Re: Feminists "love" men. Sort of...

From marek1@xxxxxxx Thu Nov 1 16:39:49 2007
Return-Path: <marek1@xxxxxxx>
Received: from eastrmimpi02.cox.net ([68.1.16.118])
by eastrmmtai107.cox.net
(InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP
id
<20071101165204.PVDQ1427.eastrmmtai107.cox.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
for <marek1@xxxxxxx>; Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:52:04 -0400
Received: from py-out-1314.google.com ([64.233.166.171])
by eastrmimpi02.cox.net with IMP
id 7Upn1Y02A3iCcH40000000; Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:49:48 -0400
Received: by py-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id b29so2185166pyh
for <marek1@xxxxxxx>; Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.35.18.18 with SMTP id v18mr3199750pyi.1193935920146;
Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com with HTTP;
Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:51:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-IP: 204.253.137.213
From: PolishKnight <marek1@xxxxxxx>
To: marek1@xxxxxxx
Subject: Fwd: Feminists "love" men. Sort of...
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:51:58 -0700
Message-ID: <1193935918.881285.161190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To: <1193892216.026056.163580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1193228763.866159.31020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1193237310.197359.278900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<marek1-916737.22244327102007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1193550416.456597.228050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<marek1-24866F.12240828102007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1193629066.746924.289650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<marek1-882152.23164531102007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<1193892216.026056.163580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0;
..NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Nov 1, 12:43 am, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:16 pm, PolishKnight <mar...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <1193629066.746924.289...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 28, 9:24 am, PolishKnight <mar...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

[edit]

I think that's one of the horrifying things about feminism is that
it's turned men into self-enabling liars.

I would hardly say it's "self-enabling", GA. On the contrary: These men
have a low self-esteem and don't think they could get a woman unless
they apologized for their gender and lived under a woman's control.

Well then, they're self-enablers, aren't they?

Hello GA,

Philosophically and at an abstract level, everyone is a "self enabler" i
n that we all do things that we perceive as being the course of action
that's best for us based upon emotional gratification or perceived
self-interest.

I'm reminded of the Russians who trained dogs with mines on their backs
to run under Nazi tanks. The dogs engaged in such behavior because
previous actions got them food and emotional rewards.

That's a little different. Those dogs were just engaged in training
exercises.

Obviously, they didn't know that they were training for a suicide
mission or they presumably would have been more reticent about
participating. But cowed men should know better.

Most men view the situation as some other "dog" getting blown up.
View this as kind of like an escalating russian roulette with people
getting prizes for pulling the trigger with little risk and then a
bait-and-switch later.

This example demonstrates an interesting difference between how women
and men are trained and conditioned to believe in things. Men are
willing to jump through hoops, for little risk, for immediate
rewards. Women will have a tendency to avoid risk even with the
potential of greater reward. Note: As people develop certain
behavioral patterns, breaking the pattern introduces a disincentive
and displeasure even when it's clear that the behavior is counter
productive.

For example, imagine a dog with a mine strapped on it's back being
offered food to NOT jump under the tank. He may decline because the
behavior pattern becomes stronger then the original incentive in the
first place.

There are a lot of horrors in Orwell's "1984", but maybe the most
pervasive is when Winston Smith really does start to "see" that two
plus two equal five. There's O'Brien holding out an oustretched hand
with fingers spread and thumb hidden -- but Winston really really does
begin to see FIVE fingers.

That's more horrifying than any of the physical torture that he went
through to arrive at that viewpoint. The fact that Winston REALLY
sees five fingers and is not just saying "five" to avoid more torture.

A lot of atrocities are committed against men in the name of feminism
or of "empowering women" -- but maybe the fact that so many men come
to appreciate them is the most horrifying of all.

But GA, these men aren't tortured. On the contrary, even men in our
culture generally enjoy a good standard of living higher than that of
most people in other countries.

Right. In a sense, even more tragic. They did not even have to be
put through the trauma of physical torture in order to agree to
sacrifice their manhood.

Traditional (in a good sense) socialogists discuss "rites of passage" to
manhood and they usually involve hardship and going beyond their comfort
zone.

For men who lived in their comfort zone their whole lives, and learned
only to "toe the line" to stay inside of it, they never really were men
to begin with to "sacrifice" it. They didn't endure trauma to begin
with.

This is the paradox that western civilization faces: A comfortable, safe
society helps create order to improve life but at the same time weakens
men who grow to dislike conflict and challenge.

I guess that's true. For everyone. I used to joke with Stephen
Morgan about going to the barricades, but it was all ***.

I'm too middle-aged and comfortable to volunteer to do that. I made a
principled stand once in my life in the white-collar world, and it
cost me my job (I've probably told that story too often to warrant
telling it again), and my principles didn't pay for my rent and
groceries. So I'm probably done with principled stands.

Interestingly, my principled stands have typically been productive. If
things had turned out differently, it would have caused me to question
my beliefs and methods (which as you know, I have done from time to
time.)

Let's put into perspective that the ideals we live with today, on both
sides, were formed by men who were persistent and spent their lifetime
dealing with falling down, dusting themselves off, and getting back
up.

In the old days, if I -- or any of us really -- wanted to separate
ourselves from the tribe, we could just take out spears or whatever
and walk off and live in the woods and hunt game on our own. Your
principles didn't necessarily have to interfere with your livelihood.
But now...well...

That's still true in many ways. GA, you could consider moving to a
more "red stater" rustic area. A country lawyer could earn a decent
living. What about going foreign?

That's what got all the harpies in a tizzy about my wife. I went
outside their mafia and showed that men do have choices. You're a
smart person. Learn a foreign language and get out of here for a
while. You may find a place to call home. Just drop us a postcard.
Seriously. Take it under consideration.

Most blue collar working class men, in my experience, are a little more
cynical to the nonsense of feminism than the upper class men whom I
think are driven to drinking the cool aid because of ego and
soft-living. These men like to think that it's some other man whose
going to be stepped on by the system because he's enlightened and
therefore immune and is afraid to rock the boat for fear of offending
someone in power and losing his privileges.

It's ironic that these wimps, these sellouts, are the first ones to get
thrown over the side of the boat by the feminist system. I just had a
conversation with one, a good friend, who still believes in feminist
nonsense even after his new ex-wife tried to drag him through the
wringer.

Well, that's just what I said.

Well, you made a good start. We know these men are whipped and this is
due to psychological conditioning, but you assumed it was due to
negative conditioning when I am saying it's due to more to
positive-negative re-inforcement.

OK, OK.

Back to the dogs: Food and hunger are matching positive-negative
reinforcement tools. Bad behavior results in denied food (hunger) and
positive behavior BOTH reinforces positive feelings (enjoying food) and
addresses negative ones (hunger.)

For men, social and feminine acceptance is positive and denying it is
negative and over time, this conditioning can be very strong and these
feelings persist even after the "food" is no longer an issue.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0275965775/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/...

The Revolt of the Primitive: An Inquiry into the Roots of Political
Correctness (Hardcover) by Howard S. Schwartz (Author)

I think it's neat how conservative minds are turning the tables on PC
and examining it's roots as an irrational religion and deconstructing
it.

It's the difference between trying to knock down a door with a tank
versus going up and knocking on the door and saying "Pizza
Delivery!"

Look at
Pavlov's dog. Even after my friend's wife divorced him and trashed him,
he still "salivated" at the bell.

The intellectual challenge, if you are interested, is looking at how to
break such behaviors and thinking.

In the end of 1984, the protaganist not only begins to see that 2 + 2
equals 5 but even craves execution by the state. That to me is the
scariest part. It's not that someone can be brainwashed by torture but
rather that they can be brainwashed to the point of even welcoming
torture. How do you motivate them away from that?

Right. That's what I said is happening today.

It's been happening for a while. Hell, it's been going on for quite
some time. What drives leftists wild is when I point out that their
thinking is just modified Christianity and Judaism. :-)

Yes, political correctness is the religion of freethinkers.

The PC religion reminds me of a combination of the shakers (and their
abysmal breeding record) and the Mormons (and their strange beliefs.)

Organized religion offers individuals an opportunity to become part of
something larger than themselves and importantly, to become more
important individually than those people who aren't inside the church or
synagogue when the doors close.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that provided people understand that's
what they're doing but what makes this whole house of cards fun is they
like to think they're not doing that. It's like they're in the middle
of the most intense prayer meeting of their life and they shout: "I'M
NOT PRAYING!!!"

I saw a look in these men's eyes when they met my sweet wife and saw
that I could still express myself, fully and openly, without fear or
submission. It made them look irrelevent.

So it's clear that even the oppressive state of 1984 does still
recognize the importance of these men and give them a role, even a
self-destructive one, that makes them feel important. Take away their
importance and their fragile egos becomes playdoh again.

I have seen
them take more masculine approaches to dating and therefore tend to
land
men more quickly than many passive women in the states.

If anyone "loves" men, it's feminists. Without men, there's nobody for
them to blame all the world's problems on (besides themselves and we
all
know they won't do that! :-) and in addition most are beneficiaries of
patriarchal men giving them the luxury to indulge in such nonsense in
the first place.

Nonsense, hell! Look at our next president! Receiving the White
House as a gift isn't trivial.

Pulease. Hillary has a lot going against her the least of which being
that she really believes in her own fabian marxist tripe

The public is not as anti-marxist as you might think. Just about
everyone would agree to receive wealth forcibly redistributed from
someone with more wealth than themselves. Very few people would
question the morality of that.

The problem is that Hillary's marxism requires going after just about
everyone.

That is not how the average voter looks at it, and you should know
that.

I know what you're saying, I just disagree with you. More in a sec.

The best example that I've ever heard is that statist politicians will
take one penny away from the average voter on a hundred different
occasions, each of which will blur into the voter's memory.

Then, at some point, each voter is awarded fifty pennies in one fell
swoop. It's perceived as a windfall, and the voter is grateful for
it. He never missed any of the individual pennies that were taken
from him beforehand and is barely able to remember any of those
occasions or associate them with the "reward" that he's receiving now.

These are more than just pennies. We have homeownership at a record
level with people having a personal stake in property taxes. Sales
taxes are high and people are painfully reminded of them everytime
they go to buy a pack of gum.

What do they get in return? For most middle class men and women (with
a close eye on women), they get lots of benefits that apply toward
women acting like Jenny Jones and Montel Williams. They don't
identify with those women. These are "normal" women and not like the
women who post here. They HATE the idea of THEIR tax dollars going to
some OTHER woman to have a half dozen kids while SHE has to work for a
living. Meow!

Latin and Islamic immigrants have agendas that are not necessarily in
sync with feminism and are sometimes even contrary to it. The
unintended genius of GW's term may be to have pushed Islamic radicals
into the democrat party. Do you think that's hilarious? I remember
20 years ago feminists wailing away and justifying bashing white men,
who are the most generous on Earth, by correlating their gender to
that of radical muslims who didn't recognize equal rights for women
elsewhere.

Now... these women find themselves having to wait in line behind
them. Amazing.

Or should I be using the female pronoun? Because most voters are
female, and now that I've reminded you of THAT, you should easily be
able to see that most voters do not recognize that Hillary needs to go
after "everyone".

One of the problems with the growing numbers of conservative women is
that they don't vote. Very ironic. I know one who laughs off her
husband's liberal nuttiness but decided she doesn't want to vote
because she's too busy living off of his money and going to church and
the kids to school. (Yes, my wife and I told her that her husband is
WAY too lucky than he deserves to be.)

This is an election for conservatives to lose ESPECIALLY with women.
If they just play on immigration and welfare, they'll walk into the
white house and even many congressional offices. If they try to "out
lib" the liberals, they'll lose. But the fact is that young middle
class women are increasingly conservative. Ironically, they are often
well educated because of _liberal_ parents that made them go to
college...

The problem with the big tent of the Democratic party is that the groups
are beginning to fight over the same spoils.

And anyway, she isn't running as a marxist. She is being coached by
the master, who has helped her to redefine herself as a "moderate",
even as he was able to do for himself.

The master had the advantage of being a relative unknown and the
internet was in it's infancy. In addition, she's running as a senator
who has a voting record getting pork for a liberal district for the past
6 years. It's traditionally more difficult for so-called moderates and
washington insiders to transition from the senate to the white house.

That doesn't matter. You're expected to respect the girl and treat
her as an equal, but you are also supposed to not play too rough
against her. Remember Rick Lazio?

And now look how successfully she's playing the gender card against
her own Democratic rivals.

I don't think it's that so much as Osama Obama just being
unelectable. The Breck Girl is too slimey and the rest are
irrelevent.

The problem with her playing the gender card is that it reminds people
of her bad reputation of being humorless, unlikable, unstable, and a
crybaby.

Think of the feeding frenzy that the news media will have when she
uses it against a Republican opponent.

Attack her record? Who would dare?

If the republican opposition interprets it that way, he would be a
genius.

There's no need to attack her record or her personal history.
Americans should already know this and the republicans have proxies
(just as the libs do) such as foxnews, blogs, etc. to do that dirty
work for them.

Hit her weak spots on immigration, Iraq flip flops, and taxes and
she'll go down.

Remember Dole? :-)
Granted, Dole's campaign was plain awful but the fact is that Hillary's
biggest liability is herself. She can try to buff and polish it but
then she runs the risk of coming across as fake.

This economics jazz doesn't really resonate with me anyway. I just
want to know why any man would vote for a woman -- any woman. If
you're a man, how is voting for a woman any different from putting a
gun to your head? No one has ever been able to explain that to me.

I'd vote for my cat if I could train him to push the right buttons.

Your cat probably doesn't hate you -- though being a cat, he's
probably indifferent.

Cats have individual personalilties. If I'm away from home for more
than a day he goes crazy when I come home because he missed me. I
rescued him from the street and he follows me whereever I go. Not all
cats are like this, but some are. The key to a cat is that they are
very perceptive about whether people like them or not so a cat hater
generally will observe the cat leaving them alone. It's not that the
cat hates them, but just that the cat won't waste their time with
them.

But your cat is less likely to allow power to
go to his head than a woman is.

:-)

(Maybe I should start with him. :-) The problem is he's old and lazy.
What do you think of Ann Coulter? What _don't_ you like about her
besides her gender?

I can't think of anything else right now.

Do you read her townhall articles? She's a friggin' genius. She
distrusts women more than YOU do. It's gotten her accused of being a
lesbian but then again, leftist men (and chivalrous men) often hate
other men and aren't gay.

The doctors' unions and pharmeceutical firms alone will kill her
presidential run not to mention all the other enemies she's made.

Yeah, and organized labor was going to retaliate against her husband
in 1996 for NAFTA.

Intriguing observation. But as you know, most of organized labor now is
in government unions that love illegals.

The point is that the doctors unions and pharmaceutical firms are
likely engaging in idle threats, just as organized labor was in 1994.

I thought the doctors only had one union (the AMA).

Also, drug firms and doctors are not in bed with the dems at this point.
Just the opposite: These are usually white male scientists who actually
do real scientific work.

So are the global warming hucksters.

I would like you to address my first point: Are drug firms and doctors
in bed with the democrats? I would imagine that they are firmly
republican now because of raw self-interest.

I wonder if the percentage of hard working
scientists and doctors who have to spend years actually doing real work
is extremely low when it comes to voting democrat.

It's probably not all that low.

Republican professionals often find a way to work with Democrats.
Look how much Wall Street liked Clinton.

I'm not sure they "liked" Clinton so much as they loved Greenspan and
the Republican congress's ambivalence. They weren't a big fan of
Rockefeller Republican Dole and his blueblood buddies in congress...

I did health care law for about a year and one-half. Back in the
1960's, the medical establishment was horrified by the Medicare
proposal and vehemently tried to stop it from passing.

Perhaps they foolishly thought it would involve rationing and cost
controls.

Since seniors became a pork special interest that could justify taking
spending to record levels, the doctors grew to love it just as the
education unions came to love illegal immigrants.

Whether that spending would be sustained if EVERYONE is on the program
is another matter...

I think that they are quite comfortable with Medicare now though, and
again, this observation is based upon about eighteen months of
representing medical professionals.

Socialized medicine now means a large number of guaranteed capitated
payments from a debtor that has an unlimited supply of money.

It doesn't mean that in Europe, Britain or Canada.

I would guess that FDR seniors might vote for a republican if the AARP
got worried about a possibility of rationing applying to EVERYONE in
the system including seniors.

Finally, we already have a mess with other entitlements. They've
outspent themselves and the Europeans know this too about their own
systems. The chickens are coming home to roost and the smart money
knows it.

Hillary might not be the first choice of "hard-working scientists and
doctors", but I don't think that they'll provide that much opposition
to her.

In addition to possibly controlling their livelihood and making them
compete with all the other special interests, there's also the
proposal to hit them with an additional 4% income tax for
professionals earning over $150K.

Feminism is a movement that sold itself successfully to normal women by
saying that they would be able to "double dip" and get wealthy men to
pay the bills while they could have well paying hobby jobs. That isn't
panning out and they're concerned that angry women are going to get the
torches and pitchforks and come for them. Which they should.

I really wish that I lived in your world.

You see feminism dying.

I didn't say that. I said I see the BENEFITS for normal women dying.

Oh, so feminism is NOT dying? You used to say that it was. So now
you're not an optimist either. You're ready to join me in cursing the
darkness.

Feminism by definition was never really alive. It's an indulgence and
political tool created by chivalrous and marxist men.

Don't you get that by now?

No.

So do you think these ladies were really smart enough to do this on
their own? :-)

The little women running it were just being used all along.
It's good that benefits for "normal women" -- whoever they are and
whatever they are -- are dying. If women are going to suffer, that's
at least something to cheer about. But it's just going to radicalize
them even more and even more quickly.

This feedback loop has been in place for decades now. I call it the
"Brittany Spears" syndrome. :-)

Brittany Spears can enjoy her situation because the parapparazzi gives
her attention. But when too many women are in that situation... they're
just losers. And women HATE being viewed as losers.

Don't you see? The solution is going to be to eradicate men so that
the world can become a more peaceful place and more resources are
available for the needs of women and children.

Absolutely, 100%, zero worries there GA. None.

Without men, there are no more resources available for anyone. Men are
resource producers. We're the golden goose.

Have you been drinking Parg's "women squeeze income producing men" out
of their womb cool aid?

No, *I* haven't, but other women have. I've said many times that Parg
is more typical of the female sex than others are willing to admit.

Parg becomes uncomfortable when I remind her what she wants to deny:
That without mommy support and taxpaying men, her agenda is over. She
can't both hunt down men to keep women from starving to death AND
claim they are irrelevent even as she tries.

Yes, this means less rights for men but it also makes life tougher for
the same women that they need as core supporters to offset the other
gimme groups in the Democrat party.


Granted, just as drug addicts may become more addicted to drugs even as
their life is harmed by them, but my point is that feminism has now
become openly unhealthy for women.

And with typical female logic, they'll continue to demand for and more
of it.

:-)

There's a difference between demanding more of something that made you
feel good, at one time, versus being at the stage of not being able to
stop in between having to go to rehab.

I don't think that I understand what you're trying to say here.

I've heard stories of cancer patients continuing to smoke cigarettes
even while receiving treatment. That's how people are.

Agreed. Not what I'm talking about though: The sick smokers continue
to receive enjoyment from their habit while feminists don't. They
REALLY are miserable and not just putting on a helpless girl act.

It's not only how people are; it's how women are. Why should they
give up feminism just because it might happen to be in their own best
interest?

When it becomes perceived as uncool by others.

Back to Brittany: Who views her as a role model anymore? "Bad girls"
look less like rebels nowadays and more like trailer trash. I
remember during the 80's when feminism bonded with "bad grrrl"
sluttiness and madonna was a big deal. Women could act like they
wanted without consequences.

It's the difference between middle class feminists who were largely
happy in the 80's (whatever they said) to constantly whining about how
women don't want to be feminists anymore.

Address this point. It's very important.

I remember in the heyday in the 1980's when double dipping was possible.
Career women were graduating by the millions and spending their money on
massively expensive baubels while their husbands paid all the bills.
The cost of living in metro areas was still low. All that has changed.

I see a Holocaust on the horizon. The science behind it is in place.
Remember, the Y chromosome is said to be some sort of genetically
defective organism which is going to die out in a matter of time
anyway.

Given that males (it isn't believed) aren't really human and (it is
believed) aren't good for anything, what harm in speeding up the
process by eradicating them?. It can start by encouraging females to
abort male children and thereby start to eradicate the virus.

And then whose going to pay them "child" support? :-)

The waters will part.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

What? It's obvious.

Without men, the women are stuck paying the bills ALL ALONE and we both
know most can't handle that.

The waters will part.

I don't understand what you are saying.

Well, for one thing, women wouldn't even concede the point that you're
trying to make anyway.

Virtually every woman can recite for you chapter and verse about how
she's doing all the work anyway and how the man or men in her life
isn'/aren't doing anything and how she could certainly manage without
him/them and how she only tolerates him/them right now because of the
goodness in her heart.

But let's say that you could light up a few dim bulbs with the
revelation that "if men disappear, you'll have to carry the load
without them".

Do you think that would discourage them from their desire for a world
without men? Hell, no. It's what they WANT!

And how will you carry the load without assistance?

The waters will part, and the Goddess wil drop manna from heaven.

Oh, I see what you're saying: These women THINK this even though WE
know it's not true.

Ok, I see your point.

Now THAT said, I live in the DC metro area and young women here are
literally in a panic that there are no "good men" (suckers) left. The
commie post regularly runs features of different women marrying to
give them the impression that professional women don't have this
problem. Basically, if you see adverts and non-stop news stories
making a particular claim, it's to offset public perception of the
opposite.

Did I mention that now is the best time to buy a house? :-)

It's funny to hear such a word used if what you say is true because it's
usually the left that derides patriotism to traditional American values.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Heku9oTLysg

I've been horrifically busy the last few days (I just got to this.)
I'll watch this tomorrow.

Have a good night. Hope the air is clean where you're at!

regards,
PolishKnight

It is. I'm nowhere near the fires.

regards,
PolishKnight
.