|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read it here.
I got a feeling the sanity train didn't stop at her station.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Adam. For those who would like to access NYT articles directly, you have to register (free) and have your browser's cookies set to on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps whoever is registered online with the paper can print today's edition, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 11, @11:35AM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
And have you read these replies ? Are they sympathetic to men ?
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't read them yet; I'll head to the library shortly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 11, @12:03PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
One can already read them on mensnewsdaily.com
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't hate women in general, but in Dowd's case I'll make an exception (I'd include genocidal misandrists like Dr. Helen Caldicott as well, but that's another story).
I don't know what Marueen Dowd's problem is with the male gender. Dowd bases her insane rant of an editorial on an arbitrary interpretation of some questionable research done on the Y chromosome. This ignores other research highlighting the strength and utility of the Y chromosome (such as its ability to repair itself). She then quotes a man-hating female evolutionary biologist's gleeful description of female insects that devour male insects - as if a parallel in the human world would be a good thing.
Perhaps Dowd would benefit from removing herself from her insular world in order to observe the civilized world that surrounds her. Then she might see that most of the world's physical and informational infrastructure - which ultimately benefits women like her - was created by the very men she despises.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure which pisses me off more - the hijacking and perversion of a solid science, or the obvious bigotry toward one half of humanity. Hilter murdered ~6 million people. Dowd is going for 3 billion.
Now is not the time for a introductory genetics discussion, but suffice it to say that the size of a gene sequence is in no way indicative of superiority. Indeed, the vast majority of human DNA consists of intron sequences, commonly referred to as "junk DNA", because it serves no apparent functional purpose. Geez, it is like saying that because oxygen has more protons than carbon, it is a superior atom. Come on, man, science deserves a little more respect than this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't believe such a blatantly sexist text has been released in the so-called "paper of record". This is what I'd call a "hate crime".
What pisses me really off is the fact that men had been waiting for years for two science breakthroughs to achieving single reproduction, without resorting to disgusting female chauvinist pigs any more, and one of them has already occured, but the mainstream media is kept silent about it....double standards as usual, when it is considered as disempowering for women, no one dares to speak about it, but when it is considered as empowering for women, every newspaper is celebrating the news...
So, up to now, men were in need of :
- eggs
- artificial wombs
The first step has been taken, as we know now that male stem cells can make eggs (and probably can make uterine tissue as well)....the second is yet to come, but it will for sure....there are more and more gay men on earth, with each passing year, and those men want to reproduce themselves without women....it's their dream, and they will achieve it, because scientists may have been anti-heterosexual male up to this day, but these same scientists are pro-gay males.......straight men will never have legal access to ectogenesis, unless the ability is given to gay men first.
Keep up the good work against misandry, brothers, one day those females pigs will pay for their villainy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a footnote: I changed the title of my most recent post from the earlier "Maureen Dowd's misandrist rantings" that was posted sometime last year (that was a Dowd article about the Catholic priest scandal that I sent in).
It is more grammatically correct to write that Maureen Dowd's rantings are "misandric" rather than "misandrist." This is because the "rantings" that Dowd indulges in are a noun, and it is proper to modify a noun by preceding it with an adjective such as "misandric," rather than another noun such as "misandrist." Therefore, Maureen Dowd's rantings are technically "misandric" rather than "misandrist."
Steve
PS I'm not really that picky, but I thought I'd just post this for fun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This nitwit is becoming a parody of herself. It is as though she realized that the previous 13,862 previous anti-male diatribes she wrote have failed to move the populace and she decided to be even more blatant with this one. I can see this harpie perched up in her lair somewhere on the Upper East Side typing furiously thinking to herself..."oh! but that young 22-year-old receptionist with the fake t*ts, yeah, she's his type...why, she never even went to an Ivy League school....I've been writing here for all these years, did I ever get the offer to be Sr. Editor?, no, no.....all my friends are with their husbands cuddled up on the couch enjoying one another and I am alone again and.......equal work / equal pay.......a woman needs a man like.......7 out of every 8, no wait, 7 out of every...6 women are beaten every...10 minutes....."
Fortunately, the only people who like the sort of drivel she writes are already commufems and most of America sees her for what she is.
Also, I heard that our boy Joe Scarborough will be going for his 5th (yes 5th) pro-male feature tonight. I heard he will again touch on the anti-male bias at the Times, especially focusing on this article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just saw the Scarborough segment on Dowd and it was excellent. He had a male guest on (I forget his name) who is a radio personality and they both acknowledged time and again what they called "Dowd's double standard." He mentioned that the same women who chant "you go girl" at thr relentless brainfarting of Miss Dowd would no doubt have their panties up in a bind if a male writer wrote the opposite. He even went as far as to say that white men in particular have been doubly censored. The best thing about it was niether he nor his guest came across as the "angry white male." They both laughed at her with her ridiculousness as to not give her more power than she deserves all the while clearly pointing out the blatant double standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The best thing about it was niether he nor his guest came across as the "angry white male." They both laughed at her
Laughter can be an effective weapon.
The feminists try to discount us by laughing at us. Well, we can laugh at them too. The difference?
We stand on a rock solid foundation of truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 08, @07:49PM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
You know, after reading your post I could not help but laugh my ass off at your response to what is a very well written article. Now that I'm through laughing at you (for now) I just wanted to respond to the drivel you wrote. So, let's dive into the stupid thicket that is your thoughts, shall we? See my comments below:
This nitwit is becoming a parody of herself. It is as though she realized that the previous 13,862 previous anti-male diatribes she wrote have failed to move the populace and she decided to be even more blatant with this one.
Yet, when the 13,862nd female rejected your disgusting sexual advances failed to make you realize you will just keep striking out with chicks no matter what.....
But seriously, Maureen Dowd is a distinguished writer and excellent journalist who tells it like it is: that men are, and are continuing to be, on an evolutionary downward spiral. Every word of her article is truth and whether you agree with her or not, she's witty and incisive, unlike the myopic and boring rants written by men's rights nutters.
I can see this harpie perched up in her lair somewhere on the Upper East Side typing furiously thinking to herself..."oh! but that young 22-year-old receptionist with the fake t*ts, yeah, she's his type..
Thank you for proving a very important point here. You are stressing that a womyn's sole reason for being and economic survival is based on whether or not she appeals to a man in some way. You beat the same dead horse and use the same dead stereotypes that attempt to tell womyn that without a men, they are somehow deficient and incomplete. You know very well that you are dead wrong and that there are womyn who lead perfectly normal, happy and full lives without a man. Men are not important in the lives of womyn. They are expendable. Dowd is just observing and reporting. Get over it.
and.......equal work / equal pay.......a woman needs a man like.......7 out of every 8, no wait, 7 out of every...6 women are beaten every...10 minutes....."
Yes, you're right. Womyn have all these issues EXCEPT for the equal pay part. Par for the course in a patriarchy. By the way, just to set u straight, a womyn is raped every 90 seconds in the US, one in five womyn will be raped during their lifetime, battered every 15 seconds by her male partner, 1 in 3 females has been beaten or sexually abused in her life by a man. In light of these numbers, many womyn feel it is to their benefit NOT to be in a so-called relationship with a man, and it's easy to see why. Really a scream that you can laugh over tea (after ballet class) about this with your boyfriends here.
Fortunately, the only people who like the sort of drivel she writes are already commufems and most of America sees her for what she is.
Actually, the NY Times is read by millions the world over and Dowd is a respected journalist, as I stated before. Even professional males and academics are in agreement with Dowd. Incidentally, if you were to comment on the anti-female polemics in the media, which is a norm in our society, you'd need thousands of websites to do so that would be jam packed with nothing else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there some sort of feminism-virus going around that dissolves the brains of women who catch it? This type of rant is such blatent hate-mongering that, at this point, it probably does the men's movement and men in general more good than bad. Only the utterly deranged could fail to be repulsed by such vehement misandry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there some sort of feminism-virus going around that dissolves the brains of women who catch it?
Yeah, it's called vegatitus.
:-D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's called vegatitus
OK. I'm lost. I'm afraid you're gonna have to explain that one to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK. I'm lost. I'm afraid you're gonna have to explain that one to me.
vegatitus = wordplay on vegtable.
Probably a bit too subtle, but it's late over here, so that's my excuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 09, @08:50PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously, the real name of the virus is called pride, which women in general are quite susceptible to. In the beginning Eve was tempted with "ye shall be like gods". And so it is today.
The column is an example of what happens when women are not put "in their place". And much of the blame for this must unfortunately be laid at the feet of men, out of fear of provoking woman's wrath.
Throughout Western Civilization women were never allowed to have any sort of spiritual power whatsoever, and the only political power they ever received was when one of them became Queen due to the lack of a male heir to the throne. Was this because women were deemed as a group unfit to rule? In a word, yes. Since we "enlightened" folk won't listen to the wisdom of our ancestors we are going to have to learn the hard way. For instance, after women received the vote, the size of government immediately shot way up.
Another nugget of wisdom discarded by our "enlightened" society is the archetype of male as creator, female as nurturer. But it is true, and male creative activity is never going to be appreciated and valued by women in general. Male creations are just going to be taken for granted, as though they just magically appeared, even though, of course, inventions by men have made life much easier for women. Moreover, even though Ms. Dowd points out the advantages of sexual reproduction for women (especially the much-ballyhooed sexually "liberated" women) and for the human race in general the idea that it "takes two to tango" just doesn't seem to take hold. Don't hold your breath. It never will.
So, in short, patriarchy, or bust.
Vince S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a somewhat funny analysis of Dowd's hate diatribe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 09, @09:01PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
males, always a genetic "parasite," have devolved to become the "second sex."
The devolution of males into second-class citizens has occurred mainly in the past 30 year. That has nothing to do with evolution. It's about spineless males and complicit females.
Perhaps that's why men are adapting, becoming more passive and turning into "metrosexuals," the new term for straight men who are feminized, with a taste for facials, grooming products and home design.
Men caring for themselves does not make them "feminized." You obviously believe that real men are brutes. Miss enDowed, stop pleasuring yourself and wake up to the existence of the other half of the human race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 09, @09:29PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
What a complete moron. How does this woman find the mental capacity to put one leg in front of the other every day with such an obviously damaged and deranged brain?
She should change her name to Moron Dowd.
No wait. Let's do it for her.
From now on any time we mention her name here spell it as Moron. When you send email to NYT spell her name that way. Make it clear what she really is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The NYT article is now chargeable, but it is repeated at the International Herald Tribune.
The notion that men have or are being deposed from their throne is a female paranoid fantasy. It relies on the idea that men have been on top in the first place. As Bernard points out in his article, men have been effectively working for women all along. When men go out of the cave, or out of the house, it is not so they can oppress women,; it is so they can provide for women, knowing that if they don't she will look elsewhere. Men have known that for 5 millions years. She apparently loves ideas like female spiders eating male spiders after sex. This feeds her idea of the females fighting back against the oppressive males. The males have never been oppressive. She misses the point of the male-eating female spider. If she is eating him, why after sex? Why not before? Because the point is procreation! He is sacrificing himself so his offspring will live. Feminists wish for some kind of reproduction without sperm. No such method really exists. Without sperm there is no procreation and without procreation, there is no species. This is what the feminists are heading for, not some female only heaven.
Raymond Cuttill
cyberManbooks
Men's Hour
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Feminists wish for some kind of reproduction without sperm. No such method really exists.
I'm pretty sure that's already been pioneered - google for 'reproduction without sperm' (sans quotes) or similar. I can't recall the method I read of some years back, but I do recall that, since it took genetic material from a mother, eliminated the clearly sub-optimal outcome of bearing a boy, due to the lack of a Y chromosome on the mother's part. 'boy', that's a relief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 10, @11:36PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Yah the problem for feminists though is that only about 10% of females are lesbians, thats their biggest obstacle.
I like to call it biology myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 10, @11:35PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Your exactly right about the spiders.
The problem with the women who wrote this article, is that she lacks any intelligence.
Yes the female spider eats the male spider, but it's NATURES WAY. It has absolutely nothing to do with hate. Lol.
She is so stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 10, @01:54AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maureen can nag, whinny, bleat and moo all she
wants about how men are shrinking, but it's old
crone looks like hers that shrivel us up like a
three hour bath.
She should try a little blush, a little mascara
and voila, what do you have? An old woman afraid
of the rain who cleans and jerks her bra on.
Oh no, I have offended Maureen! Maybe the hairs on
her lip will reach out and strangle me, like the
mighty octopus!
Sure, columnist's like her can unhinge their jaws
like an anaconda and devour their mates, but why
would any guy want an old, dried up scrap of beef
jerky when he can have a succulent fresh steak?
That aging maritime toy should retire to her sofa,
watch Oprah, push aside a breast and scratch her
knee.
The Madcap Misogynist
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"That aging maritime toy should retire to her sofa, watch Oprah, push aside a breast and scratch her knee."
hehe. Long time no see, Madcap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
myGAWD I hope she wanders over here and sees this one! LOLOL!
Disclaimer: Everything I post is of course my own opinion. If it seems harsh, Feminazis just piss me off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as much as we'd like to say that this Dowd personality has no credibility, that's not up to us - anyone who wants to believe her, will believe her. There's no point yammering on about how she's botched her 'credibility' if she, still has a readership and hence, erm, credibility.
People are actually going to read and take seriously that sort of claptrap - so while we're all here forcing laughter over her grave lack of sense, there are people reading and believing that article, amongst others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People are actually going to read and take seriously that sort of claptrap - so while we're all here forcing laughter over her grave lack of sense, there are people reading and believing that article, amongst others.
that maybe so, but anybody who believes or sympathizes with that kind of mindless tripe is probably beyond help anyways.
i don't think we should give too much of our precious time to these powerless and witless typographical defecators. they're beneath us.
----
"I despise you. I despise your order; your laws; your force-propped authority." HANG ME FOR IT!" - louis lingg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 10, @10:43PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt that letters to the editor will help. Is it true that the owner of the paper himself is supportive of these types of misandric reporting?
What we need to do is boycott, as well as send letters to advertisers at the NYTimes who are particularly attentive to the needs of men...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 11, @03:25AM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
On the NYT site, there is a forum to discussing Dowd columns. Perhaps it would be a good idea to protest against her misandry on that forum ?
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 11, @07:28PM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
The NYT seems to me to be consistently, viciously anti-male. It's amazing that such cowshit is a major US newspaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 10, @11:25PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
That's the worst article about men I've ever read in a mainstream newspaper.
Actually I didn't even read it, I just skimmed through it because I don't feel like wasting my time on bullshit.
I don't even know where to begin, her article is just so false that...oh god whatever, whats the fucking point.
Look at it this way, if the Y really is shrinking, then it's shrinking, IT'S NATURES WAY, don't worry about it. Your not going to all of a sudden wake up a women some day, if it is gradually just shrinking away then it will do it, nothing we can do about it, like I said, it's natures way.
Now heres the thing, if someone came out with an intelligent article about the shrinking Y chromosone (if it really is), and said thats its natures way or something to that effect. I'd actually not be upset at all. There would be nothing to be upset about. I'd look at the article and just be like "whatever". Because if it happens it happens.
However, look at how she wrote the article, it's pure hate. She's stupid. She basically took an article which could have been worth reading, and turned it nothing more than a hateful rant disguised as a legitmate newspaper article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 11, @03:34AM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to eugenics and the coming manipulation of genes, scientists are going to be able to bring back the all-mighty Y chromosome of the origin.
Nevertheless, as the manly chromosome repairs itself, men are going to exist for at least the next 10 million years......so nothing to worry about actually.
Rage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rage,
I wouldn't worry too much about this psuedoscience which suggests the Y is going anywhere. Sexual reproduction evolved because it perpetuates the genetic variation within a gene pool. These dimwits seem to think that only men are evolving, and that, even if men did evolve into extinction, women wouldn't evolve right along with them. If men as we know them won't exist in 10 million years, women as we know them won't exist either. Unless, of course, we embark on some gendercidal nightmare (which I wouldn't put past people like Dowd).
There is a reason why this isn't being discussed in reference to other mammals besides humans: first, because a bigoted political agenda has nothing to gain by saying that all male lions and tigers and bears are going away, and second, because it sounds as ludicrous as it actually is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hobbes,
I totally agree with you. But the main problem lies in the fact that being rational, trying to have an elaborate point of view, trying to be fair, just don't pay when it comes to gender issues.
Feminists especially and women in general don't seem to be able to be rational and to me it looks like they are constantly dominated by their feelings.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that thanks to the coming science breakthroughs in the genetics field, the manipulation of the genes, and the creation of new genetic structures as well, will become a reality. Therefore the improvement of the Y-chromosome could be viewed as an exciting challenge by many scientists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore the improvement of the Y-chromosome could be viewed as an exciting challenge by many scientists.
Actually, it seems to be doing a fine job of improving itself on its own by, moreso than other chromosomes, removing excess baggage (unnecessary genes).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the Y-chromosome is a "cristal palace" as some scientists have just said, and can improve its structure by himself, but there is still plenty of room for further improvement, as it contains only 78 genes. The Y could become the very one chromosome used by scientists to improve the human race by adding some new genes.
However, I must admit that I'm not a specialist in this field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just skimmed through it because I don't feel like wasting my time on bullshit.
Ah, in the interest of fairness, equal treatment, and gender equity, I call this sort of thing "cowshit." Try it, you'll like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 11, @02:14AM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Well dress me up like an Italian sausage and hit me in the head with a Baseball bat. Is that stuff she is saying for real or do I have a concussion.
I'd rather watch a Republican President fly half way around to the world to Africa to see a bull elephant bellowing after sex, than listen to the misandist bellowing of this N.Y. Times columnist.
I have to go now. Rumor has it they're having a sale on Bacrolougers for Elephantine studs who need a little rest after flexing their "Y" chromosones, from humping like pachyaderm. I just hope they'll let me in the store without my leash on.
Holy fembots, reading that screwy style of writing she uses is really starting to tweak my brain around. Maybe tomorrow that Louieville slugger imprint will be gone from my forehead, and I'll be back to normal. No more sausage races for me for awhile, or I could wind up writing for the Times as a commentator.
Deliriously, Mo Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, they'll print anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... is getting so much flak about her column. In her blog, Karen writes:
Dowd in Trouble?
Say it ain't so!
Why is it that newspapers all over can report on these silly, stupid, meaningless (but usually funny) studies about biological idiosyncracies, but it only seems acceptable to highlight the female "faults," and when the men's "faults" or biological silliness is the focus, everyone is outraged? Maureen Dowd writes a funny column about studies that have shown why women are better off (and producing better children) while being promiscuous, etc., and men's forums and websites, all over, are hysterical about it. Guys everywhere are banging away on their keyboards, just incensed over it. Why? By the way, I like Dowd (partially because she hasn't been bought on the warmongering, yes), but I also think she's smart, talented, and enlightening, even when I totally disagree with her.
I take Ms. De Coster likes misandry. Evidently, she needs hitting over the head with a clue-by-four. Karen, Maureen --- on the Crimson Arrowometer, you get a zero (out of 100)!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever she may claim, De Coster is a virulent feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
