|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Dittohd on 10:48 PM January 21st, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw her on 20/20 Friday night. They did half the show on her book and her sojourn into our world.
She lost me when she stated categorically that women's sex drive is totally in their head as opposed to men's being totally in their physical drive, illustrated by the fact that a few heterosexual women whom she dated asked to continue their relationship even after finding out that she was really a women because they had felt a connection to her during their date. She stated that a man would never do that.
She stated that men need and require sex and must have it, not like women because women don't have testosterone. (Women don't have testosterone? Since when?)
Even though she didn't put men down, admitted to some of her past sexism and biases and highlighted some of the crap we men have to put up with, I still found her experiment patronizing, as though we are lab mice in need of being studied. But then maybe that's just my biases coming out. Maybe the book will help a little in correcting women's stupidity, selfishness, and callousness toward us, even if it's just a little.
Dittohd
All anonymous postings on my screen are filtered. To talk with or debate me, a user ID is now required. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:03 PM January 21st, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
It is rather sad that we are groping for friends in very strange places, but politics make for strange bedfellows. Even though her attitude may be patronizing, she still sticks up for the Mans situation. I don't think that she could actually be otherwise considering her life choice. Patronizing because she doesn't see Men as necessary, but she is compassionate none the less. As I said, strange bedfellows.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Underage on 05:55 PM January 22nd, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I saw her on 20/20 too. I wasn't very impressed by her for the same reasons as you. Perhaps those heterosexual women would want to keep dating her as a man because they liked her personality and what they saw her as--a man. But do you think if she were to go back to her natural self--a woman--and go on dates with those heterosexual women those women would not feel a little repelled eventually? Makes sense to me.
Seriously though, she has to get her facts straight. Since the beginning of time, women have always produced testosterone, just like men have always produced estrogen. It's natures way of balancing us all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 11:43 AM January 24th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Dittohd-
Yeah, that IS funny.
Looks like she forgot to read her own book. LOL
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:11 AM January 22nd, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I have received O'Beirnes' book, and have started to read it. Not bad. Other than the fact that she is a conservative Roman Catholic, she hits the nail on the head. She states many facts, and I for one wouldn't mind seeing her book as a must read for all Children in the seventh or eighth grade, that's about when most young People know what is going on, but we don't admit it as it isn't convenient. As I have said, politics makes for strange bedfellows......Just my opinion folks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 12:53 PM January 22nd, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I've been following the gender-political combat going on over Kate O'Beirne's book WOMEN WHO MAKE THE WORLD WORSE... etc.
One primary battleground in the blogosphere has centered on a campaign (see Daily Kos) to skewer the book with "1-star" reviews by feminists posting uninformed (haven't read the actual book...)negative remarks at Amazon.com.
During the first couple of days, the book was ranked in the Top-50 for sales, with only a 1.5-star rating by reviewers!
Amazon finally caught onto what was happening, and apparently started deleting the 1-star reviews by people who had never ever posted a review on the site before.
So lately, a lot of positive reviews have poured in, with comments indicating some actual reading of the book, and Kate's polemic is now up to 3.5 stars.
There is a theme being stated by some reviewers that Amazon should change its review-posting policy and only permit reviews by people who bought the book on Amazon.com.
IMHO, that would be bad, because some of the best reviews come from people who obviously can't read.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:25 PM January 22nd, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I have never posted a review on Amazon, but I have passed on the Author and name of the book to four People so far, as I said so far. I have done the same with other books that I have read and found to be truthful, and or pertinent to the times. Personally I have never paid attention to the reviews of books, or movies when I decide to buy a book or see a movie. Perhaps I am missing something. I usually go by a personal recomendation by someone I know, or from this site actually, as I did with O'Beirnes' book. I find it interesting that the ploy by the "womyn" isn't working, Amazon must be keeping tract of their bottom line! Greed usually does supercede politics, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MR on 11:11 PM January 22nd, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"I find it interesting that the ploy by the "womyn" isn't working, Amazon must be keeping tract of their bottom line! Greed usually does supercede politics, no?"
On MLK day I went through all the reviews of the book and voted "No" on all the one star reviews, then "Reported as Inapropriate," all the one star reviews that had extreme profanity or threats of violence. I estimate I reported over 100 of the reviews that way. I'm not sure that had any effect, but it didn't hurt.
I gave a "yes" vote to most of the five star reviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Trueman on 02:19 PM January 23rd, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I bought this book last week but haven't had a chance to read it yet. My girlfriend got a hold of it before I got home from work and she hasn't put it down. I have never seen anything like this before. In two days she has not only changed from a Dem to a GOP, but now she wants to find an anti-feminist organization to join. She said that she never believed the things I or some other friends of mine have said about the effects of feminism on society, but she does now. What a change!
Chivalry died with the birth of Feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 04:39 PM January 23rd, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Good for you! It is amazing that a man can say the exact same thing before a Woman does, and if it is a Woman listening she will hear the other Woman. As my ex wife told me 6 days after we got married "your just a Man, what do you know?" I have two Women that want to read the book after I am done. Maybe, just maybe, we can spread the word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 03:10 PM January 23rd, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
The author is Norah Vincent, not Kate O'Beirne. What is the cause of this mindlessness? ADHD? Alzheimer's? Can't we exhibit the merest modicum of focus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 04:21 PM January 23rd, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I had already commented on Norah Vincents' book, and since I had just received O'Beirnes' book I thought I would comment (same vein) Women writing positive things about the Mens' situation. Sorry to have promoted concern about my mental health, but not to worry as it is fine!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by LSBeene on 03:15 PM January 23rd, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"She is, I dare say, too respectful of the "men's movement" instigated by the publication of Robert Bly's "Iron John" in 1990. Attending a retreat with her men's group, she's detached enough to ridicule the tribal drums and plastic swords wielded at the retreat's climactic "spirit dance," but she still buys into the movement's victimography and faux-purgatory nonsense. "
I'm sure she experienced several men's groups. Some "drum beating" or whatever was ... what, a 90's thing.
But no mention of today's more organized and collected arguments could be found. Or was it that those would be a little harder to refute.
Also, the "faux-victimization" ...??? Ok, I'll not only bite, but snap back: I am not a victim (of a false allegation of rape), I am a survivor of it. I am not ashamed, don't need YOU to acknowlege or legitimize me, nor do I need you (the NYT) to stump for me.
We who are taken in are no different than others who enter into a falsely offered contract (is marriage supposed to be THAT ). I do not for one second suppose that any woman set out to destroy her beloved, but she can, and damn well knows it.
There is no "faux-victimazation" in false-allegations, in denial of visitation (I was denied my own father for 21 years), or in job or wage discrimination.
Those are real. I do not hear some bleating "Wah, wah wah"" going on. But a man, woman, black or white, Christian or agnostic decrying injustice that is so apparent is not "whining" nor "simpering" ... they are AMERICANS and we don't tolerate that which we know to be unjust.
Pardon me for waving the flag, but I'll not apologize for it. Each day I don my uniform, often my armor, and on my right arm is my flag. When I call into question what is being done in it's name my patriotism should not be questioned, but known.
Men's groups are not "the fringe". When F4J was linked to a kidnap plot they dispanded. Question their motives, look hard at them .. but then ask when the last time a woman was so charged (and no one was) that a feminist group disbanded.
The fems are spinning the hell out of this because to many nails hit the boards. Honest handshakes, real empathy, deep bonding, self-serving-self-absorbed-dates, and many other "female" traits are exposed. Sure, we aint saints either. Here's the rub : we can admit it. They deflect, explain (male behavior w/out asking men - curious), and mock us.
Let's keep it simple: we're about solving the problem. Not rhetorical (I'm guilty too) answers, but ones that root out and solve things.
Its' late here in "the sandbox" and I'm tired. Always we have to reemphasize solving the problem. I know when I first posted here I was really angry as being falsely accused of rape. I posted angry, I had a right to BE angry, but those same posts were used against me (and us) Y-E-A-R-S later.
This author - she wasan't our dream, but she did make a few issues come to light. Lets remember that.
Steven
"Watch our backs at home, we'll guard the wall over here. Sleep safe tonight, we're on the job."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 11:49 AM January 24th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm.
I still beat a drum in ceremony and do sweat lodge, on occasion.
I guess in her book that makes me inferior, too.
If so than the majority of traditional Indians as a whole must be inferior...
Wow. She's not only sexist but apparently racist as well.
Gosh who'd a thought a feminist could be racist?
Oh, wait, that's right, it comes with the territory, doesn't it?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 07:30 PM January 25th, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
It is amazing how "womyn" chastise a Man for showing anger. Not only "womyn" are guilty of this, but the system has keyed in on it also. If a Man shows anger at being abused by either the system, or an individual that Man becomes a target. But, if a Woman shows anger for the same reasons she is lauded as being couragous. I too have been falsly accused, not for rape, but that isn't the point; the point is that as a Man we are considered guilty of whatever we are accused of, and if we show normal Human emotions we are condemned. Funny isn't it...........
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
