Re: SOC.MEN MODERATION DISCUSSION

PolishKnight wrote:
In article <1149382472.936532.286640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

PolishKnight wrote:
In article <1149280554.045423.315280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

PolishKnight wrote:

So clearly, there must be something more than mere disagreement
that causes so-called moderates to not receive a warm welcome.



Well, I think that it is evident that people who regard themselves as
moderates are apt to be blown by the prevailing winds. And feminism is
the prevailing wind where gender relations are concerned.

Not instinctively. I think that we agree that instinctively, feminism
is an evolutionary blind alley. But culturally and academically,
feminism is the dominant motif, where relations between men and women
are concerned.

So if one isn't firmly anchored in anti-feminism, one will be blown by
the feminist prevailing wind. One, two, three - everyone say it out
loud again, "I'm not a feminist, BUT..."

So moderates really aren't moderate.

Conservative pundits often argue that marxism, and I suppose
this applies to feminism too, is an alluring philosophy
in many ways. It's not just the "wind" but gravity that
drives a lot of people.



OK. Whatever you want to call it. Wind or gravity. The principle
remains the same.

There is a distinctive difference: Wind is something that
does change while gravity is a constant force.



Oh, I see.



And this
is what annoys Parg to no end:

Women have probably wanted "equality" or more accurately,
power, for all of human history. However, WANTING something
does not necessarily entitle someone to have it. And getting
something doesn't necessarily mean they can hold onto
it for very long.

Parg lives in the constant, and justified, fear that
if men stop being chivalrous (as most men on the planet
are not),



But most men in the West ARE. You and I are never going to visit the
Third World.



that's the end of the "equality" dream.
Bye bye1 Ya all come back now, ya hear?

Marxism and feminism are both intertwined as desirable
pipe dreams that corrupt a democracy and transform
it into a mob run circus. People come to view themselves
as entitled victims and happily twist and warp
language and logic to fit the square peg into the round
hole (pardon the visual) in order to rationalize
equally morally flexible politicians who promise
to act on their behalf. It becomes increasingly
easy for them to justify being the victim when
those same politicians use a morality of convenience
against them.

This is the current state of many socialist cultures
around the world.

They all know the system is broke, but they don't
really care to analyze themselves to fix it.
So they would just rather move somewhere else where
it isn't broken and try to break it there too.

For that reason, and no other, it behooves forward
thinking people to come up with a strategy.
If you want to simply write Poe'ish type depressing
tomes,



I don't write Poe'ish type depressing tomes. I haven't cited Poe. I
quote the depressing tomes that others have written. I cannot possibly
say it better than Shakespeare did - or whoever wrote the lines using
Shakespeare's name.




you are free to do so but I think that's
similar intellectual laziness as demonstrated by
the lemmings above. I think you're better than that.
I would like you for you to be more productive.




Interestingly enough, a lurker wrote a couple of emails to me over the
past two weeks telling me that he sympathized with my point of view but
that my talent was being wasted contributing to soc.men. He urged me
to stop contributing to soc.men. He too told me that I was "better
than that".

I told him the same thing that I'm telling you now. No, I'm not better
than that, and no, being depressed is not intellectual laziness.
Actually, coming up with the witticisms that I come up with, under the
circumstances, is labor.


The good news, I think, is that feminism and
socialism are intertwined in the states.
That's simply friggin' incredible. It's not as
closely intertwined in South America where men
can still be maucho and still buy into socialist
tripe. And THOSE guys are probably cooking
at her pizza place right now!

Feminism has another fundamenal, critical weakness:
Even with all the goodies, women still need
individual men to pay the real bills for women to procreate
in a manner that they find desirable. Sure, if
a woman wants to raise a brood in the inner city,
that's a choice available to them but does her
neice want that? Even that's becoming increasingly
difficult.

So in the long term, it will be the red-staters:
NASCAR dads like me and others who have kids,
raise them to procreate and to lead middle class
lifetyles and the third worlders. Guess
where feminism will be forced to live?

Even Parg wants to pretend that she's not living in
Salinas anymore. What does that say?



You're barking up the wrong tree there. Puke is pretending that she's
a self-made wealthy woman living out her golden years in some luxurious
retirement villa in some other part of the world.

Actually, for the time being, I'm not sure that she's pretending that
anymore. But I don't think you've actually gauged her motives.

But she has not been posturing as anti-American. As Society has said,
"It's THEIR country; let them defend it". Puke realizes that this is
her country and not yours or mine. It's not intellect that enables her
to realize this, of course, but some sort of instinct possessed by
certain lower animals.



Ouch. But even if I were to grant that there are "opportunities" to be
sought, those opportunities lie outside of the Bush Administration.

Agreed.



Then dump him.

Unfortunately, the nature of democracy is sometimes a choice
between the lesser of two evils.



George W. Bush is not the lesser of two evils. He is just plain awful.
He is about as bad as any Democrat would be. He has no redeeming
features. None. There is no reason to prefer him over anyone else.
If party loyalty prevents you from seeing that, then you are the one
who is demonstrating intellectual laziness.



I understand your disgust with the republicans especially RINO's
and Bush but do you at least acknowledge that there are
a lot of good, conservative men still out there who
at least respect the free market system,



Intercourse the free market system.





appreciate men
even if they still are foolishly chivalrous at times,
and would help to retire socialism?



Not really. I post a lot of Steve Sailer's articles at www.isteve.com
on this ng. I like a lot of what he has to say.

But the answer to your question is no. Things won't get better until
men learn to regard women as the enemy. The conservative men that you
are talking about have wives and girlfriends. So they will never look
upon women as the enemy. They will always be "foolishly chivalrous".

No offense to present company, of course.



I'm not sure I understand your claim that anti-socialism
is not necessarily anti-feminism.


Well, it's because you're talking apples and oranges. You're confusing
gender and economics. The two subjects have points of intersection,
certainly, but they're not the same subject.

There are many feminist capitalists. You're naively looking at the
whiny left wing of feminism because it's a little more visible and
assuming that it's the entire animal.

But there are feminists who want to use the "free market" to make war
against men - ifeminists.com - that you are disregarding.

By the way, this is another one of those arguments where I say, "I've
made this argument before, and you never acknowledge it."



My position is that
feminism is a thirsty ideology and requires massive
socialist help.



No, feminism requires feminist help and/or pro-womanism help. That can
come in any one of a number of economic settings.


Parg realizes this and hates my guts
for pointing it out. She doesn't like admitting
that feminism is fundamentally the same as a patient
addicted, critically, to steroids that at the same time
have negative side-effects.

Even with our current system, feminism is showing a lot
of cracks. Do you acknowledge this?



No, I don't. How do you like that? I don't acknowledge it.

I will acknowledge that feminism HAS a number of cracks - largely set
(as I said before) in human nature. You've made mention of some of
them in your discussions with Puke and in your discussions with me.

I can think of others that you haven't mentioned, at least not
directly.

But you asked me to acknowledge that feminism is SHOWING a lot of
cracks.

I don't acknowledge that. The feminists control the news media and all
sources of what makes up "respectable public opinion."

You may know a great deal about computers and economics, but I'm more
literary than you, and I draw my examples from the literary world.

Ever read Orwell's "1984"? There's a scene in it in which the
protagonist, Winston Smith and some co-worker are watching a government
propaganda piece that is trumpeting how terrific everything is.

At the end of the piece, the co-worker says to Smith something to the
effect of, "The Ministry of Plenty sure is doing a great job." And
then he asks Smith if he can borrow a razor blade from him.

Smith replies that he doesn't have any to spare; he's been using the
same razor blade himself for the past six weeks. His co-worker walks
off with his faith in the Ministry of Plenty still unshaken by the
evident fact that something as basic as razor blades are in short
supply. He must have numerous ugly shaving cuts on his face, and his
faith is STILL unshaken.

Because the propaganda machine has convinced him to disregard the
evidence of his own senses, including those shaving cuts.

Well, the news media in our real world does just as good a job of
enabling people to disbelieve the evidence of their own senses and
their own life experience.

Feminism does not SHOW the cracks that it HAS because the news media
covers them up.

Understand?

And don't tell me that the Berlin Wall eventually fell. "1984" didn't
end that way. And the feminist news media is more powerful than the
Soviet government was.



What's crazy is that I heard a colleague say that he was
considering voting democrat just to piss off the republicans
while you've chosen to drop out. Yours is a more honorable
choice, IMO.



Let me tell you that since I don't believe that either party would run
an anti-feminist, if the Democrats ever ran a male candidate who was
convincingly anti-immigration, I expect that I would vote for him. But
it's an unlikely contingency.

Well no duh. Of course, a RINO whose pro-feminist and pro-immigration
would be so disgusting as to make a truly anti-immigrant
democrat to appear tolerable by contrast.

But as you just pointed out, the Dems can't get one of these
because they sense they're through.

There's also a third choice (and no, not the libertarians who
are pro-illegal immigration)


Good. I'm glad to see that you've dumped the libertarians.

Bleah! I read their web site and they came across
as a bunch of lazy hippie pot smokers. They make YOU
look pro-active by comparison. :-)



Don't use this a basis to taunt ME with. Years ago, you tried to
encourage me to become a libertarian, and that was EXACTLY what I said
about the libertarians myself.



Vote only in the primaries.
At least there, you can vote for a candidate that doesn't
turn your stomach. You can even show up for the general
election and not vote for anyone. This would give
the Karl Roves food for thought as they observed that
a certain number of registered republicans turned out
but didn't vote for anyone.

Maybe.

Agreed. If there's one thing Republicans are famous for is
totally misreading polling data and exit interviews.

I'm afraid that many disgusted republicans who vote
for a democrat out of protest may result in some RINO
going: "Wow! I better act MORE like a democrat if
I'm to win elections. Look at how many votes that
last guy got!"

Of course, by then, it's unlikely that bozo would get the
NASCAR men back.

It's the difference between a strike versus someone whose
just unemployed.

Being a man, GA, means rising up to the challenge and looking
for solutions rather than whining about the problem. Parg's
agenda is through the moment enough men wake up.
As it turns out, enough _have_ woken up that Democrats can
no longer win presidential elections without illegal immigrant
and felon voters.


I don't know about that, but you want an encouraging word from me? OK,
here's an encouraging phrase that I've used before.

"Worse is better".

I used to think that too.

In some ways,it is. Boiling the frog and all. In others,
the states are still a bastion for certain ideologies that
even if not strictly followed, do help set examples for
the rest of the world: freedom of speech, free market enterprise,
etc.

You and I have some fundamental philosophical differences.

I have no desire to promote "freedom of speech". I just posted an
article written by Patrick Buchanan, to the effect of "Democracy isn't
enough". "Freedom of speech" is not desirable in and of itself, and
given its abuse by dominant social forces, I would like to see it
curtailed.

"Free market enterprise" led to my being downsized back in 1995, and
while I am a survivor who has always found a way to "get through"
setbacks like that, I haven't necessarily recover fully from being
downsized.

But that's just my situation, and I'm not trying to throw a pity party.
However, "free enterprise", at least in its naked unqualified form,
hurts mostly men situated differently from me; working class men who
are often downsized in the name of "free enterprise", which roughly
translated means "greater earnings per share".

And socialism which would just put women in the job and
force the taxpayers to foot the bill is preferable?

Really?




I didn't say that socialism was preferable. I said that "free
enterprise" is not desirable. I didn't say that socialism was
desirable.




It's often men who are the victims of downsizing because the downsizing
often occurs in environments where men are numerically dominant. And
even where that's not true, female employees are often seen by
corporate honchos - Tom Smith's "corporate pussies" - as being more
compliant with the corporate model. That plus fears of discrimination
claims makes them less likely to be candidates for downsizing when it
occurs.

That might be the most ironic thing about Puke's gloating over the
ascendancy of women in the corporate sector - these "liberated" women
are just more fodder to be ground up by the Corporate Machine.

Except you claim such women aren't downsized due to her agenda.



I said that they were less likely to be downsized. The Corporate
Machine is still no fun to live in. Also no fun is having to make the
decision to conform or lose your job. Women, being women, can
sometimes find ways to avoid or put off making that decision, but it's
not a rewarding or "liberating" environment.



Sorry, but just jumping into the frying pan rather than getting
boiled slowly isn't a solution either. How does getting
totally screwed over help you?




How does getting boiled slowly help me?



Hell, I think that Michael Moore was onto something back in 1989 with
"Roger and Me" when he indicted General Motors and Roger Smith for
devastating the town of Flint, Michigan by relocating operations to
Mexico for cheaper labor.

Naw, he's a total propogandist who wouldn't tell the truth
if someone put a gun to his head and even if he liked it.



That may have become true since 1989. But did you see "Roger and Me"?
Are you saying that the images from that movie weren't real? Are you
saying that the story that it told wasn't real?


Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" showed that he
HATES the guts of these union guys who go out hunting.
He views them as a bunch of psychopaths.




Fine. "Roger and Me" was made 17 years ago. I acknowledged that since
then, Moore bought the entire left-wing politically-correct
multi-culturalist agenda.

My question again is, are you saying that the mostly male working force
in Flint, Michigan wasn't devastated by the decision made by General
Motors to relocate to Mexico?



He drives a foreign
car, proudly, not because of the outsourcing but because
he doesn't think the cars are made well using U.S. union
labor!!!



If true, that IS funny.


So are we to believe the croc tears he shed about
fatcat loyal democratic automaker jobs going south?
Really?



Whether his emotions are sincere or not, are you saying that the story
that he told wasn't true?



It's been shown by studies that outsourcing ultimately
CREATES jobs, in the long run, as cheaper components
are purchased overseas and assembled or branded in
the states and then resold creating jobs locally.

Let's put it this way:

A lot of computer stuff is made in China. Millions of
software developers and programmers use these cheap
computers to write code and business models that make
billions for corporations and their employees.
If the computers were expensive, it would be difficult
to make this business model work. A few thousand
jobs in manufacturing were traded for millions
in software development.

But I hear you saying: "ok Mark, what about those
software development jobs being outsourced to India?"

News flash: This code has to be integrated into the states.
I've worked in this industry: It takes a team of
people in the states to get the code written
by these guys deployed here AND deployed around the
world. yahoo.fr? google.co.uk?




What does any of this have to do with the auto industry?

How did society at large benefit from the relocation of manufacturing
plants in Flint to Mexico?



I'd be all for Michael Moore if he had simply continued to agitate for
populist issues that largely benefited men, but as might have been
expected, he ended up going along with the entire leftist multicultural
agenda ("Stupid White Men").

In some ways, I would think you would like Michael Moore considering
he's a leftist nihilist who found a way to parlay his
egotistical, hateful, nihilistic philosophy into a money
machine.


I don't like Michael Moore at all, and these are not reasons to like
him. Why would you think that I would like him for this?

I would like him if he was a RIGHTIST nihilist who found a way to
parlay an egotistical, hateful, nihilistic philosophy into a money
machine.



Michael Moore and leftism in general is about fucking over
the civilized world and all things beautiful as part
of an egotistical, exploitive action similar to
strip mining a forest to build an end table.
Such people are often intelligent as hell, but they
lack self-confidence driving them to seek as much
power as possible. Kind of like smart people
who go to the ends of the earth to try to figure out
how to fix a pocketwatch with a ballpeen hammer.



If the pocketwatch can't co-exist with the ballpeen hammer, whatever
that is, maybe the pocketwatch isn't that essential.

I don't care. I'm willing to concede that Michael Moore is a
first-class left-wing ***. He hasn't caused as much damage to the
American working class, particularly working class MEN, as have
corporate pussies like Roger Smith.



I hate to direct this at Andre (but I'm on a roll)
but I kind of get a sour taste in my mouth
when he goes on and on about Canada's great
healthcare system. I am being fair by saying
I really don't know. Maybe their system really is
good or maybe it's a rationing nightmare that I've
heard too. But I give him the benefit of a doubt.

But even so, Andre's position isn't: "Look at
what Canada has done! We want to help out neighbors
to the south by maybe setting up an HMO there
that uses our principles so we can make a buck
but also improve the healthcare in the states."

Nope. It's "nananana!" Ok. Fine. Shut up
and send us your lumber and bacon so we can
send you our American branded plasma TV's that
we marked up. We'll find out how great their
healthcare is when the migrants that came up
from a continent away figure out how to swim
over lake erie.

Pat Buchanan's views have become more social democrat while remaining
socially conservative, and mine have traveled the same path. I have a
(reluctant) appreciation of labor unions to a much greater extent than
I used to.

Yet, these guys now are mostly just government worker fatcats
who sit around after tearing up roads. Whose to say they
didn't trash the auto and steel industry to begin with?



Oh really?

NOW, who's assuming an elitist "Bowling for Columbine" attitude towards
working class males?

I did workers compensation defense for a few months. I represented a
large well-known retailer - a household name that I won't repeat here.
Its work force isn't unionized. By virtue of my representing this
company, I learned what working conditions are like in corporate
America in a NON-unionized work force. Let me tell you something;
they're not all that much better than working conditions in the Third
World.

No benefits, no real opportunities for promotion, and no guarantees
even of a 40-hour work week - so OK, it's not a sweatshop operation.
But people are still expected to make a living from 20 - 30 hours a
week at minimum wage or a little more.

And the workplace hazards are real because some of the merchandise that
they're responsible for moving is very heavy.

Let me tell you, Mark, I became ashamed of myself for representing the
fat cats - more so than I was for representing criminal defendants. I
becamed ashamed of myself for badgering injured workers on behalf of
the corporate pussies.

If that's "free enterprise", you can have it. No, I wouldn't trade it
for living or working conditions in a socialist country. But free
enterprise is not the best of all possible worlds either, or even close
to it.



So if the subject is "how to defeat feminism", I don't see that "free
market enterprise" and "freedom of speech" are weapons against it.

It's not a weapon against it, so much, as it is something
to starve feminists of resources. Parg is right: men
still do have the choice to not have babies with
feminists. With free market capitalism, men can vote
with their feet and cut out the middleman.



I don't see that at all. Vote with their feet for what? Cut out what
middleman?

If women can also "vote with their feet" and "cut out the middleman",
whatever all that means, then it's not worth it. I'm not looking to
empower women.



It's better, I think, for the right to seize personal
opportunities including men having families under conditions
they can live with and making a stand. Listen, if it was
really all over, wouldn't Parg have her socialist agenda
right now? The whole thing? Lock stock and barrel?

Just as you undoubtedly tire of my gloom and doom, Mark, you can be
sure that I tire of your unremittedly "free market uber allies"
solution to everything.

I don't care about Puke's socialist agenda or your capitalist one.
Your capitalist agenda will not and is not leading to an anti-feminist
or a non-feminist society. I've told you this several times, and it
seems to make no real impression.

That's partially because we don't live with a capitalist agenda.




Sorry. That's no different from the socialist economist who would
defend the performance of Cuba's economy on the grounds that it isn't
"real" socialism. The Soviet Union's dismal performance was defended
by true-believing socialists for years on the grounds that the Soviet
Union didn't represent "true" socialism or communism.

You're doing the same thing. It's a cop-out.


Welfare has been the lifeblood of feminism for 40 years.



Welfare has accounted for some of it. And much of the lifeblood has
been supplied by the corporate pussies whose interests you're defending
in the name of "free enterprise" - the corporate pussies who themselves
make obeisances towards the concept of "capitalism" when it suits them
rhetorically to do so but who control so much market share that the
idea of competition is a joke.

They call themselves "conservatives" in between martinis and tee times
at the country club.

But they sponsor much of the breakdown of the male image in the
commercials produced on their behalf and in the entertainment that they
sponsor and in their own internal practices.

Instances of all this have been discussed in this ng numerous times.

How do you like paying the corporate pussies 3 bucks and 3 bits for a
gallon of gas? Hell, I'm old enough to remember the original energy
crises in the 70's. You may not be.

People were agitating over the price of gas then. By any chance, do
you remember the TV commerical that the oil companies hired Bob Hope to
make? Bob Hope made a commercial the theme of which was "Who Owns
America's Oil Companies?", and the commerical showed a lot of minority
shareholders (minority in the sense of percentage ownership, not in an
ethnic sense) going about their everyday lives - well-to-do decent
people who obviously were supposed to look "different" from corporate
fat cats.

And Bob Hope ended the commercial by pointing out that "OVER HALF OF
THEM ARE WOMEN".

Understand that, Mark? Gouging at the gas pump is OK if it's done
mostly for WOMEN because anything that a woman did to a man thirty
years ago was OK, and the public UNDERSTOOD and AGREED with this.
Don't tell me that anything has changed since then.

"Price gouging is good because it mostly benefits women". This is
CAPITALIST FEMINISM, right? It's not SOCIALIST FEMINISM, is it? Is
it?



I've met some of the women that you wave in Puke's face. I've met
"conservative" women who vote Republican, own their own businesses,
don't want their tax dollars to fund illegal immigration,
out-of-wedlock births, and so on and who do not consider themselves
feminists. They are likely to be disdainful of female employees in
general, and none of them would hire Carol Ann Hemingway of Aromas,
California (I think) to vaccum their offices, let alone to perform
tasks of a technical or professional nature.

Do you know what, Mark? These "conservative" women are STILL
hard-assed ball-breaking cunts, just like their "sisters" on the left

Agreed.

But such women have always existed, really. Who do you
think STARTED feminism? It was a bunch of rich bitches,
often lesbo businesswomen, who went around trying to
recruit middle class housewives. It's the lifestyle,
not the ideology that makes such women ball breakers.




Right. And your conservative politicians boast of how many women
they've enabled to practice this lifestyle. Ronald Reagan used to
boast of how many female-owned businesses had been initiated on his
watch. GWB has probably boasted of the same thing.

The way the screech owls at NOW used to portray Reagan as an
authoritarian who kept women barefoot and pregnant was a JOKE and a
partisan ploy.



working in the non-profit agency across the street, and the world is
not the better for their presence in general or for their presence in
the work force, in particular.

Women are poor authority figures, regardless of whether they govern
from the left or from the right, so a society that allows them to
assume authority is a morally flawed society, probably fatally so.

But then again, aren't men often poor authority figures as well?



Often they are, of course.

But women are CONGENITALLY incapable of exercising authority. There
are good male authority figures.



"Add capitalism and stir" or "Add Republicans and stir" is NOT the
panacea for feminism, however much you still think that it is.

I'm not going to say the whole situation is black and white.
I'm not weaseling, honestly, but just saying that I don't
think it's fair to say that "republicanism" isn't solving
the problem when we have been living with moderate
socialism for the past 70 years along with feminism
tied in well with the sexual revolution which is now almost
over.

Have you ever had a cold? In the middle of a cold, when
you're coughing and sneezing you may think you're
going to die but in reality, your body is developing
anti-bodies which is precisely why you FEEL more sick.
You were the most vulnerable when your body didn't
know about the disease.

Men are slowly, but surely, waking up. I'm pleased to see
that msst young men don't buy into this crock white guilt
wussy snesitive guy B.S. that I heard from guys in
my generation.

What grits her teeth more than anything is the notion
of NASCAR dads having kids with more sensible women
(albeit not perfect) while her blue stater fraus die
childless.

And you know as well as I do that after the November 2006 elections,
it's going to get a lot worse. 2006 will be a 1994 in reverse. Think
of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Hell, think of her as
PRESIDENT, since there are those who are talking about a post-election
double impeachment of Bush and Cheney (that's far-fetched obviously,
but it might become technically doable).

I'll make a friendship bet on that.

Bet on what? I don't think that Bush or Cheney will be impeached. I
won't bet that they will.

Are you offering to bet that Congress WON'T turn Democrat? I'd just be
taking your money.

You get annother free meal on me if Congress turns Democrat.



Easiest free meal I ever won.



I think voters are going to be pissed off about the illegal
immigration bill and if the house doesn't kill it with
a thousand cuts, we may see a restructuring of the Senate
and House with _more_ conservatives. I cannot imagine
any lefties getting more votes on this issue.

The RINOs and Dems in the senate must have been desperate
to pass this, even in an election year, in the hopes
of getting more fresh democratic voters.

But maybe after things get worse, they will get "better".

I agree with that general theme. I think 11 million illegals
marching down the street during November celebrating
their amnesty and smashing car windows while demanding
more welfare and waving Mexican flags would be a real
help, don't you?

Not really. It might embolden the more conservative House Republicans
to stand up to the White House, but it won't shake Vicente Fox's hold
on GWB and the RINO's.

I hope it would help to clean house during the primaries.
Get the RINO's out then and that republican stands a chance
at holding onto the seat. A democrat in opposition would
be hard pressed to argue that he's as strong on immigration
just as democrats have a hard time going against republicans
in conservative districts on gun rights.

Here in DC, the women's rights protestors had problems
getting coverage because the leftist news channels didn't
want to show, for their own protection, fat butch lesbians
with T-shirts that said "This is what a feminist
looks like". Yeah, as if they were surprising anyone. :-)

So the networks are conspiring to protect the feminist image - even
against their will - for the feminists' own good. Big deal.

They cover female sports the same way - pretending that those little
soccer Nazis and those small-breasted marathon runners and high-school
wrestlers and WNBA performers are wholesome and positive - without
acknowledging that female athletics are actually breeding grounds for
lesbianism and hate-male.

But that's not something to be happy about.

I was just pointing out that these protests were becoming
less useful to them. Rather than drawing sympathy which
lasted for decades, as with the civil rights movement,
it's instead making the typical voter pissed off
or laughing at them.



I don't care, Mark.

This just enables the typical female voter to play the "I'm not a
feminist, but..." ploy.

And the typical male voter is still content to play the servant in a
master-servant relationship. So *** the "typical voters".

***, I'm starting to think that the only men worth admiring are the
men that I used to represent who would beat up their significant
others.

When I was representing male spousal abusers, I found out to my
surprise, that I DIDN'T admire them - not the ones who were clearly
guilty anyway. I found out to my surprise that I was coming to regard
men who beat up women as contemptible and cowardly and not at all as
masculist heroes.

But now I'm starting to change my mind again. At least male abusers
are engaging in some sort of self-help primal scream therapy against
the Matriarchy while the average man is accommodating it.


soc.men is an evolving forum. When it was started, it was mostly
a lot of regulars who were PRO-feminist posters thwarting away
anti-feminists. At the same time, a lot of bad blood has been
retained from it's USENET origins.

Consequently, Andre and GA and others may have the general
philosophy in that if they know they're going to be fired at,
why bother sending out a welcoming party? I disagree with that
philosophy because I think a lot of the fun is watching
a so-called moderate expose themselves for what they truly
are and break down into their component parts.

It's easier to break these people down if you're flaming them.

I'll politely disagree in that the hardcore, like Parg, feed off such
flames as you dealing with her at the only level that she
can function. She knows that a purely intellectual examination of
her beliefs renders them, pardon the ugly pun, naked.

I deal with her intellectually too, but I don't agree that she "feeds"
on my flames. I don't think that she quite knows how to respond to a
man that can return her hate and sometimes return it with interest.

She _feeds_ on hate. She CRAVES hate because what she used
to crave even more: respect and power is largely now out
of her reach. She can't get the attention of men in a bar
anymore so like a child that doesn't have straight A's she's
going to be a bad girl.

Yes, to a certain extent, she probably does feed on hate.

But that doesn't mean that it's good for her. Aren't you the one who
used the examples of pizza at midnight as something that someone might
crave but that wouldn't be particularly nourishing?

Agreed. I no doubt feed her as well. But note that there's
a difference between giving someone a pizza that they
enjoy, fully, versus one that they really hate but
have to eat. I hate mushrooms. I would need to be really
hungry before eating a mushroom pizza. Poor parg has to
eat whatever we give her. Why give her what she likes
the most?



It seems to be that she usually stays longer with you than she does
with me. I think that she "likes" your treating her as an intellectual
equal considerably more than she likes me giving her the treatment that
she really deserves.


It definitely isn't just extreme men's rights supporters who are
doing
the flaming and fighting.

Sadly, I think the opposition has succeeded in poisoning the forum
in some ways.

Andre and GA remind me (and this is an admission of middle age
when I use this kind of analogy) of a golfer story: Golfers
who take the game seriously to the point of throwing tantrums
on the field really need to ask themselves the point of the game.
Whatever that point is... it's not to have a miserable time.


Yes it is.

Yikes! So you hate posting on this forum?



Yes, I do. But I also hate NOT posting. That's why when I refrain for
a few months, I find myself starting again.

There's nothing in this world can make me joy. Life is as tedious as a
twice-told tale.

I'm sorry to hear that. Maybe you should get the f*** out of
California?


I'm not situated to do that, and there are feminists everywhere.

Yeah, but people's attitudes towards them differs. You ought
to visit Springfield, MO. I couldn't find a single feminist,
anywhere.


Who elected Jean Carnahan?


Also, visit SLC. (The skiing is simply incredible.)


I don't ski.



I happen to love taking trolls who come in thinking that
they're going to yank our chain and turn it around and make
them question their most cherished fundamental beliefs
and start shrieking, for real.

I think that you have the wrong approach. Trolls don't have "cherished
fundamental beliefs".

That's just it: most people really don't give these things
a second thought. That's the problem with the boiled frog:
a lot of these beliefs are second nature to them.

There's nothing in this world can make me joy:
Life is as tedious as a twice-told tale
Vexing the dull ear of a drowsy man;

- Shakespeare, King John, Act 3, Scene 4

FYI: My wife said you were very pleasant and nice.


That was very nice of her.


She does _NOT_ give that compliment easily or cheaply.



Wow! Well, as I've said before, I wear a different face in public from
the one that I wear here.

Then again, we don't go out of our way to be jerks.

She apologizes if you feel rushed out but I knew you
had a serious appointment and she wanted to see Rodeo
drive.

regards,
PolishKnight


I did have a court date that I had to leave for, so I did not feel
rushed.

Good.

GA wants to meet sometime. Let me know if you're in the area.
There's some new cool things to see on the mall.

regards,
PolishKnight



Well thank you, but WHO wants to meet?

Andre wants to do something. He drives by from time to time.

regards,
PolishKnight

.