| |
Only women warrant protection?
(Title VII was intended) to redress the historical subordination of...women in the workplace. ...When people of the same gender sexually harass each other, their conduct never amounts to discrimination because of gender as required by Title VII.
- Harry Reasoner, chief lawyer, Nabors Offshore Corporation, Sundowner Rigs, The Seattle Times December 2, 1997
Another case of men interpreting the law primarily as a means of protecting women.
Primetime penis hate?
I have spent more than enough time with this penis...petition...snicker snicker
- Judging Amy, on the subject of male genital mutilation, March 28, 2000
When it's female genital mutilation in a foreign country, Hollywood is beside itself with indignation, but when it's male genital mutilation in America, it's a big joke. Misandry by any other name,...
Changing the course of history?
Betty being monstrous in the pursuit of her goals doesn't bother me at all. She changed the course of history almost single handedly and it took a "monster" perhaps, a driven, super-aggressive, egocentric, almost lunatic dynamo to rock the world the way she did. Unfortunately, she was that same person at home, where this kind of conduct doesn't work.
- Carl Friedan, Betty Friedan's ex-husband, CarlFriedan.Com
By that logic, we should not be surprised to find Carl Friedan lauding Hitler, who also changed the course of history and has been called monstrous.
Not that we should compare her with Hitler - she did accomplish good things, and, at least in the beginning she was not anti-male. But from the start she told lies, and those lies helped precipitate the true believers who picked up where the sedate academic scribblers of the 1950s left off. Fanatics who changed the course of history by oppressing men to liberate women, which as we can see with growing clarity is no liberation at all.
Yet, Betty Friedan's ex-husband's only complaint is that in the process of inadvertently precipitating a war against men which cost thousands of men their lives and destroyed tens of thousands of families, her "monstrous" activities hurt him, too.
When I shared this with Mr. Friedan, he replied "Everyone to his own opinion."
The dead may be silent, but they are not an opinion.
Political pawns?
In this country, using children as political footballs has become routine. What's in a child's best interest varies according to the interests of those who profess to champion that child's rights.
- Marcia Ann Gillespie, Editor in Chief, Ms. June/July 2000
This from the crowd famous for using children in their war against men?
What goes around come around?
The attitude toward women's anger - automatically viewed as irrational and/or a destructive force aimed at men - purposely discounts and obscures the fact that, indeed, there is cause for anger.
- Editors, Bitch magazine, Issue No. 12
For the past 20-odd years, women + rage = power, while male anger equaled a threat to women, criminal behavior summed up in the words "he made me afraid," which are frequently sufficient to send a man to jail.
From government agencies to the cop on the beat, the official view is male anger is a threat while female anger is a righteous response to a buhzillion years of men oppressing women. So why the whining? Maybe, it's because that's all they know how to do.
Racism by any other name
I name Bryant Gumbel, Michael Jordan, and Will Smith as the few white men I would date.
- Sofia Quintero, Ms. April/May 2000
So, any black guy who is successful without acting like a jerk is "white." What a racist thing to say.
Feminazi propaganda?
And speaking of Austria, the Associated Press reports that Reform party candidate Patrick Buchanan thinks the brouhaha over the inclusion of right-wing, anti-immigrant politician Jorg Haider's Freedom party in the Austrian government is "an indication that any candidate on the right can expect universal hostilities." Haider, you'll recall, has lauded the Nazis' "orderly employment policy" and praised former members of the Nazi Waffen SS.
- Kate Rounds, Ms. April/May 2000
The last thing I would want is to be labeled a Nazi-sympathizer, but Rounds' comments demonstrate either a serious ignorance of history, or propaganda of the lowest kind.
To recognize the good a criminal has done is not the same as condoning their criminal acts. Or, would Ms. Rounds have us believe she opposes such social policies innovated by the Nazis as Social Security, environmental sensitivity and national fitness programs?
Many scholars have praised the employment policies of the Nazis without embracing their ideals.
What do you think? Talk about it on the Equalitarian Discussion Forums or join The Backlash! discussion list.
|
|
|