|
|
 |
 |
Feb 18, 2005
Tiger who ate the Buddha #3 posted by maus
Tsultrim stood before the assembly of monks in special training. King Gesar’s reforms included an edict specifying that the keeping of peace, enforcement of law, and crowd control should not be performed by armed men of war. Instead, enlightened Buddhist monks would perform these duties.
Standing six and a half feet tall and as burley and surly as any Irish cop in 1800’s New York, Tsultrim looked unusual in his maroon and saffron robes. The monks arrayed before him were all remarkably fit and sturdy. They were repeating a drill in which a predetermined sequence of blows with a quarterstaff could be parried .
“ Don’t struggle with the stick! Struggle with the man holding the stick! Watch his eyes and you will not need to look elsewhere!”
“ Use your hips not your arms! Bend your knees! Deep in the stance!”
“OKAY STOP! DEEP BREATHING EXERCISE! GET FOCUSED!”
The students chanted:
“Grant your blessing so that my mind may be one with the dharma grant your blessing so that dharma may progress along the path grant your blessing so that the path may clarify confusion grant your blessing so that confusion may dawn as wisdom”
“Enough for today brothers. Always be mindful that what you have learned was not given to you so that you would be able to fight, but so that the Buddha dharma would have a fighting chance.”
“ Better to avoid than to parry, better to parry than to hurt, better to hurt than to harm, better to harm than to kill. All life is precious and irreplaceable. If you ever have an altercation, as long as the other man was not harmed enough to prevent him from pursuing his livelihood the next day, you will not be judged too harshly. If anyone dies at your hands your duty as a dobdob (term for monk policeman) is over whether you were justified or not. You have been entrusted with much, and much is expected of you. Try not to be judgemental. View the situation from as compassionate and charitable a point of view as you can. We do not punish people for their humanity. Only for their inhumanity. That having been said, don‘t let anybody get away with anything!”
The speech was interrupted by the sound of flute music. A yak bullock came clopping into the flag stoned courtyard. A boy who looked about fifteen or sixteen but was actually ten was riding on the yak’s back, out of the ordinary considering that this particular yak was young, vigorous and not gelded. The boy was a Sherpa. He wore monastic robes. His desperate mother who had too many mouths to feed had left him at the monastery about three months after his father had died of complications of leprosy. He was gangly and long of limb, and even among Sherpas who are renowned as the best two legged pack animals at high altitude with a tough slope to climb, this boy could climb like a monkey and was a folk legend among his tribe. He also had a remarkable way with animals. If you set mastiff guard dogs on him they would finish up by licking his hand like puppies. The folks for miles around always got him to catch and expel without harming any cobras that ventured into their house or latrine.
“Where were you? You know you had drill this morning”
“ Your pardon venerable sir. The Tulkyu llama asked me if I would take this bull down to the lower pasture and have it service the dris ( Tibetan female form of yak) down there.”
“ You mean to tell me that the Tulkyu llama could not have attended to that himself?”
“Well, I suppose he could” the boy’s feet shifted to the left side of the yak’s head away from Tsultrim, his shaved eyebrows raised into an expression of pure mischief as he slid off the yak far from the reach of a disciplinary stick and said: “ But the Tulkyu llama has vowed the precept of celibacy and the bull has not”
“Tsultrim” means discipline…but that went out the window, all of the monks were laughing hysterically.
As Tsultrim was considering what, if anything he was to do about Jingme’s impudence more serious matters came forward. A county magistrate accompanied by two Khampha herdsmen had a prisoner trussed in shackles and with a cartwheel around his neck pillory fashion.
“ Your pardon venerable sir, this brigand is a servant of Rudra”
At the very mention of this name, all mirth stopped and all smiles disappeared.
“Why would a servant of Rudra be found in your precincts magistrate?”
“It would seem that Rudra has defied King Gesar’s edicts and has entered the borders of Ling with a company of elephant cavalry and an entourage of expedition.”
“Get all of the girls evacuated or hidden”
The prisoner spoke: “ Prince Rudra is not here seeking new consorts”
Tsultrim took hold of the cart wheel and lifted the prisoner clear of the ground.
“Do not refer to that manure maggot as ’prince’. If that despicable pimp is not here to abduct girls then what did he dare defy the terms of our highly controversial ransom release agreement for?”
“He is hunting a tiger”
“ Why would he risk so much for a tiger when there are more of them on his side of the frontier than ours?”
“It’s become personal”
"Jingme, can you ride an elephant?"
"I have never actually done it venerable sir, but considering the people who do, can it really be difficult?"
Posted at 10:01 pm by MAUS
Permalink
Feb 17, 2005
The female/feminist privilege checklist:
The female/feminist privilege checklist:
1. Do you experience other people paying for your dates, or occasionally even picking up the tab in non-romantic settings? Or paying for vacations when the relationship moves along?
2. Do you occasionally experience subservient gestures by the opposite sex(opening doors, giving up a seat in the bus, standing up when you come in the room)?
3. Are you able to simply pursue what you are interested in at university without much societal pressure on "breadwinning" - although you could also take that route if it interests you?
4.a. Have you had to register for selective service? Would you be ripped out of your life and forced to defend your country in time of attack or national emergency? Can you demand strength and full participation in society, but then get out of this obligation by pretending to be weak with no influence over society (only when it suits you)?
4.b. Can you come up with any and every excuse to get out of this without being laughed at ("No one should be drafted" - when you would be the first to cower in the corner and demand that someone do something if China & Russia combined and attacked full force - and "If men start wars ..." when women are the majority of voters and the expression is more likely "Men are SENT in wars ..." - exactly what you're trying to get out of - and sometimes sent by M. Thatcher, G. Meir, I. Gandhi, B. Bhutto and others)
5. Will you statistically get a much lighter sentence for exactly the same offense if you commit a crime?
6. Are you able to take on a job or choose a career route that is only capable of supporting yourself, with no thought to preparing yourself to also support a spouse/children, although you are also free to choose a more difficult career that will bring you more money? Do you not have much pressure on you with regard to this?
7. If you are in a committed relationship, do you have much greater flexibility to choose whether you want to work or simply stay at home (even without kids)?
8. Will you be called an unemployed loser if you decide to be a homemaker?
9. If you have a flat tire on the road, if someone is harassing you in a public place, if an animal attacks you, or if you are lost, will someone be much, much more likely to help you?
10. Are people generally much nicer to you in public? Are you sometimes given privileged treatment?
11. Are you much more capable of "marrying up" - enjoying the money and status that comes with this?
12. Are you statistically much more likely to be given money in a divorce - sometimes huge amounts - even if your behavior caused the divorce (e.g. affair) and even if you didn't work for the money?
13. If you slap a person - or even knock someone's tooth out throwing your Aunt Selma's Christmas mug at that person - is it much more likely to just be viewed as cute, understandable or not a problem?
14. Do you statistically live much longer - possibly due to less stress on you with regard to breadwinning, providing protection, being responsible, not having society viewing you as "expendable" or viewing your problems as not being important?
15. Do you have much more money spent on your health concerns in reality (e.g. 5 times as much on breast cancer as on prostate cancer - although they have roughly the same death rates) while you simultaneously claim that more has to be done for you?
16. Are you much less likely to be homeless? Is more offered to you by society when you are in this position?
17. Is there far less scorn and pressure on you by society when you are an irresponsible doofus? Are your default rates for payment of child support roughly twice those of the other gender, while you simultaneously complain about the other gender not paying?
18. Has whining about and hating the other gender actually been made into a course of studies in college (women's studies) - as opposed to the true, neutral, unbiased study of this topic - which is simply anthropology?
19. Do you have full opportunity to do anything you want in life - become a doctor, a lawyer, start a business - while simultaneously using the fact that many of your gender don't CHOOSE themselves to do these things as an argument to try to gain even more advantages? Do you get affirmative action because many of your gender don't choose to do these things, and thus the numbers don't "come out right"?
20. Can you manipulate the other gender with sex in some cases to get what you want? Can you pretend like you don't even know what anyone is talking about on this topic?
21. Can you manipulate using old notions of men protecting and deferring to women when it comes in handy?
22. Can you effectively manipulate by playing the victim? Do tears work sometimes?
23. Can you get sympathy if you don't work and don't have children by listing all the household work (hmm ... Oprah really does get high ratings, though) while simultaneously being able to bear the cognitive dissonance of calling your sister's husband who stays home a worthless bum that she ought to leave?
24. Can you "mix and match" traditional and progressive roles - finding just the right mix to get what you want? Can you be a "traditional wife" - enjoying the positive features of that (like not having to work) - while simultaneously being a progressive feminist when THAT gets you advantages? Or having a career while simultaneously using traditional chivalry and male deference to your advantage?
25. Can you constantly say "that's just typical" and "it doesn't surprise me a bit" and make a lemon face if you are a parent-in-law? Is near-universal contempt by both genders for your behavior hidden to a much greater extent?
26. Can almost any remark by your partner be construed as verbal abuse if you want sympathy, but the meanest, nastiest, most humiliating things that you can say simply involve "speaking your mind" and "some people just don't want to hear the truth"?
27. Can you use the fact that gender roles were differentiated long ago - with different advantages/disadvantages for both genders - to try to induce guilt today in people who had absolutely no connection with any of that? Can you say that you have been discriminated against for thousands of years - when you're only 20 years old - with a straight face? Can you even make things up about history and no one will really check or dare call you on it?
28. Can you propagate myths and outright lies ("Superbowl/domestic violence hoax", "rule of thumb", 1/4 rape statistic, intentional misconstrual of pay figures, and many more) and be given a "pass" - without more rigor being demanded?
29. Can you rationalize your own failures using the concept of the "patriarchy", and blame the other gender for nearly everything that goes wrong in your life - even with quite contorted explanations that no one would otherwise buy - while failures of the other gender are just ... failures?
30. Do you want to be treated like a child when it suits you but as an adult when you get an advantage from that? Do you "look the other way" when someone doesn't require responsibility from you that they certainly would from the other gender?
31. Can you focus heavily on perceived earnings in the workforce - the statistics of which are influenced by people's choices in reality - while utterly ignoring the inter-family transfer of wealth? Can you completely ignore the fact that one gender picks tougher jobs (garbage collector), works more hours and takes on more responsibility because of more pressure to earn - but the other gender has the same lifestyle and statistically more assets (and not just because of inheritance/earlier age of male at death...). Can you deliberately claim that earnings figures are based on equal pay for equal work? (when you probably full well know that they simply involve all people working more than 35 hours - and don't take type of job, hours worked over 35/week, danger, responsibility, years in the work force etc. into consideration at all).
32. Is what used to simply be an irritation for grown-ups many years ago - the self-centered rantings and foot stompings of spoiled high-school and college brats - now not only embraced by your movement but almost the modern cornerstone of it?
33. And if you irritated about generalizations and stereotypes - and utterly fail to see the hypocrisy in stereotyping and generalizing about one gender while simultaneously making a career (literally in some cases) whining about your own gender being stereotyped ...
... you may have female/feminist privilege! But don't let on - because you can gain much more with a continual victim status.
© Galt at Standyourground.com
Posted at 05:49 pm by None
Permalink
Please Welcome Some New Members
I hope you will all join with me in welcoming some new members to MGTOW. Steve Imparl (regular guy) is not really a new member, but I would like to officially welcome him to the board. Also soon to be with us is HombreVIII, a respected men's activist and a person I respect and admire from the waaaay back days of Usenet. I look forward to the great discussion and contributions I'm sure they will post and generate here at MGTOW.
Posted at 10:28 am by None
Permalink
Feb 15, 2005
Anabaptist?...posted by MAUS
I know that Hugo has gotten far more attention than he deserves and that we have much bigger fish to fry, but since he had the courage to come forward and challenge us when the protégés of Ti-Grace Atkins decided to stay home and play it safe, the man deserves the chance to have the fight he picked.
One of the first things about his assertions that made me go Hmmm? Was that he called himself an Anabaptist. Nobody that I know of has done that in about 300 years. I referred the matter to a colleague who is a close spiritual friend and a lot better at the post protestant reformation “restorationist” history of sectarian fragmentation of the Christian Church than me. I ran it by him and this is what he sent me by e-mail.
Hi MAUS,
The following is nine parts Anabaptist history, one part, suggested snide
comments to make to your Anabaptist nemesis.
HISTORY
Anabaptists were the original restorationists; if they couldn't see it in
the New Testament, it was not one of their practices. They did not see
infant baptism in the NT and therefore refused to practice it. The founding
fathers of the Anabaptist movement were Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz.
The first Anabaptists lived in Zurich, where Zwingli lived at the time. The
view in Zurich was, you had to baptize your infants into the state church,
which was run by Zwingli. Zwingli badly needed the support of the city
fathers, and stood with them in their belief that a state could only have
one church.
In response, Grebel and Manz were the originators of the doctrine, "the
separation of church and state," which meant simply that the state should
not be able to force people to attend a particular church, and the
"alliance" between church and state was unbiblical. (Everybody owes Grebel
and Manz a "tip of the hat" for that one, I think.)
Zurich actually held a public debate on the matter of infant baptism on
January 17, 1525, and the people believed Zwingli won it, so Zurich issued
an ultimatum to the Anabaptists: Baptize your infants within a week or be
banished from Zurich. The Anabaptists withdrew from Zurich and settled in
nearby Zollikon. Despite the self-imposed banishment, Zurich was not happy
with the rebellion, went to Zollikon and imprisoned as many Anabaptists as
they could get their hands on. However, as soon as they let them out, the
Anabaptists went to neighbouring towns to search for converts.
Zurich then took it to the next level: anyone caught rebaptizing would be
drowned as punishment. Felix Manz was the first Anabaptist martyr, when the
authorities in Zurich drowned him in the Limmat river. The Anabaptists
spread hither and yon, particularly to Germany and Austria. However, the
Diet of Speyer (1529) declared Anabaptism a heresy, and every court in
Christendom was obliged to sentence Anabaptists to execution. Between four
and five thousand Anabaptists were killed in persecutions committed by
Protestants and Catholics alike during the Reformation.
Persecution forced the Anabaptists north. Some found refuge in Moravia,
where the princes were exceptionally tolerant. The Anabaptists there were
consolidated under the leadership of Jakob Hutter, and were called
Hutterites.
In the mid-1530's, a bizarre event happened called the Munster Rebellion.
Conservative Lutherans had ruled the roost in Munster before, but
Anabaptists immigrated under the leadership of Jan Matthijs and started a
ruckus. The bishop of the area sent in some troops to roust the
Anabaptists, but for the first time, Anabaptists took up arms against their
persecutors. As the siege progressed, the more extreme Anabaptist leaders
gained control of Munster.
Of particular note is Jan of Leiden, a former inn-keeper, who took control
of Munster and ruled as an absolute despot. He claimed new revelations from
God, introduced the OT practice of polygamy, and in September 1534 took on
the title "King David" and amassed an impressive harem, with whom he lived
in splendour. He managed to keep the bishop's army at bay until June 24,
1535, when the fall of the city spelled the end of "King David's" reign.
For centuries after the Munster rebellion, the term "Anabaptist" stood for
wild-eyed religious fanaticism in Europe. For obvious reasons, then, the
Anabaptists who hadn't been involved in Munster were quite dispirited in its
aftermath. However, a new preacher (and former priest) Menno Simons, a
pacifist, arose among them, and put new life and a new direction into the
movement. As a result, the vast majority of the descendents of the
Anabaptists are called "Mennonites."
In the history I read on this, Mennonites and Hutterites are the only
existing off-shoots of Anabaptist so I find it peculiar that this character
calls himself an Anabaptist. It's also funny because the Anabaptists
themselves rejected the term "Anabaptist" because it means to "baptize
again", while the Anabaptists believed a baptism before faith was invalid,
and so the baptism as a believer was not being baptized "again", but being
baptized the first time.
It may be a mistake to view your Anabaptist "nemesis" as having anything in
common with Baptists, e.g. United Baptist Convention, Southern Baptist
Convention, etc. because it appears to be a well-publicized misconception
that there's any connection at all between English Baptists and Anabaptists.
The English Baptist story in extreme brief: Some English separatists, led by
John Smyth, went to Holland to escape persecution from the Church of
England, setting up shop in Amsterdam. The Cambridge-trained Smyth was an
ardent student of the Greek New Testament, and found no evidence of the
baptism of infants. He and his congregation of 40 voted to revert to this
pattern, and in 1609 the first English Baptist congregation was born. Some
sources state that it was Mennonite influence that led the English Baptists
to this decision, but in fact it appears there was no connection between the
two; also, Holland's probably the wrong place to come in contact with
Mennonites, who were concentrated in the Rhine area, or with Hutterites in
Moravia. It appears the Baptists are simply a groups that came to the same
conclusion about baptism independently.
SUGGESTED SNIDE COMMENTS
Some thoughts as I scan this for your "friend":
"How'd you like me to take you to the Limmat and leave you there?"
"By the way, in case you didn't know it, Jan of Leiden was a boy, not a
lesbian."
"Hey everybody, it's Herman Munster again--as in the Munster Rebellion."
"He's living proof that Zwingli was right."
"Where's the Diet of Spyer when you need it?"
So my question is now, who ordained this guy? Is he a self proclaimed and self ordained maverick? Can anyone, including Hugo himself enlighten me on this?
Posted at 06:44 pm by MAUS
Permalink
Feb 13, 2005
In a way I really hate to do this. I like Wendy McElroy and her friends. I believe they are sincere. If SOW Canada was made up of like minded appointees and if the Women’s Studies departments of Canadian universities and the pundits of the popular media were made up of such women, MAUS would not come out at night and say things that make people want to put MAUS in a cage. But in a very real way, i feminists and people like “Amy” referred to, people who call themselves feminists but mean no harm to men, are a serious part of the problem.
Mark Twain is famous for his “from Missouri” scepticism. He coined the phrase “lies, bigger lies, damned lies, and statistics” and “ figures don’t lie but liars figure”. Every lie that Orthodox Feminism has managed to sell has been on the foundation of distorted use of statistics. For as long as you number yourselves as feminists, you give numeric support to the witches.
Now if I can be, for a moment, the Distinguished Devil’s Advocate, I will stretch a point, just a little, in order to make my point.
There is a new site on the internet called “i communists.com, the Independent Communist’s Forum, made up of Communists who feel that there has been far too much bad mouthing of capitalists, the bourgeoisie, and running dogs of imperialism. This concern has been prompted by the fact that these more enlightened and down to earth communists have parental, sibling, marital, and personal relationships with the ruling class oppressors and realise that they really aren’t nearly as wicked as Karl Marx would have you believe.
Close to my worksite is a small library and training centre which provides a service called a “lending library”, a sort of re-cycling of discarded books. It is very easy to tell when it is a woman’s garage or attic and when it was a man’s garage or attic that got emptied. The reading tastes are that easily seen. And it is a very telling thing that with the exception of Warren Farrell (who was once a leading vocalist in the feminist choir) all of the definitive texts on MRA are composed by renegade Women’s Studies professors.
I have recently been re-reading some articles by my favourite MRA author, Asa Baber. They are contained in old back issues of Playboy. They never exceeded one page. I was one of those people who bought Playboy for the articles. Actually it was only for Asa’s article, he was a drink of water in a desert of insanity. Before the internet was formed, the Playboy forum was the only venue for MRA issues and we owe Hugh Hefner a great deal. MRA books just don’t have much hope of achieving the same effect as feminist books. Women read more than men. Also, when it comes to gender political issues, you had better make your point quickly or attention will quickly wander.
I only once ever picked up an MRA book at a bookstore. I forgot it’s title. It was probably a work of genius, I picked it up and randomly cracked it open for a sample read.
“ Men are never loved for what they are, but rather for what they are becoming. And so, men live in a chronic neurotic state of becoming” I recall the words but never memorised who the author was. The book apparently bombed in terms of sales, a pity, yet somehow predictable.
“I’m a man, but I can change, if I have to , I suppose”- Steve Smith
How far can men be reasonably expected to take this?
Linda Lovelace (in Deep Throat): “I need a man with a nine inch dick”
Male porn star: “Good news Linda! The doctor says he can cut off as much as you need!”
Wife with the bad news: “Dear, I have to face the truth, this relationship is not going to work, I’m a lesbian.
Distraught husband: “I can change! I’ll get myself on the waiting list at Johns Hopkins!”
Did you hear the one about the guy who decided to celebrate Valentine’s Day by going out to Mount Saint Vincent and burning his degree? Sorry, old joke.
To all of the feminists out there who are observing “V” day. To all of the actresses who are going to perform in the Asshole Monologues and try to use distorted rape and other hate statistics to try to promote lesbianism and vilify heterosexual love.
If you are in the mood for a little romance you can kiss my ass. Or you can call 1-900-MAUS and I will be delighted to talk dirty to you.
Posted at 09:04 pm by MAUS
Permalink
Feb 12, 2005
In my mail box...posted by Maus
The first day I made a post on this blog I got e-mail. This person denies being another alias of Sophie Buckland, but certain use of idioms and turn of phrase in what she writes makes me continue to suspect that she is.
*******************************************************************************
Hi!
I'm female, but not a feminist in the strict sense of the word. I understand their viewpoint, and I agree with a lot of their complaints, but I also think that these problems go the other way: women's behaviour negatively affecting men. I study philosophy, and I like to be rigorously objective - I will not argue morality, only fairness. If you can persuade me that there really 'is not debate' then I will gladly post on the men's rights blog saying so. If you can provide no persuasive argument that cannot be countered by me then you remove the 'no debate' article.
If you will not debate with me, please have the courtesy to reply explaining why.
Amy
*************************************************************************************
I salute you Amy.
My name is MAUS. I am an old man.
There are some men in the masculinist movement who are rabid misogynists, my own misogyny has only taken hold to about the degree that my hair has turned grey. By this point in my life I would have been a tenured professor of philosophy or religious studies. When I saw what orthodox feminism and women's studies was doing to post secondary academics I decided to get out.
I do not think that disqualifies me as a philosopher. I spend many evenings playing chess and discussing philosophy with people who teach it. One of them coined a term that I use frequently "vernacular philosophy". Many great classical musicians are academically trained, but not one of them ( with the possible exception of Sting) ever made much of an impression in vernacular music. Something we both do from time to time is conduct what we call "philosophy busking" sort of going back to the Socratic format of meeting in the agora and discussing whatever those who join in feel like discussing. I feel that "debating” anything is really a waste of time and energy, it is a complete waste and misuse of the government's time in parliament and ,truth be known ,has never changed anything in human affairs.
Debate itself is generally an adversarial pitting of one belief against another or some futile attempt to overthrow the wilful ignorance of a "true believer". Since beliefs are never inherently and of their own nature established facts what would be the point of that?
I remember very well the day in philosophy class, some of the students, me included, were trying to persuade our professor to read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance "by Robert M Pirsig. ( It will certainly be remembered in history as a great work of 20th century vernacular philosophy). The old fart just scoffed at the idea that anything with a title like that could not be serious philosophy. I said to him that one of the issues the book addresses is the decay in the quality of our lives because a belief that quality is a subjective and not objective notion has arisen.
He immediately scoffed and said that there was no question or issue there and that quality was a purely subjective matter. I let him spiel for about fifteen minutes the I asked him:
"If that is the case, upon what basis do you mark our papers?"
He rolled his eyes and grinned and said: "Ok I'll read it"
Truth is never argued or debated. Only opinions.
Now then, if you would like to have a discussion we can discuss that. Is Amy your real name or are you the troll who has been harassing Darren? Real philosophers have no use for deceit.
MAUS
**********************************************************************************************************
Maus
Amy is a very common name, (I hate the idea of being common), I dislike my name, and the notion that I invented it is so amusing to me that I'm sitting here smirking to myself. In direct answer to your question, I am not the same person that has been "harassing" Darren, although she is a fairly close friend of mine. She, and a teacher at my college who I like and admire very much, are both feminists. My initial reaction to the idea of feminism is negative, yet my reaction to actual feminists is positive.
I'll be straight with you, because you have been civil to me. My main argument, or point (to be less aggressive), that I wanted to make to you is this:
There is more than one type of feminism, just as there is more than one type of woman, or man. On the Men's Rights page, there is a common occurrence of the label "feminist" being used too broadly.
Indeed, some feminists are man-hating, discriminating, illogical, and offensive. Some feminists only take their beliefs as far as saying that a traditional patriarchal society is harmful to both men and women. Most of the feminists that I have met believe the latter, and I have heard some admit that man-haters who call themselves "feminists" give feminism a bad name.
Now, I'm guessing that most of the feminists that you have met have been extreme and unfair, hence your extreme reaction to the idea of "feminism".
Now my only problem with the type of feminism that I have encountered is this: that it is called feminism. The name does have negative connotations of discrimination against men, and positive prejudice towards women, which would be obviously hypocritical.
Once I started to view 'true' feminism (I intend 'true' to mean the only type of feminism which is a logically justifiable opinion to hold) as the view that traditional male-female stereotypes are negative and damaging, and that women and men should be considered as equal in the eyes of the law, I realised that I agreed.
I still refuse to call myself a feminist: 'true' feminists highlight embedded stereotypes in our language (for example sexual promiscuity has positive language for men, and negative language for females - think 'stud' and 'slag'). If this is to be accepted, then it is absurd to associate a possibly a-sexual view with women only.
I know I asked for a debate, and that you offered a discussion, and that I have disregarded that in simply expressing my views, but it is only fair for me to explain my starting opinion (as I have one) and to let you express yours, and your opinions on what I think.
Amy
*************************************************************************************************************
~S~, Amy,
In case you are not familiar with the form a capital s between two cedillas is the standard form of expressing a salute in typed messages. Because you have been straight and respectful I will make this pledge. As long as you address me with respect and express your objections in the form of a question as you would to any scholar and identify yourself as who you are I promise I will not troll trash you and I will tell the other authors on the blog that you are under my banner. They will respect that.
I have no difficulty, cause or objection to anything you have said. You are at liberty to report the fact I stated that wherever you wish.
Now, wasn't that easy?
My difficulty with what you have said is in the practical realities of the political struggle that it spawned. The sectarian breakdown of orthodox feminism is inevitable and actually support for orthodox feminism is rapidly in decline. I am aware of this.
The most aggressive elements of the movement managed to commandeer, occupy, and "take ownership" of the governance and political direction of the movement. That is a problem far beyond the personal beliefs or the personal efforts of people trying to live their philosophy.
I opted to join this rather radical group of masculinists simply because their leader made me admit to myself that I am no longer able to distinguish friend from foe and that I should turn away from women and encourage other men to do so until such time as that distinction can readily be made.
Right now I am in an awkward and precarious position. Letting the culture of misandry continue to flourish is simply not acceptable. I have my two grandsons to consider.
One of my colleagues compared it to cockroaches in a kitchen. They scurry into sanctuary when you come after them but as soon as the lights are out they are back. Another one compared it to Australian brush fire that continually re-ignites unless you piss on every last ember.
I am not angry when I tell you any of this. It all makes me very sad. Everything that I have ever loved or cared about has been sullied by the efforts of women who hate men. I have been walking this earth for more than half a century and I have not been leaving a trail of wronged or betrayed women in my wake. I am a good and decent person. Those who are obsessed with making me a Jew in Germany have earned my enmity.
As absurd as it might seem, in Canada right now, even just this mail transmission I am making to you, could get me on a watch list of the RCMP as a "hate criminal".
If challenged in court for the right to claim that they speak for women collectively, orthodox feminists would be thwarted. Even if I stood before a jury of twelve women who are strangers to me, I know very well that there would be at least one such as you in the twelve who might have the personal integrity to hang the jury.
The feminists who commandeered positions of influence in the government, not one of them was elected nor would they have any hope of winning an election, now want special status under the hate laws because they fear those who they have aggrieved. They are calling themselves an "identifiable group".
Tell me, Amy, how does one identify a feminist? Does she have three tits and two cleavages? Even the lesbians who warn off the advances of men by wearing marine sergeant haircuts and little round Leon Trotski glasses do not necessarily actively promote a culture of misandry. The only time I have ever been able to identify a feminist is when she opens her mouth to spit spray some misandrist sentiment at me out of the blue and unprovoked. What is most distressing about these women is that they must all have fingers too big to fit in their own nostrils because they are awfully obsessed with picking other people's noses.
I am afraid that because your philosophical movement harbours people who can reasonably be seen as enemies to the peace and good order of society feminism will be subject to our bombardment until such time as you give them up.
That will be a problem for the more moderate and sensible women associated with them. The simple fact is that organizations such as "Women in Philosophy" have acted like a Court of Star Chamber and ruined the careers of women who did not subscribe to their hard line. And really Amy, if any male student ( or female for that matter) actually dared to challenge that hard line in a women's studies class do you honestly expect me to believe that she or he would not suffer for doing so? Even at your own university?
Like I said before, you have permission to dialogue with me here or on the blog. I will let the others know. Please allow a week before going on the blog, it will take me that long to make the others comfortable with it.
As for your friend tell her to loose the attitude if she is wise and prudent. We are actively seeking enemies to make an example of. And as I have said elsewhere, my skill at feeding crow and humble pie to those who manage to intimidate others with their butch strut is exactly why I was invited to be an author in that blog.
Nice to meet you Amy. Please give my best regards to any of your like minded female friends and assure them that if they are not misandrists they need not be afraid of the MAUS. That moniker by the way is the German form of mouse and is pronounced the same way. Fighter pilots in the Luftwaffe when they were awarded the Knights' Cross got to paint a logo of Mickey Mouse wielding a tomahawk on their customized aircraft and were addressed by their wing mates as
"MAUS". ~S~
********************************************************************************
Maus,
I typed an awful lot, and when I pressed send, the whole email went blank.
If I really thought I could change your mind I would type it all again.
However, in my experience, men will never admit to being wrong. For this reason, I will reasonably judge that even if I proved you wrong, you would not leave the men's rights site.
If I'm wrong, if you would concede to a strong enough argument, let me know, and I will argue that argument.
Thank you for your respect.
Amy
*************************************************************************************************************
Amy,
Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote an essay entitled "How to Win An Argument Whether or Not You Are Right". Amy this is not about winning arguments. Even the popular media is now acknowledging what we are saying. The remake of the Stepford Wives acknowledges that the amoral, narcissism of feminism has produced mean spirited witches who their own children would be delighted to shoot. Have you not read any of my posts on the blog or on other forums? I have made lots of statements and assertions you could refute if you like. What point did you want to argue? Though I must say arguing it the biggest waste of time in all of human activity.
After spending four and a half years at a feminist university, after having had three live in relationships with militant vanguard feminists and having been sneered at for no good reason over the tops of feminist books. After having attended the funerals of people who have committed suicide because of this gender war. After seeing an innocent young man railroaded for rape he did not commit. After seeing the consequences of trivializing abortion and divorce to the level of a haircut ( which at one point in time I would have argued strongly in favour of).After having been cheated out of a career that would have put me on easy street three times by affirmative action. I can honestly say that I would rather be shot by feminists than ruled by them.
Feminism is a recycling of Marxism. Feminism is Marxism in drag. No system of enforced egalitarianism has ever worked. People simply are not equal. If you are so certain the men's rights movement is wrong why do you even pay any attention to it? Do you think people are fools who can easily be misled?
I have joined one of the most militant groups. I am renowned for my nasty vitriolic style. Do you know why I do that? Because when you express your reasonable concerns in a reasonable manner the best you can hope for is to be relegated to a quasi child status and dismissively ignored.
I have successfully brought about better behaviour in people by insulting them on many occasions.
When Oskar Schindler (the only member of the Nazi Party to plant a memorial olive tree on the Avenue of the Righteous Among Nations in Tel Aviv) made his speech he said that he had always been an Epicurean and savoured the good things in life. He also saw nothing wrong with being an opportunist. He said that many people who had power did not know how to enjoy it. He said:
"By far the greatest way to savour and enjoy power is to have the sincere and heartfelt gratitude of those you have power over".
The feminists who have power over me do not have my gratitude at all.
If no peaceful democratic means can be found to cast them down from power, there are indeed men in this movement who will stop talking and resort to partisan and gangster type activities to overthrow them by force.
I am endeavouring to prevent that by insulting people into being a little bit ashamed of their deplorable attitude and behaviour, and more importantly, abusing their power so as to turn misandry into a cultural norm and a baseline of public and legal policy.
Why do you call yourself "wasted beauty"?
Maus
*************************************************************************************************************
arrived blank Amy....no viruses or cheap shots please.
*******************************************************************************
I know it arrived blank. If you remember I complained in my last email that every time I try to send an email from hotmail it deletes all that I have written and sends it blank. It offends me that you think that I might try a cheap shot or a virus. The way that I treat any stranger that I come across depends entirely upon the way that they treat me. If someone speaks to me aggressively I will respond aggressively. In speaking first as the stranger, I spoke respectfully and openly, as I saw this as the best way to achieve a reply of the same nature.
Previously you have been respectful to me, but to suggest that I might try to sabotage any property belonging to another person, or that I might be attempting to 'win' anything through any method other than discussion deeply offends me. I have given you absolutely no suggestion that I have any reason to even dislike you, or your movement. I have given absolutely no suggestion that I feel any malice towards you, any other man, or any other person.
So why do you suspect me to be anything other than that which I am? I might add that any judgment you have of me has been leaped to in a very un-philosophical way.
The main point I wanted to make, before hotmail deleted it all, was this: I think you are going about your campaign in the wrong way. I will re-state the particular part that I had a problem with, in case I have taken the wrong meaning from it. "I should turn away from women and encourage other men to do so". I know I cut half of the quote off, I'm aware of what the other half says, and I'm not trying to twist meaning through editing your words.
If you turn away from women, rather than just feminists (whether the distinction can be practically made or not), then women will turn away from you. In turning away from women, you are discriminating against them (although you do have a reason, as opposed to arbitrary sexism). The feminist movement grew from women who didn't like being discriminated against, and so if you discriminate against women, you will further inflame the feminist movement.
A regular complaint on Men's Rights sites is that feminists hate all men indiscriminately, rather than the men who actually discriminate against women.
Using your logic; because some masculinists discriminate against me for being indistinguishable from a feminist, I will discriminate against all men because they are indistinguishable from masculinists. You will encourage men to turn against women, and I will encourage all women to turn against men.
Now you've actually made me a feminist, thereby worsening the situation. If this logic was universalised, and everyone was persuaded to turn against the other sex, we would have no hope of ever resolving gender conflicts.
Will it ever be possible to distinguish a woman from a feminist? Can you tell a murderer just by looking at them? I can't tell a murderer by the face, so just in case everyone I meet is a murderer, I will turn away from everyone. It's for my own safety, you see.
Of course, there is the alternative of not judging people before you know them. I mean, judging people before you take action is quicker and easier, but it does mean that you miss out on all of the okay people, and even the nice people that you might meet otherwise.
Amy
*************************************************************************************************************
It's been more than a week. why?
Amy
*************************************************************************************************************
Amy,
"And the Gileadites took the passage of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephriamites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said; Nay; Then said they unto him, say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at the time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand." --- Judges 12 vs. 5,6
From this passage in the Bible was coined the term "shibboleth" meaning something that you say which tells where you are coming from which might identify you as a political enemy. Usually I can identify an indoctrinated feminist within the first few moments of conversation. There are certain points of lingo and jingo and dogma that give it away.
It is not reasonable to expect that men will give up sex, particularly younger men. However they need not exchange half of their net worth for sex if they refrain from sharing the same address with a woman. "No fault” divorce and divorce being trivialised to the level of a haircut and common-law equivalency after one year of co-habitation makes sharing your address with a woman one of the most hazardous things you can do.
Tell me Amy, why is it that someone like androgynous Annie Lennox (who just can't seem to have a camera pointed at her without spit spraying some sort of misandrist sentiment into the microphone) can sing things like: " numa numa na No more I love you numa numa na these words have left my vocabulary numa numa na" and feminists will say "right on sister" yet MGTOW is just so unspeakably outrageous.
Not one member of MGTOW was ever recruited by a man. I was invited to attend their secret site and met the world's front runners of the MRA movement because they had read my posts on other sites. At first I thought they were nuts. But when their position was explained and clarified, I realised that it (their philosophy) was exactly what I was already doing.
Men are sexual sycophants. That is why feminism occupied our world with practically no resistance. The irony is that the leadership of feminism is virtually all lesbian misandrists. We now live in a society where lesbians who make no secret of the fact that they hate men and deem the "nuclear family" (said as if it were nuclear warhead) to be the core of the oppression of women are now the pundits of our family law system.
Ok, you were looking for a debate, "Let it be resolved that equality is neither just fair or moral".
If the thread becomes interesting I will ask your permission to post it on the blog.
Posted at 11:16 am by MAUS
Permalink
Feb 11, 2005
Fact is people are not equal...Posted by Maus
The philosopher John Stuart Mill was the one who got this whole equality thing rolling. John himself was anything but equal, he was probably one of the most intelligent people who ever lived and displayed that at an incredibly early age. But what he observed was that conventional thinking about eugenics, breeding, and hereditary aristocracy and class privilege did not produce the best leadership in society. A free society of equal legal entitlement and equal opportunity would be the best thing for all concerned. Not too long after, that notion got perverted by Karl Marx into a belief that everyone is inherently equal and that all of the world's goodies should be divided up like cake at a birthday party.
To the notion that men and women must be equal by all measures I say my left gluteus maximus is not equal in size or symmetry to my right gluteus maximus but I still manage to walk straight.
When I was attending Mount Saint Vincent I had a math prof who was the only cum laud mathematics PhD that Dalhousie has ever graduated. He is a world class mathematician and one Hell of a fun pedagogue to boot. He got shafted for tenure for no good reason other than being male. Enforced egalitarianism is actually brain haemorrhaging our intellectual and academic community in the name of a highly perverted notion of justice.
Posted at 08:47 pm by MAUS
Permalink
Feb 10, 2005
educational reform#1 posted by Maus
My first suggestion for educational reform is to stop the practice of letting a teacher or professor mark the papers of their own students. This is a fundamentally corrupt arrangement. It allows the teacher to write their own performance evaluation and opens the door to all sorts of abuse of power including sexual misconduct.
My second suggestion is that undergraduate degrees particularly in the arts do not need to cost any more than high school education and can be served up exactly the same way high school is in some of the surplus old school buildings that were once high schools.
My third suggestion is that the way to stop bullying in schools is to stop punishing the people who are bullied for defending themselves. Make it clear to the bully that the institution will not defend him from the retaliation of his or her victims if they persist in the behaviour after being warned, whereas they themselves will continue to be subject to sanctions if they are caught bullying.
Posted at 05:48 pm by MAUS
Permalink
Feb 9, 2005
Joke posted by Maus..How do you Charm the pants off a Feminazi?
How do you charm the pants off of a feminazi? Follow this procedure...note carefull attention to details of body language is critical.
(1) extend lower lip in a pout and sniffle
(2) tip chin down to chest and shake head back and forth while blinking eyes rapidly so that no indication of eye contact could possibly be alleged.
(3) in a whiney wimpy voice laced with lisping and syllabants say: "As a sensitive androgynous male I just feel SO ASHAMED....(sniff) AND GUILTY"
(4) Momentarily turn eyes up but keep chin down and say: "would you like to pee on me?...I'm sure we will both feel much better"
Garaunteed more effective than gin laced with ecstacy!!!
Posted at 08:02 pm by MAUS
Permalink
Feb 8, 2005
Manly Role Models...Maus thinks they are OK
I have an old friend named Graham. He is a descendant of John Graham the Marquis of Montrose. That might sound familiar to history buffs and those who saw the movie “Rob Roy” with Liam Neeson. The story is historic fact, just prior to the Jacobite Rebellion the entire McGregor clan was proscribed as outlaws and suffered grievous persecution for the reasons told in that movie. Robert Roy McGregor was even made to forfeit his name ( or my name’s not Rob Roy McGregor) until after his duel with Archibald Cunningham. The story is a great example of the archetypical standards to live by that men choose for themselves. For John Graham, nobility and greatness were matters of eugenics and class system acquisition of wealth. For Rob Roy, “Honour is the gift a man gives himself”.
For Archibald Cunningham, life was about opportunism, deceit, manipulation, and learning to please in a sycophantic and shallow, deceitful way. “At your service”. He was also, unlike the Scot ruffians around him, a gentle man. The 1700s saw the greatest flowering of the sort of manhood that Sir Hugo and Sir Ampersand advocate. Men were expected to be effeminate, lisping, graceful, and sycophantic, especially around women. Archibald was also a fatherless son of a whore. There was a time (before political correctness) when calling someone that would account for their utterly amoral behaviour. Charles Manson would be a good example, but these guys really seem to be able to charm women…like a snake charms a bird. Charlie spent most of his life, prior to his infamous episode, in trouble with the law for being a pimp.
For all of his “metro sexual” charm, Archibald Cunningham was “a liar, a thief, a murderer, and a violator of women”.
The epitaph “Rob Roy McGregor in spite of them” seems to be the last word in this debate.
Not all “gentle “ men are like this of course. The late Tiny Tim was an utterly harmless and charming fellow. There are certainly Miss Vickeys out there who just adore men like him. I wonder if anyone has ever done a statistical comparison study of the fan mail received from female admirers by guys like Mel Gibson or Brad Pitt vs. Tiny Tim or Tom Alda.
It would seem that Bonnie Raitt does not see things Hugo’s way.
Where have all the good men gone and where are all the gods?
Where's the great white Hercules to fight the rising odds?
Isn't there a white knight upon a fiery steed?
Late at night I toss and I turn and I dream of what i need
I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero till the end of the night
he's gotta be strong and he's gotta be fast
and gotta be fresh from the fight
I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero till the morning light
He's gotta be sure and he's gotta be soon
And he's gotta be larger than life
Larger than life
Somewhere after midnight
In my wildest fantasies
Somewhere just beyond my reach
There's someone reaching back for me
Racing on the thunder and rising with the heat
It's gonna take a Superman to sweep me off my feet
I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero till the end of the night
he's gotta be strong and he's gotta be fast
and gotta be fresh from the fight
I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero till the morning light
He's gotta be sure and he's gotta be soon
And he's gotta be larger than life
Larger than life
I the mountains neath the heavens above
Out where the lightning strikes the sea
I can swear that there's someone somewhere watching me
Through the wind and the chill and the rain
and the storm and the flood
I can feel his approach like a fire in my blood
I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero till the end of the night
he's gotta be strong and he's gotta be fast
and gotta be fresh from the fight
I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero till the morning light
He's gotta be sure and he's gotta be soon
And he's gotta be larger than life
Larger than life
Here is my notion of a hero:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/illu.htm
http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/faf/juutilai.html
Handsome brute wasn’t he? Loved the woods and loved to take his sons into the back country of his beloved Finland. Also danced the tango as well as he did everything else (much to his wife’s delight). I wonder if he would have been a bigger hit with the ladies if he learned the ukulele and how to sing “Tiptoe Through the Tulips” in a high warbling falsetto?
Posted at 06:12 pm by MAUS
Permalink
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
