Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Women need to be the first ones shot" - Gynocentrism in the 'Nevada standoff'

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Women need to be the first ones shot" - Gynocentrism in the 'Nevada standoff'

    "Former sheriff: Women ‘need to be the first ones shot’ by feds in Bundy Ranch standoff"
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/1...anch-standoff/

    A former Arizona sheriff who has taken the side of cattle ranchers in Nevada said this week that he would have allowed his own wife and daughters to be shot as human shields because it would look bad for the federal government on television.

    In a statement to Fox News on Monday that was first flagged by Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, former Sheriff Richard Mack talked about his strategy to put women on the front lines if a gunfight broke out between “rogue federal agents” and rancher Cliven Bundy, who reportedly owes the taxpayers more than $1 million for allowing his cattle to graze on government land.

    “We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he recalled. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

    Speaking to radio host Ben Swann later on Monday, Mack explained his plan.

    “It was a tactical plot that I was trying to get them to use,” Mack said. “If they’re going to start killing people, I’m sorry, but to show the world how ruthless these people are, women needed to be the first ones shot.”

    “I’m sorry, that sounds horrible,” he continued. “I would have put my own wife or daughters there, and I would have been screaming bloody murder to watch them die. I would have gone next, I would have been the next one to be killed. I’m not afraid to die here. I’m willing to die here.”

    “But the best ploy would be to have had women at the front. Because, one, I don’t think they would have shot them. And, two, if they had, it would have been the worst thing that we could have shown to the rest of the world, that these ruthless cowards hired by the federal government will do anything.”
    As soon as I heard about this quote from that Sheriff, I immediately wondered how the gynocentric media was going to address and interpret this. Were they going to rightly draw attention to the craven, heartless nature of this strategy - putting innocent human beings out as SACRIFICES, just so you could prove a point about the Federal government being ruthless? Or would they more likely revert to the typical 'OMG - they're putting the WOMYNZ in danger, how HORRIBLE!'?

    It seems that, at least in the case of Raw Story, there really wasn't any editorializing at all. But then I got to thinking about the thought process that went into that strategy in the first place:

    What does it say about the culture we live in, when extremist nutjobs decide that they can effectively SHOCK the public and win them over to THEIR side, by the very sight of WOMEN getting slaughtered in an act of authoritarian violence? Mind you, this logic assumes that seeing a group of MEN gunned down in the same way, wouldn't have had anywhere near the same kind of reaction! Because individual men clearly have less value than individual women do, and it wouldn't matter as much to lose one of THEM in a hail of gunfire.
    So, contrary to what some Feminist/social justice simpletons reading about this might think, the sheriff's strategy actually has NOTHING to do with a 'reckless disregard for the safety and well being of women' - rather, it stems directly from the GYNOCENTRISM that makes it so people get far more outraged at seeing a bunch of women die, than seeing the same number of men die, and in the exact same circumstances.
    The Duluth Model is incomplete and outdated; It's time we replaced it with a Superior Model...

  • #2
    Originally posted by Humansplaining w/ Jarred View Post
    "Former sheriff: Women ‘need to be the first ones shot’ by feds in Bundy Ranch standoff"
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/1...anch-standoff/



    As soon as I heard about this quote from that Sheriff, I immediately wondered how the gynocentric media was going to address and interpret this. Were they going to rightly draw attention to the craven, heartless nature of this strategy - putting innocent human beings out as SACRIFICES, just so you could prove a point about the Federal government being ruthless? Or would they more likely revert to the typical 'OMG - they're putting the WOMYNZ in danger, how HORRIBLE!'?

    It seems that, at least in the case of Raw Story, there really wasn't any editorializing at all. But then I got to thinking about the thought process that went into that strategy in the first place:

    What does it say about the culture we live in, when extremist nutjobs decide that they can effectively SHOCK the public and win them over to THEIR side, by the very sight of WOMEN getting slaughtered in an act of authoritarian violence? Mind you, this logic assumes that seeing a group of MEN gunned down in the same way, wouldn't have had anywhere near the same kind of reaction! Because individual men clearly have less value than individual women do, and it wouldn't matter as much to lose one of THEM in a hail of gunfire.
    So, contrary to what some Feminist/social justice simpletons reading about this might think, the sheriff's strategy actually has NOTHING to do with a 'reckless disregard for the safety and well being of women' - rather, it stems directly from the GYNOCENTRISM that makes it so people get far more outraged at seeing a bunch of women die, than seeing the same number of men die, and in the exact same circumstances.
    Who are the extremest nut jobs? The guys calling BS for the BLM who is using bureaucratic mechanisms to run off 52 ranchers and go after the last guy who say no? Remember there are folks looking at this from a number of positions.

    I do agree that it is unfortunate in our society that it is women who grabs others attention.
    ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
    virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

    It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
    AVFM Mission Statement
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
      The guys calling BS for the BLM who is using bureaucratic mechanisms to run off 52 ranchers and go after the last guy who say no? Remember there are folks looking at this from a number of positions.
      He's made a few good points in the past, but lost me when he said that black people were better under slavery.

      The ancient shitposter returns.

      Comment


      • #4
        He's made a few good points in the past, but lost me when he said that black people were better under slavery.
        Hahaha that's quite a provokative remark X] I imagine that he thinks so because of what he percieves the state of the black community to be?, or he is very ill informed maybe?, or maybe it's to turn heads/get attention?...... or maybe he's just a raging racist : P

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MrScruffles View Post
          He's made a few good points in the past, but lost me when he said that black people were better under slavery.
          Technically they were. There were rules to owning slaves. You gotta remember, the vast majority of America was developed be penniless bastards who made a land grab and... pay dirt; these guys weren't raised to understand the general responsibilities of having employees (slaves or otherwise) in their care. Look up your history; had it been developed by the European elite, it likely would have been a much different story, and we likely would still have slavery, not because it's bad, or acceptable, or racist, but because it works, and everybody benefits.

          Let me sum it up...

          Slavery
          The master is responsible for the slave's health and well being; this includes food (labor requires a LOT of food), clothing (a uniform at the very least), shelter, medical, protection (much the same as one would protect their prized stallions), legal protection (the master was held responsible for his slave's actions). This is beginning to sound a lot like a wife, who happens to makes you a fuck ton of money.

          Employee
          The Employer is not responsible for anything but paying you your agreed upon wage. He signs you a check, and you're on your own to pay for food, clothing, shelter, laundry and bathing facilities, your own protection and legal advice, your own fucking transportation to get to your fucking job. He can offer you health and life insurance, but he's under no obligation to make you accept.

          European paupers turned American princes fucked up the system. Though it didn't help matters that the Americans also had the last pick on the slave trade route; Brazil and the Caribbean got choice pick, the best looking with amicable attitudes; left overs are left over for a reason.
          RWBY is Legend. Honey Badgers

          Women Against Feminism.

          Logic trumps ignorance, but emotion retards edification.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MrScruffles View Post
            He's made a few good points in the past, but lost me when he said that black people were better under slavery.
            The black people rebelled against slavery 20 times, 5 of which were successful.
            The black people managed to build they're own wall street after only being out of slavery 50 years.
            Perhaps America was better off ruled by Indians.
            Perhaps Europe was better off under the rule of moors.
            Last edited by Zuberi; 04-25-2014, 07:23 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Zuberi View Post
              The black people rebelled against slavery 20 times, 5 of which were successful.
              The black people managed to build they're own wall street after only being out of slavery 50 years.
              Perhaps America was better off ruled by Indians.
              Perhaps Europe was better off under the rule of moors.
              you know our mistake really was coming down from the trees. never should have done that, nothing but misery and hardship since. This whole sentience thing really isn't worth it if you ask me and most people don't even use it properly anyhow.


              back on topic: isn't it sad that placing the women out front is a sound tactical decision, because murdering them on television would have looked worse than murdering the same number of men who were also protesting?
              because you know men are disposable and deserve it anyway so shooting them would likely just have been laughed about on The View...
              "It is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal." - Aristotle

              Comment


              • #8
                [QUOTE=MrScruffles;88002]He's made a few good points in the past, but lost me when he said that black people were better under slavery.

                I agree he did not seem to articulate his point well, used antiquated language, may be bigoted/ignorant. We've seen some media do some editing to operate their agenda. I still have concerns with the BLM and how they handle land cases, I've read a number of incidences. Here is TMOTs/Greyson discussing this situation:

                Last edited by Grumpy Old Man; 04-26-2014, 06:15 AM.
                ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
                virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

                It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
                AVFM Mission Statement
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Shadizar View Post
                  Look up your history; had it been developed by the European elite, it likely would have been a much different story, and we likely would still have slavery, not because it's bad, or acceptable, or racist, but because it works, and everybody benefits.
                  Are we talking about the same European elite that butchered each other over mere insults, murdered heretics, and taxed their peasants into starvation?

                  Originally posted by Shadizar View Post
                  Slavery
                  The master is responsible for the slave's health and well being; this includes food (labor requires a LOT of food),
                  Of course, if they don't want to work, you can just starve the slave until they do.

                  Originally posted by Shadizar View Post
                  clothing (a uniform at the very least), shelter, medical, protection (much the same as one would protect their prized stallions),
                  Nope. You could provide those if you wanted (and probably did to help morale), but there was nothing stopping you from forcing your injured slave to sleep naked under the stars after you beat them bloody as punishment.

                  Originally posted by Shadizar View Post
                  legal protection (the master was held responsible for his slave's actions).
                  "I'll hang your nigger ass if you get me into any shit" =/= protection.

                  Originally posted by Shadizar View Post
                  This is beginning to sound a lot like a wife, who happens to makes you a fuck ton of money.
                  Wives were, at the worst in american history, wards of their husbands. They still had legal standing as human beings, and their husband was held legally responsible for their well-being. Slaves were legally livestock, not humans, and their masters were in no way required to keep them healthy.

                  Originally posted by Shadizar View Post
                  The Employer is not responsible for anything but paying you your agreed upon wage. He signs you a check, and you're on your own to pay for food, clothing, shelter, laundry and bathing facilities, your own protection and legal advice, your own fucking transportation to get to your fucking job. He can offer you health and life insurance, but he's under no obligation to make you accept.
                  Exactly. You're responsible for your own well being. Responsibility is a price of freedom. The thing is, slaves in the American South were also responsible for their well-being; slavery was not a socialist system, but one combining the worst aspects of socialism and capitalism.
                  The ancient shitposter returns.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                    I agree he did not seem to articulate his point well, used antiquated language, may be bigoted/ignorant.
                    The video I linked was a far less edited version of his statements than the one that appeared on television. Personally, I don't think he's consciously racist, but he seems ignorant to an extreme of the realities of racial relations, as well as history.

                    Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                    We've seen some media do some editing to operate their agenda.
                    While the media did cut the clip down which eliminated some of the context, his statement is unfortunately no more reasonable in context. He really hurt his case, which had nothing to do with race anyways.

                    Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                    I still have concerns with the BLM and how they handle land cases, I've read a number of incidences.
                    Right, but we could hope for a more rational man to stand up to them, one who doesn't hurt our case here. I want to like him for standing up to the Bureau of Land Management... but he's fucking insane.

                    Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                    (video)
                    That was the wrong time, wrong place, and wrong way for Mr. Bundy to present that. If he had been calm and stuck to fighting the BLM, he would have generated a lot more support. Now, the media (much more credibly) can present him and the people fighting the Bureau's abuses as kooks.
                    The ancient shitposter returns.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by MrScruffles View Post
                      The video I linked was a far less edited version of his statements than the one that appeared on television. Personally, I don't think he's consciously racist, but he seems ignorant to an extreme of the realities of racial relations, as well as history.



                      While the media did cut the clip down which eliminated some of the context, his statement is unfortunately no more reasonable in context. He really hurt his case, which had nothing to do with race anyways.



                      Right, but we could hope for a more rational man to stand up to them, one who doesn't hurt our case here. I want to like him for standing up to the Bureau of Land Management... but he's fucking insane.



                      That was the wrong time, wrong place, and wrong way for Mr. Bundy to present that. If he had been calm and stuck to fighting the BLM, he would have generated a lot more support. Now, the media (much more credibly) can present him and the people fighting the Bureau's abuses as kooks.
                      Lets not forget the MSM brought in the race aspect in reference to would the government have backed down if they were black. The reporter I've heard(looking for the clip) asked Bundy his thoughts on this situation and that was what he responded to. I'm not defending him, my point is: One, he was bated into the discussion and no matter what it will most likely not turn out well. Two, here is a video from one of my gun compatriots in my neck of the woods and I agree hole hardheartedly with his assessment. The second video is another perspective. I often hear from our more left leaning friends about government abuse, particularly during the Occupy movement stuff, I think there is common ground here if we do not let media manipulate the issues. They are not about one old man making racist comments.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSLO4NOQps0

                      Last edited by Grumpy Old Man; 04-26-2014, 07:14 AM.
                      ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
                      virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

                      It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
                      AVFM Mission Statement
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MrScruffles View Post
                        Of course, if they don't want to work, you can just starve the slave until they do.

                        Nope. You could provide those if you wanted (and probably did to help morale), but there was nothing stopping you from forcing your injured slave to sleep naked under the stars after you beat them bloody as punishment.



                        "I'll hang your nigger ass if you get me into any shit" =/= protection.
                        I see we're not on the same page. Never mind then.
                        RWBY is Legend. Honey Badgers

                        Women Against Feminism.

                        Logic trumps ignorance, but emotion retards edification.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
                          Lets not forget the MSM brought in the race aspect in reference to would the government have backed down if they were black. The reporter I've heard(looking for the clip) asked Bundy his thoughts on this situation and that was what he responded to. I'm not defending him, my point is: One, he was bated into the discussion and no matter what it will most likely not turn out well. Two, here is a video from one of my gun compatriots in my neck of the woods and I agree hole hardheartedly with his assessment. The second video is another perspective. I often hear from our more left leaning friends about government abuse, particularly during the Occupy movement stuff, I think there is common ground here if we do not let media manipulate the issues. They are not about one old man making racist comments.
                          This.

                          Originally posted by Shadizar View Post
                          I see we're not on the same page. Never mind then.
                          What were you trying to say, anyways? That slavery is better than freedom? Was that whole bit "performance art"?
                          The ancient shitposter returns.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think in this situation we need to keep in mind the tactics folks use, pay attention to number 12 and listen to the final video; this is what the partisan media is doing to us in this situation. Bundy may very well be a racists but is that what is at stake here?

                            Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

                            Here is the complete list from Alinsky.

                            * RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

                            * RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
                            * RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

                            * RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

                            * RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

                            * RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

                            * RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

                            * RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

                            * RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

                            * RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

                            * RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

                            * RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4poA3YcRaY
                            ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
                            virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

                            It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
                            AVFM Mission Statement
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              All let me add this may not be directly associated with men's rights but I think it does give us an understanding what we are dealing with when it comes to men's rights. This IMO illustrates how Feminists and other groups can distort a perspective, get us all at each others throats and compel us to take our eye off the ball. Make no mistake, regardless o which side of the Bundy situation you are on Feminist use these same tactics. We've seen it over and over again.
                              ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
                              virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

                              It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
                              AVFM Mission Statement
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X