|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I mean, what better way to show the uninformed, laid back, ritualized man that the whisper of hate he's been perceiving within his world isn't just the ghost of bra-burning days gone by?
Yes, gentlemen, 'it's' alive, and still seething a worthless, venomous, hypocritical state of mind.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What can I say...? Greer's hypocricy stands out like the proverbial "sore-thumb",
Yet, Her comments will soar quietly under the 'radar' as ALL feminist hate-speech always does.
As for men wanting a "world without women"...,
No, Ms. Greer.
We just want a world without women like YOU...,
TC.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speak the truth, brother Thunder!
I LOVE BEING A MAN!
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 18, @02:10AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"We just want a world without women like YOU..."
Well said, TC.
BTW, I'm thinking of submitting, as a letter to the editor of my university paper, a few select quotes from the leaders of mainstream feminism (i.e. Catherine MacKinnon, Greer, etc.), prefaced with text something along the lines of what feminism is according to the leaders of the movement.
I guess my question is, does anyone know if it is perfectly legal to submit quotes to editors when I cannot be certain beyond a doubt that the sources of the quotes are reliable, e.g., the person whom I'm quoting might never have actually stated whatever it is I'm quoting them as having said, and thus, be regarded as libelous? Or, that I may be accused of taking the quotes out of context etc., etc.
I think this would be a great counter to all those people who write columns in my university newspaper about how feminism is simply about equality, blah blah. But, like I say, I'm not sure if using others' quotes in this situation is without risk. Any info would be appreciated.
-h
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not really sure if submitting quotes when not knowing if the source is 100% reliable or not is safe. It might be.
After all the media does it all the time.
However, it's likely a good idea to check any source's background, just to be on the safe side. ESPECIALY when dealing with feminazis!
In their case, one can never be TOO carefull.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello h:
I wouldn't attribute hate speech, radical/mainstream feminism, to anyone without being certain that the quotes were exact. Also, be prepared to be the target of a hate campaign if you do speak out. You might want to try to get other people to put their names alongside yours in the letter to the editor.
Good luck. Let us know how it goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I gotta believe that if you quote from a well-known, reputable source that is in the public domain, then are on solid ground. For example, if you quoted something that was printed in attributed as a quote by the New York Times, and it turned out to be wrong (and of course you cited the NYT as your source) then you will not be held responsible.
Like "... according to the New York Times on Feb 30, 1953..." Then at least you can point to them and otherwise plead ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey! It was deliberate :-))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you quoted something that was printed in attributed as a quote by the New York Times, and it turned out to be wrong (and of course you cited the NYT as your source) then you will not be held responsible.
I have to disagree with Frank on this one. I always try to get original source in this war. But if I need to quote a secondary source then I will do it only if I know the source. For example, I will quote Glenn Sacks, Wendy MacElroy, or IWF. Other than that I pretty much will not rely on the public media as they have no quality control, and they can be found in error constantly.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 18, @11:27PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the opinions, frank, thomas, and warble. I think you're probably right, warble, about needing to find primary sources. Oh well, I'll see what I can find...
h.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello again, h,
If you're looking for sources, ask on this board (provided you can make the question relevant to the thread) or ask at men's issues online (there's a link off to the left on this Web page). People may be able to direct you to an exact page in a publication.
Also, I will again warn you about what you may be getting yourself into. I don't want to discourage you, that should be obvious, but you're going to run into vicious, hateful opposition if you start being active in the men's movement (as opposed to just taking part in anonymous online discussions).
Unless you've got an incredibly thick skin, and you're ready to deal with a possible barrage of false accusations and other sleazy attacks, you might try to get some committed allies in advance of any action that you plan on taking. And be careful of people who tell you things like, "Sure. I'll back you up, if you run into trouble." Many people have a way of forgetting such promises, when someone cranks the heat up. Believe me, I've been involved in civil rights causes for decades, and I've seen it more often than not.
If you can, try to get a few people to sign on to your protests, whatever they may be.
Good luck, and thanks for any contribution that you make to the fairness movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greer states:
Yet the same men who are wanted for sex as never before are the same who complain of having been made redundant. Though the king of beasts might be happy to be wanted for nothing but sex, it seems that men are not.
If only this were true, men's activists wouldn't have to fight for relief from paternity fraud or against punitive child support awards. Women would have their way with men, and be done with them. Women would be satisfied with the philosophy that says men are useful for their sperm alone, and would not need or desire laws that require men to support their reproductive choices. If men were redundant, their earnings would not be needed. The fact is that nobody cares if women want to be independent; the problem arises when they declaim their in-your-face independence with their hands in men's pockets.
Greer's account omits the crucial truth that women have used the laws to guarantee them an income for choices from which men are excluded. those laws are enforced through the threat of or the use of force--so much for dismissing the use of force as a male proclivity. One problem with reducing the human male population to 99.9% of its numbers is that there would be no economic slaves to exploit. There would be no "redundant, unnecessary" males against whom the laws guaranteeing women support could be enforced. The laws guaranteeing this exploited income are enforced through the threat of or use of force. Greer's words on the redundancy of the male have helped me to clarify my position on reproductive choices for women and choice for men somewhat: if men are redundant and not needed, then their earnings aren't needed either.
The IRS is taxing men for child support and not women; since the IRS has set a precedent for taxation based on gender, let the IRS tax only women for the services women need, if the irrelevance of men is to be made public policy.
I'll quote my statement on the use of force by feminists, who have no problem with force, violence and the threat of force as long as it assures women their "independence":
...anyone who is familiar with law enforcement is aware of the truism that the laws are enforced through the threat or use of force. In the case of men's activists who seek to reform institutionalized discrimination against men, the determined efforts of feminists to prevent reform and to maintain the status quo means that feminists are actively using the law, and hence the power of the state to enforce the law, against men.
In the current situation, one gender dictates its terms to the other, on threat of criminalizing the other for non-compliance. For example, men's activists want relief from paternity fraud; feminists want to criminalize the putative father; they seek the strong arm of the law to enforce child support from men who aren't fathers of the children they are compelled by the state to support. On the other hand, women who commit the identical crimes as men do not receive identical punishment; feminist apologists seek relief from the enforcement of the law against female perpetrators of crimes; take the recent case of a woman schoolteacher fired for statutory rape of an underage boy ... In each case, against men and for women, the power of the state to enforce the law through the threat or use of force is recognized and condoned by feminists.
In consideration of Greer's charge that men are irrelevant, I would add that women's reproductive choices are dictated to men on women's terms, on threat of criminalizing the other for non-compliance. Irrelevant men wouldn't be needed to comply with anything. The hypocracy of the feminist position has hardened my position on reproductive freedoms.
I wrote previously that
If [feminists] are willing to compromise [on at least one issue of concern to men's activists], I will support [their reproductive freedom]; if they are not willing to compromise, I will support the appointment of conservative justices who will move against Roe vs. Wade and I will support other conservatives as well to increase the likelyhood that abortion will be outlawed: even though I believe that women should have reproductive rights, I am against women having exclusive control over every aspect of reproduction and its consequences; therefore, if they are unwilling to compromise on matters of concern to mens activists, then as it is unfair for one gender to have all of the control, I would oppose Roe vs. Wade.
If feminists wish to argue that men are irrelevant, then they should be willing not to force men to pay for their unilateral reproductive choices; if they are not willing to finance their own unilateral reproductive choices, and insist on using the power of the law to force "irrelevant" men to pay for them, then I would advocate the course of action above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just thought of something.
With out drawing any 'character parallels',
Didn't Jesus say to Pilot, "You would have NO power over me, if it were not given to you from above..."?
Well, in a way, Men could say something similar to women;
"You women would have NO power or rights at all if they were not given to you by men, and payed for by OUR blood."
Again, Not drawing any 'character parallels', Just makeing an observation.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article is not even worth my time to reply too or my energy to get upset about. It is so confused, backwards and angry about losing it's self identity that it lashes out at the most socially acceptable bashing target, Men.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article is not even worth my time to reply ... or my energy to get upset about.
It is worth thinking about, since it clarifies feminist attitudes towards public policy that affect men and women. One idea is that now that women have liberated themselves from men, men have been unable to constructively direct their violent impulses, which were previously occupied with the oppression of women. This sets the stage for the systematic economic exploitation of men, indirectly through the tax system to pay for various services that women want, such as offices of women's health, a system of child support enforcement, and various other state programs supported by the irrelevant men who nevertheless deserve feminist retributive justice in the form of economic slavery. What keeps men from being completely irrelevant isn't their state enforced support--either indirectly by taxation or directly out of pocket--of women's health programs, child support agencies, a sexual harassment industry, a divorce industry, a domestic violence industry, women's unilateral reproductive choices, and so on; what keeps men from being entirely "irrelevant" is "woman's love". It's cute, isn't it?
The feminist point that women gained their independence by themselves, making men irrelevant isn't born out by the laws feminists help to create. This is a class war. Feminists have seen to it that the "irrelevant violent male energy" attributed to the state isn't misdirected; on the contrary, it's precisely aimed at your wallet, as a matter of public policy. Your money isn't irrelevant to them at all, and they have the power of the state to get at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a class war. Feminists have seen to it that the "irrelevant violent male energy" attributed to the state isn't misdirected; on the contrary, it's precisely aimed at your wallet, as a matter of public policy. Your money isn't irrelevant to them at all, and they have the power of the state to get at it.
This is exactly what I saw in the article. Aside from all of the feminist anti-male hate rantings, it is full of justifications to rape men's wallets using the power of the state.
What is sick is that some of it is right. There is just enough truth to make it sound almost plausible. This woman actually believes that women can do not wrong, and that women deserve to have everything given to them free.
Her hatred is reflected in a new level of shrill screams that we find coming from radical feminists everywhere. They are clearly becoming more vocal, violent, insidious, and desperate.
There is not longer any doubt but that before this gender war is over we will see them carrying out terrorist attacks against men's rights groups. Sadly, that may be exactly what is required to expose their hate to the public.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is exactly what I saw in the article. Aside from all of the feminist anti-male hate rantings, it is full of justifications to rape men's wallets using the power of the state.
Thanks. I take that agreement as an indication of solidarity. The feminist political program didn't simply liberate women, who were then completely disassociated economically, legally and politically from men, even though feminists like Greer want to insist that men are ireelevant. The feminist program comes with a price tag: your "irrelevant" tax dollars support an office of women's health, but no office of men's health; your "irrelevant" tax dollars support a biased divorce industry; your "irrelevant" tax dollars support women's unilateral reproductive choices [I'm in favor of them having their choices, but not if they insist that the man from whom the state exacts child support is irrelevant, and not if men cannot have something comparable]; your "irrelevant" tax dollars support the enforcement of anti-female genital mutilation laws and nothing comparable for male infants; your "irrelevant" tax dollars support a biased domestic violence industry; your irrelevant wages go to support a child that isn't yours, and on and on, as if the law punished the individual for the crimes of his ancestors (if they were crimes). The feminist political agenda comes with a price tag, and irrelevant men must pay it. This is taxation without representation.
Why do women put up with "irrelevant men"? Because they love them anyway, Greer patronizingly suggests. Let's see if they still love us when the money stops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(("There is no longer any doubt but that before this gender war is over we will see them carrying out terrorist attacks against men's rights groups."))
Warb.
That is all to true a possibility.
I mentioned something about this in another discussion thread.
actually, by DEFINITION, the rad-fems ARE terrorists, allready. They use threats of law-suits and even violence to make people capitulate to their agendas. That IS a type of terrorism, no matter how one looks at it.
I also asked the question, in that thread,: "will the President include radical-feminist terrorizm in his "anti- terrorist agenda""?" (Probably not.)
But yeah, I agree with you. The more the Men's movement grows and the more "power" and influence it gains, the more desperate the rad-fems will become. and I strongly doubt that they are above useing ALL-OUT terrorism, when their more subtle type of terrorism no longer works as well.
My bet is that the rad-fems will even go as far as useing car-bombs and the like at men's gatherings, and when men are trying to get un-fair laws struck down in courthouses, etc.
And how much do you all want to bet that our politicians and the media will explain it all away, by saying it's just "Women DESPERATELY fighting for their rights in a PATRIARCHAL society!"? Given society's acceptance and even incouragement of women's hate and violence against men,I think alot of men will literaly pay with their lives, before the world wakes up and sees the feminists of our time for what they truely are. TERRORISTS!
TC.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am surprised to here from this media gadfly from many years ago. I thought she was dead.
She is just as boring now as she was then. Seems nothing has changed.
A world without Germaine Greer....nice thought!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 18, @09:50AM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Write a book on the genetic inferiority of Jews or women and it will be immediately labeled as it is: hate literature. Yet somehow this book is acceptable. The author seems to entirely devalue male contribution to the construction of civilization and the very science he bases this book off of. The irony... From what I can tell, he slants his interpretations with the assumption that men are inferior. The fact that this type of bigotry is accepted is infuriating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This reminds me of a report the news media put out a few years ago.
They reported that men's brains become smaller as they grow older, but that women's don't.
This was obviously done to imply that men, while of course, allready dumber than women, get even dumber with age.
They failed to mention the following, however.
That men's brains are LARGER than women's to begin with. and that brain size has NOTHING to do with intelegance. (Albert Einstien's brain was SMALLER than the average brain, in general.)
So if we followed the media's "constructionist logic" the fact that men's brains are larger than women's would have to mean that for the first part of their lives MEN would be more intelegent than WOMEN. And that when men's brains shrunk in old age it would shrink to the same size as a woman's brain. THEN and only THEN would women and men be EQUALY intelegent!
Allthough, the fact that men's brains are larger than womens to begin with was INCLUDED in that study, the media was very CAREFUL to omit that bit of information, and put their usual; "Men are dumb-a$$es and women are omnipotant godesses" spin on that report.
They didn't get away with it, however.
If memory serves me, they recived complaints about this glareingly anti-male bit of biased reporting.
But did they make any retractions? NOPE.
instead, about a week later, they said there was a NEW study that showed men's brains were larger than women's. but made no reference to ther origional report about men's "Brain shrinkage with age." (That info was from the SAME study!!)
IMO, this is one of the media's more glareing bits of anti-male propaganda.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 18, @02:43PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I take issue with the use of "founding" in this subject line. We use the phrase "Founding Fathers" to define the champions of freedom who founded the United States (oh but if they could only see us today... they would bow their heads in shame). "Founding Mothers" makes it sound like Germaine Greer is on par with those fellows. She is not. She no more promotes freedom than Hitler did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reading this article it becomes very obvious to me that she is an elitist. She speaks about the human race as though the females were the very heart and center of it, which they are not. Neither gender is the core of our race, and nothing but solipsism can explain why she thinks differently - she thinks that she is the golden standard against which everyone else should be judged, and anyone who isn't her gender is somehow - you know - wrong. Really, individuals are so different that you can't peg their contribution by gender alone.
Serioulsy, she thinks that if 99.9% of men were gone that the race would continue just fine. How can this be? Are men mere incubators for sperm? That's how the remaining men would have to occupy themselves, because the women would need every last precious drop of baby batter. This would then have to be painstakingly divvied up with microscopes and distributed, after having the mutant/unfit sperm culled. If I was the last man on Earth and the sole sperm producer I'd probably burn myself alive so there'd be nothing to salvage. I also don't think that women in general, most of whom are not gay, would appreciate having their male lovers swept away.
Then she pretends that she really doesn't believe all the nonsense she typed by tacking on a paragraph about how "it doesn't really matter anyway." If it doesn't really matter then why spend all the time to write about it? But it does matter, to her, and so she belched forth this missive, and then thinly veiled it with a few granules of sugar.
I've seen it before...
- Someone figures out the true meaning of life.
- They write it up.
- They then figure out it's actually horseshit rather than the true meaning of life.
- Rather than backing down and admitting that, they toss in some half-baked nonsense to take the sting out.
And finally... - Distribution of the true meaning of life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Serioulsy, she thinks that if 99.9% of men were gone that the race would continue just fine. How can this be? Are men mere incubators for sperm? That's how the remaining men would have to occupy themselves, because the women would need every last precious drop of baby batter. This would then have to be painstakingly divvied up with microscopes and distributed, after having the mutant/unfit sperm culled.
The remaining handful of men would be working to support those millions of offspring. It's fine to say men are irrelevant if they don't have to pay for women's unilateral reproductive choices, but I doubt that the last men would be "off the hook"; not at all: there are reparations to be paid. A category of doublethink has to be invented for the irrelevant men whose paychecks are nevertheless relevant and needed, and which must be separated from the last men by force or the threat thereof. This doublethink appears in numerous guises, one of them being, "the best interests of the child." It is in the best interest of the child that the man remain disposable and irrelevant, while his income attains the status of the utmost relevance and indisposability, second only to the status of women themselves. The best interests of the child is among the most powerful conceptual tools providing the feminist philosopher a kind of epistemological event horizon, enabling her to separate in her mind the disposable contemptible man-mule from his indisposable income, so that the liberated philosopher can continue to philosophize, eat, drink and be merry, without any visible means of support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The best interests of the child is among the most powerful conceptual tools providing the feminist philosopher a kind of epistemological event horizon, enabling her to separate in her mind the disposable contemptible man-mule from his indisposable income, so that the liberated philosopher can continue to philosophize, eat, drink and be merry, without any visible means of support.
I love the phrase 'epistemological event horizon'; it sums up the minds of these people perfectly. People like Greer have absolutely no idea how the society in which they live actually works. Most of them have backgrounds in the arts, typically history and literary studies, and their grasp of science and engineering is effectively zilch. The resources they consume are not provided by someone, they are there, ready formed and waiting. Far from men being the providers, Greer and her kind see them as obstructors. Condemning him to a life of poverty to satisfy their own ignorant greed is thus the removal of that obstruction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although I agree with this thread in general, the fact that someone comes from a literary or history background does not preclude them from being an important and effective part of society. I doubt that you feel Stephen Ambrose was not an integral, important part of our collective experience. Nor do you likely hold a disparaging attitude towards those who have written or painted or sculpted our most cherished works, such as Steinbeck or Moran or Borglum. Our society is a complex mixture of attributes that drives itself internally much more so than externally, and I would urge all of you (and occasionally kick myself in the ass as well) not to single out any discipline for its relative value while simultaneously denigrating another.
In addition, what does an explicit understanding of science and engineering have to do with anything, specifically? Although they are important, and I see them as integral to my world, one does not need to know either to any professional degree to live a happy and productive life. Selecting these as pillars of importance is the same kind of hypocrisy that feminists use in comparing male sexuality (we just ‘want some’, so turn over and shut up) to female reproduction (we nurture and love, so worship us), which, in itself, as an outrageous lie.
Finally, although I do not agree with Greer's views and find them irresponsible and reprehensible, I would argue that she does know how society works, and quite well at that, and is using that knowledge to her advantage. What we need is a voice, very likely an academically inclined ‘literary’ type, to attack her on her own turf.
While fighting fire with Halon may work in the tangibly ignitable world, you need to fight the noxious feminist inferno with eloquently experienced debate skills, that can call on scientific data when needed. Now, smile for the camera…click!
Mitchell A. Smith
Retired, and gladly so, software engineer with a fondness for triangulated intellectual topography.
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would urge all of you (and occasionally kick myself in the ass as well) not to single out any discipline for its relative value while simultaneously denigrating another.
You're preaching to the choir as far as I'm concerned; I haven't been denigrating disciplines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
look at the post the directly precedes mine, and you'll see why I wrote that. The 'urge all of you' is meant for those that would choose to do such a thing.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not unreasonable to question Greer's scientific competence. I doubt that Greer's claims hold up under scientific scrutiny. For example, she cites what she considers the overproduction of sperm as an example of male excess and disposability. However, doctors know that the male produces the quantity of spermatozoa needed to assure a reasonable likelihood of pregnancy. One might as well blame women's reproductive organs for their inefficiency, or else lay some of the blame at women for reproductive choices that have led to the modern male. I find it curious that Greer, like most feminists, is mostly silent on the role of women in the evolution of the male; actually, she's not silent: she portrays women as patient and faithful, standing by and loving their men, despite their lack of fitness.
Apparently for Greer, women played no selective role whatsoever in the evolution of the modern male, who evolved to his present state of disposable irrelevant excess despite the loving faithfulness of the women man oppressed; if anything, Greer would have us believe that the tolerence of women for the excessive, unfit male would have acted as an evolutionary breaking mechanism, as if the modern homo sapien male would be even more excessive and unnecessary an organism if women's choices weren't tempered by their love and faithfulness towards relatively unfit males.
If I had the energy, I'd go into more detail about how her example of younger monkeys mating with older females behind the older monkey's back tends to undermine her protrayal of the homo sapien female as essentially incapable of the same behavior--she can't have it both ways. I'd mention the relevant statistics on paternity testing, well known to readers of this site. Her discussion of the role of adult male lions is also flawed: lions aren't kept around because they are "loved."
The use of the examples from evolution is an attempt to buttress the conclusion that males are irrelevant (but their tax dollars are very relevant), which is a self-defeating proposition in matters of public policy, unless males are duped into believing that their place in society depends on whether women love them. If males fall for this unmitigated horseshit, then feminists such as Greer rightly deserve to be laughing all the way to the bank, or the public trough, which is the point of this feminist "theorizing".
Depending on what society you want to have, you treat men and women equally and, for example, fund offices of health for both sexes (or all five, if you believe in more than two sexes--a position which tends to undermine the strict gender dichotomy of feminism); on the other hand, if men are to be tolerated in civilzation since women love them anyway, despite evolved male excesses that have nothing to do with female reproductive choices over the aeons (nothing does, apparently), then since the allocation of tax dollars and the distribution of wealth is ultimately at issue here, why not funnel billions of tax dollars into subsidized shopping sprees at Saks Fifth Avenue? We do want women to love us, despite our grotesque unnecessary irrelevant selves, don't we? Following feminist logic to its extreme, legally men's lives and rights are to hang in the balance depending on whether women love them; this is how "the personal is political" translates for men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My apologies for not making my statements directed to where they belong - this post:
/comments.pl?sid=02/11/ 18/0259237&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=threade d&pid=24#31
It is this post that I questioned. So, yes, it is quite unreasonable to question her background in science and engineering, and quite unreasonable to covertly equate knowing nothing about the society one lives in with an education in the 'arts'.
Repulsive, actually.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, yes, it is quite unreasonable to question her background in science and engineering...
Why? The scientific merits are at issue.
...and quite unreasonable to covertly equate knowing nothing about the society one lives in with an education in the 'arts'.
This appears to be a non-sequiter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"People like Greer have absolutely no idea how the society in which they live actually works. Most of them have backgrounds in the arts, typically history and literary studies, and their grasp of science and engineering is effectively zilch." This statement is rubbish. You can not define it as true, as it (probably inadvertently) ties the knowledge of the arts with no idea of how a society works. Read my first post on the subject for a more complete argument about such absurdity (just a hint: equating the inability to understand society with an education in the arts is the same as equating the inability to understand society with an education in science and engineering). Also, make sure to reference the fact that Greer has done a much better job of manipulating (yes, I do feel it is manipulation) the media than our movement has (and, yes, she’s had a head start), and as such absolutely, unequivocally understands how our society works.
"So, yes, it is quite unreasonable to question her background in science and engineering...
Why? The scientific merits are at issue." Unless you define your response discreetly, then your conclusion is non-conclusive, and in no way invalidates my statement.
As for your 'This appears to be a non-sequiter' declaration, I'll address that remark when you are decisive (‘appears’?) about your statement …
and when you learn to spell.
Again, I URGE all of you to not single out disciplines using a disparaging attitude (value and embrace those from the arts…as theirs will likely be the voices of eloquence our movement so desperately needs), as you will most certainly alienate some of your most valuable, male friendly audience.
If you want to discuss this further, email me:
ppmnow@hotmail.com
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no problem taking someone's background into consideration when evaluating statements of scientific import; blanket dismissals on account of background are gratuitous, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although I agree with this thread in general, the fact that someone comes from a literary or history background does not preclude them from being an important and effective part of society.
In addition, what does an explicit understanding of science and engineering have to do with anything, specifically?
The point I was making is that people without a scientific/technical background generally have a poorer understanding of the physical mechanics of our society. By concentrating on the socio-political world they tend to take world of objects for granted. And I mean 'objects' literally. The road outside your house, your computer, sewage processing plants, bales of wire, suspension bridges; anything that had to be made, and which thus required the acquisition of physical resources (by mining, etc) and the necessary understanding of the external physical world (through chemistry, mechanics, etc) to turn those resources into particular objects. The production and distribution of food, medicine and energy would also have to be included in that. Greer's attitudes towards men are founded, in part, on an ignorance of what it takes to make the society she lives in work, at a physical level. It's not an uncommon kind of ignorance, since none of us have to grow or catch our own food, make our own clothes, or build our own houses anymore. However, somebody has to do all those things, and a lot of the time it's men. Perhaps women could do those things as well, but whether they'd feel fulfilled, or have time to sit on their arses writing nasty pieces about 'phallocracy', 'patriarchy' and 'redundant males' is another matter entirely. Greer's academic life is a luxury made possible by the hard physical work of others. She should contemplate that, perhaps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now this is a much more insightful argument, Uber, and in this I would agree. Thank you for the clarification. My apologies if I came off as rather defensive. I just don't want this movement to alienate valuable people.
Ah, if it were only true that everyone writing and debating this thread would do the same kind of thoughtful work.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While fighting fire with Halon may work in the tangibly ignitable world, you need to fight the noxious feminist inferno with eloquently experienced debate skills, that can call on scientific data when needed.
Wow, what a devastating critique, I guess.
..selecting these [an explicit understanding of science and engineering] as pillars of importance is the same kind of hypocrisy that feminists use in comparing male sexuality...
Without wishing to enter into a debate on the "two cultures" (science and the arts), I'd say that the charge of hypocracy is unfair because no one was claiming that an explicit understanding of science and technology was a prerequisite for a happy life; the criticism. as I understood it, was of Greer's gloss on who does scientific and technological work, and the apparent lack of consideration given to the time and energy it takes to maintain civilization's various infrastructures; apparently, for Greer, the struggle for dominance drowns out this effort if it happens to be undertaken by males, who are considered irrelevant; on the other hand, the fruit of their labor is hardly dismissed as irrelevant, just insufficient to support the relevant members of society at the level to which they are, or would like to become, accustomed, as usual.
The possibility that all the work undertaken by males (or those jobs Greer would consider worth doing in the feminist utopia) could be done by females (perhaps more efficiently, without the accompanying struggle for dominance over every last penny and point, no matter how trivial) doesn't entitle women to men's labor, and it doesn't make that labor irrelevant. A better social critic would be capable of spinning more nuanced yarns than this; that's my understanding of the complaint about Greer's interpretation of science and technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The difference between you and I, Olaf, is that I am willing to absolutely give credit where it is due with respect to Greer's masterful media handling. We would do well to emulate her act, utilizing a strong infusion of honesty, of course.
As for the other stuff, I've already written my thanks for clarification to Uber on the arts and sciences debate.
Regardless, the way it was written, initially, left much to be desired in the clarity department, and as such brought us into this elongated debate.
Oh, and I thought the fire - Halon bit was funny. Must be my 'dry' sense of humor.
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The difference between you and I, Olaf, is that I am willing to absolutely give credit where it is due with respect to Greer's masterful media handling.
I've been more concerned with public policy matters and, in Greer's case, the use of scientific findings to support feminist doctrine, but I hereby give Germaine Greer credit for masterful media handling and manipulation. Well done! Superlative! Let that be a lesson to us!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The possibility that all the work undertaken by males (or those jobs Greer would consider worth doing in the feminist utopia) could be done by females (perhaps more efficiently, without the accompanying struggle for dominance over every last penny and point, no matter how trivial)
I'm going to take a page out of Fred Reed's book, and ask you to go downtown and point to three things with a moving part which were designed by a pheminist over this one.
Let's be ugly and blunt, shall we? If it had been "Matriarchy" ruling human development, we'd still be living in caves and crawling out only under the light of High Noon when it was `safe' to gather our food.
No? Listen to any of the denigrating converstaions women have about men. "Boys and their toys." Listen to your mother; always hollering that you'll break your neck or put an eye out. Go out the next day you have a few hours to kill; pull into service stations and count for me how many it takes to find a female mechanic - and if you know of one, go there first and then count the stops until you find the second.
I've gone hunting for years, and every year we have a thinning of the deer herd at a local state park. As we all pull up and unload, waiting for the game to be afoot (That's a funny) I've been struck that there are no women. I've been checking for three years; I never recall seeing one. They're free, over 21, and have the wherewithal to get a license, so why aren't there any of them there?
Women don't tend to move from a comfort zone. It's demonstably true by any unbiased observer. Grant them comfort and security, and the only thing liable to motivate them to do more or get more is if they see another woman more comfortable or secure then them. And ninety-nine falls out of a hundred, she sends her man out there to fetch it for her.
I'll tell you what else - my chief complaint about women acting like men is that they do such a piss-poor job of it. "A woman acts like that and they get called a bitch" - well, damn straight, because I have yet to meet the woman who can step into a male role without being bitchy.
Greer doesn't understand how the world works not necessarily because she's a liberal arts person, but she lives in a theoretical, ivory tower, fantasy world. She's got tenure or its equivalent somewhere where she doesn't have to produce anything of consequence or relevance; in fact, she's probably bitter because she was the affirmative action pair of boobs, and has never been able to accomplish anything significant enough to put the lie to it.
For crissakes, guys, it's Germaine Greer! Rarely have we seen a woman more bitter over not being a male! Sux to be her, but do we really expect different?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mars wrote (with sarcasm at the end):
"The possibility that all the work undertaken by males (or those jobs Greer would consider worth doing in the feminist utopia) could be done by females (perhaps more efficiently, without the accompanying struggle for dominance over every last penny and point, no matter how trivial)..."
Gonzo:
"I'm going to take a page out of Fred Reed's book, and ask you to go downtown and point to three things with a moving part which were designed by a pheminist over this one."
I'm not sure I'd ever get out of downtown; I guess at least one pheminist [this is Jack Kammer's term...] is represented in the United States patent office. This is an interesting statistic.
Gonzo:
Let's be ugly and blunt, shall we? If it had been "Matriarchy" ruling human development, we'd still be living in caves and crawling out only under the light of High Noon when it was `safe' to gather our food...For crissakes, guys, it's Germaine Greer!..."
Camile Paglia makes the same point. I suppose I take a special, unhealthy interest in the various symbol streams emitted by pheminists in their effort to justify public policy decisions. It's not unlike cultivating a highly specialized purient interest on the Internet; perhaps help is available...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would a world be better place?
Would there be MUCH less hate in this world?
Who would miss them?
PUNISHMENT AND CRIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of my pet peevs is people that latch on to an idealogy and view everything through that particular lens. For a varity of reasons feminist theory has dominated the world with its lens and view of gender. As a result any situation where gender is brought in to the arena men are viewed as something that needs to be taken down a notch. I have no problem with critiques, but there is often a fine line between critiques and attacks.
After reading this article and glancing at the book, Why:Y I feel that it is not attempting to get at any particular truth but cashing in on a social belief, that men are the root of all social problems and that they need to be put in their place.
Here are few FACTS to bring things back into focus:
Why: Y? Well it is needed to provide a balance in the ability of the species to adapt to new problems. To many sexes, 3 or more, and you have, to put it simply, too many cooks in the pot. Too few sexes (1) and complex species fail to adapt quickly enough to changes in their environment. So why the Y? Well first, there was an research based article that found there was less genetic material in the Y portion of the chromosome. As a result some scientists theorized wildly about the results of this and what it means. Radical feminists jumped on this as "evidence" that men were in some sense "lacking." Later studies found that this is not the case. While there are physically less material present there is also an enourmous amount of information in the genes that are in the Y portion of the chromosome.
What else is the purpose of the "male" in the species one might ask? Another purpose for men is to provide a genetic test site for mutations, both good and bad. With two XX women have many genetic mutations overridden by dominate genes on one X chromosome or another. The down side to this is that benefical mutations are also overridden. Why are there more males at the top and and the bottom
(Use this ordering method when redeeming a gift certificate)
or
sign in to turn on 1-Click™ ordering.
Y: the Descent of Men
Steve Jones
List Price: £14.99
Our Price: £10.49
You Save: £4.50 (30%)
Usually dispatched within 24 hours
Hardcover - (26 September, 2001) 280 pages
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
Reviews
Amazon.co.uk Review
In Y: The Descent of Men, the remarkable implications of an accident of biological evolution are brought to life by the award-winning science writer and British academic geneticist Steve Jones. Not to be confused with clothing sizes or brand names, the capital letters XX and XY refer to the approximate shapes of the sex determining chromosomes. Men have the smaller Y chromosome and confer gender differences on children through their sperm, a distinction that was only discovered in 1902. It was not so very long ago, as Jones reminds us, that scientists (male of course) thought that sperm carried a miniature human (homunculus) and a wife was "a mere seedbed; a step below (a husband) in society, in the household and, most of all, in herself".
Since Darwin's day, humans have been displaced from their place just below the angels in the grand scheme of life. And now to further our ignominy and descent, within the human genome, the male Y chromosome is, as Jones puts it, "the most decayed, redundant and parasitic of the lot". Furthermore, man himself may become redundant, for his sperm can be grown in animal testes, and in mice at least an egg can be fertilised with a body cell from another female.
Steve Jones is a brilliant science writer, capable of teasing, cajoling, entertaining and educating the reader without pain. Jones has not only pinched Darwin's title The Descent of Man but learned his technique of persuasion in which the potential critic is disarmed by having the faults, problems and dirt on the subject brought out into the open and given a good public washing. So with men and masculinity, as Jones details with telling detail and great humour, our biological inheritance and its social implications have left an immense wake of problems which will need to be sorted if men and humanity are to get over the crisis of modern manhood.
So come on now chaps, pull yourselves together, dump the techie toys and mags and check out why your organ is so dangerous and what to do about the problem. For a first step, give yourself a treat, read this book and allow yourselves to be entertained and informed, if not necessarily reassured. --Douglas Palmer.
Synopsis
Men, towards the end of the last millennium, felt a sudden tightening of the bowels with the news that the services of their sex had at last been dispensed with. Dolly the Sheep - conceived without male assistance - had arrived. Her birth reminded at least half the population of how precarious man's position may be. What is the point of being a man? For a brief and essential instant he is a donor of DNA; but outside that glorious moment his role is hard to understand. This book is about science not society; about maleness not manhood. The condition is, in the end, a matter of biology, whatever limits that science may have in explaining the human condition. Why are there more males at the top and bottom end of academic performance?
Why are men more proneto genetic diseases? This gene theory seems to provide an answer. Men are the genetic test site for mutations. Men are greatly advantaged by this at times and seriously disadvantaged at times as well.
With out men, women would eventually stagnate genetically. Failure to adapt, especially in complex orgainisms, eventually leads to extinction.
[Note: I have substancial research to back most of these statements up. there is no meaning or devaluing attack on either gender inherant in this theory. It just seemly is.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men are also inherently the 'moral' improvisors. Without men civility will cease to exist.
The Christians termed it like this. Man serves god and Woman serves Man (who serves god). This is very true to a certain extent.
The feminists and probably most of civilization have interpreted this to mean that men rule women. This is not the case. In actuality it is a consequence of man serving god.
The quote is "God so loved the world that he gave his only son". Our current societal understanding of that quote is so far removed from its intended meaning society has lost its wisdom and its insightful gift.
God is man, the world is a woman, and the begotton son is a fallen angel. This is the meaning of the immaculate conception and it is the birthing place of justice. And I am saying right and here and right now that spirituality and justice are brothers or are father and son. Which ever way you want to look at it it provides the necessity of men. Without our species is doomed to extinction.
.
*Radical Feminists make Nazis look like Humanitarians.*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for using The Christianity Filter! We now return you to your normally scheduled debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you written a properly foot-noted paper on this? It seems like, at a minimum, it might make an interesting chapter for an anthropology textbook, and might make good reading elsewhere, on it's own.
I'd suggest you write it and try to find the appropriate scientific forum into twhich to launch it, if indeed, you believe you have the scientific support you claim.
If nothing else, post it here, and it will get a fair amount of exposure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greer writes:
A tide of male supremacism has risen in the east and is streaming across the world, promising the restoration of virility and virtue, a pure and manly way of life exemplified in holy warfare. In response, the male supremos of the west can think of nothing but meeting destructive force with greater and more destructive force.
What do feminists propose? That an army of feminists go after the Islamic extremists? Don't leave us guessing. It would be wonderful to see what femists would do, if they were in power. The United States military could stand down, to give the feminists an opportunity to stem the tide. We can take our casualties like men, while we stand down--that's our training. Let the feminists deal with the religious wars-an excellent idea. We violent guys can mind out own irrelevant, arbitrary business, and let the feminists handle matters.
It cannot be overstreesed that no one cares if women are independent--really. That gender war ended decades ago. By definition, women's independence is no one else's business; it is our business if their hand is in the public till. I guess we might have to finance the feminist war effort, unless they slam the door in our faces. I suggest letting them fight with their own independent resources, and leave our irrelevant money and labor alone, at least as an initial barganing position. After all, as Greer points out,
Liberated women could change their own light bulbs and tap washers and engine oil, so men felt unwanted. Women who could earn a decent living could get their own mortgages and buy houses on their own, so they did and do, in their millions.
What a relief not to have to pay for all that, finally. Greer mistakes the sigh of relief for not being imposed upon in the ways she mentions for the emotion she hopes men feel, namely, feeling unwanted. Men are still put upon through legislation that feminists help to create, and which the state enforces (unfair child support, paternity fraud, taxpayer money for an anti-male family court, millions invested in breast cancer research, dwarfing prostate cancer research, unilateral exercise by on gender of reproductive rights at the state enforced expence of the other gender), but at least they don't have the trivial burdens Greer mentions.
If the feminist warriors still need assistance, we'll consider it, provided they agree that it's relevant after all. That agreement might be difficult to obtain, so I have a solution: we call any assistance we give to the feminist war effort relevant assistance, so we don't have to get any agreement that it's relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You see, its people like her that are contributing to the dark side of feminism! First, they want to be equal to or above men; that worked! Next, they want to force-feed our minds with that rape-sexual harassment-domestic violence bomb threat, and now she wants us men [and some women] to be more miserable and increment the hostile atmosphere she and her fems now created...
Feminism, don't get me wrong when it was good, enabled women to supplement their power, such as working outside the home, playing sports, voting [which really worked well during the '90s], and creating a sense of identity in a changing world!
But now, we're starting to get exposed to the dark side of it. More and more abortions are performed (sic), women are becoming more violent than men [as far as robbery and murder are concerned, the current VAWA II has created quite a scare for every man [and woman] walking down the street, they've inversed the power of school performance and attendance [in favor of the girls over boys], the pro-feminist men are starting to become mislead, and sadly, according to recent news, the females are increasingly becoming the new breed of sexual predators [e.g., rapists, pedophiles]!
As a result of all this, the growing number of men [myself included] are now starting to lose interest in women. Honestly speaking, we're now having marriage-boycotts, the continuous trend of woman-hating [although in the past it, was just shit-talk, but now has become increasingly reasonable], and last but not least, us [men] kicking women out of our midsts!
I have to tell you this ladies and gentlemen, speaking of Germiane Greer, [please do not take offense to this], you can lead a whore to the bathroom, but you can't make her shit on who she can't dominate! [my apologies for this extreme rant]. In friendlier, more respectful terms...don't hunt what you can't kill!!!!
And one more thing...like Gloria Steinem, and Betty Friedan, Greer is a HEARTLESS WITCH!!!
Beware, ifems and masculists! Beware!
Emmanuel Matteer Jnr.
Emanslave@aol.com
*****MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND!!!!!*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I have to tell you this ladies and gentlemen, speaking of Germiane Greer, [please do not take offense to this], you can lead a whore to the bathroom, but you can't make her shit on who she can't dominate! [my apologies for this extreme rant]. In friendlier, more respectful terms...don't hunt what you can't kill!!!! "
That's certainly one of the more interesting metaphors against feminism - she invokes only the most interesting of rageful responses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the commentary on this story:
The world waited to stop Adolf Hitler, and tens of millions suffered horribly as a result. How long will the world wait before stopping these feminists?
Why stop them? Unleash them on the eastern extremists; who could ask for a more appropriate anti-feminist target? These women have energy; Germaine Greer deplores what she percieves as the "useless" misdirected violent energy of men; we're more trouble than we're worth--they don't want our taxpayer money or our child support or our alimony I gather. Greer almost seems wistful for lack of male chauvanist pigs to crawl out from under. In contradistintion to our excesses, they can not only screw in their own lightbulbs, they can buy their own houses. [This is supposed to "threaten" us--she's mistaken, because we couldn't care less. We care about our own money, and how feminism has routinely taken it from us as a matter of public policy, backed by the police, national guard, army, navy, air force and marines, and the criminal justice system, who, as we know, use force or threat of force to assure that one gender complies with the terms of the other. That's what we're intimidated by, not women paying their own way. I'm assuming that justice, and not retributive justice, serves the greater good--in matters of public policy, the utilitarian principle is often all you have to go on, but I digress endlessly.]
Not only can they buy their own houses, but they suggest they offer an effective alternative to the religous wars--only, they won't say what it is. Fine, we trust them, whatever their plan is to rid the world of the axis of evil. We're not intimidated by that either: go for it! By all means, deploy your relevant energies!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't going to bother reading this article because I established long ago that Germaine Greer is a pathetic manhater (aren't they all pathetic!). Anyhow, I just did read it and thought it was hilarious. A rambling, spluttering rant against men by an irrelevant old prune who used to be somebody briefly about thirty years ago and has never quite been able to recapture that original intensity of presence. Long since superseeded by younger American feminists, it's hard not to face the fact that geriatric Germaine is herself completely surplus to requirements. Too old to bear children, too inexperienced to be of any use in raising other people's, too repulsive to be of any sexual use even to a measly 0.1% of men, she pointlessly consumes food, oxygen and other resources that would be better employed for some other task. Never mind what Germaine Greer thinks, tell me what the hell she's good for?
When certain people - principally fanatics and hysterics - are unable to justify their emotionally-driven opinions by the alien means of reasoned, intelligent argument, they resort to a different tactic. They call upon one or more of three great Higher Powers; sources of authority which, being beyond the human, are therefore not open to argument. These 'higher powers' are: God, Nature and History. There are few 'progressive', 'liberal' people who would call upon God these days, but Nature and History, with their attendant 'scholarly' priesthoods, are on call 24/7. Feminism's use of History - allbeit one they practically had to invent from scratch - is a perfect example of this need for a 'higher power'; indeed, anything that has its origins in Marxist thought requires an infected historical eye through which it can excuse itself of the innumerable abuses it seeks to perpetrate against people who have actually done nothing wrong. As for Nature, the Nazis made extensive use of this unquestionable godmouth in justifying the systematic slaughter of millions of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and other untermenschen. It is amusing, however, that an 'intellectual' like Greer seeks to justify her tedious and hateful worldview with references to a ragbag menagerie of dumb animals. In choosing such poor ideals, she's slagging herself off better than I ever could. Perhaps it should have occurred to her during her rant on the proportions of the sexes and who produces the most abundant gametes that one of the reasons for the enduring popularity of the male organism is that it provides the female with a far more reliable and efficient way of perpetuating her genes than through her daughters. Except in those populations on the brink of collapse - not a problem the human race seems to be facing - having as many males as females is nobody's loss.
Greer's use of the word 'children' is misleading, because what she really means is 'daughters'. Her comments about violence conform to all that we'd expect from an unsalvagable feminist. She neglects to mention - and probably isn't even aware - that violence against children is primarily a female problem, and that it is boys who are most often victimised. The oft-used excuse that women perpetrate more violence against children than men do because they spend more time with them dies a bloody death when confronted with the reality that women abuse boys more than girls even though they spend less time with boys than with girls. Perhaps these women are just acting in self-defence - a three-year old boy can be pretty intimidating to an adult woman, you know.
If there are women who want to live without men, that's fine by me. Obviously they won't need any of our money, and they won't need any of us to come and rescue them when their houses catch fire, and they won't be first in line for the lifeboats on a sinking ship, and they'll do all the dangerous, dirty work normally done by we nasty, parasitic men. They won't need our sperm either, come to think of it. They can live happy, childfree lives of resentment and masturbation. I can picture Germaine Greer and Andrea Dworkin, locked together by a double-ended dildo in a perfect union of lesbian frustration. I won't trouble them by pointing out that Sappho ended up killing herself over her unrequited love for a man. Somehow I don't think either of them would care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bravo!
My first though on reading the entry was, "Germaine Grier hates men? There's a news flash."
If it's allright with you, though, I WON'T picture her and Andrea Dworking together, lest I be forced to claw my eyes out, okay?
This is a day maker, here.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If there are women who want to live without men, that's fine by me. Obviously they won't need any of our money, and they won't need any of us to come and rescue them when their houses catch fire, and they won't be first in line for the lifeboats on a sinking ship, and they'll do all the dangerous, dirty work normally done by we nasty, parasitic men.
Where did this observation first occur in this thread? From the desk of Mars, ad nauseum. It's important to maintain a distinction: women have a right to their independence--no problem with this, it's not "intimidating", and by definition it's no one else's business; the in-your-face independence which depends on taxpayer income generated by "irrelevant" males who apparently owe feminists and their institutions a living as a matter of public policy is another matter.
At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, feminists helped create laws that are enforced with the full power of the state. Contrary to the feminist complaint with the "senselessness" of male hierarchies based on domination through physical force, feminists cannot claim that the money funding their programs and their agenda was somehow nurtured out of taxpayers. The deplorable, irrelevant, wasteful, stupid male hierarchical structures of power are used and condoned by feminists when it suits their agenda.
We would like some of the services women have, such as equal investment in cancer research (with due respect to Cathy Young, our civic interest in how taxpayer money is spent does not make us a new victim class), to name one example among many.
They won't need our sperm either, come to think of it. They can live happy, childfree lives of resentment and masturbation.
This is where we part company, on a account of a maneuver that one feminist called "sleazy" when I proposed it to her: feminists have argued that the personal is political. I had an epiphany when I realized that this slogan frees men's activists from ever referring to personal matters--it's a no win proposition in any event, and the political class problem is the important one (as far as I can tell). The "personal is political" means that without loss of generality, one can focus exclusively on the politcal, and forget about the personal. We don't need to respond to the "personal"--ever--and we can thank feminist philosophers for pointing out this moral high ground; for this I was called "sleazy". ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(("--and we can thank feminist philosophers for pointing out this moaral high ground; for this I was called "sleazy.;)"))
That's because it made sense, Mars.
Feminists don't like it when you make sence.
Sense is something they have no use for.
Sence is the "monkey-wrench" in their "logic".
And something else on this whole "men are irrelevant" jazz.
I said this once before, but it needs saying again:
Women gorge themselves at the table of men's ingenuity, all the while curseing the founders of their feast...,
TC.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 20, @12:29AM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
The author writes:
"If survival is your game, you need many more females than males."
My reply:
As long as we are comparing humans to animals by gender, and in a derogatory way, let us compare the radical feminist mother to a sow (female hog with baby pigs).
The sow is a terrible mother. The farmer is best advised to put her in a farrowing crate the first few weeks of the pigs lives until they become fast enough to get out of her way, because she has a habit of flopping down without looking out for the needs of her young and often crushing them to death in the process. The poor, heart broken sow is so distraught that she dipassionately proceeds to eat her lifeless young.
As a group, radical feminists support all forms of abortion including the late term practice of partial birth abortion, where the human child's body is completely outside the mother. The head of the living baby remains inside the vagina. A Dr. then stabs a sharp instruement into the base of the baby's skull and proceeds to vacuum it's brains out.
Though all of the above described creatures appear to be barbaric savages, at least the sow is environmentally coscientious enough to eat her young and not just throw this nutritious food source away in a trash can. I'm sure since survival is a stated concern of radical feminists they will soon evolve into the higher life form of the sow, and learn not to waste such valuable food sources as their wantonly killed babies.
The day of the artifical womb can't come too soon for men, because then men can have children without the tyrannical encumbrances that are so often associated with those over bearingly arrogant savages know as radical feminists and their ilk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a girl who grew up on a farm featuring pigs, I must object to the negative portrayl of sows. When enough room is provided to the sow, exceeding rarely do they crush their children - can't argue they eat corpses, as most omnivores will do if not fed properly.
Plus, you simply insult the intelligent, playful and even charming species of pig by connecting it with Germaine and other feminists. They'd probably be reduced to crying if they could read this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 20, @09:14PM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote:
"When enough room is provided to the sow, exceeding rarely do they crush their children - can't argue they eat corpses, as most omnivores will do if not fed properly."
I too was raised on a farm and I stick to my original observations. The sows I speak of were neither given inadequate space or food. I have seen hogs eat a steaming pile of cattle feces when ears of corn were available to them.
Yes, pigs are very intelligent animals and can be made into wonderful pets. Like most people the better you care for them, the better they behave. Perhaps it is these more well cared for piggy's that you refer to and not the ones that are intended for the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 20, @02:59AM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
The author writes:
"In other words, the antidote for male expendability is, was and always will be women's love."
My reply:
Sow-wash. With 80% of divorces being filed by women, it is plain to see that the above statement is clearly drivel. But then, when the entire article is dissected, each piece is clearly revealed to be nothing but drivel.
Did this article appear in the comic section of some sick newspaper?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In other words, the antidote for male expendability is, was and always will be women's love.
Greer's basic theory is that women have always had the technical capability of surviving without men, so have apparently chosen to keep us around for purely psychological and emotional enjoyment? She seems to have the sexes reversed in her mind. Men, via our physical strength, have always had more immediate power to stomp out the opposite sex (which Greer theorizes we "dream of"). If you want to talk about pressing physical necessities provided by females, the only thing men technically "need" women for is to give birth to us and then give birth to our babies. But so what? Any man living on the planet has already been born, so it wouldn't effect him personally if women ceased to exist after the fact. And as far as children go - well, what if men just decided we didn't care if we were the last generation of humans to roam the planet? I mean, we'll be dead, so why care?
Of course, enlightened minds know that women's physical value to men and the world at large is actually more than meets the eye. Women are enormously beneficial to men's physical and emotional comfort, health and longevity - in ways we are unfortunately not helpful enough to ourselves. But, since health and longevity benefits don't seem to concern men much through the majority of our lifetimes (it's not until we get older that we start worrying about dying), it still reduces the immediate value of women to men to mostly psychological and emotional pleasures. Men are willing to die young and get sick once in a while. But most men are not willing to have sex with other men, or risk trying to run a household with them. Thus, the most immediate and compelling value of women (the thing that keeps us from "stomping them out") is emotional/sexual/psychological - the very thing that Greer claims is men's sole value to women. I appreciate the compliment, but it's sadly not true.
It's actually women who have always had the more physical and material dependencies on the opposite sex - and have thus been compelled to "tolerate" us for our ability to meet those needs. "Love" is probably the least important reason why women have "chosen" to keep men around. Listen to women talk amongst each other, and you'll get the distinct impression that they don't even like men very much. Except for the ones they marry and give birth to - whom they will argue as being exceptional.
Conversely, love is probably the most important reason why men have "chosen" to keep women around - despite the fact that our material needs for them are a lot less pressing and discernable, and eliminating them from the planet would be dreadfully easy. Thus, Greer has it bass-ackwards.
It is women's lovability to men that is the key to their survival on the planet - not because women aren't good for other things, but because those other things simply are not obvious or compelling enough to men, from our vantagepoint of strength and perceived invincibility.
(By the way, I have not been away. Just silent. Reprehensible of me, yes. Maybe, depending on responses to this post, I'll either keep posting or go back to being silent. But this one, I just had to jump in on.)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
