Hey All

[Warren DeMontague]

Okay, first off, I think we've settled the "safe haven" question. If anyone has ideas for additions or changes to the SOP, please chime in. I'm okay with "discuss issues of interest to men" because it's pretty broad and open, which is sort of what I think would be good for this group.

So... Warren who? (there are a couple of us)

Let me run down a few relevant points about myself, so everyone is clear and we're all good. Obviously, if anyone has a problem with where I'm coming from, esp. to the point of me not taking the #2 slot here, by all means, let me know in this thread. It's cool. I just want to be sure everyone is on the same page right off the bat.

I joined DU in 2004, not long after going to DC for the march for womens lives. With 1.2 million other people including family members I marched for reproductive choice. Choice, freedom, personal self determination... these are BIG issues for me.

First off, just so we're clear- I do NOT consider myself an "MRA" or men's rights activist or any of those things. It's just not where I'm at. I am, of course, a firm believer in equal rights for EVERYONE. Men do face unique challenges in our society and our world, that should not be forgotten- and obviously this would be an excellent place to discuss that sort of thing. That said, I also am personally of the opinion that we as men do have a responsibility to acknowledge the historical precedence of male--- maybe 'privilege' is too loaded a word, but certainly men have not been an oppressed group such as some others in history.

(Of course, men have also overwhelmingly been the ones to die in the wars, but that's another kettle of fish for another thread)

And so, with all the noise in H/M, I do understand the arguments some have had around this group and the concept of "men's rights". Like "Caucasian rights", or "Christian rights", I mean one has to acknowledge the reality that coming from a majority group or group that has enjoyed historical advantages, such a term can sound, at best, absurd if not flat-out obnoxious.

Like I said, I want this out on the table from the get-go. I do believe that men have had certain historical advantages, I get that some may not agree with that assessment, but it is my opinion and it's not going to change.

I haven't gone through all the links in the FAQ, I am generally in favor of data, data, and more data. I like science and I think information in and of itself is value-neutral. So if there are things in our society about the way, for instance, boys are being educated and integrated into the workforce, that to me isn't "women vs. men over jobs", it's "how can we meet the educational needs- perhaps the different needs- of boys as well as girls?".

I am in full agreement with Jeff that the host (now hosts) can't be held responsible for everything people say or may say. Personally, I can't abide anyone advocating violence, justifying violence, or even trying to 'explain' the rationale behind violence. Not cool. The member in question who caused the issues in H/M has been PPR'd.

What I'd personally like to see for this group is a low-key, low-stress, non confrontational area for open discussion on a whole range of topics, again, of interest to men... which covers a pretty broad area, I should think. I also think this should be a bigotry-free zone, a homophobia free zone, a LGBTransphobia free zone, a misandry and, yeah, misogyny free zone... Probably can't keep it from being a misanthropy free zone just due to my personality, but that's what I'd like to see.

Hope everyone's cool with this.

[Upton]

1. Yeah, as men historically we've had some advantages..

but we've also had a major disadvantage that is class, but mostly gender based. You glossed over it, the radfems ignore it,..it's called conscription. It only ended in 1973. And it still remains a contingency plan. I couldn't find a number for males but how many US women have died or been mutilated after being forced into the military against their will?

Both sexes have problems that are unique to their gender. There is absolutely no reason we shouldn't be allowed to talk about the challenges facing men here at a mainstream Democratic sight. Well, unless the Democratic party is actively trying to discourage participation by white heterosexual males. I would hope that's not the case.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. I sort of touched on that, and yeah, i would hope this would be a good place to talk about it.

I kicked the thread back up about increasing male particiption and turnout for Dems, too. Good question.

[4th law of robotics]

3. I'd say about 10% of men have enjoyed some great advantages

the top 10% that is.

Those below that? Not so much.

So if you average in the people who are doing amazingly well with those who are not you might get on average that men are doing better. That doesn't mean that the average man is swimming in luxury though.

Any more than Oprah is proof that black women have it great.

For instance, if you aren't among the elite and you have that y chromosome you are more likely to:

die younger
die violently
be incarcerated
be drafted
suffer from mental illness
be addicted to drugs
be homeless
flunk out of highschool
never attend college
be diagnosed with a learning disability
face jail time for just about any kind of crime

and so on.

I don't see any of those things as a privilege that I should feel guilty for enjoying.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. I'm not real big on guilt, personally.

[trumad]

19. You and that fucking conscription shit.

Were you ever drafted? Fuck no!

Shit you didn't even serve in the military so what gives you the right to even discuss it.

How many women have voluntarily served in the Military and were killed or tortured?

Here's one for you. Maj. Rhonda Cornum
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/us/female-pow-is-abused-kindling-debate.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Fucking tough guys who never served but spout shit ---Douchebag Extraordinaire.

[Upton]

20. How do you know if or how I've been affected by the draft?

Answer is you don't..and you're not going to bait me into revealing, or as in your case BSing about, the kind of personal information you do.

Oh, and if you wish to continue trash talking..Sports would be the better group. Otherwise, I suggest you tone it down while you spout your great leader's talking points.

[trumad]

21. Bait you?

Dude---2/504 82nd Airborne right here and proud of it... Devil in Baggy Pants.

What---you going to keep your creds secret?

Dude---I can smell a Chickenhawk a mile away.

[Upton]

22. At least we're getting somewhere..

I'm glad to see you've taken my advice and stopped boasting about those other figures. As you've found out, it was clearly not in your best interest.

Oh, and the term "Chickenhawk" really doesn't apply here. As it's generally used to describe someone who hasn't served but is a reliable advocate for war.

One more thing...perhaps you can answer the question I originally posed:

How many US women have died or been mutilated after being forced into the military against their will?

[Upton]

24. Believe what you wish..

My point is that conscription was a major disadvantage for males, particularly lower class, lower income males, for over 100 years. Something that often gets overlooked. I don't see how that can even be argued with.

Now, if that meets your definition of "going after the women"..so be it. I've never taken your opinions into consideration in the past...what makes you think I'm going to start now?

[Broderick]

25. Never been a politician but I discuss politics

Sometimes freedom of speech is important to consider and sometimes even if one has not served, maybe by chance they have family members that did or do and lost their life even. Maybe acquaintances and friends served and shared their thoughts. Can't shut down speech on anything just "because" even if war has never affected one. Sorry to disagree but that is the way I see it. Bullying and intimidation isn't going to squelch free speech either, no matter how hard you try to stifle those you don't want to read or listen to.

Tis a fact that men by in large suffer the most casualties of war and were the only ones drafted into Vietnam for instance. Is that something you feel is unimportant? Is it something you feel only those that served or were drafted get to discuss? We forget all the children and WOMEN that were affected by the tens of thousands lost in wars. They were victims of senseless violence as well, so I can see that perspective and it is true that more women are in the front lines and at risk now then back decades ago, yet it is still mostly men that die in combat today.

[Union Scribe]

4. Nice post.

I just subscribed. Thanks to H&M for reminding me I hadn't yet!

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. Excellent post.

We all come here from different places. I get that I can be strident, but inequality masquerading as equality galls the shit out of me.

But that's just me.

My goal as host and my goal as Jeff are two different things; As host, I want this to be a place where men (and women) can discuss stuff which is interesting and important to men and boys. I want it to be as low key/low stress OR as challenging and engaging as people want it to be, and I hope that those who come here hoping for the latter don't alienate those who come here for the former.

Thanks for volunteering, Warren.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Thanks, Jeff.

I hope not to alienate, but you never know.

[Zorra]

8. Awesome post!

[hifiguy]

9. I agree with each and every word you posted Warren.

Really well expressed!

[Broderick]

10. cool with me

[westerebus]

11. On violence.

It is part of the human condition. It effects all. How are you planning on not including what many men face on a regular basis?

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Im sorry, i dont understand the question as it pertains to what i wrote.

Im not "planning" anything. But if i see anyone posting what could be construed as rationales or apologia for domestic violence again, I'm locking the thread.

People who think that this is going to be a hidey hole for hate, or links to dubious groups and/or discredited misinformation, are mistaken. I think there is wide agreement on this site that it wont be tolerated.

That said, im just one guy. I cant prevent anyone fom saying anything, nor will i be held reponsible for what someone might write. If you have something you want to say, post a new thread and say it.

[westerebus]

13. You may want to edit your OP then.

"Domestic" is not included in the your OP on violence as you posted above.

I'm posting in response to the statement you made re "violence".

Would you care to elaborate just what your intentions are should I or anyone else choose to discuss violence?

Men have a higher instance of death by violence than women do. Is this open for discussion?

Violence or threats of violence in the workplace. Is this open for discussion?

Responding to road rage. Is this open for discussion?

I prefer to know up front what a host finds lockable depending on the "not cool" ness of a post.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. I'm not editing my OP, sorry.

If you want to find out, post an OP. Worst thing that will happen is, I or Jeff will lock it. If you're determined by MIRT to be trolling, they can ban you, but I'm not on that team and neither, to my knowledge, is Jeff.

For clarity's sake, I will repost what I wrote in the OP, with bold text added to facilitate understanding:

"Personally, I can't abide anyone advocating violence, justifying violence, or even trying to 'explain' the rationale behind violence. Not cool. The member in question who caused the issues in H/M has been PPR'd."

You will note, one, "personally". You will note, two, that nowhere does it say "don't discuss violence". It does say don't rationalize violence, which was an implication of a discussion that took place in an earlier OP that was widely deemed offensive by a lot of people, including myself once I was made aware of it.

I'm not in favor of locking shit willy nilly. It's pretty damn easy to stay on the cool side as opposed to the not cool side.

Don't try to make noxious arguments about how women who are victims of violence somehow "provoke" it or "ask for" it, that's a good start.

[westerebus]

15. No need to apologize Warren.

You framed your OP as an introduction and invited questions. I have no way of knowing you were referring to domestic violence, until I queried what your plans were for handling violence in general, as you are very adamant about one form of violence in particular which in my reading is not clear in your original OP, which is why I asked.

I gave you three specific instances than could have been answered with a yes or no. Instead, you choose to toss out a taunt: post something and find out. Not once, but, twice. I'm not here to challenge you Warren. I'm asking a question.

There's no reason to be so defensive. As I stated, I want to know up front what is open for discussion as it refers to violence which is a very broad subject. I understand your opposition to domestic violence, I'm opposed to it also. My father was a violent drunk, I have personal experience with it having been on the receiving end. I've never been able to justify why he did what he did. But, I know it had consequences that affected me and my brother and sisters.

If you intend to prohibit discussion of domestic violence on the grounds someone tried to justify it, how will we ever get the message out of how the family is effected by it. It's not just the adults that are abused by domestic violence. Is that a subject you don't think can be discussed?

[Warren DeMontague]

16. It'd appear we're talking PAST each other. 1) WHERE have I said "I intend to prohibit discussion"?

No, I intend to not stand for justification of violence. That does not mean the same thing as intending to prohibit discussion of it.

That's why I gave you the quote, again, with the words in bold.

But, here, I will answer your questions.

Would you care to elaborate just what your intentions are should I or anyone else choose to discuss violence?

My intentions are to either participate in the discussion, or not participate in the discussion. If someone is advocating violence, offering excuses for violence, rationalizing violence, etc. then my intentions may be to lock the thread or take other appropriate action, and I'm fairly sure Jeff is on the same page... but please note those are subsets of, and not synonymous with, discussing violence.

Men have a higher instance of death by violence than women do. Is this open for discussion?

I should think so. In the OP, I myself mention that men overwhelmingly die in wars.

Violence or threats of violence in the workplace. Is this open for discussion?

I should think so.

Responding to road rage. Is this open for discussion?

I should think so.




My telling you to post an OP wasn't a "taunt", it was a rational answer. I can't predict, Karnak-like, what you're talking about unless I see it. I gave you an example of what I previously found problematic, it doesn't sound to me like that's what you're talking about.

[westerebus]

17. Thank you Warren.

I appreciate you taking the time and the having the acumen to respond in a direct forthright manner.

I mean you no harm.

I'm assured you are a reasonable person and I hope we can go from here with a better understanding of each other.

I tend to be dogged which puts people off. My apologies.

again thanks

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Fair enough, its all good. I make the mistake, sometimes, of writing off the top of my head

Which can sometimes include the error of assuming everyone is up to speed on whatever conversation i may be involved in or whatever's been taking place. I wrote that part of the post with recent discussions pertaining to one specific incident in mind, and i probably should have been more clear what i was talking about, specifically, for folks who hadn't been involved in that discusson.

Peace.

[In_The_Wind]

26. I T W is cool with this.

What I'd personally like to see for this group is a low-key, low-stress, non confrontational area for open discussion on a whole range of topics, again, of interest to men... which covers a pretty broad area, I should think. I also think this should be a bigotry-free zone, a homophobia free zone, a LGBTransphobia free zone, a misandry and, yeah, misogyny free zone... Probably can't keep it from being a misanthropy free zone just due to my personality, but that's what I'd like to see.

[Bonobo]

27. Kicking. I also consider myself a feminist.

If the goal of feminism is equal rights, then I am a feminist without a doubt.

If, in order to be a feminist, I am expected to shut my mouth when I see anti-male posts, forget it.

BUT FORTUNATELY... In order to be a feminist, one does not have to agree with outrageous, inflammatory rhetoric designed only to grab attention and fuel the flames of a gender war.

I live in accordance with the idea of equality for women and there really is nothing more to say.

In terms of my personality, I am a counter-puncher. I always have been and always will be. If I sense an attack, expect to get hit back twice as hard. But that has nothing to do with my opinions about equal rights. In fact, I am an equal opportunity counter-puncher because I do not condescend.