Act Acting » Acting School » "Men are much more trouble than they're worth."

"Men are much more trouble than they're worth."

Question:

"madwoman in the attic" <unbroken…@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3dd8c855$1_1@news.estpak.ee… > ** Cepheid Variable ** > > The last thing I heard he was talking about moving to LA.  Is he there now > > stalking her? > Yeah, he’s there; he hasn’t said anything about stalking her though, at > least not in public… But of course, if he was doing it, might be best (for > him) to keep mum about it. ;)

I tracked down where he was posting.  Wasn’t so hard at all.

Response:

** Cepheid Variable ** > The last thing I heard he was talking about moving to LA.  Is he there now > stalking her?

Yeah, he’s there; he hasn’t said anything about stalking her though, at least not in public… But of course, if he was doing it, might be best (for him) to keep mum about it. ;)

Response:

** KC Carter ** > Is he getting better in other ways, though? I feel bad for Joe. He > used to be really cool…

Hard to say… He doesn’t harp on and on about her specifically anymore, though he still occasionally mentions her as the cause of his problems and bitterness when the topic comes up. Instead he’s devoting most of his time to preaching about the evils of women in general (though it’s still quite obviously mostly influenced by what he perceives a couple of women did to him).

Response:

** Voxel Descartes ** > How did the author determine this?

I will tell you as soon as you provide me with a long-distance mind-reading device. > What do you think is the take-home message from it, if not some version > of women=good, men=bad?

*shrug* The take-home message, if you need one, is whatever you choose it to be. That the author is on drugs, or reaching dementia, if you prefer. Whether I agreed with what was said or not, I found it an interesting and entertaining piece of writing to spend some time out of my wasted-anyway Sunday evening on. If you had better things to do, then that’s unfortunate, not to mention that it’s a crime against the G0at L0rd not to spend all your free time on usenet.

Response:

On Mon 18 Nov 2002 12:53:48a, Joel Crum knelt before Her Imperial Highness and in a most grave and reverent tone said: > I promised a friend of mine I wouldn’t be condescending and I will try > not to be even though I have gone out to the pool-hall and had > (perhaps) more whisky mixers then I should have.  

Why yeees, you have.   > But it’s hard, anyone who has this level of willful ignorance of > science yet purports to have sufficient expertise to write in a > publicly published and consumed form is more the idiotic they are > ignorant.  The difference between the two crimes in my mind is that > one is intentional and the other is natural.  I can not blame a person > who was born with unusually low mental faculties however someone with > sufficient brain power to manipulate the words of our language into > this article who none the less ignores the rest of human knowledge to > this degree has committed a crime against us all.  Ignorance.  A > disgusting attempt to toss us all back into dark age superstition and > magical thinking.  I wonder if the author also feels compelled to toss > any salt they might spill over their shoulder to ward off bad luck.

And I would have to say someone who allows a poorly written article to become "a crime against us all" in his mind has committed a greivous sin against himself. Oh, no wait, that would be a horrendous overstatement, wouldn’t it?  Kind of like… oh, nevermind. :P I agree that it’s a silly article.  You let yourself get so worked up over this, I wonder if the idea women might start considering you redundant worries you a little? >  In his name I will analyze the line, "When feminism came along and > drew women out from under men, men found themselves in freefall."  Ah > marviouluse!  Blatant and unsupported sexism.  I am enthralled. You > are a male who writes everything that follows out of a sense of low > self esteem.  

Well no, she’s a rather well known feminist.   > We continue. > "refused to do their homework or tidy their rooms" > Because of course little girls are always clean.  Anyone how had heard > (and taken as gospel fact) the old nursery rime "girls are sugar and > spice" knows this to be a fact."

*sigh* If you look at that sentance in context, she’s attempting to use humor there rather than describe in detail the sad state of Man since the 60’s.   See, THAT is the problem in this paragraph, she’s acting as though the 50’s and years before are some sort of idyllic wonder-land, where men didn’t rebel and run around and act naughty.  Before he was a friendly, useful chap who supported wifey and changed the lightbulbs, and since then he’s been degraded into a violent and dysfunctional porn and sports addict.  THAT is the silliness in this paragraph, please at least get your complaints right.   > "redundant tissue inevitably turns malignant." > Our authors fist demonstration of his colossal lack of knowledge.  Oh! >  Perhaps *you* thought everyone with a redundant, say, appendix > developed cancer?  Yes that’s right!  Call the medical establishment > two kidneys are the cause off all cancers.

Yeah, pure silliness here, can’t argue that. > "and you can see that the human race could continue on earth if 99.9% > of human males were wiped out by some sex-linked disorder." > Marvelous my man, right on time!  So let’s tally this up, for men to > be important all they would have to have is 1000 children a piece?  I > expect despite the fact you are requesting a feet not even recorded in > the bible.  Lets see what would happen if such a mutation occurred? > Oh I’ve got it!  Any gene that caused a human to be born a male would > propagate 1000 times faster then a gene causing them to be born female > thus brining the race back into balance!  

I don’t see where you’re getting the number 1000 from.  And *biblically speaking*, I would say a fair number of men were wiped out in the flood, yet those 4 brave souls managed to repopulate the durn place.  Take that to mean whatever you like.  But if man all but died out, humanity would be far less threatened than if women had virtually disappeared.  The time it takes for a woman to get pregnant and give birth would mean the repopulation process would be insanely slow.  Whereas a fellow can fuck a few ladies and knock them up quite easily.  If there are oh, say, 1000 of them left amongst a sea of ladies?  Well, do the math.  The male population has been hurt before (you all have always had this tendency to run off to war and kill each other) and life has gone on.  (this is a much smaller degree of man-death than what she proposes, but still holds true throughout history, AFAIK) > Moving on. > "The genus Antechinus  comprises several Australian species of > marsupial mouse, the males of which are remarkable for the > extraordinary vigour and intensity of their mounting behaviour. > Immediately after their orgy of violently athletic intercourse, the > males die, leaving the females to raise their young alone." > Or lets focus our examination of the natural world on the noble bee. > Yes the bee long the example of industry in the phrase busy as a bee > has only one fertile female to many fertile males which clearly proves > to us. . .  Shit!  Sorry, I didn’t mean to bring up something that > exactly counters the author’s unbalanced argument.  It’s because I’m a > man. Please forgive me.

Oh, dear.  And yes, we do compare our sexuality to insects on a regular basis.   You know that in the mammal world packs are more likely to be a few females around an alpha man than the reverse.. I don’t know much about the marsupial world, but a mouse is a mouse, and she’s using a warm blooded comparison to humans, not a BEE, fer chrissakes. On another note, doesn’t "mounting behaviour" just sound downright sexy? "Hey, baby, want to go up to my apartment and engage in a little vigourous mounting behaviour?" > "It is supposed to be in the female animal’s interest to mate with > superior males; by combining her genes with those of a winner male" > Well that’s a new theory.  And I could have sworn females preferred > males who support an equal burden of the child rearing expenses as > exemplified by the article Virgo (I think) posted or the write up in > Physiology Today I read in 2000 both of which point to the fact female > humans (not to get into the unrelated territory of our own species) > prefer men with narrower jaws denoting less fetal characteristics.

Animal.  Animal.  Please reread that with the word animal in mind.  I’m sure our dear friend mathieu can explain to you the many examples of mating with superior males in the animal kingdom.  It is in the female animal’s interest to mate with superior males.  There’s no way around that, if she wants strong offspring, it IS in her interest.  Humans have different expectations for their offspring (and for their relationship), though, so some woman might consider a man’s superiority to lie in, say, his humor and intelligence, rather than his height. > "The lion is a mere toyboy, who takes no part in cub-rearing or > hunting. Once he has impregnated them, they don’t need him, so why do > they keep him? Because need has nothing to do with it. He needs to > believe that he is needed, and they let him believe it because they > love him." I’ve often heard this.  The lonely heart lions of the great > planes lusting after love, faithfulness, and soft emotions in their > females.  Yes a very common problem representing much of the marriage > counseling of the Serengeti.

Okay, yes, this is silly. Still, if you want to deny that animals bond, well, you haven’t gotten between a mother and her children.   Also, sorry, but you’re ignoring the fact that the information is still correct, even if her reasoning that love is why they stay is silly.   From http://www.isleofwightzoo.com/bigcats.html?lions "The pride is the territory of the females & will defend it from other females or strange males. If males are unable to find new pride, they will rarely survive because they are such poor hunters, normally relying on females." Hm. What -do- those fellows do, then? Interesting to note also, "If a female is unable to hunt she will be catered for by other pride members."   Nice of them.. seems a waste of food on an incompetent lion, but then, I’m sure they have some good reason for it. > "We daily observe symbolic versions of this leader-fucks-all behaviour > when we see Blair accompanied by his receptive female at all times, > while the henchmen he is grooming for future office trot beside him > spouseless. " > Yes yes!  Much like the example of Margate Thatcher, The royal family, > or American presidents who are always sworn in with there family > present but not the Vice Presidents family. . .   Or wait!  This is > just coming off the wire now!  Yes yes.  I’ve never heard anything > more ridiculous.

Yeah, that one just came out of nowhere. > "silverback gorillas believe that they are the only ones passing on > their genes and will attack junior males hanging around receptive > females" And of course we should focuses on silverback gorillas > because they of all the higher primates are closest to humans.  Crap > I’ve forgotten my third grade genetics it’s rhesus monkeys who are > closest genetically speaking to humans.  They display no "alpha" > behavior what so ever!  Google it for yourself.

Third grade genetics, huh? o.0 You went to a great school, man. We just did, like, division and stuff. On a more serious note, my googling found that chimpanzees are closest.   Rhesus monkeys are nearly as close. They’re the closest human relative to have been genetically altered.  They’re used in AIDS research, since chimps can be infected with HIV but don’t display signs of illness.  But my googling reveals that it is, in fact, the chimp that is closest genetically speaking to humans. And chimps most certainly display alpha … read more »

Response:

"meg" <nom…@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Xns92CA403DEEB6Amegmerritthotmailcom@130.133.1.4… > On Mon 18 Nov 2002 12:53:48a, Joel Crum knelt before Her Imperial > Highness and in a most grave and reverent tone said:

<snipped> > You know that in the mammal world packs are more likely to be a few > females around an alpha man than the reverse.. I don’t know much about > the marsupial world, but a mouse is a mouse, and she’s using a warm > blooded comparison to humans, not a BEE, fer chrissakes. > On another note, doesn’t "mounting behaviour" just sound downright sexy? > "Hey, baby, want to go up to my apartment and engage in a little > vigourous mounting behaviour?"

‘Scuse me meg, but I can’t resist. I prefer the phrase => "being tootled melodiously and with vigor". Try it sometime. Really turns the guys on.  ;)

Response:

On Mon 18 Nov 2002 07:26:30a, HCBPBD knelt before Her Imperial Highness and in a most grave and reverent tone said: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "meg" <nom…@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > news:Xns92CA403DEEB6Amegmerritthotmailcom@130.133.1.4… >> On Mon 18 Nov 2002 12:53:48a, Joel Crum knelt before Her Imperial >> Highness and in a most grave and reverent tone said: > <snipped> >> You know that in the mammal world packs are more likely to be a few >> females around an alpha man than the reverse.. I don’t know much about >> the marsupial world, but a mouse is a mouse, and she’s using a warm >> blooded comparison to humans, not a BEE, fer chrissakes. >> On another note, doesn’t "mounting behaviour" just sound downright sexy? >> "Hey, baby, want to go up to my apartment and engage in a little >> vigourous mounting behaviour?" > ‘Scuse me meg, but I can’t resist. > I prefer the phrase => "being tootled melodiously and with vigor". > Try it sometime. > Really turns the guys on.  ;)

Ooh, that -is- a nice one.   Hm. I think I prefer mounting behavior, myself, it makes me think of a fellow throwing himself up on a gal like she’s wearing a saddle and taking off into the sunset. :)

Response:

"meg" <nom…@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Xns92CA43484A7FCmegmerritthotmailcom@130.133.1.4… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> On Mon 18 Nov 2002 07:26:30a, HCBPBD knelt before Her Imperial Highness > and in a most grave and reverent tone said: > > "meg" <nom…@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag > > news:Xns92CA403DEEB6Amegmerritthotmailcom@130.133.1.4… > >> On Mon 18 Nov 2002 12:53:48a, Joel Crum knelt before Her Imperial > >> Highness and in a most grave and reverent tone said: > > <snipped> > >> You know that in the mammal world packs are more likely to be a few > >> females around an alpha man than the reverse.. I don’t know much about > >> the marsupial world, but a mouse is a mouse, and she’s using a warm > >> blooded comparison to humans, not a BEE, fer chrissakes. > >> On another note, doesn’t "mounting behaviour" just sound downright > sexy? > >> "Hey, baby, want to go up to my apartment and engage in a little > >> vigourous mounting behaviour?" > > ‘Scuse me meg, but I can’t resist. > > I prefer the phrase => "being tootled melodiously and with vigor". > > Try it sometime. > > Really turns the guys on.  ;) > Ooh, that -is- a nice one. > Hm. I think I prefer mounting behavior, myself, it makes me think of a > fellow throwing himself up on a gal like she’s wearing a saddle and > taking off into the sunset. :)

*snigger* wild wild west  ;)

Response:

Not only is it somewhat relevant to the oft-repeated discussions (read: flamewars) about man, woman, and the power balance, it is also an interesting article worth reading regardless of your standing on the aforementioned issue. (Thanks to Joe/naturallyweird for the link, btw.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,839745,00.html — If a man is talking in the forest, and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong? – Jenny Weber

Response:

> (Thanks to Joe/naturallyweird for the link, btw.)

You mean, he posted it on a.s.s in the past? Or did he actively post in some other place? In any case, i hope this guy as finally get over the 1wcp incident…

Response:

On Sun 17 Nov 2002 01:06:30p, madwoman in the attic knelt before Her Imperial Highness and in a most grave and reverent tone said: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Not only is it somewhat relevant to the oft-repeated discussions > (read: flamewars) about man, woman, and the power balance, it is also > an interesting article worth reading regardless of your standing on > the aforementioned issue. (Thanks to Joe/naturallyweird for the link, > btw.) > http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,839745,00.html > — > If a man is talking in the forest, and there is no woman there to hear > him, is he still wrong? > – Jenny Weber

hehe.. that was an entertaining read! I don’t entirely agree with it, but she (I assume? I couldn’t find a name) made some good points

Response:

** meg ** > I don’t entirely agree with it, but she (I assume? I couldn’t find a name) > made some good points

It says in the beginning… "If 99.9% of the world’s men were wiped out tomorrow, would the human race become extinct? It would not. The fact is, women can live without men, often do – but does that mean they want to, asks Germaine Greer." So I assume it’s her, though the article doesn’t appear to be credited anywhere else on the page. To mathieu (because his post didn’t show up on my newsserver again… though it seems to be fixed now): ** mathieu ** > You mean, he posted it on a.s.s in the past? Or did he actively > post in some other place?

He posted it on a Yahoo group yesterday. > In any case, i hope this guy as finally get over the 1wcp incident…

Sorry to say he hasn’t.

Response:

"Eldorado" <vog…@btinternet.com> wrote in news:ar8t7f$g52l9$1@ID- 163425.news.dfncis.de: > "madwoman in the attic" <unbroken…@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:3dd7e8b3$1_2@news.estpak.ee… >> Not only is it somewhat relevant to the oft-repeated discussions (read: >> flamewars) about man, woman, and the power balance, it is also an >> interesting article worth reading regardless of your standing on the >> aforementioned issue. (Thanks to Joe/naturallyweird for the link, btw.) >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,839745,00.html > I got half-way thru it and stopped – it sounded like something mathieu78 > would write.

I only made it half-way into the second paragraph, and scanned a few others.  Did I miss any actual facts, or was the whole thing a stream-of- conscious regurgitation of every unsupported generalization the author could come up with?  To me, it seemed like little more than a restrained, feminized version of the "wimmens is only good for fuckin’ and beatin’" article some guy posted a few days ago (which I also didn’t make it too far into).

Response:

** Voxel Descartes ** > I only made it half-way into the second paragraph, and scanned a few > others.  Did I miss any actual facts, or was the whole thing a stream-of- > conscious regurgitation of every unsupported generalization the author > could come up with?  To me, it seemed like little more than a restrained, > feminized version of the "wimmens is only good for fuckin’ and beatin’" > article some guy posted a few days ago (which I also didn’t make it too far > into).

The third paragraph: "Whereas the facts adduced in my first paragraph are clearly true, the argument in my second paragraph is nonsense, for two reasons. First, men have always been redundant and, second, women and children have always had to make do without them while pretending that they were indispensable." The last few sentences: "For whatever reason, women are more heterosexual than men, perhaps because they build men’s bodies inside their own. Mothers are more indulgent to their sons than their daughters. Women would find a world without men flat and savourless; it is men who dream of a world without women." It is a stream-of-consciousness journey perhaps (and a loooo-ong one ;) , but not quite as straightforward a one as you assume.

Response:

"madwoman in the attic" <unbroken…@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3dd8268d$1_2@news.estpak.ee… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> ** Voxel Descartes ** > > I only made it half-way into the second paragraph, and scanned a few > > others.  Did I miss any actual facts, or was the whole thing a stream-of- > > conscious regurgitation of every unsupported generalization the author > > could come up with?  To me, it seemed like little more than a restrained, > > feminized version of the "wimmens is only good for fuckin’ and beatin’" > > article some guy posted a few days ago (which I also didn’t make it too > far > > into). > The third paragraph: > "Whereas the facts adduced in my first paragraph are clearly true, the > argument in my second paragraph is nonsense, for two reasons. First, men > have always been redundant and, second, women and children have always had > to make do without them while pretending that they were indispensable." > The last few sentences: > "For whatever reason, women are more heterosexual than men, perhaps because > they build men’s bodies inside their own. Mothers are more indulgent to > their sons than their daughters. Women would find a world without men flat > and savourless; it is men who dream of a world without women." > It is a stream-of-consciousness journey perhaps (and a loooo-ong one ;) , but > not quite as straightforward a one as you assume.

I haven’t read the article. Judging by these two paragraphs, I’m not missing anything special. What a load of shit. I imagine this bitch (i assume female?) has been a man in her clearly legendary experience of life. i wonder if she’s transgender. It’s also in The Guardian, a UK paper that is very liberal, which isnt such a bad thing, but notorious for being idiotic and just plain wrong in many of its articles (loads of ‘we apologise for last weeks article stating…’.)

Response:

"Voxel Descartes" <cu…@phi0s0phers.net> wrote in message

news:Xns92C9AFF1413AFpikapikapika@68.12.19.6… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Eldorado" <vog…@btinternet.com> wrote in news:ar8t7f$g52l9$1@ID- > 163425.news.dfncis.de: > > "madwoman in the attic" <unbroken…@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:3dd7e8b3$1_2@news.estpak.ee… > >> Not only is it somewhat relevant to the oft-repeated discussions (read: > >> flamewars) about man, woman, and the power balance, it is also an > >> interesting article worth reading regardless of your standing on the > >> aforementioned issue. (Thanks to Joe/naturallyweird for the link, btw.) > >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,839745,00.html > > I got half-way thru it and stopped – it sounded like something mathieu78 > > would write. > I only made it half-way into the second paragraph, and scanned a few > others.  Did I miss any actual facts, or was the whole thing a stream-of- > conscious regurgitation of every unsupported generalization the author > could come up with?  To me, it seemed like little more than a restrained, > feminized version of the "wimmens is only good for fuckin’ and beatin’" > article some guy posted a few days ago (which I also didn’t make it too far > into).

I scanned it.  I don’t quite know what the point of the article is even.

Response:

"madwoman in the attic" <unbroken…@yahoo.com> wrote in message <news:3dd7e8b3$1_2@news.estpak.ee>… > Not only is it somewhat relevant to the oft-repeated discussions (read: > flamewars) about man, woman, and the power balance, it is also an > interesting article worth reading regardless of your standing on the > aforementioned issue. (Thanks to Joe/naturallyweird for the link, btw.) > http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,839745,00.html

It is interesting, and there’s some truth to it, but I think it falls apart with the "men don’t really want to be fathers" hypothesis.  In American society, at least, being a father is an important social signifier and a rite of passage to adulthood – many people consider males who haven’t yet married or become a father to still be in a state of extended adolescence.  (Maybe it would be more true to state that "men want to be fathers, but still get some action on the side.") Anyway, here’s another, even more bleak article on men and evolution and whatnot: http://www.observer.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,792086,00.html The idea that humans will eventually become a race of hermaphrodites and women makes me glad that I’ll die before the century ends. Elston

Response:

On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:39:01 GMT, Mr. Teatime said: > I haven’t read the article. Judging by these two paragraphs, I’m not missing > anything special. What a load of shit. I imagine this bitch (i assume > female?) has been a man in her clearly legendary experience of life. i > wonder if she’s transgender. It’s also in The Guardian, a UK paper that is > very liberal, which isnt such a bad thing, but notorious for being idiotic > and just plain wrong in many of its articles (loads of ‘we apologise for > last weeks article stating…’.)

to be fair, though, most of those are just misprints that you’d find in any newspaper – the guardian’s just brave enough to admit to them. hehe, that reminds me: the paper published a book about errors and corrections and things recently, but it had to be recalled because of mistakes in it… germaine greer, the author of the article, is a well known feminist (you might have seen her, seems like she’s on tv in britain all the time) and from what i know she’s quite well respected in academic circles. of course this doesn’t mean she’s right, or that i agree with her.

Response:

> to be fair, though, most of those are just misprints that you’d find in > any newspaper – the guardian’s just brave enough to admit to them. hehe, > that reminds me: the paper published a book about errors and corrections > and things recently, but it had to be recalled because of mistakes in > it… > germaine greer, the author of the article, is a well known feminist (you > might have seen her, seems like she’s on tv in britain all the time) and > from what i know she’s quite well respected in academic circles. of > course this doesn’t mean she’s right, or that i agree with her.

ah…. it was by germaine greer, was it? Oh dear. That explains it. Her famous, ‘have sex with a rock’ speech always got me (laughing). I was actually at the university she teaches at when I did physics. When I wanted to switch to english, I wasn’t ‘traditional’ enough. The style and the way of teaching there seemed to be pretty bad. I guess it reflects on her (she taught in the english department). I’ve never been impressed by her, in fact she’s the type of feminist that infuriates me. it’s like trying to argue with a priest about religion, there’s absolutely no point as it comes down to a ‘belief’ rather than anything that can be questioned and it’s often like thy’re indulging you by allowing you to speak.

Response:

On 17 Nov 2002 15:59:21 -0800, Elston Gunn said: > Anyway, here’s another, even more bleak article on men and evolution > and whatnot: > http://www.observer.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,792086,00.html > The idea that humans will eventually become a race of hermaphrodites > and women makes me glad that I’ll die before the century ends.

"The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." – valerie solanas in the scum manifesto and while we’re posting newspaper links: http://www.observer.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,841542,00.html i have a placebo life!

Response:

"madwoman in the attic" <unbroken…@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3dd81ca0$1_1@news.estpak.ee… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> ** meg ** > > I don’t entirely agree with it, but she (I assume? I couldn’t find a name) > > made some good points > It says in the beginning… > "If 99.9% of the world’s men were wiped out tomorrow, would the human race > become extinct? It would not. The fact is, women can live without men, often > do – but does that mean they want to, asks Germaine Greer." > So I assume it’s her, though the article doesn’t appear to be credited > anywhere else on the page. > To mathieu (because his post didn’t show up on my newsserver again… though > it seems to be fixed now): > ** mathieu ** > > You mean, he posted it on a.s.s in the past? Or did he actively > > post in some other place? > He posted it on a Yahoo group yesterday. > > In any case, i hope this guy as finally get over the 1wcp incident… > Sorry to say he hasn’t.

The last thing I heard he was talking about moving to LA.  Is he there now stalking her?

Response:

"madwoman in the attic" <unbroken…@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3dd8268d$1_2@news.estpak.ee: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> ** Voxel Descartes ** >> I only made it half-way into the second paragraph, and scanned a few >> others.  Did I miss any actual facts, or was the whole thing a >> stream-of- conscious regurgitation of every unsupported >> generalization the author could come up with?  To me, it seemed like >> little more than a restrained, feminized version of the "wimmens is >> only good for fuckin’ and beatin’" article some guy posted a few days >> ago (which I also didn’t make it too > far >> into). > The third paragraph: > "Whereas the facts adduced in my first paragraph are clearly true, the > argument in my second paragraph is nonsense, for two reasons. First, > men have always been redundant and, second, women and children have > always had to make do without them while pretending that they were > indispensable."

The whole article seems to be like that: an attempt to divide the readership into "us"–women, who are argued to be necessary–and "them"– men, who are argued to be unnecessary. One could just as easily write an article claiming that women are unnecessary, or that humans are unnecessary, or that life is unnecessary, or the the whole universe is unnecessary. > The last few sentences: > "For whatever reason, women are more heterosexual than men,

How did the author determine this? > perhaps > because they build men’s bodies inside their own. Mothers are more > indulgent to their sons than their daughters.

All women?  It wouldn’t be hard to find a counter-example to that.  Some women, then?  Which women? > Women would find a world > without men flat and savourless;

All women? > it is men who dream of a world > without women."

All men?  It would be REALLY easy to find a counter-example to that (one is typing this message).  Some men, then?  Which men? > It is a stream-of-consciousness journey perhaps (and a loooo-ong one > ;) , but not quite as straightforward a one as you assume.

What do you think is the take-home message from it, if not some version of women=good, men=bad?

Response:

"madwoman in the attic" <unbroken…@yahoo.com> wrote in message <news:3dd81ca0$1_1@news.estpak.ee>… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> ** meg ** > > I don’t entirely agree with it, but she (I assume? I couldn’t find a name) > > made some good points > It says in the beginning… > "If 99.9% of the world’s men were wiped out tomorrow, would the human race > become extinct? It would not. The fact is, women can live without men, often > do – but does that mean they want to, asks Germaine Greer." > So I assume it’s her, though the article doesn’t appear to be credited > anywhere else on the page. > To mathieu (because his post didn’t show up on my newsserver again… though > it seems to be fixed now): > ** mathieu ** > > You mean, he posted it on a.s.s in the past? Or did he actively > > post in some other place? > He posted it on a Yahoo group yesterday. > > In any case, i hope this guy as finally get over the 1wcp incident… > Sorry to say he hasn’t.

Is he getting better in other ways, though? I feel bad for Joe. He used to be really cool… KC

Response:

"madwoman in the attic" <unbroken…@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3dd7e8b3$1_2@news.estpak.ee: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,839745,00.html

I promised a friend of mine I wouldn’t be condescending and I will try not to be even though I have gone out to the pool-hall and had (perhaps) more whisky mixers then I should have.   But it’s hard, anyone who has this level of willful ignorance of science yet purports to have sufficient expertise to write in a publicly published and consumed form is more the idiotic they are ignorant.  The difference between the two crimes in my mind is that one is intentional and the other is natural.  I can not blame a person who was born with unusually low mental faculties however someone with sufficient brain power to manipulate the words of our language into this article who none the less ignores the rest of human knowledge to this degree has committed a crime against us all.  Ignorance.  A disgusting attempt to toss us all back into dark age superstition and magical thinking.  I wonder if the author also feels compelled to toss any salt they might spill over their shoulder to ward off bad luck. But anyway, a point by point on the foolishness of this person: My English teacher (Mr. Briton) taught me the funnel method for writing papers first you use some shocking sentence to draw readers attention, next you state the premise, then you prove it, then finally you turn the turn the opening attention getter around like a plot twist in a short story to leave all your readers with a "wow" feeling.  In his name I will analyze the line, "When feminism came along and drew women out from under men, men found themselves in freefall."  Ah marviouluse!  Blatant and unsupported sexism.  I am enthralled. You are a male who writes everything that follows out of a sense of low self esteem.   We continue. "refused to do their homework or tidy their rooms" Because of course little girls are always clean.  Anyone how had heard (and taken as gospel fact) the old nursery rime "girls are sugar and spice" knows this to be a fact." "redundant tissue inevitably turns malignant." Our authors fist demonstration of his colossal lack of knowledge.  Oh!   Perhaps *you* thought everyone with a redundant, say, appendix developed cancer?  Yes that’s right!  Call the medical establishment two kidneys are the cause off all cancers. "the argument in my second paragraph is nonsense, for two reasons." And thank heavens you realize it!  However perhaps you could shoot us some more bull shit – oh I’m sorry *cow* shit – to fill the void. "and you can see that the human race could continue on earth if 99.9% of human males were wiped out by some sex-linked disorder." Marvelous my man, right on time!  So let’s tally this up, for men to be important all they would have to have is 1000 children a piece?  I expect despite the fact you are requesting a feet not even recorded in the bible.  Lets see what would happen if such a mutation occurred?  Oh I’ve got it!  Any gene that caused a human to be born a male would propagate 1000 times faster then a gene causing them to be born female thus brining the race back into balance!   Moving on. "The genus Antechinus  comprises several Australian species of marsupial mouse, the males of which are remarkable for the extraordinary vigour and intensity of their mounting behaviour. Immediately after their orgy of violently athletic intercourse, the males die, leaving the females to raise their young alone." Or lets focus our examination of the natural world on the noble bee.  Yes the bee long the example of industry in the phrase busy as a bee has only one fertile female to many fertile males which clearly proves to us. . .   Shit!  Sorry, I didn’t mean to bring up something that exactly counters the author’s unbalanced argument.  It’s because I’m a man. Please forgive me. "It is supposed to be in the female animal’s interest to mate with superior males; by combining her genes with those of a winner male" Well that’s a new theory.  And I could have sworn females preferred males who support an equal burden of the child rearing expenses as exemplified by the article Virgo (I think) posted or the write up in Physiology Today I read in 2000 both of which point to the fact female humans (not to get into the unrelated territory of our own species) prefer men with narrower jaws denoting less fetal characteristics. "The lion is a mere toyboy, who takes no part in cub-rearing or hunting. Once he has impregnated them, they don’t need him, so why do they keep him? Because need has nothing to do with it. He needs to believe that he is needed, and they let him believe it because they love him." I’ve often heard this.  The lonely heart lions of the great planes lusting after love, faithfulness, and soft emotions in their females.   Yes a very common problem representing much of the marriage counseling of the Serengeti. "We daily observe symbolic versions of this leader-fucks-all behaviour when we see Blair accompanied by his receptive female at all times, while the henchmen he is grooming for future office trot beside him spouseless. " Yes yes!  Much like the example of Margate Thatcher, The royal family, or American presidents who are always sworn in with there family present but not the Vice Presidents family. . .   Or wait!  This is just coming off the wire now!  Yes yes.  I’ve never heard anything more ridiculous. "silverback gorillas believe that they are the only ones passing on their genes and will attack junior males hanging around receptive females" And of course we should focuses on silverback gorillas because they of all the higher primates are closest to humans.  Crap I’ve forgotten my third grade genetics it’s rhesus monkeys who are closest genetically speaking to humans.  They display no "alpha" behavior what so ever!   Google it for yourself. "Many human societies have rewarded successful men by extending their reproductive opportunity, making them patriarchs with many wives and concubines" Or absolute freaking luck i.e. being born the son of a king. "Some Mormon wives have claimed that the companionship and cooperation of their co-wives more than compensates for the inaccessibility of their shared husband. So whom could they most easily do without?" At this point the authors argument devolves to the word of the fucked up teenager I heard today on NPR defending her polygamise relationship currently taking place in a "holy place" with the idea that the "end times" are coming soon. "His being exclusively their own seems to be more important than looks, strength, intelligence or success." Which has what – in the name of all that is *sane* – to do with your central argument?  For that matter what is your central argument?   Genetic superiority?  The evils of feminism? The joy of womanhood?  The *sorrow* of womanhood?  The long term effects of drug abuse by example. "Our grandmothers’ generation took male infidelity pretty much for granted." So you’re saying you never met your grandmother. "Male desire, which an earlier generation of married women perceived as excessive, is now more likely to be perceived as inadequate and in need of pharmacological enhancement." Well HOLY BURNING SKY SHIT boy!  They’ve got to father 1000 children!!! I mean I’d need some pills for that job as well.  Be easy on a man now would you? "Human females like sire and father to be the same person, if possible. They do not need this – they can get by without it – but they want it." How about a citation kiddy? I’m sorry meg, ness, I swear I can’t read any more.  I can’t be "fair" to this author.  If "fair" is assuming someone who has divorced all sense and reason in pursuit of some ideological fantasy deserves respect I haven’t a fair bone in my body.  This man, and trust me it’s a man a woman would have diked out long before writing this, has bent his intellect toward confusing and deceiving people not the least among them himself.  To me that’s a high crime, propaganda like this should get you hung, shot, burned at the stake, and electrocuted.  To think. . .  TO THINK!  This was published fills me with a sort of tight chested rage I expect you wouldn’t even understand.  This is so wrong!  This is so miserably, ignorantly, life destroying wrong I just can’t express my indigence. :: deep breath :: I’m over, I’m out, good night all.  And peace I will pray for each one of you tonight.  I will pray you find some peace that allows you to roll with the punches.  To except your life.  To keep you from building the same fantasy world the author lives in. Good night, I love you all, I want the best for you. I hope you shake off shyness.  But trust me this willful madness isn’t the way. – Joel C.

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply