Re: Brave women admitting their afraid. Perfect example of why women weren't allowed to vote!

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:56:04 -0400, PolishKnight <marek1@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

In article <a0ni939mg3hbvvt2ohihkuggo4ej53s3f6@xxxxxxx>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:29:14 -0400, PolishKnight <marek1@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

If you had read soc.men for a while, you'd know about this concept
called "feminism" which makes a cynical claim that women were oppressed
by "inequality" and are entitled to special treatment to be "equal".

So ignore it.


For insecure, neurotic people maybe. Unless you're Bill Gates maybe,
there's always a couple billion people who are by some measure better
off than you, and a couple billion who are worse off, so get over it.

For someone who knee jerks ad-hominems and brag about doing "right
things" all the time, John, you are not in a position to lecture anyone
to "get over" feelings of importance.

Moderator? What moderator?


MUCH less? You grow your own food, forge your own steel, have your own
army?

There's this little thing called TRADE and a MARKET. Men are capable of
providing things of value in exchange for producing other things of
value. This is different than the concept of CHARITY and chivalry. More
on this in a bit:

Some men are more capable of doing this stuff than some women. Your
personally allocated quota of reflected masculine virtue is zero.


No, guys are drafted because they are more expendable, and easier to
train to do stuff that's likely to get them killed.

That's quite a nice thing for a defense contractor to say about the men
that he's supposed to be trying to equip, yes? You want to make the big
bucks off of their stupid backs.

I design electronics and sell it on an open market. We have an elected
government that supports our military. And the soldiers I've worked
with and seen interviewed were anything but stupid. I have refused
business a few times, including helping to manufacture cigarettes, and
helping Israel to develop advanced nuclear weapons.


But at the same time, to your credit,
this attitude explains a lot about you doing the "right thing" and maybe
jumping in front of a bus to save your wife. You don't have a very high
view of yourself either.

Well, I don't indulge in pride. I yam what I yam. Pride is nearly
always misplaced and is usually counterproductive. It is a byproduct
of insecurity.

But the bus-jumping thing isn't a chest-thumping boast, it's just a
feeling that it's interesting to have, probably part of the basic
equipment of being male. I hope and believe I'll never have to act on
it, because hospitals and death are a drag.


Duke? Homer? Who are they?

You referred to them in another thread.

Did I?

It takes two to tango. Feminism and leftism has bashed men for decades
for either their misdeeds or not sharing the fruits of their
accomplishments (which are often tied to the former).

Ignore them.

I wish I could but they have great influence in the media and government

Ignore them too.


(run mostly by men with their own personal agenda which isn't
necessarily in sync with YOUR best interests or even these womens...)

So consequently, I am obliged to address their points.

You're free to ignore us too if you like. :-)

I'm still learning stuff here. When that ceases, I'll certainly move
on to something else, optimistically a place with less brute pathology
on display.

I had a revelation just this morning. Not only are humans conflicted
because of our recent, rapid, klugey evolution, the fact that we are
intelligent actually enables additional internal emotional conflicts.


John, nobody doubts you survive and manage to avoid divorce and get to
eat and breath provided you say and do the right things.

Like not jumping off cliffs, or holding up banks, stuff like that? Not
threatening violence against public officials? Yep, I sure do make
compromises.

You do. More on this later:

Congratulations but the Duke and Homer didn't make their marks on their
own, and to a certain extent, lesser men, by "just keeping it together".

That's the ultimate craziness here, the assumption that liking women
is somehow a marginalizing, demasculizing act.

It's probably crazy because this is a strawman and words you're trying
to put into my mouth. I never said anything against you for "liking
women". On the contrary, you don't really spend a lot of time here
talking about women's virtues so much as degrading your own gender in
the hopes of keeping your wife around.

I don't degrade anyone's gender; I am in fact an admirer of genuine
masculine virtues, which don't include whining about political
oppression or needing to degrade women. And my wife doesn't read
newsgroups... her hobby is gardening.


It's exactly the
opposite. I'm not "just keeping it together", I'm doing what I like.

By viewing yourself as expendable? By women bragging here that you've
managed to stay married? That you don't rob banks? Yeah, you really
know how to party.

"Strong" and "secure" men have more to offer women including honest
discussion.

Yes. And they needn't strut, or have to display merit badges

You don't "have to" because you're too afraid to. Big difference.
Enjoying and being proud of one's accomplishments is one of the nice
things of life.

I enjoy life immensely. I'm not terribly proud, because most of life
is luck and accident. And I work hard because it's fun, so there's not
a lot of sacrifice hence pride there, either.



or keep their women down

Unlike keeping oneself down...

, if they are indeed strong and secure. Only insecure
men are threatened by women, or indeed by other men.

For someone who preaches about getting over one's importance in life,
you sure do spend a lot of time fretting about being secure or not.

I'm not fretting about myself. My profession, and my obscession, has
always been system dynamics. That's why I'm interested in more than
electronics, stuff like climate and cosmology and quantum machanics
and history and evolution. And lately, I've become interested in
personal and social dynamics, and this ng is a treasure trove of
bizarre, disfunctional social dynamics. And one efficient way to study
a dynamic system is to give it a stumulus (ideally a Dirac Delta
impulse, a short, sudden shot) and observe the reaction (the transfer
function, the impulse transient response.) Google some of that; it's
interesting stuff.

John


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A SINGLE MAN (no spoilers)
    ... Colin seems to be repressing the most vital senses when he ... something anathematic about a political blowhard praising a gay ... There's oppression, but not *violent* oppression (...originally my ... life, A SINGLE MAN showed a near-idyllic existence. ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)
  • Re: Bugshit owner is a tard
    ... John Larkin wrote: ... He needs a life but you only get one, ... Now that I'm rid of the worst of the ... I haven't worked in my shop for over two ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Dirty Bomb, how bad?
    ... >John Larkin wrote: ... >>>Where life is oriented around dependence on being able to retrieve ... That's what we did last earthquake. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Iran bans Western music!
    ... >>> stand up to western oppression... ... despite the cost, because a price cannot be put on life. ... Iran, be willing to spend as much to investigate the loss ...
    (uk.religion.islam)
  • Re: OT: Intelligent Falling
    ... >John Larkin wrote: ... >> Not very funny, in my opinion. ... >*greater* complex life created it. ... But not from DNA. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)