Re: Harman calls for equal pay target

On Jun 19, 7:23 pm, w...@xxxxxxxxx (the wharf rat) wrote:
In article <3MZdi.54155$ek.17...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

MSNothing <msnoth...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

hmm , why are you posting under two different names here. Why not just post
under ONE NAME.

Hmmmm? I've used only my panix account to post from since ummm
2000...

women are perfectly capable and willing to
fight when the need arises,

Not many women fight just for the hell of it though...

One time me and my then-wife came out of a store to find some
guy struggling to get a big cooler into his back seat. The door wouldn't
open enough for him to get it in. That didn't stop him from shoving
and screaming and cursing at it, and it didn't stop him from jamming his
back door open against the side of my SHO, scraping 6 inches down to the
bare metal and making a crease a quarter of an inch deep.

I was pissed. I asked him just what he thought he was doing and
didn't he see what he had done to my door. He responded with a stream
of profanity and ended with informing me that since I'd parked my car in his
way he was glad he'd done that and I should wait and see what he was going to
do next. So I told him he was being a real ***.

He dropped the cooler, growled, and came right for me. I was
overjoyed. This guy *really* deserved to get his ass kicked, and he
was giving me *permission* to do it, and I was pretty mad about my car.
But his girlfriend who'd been happy to see him heap macho abuse on us
until then saw the look on my face (smiling and licking my lips was
probably a dead giveaway...) and grabbed the *** from behind. He
was so mad he was slowwllly dragging her forward and I was waiting for
him to get close enough when *MY* wife grabbed me too.

She never ever understood why I was so mad at her for grabbing me
and why I was soooo looking forward to getting my hands on that guy. It's
my opinion that women will fight out of rage or fear, but never for the
pure joy of it. That's the "need arises" part, and why it's both hard
to teach women to fight and why they're simply not as prone to violence
as men are. It aint' fun for them., like it is for you and me



Female supremacist rhetoric dominates the public conversation.

In 1969 or thereabouts, the notion that men are irrelevant and should
all be killed on behalf of some gyno-centric greater good was ultra-
radical feminist rhetoric promulgated by Valerie Solanas (SCUM -
Societ for Cutting Up Men).

But now it's mainstream conversation. This is something that
virtually all women and quite a few men (maybe most men) believe.
Pseudo-science is being developed all of the time to support it.

The trouble is that about fifty percent of the pro-male-gendercide
argument is accounted for by people like you who say that men are too
prone to violence. And the other fifty percent of the pro-male-
gendercide argument is accounted for by others who say that women are
more warlike than men and will/should kill us off in the end anyway.
The old argument to the effect of "motherhood gives women super-heroic
strength".

The truth is considerably more complex without being complicated.
Yes, men, as a group, are obviously bigger and stronger than women and
are more capable of inflicting serious injury. And there is almost
surely something to be said for the correlations found between
testosterone levels and aggression levels demonstrated.

At the same time, having worked in the criminal court system, I can
attest to the frequency of female-initiated violence -- at least among
the lower classes who obviously account for the vast majority of
"street" crime. Female-initiated violence might be directed against
other females or against males. But it is certainly very prevalent.

On the professional level, neither men nor women engage in a great
deal of violence, of course. So maybe physical violence is more
closely correlated with class than with gender.

But anyone who has observed the tenacious bitchiness often
demonstrated by female professionals -- often against each other --
knows better than to think that women are some sort of force for
peace.

After seeing how ferociously women can fight against each other and
also after seeing how tenaciously a battered woman will defend the man
who battered her -- even to the point of lying to protect him -- even
I've had to SOMEWHAT modify my misogynistic belief that the entire
female sex is a monolithic conspiracy against men.

If men are "aggressive" and "egotistical", as you seek to demonstrate
in your example, women, on the other hand, are more likely to
personalize professional disputes and display their own peculiar forms
of aggression.

No, the world wouldn't become a more peaceable place if men were to
check out. Women would unquestionably scrap with each other in a
competition for limited resources -- which would become considerably
more limited without men to acquire them.

.

Loading