OT Angry White Man
Terry
Ernest Major
<kilo...@charter.net> writes
>
>http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
>
Interesting choice of newsgroups (alt.support.hepatitis-c,
alt.politics.immigration, alt.home.repair removed). You wouldn't be
trolling, would you?
--
alias Ernest Major
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> In message <gskbr398av02uhlkdbp43d25g6a0j3c...@4ax.com>, Terry
> <kilow...@charter.net> writes
>
> >http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
>
> Interesting choice of newsgroups (alt.support.hepatitis-c,
> alt.politics.immigration, alt.home.repair removed). You wouldn't be
> trolling, would you?
> --
Is this the same dipshit who was so easily impressed by the cheap
Rubiks' Cube parlor trick . . . . ?
Not terribly bright, is he . . . .
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Kermit
> http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
"There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White
Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them
will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them
voted for George Bush."
I'm really rather tired of hearing about the whiny Real Men; they
embarrass me. If they listened to something other than Rush Limbaugh
they might be able to understand some of the changes going on around
them. Maybe even grow a pair.
Kermit
Dick C.
The so called men metioned in the first paragraph are so unsure of
their manhood that
they have to tell everyone that they are real men, lest anyone
mistake them for something less.
And as real men they have to own something that spits when they tell
it to, unlike what they have
in their pants, plus they have to join a club that tells the world
that they are real men. And as real men
they are afraid of women that have more power than they do.
On the other hand, I owned some guns when I was 18. I then went into
the navy and sold them when I got out. I also joined the nra when I
was 18. I never renewed my membership. By the time I grew up
I knew I was a man, and I have not felt any urge to tell the world
that I am a man. The people that matter to me know if I am a man or
not. I do not need to tell them, andt that is all that matters.
Dick C.
Scooter the Mighty
> http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
I have to judge this a pretty stupid essay.
"Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-
interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to
children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical
Christians."
Really? There's been a lot of pandering to transgendered people and
children of illegal immigrants, has there?
"There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that
will decide the election: the Angry White Man."
I really don't think so this time. They don't have a horse in this
race, I think they'll largely stay home.
"The victimhood syndrome buzzwords -- "disenfranchised," "marginalized"
and "voiceless" -- don't resonate with him. "Press 'one' for English"
is a curse-word to him."
Yeah, because he considers himself to be disenfranchised and
marginalized by the children of illegal immigrants and transgendered
people. Which is stupid.
"Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site
becomes flooded with illegal workers who don't pay taxes and his wages
drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets
shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot
in India for tech support, he simmers....He also votes, and the Angry
White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel
scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television.
Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would
want her as their leader. It's not that she is a woman. It's that she
is who she is. It's the liberal victim groups she panders to, the
"poor me" attitude that she represents, her inability to give a
straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants
to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves."
This is all bullshit. Hillary Clinton isn't any more pandering than
any other politician, nor is she especially planning to spend more tax
dollars on social programs than other democratic candidates. The AWM
doesn't like her because the idiots he listens to have been mindlessly
badmouthing her since her husband first was elected. They don't
really know why they hate her at this point, they just do.
And for God's sake, what kind of idiot doesn't mind Bush spending a
trillion dollars on what has amounted to a grossly ineffective social
program for the betterment of Iraq and then gets his panties in a wad
about the idea that maybe a couple of poor kids might get to go to
college here in America? Does he think he's not going to have to pay
for that just because Bush doesn't have the testicular fortitude to
raise taxes?
"There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White
Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them
will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them
voted for George Bush. He hopes that she will be the Democratic
nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets
beaten like a drum."
Except, see, these guys are the Republican base, so they aren't really
relevant. These are the guys who are going to vote Republican no
matter what. Moderates and independants who might vote one way or
another will decide the election.
wf3h
the analysis is true. these idiots...angry white men...live under many
delusions. they imagine that, with their guns, this beer swilling pot
bellied crowd will take on the US govt if it ever decides to 'take
over'. the NRA is responsible for the slaughter that's been going on
on america's college campuses over the last week. it's a brain dead
crowd of losers if there ever was one.
Robert Allison
> On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
>
>
> I have to judge this a pretty stupid essay.
>
> "Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-
> interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to
> children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical
> Christians."
>
> Really? There's been a lot of pandering to transgendered people and
> children of illegal immigrants, has there?
<<Snipped>>
I read that essay and thought; This is one of those examples where
ignorance is NOT bliss! It is just stupidity.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX
Robert Allison
> On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
>
>
> I have to judge this a pretty stupid essay.
>
> "Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-
> interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to
> children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical
> Christians."
>
> Really? There's been a lot of pandering to transgendered people and
> children of illegal immigrants, has there?
<<Snipped>>
Thip
"Terry" <kilo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:gskbr398av02uhlkd...@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
I can't speak for the Angry White Man or for other geographic areas, but I
can tell you there are a whole lot of Angry Disgusted Folks around here.
Vend
Is 'Angry White Men' an euphemism for 'White Trash'? I'm asking
because I don't know.
Free Lunch
Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote in
<d3f7df01-d91e-40a5...@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
Not necessarily. It's mostly about guys who aren't dealing with the
modern world.
Inez
No. It's a euphemism for "person who listens to Rush Limbaugh."
Basically they're conservative men who are angry that other people are
not conservative.
Waterspider
minority groups in upcoming elections:
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/story.html?id=0a2b3e5e-047c-4cfd-b571-2b68350b254c&k=42738
Waterspider
issue splitting the Anglican church:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ceb2bdd9-01b6-4b2e-82bd-4e81f8590756
loua...@yahoo.com
> "There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White
> Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them
> will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them
> voted for George Bush. He hopes that she will be the Democratic
> nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets
> beaten like a drum."
>
> Except, see, these guys are the Republican base, so they aren't really
> relevant. These are the guys who are going to vote Republican no
> matter what.
Yep. The Republicans could run on a platform of "we're going to make
you poorer, double the national debt, stop your family getting medical
treatment, and get your kids killed overseas" and these guys would
happily vote for it.
Oh, wait. They already did.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/23/the-legacy-of-bushs-presidency/
Kermit
I've been listening to them for thirty years and more. They pass
stories around among themselves such as "I just held a door open for a
young woman and she lit into me with the foulest language I've heard
since the Navy - called me a chauvinist pig, among other things." Some
variation of this has been told for decades. Yet it's never happened
to me. Of course, I don't run up and say "Let me get that for ya,
little miss" while I'm trying to look down her blouse. I suspect it's
just an urban legend they pass around because it sounds reasonable to
them.
I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.
Kermit
Kermit
You probably knew folks who still have their firearms, but don't seem
angry or insecure. It *is just something some folks do, you know. I've
done martial arts for thirty years. If it's compensation for not being
manly enough, then it was probably a mistake to encourage my wife and
daughter to study...
This type does exist in large numbers, and is worried about their
image as a stud. But there are some guys who just like loud noises or
hard thumps.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> "Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site
> becomes flooded with illegal workers who don't pay taxes and his wages
> drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets
> shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot
> in India for tech support, he simmers....He also votes, and the Angry
> White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel
> scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television.
> Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would
> want her as their leader. It's not that she is a woman. It's that she
> is who she is. It's the liberal victim groups she panders to, the
> "poor me" attitude that she represents, her inability to give a
> straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants
> to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves."
>
> This is all bullshit. Hillary Clinton isn't any more pandering than
> any other politician, nor is she especially planning to spend more tax
> dollars on social programs than other democratic candidates. The AWM
> doesn't like her because the idiots he listens to have been mindlessly
> badmouthing her since her husband first was elected. They don't
> really know why they hate her at this point, they just do.
>
If you ask them *why they hate her, they tend to get angry at the
question, but never really articulate any reason. At least, that's
been my experience. <shrug> It rather reminds me of some of the
reactions from Creationists when you start asking them to support
their claims of fact.
<snip>
Kermit
Andre Lieven
Well, if even one true example of it actually happening will take this
out of the urban legend arena, then I can factually say that a version
of this happened to me.
I was in a Salvation Army store, looking for audio cassette storage
cases ( The kind that have three drawers that each hold 12-16 tapes )
and I saw a young woman trying to move a dresser that she had just
purchased out of the store. As this is in Ottawa, Canada, where
winters
have some serious meaning, there were two separate doors to go
through. She got stuck with the dresser in the between-the-doors
space.
I came over to help, and in the process, the following conversation
ensued.
She offered some thanks for the help. I said that thats OK, its what
we guys do. Her reply to this pleasantry was " Well, its good that
they're good for *something*. " I placed my end of the dresser down,
replied " Indeed, we are good for something. We call that something
'civilisation'. " I then left her still stuck between the doors.
Dissing the sex of the person offering you help is not only sexist,
its damn DUMB. Damned rude, too.
> I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.
A proper reading of the book " Spreading Misandry; The Teaching
of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture ", Paul Nathanson &
Katherine Young, McGill/Queens University Press could offer some
factual insight in this area.
Andre
Kermit
Urban legends exist because they sound reasonable to the crowd that
passes them around. I've heard a few that I'm sure have happened
somewhere, sometime, but most of the tales I heard passed on were
almost certainly rumors ("It happened to a buddy, but I'll just say it
happened to me, because that will be simpler and it's still true,
almost"). Others, of course, are impossible ("Silver Manhattan - the
super pot of the Manhattan sewer system. Flushed into the sewer during
drug raids, it's powerful weed, because of all the fertilizer, but a
pale gray, 'cause it doesn't get any sunlight down there...")
>
> I was in a Salvation Army store, looking for audio cassette storage
> cases ( The kind that have three drawers that each hold 12-16 tapes )
> and I saw a young woman trying to move a dresser that she had just
> purchased out of the store. As this is in Ottawa, Canada, where
> winters
> have some serious meaning, there were two separate doors to go
> through. She got stuck with the dresser in the between-the-doors
> space.
>
> I came over to help, and in the process, the following conversation
> ensued.
>
> She offered some thanks for the help. I said that thats OK, its what
> we guys do. Her reply to this pleasantry was " Well, its good that
> they're good for *something*. " I placed my end of the dresser down,
> replied " Indeed, we are good for something. We call that something
> 'civilisation'. " I then left her still stuck between the doors.
>
> Dissing the sex of the person offering you help is not only sexist,
> its damn DUMB. Damned rude, too.
>
> > I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.
>
> A proper reading of the book " Spreading Misandry; The Teaching
> of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture ", Paul Nathanson &
> Katherine Young, McGill/Queens University Press could offer some
> factual insight in this area.
>
> Andre
There certainly are crazies in every demographic. Still, I can't help
but wonder what her tone of voice and body language were like. In
print, it sounds like the good-natured banter between buddies in my
head, but I can see how it could have been bitter-sounding and
accusatory. I wonder how she remembers *you?
Kermit
chris thompson
I've always been fascinated by holes in paper. I have several three-
hole-punchers on my desk for those extended times I cannot get to the
range.
The exploding melons are more problematic.
Chris
chris thompson
I happen to know a SMART angry white man. He's never voted for a
Democrat in his life, and he hates Hillary Clinton with a passion (not
for any good reason in my book, but at least he has a plausible one).
This year he changed his party affiliation and voted for Obama.
Chris
Years ago I heard Al Gore tell a joke about a guy who walks past a
house that has a sign outside: "FREE! Republican kittens." He
chuckles and walks by. Few days later, same thing. Then a few more
days later, the sign says "FREE! Democratic kittens." He has to ask,
so he rings the bell and says "What gives? Why Republican kittens then
and Democratic kittens now?" The cat owner replied, "Oh, they finally
opened their eyes."
Andre Lieven
While thats often true, its not *always* true. Ergo, there are
exceptions
that prove the rule.
> I've heard a few that I'm sure have happened
> somewhere, sometime, but most of the tales I heard passed on were
> almost certainly rumors ("It happened to a buddy, but I'll just say it
> happened to me, because that will be simpler and it's still true,
> almost"). Others, of course, are impossible ("Silver Manhattan - the
> super pot of the Manhattan sewer system. Flushed into the sewer during
> drug raids, it's powerful weed, because of all the fertilizer, but a
> pale gray, 'cause it doesn't get any sunlight down there...")
I was commenting on the one, specific claimed legend. The book that I
cited provides a lot of evidence to show that misandry is pretty
common.
> > I was in a Salvation Army store, looking for audio cassette storage
> > cases ( The kind that have three drawers that each hold 12-16 tapes )
> > and I saw a young woman trying to move a dresser that she had just
> > purchased out of the store. As this is in Ottawa, Canada, where
> > winters
> > have some serious meaning, there were two separate doors to go
> > through. She got stuck with the dresser in the between-the-doors
> > space.
>
> > I came over to help, and in the process, the following conversation
> > ensued.
>
> > She offered some thanks for the help. I said that thats OK, its what
> > we guys do. Her reply to this pleasantry was " Well, its good that
> > they're good for *something*. " I placed my end of the dresser down,
> > replied " Indeed, we are good for something. We call that something
> > 'civilisation'. " I then left her still stuck between the doors.
>
> > Dissing the sex of the person offering you help is not only sexist,
> > its damn DUMB. Damned rude, too.
>
> > > I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.
>
> > A proper reading of the book " Spreading Misandry; The Teaching
> > of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture ", Paul Nathanson &
> > Katherine Young, McGill/Queens University Press could offer some
> > factual insight in this area.
>
> > Andre
>
> There certainly are crazies in every demographic.
Thats the point; she wasn't " crazy ". She merely had a relative lack
of
not expressing misandristic comments, and, once again, the book that
I cited explains pretty well the social environment that provides a
basis
by which many millions of people decide that misandristic comments
are acceptable to express.
> Still, I can't help
> but wonder what her tone of voice and body language were like. In
> print, it sounds like the good-natured banter between buddies in my
> head, but I can see how it could have been bitter-sounding and
> accusatory.
No, up to that comment of hers, it was all fairly friendly. Even that
misandristic comment of hers was not offered with a sneer or a
hatefilled tone. She delivered it in a pretty normal tone of voice,
and
a pretty normal set of physical expressions. Thats why that comment
surprised me. But, I'm pretty fast with rejoinders, and with picking a
relevent one, so it took me only a couple of seconds ( During which,
I put down the end of the dresser that I was holding. ) to form my
reply.
> I wonder how she remembers *you?
I would bet " how dare he stand up for his sex. " <shrug>
If you really want to understand this better, read the book(s).
Andre
Dick C.
Oh, I realize that of course. But those are not the people the
original article was
about. While I was exagerrating abit, there are a number of gun
owners who have
no real reason to own a gun, are not well adjusted, and are probbaly
rather dangerous.
Dick
Andre Lieven
> number of gun owners who have no real reason to own a gun, are not
> well adjusted, and are probbaly rather dangerous.
Well, the gun laws and culture Down There ( As I am in Canada ) have
always
struck me as somewhat... fetishistic. So, I'm one of those " angry
( More really
" miffed ". ) white men " who not only doesn't own a gun, but one who
doesn't
particularly believe that any person should own one. Though, if I got
Power, I
likely wouldn't be sending the Black Helicopter Guys over to
everyone's homes
to grab those guns... But, if its fair to require cars to be licensed,
and to
require that car owners show proof of car insurance, treating guns
equally
sounds fair to me.
And, I have voted Liberal and NDP in my time... Heck, I've twice voted
for the
Rhinoceros Party of Canada ( Unfortunately now defunct. ).
Andre
Robert Grumbine
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 16, 1:01 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[trim]
>> No. It's a euphemism for "person who listens to Rush Limbaugh."
>> Basically they're conservative men who are angry that other people are
>> not conservative.
>
>I've been listening to them for thirty years and more. They pass
>stories around among themselves such as "I just held a door open for a
>young woman and she lit into me with the foulest language I've heard
>since the Navy - called me a chauvinist pig, among other things." Some
>variation of this has been told for decades. Yet it's never happened
>to me. Of course, I don't run up and say "Let me get that for ya,
>little miss" while I'm trying to look down her blouse. I suspect it's
>just an urban legend they pass around because it sounds reasonable to
>them.
Probably. Or pure invention except that they _think_ that's
what would happen if they ever did bother to hold a door open.
But, in truth, something like that did happen to me -- a total of
1 time, and it was 20 years ago. I held a door open for a woman
at my university (said door, at that point, requiring a lot of
force to open, but not so much to keep open; so I kept it open for
her) and she glared and growled (literally) at me. No foul language
though. I've held a lot of doors open in the subsequent decades and
it's never happened again.
>I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.
Agreed.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
John Wilkins
It happened to me when I was 17 - I stood up for a woman on a train and
she spent the next five minutes spewing invective at me.
I always open the door if I am first to it, irrespective of gender or
age. Nobody since that day (in 1973) has done it since.
>
> >I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.
>
> Agreed.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
wf3h
don't forget: you can do anything to the 'angry white man'...kick his
puppy...give all his money to the rich folks who deserve it....
just don't take away his guns.
loua...@yahoo.com
> It happened to me when I was 17 - I stood up for a woman on a train and
> she spent the next five minutes spewing invective at me.
>
> I always open the door if I am first to it, irrespective of gender or
> age. Nobody since that day (in 1973) has done it since.
Yeah, I think the "first person goes through, reaches back to hold the
door for second person" has become the new standard most places.
I used to work in a building with a lot of elderly men (tenured
university faculty) and occasionally had the problem of both of us
being _too_ polite. I was trying to follow the rule "infirm or greatly
respected people first" and they were trying to follow the rule
"ladies first."
After a few false starts I usually let them have their way. Because
a), they'd probably be hurt by the 'infirm' aspect* and b) we can't
just stand on the elevator all day, someone has to get off first.
*I am not including the 5'3" ish professor emeritus who mostly came to
campus to use the weight room, and who had a grip like a vise. Anybody
who got out of Czechoslovakia just ahead of the communists can be
officially considered tough, even if that was 50 odd years ago.
Andre Lieven
The silliest part of all this, IMHO, is that it attempts to treat the
vast majority
of North American men as if they were all exactly the same.
Now, who else does this kind of " profiling " WRT large ethnic
groups ? Oh
yes, the KKK, and anti semites: " Them [blank] folks is all the same.
"
Well, if its a form of unthinking bigotry when done by " white men ",
then it
remains bigotry when applied TO " white men ".
Now, there are some issues where most men do have either a standing or
a potential interest. In matters such as men's children. Are you all
aware
that the disparity between single mothers getting Child Support for
their
children, and single *fathers* getting CS for their children, is
50% ?
It'd be nice if " equality " were to be applied to that area, where
the untrue
slogan is " do it for the children "; just not the children of men.
Also, any man can just as easily as any woman become a victim of
Domestic Abuse. Yet, while women get massive funding ( See " Violence
Against Women Act ", apparently violence against men isn't interesting
to Congress - which is still mostly men. ), there are well under a
dozen
shelters for abused men in all of North America. How about some
" equality " here, eh ?
Further, as most of North America is, by population, more urban than
rural, to say that most, if not all, men are gun owners or wish to
own
guns remains an utterly unproved knee jerk comment.
Oh, there are a few of the girls who seem to like guns, too:
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/
http://www.wagc.com/ : Women Against Gun Control.
It's not surprising then, that more women than ever want to keep
their
rights to own and carry a gun.
The reason is simple: Women are concerned about becoming victims
of crime. Guns give women a fighting chance against crime.
Join Women Against Gun Control.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=73
Women & Guns
http://www.ccrkba.org/public_wg.html
If it matters to America's women gunowners, it's in Women & Guns, the
only magazine of its kind in the world.
So, facts do help in getting past empty headed and dated slogans of
both the " right " as well as those of the " left "...
Andre
Therion Ware
Wilkins) wrote:
[snip]
>It happened to me when I was 17 - I stood up for a woman on a train and
>she spent the next five minutes spewing invective at me.
But did she take the seat? Or did you take it back? Or did you both
stand up glaring at each other while looking at an empty seat?
>I always open the door if I am first to it, irrespective of gender or
>age. Nobody since that day (in 1973) has done it since.
But the really important question is: "how far does the person moving
towards the door have to be from the door in order for it not to be
impolite to shut it before they get there?".
I think about 8 paces.
Inez
> In article <2a210fc4-2e88-41ea-90f8-1156bd759...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 16, 1:01 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [trim]
>
> >> No. It's a euphemism for "person who listens to Rush Limbaugh."
> >> Basically they're conservative men who are angry that other people are
> >> not conservative.
>
> >I've been listening to them for thirty years and more. They pass
> >stories around among themselves such as "I just held a door open for a
> >young woman and she lit into me with the foulest language I've heard
> >since the Navy - called me a chauvinist pig, among other things." Some
> >variation of this has been told for decades. Yet it's never happened
> >to me. Of course, I don't run up and say "Let me get that for ya,
> >little miss" while I'm trying to look down her blouse. I suspect it's
> >just an urban legend they pass around because it sounds reasonable to
> >them.
>
> Probably. Or pure invention except that they _think_ that's
> what would happen if they ever did bother to hold a door open.
>
> But, in truth, something like that did happen to me -- a total of
> 1 time, and it was 20 years ago. I held a door open for a woman
> at my university (said door, at that point, requiring a lot of
> force to open, but not so much to keep open; so I kept it open for
> her) and she glared and growled (literally) at me. No foul language
> though. I've held a lot of doors open in the subsequent decades and
> it's never happened again.
Well Rush Limbaugh is certainly right that the world contains
obnoxious over-the-top "feminists." However, I do not believe he is
correct that this is the sign of the Liberal Apocolypse.
> >I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.
>
> Agreed.
>
> --
> Robert Grumbinehttp://www.radix.net/~bobg/Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
wf3h
> On Feb 19, 9:15 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > don't forget: you can do anything to the 'angry white man'...kick his
> > puppy...give all his money to the rich folks who deserve it....
>
> > just don't take away his guns.
>
> The silliest part of all this, IMHO, is that it attempts to treat the
> vast majority
> of North American men as if they were all exactly the same.
>
> Now, who else does this kind of " profiling " WRT large ethnic
> groups ? Oh
> yes, the KKK, and anti semites: " Them [blank] folks is all the same.
> "
>
> Well, if its a form of unthinking bigotry when done by " white men ",
> then it
> remains bigotry when applied TO " white men ".
since i AM a white man, i hardly think this applies. most right wing
white guys i talk to would gladly 9 out of the 1st 10 amendments,
believing the fairy tale that, as long as they have their guns, they
have power. it's a nice little bit of mythology sold to them by the
right wing.
> >
> Also, any man can just as easily as any woman become a victim of
> Domestic Abuse. \
having grown up with an violent alcoholic father, i KNOW this aint
true.
>
> Further, as most of North America is, by population, more urban than
> rural, to say that most, if not all, men are gun owners or wish to
> own
> guns remains an utterly unproved knee jerk comment.
there are 230M guns in the US. and many white man gun owners are
exceptionally hostile to individual rights...except for THEIR 'right'
to own an obsolete toy.
>
> http://www.wagc.com/: Women Against Gun Control.
> It's not surprising then, that more women than ever want to keep
> their
> rights to own and carry a gun.
> The reason is simple: Women are concerned about becoming victims
> of crime. Guns give women a fighting chance against crime.
with 11,000 gun deaths in the US last year it's apparent guns CAUSE
death, they don't PREVENT them.
Jack Dominey
<19cca187-9a4f-45d9...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 18, 1:49 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> I was in a Salvation Army store, looking for audio cassette storage
>> cases ( The kind that have three drawers that each hold 12-16 tapes )
>> and I saw a young woman trying to move a dresser that she had just
>> purchased out of the store. As this is in Ottawa, Canada, where
>> winters
>> have some serious meaning, there were two separate doors to go
>> through. She got stuck with the dresser in the between-the-doors
>> space.
>>
>> I came over to help, and in the process, the following conversation
>> ensued.
>>
>> She offered some thanks for the help. I said that thats OK, its what
>> we guys do. Her reply to this pleasantry was " Well, its good that
>> they're good for *something*. " I placed my end of the dresser down,
>> replied " Indeed, we are good for something. We call that something
>> 'civilisation'. " I then left her still stuck between the doors.
<snip>
>There certainly are crazies in every demographic. Still, I can't help
>but wonder what her tone of voice and body language were like. In
>print, it sounds like the good-natured banter between buddies in my
>head, but I can see how it could have been bitter-sounding and
>accusatory. I wonder how she remembers *you?
Mr. Lieven may think himself the hero of the story, but it doesn't
even read that way to me. "It's what we guys do"? No, Mr. Lieven,
lending assistance is something kind people do regardless of their
gender and regardless of the gender of the other person.
The woman's remark, coming as it did out of the blue, sounds as if she
was thinking of a particular 'guy' with whom she'd had a bad
experience recently, perhaps one who'd left her in the position of
needing furniture she could ill afford.
A kind person who had just been *thanked for their assistance* could
not possibly take such a comment as a personal insult. To renege on
the offer was bad enough, but strutting off on *that* exit line was
breathtakingly arrogant. Newsflash, Mr. Lieven: *You* are not
responsible for "civilisation". You are, however, responsible for
your own actions, which in this case began well but ended
reprehensibly.
--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver
Andre Lieven
> On Feb 19, 11:54 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 9:15 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > don't forget: you can do anything to the 'angry white man'...kick his
> > > puppy...give all his money to the rich folks who deserve it....
>
> > > just don't take away his guns.
>
> > The silliest part of all this, IMHO, is that it attempts to treat the
> > vast majority
> > of North American men as if they were all exactly the same.
>
> > Now, who else does this kind of " profiling " WRT large ethnic
> > groups ? Oh yes, the KKK, and anti semites: " Them [blank] folks
> > is all the same. "
>
> > Well, if its a form of unthinking bigotry when done by " white men ",
> > then it remains bigotry when applied TO " white men ".
>
> since i AM a white man, i hardly think this applies.
Why ? Are you of the particular delusion that people cannot be biased
against their own demographic ? Have you ever heard of the term that
is well enough understood such that it has it's own Wiki entry:
" Self hating jew ".
Its just as common for members of other ethnic groups to have
this going on, as well.
> most right wing
> white guys i talk to would gladly 9 out of the 1st 10 amendments,
> believing the fairy tale that, as long as they have their guns, they
> have power. it's a nice little bit of mythology sold to them by the
> right wing.
Well, there are at least two things flat out wrong in that.
One: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
( To forestall someone unthinkingly trying to use this against my
tale,
my tale was offered to rebut the statement that I was replying to that
said that this NEVER happens; one 'anecdote' does blow up a claim
of 'it never happens'. )
Two, the all too common ploy of dehumanising The Other is at work
in what you said. I will gladly specify that I, personally, do not
believe
that most people ought to have guns. I have no guns, nor have I ever
had one. But, I will not try to make the case for Gun Control by
claiming that folks with a different political view must be believers
in
" fairy tales. ".
One of the key differences between science and politics is that, in
science, there are facts and hard evidence. In politics, many issues
come down to what personal life values a person learned and/or
chose to adopt.
> > Also, any man can just as easily as any woman become a victim of
> > Domestic Abuse. \
>
> having grown up with an violent alcoholic father, i KNOW this aint
> true.
Well, too freakin' bad. The FACTS to be seen in works such as Philip
W. Cook's " Abused Men; The Hidden Side Of Domestic Violence ",
among many others, show that not only is it true that 50% of DV is
committed by women, but that this has been a proven fact ever since
Erin Pizzey ( Who wrote the first ever book on DV, and who opened
the first ever women's shelter in London, UK ) published in 1982
" Prone To Violence " ( Its out of print, but the Wiki page on Ms.
Pizzey has a link to an on-line copy of that work. ) in which she
proved
that fact.
So, that women commit as much DV as do men has been a matter of
proven fact now for 26 *years*.
See also:
http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm
Statistics About Domestic Abuse And Violence Against Men
Very little in known about the actual number of men who are in a
domestic
relationship in which they are abused or treated violently by women.
In
100 domestic violence situations approximately 40 cases involve
violence
by women against men.
http://www.familytx.org/research/Control_DV_against_men.pdf
Controlling Domestic Violence Against Men
Charles E. Corry, Martin S. Fiebert, and Erin Pizzey
© Copyright 2002
Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults
than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men). Women are significantly
more likely to throw an object, slap, kick, bite, or hit with their
fist or an
object.
There is no support in the present data for the hypothesis that women
use
violence only in self defense. Three common reasons women give for
male
abuse are: to resolve the argument; to respond to family crisis; and
to stop
him bothering me.
Male abuse of a woman, requiring self defense, is one of the less-
frequently
stated reasons by women for their assaults.
Why Do Women Hit Men?
Gelles (1997, p. 133) put it succinctly:
People hit and abuse family members because they can.
And in today's society, as reflected in TV, movies, and feminist
doctrine,
women are openly given permission to hit men. For example, a woman
slapping a man in the face is rarely, if ever, viewed as domestic
violence.
> > Further, as most of North America is, by population, more urban than
> > rural, to say that most, if not all, men are gun owners or wish to
> > own guns remains an utterly unproved knee jerk comment.
>
> there are 230M guns in the US. and many white man gun owners are
> exceptionally hostile to individual rights...except for THEIR 'right'
> to own an obsolete toy.
>
> > http://www.wagc.com/: Women Against Gun Control.
> > It's not surprising then, that more women than ever want to keep
> > their rights to own and carry a gun.
> > The reason is simple: Women are concerned about becoming victims
> > of crime. Guns give women a fighting chance against crime.
>
> with 11,000 gun deaths in the US last year it's apparent guns CAUSE
> death, they don't PREVENT them.
>
While I, myself, agree more with what you just said than not, the
point
remains hat these *women* are NOT " angry white men ". Duh.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> In
> <19cca187-9a4f-45d9-8bb3-0a606b0a2...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Oh really ? Whens the last time you heard of a woman stopping her
car to help a guy whose car has a flat ? Uh huh.
> The woman's remark, coming as it did out of the blue, sounds as if she
> was thinking of a particular 'guy' with whom she'd had a bad
> experience recently, perhaps one who'd left her in the position of
> needing furniture she could ill afford.
Oh sure, psychoanalyze ( In this case, thats a synonym for "find an
excuse for the chyk "... ) someone you NEVER met.
I was there, you weren't. Thus, your claim to know her state of
mind utterly fails. When then follows from that false claim also
must fail.
> A kind person who had just been *thanked for their assistance* could
> not possibly take such a comment as a personal insult.
Cowshit: Her saying " Well, its good that they're ( Men ) good for
*something* " was NOT a "thanks ".
What would you say if a guy said about women " Its good that
they're good for *something*. "Uh huh.
> To renege on
> the offer was bad enough, but strutting off on *that* exit line was
> breathtakingly arrogant.
Nope, it was am equal shot right back at her. But, SHES the one
who chose to offer sexist RUDENESS to someone *who was helping
her out*.
> Newsflash, Mr. Lieven: *You* are not responsible for "civilisation".
Newsflash, oh illiterate sexist builder of Straw Whores: I NEVER
said that. Duh !
> You are, however, responsible for
> your own actions, which in this case began well but ended
> reprehensibly.
<Massive Misandristic Projection>
Its noteworthy that this don't-know-Jack doesn't say a word about
HER being RUDE to a guy who was helping her.
Theres a term for such male misandrists: Big Daddy Sir Galahads
rushing to defend a female from any hint that *she might just be
equally responsible for HER actions and words as they insist on
trying to hold men for*.
Thats the real misandrous sexism; Jack's. Oh, and the bint at the
Sally Ann store...
Andre
wf3h
> On Feb 19, 12:30 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Well, if its a form of unthinking bigotry when done by " white men ",
> > > then it remains bigotry when applied TO " white men ".
>
> > since i AM a white man, i hardly think this applies.
>
> Why ? Are you of the particular delusion that people cannot be biased
> against their own demographic ? Have you ever heard of the term that
> is well enough understood such that it has it's own Wiki entry:
> " Self hating jew ".
how about 'self hating conservative'?
>
> Its just as common for members of other ethnic groups to have
> this going on, as well.
>
> > most right wing
> > white guys i talk to would gladly 9 out of the 1st 10 amendments,
> > believing the fairy tale that, as long as they have their guns, they
> > have power. it's a nice little bit of mythology sold to them by the
> > right wing.
>
> Well, there are at least two things flat out wrong in that.
>
> One: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
you obviously have never read the 'american rifleman', the NRA
mouthpiece.
\\\\
> Two, the all too common ploy of dehumanising The Other is at work
> in what you said. I will gladly specify that I, personally, do not
> believe
> that most people ought to have guns. I have no guns, nor have I ever
> had one. But, I will not try to make the case for Gun Control by
> claiming that folks with a different political view must be believers
> in
> " fairy tales. ".
ever talk to an NRA fanatic?
no...i didn't think so. they honestly believe that the beer swilling
pot bellied idiots in the NRA will hold off the US army if it decides
to take over. as charleton heston said 'the 2nd amendment is the
foundation of all our freedoms'.
then he went insane and died.
>
> One of the key differences between science and politics is that, in
> science, there are facts and hard evidence. In politics, many issues
> come down to what personal life values a person learned and/or
> chose to adopt.
>
> > > Also, any man can just as easily as any woman become a victim of
> > > Domestic Abuse. \
>
> > having grown up with an violent alcoholic father, i KNOW this aint
> > true.
>
> Well, too freakin' bad. The FACTS to be seen in works such as Philip
> W. Cook's " Abused Men; The Hidden Side Of Domestic Violence ",
> among many others, show that not only is it true that 50% of DV is
> committed by women
my 100 lb wife used to hit me on occasion. if i even noticed it, i
just turned the other cheek.
when my 200 lb dad used to hit my 100 lb mom he put her in bed for a
week
BIG difference in scale, sport.
>
> So, that women commit as much DV as do men has been a matter of
> proven fact now for 26 *years*.
wrong, sport. tell me who's the murder victim more often
oh. you ignored that.
>
> Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults
> than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men). Women are significantly
> more likely to throw an object, slap, kick, bite, or hit with their
> fist or an
> object.
ROFLMAO!!! well, that just about covers the range of options, doesn't
it?
you didn't actually read that when you posted it, did you?
>
> Why Do Women Hit Men?
> Gelles (1997, p. 133) put it succinctly:
> People hit and abuse family members because they can.
> And in today's society, as reflected in TV, movies, and feminist
> doctrine,
> women are openly given permission to hit men. For example, a woman
> slapping a man in the face is rarely, if ever, viewed as domestic
> violence.
except, of course, he usually has about 100 lbs on her.
you seem to be embarrassed about that...>
> > with 11,000 gun deaths in the US last year it's apparent guns CAUSE
> > death, they don't PREVENT them.
>
> While I, myself, agree more with what you just said than not, the
> point
> remains hat these *women* are NOT " angry white men ". Duh.
>
i noticed you said zip about how many fatalities there are here...nor
how many cops get killed by these innocent white male victims you
think populate the landscape.
Andre Lieven
> On Feb 19, 5:27 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 12:30 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, if its a form of unthinking bigotry when done by " white men ",
> > > > then it remains bigotry when applied TO " white men ".
>
> > > since i AM a white man, i hardly think this applies.
>
> > Why ? Are you of the particular delusion that people cannot be biased
> > against their own demographic ? Have you ever heard of the term that
> > is well enough understood such that it has it's own Wiki entry:
> > " Self hating jew ".
>
> how about 'self hating conservative'?
Ad Hominem Alone. My point stands, thank you for your concession.
Oh, by the way, I'm a Canadian, who, among other things, LIKES
" socialised " Canadian Medicare, and the publically funded CBC.
So, if you are trying to hang a " don't listen to him, hes a danged
conservative ", well, boy, are you OFF base.
But, thanks for showing me that you are as capable as nay creationist
in attacking the messenger *when you CAN'T attack the message*.
> > Its just as common for members of other ethnic groups to have
> > this going on, as well.
>
> > > most right wing
> > > white guys i talk to would gladly 9 out of the 1st 10 amendments,
> > > believing the fairy tale that, as long as they have their guns, they
> > > have power. it's a nice little bit of mythology sold to them by the
> > > right wing.
>
> > Well, there are at least two things flat out wrong in that.
>
> > One: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
>
> you obviously have never read the 'american rifleman', the NRA
> mouthpiece.
Why would I ? I am neither " american " nor a " rifleman ".
> \\\\
>
> > Two, the all too common ploy of dehumanising The Other is at work
> > in what you said. I will gladly specify that I, personally, do not
> > believe
> > that most people ought to have guns. I have no guns, nor have I ever
> > had one. But, I will not try to make the case for Gun Control by
> > claiming that folks with a different political view must be believers
> > in " fairy tales. ".
>
> ever talk to an NRA fanatic?
Are you trying to, dishonestly, suggest that NO gun owners are
other than " NRA fanatics " ?
You may fuck your new Straw Whore on your own time.
> no...i didn't think so. they honestly believe that the beer swilling
> pot bellied idiots in the NRA will hold off the US army if it decides
> to take over. as charleton heston said 'the 2nd amendment is the
> foundation of all our freedoms'.
>
> then he went insane and died.
Non sequitur.
> > One of the key differences between science and politics is that, in
> > science, there are facts and hard evidence. In politics, many issues
> > come down to what personal life values a person learned and/or
> > chose to adopt.
>
> > > > Also, any man can just as easily as any woman become a victim of
> > > > Domestic Abuse. \
>
> > > having grown up with an violent alcoholic father, i KNOW this aint
> > > true.
>
> > Well, too freakin' bad. The FACTS to be seen in works such as Philip
> > W. Cook's " Abused Men; The Hidden Side Of Domestic Violence ",
> > among many others, show that not only is it true that 50% of DV is
> > committed by women
>
> my 100 lb wife used to hit me on occasion. if i even noticed it, i
> just turned the other cheek.
>
> when my 200 lb dad used to hit my 100 lb mom he put her in bed for a
> week
>
> BIG difference in scale, sport.
Ask Phil Hartman. Oh wait, you can't, his wife KILLED him with a
weapon.
Duh.
> > So, that women commit as much DV as do men has been a matter of
> > proven fact now for 26 *years*.
>
> wrong, sport. tell me who's the murder victim more often
Fallacy of Moving The Goalposts. The issue on the table is domestic
violence, NOT murder.
> oh. you ignored that.
As I do with all sorts of dishonest ploys to Move The Goalposts.
> > Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults
> > than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men). Women are significantly
> > more likely to throw an object, slap, kick, bite, or hit with their
> > fist or an object.
>
> ROFLMAO!!! well, that just about covers the range of options, doesn't
> it?
Its a specific point about women using weapons/objects to compensate
for their usually smaller physical bodies.
> you didn't actually read that when you posted it, did you?
<Projection>
> > Why Do Women Hit Men?
> > Gelles (1997, p. 133) put it succinctly:
> > People hit and abuse family members because they can.
> > And in today's society, as reflected in TV, movies, and feminist
> > doctrine,
> > women are openly given permission to hit men. For example, a woman
> > slapping a man in the face is rarely, if ever, viewed as domestic
> > violence.
>
> except, of course, he usually has about 100 lbs on her.
So if a man smacked a woman no harder than a woman can smack a man,
thats fine with you ? Uh huh.
Hypocrite.
> you seem to be embarrassed about that...>
<Projection>
> > > with 11,000 gun deaths in the US last year it's apparent guns CAUSE
> > > death, they don't PREVENT them.
>
> > While I, myself, agree more with what you just said than not, the
> > point remains hat these *women* are NOT " angry white men ". Duh.
>
> i noticed you said zip about how many fatalities there are here...nor
> how many cops get killed by these innocent white male victims you
> think populate the landscape.
Fallacy of Moving The Goalposts.
Thank you for your latest round of concessions.
The facts remain; women commit as much DV as do men. In fact,
lesbian relationships have HIGHER rates of DV than do heterosexual
relationships. Kinda hard to blame the man there... Not that you
wouldn't try...
Andre
John Wilkins
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:58:36 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >It happened to me when I was 17 - I stood up for a woman on a train and
> >she spent the next five minutes spewing invective at me.
>
> But did she take the seat? Or did you take it back? Or did you both
> stand up glaring at each other while looking at an empty seat?
I stood there conflicted while she stood there spitting on me. I got off
at the next stop and waited for the next train (and was late to work as
a result).
>
> >I always open the door if I am first to it, irrespective of gender or
> >age. Nobody since that day (in 1973) has done it since.
>
> But the really important question is: "how far does the person moving
> towards the door have to be from the door in order for it not to be
> impolite to shut it before they get there?".
>
> I think about 8 paces.
I think in meters, and 3 m is about right.
wf3h
> On Feb 19, 7:01 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> > how about 'self hating conservative'?
>
> Ad Hominem Alone. My point stands, thank you for your concession.
says the man who brought the argument up then whines when he's whipped
like a bad puppy
>
> Oh, by the way, I'm a Canadian, who, among other things, LIKES
> " socialised " Canadian Medicare, and the publically funded CBC.
>
> So, if you are trying to hang a " don't listen to him, hes a danged
> conservative ", well, boy, are you OFF base.
ah. i see. you just hate women
my mistake.
>
> But, thanks for showing me that you are as capable as nay creationist
> in attacking the messenger *when you CAN'T attack the message*.
ROFLMAO! you've been whining and bitching about how women treat YOU
then complain when others won't buy your self pitying griping!
>
> > > Its just as common for members of other ethnic groups to have
> > > this going on, as well.
>
> > > > most right wing
> > > > white guys i talk to would gladly 9 out of the 1st 10 amendments,
> > > > believing the fairy tale that, as long as they have their guns, they
> > > > have power. it's a nice little bit of mythology sold to them by the
> > > > right wing.
>
> > > Well, there are at least two things flat out wrong in that.
>
> > > One: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
>
> > you obviously have never read the 'american rifleman', the NRA
> > mouthpiece.
>
> Why would I ? I am neither " american " nor a " rifleman ".
oh. you've been telling us how wonderful gun owners are in the US
even though you have ZERO familiarity with them
yeah. i kinda figured that
>
> > \\\\
>
> > > Two, the all too common ploy of dehumanising The Other is at work
> > > in what you said. I will gladly specify that I, personally, do not
> > > believe
> > > that most people ought to have guns. I have no guns, nor have I ever
> > > had one. But, I will not try to make the case for Gun Control by
> > > claiming that folks with a different political view must be believers
> > > in " fairy tales. ".
>
> > ever talk to an NRA fanatic?
>
> Are you trying to, dishonestly, suggest that NO gun owners are
> other than " NRA fanatics " ?
hmmmm....can't even answer a basic question...
>
> You may fuck your new Straw Whore on your own time.
you seem to be upset you lack even THAT feature. no wonder you hate
women.
>
> > no...i didn't think so. they honestly believe that the beer swilling
> > pot bellied idiots in the NRA will hold off the US army if it decides
> > to take over. as charleton heston said 'the 2nd amendment is the
> > foundation of all our freedoms'.
>
> > then he went insane and died.
>
> Non sequitur.
says the guy who believes gun ownership in the US is wonderful even
though he knows zip about it.
>
> > my 100 lb wife used to hit me on occasion. if i even noticed it, i
> > just turned the other cheek.
>
> > when my 200 lb dad used to hit my 100 lb mom he put her in bed for a
> > week
>
> > BIG difference in scale, sport.
>
> Ask Phil Hartman. Oh wait, you can't, his wife KILLED him with a
> weapon.
ROFLMAO!! well, i guess that proves it, then, doesn't it? the dinges
have a higher crime rate than whites do so the dinges are inherently
violent??
that your argument?
>
> Duh.
>
> > > So, that women commit as much DV as do men has been a matter of
> > > proven fact now for 26 *years*.
>
> > wrong, sport. tell me who's the murder victim more often
>
> Fallacy of Moving The Goalposts. The issue on the table is domestic
> violence, NOT murder.
fallacy of not addressing the issue. you seem to think murder is
irrelevant.
some argument!
>
> > > Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults
> > > than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men). Women are significantly
> > > more likely to throw an object, slap, kick, bite, or hit with their
> > > fist or an object.
>
> > ROFLMAO!!! well, that just about covers the range of options, doesn't
> > it?
>
> Its a specific point about women using weapons/objects to compensate
> for their usually smaller physical bodies.
ah. so men don't NEED weapons to beat the shit out of women. but that
makes it OK??
>
> > except, of course, he usually has about 100 lbs on her.
>
> So if a man smacked a woman no harder than a woman can smack a man,
> thats fine with you ? Uh huh.
so if a parent murders a bad kid that's the same as a spanking?
>
> Hypocrite.
misogynist.
>
> > i noticed you said zip about how many fatalities there are here...nor
> > how many cops get killed by these innocent white male victims you
> > think populate the landscape.
>
> Fallacy of Moving The Goalposts.
says the guy who thinks murder is OK because women sometimes hit guys.
>
> Thank you for your latest round of concessions.
>
> The facts remain; women commit as much DV as do men. In fact,
> lesbian relationships have HIGHER rates of DV than do heterosexual
> relationships. Kinda hard to blame the man there... Not that you
> wouldn't try...
yes, persecuted and hated communities often do have higher incidences
of violence. and few groups in teh US are as hated as gays
thanks for bringing that up.
jcon
> On Feb 16, 10:50 am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
>
> > > Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them
> > > will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them
> > > voted for George Bush."
>
> > > embarrass me. If they listened to something other than Rush Limbaugh
> > > they might be able to understand some of the changes going on around
> > > them. Maybe even grow a pair.
>
>
> > Is 'Angry White Men' an euphemism for 'White Trash'? I'm asking
> > because I don't know.
>
Close, but I think it's "man who listens to Rush Limbaugh and whose
dick
is smaller than Ann Coulter's".
There, that's better.
-jc
jcon
> http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
The Angry White Man might be less angry if he less Aspen and moved
somewhere more
redneck.
-jc
Andre Lieven
> On Feb 19, 7:33 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 7:01 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > how about 'self hating conservative'?
>
> > Ad Hominem Alone. My point stands, thank you for your concession.
>
> says the man who brought the argument up then whines when he's whipped
> like a bad puppy
<Massive Ad Hominem Projection>
> > Oh, by the way, I'm a Canadian, who, among other things, LIKES
> > " socialised " Canadian Medicare, and the publically funded CBC.
>
> > So, if you are trying to hang a " don't listen to him, hes a danged
> > conservative ", well, boy, are you OFF base.
>
> ah. i see. you just hate women
Non Sequitur: " Women " and " Feminist " are NOT synonyms.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/msg/d4a29c9921ea5623
Myth: Domestic violence is committed primarily by men against
women.
False. National studies, such as Steinmetz, such as Straus &
Gelles, and such as McNeely, have repeatedly shown the rates
men->women and women->men to be almost exactly equal. See
http://www.vix.com/pub/men/domestic-index.html
Myth: We have to admit domestic violence _is_ committed by
women, but it's just because they were abused, so it's
still the man's fault.
False again! Researchers such as Coromae Mann have concluded
"I
would not define these women as battered women, I would say
they
are battering women".
Trick: "Feminist" and "woman" are interchangeable terms. The
opposite of "Feminists" is "men". Feminist interests
and
women's interests are interchangeable terms.
False and absurd. Our opinion of all women could never be so
low.
> my mistake.
Well, you make a LOT of them. But, thats your problem...
> > But, thanks for showing me that you are as capable as nay creationist
> > in attacking the messenger *when you CAN'T attack the message*.
>
> ROFLMAO! you've been whining and bitching about how women treat YOU
Oh ? I put forward ONE example of how a female thoughtlessly offered
up her
misandristic view, and of how I shoved it right *back* at her.
Your whining about my point of view is tatramount to excoriating the
US
forces at Pearl Harbor for firing *back*...
> then complain when others won't buy your self pitying griping!
<Projection>
> > > > Its just as common for members of other ethnic groups to have
> > > > this going on, as well.
>
> > > > > most right wing
> > > > > white guys i talk to would gladly 9 out of the 1st 10 amendments,
> > > > > believing the fairy tale that, as long as they have their guns, they
> > > > > have power. it's a nice little bit of mythology sold to them by the
> > > > > right wing.
>
> > > > Well, there are at least two things flat out wrong in that.
>
> > > > One: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
>
> > > you obviously have never read the 'american rifleman', the NRA
> > > mouthpiece.
>
> > Why would I ? I am neither " american " nor a " rifleman ".
>
> oh. you've been telling us how wonderful gun owners are in the US
No. I merely pointed out that its BIGOTRY to claim that they ALL are
the ignorant stereotype that YOU put forward.
Leftist bigotry is as ugly as rightist bigotry...
> even though you have ZERO familiarity with them
My best man owns guns. So, your claimed telepathy failed you yet
again.
> yeah. i kinda figured that
Mindless bigots often say that.
> > > \\\\
>
> > > > Two, the all too common ploy of dehumanising The Other is at work
> > > > in what you said. I will gladly specify that I, personally, do not
> > > > believe
> > > > that most people ought to have guns. I have no guns, nor have I ever
> > > > had one. But, I will not try to make the case for Gun Control by
> > > > claiming that folks with a different political view must be believers
> > > > in " fairy tales. ".
>
> > > ever talk to an NRA fanatic?
>
> > Are you trying to, dishonestly, suggest that NO gun owners are
> > other than " NRA fanatics " ?
>
> hmmmm....can't even answer a basic question...
As Dr. Phil pointed out, about 80% of all " questions " are really
statements made in such a way as to try to avoid the responsibility
of making them openly and *honestly*.
> > You may fuck your new Straw Whore on your own time.
>
> you seem to be upset you lack even THAT feature.
<Laughs> My wife will be very surprised to hear *that* !
BTW, you just exposed yourself as a BIGOT who attacks others
whose views he doesn't like and CANNOT debate/refute as one
who merely slings sexually based slurs.
So, it we had proof that Behe got laid MORE than Judge Jones of
the Kitzmiller case, then creationism would win that case ?
Your bigotry leads you to frothing looniness.
> no wonder you hate women.
No, I do hate morons and bigots. Congrats, you're 2 for 2.
> > > no...i didn't think so. they honestly believe that the beer swilling
> > > pot bellied idiots in the NRA will hold off the US army if it decides
> > > to take over. as charleton heston said 'the 2nd amendment is the
> > > foundation of all our freedoms'.
>
> > > then he went insane and died.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> says the guy who believes gun ownership in the US is wonderful even
> though he knows zip about it.
Non sequitur. I merely pointed out that at least some gun owners are
not your bigoted caricatures.
> > > my 100 lb wife used to hit me on occasion. if i even noticed it, i
> > > just turned the other cheek.
>
> > > when my 200 lb dad used to hit my 100 lb mom he put her in bed for a
> > > week
>
> > > BIG difference in scale, sport.
>
> > Ask Phil Hartman. Oh wait, you can't, his wife KILLED him with a
> > weapon.
>
> ROFLMAO!! well, i guess that proves it, then, doesn't it? the dinges
> have a higher crime rate than whites do so the dinges are inherently
> violent??
The cites that I have provided showed that women use weapons/objects
far MORE often than men, so as to compensate for smaller body sizes
on their part.
Since thats yet another issue that you were UNABLE to debate/refute,
all you have left is to abuse the messenger.
How "adman" of you...
> that your argument?
No. I made my argument, but it, like much else, flew well above the
point
at the top of your skull.
> > Duh.
>
> > > > So, that women commit as much DV as do men has been a matter of
> > > > proven fact now for 26 *years*.
>
> > > wrong, sport. tell me who's the murder victim more often
>
> > Fallacy of Moving The Goalposts. The issue on the table is domestic
> > violence, NOT murder.
>
> fallacy of not addressing the issue. you seem to think murder is
> irrelevant.
Its NOT relevant to rates of assault, which is a whole other crime,
and a
far more commonly committed one, to boot.
> some argument!
<Misandrist Loony Projection>
> > > > Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults
> > > > than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men). Women are significantly
> > > > more likely to throw an object, slap, kick, bite, or hit with their
> > > > fist or an object.
>
> > > ROFLMAO!!! well, that just about covers the range of options, doesn't
> > > it?
>
> > Its a specific point about women using weapons/objects to compensate
> > for their usually smaller physical bodies.
>
> ah. so men don't NEED weapons to beat the shit out of women. but that
> makes it OK??
Where did I say that it was " OK " ? Nowhere. Thats merely your latest
frothing Straw Whore.
> > > except, of course, he usually has about 100 lbs on her.
>
> > So if a man smacked a woman no harder than a woman can smack a man,
> > thats fine with you ? Uh huh.
>
> so if a parent murders a bad kid that's the same as a spanking?
Yet another "adman " leap of fictional ILlogic...
> > Hypocrite.
>
> misogynist.
" Misogynist, a man who is WINNING an argument with a Feminist. "
Chris Raum.
> > > i noticed you said zip about how many fatalities there are here...nor
> > > how many cops get killed by these innocent white male victims you
> > > think populate the landscape.
>
> > Fallacy of Moving The Goalposts.
>
> says the guy who thinks murder is OK because women sometimes hit guys.
Lie.
> > Thank you for your latest round of concessions.
>
> > The facts remain; women commit as much DV as do men. In fact,
> > lesbian relationships have HIGHER rates of DV than do heterosexual
> > relationships. Kinda hard to blame the man there... Not that you
> > wouldn't try...
>
> yes, persecuted and hated communities often do have higher incidences
> of violence. and few groups in teh US are as hated as gays
Gads, you ARE very, very stupid. Are you seriously trying to suggest
that
LESBIANS are committing ANTI GAY acts of violence ?
> thanks for bringing that up.
I would also bring up the proven fact that you ARE freaking "adman"
class NUTS. As well as being a misandrous BIGOT.
Please die now.
PLONK.
Andre
wf3h
> On Feb 19, 8:47 pm, wf3h <w...@mindless.nut> screeched Dworkiness:
> >
>
> Non Sequitur: " Women " and " Feminist " are NOT synonyms.
hmmm...never said they were. but you seem to have little use for
either.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/msg/d4a29c9921ea5623
>
> Myth: Domestic violence is committed primarily by men against
> women.
myth: women kill and injure men like men do women.
>
> > my mistake.
>
> Well, you make a LOT of them. But, thats your problem...
yeah. one of 'em was thinking you had even a SHRED of respect for
women
you don't.
>
> > > But, thanks for showing me that you are as capable as nay creationist
> > > in attacking the messenger *when you CAN'T attack the message*.
>
> > ROFLMAO! you've been whining and bitching about how women treat YOU
>
> Oh ? I put forward ONE example of how a female thoughtlessly offered
> up her
> misandristic view, and of how I shoved it right *back* at her.
that's kinda the point, isn't it?
when a 300 lb linebacker beats a woman senseless, to you that's the
same as when an aging grandma slaps her husband on the ass.
uh huh.
>
> > > Why would I ? I am neither " american " nor a " rifleman ".
>
> > oh. you've been telling us how wonderful gun owners are in the US
>
> No. I merely pointed out that its BIGOTRY to claim that they ALL are
> the ignorant stereotype that YOU put forward.
?? you admitted you don't know a damn thing about the US gun
scene...then tell ME that i'm a bigot!!
ROFLMAO!!! i live in PA...there are more hunters here than in any
other state in the US...so, yes, i know a few gun owners.
>
> Leftist bigotry is as ugly as rightist bigotry...
there is no leftist bigotry in the US.
the left does not exist here.
>
> > even though you have ZERO familiarity with them
>
> My best man owns guns. So, your claimed telepathy failed you yet
> again.
hey ace...you got no idea what the gun situation here in the US is.
if you DO..please tell me what amendment in the canadian constitution
guarantees the right to 'keep and bear arms' (however ridiculous that
idea is)
>
> > > Are you trying to, dishonestly, suggest that NO gun owners are
> > > other than " NRA fanatics " ?
>
> > hmmmm....can't even answer a basic question...
>
> As Dr. Phil pointed out, about 80% of all " questions " are really
> statements made in such a way as to try to avoid the responsibility
> of making them openly and *honestly*.
funny...dr phil's not in the 2nd amendment....
so what does your comment have to do with a damn thing?
>
> > > You may fuck your new Straw Whore on your own time.
>
> > you seem to be upset you lack even THAT feature.
>
> <Laughs> My wife will be very surprised to hear *that* !
if she's able, being fed through a tube...
>
> BTW, you just exposed yourself as a BIGOT who attacks others
> whose views he doesn't like and CANNOT debate/refute as one
> who merely slings sexually based slurs.
says the guy who thinks he's an expert on the US constitution because
he knows the canadian constitution...
>
> So, it we had proof that Behe got laid MORE than Judge Jones of
> the Kitzmiller case, then creationism would win that case ?
>
> Your bigotry leads you to frothing looniness.
sorry, sport. you know ZIP about the US gun scene
>
> > no wonder you hate women.
>
> No, I do hate morons and bigots. Congrats, you're 2 for 2.
if you truly hated those folks you'd have committed suicide long ago.
>
> > says the guy who believes gun ownership in the US is wonderful even
> > though he knows zip about it.
>
> Non sequitur. I merely pointed out that at least some gun owners are
> not your bigoted caricatures.
says the guy who can't name one of the most powerful political
lobbying groups in the US (hint: its initials are NRA)
>
> > > Ask Phil Hartman. Oh wait, you can't, his wife KILLED him with a
> > > weapon.
>
> > ROFLMAO!! well, i guess that proves it, then, doesn't it? the dinges
> > have a higher crime rate than whites do so the dinges are inherently
> > violent??
>
> The cites that I have provided showed that women use weapons/objects
> far MORE often than men, so as to compensate for smaller body sizes
> on their part.
>
> Since thats yet another issue that you were UNABLE to debate/refute,
> all you have left is to abuse the messenger.
ROFLMAO!! you seem to think that a linebacker assaulting a woman is
the same as granny throwing a pie tin at her husband.
does the name "O J Simpson" ring a bell?
>
> > ah. so men don't NEED weapons to beat the shit out of women. but that
> > makes it OK??
>
> Where did I say that it was " OK " ? Nowhere. Thats merely your latest
> frothing Straw Whore.
because you've being bitch slapped about your hatred of women so you
whine about how WOMEN kill men like men kill women
they don't. sorry.
>
> > > > except, of course, he usually has about 100 lbs on her.
>
> > > So if a man smacked a woman no harder than a woman can smack a man,
> > > thats fine with you ? Uh huh.
>
> > so if a parent murders a bad kid that's the same as a spanking?
>
> Yet another "adman " leap of fictional ILlogic...
ah. so it's only OK to beat WOMEN senseless.
glad to see you're sensitive to kids, at least.
how do you feel about little girls?
>
> > > Hypocrite.
>
> > misogynist.
>
> " Misogynist, a man who is WINNING an argument with a Feminist. "
> Chris Raum.
'criminal'...one who believes it's his duty to assault women.
>
> > > > i noticed you said zip about how many fatalities there are here...nor
> > > > how many cops get killed by these innocent white male victims you
> > > > think populate the landscape.
>
> > > Fallacy of Moving The Goalposts.
>
> > says the guy who thinks murder is OK because women sometimes hit guys.
>
> Lie.
>
> > > Thank you for your latest round of concessions.
>
> > > The facts remain; women commit as much DV as do men. In fact,
> > > lesbian relationships have HIGHER rates of DV than do heterosexual
> > > relationships. Kinda hard to blame the man there... Not that you
> > > wouldn't try...
>
> > yes, persecuted and hated communities often do have higher incidences
> > of violence. and few groups in teh US are as hated as gays
>
> Gads, you ARE very, very stupid. Are you seriously trying to suggest
> that
> LESBIANS are committing ANTI GAY acts of violence ?
DUH!!! read my lips...
gays are often hated here in the US because of the religious
fanaticism here. (you, of course, are an expert because in canada they
have churches, too, i'm sure).
'
what an idiot.
>
> > thanks for bringing that up.
>
> I would also bring up the proven fact that you ARE freaking "adman"
> class NUTS. As well as being a misandrous BIGOT.
>
> Please die now.
>
why? do you think i have a vagina?
Andre Lieven
In election 2008, don't forget Angry White Man
Gary Hubbell
February 9, 2008
There is a great amount of interest in this year's presidential
elections,
as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a
lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two
groundbreaking candidates -- a woman and an African-American --
while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their
party's nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.
Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of
special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender
people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to
evangelical Christians.
There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that
will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White
Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy
rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban
sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left
Coast to Eastern Seaboard.
His common traits are that he isn't looking for anything from
anyone -- just the promise to be able to make his own way on a
level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent
businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his
share of taxes and works hard.
The victimhood syndrome buzzwords -- "disenfranchised,"
"marginalized" and "voiceless" -- don't resonate with him. "Press
'one' for English" is a curse-word to him. He's used to picking up
the tab, whether it's the company Christmas party, three sets of
braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.
He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a
"living document" open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of
judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.
The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he's willing to pick up
a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay
down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the
thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn't bother
him.
The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim.
Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina -- he got his people
together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too
helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a
National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.
His last name and religion don't matter. His background might be
Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he
might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he
considers himself a white American.
He's a man's man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch
football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a
few
bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and
build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and
doesn't ask for a penny. He's the kind of guy who can put an
addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well,
weld
a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He
can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power
plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it
took to flip that light switch.
Women either love him or hate him, but they know he's a man, not
a dishrag. If they're looking for someone to walk all over, they've
got
the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and
says "Yes, sir" and "No, ma'am."
He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might
be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more
emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational
manner.
He's not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people
of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst
stereotypes of their race. He's willing to give everybody a fair
chance
if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.
Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job
site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don't pay taxes and
his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his
job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some
incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers.
When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations
for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he
remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed
weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes
note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.
He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton.
Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at
the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him,
and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader.
It's not that she is a woman. It's that she is who she is. It's the
liberal victim groups she panders to, the "poor me" attitude that
she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an
honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people
who refuse to do anything for themselves.
There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry
White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and
all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great
majority of them voted for George Bush.
He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president
in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.
Gary Hubbell is a regular columnist with the Aspen Times Weekly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ' Men are people, too, with an equal right to their own opinions,
values, and feelings ? Impossible ! ' screeched the annoyed
WomenFirster ( Feminist ) Bigot. "
Andre
wf3h
> http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324
>
> In election 2008, don't forget Angry White Man
>
the 'angry white man' cares little except for the rich. he votes
exclusively for those who cut taxes on the rich
he cares little for civil rights. the only amendment he cares about is
the 2nd (not that the idiot Andre knows what the '2nd' is)
he's anti union...prefers companies that send his job overseas and
reaps huge tax benefits
he hasn't had a pay raise since 2000 but breaks into a cold sweat
every time someone mentions increasing taxes on the wealthy
he has no health care for him or his family.
he's one reason he's in the sorry and bitter shape he's in.
he has no one to blame but himself
loua...@yahoo.com
> ah. i see. you just hate women
>
> my mistake.
Seriously, I don't think it's his pissiness that's the problem. All
kinds of people get pissy for all sorts of reasons. The problem is
that he clings like grim death to the idea that "the battle of the
sexes" is not just a battle but a zero sum game.
(Like poker. It's not just that A's loss is B's gain; the only
conceivable way A can stand up from the table a winner is if he takes
his winnings from the other players.) So to him, if women win
something then it's axiomatic that men must have lost to exactly the
same degree.
In reality (e.g capitalism) very few things are zero sum games. But he
rejects that whole class of solutions out of hand as camouflage for
men lose, women win. Problems can look really hideously difficult when
you reject 90+ percent of the possible solutions.
lecody
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Keep in mind Andre, that women are just reveling in their new found
freedom to bash the men who have been bashing the women for
centuries.. My own favorite misandric comment is to relocate all men
to Austrailia where they can revel in football [either kind] beer and
pornography.
Laura
lecody
> > In article
> > <2a210fc4-2e88-41ea-90f8-1156bd759...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
And I always say thank you and have been known to hold doors for men.
Laura
Walter Bushell
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Therion Ware <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:58:36 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
> > Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >It happened to me when I was 17 - I stood up for a woman on a train and
> > >she spent the next five minutes spewing invective at me.
> >
> > But did she take the seat? Or did you take it back? Or did you both
> > stand up glaring at each other while looking at an empty seat?
>
> I stood there conflicted while she stood there spitting on me. I got off
> at the next stop and waited for the next train (and was late to work as
> a result).
> >
> > >I always open the door if I am first to it, irrespective of gender or
> > >age. Nobody since that day (in 1973) has done it since.
> >
> > But the really important question is: "how far does the person moving
> > towards the door have to be from the door in order for it not to be
> > impolite to shut it before they get there?".
> >
> > I think about 8 paces.
>
> I think in meters, and 3 m is about right.
10 feet for the Weens.
Andre Lieven
> freedom to bash the men who have been bashing the women for
> centuries..
Utter sexist misandristic fictional lunacy. I will point out that, at
the
height of the so called " patriarchy ", men DIED so that women could
LIVE. The well known case of the sinking of the RMS Titanic is an
excellent case in point:
http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm
Category - % Saved - % Lost - Number Saved - Number Lost - Total
Aboard
Child 1st 100.0 0.0 6
0 6
Child 2nd 100.0 0.0 24
0 24
W. 1st Cl. 97.22 2.78 140
4 144
W. Crew 86.96 13.03 20
3 23
W. 2nd Cl. 86.02 13.98 80
13 93
W. 3rd Cl. 46.06 53.94 76
89 165
Child 3rd 34.18 65.82 27
52 79
M. 1st 32.57 67.43 57
118 175
M. Crew 21.69 78.31 192
693 885
M. 3rd Cl 16.23 83.77 75
387 462
M. 2nd Cl. 8.33 91.67 14
154 168
The numbers are clear: So called " male power " meant that men DIED,
while women LIVED.
> My own favorite misandric comment
A sexist bigot who has a " favorite misandristic comment " has AbZero
standing to complain about any else's alleged biases.
> is to relocate all men
> to Austrailia where they can revel in football [either kind] beer and
> pornography.
And, women with your man hating sexist misandrous views are why
The Marriage Strike is growing and growing...
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/sacks/02/thompsonsacks070502.htm
A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss
July 5, 2002 by Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks
"Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids
and
most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a 31-
year-old
power plant technician who says he will never marry. "I've seen it
happen to
many of my friends. I know guys who came home one day to an empty
house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming.
Some of them were never able to see their kids regularly again."
Yes, modern western women are, for the most part, shrill man hating
harridans who cannot understand why the men they slur, hate, and
attack don't want to be with them.
Oh, the humanity !
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Feb 19, 7:47 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > ah. i see. you just hate women
>
> > my mistake.
>
> Seriously, I don't think it's his pissiness that's the problem. All
> kinds of people get pissy for all sorts of reasons. The problem is
> that he clings like grim death to the idea that "the battle of the
> sexes" is not just a battle but a zero sum game.
The point is that Feminists have put forth their agreement that it
is a zero sum game for over 40 years now. Why should they be
surprised that men took them seriously ?
Its telling that NOW opposed laws that would make equal parenting
access for fathers more available, and that they greatly opposed any
examination of the now well proven fact that 50% of all DV victims
are men.
Don't whine at the folks who found that the game was already rigged,
go complain to the original riggers...
> (Like poker. It's not just that A's loss is B's gain; the only
> conceivable way A can stand up from the table a winner is if he takes
> his winnings from the other players.) So to him, if women win
> something then it's axiomatic that men must have lost to exactly the
> same degree.
Actually, you are, what a surprise, wholly wrong. It IS possible to
create legal situations where both sexes do well, but Feminism has
always opposed any such compromises.
> In reality (e.g capitalism) very few things are zero sum games. But he
> rejects that whole class of solutions out of hand as camouflage for
> men lose, women win. Problems can look really hideously difficult when
> you reject 90+ percent of the possible solutions.
<Laughs> Yeah, always blame the nearest man for what women have
done. You've come no way at all, baybee !
Andre
wf3h
what i love about the 'analysis' that the 'angry white man' does is he
blames everyone but himself. he consistently votes for those who
ensure he DOESNT get the fruits of his labor (i. e. the average CEO)
then complains when he gets screwed.
america's becoming more and more economically stratified. and,
although he's a canadian, not an american idiot, the case still holds.
wf3h
> On Feb 20, 10:19 am, lecody <lecody2...@David.Duke> KKK-ed:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 8:55 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > centuries..
>
> Utter sexist misandristic fictional lunacy. I will point out that, at
> the
> height of the so called " patriarchy ", men DIED so that women could
> LIVE. The well known case of the sinking of the RMS Titanic is an
> excellent case in point:
and this proves what? women didn't even have the right to vote when
the titanic went down. this is hardly a case for your troglodyte
hatred of women.
>
> And, women with your man hating sexist misandrous views are why
> The Marriage Strike is growing and growing...
>
> http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/sacks/02/thompsonsacks070502.htm
>
> A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss
uh... no.
what's happened is the 'angry white male' has so consistently voted
against his own interests politically that he can no longer earn a
decent salary so delays marriage until later in life.
he's anti union
he's for tax cuts for the richest 1%
he's anti health care for everyone
yadda yadda.
>
> Yes, modern western women are, for the most part, shrill man hating
> harridans who cannot understand why the men they slur, hate, and
> attack don't want to be with them.
>
says the shrill, woman hating caveman who can't believe they took his
right to beat women away from him!!
Susan S
No kidding. I can't tell you how many times I have offered to help
someone (person with kid(s), elderly, handicapped, whatever) when other
able-bodied people of various genders, including males quite a bit
younger than I, are around and available and doing nothing. "Can I
help?" is one of the guiding principles I live by, Hillel's maxim being
the standard that informs my ethics.
If those I assist are not friendly in return, not that it happens often,
so what? I don't do it to make friends.
[snip]
Susan Silberstein
Susan S
<andre...@yahoo.ca>:
>On Feb 20, 9:45 am, "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 7:47 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>
>> > ah. i see. you just hate women
>>
>> > my mistake.
>>
>> Seriously, I don't think it's his pissiness that's the problem. All
>> kinds of people get pissy for all sorts of reasons. The problem is
>> that he clings like grim death to the idea that "the battle of the
>> sexes" is not just a battle but a zero sum game.
>
>The point is that Feminists have put forth their agreement that it
>is a zero sum game for over 40 years now. Why should they be
>surprised that men took them seriously ?
>
>Its telling that NOW opposed laws that would make equal parenting
>access for fathers more available, and that they greatly opposed any
>examination of the now well proven fact that 50% of all DV victims
>are men.
>
Okay, let's see the well proven evidence. And not from a partisan
source. Police or court records would be good.
[snip]
Susan Silberstein
Andre Lieven
> In talk.origins I read this message from Andre Lieven
That specification ASSumes that the police and the courts treat
female and male victims of DV equally. They do NOT.
As Philip W. Cook's book "Abused Men; The Hidden Side of
Domestic Violence " shows, as well as other books that talk
about this issue, and that cite peer reviewed studies ( A wealth
of such data can be found in the footnotes to Daphne Patai's
" Heterophobia; Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism "
which cite studies that conclude that 1.8 million women are abused
each year in the US *as well as 2 million men*.
Said works also well show the UNequal treatment of victims
of DV by sex. In many jurisdictions, it is common for the police
to *arrest* male victims of DV, regardless of injury.
> [snip]
Andre
lecody
>
> - Show quoted text -
Men only give up their lives do to genetics and testosterone. Not
because they are living on some kind of moral high ground. And it is
interesting to note that men are almost exclusively protecting us from
other men. Off to Australia with Andre!
Laura
loua...@yahoo.com
> Off to Australia with Andre!
Actually, the male Aussies I've met have been uniformly pleasant
people. So have the female ones.
loua...@yahoo.com
> Okay, let's see the well proven evidence. And not from a partisan
> source. Police or court records would be good.
The ironic thing is that there could actually be a reasoned discussion
on this. (I've also read the roughly 50/50 figures on spousal abuse,
although you have to equate all forms of violence from shoving to
homicide to make the numbers come out. When it comes to attacks that
need a doctor or a coroner, the men remain much much safer.)
There could be a reasoned discussion. Just not with Andre.
Kermit
How many men are afraid in that situation?
My daughter spent all summer, every summer, as a volunteer in
Partners 'n Pals, an organization in which able-bodied kids spent the
summer helping handicapped kids swim, go to movies, shop at the mall,
etc.
How many handicapped strangers have you spent time helping lately?
>
> > The woman's remark, coming as it did out of the blue, sounds as if she
> > was thinking of a particular 'guy' with whom she'd had a bad
> > experience recently, perhaps one who'd left her in the position of
> > needing furniture she could ill afford.
>
> Oh sure, psychoanalyze ( In this case, thats a synonym for "find an
> excuse for the chyk "... ) someone you NEVER met.
>
> I was there, you weren't. Thus, your claim to know her state of
> mind utterly fails. When then follows from that false claim also
> must fail.
That's true. We don't know her state of mind. But you told her that
men are responsible for civilization - implying what about women? And
after offering her help. you left her with a petty remark and in an
awkward situation. I was trying to imagine a positive spin on this,
but I'm pretty sure now that there is none.
>
> > A kind person who had just been *thanked for their assistance* could
> > not possibly take such a comment as a personal insult.
>
> Cowshit: Her saying " Well, its good that they're ( Men ) good for
> *something* " was NOT a "thanks ".
She clearly *was wrong, wasn't she? Even if she did come across as
ungrateful, your behavior was not acceptable. I learned that men
behave differently when I was a kid.
As Miss Manners once said, civil behavior from an old-fashioned male
chauvinist still comes across as civil behavior.
>
> What would you say if a guy said about women " Its good that
> they're good for *something*. "Uh huh.
Rather depends on the context and tone of voice, I would think. I am
skeptical of your judgement in these matters.
You seem reasonable normally, when discussing science. <shrug>
>
> > To renege on
> > the offer was bad enough, but strutting off on *that* exit line was
> > breathtakingly arrogant.
>
> Nope, it was am equal shot right back at her. But, SHES the one
> who chose to offer sexist RUDENESS to someone *who was helping
> her out*.
So you showed her she was wrong by ...being rude right back at her. If
you were right in assessing her tone, instead of feeling guilty about
her behavior, she now feels vindicated.
>
> > Newsflash, Mr. Lieven: *You* are not responsible for "civilisation".
>
> Newsflash, oh illiterate sexist builder of Straw Whores: I NEVER
> said that. Duh !
You said men were, implying that women were not, then behaved most
uncivilly. And wouldn't the equivalent of "Strawman" be "Strawwoman"?
Whom are you angry at?
>
> > You are, however, responsible for
> > your own actions, which in this case began well but ended
> > reprehensibly.
>
> <Massive Misandristic Projection>
>
> Its noteworthy that this don't-know-Jack doesn't say a word about
> HER being RUDE to a guy who was helping her.
Y'know, the females in my family (in-laws) have said such things, but
the context and tone of voice are important. You never kid your
friends? I am often clueless about social undertones, but I find that
simply behaving politely saves me from many social disasters (I
generally shy away from social activities anyway). If I judge the more
subtle cues wrongly, I cannot be faulted for civil behavior.
>
> Theres a term for such male misandrists: Big Daddy Sir Galahads
> rushing to defend a female from any hint that *she might just be
> equally responsible for HER actions and words as they insist on
> trying to hold men for*.
>
> Thats the real misandrous sexism; Jack's. Oh, and the bint at the
> Sally Ann store...
Curiously, I don't seem to run into all the rude women that you do.
Maybe I'm just lucky.
>
> Andre
Kermit
Scooter the Mighty
> In talk.origins I read this message from Andre Lieven
Googling on this subject, nearly all the hits I get start with some
form of "It's difficult to know what is actually happening since so
few men actually report abuse." I don't think police records are a
good source in this case since cases aren't being reported. On the
other hand, it sure doesn't look like the 50% number is "well proven,"
although the real number is a lot higher than most people think and
very likely in the 30-50% range.
Kermit
> On Feb 19, 11:54 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 9:15 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > don't forget: you can do anything to the 'angry white man'...kick his
> > > puppy...give all his money to the rich folks who deserve it....
>
> > > just don't take away his guns.
>
> > The silliest part of all this, IMHO, is that it attempts to treat the
> > vast majority
> > of North American men as if they were all exactly the same.
>
> > Now, who else does this kind of " profiling " WRT large ethnic
> > groups ? Oh
> > yes, the KKK, and anti semites: " Them [blank] folks is all the same.
> > "
>
> > Well, if its a form of unthinking bigotry when done by " white men ",
> > then it
> > remains bigotry when applied TO " white men ".
>
> white guys i talk to would gladly 9 out of the 1st 10 amendments,
> believing the fairy tale that, as long as they have their guns, they
> have power. it's a nice little bit of mythology sold to them by the
> right wing.
>
>
>
> > Domestic Abuse. \
>
> having grown up with an violent alcoholic father, i KNOW this aint
> true.
>
>
>
> > rural, to say that most, if not all, men are gun owners or wish to
> > own
> > guns remains an utterly unproved knee jerk comment.
>
> there are 230M guns in the US. and many white man gun owners are
> exceptionally hostile to individual rights...except for THEIR 'right'
> to own an obsolete toy.
>
>
>
> >http://www.wagc.com/:Women Against Gun Control.
> > It's not surprising then, that more women than ever want to keep
> > their
> > rights to own and carry a gun.
> > The reason is simple: Women are concerned about becoming victims
> > of crime. Guns give women a fighting chance against crime.
>
> with 11,000 gun deaths in the US last year it's apparent guns CAUSE
> death, they don't PREVENT them.
When anyone is killed by gunfire in the US because of the commission
of a felony, it is counted as a gun homicide. Even if one of the
criminals is the one killed. If two muggers attack me, and I shoot
one, the other is charged with his murder. Do you have these numbers?
When a convenience store clerk pulls a gun and the robber runs away,
or a potential mugging victim holds the criminal until the police
arrive, it is*not counted as a gun homicide. Neither are burglars
chased off by homeowners.
How many of those are there? How many of them are never reported?
To claim that:
if guns didn't exist, nobody would be killed by guns
is undisputed.
This is a different claim from:
If gun law X is passed, nobody will have guns.
Or:
if there are no guns deaths, things will be better (e.g. fewer total
deaths by violence).
Kermit
Robert Grumbine
loua...@yahoo.com <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 21, 2:23 am, Susan S <otoeremovet...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Okay, let's see the well proven evidence. And not from a partisan
>> source. Police or court records would be good.
>
>The ironic thing is that there could actually be a reasoned discussion
>on this. (I've also read the roughly 50/50 figures on spousal abuse,
>although you have to equate all forms of violence from shoving to
>homicide to make the numbers come out. When it comes to attacks that
>need a doctor or a coroner, the men remain much much safer.)
Hm. The figures I've seen said that if a coroner were involved,
the figures were comparable (possibly more men dead).
For non-fatal situations, it's pretty easy for a guy to pass
off his injuries as a tough football/basketball game where a woman
with the same injury could easily be marked down as spousal abuse
regardless of what she says. Injury figures I've seen do show
more women than men injured in spousal violence, but 70-30 or 80-20,
not 100:1.
The lowest figures (for men) that I've seen are the police reports.
An older set (at that time, 2000) showed 5% being violence against
men. But the then-recent set tripled that to 15%. (Biennial, iirc,
updates).
>There could be a reasoned discussion. Just not with Andre.
Indeed.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
wf3h
the canadian obviously doesn't know american law.
here in PA a police officer is REQUIRED to arrest any party who shows
evidence of having inflicted physical harm on another, regardless of
sex. my wife is a criminal defense attorney and my best friend is a
cop, so there is some experience here.
andre is just talking out his...ahem...hat.
wf3h
> On Feb 21, 2:23 am, Susan S <otoeremovet...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay, let's see the well proven evidence. And not from a partisan
> > source. Police or court records would be good.
>
> The ironic thing is that there could actually be a reasoned discussion
> on this. (I've also read the roughly 50/50 figures on spousal abuse,
> although you have to equate all forms of violence from shoving to
> homicide to make the numbers come out. When it comes to attacks that
> need a doctor or a coroner, the men remain much much safer.)
>
yeah, andre thinks OJ simpson was the victim because he cut his hand
while butchering 2 people...
Robert Grumbine
Inez <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 19, 5:55 am, b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
>> In article
><2a210fc4-2e88-41ea-90f8-1156bd759...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 16, 1:01 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> No. It's a euphemism for "person who listens to Rush Limbaugh."
>> >> Basically they're conservative men who are angry that other people are
>> >> not conservative.
>>
>> >I've been listening to them for thirty years and more. They pass
>> >stories around among themselves such as "I just held a door open for a
>> >young woman and she lit into me with the foulest language I've heard
>> >since the Navy - called me a chauvinist pig, among other things." Some
>> >variation of this has been told for decades. Yet it's never happened
>> >to me. Of course, I don't run up and say "Let me get that for ya,
>> >little miss" while I'm trying to look down her blouse. I suspect it's
>> >just an urban legend they pass around because it sounds reasonable to
>> >them.
>>
>> what would happen if they ever did bother to hold a door open.
>>
>> But, in truth, something like that did happen to me -- a total of
>> 1 time, and it was 20 years ago. I held a door open for a woman
>> at my university (said door, at that point, requiring a lot of
>> force to open, but not so much to keep open; so I kept it open for
>> her) and she glared and growled (literally) at me. No foul language
>> though. I've held a lot of doors open in the subsequent decades and
>> it's never happened again.
>
>obnoxious over-the-top "feminists." However, I do not believe he is
>correct that this is the sign of the Liberal Apocolypse.
On the other hand, with decades of opening doors for people
of either gender and only one such incident, I've heard from
quite a few Limbaugh fans about how such things happen 'all the time'.
Much more whining from them than actual events.
Inez
> In article <51dfcd2e-1de0-4216-99c5-a5ba6a7bf...@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
going for is:
1) All feminsts are liberals, and all liberals are feminists
2) I've heard reports of absurd and obnoxious feminists, so all
feminists have these characteristics.
3) Therefore all liberals are absurd and obnoxious.
The argument is wrong at each an every point. Using the exact same
logic we can say that since Rush Limbaugh is absurd and obnoxious, all
conservatives are absurd and obnoxious.
Shane
> On Feb 19, 2:34 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
[...]
>> Cowshit: Her saying " Well, its good that they're ( Men ) good for
>> *something* " was NOT a "thanks ".
>
> She clearly *was wrong, wasn't she? Even if she did come across as
> ungrateful, your behavior was not acceptable. I learned that men
> behave differently when I was a kid.
>
> As Miss Manners once said, civil behavior from an old-fashioned male
> chauvinist still comes across as civil behavior.
A tale, possibly true.
In these times when it is perhaps more fashionable not to, a man opens a
door for a woman. As she passes through, she comments, somewhat
ungraciously, "You didn't have to do that just because I am a lady," to
which he responds, "I didn't do it just because you are a lady, I did it
because I am a gentleman."
[...]
Kermit
<snort>
In the late 1980s, my wife and I lived with a woman who was one of the
first female train engineers in the US. She always voted Republican,
and thought feminists were evil men-hating bitches. And liberal.
Also, she frequently complained about the men at work who didn't take
her seriously because she was female.
Need I add that she was completely devoid in self-referencing irony?
Naturally she denied that she was a feminist, because *they were all
liberal hippies.
> 2) I've heard reports of absurd and obnoxious feminists, so all
> feminists have these characteristics.
> 3) Therefore all liberals are absurd and obnoxious.
>
> The argument is wrong at each an every point. Using the exact same
> logic we can say that since Rush Limbaugh is absurd and obnoxious, all
> conservatives are absurd and obnoxious.
Kermit
Walter Bushell
<74742e06-1f2a-42f4...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Inez <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The argument is wrong at each an every point. Using the exact same
> logic we can say that since Rush Limbaugh is absurd and obnoxious, all
> conservatives are absurd and obnoxious.
Name one?
John Wilkins
Our female male Aussies are indeed very pleasant people.
lecody
And they shall be relocated, Austrailia will be men only!
Jack Dominey
<2b6bac4f-3280-4a36...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 19, 2:34 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 1:49 pm, Jack Dominey <l...@my.sig> wrote:
>> > In
>> > <19cca187-9a4f-45d9-8bb3-0a606b0a2...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >On Feb 18, 1:49 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> > >> She offered some thanks for the help.
>> > >> I said that thats OK, its what
>> > >> we guys do. Her reply to this pleasantry was " Well, its good that
>> > >> they're good for *something*. " I placed my end of the dresser down,
>> > >> replied " Indeed, we are good for something. We call that something
>> > >> 'civilisation'. " I then left her still stuck between the doors.
<snip>
>> > A kind person who had just been *thanked for their assistance* could
>> > not possibly take such a comment as a personal insult.
>>
>> Cowshit: Her saying " Well, its good that they're ( Men ) good for
>> *something* " was NOT a "thanks ".
>
>She clearly *was wrong, wasn't she? Even if she did come across as
>ungrateful, your behavior was not acceptable. I learned that men
>behave differently when I was a kid.
Look up top of this message. She wasn't ungrateful, Lieven said so
himself.
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
er...@swva.net
er...@swva.net
I just hold the door open for everybody, unless I'm the one whose arms
are full, in which case, if I'm lucky enough that someone helps me, I
say "thanks" and mean it.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
> On Feb 15, 8:49 pm, "Dick C." <dic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 3:55 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
>
> > > "There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White
> > > Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them
> > > will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them
> > > voted for George Bush."
>
> > > I'm really rather tired of hearing about the whiny Real Men; they
> > > embarrass me. If they listened to something other than Rush Limbaugh
> > > they might be able to understand some of the changes going on around
> > > them. Maybe even grow a pair.
>
> > their manhood that
> > they have to tell everyone that they are real men, lest anyone
> > mistake them for something less.
> > And as real men they have to own something that spits when they tell
> > it to, unlike what they have
> > in their pants, plus they have to join a club that tells the world
> > that they are real men. And as real men
> > they are afraid of women that have more power than they do.
> > On the other hand, I owned some guns when I was 18. I then went into
> > the navy and sold them when I got out. I also joined the nra when I
> > was 18. I never renewed my membership. By the time I grew up
> > I knew I was a man, and I have not felt any urge to tell the world
> > that I am a man. The people that matter to me know if I am a man or
> > not. I do not need to tell them, andt that is all that matters.
> > Dick C.
>
> You probably knew folks who still have their firearms, but don't seem
> angry or insecure. It *is just something some folks do, you know. I've
> done martial arts for thirty years. If it's compensation for not being
> manly enough, then it was probably a mistake to encourage my wife and
> daughter to study...
>
> This type does exist in large numbers, and is worried about their
> image as a stud. But there are some guys who just like loud noises or
> hard thumps.
>
> Kermit
Hey, I grew up around and like guns, even though I hardly ever get
around to shooting anymore, and I've never had the illusion I was
especially any sort of "he-man."
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
> On Feb 19, 5:55 am, b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <2a210fc4-2e88-41ea-90f8-1156bd759...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
Yeah, Limbaugh acts like, because a few extremists would like to have
men shot, that that sheds some sort of negative light on feminism,
period (no offense! <8^) )
Eric Root
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
My gun was bigger.
:)
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Don Cates
er...@swva.net wrote:
> On Feb 21, 4:14 pm, Shane <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:51:50 -0800 (PST), Kermit wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 2:34 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>> Cowshit: Her saying " Well, its good that they're ( Men ) good for
>>>> *something* " was NOT a "thanks ".
According to your own recounting of the story, her first interaction
with you was to offer thanks.
It was after your 'Us guys do that' that she gave you the 'at least
you're good for that'. At which point you showed her she was wrong about
that.
Have you considered anger management?
>>> She clearly *was wrong, wasn't she? Even if she did come across as
>>> ungrateful, your behavior was not acceptable. I learned that men
>>> behave differently when I was a kid.
>>> As Miss Manners once said, civil behavior from an old-fashioned male
>>> chauvinist still comes across as civil behavior.
>> A tale, possibly true.
>> In these times when it is perhaps more fashionable not to, a man opens a
>> door for a woman. As she passes through, she comments, somewhat
>> ungraciously, "You didn't have to do that just because I am a lady," to
>> which he responds, "I didn't do it just because you are a lady, I did it
>> because I am a gentleman."
>>
>> [...]
>
> I just hold the door open for everybody, unless I'm the one whose arms
> are full, in which case, if I'm lucky enough that someone helps me, I
> say "thanks" and mean it.
Exactly my experience. I've never had a negative response, but then I
don't make chauvinistic or demeaning comments while doing it.
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" - PN)
John McKendry
The 50/50 numbers come from a couple of surveys done by Murray
Straus and Richard Gelles in 1975 and 1985, the "National Family
Violence Surveys". Straus is with the U. of New Hampshire Family
Research Center, and Gelles was with the U. of Rhode Island Family
Violence Research Project (he has lately moved to U. of
Pennsylvania). I think the other sources that Andre cites all
take their information from these surveys, directly or indirectly
(except for Erin Pizzey, who seems to take her facts from her own
experience).
The surveys look methodologically OK to me; it doesn't look like
the researchers set out to prove their own biases. So the results
should be taken seriously. But as readers of t.o. know, "taking
the results seriously" does not mean "cherry-picking the parts that
appear to support one position and ignoring the rest".
Here's what Gelles himself has to say:
<quote>
"To even off the debate playing field it seems one piece of
statistical evidence (that women and men hit one another in
roughly equal numbers) is hauled out from my 1985 research -
and distorted - to “prove” the position on violence against men.
However, the critical rate of injury and homicide statistics
provided in that same research are often eliminated altogether,
or reduced to a parenthetical statement saying that “men typically
do more damage.” The statement that men and women hit one another
in roughly equal numbers is true, however, it cannot be made in a
vacuum without the qualifiers that a) women are seriously injured
at seven times the rate of men and b) that women are killed by
partners at more than two times the rate of men.
That women are perpetrators of intimate violence there can be no
doubt. There is consistent and reliable empirical evidence that
women use violence toward their male partners. The question of
whether there are “battered” men and the prevalence of the problem
of the battering of men is more complex.
We know that there are two to four million women battered in the
United States each year. At least half these women fight back and
defend themselves, and about 700 times last year, women killed
their husbands or partners.
In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical
or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as
a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence
because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked.
A smaller number of women, having been beaten and brutalized for
months or years, seek vengeance against a brutal partner. Despite
Lorena Bobbit’s much publicized act least year, the majority of
violence women do not inflict significant injury on their partners:
women are typically smaller than their husbands and less skilled
in using weapons.
Thus, when we look at injuries resulting from violence involving
male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that
there are the same number of “battered” men as there are battered
women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims
are women and only about ten percent are men. Movie portrayals of
the vengeful, violent women notwithstanding (for example, in
“Fatal Attraction” or “Basic Instinct”), there are very few women
who stalk male partners or kill them and then their children in a
cataclysmic act of familicide. The most brutal, terrorizing and
continuing pattern of harmful intimate violence is carried out
primarily by men.
Indeed, men are hit by their wives, they are injured, and some are
killed. But, are all men hit by women “battered?” No. Men who beat
their wives, who use emotional abuse and blackmail to control their
wives, and are then hit or even harmed, cannot be considered battered
men. A battered man is one who is physically injured by a wife or
partner and has not physically struck or psychologically provoked her.
My estimate is that there are about 100,000 battered men in the
United States each year - a much smaller number than the two to
four million battered women - but hardly trivial.
Despite the fact that indeed, there are battered men too, it is
misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with
a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by
their partners as much as women. It is not a simple case of simple
numbers. The media, policy makers, and the public cannot simply
ignore - or reduce to a parenthetical status the outcomes of violence,
which leave more than 1,400 women dead each year and millions physically
and/or psychologically scarred for life."
</quote>
http://thesafetyzone.org/everyone/gelles.html for the whole thing.
This is most of it.
> There could be a reasoned discussion. Just not with Andre.
Yeah.
John
Sean_M...@yahoo.com
Bullshit. When one class does everything for the other class, rooted
in determinst class differences it is called slavery. When a pig
fucker like you tries to condition that slave class to be happy
gullible slaves it is something much worse.
>
> > Oh really ? Whens the last time you heard of a woman stopping her
> > car to help a guy whose car has a flat ? Uh huh.
>
> How many men are afraid in that situation?
>
> My daughter spent all summer, every summer, as a volunteer in
> Partners 'n Pals, an organization in which able-bodied kids spent the
> summer helping handicapped kids swim, go to movies, shop at the mall,
> etc.
So what. Your daughter is pig fucker. A cum eating toilet.
>
> How many handicapped strangers have you spent time helping lately?
Absolutely itrrelevent. Though typical liberal trick.
>
>
>
> > > The woman's remark, coming as it did out of the blue, sounds as if she
> > > was thinking of a particular 'guy' with whom she'd had a bad
> > > experience recently, perhaps one who'd left her in the position of
> > > needing furniture she could ill afford.
>
> > Oh sure, psychoanalyze ( In this case, thats a synonym for "find an
> > excuse for the chyk "... ) someone you NEVER met.
>
> > I was there, you weren't. Thus, your claim to know her state of
> > mind utterly fails. When then follows from that false claim also
> > must fail.
>
> That's true. We don't know her state of mind. But you told her that
> men are responsible for civilization - implying what about women?
Wimmin are inferior parasites, ignoble and the key catalyst for
competion.
And
> after offering her help. you left her with a petty remark and in an
> awkward situation. I was trying to imagine a positive spin on this,
> but I'm pretty sure now that there is none.
Oh I have a spin for ya...
You squat on a bed post and spin, spin away, singing "whoopee". But
get a good running start first --so you really go around good and
fast.
Hey speaking of your daughter, ask her to show you how it's done...
> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe you're mindless... That lack of observation and memory aptitude
is the core reason why you were a failure at everything in childhood;
and why you are a liberal.
=======
That is a long nonsense post too. Like anyone would read his drivel.
Death to democracy.
The sooner the american white male conservative-- a long since bred
watch dog of the roman french elite effets -- is dead the sooner this
liberal mental ilness --thousands and thousands of years old-- will be
gone.
It's that simple. American conservatism is the problem not the
solution. Any body trying to hold together this society is the
problem.
Men are natural conformists (long since naturally selected tribal
defenders of yore); they don't deconstruct the hive --they defend it
from 'other' who aint of the body.
Listening to white male conservatives is like listening to a watch dog
on a leash kvetch about the warehouse that he still defends and barks
FOR to his last dying breath.
I don't know how you can be against something and still be its main
wallet and defenders. It doesn't make any sense.
Sean_M...@yahoo.com
My entire point I'm making in this last posts exactly... Female
controled etiquette breeding the white male as a rube class since the
Roman empire.
Rome didn't fall it morphed into dark age france: a chimera of
machivellian playboy effets worshiping female etiquette and bred --
ever more unaware-- mercenary watch dogs who think they're tough in
there bequethed purple cloaks.
>
>
>
> > What would you say if a guy said about women " Its good that
> > they're good for *something*. "Uh huh.
>
> Rather depends on the context and tone of voice, I would think. I am
> skeptical of your judgement in these matters.
>
> You seem reasonable normally, when discussing science. <shrug>
You --you mindless pig-- are not in any way shape or form a
"scientific thinker". You are a liberal and as such you think that
science is against 'consevatives' and specifically you wrongly think
that deconstructing the jesus cult is going to help liberalism. This
is all part of your lack of problem solving ability that (along with
your other short comings) makes you a born idiot and liberal.
>
>
>
> > > To renege on
> > > the offer was bad enough, but strutting off on *that* exit line was
> > > breathtakingly arrogant.
Oh yeah; hows this...
I would simply grab you by your face and simply drag it and you to the
toilet where I would drown you in bile.
And here's the breathtakingly arrogant part...
I would then walk off, with my only concern being any debris you got
on my outfit. Then I would never think of you again in any terms; I
would sleep the sleep of babes.
>
> > Nope, it was am equal shot right back at her. But, SHES the one
> > who chose to offer sexist RUDENESS to someone *who was helping
> > her out*.
>
> So you showed her she was wrong by ...being rude right back at her.
Hmm...
Seems to me when liberals think someone is wrong they not only don't
have a problem being rude; they will drop tons and tons of naplam on
your civil society (hiding behind the front man 'conservative').
(This ever bonding and morphing coaliton of elite weirdos and watch
dogs might be all nonself aware. But that is irelevant: a machine of
selected bred parts doesn't need to know that that is what it is for
it to be that. (Say that five times fast, you gits.)
If
> you were right in assessing her tone, instead of feeling guilty about
> her behavior, she now feels vindicated.
>
>
>
> > > Newsflash, Mr. Lieven: *You* are not responsible for "civilisation".
>
> > Newsflash, oh illiterate sexist builder of Straw Whores: I NEVER
> > said that. Duh !
>
> You said men were, implying that women were not, then behaved most
> uncivilly.
When the slave doesn't show up for work, he's 'uncivil'.
That is the way this class of liars has tricked the northern european
savage for almost two millenia now into being the rube of all western
society. It is in this classes genes to be liars and in the slave
classes genes to be gullible.
You want to do her work, you incompetent mindless fool, good -- do it!
You try to condition me to do and I'll sever your mother fucking head
off with out a care. How 'bout that for civility sweetums?
And wouldn't the equivalent of "Strawman" be "Strawwoman"?
> Whom are you angry at?
You, you cock sucker death camp fodder.
>
>
>
> > > You are, however, responsible for
> > > your own actions, which in this case began well but ended
> > > reprehensibly.
>
> > <Massive Misandristic Projection>
>
> > Its noteworthy that this don't-know-Jack doesn't say a word about
> > HER being RUDE to a guy who was helping her.
>
> Y'know, the females in my family (in-laws) have said such things, but
> the context and tone of voice are important. You never kid your
> friends? I am often clueless about social undertones, but I find that
> simply behaving politely saves me from many social disasters (I
> generally shy away from social activities anyway). If I judge the more
> subtle cues wrongly, I cannot be faulted for civil behavior.
Get your ass out there and do more work for the wimmins you un civil
bastard. I'll get a nice diaper you can wear and a salt pick too.
I choose to not be a slave, you mindless weakling subhuman pile of
breeding garbage, for genetic reasons.
>
>
>
> > Theres a term for such male misandrists: Big Daddy Sir Galahads
> > rushing to defend a female from any hint that *she might just be
> > equally responsible for HER actions and words as they insist on
> > trying to hold men for*.
>
> > Thats the real misandrous sexism; Jack's. Oh, and the bint at the
> > Sally Ann store...
>
> Curiously, I don't seem to run into all the rude women that you do.
> Maybe I'm just lucky.
>
>
>
> > Andre
>
Sean_M...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Test
Sean_M...@yahoo.com
> > was thinking of a particular 'guy' with whom she'd had a bad
> > experience recently, perhaps one who'd left her in the position of
> > needing furniture she could ill afford.
>
> Oh sure, psychoanalyze ( In this case, thats a synonym for "find an
> excuse for the chyk "... ) someone you NEVER met.
>
> I was there, you weren't. Thus, your claim to know her state of
> mind utterly fails. When then follows from that false claim also
> must fail.
>
> > not possibly take such a comment as a personal insult.
>
> Cowshit: Her saying " Well, its good that they're ( Men ) good for
> *something* " was NOT a "thanks ".
>
> they're good for *something*. "Uh huh.
>
> > the offer was bad enough, but strutting off on *that* exit line was
> > breathtakingly arrogant.
>
> Nope, it was am equal shot right back at her. But, SHES the one
> who chose to offer sexist RUDENESS to someone *who was helping
> her out*.
>
>
> Newsflash, oh illiterate sexist builder of Straw Whores: I NEVER
> said that. Duh !
>
> > your own actions, which in this case began well but ended
> > reprehensibly.
>
> <Massive Misandristic Projection>
>
> Its noteworthy that this don't-know-Jack doesn't say a word about
> HER being RUDE to a guy who was helping her.
>
> rushing to defend a female from any hint that *she might just be
> equally responsible for HER actions and words as they insist on
> trying to hold men for*.
>
> Thats the real misandrous sexism; Jack's. Oh, and the bint at the
> Sally Ann store...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
test
Sean_M...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why can't people reply to you, you lying evil prick>
Andre Lieven
> er...@swva.net wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 4:14 pm, Shane <remar...@Netscape.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:51:50 -0800 (PST), Kermit wrote:
> >>> On Feb 19, 2:34 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> [...]
>
> >>>> Cowshit: Her saying " Well, its good that they're ( Men ) good for
> >>>> *something* " was NOT a "thanks ".
>
> According to your own recounting of the story, her first interaction
> with you was to offer thanks.
Immediately foowed by a sexist slur that removed any such " thanks
"...
> It was after your 'Us guys do that' that she gave you the 'at least
> you're good for that'.
So ? My comment was at least factual; Or, are you so deluded as to
claim that chivalry works to men's *benefits* ? That would be...
deranged.
> At which point you showed her she was wrong about that.
<Laughs> Only if such a person is such a MORON as to conflate
" one " with " ALL ". Thats you, BTW.
> Have you considered anger management?
Have you ever considered Lithium ?
> >>> She clearly *was wrong, wasn't she? Even if she did come across as
> >>> ungrateful, your behavior was not acceptable. I learned that men
> >>> behave differently when I was a kid.
> >>> As Miss Manners once said, civil behavior from an old-fashioned male
> >>> chauvinist still comes across as civil behavior.
> >> A tale, possibly true.
> >> In these times when it is perhaps more fashionable not to, a man opens a
> >> door for a woman. As she passes through, she comments, somewhat
> >> ungraciously, "You didn't have to do that just because I am a lady," to
> >> which he responds, "I didn't do it just because you are a lady, I did it
> >> because I am a gentleman."
>
> >> [...]
>
> > I just hold the door open for everybody, unless I'm the one whose arms
> > are full, in which case, if I'm lucky enough that someone helps me, I
> > say "thanks" and mean it.
>
> Exactly my experience. I've never had a negative response, but then I
> don't make chauvinistic or demeaning comments while doing it.
Sure ou do; you just don't make them against the group that its
officially
bad to do so against.
That makes you out to be a PC Bigot.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> In
>
> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 19, 2:34 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> On Feb 19, 1:49 pm, Jack Dominey <l...@my.sig> wrote:
> >> > In
> >> > <19cca187-9a4f-45d9-8bb3-0a606b0a2...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> > Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >On Feb 18, 1:49 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> > >> She offered some thanks for the help.
> >> > >> I said that thats OK, its what
> >> > >> we guys do. Her reply to this pleasantry was " Well, its good that
> >> > >> they're good for *something*. " I placed my end of the dresser down,
> >> > >> replied " Indeed, we are good for something. We call that something
> >> > >> 'civilisation'. " I then left her still stuck between the doors.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> > A kind person who had just been *thanked for their assistance* could
> >> > not possibly take such a comment as a personal insult.
>
> >> Cowshit: Her saying " Well, its good that they're ( Men ) good for
> >> *something* " was NOT a "thanks ".
>
> >She clearly *was wrong, wasn't she? Even if she did come across as
> >ungrateful, your behavior was not acceptable. I learned that men
> >behave differently when I was a kid.
>
> Look up top of this message. She wasn't ungrateful, Lieven said so
> himself.
Lie. She was trying to *appear grateful for a sexist standard that she
herself had made up out of her sexist whole cloth*.
Further, SHES the one who brought up " men ", *plural*, when ONE
specific man was helping her
Had she told a jewish man that kikes are good for something, its a
slam
dunk that any such man would have left her even faster, and with a
more
pithy reply than how I left her...
Andre
Andre Lieven
sexist foot:
> On Feb 20, 11:54 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 10:19 am, lecody <lecody2...@David.Duke> KKK-ed:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 8:55 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 18, 6:55 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 18, 1:49 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 16, 1:01 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 12:55 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > >http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
>
> > > > > > > > > > "There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White
> > > > > > > > > > Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them
> > > > > > > > > > will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them
> > > > > > > > > > voted for George Bush."
>
> > > > > > > > > > I'm really rather tired of hearing about the whiny Real Men; they
> > > > > > > > > > embarrass me. If they listened to something other than Rush Limbaugh
> > > > > > > > > > they might be able to understand some of the changes going on around
> > > > > > > > > > them. Maybe even grow a pair.
>
>
> > > > > > > > > Is 'Angry White Men' an euphemism for 'White Trash'? I'm asking
> > > > > > > > > because I don't know.
>
> > > > > > > > No. It's a euphemism for "person who listens to Rush Limbaugh."
> > > > > > > > Basically they're conservative men who are angry that other people are
> > > > > > > > not conservative.
>
> > > > > > > I've been listening to them for thirty years and more. They pass
> > > > > > > stories around among themselves such as "I just held a door open for a
> > > > > > > young woman and she lit into me with the foulest language I've heard
> > > > > > > since the Navy - called me a chauvinist pig, among other things." Some
> > > > > > > variation of this has been told for decades. Yet it's never happened
> > > > > > > to me. Of course, I don't run up and say "Let me get that for ya,
> > > > > > > little miss" while I'm trying to look down her blouse. I suspect it's
> > > > > > > just an urban legend they pass around because it sounds reasonable to
> > > > > > > them.
>
> > > > > > out of the urban legend arena, then I can factually say that a version
> > > > > > of this happened to me.
>
> > > > > Urban legends exist because they sound reasonable to the crowd that
> > > > > passes them around.
>
> > > > While thats often true, its not *always* true. Ergo, there are
> > > > exceptions
> > > > that prove the rule.
>
> > > > > I've heard a few that I'm sure have happened
> > > > > somewhere, sometime, but most of the tales I heard passed on were
> > > > > almost certainly rumors ("It happened to a buddy, but I'll just say it
> > > > > happened to me, because that will be simpler and it's still true,
> > > > > almost"). Others, of course, are impossible ("Silver Manhattan - the
> > > > > super pot of the Manhattan sewer system. Flushed into the sewer during
> > > > > drug raids, it's powerful weed, because of all the fertilizer, but a
> > > > > pale gray, 'cause it doesn't get any sunlight down there...")
>
> > > > I was commenting on the one, specific claimed legend. The book that I
> > > > cited provides a lot of evidence to show that misandry is pretty
> > > > common.
>
> > > > > > I was in a Salvation Army store, looking for audio cassette storage
> > > > > > cases ( The kind that have three drawers that each hold 12-16 tapes )
> > > > > > and I saw a young woman trying to move a dresser that she had just
> > > > > > purchased out of the store. As this is in Ottawa, Canada, where
> > > > > > winters
> > > > > > have some serious meaning, there were two separate doors to go
> > > > > > through. She got stuck with the dresser in the between-the-doors
> > > > > > space.
>
> > > > > > I came over to help, and in the process, the following conversation
> > > > > > ensued.
>
> > > > > > we guys do. Her reply to this pleasantry was " Well, its good that
> > > > > > they're good for *something*. " I placed my end of the dresser down,
> > > > > > replied " Indeed, we are good for something. We call that something
> > > > > > 'civilisation'. " I then left her still stuck between the doors.
>
> > > > > > its damn DUMB. Damned rude, too.
>
> > > > > > > I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.
>
> > > > > > A proper reading of the book " Spreading Misandry; The Teaching
> > > > > > of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture ", Paul Nathanson &
> > > > > > Katherine Young, McGill/Queens University Press could offer some
> > > > > > factual insight in this area.
>
> > > > > > Andre
>
> > > > > There certainly are crazies in every demographic.
>
> > > > of
> > > > not expressing misandristic comments, and, once again, the book that
> > > > I cited explains pretty well the social environment that provides a
> > > > basis
> > > > by which many millions of people decide that misandristic comments
> > > > are acceptable to express.
>
> > > > > Still, I can't help
> > > > > but wonder what her tone of voice and body language were like. In
> > > > > print, it sounds like the good-natured banter between buddies in my
> > > > > head, but I can see how it could have been bitter-sounding and
> > > > > accusatory.
>
> > > > misandristic comment of hers was not offered with a sneer or a
> > > > hatefilled tone. She delivered it in a pretty normal tone of voice,
> > > > and
> > > > a pretty normal set of physical expressions. Thats why that comment
> > > > surprised me. But, I'm pretty fast with rejoinders, and with picking a
> > > > relevent one, so it took me only a couple of seconds ( During which,
> > > > I put down the end of the dresser that I was holding. ) to form my
> > > > reply.
>
> > > > > I wonder how she remembers *you?
>
>
> > > > If you really want to understand this better, read the book(s).
>
> > > > Andre
>
> > > Keep in mind Andre, that women are just reveling in their new found
> > > freedom to bash the men who have been bashing the women for
> > > centuries..
>
> > Utter sexist misandristic fictional lunacy. I will point out that, at
> > the
> > height of the so called " patriarchy ", men DIED so that women could
> > LIVE. The well known case of the sinking of the RMS Titanic is an
> > excellent case in point:
>
> >http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm
>
> > Category - % Saved - % Lost - Number Saved - Number Lost - Total
> > Aboard
> > Child 1st 100.0 0.0 6
> > 0 6
> > Child 2nd 100.0 0.0 24
> > 0 24
> > W. 1st Cl. 97.22 2.78 140
> > 4 144
> > W. Crew 86.96 13.03 20
> > 3 23
> > W. 2nd Cl. 86.02 13.98 80
> > 13 93
> > W. 3rd Cl. 46.06 53.94 76
> > 89 165
> > Child 3rd 34.18 65.82 27
> > 52 79
> > M. 1st 32.57 67.43 57
> > 118 175
> > M. Crew 21.69 78.31 192
> > 693 885
> > M. 3rd Cl 16.23 83.77 75
> > 387 462
> > M. 2nd Cl. 8.33 91.67 14
> > 154 168
>
> > The numbers are clear: So called " male power " meant that men DIED,
> > while women LIVED.
>
> > > My own favorite misandric comment
>
> > A sexist bigot who has a " favorite misandristic comment " has AbZero
> > standing to complain about any else's alleged biases.
>
> > > is to relocate all men
> > > to Austrailia where they can revel in football [either kind] beer and
> > > pornography.
>
> > And, women with your man hating sexist misandrous views are why
> > The Marriage Strike is growing and growing...
>
> >http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/sacks/02/thompsonsacks070502.htm
>
> > A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss
>
> > July 5, 2002 by Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks
>
> > "Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids
> > and
> > most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a 31-
> > year-old
> > power plant technician who says he will never marry. "I've seen it
> > happen to
> > many of my friends. I know guys who came home one day to an empty
> > house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming.
> > Some of them were never able to see their kids regularly again."
>
> > Yes, modern western women are, for the most part, shrill man hating
> > harridans who cannot understand why the men they slur, hate, and
> > attack don't want to be with them.
>
> > Oh, the humanity !
>
> > Andre
> Men only give up their lives do to genetics and testosterone.
Flip Side: " Women are only discriminated against due ( sic ) to their
genetics and estrogen. "
Conratulations: You just proved that theres no need for ANY women only
social
programs !
> Not because they are living on some kind of moral high ground.
Flip Side: " Women do <X + Y> not because they are living on some kind
of
moral high ground. "
Cogratulations, you just showed that women are better in NO way to
men !
> And it is
> interesting to note that men are almost exclusively protecting us from
> other men.
Really ? The iceberg that sank the Titanic was " other men " ?
Seek professional mental health care for your insane misandrist
delusions.
> Off to Australia with Andre!
Off to the nutbag house with Sexist Laura ! Enjoy your fellow 9/11
and
" we never landedon the Moon " fellow traveller nutbags.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Feb 21, 2:23 am, Susan S <otoeremovet...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay, let's see the well proven evidence. And not from a partisan
> > source. Police or court records would be good.
>
> The ironic thing is that there could actually be a reasoned discussion
> on this.
The kind that the Feminists refuse to have ?
> (I've also read the roughly 50/50 figures on spousal abuse,
> although you have to equate all forms of violence from shoving to
> homicide to make the numbers come out. When it comes to attacks that
> need a doctor or a coroner, the men remain much much safer.)
No proof offered ? Sexist handwaving cowshit claim fails.
> There could be a reasoned discussion. Just not with Andre.
<Massive Loony Sexist Projection>
Andre
Andre Lieven
weaseled and failed statistics:
> On Feb 19, 2:34 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 1:49 pm, Jack Dominey <l...@my.sig> wrote:
>
> > > In
> > > <19cca187-9a4f-45d9-8bb3-0a606b0a2...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > >On Feb 18, 1:49 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > >> I was in a Salvation Army store, looking for audio cassette storage
> > > >> cases ( The kind that have three drawers that each hold 12-16 tapes )
> > > >> and I saw a young woman trying to move a dresser that she had just
> > > >> purchased out of the store. As this is in Ottawa, Canada, where
> > > >> winters
> > > >> have some serious meaning, there were two separate doors to go
> > > >> through. She got stuck with the dresser in the between-the-doors
> > > >> space.
>
> > > >> I came over to help, and in the process, the following conversation
> > > >> ensued.
>
> > > >> She offered some thanks for the help. I said that thats OK, its what
> > > >> we guys do. Her reply to this pleasantry was " Well, its good that
> > > >> they're good for *something*. " I placed my end of the dresser down,
> > > >> replied " Indeed, we are good for something. We call that something
> > > >> 'civilisation'. " I then left her still stuck between the doors.
>
>
> > > >There certainly are crazies in every demographic. Still, I can't help
> > > >but wonder what her tone of voice and body language were like. In
> > > >print, it sounds like the good-natured banter between buddies in my
> > > >head, but I can see how it could have been bitter-sounding and
>
> > > Mr. Lieven may think himself the hero of the story, but it doesn't
> > > even read that way to me. "It's what we guys do"? No, Mr. Lieven,
> > > lending assistance is something kind people do regardless of their
> > > gender and regardless of the gender of the other person.
>
> > Oh really ? Whens the last time you heard of a woman stopping her
> > car to help a guy whose car has a flat ? Uh huh.
>
> How many men are afraid in that situation?
Given the prevalence of car jackings, anyone in such a situation
should
be at least concerned. Your implicit postulate would only work if men
were ALL from Krypton...
> My daughter spent all summer, every summer, as a volunteer in
> Partners 'n Pals, an organization in which able-bodied kids spent the
> summer helping handicapped kids swim, go to movies, shop at the mall,
> etc.
All well and good, but utterly irrelevent.
> How many handicapped strangers have you spent time helping lately?
Irrelevent. How many men have you helped lately ?
> > > The woman's remark, coming as it did out of the blue, sounds as if she
> > > was thinking of a particular 'guy' with whom she'd had a bad
> > > experience recently, perhaps one who'd left her in the position of
> > > needing furniture she could ill afford.
>
> > Oh sure, psychoanalyze ( In this case, thats a synonym for "find an
> > excuse for the chyk "... ) someone you NEVER met.
>
> > I was there, you weren't. Thus, your claim to know her state of
> > mind utterly fails. When then follows from that false claim also
> > must fail.
>
> That's true. We don't know her state of mind. But you told her that
> men are responsible for civilization - implying what about women?
That thy did pretty much zero of the work that created and maintained
civilisation.
> And
> after offering her help. you left her with a petty remark and in an
> awkward situation.
<Laughs> SHE created both of those. So, she can have the accompanying
responsibility for it.
> I was trying to imagine a positive spin on this,
> but I'm pretty sure now that there is none.
Well, for her, thats quite right. She was busted for knee jerkily
being a
misandrist sexist. NO man owes any misandrist sexist anything.
> > > A kind person who had just been *thanked for their assistance* could
> > > not possibly take such a comment as a personal insult.
>
> > Cowshit: Her saying " Well, its good that they're ( Men ) good for
> > *something* " was NOT a "thanks ".
>
> She clearly *was wrong, wasn't she?
Yep.
> Even if she did come across as
> ungrateful, your behavior was not acceptable.
Utter cowshit. She got no more than she EARNED by means of her
unhinking misandry.
> I learned that men behave differently when I was a kid.
" I myself have never been able to find out precisely what misogyny
is;
I only know that some people call me a misogynist whenever I express
sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a provider. "
Society, soc.men, Nov 13, 2002.
> As Miss Manners once said, civil behavior from an old-fashioned male
> chauvinist still comes across as civil behavior.
Its telling that the so called " experts " on good behavior are pretty
much
always women. How about some *equality*, hm ?
> > What would you say if a guy said about women " Its good that
> > they're good for *something*. "Uh huh.
>
> Rather depends on the context and tone of voice, I would think. I am
> skeptical of your judgement in these matters.
Thats OK, you merely betray your own misandry.
> You seem reasonable normally, when discussing science. <shrug>
Ah, the shrug of the sexist who wishes to NOT test *their own sexist
biases*...
Thank you for your latest concession on the topic.
> > > To renege on
> > > the offer was bad enough, but strutting off on *that* exit line was
> > > breathtakingly arrogant.
>
> > Nope, it was am equal shot right back at her. But, SHES the one
> > who chose to offer sexist RUDENESS to someone *who was helping
> > her out*.
>
> So you showed her she was wrong by ...being rude right back at her.
<Laughs> Withdrawing help from someone who just insulted nmy whole
sex is NOT " rudeness ". Seek help for your delusions about what is
and
is not *owed to women just for their existing*.
Whats particularly telling is, that had her comment been one about my
ethnic group, you would be first in line criticising her racism. That
her
rudeness was about the one group its still considered fine to be based
about, men, shows your own willful myopia.
> If you were right in assessing her tone, instead of feeling guilty about
> her behavior, she now feels vindicated.
So, you weren't there, yet you KNOW what I thought, felt, and meant,
as wll as what she felt, meant and thought.
Seek professional mental health care for your delusions of deity-ness.
> > > Newsflash, Mr. Lieven: *You* are not responsible for "civilisation".
>
> > Newsflash, oh illiterate sexist builder of Straw Whores: I NEVER
> > said that. Duh !
>
> You said men were, implying that women were not, then behaved most
> uncivilly.
<Laughs> Yes, now it's " uncivil " to point out FACTS: How many women
rushed INTO the WTC towers to save people ? Uh huh.
> And wouldn't the equivalent of "Strawman" be "Strawwoman"?
It could be. But, I can use my own terms. Deal with it.
> Whom are you angry at?
<Projection> I also nte your pitiful Old Whore of The Shaming Ploy,
by which men are to be told that they are NOT entitled to their own
views and feelings. That Old Whore, of course, is to be derided for
the
willful sexism that it is.
Thank you for further and further proving my points.
> > > You are, however, responsible for
> > > your own actions, which in this case began well but ended
> > > reprehensibly.
>
> > <Massive Misandristic Projection>
>
> > Its noteworthy that this don't-know-Jack doesn't say a word about
> > HER being RUDE to a guy who was helping her.
>
> Y'know, the females in my family (in-laws) have said such things, but
> the context and tone of voice are important. You never kid your
> friends?
She WASN'T my friend, I had never met her before. DUH !
> I am often clueless about social undertones, but I find that
> simply behaving politely saves me from many social disasters (I
> generally shy away from social activities anyway). If I judge the more
> subtle cues wrongly, I cannot be faulted for civil behavior.
Meaningless arcissistic off topic word salad.
> > Theres a term for such male misandrists: Big Daddy Sir Galahads
> > rushing to defend a female from any hint that *she might just be
> > equally responsible for HER actions and words as they insist on
> > trying to hold men for*.
>
> > Thats the real misandrous sexism; Jack's. Oh, and the bint at the
> > Sally Ann store...
>
> Curiously, I don't seem to run into all the rude women that you do.
Or, maybe, if you are a male, you are a self hating one.
In which case, I have nothing for you but well earned scorn.
> Maybe I'm just lucky.
No, you're just willfully ignorant and sexist.
HTH.
Andre