|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 07:12 PM March 20th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
She really is despicable, isn't she? Why does the NYT keep her around anyway? Oh well, why expect them to be any more sane that the Wash. Post when it comes to pandering to feminist bigotry.
You know what is really scary about this kind of "writing" that we are seeing here is that it's the same mechanism the Nazis used to classify anyone who wasn't "Aryan" as bing essentially sub-human and thus "Aryans" could do with them as they wished. It strikes me that otherwise useful an valid work in genetic studies could easily be twisted by people like ol' Mean Maureen to build up a "scientifically-based case" for the legally-enabled sub-humanizing of men. Don't think it's possible? Neither did the Jews in Nazi Germany, until it was too late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:49 PM March 20th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Conveniently absent from Ms. Dowd's latest op-screed is all the latest research about the male "Y" chromosome's apparent efficiency and self-repairing capability.
The "Y" did not "marry down..." it merely executed it's own version of the "marriage strike" a few million years back, offloading the redundant and narcissistic floss that served no purpose.
I credit Ms. Dowd with reaffirming that women are indeed a separate species of homo sapiens.
And it's a rather literary touch that she quoted a scientist who described females as a kind of "chimera..."
(Webster's definition) -- "a fire-breathing she-monster in Greek mythology having a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail."
Having been to the mall today and observing herds of shopping-zombie average American females, I can only say that this is an insult to all mammals of the genus Capra...
Goats are far more aesthetically pleasing than the bovine modern version of the typical housewife.
Ms. Dowd typically lies by omission, if not by any kind of reasoned argument.
She has made a career as a feminist court-jester, and the NYT knows this fully well.
Perhaps the self-congratulatory effect of having two XX's leads to this syndrome?
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:20 PM March 22nd, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
This woman absolutly DOES smack of Nazi-ism.
...maybe some one should smack her...(?)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:52 AM March 24th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:18 PM March 21st, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Here's mine:
Around a hundred years ago, scientists discovered that women's brains were 10-15% smaller than men; this was used to justify the idea that women were less intelligent than men. This extreme and biased theory was later debunked through further research and the general knowledge attained that size is not a major factor in brain power. Ms. Maureen Dowd is in the same league of the sexist, ignorant pseudo-intellects of a century past, who will jump on any simple, vague data to justify their own superiority (her article "X-celling over Men"). The fact that men have only one X chromosome compared to women does not determine that they act, think, or appear the same at all as Maureen implies, simplemindedly . One needs only to have two functioning eyes and ears to know this.
Maureen Dowd's ignorance surpasses that of anything a certain Harvard professor said. What's worst is that she will be allowed to say it because she is a woman. The New York Times and society in general is only too welcome to extreme feminist propaganda aimed at destroying men's self-esteems and confidence.
Maureen Dowd may be proud of her two X chromosomes, but she has proven it doesn't compensate for what's between her ears. Ironically, she is in dire need of evolution herself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyo on 01:25 PM March 21st, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
That essay is just plain disgusting -- the usual substitution trick using "Jews" and "Aryans" for "males" and "females" will give it away in an instant.
How do bigots like this live with themselves?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:07 PM March 22nd, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Dowdasaurus bellows on in her irrelevancy. Assured and confident of her femi-supremacy, she smugly seals her fate and the fate of all gender feminists - obscurity.
Millions of years from now urban archeologist and other scientists will find traces of dim witted gender feminist thinking, and make the brilliant conjecture, "They thought themselves legends in their own minds, but were really just fossils, years ahead of their demise."
There's a growing chill in the air to gender feminist ideologues, but it isn't a sign of a coming ice age. It's much, much colder than that.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a Man at Harvard says the sexes are wired differently - all Hell breaks loose . . yet when a woman makes the same assertion . . everyone is supposed to sit still and listen ! ! !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:27 PM March 22nd, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep.
That's the world we live in.
That's why M.R.A.s are so important, now.
We have a duty to fight this sort of naziesque B.S.. If not now, it may be to late later. And that is NO exaggeration.
The Jewish people probably wished that they acted sooner. Had they done so, maybe the halocaust could have been avoided or at least minimized to a large degree, I don't know.
My people (American-Indians) saw it coming to, but we didn't react untill it was too late. I see both the Nazis and the U.S. Calvary in today's feminists.
I also see alot of familiar complacency (and even co-operation with feminists) amoung men as a whole.
Dangerous. Very dangerous.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:14 PM March 21st, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
The NYTimes isn't embarrassed because hating males is one of their main angles. Don't forget, they ran 50 articles on the poor, rich women who couldn't get membership in Augusta National Golf Club. Meanwhile, Fathers-4-Justice activists have to have to pull incredible stunts and still get no attention to men being systematically and deliberately deprived of access to their children.
The NYT is a sick, male-hating joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 09:16 AM March 22nd, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
The woman is an idiot... she doesnt understand genetics at all... there are two X's and one of each comes from each parent. it was thought that early on one of the X's were turned off and not expressed. recently they found many genes on the SECOND copy may be on as well. now note that both are X's... each is a bit different as people are. but having two copies of similar genes so you can select the better parts is not necessarily more complex. imagine having two copies of shakespears sonnets. each has some damaged parts for all of us are not perfect. but between them both you can get a good copy of shakespears sonnets. this practice does nothing to add or subtract from the sonnets or change the level of complexity other than you have a pseudo backup...
as far as the men are concerned... well we dont ONLY get a Y.. we get a Y and one X... so our X is activated, and our Y is activated. men suffer more genetic based problems because we do not have two copies to piece together. we have on copy and an extra special part to define us differently...
actually there is more variation in men than in women. having two copies means that there is less variation, not more... the combinations are their to give women an extra level of homogeneity. the men on the other hand have much more variation in the EXPRESSION of the genese. there are more male idiots than women and more male geniuses...
nature is taking more risks with the men because you only need a few to get to the next generation.. so it doesnt matter if 95% of all the men get nowhere and dont work out... where the same isnt true with the women. the women have to be more genetically the same in order for the variations thrown in the more variable male to allow the variations to orbit a more stable center, as opposed to both swinging wildly which could allow for wide unpredictable swings in genetics.
I am getting worn out by all this shinola...
the funny thing is what can you read into more complexity... a race car is more complex, and withouth special treatment wont take you to work and back for more than a month if then.
the strongest things in nature are simple, not complex. a simple answer means a good solution has been found. complexity means that the problem still doesnt have a suitable answer...
it is more likely that the men are more varient..
and the women more homogeneos.. both are about the same in complexity given that you can even change one into the other!!!!
ArtflDgr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jname967 on 10:23 AM March 22nd, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
You are absolutely right. The Y chromosome is well-known to be responsible for mutations of genes throughout the generations--good and bad. It is the forefront of evolution, practically.
Also, yes--men are more varied in their own right. The genius factor is a primary example. Women tend to be of the same level of intelligence because their two X-chromosomes level out their genes, whereas men with only one X express extremes of intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:41 PM March 22nd, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Dowd is a real piece of work, isn't she.
Or is that a piece of shit...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:11 PM March 22nd, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
>"Dowd is a real piece of work, isn't she.
Or is that a piece of shit...?
I'd have to go with the latter.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 02:59 AM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Maureen Dowd is still being taken seriously?
Why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:41 AM March 23rd, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Maureen Dowd is an old bag. She can't find a decent man to fuck her on a regular basis, which to a woman such as herself is an enormous injustice. To hags like her, a man fucking her isn't a privilidge, it's her *right* goddamn it, wich means she can be as much of a nag as she wants and she feels as if it shouldn't narrow her chances.
Of course, that doesn't work in reverse. We're talking exclusively female privilidge here.
Notice the pictures of young Maureen Dowd all done up from 10 years ago next to her columns, which uses to maintain her fantasy.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. You know the deal.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "Maureen Dowd is: