No announcement yet.

Hillary Clinton's Calculated MISANDRY Called Out - please make this VIRAL

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hillary Clinton's Calculated MISANDRY Called Out - please make this VIRAL

    I know the bar is set pretty high for anything from Feminism Inc to shock you for the level of calculated cynical lies...and I know I've been away from the forums for months, working on stuff in my life and also on a bunch of MHRM articles by end of year...but his meets that high had to find my forums login and post this...please SHARE WIDELY this article below!

    And you don't have to like Slate...I almost never read them myself...but please support this Slate writer's, this MALE Slate writer's excellent article...putting his neck a liberal website...I'm not conservative however I almost never go to Slate for other reasons but google news found this today...even if you hate or dislike Slate, Benie Sanders and this male liberal writer whose article I'm quoting,...this article deserves to be supported:
    "Hillary Clinton has found a new wedge issue against Sen. Bernie
    Sanders. The topic is gun control, but the angle is gender. Clinton is
    framing Sanders as a sexist who accuses women of shouting when they
    try to speak up. It’s a lie. She’s manipulating women and abusing
    feminist anger for her own advantage."

    It’s great that we’re more aware of bigotry than we used to be. But we
    should also beware false claims of bigotry: the race card, the sex
    card, the homophobia card. In 1991, Clarence Thomas, a well-connected
    federal judge, evaded sexual harassment allegations and won
    confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court by accusing his interrogators
    of a “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks.” Benjamin Netanyahu, the
    prime minister of Israel, says anyone who advocates a boycott of his
    country “should be treated exactly as we treat any anti-Semite or
    bigot.”..racism, and anti-Semitism are real. But sometimes
    they’re fabricated.

    I won't want to get us into trouble with copyright, so no long quotes, but in bullet points, this article by William Saletan is DEVASTATING:

    * He quotes what Sanders actually said

    * It's about avoiding "angry" and "shouting" exchanges between different parts of the American public...Bernie was not talking about Hillary "shouting" but about the need for compromise where you don't have "angry" people on both sides of the guns issue just shout at each other..the need for dialogue..Yes Sanders is more "pro gun" than most Democrats and more so than I am, but his sentiment is exactly right.

    * The Slate writer then documents how Sanders used the same word "angry" at the debate while replying to a male candidate Martin O'Malley

    * Slate then points out Sanders has been using the same line for months...and for years...Hillary couldn't have "not known"...she and her campaign knew..and lied (I know they always do, but read below why this is a new level endangering ANY and all male candidates if we let this pass)

    * He then documents how it was a careful step by step cynical and deliberate choice by HRC...she was not just reacting based on (wrong) gut reaction that "Sanders must be sexist against me" because as William Saletan, the writer shows, she stepped it up bit by bit day after day...she had time to check what Sanders said, and his saying it about "angry" public not about her, and him making that analysis to male candidates, and anyone, for months and years...she knew...her campaign knew..

    This doesn't do justice to the piece but just some of the main points, really laying it out in the open...exposing the most cynical and knowing lies that they are....about as strong a piece as you can get away with..I don't like to overuse the term "mistandry" because unlike her campaign I don't believe in "playing cards" but this is not just false cries of "misogyny" this is a clear smear knowing deliberate attack at Sanders just because he is male and thinking that alone is enough that they can get away with it is false "misogyny" and false "misogyny" examples are maybe always indirectly misandry, but some are also directly misandry..this one is...

    if she gets away with it, no male candidate will be say they are already not safe...true...but this would take it to a higher level where literally nothing could be said that can't be lies about...might as well have all male candidates drop out of the race in that case...we MUST support this article!

    If the MHRM does not support the rare case of really calling out mis-use of the "sexism card" by someone sticking out their neck, and a male writer in this case so at great personal risk...that would be a big mistake...

    So, please folks, fight back, please upvote, share on social media, share the url, email to liberal and conservative male and female friends, in U.S. or outside the U.S., to anyone of any political background:

    Check it out..and even if you don't agree with how he frames everything (I don't) but if you agree Hillary needs to be called out, please support and share the article..thanks!
    Last edited by 4malelib; 10-27-2015, 01:28 AM.

  • #2
    Excellent points; my only objection is that, as a liberal, I do not consider Slate to be a "liberal" website.


    • #3
      Thanks StrongSilentType..I guess now you believe me when I said I almost never read Slate.

      But honestly it seemed and still seems to me that Slate is at least mildly liberal, from remembering the few past visits but also that when I posted this here, I glanced first at their "gender" issues least in those areas..Certainly not anti-Hillary or anti-feminist..

      Wikipedia said Slate was formed by former editor of the New Republic and later, Washington Post, which is very pro establishment but at least somewhat on the liberal side...though most recently they are under Graham Holdings, whatever that might mean. By the way, I'm progressive myself - definitely not "SJW"...I hate what they have done to that word, but what progressive used to mean, we who criticized both right-wing and Bill Clinton policies like NAFTA, cutting aid to the poor and so on.

      But I should have said something different about slate.

      What I meant to say is, based on glancing at some articles involving gender, they are not anti-feminist, they are at least mildly with the feminist view of anything that relates to gender..For example an article I just found now talked about the finding that women's bodies have higher testosterone when they just act more powerful...concluding in the end:

      Do women hold proportionally fewer positions of power because mighty, manly, testosterone-loaded men are manlier and mightier? Or do men have more testosterone because gender-based discrimination and stringent socialization have funneled women into less competitive, less powerful positions? This study suggests that, when it comes to discussing gendered bodies, the nurture factor might be just as relevant as nature
      which is a feminist frame. I know Slate has criticized some feminist groups too, but the above is a feminist way of framing the issues. While not everything in the quote is false, and women do face strong "socialization", so much is missing: the very "stringent socialization" of men, which I would add, equally if not more so, "funnels" them to certain areas including, to add what Slate didn't say, into "more stressful" and "often more dangerous" jobs that "take away from time with family" and other points one could make informed by MHRM

      Definitely Slate is not anti-Hillary...based on what I saw at the time and looking today, they have "why Hillary" would be "better than Bernie" (they say her bureaucratic background in the age of gridlock is a "plus" even while admitting she is more for "status quo". The graphic show Bernie with a frown and a smiling Hillary for contrast...Another article on Hillary with Colbert..

      So an article pointing out the fact that Hillary was lying and smearing Sanders, in an anti-Hillary website would be less surprising, and maybe not needing support for someone sticking their neck out.

      I'm just saying that at Slate they are at least somewhat of a liberal, and feminist, and definitely not anti-Hillary view. All that put together means the writer was sticking out their neck.

      For a male writer to talk about "the sexism card" being used, in our cultural and social media world was even more risky, so sticking out his neck is very true.

      Two things about the framing of the "Hillary Smeared Bernie" otherwise great article, that I would frame differently..first is the use of the word "feminist" as if it means the same as "for policies that are good" for women...I won't have to say on AVFM forums why that's a problem..but sentence they meant translates into: "the policies Bernie Sanders has worked for for decades are just as good for women as Hillary's"

      That's what he meant, but that's not true, his are better. NAFTA probably hurt some American women and definitely hurt women in sweatshops and women peasants displaced in Mexico..Another issue, conservatives might not agree but Hillary hurt American women in supporting her husband's cuts to help for the poor. And Hillary voting for the 2003 Iraq war, led to many male and some female U.S. soldiers dying for a war based on lies, but also led to a very large number of dead civilian women overseas. Hillary and Bill were in these and other ways, terrible for women. Bernie was and is much better...but the writer couldn't stick out his neck that much, so said Bernie's record is "as good as" Hillary's on issues that affect women (falsely framed as just "feminism", but they meant issues that affect women) but she gets to run on "women and children" and to lie about Bernie to smear him as sexist??

      Update...The "Hillary would make a better president" on Slate has 13.4k facebook shares..while Hillary Clinton Is Smearing Bernie Sanders as a Sexist has over 19k on facebook...keep up the good work everyone
      Last edited by 4malelib; 10-29-2015, 08:19 AM.


      • #4
        Originally posted by 4malelib View Post
        Wikipedia said Slate was formed by former editor of the New Republic and later, Washington Post, which is very pro establishment but at least somewhat on the liberal side...

        Wow, no, the New Republic is a well-known center-right magazine, and the Washington Post is generally considered center-right, as well. TNR is strongly associated with the DLC "New Democrats" who dragged the party to the right in the 1990s, favors supply-side economics (deregulation, market-based means, and lower taxes on the wealthy), is strongly pro-Israel, supported the Iraq war.... they call themselves "liberal," but they are really just trying to redefine where the center is to be even more conservative then they are.

        Originally posted by 4malelib View Post
        though most recently they are under Graham Holdings, whatever that might mean. By the way, I'm progressive myself - definitely not "SJW"...I hate what they have done to that word, but what progressive used to mean, we who criticized both right-wing and Bill Clinton policies like NAFTA, cutting aid to the poor and so on.
        Cool, I'm right there with you; I'm not criticizing you, just suggesting that maybe you should have done a little more research before calling Slate "liberal"

        Originally posted by 4malelib View Post
        What I meant to say is, based on glancing at some articles involving gender, they are not anti-feminist, they are at least mildly with the feminist view of anything that relates to gender.
        Sorry, but that's one of my pet peeves: Associating "liberal" with "feminist." There is a lot of overlap between the two groups, I grant you, but they are hardly necessarily linked.


        • #5
          I expected this from HC and am only surprised at how long it took. I am sure she will be using all of the common feminist tactics to shame all her male competition. I am convinced her efforts will be to attract the feminist and SJW votes. I hope that she does not win and can only hope for the reasonable, logical and fact based voters to turn out in superior numbers.


          • #6
            Hillary is running a *SEXIST* campaign. What else can it possibly be when she comes directly out and says that she is ONLY targeting women voters. Thus, her goal seems to be to become the VAGINA-IN-CHIEF. I think she should put it out there so we can talk about it, discuss it, assess it for style and aesthetics. Since Hillary's only real qualification in this race seems to be her VAGINA-- that's what we should be reviewing to determine her suitability.

            (Not that I actually WANT to look at Hillary's vagina-- I'm just saying)

            FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
            It's time to call it out for what it is.

            The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men


            • #7
              Interesting comments, we agree on a lot. I don't like how many have re-defined what liberal means...Unfortunately we live in a world where so many people use that term to mean those things..I personally consider Washington Post well to my right (like NY Times that also helped "sell" Iraq War) but I first tried to see if a website criticizing Hillary strongly like this one, is like Fox or Breitbart or something, and Slate isn't...Maybe I should have said: "a website that is not all with the Republican party line, and which also has pro-Hillary articles" instead...and that is still exactly why it was sticking his neck out to write that article.

              But I want to clarify I did not assume they were feminist just based on some semi-liberal articles there (like pro GLBT rights...even if also some views you and I both know are not what liberal used to mean). I based that other comment, that they use the feminist frame, based on the actual writing...So liberal or not liberal, it uses a feminist framing in at least many of its again, when they buck the system and call out HRC for playing the "sexism card" praise them and give them backing before they are crushed for daring to tell the truth.

              Gar Castle:

              I was also surprised she didn't do something this blatant earlier...partly she and her team were probably strategizing, and partly Bernie's personality and age made it harder to smear him with some anti-male "sexist" stereotypes...Whether you are politically left or not, I think those of us who support MHRM or just support honesty and are against smearing, those of us on the left need to speak out as much as we feel safe, and expose this. Even those who are not liberal, I think can make an impact on independent voters. Independent voters will hear Fox News type criticisms, but they need to near some of the reasons listed earlier in this thread why Hillary was and is bad for women, too. She voted for a war that killed tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians including women, when Bernie Sanders voted against it. Men's lives matter, we need to make that clear, too, but independent voters can maybe be talked out of being given a "guilt trip" to vote for Hillary because of her gender, by pointing out that Hillary will put Wall Street ahead of middle class women, vote for wars that are unnecessary or even based on lies that kill very large numbers of women, and will give corporate tax breaks at the expense of working class, and middle class women.

              By the way, as far as the guilt trip, it might not work as well as she hopes...I was reading the liberal or progressive The Young Turks comments on youtube, mot of their readers are liberal or progressive, and several, including one woman said, she was embarrassed by Hillary listing as "one of the reasons you should vote for me" is being a woman...This female youtube account said that was terrible.

              Obama I remember very well being asked in 2008 if he doesn't win, does that mean it's partly racism, and Obama did not hedge, he said very directly, no, if that happens, then it means I have failed to connect with voters...And I have never heard him being asked, "what are some reasons for people to vote for you", I have never once heard him ever say, "one reason is that I am black and would be the first black president"...And he would have been viciously attacked if he had said that. .But it tells you about Feminism, Inc, that it's apparently acceptable for her to say on stage when all the candidates were asked to list reasons Americans vote for them, that she thought that was a reason she could give.


              it's good to be able to use the word sexist to mean, "sexist against men"..without explanation. At other times I have encouraged the fuller phrase or even acronym, Sexism At Male Expense (SAME) and I say male not men because it starts with babies and the horrible things we do to male babies that we should never consider ok to do to female babies in the U.S.

              While I share your frustration, and it's worse than frustration, it's mind boggling what they can get away with...But despite this, I would urge that for most of us most of the time, it does more harm than good to say "vagina in chief" even though I know there is nothing "against all women" in what you meant, and I do not mean that it's wrong to ever say that word. I think it's ok to ask, "did she just tell us on stage that her having a vagina is one of her top reasons the public should vote for her for President of the United States?" Or "that she has ovaries rather than testicles is her idea of a good reason to vote for her?" We can say MHRM is right and who cares what others think, but we have to care what the independent voters and undecided think. I do not see it as self censoring, I see it as playing smart and not giving an easy attack to opponents...Don't make it easier to pain MHRM with the stereotypes that they use against MHRM about the "words MRAs love to use when they are angry". Instead raise an eyebrow and ask why SHE, Hillary, is "bringing up her gonads" or her chromosomes? Maybe because she has little or nothing to say about policy that she thinks will be more convincing to the public to vote for her.

              And about the media..Probably the media will blame lower percent votes by men than women, votes HC gets being lower percent, blamed on men not being 'fair' or not being 'objective' whether HC wins or loses. But will they analyze the opposite, whether (some) women were fooled and suckered into voting for Hillary by manipulations of the gender card by HC's campaign?

              The media shouldn't just ask whether men are unfair to Hillary by not voting for her when they otherwise would, they should also ask the opposite, which I think is far more accurate here: are women going to be fooled or manipulated into voting for Hillary, women who would otherwise vote against other candidates with the same policies as HC and same record in the past as HC, were it not for Hillary and her campaign trying to use the gender card as well as the "sexism card" as the Slate article shows so well? Or because of the campaign's and use of gender based guilt trip which they use against women voters not just against male voters. That is a question for historians to ask, too. I'm not optimistic about politics in general but maybe here U.S. women will prove in the end that they were not fooled. One can hope, but speaking is better, and spreading the word like that article did.
              Last edited by 4malelib; 10-30-2015, 03:36 AM.


              • #8
                I have been saying that Hillary Clinton is a SEXIST PIG for years. I intend to ramp up my voice as the time for election gets closer.
                FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
                It's time to call it out for what it is.

                The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men


                • #9
                  Any reasonable examination will reveal, Hil is a sexist and lesbian. She HATES men. She is ANGRY. She is incompetent, arrogant beyond reason, without any conscience whatsoever, and brutally vindictive. Her ambitions rule her.
                  This woman wants to RULE! She also wants vengeance against men. Her as president would be a nightmare.


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by StrongSilentType View Post
                    Excellent points; my only objection is that, as a liberal, I do not consider Slate to be a "liberal" website.

                    it most certainly is my friend


                    • #11
                      I think both StrongSilentType and astr592 are partly right...I have my own thoughts to share about both today's media and the leftists and liberatls 100 years ago and their thoughts about suffrage and other things..but respectfully I suggest if we get too detailed into it, that someone post a link to another thread where those important topics can be explored. As for HRC and BC and their machine and how to combat, I have some thoughts.

                      Some of these might not be easy to listen to...but honesty is important.

                      I think these forums are a reasonable place for venting as well as for mutual support and thinking about strategy. By venting being healthy I do not mean "I hate all women" is healthy but "That damn #$%$%^ Hillary cynical liar misandrist!" is fair game for venting :-) Hell my latest vent for me is have you noticed that black men can't show too much anger (Obama understood this, whether you agree with all or none or some of his policies) and it's also NOT ok for Bernie to show more than the smallest amount of anger towards a woman (Hillary) but for all the talk about society not allowing women to show anger, Hillary has already shown some and will probably show more.. But strategy is, Bernie is smart, and it would be either very dangerous or suicidal to show too much direct anger at a woman candidate, it lets some like Hillary get away with murder but it's a reality.

                      For strategy I think the opposite of venting is needed.

                      Let me put it the opposite way. The best way to do do things we'll all help Hillary and hurt MHRM is to show lots of anger. If she is ever president and takes ugly action, then, yes, lots of men in the streets with as many women allies as possible next to them will be needed and helpful..but if we don't want to give her free points, avoid the traps, even though years and years of cultural erosion leaves an unfair minefield of traps...I don't like them, but they are the reality, whether we like it or not those cultural traps are there, you'll still get smeared, but you can get smeared less if you avoid walking into the most obvious traps, and less smear is better than more, less sticking is better, less traps to walk into is better.

                      1. Stronger points to start with, it's good to start with strong points, that will win over some people who are undecided, even if they are not the most important to's something we and our audience can agree on, and show them we can make reasonable points, and chip away at the "Hillary is so great for women" idea that women and men too are being manipulated into believing.

                      A stronger point to say, starting off even, or else if you first express opposition and the person replies asking you why, don't you like women or fairness for women, is to show right off from the start how silly the connection Hillary's camp is trying to make really would be to start with things like how Hillary's voting for the Iraq war has hurt lots of women all over the world. Bernie didn't vote for it, and if Trump is your person Trump didn't vote (I'm not a Trump supporter but respect his honesty and not wanting to start yet another regime change war). giving speeches all over the world how much you love women on the one hand, and voting for the catastrophe of the Iraq 2003 was and pushing for the Libya policies leading to jihadists taking over and the country in shambles and that helps ISIS...terrible for women. If you're politically left like I am, add about Hillary and her husband cutting help for poor women back when he was president, otherwise this is good enough.

                      Male and female MHRAs can lead with this. Even gentle ridicule would work. Not some line that can be used against the MHRM like "what a c*nt witch vagina" of course...But gentle ridicule like a raised eyebrow, mention those disasters for civilian women and children and ask incredulously, "really? that'sher idea of being for women and children? A cowardly vote that got so many of them killed? that is a supposed friend of women?

                      And she did it again with Libya pushing regime change even if it means jihadists take over the place" (to Republicans, sorry, I don't buy the Benghazi stuff, but this is a far bigger and more important area and here she is guilty...she was main person pushing it and this is a hundred times worse than the sad death of a handful of diplomats, it's far worse terms of number of civilians including women killed, not to mention how those jihadists treat women. The jihadists treat the men horribly, but remember, at this stage we're demolishing the 'hillary is a friend of women' meme...there will be time later to expand the mind of your audience that men don't have it all wonderful, whether in the West or under Jihadists)

                      This can be done in several variants...

                      Eye brow raised "is THAT what you want to support in a candidate supposedly 'for women'? Really?" cool and calm slightly posh style or else Willy Wonka meme style :-)

                      2. On men's issues, obviously include men's voices centrally..but use female MHRA voices to the fullest. It's no wonder that the first and as far as I know only MHRM interview The Young Turks did was with Karen Straughan. Add Alison Tieman and others at Honey Badgers..If there are female MHRAs that are not out, but are out online, they can post to wider forums not just here

                      3. For male voices, break every stereotype. And I don't just mean to feature gay and bi and trans men, non-white men, but I mean much more than that, though those things are important too. But humor, art, poetry, things like that. And the kind of gentle ridicule that they can't, or cannot as easily, caricature as 'typical angry male" stereotype...this can be done and still express indignation. It's not easy but it can be done. Martin Luther King is one example of a male expressing righteous indignation without easily falling into 'angry male' stereotypes. Today that would probably be hard not for just those who are not black but for anyone, because just innocently saying what's wrong and candidly speaking about morality, that worked up to the 1970s I guess, after that, it's something the culture makes fun of, not just for men but everyone, but especially for men on MHRM issues it would be easy.

                      Maybe some of you in the UK have ideas. Can we borrow some UK humor, humour? Can the Monty Python Silly party style be modified? I'm kinda kidding but not entirely. Different styles work in different situations...there are MHRM press releases and articles, there are posts on typical mainstream web pages, there is talking to friends when it's safe to talk to them, talking to different things will work in different areas...but the general idea, is be smart about making it hard to caricature you. The dishonest folks will still do it, you say. Of course they will. But it's still smart to make that as hard as possible.

                      Think of being a candidate on stage. You know your opponents on stage will lie or distort your history and try to caricature you...but does that mean it doesn't matter how you speak, that your style doesn't matter? It matters a lot...make it harder for your opponents on stage to caricature you. if you're a politician at a that when they do, and you reply, you can get the audience on your side, or at least, a larger number from the audience on your side, some of the undecided, some of the independent ones, more of them than last debate...that's just being smart. It's not weak for the candidates advisers to ask them to calibrate carefully their emotions, presentation, and so on, on stage, in a debate, or with the media, it's smart.

                      Whether the three ideas above are the best, is another question. Maybe you have better suggestions..but looking for smart ways to present is not weakness, it's a big strength, that's what all candidates do. and they can do it without weakening their policies and what they are for...they can if they try, keep those positions but think about how to project and how to handle their messaging and the style and emotion and feel of it...think ahead of time of the deflections and smears your opponent candidate will use...

                      Now back to MHRM, same idea. They will try to unfairly pretend "you don't want strong women" no matter what you say...but that doesn't mean it's a waste of time to craft how we say things. It's not a waste of time for the candidate to prepare ahead of time for the debate, even though the candidate knows that no matter WHAT they say, the smears will come at them, and accusations...but it's still smart, very important, to prepare and make that harder, harder for it to stick. I did not watch the recent Republican debate (did not watch the Democratic one either) but I hear this deflection is what Rubio did to Bush...that he prepared for Bush's attacks in advance. Except for MHRM the style and tone and emotions are as important, no less important, than the substance of what is said, so it needs to be done carefully and smartly.

                      Above are some ideas that I think might be helpful with how to do that..add your to speak with friends, neighbors, to style it when posting online in comments sections of mainstream media..Don't give Hillary Clinton and her army of those who distort anything attacking her record as sexist, don't give them the meat they want...they will still bite like attack dogs, make it harder for that bite, or harder for the independent voters, the undecided, make it harder for her campaign to convince the undecided by how we conduct ourselves. Is this such a crazy idea? I don't think so..
                      Last edited by 4malelib; 10-31-2015, 04:48 AM.


                      • #12
                        I don't pretend to know much about American politics, but hello President Trump!
                        Stay single and prosper!


                        • #13
                          Any reasonable examination will reveal, Hil is a sexist and lesbian.
                          She could be bisexual you know, open marriage too....And her campaign is sexist and outright misandry is rearing its ugly head. She might also be a lesbian, but who cares? Lesbians are cool, and we shouldn't use that as an insult. I'm not sure if you meant to. Maybe you meant "political lesbian" that's something different.

                          It's not just politically smart to not be accused of being homophobic, it's also true that GLBT can be good allies, and are no worse or better a human beings on average. What I can't wait for is a big lesbian MHRA. I think Karen Straughan is bisexual. I'm sure there are lesbians out there, maybe not many but some who are allies, probably most of them too afraid to speak up. Maybe they had a male friend sexually harassed by a woman and have his complaint ignored, but had a false accusation against her go on, because the accuser is female. A lesbian doesn't get the same as a man, and in most cases not even half, but she sees the double standards in some cases. Or maybe nothing in her personal life, but just because she's a fair human being. (There was a lesbian who spent a year or some time as a male who is not an outright MHRA but said some things in that direction. She was interviewed..I forget her name)

                          Imagine the first really vocal lesbian MHRA...maybe it would need to be a lesbian couple, so they have a partner instead of being shunned...she could REALLY call out all the fake "political lesbians" and their misandrist B.S. and be a huge blow to the widespread misandry machine likes to pretend it is about "empowering women" and call out for what it is.

                          Anyway, Lesbians are cool the same way all men and women are cool or can be if they exercise personal integrity, if it's their actual orientation rather than a calculated political move to score points and gain power and get elected or personally benefit at others expense


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 4malelib View Post
                            She might also be a lesbian, but who cares? Lesbians are cool, and we shouldn't ...
                            I care Dude. people bring their agendas with them. Its just the way it is.

                            Personally I have known (though not in the biblical sense) dozens of people with non-binary gender dispositioned and/or sexually fluid preferentials ...or what ever the hell PC version of gay you'd prefer to utter.
                            Without exception they have brought their politic with them openly or um, closeted.
                            Some of 'these' people are or were close friends but the thing is that their motivations are at times very 'queer' and it is because what they want is utterly out of step with what I want.
                            this has been over at least 30 years since moving to the big smoke

                            a lesbian is a lesbian
                            radical is radical
                            misandry is misandry.

                            You know there is a lot of space in any dialogue for straight-up plain-speak. Personally, I reckon that pandering to the tone and topic police will just get you well and truly fucked.
                            What? Do you reckon there's a space you can go conversationally that yr magically gonna be listened to, reasoned with and considered intellectually simply because you used a preferential tone?
                            Can you see any unicorns capering under the rainbows out your ideological window?

                            Originally posted by 4malelib View Post
                            ... don't give them the meat they want...they will still bite like attack dogs, make it harder for that bite, or harder for the independent voters, the undecided, make it harder for her campaign to convince the undecided by how we conduct ourselves.
                            sounds to me like your proscribing what 'should' and 'shouldnt' be said. and that you reckon that pretending you aren't some cornered dog is magically save you from being an actual cornered dog.

                            They gonna chew yr arse anyway.

                            Bite me... This is what happens
                            Last edited by MatrixTransform; 10-31-2015, 11:50 PM.
                            "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

                            And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

                            "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
                            "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

                            "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam


                            • #15
                              a lesbian is a lesbian
                              radical is radical
                              misandry is misandry.
                              And equally true is that homophobia is homophobia. Of course I agree with the above three statements. I think the person who brought up HC's misandry in this thread actually. So I don't need to be reminded that misandry is misandry when was the one who brought it up in this context, ok? :-) And "radical" covers a lot of different types but that aside. I agree with the three statements. But homophobia is homophobia, and I do not hold anyone's sexual orientation against them. Nor their gender. Nor do I assume that either of these makes them an enemy. That is what I meant when I said "who cares?" Meaning, that's not relevant to how I feel about her and her campaign. The misandry and lies matter. Whether she is hetero, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, etc is not relevant, and none of them is an offence, hence, "who cares".

                              Adopting rigid assumptions we would guess that anyone who is female can't be a MHRA...except there are such people, not small group. As for sexual orientation, the "without exception" may be true for your own life, but as I pointed out one prominent female MHRA (KS) is bisexual I believe, and I mentioned in the passing a lesbian who, while not an MHRA as far as I know, certainly pushed the conversation in the right direction when she "shocked" the mainstream media with the concept that being male in society is not a piece of cake and can suck, and she refused to put women's problems as worse than male problems. That she didn't put male problems as worse than female isn't the issue. Because her example proves that "all lesbians are enemies" is simply not true.

                              sounds to me like your proscribing what 'should' and 'shouldnt' be said
                              It's called sharing one's views on other words what all of us do here.. including expressing my views on what I think are smart and winning strategies... which is exactly what I was doing that got you calling it "proscribing"...You're not "proscribing" that only you express your views on strategy right? ;-) In the case of whether Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, I was saying more than that. First, you have no idea, all of us have no idea, whether she is bisexual or a lesbian or something else. We have no idea unless she says what she considers herself. We simply don't know. There are women who have sex with other women who think of themselves as straight.

                              There are men who have sex with other men who think of themselves as straight. Some think of themselves as bisexual and identify that way and depending on what's inside their mind as well as what was a one time thing and not there usual feelings, all of these might be correct. The fact is we have no idea what Hillary is. That's the first point, one should not assume that "all opponents are lesbian", because it's simply not true. There are many opponents who are straight, so "all opponents are lesbian" is a unicorn of an idea itself.

                              Secondly, not all lesbians are enemies, and third, lesbians are not bad. The last point we can all not becoming homophobic, but the second point is simply another fact: not all lesbians act as enemies. Now if you ask about "political lesbians" that is something else, and I made the distinction between lesbian meaning someone who just happens to be sexually and romantically attracted to other women, versus a 'political lesbian' where it might mean exactly what you suggest, and where we might easily agree about her bringing in politics and views about men, "women good, men bad" and so on.

                              They gonna chew yr arse anyway.
                              I made the exact point myself, earlier on, so we definitely agree on that. But I also went on so share why I'm convinced that avoiding myths is still the smart thing to do, and not to placate the attack dogs but for other reasons..and how it's not the attack dogs one is trying to win over anyway. The people we want to convince to support the MHRM and eventually to join it, is the largest group. It's not like everyone is either part of the MHRM, or else, they are the attack dogs, who will attack no matter what you say. Most people are in neither group!

                              Lastly, it's got nothing to do with "pandering to the tone and topic police" to understand that the LGBT community are not our enemies. It's not pandering to be smart enough to not assume enemies are lesbian (false: lots of straight opponents of MHRM out there, as I think you must have noticed...surely you know that very well) and it's not pandering to anything to not make the opposite mistake and assume that anyone who is bisexual or gay must be an opponent. Most of all it's not got anything with the "police" (or the attack dogs) to be smart about the people who we really care about their reactions, and whether we win them over, and that is that very large third group. Why would we want to hurt the MHRM by getting ALL of these things wrong? In other words, I'm not only against homophobia, but even if I thought homophobia was completely acceptable, I'd still reject all the false assumptions that "all lesbians and bi women are enemies" and "all enemies must secretly be lesbians" and I'd still reject them as being harmful to winning over the public.

                              Just because I'm not venting doesn't mean I don't share your frustrations. I usually vent off the forums, though I do vent here too sometimes, but I prefer to post about strategy...after I've cooled off from the latest outrage, I like to step back and think about winning...that doesn't mean I don't find myself wanting to scream at or about Hillary and her handlers or anyone else, ok? And venting and mutual support are very important, I am sure of that. They are important in reclaiming dignity never mind healing. But we don't want that important act to get us confused about basic facts, like whether all enemies are lesbian or vice versa. I can think of a movement that lets its frustrations (doesn't matter if they are real or imagined) and gets carried away with those frustrations into harming its own movement and slowly destroying itself. I think you know what movement I'm talking about...hint, start with the letter "F" ;-) Let's not make that mistake...I'm leaving not only the hate and lies to others, I also think we should leave self destructive myths to them and others too..

                              And if anyone isn't familiar with the phrase 'poltiical lesbian' it does not mean a lesbian who happens to be politically active, it means a "lesbian" in quotation marks, who calls herself that for political reasons, of a certain mindset (see attack dogs reference above)
                              Last edited by 4malelib; 11-07-2015, 04:16 AM.