites or in the papers.
My personal view is that males no longer count or are entitled to be represented. The only ones who can change it are women. If enough upset feminism from within it could happen. But don’t hold your breath, I’m not. The majority of women are comfortable enough in their daily world and lack the motivation to stand up for family let alone their sons.
As abused kids, my daughters are aware of the problem, but were deemed “Non-women” long ago because they were not abused by Dad.
So to sum up, I think a political party is worth persuing, but we should not expect a fair hearing or justice – but hey, isn’t that par for the course!
The Blokes Liberation Front Party occupied a similar niche to the McGuillicuddy Serious Party. It was pretty well all parody on ‘women’s liberation’ and encouraged the portrayal of men as bumbling idiots. In those days the idea that blokes needed liberating was a ridiculous one. How fast things can change.
Thanks Man x Norton; I cannot recall the party. BUT I do think males lack representation. We lack a point of contact which the media might go to. Yes I know we have Felicity and she does her best, but I doubt she can safely fulfil that role more than occasionally. But me, I’m for family, not for males or females. I’m for everyone equally and so I would have problems with aligning on one side of the fence or the other – and it gets uncomfortable keeping my balance in the top of it. I duck to the mens side when discussing the way the my ordeal impacted me, but often I’m kind of leaning on the feminine side when discussing my kids tragedy. I wrote “feminine” as opposed to “women’s” since my girs are femine, but women’s groups do not represent or help them.
This is serious though. Not long ago I commented that in my view the only thing which might tackle feminism would be something like Islam and now we see items like this one following the Manchester bombing – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11862281
Onward Christian Soldiers Marching As To War, Jerry.
Both the Christian and Muslim religions are products of the collapse of Rome, but the Christian religion in particular was the internal religion that replaced ‘The Gods’. While the Muslim religion developed in the Southern states, the Christian religion developed in the Northern, as we entered the dark ages.
If you watch kids on social media they laugh at their parents for believing in the invisible man, but aggrevisely and in their superior wisdom debate the validity of what they currently percieve to be the uncharted tertiary of the philosophical world.
It was, I think ‘voices back from the bush’ who said recently something in a similar vein that children were seeing through the political failings of Feminism rather than their parents.
The Western World will pay for a very long time for their aggression in Muslim territory, and never the twain shall meet.
It won’t in my view ever be a substitute for the religious void Feminism has created with its secular world view, but what our children’s long term response might be is an interesting consideration, and to me, still very unclear.
Christianity was a well established vehicle that challenged the State of Rome – we haven’t got that far yet.
The current contempt for organised religion has been explored in Neil Gaiman’s book, American Gods.
It’s Religious Satire with a disingenuous storyline.
If you have a reader it is available online.
Well I note that out parties havejust failed to vote off the books, the Blasphemy law. Its still illegal. So watch for me to get locked up. I will not submit to the delusions of others – feminist or otherwise. I consider all religion as agents of harm throughout the world and throughout history. There is not and never will be a role for belief. Just as we have extremist Islamists, we have extremist others, and the retention of the Blasphemy law shows they still have power which they can exploit and abuse in the future if given any opportunity. I have wondered if this might sway support into Theresa May’s camp in relation to Brexit and anti-immigration. Also a knock-on to the USA and then out to back-waters like NZ and OZ. But did you go on the net and look at Ariana Grande’s performance style and listen – Sadly I think the Herald is right that this was exactly the kind of thing the Daysh might react to – and they did. We too talk about the way young women are feeling entitled, immodest and how they are sexually indiscriminate. And we knew that extremist Muslims don’t respect one’s rights, if they don’t like you and you don’t measure up to their idea of Islam, then they kill you. In my world there is no God in this, its purely a mental disorder.
@Evan so, if someone said they love a book with a dead body, you’d at least pause for clarification before toddling off to top up your tea?
@Jerry there are extremists everywhere.
The military ones kill bodies, the academic ones kill minds, and the others somewhere in between.
Millions of people are comfortable within a social framework of organised religion.
Confusing God, with Godhead, in their eyes, no doubt, makes you an extremist.
You could probably give that some current context for us if you drew a comparison between the current extremist leaders in the Muslim world (to be fair there’s an element of self preservation there) and say our own Feminist agenda causing male suicide.
It is a polictally extreme position that causes choas and unnatural death.
Downunder I reject the notion there is any God or ever was one. I do not respect belief in Gods or God-heads. I sympathise with those who suffer such infections in their thinking, but have not an ounce of respect for their belief. Any promotion around me deserves contempt. Religion throughout the ages has been a device for control of the masses, having power, being cruel and so on. It stays the same today, and will be no different tomorrow. But this is not a site for religous debate. Religion does come entwined in stories and it has implications which are occasionally relevent. In this case I had earlier commented that there could be a confrontation between Islam and feminism – and now we see that might actually have started. Gives me a chill… no comfort at all.
Next it remains to be seen if the feminists are the ones go out into battle on this, or will they send their disposable sons? – we of course thats rhetorical, we know the answer.
Do I see your point @Jerry perhaps that God is the promotion of the perfect me, and Feminism – it’s all about me?
The politician, the author, the artist are often expressions of me rather than the abstract.
Narcissism is the ultimate crime?
Downunder 39; Well on what basis would anyone associate the idea of any commonly known current God which has a following with perfection? I know I have not achieved perfection myself, but then one has to ponder if this would be good if it actually was achievable. I do see primal behavioural rules playing out endlessly and too often dressed up for the purposes of the powerful, greedy, influential and cruel ones which traditionally includes the religions.
I would add that I could easily see Feminism as just another religion. It has its books, its gurus, and is barbaric like other religions yet claims to champion the best for human kind.
Education in this day and age was supposed to be the vehicle for maintaining the norm, and if so why has that failed?
There has always been a need to police the imperfect in order to protect any system, we’re not that compatible in our makeup to have an inclusive range of acceptance.
I would say we are fools to believe that Feminism disposed of religion in favour of a secular society.
They simply brought God to earth and said we are her collective being, we are each and all part of her, and it is men that need to be policed.
Now, go on, tell me they don’t worship that idol.
44, Ive yet to see an athiest strap on a bomb and blow people up because not enough have respect for the teachings of science.
When you link the religious regression in Feminism to the idol stage of human development you can understand the regression to tribal rather than primal behavior.
@Evan
If that wasn’t the first thing I saw on the news this morning.
Some lost tribe setting up camp in the bush.
Tarawa? or somewhere?
There’s plenty of militant atheists about. They are not the innocents and equally capable of inciting violence.
When you look at ISIS, there is no separation of power. It is political control of the religion, much the same as Feminism.
The boundary they claim is a polictal boundary for their preferred religion.
We don’t do our brothers any favours by the suggestion that these terrorist atracks are religiously motivated rather than political.
@Evan
Am I right in thinking then that in New Zealand what we actually see without realising it is the political policing of the Feminist religion?
Evan Meyers @49; Please identify the times, locations where atheists and similar are acting militantly {ie: guns, bombs, machetes wtc} furthering the cause of Atheism by harming anyone including innocents? I am sure there are atheists on all battle fields for a host of motivations including adventure, but none fighting in the cause of atheism. Still are we not straying here? This is not a religious forum. I repeat that I commented earlier that I could see a clash of Islam with Feminism; and I noted a Herald item that the Ariana Grande concert was just the type of thing the Daysh would target. I also balanced it with a comment about the Blasphemy law being kept. Its odd that Blasphemy would remain illegal in a secular society.
@Jerry you view Atheism as a word, rather than as a Godless religion and therefore do not make the association with Marxism.
Your fear of a discussion about religion therefore stops you making these connections with Feminism.
If you look at
Galliane
The Militant Atheist
The Storming of Heaven
That paints a much different picture of history.
If I see a problem here it is this.
@Jerry doesn’t want to talk about God.
@Evan is talking about the prescription for habitual behaviour and what’s acceptable and how we enforce it, if we have to, etc
I don’t see that as a religious debate, as long it’s relevant to Feminism.
I have repeatedly tried to return the discussion to fit within the business of this forum. I’m not afraid to deal with religion but here is not the place. Why is it religous believers insist in saying their fictional character exists. If Evan read my post fully, he would see I’m not an Atheist. This shows the black and white either or assumptions you make, so much so you don’t realise there are other options. Now you puzzle over what I am but religous belief is rubbish and you should be embarrassed to profess it. I grew out of any pretend friends if ever had any.
In the context of the post we are busy excluding each other on the basis of belief.
How are we ever going to get this exclusion by Feminism sorted out when we can’t get over ourselves.
@Jerry
Where did anyone say the fictional character existed?
Downunder @55; I have repeatedly tried to avoid the contention around member’s beliefs, and referred back to my original contribution. This provoked the following from you “@Jerry doesn’t want to talk about God.”
Its not me who believes.
Evan @52 &55; if you check my posts, I admitted to no knowledge of Marxism, so I asked a question, not making any statement. So I drew no association between feminism and Marxism, but I see others do, and I have noted that.
Atheism is a stand where one is open to evidence for or against God, BUT it reqires evidence.
But again, this is not a religous discussion site.
57, there are many types of feminism.
These change somewhat-monthly,
The latest is these five main types.
Eco feminism.
Marxist or socialist feminism.
Cultural feminism which includes parts of ‘womanism’
Liberal feminism.
Radical feminism.
Socialist-feminism comes from Marxism as best I can understand.
Have we forgotten that our very own New Zealand Feminist icon, Kate Sheppard, was a religious feminist – she was a Christian Democrat whose political platform was the enforcement of prohibition.
Voices @58;
I see that you have identified several different types of feminism. No doubt you are right. I still have not got far with Marx reading, but I have found items linking Marxist ideas with Feminism.
For me though, Feminism is a meaningless term. Its meaningless because I cannot find any two persons who can agree exactly on a definition of Feminism. Its really odd, they all freely claim to be feminists, but can’t give a definition which would be recognised by a majority of those claiming to be feminists.
Downunder @59; So what relevance is it that she was associated with religion? This is boring. . . .
@Jerry
History of Marxism … I still have not got far with Marx reading
NZ History … This is boring.
Islamic terrorists are the only Muslims actually following the teachings of their religious books. Their behaviour is religiously more than politically motivated. Feminists’ appalling behaviour is similarly motivated by their ideology the teaching of which men are paying for through their taxes.
Man X Norton @63, come on that is a very broad statement to make (and I have more respect for you than that) – Islamic terrorists are just as confused and the rest, they are selectively reading what suits their cause. Some Islamic terrorists I am sure are nice people, feminists however… :p
Martin @64; Man x Norton is quite right, and the only criticism other religions can make is that the Islamic trerrorists are following the wrong fictional character. If the Islamists followed that other book, all they did would be quite in line with their critics teachings. If you disagree, then read the old and new testaments for a starter. I thought your comment towards Man x Norton rather condescending. I have been trying to turn this back to the opinion expressed in the NZ Herald article which appears to be in line with my earlier prediction that there would be a clash between Islam and Feminism. This is not a site for religous debate. I recall John Potter intervening during an earlier occasion when Downunder and I locked horns on this topic. I feel I have respected Mr Potter’s direction on that, as opposed to the suggestion made that I did not want to discuss religion. Mind you debating with believers is like trying to eart soup with a fork. So it does get tedious. So I guess you prefer to direct your energy in that direction as opposed to the core reasons why we all came here in the first place.
It can be hard- Not to refer to religeon at times Jerry, as core beliefs are part of indepth conversations.
My understanding of Marksism is that its basically socialist-communism theory.
Of all the differing types of feminism this is actually the- kindest.
But we’ve seen from communism and feminism that the theory and practice are completely opposite to whats been proposed as ‘good’ for us all.
It has nothing to do with egalitarianism- practice.
The road to hell is paved by thier good intentions.
Its not often confronted as an issue by men generally and I lament that it took for me to spend days in a cell falsely accused of a crime,to realise where we as men really sit- regarding human rights issues.
A tennisball sized red pill was swallowed.
As far as the ‘conversation police’ around here is concerned, and “why we all came here in the first place’-
There is almost no moderation.
Thats why im here.
In the passed couple of weeks ive included in comments things like – you’re all rapists and – you’re all bastards.
But somehow, my context has been understood and no offence or moderation drawn.
Thats why im here, because this is the only place where I can freely express myself.
I agree with Martin it was a wild unfounded claim.
The foundations of ISIS are the military remnants of the former tribal divisions of the IRAQ army.
They are angry military men who lost everything, possibly something that we can relate to.
Their goal, to establish sovereign boundaries and a country, is a political one, not a religious one. One comment recently suggested perhaps the two main islands could be women free, a post identified a women free island – picture yourself in a boat with a mirror.
Their governance is similar to Iran, with the prominent involvement of their religious leadership.
Their cynical use of religion is a means to an end in much the same way Feminists use vulnerable woman to create fear in the male sector of the population.
Feminist mind bombers are going off every day. Their terrorists explode on a regular basis … but get a pat on the back and a payrise, not a body-bits-bag and posthumous glorification.
ISIS is not Islam it uses it, Feminism is not the religious void it uses it. Both are guilty of misleading the vulnerable for their respective political causes.
I don’t recall coming to grief in some previous religious debate with you @jerry or Mr Potter’s intervention, perhaps we could look back on whatever ever it is that you are referring to?
And (stealing a phrase from Murray Bacon) – thank dog for that.
@VBFTB
Fortunately I didn’t get a cell, but it’s not like they didn’t try damn hard to give me one.
67, excellent comments re isis politics vs religeon.
I find the two main issues that ms media avoids are theories critical of feminism and likely mossad involvment in 911.
Follow the money and the answers are there.
How they all get a hum-v and an m16.
#68 – definitely not stealing from me, I think the concept is as old as the hills. I sure don’t remember where I got it from……. The beauty of the shared commons.
Blasfemer.
The origins are not of an impious foundation but of blaming someone or something else for your problem.
“Don’t blame me for your problem.”
“And don’t blame God for yours, my son.
Yes- blasfemer, anti-semite, holocauste denier, and no account- share cropper?
Avert your gaze, for there is nothing to see here.
Just trouble for you.
Children taken or blown to bits, sanctioned by disney and father christmas.
Voices @74; Hmmmm, by that there is nothing here for me. I for get who, and have not referred back, but it wasn’t me who raised Marxism. I asked a question of the one who did. Regarding not being moderated, that is fine, but I’m a bit uneasy about what happened to Brent. The last comment to him called him “a barbarian” and that probably was appropriate. But we have male and female others like Brent and I would rather have them in the conversation. Its not I agree with him on all things, or much for that matter, but over all, he had a contribution to make. Anyway, he seems gone.
Like Downunder, I did not get into the cells. I was not charged, but the cop who came to my complaint sure was enough to destroy any rosy image I had of police and the system up to that point. It was alarming, traumatising.
[email protected]; Religions are right into setting up “outreach programmes”. These become a part of the state NGO anti-family problem. They grow and then target Governemt funding so they can grow more. To achieve this they sell their soul to the Feminist DOG. A prerequisite to getting state funding is that they follow state policies. So excuse me, Churches are culpable in destroying families. That is quite a part from some churches breaking families if one of the family members leaves the church. I think the contribution @73 is garbage. Apart from that, read the Bible, Jesus requires you to hate your parents, your children and even yourself- You can only love him supposedly. Church for family – yeah right! So for the sake that among the NGO’s which were malicious, lied and perjured in our case were church groups pretending to be nice; don’t feen me that crap about not blaming DOG for my problems. Another thing while I’m at it, churches do nothing for free – only the currency changes. For example they will blackmail their target into church attendance. My kids were under there care for a time, so they wound up at church, sunday school, and being taught a load of cods-whollop. Who gave the church the right to take that opportunity to profligate their beliefs to my children. Is that right in any court document. A person like me does it for free. If I give, its given and I do not want your money or your sould in exchange for it.
Downunder @67: From http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx:
Man x Norton @77; You are quite right with that. They are all much of a muchness in that regard. But apart from commenting on events where one religion or other is relevent to attrocities and terrorism etc, I see it as not our main battle. I do however resist thise who with a smily face pretend that its all about family, reace , love and morality. Of more interest this morning is this in the Herald – Yes Lizzie Marvelli strikes again.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11863035
I agree it probably belongs in another thread, but it gives my view context when placed here.
Couldn’t agree more and I am happy Trump is around to ensure we don’t get stomped on
Religion is war!! FACT not FICTION since time immortal, we just pander around the edges in the hope it goes away.
Like that one also JERRY!
Did that idiot think that by signing up he was going to change from within the LESBIAN PARTY, haha did he get smashed down or what so that the Hairy McCleary crowd can look forward on their agenda instead over their backs. I LOVE THE LABOUR PARTY CAUSE THEY are sooooo predictably dumb!
And how blissful to hear the Greens support National and its help of the wage earner ( about bloody time), with more money.
Now if we can get rid of that twat Nick Smith ( I know lets put him by the polluted waterways and make the DOC drink from those rivers for a week), and that other one who is a useless excuse for a women and dump her into a group of people who have had serious mis-treatment by the state and they can wail on her and then we can say to her sorry no need for an inquiry into your abuses as your not worth it! Bloody beautiful
Anne Tolley is the politician, all skin and bone
Although religious debate may be seen as off-topic in MENZ Issues, there is relevance. Firstly, men and male violence propensity are widely seen as the problem in religious extremism. For example, with liberal apologists abounding for Islam claiming it’s not the religious teachings but it’s just people using religion to forward their own quest for power, revenge or justice, many people view Islamic terrorism as mainly due to a bunch of men wanting to behave violently and to establish control and exploitation over others. That may be a factor but the religious doctrine is actually the main culprit.
Secondly, men should not hold back in using their ability to think, analyse and debate matters rationally and to be brave enough to face matters realistically. These attributes have been disparaged by feminists who sarcastically dismiss clear thinking, logic, science, current political systems and rules of debate as resulting from male colonization of thought and control of civilization, with the implication this was done to maintain power over women (such narcissism…). Feminists have promoted post-modernism that ‘deconstructs’ established views on reality and claims that any belief is as good a version of truth as any other. In line with that, feminists (not only feminists but mainly so) have pushed ideas that inclusiveness is somehow necessarily an inherent good and that peace and goodwill to all will magically result if only women were placed in charge. This despite the fact that women can be seen to treat others unfairly and exploitatively as much as men do, if in different ways on average, and that when women perceive a threat they are typically the loudest in demanding violent responses, to be carried out by others of course. Just look at ‘protection’ orders, ever-increasing prison sentences, reduction in justice for those accused of crimes mainly committed against women, and feminist calls that women should be allowed to murder men with impunity in certain circumstances.
Men on average have clear thinking ability and the bravery to face reality, and men can choose not to be cowered or guilt-tripped into withholding that. In dealing with religious and ideological threats to our welfare and our civilization, it will help for men to be prepared to bring their talents to the table and to be prepared to analyse and to debate.