Issues related to men, their problems and relationships

men problems, men relationships, men and relationships, men and women relationships, relationship advice for men, men relationship advice, men to men relationship

Reverse Feminism

http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/03/reverse-feminism/

Reverse Feminism
March 29th, 2009 by Pelle Billing

Today I’d like to do a thought experiment and have some fun at the
same time.

We’re all familiar with feminist rhetoric, it’s hard not to be, since
it comes at us from feminists, the media and policy makers. The gender
messages reaching us are so streamlined and consistent that it’s easy
to simply accept the rhetoric as fact, or at least as mostly fact.
Even men and women who are critical of feminism are likely influenced
by these messages on a subconscious level.

What if we were to turn the tables on this feminist rhetoric, and use
a similar language to describe the male gender role and the suffering
of men? In other words, what would it sound like if we were to
describe the experience of men and situation of men using a feminist
style of language, to show how ludicrous and one-side most of the
feminist ideology is?

I’m not saying that we should actually start implementing a reverse
rhetoric, far from it! But I believe it could be a good thought
experiment in order to demonstrate that the blame game and the
claiming of victimhood can be done by men too, meaning that each
gender has just as many disadvantages.

So what kind of statements would masculism make, if it was just as
strong and just as pathological as mainstream feminism? Here’s a
preliminary list:

   1. Women force men to work full-time by only marrying men who are
providers, thereby limiting the choices of men.
   2. Women structurally oppress men by claiming the closest
connection to the children.
   3. Women expect men to protect them physically, thereby
subordinating the men (men’s lives are less worth).
   4. Women do not mind that their husbands have dangerous jobs while
they are safe at home, caring for the children. This matriarchal power
structure keeps men away from a loving environment, and keeps the
ruling class (women) out of harms way.
   5. The power of the sisterhood represses any inquiry into why men
live significantly shorter lives than women. The only acceptable
explanation is biological differences, which in all other gender
scenarios is a prohibited explanation according to the sisterhood.
   6. Breast cancer gets more funding than any other cancer, which
removes resources from prostate cancer research.
   7. Men commit suicide far more often than women, which is yet
another sign of men facing matriarchal structures that keep men
trapped in impossible life conditions, and ultimately the only way out
may be to take your own life.
   8. Women demand that men act tough and repress their emotions at
all times, which is why men do not dare report domestic violence.
   9. 70 to 80 percent of the homeless are men, since our matriarchal
society is reluctant to help a man who doesn’t perform, while women
(as the ruling class) always have their intrinsic value intact.
  10. Men are always given the task of defending the country against
aggressors, since the ruling class must be kept safe at all times.
  11. Women are not held responsible for the crimes the same way men
are and receive shorter jail sentences. The matriarchy knows that men
must be punished properly to stay subordinated, while women are always
considered to be basically good and therefore less in need of
punishment.
  12. Cutting off genital tissue from boys is condoned by society, in
order to teach men from the start that they are expendable, and
inferior to women. Developing countries who cut off genital tissue
from girls are judged harshly.
  13. Boys do worse than girls in school since they feel tremendously
unsafe and confused once they realize what the constricted and
dangerous male gender role demands of them in the future.

Could you add anything else to this list?

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)

24 Responses to “Reverse Feminism”

  1. admin says:

    In article <80ebdaa7-fa88-4843-a6ec-26f3a68ef9e2
    @y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, MASCUL…@gmail.com says…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/03/reverse-feminism/

    > Reverse Feminism
    > March 29th, 2009 by Pelle Billing

    > Today I=3Fd like to do a thought experiment and have some fun at the
    > same time.

    > We=3Fre all familiar with feminist rhetoric, it=3Fs hard not to be, since
    > it comes at us from feminists, the media and policy makers. The gender
    > messages reaching us are so streamlined and consistent that it=3Fs easy
    > to simply accept the rhetoric as fact, or at least as mostly fact.
    > Even men and women who are critical of feminism are likely influenced
    > by these messages on a subconscious level.

    > What if we were to turn the tables on this feminist rhetoric, and use
    > a similar language to describe the male gender role and the suffering
    > of men? In other words, what would it sound like if we were to
    > describe the experience of men and situation of men using a feminist
    > style of language, to show how ludicrous and one-side most of the
    > feminist ideology is?

    > I=3Fm not saying that we should actually start implementing a reverse
    > rhetoric, far from it! But I believe it could be a good thought
    > experiment in order to demonstrate that the blame game and the
    > claiming of victimhood can be done by men too, meaning that each
    > gender has just as many disadvantages.

    > So what kind of statements would masculism make, if it was just as
    > strong and just as pathological as mainstream feminism? Here=3Fs a
    > preliminary list:

    >    1. Women force men to work full-time by only marrying men who are
    > providers, thereby limiting the choices of men.
    >    2. Women structurally oppress men by claiming the closest
    > connection to the children.
    >    3. Women expect men to protect them physically, thereby
    > subordinating the men (men=3Fs lives are less worth).
    >    4. Women do not mind that their husbands have dangerous jobs while
    > they are safe at home, caring for the children. This matriarchal power
    > structure keeps men away from a loving environment, and keeps the
    > ruling class (women) out of harms way.

    I thought it was a feminist principle that every woman should
    have the opportunity to put her children in day care and
    pursue her own career.

    >    5. The power of the sisterhood represses any inquiry into why men
    > live significantly shorter lives than women. The only acceptable
    > explanation is biological differences, which in all other gender
    > scenarios is a prohibited explanation according to the sisterhood.

    Aren’t the reasons were pretty well documented:  more dangerous
    jobs, more risky behavior, poorer health care.

    >    6. Breast cancer gets more funding than any other cancer, which
    > removes resources from prostate cancer research.
    >    7. Men commit suicide far more often than women, which is yet
    > another sign of men facing matriarchal structures that keep men
    > trapped in impossible life conditions, and ultimately the only way out
    > may be to take your own life.
    >    8. Women demand that men act tough and repress their emotions at
    > all times, which is why men do not dare report domestic violence.

    8A.  In spite of rule #8, women are allowed to complain "You never
    express your feelings!"

    >    9. 70 to 80 percent of the homeless are men, since our matriarchal
    > society is reluctant to help a man who doesn=3Ft perform, while women
    > (as the ruling class) always have their intrinsic value intact.
    >   10. Men are always given the task of defending the country against
    > aggressors, since the ruling class must be kept safe at all times.

    Isn’t this somewhat at odds with the feminist principle that women
    should be able to do any job in the military?  Sort of a moot
    point anyway as the US hasn’t faced any agressors in the normal
    geopolitical sense for a few decades now.  We’ve been following
    the principle that the best defense is a good offense.
    >   11. Women are not held responsible for the crimes the same way men
    > are and receive shorter jail sentences. The matriarchy knows that men
    > must be punished properly to stay subordinated, while women are always
    > considered to be basically good and therefore less in need of
    > punishment.
    >   12. Cutting off genital tissue from boys is condoned by society, in
    > order to teach men from the start that they are expendable, and
    > inferior to women. Developing countries who cut off genital tissue
    > from girls are judged harshly.

    How does this jibe with the recent evidence of the health benefits
    of circumcision?

    12A.  Women are encouraged to use surgery and (diet) drugs to enhance
    their secondary sexual characteristics.  Men who use steroids for the
    same purpose are condemned.
    >   13. Boys do worse than girls in school since they feel tremendously
    > unsafe and confused once they realize what the constricted and
    > dangerous male gender role demands of them in the future.

    13A.  The fact that the brightest of the young men do better in
    many fields than the brightest young women demonstrates that
    the educational system is biased against women.

    > Could you add anything else to this list?

    Mark Borgerson

  2. admin says:

    On Mar 31, 4:49 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote:

    > >    1. Women force men to work full-time by only marrying men who are
    > > providers, thereby limiting the choices of men.
    > >    2. Women structurally oppress men by claiming the closest
    > > connection to the children.
    > >    3. Women expect men to protect them physically, thereby
    > > subordinating the men (men=3Fs lives are less worth).
    > >    4. Women do not mind that their husbands have dangerous jobs while
    > > they are safe at home, caring for the children. This matriarchal power
    > > structure keeps men away from a loving environment, and keeps the
    > > ruling class (women) out of harms way.

    > I thought it was a feminist principle that every woman should
    > have the opportunity to put her children in day care and
    > pursue her own career.

    Feminists _can_ believe inconsistent things at the same time.

    > >    5. The power of the sisterhood represses any inquiry into why men
    > > live significantly shorter lives than women. The only acceptable
    > > explanation is biological differences, which in all other gender
    > > scenarios is a prohibited explanation according to the sisterhood.

    > Aren’t the reasons were pretty well documented:  more dangerous
    > jobs, more risky behavior, poorer health care.

    Yes, but they don’t want and inquiry into those, which is the point.

    > >    6. Breast cancer gets more funding than any other cancer, which
    > > removes resources from prostate cancer research.
    > >    7. Men commit suicide far more often than women, which is yet
    > > another sign of men facing matriarchal structures that keep men
    > > trapped in impossible life conditions, and ultimately the only way out
    > > may be to take your own life.
    > >    8. Women demand that men act tough and repress their emotions at
    > > all times, which is why men do not dare report domestic violence.

    > 8A.  In spite of rule #8, women are allowed to complain "You never
    > express your feelings!"

    Actually #8 is kind of goofy, because I don’t think the 2 parts are
    connected
    at all.

    > >    9. 70 to 80 percent of the homeless are men, since our matriarchal
    > > society is reluctant to help a man who doesn=3Ft perform, while women
    > > (as the ruling class) always have their intrinsic value intact.
    > >   10. Men are always given the task of defending the country against
    > > aggressors, since the ruling class must be kept safe at all times.

    > Isn’t this somewhat at odds with the feminist principle that women
    > should be able to do any job in the military?  Sort of a moot
    > point anyway as the US hasn’t faced any agressors in the normal
    > geopolitical sense for a few decades now.  We’ve been following
    > the principle that the best defense is a good offense.

    Yeah, but they can say that as long as women aren’t drafted and sent
    to a war zone to get shot at.

    >   11. Women are not held responsible for the crimes the same way men
    > > are and receive shorter jail sentences. The matriarchy knows that men
    > > must be punished properly to stay subordinated, while women are always
    > > considered to be basically good and therefore less in need of
    > > punishment.
    > >   12. Cutting off genital tissue from boys is condoned by society, in
    > > order to teach men from the start that they are expendable, and
    > > inferior to women. Developing countries who cut off genital tissue
    > > from girls are judged harshly.

    > How does this jibe with the recent evidence of the health benefits
    > of circumcision?

    Yeah, this is a little strange. I don’t think, however, that Masculist
    agrees with it. But the foreskin deniers (if I may coin a term) refuse
    to
    listen to any such evidence.

    > 12A.  Women are encouraged to use surgery and (diet) drugs to enhance
    > their secondary sexual characteristics.  Men who use steroids for the
    > same purpose are condemned.

    I don’t like this addition. I don’t believe any surgery or drugs
    enhance
    women’s beauty. And steroid use should be condemned, for well-known
    reasons.

    >   13. Boys do worse than girls in school since they feel tremendously
    > > unsafe and confused once they realize what the constricted and
    > > dangerous male gender role demands of them in the future.

    > 13A.  The fact that the brightest of the young men do better in
    > many fields than the brightest young women demonstrates that
    > the educational system is biased against women.

    Except for #8 and #12, these are exactly the things we _should_
    be saying.

    Andrew Usher

  3. admin says:

    •     Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of
    oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of
    the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be
    apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of
    its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere
    instrument of the major number of the constituents.  James Madison,
    President of the United States
    o       Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1788-10-17)

  4. admin says:

    In article <69444c8d-28a6-4b3d-a9d9-
    6d8aa731a…@z19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, k_over_hb…@yahoo.com
    says…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > On Mar 31, 4:49 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote:

    > > >    1. Women force men to work full-time by only marrying men who are
    > > > providers, thereby limiting the choices of men.
    > > >    2. Women structurally oppress men by claiming the closest
    > > > connection to the children.
    > > >    3. Women expect men to protect them physically, thereby
    > > > subordinating the men (men=3Fs lives are less worth).
    > > >    4. Women do not mind that their husbands have dangerous jobs while
    > > > they are safe at home, caring for the children. This matriarchal power
    > > > structure keeps men away from a loving environment, and keeps the
    > > > ruling class (women) out of harms way.

    > > I thought it was a feminist principle that every woman should
    > > have the opportunity to put her children in day care and
    > > pursue her own career.

    > Feminists _can_ believe inconsistent things at the same time.

    > > >    5. The power of the sisterhood represses any inquiry into why men
    > > > live significantly shorter lives than women. The only acceptable
    > > > explanation is biological differences, which in all other gender
    > > > scenarios is a prohibited explanation according to the sisterhood.

    > > Aren’t the reasons were pretty well documented:  more dangerous
    > > jobs, more risky behavior, poorer health care.

    > Yes, but they don’t want and inquiry into those, which is the point.

    > > >    6. Breast cancer gets more funding than any other cancer, which
    > > > removes resources from prostate cancer research.
    > > >    7. Men commit suicide far more often than women, which is yet
    > > > another sign of men facing matriarchal structures that keep men
    > > > trapped in impossible life conditions, and ultimately the only way out
    > > > may be to take your own life.
    > > >    8. Women demand that men act tough and repress their emotions at
    > > > all times, which is why men do not dare report domestic violence.

    > > 8A.  In spite of rule #8, women are allowed to complain "You never
    > > express your feelings!"

    > Actually #8 is kind of goofy, because I don’t think the 2 parts are
    > connected
    > at all.

    > > >    9. 70 to 80 percent of the homeless are men, since our matriarchal
    > > > society is reluctant to help a man who doesn=3Ft perform, while women
    > > > (as the ruling class) always have their intrinsic value intact.
    > > >   10. Men are always given the task of defending the country against
    > > > aggressors, since the ruling class must be kept safe at all times.

    > > Isn’t this somewhat at odds with the feminist principle that women
    > > should be able to do any job in the military?  Sort of a moot
    > > point anyway as the US hasn’t faced any agressors in the normal
    > > geopolitical sense for a few decades now.  We’ve been following
    > > the principle that the best defense is a good offense.

    > Yeah, but they can say that as long as women aren’t drafted and sent
    > to a war zone to get shot at.

    Are there any Western countries that have a draft and are sending
    men to a war zone?  The US has the war zone, but no draft.
    IIRC, Germany has conscription for men, but they aren’t sending
    too many men to war zones.   Israel has conscription for men
    and women–but then the whole country is a war zone.

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > >   11. Women are not held responsible for the crimes the same way men
    > > > are and receive shorter jail sentences. The matriarchy knows that men
    > > > must be punished properly to stay subordinated, while women are always
    > > > considered to be basically good and therefore less in need of
    > > > punishment.
    > > >   12. Cutting off genital tissue from boys is condoned by society, in
    > > > order to teach men from the start that they are expendable, and
    > > > inferior to women. Developing countries who cut off genital tissue
    > > > from girls are judged harshly.

    > > How does this jibe with the recent evidence of the health benefits
    > > of circumcision?

    > Yeah, this is a little strange. I don’t think, however, that Masculist
    > agrees with it. But the foreskin deniers (if I may coin a term) refuse
    > to
    > listen to any such evidence.

    > > 12A.  Women are encouraged to use surgery and (diet) drugs to enhance
    > > their secondary sexual characteristics.  Men who use steroids for the
    > > same purpose are condemned.

    > I don’t like this addition. I don’t believe any surgery or drugs
    > enhance
    > women’s beauty. And steroid use should be condemned, for well-known
    > reasons.

    > >   13. Boys do worse than girls in school since they feel tremendously
    > > > unsafe and confused once they realize what the constricted and
    > > > dangerous male gender role demands of them in the future.

    > > 13A.  The fact that the brightest of the young men do better in
    > > many fields than the brightest young women demonstrates that
    > > the educational system is biased against women.

    > Except for #8 and #12, these are exactly the things we _should_
    > be saying.

    Mark Borgerson

  5. admin says:

    On Mar 31, 10:04 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote:

    > > Yeah, but they can say that as long as women aren’t drafted and sent
    > > to a war zone to get shot at.

    > Are there any Western countries that have a draft and are sending
    > men to a war zone?  The US has the war zone, but no draft.
    > IIRC, Germany has conscription for men, but they aren’t sending
    > too many men to war zones.   Israel has conscription for men
    > and women–but then the whole country is a war zone.

    What a surprise, the only part of my post to get a reply is the least
    meaningful. Anyway, my point was that when women want equality
    in the military, they are not thinking of real fighting.

    Andrew Usher

  6. admin says:

    In article <0ef8377e-8cea-4589-abff-3a917a6d5984
    @r37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, k_over_hb…@yahoo.com says…
    > On Mar 31, 10:04 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote:

    > > > Yeah, but they can say that as long as women aren’t drafted and sent
    > > > to a war zone to get shot at.

    > > Are there any Western countries that have a draft and are sending
    > > men to a war zone?  The US has the war zone, but no draft.
    > > IIRC, Germany has conscription for men, but they aren’t sending
    > > too many men to war zones.   Israel has conscription for men
    > > and women–but then the whole country is a war zone.

    > What a surprise, the only part of my post to get a reply is the least
    > meaningful. Anyway, my point was that when women want equality
    > in the military, they are not thinking of real fighting.

    Perhaps that part is less meaningful to you because you don’t
    have a son at draft age.

    Mark Borgerson

  7. admin says:

    On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Mark Borgerson <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > In article <0ef8377e-8cea-4589-abff-3a917a6d5984
    > @r37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, k_over_hb…@yahoo.com says…> On Mar 31, 10:04 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote:

    > > > > Yeah, but they can say that as long as women aren’t drafted and sent
    > > > > to a war zone to get shot at.

    > > > Are there any Western countries that have a draft and are sending
    > > > men to a war zone?  The US has the war zone, but no draft.
    > > > IIRC, Germany has conscription for men, but they aren’t sending
    > > > too many men to war zones.   Israel has conscription for men
    > > > and women–but then the whole country is a war zone.

    > > What a surprise, the only part of my post to get a reply is the least
    > > meaningful. Anyway, my point was that when women want equality
    > > in the military, they are not thinking of real fighting.

    > Perhaps that part is less meaningful to you because you don’t
    > have a son at draft age.

    What the hell? You just pointed out that there is no draft, therefore
    my point was not relevant. Now you’re arguing the opposite? You
    just try to find things to pick on, don’t you?

    What I meant was that in the context of the topic of this thread,
    that point was less important.

    Andrew Usher

  8. admin says:

    In article <f38d3109-0af5-419a-8b8a-b133caaefce8
    @z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, k_over_hb…@yahoo.com says…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > On Apr 1, 8:28 am, Mark Borgerson <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote:
    > > In article <0ef8377e-8cea-4589-abff-3a917a6d5984
    > > @r37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, k_over_hb…@yahoo.com says…> On Mar 31, 10:04 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote:

    > > > > > Yeah, but they can say that as long as women aren’t drafted and sent
    > > > > > to a war zone to get shot at.

    > > > > Are there any Western countries that have a draft and are sending
    > > > > men to a war zone?  The US has the war zone, but no draft.
    > > > > IIRC, Germany has conscription for men, but they aren’t sending
    > > > > too many men to war zones.   Israel has conscription for men
    > > > > and women–but then the whole country is a war zone.

    > > > What a surprise, the only part of my post to get a reply is the least
    > > > meaningful. Anyway, my point was that when women want equality
    > > > in the military, they are not thinking of real fighting.

    > > Perhaps that part is less meaningful to you because you don’t
    > > have a son at draft age.

    > What the hell? You just pointed out that there is no draft, therefore
    > my point was not relevant. Now you’re arguing the opposite? You
    > just try to find things to pick on, don’t you?

    No,  I’m saying that for parents in the USA with sons in the 18-24 year
    old range, it is significant that there is no draft.  Congressional
    discussions about reviving conscription, in addition to the mandatory
    Selective Service registration,  definitely get my attention.

    > What I meant was that in the context of the topic of this thread,
    > that point was less important.

    The importance of the various elements in the thread depends on
    the circumstances of the reader.  To you, that point may
    be less important than others.  

    If the point of the discussion is to improve the list, then it is
    important to examine the  items critically and decide whether the list
    might improved by deleting or expanding on an item.  I think we’ve done
    that with the conscription item.

    Conscription is still an issue in many European countries, so I suppose
    that the item still belongs on the list.  As you point out, it may
    not be as important to men in countries without conscription.

    Mark Borgerson

  9. admin says:

    On Mar 31, 6:06 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > On Mar 31, 4:49 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote:

    > > How does this jibe with the recent evidence of the health benefits
    > > of circumcision?

    > Yeah, this is a little strange. I don’t think, however, that Masculist
    > agrees with it.

    First off, that study is rather recent and I don’t know if it is
    valid.  Secondly, yes Andrew, I initially wasn’t into the whole anti-
    circumcision thing and thought it a minor issue.  But then recently I
    was listening to Dr Dean Edell on the radio <smile> and he convinced
    me on the anti-circumcision thing.  What convinced me is the number of
    nerve ending in the foreskin which makes sex more pleasureful.  Even
    if that study were correct, I think the added benefit of more
    pleasureful sex would override it.

    Tom

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > But the foreskin deniers (if I may coin a term) refuse
    > to
    > listen to any such evidence.

    > Andrew Usher

  10. admin says:

    In article <6157t49o2ilpmvk4sjluq2gsjb0r6v8…@4ax.com>,
    perspicaci…@nomailbox.com says…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:49:57 -0700, Mark Borgerson
    > <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote:

    > >In article <80ebdaa7-fa88-4843-a6ec-26f3a68ef9e2
    > >@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, MASCUL…@gmail.com says…
    > >> http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/03/reverse-feminism/

    > >> Reverse Feminism
    > >> March 29th, 2009 by Pelle Billing

    > >> Today I=3Fd like to do a thought experiment and have some fun at the
    > >> same time.

    > >> We=3Fre all familiar with feminist rhetoric, it=3Fs hard not to be, since
    > >> it comes at us from feminists, the media and policy makers. The gender
    > >> messages reaching us are so streamlined and consistent that it=3Fs easy
    > >> to simply accept the rhetoric as fact, or at least as mostly fact.
    > >> Even men and women who are critical of feminism are likely influenced
    > >> by these messages on a subconscious level.

    > >> What if we were to turn the tables on this feminist rhetoric, and use
    > >> a similar language to describe the male gender role and the suffering
    > >> of men? In other words, what would it sound like if we were to
    > >> describe the experience of men and situation of men using a feminist
    > >> style of language, to show how ludicrous and one-side most of the
    > >> feminist ideology is?

    > >> I=3Fm not saying that we should actually start implementing a reverse
    > >> rhetoric, far from it! But I believe it could be a good thought
    > >> experiment in order to demonstrate that the blame game and the
    > >> claiming of victimhood can be done by men too, meaning that each
    > >> gender has just as many disadvantages.

    > >> So what kind of statements would masculism make, if it was just as
    > >> strong and just as pathological as mainstream feminism? Here=3Fs a
    > >> preliminary list:

    > >>    1. Women force men to work full-time by only marrying men who are
    > >> providers, thereby limiting the choices of men.
    > >>    2. Women structurally oppress men by claiming the closest
    > >> connection to the children.
    > >>    3. Women expect men to protect them physically, thereby
    > >> subordinating the men (men=3Fs lives are less worth).
    > >>    4. Women do not mind that their husbands have dangerous jobs while
    > >> they are safe at home, caring for the children. This matriarchal power
    > >> structure keeps men away from a loving environment, and keeps the
    > >> ruling class (women) out of harms way.
    > >I thought it was a feminist principle that every woman should
    > >have the opportunity to put her children in day care and
    > >pursue her own career.

    > >>    5. The power of the sisterhood represses any inquiry into why men
    > >> live significantly shorter lives than women. The only acceptable
    > >> explanation is biological differences, which in all other gender
    > >> scenarios is a prohibited explanation according to the sisterhood.

    > >Aren’t the reasons were pretty well documented:  more dangerous
    > >jobs, more risky behavior, poorer health care.

    > The reasons are well documented here on this little known NG and on
    > similar such little known MRA web sites but when have you seen these
    > "well documented" facts ever mentioned on ABC or NBC or even Fox News?
    > When have you heard Oprah proclaim these "well documented" reasons on
    > her TV show or in her rag-azine?   When have you seen them on the
    > cover of Cosmo, Cosmo Girl, Glamour, etc. ad nauseum in the check out
    > lines of your local supermarket?  When have you seen them listed on
    > NOW’s web site or on any feminist organization’s web site for that
    > matter?

    > It seems the term "well documented" needed a little of your usual
    > nit-picking which you (ever the contrary one posting here) failed to
    > do in this case.  I’m not surprised.  

    I’ll be even more nit-picky, then.  I don’t consider the TV
    networks to be  in the ‘documentation’ business.  They may
    or may not ‘report’ the results  of demographic studies.  I chose
    my term carefully.  If you want to change the topic to
    media reporting, feel free to do so.  Oh, that’s right, you
    already did.

    In any case, I’m not an expert on the news reports or the
    magazines you mention.  I have seen references to the
    demographics of occupational risk on TV, though.  You
    can find those references on shows like ‘Ice Road Truckers’,
    ‘Axe Men’ and ‘Deadliest Catch’.

    Mark Borgerson

  11. admin says:

    On Apr 1, 12:07 pm, Masculist <MASCUL…@gmail.com> wrote:

    > First off, that study is rather recent and I don’t know if it is
    > valid.  Secondly, yes Andrew, I initially wasn’t into the whole anti-
    > circumcision thing and thought it a minor issue.  But then recently I
    > was listening to Dr Dean Edell on the radio <smile> and he convinced
    > me on the anti-circumcision thing.  What convinced me is the number of
    > nerve ending in the foreskin which makes sex more pleasureful.  Even
    > if that study were correct, I think the added benefit of more
    > pleasureful sex would override it.

    But why do you believe that? That’s just a bare assertion made by
    the anti-circs, that the nerves in the foreskin must increase
    pleasure.
    As far as I know, there’s not only been no scientific confirmation,
    but
    there are no men circumcised as adults that say sex is now less
    pleasurable.

    Andrew Usher

  12. admin says:

    On Apr 1, 10:33 am, Mark Borgerson <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote:

    > > What the hell? You just pointed out that there is no draft, therefore
    > > my point was not relevant. Now you’re arguing the opposite? You
    > > just try to find things to pick on, don’t you?

    > No,  I’m saying that for parents in the USA with sons in the 18-24 year
    > old range, it is significant that there is no draft.  Congressional
    > discussions about reviving conscription, in addition to the mandatory
    > Selective Service registration,  definitely get my attention.

    Mine, too.

    > > What I meant was that in the context of the topic of this thread,
    > > that point was less important.

    > The importance of the various elements in the thread depends on
    > the circumstances of the reader.  To you, that point may
    > be less important than others.

    Argument is not just a series of arbitrary statements.

    > If the point of the discussion is to improve the list, then it is
    > important to examine the  items critically and decide whether the list
    > might improved by deleting or expanding on an item.  I think we’ve done
    > that with the conscription item.

    The original list DID NOT mention conscription. I think it should! So
    what’s this with me not thinking it important???

    Andrew Usher

  13. admin says:

    In article <c37d3326-538a-4e7f-9020-
    25f3edc14…@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, k_over_hb…@yahoo.com
    says…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > On Apr 1, 10:33 am, Mark Borgerson <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote:

    > > > What the hell? You just pointed out that there is no draft, therefore
    > > > my point was not relevant. Now you’re arguing the opposite? You
    > > > just try to find things to pick on, don’t you?

    > > No,  I’m saying that for parents in the USA with sons in the 18-24 year
    > > old range, it is significant that there is no draft.  Congressional
    > > discussions about reviving conscription, in addition to the mandatory
    > > Selective Service registration,  definitely get my attention.

    > Mine, too.

    > > > What I meant was that in the context of the topic of this thread,
    > > > that point was less important.

    > > The importance of the various elements in the thread depends on
    > > the circumstances of the reader.  To you, that point may
    > > be less important than others.

    > Argument is not just a series of arbitrary statements.

    > > If the point of the discussion is to improve the list, then it is
    > > important to examine the  items critically and decide whether the list
    > > might improved by deleting or expanding on an item.  I think we’ve done
    > > that with the conscription item.

    > The original list DID NOT mention conscription. I think it should! So
    > what’s this with me not thinking it important???

    I said ‘less important’.   You yourself said that "What I meant was that
    in the context of the topic of this thread, that point was less
    important."

    I apparently thought the point was more important than you.  Neither
    of us dismissed it as unimportant.

    Mark Borgerson

  14. admin says:

    "Mark Borgerson" <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote in message

    news:MPG.243d56a7ce706ced98977d@news.motzarella.org…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > Jill says…

    >> Mark Borgerson wrote:

    >> > Masculist says…

    >> >> http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/03/reverse-feminism/

    >> >>   Reverse Feminism
    >> >>   March 29th, 2009 by Pelle Billing

    >> >>   Today I’d like to do a thought experiment and have some
    >> >>   fun at the same time.

    >> >>   We’re all familiar with feminist rhetoric, it’s hard not
    >> >>   to be, since it comes at us from feminists, the media
    >> >>   and policy makers. [...]

    >> >>   So what kind of statements would masculism make,
    >> >>   if it was just as strong [...] as mainstream feminism?
    >> >>   [...]

    >> >Aren’t the reasons were pretty well documented:  more
    >> >dangerous jobs, more risky behavior, poorer health care.

    >> The reasons are well documented here on this little known
    >> NG and on similar such little known MRA web sites
    >> but when have you seen these "well documented" facts
    >> ever mentioned on ABC or NBC or even Fox News?

    >> When have you heard Oprah proclaim these "well
    >> documented" reasons on her TV show or in her rag-azine?
    >> When have you seen them on the cover of Cosmo,
    >> Cosmo Girl, Glamour, etc. ad nauseum in the check out
    >> lines of your local supermarket?  When have you seen them
    >> listed on NOW’s web site or on any feminist organization’s
    >> web site for that matter?

    >> It seems the term "well documented" needed a little of your
    >> usual nit-picking which you (ever the contrary one posting
    >> here) failed to do in this case.  I’m not surprised.

    > I’ll be even more nit-picky, then.  I don’t consider the TV
    > networks to be  in the ‘documentation’ business.  They may
    > or may not ‘report’ the results of demographic studies.  I chose
    > my term carefully.  If you want to change the topic to
    > media reporting, feel free to do so.  Oh, that’s right, you
    > already did.

    Face it Borgerson, you’ve been busted.  All you’re doing now
    is offering up further testimony that can be used against you
    and your excuse-making for feminism.

    Whether or not one considers "the TV networks to be in the
    ‘documentation’ business" doesn’t take away from Jill’s
    point that the mainstream media frequently slips into its
    programming the feminist narrative and rarely acknowledges
    the existence of an (at least) equally valid non-feminist one.
    As Pelle Billing’s remarks quoted by Masculist that started
    this thread implied, the feminist dogmas are strong among
    the media and policy makers and no counternarrative is
    allowed anything close to equal time.

    > In any case, I’m not an expert on the news reports or the
    > magazines you mention.  I have seen references to the
    > demographics of occupational risk on TV, though.  You
    > can find those references on shows like ‘Ice Road Truckers’,
    > ‘Axe Men’ and ‘Deadliest Catch’.

    Borgerson, with your list of big-audience mainstream TV
    shows there (ha!) you’ve just unwittingly conceded Jill’s point.


       [I]t amuses me to hear radical feminists whine
       about how little power they have.  But the fact
       that they wallow in collective self pity
       and a well cultivated and highly politicized sense
       of victimhood is mainly a political tactic.
       It sets the stage for their key weapon, mainly
       the bum guilt trip.  If only grudgingly, however,
       I must concede the effectiveness of that weapon;
       they have used it like a flame thrower to frighten
       a nearly all white male Congress and White House
       into enacting much of their current social agenda.

       _Memsahib Power_ by Bill McDonald
       published in _The Backlash!_, July 1996
       http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1996/7-jul96/memsahib.html

  15. admin says:

    In article <P9_Al.52535$5t4.1…@newsfe24.iad>,
    Soci…@feminism.is.invalid says…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > "Mark Borgerson" <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.243d56a7ce706ced98977d@news.motzarella.org…

    > > Jill says…

    > >> Mark Borgerson wrote:

    > >> > Masculist says…

    > >> >> http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/03/reverse-feminism/

    > >> >>   Reverse Feminism
    > >> >>   March 29th, 2009 by Pelle Billing

    > >> >>   Today I’d like to do a thought experiment and have some
    > >> >>   fun at the same time.

    > >> >>   We’re all familiar with feminist rhetoric, it’s hard not
    > >> >>   to be, since it comes at us from feminists, the media
    > >> >>   and policy makers. [...]

    > >> >>   So what kind of statements would masculism make,
    > >> >>   if it was just as strong [...] as mainstream feminism?
    > >> >>   [...]

    > >> >Aren’t the reasons were pretty well documented:  more
    > >> >dangerous jobs, more risky behavior, poorer health care.

    > >> The reasons are well documented here on this little known
    > >> NG and on similar such little known MRA web sites
    > >> but when have you seen these "well documented" facts
    > >> ever mentioned on ABC or NBC or even Fox News?

    > >> When have you heard Oprah proclaim these "well
    > >> documented" reasons on her TV show or in her rag-azine?
    > >> When have you seen them on the cover of Cosmo,
    > >> Cosmo Girl, Glamour, etc. ad nauseum in the check out
    > >> lines of your local supermarket?  When have you seen them
    > >> listed on NOW’s web site or on any feminist organization’s
    > >> web site for that matter?

    > >> It seems the term "well documented" needed a little of your
    > >> usual nit-picking which you (ever the contrary one posting
    > >> here) failed to do in this case.  I’m not surprised.

    > > I’ll be even more nit-picky, then.  I don’t consider the TV
    > > networks to be  in the ‘documentation’ business.  They may
    > > or may not ‘report’ the results of demographic studies.  I chose
    > > my term carefully.  If you want to change the topic to
    > > media reporting, feel free to do so.  Oh, that’s right, you
    > > already did.

    > Face it Borgerson, you’ve been busted.  All you’re doing now
    > is offering up further testimony that can be used against you
    > and your excuse-making for feminism.

    > Whether or not one considers "the TV networks to be in the
    > ‘documentation’ business" doesn’t take away from Jill’s
    > point that the mainstream media frequently slips into its
    > programming the feminist narrative and rarely acknowledges
    > the existence of an (at least) equally valid non-feminist one.
    > As Pelle Billing’s remarks quoted by Masculist that started
    > this thread implied, the feminist dogmas are strong among
    > the media and policy makers and no counternarrative is
    > allowed anything close to equal time.

    > > In any case, I’m not an expert on the news reports or the
    > > magazines you mention.  I have seen references to the
    > > demographics of occupational risk on TV, though.  You
    > > can find those references on shows like ‘Ice Road Truckers’,
    > > ‘Axe Men’ and ‘Deadliest Catch’.

    > Borgerson, with your list of big-audience mainstream TV
    > shows there (ha!) you’ve just unwittingly conceded Jill’s point.

    If the promoters of feminism are relying on network TV to
    spread the message, they’re facing major challenges:

    "In the past 25 years, the Big Three broadcast television networks, ABC,
    CBS, and NBC, have experienced a significant decline in the share of the
    prime-time viewing audience. In 1980, more than 90% of television
    viewers were tuned in to one of these three networks during prime time.
    By 2005, the season ending average prime-time share of the Big Three
    networks had fallen to 32%. This means that during the 2004-2005
    television season, fewer than one in three households using television
    during prime time were tuned to ABC, CBS, or NBC (Head, Sterling, &
    Schofield, 1984, p. 105; Nielsen Media Research, 2005; Owen & Wildman,
    1992). "

    http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34281157_ITM

    Certainly the growth in Fox has cut into the big three, but the
    multitude of cable channels has also played a part.

    I will concede that the shows that do mention occupational risk
    are probably viewed more often by men.  For example:

    "Discovery Channel=3Fs Deadliest Catch pulled a 2.53 rating and attracted
    more than 3.5 million in its season premiere April 29, drawing the
    second-largest audience in the Emmy-nominated series=3F four-year history.

    It was also the No. 1 primetime non-sports cable program for viewers
    between 25 and 54 years of age and for people between 18 and 49 years of
    age. It also pulled the highest rating for men between 25 and 54 years
    of age and between 19 and 49."

    If you want to get out a message about occupational risk, an audience
    of 3.5 million certainly exceeds the audience of soc.men!  ;-)

    Since programs like this may have a majority male audience, they can
    do less to spread the word about occupational risk amongst feminists.
    Getting a reverse feminist message out to men through TV will be
    difficult as the audience is so fragmented.  In our area Comcast
    offers  about 11 sports and 5 history/technology channels in HD,
    and another 50 or 60 in standard definition.  Since all these
    channels are drawing enough audience to stay on the air, the
    male audience may be tremendously fragmented.

    Mark Borgerson

  16. admin says:

    On Apr 1, 7:47 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > On Apr 1, 12:07 pm, Masculist <MASCUL…@gmail.com> wrote:

    > > First off, that study is rather recent and I don’t know if it is
    > > valid.  Secondly, yes Andrew, I initially wasn’t into the whole anti-
    > > circumcision thing and thought it a minor issue.  But then recently I
    > > was listening to Dr Dean Edell on the radio <smile> and he convinced
    > > me on the anti-circumcision thing.  What convinced me is the number of
    > > nerve ending in the foreskin which makes sex more pleasureful.  Even
    > > if that study were correct, I think the added benefit of more
    > > pleasureful sex would override it.

    > But why do you believe that? That’s just a bare assertion made by
    > the anti-circs, that the nerves in the foreskin must increase
    > pleasure.
    > As far as I know, there’s not only been no scientific confirmation,
    > but
    > there are no men circumcised as adults that say sex is now less
    > pleasurable.

    Because I’ve sucked a lot of men’s dicks.  In every case where my lover has been uncircumcised the amount of pleasure experienced has been visibly noticeable.  I never thought much of it until I heard Edell on the radio.  The only comparable sensation I’ve noticed is when I tongue their asses, Andrew.  Unfortunately it’s too late for me to know the joys of a more sensitive foreskin but I can still get some of my lovers to perform prostate tickling on me.  Or I do it with a finger when I’m alone.  

    Tom

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > Andrew Usher

  17. admin says:

    On Apr 1, 5:47 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > On Apr 1, 12:07 pm, Masculist <MASCUL…@gmail.com> wrote:

    > > First off, that study is rather recent and I don’t know if it is
    > > valid.  Secondly, yes Andrew, I initially wasn’t into the whole anti-
    > > circumcision thing and thought it a minor issue.  But then recently I
    > > was listening to Dr Dean Edell on the radio <smile> and he convinced
    > > me on the anti-circumcision thing.  What convinced me is the number of
    > > nerve ending in the foreskin which makes sex more pleasureful.  Even
    > > if that study were correct, I think the added benefit of more
    > > pleasureful sex would override it.

    > But why do you believe that? That’s just a bare assertion made by
    > the anti-circs, that the nerves in the foreskin must increase
    > pleasure.
    > As far as I know, there’s not only been no scientific confirmation,
    > but
    > there are no men circumcised as adults that say sex is now less
    > pleasurable.

    How would they know the difference Andrew?  I’m circumcised and only
    can imagine the difference, albeit imperfectly, using what little
    science can do to help.

    Like I said the whole circumcision thing is an extremely little matter
    compared to our other issues and it’s legal to do whatever parents
    want to do on this matter.  The only ones with a dog in this fight are
    the Jews and they are free to do whatever they want to do on this
    issue.

    You’re correct however, I don’t know the difference and I may very
    well be wrong.  Pleasure in sex is highly overrated in the scheme of
    human affairs.  Maybe alittle less pleasure is a good thing perhaps?

    Tom

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > Andrew Usher

  18. admin says:

    On Apr 2, 7:29 am, Mark Borgerson <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > In article <P9_Al.52535$5t4.1…@newsfe24.iad>,
    > Soci…@feminism.is.invalid says…

    > > "Mark Borgerson" <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > >news:MPG.243d56a7ce706ced98977d@news.motzarella.org…

    > > > Jill says…

    > > >> Mark Borgerson wrote:

    > > >> > Masculist says…

    > > >> >>http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/03/reverse-feminism/

    > > >> >>   Reverse Feminism
    > > >> >>   March 29th, 2009 by Pelle Billing

    > > >> >>   Today I’d like to do a thought experiment and have some
    > > >> >>   fun at the same time.

    > > >> >>   We’re all familiar with feminist rhetoric, it’s hard not
    > > >> >>   to be, since it comes at us from feminists, the media
    > > >> >>   and policy makers. [...]

    > > >> >>   So what kind of statements would masculism make,
    > > >> >>   if it was just as strong [...] as mainstream feminism?
    > > >> >>   [...]

    > > >> >Aren’t the reasons were pretty well documented:  more
    > > >> >dangerous jobs, more risky behavior, poorer health care.

    > > >> The reasons are well documented here on this little known
    > > >> NG and on similar such little known MRA web sites
    > > >> but when have you seen these "well documented" facts
    > > >> ever mentioned on ABC or NBC or even Fox News?

    > > >> When have you heard Oprah proclaim these "well
    > > >> documented" reasons on her TV show or in her rag-azine?
    > > >> When have you seen them on the cover of Cosmo,
    > > >> Cosmo Girl, Glamour, etc. ad nauseum in the check out
    > > >> lines of your local supermarket?  When have you seen them
    > > >> listed on NOW’s web site or on any feminist organization’s
    > > >> web site for that matter?

    > > >> It seems the term "well documented" needed a little of your
    > > >> usual nit-picking which you (ever the contrary one posting
    > > >> here) failed to do in this case.  I’m not surprised.

    > > > I’ll be even more nit-picky, then.  I don’t consider the TV
    > > > networks to be  in the ‘documentation’ business.  They may
    > > > or may not ‘report’ the results of demographic studies.  I chose
    > > > my term carefully.  If you want to change the topic to
    > > > media reporting, feel free to do so.  Oh, that’s right, you
    > > > already did.

    > > Face it Borgerson, you’ve been busted.  All you’re doing now
    > > is offering up further testimony that can be used against you
    > > and your excuse-making for feminism.

    > > Whether or not one considers "the TV networks to be in the
    > > ‘documentation’ business" doesn’t take away from Jill’s
    > > point that the mainstream media frequently slips into its
    > > programming the feminist narrative and rarely acknowledges
    > > the existence of an (at least) equally valid non-feminist one.
    > > As Pelle Billing’s remarks quoted by Masculist that started
    > > this thread implied, the feminist dogmas are strong among
    > > the media and policy makers and no counternarrative is
    > > allowed anything close to equal time.

    > > > In any case, I’m not an expert on the news reports or the
    > > > magazines you mention.  I have seen references to the
    > > > demographics of occupational risk on TV, though.  You
    > > > can find those references on shows like ‘Ice Road Truckers’,
    > > > ‘Axe Men’ and ‘Deadliest Catch’.

    > > Borgerson, with your list of big-audience mainstream TV
    > > shows there (ha!) you’ve just unwittingly conceded Jill’s point.

    > If the promoters of feminism are relying on network TV to
    > spread the message, they’re facing major challenges:

    The "promoters of feminism" are almost 100% of those with political
    power and lots of money.  Women by their nature gravitate to both and
    so do many men.  TV could be eliminated today and tomarrow the new
    media would be exactly the same.

    Tom

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > "In the past 25 years, the Big Three broadcast television networks, ABC,
    > CBS, and NBC, have experienced a significant decline in the share of the
    > prime-time viewing audience. In 1980, more than 90% of television
    > viewers were tuned in to one of these three networks during prime time.
    > By 2005, the season ending average prime-time share of the Big Three
    > networks had fallen to 32%. This means that during the 2004-2005
    > television season, fewer than one in three households using television
    > during prime time were tuned to ABC, CBS, or NBC (Head, Sterling, &
    > Schofield, 1984, p. 105; Nielsen Media Research, 2005; Owen & Wildman,
    > 1992). "

    > http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34281157_ITM

    > Certainly the growth in Fox has cut into the big three, but the
    > multitude of cable channels has also played a part.

    > I will concede that the shows that do mention occupational risk
    > are probably viewed more often by men.  For example:

    > "Discovery Channel=3Fs Deadliest Catch pulled a 2.53 rating and attracted
    > more than 3.5 million in its season premiere April 29, drawing the
    > second-largest audience in the Emmy-nominated series=3F four-year history.

    > It was also the No. 1 primetime non-sports cable program for viewers
    > between 25 and 54 years of age and for people between 18 and 49 years of
    > age. It also pulled the highest rating for men between 25 and 54 years
    > of age and between 19 and 49."

    > If you want to get out a message about occupational risk, an audience
    > of 3.5 million certainly exceeds the audience of soc.men!  ;-)

    > Since programs like this may have a majority male audience, they can
    > do less to spread the word about occupational risk amongst feminists.
    > Getting a reverse feminist message out to men through TV will be
    > difficult as the audience is so fragmented.  In our area Comcast
    > offers  about 11 sports and 5 history/technology channels in HD,
    > and another 50 or 60 in standard definition.  Since all these
    > channels are drawing enough audience to stay on the air, the
    > male audience may be tremendously fragmented.

    > Mark Borgerson

  19. admin says:

    On Apr 2, 1:08 pm, Masculist <MASCUL…@gmail.com> wrote:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > On Apr 1, 5:47 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > > On Apr 1, 12:07 pm, Masculist <MASCUL…@gmail.com> wrote:

    > > > First off, that study is rather recent and I don’t know if it is
    > > > valid.  Secondly, yes Andrew, I initially wasn’t into the whole anti-
    > > > circumcision thing and thought it a minor issue.  But then recently I
    > > > was listening to Dr Dean Edell on the radio <smile> and he convinced
    > > > me on the anti-circumcision thing.  What convinced me is the number of
    > > > nerve ending in the foreskin which makes sex more pleasureful.  Even
    > > > if that study were correct, I think the added benefit of more
    > > > pleasureful sex would override it.

    > > But why do you believe that? That’s just a bare assertion made by
    > > the anti-circs, that the nerves in the foreskin must increase
    > > pleasure.
    > > As far as I know, there’s not only been no scientific confirmation,
    > > but
    > > there are no men circumcised as adults that say sex is now less
    > > pleasurable.

    > How would they know the difference Andrew?  I’m circumcised and only
    > can imagine the difference, albeit imperfectly, using what little
    > science can do to help.

    You seem the type who uses your imagination a lot.

    > Like I said the whole circumcision thing is an extremely little matter
    > compared to our other issues and it’s legal to do whatever parents
    > want to do on this matter.  The only ones with a dog in this fight are
    > the Jews and they are free to do whatever they want to do on this
    > issue.

    If you don’t have your own opinion then maybe you should keep your ignorant mouth shut.

    > You’re correct however, I don’t know the difference and I may very
    > well be wrong.  Pleasure in sex is highly overrated in the scheme of
    > human affairs.  Maybe alittle less pleasure is a good thing perhaps?

    Maybe a little less of your hand would be a better thing.

    Andrew Usher

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > Tom

    > > Andrew Usher

  20. admin says:

    In article <3139370d-c485-45d7-a8c5-a768dbd44299
    @s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, MASCUL…@gmail.com says…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > On Apr 2, 7:29 am, Mark Borgerson <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote:
    > > In article <P9_Al.52535$5t4.1…@newsfe24.iad>,
    > > Soci…@feminism.is.invalid says…

    > > > "Mark Borgerson" <mborger…@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > > >news:MPG.243d56a7ce706ced98977d@news.motzarella.org…

    > > > > Jill says…

    > > > >> Mark Borgerson wrote:

    > > > >> > Masculist says…

    > > > >> >>http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/03/reverse-feminism/

    > > > >> >>   Reverse Feminism
    > > > >> >>   March 29th, 2009 by Pelle Billing

    > > > >> >>   Today I’d like to do a thought experiment and have some
    > > > >> >>   fun at the same time.

    > > > >> >>   We’re all familiar with feminist rhetoric, it’s hard not
    > > > >> >>   to be, since it comes at us from feminists, the media
    > > > >> >>   and policy makers. [...]

    > > > >> >>   So what kind of statements would masculism make,
    > > > >> >>   if it was just as strong [...] as mainstream feminism?
    > > > >> >>   [...]

    > > > >> >Aren’t the reasons were pretty well documented:  more
    > > > >> >dangerous jobs, more risky behavior, poorer health care.

    > > > >> The reasons are well documented here on this little known
    > > > >> NG and on similar such little known MRA web sites
    > > > >> but when have you seen these "well documented" facts
    > > > >> ever mentioned on ABC or NBC or even Fox News?

    > > > >> When have you heard Oprah proclaim these "well
    > > > >> documented" reasons on her TV show or in her rag-azine?
    > > > >> When have you seen them on the cover of Cosmo,
    > > > >> Cosmo Girl, Glamour, etc. ad nauseum in the check out
    > > > >> lines of your local supermarket?  When have you seen them
    > > > >> listed on NOW’s web site or on any feminist organization’s
    > > > >> web site for that matter?

    > > > >> It seems the term "well documented" needed a little of your
    > > > >> usual nit-picking which you (ever the contrary one posting
    > > > >> here) failed to do in this case.  I’m not surprised.

    > > > > I’ll be even more nit-picky, then.  I don’t consider the TV
    > > > > networks to be  in the ‘documentation’ business.  They may
    > > > > or may not ‘report’ the results of demographic studies.  I chose
    > > > > my term carefully.  If you want to change the topic to
    > > > > media reporting, feel free to do so.  Oh, that’s right, you
    > > > > already did.

    > > > Face it Borgerson, you’ve been busted.  All you’re doing now
    > > > is offering up further testimony that can be used against you
    > > > and your excuse-making for feminism.

    > > > Whether or not one considers "the TV networks to be in the
    > > > ‘documentation’ business" doesn’t take away from Jill’s
    > > > point that the mainstream media frequently slips into its
    > > > programming the feminist narrative and rarely acknowledges
    > > > the existence of an (at least) equally valid non-feminist one.
    > > > As Pelle Billing’s remarks quoted by Masculist that started
    > > > this thread implied, the feminist dogmas are strong among
    > > > the media and policy makers and no counternarrative is
    > > > allowed anything close to equal time.

    > > > > In any case, I’m not an expert on the news reports or the
    > > > > magazines you mention.  I have seen references to the
    > > > > demographics of occupational risk on TV, though.  You
    > > > > can find those references on shows like ‘Ice Road Truckers’,
    > > > > ‘Axe Men’ and ‘Deadliest Catch’.

    > > > Borgerson, with your list of big-audience mainstream TV
    > > > shows there (ha!) you’ve just unwittingly conceded Jill’s point.

    > > If the promoters of feminism are relying on network TV to
    > > spread the message, they’re facing major challenges:

    > The "promoters of feminism" are almost 100% of those with political
    > power and lots of money.  Women by their nature gravitate to both and
    > so do many men.  TV could be eliminated today and tomarrow the new
    > media would be exactly the same.

    If, by ‘new media’  you mean the internet,  I agree.  TV does have
    some impact on the internet—in that a lot of TV shows can be
    viewed on the internet.  However,  TV doesn’t really influence
    the new media on the net except as source material for discussion.

    It is important to note that, outside China,  the government and
    political power has little control over the internet.  If they
    did, there would be far less internet porn and gambling and
    political dissent would be stifled.  All those things are
    alive and ?healthy?  on the net.

    Just about anyone can set up a web site or blog and make it
    available to anyone interested in viewing it.  You don’t
    need government permission  to do so.  Whether anyone will
    read it depends on whether you can make the material interesting
    enough to win the competition for their time.

    I would also argue that there are a lot of men with a lot
    of political power and tons of money who aren’t at all
    interested in promoting feminism.  Unfortunately, few of
    them live in the US or Western Europe.  They seem more interested
    in keeping the influence of feminism out of their own countries
    than trying to cure it’s ills in the US.

    > Tom

    ><<SNIP>>

    Mark Borgerson

  21. admin says:

    On Apr 2, 12:08 pm, Masculist <MASCUL…@gmail.com> wrote:

    > How would they know the difference Andrew?  I’m circumcised and only
    > can imagine the difference, albeit imperfectly, using what little
    > science can do to help.

    There are no reputable scientific results saying that circumcision
    makes
    a negative difference. There’s not much science can tell us about
    sensation, anyway.

    > Like I said the whole circumcision thing is an extremely little matter
    > compared to our other issues and it’s legal to do whatever parents
    > want to do on this matter.  The only ones with a dog in this fight are
    > the Jews and they are free to do whatever they want to do on this
    > issue.

    Yes, it’s a small thing to masculists, but some people want to make
    it a big thing, such as our anti-Semitic troll here.

    Andrew Usher

  22. admin says:

    On Apr 4, 4:56 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb…@yahoo.com> wrote:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > On Apr 2, 12:08 pm, Masculist <MASCUL…@gmail.com> wrote:

    > > How would they know the difference Andrew?  I’m circumcised and only
    > > can imagine the difference, albeit imperfectly, using what little
    > > science can do to help.

    > There are no reputable scientific results saying that circumcision
    > makes
    > a negative difference. There’s not much science can tell us about
    > sensation, anyway.

    > > Like I said the whole circumcision thing is an extremely little matter
    > > compared to our other issues and it’s legal to do whatever parents
    > > want to do on this matter.  The only ones with a dog in this fight are
    > > the Jews and they are free to do whatever they want to do on this
    > > issue.

    > Yes, it’s a small thing to masculists, but some people want to make
    > it a big thing, such as our anti-Semitic troll here.

    No one here pays attention to the so called anti-semites or racists.
    It’s the same old same old as the girls encourage it and walk away
    with the store.

    Tom

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > Andrew Usher

  23. admin says:

    On Apr 4, 6:56 am, Andrew Usher  wrote:

    > On Apr 2, 12:08 pm, Masculist  wrote:

    > > How would they know the difference Andrew?  I’m circumcised and only
    > > can imagine the difference, albeit imperfectly, using what little
    > > science can do to help.

    > There are no reputable scientific results saying that circumcision
    > makes
    > a negative difference. There’s not much science can tell us about
    > sensation, anyway.

    stick your dick in my mouth boy, and i’ll show you a scientific finding ;)

    the masculist

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > > Like I said the whole circumcision thing is an extremely little matter
    > > compared to our other issues and it’s legal to do whatever parents
    > > want to do on this matter.  The only ones with a dog in this fight are
    > > the Jews and they are free to do whatever they want to do on this
    > > issue.

    > Yes, it’s a small thing to masculists, but some people want to make
    > it a big thing, such as our anti-Semitic troll here.

    > Andrew Usher

  24. admin says:

    On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:40:29 -0700 (PDT), Masculist

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    <MASCUL…@gmail.com> wrote:
    >http://www.pellebilling.com/2009/03/reverse-feminism/

    >Reverse Feminism
    >March 29th, 2009 by Pelle Billing

    >Today I’d like to do a thought experiment and have some fun at the
    >same time.

    >We’re all familiar with feminist rhetoric, it’s hard not to be, since
    >it comes at us from feminists, the media and policy makers. The gender
    >messages reaching us are so streamlined and consistent that it’s easy
    >to simply accept the rhetoric as fact, or at least as mostly fact.
    >Even men and women who are critical of feminism are likely influenced
    >by these messages on a subconscious level.

    >What if we were to turn the tables on this feminist rhetoric, and use
    >a similar language to describe the male gender role and the suffering
    >of men? In other words, what would it sound like if we were to
    >describe the experience of men and situation of men using a feminist
    >style of language, to show how ludicrous and one-side most of the
    >feminist ideology is?

    >I’m not saying that we should actually start implementing a reverse
    >rhetoric, far from it! But I believe it could be a good thought
    >experiment in order to demonstrate that the blame game and the
    >claiming of victimhood can be done by men too, meaning that each
    >gender has just as many disadvantages.

    >So what kind of statements would masculism make, if it was just as
    >strong and just as pathological as mainstream feminism? Here’s a
    >preliminary list:

    >   1. Women force men to work full-time by only marrying men who are
    >providers, thereby limiting the choices of men.
    >   2. Women structurally oppress men by claiming the closest
    >connection to the children.
    >   3. Women expect men to protect them physically, thereby
    >subordinating the men (men’s lives are less worth).
    >   4. Women do not mind that their husbands have dangerous jobs while
    >they are safe at home, caring for the children. This matriarchal power
    >structure keeps men away from a loving environment, and keeps the
    >ruling class (women) out of harms way.

    Up to here I am going to say I do not mind living under the situations
    you have outlined. It’s the way I was raised.

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    >   5. The power of the sisterhood represses any inquiry into why men
    >live significantly shorter lives than women. The only acceptable
    >explanation is biological differences, which in all other gender
    >scenarios is a prohibited explanation according to the sisterhood.
    >   6. Breast cancer gets more funding than any other cancer, which
    >removes resources from prostate cancer research.
    >   7. Men commit suicide far more often than women, which is yet
    >another sign of men facing matriarchal structures that keep men
    >trapped in impossible life conditions, and ultimately the only way out
    >may be to take your own life.
    >   8. Women demand that men act tough and repress their emotions at
    >all times, which is why men do not dare report domestic violence.
    >   9. 70 to 80 percent of the homeless are men, since our matriarchal
    >society is reluctant to help a man who doesn’t perform, while women
    >(as the ruling class) always have their intrinsic value intact.
    >  10. Men are always given the task of defending the country against
    >aggressors, since the ruling class must be kept safe at all times.
    >  11. Women are not held responsible for the crimes the same way men
    >are and receive shorter jail sentences. The matriarchy knows that men
    >must be punished properly to stay subordinated, while women are always
    >considered to be basically good and therefore less in need of
    >punishment.
    >  12. Cutting off genital tissue from boys is condoned by society, in
    >order to teach men from the start that they are expendable, and
    >inferior to women. Developing countries who cut off genital tissue
    >from girls are judged harshly.
    >  13. Boys do worse than girls in school since they feel tremendously
    >unsafe and confused once they realize what the constricted and
    >dangerous male gender role demands of them in the future.

    >Could you add anything else to this list?

    From 5 down you start to get out on a limb. Some valid points but
    still a bit unsteady none-the-less.