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

Religion, Feminism and the Men.s Movement

Expand Messages
  • Tom Smith
    Below is a post to soc.men usenet group and my response on the Promise Keepers. Comments are welcomed. Tom ... today, and the conversation ... rolling around
    Message 1 of 7 , May 5 2:44 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Below is a post to soc.men usenet group and my
      response on the Promise Keepers. Comments are
      welcomed.

      Tom

      > Hello.
      >
      > I was talking to one of our fellow men earlier
      today, and the conversation
      > caused me to think about an issue that I have been
      rolling around in my head
      > for some time now: Do men have trouble organizing
      and conducting because we are
      > unconsciously programmed to protect and provide for
      women and children?
      >
      > I'd like to develop this idea further and possibly
      write an article about it.
      >
      > Consider the following questions that are related to
      my first riddle:
      >
      > 1. Can our subconscious minds really inhibit us
      from taking action when we are
      > repeatedly abused?
      >
      > 2. Why do we continue to abuse our fellow men, even
      under the most heinous of
      > circumstances? As an example, recall the recent
      decision of the Supreme
      > Judicial Court of Massachusetts that required a man
      to pay money to the mother
      > of a child that is not even his child. Have you
      noticed that there is very
      > little outcry over the mother's irresponsible
      behavior. After all, remember
      > that:
      >
      > --The kid's mother is the one who committed the
      harm.
      > --*She* cheated on her husband.
      > --*She* broke her marital vows.
      > --*She* created the uncertainty.
      > --*She* created a situation where the child is
      fatherless.
      >
      > Did not male judges betray a fellow man with that
      outrageous judgement?
      >
      > Why?
      >
      > I propose that we do such things to our fellow men
      as an unconscious response
      > to a deeply held desire to protect women and
      children--a desire of which we are
      > not even consciously aware. I do not know what the
      answer is, but I do suspect
      > that building awareness of this possibility will
      carry us far.
      >
      > What do you think?
      >
      > Remember, we can still protect women and children
      without abusing ourselves!
      > (Hmm...that could make a good slogan.)
      >


      Good points and questions Steve. It's really the
      critical issue of men
      organizing for their own interests. I suspect there
      is a
      "predisposition" to protect women and for men to view
      eachother
      negatively, except maybe in their own immediate tribe.
      When human
      groupings got larger back 6000 years ago, something
      was needed to hold
      the larger units of men (civilization) together. In
      Western civilization
      that was God and Abraham, in the East Buddha and God
      in parts. Both were
      patriarchal and the God or Gods reinforced that
      patriarchy. As we know,
      this was not lost on the feminists and they have
      consistently and
      publically set out to undermine and infiltrate (Donna
      Steichen's "Ungodly
      Rage") the patriarchal religions.

      Along with this "predisposition" of men to view
      themselves negatively is
      an historic conditionning of men to assume this
      patriarchy is still
      intact and that they therefore still have power.
      Added to that is the
      reality that women have the power and they are
      consciously suppressing
      that fact and reinforcing the idea that men still have
      power. Feminists
      have controlled the democratic party for thirty years,
      but have we heard
      anything in the media about this extraordinary power
      shift? Have any
      political science professors been teaching about it?

      The first order of business for the movement is what
      Farrell apparently
      realized ten years ago when he wrote "The Myth of Male
      Power", the
      population needs to be made aware of who really has
      the power. One book
      apparently isn't enough, somehow that message needs to
      be pushed in other
      ways. I'd like to see the journalists or media start
      taking a close look
      at feminism and how it controls the democratic party
      and has made
      alliances with women on the Right. This should have
      been done twenty
      five years ago. Along with that, it needs to be
      demonstrated the
      difference between individual male politicians
      representing men as
      opposed to a large well organized advocacy and
      lobbying group
      representing them. That difference not only adds up
      to no power, but has
      opened the door to male politicians actively
      oppressing their own sex to
      get and maintain power. I beleive this point will
      resonate well with the
      male population and begin to make male politicans more
      accountable. But
      it won't get the ball over the line. There still is
      the necessity for
      men to organize and represent thier interests.

      In order to organize men, we have to look to history.
      For 6000 years we
      have leaned on God, why should it be any different in
      the comming years?
      The movement will go nowhere without God, and if it
      tries to and makes
      alittle porgress, it will only contribute to all of
      our destruction. For
      the scientiifc minded, I would point to as my proof
      the looming ethical
      decisions about genetic engineering and such that will
      absolutely require
      our intellectual and spiritual resources that were
      developed with God's
      help these past 6000 years.

      Men are essentially nonverbal and organize through the
      spirit ie God.
      The Promise Keepers had the right idea, just poor
      execution. Thier
      churches have either been taken over by feminists or
      are under siege. To
      me feminism represents the devil, so you can imagine
      how I feeel about
      those churches who embrace it. The next religious
      revival will be
      motivated by the desire to drive the devil feminism
      out of the
      congregations (remember fundementalism?). If the
      Promise Keepers want to
      have any credibility or success, they need to denounce
      feminism in no
      uncertain terms and stop their whimpering over
      feminist induced guilt.
      If they aren't up to it, then I'm sure someone will
      be.

      Tom





      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
      http://auctions.yahoo.com/
    • Glenn Burger
      Organizing and conducting is boro. Man, boro. That s why we have trouble with it. ... _________________________________________________________________________
      Message 2 of 7 , May 5 4:09 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Organizing and conducting is boro. Man, boro. That's why we have trouble
        with it.


        >From: Tom Smith <qim@...>
        >Reply-To: aum@yahoogroups.com
        >To: Mensmovement <mensmovement@yahoogroups.com>, Mensrights
        ><mensrights@yahoogroups.com>, SocMen <socmen@yahoogroups.com>, The American
        >Union of Men <aum@yahoogroups.com>
        >Subject: [AUM] Religion, Feminism and the Men.s Movement
        >Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 14:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
        >
        >Below is a post to soc.men usenet group and my
        >response on the Promise Keepers. Comments are
        >welcomed.
        >
        >Tom
        >
        > > Hello.
        > >
        > > I was talking to one of our fellow men earlier
        >today, and the conversation
        > > caused me to think about an issue that I have been
        >rolling around in my head
        > > for some time now: Do men have trouble organizing
        >and conducting because we are
        > > unconsciously programmed to protect and provide for
        >women and children?
        > >
        > > I'd like to develop this idea further and possibly
        >write an article about it.
        > >
        > > Consider the following questions that are related to
        >my first riddle:
        > >
        > > 1. Can our subconscious minds really inhibit us
        >from taking action when we are
        > > repeatedly abused?
        > >
        > > 2. Why do we continue to abuse our fellow men, even
        >under the most heinous of
        > > circumstances? As an example, recall the recent
        >decision of the Supreme
        > > Judicial Court of Massachusetts that required a man
        >to pay money to the mother
        > > of a child that is not even his child. Have you
        >noticed that there is very
        > > little outcry over the mother's irresponsible
        >behavior. After all, remember
        > > that:
        > >
        > > --The kid's mother is the one who committed the
        >harm.
        > > --*She* cheated on her husband.
        > > --*She* broke her marital vows.
        > > --*She* created the uncertainty.
        > > --*She* created a situation where the child is
        >fatherless.
        > >
        > > Did not male judges betray a fellow man with that
        >outrageous judgement?
        > >
        > > Why?
        > >
        > > I propose that we do such things to our fellow men
        >as an unconscious response
        > > to a deeply held desire to protect women and
        >children--a desire of which we are
        > > not even consciously aware. I do not know what the
        >answer is, but I do suspect
        > > that building awareness of this possibility will
        >carry us far.
        > >
        > > What do you think?
        > >
        > > Remember, we can still protect women and children
        >without abusing ourselves!
        > > (Hmm...that could make a good slogan.)
        > >
        >
        >
        >Good points and questions Steve. It's really the
        >critical issue of men
        >organizing for their own interests. I suspect there
        >is a
        >"predisposition" to protect women and for men to view
        >eachother
        >negatively, except maybe in their own immediate tribe.
        > When human
        >groupings got larger back 6000 years ago, something
        >was needed to hold
        >the larger units of men (civilization) together. In
        >Western civilization
        >that was God and Abraham, in the East Buddha and God
        >in parts. Both were
        >patriarchal and the God or Gods reinforced that
        >patriarchy. As we know,
        >this was not lost on the feminists and they have
        >consistently and
        >publically set out to undermine and infiltrate (Donna
        >Steichen's "Ungodly
        >Rage") the patriarchal religions.
        >
        >Along with this "predisposition" of men to view
        >themselves negatively is
        >an historic conditionning of men to assume this
        >patriarchy is still
        >intact and that they therefore still have power.
        >Added to that is the
        >reality that women have the power and they are
        >consciously suppressing
        >that fact and reinforcing the idea that men still have
        >power. Feminists
        >have controlled the democratic party for thirty years,
        >but have we heard
        >anything in the media about this extraordinary power
        >shift? Have any
        >political science professors been teaching about it?
        >
        >The first order of business for the movement is what
        >Farrell apparently
        >realized ten years ago when he wrote "The Myth of Male
        >Power", the
        >population needs to be made aware of who really has
        >the power. One book
        >apparently isn't enough, somehow that message needs to
        >be pushed in other
        >ways. I'd like to see the journalists or media start
        >taking a close look
        >at feminism and how it controls the democratic party
        >and has made
        >alliances with women on the Right. This should have
        >been done twenty
        >five years ago. Along with that, it needs to be
        >demonstrated the
        >difference between individual male politicians
        >representing men as
        >opposed to a large well organized advocacy and
        >lobbying group
        >representing them. That difference not only adds up
        >to no power, but has
        >opened the door to male politicians actively
        >oppressing their own sex to
        >get and maintain power. I beleive this point will
        >resonate well with the
        >male population and begin to make male politicans more
        >accountable. But
        >it won't get the ball over the line. There still is
        >the necessity for
        >men to organize and represent thier interests.
        >
        >In order to organize men, we have to look to history.
        >For 6000 years we
        >have leaned on God, why should it be any different in
        >the comming years?
        >The movement will go nowhere without God, and if it
        >tries to and makes
        >alittle porgress, it will only contribute to all of
        >our destruction. For
        >the scientiifc minded, I would point to as my proof
        >the looming ethical
        >decisions about genetic engineering and such that will
        >absolutely require
        >our intellectual and spiritual resources that were
        >developed with God's
        >help these past 6000 years.
        >
        >Men are essentially nonverbal and organize through the
        >spirit ie God.
        >The Promise Keepers had the right idea, just poor
        >execution. Thier
        >churches have either been taken over by feminists or
        >are under siege. To
        >me feminism represents the devil, so you can imagine
        >how I feeel about
        >those churches who embrace it. The next religious
        >revival will be
        >motivated by the desire to drive the devil feminism
        >out of the
        >congregations (remember fundementalism?). If the
        >Promise Keepers want to
        >have any credibility or success, they need to denounce
        >feminism in no
        >uncertain terms and stop their whimpering over
        >feminist induced guilt.
        >If they aren't up to it, then I'm sure someone will
        >be.
        >
        >Tom
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >__________________________________________________
        >Do You Yahoo!?
        >Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
        >http://auctions.yahoo.com/

        _________________________________________________________________________
        Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
      • emobiles
        The genetic predisposition of men to protect women and children and not organize (unionize!) may be a valid medical biological phenomenon. However, the Million
        Message 3 of 7 , May 8 12:08 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          The genetic predisposition of men to protect women and children and not organize (unionize!) may be a valid medical biological phenomenon. However, the Million Man March showed cohesion in the black community. Ethnic groups seem all to able to organize from Hispanic gangs to Japanese corporate salary men. I think cultural factors prohibit North American European American men from succeeding similarly.
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 4:09 PM
          Subject: Re: [AUM] Religion, Feminism and the Men.s Movement

          Organizing and conducting is boro. Man, boro. That's why we have trouble
          with it.


          >From: Tom Smith <qim@...>
          >Reply-To: aum@yahoogroups.com
          >To: Mensmovement <mensmovement@yahoogroups.com>, Mensrights
          ><mensrights@yahoogroups.com>, SocMen <socmen@yahoogroups.com>, The American
          >Union of Men <aum@yahoogroups.com>
          >Subject: [AUM] Religion, Feminism and the Men.s Movement
          >Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 14:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
          >
          >Below is a post to soc.men usenet group and my
          >response on the Promise Keepers.  Comments are
          >welcomed.
          >
          >Tom
          >
          > > Hello.
          > >
          > > I was talking to one of our fellow men earlier
          >today, and the conversation
          > > caused me to think about an issue that I have been
          >rolling around in my head
          > > for some time now: Do men have trouble organizing
          >and conducting because we are
          > > unconsciously programmed to protect and provide for
          >women and children?
          > >
          > > I'd like to develop this idea further and possibly
          >write an article about it.
          > >
          > > Consider the following questions that are related to
          >my first riddle:
          > >
          > > 1.  Can our subconscious minds really inhibit us
          >from taking action when we are
          > > repeatedly abused?
          > >
          > > 2.  Why do we continue to abuse our fellow men, even
          >under the most heinous of
          > > circumstances?  As an example, recall the recent
          >decision of the Supreme
          > > Judicial Court of Massachusetts that required a man
          >to pay money to the mother
          > > of a child that is not even his child.  Have you
          >noticed that there is very
          > > little outcry over the mother's irresponsible
          >behavior.  After all, remember
          > > that:
          > >
          > > --The kid's mother is the one who committed the
          >harm.
          > > --*She* cheated on her husband.
          > > --*She* broke her marital vows.
          > > --*She* created the uncertainty.
          > > --*She* created a situation where the child is
          >fatherless.
          > >
          > > Did not male judges betray a fellow man with that
          >outrageous judgement?
          > >
          > > Why?
          > >
          > > I propose that we do such things to our fellow men
          >as an unconscious response
          > > to a deeply held desire to protect women and
          >children--a desire of which we are
          > > not even consciously aware.  I do not know what the
          >answer is, but I do suspect
          > > that building awareness of this possibility will
          >carry us far.
          > >
          > > What do you think?
          > >
          > > Remember, we can still protect women and children
          >without abusing ourselves!
          > > (Hmm...that could make a good slogan.)
          > >
          >
          >
          >Good points and questions Steve.  It's really the
          >critical issue of men
          >organizing for their own interests.  I suspect there
          >is a
          >"predisposition" to protect women and for men to view
          >eachother
          >negatively, except maybe in their own immediate tribe.
          >  When human
          >groupings got larger back 6000 years ago, something
          >was needed to hold
          >the larger units of men (civilization) together.  In
          >Western civilization
          >that was God and Abraham, in the East Buddha and God
          >in parts.  Both were
          >patriarchal and the God or Gods reinforced that
          >patriarchy.  As we know,
          >this was not lost on the feminists and they have
          >consistently and
          >publically set out to undermine and infiltrate (Donna
          >Steichen's "Ungodly
          >Rage") the patriarchal religions.
          >
          >Along with this "predisposition" of men to view
          >themselves negatively is
          >an historic conditionning of men to assume this
          >patriarchy is still
          >intact and that they therefore still have power.
          >Added to that is the
          >reality that women have the power and they are
          >consciously suppressing
          >that fact and reinforcing the idea that men still have
          >power.  Feminists
          >have controlled the democratic party for thirty years,
          >but have we heard
          >anything in the media about this extraordinary power
          >shift?  Have any
          >political science professors been teaching about it?
          >
          >The first order of business for the movement is what
          >Farrell apparently
          >realized ten years ago when he wrote "The Myth of Male
          >Power", the
          >population needs to be made aware of who really has
          >the power.  One book
          >apparently isn't enough, somehow that message needs to
          >be pushed in other
          >ways.  I'd like to see the journalists or media start
          >taking a close look
          >at feminism and how it controls the democratic party
          >and has made
          >alliances with women on the Right.  This should have
          >been done twenty
          >five years ago.  Along with that, it needs to be
          >demonstrated the
          >difference between individual male politicians
          >representing men as
          >opposed to a large well organized advocacy and
          >lobbying group
          >representing them.  That difference not only adds up
          >to no power, but has
          >opened the door to male politicians actively
          >oppressing their own sex to
          >get and maintain power.  I beleive this point will
          >resonate well with the
          >male population and begin to make male politicans more
          >accountable.  But
          >it won't get the ball over the line.  There still is
          >the necessity for
          >men to organize and represent thier interests.
          >
          >In order to organize men, we have to look to history.
          >For 6000 years we
          >have leaned on God, why should it be any different in
          >the comming years?
          >The movement will go nowhere without God, and if it
          >tries to and makes
          >alittle porgress, it will only contribute to all of
          >our destruction.  For
          >the scientiifc minded, I would point to as my proof
          >the looming ethical
          >decisions about genetic engineering and such that will
          >absolutely require
          >our intellectual and spiritual resources that were
          >developed with God's
          >help these past 6000 years.
          >
          >Men are essentially nonverbal and organize through the
          >spirit ie God.
          >The Promise Keepers had the right idea, just poor
          >execution.  Thier
          >churches have either been taken over by feminists or
          >are under siege.  To
          >me feminism represents the devil, so you can imagine
          >how I feeel about
          >those churches who embrace it.  The next religious
          >revival will be
          >motivated by the desire to drive the devil feminism
          >out of the
          >congregations (remember fundementalism?).  If the
          >Promise Keepers want to
          >have any credibility or success, they need to denounce
          >feminism in no
          >uncertain terms and stop their whimpering over
          >feminist induced guilt.
          >If they aren't up to it, then I'm sure someone will
          >be.
          >
          >Tom
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >__________________________________________________
          >Do You Yahoo!?
          >Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
          >http://auctions.yahoo.com/

          _________________________________________________________________________
          Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        • Glenn Burger
          Yeah, yeah, yeah. Men will get organized, but they don t like staying organized, not like women do. I don t think. Women are nesters, they love being
          Message 4 of 7 , May 8 2:04 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Yeah, yeah, yeah. Men will get organized, but they don't like staying
            organized, not like women do. I don't think. Women are nesters, they love
            being organized.


            >From: "emobiles" <emobiles@...>
            >Reply-To: aum@yahoogroups.com
            >To: <aum@yahoogroups.com>
            >Subject: Re: [AUM] Religion, Feminism and the Men.s Movement
            >Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 00:08:35 -0700
            >
            >The genetic predisposition of men to protect women and children and not
            >organize (unionize!) may be a valid medical biological phenomenon. However,
            >the Million Man March showed cohesion in the black community. Ethnic groups
            >seem all to able to organize from Hispanic gangs to Japanese corporate
            >salary men. I think cultural factors prohibit North American European
            >American men from succeeding similarly.
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: Glenn Burger
            > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 4:09 PM
            > Subject: Re: [AUM] Religion, Feminism and the Men.s Movement
            >
            >
            > Organizing and conducting is boro. Man, boro. That's why we have trouble
            > with it.
            >
            >
            > >From: Tom Smith <qim@...>
            > >Reply-To: aum@yahoogroups.com
            > >To: Mensmovement <mensmovement@yahoogroups.com>, Mensrights
            > ><mensrights@yahoogroups.com>, SocMen <socmen@yahoogroups.com>, The
            >American
            > >Union of Men <aum@yahoogroups.com>
            > >Subject: [AUM] Religion, Feminism and the Men.s Movement
            > >Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 14:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
            > >
            > >Below is a post to soc.men usenet group and my
            > >response on the Promise Keepers. Comments are
            > >welcomed.
            > >
            > >Tom
            > >
            > > > Hello.
            > > >
            > > > I was talking to one of our fellow men earlier
            > >today, and the conversation
            > > > caused me to think about an issue that I have been
            > >rolling around in my head
            > > > for some time now: Do men have trouble organizing
            > >and conducting because we are
            > > > unconsciously programmed to protect and provide for
            > >women and children?
            > > >
            > > > I'd like to develop this idea further and possibly
            > >write an article about it.
            > > >
            > > > Consider the following questions that are related to
            > >my first riddle:
            > > >
            > > > 1. Can our subconscious minds really inhibit us
            > >from taking action when we are
            > > > repeatedly abused?
            > > >
            > > > 2. Why do we continue to abuse our fellow men, even
            > >under the most heinous of
            > > > circumstances? As an example, recall the recent
            > >decision of the Supreme
            > > > Judicial Court of Massachusetts that required a man
            > >to pay money to the mother
            > > > of a child that is not even his child. Have you
            > >noticed that there is very
            > > > little outcry over the mother's irresponsible
            > >behavior. After all, remember
            > > > that:
            > > >
            > > > --The kid's mother is the one who committed the
            > >harm.
            > > > --*She* cheated on her husband.
            > > > --*She* broke her marital vows.
            > > > --*She* created the uncertainty.
            > > > --*She* created a situation where the child is
            > >fatherless.
            > > >
            > > > Did not male judges betray a fellow man with that
            > >outrageous judgement?
            > > >
            > > > Why?
            > > >
            > > > I propose that we do such things to our fellow men
            > >as an unconscious response
            > > > to a deeply held desire to protect women and
            > >children--a desire of which we are
            > > > not even consciously aware. I do not know what the
            > >answer is, but I do suspect
            > > > that building awareness of this possibility will
            > >carry us far.
            > > >
            > > > What do you think?
            > > >
            > > > Remember, we can still protect women and children
            > >without abusing ourselves!
            > > > (Hmm...that could make a good slogan.)
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >Good points and questions Steve. It's really the
            > >critical issue of men
            > >organizing for their own interests. I suspect there
            > >is a
            > >"predisposition" to protect women and for men to view
            > >eachother
            > >negatively, except maybe in their own immediate tribe.
            > > When human
            > >groupings got larger back 6000 years ago, something
            > >was needed to hold
            > >the larger units of men (civilization) together. In
            > >Western civilization
            > >that was God and Abraham, in the East Buddha and God
            > >in parts. Both were
            > >patriarchal and the God or Gods reinforced that
            > >patriarchy. As we know,
            > >this was not lost on the feminists and they have
            > >consistently and
            > >publically set out to undermine and infiltrate (Donna
            > >Steichen's "Ungodly
            > >Rage") the patriarchal religions.
            > >
            > >Along with this "predisposition" of men to view
            > >themselves negatively is
            > >an historic conditionning of men to assume this
            > >patriarchy is still
            > >intact and that they therefore still have power.
            > >Added to that is the
            > >reality that women have the power and they are
            > >consciously suppressing
            > >that fact and reinforcing the idea that men still have
            > >power. Feminists
            > >have controlled the democratic party for thirty years,
            > >but have we heard
            > >anything in the media about this extraordinary power
            > >shift? Have any
            > >political science professors been teaching about it?
            > >
            > >The first order of business for the movement is what
            > >Farrell apparently
            > >realized ten years ago when he wrote "The Myth of Male
            > >Power", the
            > >population needs to be made aware of who really has
            > >the power. One book
            > >apparently isn't enough, somehow that message needs to
            > >be pushed in other
            > >ways. I'd like to see the journalists or media start
            > >taking a close look
            > >at feminism and how it controls the democratic party
            > >and has made
            > >alliances with women on the Right. This should have
            > >been done twenty
            > >five years ago. Along with that, it needs to be
            > >demonstrated the
            > >difference between individual male politicians
            > >representing men as
            > >opposed to a large well organized advocacy and
            > >lobbying group
            > >representing them. That difference not only adds up
            > >to no power, but has
            > >opened the door to male politicians actively
            > >oppressing their own sex to
            > >get and maintain power. I beleive this point will
            > >resonate well with the
            > >male population and begin to make male politicans more
            > >accountable. But
            > >it won't get the ball over the line. There still is
            > >the necessity for
            > >men to organize and represent thier interests.
            > >
            > >In order to organize men, we have to look to history.
            > >For 6000 years we
            > >have leaned on God, why should it be any different in
            > >the comming years?
            > >The movement will go nowhere without God, and if it
            > >tries to and makes
            > >alittle porgress, it will only contribute to all of
            > >our destruction. For
            > >the scientiifc minded, I would point to as my proof
            > >the looming ethical
            > >decisions about genetic engineering and such that will
            > >absolutely require
            > >our intellectual and spiritual resources that were
            > >developed with God's
            > >help these past 6000 years.
            > >
            > >Men are essentially nonverbal and organize through the
            > >spirit ie God.
            > >The Promise Keepers had the right idea, just poor
            > >execution. Thier
            > >churches have either been taken over by feminists or
            > >are under siege. To
            > >me feminism represents the devil, so you can imagine
            > >how I feeel about
            > >those churches who embrace it. The next religious
            > >revival will be
            > >motivated by the desire to drive the devil feminism
            > >out of the
            > >congregations (remember fundementalism?). If the
            > >Promise Keepers want to
            > >have any credibility or success, they need to denounce
            > >feminism in no
            > >uncertain terms and stop their whimpering over
            > >feminist induced guilt.
            > >If they aren't up to it, then I'm sure someone will
            > >be.
            > >
            > >Tom
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >__________________________________________________
            > >Do You Yahoo!?
            > >Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
            > >http://auctions.yahoo.com/
            >
            >
            >_________________________________________________________________________
            > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
            >http://www.hotmail.com
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            >

            _________________________________________________________________________
            Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
          • Stephen Morgan
            ... Men have always kept the world organised, nations, corporations, homes. ... -- I die a Christian, according to the profession of the Church of England, as
            Message 5 of 7 , May 11 1:32 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:04:08PM -0700, Glenn Burger wrote:
              > Yeah, yeah, yeah. Men will get organized, but they don't like staying
              > organized, not like women do. I don't think. Women are nesters, they love
              > being organized.

              Men have always kept the world organised, nations, corporations, homes.

              > >From: "emobiles" <emobiles@...>
              > >Reply-To: aum@yahoogroups.com
              > >To: <aum@yahoogroups.com>
              > >Subject: Re: [AUM] Religion, Feminism and the Men.s Movement
              > >Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 00:08:35 -0700
              > >
              > >The genetic predisposition of men to protect women and children and not
              > >organize (unionize!) may be a valid medical biological phenomenon. However,
              > >the Million Man March showed cohesion in the black community. Ethnic groups
              > >seem all to able to organize from Hispanic gangs to Japanese corporate
              > >salary men. I think cultural factors prohibit North American European
              > >American men from succeeding similarly.
              > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > From: Glenn Burger
              > > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
              > > Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 4:09 PM
              > > Subject: Re: [AUM] Religion, Feminism and the Men.s Movement
              > >
              > >
              > > Organizing and conducting is boro. Man, boro. That's why we have trouble
              > > with it.
              > >
              > >
              > > >From: Tom Smith <qim@...>
              > > >Reply-To: aum@yahoogroups.com
              > > >To: Mensmovement <mensmovement@yahoogroups.com>, Mensrights
              > > ><mensrights@yahoogroups.com>, SocMen <socmen@yahoogroups.com>, The
              > >American
              > > >Union of Men <aum@yahoogroups.com>
              > > >Subject: [AUM] Religion, Feminism and the Men.s Movement
              > > >Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 14:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
              > > >
              > > >Below is a post to soc.men usenet group and my
              > > >response on the Promise Keepers. Comments are
              > > >welcomed.
              > > >
              > > >Tom
              > > >
              > > > > Hello.
              > > > >
              > > > > I was talking to one of our fellow men earlier
              > > >today, and the conversation
              > > > > caused me to think about an issue that I have been
              > > >rolling around in my head
              > > > > for some time now: Do men have trouble organizing
              > > >and conducting because we are
              > > > > unconsciously programmed to protect and provide for
              > > >women and children?
              > > > >
              > > > > I'd like to develop this idea further and possibly
              > > >write an article about it.
              > > > >
              > > > > Consider the following questions that are related to
              > > >my first riddle:
              > > > >
              > > > > 1. Can our subconscious minds really inhibit us
              > > >from taking action when we are
              > > > > repeatedly abused?
              > > > >
              > > > > 2. Why do we continue to abuse our fellow men, even
              > > >under the most heinous of
              > > > > circumstances? As an example, recall the recent
              > > >decision of the Supreme
              > > > > Judicial Court of Massachusetts that required a man
              > > >to pay money to the mother
              > > > > of a child that is not even his child. Have you
              > > >noticed that there is very
              > > > > little outcry over the mother's irresponsible
              > > >behavior. After all, remember
              > > > > that:
              > > > >
              > > > > --The kid's mother is the one who committed the
              > > >harm.
              > > > > --*She* cheated on her husband.
              > > > > --*She* broke her marital vows.
              > > > > --*She* created the uncertainty.
              > > > > --*She* created a situation where the child is
              > > >fatherless.
              > > > >
              > > > > Did not male judges betray a fellow man with that
              > > >outrageous judgement?
              > > > >
              > > > > Why?
              > > > >
              > > > > I propose that we do such things to our fellow men
              > > >as an unconscious response
              > > > > to a deeply held desire to protect women and
              > > >children--a desire of which we are
              > > > > not even consciously aware. I do not know what the
              > > >answer is, but I do suspect
              > > > > that building awareness of this possibility will
              > > >carry us far.
              > > > >
              > > > > What do you think?
              > > > >
              > > > > Remember, we can still protect women and children
              > > >without abusing ourselves!
              > > > > (Hmm...that could make a good slogan.)
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >Good points and questions Steve. It's really the
              > > >critical issue of men
              > > >organizing for their own interests. I suspect there
              > > >is a
              > > >"predisposition" to protect women and for men to view
              > > >eachother
              > > >negatively, except maybe in their own immediate tribe.
              > > > When human
              > > >groupings got larger back 6000 years ago, something
              > > >was needed to hold
              > > >the larger units of men (civilization) together. In
              > > >Western civilization
              > > >that was God and Abraham, in the East Buddha and God
              > > >in parts. Both were
              > > >patriarchal and the God or Gods reinforced that
              > > >patriarchy. As we know,
              > > >this was not lost on the feminists and they have
              > > >consistently and
              > > >publically set out to undermine and infiltrate (Donna
              > > >Steichen's "Ungodly
              > > >Rage") the patriarchal religions.
              > > >
              > > >Along with this "predisposition" of men to view
              > > >themselves negatively is
              > > >an historic conditionning of men to assume this
              > > >patriarchy is still
              > > >intact and that they therefore still have power.
              > > >Added to that is the
              > > >reality that women have the power and they are
              > > >consciously suppressing
              > > >that fact and reinforcing the idea that men still have
              > > >power. Feminists
              > > >have controlled the democratic party for thirty years,
              > > >but have we heard
              > > >anything in the media about this extraordinary power
              > > >shift? Have any
              > > >political science professors been teaching about it?
              > > >
              > > >The first order of business for the movement is what
              > > >Farrell apparently
              > > >realized ten years ago when he wrote "The Myth of Male
              > > >Power", the
              > > >population needs to be made aware of who really has
              > > >the power. One book
              > > >apparently isn't enough, somehow that message needs to
              > > >be pushed in other
              > > >ways. I'd like to see the journalists or media start
              > > >taking a close look
              > > >at feminism and how it controls the democratic party
              > > >and has made
              > > >alliances with women on the Right. This should have
              > > >been done twenty
              > > >five years ago. Along with that, it needs to be
              > > >demonstrated the
              > > >difference between individual male politicians
              > > >representing men as
              > > >opposed to a large well organized advocacy and
              > > >lobbying group
              > > >representing them. That difference not only adds up
              > > >to no power, but has
              > > >opened the door to male politicians actively
              > > >oppressing their own sex to
              > > >get and maintain power. I beleive this point will
              > > >resonate well with the
              > > >male population and begin to make male politicans more
              > > >accountable. But
              > > >it won't get the ball over the line. There still is
              > > >the necessity for
              > > >men to organize and represent thier interests.
              > > >
              > > >In order to organize men, we have to look to history.
              > > >For 6000 years we
              > > >have leaned on God, why should it be any different in
              > > >the comming years?
              > > >The movement will go nowhere without God, and if it
              > > >tries to and makes
              > > >alittle porgress, it will only contribute to all of
              > > >our destruction. For
              > > >the scientiifc minded, I would point to as my proof
              > > >the looming ethical
              > > >decisions about genetic engineering and such that will
              > > >absolutely require
              > > >our intellectual and spiritual resources that were
              > > >developed with God's
              > > >help these past 6000 years.
              > > >
              > > >Men are essentially nonverbal and organize through the
              > > >spirit ie God.
              > > >The Promise Keepers had the right idea, just poor
              > > >execution. Thier
              > > >churches have either been taken over by feminists or
              > > >are under siege. To
              > > >me feminism represents the devil, so you can imagine
              > > >how I feeel about
              > > >those churches who embrace it. The next religious
              > > >revival will be
              > > >motivated by the desire to drive the devil feminism
              > > >out of the
              > > >congregations (remember fundementalism?). If the
              > > >Promise Keepers want to
              > > >have any credibility or success, they need to denounce
              > > >feminism in no
              > > >uncertain terms and stop their whimpering over
              > > >feminist induced guilt.
              > > >If they aren't up to it, then I'm sure someone will
              > > >be.
              > > >
              > > >Tom
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >__________________________________________________
              > > >Do You Yahoo!?
              > > >Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
              > > >http://auctions.yahoo.com/
              > >
              > >
              > >_________________________________________________________________________
              > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
              > >http://www.hotmail.com
              > >
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              > >
              >
              > _________________________________________________________________________
              > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >

              --
              I die a Christian, according to the profession of the Church of
              England, as I found it left me by my father. I needed not to have come
              here, and therefore I tell you, and I pray to God it may not be laid to
              your charge, that I am the Martyr of the People.
              -- King Charles I, before being beheaded.
            • Deborah Terreson
              ... You don t know my landlord.. :( ... Deb.
              Message 6 of 7 , May 11 7:29 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                ----------
                >From: Stephen Morgan <ncavalier@...>
                >To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: Re: [AUM] Religion, Feminism and the Men.s Movement
                >Date: Fri, May 11, 2001, 4:32 AM
                >

                > On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:04:08PM -0700, Glenn Burger wrote:

                >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Men will get organized, but they don't like staying
                >> organized, not like women do. I don't think. Women are nesters, they love
                >> being organized.
                >
                > Men have always kept the world organised, nations, corporations, homes.

                You don't know my landlord.. :(
                >
                Deb.
              • Stephen Morgan
                ... Not all men. -- I die a Christian, according to the profession of the Church of England, as I found it left me by my father. I needed not to have come
                Message 7 of 7 , May 11 11:34 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:29:36AM -0400, Deborah Terreson wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > ----------
                  > >From: Stephen Morgan <ncavalier@...>
                  > >To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                  > >Subject: Re: [AUM] Religion, Feminism and the Men.s Movement
                  > >Date: Fri, May 11, 2001, 4:32 AM
                  > >
                  >
                  > > On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:04:08PM -0700, Glenn Burger wrote:
                  >
                  > >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Men will get organized, but they don't like staying
                  > >> organized, not like women do. I don't think. Women are nesters, they love
                  > >> being organized.
                  > >
                  > > Men have always kept the world organised, nations, corporations, homes.
                  >
                  > You don't know my landlord.. :(

                  Not all men.
                  --
                  I die a Christian, according to the profession of the Church of
                  England, as I found it left me by my father. I needed not to have come
                  here, and therefore I tell you, and I pray to God it may not be laid to
                  your charge, that I am the Martyr of the People.
                  -- King Charles I, before being beheaded.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.