Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Definition of Masculism

Expand Messages
  • E
    -- a) you have no fucking idea about my idea; If you think you do,
    Message 1 of 23 , Nov 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      <<<It was when men adopted _your idea_, in the 19th century, that feminism got started.>>> -- 

      a) you have no fucking  idea about my idea; If you think you do, you are an impudent dumb fuck.
      b) While a few men did adopt my ideas I am certainly much too young for you to suggest they did so in the 19-th century, and my ideas had nothing to do with feminism.
      c)  You have very little understanding of feminism or masculism, let alone true knowledge of their history, to be able to critique feminism with any degree of  intelligence;  
      d) You have no sense of masculism, no knowledge of its history, no knowledge of economy or political "science," no sense of ethics, culture, history or literature, even despite reading some odd bits and ends on the Internet, which you believe has made you a self-appointed "expert". 
      e) You have no idea of what makes men and women tick;
      f) You have no ability to have a relationship with a woman regardless of her cultural background, you have no children; hence, you are emotionally and intellectually disassociated from men.
      g) You have had no exposure to math, formal logic or even military discipline. As a result -- you have an undisciplined feminine mind of a "true believer"  (in an off-the-wall theory and generalizations of your own making.)

      In fact, your mincing words makes you sound like one of them humorless, ugly and sexless feminists who could never get laid and sublimated their sexual energy into their passionate but illogical theories -- only in your case it's someone who thinks he's got male gonads.

      <<< I don't think that most men are capable of seeing women in the neutral way that you would like, and of course recent history bears that out.>>>-- You are in impudent moron to assume you know what I "would like." 

       "Recent history?" "Bears it out?"  -- Another fucking, off-the-wall generalization, a meaningless non-sequitur, a  statement designed to establish yourself as a "holier than thou" high priest of masculism.  I also read your mind-dump about your grand plan of reworking the society, and it's nothing but a verbose, nonsensical drivel.

      So, quit pontificating and do something useful.  Like donate a few bucks to any of the fathers' rights organizations.
      Foolosopher!

       
      --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "k_over_hbarc" <k_over_hbarc@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "E" netethics07@ wrote:
      > >
      > > This discussion about the differences between sexes is "theoretical" to the point of being absolutely impractical and useless. I will not waste my time or energy on it. You are entitled to your beliefs, yet you recognize the fact they are not popular.
      >
      > It is not useless. It has to do with history and how we got here. Feminism didn't start because women changed, but because men started listening to them. Throughout most of civilised time, men had a common understanding that they were the superior sex in the relevant ways. It was when men adopted _your idea_, in the 19th century, that feminism got started. I don't think that most men are capable of seeing women in the neutral way that you would like, and of course recent history bears that out.
      >
      > Andrew Usher
      >
    • Advocate
      ... I think you have been around too many gender feminists and you have drank out of the blame cup; we have evolved from slim into what we are now. Woman
      Message 2 of 23 , Nov 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        > Andrew Usher
        I think you have been around too many gender feminists and you have drank out of the blame cup; we have evolved from slim into what we are now.

        Woman evolved into a a bare foot and pregnant being, while man developed upper body strength to protect the creator of the next generation.
        As the wild west of US was being explored the only form of transportation was the stage coach. This vehicle was powered by 4-6 horses; the driver needed huge upper body strength to control these horses; the type of strength that women did and typically do not have.

        We have evolved; women are now driving cars with more than 200 horse power under the hood. Women are now driving earth movers in the comfort of a temperature controlled cab controlling 100's of horse power.

        Andrew, you may know what a cpu is but have you ever experience the amazing triode??

         

        On 11/1/2011 1:28 AM, E wrote:
         

        <<<It was when men adopted _your idea_, in the 19th century, that feminism got started.>>> -- 


        a) you have no fucking  idea about my idea; If you think you do, you are an impudent dumb fuck.
        b) While a few men did adopt my ideas I am certainly much too young for you to suggest they did so in the 19-th century, and my ideas had nothing to do with feminism.
        c)  You have very little understanding of feminism or masculism, let alone true knowledge of their history, to be able to critique feminism with any degree of  intelligence;  
        d) You have no sense of masculism, no knowledge of its history, no knowledge of economy or political "science," no sense of ethics, culture, history or literature, even despite reading some odd bits and ends on the Internet, which you believe has made you a self-appointed "expert". 
        e) You have no idea of what makes men and women tick;
        f) You have no ability to have a relationship with a woman regardless of her cultural background, you have no children; hence, you are emotionally and intellectually disassociated from men.
        g) You have had no exposure to math, formal logic or even military discipline. As a result -- you have an undisciplined feminine mind of a "true believer"  (in an off-the-wall theory and generalizations of your own making.)

        In fact, your mincing words makes you sound like one of them humorless, ugly and sexless feminists who could never get laid and sublimated their sexual energy into their passionate but illogical theories -- only in your case it's someone who thinks he's got male gonads.

        <<< I don't think that most men are capable of seeing women in the neutral way that you would like, and of course recent history bears that out.>>>-- You are in impudent moron to assume you know what I "would like." 

         "Recent history?" "Bears it out?"  -- Another fucking, off-the-wall generalization, a meaningless non-sequitur, a  statement designed to establish yourself as a "holier than thou" high priest of masculism.  I also read your mind-dump about your grand plan of reworking the society, and it's nothing but a verbose, nonsensical drivel.

        So, quit pontificating and do something useful.  Like donate a few bucks to any of the fathers' rights organizations.
        Foolosopher!

         
        --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "k_over_hbarc" <k_over_hbarc@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "E" netethics07@ wrote:
        > >
        > > This discussion about the differences between sexes is "theoretical" to the point of being absolutely impractical and useless. I will not waste my time or energy on it. You are entitled to your beliefs, yet you recognize the fact they are not popular.
        >
        > It is not useless. It has to do with history and how we got here. Feminism didn't start because women changed, but because men started listening to them. Throughout most of civilised time, men had a common understanding that they were the superior sex in the relevant ways. It was when men adopted _your idea_, in the 19th century, that feminism got started. I don't think that most men are capable of seeing women in the neutral way that you would like, and of course recent history bears that out.
        >
        > Andrew Usher
        >

        --
        Live for nothing; die for something
      • Spence
        Agreed. It does come to mind that it should be a simple job of pointing out that the matriarchy IS in control? And, all we need do is pump it out again and
        Message 3 of 23 , Nov 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Agreed. It does come to mind that it should be a simple job of pointing out that the matriarchy IS in control? And, all we need do is pump it out again and again. Ad infinitum.
           
          Neo-patriarchy? Wouldn’t certain groups take exception to that? I get the idea though. What about using a Greek or Latin term?.... I’ve just had a good look. Neo Is Latin. And the Greek word’s long and cumbersome. So, I suggest simply new. ‘New Patriarchy’. Not that much was wrong with the old. Though you may be on to something. PR [brother of nlp] would suggest that we brand carefully. Ok, ‘New Patriarchy’, though we don’t want to alienate any masculist bros who identified themselves as having had a conection with the patriarchy of the past.
           
          This is a discussion shop and Im discussing.

          Best Regards

          Spence
           
          Matriarchy" and "Patriarchy"? Let's not forget that the feminist movement is based on the idea of an all powerful patriarchy, a huge lie that we need to confront’
          -----------------------
           
          From: Tom Smith
          Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 6:17 PM
          Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: Definition of Masculism
           
           

          ""?  "Matriarchy" and "Patriarchy"?  Let's not forget that the feminist movement is based on the idea of an all powerful patriarchy, a huge lie that we need to confront.  My  "Neo Patriarchy" is an attempt to both address that lie and suggest us men have to re-group, meaning all men need to be represented, and I see that as a "Neo Patriarchy".
           
          Tom

          --- --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Smith <qim@...> wrote:

          > From the Masculist Manifesto...
          >
          > Definition of Masculism: A men’s movement ideology that
          advocates for the abolition of political and cultural assumptions of equality between sexes. A realistic approach to sex differences that attempts to identify those differences and how they are best expressed in the social and political melieu. Supports the establishment of a modern partriarchy and assumes that we are now living in a matriarchy.

          Yeah, that's OK, but I don't know if it's necessary to use the words 'patriarchy' and 'matriarchy' - isn't that a bit inflammatory? If feminism really were only about 'equality' and 'equal rights' it might be fine - but they didn't and couldn't stop there. We're not fighting against equality, we're fighting against inequality!

          Andrew Usher

        • Advocate
          Matriarchy and Patriarchy ? Let s not forget that the feminist movement is based on the idea of an all powerful patriarchy, a huge lie that we need to
          Message 4 of 23 , Nov 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Matriarchy" and "Patriarchy"? Let's not forget that the feminist movement is based on the idea of an all powerful patriarchy, a huge lie that we need to confront’

            The all powerful patriarchy was supported in place by women who decided to take a short cut and eliminate the middle me.

            On 11/1/2011 10:10 AM, Spence wrote:
             

            Agreed. It does come to mind that it should be a simple job of pointing out that the matriarchy IS in control? And, all we need do is pump it out again and again. Ad infinitum.
             
            Neo-patriarchy? Wouldn’t certain groups take exception to that? I get the idea though. What about using a Greek or Latin term?.... I’ve just had a good look. Neo Is Latin. And the Greek word’s long and cumbersome. So, I suggest simply new. ‘New Patriarchy’. Not that much was wrong with the old. Though you may be on to something. PR [brother of nlp] would suggest that we brand carefully. Ok, ‘New Patriarchy’, though we don’t want to alienate any masculist bros who identified themselves as having had a conection with the patriarchy of the past.
             
            This is a discussion shop and Im discussing.

            Best Regards

            Spence
             
            Matriarchy" and "Patriarchy"? Let's not forget that the feminist movement is based on the idea of an all powerful patriarchy, a huge lie that we need to confront’
            -----------------------
             
            From: Tom Smith
            Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 6:17 PM
            Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: Definition of Masculism
             
             

            ""?  "Matriarchy" and "Patriarchy"?  Let's not forget that the feminist movement is based on the idea of an all powerful patriarchy, a huge lie that we need to confront.  My  "Neo Patriarchy" is an attempt to both address that lie and suggest us men have to re-group, meaning all men need to be represented, and I see that as a "Neo Patriarchy".
             
            Tom

            --- --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Smith <qim@...> wrote:

            > From the Masculist Manifesto...
            >
            > Definition of Masculism: A men’s movement ideology that advocates for the abolition of political and cultural assumptions of equality between sexes. A realistic approach to sex differences that attempts to identify those differences and how they are best expressed in the social and political melieu. Supports the establishment of a modern partriarchy and assumes that we are now living in a matriarchy.

            Yeah, that's OK, but I don't know if it's necessary to use the words 'patriarchy' and 'matriarchy' - isn't that a bit inflammatory? If feminism really were only about 'equality' and 'equal rights' it might be fine - but they didn't and couldn't stop there. We're not fighting against equality, we're fighting against inequality!

            Andrew Usher


            --
            Live for nothing; die for something
          • Tom Smith
            Yes Spence, we all bring something to the table.  My favorite of yours is jobs, jobs, jobs.  We ve been ripped off long enough.  It s time to get our jobs
            Message 5 of 23 , Nov 1, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes Spence, we all bring something to the table.  My favorite of yours is jobs, jobs, jobs.  We've been ripped off long enough.  It's time to get our jobs back...and our power.

              Tom

              --- On Sun, 10/30/11, rights4men_immediately <rights4men.immediately@...> wrote:

              From: rights4men_immediately <rights4men.immediately@...>
              Subject: [AUM] Re: Definition of Masculism
              To: aum@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Sunday, October 30, 2011, 4:43 PM

               

              I think you`ve some good ideas, there, Tom. And I think that we've got to use the ideas and input from all of us.

              I'm not being patronising and I So hope it doesn't come acress like that. No, rather; I mean, simply, we've all a valid input to put in. And the movement IS the input of all of us.

              Best Regards

              Spence
              -----------------------

              --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Smith <qim@...> wrote:
              >
              > We needn't be afraid to use the words that the feminists have bashed us over the head with for many decades.  But we do need to use them as effectively as we can, meaning as a foil to the lies of feminists while educating the truth.  The truth is what patrarchy there is is very small and isolated at the top while using women as their shock troops.  That's not really a patriarchy if it doesn't include all men.  It's really a matriarchy since it is totally dependent on women oppressing most men.  We need to teach this truth, it's essential in getting the upper hand while weakening the feminist rhetoric.  Also by using the term "Neo Patriarchy" we are distancing ourselves for the "Old Patriarchy" which essentially failed and therefore we have no identity to.  Dig?
              > Tom  
              >
              > --- On Sat, 10/29/11, k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...> wrote:
              >
              > From: k_over_hbarc <k_over_hbarc@...>
              > Subject: [AUM] Re: Definition of Masculism
              > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Saturday, October 29, 2011, 10:22 AM
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >  
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Smith <qim@> wrote:
              >
              > >
              >
              > > "Inflammatory"?  "Matriarchy" and "Patriarchy"?  Let's not forget that the feminist movement is based on the idea of an all powerful patriarchy, a huge lie that we need to confront.  My  "Neo Patriarchy" is an attempt to both address that lie and suggest us men have to re-group, meaning all men need to be represented, and I see that as a "Neo Patriarchy".
              >
              >
              >
              > Yes, I agree it's a lie. But how can you argue that feminist fears of 'patriarchy' are a lie while advocating 'patriarchy'? Even if you don';t mean the same thing, using the same word in two different senses isn't a good way to argue. I think it's best to avoid such loaded words.
              >
              >
              >
              > Now I agree that, because of the natural differences between the sexes, they can never truly be equal. So if women are not to have the upper hand, men must. But I don't like to openly say that in the current climate.
              >
              >
              >
              > Andrew Usher
              >

            • Tom Smith
              Thumbs up Earl.  Our pussyfooting days are over.  Down with the nonsense! Tom ... From: Advocate Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: Definition of
              Message 6 of 23 , Nov 1, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Thumbs up Earl.  Our pussyfooting days are over.  Down with the nonsense!

                Tom

                --- On Tue, 11/1/11, Advocate <male6@...> wrote:

                From: Advocate <male6@...>
                Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: Definition of Masculism
                To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Tuesday, November 1, 2011, 11:09 AM

                 

                Matriarchy" and "Patriarchy"? Let's not forget that the feminist movement is based on the idea of an all powerful patriarchy, a huge lie that we need to confront’

                The all powerful patriarchy was supported in place by women who decided to take a short cut and eliminate the middle me.

                On 11/1/2011 10:10 AM, Spence wrote:

                 

                Agreed. It does come to mind that it should be a simple job of pointing out that the matriarchy IS in control? And, all we need do is pump it out again and again. Ad infinitum.
                 
                Neo-patriarchy? Wouldn’t certain groups take exception to that? I get the idea though. What about using a Greek or Latin term?.... I’ve just had a good look. Neo Is Latin. And the Greek word’s long and cumbersome. So, I suggest simply new. ‘New Patriarchy’. Not that much was wrong with the old. Though you may be on to something. PR [brother of nlp] would suggest that we brand carefully. Ok, ‘New Patriarchy’, though we don’t want to alienate any masculist bros who identified themselves as having had a conection with the patriarchy of the past.
                 
                This is a discussion shop and Im discussing.

                Best Regards

                Spence
                 
                Matriarchy" and "Patriarchy"? Let's not forget that the feminist movement is based on the idea of an all powerful patriarchy, a huge lie that we need to confront’
                -----------------------
                 
                From: Tom Smith
                Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 6:17 PM
                Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: Definition of Masculism
                 
                 

                ""?  "Matriarchy" and "Patriarchy"?  Let's not forget that the feminist movement is based on the idea of an all powerful patriarchy, a huge lie that we need to confront.  My  "Neo Patriarchy" is an attempt to both address that lie and suggest us men have to re-group, meaning all men need to be represented, and I see that as a "Neo Patriarchy".
                 
                Tom

                --- --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Smith <qim@...> wrote:

                > From the Masculist Manifesto...
                >
                > Definition of Masculism: A men’s movement ideology that advocates for the abolition of political and cultural assumptions of equality between sexes. A realistic approach to sex differences that attempts to identify those differences and how they are best expressed in the social and political melieu. Supports the establishment of a modern partriarchy and assumes that we are now living in a matriarchy.

                Yeah, that's OK, but I don't know if it's necessary to use the words 'patriarchy' and 'matriarchy' - isn't that a bit inflammatory? If feminism really were only about 'equality' and 'equal rights' it might be fine - but they didn't and couldn't stop there. We're not fighting against equality, we're fighting against inequality!

                Andrew Usher


                --
                Live for nothing; die for something
              • Spence
                Hi Earl, Agreed. I thought we need to only prove [a-la Warren Farrell if you wish] That men haven’t got power [The Myth of Male Power] and then, as society
                Message 7 of 23 , Nov 1, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                   
                  Hi Earl,
                   
                  Agreed. I thought we need to only prove [a-la Warren Farrell if you wish] That men haven’t got power [The Myth of Male Power] and then, as society believes some sex’s in control, it only leaves the conclusion that women control.

                  Best Regards

                  Spence
                  -----------------------
                  Let's not forget that the feminist movement is based on the idea of an all powerful patriarchy, a huge lie that we need to confront’
                   
                  From: Advocate
                  Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 6:09 PM
                  Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: Definition of Masculism
                   
                   

                  Matriarchy" and "Patriarchy"? Let's not forget that the feminist movement is based on the idea of an all powerful patriarchy, a huge lie that we need to confront’

                  The all powerful patriarchy was supported in place by women who decided to take a short cut and eliminate the middle me.

                  On 11/1/2011 10:10 AM, Spence wrote:
                   
                  Agreed. It does come to mind that it should be a simple job of pointing out that the matriarchy IS in control? And, all we need do is pump it out again and again. Ad infinitum.
                   
                  Neo-patriarchy? Wouldn’t certain groups take exception to that? I get the idea though. What about using a Greek or Latin term?.... I’ve just had a good look. Neo Is Latin. And the Greek word’s long and cumbersome. So, I suggest simply new. ‘New Patriarchy’. Not that much was wrong with the old. Though you may be on to something. PR [brother of nlp] would suggest that we brand carefully. Ok, ‘New Patriarchy’, though we don’t want to alienate any masculist bros who identified themselves as having had a conection with the patriarchy of the past.
                   
                  This is a discussion shop and Im discussing.

                  Best Regards

                  Spence
                   
                  Matriarchy" and "Patriarchy"? Let's not forget that the feminist movement is based on the idea of an all powerful patriarchy, a huge lie that we need to confront’
                  -----------------------
                   
                  From: Tom Smith
                  Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 6:17 PM
                  Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: Definition of Masculism
                   
                   

                  ""?  "Matriarchy" and "Patriarchy"?  Let's not forget that the feminist movement is based on the idea of an all powerful patriarchy, a huge lie that we need to confront.  My  "Neo Patriarchy" is an attempt to both address that lie and suggest us men have to re-group, meaning all men need to be represented, and I see that as a "Neo Patriarchy".
                   
                  Tom

                  --- --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Smith mailto:qim@... wrote:

                  > From the Masculist Manifesto...
                  >
                  > Definition of Masculism: A men’s movement ideology that advocates for the abolition of political and cultural assumptions of equality between sexes. A realistic approach to sex differences that attempts to identify those differences and how they are best expressed in the social and political melieu. Supports the establishment of a modern partriarchy and assumes that we are now living in a matriarchy.

                  Yeah, that's OK, but I don't know if it's necessary to use the words 'patriarchy' and 'matriarchy' - isn't that a bit inflammatory? If feminism really were only about 'equality' and 'equal rights' it might be fine - but they didn't and couldn't stop there. We're not fighting against equality, we're fighting against inequality!

                  Andrew Usher


                  --
                  Live for nothing; die for something
                • k_over_hbarc
                  ... Ad nauseam? ... Actually, neo- is Greek (the Latin equivalent would be novi- ) but I agree that new sounds better. Whatever you call it, though, the
                  Message 8 of 23 , Nov 2, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately@...> wrote:

                    > Agreed. It does come to mind that it should be a simple job of pointing out that the matriarchy IS in control? And, all we need do is pump it out again and again. Ad infinitum.

                    Ad nauseam?

                    > Neo-patriarchy? Wouldn’t certain groups take exception to that? I get the idea though. What about using a Greek or Latin term?.... I’ve just had a good look. Neo Is Latin.

                    Actually, 'neo-' is Greek (the Latin equivalent would be 'novi-') but I agree that 'new' sounds better. Whatever you call it, though, the question is what people understand it to be.

                    Andrew Usher
                  • Spence
                    Well, we agree on the main points and that’s good. Best Regards Spence ... From: k_over_hbarc Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:56 PM To:
                    Message 9 of 23 , Nov 6, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Well, we agree on the main points and that’s good.
                       
                      Best Regards

                      Spence
                      -----------------------
                       
                      Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 11:56 PM
                      Subject: [AUM] Re: Definition of Masculism
                       
                       

                      --- In mailto:aum%40yahoogroups.com, "Spence" <rights4men.immediately@...> wrote:

                      > Agreed. It does come to
                      mind that it should be a simple job of pointing out that the matriarchy IS in control? And, all we need do is pump it out again and again. Ad infinitum.

                      Ad nauseam?

                      > Neo-patriarchy? Wouldn’t certain
                      groups take exception to that? I get the idea though. What about using a Greek or Latin term?.... I’ve just had a good look. Neo Is Latin.

                      Actually, 'neo-' is Greek (the Latin equivalent would be 'novi-') but I agree that 'new' sounds better. Whatever you call it, though, the question is what people understand it to be.

                      Andrew Usher

                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.