Re: Ms "Burning Bed"...Farah Fawcett, Bites the Dust
Society
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/msg/8713157892c7a4f1
Tom as "Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0760dcbe-45df-4f11...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> [...] One of the most useful idiots of 1970's feminism
> died of anal cancer today. Rest in peace.
>
> Her role in the TV movie "The Burning Bed" [was]
> a well done piece of feminist propaganda [...]
Propaganda it certainly was. Like most Hollywood
flicks marketed as "based on a true story," its makers
played fast and loose with the truth in order to make their
movie more marketable. And little is more marketable
in Hollywoodland than the A Pretty Girl in Jeopardy
stereotype. So, the parts of the true story that didn't
fit that framework were excised and falsehoods were
deliberately fabricated and added to the flick in order
to spice up its "audience appeal."
The lovely and talented Dr. Helen Smith provided
a link at her blog (blogspot.drhelen.com) to an article
by Trudy Schuett at the San Francisco Examiner that
examines the ugly legacy of man-hating feminist
propaganda that this Farrah Fawcett flick spurred on.
Farrah Fawcett is gone but, says Schuett,
Sadly, the 1984 made-for-TV movie that portrayed
premeditated murder as not only excusable, but heroic,
won't go with her. [...]
The movie however, helped establish a framework
for dozens of later theatrical and TV movies
that depict men as dangerous, violent abusers
and women as saintly victims with nowhere to turn
for help. Even after 25 years, this story of a single
extraordinary case, exaggerated for effect,
has become omnipresent. The male character
is generally accepted as typical, and murder
is sanctioned if not openly encouraged as a
solution to the problem. Later films such as
_Sleeping With the Enemy starring Julia Roberts,
built on the myth and added the aspect of relentless
stalking, also extraordinary in the real world.
Other movies added more, and there is now
a whole TV network devoted to almost nothing but
the theme of awful, despicable men vs. glamorous
female victims.
Trudy Schuett
"Farrah Fawcett's _Burning Bed_ legacy"
_San Francisco Examiner_ (Examiner.com)
June 27, 2009
http://www.examiner.com/x-12866-Domestic-Violence-Examiner~y2009m6d27-Farrah-Fawcetts-Burning-Bed-legacy
Ms. Schuett's entire column is worth reading. Some
of the comments left behind do make me flinch, tho'.
(I sure hope the one by Concerned Mother was a case
of parody gone awry; unfortunately there are women -
and feminist men such as the current U.S. Vice-president
who are true believers in what Concerned Mother says.
Sigh. Will the freakish female man-hating _ever_ stop?)
--
What evidence do I have that women
rule the world? Take a look at the world
and ask yourself how it would be
different if men were REALLY in charge.
Look at the things that men want most,
then check to see if the world is
organized to _provide_ those things
or to _limit_ them.
Scott Adams, _The Dilbert Future_,
page 109
Masculist
> Bumped fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/msg/8713157892c7a4f1
>
> Tom as "Masculist" <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:0760dcbe-45df-4f11...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Thanks Society for the heads up about Trudy's article. She did a
great job as usual. I also noticed that Terri S got a job there too
at the Examiner. If this keeps up than maybe I could get a job as a
houseboy in one of their houses. Just kidding. We need all the
female help we can get considering the nature of our political
system. This is also a good business move for any newspaper. Truth
may actually sell newspapers.
I posted a comment on the article. Even ray had been there and posted
a comment! If ray is reading this...I deleted your post from my
list. I don't know if that was bothering him or not...but just in
case.
> Ms. Schuett's entire column is worth reading. Some
> of the comments left behind do make me flinch, tho'.
> (I sure hope the one by Concerned Mother was a case
> of parody gone awry; unfortunately there are women -
> and feminist men such as the current U.S. Vice-president
> who are true believers in what Concerned Mother says.
> Sigh. Will the freakish female man-hating _ever_ stop?)
>
> --
> What evidence do I have that women
> rule the world? Take a look at the world
> and ask yourself how it would be
> different if men were REALLY in charge.
> Look at the things that men want most,
> then check to see if the world is
> organized to _provide_ those things
> or to _limit_ them.
>
> Scott Adams, _The Dilbert Future_,
> page 109
Great quote.
Tom
Noel
>
> --
> What evidence do I have that women
> rule the world? Take a look at the world
> and ask yourself how it would be
> different if men were REALLY in charge.
> Look at the things that men want most,
> then check to see if the world is
> organized to _provide_ those things
> or to _limit_ them.
>
> Scott Adams, _The Dilbert Future_,
> page 109
>Great quote.
>Tom
I agree, great quote!
I have copied it into my list of quotes which I have put to memory so I can
reply to the usual spoon fed feminist quotes that are bandied about by
various fembots in conversations and media comments.
BTW, I clicked the link and got a 404 error (page removed or not available),
perhaps those who run the femedia thought it was too close to the truth
Day Brown
the brave heart, strong right arm, sword in hand... no longer cuts it.
Smith & Wesson guarantee equal rights for smart women. And since, in a
shoot out, the dude will hesitate to shoot that which he hopes to fuck
later, we see that the cunt wont.
Lotsa men are in denial about this, ranting about femonazis who they say
are commies. Go figure. One or the other. But in point of fact, the
world the women are actually taking over, are the transnationals. The
women are the ones who are adapting to global capitalism.
the wharf rat
Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>After 5000 years of rule by the alpha male warrior elite, we see that
>the brave heart, strong right arm, sword in hand... no longer cuts it.
>
Well, until the next invasion at any rate.
>shoot out, the dude will hesitate to shoot that which he hopes to fuck
>later, we see that the cunt wont.
Ick. Why do you insist on reducing people to what's between
their legs? That's not feminism. It's just demeaning.
Day Brown
always happened. Anarchy, revolution, and war have always driven the
rape rate thru the roof. But now, with firearms, it dont matter how big
and bad the rapist is, all that matters is fine muscle control on the
trigger finger. Which is what women have better than men.
And since STDs now are so deadly, whereas before women survived rape,
women will be far more motivated to use guns. I daresay that a modern
weapon, that dispensed with the pearl handle, but chose instead to focus
on penetrating power combined with light weight, would sell very well to
women.
Women would also appreciate ammo impregnated with a neurotoxin or deadly
pathogen. Witches were always big on poisons. So, even if it dont kill
the thug at once, you know he soon will be.
the wharf rat
Why don't they just cast magic spells? "Have some fire,
scarecrow!"
Jeez, are all these peace loving feminist witches so ummmm
peace loving???
"But when you go talking about destruction
don't you know that you can count me out"
Day Brown
> In article <4a58ee9c$0$15934$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Women would also appreciate ammo impregnated with a neurotoxin or deadly
>> pathogen. Witches were always big on poisons. So, even if it dont kill
>> the thug at once, you know he soon will be.
>
> Why don't they just cast magic spells? "Have some fire,
> scarecrow!"
No reason not to. You end up just as dead.
> Jeez, are all these peace loving feminist witches so ummmm
> peace loving???
You been watching too many movies. The ladies I know dont giva fuck
about smoozing the media. There's a diff you have not seemed to pick up
on between the alpha male warrior going out to acquire more for his
harem, willing to use whatever force is neccessary, and the maternal
instinct to use whatever force is needed to protect the kids she already
has.
For one thing, she dont have to go anywhere, and can prepare a
defensible position. Which Clauswitz says would require five times the
force to over run.
For another, while the warrior hesitates to shoot that which he hopes to
add to his harem, the mother dont. And then it becomes a matter of who
has the best fine muscle control on the trigger finger. Ask Anne Oakley.
Might makes right, always has, always will. And now women have it. Not
that you will get over it and stop ranting trying to organize men to
resist. I'm not trying to organize the women, merely reporting on the
organization they are already doing. But in addition to might, they have
the cunts to get as many male allies as they want.
I've seen witches host a safe sex orgy; and see how that adjusted male
attitudes. You are trying to organize a force in the battle of the
sexes, but dude, the war is already over.
the wharf rat
Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>There's a diff you have not seemed to pick up
>on between the alpha male warrior going out to acquire more for his
>harem, willing to use whatever force is neccessary, and the maternal
>instinct to use whatever force is needed to protect the kids she already
If you knew anything about real warriors you'd know that their
first duty and highest purpose is to protect the weak.
>
>For one thing, she dont have to go anywhere, and can prepare a
>defensible position. Which Clauswitz says would require five times the
>force to over run.
What Clausewitz wrote in 1812 doesn't really apply to social
or military conflict in 2012. The other word for "static defensive
position" is "sitting duck". Remember Khe Sanh?
>For another, while the warrior hesitates to shoot that which he hopes to
>add to his harem, the mother dont. And then it becomes a matter of who
>has the best fine muscle control on the trigger finger. Ask Anne Oakley.
You know, you sort of remind me of Charlie Manson only instead
of blacks and whites and holes in the Mojave Desert you've got men, women,
and little farms in the Ozarks. You don't play the guitar, do you?
Day Brown
> In article <4a67908d$0$15976$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There's a diff you have not seemed to pick up
>> on between the alpha male warrior going out to acquire more for his
>> harem, willing to use whatever force is neccessary, and the maternal
>> instinct to use whatever force is needed to protect the kids she already
>
> If you knew anything about real warriors you'd know that their
> first duty and highest purpose is to protect the weak.
supporters have always included thugs, some cultures more than others.
>> For one thing, she dont have to go anywhere, and can prepare a
>> defensible position. Which Clauswitz says would require five times the
>> force to over run.
>
> What Clausewitz wrote in 1812 doesn't really apply to social
> or military conflict in 2012. The other word for "static defensive
> position" is "sitting duck". Remember Khe Sanh?
That has nothing to do with a general collapse of the social order and
everything to do with a nationalistic movement that was misread as a
Communist takeover. As we see, after they used the commie propaganda to
free themselves of perceived foreign rule, they became capitalistic.
>> For another, while the warrior hesitates to shoot that which he hopes to
>> add to his harem, the mother dont. And then it becomes a matter of who
>> has the best fine muscle control on the trigger finger. Ask Anne Oakley.
>
> You know, you sort of remind me of Charlie Manson only instead
> of blacks and whites and holes in the Mojave Desert you've got men, women,
> and little farms in the Ozarks. You don't play the guitar, do you?
No. Studied piano in high school and college, but I'm 70 now, and dont have
reflexes left to do it. Manson went out to make trouble for others. The
people I'm talking about are staying at home and minding their own
business, and only need to concern themselves with weapons because of
the risk of outsiders coming in.
I'm more familiar with the Ozarks, but am sure there are folks in upper
Michigan Northern MN, and all the way across to the western slope of the
Rockies, parts of Alaska, Canada, and other low population regions that
just want to be left alone and are willing to use firearms to that end.
If there's a systemic collapse because of all the ineptitude and
corruption, there wont be gangs of women at large looking for pussy to
rape. Logically, women will see the mutual interest in collective
defense, and no doubt some have already taken steps to arrange that. And
if they have kids, even more motivation.
the wharf rat
Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>No doubt some do. But the facts are that the warrior elites and their
>supporters have always included thugs, some cultures more than others.
>
You move from "some" to "all" and back to "some" with a casual
disregard for intellectual honesty.
>
>That has nothing to do with a general collapse of the social order and
>everything to do with a nationalistic movement that was misread as a
>Communist takeover. As we see, after they used the commie propaganda to
>free themselves of perceived foreign rule, they became capitalistic.
>
The Communist victory at Khe Sanh had nothing to do with politics
and everything to do with the folly of maintaining a static defensive
position against a determined, mobile, and well supplied opponent. The
Viet Cong eventually brought overwhelming force to bear in the form of
12 Russian tanks.
>Logically, women will see the mutual interest in collective defense
And it's not like the idea might occur to men, hmmm? After all,
they're not the ones who've been providing "collective defense" since 1776...
Day Brown
> In article <4a6ad952$0$15969$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No doubt some do. But the facts are that the warrior elites and their
>> supporters have always included thugs, some cultures more than others.
>>
>
> You move from "some" to "all" and back to "some" with a casual
> disregard for intellectual honesty.
http://www.livescience.com/health/090605-warrior-gene.html
refers to a DNA marker associated with participation in gangs. which is
another word for thugs. And since it is a DNA marker, it naturally
varies, as do all other DNA markers across gene pools. Some more, as
above, some less.
>> That has nothing to do with a general collapse of the social order and
>> everything to do with a nationalistic movement that was misread as a
>> Communist takeover. As we see, after they used the commie propaganda to
>> free themselves of perceived foreign rule, they became capitalistic.
> The Communist victory at Khe Sanh had nothing to do with politics
> and everything to do with the folly of maintaining a static defensive
> position against a determined, mobile, and well supplied opponent. The
> Viet Cong eventually brought overwhelming force to bear in the form of
> 12 Russian tanks.
One of the reasons I voted for Goldwater was he said to either allocate
the resources to win the damn war, or get out.
>> Logically, women will see the mutual interest in collective defense
>
> And it's not like the idea might occur to men, hmmm? After all,
> they're not the ones who've been providing "collective defense" since 1776...
Yeah, but I've seen witches host a safe sex orgy, and how they can get
allies among men with that policy that neither you, nor any other man,
can. I saw a Gulf War I infantry vet, who always went on about weapons,
after a week end of fucking lotsa different pussies, only cared about
what he could do to further their agenda. And if they wanted him to kill
you- No problem.
They dont need to post rants on usenet to get allies.
the wharf rat
Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As may be but the above statement is still obviously correct.
>http://www.livescience.com/health/090605-warrior-gene.html
>refers to a DNA marker associated with participation in gangs. which is
>another word for thugs. And since it is a DNA marker, it naturally
>varies, as do all other DNA markers across gene pools. Some more, as
>above, some less.
>
Your capacity for wild intellectual dishonesty is astounding. Of
course it's true that some number of "thugs" are present in any culture
(blissfuly peaceful matriarchies excepted, naturally). But your original
statement was that "alpha male" warriors are concerned only with rape, pillage,
and with conquering through violence. That's pure bullshit. In fact, a strong
code of honor is typical of warrior cultures. Why do you trace the entymology
of a word back past the Sanskrit to show that "ruler" really means "queen"
and then make assinine statements like "thug" and "gang" are synonyms? (That's
a rhetorical question.)
Your dishonesty continues with your allusion to research on the MAOA
gene. Published studies use words like "controversial" and "the results
were not dramatic". And none of the data supports the idea that this gene
predisposes only males to aggression. Why is it that women's behavior is
determined solely by their advanced spirituality but the behavior of males
is merely an expression of their inferior biology? (That's a rhetorical
question.)
>One of the reasons I voted for Goldwater was he said to either allocate
>the resources to win the damn war, or get out.
The Communist victory at Khe Sanh had nothing to do with insufficient
resources allocated to the defense of the base and everything to do with
the difficulty of maintaining a static defensive position against a
determined, mobile, and well supplied attacker. Modern tactics demand
movement.
>Yeah, but I've seen witches host a safe sex orgy, and how they can get
>allies among men with that policy that neither you, nor any other man,
>can.
But why would a big strong alpha male warrior like me care about
stupid safe sex? Why wouldn't I just go rape and pillage if I felt lonely?
Maybe you Arkansas guys is just pussy-whipped.
>They dont need to post rants on usenet to get allies.
Do you really mean to hold trading sexual favors for social
advancement as the highest example of the dignity of Woman?
That's a rhetorical question.
Day Brown
> In article <4a741441$0$18801$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As may be but the above statement is still obviously correct.
>> http://www.livescience.com/health/090605-warrior-gene.html
>> refers to a DNA marker associated with participation in gangs. which is
>> another word for thugs. And since it is a DNA marker, it naturally
>> varies, as do all other DNA markers across gene pools. Some more, as
>> above, some less.
>>
>
> Your capacity for wild intellectual dishonesty is astounding. Of
> course it's true that some number of "thugs" are present in any culture
> (blissfuly peaceful matriarchies excepted, naturally). But your original
> statement was that "alpha male" warriors are concerned only with rape, pillage,
> and with conquering through violence. That's pure bullshit. In fact, a strong
> code of honor is typical of warrior cultures. Why do you trace the entymology
> of a word back past the Sanskrit to show that "ruler" really means "queen"
> and then make assinine statements like "thug" and "gang" are synonyms? (That's
> a rhetorical question.)
But the main diff is that when women rule, you dont have thugs in power.
I didnt say that rape, pillage, and burn was the only thing alphas did.
But just 1% of their time doing it has disastrous long term effects.
You mean the code of honor like Tailhook? You dunno about the scandals
with grades at the military academies? And of course, American soldiers
never did anything bad.
Your logic is flawed, Raja comes from "Raj', the word for authority
before the rise of the warrior elites. And of course, a true warrior
would rely on ad hominem when lacking the facts to support him.
> Your dishonesty continues with your allusion to research on the MAOA
> gene. Published studies use words like "controversial" and "the results
> were not dramatic". And none of the data supports the idea that this gene
> predisposes only males to aggression. Why is it that women's behavior is
> determined solely by their advanced spirituality but the behavior of males
> is merely an expression of their inferior biology? (That's a rhetorical
> question.)
If it were the only marker, you mite have a case. but you dont. DNA
determines high levels of adrenalin and low levels of seratonin and
dopamine, and this hormone profile is handed down on the Y chromosome,
and highly related to violence. When an alpha is endowed with superior
intelligence, it produces tremendous drive and lotsa progress for
humanity. Unfortunately, they havent kept it in their pants and have
knocked up too many air heads whose sons are too stupid to succeed at
domination and resort to violence out of frustration.
>> One of the reasons I voted for Goldwater was he said to either allocate
>> the resources to win the damn war, or get out.
>
> The Communist victory at Khe Sanh had nothing to do with insufficient
> resources allocated to the defense of the base and everything to do with
> the difficulty of maintaining a static defensive position against a
> determined, mobile, and well supplied attacker. Modern tactics demand
> movement.
If Goldwater had been in charge, and decided to fight, there would have been
a million men in Vietnam with bases all over hellanback. The Cong never
would have been able to mass a force at any one point without air cover
from that many bases picking up on it.
>> Yeah, but I've seen witches host a safe sex orgy, and how they can get
>> allies among men with that policy that neither you, nor any other man,
>> can.
>
> But why would a big strong alpha male warrior like me care about
> stupid safe sex? Why wouldn't I just go rape and pillage if I felt lonely?
> Maybe you Arkansas guys is just pussy-whipped.
I dunno. You'll havta ask them when they get back from Afghanistan and Iraq.
They keep sending Arkansas units over there. Pissed off the gov cause
when Tornados hit, all the equipment to deal with the mess was in Iraq.
>> They dont need to post rants on usenet to get allies.
>
> Do you really mean to hold trading sexual favors for social
> advancement as the highest example of the dignity of Woman?
Its whatever the women decide it means. aint upta me. "History belongs
to the brave." Not any more. Lester Thurow said "History belongs to the
bold". And went on to note how its the women who are bolder.
the wharf rat
Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The Mosou dont even have words for rape, murder, or violent assault.
What, not in any of the three dialects? Sure about that? Support
that statement with citeable documentation.
>You mean the code of honor like Tailhook?
No, I mean honor as in bushido, as in xia, as in the Nine Virtues,
as in Kshatriya or chivalry.
What disturbs me most about your fanaticism is the ease in which
you accept misandry and gender prejudice as not only the right way but the
ONLY way.
Day Brown
> In article <4a783fc5$0$18784$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Mosou dont even have words for rape, murder, or violent assault.
>
> What, not in any of the three dialects? Sure about that? Support
> that statement with citeable documentation.
know of all ancient matriarchies. They always used communes so that all
the kids were kept together all the time, and there was no private space
a pervert, even if he got his hands on a kid, could go.
Besides, the matrons managed sex lives so men got laid by lotsa women.
The men do not want to mess with that system. Why try to steal (with
rape) what is given away freely? And as for murder, men do not fight
over women they do not own. What cause would anyone have?
>> You mean the code of honor like Tailhook?
>
> No, I mean honor as in bushido, as in xia, as in the Nine Virtues,
> as in Kshatriya or chivalry.
>
> What disturbs me most about your fanaticism is the ease in which
> you accept misandry and gender prejudice as not only the right way but the
> ONLY way.
I'm just a reporter. I can see the rise in power of women, and see how
they will draw on the experience and customs of the Mosou and ancient
matriarchies. I never claimed they would be even handed in their view;
that it would swing to far is the way people have always been.
Chivalry is nice in theory, but it was based on the assumption the
warrior could protect the women. He cant any more. The power elite has
been given nukes and biological WMD. It aint his fault, but by the same
token, women dont need him anymore.