"Chris" wrote in message
news

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:11:14 -0500, "Phil #3"
wrote:


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Phil #3" wrote in message
m...

"Kenneth s." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:04:16 +0200, "Dusty" wrote:

"Bob W" wrote in message
news:GrmdnVy8AvCSCTvXnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@earth link.com...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


[snip]

[snip]

The whole thing is too little, too late. The FIRST necessity is to
consider and treat BOTH parents as equals, which would solve the whole
problem but that isn't gonna happen until men, as a group, get radical
and vocal.

That's all well and good Phil, but there's a major flaw in that idea..
(1)
men are being picked off one-by-one wither they are vocal about it or
not
and (2) try as we might, there is no central figure for men to rally
around.

I hate to say it, but most people are sheep and will only follow those
in
front of them, even if it's over a cliff. The lack of a central,
organized hub, if you will, to grease the wheels and keep them turning
in
the right direction is what is required for the MRM to take flight.

Part of the problem is that there are many, many splinter groups that,
much like the Red Queen, are after someone's head. This in turn is
what
feeds the media to portray everyone in the MRM as a nut-job. Which
leads
us to another part of the problem, lack of media support or good,
pro-father stories in the media. A good deal of that can be laid at
the
feet of the Hollywood elite by their constant portrayals of men as
complete dopes and utter fools. After being fed a steady diet of "Dad
is
a Buffoon" for nearly 30 years the public buys into it, hook, line and
sinker without ever raising an eyebrow.

Reverse this and people will demand heads on platters. An unlikely
example of this is David Letterman and his so-called joke about former
Governor Palin's daughter. People who heard it wanted Letterman's head
in
a pike for insulting a young girl and insinuating that rape would be
good
for her. But whereas people went into an uproar over this happening to
a
female, not a peep was heard about a demand for Letterman to apologize
to
the MAN he slighted as her would-be rapist!

There's a lot of work yet to be done before we can even think of
getting
into the ring with the girls.

That was the "radical" part I mentioned: getting politically active and
unified, which would be a radical change in the way men act and react.
This
whole anti-male mindset of which you speak has come about since the
1960's
when women became intensively politically active.
Of course men, who have historically been forced to work to support
women,
are at a disadvantage but it is not insurmountable.
How exactly did we wind up with three liberals at the head positions of
governement (Obama, Reid, Pelosi)? By a majority of women and minorities
who
are most likely to benefit from liberal politcs, taking and active part
of
the process while the majority of men ignored it at their own peril.
Approximately 63% of voters were from urban areas and 66% under the age
of
30 voted for Obama. Nearly 100% of black voters cast ballots for Obama
then
flatly state that anyone who opposed his policies do so because of
racism...
and no one bats an eye.

Nearly every commerical is based in a stupid, childish, lazy and/or
incompetent father/husband with a wise, competent, hard-working and
mature
mother/wife as are many of the TV shows (Roseanne, Home Improvement,
etc.),
and for many this becomes real-life; almost a documentary. And men ignore
it, even buy into it.

Phil #3


"In the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up." (Warren
Farrell)

Phil (and Warren Farrell) have hit the nail on the head. In
my more than 20 years of involvement in these issues, I've often asked
myself WHY men are unable to respond to the threats against them by
getting organized to defend their own interests.

One answer, I think, is that heterosexual men -- to put it
bluntly -- want to get laid, and they think (probably correctly) that
their appeal to women will be diminished if they appear to be gender
warriors on behalf of their own sex. Notions of gallantry are another
element.

Additionally, and more likely, the men that assault other men's human
rights do so for the same reason. Typical animal behavior.


One thing that needs to be done is for men to overcome their
reluctance to speak out about discrimination against men in such areas
as family law, health, and the media. My attitude is that, if
speaking out turns off some women, then so be it. Women who fail to
see the grotesque bias against men in so many areas are not worth
cultivating anyway.

But let THEM experience sufferage from the same issues and suddenly they
have a different (bittersweet) attitude about it. A recent immigration
issue comes to mind. A local government attempted to make it against the
law to provide housing to illegal immigrants. The ACLU QUICKLY intervened
which ultimately killed the proposal. Thing is, their actions of
protecting the illegals resulted in protecting landlords from prosecution
for renting to such illegals. Needless to say, they ACLU was not too
excited about it since they hate landlords.

Note: This very same government had absolutely NO problem selling
utilities to the illegals! The hypocrite meter goes off the scale.


Interestingly enough, there was an attempt several years ago
to get all the various U.S. groups involved in men's issues to come
together. I wasn't involved, but I heard that a major problem was
that many of the groups would cooperate only on the basis that other
groups would join their organizations, not that an umbrella group
would be formed to take in all the groups. The only thing on which
there was widespread agreement was that men were discriminated against
in health matters. The Men's Health Network was formed, and has done
good work in getting more attention -- and funding -- devoted to such
matters as prostate cancer.

Women's health care by far exceeds men's, as shown by the significant
difference in average lifespan. Yet the government people STILL promote
women's (as opposed to men's) healthcare, somehow proclaiming that not
enough is being done for women. But what do you expect from a
matriarch............


And it's not limited to government. For an example, Coca-Cola is promoting
women's heart health with their diet Coke as if men didn't have heart
disease or die from it. (Like breast and prostate cancer, the numbers are
similar)
Just about everywhere one looks, there are incentives, promotions and events
slated for women, women's health and the like, at best only a very few for
men.
The only way I know to fight sexism from corporations is to boycott their
products and write an occasional letter of disapproval of their actions to
them. I don't have a problem with coke funding research for heart health, I
just think promoting women's health is sexist since it touches men as well
and in nearly equal numbers. (I suppose the fact that more women are obese
has something to do with Coca Cola choosing diet coke as their product to
promote it, it is, after all, just a grab for money).
Nearly every accidental work-place injury and death is to men yet no one
notices. Can you imagine the uproar if 90-some percent of those killed in
workplace accidents were women?

Phil #3