 |
Feb 1, 2005
Paté du foie gras is a gourmet delicacy made from the livers of fattened geese. The geese raised for this purpose are raised in small box pens. Their webbed feet are nailed to the floor of the pen so that they cannot move about. A metal hopper is inserted down their gullet and left there. They are force feed a grey greasy disgusting saturated fat rendering which under no circumstances whatsoever, not even to stave off starvation, would the bird ever voluntarily consume. All of this, to produce a product that is neither necessary nor particularly healthy. You would not have to be a vegan or a vegitarian to be disgusted by this.....but you did send your kids to school today didn't you....let's talk about that.
Posted at 07:12 pm by MAUS
Permalink
Jan 29, 2005
A reply to Mausogynist re: Hugo Picture
Maus, I would like to take issue with something your wrote. You decry the negative characterizations of Hugo that you read on SYG. However, I would like to point out the context of those statements to show that they never actually said what people (mainly Hugo and Friends) are construing them to have said. For instance, at no time did anyone call Hugo a pederast or pedophile. There were some comments made which lead his supporters to infer that, but that really says more about them than it does us, as it was their assumption, their 'leap'. What I had said was the truth, as I had seen more than one instance when he was relating his love life to younger feminist women on their blogs. Now, having said that, just because I find it creepy - doesn't mean that it is.
To wit, I said:
Haha! Good find Doctor. Hugo is a very feminized male, who has admitted being afraid of men, and has admitted to always preferring hanging out in groups of women as they made him feel less 'intimidated' than groups of men.
Therefore, by his own admission, he is suffering from 'male-phobia'. He is also a women's studies professor, and one of the most puerile specimens I have come across to date.
He is also of dubious character, as he hangs around many teenage girl's blogs, and is to be found constantly relating his many stories of love and angst. I don't know about you, but I find something odd about a mid thirties gender professor relating his love life to impressionable teenage girls, especially as he often acts as a feminist 'mentor' to these girls in a student/teacher type of way.
However, the men's movement holds out hope that he will one day be able to recover his testicles from the feminist administration's metaphorical purse, and will learn to accept his maleness without stigma.
This was then followed up by a poster who works at a correctional facility who said:
What you describe sounds like a man about to dabble in pedophilia. This is what the predators at my work do. They befriend and hang out with teens in hopes of gaining thier trust.
Said post was then followed up with the now infamous picture of Hugo, and that was literally all that was said in this regard. However, Sophie, at her blog Volsunga then took that to mean that we now all thought Hugo was a pederast. Which is not the case.
This is likely why, when the picture was posted at MND under the heading "Girly man Hugo - A picture is worth a thousand words" Hugo and supporters inferred that somehow MND was impugning his character in that way. Nothing could be further from the truth! MND's intent, while not laudable was only to be humorous. The fact that Hugo and his supporters on his blog then jumped to the conclusion that the picture posted at MND had been meant for more sinister motives was a complete jump of subjective reasoning on their parts, and I think it gives us some insight into their world.
Also while we are on this subject, there was this article from a group which Hugo calls a part of the 'real' men's movement regarding that organizations association with NAMBLA.
Now I would like to take a minute to say some things about Hugo regarding your post. In many ways, I agree with you. Hugo is not afraid to show a kind, gentle side to him, and this comes out in the postings at his blog. However, on a philosophical level, I am filled with disgust at his attempts to excuse bad female behaviour as only being a reaction to negative male behaviour, and his subsequent lack of care for men who are currently suffering under a deeply misandric system. His contentions that masculinity needs to change are worrisome as they presume that masculinity is inherently morally defective in some way. Nothing could be further from the truth in my view, or dare I say it, in the views of most men's rights activists. We believe that the traditional or hegemonic masculine characteristics are what have helped to shape the world in which we live to a largely positive degree. On contrast, Hugo believes this influence to be part of a mythical structure which was used to oppress and degrade women for thousands of years, to the detriment of society.
Instead of seeing the gender roles as coming to fruition in the form of a repressive patriarchy, we believe that sex roles were a natural progression of evolution and natural selection, not some hair-brained collusion on the collective part of men to keep women down. Indeed, women in most of the western world got the vote 10-30 years after they asked for it. In Canada, and the US it was right after some 10 million men had given their lives for the freedom of their women and children in WWI when the request was granted to give women the vote.
If masculinity needs to change, it needs to take off its ideological blinders when it comes to women, and hold both men and women accountable for their actions. Hugo only seems interested in the former, and in accusing those of us who seek parity as misogynists and homophobes.
Posted at 12:34 pm by None
Permalink
Hugo and Ampersand are Gentlemen
The Men’s Prayer : “I’m a man, but I can change, if I have to, I suppose” -----Steve Smith (AKA Red Greene).
Hugo and Ampersand are both really nice guys. I am not saying this to be sarcastic. There is a part of their message that is absolutely true. I do not believe that men aught to be any particular way. The man who sits next to me at work is soft, gentle, effeminate, and moves with a dancer’s grace. If you heard his voice on the phone you would assume he was gay. He is actually in his second marriage with many of the blended family shared custody issues talked about in MRA forums. He gets a kick out of my shenanigans. He sends me jokes over my e-mail that would mortify a feminist gauleiter. He is very much like what Hugo and Ampersand would have men be, except he does not sing in the choir of those who have capitulated to feminism. Would I wish him to be any way other than the way he is? Certainly not.
I have seen the picture of Hugo in the playground.. I do not agree with the disparaging comments about it that I read on Stand Your Ground. I do have issues with what he teaches, but I have no issues with the way he is. When I look at that picture, I instantly understand why his fiancé likes him. I do not share the view of those who look at that picture and speculate that Hugo is a paedophile. In fact it is that sort of thing that I detest the feminists for, witch hunts of sexual misconduct based on speculative profiling. What I see when I look at that picture of Hugo is a remarkably brave man. I see a man who is perhaps a better man than me. I see a man who is not afraid to go out into the world without his armour. I understand perfectly what Hugo and Ampersand are on about in that regard.
It is a dreadful burden the armour that men wear. Inside that armour there lives a gentle harmless Hugo in each and every one of us. Again I say, I am not being sarcastic. It breaks my heart to look at that picture. Just like it breaks my heart to look at the class picture of me in junior high school, the smallest boy in the school, the day I put on that stinking suffocating ugly soul smothering armour. Hugo and Ampersand are right on that point. Men who wear that armour are a grotesque caricature of the creature that it protects.
As a Buddhist, warriorship is a process of removing that armour. Not very long ago, about three years ago, I had done this. It was an elating liberation. I detest that armour. So what made me put it back on? A three titted diesel dyke control obsessed feminazi lawyer with a lumber jack butch strut that would intimidate most of the men and all of the women I have ever met. This is the real face of feminist matriarchy, and this is where Hugo and I differ. I also do not think it is particularly right or consistent to on the one hand expect other men to give men like Hugo the benefit of being free from allegations of being gay and/or a paedophile based on stereotypes and profiling when he himself characterises older men as Svengali seducers of younger women. I also heard it remarked by a couple of people that his fiancé is young and strikingly beautiful. Did he not have some disparaging remarks about men who choose mates for their beauty? Really Hugo, why are you not engaged to a fat and frumpy older feminist as you have previously advocated? Are you now, in the face of the reality of that inconsistency, willing to admit that your teachings are wrong and that it is not a man’s will to be socially unjust to women that causes his penis to get erect.
Posted at 07:06 am by MAUS
Permalink
Women Committing Sexual Abuse at Guantanamo Bay
Here's another example of women behaving badly in a military setting. And here's another example of the lack of a significant public outcry. Why? Because the abusers are female and the abused persons are male. Can you say "double standard"?
I wonder how many of these "tough" female interrogators (who basically behaved like prostitutes) would have acted "tough" if there had not been hundreds or thousands of men nearby to protect them. Probably none.
Posted at 02:47 am by regularguy
Permalink
A Call for Denise Denton to Resign
The National Organization for Women has demanded that Lawrence Summers, the President of Harvard University, resign his position because of his comments about women in the sciences. I'd like to know where the uproar is about another academic who recently spoke clumsily.
I'm talking about Denise Denton, the Dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Washington, who has recently been appointed to serve as the Chancellor of the University of California at Santa Cruz. In response to Mr. Summers' comments about female scientists, Ms. Denton claimed that Mr. Summers had "provoked an intellectual tsunami."
Given the fact that Ms. Denton made her comments just a few weeks after the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 26, she has demonstrated a shocking lack of sensitivity, and a willingness to exploit human suffering to further her own political agenda. Such conduct is inappropriate for an academic leader at any insitution of higher learning, especially one funded by hard-earned taxpayer dollars. As such, Denise Denton is unfit to hold her newly appointed office.
I demand the immediate resignation of Ms. Denton from the position of chancellor of the University of California at Santa Cruz. Further, I call upon the Board of Regents of the University of California to replace Ms. Denton with someone who will not be a slave to narrowminded agendas and who will speak publicly in a manner more befitting the leader of a branch of the University of California.
Posted at 01:54 am by regularguy
Permalink
Jan 28, 2005
Hi guys,
Sir Jessy has invited me back, after an initial misunderstanding here last month. (Thanks, Sir Jessy!)
I promise to be more focused on the mission of Man Power in my posts and more sensitive to the legitimate concerns my brother bloggers have about the content of this blog.
It's good to be back. Thanks for the second chance
Posted at 09:35 pm by regularguy
Permalink
Pete Jensen, in his infamous article about chivalry writes, “Nowadays chivalry has become one sided. Not only do women feel free challenge me, I'm expected to give them a five step head start and carry a seventy-five pound pack to "make it fair." I speak gently to them, and they get to berate me like a fishwife. I hold the door, and it's their due. I merit no thanks - why? Because I'm a peasant, as a male. I'm obligated to them, but they are under no obligation in returne. So, speaking in modern terms, we can only arrive at one conclusion - chivalry has been perverted into becoming strictly a regulation of male behavior, of obligating men to behave towards women in a certain fashion, with no commeasurate obligation of a woman to courtesy beyond what she deigns to give.”
However, the perversion of the chivalrous code into something that is self-serving for women’s interests extends far beyond the examples I’ve extracted from Pete’s essay. In today’s modernity, even common courtesy has been confused and intertwined with the modern mythos surrounding chivalry. My thesis for this essay will be that chivalry has not only been perverted, but also institutionalized into the very organizations that form the foundation of our society. I will attempt to show that chivalry is not only an elusive concept, it is also something tangible and real, made distinctive by its uniqueness when contrasted with common courtesy. Indeed, I will show that institutionalized chivalry presents itself as a liability for today’s man, while the practice of courtesy is simply a part of civility.
Institutionalized Chivalry
When most people think of chivalry, they don’t think of things like Affirmative Action for women or favoritism in the court system. Yet I contend that this is the very essence of our collective expression of chivalry. Male prisons for example, have always had worse conditions than female prisons, in terms of facilities. I use prisons as an example, because like men’s washrooms, our facilities are generally worse than women’s in most public institutions (schools, shopping malls, public buildings etc.). If we as men and women think about it, this is similar to how we treat our daughters. We treat them like little princesses. While in itself there is nothing wrong with this, this mentality of chivalristic deference does not evaporate at the higher levels of our society; it simply expresses itself in different ways. Our boys are expected to fend for themselves to a much larger degree for example, while a certain paternal deference and provisions are made for our girls. It is this same extension of chivalry in our public institutions that I term, ‘Institutionalized Chivalry’.
The same case could be made as well for Affirmative Action for women. Bowing to collective guilt and shame, men have raised very little objection to hiring preferences or 55% quotas in favor of women. The ‘Chivalristic’ man would not dare object to such things; after all – he – is a real man. A kind and courteous man, who only wishes to be fair and accommodating. He hears how women have been horribly oppressed for millenniums, and he only wishes to do the right thing, which in this case is to give political pressure groups what they demand. In his chivalristic quest to be fair, such a man has denied himself a level playing field, he has abdicated his fair place, and given preferential deference to one he views as inferior to himself in some way so as to be in need of special assistance. The astute observer will notice how affirmative action for women is never applied to things like trash collection or selective service registration.
Likewise, the same case for institutionalized chivalry could be made of court judges who view women as the perpetual victim, and rule as such. This paternal chivalristic bias exists to such an extent that women face less harsher punishment than men at every level of the justice system; whether it be arrest, conviction, sentencing, or even custody battles.
I submit that the phenomenon of institutionalized chivalry is a factor that adds to the way in which women are treated with (often paternal) preference; as less than full, rational adults in our society. I submit to the reader that such deference on the part of men is irrational, and in fact poses a liability to the free interaction and mobility of men within society.
The case for chivalry versus common courtesy
This brings me to my next point, which I believe is a very important one. As we read in Pete Jensen’s extract earlier, chivalry in modernity has become a concept that is perverted far beyond the bounds of civility, into something that is much more duplicitous that borders on being classified as a feudal relationship with men as peasants and women as noblemen. Pete’s analogy resonates with me because it is based on the comparison with a relationship that has a large degree of inherent deference. This to me, is what has always been the determinate condition between common courtesy and chivalry. These are both concepts with which many people have trouble, as they define them both as the same thing. As we will see, this is clearly not the case.
Common courtesy is easily distinguished from today’s bastardization of chivalrous behaviour as courtesy is something we define as applying to all: the elderly, the unable, and the defenseless. That is why for example, we would define as common courtesy an act such as helping an old woman down the stairs, or opening a door for a man with a large package. Common courtesy is based on need and civility. In contrast, the current understanding of many regarding what passes for chivalrous behaviour is acts like: paying for dates, opening the car door for a woman, pulling out her chair, letting her win, and defending her from slander even at expense to your person(s). This treatise of mine is not a rant against the practicing of chivalrous behaviour to one you love or one who loves you, however. In that case, your chivalry is much more likely to be reciprocated, and appreciated.
What men may find as they continue to practice chivalry in a collective sense, is that they are in fact being taken advantage of. What I mean to infer by that is only the generalities of what most consider chivalry to be. Consider: in any healthy, ethical peer relationship, there is reciprocity. If your chivalrous behavior exists in a vacuum, there is much more of a likely chance you are being taken advantage of. For this reason, I submit that the collective, uniformed expression of chivalry among men is to their detriment. In the 70’s some women lectured men who dared to hold the doors open for them as being too ‘oppressive’ with their expressions of deference towards them. In the year 2004, they are far more likely to utilize your door opening services without so much as a ‘thank you’. Your attempt at expressing what you understand to be chivalrous behaviour is more likely to be met with as an expression of woman’s just due. All of this of course raises the question of whether women are full adults capable of opening their own doors, paying for their own dates, and indeed even subsidizing a man’s existence as a househusband and father.
I am not arguing however, for the end of civility and common courtesy. I am simply attempting to delineate between them, and show how civility and courtesy are possible, indeed quite without chivalry. In the end analysis, I think what we may find lacking in our society is not chivalry, but female chivalry – or – stated another way, the reciprocal reaction for every action. In ideology, theology, and philosophy, perhaps the time has come for us as humans to work towards a female chivalry – a counterpart to our collective expression and understanding of current chivalry.
Posted at 05:54 pm by None
Permalink
Jan 24, 2005
| Sir Jessy wrote: |
| From hisside website: “According to Dr. Schwyzer, talk show host/columnist Glenn Sacks is part of the problem–a “purveyor of a victim mentality for men” who “masks men’s own responsibility” for their problems and who “lashes out at those, such as feminists, who call men to accountability for their actions.” Schwyzer also labels Sacks a “denier of male privilege,” adding “just because a group doesn’t feel privileged doesn’t mean that they aren’t.” So it may not be that he was labeled as anything other than a part of the problem (which Hugo refered to as homophobic and misogynistic). In any case, it’s clear Hugo tried to present himself as an ‘enlightened feminist male’ and as such Glenn’s comments were sarcastic in nature, mocking the perceived self-aggrandized ‘enlightenment’ of the feminist male. |
| Sophie wrote: |
| You mean all those quotes Sacks pulled from Hugo’s writing? And even so, like Will says, disagreeing isn’t being self-aggrandising. |
http://www.volsunga.co.uk/index.php?p=219#comments
If the disagreement did not include negative characterizations of a vast and disparate pool of individuals, I would agree. The onus is now on the professor to prove that what he said is the true nature of the backlash (i.e. that it’s underpinings are misogyny and homophobia). Making appeals to the invisible patriarchy hardly counts as erudite debate.
My favorite part during the show was when Glenn suggested that nothing ‘women as a group’ do could ever be innately wrong or morally corrupt in Hugo’s view. Hugo then basically deferred, and Glenn pointed out that more women than men abuse children anually. He pointed out that this was an action that women as a group do. To be clear, he was not blaming women as a group, just pointing out that Hugo’s assertions of men as a group can easily be turned around. In any case, Hugo then flatly denied that this was the case, until being confronted with the DOJ statistics cite.
At that point Hugo conceeded that perhaps more women do abuse children, but then he went on to _excuse them of all responsibility_ by blaming absent fathers, the patriarchy, more time spent with mother than dad, that anoying elf that lives in my attic, etc.
Surely the double standard was apparent to all but the most ideologically minded of feminists. His “men’s movement” is about holding men accountable for an imagined social construct, and excusing women on the flimsiest of pretexts.
Posted at 09:07 pm by None
Permalink
Victor Hugo? I don't think so
I just wanted to take a moment to thank Hugo for the publicity. I must buy you a tofu quiche and some organic grape-juice sometime to say thanks properly. It would be my privilege....my male privilege.
Incidentally, I can't work it out: are you one of the man-haters, or do you just do their public relations for them?
Bravo also to our very own Maus, the Mausogynist. I certainly know who sounded the more professorial of the two.
Posted at 06:39 pm by Darren
Permalink
Jan 23, 2005
Independent, Prudent, Wise, and Generous are NOT Misogyny
So I find myself laughing my ass off that one Hugo Schwyzer thinks that the men on this board are misogynistic.
Obviously, Hugo thinks men deciding to do their own thing without a woman's approval is misogynistic.
Hugo, it is called independence, it's a Man Thing, you wouldn't understand.
Hugo also thinks men exposing feminism for what it really is on here (just read the blog, my friends, for details) and exposing the dangers of involving yourself with a Western Hemispheric woman is also misogynistic (once again, read the blog for details, my friends).
The man that analyzes the cost/benefits of everything around him is called prudent and wise, Hugo, not misogynistic.
The man that shares his cost/benefit analysis with others is called generous, Hugo, not misogynistic.
You are a professor of what, Hugo?...I think they called it Bullshit. Ph.D = Piled Higher and Deeper.
Posted at 07:54 pm by Meikyo
Permalink
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
