|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When will feminists really tell us what they are?
I find it so amusing that this woman was able to speak for all women. These wingnuts suppress women just as much as they do men. She said the women agreed with her in silence; what a fucking dipshit. I can list off about a thousand women who will dissagree with her, one being my mother.
The thing that has happened is that women have also been silenced by the likes of this DR. The women's organizations that got money were (federal money) were the communist ones. They have since advanced their agenda without any opposition whatsoever. Men being the current target of this socialism/communism class warfare to advance the statism problematics. Spitting in their face would be to much of a curtasy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, I think that anti-male hatred goes beyond political-economic ideologies. While mainstream feminism may be based in part on a desire for government to provide for women, there are a large number of capitalist women, whom I've met, who are just as hateful of men and little boys as are the so-called femmunists. Perhaps capitalist misandrists are more likely to believe in chivalry, but the end result is still the murderous oppression of males. They still believe that males are inferior life forms and should be treated as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the risk of starting an argument, I would respectfully disagree that there are some capitalist women who hate men and boys. If you start to dig a little deeper into their political ideology, you start to see a little streak of socialism.
True laissez-faire capitalism (a redundancy in terminology) is the only system which bars the use of PHYSICAL FORCE in social relationships. I would venture to bet that these so-called "capitalist" women who hate men don't hesitate to support government programs which redistribute the wealth of men for the benefit of women.
"Oh, but we must have government funding for homeless and needy women and children!"
"We must have government funding for programs wo help battered women!"
"We must have government funding for programs to help women get ahead in life!"
Just where the hell does this government funding come from? Why, male taxpayers! And just how is the government going to insure that men pay those taxes into those programs? Through the threat of force.
Make no mistake, those "capitalist" women might have a little tiny, itsy-bitsy streak of capitalism in them, but it sure as hell ain't the real deal.
Who was a true capitalist and a real woman? Ayn Rand.
Let those fake capitalists put their guns down, then we'll see just how much they support a free market.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll try to respond in a non-argumentative way.
As an example of a capitalist misandrist, I'd hold out Devvy Kidd, who is being discussed on another thread on this board. While she believes that men should be protecting women and doesn't hold women to a reciprocal standard, she definitely has a capitalist bent.
A few quotes from her:
(In response to an email that stated, "Your sex, you [bleeping] feminists wants the government to take care of you. When we men tried to stop that, your sex had fits.") She wrote, "I have worked all my life and never asked the government for a thing." Her point is that she doesn't believe that government should take care of women. Personally, I'd call her beliefs chauvinism, not socialism.
"I never asked for alimony."
"I have the greatest respect for my husband, for my male partner in our legal institute and for the garbage man who works an honest day for an honest day's pay. My web site if full of requests for men and women to get off their collective, well padded rumps and stop "big brother" from crushing our freedoms."
I've met a number of women, who believe programs such as welfare and socialism should be eliminated, and who fall into the chivalrous class -- they believe that men owe women something.
Men owe women nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 17, @07:12PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
These are not capitalist women. These are conservative women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Her point is that she doesn't believe that government should take care of women. Personally, I'd call her beliefs chauvinism, not socialism.
I personally believe that Ms. Devvy Kidd's comments are conservative and that chauvinistic values continue to be perpetuated by this form of bigotry that places men's value second to the female segment of the population. It has nothing to do with capitalism, which is an economic system that is independent of values.
It is these chauvinistic values that NCFM, LA is fighting with their club suits. The objective of the club suits is to raise awareness of how women experience privilege and to stop ladies night in California. Clearly, women enjoy special privileges and rights not afforded to the male segment of the population.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally believe that Ms. Devvy Kidd's comments are conservative and that chauvinistic values continue to be perpetuated by this form of bigotry that places men's value second to the female segment of the population. It has nothing to do with capitalism, which is an economic system that is independent of values.
I agree that Kidd is conservative. The reason I suspect that she is also a capitalist is in part because of her statement in response to an email stating "Your sex, you [bleeping] feminists wants the government to take care of you. When we men tried to stop that, your sex had fits." She wrote, "I have worked all my life and never asked the government for a thing." Those don't sound like the words of a socialist to me. Quite the contrary.
My point is that being a capitalist doesn't mean that a woman isn't chauvinistic. A capitalist can be chauvinistic just as a socialist can be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's true that she probably doesn't want government to keep her or other women up, but nonetheless she still shares the same basic mindset that socialists share: that others owe her something.
She doesn't demand the unearned in terms of dollars, she demands it in terms of services. It's her opinion that men owe her protection from whatever she considers an "evil". (Be it an oppressive government, or whatever.)
So in an economic sense, no, she's probably got SOME capitalist ideas. But in a social sense, she's as far from capitalism as east is from west.
The mistake that some people make is in thinking that capitalism is only a system of economics. Far from it. It's a complete SOCIAL system, which includes economics.
As I stated earlier, true capitalism is the only system which bars the use of physical force in social relationships. No one, man, woman, or child, has the right to obtain values from others through the use of physical force. This isn't just monetary values, but other values as well.
I'd be curious to know what Ms. Kidd's opinion of the draft is. If I were a betting person, I'd bet good money that she's for it. (If someone knows otherwise, I'd appreciate being enlightened.)
The draft, i.e. forced military service, is a means of obtaining a value through force. The value in this case is protection, or security.
That's why conservatives make me just as sick as pseudo-liberals. (I say "pseudo" because today's fake-liberals have almost nothing in common with classical liberalism.) I am a liberal in the true, original, classical sense of the word.
I'm a laissez-faire capitalist. A real liberal.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 17, @11:19PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"The objective of the club suits is to raise awareness of how women experience privilege and to stop ladies night in California. Clearly, women enjoy special privileges and rights not afforded to the male segment of the population."
Dear Ladies who get in Free b4 10:00 P.M., or 10:30 P.M., or 11:00 P.M., etc., while men pay $5, $10, $20, etc.:
What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours as long as we're equal, and what's mine that you think is yours is what's causing so many lawsuits to be filed against clubs that discriminate against men.
You've come a long way baby so dig a little deeper the next time you go to a bar and get off the men's backs who've been carrying your lazy, cheap butts all these years.
Ricardo Beatman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I knew a capitalist woman once. She even won
one of those "Business woman of the year" awards. She was 30-ish and her businesses had all been financed by a series of middle aged (50+) men whom she had relationships with. She seemed to prefer bank managers.
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I knew a capitalist woman once. She even won
one of those "Business woman of the year" awards. She was 30-ish and her businesses had all been financed by a series of middle aged (50+) men whom she had relationships with. She seemed to prefer bank managers.
Bingo. She probably wanted her middle-aged men to be extremely successful capitalists, so she could chauvinistically share in the wealth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has me wondering. Lorrianne, are you a socialist? You strike me as more of a libertarian-capitalist, with your own decided ideas of personal responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 17, @09:04PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne is not a libertarian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While Lorrainne may not actually be a libertarian, she would make an excellent one. She shares the same foundation as libertarians: none.
A few months ago, Lorrainne and I had a rather lengthy debate here on the immorality of forcing someone to pay for someone else's upkeep when he didn't get that person into a mess in the first place. It sort of branched off of a paternity fraud topic, and strayed into the area of the welfare state. Both are essentially the same: You must pay for someone's welfare even if you didn't put them in their bad position.
Lorrainne went to great lengths to avoid the issue of morality. I believe she even said something to the effect that it "isn't relevant" or something like that.
Which is exactly the libertarian position. They like to portray themselves as followers of Ayn Rand, yet Rand had absolutely no use for them. (Modern Objectivists distance themselves from libetarians, as well.) Rand always stressed that her position on pure capitalism was based on a moral foundation, whereas libertarians downplay the importance of having a moral foundation. (I would refer the reader to "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty", by Peter Schwartz.)
Essentially what they (Lorrainne and libertarians) are saying is that laws don't need a moral foundation. As long as someone benefits from them, they can be unjust. Unjust laws are perfectly acceptable as long as someone can gain value from them.
Lorrainne may not be a libertarian, but she would probably feel right at home in their camp.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 18, @10:44AM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to hear a libertarian's response. Gonzo? Smoking Drive? Anyone?
napnip seems to have a twisted view of what libertarians are. real libertarians do not support forcing someone to pay for someone else's upkeep.
if you visit libertarian boards you will find the morality is a big topic there, not "not relevant". there is a great debate among libertarians right now about whether the war with Iraq is moral or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have misinterpreted my words. I apologize if I wasn't clear.
Of course libertarians don't feel that one person should pay for another's upkeep. I said they feel that a moral foundation to capitalism is "unnecessary". To them, capitalism is good only in that someone (the private property owner) benefits. That's essentially the same as Lorainne's position that it's OK to force someone to pay for the welfare state, even if they did't put another person on the poorhouse. Why is it the same? Because according to Lorainne, it's OK to do it because someone benefits. It doesn't matter to her that it's unjust. As long as someone benefits, then it's OK.
That's the point I was trying to make. The litmus test that both have adopted is whether or not someone benefits, not whether it's moral. Libertarians believe that the private property owner should benefit, Lorainne believes that the poor and disenfranchised should benefit. Both sides reject a need for a moral foundation to law.
If you think I'm blowing smoke out of my ass regarding Libertarians, read the paper I refered to earlier. "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" by Peter Schwartz. You might be able to do a search on the Net and find it.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regardless of my opinion of Lorianne's views, I find it distasteful for us to state her views for her and critique them without her participating. I'm of the opinion that we should refrain from this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't want it to come across is seeming that ALL libertarians reject the need to have a moral foundation to their beliefs. Clearly that's not the case.
I think that MOST libertarians view a moral foundation as unnecessary, but certainly not all.
Of course, I stand to be corrected. I could be completely wrong. But again, read that paper by Peter Schwartz. You may have to do a search on the Net.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would agree, if she had not already stated those views to me previously. It was only a few months ago that she and I had a debate on the morality of forcing someone to pay for the welfare state.
In her words to me, it was irrelevant. We should have welfare because the poor benefit, and in turn society benefits because the poor will be less like to enter into a life of crime. Morality be damned.
That was her view. If I've misstated it, then she is free to correct me.
In her opinion, law doesn't need a moral foundation, all it needs is to be demonstrated that said law benefits somebody else.
Don't believe me? Go look back through the archives and look for some posts be me entitled "Am I my brother's keeper?". You'll find them under a topic of paternity fraud.
Read it for yourself.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The libertarian view of a moral foundation for laws is that it begs the question:
Whose morality?
I mean, once you've accepted that morality is subject to popular vote, and can be implemented, well, then, the pheminuts become right.
Lorriane is most certainly NOT a libertarian. Ya'll Republicrats can keep her; and since it's the lot of ya in power that have let the Pheminutzis gain power, you can take credit for that, too.
No, the only acceptable definitions of a crime are crimes against persons or property; and if it isn't contractually in writing, and enforceable, let both the buyer and seller beware.
And not all of us buy into the Beatification and Cult of St. Ayn Rand, who by all occounts was a thoroughly unpleasant person. Something I extend to nearly all followers of objectivism, who pretty much base their morality on "What is good for ME?" (I've also called this Mefirstism, elsewhere.)
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 18, @12:18PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Well said, Frank.
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 18, @12:20PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Gonzo for stepping up to the plate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no basis to doubt your assertion. But I think criticising her position in a debate in which she is not participating constitutes nothing valuable and is, to me at least, unseemly. Have the debate if you wish, but if her positions are central to the debate, then invite her to participate.
There is not value in bashing someone who is not present to defend themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing is stopping her from entering this discussion. If you scroll down a bit on the page, she did post something regarding this topic. She's certainly not "absent". If she wishes to enter this particular segment of the thread, she is more than welcome.
If she feels that I've mischaracterized her position, then I graciously invite her to correct me.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 17, @11:03PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
"Perhaps capitalist misandrists are more likely to believe in chivalry, but the end result is still the murderous oppression of males. They still believe that males are inferior life forms and should be treated as such."
...and why do they behave this way, why do they think this way? Because they have no respect for men who have allowed them to have privileges that men have, without having the obligations that men have.
They firmly hold to their sexist stereotypes of men as beast of burden, tools of defense, and then insult us for giving sacrificially and lovingly. They take more than their share and then abuse us and take more, because they're not satisfied with what they have. I'd rather have a leech hanging on my privates, than a female bloodsucker. They're a lot easier to get rid of and there's no illusion about their true nature.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 17, @08:31PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
If Hellen Calsesnot, or whatever her stupid name is, wants a true gender war IE. Women Vs. Men, all I've got to say is; "BRING IT ON!!!!"
I am so sick of these gender bigots.
Caldesnot, In a war with men I would gladly see YOU personaly as the modern day incarnation of General Custer.
The people of my ethnicity whooped Custer's ass, and the people of my GENDER will do the same to you, in the exact same way.
Sorry, folks.
I know I get carried away sometimes, but just keep in mind my ethnic back ground. When people like Caldesnot start talking "genocide" alot of Indians get angry REALLY quick.
We went through it once, we AIN'T gonna go through it again. especialy at the hands of a piss-poor excuse of a human being like Caldesnot...!
(sorry for some of the strong language, everyone.)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing to apologize for, Thundercloud. I'll be right there with you. You're a MAN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 18, @02:22PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the old lady should realize that women on earth account for 50% of people...
And that men do outnumber women when it comes to people under 44, and that in every country of the western world....boys are 51% of young population in western countries, let alone china or india where the sex-ratio is now 117 in favor of males for more than a decade....
Nevertheless, this article doesn't impress me at all, I've seen much worse from radical feminists...
The lady seems to be a pacifist so don't pay too much attention to her words, for me it's nothing serious.....and she has acknowledged the male genius by stating Einstein, so.....
For me, just a stupid woman, nothing more.
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...just a stupid woman, nothing more.
Oh God, not another one!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Helen writes, "I always found it interesting and terrifying that when a conquering army invades a country their first act is to rape the women. What possible subconscious evolutionary imperative is served by this behavior. Do men need to sow their seeds in the wombs of the conquered tribes or countries to prove they are superior beings?"
It is interesting that Dr. Helen makes a false presumption that all wars are morally equivalent. She has no concept of a just war. This demonstrates how extreme forms of relativism become so debased and deprived of morality that they cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. In the view of the relativists all wrongs are right from the perspective of the culture. This is of course a BIG LIE told by relativists in the name of tolerance.
Dr. Helen is in effect claiming that there is no difference in America starting a war as a preemptive strike to preserve liberty, free an oppressed people, liberate women that are subject to honor killings, and a nation like Iraq starting a war to take over a country like Kuwait whose troops are on record as performing thousands of war atrocities.
Last I checked, America doesn't permit its soldiers to commit war atrocities like rape when invading a nation like Afghanistan. This is in stark contrast to Saddam Hussein’s practice of torture, rape, mass murder, oppression of women, oppression of dissent by the supporters of democracy, and more. If American soldiers to commit war atrocities then they get prosecuted and severely penalized. By contrast Hussein rewards his soldiers for their criminal actions. America isn’t going in as a conqueror as Dr. Helen would suggest. That is a BIG LIE being told by radical feminist and liberals.
Yet Dr. Helen would equate America to little more than a nation that loots other countries and rapes women. This of course is the BIG LIE of radical feminism and liberalism. What is especially ironic is that she has no compassion and sympathy for the men that will be required to sacrifice their lives to preserve her freedom to spread her brand of hatred for the male segment of the world population.
Dr. Helen would do well to learn that there is a right and wrong and we all have the capacity to discern such when we use our internal moral compass. For example, it is clearly wrong to permit Iraq to send millions of dollars to Palestine in support of terrorism. It is clearly wrong to permit Iraq to use weapons of mass destruction on it's own people. It is clearly wrong to permit Iraq to endanger the rest of the world with the production of weapons of mass destruction that they will most likely make available to terrorist.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 17, @10:24PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"Dr. Helen is in effect claiming that there is no difference in America starting a war as a preemptive strike to preserve liberty, free an oppressed people, liberate women that are subject to honor killings, and a nation like Iraq starting a war to take over a country like Kuwait whose troops are on record as performing thousands of war atrocities."
Dr. Helen is basing her conclusions on her feelings and her thoughts and not on any empirical evidence gathered through any form of scientific research.
There is one scenario that I can think of where this article could be very useful to the "Dr." If by some strange twist of fate she wound up being accussed of some serious crime tonight, this article could be very useful in supporting any insanity pleading she may wish to offer. They don't call them Pheminuts for nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article is full of generalizations. This approach works only as long as the person making them is within their own clique, the opinions are socially normalized, or it remains unchallenged.
Challenging can be challenging though! Especially if ingrained.
Asking for specifics and continued probing may eventually dislodge this type of intellectual dishonesty.
When questioning though, the answer is often 'everybody knows that'. How infuriating.
Talking about her politics is unlikely to dislodge the opinion. Putting forward alternative examples of injustice is unlikely to work.
A simple request such as 'How awful, I feel the need for some additional specfic information', may help.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Dr ignores the violence done to men in wars, such as the murder of civilian men of military age that has happened in the Balkans in recent years. She sounds like the typical feminist who takes violence done to women more seriously than that done to men. She also assumes women's innocence which makes her appear both sexist and naive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She's a pacifist right? Against violence and war etc. I'd really like to see the pacifist plan to "remove them [men]". This should be interesting.
Also, she fails to mention all the fetuses killed by naturally non-violent women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, yes, Dr. Helen. I remember her well from back in the 1970s, when her book Nuclear Madness made her world-famous. I saw her speak once, on her first world tour I'd guess, to a small group in San Francisco. I was and remain as horrified as she, maybe more so, at the threat of radioactive annihilation (this was not so long after Three Mile Island, which occurred about a week after I'd had a dream of a California reactor blowing up). But even then something about her didn't ring true to me, though I was then still a pretty typical California left-liberal hippie type. Typical of female "thinking," she saw (and clearly still sees) the whole thing as a "gender issue": cruel violent men vs. gentle, peaceful, wouldn't-hurt-a-flea women. "Take the toys away from the boys!" has been her constant mantra throughout her career. Even then I couldn't buy it.
And I noticed that while she was adamant that nobody should have anything to do with radioactive materials for any purpose (weapons, nuclear "power," etc.)--an idea with which I fully concur*--she made just one eensy little exception for her own profession, the medical use of such poisons. Again, typical female thinking: we are wise enough and good enough to do what others, i.e. men, inferior beings that they are, cannot be allowed to do. (Double standards are wrong, unless defined by females. Both sexes are equal, but one sex is more equal than the other.) Having just been through the Vietnam War era, when more bombs were dropped on that tiny country than on the whole planet during WWII, I wanted to point out to her that what doctors do with radioactives is not so different than what the military does: they both kill. Clearly the U.S. military, and the government behind it, saw Vietnam as a part of the world that was "sick" and, rather than make any effort to figure out why and find a benign, constructive cure, they just bombed the hell out of it. Which is just what "modern" medicine normally does with malfunctioning human body parts, particularly in cases of cancer, which they bathe in deadly radiation. I see no real difference between the attitudes or the methods employed.
(*I remember hearing a Native American teacher named Rolling Thunder once who remarked that everyone of us has something in our life that we should just not touch. At the time, habituated (maybe I should just go ahead and say "addicted") to marijuana, this thought rang a rather large bell in my mind. I think that radioactive elements may well be that sort of thing for homo sapiens as a whole. It is hubris on the grandest scale to imagine that we're qualified to handle them--like cloning. We are not God.)
By the way, the correct spelling of her name is Helen Caldicott (with an "i"); trust David Horowitz (who impresses me no more now that he's a rabid, doctrinaire right-winger than when he was a rabid, doctrinaire left-winger: he's his own caricature) to get it wrong.
As for "liberal" or "conservative" feminists, it's worth pointing out the similarity in tone between, for instance, Devvy Kidd and Helen Caldicott. Feminism is nothing new, it wasn't new even in 1848; it's just the latest, perhaps historically most egregious, example of something that's been going on since time immemorial. Similarly, women from all across the conventional political spectrum, from NOW to Dr Laura, are all quite firmly in favor of infant male circumcision--which expresses their real sentiments toward males most emphatically.
And, of course, from a libertarian perspective conventional "liberals" and "conservatives" really aren't that different anyway, since both are agreed on the one principle that makes all the difference: the use of force. They only disagree, like two hyenas fighting over a carcass, regarding who gets to use the force and for whose benefit. I would call myself both a "classical liberal" (in favor of liberty--with, of course, responsibility) and a "real conservative" (in favor of conserving, the Earth, resources, values, life, etc.)--in both cases just the opposite of the now-conventional meanings of those terms.
...the mainstream is taking it seriously.
Where? I was unable to find it anywhere else (with several Google searches) but on this site. It's true it expresses a common, near-universal female attitude, but this particular article doesn't seem to have made much of a splash. We can assume that it's appearance on FrontPage does not indicate endorsement; Horowitz is a knee-jerk yes-man for anything the Bush Administration wants to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Politico/economic curriculum suggested for your local school.
Politics 101
Property Ownership: Livestock
DEMOCRAT
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
You vote people into office that put a tax on your cows, forcing you to sell
one to raise money to pay the tax.
The people you voted for then take the tax money, buy a cow and give it to
your neighbor.
You feel righteous.
Barbara Streisand sings for you.
SOCIALIST
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
REPUBLICAN
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?
COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.
CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man
in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your
government.
BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for
the milk, and then pours the milk down the drain.
AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when one cow drops dead.
You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are
reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.
FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch.
Life is good.
JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and
produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.
GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent
quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.
ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you have no idea where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.
RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
You count them again and learn you have 12 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
You produce your 10th, 5-year plan in the last 3 months.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.
TALIBAN CORPORATION
You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
At night when no one is looking, you have sex with both of them.
Then you kill them and claim a US bomb blew them up while they were in the
hospital.
POLISH CORPORATION
You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.
FLORIDA CORPORATION
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best-looking one.
Some of those who like the brown one best inadvertently vote for the black
one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which is the
best-looking one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimately, the statistical preponderance of aggressive and sometimes pathological tendencies among powerful men says less about men in general and more about the kind of men (and women) who generally obtain positions of power. In human societies, making it to the top of the game requires an extreme level of certain aggressive and ambitious qualities which probably are more common, to varying degrees, in the average male than in the average female - but not to the extent that the average male is anywhere near as pathologically aggressive as a Hitler or a Hussein. If it were, then the majority of men on the planet would be tycoons, dictators, conquerors and dynamos - which would probably result in all of us killing each other.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
