When in Trouble, Blame a Man

[blackice]

no biggy

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Wow, I never realized I was so oppressed. I guess I deserve the easier time in life I get being a man, the higher salaries, no one cutting me off in mid-sentence, no one patronizing me, people taking my opinion seriously, etc.

You must know some pretty meek women che. Most of the ones that I know don't tolerate it and in fact are often the ones that do all those things that you described. Not because they are women, but because of their personality. Women aren't owed anything and neither are men.

[Shi Huangdi]

Comeon, I really think all these attacks on blackice are unfair. Yes, blackice definitely has societal injustices agaisnt men as his "big issue" on Apolyton. But can anybody here provide any quote from blackice saying he hates women in general? Heck, he just said on another thread:

"To lump one sex or the other like this is simply wrong.

Each sex is made up of people all different and all with their own unique personality. Some are good some are bad. "

All blackice can be said to be "Guilty" of is havign a fixation on one particular topic, but that could be said of lots of posters(for instance, Sten Sture and economics threads). If the topic blackice is posting about doesn't interest you, dont read it- simple!


"Wow, I never realized I was so oppressed. I guess I deserve the easier time in life I get being a man, the higher salaries, no one cutting me off in mid-sentence, no one patronizing me, people taking my opinion seriously, etc."

I don't think anyone will question there aren't serious problems women face in society, but just because women often have a hard time of it doesn't mean it is ok when men fight an injustice. In fact, it is perhaps more important to call attention to these "men's issues" because many aren't aware there are any problems.

One thing though blackice, for a better example of the double standard you are talking about it'd be bettle to look at the Yates trial. She murdered 5 of her children, but got alot of sympathy because she suffered Post-Partum depression. Afterwards, alot of blame got shifted to the husband and there were alot of people who wanted to prosecute him.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
One thing though blackice, for a better example of the double standard you are talking about it'd be bettle to look at the Yates trial. She murdered 5 of her children, but got alot of sympathy because she suffered Post-Partum depression. Afterwards, alot of blame got shifted to the husband and there were alot of people who wanted to prosecute him.

Was the Yates case really a double standard? If it had been a man with a long history of mental illness, would public sympathy have been any different?

As far as the Barton stuff, it sounds like the common defence tactic of let's find someone or something to blame, rather than "When in trouble, blame a man."

This is the problem with Blackice's posts. He often raises valid points, but then he always goes to the extreme of saying "ah hah, another example of how women are trying to screw men again. The system is stacked against men."

He's cried wolf far too many times.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Was the Yates case really a double standard? If it had been a man with a long history of mental illness, would public sympathy have been any different?"

Maybe it would, but I'd really doubt their would be calls to prosecute the wife......

"This is the problem with Blackice's posts. He often raises valid points, but then he always goes to the extreme of saying "ah hah, another example of how women are trying to screw men again. The system is stacked against men." "

Blackice has provided examples of ways women try to screw men before, though I am sure he would also admit women face a multitude of problems. If the topic he raises doesn't interest you, you don't have to respond to it. If you disagree with his conclusions on something, then feel free to argue them.

[blackice]

He's cried wolf far too many times.

Examples of that would be?

Yates yes we covered that one too

A balance would be nice yes both sexes deserve equality period. Now all you have to do Tak is look up funding based on gender to see inequality.

As with any social change of this magnatude there is always an imbalance. It takes awareness and action to get equality, just ask a woman activist.

A good example of this would be schooling. After the great push by womens groups to keep all girls schools and ban all boys schools. The powers at be now see this as a huge error. Boys education is going down hill, schools are geared towards the female though process and boys are falling behind. Social change is nice and needed sometimes but it must be thought out not just acted on because someone screems the loudest.

Men's rights have been stomped on big time especially where their children are concerned. This is all I am saying and trying to bring some awareness to the issue. I have many other interests with one basic theme injustice.

As far as "ah hah another example" "of Injustice" is a better way of putting it. Each and every post has been just that with the basic theme being an injustice towards men yes.

"ah hah, another example of how women are trying to screw men again. The system is stacked against men."

In these areas I have posted they are you have yet to provide any information to counter this fact.

Was the Yates case really a double standard? If it had been a man with a long history of mental illness, would public sympathy have been any different?

Yes and further they would not go after the wife because she drove him to it with her extreme monthly mood changes...

Shi Huangdi It is clear you see what I post for what it is. thanks for your understanding

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Read the article? I fell off my chair howling in laughter when I read this part.

"In reality, the evidence is greater that Terry, not John, was emotionally abusive. Terry put the lives of thousands of people at risk, and then attempted to frame an innocent man for it, knowing that he could go to prison as a result. "

Glenn Sacks' other columns...

http://www.glennsacks.com/columns.php

Forgive if I read these with a spot of skepticism. I can't say I expect unbiased reporting.

[blackice]

"If you read them" is the key here chances are you will not. You dismiss this as if you know all there is to know.

"In reality, the evidence is greater that Terry, not John, was emotionally abusive. Terry put the lives of thousands of people at risk, and then attempted to frame an innocent man for it, knowing that he could go to prison as a result. "

I find nothing funny about that comment at all. Maybe you could enlighten us with what you found so funny about this Ron?

Most of these articles are extremely news worthy and unbias. You should take some time to read about the issues before you dismiss them simply because it destroys your illusions.

Tomorrows stories include NOW, heard of them Ron? Dna testing is another know the problem there RON?

My guess is no you don't, my guess is you do not want to know. My last comment is why do people post in threads they have no interest about? Seems like a complete waste of time to me. Do you not have some love muffin to impress?

[blackice]

An example of NOW's power most men here scoff at this type of comment. Bruce (Tammy) was the head of the California chapter of NOW ( National Organization for Women). Here is a tidbit of the power RON:

During the Simpson trial, she wrote to Judge Lance Ito and complained that he was treating prosecutor Marcia Clark with less courtesy than he was lavishingýon the male attorneys. At Ito's invitation, Bruce and a fellow NOW leader went to the judge's chambers for a private, off-the-record meeting. Afterward, Ito seemed to treat the female prosecutor with greater respect. "Although that event did not have an impact on the trial's eventual outcome," Bruce writes, "it's an example of a kind of activism that can and must be engaged in."

It's also the kind of activism that, had Simpson been convicted, might well have triggered a reversal. Judges aren't supposed to meet with partisans in the middle of a trial, even partisans seeking nothing more than courtroom courtesy.

Ten bucks says most of you had no idea this leftist's feminist group had this type of power...Wait till you see what I post tomorrow

[Asher]

Good for them, I like strong women.

[Faboba]

Originally posted by blackice

I find nothing funny about that comment at all. Maybe you could enlighten us with what you found so funny about this Ron?

I think he was trying to put the funny part in context by quting the end of the extract. The amusing section is the examples of 'other work' by the author which paints a picture of.... um.... let's just say a definite trend...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by blackice
An example of NOW's power most men here scoff at this type of comment. Bruce (Tammy) was the head of the California chapter of NOW ( National Organization for Women). Here is a tidbit of the power RON:

During the Simpson trial, she wrote to Judge Lance Ito and complained that he was treating prosecutor Marcia Clark with less courtesy than he was lavishingýon the male attorneys. At Ito's invitation, Bruce and a fellow NOW leader went to the judge's chambers for a private, off-the-record meeting. Afterward, Ito seemed to treat the female prosecutor with greater respect.

Judges aren't supposed to meet with partisans in the middle of a trial, even partisans seeking nothing more than courtroom courtesy.

Ten bucks says most of you had no idea this leftist's feminist group had this type of power...Wait till you see what I post tomorrow

This is a prime example of crying wolf. Blackice talks about the power of "leftist feminist groups," but what actually happened here is pure conjecture.

Note that there is no proof that Ito changed his style. There are no facts to indicate what was said in the meeting (Ito may very well have told them to piss off or face a contempt charge).

Yet, Blackice jumps to the conclusion that NOW has some type of power.

[blackice]

Actually Tak it is well documented that in fact he did change his tone with her after the meeting. Tak the real point you missed is he met with this group read the lines again. What other group or person has this kind of influence? List them for us ok? It was also in the news at the time.

Speaking of crying wolf...you would do better at this subject if you knew something about it. That is something I have proven time and time again you don't know a thing about any of this. Your stance has been to try and discredit the messenger without facts and or substance. I guess I win ten bucks from you anyway...

[blackice]

The amusing section is the examples of 'other work' by the author which paints a picture of.... um.... let's just say a definite trend...

I still see nothing amusing about it? The author reports on injustice in a certain area why is that amusing? Do we find reporters writting about war as their focus amusing? What about hunger in africa several reporters do that exclusively is that amusing too?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by blackice

"In reality, the evidence is greater that Terry, not John, was emotionally abusive. Terry put the lives of thousands of people at risk, and then attempted to frame an innocent man for it, knowing that he could go to prison as a result. "

I find nothing funny about that comment at all. Maybe you could enlighten us with what you found so funny about this Ron?

Sure thing.

What's John going to go to prison for, exactly? Allegedly writing a nasty letter? All evidence of which has been totally destroyed? Man, that's a strict law.

Or is it due to allegedly being emotionally abusive? Alleged by someone. Presumably. From that, someone else has alleged that possibly this might mean he's violent. It's not said who is actually alleging this, so I'll assume it's Brenda who milks the goats. Is Brenda's word law? Or is this just a load of panicky gossip parading as the word of law in the global conspiracy against evil men.

You see, there are holes in this exercise of dressing editorial up as fact that even a woman driver could reverse a truck through. It also chooses to ignore the fact that John's probably going to get the house and kids now. Assuming, of course, that he wants them, being the good man that he is. I'd put money on that one, seeing as there's a good chance Ms Zippo is going to do time.

It's rubbish, blackice. That's why I laughed at it.