|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 04:38 PM December 10th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Good lord sir, hadn't you heard?? Men are responsible for *everything* that is wrong with the world! Women have had no part at all either in producing industrial innovations (ignore what the feminists say about this particular subject - their claims that women such as Marie Curie have contributed immeasurably to modern sciences are in fact false, as we all know), never use things like cars or consume manufactured products, and never show any interest at all in such fields as industrial chemistry! They have been trying all they can to avoid involvement in the scientific professions in fact in general, each one of them *to a woman* explicitly because they are so sensitive to the fact that inventions stemming from scientific inquiry are destroying the planet. It is an illusion despite what you may think that a woman is the executive director of the American Chemical Society, that the same organization has a female chairperson for their board of directors, too, and that the American Association for Women in Science even exists. That's right, these are all illusions. Women are not the least bit involved in modern science in any way. In fact no woman has ever had anything to do with use of any device that damages the environment, or if she has, she didn't mean to or was forced to by some man or worse yet, the entire evil patriarchy. There are no female doctors, either, for that matter. It's all an illusion.
It was men that both invented all the modern instruments we use today that poison the planet and men pretty much only that use them. Feminists are wrong about many things, including their own assertions that women have had so much to do with industrial progress. And again, they certainly never use or have anything to do with the design, improvement, or manufacture of the inventions of men, such as cars, modern textile clothing, computers, toilet facilities, and never wear such manufactured, environment-destroying items as make-up.
Only men wear make-up. Everyone knows that.
Sheesh!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 01:30 PM December 11th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe the feminists are to blame for global warming. They tend to expel a lot of hot air. (from both ends)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:08 PM December 10th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"integrate gender sensitivity into all mechanisms, policies and measures, and tools and guidelines within the climate debate."
Is this thing on?
Ahem.
Speaking as a scientist with expertise in climate change and environmentalism, I have only this to say:
Oh, FUCK OFF already!
Is that sensitive enough for you, girls?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Underage on 11:55 PM December 10th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Who is the sex that uses pads and tampons every month and uses toilet paper everytime they pee thus making more waste to take up precious land area and thus needing to cut down more trees?
Oh right. The female sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Fidelbogen on 03:28 AM December 11th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, oooookaaaaay! As long as we're on a roll with this nasty line of gender-sliming, it is not out of order to ask which sex makes the choice to use disposable diapers rather than the other kind.....
Anyway.....
I'm sure we could go on and on in this vein, but....let's set the crosshairs on feminists.....not women.
Consider, once again, the following:
"integrate gender sensitivity into all mechanisms, policies and measures, and tools and guidelines within the climate debate."
Or, translated into honest English:
"Point the accusing finger at the male population on every possible occasion when talking about global warming. Never miss an opportunity to rub it in. "
This is just one example of feminism's grand strategy, which is to set a stigma upon maleness, backed by an intricately articulated maze of myths, memes and institutional support structures.
A stigma upon maleness. Not upon "men", or "a" man specifically, but upon pure and simple maleness, in the most universal, disembodied sense of the term.
A stigma upon maleness. A cloud. A shadow. A nameless, abstract, slimy feeling that dogs the footsteps of every man and boy for every day of his life for no particular reason at all.
The phrase "to stigmatize maleness" should be committed to memory by every MRA on earth, and used a LOT in speech and writing, so that feminists and everybody else will get it stuck in their heads as well!
Then, the men's movement should promulgate a distinct and clearly stated policy to all the world: ZERO TOLERANCE FOR ANYTHING WHICH STIGMATIZES MALENESS.
This is a highly economical phrase which packs a lot of powder in a small cartridge.
It cuts to the chase.
It is a political gut punch.
Why? Because it throws tthe opposition off balance. It either forces them to explain their moral justification for stigmatizing maleness, or....it forces them to shut the hell up.
It puts them on the spot.. It throws them on the defensive. It shoves them between a rock and a hard place.
It frames the discourse in a manner they'll have considerable difficulty coping with.....
ZERO TOLERANCE FOR ANYTHING WHICH STIGMATIZES MALENESS.
Let the murmur begin, rising gradually to a crescendo.....
ZERO TOLERANCE FOR ANYTHING WHICH STIGMATIZES MALENESS.
Let them explain, in the glaring sunlight of a general public attention, why they think that STIGMATIZING MALENESS is such a wise idea!
-Fidelbogen-
"Feminism has a rap sheet."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 08:06 AM December 12th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Not to mention all the fluorinated pharmaceuticals (antidepressants among others) that are consumed mostly by women and which take millenia to breakdown in the environment. So, I guess we have women to blame if the fish all suffer from ADHD as well...;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 02:47 PM December 11th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
You see you men are all the same. You always go on the defensive and retort with sarcasm. Or when you do try to explain an argument you have to use your male science and male words and rational and logic. None of you know your inner-self and that is why you don’t have intuition. Also it is the reason there are more Witches than Warlocks; never thought of that have you?
When was the last time you talked to your penis? Well, when? Don’t even bother answering until you’ve had a chat with it. Ok! And hug a tree while you’re at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Night Angel on 08:08 PM December 11th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"...when you do try to explain an argument you have to use your male science and male words and rational and logic."
First off:
"Male science"? "Male words"? As opposed to female science and words? Maybe you should specify what those are. And as for using rational and logic, you'd be hard put to support an argument with anything else.
Secondly:
"...it is the reason there are more Witches than Warlocks..."
I was under the impression that both were fictional creatures.
Third:
"When was the last time you talked to your penis?"
You make it sound as if men have been neglecting thier penises by not talking to them. Does this mean that females regularly hold conversations with their genitals?
Fourth:
"You see you men are all the same."
Funny. I think that was Adolf Hitler's view towards jews.
Fifth:
"You always...retort with sarcasm."
As do feminist blogs towards men.
Lastly:
"And hug a tree while you’re at it."
I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Night Angel on 12:57 PM December 17th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Oops. Sorry.
I'm kind of new here and I'm not completely sure of who would say what. (I guess I should have checked out your other posts first, huh.)
Again, I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 09:11 AM December 12th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
LOL
Your reply was funnier. Thank you... :P
RagTime was right; it was a tongue in cheek. Though in earnest it does have a slight twisted truth to it; some feminist do believe in current science and maths as to be too rigid and thus making it male oriented. Some claim that males can’t understand certain parts of science because of their gender. I’m not kidding. Most of these claims are most likely to be made be feminist loony philosophers and professors that have not an ounce of understanding on the subject they are talking about. Mind you feminist don’t have a stranglehold on this absurd philosophising... no indeed I am proud to say men invented this absurd theatre and excel in it; though in truth I have never heard anything as crazy in our day an age as these feminist nuts ramblings.
American writer Katherine Hayles
"The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders"
So the reason for our lack of total understanding of turbulence flow is because we don’t bleed and we are rigid. Sad to say there are people taking this seriously. I wish it was just the belief in Witches and Warlocks, it makes more sense.
Feminist spend half the time telling us we are the same and the rest of the time telling us we are different and we should be treated differently… especially to their genders advantage.
As to my other ramblings:
Manhood joke: "Vagina Monologue" by Eve Ensler
Hug a tree…no I think you should its very therapeutic or at least that’s what the local hippie said. I don’t have a tree nor plants so I tend to hug my (Organic) tea leaves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:41 AM December 13th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
OOPS! I should have read further, but what I wrote was what I felt about your tongue in cheek comment. I suppose if you were fishing you caught a gullible fish. I have met Women that actually believe in that crap, so I didn't think it was a joke!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 06:28 PM December 13th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
:)
Good retort anyhow.
I guess it is easy to take it seriously considering all the crap the feminist spew.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:36 AM December 13th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, but I do know my inner self, and I act proactively, instead of reactively. As far as the claim of witches and warlocks, so much hokum to try and harness the real power of the Human mind. I have never had a serious conversation with my penis, as it is only an extension of my body that does the will of my mind. If you talk to your genitals, and they answer you, perhaps I would recommend that you seek the help of a professional in the mental health field, I usually do not promote the use of drugs, but in your case it might fit. I myself am only a Warrior, a Human Being that is tired of the kind of crap you are talking about, and I do believe in Karma!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MR on 08:10 AM December 12th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"In most parts of the world, women are contributing less [to greenhouse gasses]," Rohr continued.
Rohr, who is demanding "climate gender justice," left no doubt as to which gender she believes was the chief culprit in emitting greenhouse gasses."
How do I despise gender feminist stupidity? Let me count the ways: to the length, the breadth, the depth of rationality.
As a man I have never owned a clothes dryer, have a frost free refrigerator, have high efficiency lighting, extra home insulation, deciduous trees strategically planted, etc., etc., etc. My car is a Toyota Corolla Clearly, the article is incompetently researched and written from the bigoted gender feminist perspective. So when is the gender feminist perspective not specious and hateful against men?
Generalities and stereotyping are the true mark of the bigot and this specious bigoted article employs those extensively in this article.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Fidelbogen writes "Men, so they say, are larger contributors to global greenhouse gassing. Personally, I think that trying to quantify something like this (with its myriad intangibles and ambiguities) is like measuring a gaseous substance with a rubber band. BUT...... notice the call to "integrate gender sensitivity into all mechanisms, policies and measures, and tools and guidelines within the climate debate."
This is the kind of stuff that makes feminism profoundly sinister... link