|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like how these hardline Feminists such as Gloria Steinem can opperate on half the facts. She's the Nazi, she practises the exact same tactics as the Nazi's did in preworld war 2 . Amazing how she concentrates on the people who have done the worst to society rather than on the men who have sacrificed for the whole of society such as the Millions of men who went to kill Hitler's regime, and died trying. But Im sure she has an answer for that too. Funny how she won't face off with Warren Ferrall in a debate, this is something the men's movement should be pushing for , to put Steinem on the spot faced off with Ferrall. We should tape it and distribute it as much as we can. $10bucks says Gloria walks off the stage before its over. If she even goes.
Dan Lynch
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debbieschlussel /
regarding Princess Steinem, & escape from Islamic paradises, per Debbie's article:
“Life in that world is so desperate for women that Bahraini Royal Princess Meriam Al-Khalifa recently fled a life of privilege and outrageous wealth for a life of low socio-economic status as the wife of U.S. Marine Jason Johnson.”
Interesting, both Princesses actually seem to be aware where they are both better off.
Even a real official Princess, feels she’s better off in America with a Marine of low-cast.
And of course, don’t hold your breath, for Princess-anointed Steinem, to book passage for the Mideast, unless it’s to lecture Israelis. Save your breath, and save your life; because women know where they have it made; and they’re busy making it better; her life.
Thanks to Debbie, who wrote the article, who knows where her bread is better buttered, too. I thought this sentence she wrote, interesting political correctness:
“Thank G-d (or Allah) for women's lib.”
Is “God” politically incorrect? Perhaps “Allah” should be “A---h”. However, my guess the “G”-word will be politically correct & fully spelled, whenever God is fully converted to “Goddess”.
A male wrote me an emale several days ago, terming the 911 firemen “fire(wo)men”. I suppose this was his idea of spite, after I had wondered where all the fire(wo)men were on the rubble still burning, and when it came time to raise the flag. Perhaps their flag-waving could be better spent, going back to waving the panties, now more politically correct, “thongs”. As if the Princess is forever in Tahiti, even in Paradise America.
Debbie seems to have got this of her statement down where her bread is buttered:
“Yup, that's the solution to terrorism against Americans-let's give our boys Barbies, pearls, and china patterns. Everyone knows that would have prevented attacks on the WTC. And created some real macho firemen and policemen to rescue the victims.”
As ANY REAL MAN knows, the REAL Women demand we be testosterone-driven radical fanatics when it comes to supporting her. Otherwise, we men must be “sensitive’ and caring. Try being sensitive in full-metal jacket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Is “God” politically incorrect?"
Idon't think it is politically incorrect, but on other sites I've been told that some people think it blasphemous or something to spell the word out. I don't know why.
"As ANY REAL MAN knows, the REAL Women demand we be testosterone-driven radical fanatics when it comes to supporting her."
What do you mean by support? Do you mean financial support? Most of us work for our own living these days. The few I know that don't, are keeping house, cooking, doing the laundry and raising the babies. Which I would certainly call work. And they don't get evenings and weekends off, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To wiccid stepparent:
Let's see, wiccid. I just want to draw your attention to a few facts re men and women in the US without trying to incite a heated exchange.
A wife is more likely than her husband to work part-time or not at all outside the home. (The average man works more hours per week outside the home and commutes two hours more per week than the average woman.)
Even when the wife works full-time and year-round, the husband provides 65 percent of the household income.
When women earn more income than their husbands, husbands do more housework than their wives.
The husbands of working mothers are...working fathers. Fathers work eleven hours more outside the home than mothers (plus at least two hours extra commuting.)
Married women have almost two more hours of leisure time per week than their husbands. Mothers with children age five and older have one hour more of free time per week. Mothers with preschool children average three hours more per week of free time than dads with preschool children.
Dad's free time has decreased in recent years by ten hours per week; Mom's by four.
You mentioned that full-time housewives don't get evenings and weekends off. They also don't have a boss to answer to and they don't have the breadwinning pressure. They do have pressure, but they're in a situation in which they can more easily arrange their schedule to fit their personal needs (more flexibility to tailor their work routine to their personality).
Hope I didn't veer off topic too much on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do you mean by support? Do you mean financial support? Most of us work for our own living these days. The few I know that don't, are keeping house, cooking, doing the laundry and raising the babies. Which I would certainly call work. And they don't get evenings and weekends off, either.
In almost every facet of life, women, in general, expect men to financial provide and take care of them. Men pay for dates. Men buy an engagement/wedding ring. Men pay alimony (also called child support). Men put in significantly more hours doing more demanding jobs. Women seek mates who are "financially secure." Women who are nurses marry men who are doctors. Women who are doctors don't marry men who are nurses (or the equivalent). The average man earns 33% more than the average woman (and even more so in married relationships). Etc. These concepts are deeply imbedded in our society. We live in a society where a 12 year old boy is expected to pay child support to a woman who raped him.
These traits are as true among well educated professional people as they are among others. I think of the 8 or so couples on my Christmas card list (the people I know best). All but one are highly educated. In each and every case, the woman elected to stay home part-time or full-time to care for the children. One insisted that the husband go to work so she could stay home.
Women have three choices: 1) work full-time; 2) work part-time; 3) stay home. Men also have three choices: 1) work full-time; 2) work full-time; 3) work full-time. It's women who want it this way. It's a "woman's issue" to make employers more family friendly (e.g., part-time work, flex time, etc).
I work 60-80 hours/week. I keep house, cook, and do the laundary too. I call them chores. I don't call them work. Men, on average, put in more hours doing paid employment and chores around the house than do women. Women have more leisure time than men. Women watch more television than men.
Look at singles ads. More often than not, women list the things they want a man to offer her. On the otherhand, men list the things they can offer a woman. While a few women have split the bill (one paid 100% - ironically, she considered herself traditional), I've never been on a date where a woman has offered to pick me up at my home. They expect me to do the work. They expect me to make the effort. It's no longer worth the effort.
I did a test at an on-line personals service. For a while, I included my (relatively high) income in my profile. This was a direct question, like height and age (although one could leave it blank). I received many responses, the vast majority being from nice and seemingly well-rounded professional women. They weren't gold diggers. They were average women. However, few women responded when I left the income question blank. Enlightening. Yes.
I know. I know. None of this applies to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look at singles ads. More often than not, women list the things they want a man to offer her. On the otherhand, men list the things they can offer a woman. While a few women have split the bill (one paid 100% - ironically, she considered herself traditional), I've never been on a date where a woman has offered to pick me up at my home. They expect me to do the work. They expect me to make the effort. It's no longer worth the effort.
That's right. Women have priced themselves out of the market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well put, Shawn:
“Look at singles ads. More often than not, women list the things they want a man to offer her. On the other hand, men list the things they can offer a woman.”
“I know. I know. None of this applies to you.”
Rhetorical if not nothing. Been there, been done like that.
“I did a test at an on-line personals service. For a while, I included my (relatively high) income in my profile. This was a direct question, like height and age (although one could leave it blank). I received many responses, the vast majority being from nice and seemingly well-rounded professional women. They weren't gold diggers. They were average women. However, few women responded when I left the income question blank. Enlightening. Yes.”
YES, it is enlightening! I noted much the same with personals’. I made the mistake of trying these ads, mistake believing that this was a modern liberated society. Like, things would be different, once I was again out on the streets as a bachelor. I had been reading too many news articles, and had not been out in reality. I finally tried massaging my ads in several different editions.
Just guessing, but all the nice stuff about quality, integrity, traits of being open, like discussions, etc.--- may have been comforting a little in trying to assure them that I wasn’t Jack The Ripper. But the edition which got the attention, had ‘nice’ stuff added, such as nice house & area, nice income, and you got the rest.
I sometimes went to search in the big city, staying with a bud since the 1st grade, one of the two best planned communities in the region. I used his phone of course. Now here’s an example: I had two conversations with an ad respondent, mutual enthusiasm. In the second call she was probing, like going full-mode into resume interviewing. She actually knew where I was phoning from, or at least obviously, had checked accurately to the specific neighborhood. I told her that I don’t live here, my friend does. Her attitude changed from sweet eager darling, to shrew. By that time I was not going to tell her anything good about me. Didn’t have to, she went from hot & ready, to nearly hanging up in my ear.
This discouraged me briefly, mainly because she seemed like a responsible person by little I knew; and also I had dreamed that since she was into midage, she was going to be a little more mature. (and it’s not like I was going to support another young family, nor was she in the market for that either--you know, ,just like I wanted a decent responsible loving time, carrying my end of the deal)
I now play it Poor Boy. Or more accurately, as just responsible enough to not appear to live under a bridge. No Omegas, damn sure no Rolex. No big diamonds. When out searching to meet someone new, I leave the German flagship under car-cover wraps. locked in an enclosed shed, stays there the first six months I meet a new one.
No doubt I miss out on many, no doubt in my mind now on most. But it sure saves me a lot of wasted time & endless misery, and gets me the rare few. Who gave me the lesson to hide the German? My youngest prospect, soon my serious girlfriend. She asked me, You want every slut in the county hitting on you? Serious. She didn’t want to be in it, except for highway trips. I would have thought maybe some of that was being protective (of her property). But she had me. She had no doubts, I was absolutely crazy about her. One of a kind.
BTW, in this long run out again, learning again, and searching for serious: I found to my surprise (now this is on the average), the older ones may be more greedy. And the latter were the ones with nice homes over their head, good jobs, and much more “financially secure”. They are also more experienced & practiced at sweet deceptions, particularly effective the initial dating period. Maybe the older ones have higher overhead to maintain.
=================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 27, @07:09PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
> Is ?God? politically incorrect?
Devout Jews refuse to write any name of the divinity. The theory is that the text must eventually be erased or destroyed, so the writer will have started a process that ends with the symbolic denial of the creator.
Also, since the Hebrew transliteration of YHVH is never pronounced phoneticly but instead read as "adonai" (my Lord), many Jews refuse to write or say that word either except in prayer; in ordinary speech they use "hashem" (the word).
This is all a consequence of the commandment not to take the divinity's name in vain.
> Perhaps ?Allah? should be ?A---h?.
Probably not, since it's not a name but simply the Arabic expression meaning "the (only) god". On the other hand, "Allah" and its compounds are the only Arabic words containing the "dark l" of "talk" instead of the "light l" of "less" which occurs everywhere else in Arabic.
> However, my guess the ?G?-word will be
> politically correct & fully spelled, whenever
> God is fully converted to ?Goddess?.
Yep - feminazis have no respect for anything but themselves. >:-)
As for me, I'm just an atheist with a fascination for linguistics and Jewish law, among other things.
I don't care even if you write Cthulhu, Cthulhu, Cth< no carrier >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, interesting....
"Devout Jews refuse to write any name of the divinity."
I guess that leaves me out, no wonder I was not aware. Suppose I've never known any devout Jews well-enough. All my Jews were Yiddish complements to the Christian All-American 'fallen-by-the-wayside'. Maybe I was untouchable.
Maybe wisely I have avoided touching most ideas of religions. I'm not atheistic, but some ideas of religions push my limits toward the border of going over the line.
And speaking of the devil:
Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?
http://www.cthulhu.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is all a consequence of the commandment not to take the divinity's name in vain.
Good point, and, as a writer, I've noticed more people lately writing "G-d" rather than "God," even in forums where one wouldn't expect people to be sensitive to it.
Off-topic here, but I once knew a girl who wouldn't say "Wow" because "Wow" upside-down is "Mom" and the opposite of "Mom" is "Dad" and another word for "Dad" is "Father" and "God" is the "Father," so by saying "Wow" you're taking God's name in vain.
Whew!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear G-d, I hope you're joking...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodness, what kind of girls is this woman raising? Future Trophy Wives of America?
My daughter never did like barbie. She likes computer and videogames, chess, scooters, skateboards and rollerblades. Her stepbrothers are the same way; the younger one, unlike his brother and stepsister, is the one who is a bit of a clothes horse. I call him GQ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodness, what kind of girls is this woman raising? Future Trophy Wives of America?
Where do you infer anything within that piece that this comment can possibly relate to??
My daughter never did like barbie. She likes computer and videogames, chess, scooters, skateboards and rollerblades. Her stepbrothers are the same way; the younger one, unlike his brother and stepsister, is the one who is a bit of a clothes horse. I call him GQ.
And this is relevant why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debbie said, scathingly, that perhaps we should buy our boys barbies, pearls, and china sets. That is what it referred to.
I don't know any girls that like barbie these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Debbie said, scathingly, that perhaps we should buy our boys barbies, pearls, and china sets. That is what it referred to.
I don't know any girls that like barbie these days."
That was part of her point. Evidently you missed the implication that Steinem was dealing in outmoded stereotypes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Debbie said, scathingly, that perhaps we should buy our boys barbies, pearls, and china sets. That is what it referred to.
I don't know any girls that like barbie these days."
That was part of her point. Evidently you missed the implication that Steinem was dealing in outmoded stereotypes.
No, Larry, the point wasn't missed. It was taken in, and mocked in alarm that someone hit close to the truth.
Steinim did suggest that we attempt to remove the masculinity from our boys. Debbie called her out on it. And our stealth pheminist (predicatbly) used shaming language, suggesting that Debbie was suggesting we raise a generation of Stepford Wives or some other such thing, in order to obfuscate the issue.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steinim did suggest that we attempt to remove the masculinity from our boys. Debbie called her out on it. And our stealth pheminist (predicatbly) used shaming language, suggesting that Debbie was suggesting we raise a generation of Stepford Wives or some other such thing, in order to obfuscate the issue.
And that is one of the most insightful statements I've seen on this site. That is exactly what this war between feminism and men is all about.
The feminist are intentionally and systematically demonizing/criminalizing attributes that we associate with masculinity. Why? Because they don't want to socialize themselves and their girls to have masculine attributes. In this way they create an intrinsic inequality between the genders.
Feminine attributes are superior and masculine attributes are evil. If men have good attributes, they must have been feminized, or the attributes are the feminine side of a man. Never mind that there is no such thing as the feminine side of a man.
When the entire world has both sexes socialized with what feminist define as feminine or gender neutral attributes they will be satisfied. To do this, they are attacking every good male ideal and value using relativism and moral neutrality.
Those men that fail to be feminized will be criminalized and jailed. Oh. Does this sound far fetched? It's already happening on a wide scale. Do the research. The information is out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"No, Larry, the point wasn't missed. It was taken in, and mocked in alarm that someone hit close to the truth."
Gonzo,
I respectfully disagree. I think you're giving too much credit. :-) This seemed to me a kneejerk response. "Her words bother me, I'll make an ad hominem attack."
I've observed all the behaviors that Warble has pointed out, deflecting issues, introducing irrelevancies, avoiding real debate, etc. I'm beginning to think it's not a pheminist strategy so much as the default feminine style of debate. Maybe they learn it in their Alpha Girl/Queen Bee battles.
Unlike Lorianne, I believe Wiccid when she says she's not a feminist and that she likes and values men. However, she's way too vested in traditional views of men as powerful, but only valuable when they're useful and women as valuable, but powerless.
Feminists (pick your adjective) see men as powerful, but deny their power is ever useful or valuable.
Much of what we say here assaults Wiccid's deeply held prejudices. So, she disagrees in the style of debate that she knows. She's not a stealth pheminist, she's a woman in denial.
Unfortunately, the effect is the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo, I respectfully disagree. I think you're giving too much credit. :-) This seemed to me a kneejerk response. "Her words bother me, I'll make an ad hominem attack."
"Ad Hominem" gets trotted out a lot, but it's used improperly. The forms of ad hominem are ad hominem abusive (You're wrong because you're an idiot) ad hominem circumstantial (Well, you're a Republican, so you have a vested interest in that side) and ad hominem tu quoque (Well, you act like an idiot too!).
This is more of an accusation, of which I'm not the only one to make, and WSP's litany of pheminist apologetics is certainly inductive foundation to make such an accusation. I'll be the first to admit tyhat I'm never going to win an award for diplomacy - Hell, I don't want it. I'm old enough to be a curmudgeon, and I've earned that right.:D
I've observed all the behaviors that Warble has pointed out, deflecting issues, introducing irrelevancies, avoiding real debate, etc. I'm beginning to think it's not a pheminist strategy so much as the default feminine style of debate. Maybe they learn it in their Alpha Girl/Queen Bee battles.
What's aggravating though, and this has been brought up by other people too, is that we have a board by and large by men, for men's issues, where (DUH!) largely men post. This puts a male dynamic on the discussion.
Take you and I here, Frank - you disagree with what I say - you say so. Bluntly. I respond, not in words couched in consensus seeking (I am a tacher and do have an AS in child psychology so I'm hip to the terms) but in male style - as we see it. This is not an insult, and you and me both know it.
Enter a female of the species, and as such, the drama centers on them; if we don't couch our terms in "femmespeak" suddenly we're haters of women. I swear, she should have a tagline that screams "Validate me! Validate me! Validate me!"
I agree that female communication is different - I run into it all of the time, and deal with it day to day - my primary work is as a Technical supervisor on a line where we build and repair computers. At night, I teach classes on computers, and twice a week I'm at the local high school teaching classes on a very part time basis for their Vocational Ed center. When I have a female dynamic in the room - a class full of women there is what I mean, I have to use a much different strategy to get my points across.
The "pheminist" strategy I refer to here is the underlying assumption on WSP's part that male communication is somehow inferior, and must be corrected and elightened by her female and thus-I-know-better self. And point blank, it's not so. This is like walking into a room in Moscow and getting riled because people are speaking Russian, and not your language of preference.
Uh, Duh.... That's both unreasonable and unrealistic.
The both physical and psychological dimorphism of the human species is so well documented as to be a no brainer to all but the most doctrinaire gender-phem. These are tendancies, and are observable and quantifiable. Are there exceptions? Yes, as in everything. When you speak of statistics, there are always statistical variants. Every one here, for the most part, has acknowledged and acceded to them. Somehow, though, it becomes necessary to cite statistical and individual aberrations withing any statistical observation. It's one of the reasons I use "pheminist" and "womyn" and "wimmyn" so often. It's so I can ask, "Well, are you a woman or a womyn? Then I wasn't talking about YOU, was I?"
Unlike Lorianne, I believe Wiccid when she says she's not a feminist and that she likes and values men. However, she's way too vested in traditional views of men as powerful, but only valuable when they're useful and women as valuable, but powerless.
I call it stealth pheminism, because Wiccid wants to retain all that female privilege. For example, a while back she observed that she, like most women, would welcome male "help" with "their" children. That's the assertion of a female property right to children, and underlines her personal core belief that women exist to be primary caregivers, and men exist to support women in that role.
Feminists (pick your adjective) see men as powerful, but deny their power is ever useful or valuable.
It's one of the reasons I don't believe that the Klan, Nazi, or Pink Taliban analogy can be made too often. "Feminism" is the idealogical twin of these reprehensible philosophies.
Much of what we say here assaults Wiccid's deeply held prejudices. So, she disagrees in the style of debate that she knows. She's not a stealth pheminist, she's a woman in denial. Unfortunately, the effect is the same.
The end results are the same too, though. Back on another thread, the common theme on the DV issue from her wound up being, "Well, it may not be fair, but since it impacts women so much, men just have to suck it up in the name of protecting women, because they have real problems too." This was never said, true, in so many words, but the idea of due process and not assigning a presumption of truth to a mere accusation horrified her beyond words - and, thus, any challenging of that was met with the "Woman Hater" card.
(Now, I AM a pheminism/pheminist hater, but I have long concluded that pheminism is a hate movement, and regardless of the fact that their peculiar brand of terrorism is in the arena of social policy, I don't negotiate with terrorists, nor do I think that the men's movement should either.)
Anyway, Frank, since you opened a dialogue, there's my pair of Lincolns on the whole matter. Yeah, her words bother me, but "the lady doth protest" that she's here to learn the men's take on things, so she gets it, and I believe that in this forum it is right and proper to do so in a male style - which is unvarnished plain speaking.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo: "Ad Hominem" gets trotted out a lot...
This is more of an accusation, of which I'm not the only one to make, and WSP's litany of pheminist apologetics is certainly inductive foundation to make such an accusation."
Whoops! I guess I was unclear. I was characterizing Wiccid's response as knee-jerk and ad hominem, not yours.
You raise good points. I'll try to respond once I get home from work.
Larry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo: "I'm old enough to be a curmudgeon, and I've earned that right.:D"
I'm getting there. Lately I have had thoughts along the lines of "Damn it! I've given you people 42 years to shape up. I'm about out of patience."
"What's aggravating though, and this has been brought up by other people too, is that we have a board by and large by men, for men's issues, where (DUH!) largely men post. This puts a male dynamic on the discussion.
We do and I enjoy it. I don't see the feminine forays here as really disrupting that. I find them interesting and entertaining, not aggravating. It seems that if a woman sticks to that style, she doesn't get validation here. There are those who will play peacemaker and will try to directly address her stated concerns, but no one kowtows or seeks her approval. She starts escalating, losing credibility and eventually flames out.
As someone said here recently, "Real men don't allow women to manipulate them." ;-)
I'm with Warble. They provide us with practice for arguments out in the world.
"Somehow, though, it becomes necessary to cite statistical and individual aberrations within any statistical observation."
OK. Yeah, that's aggravating.
I call it stealth pheminism, because Wiccid wants to retain all that female privilege.
Ah, I see. I thought you were talking about deliberate subterfuge. I can agree with that. What I don't know is if it's possible to get a woman to see that about herself. It would make our task easier.
"It's one of the reasons I don't believe that the Klan, Nazi, or Pink Taliban analogy can be made too often. "Feminism" is the idealogical twin of these reprehensible philosophies."
I don't think that's a good tactic. Partly because of Godwin's Law:
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/godwin_s_la w.html
... but mainly because every kook with a cause for the past 40 years has called their opponents Nazis, fascists, Klanners, etc. It makes it harder for people to take you seriously.
The ideology we oppose stands on it's own demerits.
Yeah, her words bother me, but "the lady doth protest" that she's here to learn the men's take on things, so she gets it, and I believe that in this forum it is right and proper to do so in a male style - which is unvarnished plain speaking.
Ya know, it's still a mystery to me why she's here. Maybe she really does believe that if we'd just start acting like "real men," live up to our duties and stop picking on women then everything would be peachy for us.
Larry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know any girls that like barbie these days.
Really? While this may be your personal perception, why is it that doll merchandise continues to be big business among retailers geared towards children? Go check out how much shelf space is dedicated to dolls in any toy store. Someone must be buying them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
====================================
Yeah, I know a real Barbie Doll, model for the real thing when young. My BOSS. But I had no idea for several years. I had no idea starting out as a Barbie Doll could be an advantage.
We were at a nice restaurant in Savannah celebrating a special occasion. When the boss, following 1.5 bottles of wine, made me promise not to laugh if I got the whole background truth when younger. I lied. I nearly fell out my chair laughing, which attracted more attention from neighboring tables. The Boss looked hurt, and whined, "Well, I was slim like that when a teenager."
I apologized, and actually I had not even given thought to the slim part. Boss was just overly-sensitive about less-than-perfect. What was so funny, if you knew the boss, this was so totally seeming unlikely. Completely out of character.
I got the whole story then, finishing the 0.5 bottle of wine, of the Doll's background. Of the hefty woman (not my boss) & her hubby who founded the original company, of Barbie's success single-handedly establishing it, which soon blossomed into the major company, via some battles, patents, origins, & financing, and some legal & ego involved. The “official” version comes fairly close to the story.
The couple who started this lark, were vacationing in Germany & saw some cute dolls in a store window, bought one or two to take back. Boss was a teen. Boss's uncle was a tinkerer, a hustler but a good one, always looking for any new line he could add to sell, especially for his established customers at department stores & specialty shops.
Uncle Hustler lived in Studio City, where some blocks had an alleyway down the middle, traditionally to access carriage houses & garages in back of the homes. Every morning to get to the car or to the bus, he walked down the alley. And became accustomed to seeing & speaking with an old man who already had his garage door open, and busy with his woodworking equipment & hand-carving figurines & other models. He was an excellent skilled craftsman, but had no clue of how to sell. Uncle felt that this was artwork, and he could sell them to specialty shops.
Then he was talking to the couple who showed Uncle these dolls from Germany. Uncle put this immediately together, and someone proposed they could develop an entire line tired-in as a package. To start out, the old man made the prototype models.
For the models for the early models, they did the obvious: used the closest, their children, young teen relatives, kids of family friends. So, that's how you get Barbie Dolls from mostly normal models.
Then they got some people with money who liked it, and Macy's, and it snowballed beyond their wildest expectations. Going also into many other toys.
Boss's family is one of the most interesting families on Earth. Boss was an artist, then engineer, combined the two, can imagine architecture daily work in the head of how it will look before it even goes up. The original teen art part, came from being raised on the MGM lot, went to school there, Aunt the lifelong secretary to Louis B. Mayer, the Boss's legal Godfather.
The Boss was not just personal, further The Mentor, and made a large part of my life.
Hence came the story in Savannah, and perhaps now, you can appreciate a little, of how unlikely the Barbie-role seemed.
BTW, the infamous story is true, this one of Mr. Mayer's funeral. He was also considered by his surrogate godsons, goddaughters & associates, as the ultimate godfather. You could hardly imagine him dying.
Samuel Goldwyn (nee "Goldfish" nee “Golfish”) survived Mr. Mayer for the funeral. Goldwyn and Groucho were both noted for their wit, and often black-humor. Like Goldwyn replied to previous mistakes or successes, "We have all passed a lot of water since then." (your reply was his first name, "Yes," and his surname "Sir") Yet Mayer, was even more considered invincible.
Goldwyn’s most infamous comment:
Someone remarked to Mr. Goldwyn about the enormous crowd present at Mayer's funeral. Goldwyn snapped, "The reason so many people turned up at his funeral is they wanted to make sure he was dead."
========================================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 27, @09:34PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
priceless
and with the bizarro clang of truth
apparently messers mayer and goldwyn didn't prove quite as invicible as they imagined, tho
except in legacy
and anyone who thinks the cult of barbie is dead has never lived in the south
the tin man
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"and anyone who thinks the cult of barbie is dead has never lived in the south"
You got that right, Tin Man. I can tell true you live in the South. Or did too long. That's where I moved back to in recent years, family fantasy & cleaning up the loose ends.
What I don't understand is how with all the homogenized media nationwide, the universal TV, etc. How we still maintain that honeysuckle style all to its own. Must be the inbreeding, inherent, Jerry Lee style. The southern girl knows all the modern rap, but take her wraps off, underneath the same. Hardly has changed two decades being gone. The S. Girl knows all the modern feminist rap, chooses what she wants, tosses the rest, and keeps the Scarlett O'Hara heritage.
The southern girl is somewhat different. Noticeably different from some other regions. I have traveled all over, every week for a decade especially. Long projects, active phase typically one year, plus 1 preliminary, 2 following with startup & iron-outs. Get to know the crews & families, & in my bachelor period scores of singles. (that's the reason we were in Savannah, a plant there for Union Camp, and one in New Bern, double dose. New Bern is like time warp. Savannah looks best sitting in that plantation restaurant with someone you know already who has a roundtrip ticket to ride.)
My surprise in all this knocking about, was the difference from the Deep South, to that of Northern CA & the Northwest. I much preferred the northern ends of the West Coast, pleasantly surprised. The media gave me the wrong idea at first. In reality, N.CA is a melting pot, from all over, all nations too, SF a major point of entry. All flavors of people & attitudes. Which you will never get to know as a tourist. If a bachelor, unique girls come from all over, including fr. the South, to find something different. Do your homework, select the right tight groups to run with, and then very few are rabid feminists, very few flakes (now S.CA is for those who want to play high odds).
As a young bachelor hitting N. CA from the deep South, it was like night & day. I mean that virtually literally. Girls cost me far less money, more honest, straight-shooting. What it cost me was energy at first; I had to work at it to find my kind of people.
They even liked my accent, thought it was charming that I slurred my words even before I got to my six-pak.
Yeah, people are the same all over, lots of the same, meaning lots of types. It's just I found, that for certain types favorable to me, my odds & the numbers are far greater in some regions.
Meanwhile cheers Tin Man, here's to some saving Southern Comfort
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 28, @07:29PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
“You got that right, Tin Man. I can tell true you live in the South. Or did too long”
the latter
i enjoy my visits there -- not all the "down home" stuff is fake
best know the locals there, tho
favorite view of the ole plantation is me rear-view
nowhere in these disunited states is masculinity more subservient than in the south
similar to the cowboy belt – ya gets two choices -- violence or submission
“What I don't understand is how with all the homogenized media nationwide, the universal TV, etc. How we still maintain that honeysuckle style all to its own. Must be the inbreeding, inherent, Jerry Lee style. The southern girl knows all the modern rap, but take her wraps off, underneath the same. Hardly has changed two decades being gone. The S. Girl knows all the modern feminist rap, chooses what she wants, tosses the rest, and keeps the Scarlett O'Hara heritage.”
thas a keeper there
nice trot line
owoooooo!!
cept it aint been two decades gone, but two centuries
an she’s still the same sweet thang
lookout joe
i’ve lived and worked in s.f. too, in the eighties
lotsa subcultures, tis true, and incredible ethnic restaurants (esp. in the mission)
but a very p.c. city in its infrastructure, power bases, and identity
no place fer a man
but this side of luna, where is?
t.m.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“i’ve lived and worked in s.f. too, in the eighties”
Wow! A home boy! Second home anyway. Tin Man, I lived in the East Bay, Oakland all these years until now. I much prefer the weather if you get immediately off the bay. Plus Oakland’s better attitude. SF & East Bay fight all the time, like Texas vs. Oklahoma football. As you know, SF & Oakland as a whole in general each, are dominant subcultures. Very different each as individuals.
SF is financial manipulation; Oakland is industry and working people. Oakland takes more abuse from snots from SF & the Peninsula, than did Clinton getting a blowjob nationwide. I (then we) chose to travel for 15-years when at home in the Bay, an hour across the Bay across the San Mateo Bridge to Palo Alto to HQ.
No matter the long drive. I am a staunch supporter of Oakland. Even towards many people at UCB. I like Oakland. Selectively. Which should be always the case anywhere. I might have been slightly snotty when I showed up there, corporate job, a candidate expected to be blindly loyal to execs & academics. But I had also worked really young with my auto repair shop. I liked Oakland even more later, because as part of my job, I had to coordinate labor and management. I didn’t know that at first.
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------
BELOW, IS A MASSAGED VERSION OF WHAT I HAD WRIT RECENTLY TO A YOUNGER BUD, ABOUT 18 YRS MY JUNIOR.
OPTIONAL READING ONLY:
When I got tossed into all this new environment as still a kid, I just started culling. I had no choice. I had good people to recommend me getting out there with this new job, but not a clue. Nor of Berkeley. I had no idea of where to even start looking where to live I met five girls wanting a roommate, who were surprised that I responded to their ad on UC’s bulletin board. They had a huddle, liked me, and I became their sixth roomie. And no sex, all sisters, and neat girls. They introduced me to more quality friends, and potential lovers, than King Faruk could have done with all his harem.
Nor, did I even have a clue AT WORK at first. The corporation had hired me as a shill, for my first project, a failing project. Hired me as an enthusiastic young face to show good faith, while my company and my client --behind my back-- were figuring out what the hell to do with this dog costing them so much money. I didn’t know this for awhile. We were all, I found, under pressure from the strong political climate of the environmentalists in Canada then. And the front entrance of Parliament is located directly across a fifty-foot-wide estuary from the nastiest end of my client’s plant operations. But I was only just getting a hint of this.
I was desperate there again. I thought I would be fired with this dog, career ended. And it was in BC, another unknown. I immediately got a supervisor from the locals to help me. Then we called a meeting of the plant guys, professional staff, and the union officials. I explained to them that I needed help. This plant was going down. I was going down. I want carte blanch, break the rules when we must. I want total control. And I was willing to do anything before I’d go down without a whimper. I pleaded, and I asked it they were with me. They agreed. I enlisted the help of the complex manager also. Three months, and we ran the plant, 5100 jobs secured. Out of chaos, that became my style. I changed. I had to change, from an independent arrogant asshole, into having to cooperate with a large team.
All of us guys & gals, culled EVERYONE who came into our group, skilled & professionals. Our survival depended upon it. Nearly everyone up there at this first client is related, families, background, and we were going to die, or do it. We became a third entity within the plant, spanning across my client and my employer, 250 strong, a tight, tight working force. NO one puts up with BS; it would only hurt us all, and no one tolerates a laggard. Authority is delegated when proven. And all my foremen and supervisors have full authority, which means thru me just like I’m speaking for them, which comes from full authority of the Plant Manager--because we all confer daily. And because, we long ago learned to trust one another, and trust our decisions as reliable, and families. Families, too! It ALL becomes personal. On this first project? We were so proud, you can’t imagine!
NONE of us had ever worked this way. I am a tyrant. But everyone knows that; so no one’s upset. I also demand that others take charge. You got a job, do it, whatever it takes, no excuses.
Within two years, we sometimes did final design work in the field. At one of the Sohio plants first, my welding foreman designed a vital improvement, solving a pressure vessel which kept blowing-out, along with fifteen tons of gooey media each time all over an acre, circa once per week. We had all got long-since tired of this clean-up then refilling. I asked my sharpest foreman & his crew if they had a better idea. They did. It was incorporated as permanent plant design, there and elsewhere. This foreman, and his two crews, each got a gift certificate for $200 for the restaurant of their choice, and any change left over, cash tax-free in their pocket.
Any of my people who sat foot on the plant grounds for the day, got eight hours minimum, 40-hours minimum per week. If the wife or kid was sick an hour into shift, take off paid, phone-in by 4:30 latest so we can schedule tomorrow. No one worked only two days per week, off three, then maybe called in the following Monday. It was full employment, full week, week after week. We took care of one another; we made it happen. That is the best job insurance. No one ever fucked with us. My Boss and my client were more than delighted to just give the project to us, take the load off them. All they had to do was phone in from the board, act concerned, a lot of questions, and go home at five.
Our requirement, in the times it came down to rush, is that we ran it carte blanche. But we also if we had to, work until finished, missing breaks. For that, we got privileges. When we took our breaks, we took them as demands required, as long as required to relax & play cards & dominos. And once done, we got party privileges paid, nice restaurants with all of us together, wives & girlfriends, on the company house. Women who don’t have to do real work would be the only ones to complain. Because none of us were, nor management. No one complained that I was excessively paternalistic. And I definitely am. BUT, only when earned. Otherwise, if she or he doesn’t earn it, my budget is exceeded, and she remains unemployed.
This was my start at becoming the one who coordinated labor and management, #1 within all the smoke-stack industries, especially. And this works with personal life, too. Including the culling to get down to those best to work with me. Most including the most closest, my lovers, and my very few rare mates. I am dead serious. Forget most. Cull down to the best. If you have to kickass and even go down, better that, than to fail without a whimper. BUT, to succeed, you MUST put yourself in the right place, and in control.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------
BACK TO THE BOSS:
The joke with “The Boss” is that I admit when someone is. I give him and her respect due. Man and woman. Boss is often an honor, not just a formality. Two of my first male mentors, I sometimes called Able and Al (forgive the alliteration, but true, both Jews). And sometimes, I called each, “Boss.” I kidded one of them at least once, ‘You like that, don’t you?’ Yeah, he did. No problem either of us. Abel always came up with superior ideas in business .
When a real kid, regardless of my youth, I earned my way after active combat training into a good position in the PIO (Public Information Office which acts as the liaison between the military and the civilian press). This assignment when offered, is offered first by voluntary invitation, including a personal note on formal stationery handwrit by the Commanding Officer, inviting me to lunch to discuss the proposal, and signed in his first name. I had earned it. I accepted the position, and addressed him subsequently as “Colonel”, which he was, full bird. He soon told me that during informal duties, I could call him “R___”. I replied, “I prefer to address you as Colonel, sir! You have earned the rank.” There was NOTHING sucking-up about that! He knew that. We became civilian friends within two years. He was exacting, yet fair; he was The Boss.
Sappy or not, the most stupid thing a person can do is not give authority when well deserved. And worse, not give superiority in realms where hers are due. If you don’t, you’ll look like the biggest fool to your betters, and the largest asshole to your subordinates. I am still an individualistic demigod; yet when the cooperation is due, I freely give-in. When my rare mate comes along, I not only have no reluctance to admit. I always freely & gladly admit she owns me. And I, her.
===============================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I like Schlussel any more than Steinem. Neither of them recognize that women influence men's actions (both good and bad), nor do either of them acknowledge that men are discriminated against. The most significant difference I see is that Steinem says men are evil, while Schlussel says men *in the middle east* are evil but men in the U.S. are good because they protect women. Both of them could learn from Warren Farrell, who points out that men everywhere are simply living up to their expected "protector/provider" role imposed by both sexes on men, and asks, "How can we wonder why men are not tender when we use them as tenderizer - that which makes something else lovable and tender?"
(Why Men Are The Way They Are.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good analysis, Marc. I've noticed the same characteristics among some conservative women. They're very critical of feminists but they're also dedicated to the idea of men's duty to protect women. They're less concerned about discrimination against men than in working to make sure feminists don't interfere too much with traditional gender roles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, for what it's worth, guys, there are men who support this notion, too. I'm one of them. If I'm allowed to fulfill that role and STILL have equal treatment under the law, then I'm okay with making most of those sacrifices. My wife makes sacrifices, too, albeit different one, so that's my share of the pie.
That being said, I still feel, as most do here, that I am worth more than my paycheck, especially to my children. I still believe men are not treated fairly under the law.
FWIW,
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank H states: "Well, for what it's worth, guys, there are men who support this notion too [that men have a duty to protect women]".
Of course. I would be surprised if the great majority of men didn't share that notion. I share it. I think it might be in our male genes. The determination to protect those who are at a physical disadvantage is a natural impulse (especially protecting an intimate partner). It isn't limited to protecting women. It also applies to children, handicapped people, the elderly, etc.
My point is that some of these conservative women come across (at least in my view) as having the idea that men are here to sacrifice for women. Both conservative women and feminists seem to be female-centered. They're both female-protective, although they disagree on strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Both conservative women and feminists seem to be female-centered."
Perhaps this is true, but I think that the difference is that feminists want to see the world as female dominated. Conservative women have simply grown up in a world where things were taken care of for them by their fathers or thier husbands, and so naturally, that's how they expect it to be.
I condemn them a lot less because, for all their presumption of caretaking, they respect men a whole lot more. Schlussel and Peggy Noonan and other conservative female writers paid a lot of respect to the men who ran into the World Trade Center and who volunteered for warfare in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Personally, I'm willing to give a lot more of myself when I know that what I have to offer is accepted with the recognition of what kind of sacrifice it really is.
By the way, I think this is where wiccidstepparent stands, based on what I've read of her posts.
But here's the thing, collins, et al: These women can be educated because they respect the messenger much more than the MacKinnons and Steinems and O'Donnells of the world. So we maybe ought to think about handling them differently. They're willing to listen more. They're willing to at least look at the research in DV, for example, and they do have sympathy for the men they know personally who are abused. These are the women who make up the majority of divorcees who respect the visitation and custody agreements and don't holler to the judge every year for an increase in child support.
Just seems to me that, while we can debate what Schlussel's real thinking is, she's less of an enemy than many others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Personally, I'm willing to give a lot more of myself when I know that what I have to offer is accepted with the recognition of what kind of sacrifice it really is.
Hear! Hear!
I've been in a relationship for three years now where she actually respects me for what I do (and who I am, for that matter). It's been a refreshing, rewarding eye-opener.
I think that's what drew me into men's issues. Looking around and seeing women basically being told over and over "For god's sake, whatever you do, don't respect a man!"
Talk about setting everyone up for failure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To frank h:
"for all their presumption of caretaking, they [conservative women] respect men a whole lot more."
Interesting point...and one I've been thinking about for some time now.
I think both feminist and conservative women expect sacrifice from men for women's protection and support. The difference is that conservative women seem much more likely than feminist women to acknowledge and APPRECIATE male sacrifice. Feminists work hard to find ideological excuses not to. Guess which category of women I'd rather sacrifice for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well stated, Frank. And too, the genes rule, else we'd have died out as a species long before we got to Internet & computers.
I not only, have no problem, backing up a fair mate, that is my prime directive. Yet, ONLY when she is fair. That is rare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Well, for what it's worth, guys, there are men who support this notion, too."
I don't dispute that. And I never blamed women alone for the notion. I said that both men and women impose the protector role on men and so we shouldn't be "blaming" only men for war or calling men "evil" for doing what they're expected to do. I see both Steinem and Schlussel doing that here, just in different ways.
"If I'm allowed to fulfill that role and STILL have equal treatment under the law, then I'm okay with making most of those sacrifices."
True. But when you're forced to register your body to do so without a choice on account of your being male, then you're not being treated equally under the law. And when you're socially expected as a male to do something, then you shouldn't be bashed for doing it, especially by those who expect you to do it..
"That being said, I still feel, as most do here, that I am worth more than my paycheck, especially to my children. I still believe men are not treated fairly under the law."
I'm not sure where we're disagreeing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm not sure where we're disagreeing."
Fundamentally, we don't disagree. However, I think that the men who visit here regularly can be divided in to two groups: conservatives (I'll call them) who, like Schlussel and Noonan, et al, who think in terms of traditional roles and nuclear families; and liberals (I apologize if the term isn't perfectly accurate) who tend to be much more in favor of the kind of egalitarianism that Farrell embraces, and some of the socialist (probably not the right word) that Zubaty offers in "What Men Know That Women Don't."
All I want to put forth is that each quarter ought to recognize that the other exists, and that even though we have some fundamental political differences, we see many of the same needs for men.
So Marc, no real disagreement here. Just an offering of maybe a different perspective.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I like Schlussel any more than Steinem.
I have to agree. Schlussel makes a weak point, which is that feminists like Steinem should be grateful for what they have here in the United States. This doesn't address the question of the so-called "Cult of Masculinity", which, as former Washington Post calumnist (I mean columnist) Judy Mann also suggested, is responsible in its extreme forms for evil on a global scale. One wonders what a more feminine approach to warfare might have had on the American Revolution, but that crucially relevant observation either has to be denied by feminists, or else immediately dismissd after its possible relevance acknowledged.
Neither of them recognize that women influence men's actions (both good and bad), nor do either of them acknowledge that men are discriminated against. The most significant difference I see is that Steinem says men are evil, while Schlussel says men *in the middle east* are evil but men in the U.S. are good because they protect women.
That's quite true. Neither admits the power of influence women often have over men--women often deny that power, with good political reason: any admission of power or influence over men would act to undermine it (unless men would seek to protect women from any consequences of such an admission).
I thought Schlussel's remarks were tangentially related to the issue of the Cult of Masculinity, and the revolutionary discovery by contemporary feminists that that evil has a gender. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
