Dads Are Key to Making Us Human
Masculist
Quote: While fathers do play key roles in securing the physical health
of
their children, they also can be important for the optimum development
of
psychological and emotional traits considered to be primarily human,
such
as empathy, emotional control and the ability to navigate complex
social
relationships.
http://news. yahoo.com/ s/livescience/ 20090619/ sc_livescience/
dadsarekeytomaki ngushuman
Yahoo! News
19 June 2009
Dads Are Key to Making Us Human
By Robin Nixon, Special to LiveScience www.livescience. com
Some 95 percent of male mammals have little to no interaction with
their
children. Homo sapiens are one of the most notable exceptions, leading
some
scientists to think fatherhood is an important part of what makes us
human.
Most theories for the family involvement of fathers invoke the
familiar
"Man the Hunter" characterization, in which dad protects and provides
for
his young.
While fathers do play key roles in securing the physical health of
their
children, they also can be important for the optimum development of
psychological and emotional traits considered to be primarily human,
such
as empathy, emotional control and the ability to navigate complex
social
relationships.
Unlike many other animals, humans need their fathers well beyond the
act
that leads to conception, researchers are coming to realize.
Paternal prep school
There is plenty of time for this emotional hand-off. While other
primate
babies can fend for themselves in roughly a decade, human childhood
stretches 18 to 20 years, said David Geary of the University of
Missouri
and author of "Male, Female: Evolution of Human Sex
Differences" (American
Psychological Association, 1998).
Also, anthropologists speculate that the relative helplessness of
human
children has made multiple caregivers a vital necessity - that
encourages
bringing dad into the picture. Even today, in both traditional and
industrialized communities, a father's presence correlates with
improved
health and decreased child mortality, Geary said.
Evolutionarily speaking, he added, the kid-phase probably lengthened
as
dads got more involved. With an extra person dedicated to caring for
them,
kids have no need to rush towards adulthood.
Perhaps out of worry for their kids' future financial security, dads
across
human cultures mostly focus on preparing children to compete within
society. They give advice, encourage academic success and stress
achievement, Geary said. But it is not all lesson plans and lectures.
Kids also learn from fathers during a unique form of papa play. Unlike
mothers, fathers tend to roughhouse with their children.
"They rile them up, almost to the point that they are going to snap,
and
then calm them down," Geary said.
This pattern teaches kids to control their emotions - a trait that
garners
them popularity among superiors and peers, he said.
Parenting for the grandkids
Good fathers are rewarded with quality family relationships across the
board, Geary said.
When children have warm relationships with their father, as well as
calm
home lives, they tend to sexually mature later. Their bodies intuit
they
are safe and time is taken perfecting social skills before entering
the
real world, Geary said.
The extra practice gives children a competitive edge. As adults, they
are
more likely to form secure relationships, achieve stable social
standing
and become able parents. In this sense, a father who takes care of his
children also gives his grandchildren a leg up.
Not that involved dads must wait to be grandpas to reap rewards from
pitching in with childcare. In addition to experiencing the tenderness
of
the father-child bond, many dads gain a feeling of camaraderie by
providing
support for mom. Also, the more help a mother receives after giving
birth,
the faster she becomes fertile again.
Being raised by more than one person also enhances social skills,
theorizes
anthropologist Sarah Hrdy, author of "Mothers and Others" (Belknap
Press,
2009). Children not only grow up more emotionally secure, they are
better
at taking another's perspective - a skill critical to our socially-
reliant
species.
In traditional communities, especially during infancy, extra
caregivers are
usually female kin, such as grandmothers and aunts, Hrdy writes. But
in
nuclear families, fathers play this role.
When father-child relations are strained or chaotic, the insecurity
can
translate biologically as a message to grow up fast, Geary said. There
is
an unconscious sense that "if you are going to reproduce at all, you
better
start early," he said. As a result, girls reach menarche sooner and
form
clingy relationships, while boys become aggressive and sexually
exploitive.
This rarely bodes well for the next generation.
Biological roots of paternalism
The emotional contribution of dads might have some biological roots.
Despite conventional wisdom, men experience biological changes during
a
pregnancy, albeit not as extensively as women do.
Men who are emotionally close to - and usually cohabiting with - a
pregnant
woman, go through their own hormonal surges, especially just before
and
after birth, said David Bjorklund of Florida Atlantic University. For
example, a new father has elevated levels of the hormone prolactin -
usually associated with lactation in women - that trigger his
nurturing
instinct.
This may be evolution's way of ensuring more constant care for a baby
that
is more dependent and demanding than any other newborn in the animal
kingdom.
Day Brown
his son inherits the estate. Half the sons will have hated the old man
so much they will be your secret allies."
Society
"Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com> reported in message
news:51ecff60-b6b7-4596...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> While fathers do play key roles in securing the
> physical health of their children, they also can be
> important for the optimum development of
> psychological and emotional traits considered
> to be primarily human, such as empathy, emotional
> control and the ability to navigate complex social
> relationships.
>
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090619/sc_livescience/dadsarekeytomakingushuman
> Yahoo! News
> 19 June 2009
The most fun part of the article was the part in which feminist
anthropologist Sarah Hrdy admitted that dads promote social
skills, emotional security, and a better ability to take another
person's perspective - all traits that feminists have previously
insisted were _women's_ domain and imparted by women.
What is especially interesting about the article quoted above,
taken from an article by Robin Nixon published on the web
earlier at livescience.com is part of an annual media boomlet
about dads that didn't promote denigrating dads as its main
theme.
The "Dads are Key" theme appears in a segment of the recently
released book _You Still Don't Understand_ by Richard Driscoll
and Nancy Ann Davis (see theOppositeSex.info). In the book
and in a web-video interview with the lovely and talented
Dr. Helen Smith, Dr. Driscoll compares the achievements of
two closely related species - one that evolved dads, mankind,
with one that remained a father-free feminist ideal, orangutans.
Here's a link to Dr. Helen's comment on her blog about
her interview. A link to the video is there and that page
also has an opportunity for readers to leave comments.
(Unfortunately, the comments started out being hijacked
by some bible-thumper going by the name of Rob and
the theft of a potentially good discussion continued on
for over 20 replies. Sheesh.)
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2009/06/pjtv-happy-fathers-day-why-dads-matter.html
--
Women in this country need to take a hard look
at their own behavior and choices in life
before asking for someone else to fund their mistakes.
Women who think government is there to provide
for their needs and replace a husband
are only enslaving themselves and their children,
binding themselves to a lifetime of debt and a slave
mentality instead of being independent and self-reliant.
Devvy Kidd
"Pelosi and her Brassier Brigade"
<http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd241.htm>
Day Brown
Bouchard's longitudinal studies of identical twins adopted out at birth
to different sets of parents. By the mid 20's, based on just the MMPI
and IQ scores, it was easy to pick out the identical twins better than
95% of the time.
Regardless of the religion of the adopted parents, their social class,
education level, or income. Bouchard removed from the study kids who had
suffered some kind of severe trauma.
Orangutan may not be as evolved as Gorilla or Chimp, but Bonobo, which
are run by the females, are the most evolved apes of all.
The numbers of bastards who've risen to prominence at least equals the
number of sons of famous fathers who fell into obscurity. Of course,
that assumes the famous father was indeed the sperm donor. Genealogy
records dont agree with the Y chromosome line 20-25% of the time. In
which we see the nurture does not make up for the lack of nature.
I remember an interview on TV with a group of young men wanting the
court to over turn their excommunication from a Mormon polygamist sect.
Their sires kicked out all the boys, but kept all the girls. Somehow, I
think I understand why.
But anyway, the interview was in a high school gym, with about 30 young
men seated on the bleachers, whose fathers had all been polygamists. All
of them were well spoken and polite at the microphone with the
Interviewer. while they talked, I looked at the group of young men. No
dreds, no tattoos, no piercings, no lard butts. Pants that actually
covered their ass.
Now, since their sires had a dozen or more kids, none of them ever got
much in the way of fathering. But all of them had the DNA of sire who
was smart enuf to manage a harem. Is this a challenge, or an opportunity?
Masculist
> "Masculist" <MASCUL...@gmail.com> reported in messagenews:51ecff60-b6b7-4596...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > While fathers do play key roles in securing the
> > physical health of their children, they also can be
> > important for the optimum development of
> > psychological and emotional traits considered
> > to be primarily human, such as empathy, emotional
> > control and the ability to navigate complex social
> > relationships.
>
> > Yahoo! News
> > 19 June 2009
>
> The most fun part of the article was the part in which feminist
> anthropologist Sarah Hrdy admitted that dads promote social
> skills, emotional security, and a better ability to take another
> person's perspective - all traits that feminists have previously
> insisted were _women's_ domain and imparted by women.
There's all kinds of evolutionary psychological "perks" to manhood.
One that fascinated me was on the issue of sex differences in
"conflict resolution", which goes to the feminist claim about how
peaceful and cooperative women are. It turns out that men may be more
aggressive in their communication but work through differences in a
more forgiving manner and therefore resolve conflicts better and more
peacefully. Women can't seem to get to the "forgiving" phase and tend
to hold resentments longer and often forever. Their conflicts
therefore simmer longer and more vengefully. Any resolution for them
is the destruction of the adversary.
> What is especially interesting about the article quoted above,
> taken from an article by Robin Nixon published on the web
> earlier at livescience.com is part of an annual media boomlet
> about dads that didn't promote denigrating dads as its main
> theme.
Exactly, or like in many of these articles there's a kind of
apologetic tone in defense of men. There's enough scientific evidence
now, and would be much more if it weren't for the feminist control of
the academy, that one could wax divinely about the qualities of men
and fathers for society, especially in contrast to those of women and
mothers.
> The "Dads are Key" theme appears in a segment of the recently
> released book _You Still Don't Understand_ by Richard Driscoll
> and Nancy Ann Davis (see theOppositeSex.info). In the book
> and in a web-video interview with the lovely and talented
> Dr. Helen Smith, Dr. Driscoll compares the achievements of
> two closely related species - one that evolved dads, mankind,
> with one that remained a father-free feminist ideal, orangutans.
<smile> OK, I'm game. Us masculists can use orangutans for our
ideology while the feminists use those perverted bonobos. I love the
recent book on all this named "Before the Dawn". Also the new book
"Our Inner Ape" is interesting.
> Here's a link to Dr. Helen's comment on her blog about
> her interview. A link to the video is there and that page
> also has an opportunity for readers to leave comments.
> (Unfortunately, the comments started out being hijacked
> by some bible-thumper going by the name of Rob and
> the theft of a potentially good discussion continued on
> for over 20 replies. Sheesh.)http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2009/06/pjtv-happy-fathers-day-why-dads-m...
Thanks Society.
> --
> Women in this country need to take a hard look
> at their own behavior and choices in life
> before asking for someone else to fund their mistakes.
> Women who think government is there to provide
> for their needs and replace a husband
> are only enslaving themselves and their children,
> binding themselves to a lifetime of debt and a slave
> mentality instead of being independent and self-reliant.
This is a key point of which I have contemplated a long time. How do
we get women to look critically not only at their own incredibly
irresponsible and selfish collective and individual behavior, but at
this lemming like "Sisterhood" that leads them around to be even more
wanton. I mean if they want to be on a status with men, shouldn't
they be required to be as self critical as men? Or how about allowing
men to be as critical of them as they have been of us? If they can't
take it like men, than they need to start taking it like women <smile>
Tom
Society
Tom as "Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fbed3c78-182c-4caa...@o21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jun 24, 7:26 am, "Society" <Soci...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> >
All good points, Tom. To sum up, men resolve disputes,
sometimes with overt aggression; women paper over disputes,
often continuing them with covert aggression.
> > What is especially interesting about the article [...] is
> > [that it is] part of an annual media boomlet about dads
> > that didn't promote denigrating dads as its main theme.
>
> Exactly, or like in many of these articles there's a kind of
> apologetic tone in defense of men. There's enough scientific
> evidence now, and would be much more if it weren't for
> the feminist control of the academy, that one could wax
> divinely about the qualities of men and fathers for society,
> especially in contrast to those of women and mothers.
Yes, after feminism's nearly five-decade run in the U.S.,
the worth of men is being rediscovered.
If government could create jobs and raise children,
socialism would have worked.
George Gilder
Socialism and feminism both.
> > The "Dads are Key" theme appears in a segment of the recently
> > released book _You Still Don't Understand_ by Richard Driscoll
> > and Nancy Ann Davis (see theOppositeSex.info). In the book
> > and in a web-video interview with the lovely and talented
> > Dr. Helen Smith, Dr. Driscoll compares the achievements of
> > two closely related species - one that evolved dads, mankind,
> > with one that remained a father-free feminist ideal, orangutans.
>
> <smile> OK, I'm game. Us masculists can use orangutans
> for our ideology while the feminists use those perverted
> bonobos.
Bonobos... they still live in trees too, don't they? :-)
> I love the recent book on all this named "Before the Dawn".
> Also the new book "Our Inner Ape" is interesting.
I've read _Before the Dawn_ and it was a great read; I'll add
the other one to my to-read list. Thanks for the recommendation.
> > Here's a link to Dr. Helen's comment on her blog about
> > her interview. A link to the video is there and that page
> > also has an opportunity for readers to leave comments.
> > (Unfortunately, the comments started out being hijacked
> > by some bible-thumper going by the name of Rob [...]
> > http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2009/06/pjtv-happy-fathers-day-why-dads-matter.html
> > --
> > Women in this country need to take a hard look
> > at their own behavior and choices in life
> > before asking for someone else to fund their mistakes.
> > Women who think government is there to provide
> > for their needs and replace a husband
> > are only enslaving themselves and their children,
> > binding themselves to a lifetime of debt and a slave
> > mentality instead of being independent and self-reliant.
> >
> > Devvy Kidd
> > "Pelosi and her Brassier Brigade"
> > <http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd241.htm>
>
> This is a key point of which I have contemplated a long time.
> How do we get women to look critically not only at their
> own incredibly irresponsible and selfish collective and
> individual behavior, but at this lemming like "Sisterhood"
> that leads them around to be even more wanton?
Well, Tom, the last time women began a I-can-be-more-
chaste-than-you competition among themselves was the
1970s in Iran. Their game continues to this day and now
it's played in the West. Look at France, whose still-Western
government had to pass a ban on women wearing the Muslim
hijab and now there's a fuss about banning the burqa. Or,
nearer to home, look around at the Muslim girls on U.S.
college campuses.
Every woman is a captive queen.
But every crowd of women is only
a harem broken loose.
G.K. Chesterton
_What's Wrong With the World_ (1910)
Bottom line, women don't have collective self-control.
That's one of the many things _men_ provide for them.
> I mean if they want to be on a status with men, shouldn't
> they be required to be as self critical as men?
Sure, but most men are foolishly generous toward women
so women find it easy to loosen any such requirement
that might bind them to adult standards.
> Or how about allowing men to be as critical of them
> as they have been of us? If they can't take it like men,
> than they need to start taking it like women. <smile>
That last sentence would make an excellent sig for these
news groups, Tom. Bravo!
As for men being allowed to be critical of women, well,
I recall one of Gloria Steinem's lines:
Power can be taken but not given.
The process of the taking
is empowerment in itself.
Gloria Steinem
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/002474.html
As long as men patiently wait to be allowed to be the least
bit uppity toward women, no man will ever be permitted
to be the least bit critical of any woman. Let's stop waiting.
--
A father carries pictures where his money used to be.
(Author Unknown)
PolishKnight
"Society" <Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
Have you ever heard the joke about what would happen if women ran the
world? The female PM of London calls the PM of Spain and asks: "You
just bombed London. Why?" and the female PM of Spain replies: "You KNOW
why!" and hangs up the phone.
> > > What is especially interesting about the article [...] is
> > > [that it is] part of an annual media boomlet about dads
> > > that didn't promote denigrating dads as its main theme.
> >
> > Exactly, or like in many of these articles there's a kind of
> > apologetic tone in defense of men. There's enough scientific
> > evidence now, and would be much more if it weren't for
> > the feminist control of the academy, that one could wax
> > divinely about the qualities of men and fathers for society,
> > especially in contrast to those of women and mothers.
>
> Yes, after feminism's nearly five-decade run in the U.S.,
> the worth of men is being rediscovered.
Remember your eating pig joke? The worth of men was always obvious
since the state goes to great lengths to exploit men at every
opportunity via child-support, taxation, and military service. We're
appreciated the same way the buffalo were appreciated during the mid
1800's....
It's assumed that men will always foot the bill and survive whatever
standards are set for them while the liberated woman is given eternal
handholding because even feminists argue that they can't compete on a
level playing field.
> If government could create jobs and raise children,
> socialism would have worked.
>
> George Gilder
>
> Socialism and feminism both.
Or generate power, literally. Society, do you get a chuckle whenever
those silly windmill commercials come on? They are INSANE! It takes
DECADES for a windmill to produce enough energy to make up for the coal
generated energy to... build a windmill! But to their credit, they have
a point that they will generate "green jobs" since there will be all
these engineers paid to visit them using gasoline powered engines to fix
the rotors. And plenty of jobs for commie doctors when they fall down
or get caught in the machinery...
I wonder how many women will volunteer for THOSE jobs!
> Power can be taken but not given.
> The process of the taking
> is empowerment in itself.
>
> Gloria Steinem
> http://www.wisdomquotes.com/002474.html
>
> As long as men patiently wait to be allowed to be the least
> bit uppity toward women, no man will ever be permitted
> to be the least bit critical of any woman. Let's stop waiting.
Society, I'm surprised you didn't call out the laughable fantasy of
Steinem that women "took" power from men. This would be like saying
that the Damsel in Distress "killed" the dragon by waiting for a man to
rescue her.
Feminism and women's equality is a gift from chivalrous patronage. Men
having a discussion with feminists for feminists to "share" power with
us is like a knight discussing with the maiden for her to share her
"power" to get the knight to rescue himself from the dragon.
Once a critical mass of men or key interests of men decide to stop
believing in chivalrous patronage, that's it. Game over. No need to
march in the streets. The empress has no clothes.
regards,
PolishKnight
Masculist
> Tom as "Masculist" <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:fbed3c78-182c-4caa...@o21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Exactly, but it's actually rare that men resolve conflicts through
aggression because they have developed so many other ways to do it.
Where I saw this dramatically, and also hysterically, was when I was
in Attica and watching the black guys run through their social
routines. They would get so pissed at each other they'd be in each
others faces spitting venom. I had never seen so much anger and
invective being a white peckerwood. But the whole thing was an "act"
or "routine" that was carefully choreographed and that everyone knew
and accepted. After my initial shock I would love it when it happened
because I was so amazed and amused about it knowing they were putting
on an act. Of course it could devolve into aggression, and probably
did alot on the outside when they were drunk or dealing with the
stresses of freedom, but sober and jailed it was harmless.
Women's conflict resolution is petty, immature and ineffective
especially in terms of justice.
> > > What is especially interesting about the article [...] is
> > > [that it is] part of an annual media boomlet about dads
> > > that didn't promote denigrating dads as its main theme.
>
> > Exactly, or like in many of these articles there's a kind of
> > apologetic tone in defense of men. There's enough scientific
> > evidence now, and would be much more if it weren't for
> > the feminist control of the academy, that one could wax
> > divinely about the qualities of men and fathers for society,
> > especially in contrast to those of women and mothers.
>
> Yes, after feminism's nearly five-decade run in the U.S.,
> the worth of men is being rediscovered.
Well, let's not forget the 10 decades before that as the republicans
gave the first wavers hegemony. You quoted Chesterton right? He was
fighting it way back then.
> If government could create jobs and raise children,
> socialism would have worked.
If government were patriarchal than social programs would be run by
and benefit men and fathers....George. Bravo though for "Sexual
Suicide". I still use some stuff from it.
> George Gilder
>
> Socialism and feminism both.
Ahem, before '69 it was capitalism and feminism. Yes I know, us folks
on the Left have to do some repentence before we address that.
> > > The "Dads are Key" theme appears in a segment of the recently
> > > released book _You Still Don't Understand_ by Richard Driscoll
> > > and Nancy Ann Davis (see theOppositeSex.info). In the book
> > > and in a web-video interview with the lovely and talented
> > > Dr. Helen Smith, Dr. Driscoll compares the achievements of
> > > two closely related species - one that evolved dads, mankind,
> > > with one that remained a father-free feminist ideal, orangutans.
>
> > <smile> OK, I'm game. Us masculists can use orangutans
> > for our ideology while the feminists use those perverted
> > bonobos.
>
> Bonobos... they still live in trees too, don't they? :-)
<smile> Yeah, I thought of that and other characteristics. Bonobos
are also the smallest and cutest monkies...kind of like you know who.
They also take responsibility for their sexual behavior like you know
who. I'd go as far as saying that we live in a Bonobo society.
The "Inner Ape" book does a subtle pro-feminist thing with the Bonobos
at the beginning of the book but he's scientific through most of it.
I think he did that to assure feminists wouldn't jump him. Shit, if
they did he'd be sent to oblivion and his book wouldn't be read, not
to mention his career and promotions being laid waste.
The guy who wrote "Before the Dawn" really stuck his neck out. It
gives me hope that he still has his head on.
> > I love the recent book on all this named "Before the Dawn".
> > Also the new book "Our Inner Ape" is interesting.
>
> I've read _Before the Dawn_ and it was a great read; I'll add
> the other one to my to-read list. Thanks for the recommendation.
"Before the Dawn" is a great read. I've "read" it 5 times on
audiobook. The narrator, Alan Sklar, did a great job.
>
> > > Here's a link to Dr. Helen's comment on her blog about
> > > her interview. A link to the video is there and that page
> > > also has an opportunity for readers to leave comments.
> > > (Unfortunately, the comments started out being hijacked
> > > by some bible-thumper going by the name of Rob [...]
> > >http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2009/06/pjtv-happy-fathers-day-why-dads-m...
Oh jeeze, you're a big help. Even when the girls try to use our
superior skills of self criticism it still turns into a blatant power
grab? Where's the altruism in women? Where's the love? <smile>
Cmon Society, help me out here, I feel I'm too negative about women
and that there must be a way to balance this. We know these
characteristics of women, on an individual level, function in an
endearing and effective way in the family unit, now there must be a
way they can do the same collectively? Yeah, probably not.
> Bottom line, women don't have collective self-control.
> That's one of the many things _men_ provide for them.
You answered my question, but it's not an issue of whether they have
collective self control. They have overrun the society with their
"collective self control", a process in America that began in 1848 and
was consummated with Nixon putting them in charge on the Left in '72.
Listen, the point with this whole Nixon and my revisionist history
thing is that we are all to blame as men...Left and Right. Our
"handlers" took advantage of us for what they thought were good
reasons. Marxism is a bitch but we still need something different on
the Left. How about Masculism? <smile>
OK, you piqued my interest once again. How did you come to know these
deep truths about women and second wave feminism? Did your girlfriend
dump you? <smile>
> > I mean if they want to be on a status with men, shouldn't
> > they be required to be as self critical as men?
>
> Sure, but most men are foolishly generous toward women
> so women find it easy to loosen any such requirement
> that might bind them to adult standards.
Explanation #2. Excellent.
> > Or how about allowing men to be as critical of them
> > as they have been of us? If they can't take it like men,
> > than they need to start taking it like women. <smile>
>
> That last sentence would make an excellent sig for these
> news groups, Tom. Bravo!
Glad you liked it. I cringed about it later after sending this. Do
you have any idea how many women HATE me? The irony is that I'm not
really here for anti-feminism but for autism where women rule the
roost. Society, I'd have a job if it weren't for my anti-feminism!
<smile> BTW, I whacked my back again doing yoga, this time for good.
Back to being lame.
The sad part, especially for you, is that the first time I whacked my
back six years ago I had all the benes of the old and generous
California workers comp system. I got injured weeks before the law
changed. Man was I pampered! But I was probably one of the few who
deserved it. It must have cost the State 70K, 30K just for the
operation that fixed it. I made good use of that back for the past
four years and got to the point where I realized I was getting too old
to appreciate it anymore anyway. Life's a trip, an expensive one if
you're a taxpayer. <smile>
> As for men being allowed to be critical of women, well,
> I recall one of Gloria Steinem's lines:
>
> Power can be taken but not given.
> The process of the taking
> is empowerment in itself.
>
> Gloria Steinem
> http://www.wisdomquotes.com/002474.html
God, what a horrible person. Yeah, I know, it's not her fault...she's
a woman.
> As long as men patiently wait to be allowed to be the least
> bit uppity toward women, no man will ever be permitted
> to be the least bit critical of any woman. Let's stop waiting.
That's my new sig. It's the new test of manhood for the 21st century.
> --
> A father carries pictures where his money used to be.
>
> (Author Unknown)
My wallet has the pictures of two boys I informally adopted. No money
of course. Yeah, I can't see them anymore because the mom got pissed
at me. That's OK, we all knew the situation going in and are left
with great memories.
Beautiful response Society. You made my Sunday. Thanks.
Tom
Masculist
> In article <FxC1m.712$wM5...@newsfe19.iad>,
>
>
>
> > Tom as "Masculist" <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Good one Mark! What a hoot and how true.
> > > > What is especially interesting about the article [...] is
> > > > [that it is] part of an annual media boomlet about dads
> > > > that didn't promote denigrating dads as its main theme.
>
> > > Exactly, or like in many of these articles there's a kind of
> > > apologetic tone in defense of men. There's enough scientific
> > > evidence now, and would be much more if it weren't for
> > > the feminist control of the academy, that one could wax
> > > divinely about the qualities of men and fathers for society,
> > > especially in contrast to those of women and mothers.
>
> > Yes, after feminism's nearly five-decade run in the U.S.,
> > the worth of men is being rediscovered.
>
> Remember your eating pig joke? The worth of men was always obvious
> since the state goes to great lengths to exploit men at every
> opportunity via child-support, taxation, and military service. We're
> appreciated the same way the buffalo were appreciated during the mid
> 1800's....
What an apropos analogy. You're exactly right Mark. As I have gone
through life it boggles my mind how much the slaughter of Buffalo in
the 19th century is so much like what happened to men in the late
20th. They even responded like the Buffalo by going over cliffs like
lemmings but instead of Indian Warriors doing it to them, it was
pretty women and the promise of sex that sent them over the cliff.
> It's assumed that men will always foot the bill and survive whatever
> standards are set for them while the liberated woman is given eternal
> handholding because even feminists argue that they can't compete on a
> level playing field.
What gets me is how young men swallow the same feminist lies
generation after generation as if they were the first to hear them!
This generation is truly pathetic. They seem totally devoid of spirit
and independent thought. It's the abortion generation. That's what
did it and it isn't really their fault.
> > If government could create jobs and raise children,
> > socialism would have worked.
>
> > George Gilder
>
> > Socialism and feminism both.
>
> Or generate power, literally. Society, do you get a chuckle whenever
> those silly windmill commercials come on? They are INSANE! It takes
> DECADES for a windmill to produce enough energy to make up for the coal
> generated energy to... build a windmill! But to their credit, they have
> a point that they will generate "green jobs" since there will be all
> these engineers paid to visit them using gasoline powered engines to fix
> the rotors. And plenty of jobs for commie doctors when they fall down
> or get caught in the machinery...
I agree, it's a damn horror to see my old Left turn into the New
Right. Now you guys on the Right can make fun of the Leftists like we
did of you in the old days. Good work Tricky Dick.
> I wonder how many women will volunteer for THOSE jobs!
They'll be in the office, comfy, well paid and flattered by their toy
boy bosses. Mexicans will be the new slaves of the matriarchy. All
that needs to be done to make then feel better about it is to
emphasize Mary more in church.
> > Power can be taken but not given.
> > The process of the taking
> > is empowerment in itself.
>
> > Gloria Steinem
> > http://www.wisdomquotes.com/002474.html
>
> > As long as men patiently wait to be allowed to be the least
> > bit uppity toward women, no man will ever be permitted
> > to be the least bit critical of any woman. Let's stop waiting.
>
> Society, I'm surprised you didn't call out the laughable fantasy of
> Steinem that women "took" power from men. This would be like saying
> that the Damsel in Distress "killed" the dragon by waiting for a man to
> rescue her.
You guys can afford to be smug about this on the Right...maybe, but on
the Left men are killed daily by women, and in the movies too!
> Feminism and women's equality is a gift from chivalrous patronage.
Where was the most "chivalrous patronage" before 1972? On the Right.
Jeeze, where's ray? Still sulking over me sending one of his posts to
my list?
> Men
> having a discussion with feminists for feminists to "share" power with
> us is like a knight discussing with the maiden for her to share her
> "power" to get the knight to rescue himself from the dragon.
Not only that but it's instinctive. No true men's advo wants to have
anything to do with the feminists for any reason.
> Once a critical mass of men or key interests of men decide to stop
> believing in chivalrous patronage, that's it. Game over. No need to
> march in the streets. The empress has no clothes.
Oh? Now you want to become a Hippie? Sorry, you/we had our chance
and look what happened.
What a happy Sunday AM this is with both Mr Knight (Mark) and Society.
Tom
> regards,
> PolishKnight
PolishKnight
<688f1ca8-26f9-4d96...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Masculist <MASC...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 9:30�am, PolishKnight <mar...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article <FxC1m.712$wM5...@newsfe19.iad>,
> >
> >
> >
> > �"Society" <Soci...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> > > Tom as "Masculist" <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:fbed3c78-182c-4caa...@o21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > > On Jun 24, 7:26 am, "Society" <Soci...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > > > "Masculist" reported...
> >
> > > > > > � While fathers do play key roles in securing the
> > > > > > � physical health of their children, they also can be
> > > > > > � important for the optimum development of
> > > > > > � psychological and emotional traits considered
> > > > > > � to be primarily human, such as empathy, emotional
> > > > > > � control and the ability to navigate complex social
> > > > > > � relationships.
> >
> > > > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090619/sc
> > > > > >livescience/dadsareke...
> > > > > > � Yahoo! News
> > > > > > � 19 June 2009
> >
> > > > > The most fun part of the article was the part in which feminist
> > > > > anthropologist Sarah Hrdy admitted that dads promote social
> > > > > skills, emotional security, and a better ability to take another
> > > > > person's perspective - all traits that feminists have previously
> > > > > insisted were women's domain and imparted by women.
> >
> > > > There's all kinds of evolutionary psychological "perks"
> > > > to manhood. �One that fascinated me was on the issue of
> > > > sex differences in "conflict resolution", which goes to the
> > > > feminist claim about how peaceful and cooperative women
> > > > are. �It turns out that men may be more aggressive in their
> > > > communication but work through differences in a more
> > > > forgiving manner and therefore resolve conflicts better
> > > > and more peacefully. �Women can't seem to get to the
> > > > "forgiving" phase and tend to hold resentments longer
> > > > and often forever. �Their conflicts therefore simmer
> > > > longer and more vengefully. �Any resolution for them
> > > > is the destruction of the adversary.
> >
> > > All good points, Tom. �To sum up, men resolve disputes,
> > > sometimes with overt aggression; women paper over disputes,
> > > often continuing them with covert aggression.
> >
> > Have you ever heard the joke about what would happen if women ran the
> > world? �The female PM of London calls the PM of Spain and asks: "You
> > just bombed London. �Why?" and the female PM of Spain replies: "You KNOW
> > why!" and hangs up the phone.
>
> Good one Mark! What a hoot and how true.
I can't claim credit. It's actually a Polish joke. :-)
>
> > > > > What is especially interesting about the article [...] is
> > > > > [that it is] part of an annual media boomlet about dads
> > > > > that didn't promote denigrating dads as its main theme.
> >
> > > > Exactly, or like in many of these articles there's a kind of
> > > > apologetic tone in defense of men. �There's enough scientific
> > > > evidence now, and would be much more if it weren't for
> > > > the feminist control of the academy, that one could wax
> > > > divinely about the qualities of men and fathers for society,
> > > > especially in contrast to those of women and mothers.
> >
> > > Yes, after feminism's nearly five-decade run in the U.S.,
> > > the worth of men is being rediscovered.
> >
> > Remember your eating pig joke? �The worth of men was always obvious
> > since the state goes to great lengths to exploit men at every
> > opportunity via child-support, taxation, and military service. �We're
> > appreciated the same way the buffalo were appreciated during the mid
> > 1800's....
>
> What an apropos analogy. You're exactly right Mark. As I have gone
> through life it boggles my mind how much the slaughter of Buffalo in
> the 19th century is so much like what happened to men in the late
> 20th. They even responded like the Buffalo by going over cliffs like
> lemmings but instead of Indian Warriors doing it to them, it was
> pretty women and the promise of sex that sent them over the cliff.
Another one I can't claim credit for. Society told it to me.
Regarding the Buffalo: They went over the cliff not for lemming-like
reasons (so named for lemmings jumping over a cliff supposedly due to
some instinct, don't know if this is true or not) but rather a madness
of crowds phenominon: When a herd was against a cliff wall, and the ones
farthest from the edge were driven to stampede, they weren't aware or
able to see due to herd density that there was a cliff there. The ones
pushing didn't know they were pushing the poor guys off the edge (kind
of analogous to our situation.) it's similar to panicked crowds rushing
out of movie theaters that trample over each other.
> > It's assumed that men will always foot the bill and survive whatever
> > standards are set for them while the liberated woman is given eternal
> > handholding because even feminists argue that they can't compete on a
> > level playing field. �
>
> What gets me is how young men swallow the same feminist lies
> generation after generation as if they were the first to hear them!
> This generation is truly pathetic. They seem totally devoid of spirit
> and independent thought. It's the abortion generation. That's what
> did it and it isn't really their fault.
I think it is their fault since they have access to internet media that
allows them to choose what to read. It's not like the old days when all
us guys had for porn was Playboy and rebellious thought, National
Review.
> > > � �If government could create jobs and raise children,
> > > � �socialism would have worked.
> >
> > > � �George Gilder
> >
> > > Socialism and feminism both.
> >
> > Or generate power, literally. �Society, do you get a chuckle whenever
> > those silly windmill commercials come on? �They are INSANE! �It takes
> > DECADES for a windmill to produce enough energy to make up for the coal
> > generated energy to... build a windmill! �But to their credit, they have
> > a point that they will generate "green jobs" since there will be all
> > these engineers paid to visit them using gasoline powered engines to fix
> > the rotors. �And plenty of jobs for commie doctors when they fall down
> > or get caught in the machinery...
>
> I agree, it's a damn horror to see my old Left turn into the New
> Right. Now you guys on the Right can make fun of the Leftists like we
> did of you in the old days. Good work Tricky Dick.
The old left in the states, at least somewhat old, were the hippies and
somehow they managed to worm their way into the inner circle of the
left. It's perhaps due to the anti-nuke mentality that combined with
anti-americanism and anti-corporations. Nuke plants were run by
comporations and mostly white guys and they were EVIL.
The original "left" was at the turn of the 20th century and they were
made up of mostly working class white guys and eggheads on college
campuses that were beaten up by the establishment and the football team.
Now THAT is a reversal of fortunes!
> > I wonder how many women will volunteer for THOSE jobs!
>
> They'll be in the office, comfy, well paid and flattered by their toy
> boy bosses. Mexicans will be the new slaves of the matriarchy. All
> that needs to be done to make then feel better about it is to
> emphasize Mary more in church.
One of the interesting things about the last amnesty during the 80's was
how they stopped doing farmwork and other menial labor once they were
citizens and could do better. I'm honestly puzzled why corporate
sellout types such as Cato think they'll save money with amnesty. Won't
that just drive the cost of labor up again?
> > > � �Power can be taken but not given.
> > > � �The process of the taking
> > > � �is empowerment in itself.
> >
> > > � �Gloria Steinem
> > > � �http://www.wisdomquotes.com/002474.html
> >
> > > As long as men patiently wait to be allowed to be the least
> > > bit uppity toward women, no man will ever be permitted
> > > to be the least bit critical of any woman. �Let's stop waiting.
> >
> > Society, I'm surprised you didn't call out the laughable fantasy of
> > Steinem that women "took" power from men. �This would be like saying
> > that the Damsel in Distress "killed" the dragon by waiting for a man to
> > rescue her.
>
> You guys can afford to be smug about this on the Right...maybe, but on
> the Left men are killed daily by women, and in the movies too!
>
> > Feminism and women's equality is a gift from chivalrous patronage. �
>
> Where was the most "chivalrous patronage" before 1972? On the Right.
Er, welfare was FDR and that's the biggest sugar daddy ever invented.
Without it, even the civil rights act giving women preferential hiring
would have flopped when women were unable to marry up OR have children
on their own.
> Jeeze, where's ray? Still sulking over me sending one of his posts to
> my list?
>
> > Men
> > having a discussion with feminists for feminists to "share" power with
> > us is like a knight discussing with the maiden for her to share her
> > "power" to get the knight to rescue himself from the dragon. �
>
> Not only that but it's instinctive. No true men's advo wants to have
> anything to do with the feminists for any reason.
FDR, Churchill, and Stalin come to mind. Feminist apologists form a
useful purpose in that they are in a unique position to help undermine
it.
Feminist apologists realize that a collapse is coming and they want to
prevent it. The problem is that you can't just apologize away the
problem.
> > Once a critical mass of men or key interests of men decide to stop
> > believing in chivalrous patronage, that's it. �Game over. �No need to
> > march in the streets. �The empress has no clothes.
>
> Oh? Now you want to become a Hippie? Sorry, you/we had our chance
> and look what happened.
>
> What a happy Sunday AM this is with both Mr Knight (Mark) and Society.
>
> Tom
Nice to talk to you. Sorry I can't come out to CA, I don't have the
entry fee. :-)
regards,
PolishKnight
Masculist
Jeeze, you must be an aspie too. How "literal" you can be. I'm
convinced that all men's advos worth their salt are on the spectrum.
Society's an anomoly however. Is he or is he not? I keep prodding
him to find out and nada.
> > > It's assumed that men will always foot the bill and survive whatever
> > > standards are set for them while the liberated woman is given eternal
> > > handholding because even feminists argue that they can't compete on a
> > > level playing field.
>
> > What gets me is how young men swallow the same feminist lies
> > generation after generation as if they were the first to hear them!
> > This generation is truly pathetic. They seem totally devoid of spirit
> > and independent thought. It's the abortion generation. That's what
> > did it and it isn't really their fault.
>
> I think it is their fault since they have access to internet media that
> allows them to choose what to read. It's not like the old days when all
> us guys had for porn was Playboy and rebellious thought, National
> Review.
Yeah well, us Sixties type males kept up on this stuff (news and
issues) due to our heads being on th eline due to Vietnam. these kids
don't have those kinds of pressures so as they say "they go with the
flow". These kids are more republican than the republicans of my
youth yet they think they are progressives! Good work Tricky Dick and
his fellow repubs... of which you Mark are one. Identity
politics...what a bitch.
> > > > If government could create jobs and raise children,
> > > > socialism would have worked.
>
> > > > George Gilder
>
> > > > Socialism and feminism both.
>
> > > Or generate power, literally. Society, do you get a chuckle whenever
> > > those silly windmill commercials come on? They are INSANE! It takes
> > > DECADES for a windmill to produce enough energy to make up for the coal
> > > generated energy to... build a windmill! But to their credit, they have
> > > a point that they will generate "green jobs" since there will be all
> > > these engineers paid to visit them using gasoline powered engines to fix
> > > the rotors. And plenty of jobs for commie doctors when they fall down
> > > or get caught in the machinery...
>
> > I agree, it's a damn horror to see my old Left turn into the New
> > Right. Now you guys on the Right can make fun of the Leftists like we
> > did of you in the old days. Good work Tricky Dick.
>
> The old left in the states, at least somewhat old, were the hippies and
> somehow they managed to worm their way into the inner circle of the
> left.
The McGovern Commission and then McGovern's nomination, thanks to
Tricky Dick, sealed the fate of the dems and it wasn't hippies who did
it! You really need to read this post I sent a few weeks ago...
It was those damn "politicos", acutally marxists, and their feminist
masters who did it. They attacked us hippies in 1970 and then coopted
the movement afterwards. Any true hippies hated both groups and knew
they lost. The latter day hippies were actually marxist/feminists if
they were to have any involvement in politics. All of this is
important because the Right plays into these lies and thereby
"enables" their opponents. Kind of like Rush spreading the lies that
feminists are ugly. Maybe the leading ones, but the ones who sold it
publically were the Farah Fawcets and Madonnas...and many, many more.
The prettier they are, the dumber, more selfish and greedy they are.
Perfect fodder for feminism.
> It's perhaps due to the anti-nuke mentality that combined with
> anti-americanism and anti-corporations. Nuke plants were run by
> comporations and mostly white guys and they were EVIL.
Oh jeeze, you're showing your age. You came up in the late Seventies
after the evil deed was done by Tricky Dick. After that truth went
underground.
> The original "left" was at the turn of the 20th century and they were
> made up of mostly working class white guys and eggheads on college
> campuses that were beaten up by the establishment and the football team.
> Now THAT is a reversal of fortunes!
>
> > > I wonder how many women will volunteer for THOSE jobs!
>
> > They'll be in the office, comfy, well paid and flattered by their toy
> > boy bosses. Mexicans will be the new slaves of the matriarchy. All
> > that needs to be done to make then feel better about it is to
> > emphasize Mary more in church.
>
> One of the interesting things about the last amnesty during the 80's was
> how they stopped doing farmwork and other menial labor once they were
> citizens and could do better. I'm honestly puzzled why corporate
> sellout types such as Cato think they'll save money with amnesty. Won't
> that just drive the cost of labor up again?
Is Cato supporting amnesty? I knew they were in the tank for the
repubs. This seals it.
> > > > Power can be taken but not given.
> > > > The process of the taking
> > > > is empowerment in itself.
>
> > > > Gloria Steinem
> > > > http://www.wisdomquotes.com/002474.html
>
> > > > As long as men patiently wait to be allowed to be the least
> > > > bit uppity toward women, no man will ever be permitted
> > > > to be the least bit critical of any woman. Let's stop waiting.
>
> > > Society, I'm surprised you didn't call out the laughable fantasy of
> > > Steinem that women "took" power from men. This would be like saying
> > > that the Damsel in Distress "killed" the dragon by waiting for a man to
> > > rescue her.
>
> > You guys can afford to be smug about this on the Right...maybe, but on
> > the Left men are killed daily by women, and in the movies too!
>
> > > Feminism and women's equality is a gift from chivalrous patronage.
>
> > Where was the most "chivalrous patronage" before 1972? On the Right.
>
> Er, welfare was FDR and that's the biggest sugar daddy ever invented.
That mostly benfitted blacks in the cities and kept them quiet. Men
lost welfare benefits in most states starting in the early Seventies
and women are now being pruned off it...starting in the Nineties.
Give me a break. Who was more chivalrous...hippies or
traditionalists? Hippies eschewed chivalry and that really p0issed
off the girls on the Right who gladly went along with Nixon's plan to
have their feminism take over the Left...thereby killing us hippies.
> Without it, even the civil rights act giving women preferential hiring
> would have flopped when women were unable to marry up OR have children
> on their own.
Huh? Think again.
> > Jeeze, where's ray? Still sulking over me sending one of his posts to
> > my list?
>
> > > Men
> > > having a discussion with feminists for feminists to "share" power with
> > > us is like a knight discussing with the maiden for her to share her
> > > "power" to get the knight to rescue himself from the dragon.
>
> > Not only that but it's instinctive. No true men's advo wants to have
> > anything to do with the feminists for any reason.
>
> FDR, Churchill, and Stalin come to mind. Feminist apologists form a
> useful purpose in that they are in a unique position to help undermine
> it.
I'm not talking limp feminist "apologists". That is at best a parlor
game for the rich elite. I'm talking about serious anti-feminists
which takes enormous courage and sacrifice.
> Feminist apologists realize that a collapse is coming and they want to
> prevent it. The problem is that you can't just apologize away the
> problem.
Who cares what they think? That's my point.
> > > Once a critical mass of men or key interests of men decide to stop
> > > believing in chivalrous patronage, that's it. Game over. No need to
> > > march in the streets. The empress has no clothes.
>
> > Oh? Now you want to become a Hippie? Sorry, you/we had our chance
> > and look what happened.
Darn, you didn't comment on this point. Maybe you really don't know
that for a brief shining moment in the late Sixties us men as hippies
said "fuck you" to chivalry. Do you think that men who were being
threatened with death and slavery over Vietnam didn't see that it was
women sending them there were getting in line in front of them for
jobs and a two year head start on their careers? Yes, many of us saw
that.
> > What a happy Sunday AM this is with both Mr Knight (Mark) and Society.
>
> > Tom
>
> Nice to talk to you. Sorry I can't come out to CA, I don't have the
> entry fee. :-)
No need, I have an extra tent <smile>
I was talking to a young Mexican guy yesterday who was raised in Reno
and still sin't a citizen. I told him if he doesn't get his
citizenship that we will kick him out <smile>. He laughed and said I
was dreaming and what will more likely happen is that they will take
over the Southwest and kick us out! He was serious for crissakes!
Tom
> regards,
> PolishKnight
PolishKnight
<c1cb1026-b489-46a1...@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Masculist <MASC...@gmail.com> wrote:
What's an "aspie?"
My apologies for nit picking. I didn't mean to insult you. I launched
off on this because I like to study the psychology of animals and, well,
I want to defend the buffalo and even lemmings against the unfair bad
rep that they've gotten. I'm looking out for the under-dog-buffalo, ok?
I also was thinking about the sad effects of mob thinking as a poor
woman and man were pressed to death against a soccer wall fence by an
unthinking mob that wanted to get in closer to look at a stupid soccer
match.
> > > > It's assumed that men will always foot the bill and survive whatever
> > > > standards are set for them while the liberated woman is given eternal
> > > > handholding because even feminists argue that they can't compete on a
> > > > level playing field. �
> >
> > > What gets me is how young men swallow the same feminist lies
> > > generation after generation as if they were the first to hear them!
> > > This generation is truly pathetic. �They seem totally devoid of spirit
> > > and independent thought. �It's the abortion generation. �That's what
> > > did it and it isn't really their fault.
> >
> > I think it is their fault since they have access to internet media that
> > allows them to choose what to read. �It's not like the old days when all
> > us guys had for porn was Playboy and rebellious thought, National
> > Review. �
>
> Yeah well, us Sixties type males kept up on this stuff (news and
> issues) due to our heads being on th eline due to Vietnam. these kids
> don't have those kinds of pressures so as they say "they go with the
> flow". These kids are more republican than the republicans of my
> youth yet they think they are progressives! Good work Tricky Dick and
> his fellow repubs... of which you Mark are one. Identity
> politics...what a bitch.
If you would like, please elaborate on this. As we get into the labels
of saying I'm a republican in the old sense unlike those in the new
sense are democrats of the old sense, I honestly get confused.
I'm amused at Hugh Hefner who hates the right even as his life is an
expression of the nihilism and misery of the "Playboy" lifestyle. He
can afford to use his pornography business to buy off his mistresses
when he bores with them. Normal men are not so lucky.
>
> > > > > � �If government could create jobs and raise children,
> > > > > � �socialism would have worked.
> >
> > > > > � �George Gilder
> >
> > > > > Socialism and feminism both.
> >
> > > > Or generate power, literally. �Society, do you get a chuckle whenever
> > > > those silly windmill commercials come on? �They are INSANE! �It takes
> > > > DECADES for a windmill to produce enough energy to make up for the coal
> > > > generated energy to... build a windmill! �But to their credit, they
> > > > have
> > > > a point that they will generate "green jobs" since there will be all
> > > > these engineers paid to visit them using gasoline powered engines to
> > > > fix
> > > > the rotors. �And plenty of jobs for commie doctors when they fall down
> > > > or get caught in the machinery...
> >
> > > I agree, it's a damn horror to see my old Left turn into the New
> > > Right. �Now you guys on the Right can make fun of the Leftists like we
> > > did of you in the old days. �Good work Tricky Dick.
> >
> > The old left in the states, at least somewhat old, were the hippies and
> > somehow they managed to worm their way into the inner circle of the
> > left. �
>
> The McGovern Commission and then McGovern's nomination, thanks to
> Tricky Dick, sealed the fate of the dems and it wasn't hippies who did
> it! You really need to read this post I sent a few weeks ago...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse
> frm/thread/ba9b60b585a62db6/6c28471cf679fad5?lnk=gst&q=mcgovern+commission#6c2
> 8471cf679fad5
>
> It was those damn "politicos", acutally marxists, and their feminist
> masters who did it. They attacked us hippies in 1970 and then coopted
> the movement afterwards. Any true hippies hated both groups and knew
> they lost. The latter day hippies were actually marxist/feminists if
> they were to have any involvement in politics. All of this is
> important because the Right plays into these lies and thereby
> "enables" their opponents. Kind of like Rush spreading the lies that
> feminists are ugly.
Feminists _are_ ugly. Not all of them, of course, but when they had a
march in Washington with T-shirts that said "This is what a feminist
looks like" it was hilarious that the Post was ashamed to run the photos
when it was Rosanne Barr, Rosie ODonnell and Penny Marshall marching up
and down the street. Thank heavens they cleared that up! Feminists
aren't ugly after all! :-)
In college, most feminists were ok looking but not terribly good looking
and took out their anger they couldn't get the primo men on the wussy
nice-guys who thought they could sell out men to get into their pants.
I figured out early on that the pretty women didn't feel a need to bash
men to feel better about themselves and it freaked out the good looking
guys who hustled for the same women.
> Maybe the leading ones, but the ones who sold it
> publically were the Farah Fawcets and Madonnas...and many, many more.
> The prettier they are, the dumber, more selfish and greedy they are.
> Perfect fodder for feminism.
Madonna was not, IMO, pretty. She was slutty and trashy and more of an
idol for teeny bopper women. Farrah Fawcet was hot but her later career
with The Burning Bed did feature her in increasingly aging, ugly roles.
And Rush's point was philosophical in that the concept of feminism is to
seperate beauty from support from men. To make the government into a
substitute husband who will marry them no matter what they look like or
how bad their cooking is. I think that's his point. Do you think it's
wrong?
> > It's perhaps due to the anti-nuke mentality that combined with
> > anti-americanism and anti-corporations. �Nuke plants were run by
> > comporations and mostly white guys and they were EVIL.
>
> Oh jeeze, you're showing your age. You came up in the late Seventies
> after the evil deed was done by Tricky Dick. After that truth went
> underground.
Er, the notion of Tricky Dick being this evil genius is a cherished
leftist myth that, er, got wiped out when Bill Clinton put Tricky Dick
to rest both literally and figuratively as the second impeached
President of the USA. :-)
Tricky Dick was the GW Bush of the 1970's and in many ways, moderate as
you know with his price controls and helping enforce reverse
discrimination. F' him. I trust him about as much as McCain and the
Bushes.
> > The original "left" was at the turn of the 20th century and they were
> > made up of mostly working class white guys and eggheads on college
> > campuses that were beaten up by the establishment and the football team. �
> > Now THAT is a reversal of fortunes! �
> >
> > > > I wonder how many women will volunteer for THOSE jobs!
> >
> > > They'll be in the office, comfy, well paid and flattered by their toy
> > > boy bosses. �Mexicans will be the new slaves of the matriarchy. �All
> > > that needs to be done to make then feel better about it is to
> > > emphasize Mary more in church.
> >
> > One of the interesting things about the last amnesty during the 80's was
> > how they stopped doing farmwork and other menial labor once they were
> > citizens and could do better. �I'm honestly puzzled why corporate
> > sellout types such as Cato think they'll save money with amnesty. �Won't
> > that just drive the cost of labor up again?
>
> Is Cato supporting amnesty? I knew they were in the tank for the
> repubs. This seals it.
I think Cato got bought off by certain corporate interests that want to
save money on houses made of Chinese drywall and cheap hotel rooms.
This is hardly a "republican" corruption, as you know, with Democrats
loving those marxist votes from the illiterate rubes and enjoying cheap
lawn care themselves.
Did you read the last S.C. decision with the left dissent to the white
male firefighters? "You have no vested right in a promotion" "It's ok
to discirminate against white guys if the employer worries about getting
sued (so if the wind blows the wrong way, just ignore their rights as if
they really had them anyway)" and "Diversity is a goal which is to get
as many non-white males as possible. This will be over when... there
are no more white males"
Hey, I'm no fan of the republicans but you do see where the Democrat end
game is with all of this, don't you? What their plan is for us?
> > > > > � �Power can be taken but not given.
> > > > > � �The process of the taking
> > > > > � �is empowerment in itself.
> >
> > > > > � �Gloria Steinem
> > > > > � �http://www.wisdomquotes.com/002474.html
> >
> > > > > As long as men patiently wait to be allowed to be the least
> > > > > bit uppity toward women, no man will ever be permitted
> > > > > to be the least bit critical of any woman. �Let's stop waiting.
> >
> > > > Society, I'm surprised you didn't call out the laughable fantasy of
> > > > Steinem that women "took" power from men. �This would be like saying
> > > > that the Damsel in Distress "killed" the dragon by waiting for a man to
> > > > rescue her.
> >
> > > You guys can afford to be smug about this on the Right...maybe, but on
> > > the Left men are killed daily by women, and in the movies too!
> >
> > > > Feminism and women's equality is a gift from chivalrous patronage. �
> >
> > > Where was the most "chivalrous patronage" before 1972? �On the Right.
> >
> > Er, welfare was FDR and that's the biggest sugar daddy ever invented. �
>
> That mostly benfitted blacks in the cities and kept them quiet.
As you know, southern whites also went on welfare and ultimately it
fueled the unwed mother movement as breadwinners dried up at the lower
levels. If it wasn't for welfare, we wouldn't be having this
conversation AND YOU KNOW IT!
> Men
> lost welfare benefits in most states starting in the early Seventies
> and women are now being pruned off it...starting in the Nineties.
Nope. The left got a lot out of the welfare program such as free job
training and daycare that they wanted all along. It rewarded them for
acting irresponsibly while responsible people paid for such things on
their own. Also, plenty of women are still on welfare.
> Give me a break. Who was more chivalrous...hippies or
> traditionalists? Hippies eschewed chivalry and that really p0issed
> off the girls on the Right who gladly went along with Nixon's plan to
> have their feminism take over the Left...thereby killing us hippies.
I agree with you that Hippies weren't "chivalrous" in that they didn't
earn a lot of money thereby making them unattractive by definition. But
really now, when was the last time you saw hippies marching or saying
something against affirmative action for women? Or against VAWA?
> > Without it, even the civil rights act giving women preferential hiring
> > would have flopped when women were unable to marry up OR have children
> > on their own. �
>
> Huh? Think again.
I stand by what I observed: Without welfare millions of working class
women would have been out on the streets and demanded the state do
something to empower their men to earn a decent living to support them.
> > > Jeeze, where's ray? �Still sulking over me sending one of his posts to
> > > my list?
> >
> > > > Men
> > > > having a discussion with feminists for feminists to "share" power with
> > > > us is like a knight discussing with the maiden for her to share her
> > > > "power" to get the knight to rescue himself from the dragon. �
> >
> > > Not only that but it's instinctive. �No true men's advo wants to have
> > > anything to do with the feminists for any reason.
> >
> > FDR, Churchill, and Stalin come to mind. �Feminist apologists form a
> > useful purpose in that they are in a unique position to help undermine
> > it. �
>
> I'm not talking limp feminist "apologists". That is at best a parlor
> game for the rich elite. I'm talking about serious anti-feminists
> which takes enormous courage and sacrifice.
In some ways, success is it's own reward. Nothing annoys feminists,
Tom, more than seeing me married and moving on with my life.
> > Feminist apologists realize that a collapse is coming and they want to
> > prevent it. �The problem is that you can't just apologize away the
> > problem. �
>
> Who cares what they think? That's my point.
The opposite of giving aid and comfort to the enemy is demoralizing
them. Demoralized feminists act even more irrationally and blow their
hand.
> > > > Once a critical mass of men or key interests of men decide to stop
> > > > believing in chivalrous patronage, that's it. �Game over. �No need to
> > > > march in the streets. �The empress has no clothes.
> >
> > > Oh? �Now you want to become a Hippie? �Sorry, you/we had our chance
> > > and look what happened.
>
> Darn, you didn't comment on this point. Maybe you really don't know
> that for a brief shining moment in the late Sixties us men as hippies
> said "fuck you" to chivalry. Do you think that men who were being
> threatened with death and slavery over Vietnam didn't see that it was
> women sending them there were getting in line in front of them for
> jobs and a two year head start on their careers? Yes, many of us saw
> that.
I agree that was an anti-chivalrist gesture, but I don't think that
hippies opposed all the other feminist entitlements and even helped buy
into the notion of feminine victimhood and evil right wingers oppressing
women.
Granted, my observations are based upon hippies I talked to in the late
70's who were little different than P.C. clones today.
> > > What a happy Sunday AM this is with both Mr Knight (Mark) and Society.
> >
> > > Tom
> >
> > Nice to talk to you. �Sorry I can't come out to CA, I don't have the
> > entry fee. :-)
>
> No need, I have an extra tent <smile>
>
> I was talking to a young Mexican guy yesterday who was raised in Reno
> and still sin't a citizen. I told him if he doesn't get his
> citizenship that we will kick him out <smile>. He laughed and said I
> was dreaming and what will more likely happen is that they will take
> over the Southwest and kick us out! He was serious for crissakes!
>
> Tom
Ah yes, the La Racist, er, La Raza movement. Yeah yeah yeah, when
California goes broke and looks like Mexico city, then they won't need
to kick you out. They'll just be back where they started from and
hating us for the whole mess.
regards,
PolishKnight
Masculist
Asperger syndrome. It's a common form of high functioning autism that
often goes undiagnosed. It's a predominently male condition that is
on a "spectrum", meaning of various degrees. As diagnosis gets more
sophisticated combined with identifying genetic markers, I beleive it
will give us greater insight into the male condition.
> My apologies for nit picking. I didn't mean to insult you.
Oh no, not at all.
> I launched
> off on this because I like to study the psychology of animals and, well,
> I want to defend the buffalo and even lemmings against the unfair bad
> rep that they've gotten. I'm looking out for the under-dog-buffalo, ok?
>
> I also was thinking about the sad effects of mob thinking as a poor
> woman and man were pressed to death against a soccer wall fence by an
> unthinking mob that wanted to get in closer to look at a stupid soccer
> match.
I support your efforts and saw what you were doing with that.
> > > > > It's assumed that men will always foot the bill and survive whatever
> > > > > standards are set for them while the liberated woman is given eternal
> > > > > handholding because even feminists argue that they can't compete on a
> > > > > level playing field.
>
> > > > What gets me is how young men swallow the same feminist lies
> > > > generation after generation as if they were the first to hear them!
> > > > This generation is truly pathetic. They seem totally devoid of spirit
> > > > and independent thought. It's the abortion generation. That's what
> > > > did it and it isn't really their fault.
>
> > > I think it is their fault since they have access to internet media that
> > > allows them to choose what to read. It's not like the old days when all
> > > us guys had for porn was Playboy and rebellious thought, National
> > > Review.
>
> > Yeah well, us Sixties type males kept up on this stuff (news and
> > issues) due to our heads being on th eline due to Vietnam. these kids
> > don't have those kinds of pressures so as they say "they go with the
> > flow". These kids are more republican than the republicans of my
> > youth yet they think they are progressives! Good work Tricky Dick and
> > his fellow repubs... of which you Mark are one. Identity
> > politics...what a bitch.
>
> If you would like, please elaborate on this.
I guess I was rambling and free associating again. If you read about
that time in the late Sixties and how the democratic party was totally
changed (McGovern Commission and nomination), the new or "reform"
democrats that took over resembled in many important ways, feminism
being the most important, the repubs. Feminism, environmentalism,
temperance, "revenue sharing", etc were the new forces in the dem
party but the old forces in the republican party. Who was behind
highlighting these traditional repub issues and aligning them with the
Left? Nixon. Who assured McGovern's nomination which solidified this
change in the dem party? Nixon.
What I'm saying is we are living on false presumptions. It was Nixon
who changed everything, much of which is pretty obvious, but we ignore
all that and continue to act like nothing changed back then. We keep
fighting the same battles though the terrain and armies have all
changed.
> As we get into the labels
> of saying I'm a republican in the old sense unlike those in the new
> sense are democrats of the old sense, I honestly get confused.
Yeah, and the historians and political scientists in the feminist
academies don't help.
> I'm amused at Hugh Hefner who hates the right even as his life is an
> expression of the nihilism and misery of the "Playboy" lifestyle. He
> can afford to use his pornography business to buy off his mistresses
> when he bores with them. Normal men are not so lucky.
Lucky? What a sick way to live. I've seen it many times in my life.
Oh yeah, that and his attacks on us old hippies are HUGE mistakes.
It's fighting th e"old battles" that I referred to above. The repubs
are now making a conscious effort to do what the feminists did in the
Seventies, that is find good looking advos and push them out front.
Coulter is one but there are others...oh yeah, Palin is a prime
example.
It doesn't matter who the leaders in the background are, it's who baks
them up out front like Farrah and whore Madonna. There were many
others in the Seventies and later. Liz Taylor, Rhoda, Mary Tyler
Moore, Margo Thomas...the list goes on. They may have acted alittle
"conservative", like Moore, in order to "relate" to the vast bimbo
land, but were solidly behind the second wave agenda and made no bones
about it.
> > > It's perhaps due to the anti-nuke mentality that combined with
> > > anti-americanism and anti-corporations. Nuke plants were run by
> > > comporations and mostly white guys and they were EVIL.
>
> > Oh jeeze, you're showing your age. You came up in the late Seventies
> > after the evil deed was done by Tricky Dick. After that truth went
> > underground.
>
> Er, the notion of Tricky Dick being this evil genius is a cherished
> leftist myth that, er, got wiped out when Bill Clinton put Tricky Dick
> to rest both literally and figuratively as the second impeached
> President of the USA. :-)
No, Leftists think he's dumb.
> Tricky Dick was the GW Bush of the 1970's and in many ways, moderate as
> you know with his price controls and helping enforce reverse
> discrimination. F' him. I trust him about as much as McCain and the
> Bushes.
It's called "moderate". Meaning, keeping the girls on your side.
"Moderates" on both the Left and Right have ruled for decades.
Sure, but I haven't seen the Right do didley but give into the dems
when it serves them to retain power. They rule in proxy.
> > > > > > Power can be taken but not given.
> > > > > > The process of the taking
> > > > > > is empowerment in itself.
>
> > > > > > Gloria Steinem
> > > > > >http://www.wisdomquotes.com/002474.html
>
> > > > > > As long as men patiently wait to be allowed to be the least
> > > > > > bit uppity toward women, no man will ever be permitted
> > > > > > to be the least bit critical of any woman. Let's stop waiting.
>
> > > > > Society, I'm surprised you didn't call out the laughable fantasy of
> > > > > Steinem that women "took" power from men. This would be like saying
> > > > > that the Damsel in Distress "killed" the dragon by waiting for a man to
> > > > > rescue her.
>
> > > > You guys can afford to be smug about this on the Right...maybe, but on
> > > > the Left men are killed daily by women, and in the movies too!
>
> > > > > Feminism and women's equality is a gift from chivalrous patronage.
>
> > > > Where was the most "chivalrous patronage" before 1972? On the Right.
>
> > > Er, welfare was FDR and that's the biggest sugar daddy ever invented.
>
> > That mostly benfitted blacks in the cities and kept them quiet.
>
> As you know, southern whites also went on welfare and ultimately it
> fueled the unwed mother movement as breadwinners dried up at the lower
> levels. If it wasn't for welfare, we wouldn't be having this
> conversation AND YOU KNOW IT!
Well, actually, I didn't "know it", but thinking about it you do have
a point.
> > Men
> > lost welfare benefits in most states starting in the early Seventies
> > and women are now being pruned off it...starting in the Nineties.
>
> Nope. The left got a lot out of the welfare program such as free job
> training and daycare that they wanted all along. It rewarded them for
> acting irresponsibly while responsible people paid for such things on
> their own. Also, plenty of women are still on welfare.
Yeah, the whole thing is for women and there's no help for men so
taken as a package it is oppressive to men. Down with welfare!
<smile>
> > Give me a break. Who was more chivalrous...hippies or
> > traditionalists? Hippies eschewed chivalry and that really p0issed
> > off the girls on the Right who gladly went along with Nixon's plan to
> > have their feminism take over the Left...thereby killing us hippies.
>
> I agree with you that Hippies weren't "chivalrous" in that they didn't
> earn a lot of money thereby making them unattractive by definition.
Oh jeeze, they were totally the opposite of what a normal women would
want. They totally thumbed their noses at American Women, at least
the variety of first wave feminist that ruled.
> But
> really now, when was the last time you saw hippies marching or saying
> something against affirmative action for women? Or against VAWA?
Rich Zubaty, Tom Smith, ray remarksman, Warren Farrell, zenpriest, Ed
Bartlett, Rod Michelin...there's many many more Mark. In fact without
old hippies there would be very few anti-feminists. You and Society
are the exception Mark. You represent the minoirty o f anti-feminists
yet you represent the party that is supposed to be opposing feminism.
Listen Mark, the truth is that the repubs have used feminism, not
fought it. By doing so they get to control the Left and have a straw
man while ruling with impunity over us men. The Left are just their
dupes.
> > > Without it, even the civil rights act giving women preferential hiring
> > > would have flopped when women were unable to marry up OR have children
> > > on their own.
>
> > Huh? Think again.
>
> I stand by what I observed: Without welfare millions of working class
> women would have been out on the streets and demanded the state do
> something to empower their men to earn a decent living to support them.
Hmmm...I nver thought of it that way. Maybe because I knew that is
not the nature of government or women.
> > > > Jeeze, where's ray? Still sulking over me sending one of his posts to
> > > > my list?
>
> > > > > Men
> > > > > having a discussion with feminists for feminists to "share" power with
> > > > > us is like a knight discussing with the maiden for her to share her
> > > > > "power" to get the knight to rescue himself from the dragon.
>
> > > > Not only that but it's instinctive. No true men's advo wants to have
> > > > anything to do with the feminists for any reason.
>
> > > FDR, Churchill, and Stalin come to mind. Feminist apologists form a
> > > useful purpose in that they are in a unique position to help undermine
> > > it.
>
> > I'm not talking limp feminist "apologists". That is at best a parlor
> > game for the rich elite. I'm talking about serious anti-feminists
> > which takes enormous courage and sacrifice.
>
> In some ways, success is it's own reward. Nothing annoys feminists,
> Tom, more than seeing me married and moving on with my life.
They could care less Mark.
> > > Feminist apologists realize that a collapse is coming and they want to
> > > prevent it. The problem is that you can't just apologize away the
> > > problem.
>
> > Who cares what they think? That's my point.
>
> The opposite of giving aid and comfort to the enemy is demoralizing
> them. Demoralized feminists act even more irrationally and blow their
> hand.
>
> > > > > Once a critical mass of men or key interests of men decide to stop
> > > > > believing in chivalrous patronage, that's it. Game over. No need to
> > > > > march in the streets. The empress has no clothes.
>
> > > > Oh? Now you want to become a Hippie? Sorry, you/we had our chance
> > > > and look what happened.
>
> > Darn, you didn't comment on this point. Maybe you really don't know
> > that for a brief shining moment in the late Sixties us men as hippies
> > said "fuck you" to chivalry. Do you think that men who were being
> > threatened with death and slavery over Vietnam didn't see that it was
> > women sending them there were getting in line in front of them for
> > jobs and a two year head start on their careers? Yes, many of us saw
> > that.
>
> I agree that was an anti-chivalrist gesture, but I don't think that
> hippies opposed all the other feminist entitlements and even helped buy
> into the notion of feminine victimhood and evil right wingers oppressing
> women.
There were no "feminist issues" in the late Sixties and if there were
we would have yawned and ignored them.
> Granted, my observations are based upon hippies I talked to in the late
> 70's who were little different than P.C. clones today.
The hippie thing at it's best was over from '70 on. With the enormous
power the feminists gained by taking over the Left in '72, any
leftover hippies who wanted to be politically active would get nowhere
unless they gave the feminists everything they wanted. In fact all
men on the left from '72 on were essentially slaves to their women and
betrayers to fellow men. In the old days Mark, what would have
happened to men like that? They would have had a VERY tough time.
But because women ruled the Left they were protected.
> > > > What a happy Sunday AM this is with both Mr Knight (Mark) and Society.
>
> > > > Tom
>
> > > Nice to talk to you. Sorry I can't come out to CA, I don't have the
> > > entry fee. :-)
>
> > No need, I have an extra tent <smile>
>
> > I was talking to a young Mexican guy yesterday who was raised in Reno
> > and still sin't a citizen. I told him if he doesn't get his
> > citizenship that we will kick him out <smile>. He laughed and said I
> > was dreaming and what will more likely happen is that they will take
> > over the Southwest and kick us out! He was serious for crissakes!
>
> > Tom
>
> Ah yes, the La Racist, er, La Raza movement. Yeah yeah yeah, when
> California goes broke and looks like Mexico city, then they won't need
> to kick you out. They'll just be back where they started from and
> hating us for the whole mess.
Forget waiting for California to go broke, stand up and scream about
the injustice of all this. See, this is what happens when women rule
and limp rightists do didley. Everything goes down the tubes.
The Mexicans are taking over the Southwest and brutalizing US citizens
for crissakes! Where's male solidarity? Where's a basic sense of
nationalism and pride? Is this our country or is it women's and
illegal aliens? Presently it's obviously the latter. So what does
the party of nationalism and Godly masculinity do? Cower and act like
pussies...for 40 fing years! And all this after one of their own,
Nixon, set up the whole thing. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Tom
> regards,
> PolishKnight