Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Which of these 2 men is better off?
100 views
Skip to first unread message
dd...@bellsouth.net
Apr 18, 2012, 7:17:34 AM4/18/12
to
One hates his telemarketing job. It is frustrating and endlessly
repetitive. He also hates the reactions many people have to the calls.
Another man is a househusband in a very long-term gay relationship.
They aren't in a state that allows gay marriage but have been together
for well over a decade. The man's partner has a regular job. They have
no children from either adoption or previous het relationships.
However, the man "works" as a househusband: he fixes meals, cleans the
house, takes care of laundry, and performs other domestic chores. He
appears fairly satisfied with being a househusband.
Which of these men is better off?
repetitive. He also hates the reactions many people have to the calls.
Another man is a househusband in a very long-term gay relationship.
They aren't in a state that allows gay marriage but have been together
for well over a decade. The man's partner has a regular job. They have
no children from either adoption or previous het relationships.
However, the man "works" as a househusband: he fixes meals, cleans the
house, takes care of laundry, and performs other domestic chores. He
appears fairly satisfied with being a househusband.
Which of these men is better off?
PolishKnight
Apr 18, 2012, 8:38:54 PM4/18/12
to
In article
<1e20a7ce-656a-48bc...@v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
I don't know what you're fishing for, Denise, but philosophically, we
can't really say. Let's try this hypothetical:
Karen is a career woman who hates her job as a lawyer. She spends hours
filling out paperwork and dealing with miserable bosses who treat her
like a clerk. Despite earning a decent salary by working class
standards, most of her money goes to a mortgage of a home in the suburbs
that's underwater. She rarely sees her children.
Jackie is a housewife to a plumber. She cooks and cleans for him and
does his dirty laundry. She's happy with that role and even insisted
upon it when choosing a spouse. She wanted a husband who would allow
her to quit her job and stay at home full time.
In 2nd wave feminism (or 3rd wave, blah blah blah), feminists proclaimed
that Jackie was a brainwashed slave who was secretly miserable while
Karen would be living the fantasy life of independence and equality with
men.
But even so, we still don't know if they're _happy_ or not. One may
appear happy in their "job" while the other is miserable, but as men
have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job. Many men come home from a
rotten job and in a matter of moments, forget all about it and are happy
to have a wife that loves them and kids to go weekend fishing with.
That was the life for most men and while many of them were miserable
because of their work, many also didn't let it get them too far down.
And heck, if you watch any of The Housewives of X series on Bravo, it
demonstrates that affluent housewives (and many career women on the
show) are miserable and half of the mare divorced within a few seasons.
So who knows? Maybe the guy with the lousy telemarketing job has a
decent wife and is quite happy while the gay guy is miserable with the
"husband" even if he likes not having to go to paid employment.
It's tax time and worth pointing out that any SAH "partner" whose
unmarried and being supported by someone else should consider getting a
small part time job, even for a month or so, to qualify for the earned
income tax credit. It's basically a minimum salary and they would get
paid basically for working only a little bit.
regards,
PolishKnight
<1e20a7ce-656a-48bc...@v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
can't really say. Let's try this hypothetical:
Karen is a career woman who hates her job as a lawyer. She spends hours
filling out paperwork and dealing with miserable bosses who treat her
like a clerk. Despite earning a decent salary by working class
standards, most of her money goes to a mortgage of a home in the suburbs
that's underwater. She rarely sees her children.
Jackie is a housewife to a plumber. She cooks and cleans for him and
does his dirty laundry. She's happy with that role and even insisted
upon it when choosing a spouse. She wanted a husband who would allow
her to quit her job and stay at home full time.
In 2nd wave feminism (or 3rd wave, blah blah blah), feminists proclaimed
that Jackie was a brainwashed slave who was secretly miserable while
Karen would be living the fantasy life of independence and equality with
men.
But even so, we still don't know if they're _happy_ or not. One may
appear happy in their "job" while the other is miserable, but as men
have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job. Many men come home from a
rotten job and in a matter of moments, forget all about it and are happy
to have a wife that loves them and kids to go weekend fishing with.
That was the life for most men and while many of them were miserable
because of their work, many also didn't let it get them too far down.
And heck, if you watch any of The Housewives of X series on Bravo, it
demonstrates that affluent housewives (and many career women on the
show) are miserable and half of the mare divorced within a few seasons.
So who knows? Maybe the guy with the lousy telemarketing job has a
decent wife and is quite happy while the gay guy is miserable with the
"husband" even if he likes not having to go to paid employment.
It's tax time and worth pointing out that any SAH "partner" whose
unmarried and being supported by someone else should consider getting a
small part time job, even for a month or so, to qualify for the earned
income tax credit. It's basically a minimum salary and they would get
paid basically for working only a little bit.
regards,
PolishKnight
dd...@bellsouth.net
Apr 19, 2012, 8:05:13 PM4/19/12
to
On Apr 18, 8:38 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <1e20a7ce-656a-48bc-a568-c7adcb895...@v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
(Denise) The first book by Arianna Huffington, "The Female Woman,"
which I consider the best attack on the failings and excesses of
"Women's Lib" ever written, made this point. She wrote that "Women's
Lib" considers paid work "the whole of life" while "The Female Woman"
regards it as "a PART of life."
Many men come home from a
> rotten job and in a matter of moments, forget all about it and are happy
> to have a wife that loves them and kids to go weekend fishing with.
> That was the life for most men and while many of them were miserable
> because of their work, many also didn't let it get them too far down.
>
> And heck, if you watch any of The Housewives of X series on Bravo, it
> demonstrates that affluent housewives (and many career women on the
> show) are miserable and half of the mare divorced within a few seasons.
>
> So who knows? Maybe the guy with the lousy telemarketing job has a
> decent wife and is quite happy while the gay guy is miserable with the
> "husband" even if he likes not having to go to paid employment.
(Denise) The telemarketer is single. He lives with a non-sexual
roommate relationship to split expenses. I've asked him whether he
finds his housework -- since he doesn't have a "housewife" he must do
chores when he can -- or the paid job more stressful and he answered,
"I can do the housework at my own pace."
The "Women's Libbers" of the 1970s seemed to see housework as the
worst sort of work. They called it "shitwork." On a tv talk show, a
woman in the audience told women representing the movement, "I think
you want men to do the dusting, vacuuming, scrubbing floors, and
washing dishes." The "Libber" replied, "Why should these boring jobs
be done only by women?" The woman in the audience answered, "I love
doing these chores. I wouldn't want a man to do them" and the audience
applauded enthusiastically. I heard a "Libber" describe being a
housewife as "degrading."
If housework is so terrible, my househusband friend ought to be
miserable. He doesn't seem so.
However, the househusband DOES seem to have a problem common among
housewives: he's uncertain as to whether or not he's doing a good job.
When he told me he cooks both breakfast and dinner for himself and his
partner, I asked, "Are you a good cook?" He replied uncertainly, "I
don't know. I'm probably not an especially good cook." Studies have
found this pervasive among housewives: they don't tend to rate
themselves as either "excellent" or "very good" at their homemaking
tasks.
The man has certain severe health issues so I can't say he's always
super-happy. But he doesn't appear to be upset by performing the
household chores his partner expects of him.
> In article
> <1e20a7ce-656a-48bc-a568-c7adcb895...@v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
which I consider the best attack on the failings and excesses of
"Women's Lib" ever written, made this point. She wrote that "Women's
Lib" considers paid work "the whole of life" while "The Female Woman"
regards it as "a PART of life."
Many men come home from a
> rotten job and in a matter of moments, forget all about it and are happy
> to have a wife that loves them and kids to go weekend fishing with.
> That was the life for most men and while many of them were miserable
> because of their work, many also didn't let it get them too far down.
>
> And heck, if you watch any of The Housewives of X series on Bravo, it
> demonstrates that affluent housewives (and many career women on the
> show) are miserable and half of the mare divorced within a few seasons.
>
> So who knows? Maybe the guy with the lousy telemarketing job has a
> decent wife and is quite happy while the gay guy is miserable with the
> "husband" even if he likes not having to go to paid employment.
roommate relationship to split expenses. I've asked him whether he
finds his housework -- since he doesn't have a "housewife" he must do
chores when he can -- or the paid job more stressful and he answered,
"I can do the housework at my own pace."
The "Women's Libbers" of the 1970s seemed to see housework as the
worst sort of work. They called it "shitwork." On a tv talk show, a
woman in the audience told women representing the movement, "I think
you want men to do the dusting, vacuuming, scrubbing floors, and
washing dishes." The "Libber" replied, "Why should these boring jobs
be done only by women?" The woman in the audience answered, "I love
doing these chores. I wouldn't want a man to do them" and the audience
applauded enthusiastically. I heard a "Libber" describe being a
housewife as "degrading."
If housework is so terrible, my househusband friend ought to be
miserable. He doesn't seem so.
However, the househusband DOES seem to have a problem common among
housewives: he's uncertain as to whether or not he's doing a good job.
When he told me he cooks both breakfast and dinner for himself and his
partner, I asked, "Are you a good cook?" He replied uncertainly, "I
don't know. I'm probably not an especially good cook." Studies have
found this pervasive among housewives: they don't tend to rate
themselves as either "excellent" or "very good" at their homemaking
tasks.
The man has certain severe health issues so I can't say he's always
super-happy. But he doesn't appear to be upset by performing the
household chores his partner expects of him.
PolishKnight
Apr 19, 2012, 9:12:35 PM4/19/12
to
In article
<d880d759-b24b-4fdc...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > But even so, we still don't know if they're happy or not. One may
Europeans have a saying: When you ask an American what he does, he'll
tell you about his job. When you ask a European, they tell you about
their hobbies and personal interests.
Arianna went over the deep end for some reason after her husband came
out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really
messed her up.
I think I told you the tale of when I told a secretary at work that I
bought my wife a swiffer for Christmas and the secretary was enraged.
It wasn't because she was a woman's libber but rather a different
strain: A so-called traditionalist materialist who expected men to buy
her stuff. (It didn't work out for her since she was divorced.)
Let's try looking at it from the other point of view: What do women and
children buy the father/husband for father's day and Christmas: Home
repair tools and auto tools. In other words, tools for him to do work
around the house and gardening. And the men ENJOY these tools!
So back in the 1950's, it wasn't considered offensive to buy women
housewifery tools such as vacuums and dishwashers for Christmas. Game
shows (such as Queen for a Day and The Price Is Right) commonly gave
these away with the women jumping up and down with glee.
> If housework is so terrible, my househusband friend ought to be
> miserable. He doesn't seem so.
> However, the househusband DOES seem to have a problem common among
> housewives: he's uncertain as to whether or not he's doing a good job.
> When he told me he cooks both breakfast and dinner for himself and his
> partner, I asked, "Are you a good cook?" He replied uncertainly, "I
> don't know. I'm probably not an especially good cook." Studies have
> found this pervasive among housewives: they don't tend to rate
> themselves as either "excellent" or "very good" at their homemaking
> tasks.
> The man has certain severe health issues so I can't say he's always
> super-happy. But he doesn't appear to be upset by performing the
> household chores his partner expects of him.
Of course not. For most people, becoming a housewife (in this case, we
can call him a housewife! :-) is a step up in employment terms: Their
overall benefits package is much greater than a normal job, they get to
set their own hours, and they're taking care of their own home.
It says something amazing that someone could make a socially accepted
case that such women were being oppressed. It reminds me of Marie
Antoinette's supposed gripe about eating cake except nobody called these
women on such a ridiculous claim.
Keep in mind that nobody tells these women that they have to watch soap
operas during their time off. They could spend their time helping out
at charities (and not just using charities as an excuse to party such as
the Real Housewives series :-), they could engage in crafts, or they
could even take a few classes and take risks with time that many men
only dream of: Try writing a best selling novel or teaching an at home
ballet class. The opportunities are in many ways as limitless as what
"independent" women and men have in the formal, pay the bills, workplace.
<d880d759-b24b-4fdc...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > appear happy in their "job" while the other is miserable, but as men
> > have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
> > clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job. >>
>
> (Denise) The first book by Arianna Huffington, "The Female Woman,"
> which I consider the best attack on the failings and excesses of
> "Women's Lib" ever written, made this point. She wrote that "Women's
> Lib" considers paid work "the whole of life" while "The Female Woman"
> regards it as "a PART of life."
Sadly, a lot of American men have forgotten this lesson as well.
> > have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
> > clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job. >>
>
> (Denise) The first book by Arianna Huffington, "The Female Woman,"
> which I consider the best attack on the failings and excesses of
> "Women's Lib" ever written, made this point. She wrote that "Women's
> Lib" considers paid work "the whole of life" while "The Female Woman"
> regards it as "a PART of life."
Europeans have a saying: When you ask an American what he does, he'll
tell you about his job. When you ask a European, they tell you about
their hobbies and personal interests.
Arianna went over the deep end for some reason after her husband came
out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really
messed her up.
bought my wife a swiffer for Christmas and the secretary was enraged.
It wasn't because she was a woman's libber but rather a different
strain: A so-called traditionalist materialist who expected men to buy
her stuff. (It didn't work out for her since she was divorced.)
Let's try looking at it from the other point of view: What do women and
children buy the father/husband for father's day and Christmas: Home
repair tools and auto tools. In other words, tools for him to do work
around the house and gardening. And the men ENJOY these tools!
So back in the 1950's, it wasn't considered offensive to buy women
housewifery tools such as vacuums and dishwashers for Christmas. Game
shows (such as Queen for a Day and The Price Is Right) commonly gave
these away with the women jumping up and down with glee.
> If housework is so terrible, my househusband friend ought to be
> miserable. He doesn't seem so.
> However, the househusband DOES seem to have a problem common among
> housewives: he's uncertain as to whether or not he's doing a good job.
> When he told me he cooks both breakfast and dinner for himself and his
> partner, I asked, "Are you a good cook?" He replied uncertainly, "I
> don't know. I'm probably not an especially good cook." Studies have
> found this pervasive among housewives: they don't tend to rate
> themselves as either "excellent" or "very good" at their homemaking
> tasks.
> The man has certain severe health issues so I can't say he's always
> super-happy. But he doesn't appear to be upset by performing the
> household chores his partner expects of him.
can call him a housewife! :-) is a step up in employment terms: Their
overall benefits package is much greater than a normal job, they get to
set their own hours, and they're taking care of their own home.
It says something amazing that someone could make a socially accepted
case that such women were being oppressed. It reminds me of Marie
Antoinette's supposed gripe about eating cake except nobody called these
women on such a ridiculous claim.
Keep in mind that nobody tells these women that they have to watch soap
operas during their time off. They could spend their time helping out
at charities (and not just using charities as an excuse to party such as
the Real Housewives series :-), they could engage in crafts, or they
could even take a few classes and take risks with time that many men
only dream of: Try writing a best selling novel or teaching an at home
ballet class. The opportunities are in many ways as limitless as what
"independent" women and men have in the formal, pay the bills, workplace.
nikki smith gives blowjobs
Apr 21, 2012, 12:30:18 AM4/21/12
to
<dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1e20a7ce-656a-48bc...@v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> One hates his telemarketing job. It is frustrating and endlessly
> repetitive.
does he have a big dick?! i'll bet he wouldn't hate his telemarketing job as
> repetitive.
much if i were under his desk being endlessly repetitive with my head, lips
and tongue
> He also hates the reactions many people have to the calls.
> Another man is a househusband in a very long-term gay relationship.
> They aren't in a state that allows gay marriage but have been together
> for well over a decade. The man's partner has a regular job. They have
> no children from either adoption or previous het relationships.
> However, the man "works" as a househusband: he fixes meals, cleans the
> house, takes care of laundry, and performs other domestic chores. He
> appears fairly satisfied with being a househusband.
> Which of these men is better off?
Nikki, the girl who loves sex
dd...@bellsouth.net
Apr 21, 2012, 10:55:58 AM4/21/12
to
> Arianna went over the deep end for some reason after her husband came
> out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really
> messed her up.
(Denise) Actually, there are consistent threads throughout her career.
> out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really
> messed her up.
One of the reasons she was "repulsed" by "Women's Lib" was that they
eschewed and ridiculed altruism. She found this same flaw among
standard conservatives. The importance of altruism is a consistent
thread in her belief system.
Additionally, the principles of "The Female Woman" have never been
repudiated by her. She still believes strongly in the importance of
marriage and family life.
She still opposes the "Women's Lib" dream of the world as a gigantic
orphanage and the destruction of marriage.
PolishKnight
Apr 21, 2012, 11:39:47 AM4/21/12
to
In article
<69b23c73-2d6b-405d...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
herself with those who despise working class whites and still hangs
around the Manhattan snobby liberal set which worships gluttony and
displays of wealth.
I think she just wanted to thumb her nose at her closet gay Republican
ex-husband.
This isn't the first time that people have switched ideologies due to
love. David Brock, a landmark conservative who exposed Anita Hill's
fake "traditional" conservativism later converted over to the left
because of his homosexuality and desire to fit in with gay culture. Ted
Turner converted from a conservative to a raging leftist out of love for
Jane Fonda (bleah!) and stayed that way even after their divorce.
> Additionally, the principles of "The Female Woman" have never been
> repudiated by her. She still believes strongly in the importance of
> marriage and family life. She still opposes the "Women's Lib" dream of the world as a gigantic
> orphanage and the destruction of marriage.
I don't hang out at the Huffington Post, but I doubt this based upon her
political affiliation.
regards,
PolishKnight
<69b23c73-2d6b-405d...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
"dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:12 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article
>
> >
> > Arianna went over the deep end for some reason after her husband came
> > out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really
> > messed her up.
>
> (Denise) Actually, there are consistent threads throughout her career.
> One of the reasons she was "repulsed" by "Women's Lib" was that they
> eschewed and ridiculed altruism. She found this same flaw among
> standard conservatives. The importance of altruism is a consistent
> thread in her belief system.
Denise, what a joke. She's now a seething leftist who associates
> On Apr 19, 9:12 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article
>
> >
> > Arianna went over the deep end for some reason after her husband came
> > out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really
> > messed her up.
>
> (Denise) Actually, there are consistent threads throughout her career.
> One of the reasons she was "repulsed" by "Women's Lib" was that they
> eschewed and ridiculed altruism. She found this same flaw among
> standard conservatives. The importance of altruism is a consistent
> thread in her belief system.
herself with those who despise working class whites and still hangs
around the Manhattan snobby liberal set which worships gluttony and
displays of wealth.
I think she just wanted to thumb her nose at her closet gay Republican
ex-husband.
This isn't the first time that people have switched ideologies due to
love. David Brock, a landmark conservative who exposed Anita Hill's
fake "traditional" conservativism later converted over to the left
because of his homosexuality and desire to fit in with gay culture. Ted
Turner converted from a conservative to a raging leftist out of love for
Jane Fonda (bleah!) and stayed that way even after their divorce.
> Additionally, the principles of "The Female Woman" have never been
> repudiated by her. She still believes strongly in the importance of
> marriage and family life. She still opposes the "Women's Lib" dream of the world as a gigantic
> orphanage and the destruction of marriage.
political affiliation.
regards,
PolishKnight
dd...@bellsouth.net
Apr 24, 2012, 4:09:49 AM4/24/12
to
One thing I'd like to add is that Phyllis Schlafly made a correct
observation when she pointed out that modern inventions to a large
extent made the job of housewife less onerous than it had been in the
past. Those inventions include vacuum cleaners, washing machines and
dryers, dishwashers, microwaves, and (for those housewives who are
also mothers of infants) disposable diapers. All of these modern
inventions make housework and other domestic chores easier and less
time consuming.
My friend who is a househusband also benefits from these inventions
since it is a lot easier to clean clothes with a washing machine, to
clean floors with a vacuum cleaner, etc.
If there was actually a plot by men to ensure that women get a lousy
deal in this "man's world," one would think such items would be banned
so domestic jobs would be as onerous as possible. Instead, men are
usually quite happy to allow women these very helpful aids in what has
traditionally been called "women's work."
observation when she pointed out that modern inventions to a large
extent made the job of housewife less onerous than it had been in the
past. Those inventions include vacuum cleaners, washing machines and
dryers, dishwashers, microwaves, and (for those housewives who are
also mothers of infants) disposable diapers. All of these modern
inventions make housework and other domestic chores easier and less
time consuming.
My friend who is a househusband also benefits from these inventions
since it is a lot easier to clean clothes with a washing machine, to
clean floors with a vacuum cleaner, etc.
If there was actually a plot by men to ensure that women get a lousy
deal in this "man's world," one would think such items would be banned
so domestic jobs would be as onerous as possible. Instead, men are
usually quite happy to allow women these very helpful aids in what has
traditionally been called "women's work."
retardsman
Apr 24, 2012, 3:34:57 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 21, 7:55 am, "dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:12 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
>
> > Arianna went over the deep end for some reason after her husband came
> > out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really
> > messed her up.
>
> (Denise) Actually, there are consistent threads throughout her career.
> One of the reasons she was "repulsed" by "Women's Lib" was that they
> eschewed and ridiculed altruism. She found this same flaw among
> standard conservatives. The importance of altruism is a consistent
> thread in her belief system.
>
what a fucking joke
> On Apr 19, 9:12 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
>
> > Arianna went over the deep end for some reason after her husband came
> > out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really
> > messed her up.
>
> (Denise) Actually, there are consistent threads throughout her career.
> One of the reasons she was "repulsed" by "Women's Lib" was that they
> eschewed and ridiculed altruism. She found this same flaw among
> standard conservatives. The importance of altruism is a consistent
> thread in her belief system.
>
doubtless altruism is an Important Systemic Belief of western
women . . . unfortunately they dont ACTUALLY PRACTICE IT, as is proven
by their "charitable contributing" which overwhelmingly is directed at
women-and-children (i.e. themselves) and almost NEVER at Those Evil
Males
Huffie will rot in hell, with her manhattan mammy monsters grouped
around her in solidarity
> Additionally, the principles of "The Female Woman" have never been
> repudiated by her. She still believes strongly in the importance of
> marriage and family life.
> She still opposes the "Women's Lib" dream of the world as a gigantic
> orphanage and the destruction of marriage.
other women prior, turned to destroying masculinity in total when she
began to age/lose sexual power over men
at that point she directed her energy towards fem-propaganda thru the
PuffHo, spicing it up with just enough Relational Drivel to draw in
The Grrls and make it seem like the hate-site is doing the planet a
great favor as a Voice of Truth
LOL!!
dd...@bellsouth.net
Apr 24, 2012, 5:44:51 PM4/24/12
to
On Apr 24, 3:34 pm, retardsman <remarks...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 7:55 am, "dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 19, 9:12 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > In article
>
> > > Arianna went over the deep end for some reason after her husband came
> > > out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really
> > > messed her up.
>
> > (Denise) Actually, there are consistent threads throughout her career.
> > One of the reasons she was "repulsed" by "Women's Lib" was that they
> > eschewed and ridiculed altruism. She found this same flaw among
> > standard conservatives. The importance of altruism is a consistent
> > thread in her belief system.
>
> what a fucking joke
>
> doubtless altruism is an Important Systemic Belief of western
> women . . . unfortunately they dont ACTUALLY PRACTICE IT, as is proven
> by their "charitable contributing" which overwhelmingly is directed at
> women-and-children (i.e. themselves) and almost NEVER at Those Evil
> Males
(Denise) In "The Female Woman," she pointed out that altruism is vital
> On Apr 21, 7:55 am, "dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 19, 9:12 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > In article
>
> > > Arianna went over the deep end for some reason after her husband came
> > > out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really
> > > messed her up.
>
> > (Denise) Actually, there are consistent threads throughout her career.
> > One of the reasons she was "repulsed" by "Women's Lib" was that they
> > eschewed and ridiculed altruism. She found this same flaw among
> > standard conservatives. The importance of altruism is a consistent
> > thread in her belief system.
>
> what a fucking joke
>
> doubtless altruism is an Important Systemic Belief of western
> women . . . unfortunately they dont ACTUALLY PRACTICE IT, as is proven
> by their "charitable contributing" which overwhelmingly is directed at
> women-and-children (i.e. themselves) and almost NEVER at Those Evil
> Males
to women's roles as wives and mothers. She also pointed out that most
women "hold dear" the practices of marriage and the mother-child bond.
They don't look forward to a marriage and family-less future.
>
> Huffie will rot in hell, with her manhattan mammy monsters grouped
> around her in solidarity
>
> > Additionally, the principles of "The Female Woman" have never been
> > repudiated by her. She still believes strongly in the importance of
> > marriage and family life.
> > She still opposes the "Women's Lib" dream of the world as a gigantic
> > orphanage and the destruction of marriage.
>
> she's a feminist ideologue and a matriarchal enabler, who like so many
> other women prior, turned to destroying masculinity in total when she
> began to age/lose sexual power over men
>
> at that point she directed her energy towards fem-propaganda thru the
> PuffHo, spicing it up with just enough Relational Drivel to draw in
> The Grrls and make it seem like the hate-site is doing the planet a
> great favor as a Voice of Truth
>
> LOL!!
marriage.
PolishKnight
Apr 25, 2012, 9:01:43 PM4/25/12
to
In article
<c997a1ab-ba31-47ba...@n22g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
type of the work rather than it's scope. Instead of beating the rugs
once a month, a proper housewife would vacuum once a week or more.
Instead of washing a single set of clothes a week, they wash every
article of clothing daily, etc.
Many modern career women trying to balance career and home simply
lowered the bar from their 1950's era mothers. It was not uncommon for
me to meet career women who lived in a pig sty and had a sink full of
dishes they hadn't bothered to put in the dishwasher and empty, hadn't
vacuumed in months, and sent out their clothing to be dry cleaned at a
great expense.
As many soccer moms gripe, some inventions, such as the automobile,
actually created more work for them. While children in the past walked
to school and got exercise, they now have to ferry the kids to and from
school and then to the community gym to get exercise because a "proper"
mother today wouldn't risk her darlings being abducted. :-)
> My friend who is a househusband also benefits from these inventions
> since it is a lot easier to clean clothes with a washing machine, to
> clean floors with a vacuum cleaner, etc.
To hell with the vacuum cleaner. Simply get wood floors and then use a
water cloth mop to clean every week or so. Done.
<c997a1ab-ba31-47ba...@n22g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> One thing I'd like to add is that Phyllis Schlafly made a correct
> observation when she pointed out that modern inventions to a large
> extent made the job of housewife less onerous than it had been in the
> past. Those inventions include vacuum cleaners, washing machines and
> dryers, dishwashers, microwaves, and (for those housewives who are
> also mothers of infants) disposable diapers. All of these modern
> inventions make housework and other domestic chores easier and less
> time consuming.
True. Ironically, however, like much technology they only changed the
> One thing I'd like to add is that Phyllis Schlafly made a correct
> observation when she pointed out that modern inventions to a large
> extent made the job of housewife less onerous than it had been in the
> past. Those inventions include vacuum cleaners, washing machines and
> dryers, dishwashers, microwaves, and (for those housewives who are
> also mothers of infants) disposable diapers. All of these modern
> inventions make housework and other domestic chores easier and less
> time consuming.
type of the work rather than it's scope. Instead of beating the rugs
once a month, a proper housewife would vacuum once a week or more.
Instead of washing a single set of clothes a week, they wash every
article of clothing daily, etc.
Many modern career women trying to balance career and home simply
lowered the bar from their 1950's era mothers. It was not uncommon for
me to meet career women who lived in a pig sty and had a sink full of
dishes they hadn't bothered to put in the dishwasher and empty, hadn't
vacuumed in months, and sent out their clothing to be dry cleaned at a
great expense.
As many soccer moms gripe, some inventions, such as the automobile,
actually created more work for them. While children in the past walked
to school and got exercise, they now have to ferry the kids to and from
school and then to the community gym to get exercise because a "proper"
mother today wouldn't risk her darlings being abducted. :-)
> My friend who is a househusband also benefits from these inventions
> since it is a lot easier to clean clothes with a washing machine, to
> clean floors with a vacuum cleaner, etc.
water cloth mop to clean every week or so. Done.
Mark Borgerson
Apr 26, 2012, 12:07:22 AM4/26/12
to
In article <marek1965-EBB15...@news.giganews.com>,
mare...@comcast.net says...
article of clothing daily. I've never even known a women that washed
every article or WORN clothing daily. For most women, washing every
article of clothing daily would require running three or four loads
a day!
been an unavoidable expense. However, I doubt that they did so with
every article of clothing every day.
to practice walking or riding bicycles?
> While children in the past walked
> to school and got exercise, they now have to ferry the kids to and from
> school and then to the community gym to get exercise because a "proper"
> mother today wouldn't risk her darlings being abducted. :-)
DOH! Have you never heard of school buses?
then we had 100 guys walking over the floor, not a family of four.
mare...@comcast.net says...
>
> In article
> <c997a1ab-ba31-47ba...@n22g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> "dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > One thing I'd like to add is that Phyllis Schlafly made a correct
> > observation when she pointed out that modern inventions to a large
> > extent made the job of housewife less onerous than it had been in the
> > past. Those inventions include vacuum cleaners, washing machines and
> > dryers, dishwashers, microwaves, and (for those housewives who are
> > also mothers of infants) disposable diapers. All of these modern
> > inventions make housework and other domestic chores easier and less
> > time consuming.
>
> True. Ironically, however, like much technology they only changed the
> type of the work rather than it's scope. Instead of beating the rugs
> once a month, a proper housewife would vacuum once a week or more.
> Instead of washing a single set of clothes a week, they wash every
> article of clothing daily, etc.
Where did this come from? I've never known a woman that washed every
> In article
> <c997a1ab-ba31-47ba...@n22g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> "dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > One thing I'd like to add is that Phyllis Schlafly made a correct
> > observation when she pointed out that modern inventions to a large
> > extent made the job of housewife less onerous than it had been in the
> > past. Those inventions include vacuum cleaners, washing machines and
> > dryers, dishwashers, microwaves, and (for those housewives who are
> > also mothers of infants) disposable diapers. All of these modern
> > inventions make housework and other domestic chores easier and less
> > time consuming.
>
> True. Ironically, however, like much technology they only changed the
> type of the work rather than it's scope. Instead of beating the rugs
> once a month, a proper housewife would vacuum once a week or more.
> Instead of washing a single set of clothes a week, they wash every
> article of clothing daily, etc.
article of clothing daily. I've never even known a women that washed
every article or WORN clothing daily. For most women, washing every
article of clothing daily would require running three or four loads
a day!
>
> Many modern career women trying to balance career and home simply
> lowered the bar from their 1950's era mothers. It was not uncommon for
> me to meet career women who lived in a pig sty and had a sink full of
> dishes they hadn't bothered to put in the dishwasher and empty, hadn't
> vacuumed in months, and sent out their clothing to be dry cleaned at a
> great expense.
If the clothing wasn't compatible with washing in water, that may have
> Many modern career women trying to balance career and home simply
> lowered the bar from their 1950's era mothers. It was not uncommon for
> me to meet career women who lived in a pig sty and had a sink full of
> dishes they hadn't bothered to put in the dishwasher and empty, hadn't
> vacuumed in months, and sent out their clothing to be dry cleaned at a
> great expense.
been an unavoidable expense. However, I doubt that they did so with
every article of clothing every day.
>
> As many soccer moms gripe, some inventions, such as the automobile,
> actually created more work for them.
Why so? Would it have been less work and less time to get the kids
> As many soccer moms gripe, some inventions, such as the automobile,
> actually created more work for them.
to practice walking or riding bicycles?
> While children in the past walked
> to school and got exercise, they now have to ferry the kids to and from
> school and then to the community gym to get exercise because a "proper"
> mother today wouldn't risk her darlings being abducted. :-)
>
> > My friend who is a househusband also benefits from these inventions
> > since it is a lot easier to clean clothes with a washing machine, to
> > clean floors with a vacuum cleaner, etc.
>
> To hell with the vacuum cleaner. Simply get wood floors and then use a
> water cloth mop to clean every week or so. Done.
Worked for me in the military--although they did have us mop daily. But
> > My friend who is a househusband also benefits from these inventions
> > since it is a lot easier to clean clothes with a washing machine, to
> > clean floors with a vacuum cleaner, etc.
>
> To hell with the vacuum cleaner. Simply get wood floors and then use a
> water cloth mop to clean every week or so. Done.
then we had 100 guys walking over the floor, not a family of four.
>
> > If there was actually a plot by men to ensure that women get a lousy
> > deal in this "man's world," one would think such items would be banned
> > so domestic jobs would be as onerous as possible. Instead, men are
> > usually quite happy to allow women these very helpful aids in what has
> > traditionally been called "women's work."
> >
Mark Borgerson
> > If there was actually a plot by men to ensure that women get a lousy
> > deal in this "man's world," one would think such items would be banned
> > so domestic jobs would be as onerous as possible. Instead, men are
> > usually quite happy to allow women these very helpful aids in what has
> > traditionally been called "women's work."
> >
Jenn
Apr 26, 2012, 1:04:30 PM4/26/12
to
PolishKnight wrote:
<snip>
--
Jenn
<snip>
> but as men
> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
> clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
I don't believe that statement is true at all.
> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
> clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
--
Jenn
PolishKnight
Apr 26, 2012, 9:06:32 PM4/26/12
to
In article <jnbv6v$eot$1...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com>
wrote:
What part?
regards,
PolishKnight
wrote:
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
Apr 26, 2012, 9:07:55 PM4/26/12
to
In article <MPG.2a0269d6f...@news.eternal-september.org>,
If you're going to make another semantic quibble post, I'm ignoring the
rest. I think I'll do something more productive and fun like tuning my
gmail spam filters...
Rest deleted and unread. I probably didn't miss much.
regards,
PolishKnight
Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <marek1965-EBB15...@news.giganews.com>,
> mare...@comcast.net says...
> >
> > In article
> > <c997a1ab-ba31-47ba...@n22g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > One thing I'd like to add is that Phyllis Schlafly made a correct
> > > observation when she pointed out that modern inventions to a large
> > > extent made the job of housewife less onerous than it had been in the
> > > past. Those inventions include vacuum cleaners, washing machines and
> > > dryers, dishwashers, microwaves, and (for those housewives who are
> > > also mothers of infants) disposable diapers. All of these modern
> > > inventions make housework and other domestic chores easier and less
> > > time consuming.
> >
> > True. Ironically, however, like much technology they only changed the
> > type of the work rather than it's scope. Instead of beating the rugs
> > once a month, a proper housewife would vacuum once a week or more.
> > Instead of washing a single set of clothes a week, they wash every
> > article of clothing daily, etc.
>
> Where did this come from? I've never known a woman that washed every
> article of clothing daily. I've never even known a women that washed
> every article or WORN clothing daily. For most women, washing every
> article of clothing daily would require running three or four loads
> a day!
Sigh, MarkB, I think you know what I mean by that.
> In article <marek1965-EBB15...@news.giganews.com>,
> mare...@comcast.net says...
> >
> > In article
> > <c997a1ab-ba31-47ba...@n22g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > One thing I'd like to add is that Phyllis Schlafly made a correct
> > > observation when she pointed out that modern inventions to a large
> > > extent made the job of housewife less onerous than it had been in the
> > > past. Those inventions include vacuum cleaners, washing machines and
> > > dryers, dishwashers, microwaves, and (for those housewives who are
> > > also mothers of infants) disposable diapers. All of these modern
> > > inventions make housework and other domestic chores easier and less
> > > time consuming.
> >
> > True. Ironically, however, like much technology they only changed the
> > type of the work rather than it's scope. Instead of beating the rugs
> > once a month, a proper housewife would vacuum once a week or more.
> > Instead of washing a single set of clothes a week, they wash every
> > article of clothing daily, etc.
>
> Where did this come from? I've never known a woman that washed every
> article of clothing daily. I've never even known a women that washed
> every article or WORN clothing daily. For most women, washing every
> article of clothing daily would require running three or four loads
> a day!
If you're going to make another semantic quibble post, I'm ignoring the
rest. I think I'll do something more productive and fun like tuning my
gmail spam filters...
Rest deleted and unread. I probably didn't miss much.
regards,
PolishKnight
Jenn
Apr 27, 2012, 1:12:41 AM4/27/12
to
--
Jenn
dd...@bellsouth.net
Apr 27, 2012, 6:31:48 AM4/27/12
to
> > In article<jnbv6v$eo...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn"<m...@noe.mail.com>
often spoke and wrote as if nothing but paid work mattered. That was
why they were so negative on homemaking, marriage, and family life.
> > wrote:
>
> >> PolishKnight wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>> but as men
> >>> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
> >>> clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
>
> >> I don't believe that statement is true at all.
>
> > What part?
>
> The part I quoted. I think many women know life isn't only about one's job.
>
> --
> Jenn
(Denise) Most women know this. The "women's libbers" of the 1970s
>
> >> PolishKnight wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>> but as men
> >>> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
> >>> clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
>
> >> I don't believe that statement is true at all.
>
> > What part?
>
> The part I quoted. I think many women know life isn't only about one's job.
>
> --
> Jenn
often spoke and wrote as if nothing but paid work mattered. That was
why they were so negative on homemaking, marriage, and family life.
Jenn
Apr 27, 2012, 12:00:39 PM4/27/12
to
dd...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Apr 27, 1:12 am, Jenn <n...@ema.il> wrote:
>> On 4/26/2012 8:06 PM, PolishKnight wrote:
>>
>>> In article<jnbv6v$eo...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn"<m...@noe.mail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> PolishKnight wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> but as men
>>>>> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't
>>>>> have a clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
>>
>>>> I don't believe that statement is true at all.
>>
>>> What part?
>>
>> The part I quoted. I think many women know life isn't only about
>> one's job.
>>
> On Apr 27, 1:12 am, Jenn <n...@ema.il> wrote:
>> On 4/26/2012 8:06 PM, PolishKnight wrote:
>>
>>> In article<jnbv6v$eo...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn"<m...@noe.mail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> PolishKnight wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> but as men
>>>>> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't
>>>>> have a clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
>>
>>>> I don't believe that statement is true at all.
>>
>>> What part?
>>
>> The part I quoted. I think many women know life isn't only about
>> one's job.
>>
> (Denise) Most women know this. The "women's libbers" of the 1970s
> often spoke and wrote as if nothing but paid work mattered. That was
> why they were so negative on homemaking, marriage, and family life.
That did a terrible disservice to the women who were homemakers, imo.
> often spoke and wrote as if nothing but paid work mattered. That was
> why they were so negative on homemaking, marriage, and family life.
--
Jenn
PolishKnight
Apr 28, 2012, 7:21:53 PM4/28/12
to
"normal" women, as you see them, were already married. It's like when I
go to the supermarket on the last day of a sale and all that was left of
the Klondike bars on sale were Oreo and Crunchy (as it turned out, my
wife and I both liked them! :-) My mother had an expression for when
her children bought her Mother's day presents at the last minute:
"Mommy's pickin's!" :-)
So a lot of the women who were career focused or just plain focused upon
other stuff rather than family also tended to be in the dating pool.
One woman I met wasn't career focused but something worse: She was
obsessed with her front lawn. She was spending $200 a month on water
bills and trying to suck me into it.
Anyways, when I looked at the personals I saw most of the women's ads or
how they responded tended to deny their interest in starting a family.
This was back in the early 90's at a particular stage of feminism when a
lot of women were into it. Perhaps now times are different since the
notion of "playing it cool" about having a family are impractical for
that generation.
regards,
PolishKnight
Jenn
Apr 29, 2012, 1:15:21 AM4/29/12
to
On 4/28/2012 6:21 PM, PolishKnight wrote:
> go to the supermarket on the last day of a sale and all that was left of
> the Klondike bars on sale were Oreo and Crunchy (as it turned out, my
> wife and I both liked them! :-) My mother had an expression for when
> her children bought her Mother's day presents at the last minute:
> "Mommy's pickin's!" :-)
>
> So a lot of the women who were career focused or just plain focused upon
> other stuff rather than family also tended to be in the dating pool.
> One woman I met wasn't career focused but something worse: She was
> obsessed with her front lawn. She was spending $200 a month on water
> bills and trying to suck me into it.
>
> Anyways, when I looked at the personals I saw most of the women's ads or
> how they responded tended to deny their interest in starting a family.
> This was back in the early 90's at a particular stage of feminism when a
> lot of women were into it. Perhaps now times are different since the
> notion of "playing it cool" about having a family are impractical for
> that generation.
You do have an interesting perspective for sure. I enjoy reading what
you have to say.
--
Jenn
> In article<jnd9rt$etn$1...@dont-email.me>, Jenn<n...@ema.il> wrote:
>
>> On 4/26/2012 8:06 PM, PolishKnight wrote:
>>> In article<jnbv6v$eot$1...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn"<m...@noe.mail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> PolishKnight wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> but as men
>>>>> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
>>>>> clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that statement is true at all.
>>>
>>> What part?
>>>
>>
>> The part I quoted. I think many women know life isn't only about one's job.
> Perhaps, Jenn, because I started dating out of college most of the
> "normal" women, as you see them, were already married. It's like when I
I dated some men when I was in college and after that, too. :)
>
>> On 4/26/2012 8:06 PM, PolishKnight wrote:
>>> In article<jnbv6v$eot$1...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn"<m...@noe.mail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> PolishKnight wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> but as men
>>>>> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
>>>>> clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that statement is true at all.
>>>
>>> What part?
>>>
>>
>> The part I quoted. I think many women know life isn't only about one's job.
> Perhaps, Jenn, because I started dating out of college most of the
> "normal" women, as you see them, were already married. It's like when I
> go to the supermarket on the last day of a sale and all that was left of
> the Klondike bars on sale were Oreo and Crunchy (as it turned out, my
> wife and I both liked them! :-) My mother had an expression for when
> her children bought her Mother's day presents at the last minute:
> "Mommy's pickin's!" :-)
>
> So a lot of the women who were career focused or just plain focused upon
> other stuff rather than family also tended to be in the dating pool.
> One woman I met wasn't career focused but something worse: She was
> obsessed with her front lawn. She was spending $200 a month on water
> bills and trying to suck me into it.
>
> Anyways, when I looked at the personals I saw most of the women's ads or
> how they responded tended to deny their interest in starting a family.
> This was back in the early 90's at a particular stage of feminism when a
> lot of women were into it. Perhaps now times are different since the
> notion of "playing it cool" about having a family are impractical for
> that generation.
you have to say.
--
Jenn
PolishKnight
Apr 29, 2012, 7:19:58 PM4/29/12
to
In a discussion where MarkB is griping about my misspellings and grammar
errors, my main goal is to be interesting and thought provoking.
Another goal is to be as honest as reasonably possible. If I'm putting
myself on the line, I think that inspires, or at least nags, other
people to also be a little honest with themselves rather than just
defending cherished beliefs or their self-image.
USENET, in it's heyday, was entertaining but also rather heated at
times. It just refuses to die.
regards,
PolishKnight
Jenn
Apr 30, 2012, 4:04:07 PM4/30/12
to
the nastiness that can go along with it. It's nice to find someone like
yourself who can actually have interesting discussions like that. :)
--
Jenn
PolishKnight
May 1, 2012, 9:25:04 PM5/1/12
to
In article <jnmr7p$rvf$1...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com>
wrote:
Thanks.
One way I've really grown (recently) is to actually bite my tongue at
family and friends dinners when politics comes up not because I know I
won't get nasty but...
they do.
And most of them aren't mature enough to admit it. If someone gets me
and wins a point, I may not be happy about it, but I can at least be
gracious and respect that they won fair and square (for now.)
On the other hand, when most people get their sacred cows ground up in
public, it can get ugly. In the very least, that person will simply
decide to try to get you univited to events they are attending.
Yet... on the other hand, even in my more mellow old age I don't want to
be afraid to stand up for what I believe in strongly. So I learned to
use the guerilla tactic of engagement. Say some thought provoking
things to get them (and others) thinking and then when they say "Ok,
let's talk about it" and I know where that road is leading, I quietly
change the subject. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to engage in a strong
debate with them but there are "civilians" around who could be
collateral damage.
There's a saying not to discuss religion and politics at social
gatherings. I would alter that to say that the reason why it's unsafe
to discuss such matters is that for many people, religion and politics
are still the same thing and have been for all of history. What's
interesting is that there's a modern notion held by some people that
their religion isn't a religion at all: the pseudo scientific and
rationalist believers whose belief system as faith based (and
intolerant) as a 9th century papal tribunal.
regards,
PolishKnight
wrote:
One way I've really grown (recently) is to actually bite my tongue at
family and friends dinners when politics comes up not because I know I
won't get nasty but...
they do.
And most of them aren't mature enough to admit it. If someone gets me
and wins a point, I may not be happy about it, but I can at least be
gracious and respect that they won fair and square (for now.)
On the other hand, when most people get their sacred cows ground up in
public, it can get ugly. In the very least, that person will simply
decide to try to get you univited to events they are attending.
Yet... on the other hand, even in my more mellow old age I don't want to
be afraid to stand up for what I believe in strongly. So I learned to
use the guerilla tactic of engagement. Say some thought provoking
things to get them (and others) thinking and then when they say "Ok,
let's talk about it" and I know where that road is leading, I quietly
change the subject. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to engage in a strong
debate with them but there are "civilians" around who could be
collateral damage.
There's a saying not to discuss religion and politics at social
gatherings. I would alter that to say that the reason why it's unsafe
to discuss such matters is that for many people, religion and politics
are still the same thing and have been for all of history. What's
interesting is that there's a modern notion held by some people that
their religion isn't a religion at all: the pseudo scientific and
rationalist believers whose belief system as faith based (and
intolerant) as a 9th century papal tribunal.
regards,
PolishKnight
Jenn
May 2, 2012, 12:05:00 PM5/2/12
to
PolishKnight wrote:
> On the other hand, when most people get their sacred cows ground up in
> public, it can get ugly. In the very least, that person will simply
> decide to try to get you univited to events they are attending.
>
> Yet... on the other hand, even in my more mellow old age I don't want
> to be afraid to stand up for what I believe in strongly. So I
> learned to use the guerilla tactic of engagement. Say some thought
> provoking things to get them (and others) thinking and then when they
> say "Ok, let's talk about it" and I know where that road is leading,
> I quietly change the subject. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to engage
> in a strong debate with them but there are "civilians" around who
> could be collateral damage.
Do you have an example of when you've actually done this? It's an
> On the other hand, when most people get their sacred cows ground up in
> public, it can get ugly. In the very least, that person will simply
> decide to try to get you univited to events they are attending.
>
> Yet... on the other hand, even in my more mellow old age I don't want
> to be afraid to stand up for what I believe in strongly. So I
> learned to use the guerilla tactic of engagement. Say some thought
> provoking things to get them (and others) thinking and then when they
> say "Ok, let's talk about it" and I know where that road is leading,
> I quietly change the subject. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to engage
> in a strong debate with them but there are "civilians" around who
> could be collateral damage.
interesting approach, which I kind of think I may do something similar, but
I'm not sure until I see an example of what you mean.
--
Jenn
PolishKnight
May 2, 2012, 9:30:36 PM5/2/12
to
In article <jnrlvd$h26$1...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com>
wrote:
When I heard someone at a party say recently that women weren't paid the
same as men, I observed that women could working longer hours and pay
men alimony and then things might even out.
I could see her face turn a bit red.
Then I quickly added a comment to draw the topic back to the original
reason it was brought up: She was complaining about inflation and I
observed that stores were now hiding the increase in the price of sugar
by selling 4lb bags at the same price as 5lb a few months ago.
And pretty soon everyone else started talking about that and didn't want
to come back.
So the key for me is to keep in mind the direction the conversation is
flowing: People talk about A which leads to B and then when I disagree
strongly with B, try to get my comment in and move back to A.
Keep in mind that most people don't really THINK about how to manage a
conversation anyway. They just blab. I've taken a lot of communication
courses so I keep in mind the basic metrics of the conversation and the
situation: Do I care about getting invited back here? What point am I
trying to make? Would further argument actually change anything?
And of course, sometimes I just let loose and have fun when I know it's
ok. That makes it all the more fun!
regards,
PolishKnight
wrote:
same as men, I observed that women could working longer hours and pay
men alimony and then things might even out.
I could see her face turn a bit red.
Then I quickly added a comment to draw the topic back to the original
reason it was brought up: She was complaining about inflation and I
observed that stores were now hiding the increase in the price of sugar
by selling 4lb bags at the same price as 5lb a few months ago.
And pretty soon everyone else started talking about that and didn't want
to come back.
So the key for me is to keep in mind the direction the conversation is
flowing: People talk about A which leads to B and then when I disagree
strongly with B, try to get my comment in and move back to A.
Keep in mind that most people don't really THINK about how to manage a
conversation anyway. They just blab. I've taken a lot of communication
courses so I keep in mind the basic metrics of the conversation and the
situation: Do I care about getting invited back here? What point am I
trying to make? Would further argument actually change anything?
And of course, sometimes I just let loose and have fun when I know it's
ok. That makes it all the more fun!
regards,
PolishKnight
Mark Borgerson
May 3, 2012, 12:15:21 AM5/3/12
to
In article <marek1965-2E02D...@news.giganews.com>,
mare...@comcast.net says...
DOH! I notice several years ago that half-gallon containers of ice
cream had changed to 1.75 quarts for the same price. ;-( Then those
smaller containers started increasing in price as the cost of sugar,
milk and eggs went up. Of those three, the supermarket prices of
eggs seem to have risen the least. AAARGH! (relatively) cheap
cholesterol---just what us old folks need!
have little possibilty of changing ingrained attitudes. I keep that in
mind in discussions with my in-laws and others older than myself.
How is your blogspot thing going? Last time I looked, the posts and
responses were a bit sparse.
>
Mark Borgerson
mare...@comcast.net says...
cream had changed to 1.75 quarts for the same price. ;-( Then those
smaller containers started increasing in price as the cost of sugar,
milk and eggs went up. Of those three, the supermarket prices of
eggs seem to have risen the least. AAARGH! (relatively) cheap
cholesterol---just what us old folks need!
>
> And pretty soon everyone else started talking about that and didn't want
> to come back.
>
> So the key for me is to keep in mind the direction the conversation is
> flowing: People talk about A which leads to B and then when I disagree
> strongly with B, try to get my comment in and move back to A.
>
> Keep in mind that most people don't really THINK about how to manage a
> conversation anyway. They just blab. I've taken a lot of communication
> courses so I keep in mind the basic metrics of the conversation and the
> situation: Do I care about getting invited back here? What point am I
> trying to make? Would further argument actually change anything?
The last question is key: for most people in casual conversation, you
> And pretty soon everyone else started talking about that and didn't want
> to come back.
>
> So the key for me is to keep in mind the direction the conversation is
> flowing: People talk about A which leads to B and then when I disagree
> strongly with B, try to get my comment in and move back to A.
>
> Keep in mind that most people don't really THINK about how to manage a
> conversation anyway. They just blab. I've taken a lot of communication
> courses so I keep in mind the basic metrics of the conversation and the
> situation: Do I care about getting invited back here? What point am I
> trying to make? Would further argument actually change anything?
have little possibilty of changing ingrained attitudes. I keep that in
mind in discussions with my in-laws and others older than myself.
>
> And of course, sometimes I just let loose and have fun when I know it's
> ok. That makes it all the more fun!
Well, we've certainly seen that side of you here on USENET! ;-)
> And of course, sometimes I just let loose and have fun when I know it's
> ok. That makes it all the more fun!
How is your blogspot thing going? Last time I looked, the posts and
responses were a bit sparse.
>
Mark Borgerson
PolishKnight
May 3, 2012, 8:35:49 PM5/3/12
to
In article <MPG.2a0ba634...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Milk and sugar are good examples of crony capitalism at work. Both have
strong lobbies raising their prices.
Thanks to modern technology, most stores now have computer printed
labels with the price per ounce/lb/etc. and that's what I look at and
not the container.
> > And pretty soon everyone else started talking about that and didn't want
> > to come back.
> >
> > So the key for me is to keep in mind the direction the conversation is
> > flowing: People talk about A which leads to B and then when I disagree
> > strongly with B, try to get my comment in and move back to A.
> >
> > Keep in mind that most people don't really THINK about how to manage a
> > conversation anyway. They just blab. I've taken a lot of communication
> > courses so I keep in mind the basic metrics of the conversation and the
> > situation: Do I care about getting invited back here? What point am I
> > trying to make? Would further argument actually change anything?
>
> The last question is key: for most people in casual conversation, you
> have little possibilty of changing ingrained attitudes. I keep that in
> mind in discussions with my in-laws and others older than myself.
Old people are practically dead anyway. :-) So sure, let them enjoy the
satisfaction of dying with their long held, cherished beliefs. It's
like trying to convert someone at the last minute to save their soul.
Most people would rather lose their soul than give up their cherished
notions. :-)
In general, I don't argue with true believers in the hopes of changing
them. I perform for the audience (the "moderate" sheep) that sit in the
background and don't feel too strongly one way, or another, but do pay
attention to whether someone stating their beliefs are challenged before
deciding which way the wind blows. So the guerilla tactic of taking a
shot and moving on is best there.
It's also useful to have a repetoire of other topics that the opposition
cares about to change the subject to. Kind of like trying to get a cat
to stop scratching the couch by opening a can of food...
> > And of course, sometimes I just let loose and have fun when I know it's
> > ok. That makes it all the more fun!
>
> Well, we've certainly seen that side of you here on USENET! ;-)
>
> How is your blogspot thing going? Last time I looked, the posts and
> responses were a bit sparse.
I'm overdue for another post.
> >
>
> Mark Borgerson
>
>
>
strong lobbies raising their prices.
Thanks to modern technology, most stores now have computer printed
labels with the price per ounce/lb/etc. and that's what I look at and
not the container.
> > And pretty soon everyone else started talking about that and didn't want
> > to come back.
> >
> > So the key for me is to keep in mind the direction the conversation is
> > flowing: People talk about A which leads to B and then when I disagree
> > strongly with B, try to get my comment in and move back to A.
> >
> > Keep in mind that most people don't really THINK about how to manage a
> > conversation anyway. They just blab. I've taken a lot of communication
> > courses so I keep in mind the basic metrics of the conversation and the
> > situation: Do I care about getting invited back here? What point am I
> > trying to make? Would further argument actually change anything?
>
> The last question is key: for most people in casual conversation, you
> have little possibilty of changing ingrained attitudes. I keep that in
> mind in discussions with my in-laws and others older than myself.
satisfaction of dying with their long held, cherished beliefs. It's
like trying to convert someone at the last minute to save their soul.
Most people would rather lose their soul than give up their cherished
notions. :-)
In general, I don't argue with true believers in the hopes of changing
them. I perform for the audience (the "moderate" sheep) that sit in the
background and don't feel too strongly one way, or another, but do pay
attention to whether someone stating their beliefs are challenged before
deciding which way the wind blows. So the guerilla tactic of taking a
shot and moving on is best there.
It's also useful to have a repetoire of other topics that the opposition
cares about to change the subject to. Kind of like trying to get a cat
to stop scratching the couch by opening a can of food...
> > And of course, sometimes I just let loose and have fun when I know it's
> > ok. That makes it all the more fun!
>
> Well, we've certainly seen that side of you here on USENET! ;-)
>
> How is your blogspot thing going? Last time I looked, the posts and
> responses were a bit sparse.
> >
>
> Mark Borgerson
>
>
>
Jenn
May 4, 2012, 8:42:11 PM5/4/12
to
I do enjoy a good discussion with people, and I will listen to what they
have to say and think about it while they are talking. Along the way I
will decide if I agree or disagree or have questions, and if/when they
take a breath, I'll try to interject. The thing is most people don't
take a breath! LOL
--
Jenn
PolishKnight
May 5, 2012, 5:27:48 PM5/5/12
to
topic imaginable despite us having a celebratory lunch. I tried to go
"uh huh uh huh" but not say anything but he didn't take the hint. If
anything, he too the "uh huh" as an invitation to blab on, forever.
Then I finally said "Please, I don't want to talk about this" and he got
outright insulting and mean. I finally insisted upon getting up from
the table just to get away from him.
Fortunately, most people are not like that and take the hint but looking
back, I realize that rude people naturally play upon the basic manners
of normal people to exploit them so when I encountered another bore I
engaged in this experiment:
I said nothing. And I mean nothing. No uh-huhs. Nothing. I played
dead. I listened to what he said, intently, but gave zero indication or
feedback.
It takes the average bore about 3 minutes or so to realize I'm not
responding. Then they become very intent to see if they can re-engage
me. I ask then: "Are you through?" or "I am afraid I cannot continue
this conversation" and it pretty much shuts them down. It terrifies
them that they just blabbed for nothing and looked like a fool.
It's kind of like "trolling" in a way but making the troll the victim.
regards,
PolishKnight
Jenn
May 8, 2012, 11:46:37 PM5/8/12
to
On 5/5/2012 4:27 PM, PolishKnight wrote:
I wish I was that good at shutting that sort of person down, although, I
have gotten to where I do the no responding at all thing... They don't
shut up, though! LOL
--
Jenn
have gotten to where I do the no responding at all thing... They don't
shut up, though! LOL
--
Jenn
PolishKnight
May 12, 2012, 1:06:00 PM5/12/12
to
Any indication you give that you're listening: an "uh huh" or "I see
that" or even eye contact when they make a key point is an indication to
them that they have your undivided attention.
It takes an effort, but simply be a statue. Try counting how many words
they say, this will help you to block them out because you're focusing
on something you can't block out (their voice) but simultaneously will
block out what they're actually saying. It's kind of like counting
sheep.
Eventually, they will get the message you are not listening to them. At
all. They will then ask you if you're paying attention and then you say
no, you weren't, and wish they'd change the subject. The typical bore
either apologizes (if they're truly naive that they were being a bore)
but many will get angry at you for not being a good captive. Then you
can point out they were a bore and embarass them. (But be prepared for
a confrontation.)
I have these types at work who pop open internet chats with me thinking
they have a right to basically call or chat me and then demand I drop
everything I'm doing for them (even though my SLA indicates they have no
such right.) So I ignore them for a while or listen carefully to what
they so with no feedback and then, when they require acknowledgement...
I GOT THEM!
The key is that even a bore needs acknowledgement eventually. You have
them in the palm of your hand then. The bore uses the fact that most
people give acknowledgement as a matter of trust but when they violate
that trust, you can refuse to give it until you have THEIR full
attention.
regards,
PolishKnight
Jenn
Jun 8, 2012, 5:51:47 PM6/8/12
to
groups? I'd love to see how you'd handle some of the people on a couple
groups I've been a part of for quite a few years. I enjoy good discussion,
but it's difficult to get anything but slams or attacks from most people on
any topic they disagree with...
--
Jenn
PolishKnight
Jul 1, 2012, 1:02:11 PM7/1/12
to
In article <jqts5n$603$1...@echo.eternal-september.org>,
Hello Jenn,
Somehow I missed your reply. I don't take the slams or attacks
personally but rather as an expression of their insecurities, at worst.
Sometimes people lash out based upon the assumption that the person
making an argument is dishonest based upon experiences they have had in
the past (I've fallen for that one myself.) In other words, don't take
it personally. (In life, that's the case much of the time but sometimes
people really are personal and seem to develop an attitude specifically
towards us as individuals.)
A bills of rights for Usenet should include:
1) People have the right to their opinion and can and will exercise this
right the MORE you refuse to acknowledge it.
2) You don't HAVE to respond to people. Simply say they can have the
last word and if they want to take that as a surrender, so be it. If
they were engaging in a flame war or using a dishonest argument, they
are subconsciously aware of this at least and you needn't bother arguing
with them for them to realize it.
3) If people don't like your posts, they have the RIGHT to not read
them. (Hello MarkB!!!)
4) You don't have an obligation to read responses either. You don't
have to feed the trolls!
5) You have the right to post because you enjoy doing so (or if you
don't enjoy posting, fine. But what's the point?) Many people are not
aware of this right apparently.
Ok, I didn't reach 10 but that's a good start!
regards,
PolishKnight
Somehow I missed your reply. I don't take the slams or attacks
personally but rather as an expression of their insecurities, at worst.
Sometimes people lash out based upon the assumption that the person
making an argument is dishonest based upon experiences they have had in
the past (I've fallen for that one myself.) In other words, don't take
it personally. (In life, that's the case much of the time but sometimes
people really are personal and seem to develop an attitude specifically
towards us as individuals.)
A bills of rights for Usenet should include:
1) People have the right to their opinion and can and will exercise this
right the MORE you refuse to acknowledge it.
2) You don't HAVE to respond to people. Simply say they can have the
last word and if they want to take that as a surrender, so be it. If
they were engaging in a flame war or using a dishonest argument, they
are subconsciously aware of this at least and you needn't bother arguing
with them for them to realize it.
3) If people don't like your posts, they have the RIGHT to not read
them. (Hello MarkB!!!)
4) You don't have an obligation to read responses either. You don't
have to feed the trolls!
5) You have the right to post because you enjoy doing so (or if you
don't enjoy posting, fine. But what's the point?) Many people are not
aware of this right apparently.
Ok, I didn't reach 10 but that's a good start!
regards,
PolishKnight
Mark Borgerson
Jul 2, 2012, 12:38:30 AM7/2/12
to
In article <marek1965-3D4C7...@news.giganews.com>,
mare...@comcast.net says...
>
<<SNIP>>
opinionated if you do not respond to them? This would seem to be
contrary to the standard "do not feed the trolls" principle.
> 2) You don't HAVE to respond to people. Simply say they can have the
> last word and if they want to take that as a surrender, so be it. If
> they were engaging in a flame war or using a dishonest argument, they
> are subconsciously aware of this at least and you needn't bother arguing
> with them for them to realize it.
If they are SUBCONSCIOUSLY aware of flaming, or using a dishonest
argument, they may not realize it unless you point it out.
> 3) If people don't like your posts, they have the RIGHT to not read
> them. (Hello MarkB!!!)
Wouldn't that assume a certain amount of prejudice? How can one tell if
one doesn't like a post if one hasn't read it?
> 4) You don't have an obligation to read responses either. You don't
> have to feed the trolls!
I don't think that just reading a response is feeding a troll. To do
that, you have to respond.
> 5) You have the right to post because you enjoy doing so (or if you
> don't enjoy posting, fine. But what's the point?) Many people are not
> aware of this right apparently.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is the right to post because you
enjoy it different from the right to post for any other reason?
or employs excessive hyperbole, you are free to point out those problems
to the author and other readers of the newsgroup.
>
Mark Borgerson
mare...@comcast.net says...
>
<<SNIP>>
>
> A bills of rights for Usenet should include:
>
> 1) People have the right to their opinion and can and will exercise this
> right the MORE you refuse to acknowledge it.
Is there cause and effect here? Do USENET posters become more
> A bills of rights for Usenet should include:
>
> 1) People have the right to their opinion and can and will exercise this
> right the MORE you refuse to acknowledge it.
opinionated if you do not respond to them? This would seem to be
contrary to the standard "do not feed the trolls" principle.
> 2) You don't HAVE to respond to people. Simply say they can have the
> last word and if they want to take that as a surrender, so be it. If
> they were engaging in a flame war or using a dishonest argument, they
> are subconsciously aware of this at least and you needn't bother arguing
> with them for them to realize it.
argument, they may not realize it unless you point it out.
> 3) If people don't like your posts, they have the RIGHT to not read
> them. (Hello MarkB!!!)
one doesn't like a post if one hasn't read it?
> 4) You don't have an obligation to read responses either. You don't
> have to feed the trolls!
that, you have to respond.
> 5) You have the right to post because you enjoy doing so (or if you
> don't enjoy posting, fine. But what's the point?) Many people are not
> aware of this right apparently.
enjoy it different from the right to post for any other reason?
>
> Ok, I didn't reach 10 but that's a good start!
6) If you read a post on a newsgroup that is illogical, poorly written,
> Ok, I didn't reach 10 but that's a good start!
or employs excessive hyperbole, you are free to point out those problems
to the author and other readers of the newsgroup.
>
Mark Borgerson
Message has been deleted
0 new messages