I wrote the following on PUMA PAC regarding PUMA PAC's article about the mass murder at a movie premiere of the Batman Movie.
...DailyPUMA 08.03.12 at 1:21 pm
Are you sure there was no other way to discuss the mass killing than simply saying that all men are scum? I would like to point out that your blog does not endear itself to male Hillary Clinton voters. So I have to ask, are you really Hillary Clinton supporters since her popularity dips among men who connect her to blogs like yours?
I then wrote something to the effect of....
Many men died in that theatre that night taking a bullet for their beloved, actually diving in front of the bullets to save the life of the person they loved. Why not write about them?
The comment above in bold underline was deleted without my consent or knowledge, presumably because it made them realize how much they hate men.
I DID NOT write what is below, someone with access to the comments edit function added it in.
What kind of "journalist" changes someone else's words? In my opinion, not one who is mentally well. "PUMAPAC, hating men since they started blogging", and taking Hillary Clinton down with them. Even the "you will not be hearing from me again" they falsely attribute to me simply means they banned me from responding.
The irony is on another blog called "Stupid PUMAS", I posted comments several times calling the moderator out for defaming Murphy while not using their own real name, but the moderator never posted my comments.
11 comments:
That is absolutely reprehensible. I really don't understand how anyone could write something like that then attribute it to you. That's crazy. (I did note that "impotence" worked in there, a favorite bullshitism for anyone wanting to slam men.)
I don't think it was Murphy, probably one of the henchwoman. You know, the ones that don't hate men.
Asking what Louis C.K. did that was offensive to feminists, (even though it turns out that gay feminist comedians have said virtually the same thing), and just telling the truth that four prominent women played a huge role in enabling male news personalities and late night talk show hosts to verbally attack Hillary Clinton in 2008, seems to have set off a wave of feminist hostility.
It would not surprise me if somewhere along the way a road leads back from these angry feminists to Huffington Post, Hillary Clinton's biggest nemesis of 2008 and beyond, and someone who I have criticized on this and other blogs.
I quit HuffPo in disgust in 2008; I believe the trail might well lead back there.
So Murphy is in on it as well. I find it surprising that someone who has a "PAC" and solicits for donations would actually falsify the words of others, in writing no less.
Hillary Clinton would be proud. (not)
The New Agenda most definitely is connected to the Huffington Post. Amy Siskind gushed that when Huffington Post tweeted a link to her twitter site that she got literally thousands of new members.
Isn't that special.
I was misquoted on that site and when I tried to respond I was denied a chance to respond. Thankfully Siskind unfriend me on facebook
How can feminists be in bed politically with Huffington when she was the number one reason Hillary Clinton did not win in 2008?
Huffington has written about her contempt of the Clintons in the past.
Alessandro, I can assure you that real feminists don't care much for Huffington. I had no idea about New Agenda's relationship with her, as I am no longer a member of TNA. I admire some of their work, but absolutely do not agree with their practice of supporting female candidates, whether or not they are pro-choice.
Things were different in 2008, when some of us supported McCain/Palin. It's a new day, now, and IMO if you value gender equality and reproductive rights, you had better be careful about supporting anyone who does not - male or female.
I've heard the arguments - and the rhetoric that both parties use the abortion issue to control women. Hell, I made the same argument in 2008. But, as I said. Different day. Different time. We had better remain vigilant. Women's rights are diminishing.
Re: Puma Pac - I don't mean to be insensitive, but the male bashing may be just a reaction to the good ole boys who have been in charge of this country, and especially, of women, women's rights, women's roles, and everything else from the beginning.
I don't think you can understand it if you are not a woman. Every oppressed group has received more validation and more concern than we women. And, as one, I can tell you, we're getting way passed fed-up with it.
I know you, personally, are not responsible, and I have nothing against you. Nor do I hold my son, my husband, and other men whose intentions I know are not to diminish me, responsible. But, I do hold men as a group responsible, and I'm pissed. There's a segment of women I'm not too happy about either - the ones who think a woman's place is secondary to a man's. We don't even need to go there.
I'm not excusing Puma PAC, nor would they want me to. I appreciate and enjoy the blog, but would not presume to speak for them. Obviously, your words should not have been altered by anyone. I've had the same thing happen on another blog, and it's infuriating and a violation.
Some women, and I happen to be one of them, have learned to expect to be on their guard around men, since many males have less than no regard for self-proclaimed feminists. I tend to lash out first and ask questions later, at times. Maybe this is what happened. Again, not justifying or excusing - just trying to unapologetically shed a little light on the mindset many of us women have.
What I have deciphered from the militant feminists (not to be confused with feminists) is that men do not have safe harbor anywhere within that group.
Virtually any response a male might take in regards to women's topics or situations is meant with suspicion.
Support can be viewed by militant feminists as "we don't care what you think", saying something nice or positive can be interpreted as "and we care what you think, why?"
It's just a bunch of suspicion no matter what a male may state or respond.
The reason it matters in regards to Hillary Clinton is that Hillary Clinton has a lot of male support, but I fear it will soften if the primary female groups that out front and center are for the most part militant and anti-male.
When Dances with Pumas writes, the worst women on the planet is still better than the best male, and then others chime in in agreement, there is no wiggle room for accommodation with those who are different.
I understand what you're saying. You're right about a lot of Hillary supporters being male. Should she decide to run for president in the future, I hope that they will continue to support her regardless of issues with "militant feminists".
If you will permit an opinion. I think the male population, as a whole, would be met with less distrust by some (not all) feminists if they would actively support women's rights - independently of their involvement in a particular candidate's campaign. I have read your blog for a long time, now, and recognize that you do that. However, I don't believe that most men become genuine activists for women's rights - without an additional agenda.
On the other hand, white women came early to the fight, and fought fiercely for for the rights of African Americans. We brought that same passion for equality to the fight for gay rights. Whether gay or straight we rallied, protested, demanded equal rights for the GLBT community. Granted, there has not been total success with either of these causes. But, damn, at least we tried.
I haven't seen that same fight and passion for gender equality by African American activists (other than maybe, Fredrick Douglas) or by members of the GLBT community.
A little reciprocity would be nice. As a group, women have not been accorded the concern for equal rights that they have extended to other oppressed groups.
Note - when I referred to "white women" in the above post, I did not intend to overlook or minimize the role of black women. Obviously, they were fighting for the rights of all African Americans, as well. Historically, blacks have been thought to be less supportive of gay rights, but I make no assertion as to whether that's true, or not. I'm sure that both black and white women worked for gay rights.
In other words "I ain't racist, dammit". lol
The problem I have with the patriarchal movement is that it does not admit that women also enjoy some benefits as well.
First and foremost, if a woman simply decides she wants a divorce, there is no pressure to dissuade her, and the likelihood that she will receive a significant contribution from her former husband is there as well.
Both men and women go through "stages" in their life. If a married woman simply decides she is "bored", she can end the most meaningful relationship in her husband's life and emotionally damage him going forward, and get compensated for doing so. How does that reality fit into a patriarchal society?
If the patriarchal movement can't acknowledge that men can also be victimized by what I call daffy women, then the movement is strictly a women's movement. If the patriarchal movement is spearheaded mainly by lesbians, than it is basically a masculine oriented power grab by a group of woman who just hate men for reducing their chance to have access to more women.
Gays have the right to complain about gay bashing, some women (and probably a higher percentage of lesbians than exist in society) clamor against men via patriarchy.
So where is the love for the good men? I don't see it. Probably because Nice people, both male and female, are just not taken as seriously as others.
Post a Comment