Women: A Psychological Sketch
Doyle
> Women: A Psychological Sketch
> by John Allington
> 5/18/2003
>
> If you haven't already read Arthur Schopenhauer's discussion about
> women then you need to.
>
> http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1250
>
> It is the best concise analysis you will likely ever find. I will draw
> out his discussion a bit and relate it to practical matters. I will
> probably be accused of misogyny for my comments. So what? We must have
> children with white women in order to perpetuate our genes, which is
> without question, our most important biological imperative and should
> be our most important personal priority. It is also one of the most
> powerful political statements we can make. There are plenty of good
> things about women, most notably their appearance when young and their
> skill and patience in nurturing children.
>
> All of this however does not preclude the requirement for an honest
> assessment of what exactly we're dealing with. Women compare notes;
> men usually don't. Consequently, men are usually outgunned
> emotionally, psychologically and sexually in their dealings with
> women. Even after a man has been nearly financially and emotionally
> destroyed by a woman, his stupid ego often prevents him from
> understanding what really happened to him. Women don't really possess
> egos in the male sense and you can learn from this. You need to
> improve your understanding of women in order to protect your resources
> and allocate your time efficiently so that they are effectively used
> to perpetuate your genes.
>
> Important Conclusions Regarding Women
>
> Women are prone to deception; it is their nature-endowed weapon. As
> Schopenhauer noted, they are so good at detecting deception in others
> because they're so good at it themselves. This deception is not
> limited to their ability to lie with a straight face. In fact, that is
> just beginning. They deceive us by coloring their hair, altering their
> shape through constrictive clothing and prostheses, and altering their
> height and posture with high-heeled shoes. They use colored contact
> lenses to fool us into thinking they have desirable green or blue
> eyes. They get cosmetic surgery to reduce the size of their noses and
> apply a multitude of cosmetics to their faces and skin designed to
> fool us into thinking they are younger than they actually are. They
> carefully select clothes which are designed to make them appear
> thinner. In addition, their deception extends to where they live. You
> have probably noticed that when a woman decides to change men, she
> often changes her physical location. After creating social chaos in
> one area, she'll look for a new, uninformed pool of men who will find
> any story she decides to relay as plausible.
>
> Women are parasites. They expect you to support them. Most have no
> intention of supporting themselves in the long term, regardless of
> their rhetoric about being "independent." In addition, they expect you
> to be grateful that they allow you to support them! The way to deal
> with this in your own mind is to understand that they are incubators
> for your children. Romanticizing this arrangement, as many male
> European writers have done, misses the point. It also sets you up for
> much disillusionment. The notion of courtly love was created by men,
> not by women. The more cynical women actually mock this notion. To
> men, courtly love means chivalry; to women it means that they are the
> center of a man's attention and the recipient of his resources. If you
> closely examine female behavior, you will identify attention seeking
> and resource transfer as recurring themes.
>
> Women are social creatures. If raised on a farm or in a rural area,
> you can almost bet that they will leave that area for a city after
> high school. They seek a more socially stimulating environment and
> this consideration generally supersedes career opportunities. They're
> willing to move to a city even though the cost of living is higher,
> and there's more crime. In many small towns and agricultural
> communities, there are often shortages of eligible females. The female
> preference for high-density herding is one of the reasons why women
> don't generally oppose immigration -- they prefer crowds. The
> preference among women to live in an urban environment has its
> consequences for our society. The more urban a population, the less
> self-reliant it is. It depends more on government services and it is
> more disconnected from nature. The strength and security that come
> from a strong male are thus devalued in an urban environment. Urban
> populations are always less free as it takes more laws to control the
> mass of people. You only have to think of places like Singapore or the
> coastal provinces of China to realize this. This also applies to Japan
> and the densely populated areas of Europe. More people = less free.
> And this is just fine with most women.
>
> Women are in everything but their youthful appearance and raising
> children, mediocre. Twenty-five hundred years of European history have
> not produced one decent female painter. Nor have those years produced
> one decent female philosopher -- nor one decent female composer. Think
> about that! But we're told they are our equal. Think about the women
> you work with. They may be hard working, well-organized, presentable
> and punctual. But they're not likely looked to for innovative ideas or
> out-of-the-box thinking. They are not the star performers.
>
> Women squander resources. This is related to their lack of concern for
> the future. Turn your finances over to them and they will likely spend
> most -- if not all of -- your money. Young, single women have the
> lowest savings rate of any demographic group. This is related to both
> squandering and the expectation that a man will support them later on
> in their lives. If they are poor, they buy a bunch of cheap junk at
> Wal-Mart. If they're rich, or have sufficient credit, they will buy a
> bunch of high-priced, unnecessary shoes. Do men yearn to blow their
> money on overpriced Prada shoes, Coach bags or Tumi luggage? If women
> are educated, they tend to blow their money on travel, from which they
> usually learn nothing. Since women do not conserve resources, why
> should you expect them to be conservative in other areas such as
> culture or politics?
>
> Interestingly, when you compare the nature of the female to the nature
> of the Jew, you find many similarities. You'll find nihilism,
> pragmatism, materialism, mimicry, narcissism, deception, pretense,
> opportunism, parasitism, haughty conceit and decadence all in
> abundance. You will find no honor in either group. This is not to say
> that women are like Jews. Rather, Jews are like women. Since Jewish
> culture is matriarchal, you should not be surprised by this.
>
> As Schopenhauer pointed out, women live more fully in the present,
> with less concern for the past or the future. This expresses itself in
> trivial ways such as the cyclical nature of their clothing fashion,
> hairstyles and makeup preferences. They're willing to wear what only a
> few years ago would have been considered among all of them as
> ridiculous. Their pant-leg and eyebrow widths seem to have an inverse
> relationship as they expand and contract with each passing decade.
> Their narrow time horizon also expresses itself in serious ways such
> as an almost total lack of interest in history (and by extension the
> lessons that can be drawn from it).
>
> This present-centeredness is probably required for nurturing children
> and explains their superior interpersonal skills. But it plays hell
> with their analytical and abstract thinking skills. You should now be
> able to comprehend the danger of giving the vote to a population that
> doesn't learn from the past and has little concern for the future and
> how this dilutes the collective ability to make good decisions in a
> democracy. Because they live in the present and they are more
> herdlike, they are more easily manipulated by the government,
> Hollywood, universities, advertisers, Oprah and their friends.
>
> Modern women and men have been stretched to their limits by our
> unnatural society. Women have become more malelike. And men have
> become more femalelike. This androgyny is a sort of a regression to
> the mean of the gender behavioral spectrum. You say: But look how
> sexy-looking the women of today are, they don't look more malelike!
> Think about that a bit more carefully... We now have young women
> trying so hard to become less feminine (soft and curvy) that they
> strive to become lean and muscular through obsessive working out. This
> reduces their body fat percentage and shrinks their breasts, giving
> them a less feminine shape. To compensate for this, they (with more
> frequency than is mentioned in the media) have breast implants
> installed into their bodies to deceive us. In southern California, I
> judge that a substantial percentage of young, attractive women have
> these implants. Think about it...this is a sign of a warped society.
>
> In contrast, men have become less aggressive and more passive. They
> display less emotion; they control their anger more. Do you think
> there were "anger management" training courses fifty years ago? Were
> so many men confined to fabric-covered cubicles 50 years ago? Were
> 5-10 percent of male children doped up with Ritalin 50 years ago? In
> the long run, drugging our male children and forcing our men to be
> docile, conformist drones will ensure an angry reaction. The (mostly
> Jewish) feminists, educators and greedy capitalists will have a lot to
> answer for.
>
> It is worthwhile to observe that after "Women's Liberation," females
> emphasized their sexuality more than ever before, which is exactly the
> opposite of what the feminists cited as their objective. Essentially,
> women are immodest when unrestricted. They are the natural corrupters
> of society because their sexuality is their most powerful weapon. When
> permitted, women will emphasize that sexuality to obtain higher status
> and collect more resources, naturally loosening public mores in the
> process. They will seek neither political nor economic freedom, as
> only aesthetic and sexual freedom relate to their evolutionary
> survival strategy.
>
> For example, possessing the requisite body type, they will wear hip
> hugger pants with their thong underwear sticking out and tight-fitting
> blouses to emphasize their augmented breasts. They will flock to
> Florida for spring break, where they hope to be captured on film
> baring their breasts for the next "Girls Gone Wild" video. You think
> all of this is really sexy? Well, of course it is in one way. So too
> is a strip joint filled with drugged-up dancers. In another and much
> more important sense, all of this is just pathetic and desperate
> attention-seeking -- which of course provides yet more insight into
> the pathologies of unregulated female psychology.
>
> "Women's Liberation" unleashed behavioral patterns that contributed to
> declining completed fertility rates and undermined high-investment
> parenting strategies. (The resulting demographic damage may lead to
> the death of Western Civilization.) Female psychology and behavior are
> considerably more malleable than male psychology and behavior. Tighten
> public morality and women become Victorian prudes. Loosen public
> morality and it's nipple, tongue and clit piercing time! An
> anarchistic, secular Jewish cultural milieu plus malleable female
> psychology and behavior equals social disintegration. It's that
> simple!
>
> Are you living in the best of times? No. You are living in a
> civilization decadent to its core and on the edge of a steep decline.
> This type of society, despite its prosperous veneer, is a Potemkin
> village. It cannot sustain itself. It lives off the hard work and
> wealth of previous generations, an energy subsidy and an overvalued
> currency. It does not place as its top priority the rearing of its
> children. It borrows money from the future for consumption in the
> present. Its ethos will pass through one of two possible outcomes:
> radical change through revolution or a collapse to a lower level of
> complexity.
>
> http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1362
Exceptions to the above are very rare. This article could have been
titled, "Pussifacation of the White American Male.
Doyle
As Frank Sinatra put it, "If it were not for pussy we would have a
hunting season on females."
Dan Cannon
"Doyle" <doyle_...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:82296247.03051...@posting.google.com...
But otherwise men have no problems with women?
By the way, i wonder who started all those wars in human history and causes
most crime and violence?
But i guess that's a thing to be PROUD of.
hit-and-run tactics
>
> But otherwise men have no problems with women?
> By the way, i wonder who started all those wars in human history and causes
> most crime and violence?
> But i guess that's a thing to be PROUD of.
Do I sense someone who is self-guilt tripping? Woohoo, let's do the
white male self-guilt dance!
Ralf #2
Joe Freezetag
"hit-and-run tactics" <hit-a...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:ced893c1.03051...@posting.google.com...
To the tune of "It's Not Unusual" by Tom Jones.
--
Joe Freezetag
Dan Cannon
"hit-and-run tactics" <hit-a...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:ced893c1.03051...@posting.google.com...
Nah, you don't have to worry about that. I'm not guilty of anything.
Just pointing out that for the poster of that "article", psychological
problems may be closer than he thinks.
Maybe he's just been dumped a little too often. I usually cry me a river for
frustrated guys that never look in any mirror.
But you guys know all about that, right?
donawana
Generalization of the sexes, or anything for that matter, makes for
stunted thinking, IMO. There's always the odd one that defeats
explanation. <g>
Someone summed female/male differences rather interestingly to me;
Women can feel and communicated at the same time. Men can either feel
or communicate. Can't do both simultaneously.
Don't know if this is accurate or not, since i'm not a guy. But it
does make a bit of sense.
>>
>> Important Conclusions Regarding Women
>>
>> Women are prone to deception; it is their nature-endowed weapon. As
>> Schopenhauer noted, they are so good at detecting deception in others
>> because they're so good at it themselves. This deception is not
>> limited to their ability to lie with a straight face. In fact, that is
>> just beginning. They deceive us by coloring their hair, altering their
>> shape through constrictive clothing and prostheses, and altering their
>> height and posture with high-heeled shoes. They use colored contact
>> lenses to fool us into thinking they have desirable green or blue
>> eyes.
I like to color my hair, because it's fun. I've a few tattoos and a
nose ring. I don't consider it lying. I just like to decorate myself.
What's wrong with that?
They get cosmetic surgery to reduce the size of their noses
HATE cosmetic surgery. Won't change the color of my eyes.
and
>> apply a multitude of cosmetics to their faces and skin designed to
>> fool us into thinking they are younger than they actually are.
My understanding was that make-up was supposed to be an enhancement
thing, rather than a transformation thing.
They
>> carefully select clothes which are designed to make them appear
>> thinner. In addition, their deception extends to where they live. You
>> have probably noticed that when a woman decides to change men, she
>> often changes her physical location. After creating social chaos in
>> one area, she'll look for a new, uninformed pool of men who will find
>> any story she decides to relay as plausible.
Perhaps you need to change your venue. You're meeting some sorry-assed
women.
>>
>> Women are parasites. They expect you to support them.
NO. No no no no no. We're taught that by society, our mothers, for
generations behind us. Just as fathers were taught that they should be
the bread-winners.
I've done it myself. BUT I'm raising kids. How is a stay at home
parent supposed to work at the same time?
If i ever get the chance to be on my own, in a different
relationship, i'll not take a dime, from whom i'm involved with. I
like independence. Relationships should rise from want, not need.
Most have no
>> intention of supporting themselves in the long term, regardless of
>> their rhetoric about being "independent." In addition, they expect you
>> to be grateful that they allow you to support them! The way to deal
>> with this in your own mind is to understand that they are incubators
>> for your children.
<frowns at above statement>
well then, why not go find a woman who actually supports herself. They
ARE out there. And no, they won't take a man's money once in a
relationship together. But beware: They won't take control bullshit
from him either.
<scowl> and just what the hell is wrong with raising children?! It's a
priviledge, an ordeal, a triumph of life. A celebration of a miracle
unfolding. It's all in one's perspective.
Also, i know a wonderful woman who raised a family of four, then went
back to school, became a veterinary technician and went on to vet
school. She now has her own practice. Didn't graduate until she was in
her 50s.
Twenty-five hundred years of European history have
>> not produced one decent female painter.
Perhaps they were out there, but do you really think women were
*allowed* to paint and live the life that artists in those days lived?
Would they have been taken seriously? Or perhaps burned at the stake
as a witch and a blasphemer for their impudence?
Nor have those years produced
>> one decent female philosopher
Perhaps because philosophy tends toward heartbreaking boredom. This
includes Ayn Rand's stuff. I'd rather go sit in front of a telescope
and look for super novas, nebulas, etc.
god, i hope it's a female that discovers the physics behind
warp-drive.
-- nor one decent female composer. Think
>> about that! But we're told they are our equal.
Think about the women
>> you work with. They may be hard working, well-organized, presentable
>> and punctual. But they're not likely looked to for innovative ideas or
>> out-of-the-box thinking. They are not the star performers.
Tell that to Madame Curie.
>>
>> Women squander resources. This is related to their lack of concern for
>> the future. Turn your finances over to them and they will likely spend
>> most -- if not all of -- your money. Young, single women have the
>> lowest savings rate of any demographic group. This is related to both
>> squandering and the expectation that a man will support them later on
>> in their lives. If they are poor, they buy a bunch of cheap junk at
>> Wal-Mart. If they're rich, or have sufficient credit, they will buy a
>> bunch of high-priced, unnecessary shoes. Do men yearn to blow their
>> money on overpriced Prada shoes, Coach bags or Tumi luggage? If women
>> are educated, they tend to blow their money on travel, from which they
>> usually learn nothing. Since women do not conserve resources, why
>> should you expect them to be conservative in other areas such as
>> culture or politics?
>>
>> Interestingly, when you compare the nature of the female to the nature
>> of the Jew, you find many similarities. You'll find nihilism,
>> pragmatism, materialism, mimicry, narcissism, deception, pretense,
>> opportunism, parasitism, haughty conceit and decadence all in
>> abundance. You will find no honor in either group. This is not to say
>> that women are like Jews. Rather, Jews are like women. Since Jewish
>> culture is matriarchal, you should not be surprised by this.
>>
ah so THAT's what this is about.
<snips all the rest of the noise>
<doubts this one is salvageable>
>>>
>>.
>Doyle
>
>As Frank Sinatra put it, "If it were not for pussy we would have a
>hunting season on females."
**************************************************************
"Wonder is the salt of the earth."- M.C. Escher
**************************************************************
hit-and-run tactics
>
> Nah, you don't have to worry about that. I'm not guilty of anything.
> Just pointing out that for the poster of that "article", psychological
> problems may be closer than he thinks.
> Maybe he's just been dumped a little too often. I usually cry me a river for
> frustrated guys that never look in any mirror.
> But you guys know all about that, right?
Dan, you're the man! You got that whole usenet psychoanalysis thing
going for you. Rock on, dude!
Ralf #2
Dan Cannon
You noticed, eh?
For a moment there i thought YOU were the expert on that, with that whole
white-man-guilt thing.
Believe me, i don't feel sorry for minorities, including self-pitying men..
Joe Freezetag
> Someone summed female/male differences rather interestingly to me;
>
> Women can feel and communicated at the same time.
So, women can be in both the present and past tenses at the same time.
--
Joe Freezetag
donawana
hey, we're not *that* omnipotent. At least not *me*
The fingers just got ahead of the brain. They do that sometimes... :D
hit-and-run tactics
>
> You noticed, eh?
> For a moment there i thought YOU were the expert on that, with that whole
> white-man-guilt thing.
You need to know that I get paid for saying bad ass things in those
troll threads when they're crossposted to alt.punk.
> Believe me, i don't feel sorry for minorities
I'm with you on this one. After all, I think of genocide as an
adequate way to save natural resources and control the overpopulation
of the earth. It's always pathetic when people reveal character flaws
like empathy and compassion. Most are just doing it to come of as
"humane" or in order to get laid, anyway. Fuck that!
Ralf #2
Dan Cannon
> "Dan Cannon" <canno...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Ifyya.17185$EO1.8...@castor.casema.net>...
> > Believe me, i don't feel sorry for minorities
>
> I'm with you on this one. After all, I think of genocide as an
> adequate way to save natural resources and control the overpopulation
> of the earth. It's always pathetic when people reveal character flaws
> like empathy and compassion. Most are just doing it to come of as
> "humane" or in order to get laid, anyway. Fuck that!
Did a doctor ever bother to tell you that "minorities" are not by definition
victims of "genocide". Unless you think minorities in all countries in all
times are mass-murdered. Stay off the dope, dope. You're hallucinating too
much.
hit-and-run tactics
>
> Did a doctor ever bother to tell you that "minorities" are not by definition
> victims of "genocide".
Oh, even if it sounded this way, I didn't want to imply that. My
affection for genocide was just meant to demonstrate my lack of
empathy, you know. Look, do you think the ambitious aim of long-term
preservation of natural resources could be achieved if we'd limit
ourselves to minorities? See, this should make the whole thing more
clear.
Besides, shame on you. You're resorting to the very patterns of
behaviour which I denounced in my former post. You're using a public
forum to shine your good guy badge and showcase your righteousness by
screaming down the genocidal maniac and trying to discredit him by
calling him a drug user.
> Unless you think minorities in all countries in all
> times are mass-murdered. Stay off the dope, dope. You're hallucinating too
> much.
Now before you get even more uptight and throw more digital, verbal
righteousness my way, you might consider rereading my former post. I
quote: "...I get paid for saying bad ass things..."
Ralf #2
klaatu
Response-part 1 to:
>> Women: A Psychological Sketch
>> by John Allington
>> 5/18/2003
>>Doyle:
>>If you haven't already read
>>Arthur Schopenhauer's discussion about women
>>then you need to.
>>
>> http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1250
>> It is the best concise analysis you will likely ever find.
klaatu:
the man and his history, taken together, convince me
that i can neither doubt his sincerity nor trust his judgement.
bio:
>http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Schopenhauer.htm
>
>Schopenhauer, because of a large inheritance from his father, ...
>was able to devote his life to the study of philosophy.
klaatu:
Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was a rich kid
born to the sort of elite-class largesse
which allowed him to live in isolation from reality;
his views fit conceits of his era and class -
wealthy, male, and programmed by convention.
>>John Allington:
>>I will draw out his discussion a bit and relate it to practical matters.
>>I will probably be accused of misogyny for my comments.
klaatu:
don't see why -
Schopenhauer's discussions
seem no more related to real-world matters
than are attitudes of a pampered house-cat.
"accusing" Schopenhauer or the cat
- of misogyny (or anything else) - seems silly;
by all report,
he didn't have enough experience with women
to have any honest grudge against them,
or form an opinion deeper than mere mood:
>Biographies:
>... Schopenhauer had nobody he could call family.
>"His pessimism so affected his mother's social guests,
>who would disperse after his lengthy discourse
>on the uselessness of everything,
>that she finally forbade him her home.
>He parted from her, never to see her again."
>...
>He never married, ...
>"a lonely, violent and unbefriended man,
>who shared his bachelor's existence with a poodle. ...
klaatu:
real misogyny requires real experience
with real women in the real world -
Schopenhauer's personal history suggests he had nil;
apparently for most of his life he'd a habit
of indulging both dilettante malice and need for attention
as a sort of performer among other drawing-room dandies,
by eloquently attacking random targets -
"... like a tale told by an idiot -
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing",
but amusing to an early-1800s audience -
folk who also enjoyed watching dogs rip apart a chained bear.
such entertainment is not philosophy -
it's 1820's proto-type of Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd:
use it as a role-model and grow up to be a cartoon.
>Biographies:
>[He was of the view that the world was simply an idea in his head]
>a mere phantasmagoria of my brain,
>that therefore in itself is nothing."
klaatu:
he frankly admitted he lived in his own world,
un-connected with exterior reality;
that, along with his lack of experience, suggest
that his judgement can't be trusted
on any thing outside the physical confines of his skull,
far less taken as valid concerning all females.
klaatu
Response-part 2 to:
>>John Allington:
>>We must have children with white women
>>in order to perpetuate our genes,
>>which is without question, our most important biological imperative
>>and should be our most important personal priority.
Gene Neticist:
(1)
there's no " We MUST have children with WHITE women " -
there's no " We MUST have children" at all;
the Universe will no doubt get along just fine
if humanity dies out altogether.
(2)
'white' women don't gestate differently from others.
our genes will "perpetuate" the same way, regardless of colour -
(3)
genes aren't "our" most important personal priority;
many people don't care about a partner's genetic inventory.
this may be most important to YOU, "without question"
but if so, it's because you don't question your own preconception -
it has nothing to do with the rest of humanity.
>> Doyle:
>> It is also one of the most
>> powerful political statements we can make.
klaatu:
how is any (or all) of that a "statement" of anything?
guys squirt genes into their own hands, melons, each other,
sheep, banana-trees, rolled towels, raw liver, low knot-holes,
porno-mags and all three standard orifices of women.
for practical purposes, it's like hosing down a crowd at random -
guys splash genes on targets-of-opportunity
far more often than anything else.
apparently humanity is perpetuated mainly because
there's a statistical certainty
that as guys spray everything in sight
something amid all that infertile bric-a-brac will get pregnant.
the effect is closely analogous
to the way fish release sperm into the ocean -
most are 'wasted', but enough connect with eggs
to insure continuation of the species.
to call those random whims political statements
perhaps might make sense if one interprets sex
as politicians fucking voters, but....
to say that from *your* perspective
impregnating a white chick has great political importance
makes excellent sense - however,
*your* perspective is an individual matter,
incapable of generalization to "we".
>>John Allington:
>>There are plenty of good things about women,
>>most notably their appearance when young
>>and their skill and patience in nurturing children.
>>
>>All of this however does not preclude the requirement
>>for an honest assessment of what exactly we're dealing with.
klaatu:
all of this however does not alter reality;
what we're dealing with EXACTLY
are *opinions*.
they are not Ultimate Truths; they're not even facts;
they are personal conjectures of two individuals,
Allington and Schopenhauer, with Doyle as cheer-leader.
coming on with that didactic tone,
as if you or Schopenhauer knew *exactly* what's going on,
begs the question:
who are YOU to claim such a thing?
of umpty-billion females on this planet,
exactly how many have you known personally,
and over how many years?
one might divide the females you've known
by the number of females on the planet,
but that's not satisfactory -
both Allington and Schopenhauer make claims
about the innate nature of ALL females -
Doyle claims these claims are profound and true,
without offering any hint to suggest
more competence than those he cites.
to assess personal competence to make such claims,
one would have to count all the females ever alive on earth,
then count the females Allington and Schopenhauer have known,
and divide the one by the other;
at a rough guess, i'd reckon
that there's about one chance in several billion
that you could actually know enough
to make the claims you do.
>>John Allington:
>>Women compare notes; men usually don't.
>>Consequently, men are usually outgunned
>>emotionally, psychologically and sexually
>>in their dealings with women.
klaatu:
my own experience argues
that *some* men are at a disadvantage
"emotionally, psychologically and sexually"
when dealing with *some* women,
but i've seen just as many instances
where the reverse is true.
>>John Allington:
>>Even after a man has been
>>nearly financially and emotionally destroyed by a woman,
>>his stupid ego often prevents him
>>from understanding what really happened to him.
klaatu:
in what way do you find it reasonable
to blame a woman for a man's stupidity and egoism?
>>John Allington:
>>Women don't really possess egos in the male sense
>>and you can learn from this.
>>
>>You need to improve your understanding of women
>>in order to protect your resources
>>and allocate your time efficiently
>>so that they are effectively used to perpetuate your genes.
General Jack D. Ripper:
"... and to safeguard the integrity of our Precious Bodily Fluids"
(Ripper's the nut-case who launches WW III in "Dr. Strangelove".)
his dialogue and yours are similar enough to foster suspicion
that your post may be a put-on from beginning to end.
>>John Allington:
klaatu:
any organism smaller and weaker than others
must use whatever advantages it can get.
on the other side,
anyone with enough sense to cross the street alone
knows that high heels, lipstick, and other 'prosthetics'
aren't part of womens' Original Issue body-parts.
likewise, one would be hard-pressed to find a kid over five
who doesn't know that hair and eye-colour can be changed.
who's to blame if, knowing that, you're fooled anyway?
one might just as well say
that men who willingly connive at deceiving themselves
are basically self-deceptive.
if that IS basic male nature, there's no help for it,
no justice in blaming women for it,
and no point whining about it.
klaatu
Response-part 3 to:
>>John Allington:
>>Women are parasites. They expect you to support them.
>>Most have no intention of supporting themselves in the long term,
>>regardless of their rhetoric about being "independent."
>>
>>In addition, they expect you to be grateful
>>that they allow you to support them!
klaatu:
that's not my personal experience.
when i got my first job, split pay-check with gf;
she handed it back, saying:
"what you earn's yours - what i earn's mine;
i don't feel bad about living under your roof,
because you pay the rent to cover *your* head,
and it's the same price alone or in company,
but if i want more i'll go get it myself."
that is, i KNOW not all women are parasites -
*some* may be, and i've no doubt *some* are,
but you can't accurately say
"THEY expect you to support them",
as if you could reduce the lot to stereotype.
besides, even IF all females were parasites,
anyone's expectations of are their business;
what you do about them is *your* business;
if some-one comes up to you and says
"give me all your money" and you're fool enough to do it,
how are they to blame for your foolishness?
>>John Allington:
>>The way to deal with this in your own mind
>>is to understand that they are incubators for your children.
>>
>>Romanticizing this arrangement,
>>as many male European writers have done,
>>misses the point.
>>It also sets you up for much disillusionment.
>>
>>The notion of courtly love was created by men, not by women.
klaatu:
and you are exactly how many hundreds of years old,
and have documented exactly how many thousands of authors
over how many years and countries?
my own reading suggests such notions came about
from entertainer's desire to make stories with wide appeal,
probably to please larger audiences, and gain larger profit.
>>John Allington:
>>The more cynical women actually mock this notion.
>>To men, courtly love means chivalry;
>>to women it means that they are the center of a man's attention
>>and the recipient of his resources.
>>
>>If you closely examine female behavior,
>>you will identify attention seeking and resource transfer
>>as recurring themes.
klaatu:
if you closely examine male behaviour
you'll find the same.
so ... ?
>>John Allington:
>>Women are social creatures.
>>If raised on a farm or in a rural area, you can almost bet
>>that they will leave that area for a city after high school.
>>
>>They seek a more socially stimulating environment
>>and this consideration generally supersedes career opportunities.
>>They're willing to move to a city
>>even though the cost of living is higher, and there's more crime.
>>
>>In many small towns and agricultural communities,
>>there are often shortages of eligible females.
>>
>>The female preference for high-density herding
>>is one of the reasons why women don't generally oppose immigration --
>>they prefer crowds.
klaatu:
how 'bout some hard data to back that up?
last i heard, people tend to go where they can live best,
according to what satisfies them,
and that varies with time and circumstance.
for one instance,
during the Gold Rush of 1849,
around 75% of American males between 15 and 35 went West -
population disparity was 1 female per 1,500 males for years;
even ten years later, when Mark Twain and his brother went,
the ratio was around 1 female to 500 males,
with every habitable building crammed full.
for another example,
after World War One, the song
"How Ya Gonna Keep 'Em Down On The Farm,
After They've See Par-eee?"
refers to mass exodus of young men from farms to cities.
then, too, the situation was the reverse of what you describe.
sounds to me like such tendencies have nil to do with gender,
but depend more on other variables.
>>John Allington:
>>The preference among women to live in an urban environment
>>has its consequences for our society.
>>
>>The more urban a population, the less self-reliant it is.
>>
>>It depends more on government services
>>and it is more disconnected from nature.
>>
>>The strength and security that come from a strong male
>>are thus devalued in an urban environment.
klaatu:
<guffaw>
gimme a break - you're about a 120 years out of date.
back then it'd take a strong man to scythe hay all day,
but now an 8-year-old girl can run a hay-mow.
even on a farm, one could get by without a "strong male"
ever since advent of the internal combustion engine.
many farms did.
point:
the gap between "women's work" and "men's work"
began to get narrower then,
and "the strength and security that come from a strong male"
were "thus devalued" - even on farms - generations ago.
besides,
you're arguing two contradictory points:
if women really intend that men should support them,
then they deliberately place themselves in a situation
where men have control over them;
where women have no power to decide where they live -
if those men *allow* women to decide the point,
whose fault is that?
surely if Big Joe's truly ballsy and macho,
he oughtta be able to face down a little lady,
doncha think?
i mean, half the time
you seem to be arguing that males are a superior species
who do all the goodstuff humanity accomplishes,
and the other half,
you picture them as helpless victims of female manipulation,
inferior to females in skill, perseverance and strength of will.
>>John Allington:
>>Urban populations are always less free
>>as it takes more laws to control the mass of people.
klaatu:
that's based on assumption that laws actually control people;
during the Prohibition Era,
America had more laws than before or since,
but city-dwellers had more freedom, not less.
one bath-tub distillery could supply hundreds of drinkers,
and because Supply and Demand lived in the same building,
there was never a snowball's chance in hell those laws could work.
that is,
number-of-laws and control-of-people
are two separate categories;
they have no necessary connection.
>>John Allington:
>>More people = less free.
klaatu:
no.
it's easier to score drugs in any average major city
than to do so in any average farming-community.
number of laws only reflect
the number of freedoms Authority *wants* to control;
they mean nothing if enough people refuse to obey them.
in that case:
more people = more freedom,
with clear advantage in cities.
>>John Allington:
>>And this is just fine with most women.
klaatu:
and YOU know most of the women on Earth, right?
klaatu
Response-part 5 to:
>>John Allington:
>>Women squander resources.
>>This is related to their lack of concern for the future.
>>Turn your finances over to them
>>and they will likely spend most -- if not all of -- your money.
klaatu:
guy, if you think this, and still turn your finances over to them,
you lack concern for the future too - and who's to blame?
if you're fool enough to hand it over, what's your complaint?
seems to me a reasonable person might think
that if you give them money, it's okay to spend it -
if not, why would you give it to them?
such a person might indeed squander your money,
unaware that you're an idiot working against yourself.
>>John Allington:
>>Young, single women
>>have the lowest savings rate of any demographic group.
klaatu:
gf can squeeze a dollar til the eagle screams.
you make a big claim;
show proof.
>>John Allington:
>>This is related to both squandering and the expectation
>>that a man will support them later on in their lives.
klaatu:
gf refused my pay-check when offered,
preferring to earn her own way.
i was twelve when we shacked up, and she was eleven.
she's had plenty of time since then to get greedy,
and never made the slightest move to exploit me.
i think if it was in her nature to try such a thing,
she'd have done it by now.
with that experience as context, your claim again:
>>John Allington:
>>Women squander resources.
>>This is related to their lack of concern for the future.
>>Turn your finances over to them
>>and they will likely spend most -- if not all of -- your money.
klaatu:
no, " Women " don't -
SOME do, of course - but my gf didn't,
so your generalization is inaccurate and unfair.
>>John Allington:
>>If they are poor, they buy a bunch of cheap junk at Wal-Mart.
>>If they're rich, or have sufficient credit,
>>they will buy a bunch of high-priced, unnecessary shoes.
klaatu:
who are "they"?
i know a woman who could afford to fill houses with shoes,
but owns only a pair each of snow-boots and sandals,
and prefers to be barefoot whenever possible.
again, you're foaming-at-the-mouth about "women" -
ALL women - while you can only honestly claim SOME.
>>John Allington:
>>Do men yearn to blow their money on overpriced Prada shoes,
>>Coach bags or Tumi luggage?
klaatu:
both men and women buy cheap junk at Wal-Mart -
one lot's thrashing away at the Fashion & Make-up counter,
the other's plundering Sports & Toys - what's your point?
un-necessary stuff?
clue for you, genius -
one only NEEDS air, water, and food enough to survive;
if one has anything more,
one's already living at some level of luxury.
if one's willing to pay the cost of the luxuries one wants,
those luxuries are not over-priced.
understand your whine about "overpriced" shoes -
i'd never pay big money for 'em either,
but they're obviously worth it to people who buy 'em,
and that's enough -
it doesn't mean people who like 'em squander money,
it means they value different things than you.
you carry on
as if something's wrong with anyone who doesn't think like you.
that's reasonable in a three-year-old, but strange in an adult.
seems unlikely you truly believe you're role-model for the world -
more likely you know you're pushing propaganda,
but if so it remains a mystery why you lot keep it up;
by now it must be clear to anybody with sense
that the very act of trying this stunt works against your intent.
>>John Allington:
>>If women are educated, they tend to blow their money on travel,
>>from which they usually learn nothing.
klaatu:
i take it you fancy yourself as some cosmic Teacher's Aide -
somebody put you in charge of pop-quizzes,
to gauge just how much satisfaction a woman is required to have
else money spent on travel is wasted?
>>John Allington:
>>Since women do not conserve resources,
>>why should you expect them to be conservative in other areas
>>such as culture or politics?
klaatu:
since people do not tend to believe
bullshit-artists who make grandiose claims without support,
about things they could not possibly know,
why should you expect your readers to take you seriously
in other areas, (such as culture or politics?)
klaatu
Response-part 4 to:
>>John Allington:
>>Women are in everything
>>but their youthful appearance and raising children, mediocre.
>>
>>Twenty-five hundred years of European history
>>have not produced one decent female painter.
klaatu:
many female artists' works survive today,
which show skill par with any male of their time.
for instance:
---===oxo >X< oxo===---
Abbess Hitda (circa 1020 A.D.)
> "Jesus and The Storm at Sea".
Anglo-Saxon women, (1082 A.D.)
> the Bayeaux Tapestry,
> generally considered a master-work of it's era.
Hildegard von Bingen (1098-1179)
> "the Tree of Life" and
> "Universal Human" -
klaatu:
this last strongly resembles
Leonardo da Vinci's "Il Corpo Humano", done centuries later -
some conjecture hers inspired his.
Uta (nun, 12th century)
> illuminated manuscript "The Crucifixion",
> as good as the best of it's day;
Agnes van den Bossche (1468)
> "Banner with Female Figure"
Andriola de Barrachis (1485)
> "Madonna with Child"
Levina Teerlinc (circa 1565)
> portrait of Queen Elizabeth I
klaatu:
the fact that a Sovereign of England
was willing to spend hours posing for this artist
argues strongly that Teerlinc's skill
was considered at least par with the best available.
Sofonisba Anguissola (1576)
> "Artist's Sisters Playing Chess"
> "Group of Children"
> "Portrait of a Lady"
klaatu:
all these compare well with Rembrandt van Rijn.
Fede Galizia (1578-1630) -
> "Still Life with Peaches"
klaatu:
this artist recalls style and skill of Jan Vermeer;
Augusta Innes Baker Withers (1792-1869)
> botanical illustrations like " Wentworth Orchid "
> for scientific works;
Madeleine Basseporte (1701-1780) did likewise.
> " White Cornichon " is an example;
Anna Maria Schurman (1633)
> "Self-portrait" (wood-cut)
klaatu:
there's lots more, who achieved fame in their day
even in that male-dominated realm, by sheer skill,
but were left by history's way-side.
in this Information Age they're easy to find,
which prompts a question concerning your claim:
>>John Allington:
>>Twenty-five hundred years of European history
>>have not produced one decent female painter.
klaatu:
are you nuts, or trolling, or just ignorant?
if it's mere ignorance which prompted the comment,
this may help:
> 700 Important Women Artists, 9th - 19th Centuries
> http://www.uwrf.edu/history/women.html
---===oxo >X< oxo===---
tangent:
if your was that females artists are inferior to males,
restricting your scope to Europe won't do -
not all females are European.
the East also has examples of fine female artists:
---===oxo >X< oxo===---
> Ozu (Otsu) (ca. 1559-1631)
>
> Kiyohara Yukinobu (1643-1682)
> painting: A Palace Scene in Snow,
>
> Ryonen Genso (Zen Abbot, calligrapher, 1646-1711)
>
> Kaji (poet-painter, calligrapher, late 17th c.)
> waka poetry
>
> Sasaki Shogen (late 1600's-early 1700's)
>
> Yuri (poet-painter, calligrapher,1694-1764)
> waka poetry
>
> Chiyo (poet-painter, 1703-1775)
> haiku poetry
>
> Ike Gyokuran (poet-painter (1727-1784)
> painting
> waka poetry
>
> Kikusha (poet-painter, 1752-1826)
> haiku poetry
>
> Ohashi (poet-painter, fl. ca. 1750)
>
> Tani Kankan (poet-painter, 1770-1799)
>
> Takabatake Shikibu (poet-painter, 1785-1881)
>
> Ko Raikin (poet-painter, late 18th c.)
>
> Ema Saiko (poet-painter, 1787-1861)
> waka poetry
>
> Otagaki Rengetsu
> (potter, poet-painter, calligrapher, print-maker, 1791-1875)
>
> Yoshida Shuran (musician, poet-painter, 1797-1866)
>
> Katsushika Tatsu (printmaker, active 1804-1830)
>
> Fuki (ukiyo-e printmaker, active 1804-1830)
>
> Cho (Yanagawa) Koran (poet-painter, 1804-1879)
>
> Tachihara Shunsa (poet-painter, calligrapher 1814-1855)
>
> Tokai Okon (calligrapher 1816-1888)
>
> Otowako (ukiyo-e printmaker, active Bunsei era, 1818-1830)
>
> Ryuko (ukiyo-e printmaker, active Bunsei era, 1818-1830)
>
> Sadaka-me
> (ukiyo-e printmaker, taught Kakuju-jo, active 1818-1854)
>
> Katsushika Oi (ukiyo-e printmaker, active 1818-1854)
>
> Yoshitama (ukiyo-e printmaker, 1836-1870)
>
> Yoshi-jo (active 1848-1864)
>
> Yoshitori (ukiyo-e print maker, active mid-19th c.).
klaatu:
daughter of Utagawa Kuniyoshi (1798-1861),
she collaborated with her father on 70 wood-block prints:
"Sankai meditai zue,"
"Propitious Products of Mountain and Seas."
association with her famous father
helped get her work the attention it's excellence deserves.
>
> Kakuju-jo (ukiyo-e printmaker, active 1861-1864)
>
> Okuhara Seiko (poet-painter, 1837-1913)
>
> Noguchi Shohin (poet-painter, 1847-1917)
>
> Mizuno Shuho (ukiyo-e printmaker, b. 1875)
>
> Uemura Shoen (painter, 1875-1949)
>
> Kajiwara Hisako (painter, 1896-1988)
---===oxo >X< oxo===---
>>John Allington:
>>Nor have those years produced one decent female philosopher --
klaatu:
question:
can you even remember the last time you got something right?
---===oxo >X< oxo===---
>Pythagoras, known as the 'Feminist Philosopher'
>because many of his works were influenced by various women,
>founded the Pythagorean school.
>...
>In a time when it was common belief
>that a woman's nature was different from man's
>but not of lesser value, some women were major contributors
>to the works of the Pythagorean school.
>...
>After his death ..., (c. 5th Century B.C.)
>his wife Theano became the director of the school.
>
>She wrote treatises on mathematics, physics,
>medicine, and child psychology.
>McLemore writes that her most important work
>was the principle of the "Golden Mean."
>
>Their three daughters Arignote, Myia, and Damo
>were also educated at the school
>and helped to continue it's teaching.
---===oxo >X< oxo===---
klaatu:
your statement again, for comedy,
along with results of 10 minutes' research:
---===oxo >X< oxo===---
>>John Allington:
>>Nor have those years produced one decent female philosopher --
http://billyboy.ius.indiana.edu/FMP/Web/Humanities/philosophy/womeninphilo/
>NOEMA: The Collaborative Bibliography of Women in Philosophy
>is a project in collaborative scholarship
>with a database now containing over 16,000 records
>representing the work of over 5,000 women.
>"Early Pythagoreans: Themistoclea, Theano, Arignote, Myia, and Damo."
>Ancient Women Philosophers, 600 B.C.-500 A.D.
>Series: The History of Women Philosophers.
>Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987;
>...
>Themistoclea is historically the first woman called a philosopher.
>She was a priestess of Apollo at Delphi in Greece.
>...
>Pythagoreans were not the only women philosophers in antiquity.
>Cleobulina who lived in the 600's BCE, wrote philosophical riddles.
>
>She was also the mother of Thales, a cosmologist
>who is often referred to as the father of Western philosophy,
>who refers to his mother as "the wise one" ....
http://info-center.ccit.arizona.edu/~ws/ws200/fall97/grp3/part4.htm
---===oxo >X< oxo===---
another example among many which refute you:
Hypatia of Alexandria (born ? - died 415 A.D.)
was not only a respected Platonic philosopher,
but a mathematician and astronomer as well.
she edited the third book of her father's
"Commentary on the Almagest of Ptolemy"
and her own works include:
"A Commentary on the Arithmetica of Diophantus"
"A Commentary on the Conics of Apollonious"
from the "Ecclesiastical History" by Socrates Scholasticus:
---===oxo >X< oxo===---
>there was a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia,
>daughter of the philosopher Theon,
>who made such attainments in literature and science,
>as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time.
>
>Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus,
>she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors,
>many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions.
>...
>all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue
>admired her the more.
>
>Yet even she fell victim to the political jealousy
>which at that time prevailed.
klaatu:
she was a pagan in an increasingly Christian milieu;
they murdered her.
>Socrates Scholasticus:
>For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes,
>it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace,
>that it was she who prevented Orestes
>from being reconciled to the bishop.
>
>Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal,
>whose ringleader was a reader named Peter,
>waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage,
>they took her to the church called Caesareum,
>where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles.
>
>After tearing her body in pieces,
>they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron,
>and there burnt them.
>...
>And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity
>than the allowance of massacres, fights,
>and transactions of that sort.
>This happened in the month of March during Lent,
>in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate,
>under the tenth consulate of Honorius, and the sixth of Theodosius.
http://cosmopolis.com/people/hypatia.html
---===oxo >X< oxo===---
klaatu:
anti-pagan prejudice, together with anti-feminine bigotry
served as convenient excuses
for what was essentially a politcal assassination.
anti-feminine bigotry also seems a likely reason
so many gifted females have been omitted
from history written almost exclusively by males.
in this newsgroup one's natural tendency is to ignore
claims such as Schopenhauer/Allington/Doyle advance,
but they seem to be the source
from which atrocities like Hypatia's murder come;
seems a bad idea to ignore bigotry *always*,
lest silence be taken for acceptance of such bilge.
hence this long response to a silly post.
>>John Allington:
>>nor one decent female composer.
klaatu:
i take it you were raised in a barrel?
Enheduanna (later 2300s or early 2200s BCE)
> 45 extant songs
> including three long hymns to the Goddess Inanna.
>
> these comprise the oldest literature by an identified author
> written in cuneiform.
Kassia (born ca. 810 - died before 867)
> "The Five-stringed Lute and Fivefold Lamp"
Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179)
> "O Frondens Virga"
> "O rubor sanguinis,"
Queen Blanche (1188-1252),
> was a medieval woman composer -
> well-regarded too, by all accounts;
Spanish nuns (circa 1290)
> Codex Las Huelgas
Suster Bertken (Bertha Jacobs) (1426/27-1514)
> "Die werelt hielt mi in hair gewout"
Anna von Köln (c.1480-1530)
> Song Texts for:
> "Puer Natus in Bethlehem"
> "In dulce iubilo"
> "Jure plaudant omnia"
> "Omnis mundus jocuntedur"
> "Dies est leticie"
Elisabeth Creutziger (c.1490-c.1536)
> "Herr Christ der einig Gottes-Sohn"
Sor Gracia Baptista (16th c.)
> "Conditor alme"
Maddelena Casulana (c.1540-ca.1590)
> "Stavasi il mio bel Sol"
> "Morir non puo il mio cuore"
Caterina Assandra (1570-1610)
> "Ave Verum corpus"
> "Ego Flos Campi"
Teodora Gines (c.1580-1630)
> "Son de la Ma Teodora"
Francesca Caccini (1587-1640)
> "Chi desia di saper" (Canzonetta)
> "Sinfonia II"
> "Coro di Damigelle I"
> "Coro di Damigelle II"
> "Coro di Cavalieri liberati"
Judith Leyster (1609-1660),
Sophie von Braunschweig (1613-67)
> "Baurentanz"
Jane Pickering(e)'s Lutebook (ca. 1616)
> "La Rossignol"
> "Coranto Confess"
Barbara Strozzi (born 1619 - died after 1664)
> "Sonetto Proemio dell'opera"
> "Al battitor di bronzo della sua crudelis"
> "Canto di bella bocca"
> "Dialogo in Partenza"
Isabella Leonarda (1620-1704)
> "Sonata duodecima"
Maria Francesca Nascinbeni (Nascimbini) (1640-80)
> "Sitientes venite"
Antonia Bembo (c.1640-c.1715)
> "Ballett"
> "Menuet"
> "Gigue"
Sor Juana Inès de la Cruz (1648-1695)
> "Tocotìn",
Anna Ovena Hoijer (pub. 1650)
> Carol "Christe Gotts Eigener Sohn Du Bist",
Elisabeth-Claude Jacquet de la Guerre (1664-1729)
> "Menuet"
> "Air de Violon"
> "Trombone"
> "Air"
> "Marche du Roi Nereus"
> "Bergéres"
> "Rondeau pour deux Violons"
> "Bourrèe pour deux Violons"
Guadalupe (Guadelupe) Ortiz (fl. 1688-1692)
> "Ymbitatorio al Nascimiento de Nuestro Señor"
Louise Duval (1704-69)
> "Deux Passepied"
Sophie Wilhelmine von Bayreuth (1709-1758)
> "Gavotte"
Maria Teresa d'Agnesi (1720-95)
> "Sonata per il clavicembalo"
Anna Amalia von Preussen (1723-87)
> "Triosonate"
Anna Bon di Venezia (1738-1780)
> "Menuet con Variazione"
Marianne (Maria Anna) Martinez (1744-1812)
> "Sonata in E Allegro"
> "Sonata in E Andante"
> "Sonata in E Presto"
> "Sonata in A Allegro"
> "Sonata in A Rondo-Adagio"
> "Sonata in A Tempo di Minuetto"
Elisabeth Ahlefeldt (1755-1823)
> "Kanarien-Trio"
Helene de Montgeroult (1764-1836)
> "Sonata I for Pianoforte"
Maria Hester Park (1775-1822)
> "Concerto in Es-Dur for Pianoforte / Allegro"
> "Concerto in Es-Dur for Pianoforte / Andante"
> "Concerto in Es-Dur for Pianoforte / Rondo Presto"
Louise/Luise Reichardt (1779-1826)
Miss Steemson (18th c.)
> "A Dirge for Funerals"
Clara Schumann (1819-1896)
> "Andante Und Allegro"
Mrs. Parker (fl. 1841, American),
> Malibran Waltz,
Ethel Smyth (1848-1944)
> "The March of the Women"
> "Laggard Dawn"
Emma Steiner (1850-1928)
> Chesapeake Waltz
Emily Loud (pub. 1851)
> "Koh I Noor, The Mountain of Light, Valse pour le Piano"
Teresa Carreño (1853-1917)
> "Gottschalk Waltz"
Cécile Chaminade (1857-1944)
> "Callirhoi - Air de ballet, Op.37 No.4"
> "Etude Op.35 No.5 - Autumn"
> "Lolita - Caprice Espagnol, Op.54"
> "Concertino for Flute and Piano"
> "Automne" (unknown)
> Dance Creole in Eb min
> Scarf Dance (F.Raborn)
Augusta Gottschalk (pub. 1871, American)
> "Bluette (Caprice de Genre)"
Emily A. Cornell (pub. 1877)
> "Roller Skate Waltz"
Miss Verdi Karns (b. 1881)
> "The Bluffton Carnival Rag"
Adaline Shepherd (1883-1950)
> "Live Wires Rag"
> "Pickles and Peppers Rag"
> "Diablo Rag"
Rebecca Clarke (1886-1979)
Julia Lee Niebergall (1886-1968)
> "Red Rambler Rag"
Marian I. Davis (1888- 1970)
> "Fluffy Ruffle Girls Rag"
May Aufderheide (1888-1972)
> "Dusty Rag" (1908)
> "Richmond Rag" (1908)
> "The Thriller!" (1909)
> "Blue Ribbon Rag" (1910)
> "Novelty Rag" (1911)
Irene M. Giblin (1888-1974)
> "Aviator Rag"
> "Dixie Rag"
> "Chicken Chowder"
> "Sleepy Lou"
Grace M. Bolen (pub. 1898, 1901)
> "The Black Diamond"
> "The Fair, March and Two Step"
> "The Smoky Topaz"
Louise V. Gustin (pub. 1899)
> "X-N-Tric, Two-Step Characteristic"
> "Topsy Turvy, Two Step"
Pauline Alpert (1900-1988)
> Blue Grass
> Sunny Side Up
Gladys Yelvington (1891-1957)
> Piffle (1914), from "An American Nurse at War"
Muriel Pollock (1895-1971)
> "Rooster Rag"
Kathryn Athol Morton (pub. 1902)
> "Ragtime Showers"
Charlotte Blake (pub. 1905-1909)
> "Curly, March Two Step"
> "The 'Gravel' Rag"
> "The Mascot"
> "Yankee Kid"
> "That Poker Rag"
> "The Wish Bone Rag"
Nellie M. Stokes (pub. 1906)
> "Snowball: A Rag"
Geraldyne Dobyns (1907)
> "Possum Rag"
Sarah B. Egan (pub. 1907)
> "Turkish Trophies, an Oriental Rag"
Imogene Giles (pub. 1907)
> "Red Peppers: Two Step"
Mabel McKinley (pub. 1907)
> "Goldenrod"
Helen S. Eaton (pub. 1909)
> "Mop Rag, A Slow Drag"
Hilda Ossusky (pub. 1910)
> "Tattered Melody Rag"
Kathryn L. Widmer (pub. 1913)
> "Notoriety Rag"
Cacilda Borges Barbosa (b. 1914)
> "Estudos Brasileiros"
> "Trio for Reeds"
> "Rio de Janeiro Suite for strings (1st mov)"
> "Rio de Janeiro Suite for strings (2nd mov)"
> "Little Entrance Music"
Laverne Hanshaw (pub. 1914)
> "Niagara Rag"
Dorothy Ingersoll Wahl (pub. 1915)
> "Diablo Rag"
Lily Coffee (pub. 1915)
> "Coffee Rag"
Bessie M. Powell (pub. 1915)
> "Buster Rag"
Frances Cox (pub. 1918)
> "The Tickler",
et cetera.
point:
if you don't know every one of these pieces,
and all the other music female composers have written,
you're in no position to say
there's not "one decent female composer"
even as your own opinion.
one of the many women you don't know anything about
might change your mind.
you can make statements about
'not one decent female composer'
AFTER you've heard all of them - not before.
even then, what you consider a "decent" composer
isn't the final word on that subject for any other person.
>>John Allington:
>>Think about that! But we're told they are our equal.
>>Think about the women you work with.
>>They may be hard working, well-organized, presentable and punctual.
>>But they're not likely looked to for innovative ideas
>>or out-of-the-box thinking. They are not the star performers.
klaatu:
some aren't.
some are.
in this, females are just like males.
so?
you seem to have knotted notions together
which otherwise would not follow, one from the other:
(1)
to say "they" are not *your* equal - as an individual -
requires that you know yourself and all women;
to say "they" are not the equal of men as a class
requires that you know all men AND all women.
how 'bout posting some ID, to prove you're God?
until you do, your claim's meaningless.
(2)
male or female, not everybody can be a star performer.
why should they have to be?
most of the stuff done is done by ordinary people,
with ordinary abilities.
if they all DID begin acting like "star performers",
that would become ordinary, and you're back to Square One.
if your contention is that men-as-a-class are star-performers
by comparison to women-as-a-class,
it'd be appropriate offer proof along with the claim.
(3)
terms like "star performer" only apply
to enterprises which are not matters of opinion -
who's best at shovelling coal can be measured without doubt;
who's the best artist is a matter of taste,
individual as fingerprints.
to ask who's best artist is like asking:
Q: how much do you love me?
A: four pounds, two ounces.
Q: no, really... how much?
A: two feet, four-and-a-quarter inches?
trying to bullshit your reader
by laying out value-judgements as if they were facts
seems naive and silly, if you believe it yourself,
or deceptive and manipulative, if you don't.
klaatu
Response-part 7 to:
>>John Allington:
>>As Schopenhauer pointed out, women live more fully in the present,
>>with less concern for the past or the future.
klaatu:
as Schopenhauer pointed out,
Schopenhauer lived in his own dream-world:
>http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Schopenhauer.htm
>Biographies:
>[Schopenhauer was of the view that the world was simply an idea in his head]
>"... a mere phantasmagoria of my brain,
>that therefore in itself is nothing."
klaatu:
as Schopenhauer's family, friends and biographers pointed out,
Schopenhauer was "a lonely, violent and unbefriended man,
who shared his bachelor's existence with a poodle...."
what Schopenhauer pointed out
convinces me he was a dilettante wordsmith playing guru,
whose views on women are less reliable
than his insights on poodles.
>>John Allington:
>>This expresses itself in trivial ways
>>such as the cyclical nature of their clothing fashion,
>>hairstyles and makeup preferences.
>>They're willing to wear what only a few years ago
>>would have been considered among all of them as ridiculous.
>>
>>Their pant-leg and eyebrow widths
>>seem to have an inverse relationship
>>as they expand and contract with each passing decade.
klaatu:
ya mean like beard-width and hair-length on men?
gimme a break - even on ancient Greek and Roman statuary,
one can get a pretty good idea of when the piece was carved
by checking out hair and clothing styles.
that goes for men *and* women.
since the same "trivial" variations apply to both genders,
what's your point?
>>John Allington:
>>Their narrow time horizon also expresses itself in serious ways
>>such as an almost total lack of interest in history
>>(and by extension the lessons that can be drawn from it).
Rod Serling:
... portrait of a discontented man,
watching life go by as a reflection in a fun-house mirror...
somewhere in the Twilight Zone ....
klaatu:
Jay Leno oft goes walkabout on his show,
asking questions of people on the street,
to gauge Average Americans' knowledge.
example:
Leno:
"When was the battle of the Alamo fought?"
Passer-by #1 :
"Ahh, I've heard of it, but ... Viet Nam, maybe?"
Leno:
<to next pedestrian>:
"What do *you* think? -
Was the battle of the Alamo fought during the Viet Nam war?"
Passer-by #2 :
" I don't think so ... it was a long time ago -
World War One, or the Revolutionary War, or something."
the TV show "Street Smarts"
bills itself as " the comedy game show
where contestants prove how smart they are
by predicting how dumb other people can be" -
far as one might guess from watching either show,
it seems a miracle average Americans can dress themselves,
but very clearly if there's any difference between genders on this,
it's too small to matter.
>>John Allington:
>>This present-centeredness is probably required for nurturing children
>>and explains their superior interpersonal skills.
>>But it plays hell with their analytical and abstract thinking skills.
klaatu:
considering how little your claims connect
to data outside your own imagination,
seems you're fair self-centered as well.
one might agree that solipsism injures analytic skills;
you don't seem to have noticed holes in your logic,
such as that no individual can make claims about ALL women
unless they know all women.
>>John Allington:
>>You should now be able to comprehend the danger
>>of giving the vote to a population that doesn't learn from the past
>>and has little concern for the future
>>and how this dilutes the collective ability
>>to make good decisions in a democracy.
klaatu:
agreed that folk who don't learn from history are dangerous;
however, you show nothing to compel belief
that women are more dangerous than men in this.
if you were to argue
that citizens should pass a history-test to vote,
your conclusion would at least follow from your argument,
but denying votes to women would not 'protect' society
from *men* who don't learn from the past.
seems you're more interested in dumping on women
than on any useful purpose.
>>John Allington:
>>Because they live in the present and they are more herdlike,
>>they are more easily manipulated by the government,
>>Hollywood, universities, advertisers, Oprah and their friends.
>>
>>Modern women and men
>>have been stretched to their limits by our unnatural society.
>>Women have become more malelike.
>>And men have become more femalelike.
klaatu:
again you argue contradictory points:
if males are really superior to females,
and were really responsible for civilization's advance,
then males must control government, Hollywood, universities
advertisers, and the networks who put Oprah on the air.
if males are really in charge of all that,
and females are so easily manipulated,
how is it that males haven't brainwashed them all by now
to give up everything but pleasing men?
even IF men did in fact create civilized society, and
even IF men are truly the motive power behind civilization,
if it's 'unnatural',
it's because males chose to create it that way,
and keep it that way.
don't see how it could truly be ' unnatural,' tho -
if males created it
(and, moreover, created it PURPOSEFULLY),
it must be created according to nature of it's creators,
unless you're positing some kind of demonic possession....
your argumen appears as Revolving Balderdash;
it looks silly from any direction.
>>John Allington:
>>This androgyny is a sort of a regression
>>to the mean of the gender behavioral spectrum.
>>
>>You say: But look how sexy-looking the women of today are,
>>they don't look more malelike!
>>
>>Think about that a bit more carefully...
>>We now have young women trying so hard to become less feminine
>>(soft and curvy) that they strive to become lean and muscular
>>through obsessive working out.
>>
>>This reduces their body fat percentage and shrinks their breasts,
>>giving them a less feminine shape.
>>
>>To compensate for this, they
>>(with more frequency than is mentioned in the media)
>>have breast implants installed into their bodies to deceive us.
>>
>>In southern California,
>>I judge that a substantial percentage of young, attractive women
>>have these implants.
>>Think about it...this is a sign of a warped society.
klaatu:
you judge a lot, but not convincingly.
for one point, having a vagina
qualifies one as feminine enough for practical purposes;
anything beyond that is not a matter of being female,
but of being the style of female *you* think appropriate,
and there's no reason one need fit your preference.
<Allington stomps up to Mia Hamm>:
"Turn in your ovaries kid, you're off the team ...."
--- =*=*<>*=*= ---
got news, slick -
(1)
you're not in charge of who's feminine enough for anything.
(2)
you're bitching about some for minimizing feminine shape
and others for emphasizing feminine shape;
seems you're taking great pains to announce
that no woman can possibly please you -
they're all too angular, too curvy or too friggin' medium;
okay, fine - you hate women - so what?
is there any particular reason you shouldn't be content
with just leaving chicks alone,
rather than trying to twist people to your view with propaganda?
>>John Allington:
>>In contrast, men have become less aggressive and more passive.
>>They display less emotion; they control their anger more.
>>Do you think there were "anger management" training courses
>>fifty years ago?
>>
>>Were so many men confined to fabric-covered cubicles 50 years ago?
>>Were 5-10 percent of male children doped up with Ritalin 50 years ago?
>>In the long run, drugging our male children
>>and forcing our men to be docile, conformist drones
>>will ensure an angry reaction.
klaatu:
again, your gender-elitist position assumption
implies that males must have created this situation,
else how could it occur?
unless you invoke some influence from outside nature
(that is, some super-natural agent),
you seem to be making the case
that males are doing this to themselves,
consciously or sub-consciously.
if consciously, then men are just going that way
from pure bloody-mindedness or Manifest Destiny,
retribution for past karmic atrocity or other imponderables;
if sub-consciously, then men have an innate desire to do it,
in which case it's part of their nature by definition.
another alternative of course,
is that neither males nor females control much in life;
each individual tries to live as pleases best,
and today's chaos merely reflects
today's wider scope of available life-styles,
and folks' eagerness to live in all those different ways.
klaatu
Response-part 6 to:
>>John Allington:
>>Interestingly,
>>when you compare the nature of the female to the nature of the Jew,
>>you find many similarities.
>>
>>You'll find nihilism, pragmatism, materialism, mimicry, narcissism,
>>deception, pretense, opportunism, parasitism,
>>haughty conceit and decadence all in abundance.
klaatu:
these value-judgements are meaningless without context,
and general enough to fit almost any case one might choose.
for instance, one might term your diatribe nihilistic,
your self-congratulatory posturing
as both narcissistic and conceited,
your stating of opinions as if they were fact
as pretense of authority
and deliberate deception -
all of which evidence opportunism,
in your attempt to look like you're above others
by trying to tear down everyone around you.
to many people, that attitude is a sign of decadence,
because any society functions better by supporting each other
than by trying to tear each other down.
>>John Allington:
>>You will find no honor in either group.
>>This is not to say that women are like Jews.
>>Rather, Jews are like women.
klaatu:
you just finished showing off
a lot of what you call "female/Jewish traits";
if you're NOT female and/or Jewish,
then your definition of those traits is inaccurate;
if you are, your definition holds for an individual,
not for a class.
>>John Allington:
>>Since Jewish culture is matriarchal,
>>you should not be surprised by this.
klaatu:
if you truly believe Jewish culture is matriarchal,
you are a very font of ignorance.
as a foster-kid, i encountered some Orthodox Jews,
who treated me quite well, tho as a stranger among them.
that lot reckons the function of humans is to study Scripture -
anything one does otherwise is just stuff one has to do
to get time for Holy Books.
'bout a zillion prayers, too -
first one in the morning, the men say a whole bit about
'blessed be thou, Lord our God, yada-yada,
and thanks for not making me
an animal -
an un-believer -
a woman ....
got news for you slick -
i know for a fact "Jewish culture" ain't matriarchal -
there may be some families or groups which are, of course,
just like any other culture, BUT
in the crowd i was with,
anything male basically out-ranked anything female,
unless they were so old and venerable
that everybody younger deferred to them, regardless of gender.
even ten-year-old boys like myself told grown women what to do,
and so long as it wasn't too off-the-wall, they asked no question,
but just did as they were told.
i'd just been through a family of Texas red-necks,
and comparing the two,
i'd say the Texas crowd came a lot closer to matriarchy
than that bunch of Jewish folks - that is, not close at all.
klaatu
Response-part 8 to:
>>John Allington:
>>will have a lot to answer for.
klaatu:
you'd have to know all feminists to know if most are Jewish,
but before that, you need to define "feminist".
some womens' idea of feminism
is nothing beyond "equal pay for equal work".
O Great Guru, please explain
how that programme could make men effeminate,
and how Judaism affects that sequence.
>>John Allington:
>>It is worthwhile to observe that after "Women's Liberation,"
>>females emphasized their sexuality more than ever before,
>>which is exactly the opposite
>>of what the feminists cited as their objective.
>>
>>Essentially, women are immodest when unrestricted.
klaatu:
you seriously believe that average guys
when given complete freedom to act as they please
are models of dignity and decorum compared to women?
do you also believe the Easter-bunny lays eggs?
>>John Allington:
>>They are the natural corrupters of society
>>because their sexuality is their most powerful weapon.
(1)
klaatu:
if women are NATURAL corruptors of society,
then to fight that 'corruption'
is to fight against female nature -
but IF female nature is 'corrupt'
that corruption is part of nature too -
so Nature = corruption, part or whole.
seems kinda pessimistic,
but to give your bit fair play, one can assume it;
still,
(2)
it does not follow logically
that one 'must' or even 'should' fight against it.
a birthday cake's an example:
dirty natural components taken from the ground,
purified, sculptured to artificial beauty and sweetness -
but it can't do you one damned bit of good while it's pretty -
it feeds you as your stomach digests it,
at which time it's barf, unpleasing to most eyes,
tasteless in one's gut, and in process of turning to shit.
if one were to prevent this ugly natural 'corruption'
one would prevent nutrition too, and die.
one need not assume nature's corrupt,
but even if it were,
going against it might be a mistake.
(3)
urging folk to fight against nature
only makes sense if you know better than Nature -
that is, only if you have super-natural wisdom,
and a better plan for the Universe
than nature can devise.
so far, i see nothing to suggest you do.
>>John Allington:
>>When permitted, women will emphasize that sexuality
>>to obtain higher status and collect more resources,
>>naturally loosening public mores in the process.
klaatu:
if public mores naturally loosen
by women following their natural tendency
to show off what nature gave them,
it seems reasonable to me
that human power-freaks naturally tend
to make public mores which go against nature
knowing that many folk will naturally break those rules,
and give power-freaks excuses to meddle with peoples' lives.
over time, people naturally tend learn they've been fooled
and naturally gradually abandon those mores,
until society naturally approaches close enough to chaos
that citizens naturally want more order and predictability.
then, folk start making rules again.
doesn't seem to have much to do with gender.
>>John Allington:
>>They will seek neither political nor economic freedom,
>>as only aesthetic and sexual freedom
>>relate to their evolutionary survival strategy.
>>
>>For example, possessing the requisite body type,
>>they will wear hip hugger pants
>>with their thong underwear sticking out
>>and tight-fitting blouses to emphasize their augmented breasts.
>>They will flock to Florida for spring break,
>>where they hope to be captured on film
>>baring their breasts for the next "Girls Gone Wild" video.
klaatu:
and, possessing the requisite body type,
guys will wear erections in their pants,
and go slavering after them - and what then?
if you, personally, have so little control of yourself
that you can be deranged by such things,
you may need continuous adult supervision,
or you may be too tweaky to survive in the real world.
>>John Allington:
>>You think all of this is really sexy?
>>Well, of course it is in one way.
>>So too is a strip joint filled with drugged-up dancers.
>>In another and much more important sense,
>>all of this is just pathetic and desperate attention-seeking --
klaatu:
it's obviously got YOUR pathetic and desperate attention;
>>John Allington:
>>which of course provides yet more insight
>>into the pathologies of unregulated female psychology.
klaatu:
your bit recalls classic buddhist parable:
two monks walking to their monastery on Cold Mountain
encountered a beautiful courtesan by the river,
anxious to cross, but unwilling to wet her fine silks.
one picked her up and carried her over, without a word.
hours later the other said:
"don't you think it's wrong to touch some-one so sexy? -
at best, temptation is extreme."
the other said:
"aren't you tired? - i carried her thirty feet and set her down -
you carried her thirty miles, and haven't let go of her yet...."
>>John Allington:
>>"Women's Liberation" unleashed behavioral patterns
>>that contributed to declining completed fertility rates
>>and undermined high-investment parenting strategies.
>>(The resulting demographic damage
>>may lead to the death of Western Civilization.)
<American reporter to Mohandas Gandhi>:
"Mister Gandhi, whaddya think of Western Civilization?"
Gandhi:
" I think it would be a good idea."
klaatu:
if Western Civilization is so febrile
that women being themselves can wreck it,
then Western Civilization is unfit to survive,
and must inevitably make way for better.
note:
women have been around longer than civilization.
many different civilizations have come and gone,
and statuary 40,000 years old strongly suggests
they have attracted mens' attention all that time.
in any conflict between Basic Nature and Civilization,
i bet on Nature every time.
besides,
if current Western Civilization crashes, that's no biggie -
history shows there'll be another along any time now....
>>John Allington:
>>Female psychology and behavior
>>are considerably more malleable than male psychology and behavior.
>>
>>Tighten public morality and women become Victorian prudes.
>>Loosen public morality and it's nipple, tongue and clit piercing time!
>>
>>An anarchistic, secular Jewish cultural milieu
>>plus malleable female psychology and behavior
>>equals social disintegration.
>>It's that simple!
klaatu:
or alternatively, YOU'RE that simple,
and both 'female psychology' and society
are more complex than you imagine.
>>John Allington:
>>Are you living in the best of times?
>>No.
>>You are living in a civilization decadent to its core
>>and on the edge of a steep decline.
>>
>>This type of society, despite its prosperous veneer,
>>is a Potemkin village. It cannot sustain itself.
>>It lives off the hard work and wealth of previous generations,
>>an energy subsidy and an overvalued currency.
>>It does not place as its top priority the rearing of its children.
klaatu:
if society "rearing it's children"
means turning them into asses like their parents,
you may have a point, tho you'd be making it for the opposition:
this generation seems less willing than previous ones
to duplicate elders' traditional mistakes.
>>John Allington:
>>It borrows money from the future for consumption in the present.
>>Its ethos will pass through one of two possible outcomes:
>>radical change through revolution
>>or a collapse to a lower level of complexity.
>
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/vnn/showEssay.asp?essayID=1362
klaatu:
there's a third possibility:
that you don't know what you're talking about,
and make prediction of grand generalities far enough in future
to escape disproof while you live.
Bobo Bonobo®
> On 19 May 2003 09:59:42 -0700, doyle_...@lycos.com (Doyle) wrote:
>
> >Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer <nob...@cypherpunks.to> wrote in message news:<f6f089d9d70fea93...@cypherpunks.to>...
> >> things about women, most notably their appearance when young and their
> >> skill and patience in nurturing children.
>
I have more "skill and patience in nurturing" my child than most women
do.
>
> Someone summed female/male differences rather interestingly to me;
>
> Women can feel and communicated at the same time. Men can either feel
> or communicate. Can't do both simultaneously.
>
> Don't know if this is accurate or not, since i'm not a guy. But it
> does make a bit of sense.
Donawanna, I've read a lot of your posts, and this is the first time
I've ever seen you write something patently stupid.
> >> apply a multitude of cosmetics to their faces and skin designed to
> >> fool us into thinking they are younger than they actually are.
>
> My understanding was that make-up was supposed to be an enhancement
> thing, rather than a transformation thing.
Icky poo poo. Makeup tastes nasty. To call it enhancement, well,
maybe it is for really unattractive women. With pretty women, it is
just the opposite. In fact, a lot of women resent pretty girls who
don't wear any makeup. It's like they're not playing fair.
>
> Perhaps you need to change your venue. You're meeting some sorry-assed
> women.
Nearly all misogynists are not getting the "pussy" that they think
they deserve.
The original poster seems thoroughly pathetic.
> Relationships should rise from want, not need.
>
True, ideally. If one wants to get the maximum amount of a certain
type of human satisfaction that is. I happen to be a big fan of that.
Now, those who don't feel that they have much to offer themselves
might instead choose an unequal, exploitative relationship, and they
might actually derive more satisfaction from that choice, though their
partner often pays the price in diminished life satisfaction. Also,
people are never perfectly matched as to what they have,
qualitatively, to offer, and in what their needs/desires are.
>
> Perhaps because philosophy tends toward heartbreaking boredom. This
> includes Ayn Rand's stuff. I'd rather go sit in front of a telescope
> and look for super novas, nebulas, etc.
>
Ayn Rand is only a "philosopher" in the most vulgar sense. Anyone
trained in philosophy should be able to pick apart her dumbass
"objectivism" in short order.
> god, i hope it's a female that discovers the physics behind
> warp-drive.
>
There are no "physics behind warp-drive." There's this little
impediment to light-speed travel. It's called General Relativity. No
serious physicist, male or female, believes that it is possible.
While many of them might be Star Trek fans, I can assure you that what
they are doing is called "suspending disbelief," much as one would do
at a Lord of the Rings movie. I guess there are some people who
believe in elves and hobbits, but...
As someone who does believe in sociobiology, I'm not saying that there
aren't minor sex differences (notice I wrote "minor"). Exaggerating
those and hypergeneralizing is the result of a very small mind
confronting a complex set of human interactions. Represented thus:
Feminine traits<--- --->Masculine traits
XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY
the differences between groups is less than the variability within
groups.
Plus, the sexist idiots that write that kind of garbage never have any
mechanism for teasing out the effects of patriarchal culture.
If someone wants to make a philosophical argument, let him or her
start with the most rudimentary *a priori* assumptions. All the way
to the beginning, baby. The assumptions that they DO present can
always be reduced further, and won't be supportable, or else in the
case of ethical premises, they are based on some archaic moral
nonsense that involves a leap of faith.
I'm sick of this post.
--Bryan
donawana
>donawana <gryff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<efmkcv8goumq22njl...@4ax.com>...
>> On 19 May 2003 09:59:42 -0700, doyle_...@lycos.com (Doyle) wrote:
>>
>> >Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer <nob...@cypherpunks.to> wrote in message news:<f6f089d9d70fea93...@cypherpunks.to>...
>> >> There are plenty of good
>> >> things about women, most notably their appearance when young and their
>> >> skill and patience in nurturing children.
>>
>I have to agree with the "appearance when young" part, but I know that
>I have more "skill and patience in nurturing" my child than most women
>do.
>>
>> Someone summed female/male differences rather interestingly to me;
>>
>> Women can feel and communicated at the same time. Men can either feel
>> or communicate. Can't do both simultaneously.
>>
>> Don't know if this is accurate or not, since i'm not a guy. But it
>> does make a bit of sense.
>
>Donawanna, I've read a lot of your posts, and this is the first time
>I've ever seen you write something patently stupid.
was in a mood at the time, didn't bother to think...
sooooooo...
<reorganizes thoughts on this damned post>
i'm sick of gender-bashing in general. Whether it's targeted at the XX
or the XY, it sucks.
>
>> god, i hope it's a female that discovers the physics behind
>> warp-drive.
>>
>There are no "physics behind warp-drive." There's this little
>impediment to light-speed travel. It's called General Relativity. No
>serious physicist, male or female, believes that it is possible.
of course not. Not under the physics that everyone has been staring at
since Einstein came up with it. The faster we go the heavier and
slower we get. Rocket propulsion will not work.
>While many of them might be Star Trek fans, I can assure you that what
>they are doing is called "suspending disbelief," much as one would do
>at a Lord of the Rings movie. I guess there are some people who
>believe in elves and hobbits, but...
That's just the sort of thing people scoffed at the Wright brothers
and those who dreamt of stomping around on the Moon.
NASA has a project in the works, to find a completely different line
of thought that will get explorers traveling at light speed.
It's on their website under science news.
>>As someone who does believe in sociobiology, I'm not saying that there
>aren't minor sex differences (notice I wrote "minor"). Exaggerating
>those and hypergeneralizing is the result of a very small mind
>confronting a complex set of human interactions. Represented thus:
>
>Feminine traits<--- --->Masculine traits
>
> XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX
> XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY
>
>the differences between groups is less than the variability within
>groups.
>Plus, the sexist idiots that write that kind of garbage never have any
>mechanism for teasing out the effects of patriarchal culture.
>If someone wants to make a philosophical argument, let him or her
>start with the most rudimentary *a priori* assumptions. All the way
>to the beginning, baby. The assumptions that they DO present can
>always be reduced further, and won't be supportable, or else in the
>case of ethical premises, they are based on some archaic moral
>nonsense that involves a leap of faith.
The journey through life that a human chooses shouldn't be:
a) based on their genitalia
b) chosen by the rest of the herd
>
>I'm sick of this post.
>
amen
>--Bryan
HRH Fascinet
>
> But otherwise men have no problems with women?
> By the way, i wonder who started all those wars in human history and causes
> most crime and violence?
> But i guess that's a thing to be PROUD of.
>
You're sure right, it is.
People needed some entertainment before they invented the passtimes of
the sensitive male, the X-Box and the gay, internet porn.
Fascinet
Spreading Sweetness and Light to the Genetically Inferior