|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:26 PM March 24th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Blythe had better watch her back.
We all know what happened to Bernard Goldberg when HE decided to "leave" the pack and start telling the truth about the journalism and "entertainment" media.
I thank her for her honesty but fear for her safety. (in political and social terms.)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:39 PM March 24th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
One more thing.
The articles don't even begin to touch on the extreamly anti-male tones found in women's magazines and on TV.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Somewhere along the way, feminism morphed into narcissism."
The author, Myrna Blyth, really hit the nail on the head with this observation.
Here's the official clinical definition of this personality disorder. (Recognize any of the common characteristics of modern-day feminism?):
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (DSM-IV)
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
(4) requires excessive admiration
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Maybe a portion of the $3.2 billion in annually extorted VAWA funds could be set aside for the appropriate mental health interventions to treat feminism as the disease that it is...
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:11 AM March 25th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I think a lot of people tend to be narcissistic. As age humbles people many of these narcissists become bitter, and depressed over unfulfilled grandiose (unrealistic) plans.
They say that too much love can never harm a person, but I think pampering leads to an overinflated (unrealistic) sense of self worth that focuses too much on the self. Given how we are pampering the present generation of little girls, we are irresponsible as men if we do not prepare little boys for the abuse they will face as men at the hands of these future narcissists. Love without discipline is folly. Love without guidance turns spoiled children into foolish adults. There is no greater proof of that than the present generation of gender feminists, whose parents where obviously too obsessed obtaining material success (and showering it on themselves and their children). Boys have been affected too, but it appears females have borne the brunt of the conditioning that has led to an epidemic of narcissistic behavior in American society, in my opinion.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:14 AM March 25th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
How do you please a narcissist?
Worship them, but don't expect anything like respect, because you will always be too beneath them in their minds for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good stuff guys, do you remember how I noted that early vanguard feminists got into library science in order to pave the way for the cause? I am NOT going to give a definition of this because part of the joy of learning is discovery. There was once a psycological personality disorder called "schizoid personality syndrome" that was applied to people who put a lot of effort and energy into fringe political or religious proteslysation movements. The feminazi "library scientists"managed to make all psycology texts that contained reference to it disappear from the shelves....look it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...an inexorable shift in the focus of women's magazines from celebrating women's new lifestyle choices to concentrating on the difficulties of women's lives.
This merely reflects an inexorable shift in feminism as a whole, because now women are learning the hard way that there are costs to their choices, and they can't have it all. But whose fault is that... why men's of course!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:39 PM March 24th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"Women tend to ruminate, brood and worry a lot more than men," Blyth writes, citing a University of Michigan study. "Through an extensive 20-year study, [researcher Susan Nolen-Hoeksema] found that many women spend countless hours thinking about negative ideas, feelings and experiences."
What a great marketing idea for negative stories about men. Women have these feelings naturally, sort of a perpetual "free floating anxiety." A person could make a fortune playing to "feeding" that mood. My first story will be, "All Men are Bast_ _ _ _!"
I can hear the news stand reactions of women now: "I always knew that," "Wait 'till he comes tonight," "Boy is he gonna get it," "Woemem are so abused," etc., etc.
Wait a minute, you say the news stands are already full of magazines doing this? That explains a lot.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:04 PM March 24th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's the pedicure syndrome," she said. "Somewhere along the way, feminism morphed into narcissism.
"You are not you as a woman when you are working. You are not you as a woman when you're with your kids," she said. "You are not you unless you're pampering yourself or shopping. Women are told this all the time and have begun to believe it. Come on."
Me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I am woman hear me bore.
What does it take to make a woman happy? I don't know, but does a greyhound ever catch the rabbit at a dog race?
What does it take to make a woman fulfilled? I don't know. Would a half gallon of ice cream be a good start?
How can men be more sensitive to women's needs? I don't know. I put the lid down after using the bowl. The dog must have put it back up when he got a drink.
Of course men are thoughtless. If they thought about what women want any more they wouldn't even be able to tie their shoes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That was a great post ...
Why didn't you sign it?!
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:52 AM March 27th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes I feel like I'm hogging the site by writing so much.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonsense Ray, this forum just wouldn't be the same without your input. Here is my two cents worth on this subject...one of the pre-Dworkin feminists...I think it was Kate Millet but I'm not absolutely sure..said "To have a feminist consciousness is to live in a chronic state of dissatisfaction"
Now in light of this brilliant insight on the part of one of feminism's vanguard, why is it that when I say "Feminism is one big chronic state of dissatisfaction" I get the look that boils water?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love this part:
"It's the pedicure syndrome," she said. "Somewhere along the way, feminism morphed into narcissism.
"You are not you as a woman when you are working. You are not you as a woman when you're with your kids," she said. "You are not you unless you're pampering yourself or shopping. Women are told this all the time and have begun to believe it. Come on."
Is that a fresh breeze flowing through here? Is that the smell of truth? I am out of practice at hearing it from a woman publisher. It's a nice change.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If this is a fresh breeze, it is more like a zephyr than a gale. It's still the same attitude of, feminism has gone too far... it's now bad for women! And the fact is that these women's magazines sell because they tell women what they want to hear - a fact that, as a publisher, she is well aware of. Put another way, the content of women's magazines is driven by the demand side, not the supply side. Finally, I'm waiting for the admission by a woman that feminism has not "morphed into" narcissism - it is narcissism and always was narcissism of its very nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The media as always is merely a means to an end,the media is not liberal nor is it conservative,its simply a platform thats provided to those that gain control of the debate.Women in general and feminists in particular control the moral and social debate in western culture, so this is reflected in all aspects of the media,since the media always turns with the prevailing wind.Female politics and their postures have gone unquestioned for 30 years,and as with any child that is never held accountable for its actions or its words,its ego and sense of entitlement take over,its a human response and it can end no other way.And that end was guarenteed the moment men accepted female politics and the definitions that supported them as valid, thereby internalizing the guilt that was a "logical" extension of that acceptance and beginning the male retreat.
The media will change when men start applying the necessary pressure by challenging the basic assumptions promoted by feminism,they have no real ground to stand on.When the media begins to change it releases the pressures on society to remain silent in the face of feminist irrationality,and when the pent up desire to speak freely is released god help any movement that try's to stop it.They are a footnote to history and their days are numbered
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:03 PM March 26th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting spin, cain.
VERY interesting.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that once the basic assumptions are challenged the whole feminist structure collapses like a house of cards. One thing I don't understand, though, is why men were so accepting of female politics and the definitions supporting them as valid in the first place. Anyone have any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From my perspective it begins with the basic divisions of power and the male willingness to recognise that the moral and social worlds are the female domain,men have always recognised and supported women in this role simply because we have always instinctively known it was their role.
The focus of their role and the center of their power has always been internal,where as the focus of our role and the center of our power has always been external.And in dealing with women men have never demanded a male perspective with its reliance upon reason,fact and logic, since we know her focus and viewpoint is not a male one but a female one,and is guided by her attachment to internal concerns.Our genders and our viewpoints are linked fundamentally and men have always understood this because regardless of what issue was on the table we could see immediately that the women was approaching the issue at hand from a fundamentally differant place.So when presented with a political movement that was defined almost entirely upon female perspectives,and supported by notions guided and defined by an internal viewpoint men quite naturally supported the female political movement as we had always supported individual females.It didnt matter that the movement was costing us bit by bit because as men we have always sacrificed in the name of women and children,we stand between them and the outside world and are the first line of defense in all things.So this is the role that we have continued to play,that is until now.
History has provided us with numerous examples of the negative effects of power when that power is the male form, and now we are being shown just how destructive the internal female form of power can be.And the fact that it has become so clear that the internal form can and has become so destructive is enough to spell its downfall.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:01 AM March 27th, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
So, in essence, you are saying; we men's instinct for 'self prevervation' has kicked in. (finaly)
Do I read you right, Cain?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:04 AM March 27th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
"Prevervation"
Where'd THAT come from?!?
I meant to say "self PRESERVATION".
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the mens movement is just at the point of convincing men to halt the retreat.And that sense of self preservation you talk about is a big part of it.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the male willingness to recognise that the moral and social worlds are the female domain,men have always recognised and supported women in this role simply because we have always instinctively known it was their role.
Huh? I certainly do not recognize moral and social worlds as "the female domain". It was a man, not a woman, who brought the 10 Commandments down from Mt. Sinai. And men tend to think more in terms of abstract ethical principles being applied to concrete situations, whereas females tend to use those situations to determine the principles (needs justifying principles). The great moralists and ethical philosophers have all been male. This makes morality more a male domain than a female one. I don't accept "female" morality nor base my conduct on it. As for the "social world", do you really believe that women could organize and maintain complex social structures such as governments or the army? Perhaps the original sin involved was conceding moral and social concerns to women in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are using the same words but its clear that we are both using those words to describe slightly differant things.My description of male power as external and female power as internal is made precisely because men constructed all of the government and military institutions,i view those as external forms, in fact i describe all social structure as external,what i describe as internal is the logic those structures are based upon and its my position that the logic of all institutional moralities is based more upon the female viewpoint than the male,however the institution that is erected to defend and promote that moral viewpoint is an external structure so it falls under the stewardship of men.This is the balance that exists between male and female,men erect organizations and structures to defend the female world, and in doing that the needs and views that must be considered are those defined by the very people you are attempting to protect.
The clearest example that history has given us to illustrate this balance was the european expansion into the new world.When the movement west began it was defined by conflict,uncertainty and danger and those that went out to meet these challenges were men,obviously,but once settlements were established and secured women began coming west as well.And since these settlements were originally built up by men for men they did not have as many of the so called "necessities" that women felt were needed.So they began to exert their forms of power which i have described as moral and social,the streets grew muddy when it rained so men began building more sidewalks,our children need an education as well as guidance so the men built schools and churches,the streets are dangerous so the men built jails and hired more police,we dont feel safe walking down main street past saloons and brothels so the saloons and brothels were moved to the outskirts of town or else boarded up and closed.These are actions that end up defining the social and moral makeup of the entire community and all of these actions are done at the request of the female members of the community not the male,the acts themselves dont get done unless the men do them but they are still done to satisfy the demands of women and therefore these actions are more a reflection of their moral view than of the male one.These are the sorts of pressures women have always applied and in fact are still applying since none of their traditional influence or power has ever been challenged or diminished.
You are right that all the worlds greatest moral and ethical thinkers have been men, but its also true that all of the worlds greatest thinkers period, have all been men.I also agree with your description of the very differant approaches taken by both men and women,but from my perspective i would not describe the male approach as moral but as rational.To me morality is little more than a means of control,ethics and principles on the other hand,at least to me,describe more of an individual attempt to describe or understand his own relationship to the world he lives in,and its that form of rationality that i ascribe to men or at the very least to the worlds great male thinkers.And its the "moral" approach of demanding conformity that i ascribe more so to women.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate your clarification. It is true that male structures were designed and set up to protect women. They had to do that, or society and civilization would have collapsed. It's really rather idiotic that feminazis are unable to see this. Women desire safety and security above all else while men are by nature more willing to take risks, as your example of the westward expansion illustrates. This desire for security will often lead to a stifling conformity, an individualist being seen a threat to the security of the group. However constantly needing the protection of others by definition puts one in a subordinate position to them. Is this the real reason for feminazi rage? The knowledge that, no matter how loud they yell "equality", deep down they know they can never really have it, unless they somehow transform themselves into men and/or men into women?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray put it best when he said "What does it take to make a woman happy? I don't know, but does a greyhound ever catch the rabbit at a dog race? "
The politics of "equality" from its very beginnings has been little more than an act of tail chasing, since from those beginnings they have been chasing an illusion of their own making by attaching the word "equality" to this notion of "identity".Feminism has always viewed power as only one thing,the male form of power,and since in their own minds there was only one type of power they must as human beings posses it as well,if they did not, this was described as an inequality created by men,out of "fear" of their latent female power.This new "reality" that they be identified with the male form of power was then promoted by the notion that "there is no differance in the genders,there is no differance in the genders" and even though all the evidence all the logic and all their own life experience challenges that posture,their attachment to their own politics forces them to continue to promote it,they have painted themselves into their own Escher sketch,a paradox created by their own "logic".
I suggest that we stop using the word "equality" since it has been so completely distorted by PC misuse,and simply replace it by the notion of "a balance of power" which accepts the notion that there are differant forms of power and more importantly it acknowledges that those differant forms exist in relation to one another, not in conflict.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest that we stop using the word "equality" since it has been so completely distorted by PC misuse,and simply replace it by the notion of "a balance of power" which accepts the notion that there are differant forms of power and more importantly it acknowledges that those differant forms exist in relation to one another, not in conflict.
I agree completely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:04 AM March 27th, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"I don't understand, though, is why men were so accepting of female politics and the definitions supporting them as valid in the first place."
My guesses:
#1 Raised in a house with a bunch of older sisters.
#2 Male sexaholics/sex addicts
#3 low IQ
#4 Dominating and abusive Father, weak and passive Mother
#5 high IQ, but no common sense/political idealist, but sexually naive
#6 masochist
#7 married her money/too lazy to work
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
