Over on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, cheester warns all of us dudes about an especially insidious form of anti-male oppression: the racks of women’s magazines that lurk near the checkout counters of grocery stores everywhere!
can I get some feedback on womens magazines at the grocery checkout? Every issue states “new tricks he doesn’t know in bed” and shite like that. It’s obvious porn for the gals but why is it so accepted by everyone that it has carte blanche to be within a two foot reach as I pay for my food? If a magazine for men had on the cover: “20 Ways To Make Her Squirm Like A Fish”….there would be a national outrage.
Yeah, it’s not like Men’s magazines ever run anything like that.
Church groups and womens rights would say it demoralizes women and have the publication banned or put behind censored racks in seedy smoke shops.
Yeah. It’s not like this ever happens to women’s magazines.
But the womens mags are right there as a last shop item in the flourescent lit, sterilized, family atmosphere where every mother parades her toddlers and kids right past the 3 letter word in big black block letters;SEX on the cover of every flashy colored womens mag that comes out each month.
Not only is this oppression of men, it’s oppression of all toddlers who can read and know what the word “sex” means.
Also, feminists have never criticized women’s magazines in any way. “Ten Ways to Make Him Squirm” articles are the distilled essence of feminism! And most of them are written by the ghost of Andrea Dworkin.
NOTE: Does this even need a “sarcasm” tag?
Meller (the man who elseweb signs his name, so that he can see it in print twice for every comment he makes): Jack-the-ripper indeed targeted prostitutes, but he targeted them on the streets! Prostitutes who worked from brothels were, as far as I know, protected…
You don’t know shit. They were beaten, starved, treated like chattel. The madam/procurer saw them the way a cattleman saw a steer… money on the hoof, to be worked until they were worn out, then replaced.
Ithiliana–December 4, 2011 @ 7:19pm
My, my, so excitable!! Feminism made the problems worse. Women are less inclined to, and probably less able to either recognise signs of impending storm, and men are still as ashamed as ever to report abuse or injury. Net result, if any, is to have made an unsatisfactory situation more so.
You can rant on with your ‘pullulating pompous, pitiful brain…” and your “…slimy little maggot…” to your heart’s content, but it doesn’t change the fact that I have a point. My terming abuse as “misbehavior” may not have been perfect, but it dovetails with your perspective that it is something that we both wish to change.
And all of your hysteria and paranoia about me and other men who share your revulsion about DV, but from differing perspectives, will help victims how? right now, you are, if not exactly blaming victims of DV, you are certainly blaming victims of feminism, and at least some of our impatience, if not anger, is devoted not to DV victims as such , but to you feminists who exploit their pain, very heartlessly in my opinion, to dispossess and disenfranchise men at every opportunity! Every chance you–and the other manboobzeresses get–you attack me, even when I am agreeing with you! See your most recent post. If I am agreeing with you, and you are still angrily dissatisfied, what does this say about YOUR position on the issue?
Gotcha!!
DKM, if I say to you “I will punch you in the face if you don’t cook me dinner,” and you cook me dinner, and I don’t punch you, I am not a good person. I am not okay just because I didn’t end up punching you. The problem with my behavior is not solved.
Meller, it’s not really “gotcha” when several posters here are currently working for DV shelters or have worked with them in the past.
I already said that in my legal, libertarian environment, they would be well treated! Other than the history lesson, what is your point Pecunium?
I never said that a military coup was the way to establish liberty, and frankly, I doubt that our military today could do it, even if some of the soldiers or officers wanted to! The most that would probably happen is a series of small civil wars or local putsches, as one Major, Colonel, or even Master Sergeant displaced another, probably through assasination…
Establishing a Constitutional libertarian social order? Not likely, and certainly not in my lifetime! Try again.
You are not agreeing.
Here is the summation:
Us: Abusers are wrong. They have chosen to abuse. It is not the fault of the abused. Ways to prevent abuse/punish abusers need to be found and implemented.
You: The abused bring on themselves. They need to spot the signs of imminent abuse and placate the abuser. If they don’t, the abuser is wrong, but they need to remember they caused it. We need to find ways to keep the abused from causing their abuse, rather than focus on the abuser; who was, after all, provoked.
I don’t see any revulsion there, except for those who think the abuser is to blame, not the abused.
“I already said that in my legal, libertarian environment, they would be well treated!”
We don’t believe any claims you make about proper treatment, DKM, when you insist women who wear pants aren’t “real”!
Meller: I already said that in my legal, libertarian environment, they would be well treated! Other than the history lesson, what is your point Pecunium?
That they would be well treated slaves. Some liberty.
Meller: I never said that a military coup was the way to establish liberty, and frankly, I doubt that our military today could do it, even if some of the soldiers or officers wanted to! The most that would probably happen is a series of small civil wars or local putsches, as one Major, Colonel, or even Master Sergeant displaced another, probably through assasination…
You keep saying we need Paul to re-establish the constitution.
You said that you hoped the military would back Paul if there was a breakdown in the social order.
Just as 1+1=2, so does saying that the military needs to put your guy in power equal supporting a coup.
You really don’t pay attention to what the words you use mean do you?
damn blockquotes.
you are NOT a libertarian Meller. A libertarian is for individual freedom. Forcing women to work in a brothel, no matter how “well treated” you claim they will be treated is NOT FREEDOM. It is denying women their freedom and the right to make choices about how they live their lives.
DKM: Tsk, when I am angry, I get too incoherent to type multi-syllabic insults, and have to leave the computer! I’m having fun seeing how many insults I can haul out for you because in fact we. do. not. agree. And you insisting we do is profoundly insulting and also shows your reading comprehension fail.
My main areas of feminist activism are not Domestic Violence–I do support the local shelter as much as I can, given the extremely horrific situation for women in rural texas.
I don’t consider that my fun time hanging out on social networks is going to change anything.
The work I do offline and the support I donate to other social justice efforts is my effort to change things, so I’m not going to be shamed by the “if you’re not saving the world every moment, you are a BAD FEMINIST” cliche.
And as always, when somebody who is hanging out on the internet in the same place as the people he is lecturing about how hanging out on the internet being a waste of time, it is fucking hilarious.
I don’t think anything I say will change your mind, or NWO’s, or Brandon’s. But since the sewage you spill out is so omnipresent, challenging it through mocking might be useful to some people who are less informed (another reason why I post links and sources). Occupational hazard you might say.
Although I need to note that I am able to do some feminist mentoring of women in academia via LiveJournal/Dreamwidth fandom–especially those interested in fan studies–though I don’t consider that activism. But it’s useful work in the sooper sekrit feminist conspiracy to take over all of WESTERNCIVILIZATION.
Question: What’s wrong with our current system, in which “hypersexual” women can train and apply for any job they want? What specific harm is that causing that these brothels would relieve?
Oh, and if it’s a choice between POSSIBLY “being treated well” (because being treated well is up to the whim of those in power and can be revoked at any time) and HUMAN RIGHTS, I’ll take human rights, thnks!
You don’t seem to understand how the basic word choice and syntax you choose says so much more about your theories and ideologies–in fact, you are not even a good reader of your own prose.
Holly: They are showing the other women (the one’s Meller wants to oppress) that they have options.
It’s as bad as teaching blacks to read in the 1850s, they get ideas.
@ Meller
You really need to shut the fuck up.
You don’t understand a damn thing.
You can’t even grasp the fact that women (INCLUDING your sweet old-fashioned girls) are not the same thing as pets. You can barely even grasp that other men are entities separate from yourself.
Watching you argue here is like watching a three-year-old trying to act like an adult. You parade around with your delusions of intelligence and then throw a tantrum when your feelings get hurt.
As someone already said, this describes you to a T: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Not that you’ll realize it.
DKM wrote, “Again, the suggestion of giving sexually overactive women a chance to live out their preferred lifestyle in environments of personal security, good hygeine, and even prosperity offers such advantages over what they have anywhere in the world today, that I would think that they, to say nothing of their families, would jump at the chance!”
What do you think my life is like, DKM? Do you think I live my day to day life in constant fear that I’ll be arrested for public nudity? Do you think I don’t brush my teeth or clean my apartment?
I wonder why the families of these “sexually overactive women” (whatever that means) would, “jump a the chance” to have then entered into slavery as prostitutes?
Does the phrase “legal libertarian environment” make any sense?
I admire Jefferson and his presidency for many reasons, but I don’t recall saying that it was an especially peaceful one. I thought that his embargo was foolish–and blatantly UNLIBERTARIAN–just as I see similar embargoes and blockades against e.g. Cuba and North Korea, today. The most that I may have said is that Jefferson,and Madison did his best to repeal or to nullify the truly dreadful abuses that took place under Washington, and far more under John Adams (Alien and Sedition act)
One thing that Ron Paul has indicated is that he wants to repeal the “Patriot” Act-parts I and II, the closest equivalent of Adam’s AaS act. Heard of Obama working for Patriot Act(s) repeal lately? How about Gingrich, Bachmann, McCain, et al?
Me neither!
Jefferson and Madison were beacons of liberty compared with their predecessors. They were imperfect even by the standards of their time, much less by the standards (Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Hans Hermann-Hoppe, F.A. Hayek…) of ours!
Ron Paul follows the Constitution. That doesn’t mean that it is the final world on liberty or peace, it isn’t! Our chances of being involved in overseas conflict are diminished (NOT eradicated, but diminished) by following “peaceful trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none”. Our chances for a prosperous and thriving economy are enhanced by following a gold standard–Gold as MONEY, not a money receipt, not a money substitute, and certainly not a “reserve” in a central bank–not a fatuous and futile attempt to substitute monopoly “money”–paper money, notes of credit, fiat currency, legal tender, or whatever you want to call legalized fraud, embezzlement, and counterfeiting at the behest of “bankers”, war-profiteers, and something-for-nothing politicians!
Ron Paul upholds the Bill of Rights AS WRITTEN! Where is due process today. Where is the citizen’s redress against ‘civil asset forfeiture”? Where are you protected on your tax return by the V Amendment against enforced self-incrimination? Where is your right to trial by jury when the jury is specifically enjoined against judging the applicability of the law (as opposed to the mere facts) which you are being tried, possibly for a serious felony, or even a capital offense? Where is your right to keep and bear arms, even on a State level, with some 20,000 FEDERAL statutes on the statute books (disregard of any one of which can result in a serious multicount Federal indictment and decades of prison hard time)? Where was Awlaki’s–and his son’s–right to simple due process, even in the distorted and truncated Kangaroo court form it is routinely practiced in the American People’s Republic? Is there any awareness, much less protest, from Maximum Leader? From his GOP challengers except for Ron Paul? I haven’t heard any!
I could go on, but I have made my point! Is Ron Paul a perfect libertarian? NO! Am I a perfect libertarian? NO! Are YOU?? Certainly not even close! Ditto for Zhinxi!
Apologise for all of the exclaimation points, but I am trying to remind you of something that should be almost self-evident. You take what is available. This is, as I have written before, with or without the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the United States of America, NOT the Libertarian States of America! I’ll take the United States of America (Constitution and all) over the United Statists of America, the Union of Statist Socialistic Americans, or the American People’s Republic–which we seem to have today–anytime. The Libertarian “States” of America can come later.
I’m sorry. There’s so much crappyness to address in Meller’s first post, and here I am stuck on the very first paragraph:
What do you think an abuser is trying to effectuate through xir abuse, Meller? Here, you seem to be implying that an abuser abuses because xe wants the victim to respond with love, eagerness, happiness, and willing and submissive compliance. Maybe the submissive compliance part is right; the rest of it — no. What an abuser wants is to abuse. Frankly, it’s bizarre that you think the abuse is meant as a prelude for genuine happiness.
That seems kind of like the same type of twisted lie an abuser would tell xirself. Along with, “If only my partner didn’t [do X], I wouldn’t have to react this way!” And conflating women and pets. And completely lacking empathy.
I mean, I can’t make accusations of someone I’ve never met, but it occurs to me that someone wanting to proclaim how much he despises DV might want to do a better job of not mimicking all the traits of the perpetrators of such despicable acts. And someone who seems to misunderstands DV to such an extreme degree might want to shut up about all his inaccurate views and learn.
Well, at least you know it.
But “imperfect libertarian” isn’t quite the right way of saying “totalitarian control freak.” Kind of an understatement.
Sing along to the internationale, cause we can do everything better than commies –
Libertarians, come on! really!
It’s a fact we need to face!
The Ron Paul Candidacy,
Enflames a crazy base.
ithiliana – No. I think he might have meant libertarian legal environment, but I’ve been trying to get him to explain what that even is to him, besides some muttering about “security bonds” and whatever in god’s name this is:
http://manboobz.com/2011/11/04/johnny-appleseed-a-man-going-his-own-way/comment-page-11/#comment-83411
Meller – “I don;’t know about Zhinxi, but I realize that liberty requires good judgement and clear thinking on the part of all participants, something that women, especially when in the throes of sexual passion or adolescent rebellion, seldom have! This is even more so in an anarchistic society, where government doesn’t exist, or have the authority to make such decisions for her.”
Uh. Huh. I’ll talk to you tomorrow, Meller. I have actual libertarian politicy stuff to do tonight, which is hard on my woman-brain, and then sleep. Also, I’ve been meaning to finish the Glorious Chairman Ron Paul Candidacy Song, and you inspire me. It may be ready for youtube soon!
So wait.. did Meller just say “A free society requires people to think properly (like myself) so that society can be the way I want it to be, and since women don’t think the way I want them to, it’s necessary for a free society to take away their freedoms.”? xD