"Beautiful Woman Syndrome"
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
women are, and how men enable these narcissistic, morally bankrupt
creatures:
http://www.bwsyndrome.com/beautiful_woman_syndrome.php
The Symps of course will side with the hotties in order to get laid (if they
loved "women" rather than "pretty women" for example, they'd care about
things like looks bias in employment, but that might translate into an ugly
secretary so no go).
--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."
Bornnatural
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <R...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:RvudnYz6FPVFw7jY...@pghconnect.com...
>A doctor has put together a page explaining how pathetic most "beautiful"
>women are, and how men enable these narcissistic, morally bankrupt
>creatures:
>
> http://www.bwsyndrome.com/beautiful_woman_syndrome.php
>
> The Symps of course will side with the hotties in order to get laid (if
> they loved "women" rather than "pretty women" for example, they'd care
> about things like looks bias in employment, but that might translate into
> an ugly secretary so no go).
>
Loving women means all women...the gender in general. You know I never
stated just the pretty ones. If you would not side step statements we might
get a good debate going.
BN
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>>women are, and how men enable these narcissistic, morally bankrupt
>>creatures:
>>
>> http://www.bwsyndrome.com/beautiful_woman_syndrome.php
>>
>> The Symps of course will side with the hotties in order to get laid (if
>> they loved "women" rather than "pretty women" for example, they'd care
>> about things like looks bias in employment, but that might translate into
>> an ugly secretary so no go).
>>
>
>
> Loving women means all women...the gender in general.
Spoken like a true Symp.
Symps are pussies.
>You know I never stated just the pretty ones.
Actions speak louder than words, unless he's NOW admitting that all these
methods he's recommending to other men (who care about looks) are only
yielding him warpigs.
Which is it?
>If you would not side step statements we might get a good debate going.
The article speaks for itself, as do the actions of the wannabe PUAs.
Bornnatural
>>>A doctor has put together a page explaining how pathetic most "beautiful"
>>>women are, and how men enable these narcissistic, morally bankrupt
>>>creatures:
>>>
>>> http://www.bwsyndrome.com/beautiful_woman_syndrome.php
>>>
>>> The Symps of course will side with the hotties in order to get laid (if
>>> they loved "women" rather than "pretty women" for example, they'd care
>>> about things like looks bias in employment, but that might translate
>>> into an ugly secretary so no go).
>>>
>>
>>
>> Loving women means all women...the gender in general.
>
> Spoken like a true Symp.
>
> Symps are pussies.
So, men that love women in general are pussies?......so to be a man you have
to hate women?....dude...you feeling ok?
>
>
>
>>You know I never stated just the pretty ones.
>
> Actions speak louder than words, unless he's NOW admitting that all these
> methods he's recommending to other men (who care about looks) are only
> yielding him warpigs.
Never said that.....you did, you seem so confused as to what a woman is to
begin with....and a man for that matter.
>
> Which is it?
Which is what?.....again, no one man can state what is beauty....it varies
from person to person. Just don't get it do you.
>
>>If you would not side step statements we might get a good debate going.
>
> The article speaks for itself, as do the actions of the wannabe PUAs.
Side stepped again.....guess you are afriad to debate me...tsk.
BN
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>>
>> Spoken like a true Symp.
>>
>> Symps are pussies.
>
>
> So, men that love women in general are pussies?......
Totally. It says no matter what women do, they are "loved."
>so to be a man you have to hate women?....dude...you feeling ok?
Not being a Symp doesn't equate to hating women. There are great women out
there, but the ones who act like the ones described in that link aren't
included, and those are the type of women who go for guys with "game."
>>>You know I never stated just the pretty ones.
>>
>> Actions speak louder than words, unless he's NOW admitting that all these
>> methods he's recommending to other men (who care about looks) are only
>> yielding him warpigs.
>
>
> Never said that.....you did, you seem so confused as to what a woman is to
> begin with....and a man for that matter.
He wants to have it both ways by claiming to be able to get hotties and then
claiming not to judge women on looks.
Either he's looks biased or he's dating warpigs.
>> Which is it?
>
>
> Which is what?.....again, no one man can state what is beauty....it varies
> from person to person. Just don't get it do you.
Apparently, the world's top researchers don't get it either, but maybe this
USENET poster knows more than they do.
An Old Friend
"Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\"" <R...@cybersheet.com> wrote:
> > Which is what?.....again, no one man can state what is beauty....it varies
> > from person to person. Just don't get it do you.
>
> Apparently, the world's top researchers don't get it either, but maybe this
> USENET poster knows more than they do.
This Usenet poster does know and can prove that the world's top
researchers disagree on universal standards of beauty in all but the
most general of criteria. Criteria under which many women would be
considered beautiful.
catfish
Bullshit! I've known some beautiful women in my time and they were, for
the most part, good ladies with great big hearts. I screwed some of
them and they were pretty good at screwing too.
Catfish
Fast Franky
Krus T. Olfard
>> So, men that love women in general are pussies?......
>
> Totally. It says no matter what women do, they are "loved."
>
>
and this kind of all or nothing logic shows why gordon's kooksuits always
get tossed by the judges... always...
wotta fuckin' loser...
--
Krustavus Teofilus Olfard
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>> not
>> teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money
>> to
>> get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."
>
> Bullshit! I've known some beautiful women in my time and they were, for
> the most part, good ladies with great big hearts.
Right, they fuck any nice guy who asks them politely....and NEVER choose
cheaters, guys with money, etc.
>I screwed some of
> them and they were pretty good at screwing too.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
Um, I didn't write the article, and the guy has women PEGGED.
Captain Saveaho is whipped.
Krus T. Olfard
>
>> how pathetic can the loser get?
>
> Um, I didn't write the article, and the guy has women PEGGED.
>
>
maybe not but you certainly agreed with the loser who did...
damn, gordon, maybe you can have sex with him?
lose your virginity?
now's your chance, gordon, grow some balls and go for it...
<snicker>
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>>
>> Um, I didn't write the article, and the guy has women PEGGED.
>>
>>
>
> maybe not but you certainly agreed with the loser who did...
Awww, another SYMP has been brainwashed by women.
Symps are the real losers.
HeeroYuy
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <R...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:MvWdndPzBM9OLrjY...@pghconnect.com...
>>>> how pathetic can the loser get?
>>>
>>> Um, I didn't write the article, and the guy has women PEGGED.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> maybe not but you certainly agreed with the loser who did...
>
> Awww, another SYMP has been brainwashed by women.
>
> Symps are the real losers.
There is a difference between respect and rule. Until Gordon learns that
distinction, he will never get laid.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>
> There is a difference between respect and rule.
"loving" someone just for existing and being a female is being ruled by
females.
>Until Gordon learns that distinction, he will never get laid.
HeeroYuy is projecting his involuntary celibacy onto others.
Typical SYMP.
Captain Saveaho
Teddybear Loveable and Cuddly
>A doctor has put together a page explaining how pathetic most "beautiful"
>women are, and how men enable these narcissistic, morally bankrupt
>creatures:
>
bankrupt creatures"? Perhaps you have not looked in the mirror or read any
of your own writings.
http://www.bwsyndrome.com/beautiful_woman_syndrome.php
>
> The Symps of course will side with the hotties in order to get laid (if
> they loved "women" rather than "pretty women" for example, they'd care
> about things like looks bias in employment, but that might translate into
> an ugly secretary so no go).
>
>
I would not hire an ugly woman to sit on the front desk. The front desk
secretary is the first person a visitor to a company sees. Of course people
want to put bright intelligent and attractive people on the front desk.
Obviously you have never been in business or had to deal with the public.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>> they loved "women" rather than "pretty women" for example, they'd care
>> about things like looks bias in employment, but that might translate into
>> an ugly secretary so no go).
>>
>>
> I would not hire an ugly woman to sit on the front desk. The front desk
> secretary is the first person a visitor to a company sees.
Customer preference is not a legitimate reason for that type of bias. An
employer who knew someone had that would be inviting legal difficulty.
>Of course people want to put bright intelligent and attractive people on
>the front desk.
Which is a civil rights violation.
> Obviously you have never been in business or had to deal with the public.
Notice how proud he is when he acts as if civil rights laws do not apply to
him.
HeeroYuy
>>> Symps are the real losers.
>>
>> There is a difference between respect and rule.
>
> "loving" someone just for existing and being a female is being ruled by
> females.
Obviously, Gordon doesn't know about human interaction.
>
>
>>Until Gordon learns that distinction, he will never get laid.
>
> HeeroYuy is projecting his involuntary celibacy onto others.
IKYABWAI noted, and duly thrown in the incinerator. It's a shame Gordon
cannot do any better.
>
> Typical SYMP.
>
> Captain Saveaho
Gordon's insults may have been effective if they weren't so pathetic.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
>>>
>>> There is a difference between respect and rule.
>>
>> "loving" someone just for existing and being a female is being ruled by
>> females.
>
> Obviously, Gordon doesn't know about human interaction.
"HeeroYuy" is a pussy-whipped SYMP.
He overlooks character flaws in women in the (futile) hope it'll get him
laid.
HeeroYuy
>>>>> Symps are the real losers.
>>>>
>>>> There is a difference between respect and rule.
>>>
>>> "loving" someone just for existing and being a female is being ruled by
>>> females.
>>
>> Obviously, Gordon doesn't know about human interaction.
>
> "HeeroYuy" is a pussy-whipped SYMP.
Seriously, how is this any different from his lame "girlyman" rants? I can't
give him props for being clever because it isn't.
>
> He overlooks character flaws in women in the (futile) hope it'll get him
> laid.
I'm more insulted by Gordon's inability to use wit than I am by that
assumption. That said, insults are all he has, since he CLEARLY cannot
debate me on the merits.
conn...@hotmail.com
catfish wrote:
>
>
> Bullshit! I've known some beautiful women in my time and they were, for
> the most part, good ladies with great big hearts. I screwed some of
> them and they were pretty good at screwing too.
>
Decoded: you used you're hands to rub the magic jeanie while watching
porn.
conn...@hotmail.com
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>
> cheaters, guys with money, etc.
They also go after the "bad guys" for the excitment factor, then come
back all bruised and beaten and screwed upon.
Gals just never learn to accept the geeks!
Krus T. Olfard
>>> Symps are the real losers.
>>
>> There is a difference between respect and rule.
>
> "loving" someone just for existing and being a female is being ruled by
> females.
until gordon learns why the above sentence is completely erroneous he
will never succeed in court...
he will just stay a loser...
as he is right now...
>>Until Gordon learns that distinction, he will never get laid.
>
> HeeroYuy is projecting his involuntary celibacy onto others.
>
> Typical SYMP.
>
> Captain Saveaho
how typical of gordon, when he does not have a good response he starts
insulting...
shows why he NEVER wins in court - that kind of logic is not the logic
that convinces judges, gordon, but you've already found that out numerous
times... kinda makes everyone wonder why you don't change your
approach...
but we know why, don't we, gordon...
Krus T. Olfard
> Customer preference is not a legitimate reason for that type of bias.
and once again gordon shows why his 'business' is a failure and why he
never wins in court...
wotta fuckin' loser...
Temily
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> http://www.bwsyndrome.com/beautiful_woman_syndrome.php
And from this website came this:
"Thus there is a major discrepancy between the recipe for success in
men and in women. With few exceptions, a man must work hard for years
to become a success, while a woman can become an overnight success just
by marrying a rich guy."
However, the truth is..
A man becomes an overnight success (not to mention lives longer as
well) just by getting married :o)
Temily
Andre Lieven
> Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
>
>> http://www.bwsyndrome.com/beautiful_woman_syndrome.php
>
> And from this website came this:
>
> "Thus there is a major discrepancy between the recipe for success in
> men and in women. With few exceptions, a man must work hard for years
> to become a success, while a woman can become an overnight success just
> by marrying a rich guy."
>
> However, the truth is..
Not what follows...
> A man becomes an overnight success (not to mention lives longer as
> well) just by getting married :o)
Cowshit. First of all, few men " become " married with no effort or
costs.
" (The woman) doesn't have to do anything more on the date than show up...
*he* has to do all the work. " Ellen Fein & Sherrie Scheider, " The
Rules ".
When the women pay as much, and have to work as hard to earn the
payment of those costs, not to mention that for most men, they can
become overnight *failures* due to a divorce ( See " TROs " ),
this claim is specious and one sided.
Oh, by the way: What are women routinely expected to spend three
months of *their salary* to give to a man, again ?
Exactly.
" Equality; unwanted by women. "
Andre
pandora
<conn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160106698.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
I not only accepted one, but married him. So there!
All our children are geeks, even our daughter. :-)
Geeks Rule!!!!!
CWQ
Temily
pandora wrote:
> I not only accepted one, but married him. So there!
> All our children are geeks, even our daughter. :-)
> Geeks Rule!!!!!
I agree, my second husband is definately a geek, just like me, and we
like it that way!
Our kids probably wouldn't call themselves geeks hehe
Temily
Temily
Andre Lieven wrote:
> Oh, by the way: What are women routinely expected to spend three
> months of *their salary* to give to a man, again ?
Dinner?
Temily
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
> like it that way!
He got the leftovers, and odds are he overpaid.
Bornnatural
>>> The Symps of course will side with the hotties in order to get laid (if
>>> they loved "women" rather than "pretty women" for example, they'd care
>>> about things like looks bias in employment, but that might translate
>>> into an ugly secretary so no go).
>>>
>>>
>> I would not hire an ugly woman to sit on the front desk. The front desk
>> secretary is the first person a visitor to a company sees.
>
> Customer preference is not a legitimate reason for that type of bias. An
> employer who knew someone had that would be inviting legal difficulty.
>
>>Of course people want to put bright intelligent and attractive people on
>>the front desk.
>
> Which is a civil rights violation.
>
Grow up.....you do not put ugly nasty people on the front desk.....jesus.
BN
Andre Lieven
" Math is hard ! " Talking Barbie.
Thanks for proving my point, that while men have such obligations
towards women, and women, statistically, insist upon getting them,
women have NONE such towards men.
Fools call that " equality "...
Andre
Andre Lieven
Let us know when MATRImony ceremonies and practices have an equal
social obligation for wife-to-be to blow " three months salary "
( *Hers* ) on a home theatre system for hubby-to-be...
Andre
Rog'
> Let us know when MATRImony ceremonies and practices
> have an equal social obligation for wife-to-be to blow " three
> months salary" ( *Hers* ) on a home theatre system for
> hubby-to-be.
Its an absurd custom. IMO, only a fool buys into it. My 1st wife
did not get and did not expect a stone as I did not have 2c to rub
together. My 2d wife got one that I ordered thru the 'net for 1/2
a months salary.
Used to be that, when the deal was closed, the guy would get a
dowry of some sort from the woman's family... compensation, I
guess for taking her off their hands... So, IMO, some reciprocal
gesture is appropriate. My suggestion is a 50" plasma TV. =R=
PolishKnight
I wonder what's in that wedding cake. :-)
Perhaps you're naive about the old saying about correlation is not
causation. Wealthy people generally tend to be healthy, but that
doesn't necessarily mean that just because a sick person won the
lottery that they suddenly drop their extra pounds and throw away their
glasses. :-)
It's likely that married men tend to be healthier because women prefer
to attach themselves to men who lead lifestyles that benefit the woman
and overall are more healthy including wealth.
Anyways, back to the topic: I skimmed the article and it seems to me to
be a bit shallow. I was shocked throughout life, until I understood it
better, that beautiful women are often the sweetest, nicest gals around
while plain looking women sometimes could be stuck up and think the
world revolves around them. Women later told me that they often were
hit on by men when the women were at their most frumpy: walking around
the neighborhood in their sweatpants. Perhaps the men felt that they
were more easily approachable. It's also a function of our society
where American men tend to be a bit on the meek and wimpy side compared
to foreigners.
When Diane Keaton and Maureeen Dowd had public emotional breakdowns
about how "men" were only interested in young bimbos on their arms for
eye candy, they were also expressing their perceptions. These were
unique to them (and party due to projection on their part) that:
A) Men date for arm candy and to impress their buddies. Perhaps a
little bit, but it's largely women who view relationships as a status
symbol for their peers rather than their status among their peers
getting them a mate they like.
B) That "men" are comprised ONLY of the kind of men that reject them or
they are interested in. Keaton and Dowd probably could easily date a
number of middle class middle aged men out there, but time has passed
these women's high demands by and they have been taught to believe that
men and women are equal and women's sexual attractiveness improves with
age.
Anyways, I suspect that many ultra-attractive women don't feel a need
to impress their peers by dating jerks just because they're arm candy
and feel more secure in dating, well, less prestigious men (like me :-)
I was shocked at first to see this until I understood it better. I'm
sure there are men who are the same way who get to a certain age where
they need that kind of arm candy to feel better (and perhaps this is
what Dowd and Keaton saw but not as much as they might imagine.)
Most men and women are not ultra-attractive but a lot of people in both
genders like to think they are. Men probably suffer from this illusion
less since they don't have a lot of low-self-esteem members of the
opposite sex groveling for dates and asking them out. 5 twos don't
equal a 10 but it's certainly better than 0.
regards,
PolishKnight
William Blake Jr.
I used to be a geek but am not one any longer.
In fact I'm thought of quite highly by a lot of people.
The geek was a temporary phase; the poet is permanent.
William Blake Jr.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> > like it that way!
>
> He got the leftovers, and odds are he overpaid.
You gonna tell me that someone who's been with someone else is
'leftovers'?
If anything, such a person would have more experience and more wisdom.
You got the Madonna-Whore complex, gordy boy. Maybe that's why you're
hitting on a teenage gymnast (whom you've of course chosen because of
her looks) while claiming that other beautiful women are narcissists
just like yourself.
I shouldn't have made posts in defense of you. Go see JTash.
vulnero
William Blake Jr. wrote:
> I used to be a geek but am not one any longer.
> In fact I'm thought of quite highly by a lot of people.
> The geek was a temporary phase; the poet is permanent.
>
I'm still pretty much of a geek, but I am also gradually turning into a
sentimental old fool. Is that an improvement?
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>> Let us know when MATRImony ceremonies and practices
>> have an equal social obligation for wife-to-be to blow " three
>> months salary" ( *Hers* ) on a home theatre system for
>> hubby-to-be.
>
> Its an absurd custom.
Yet, the majority of women demand it.
> IMO, only a fool buys into it.
Ibid above majority of women.
> My 1st wife
> did not get and did not expect a stone as I did not have 2c to rub
> together. My 2d wife got one that I ordered thru the 'net for 1/2
> a months salary.
" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
> Used to be that, when the deal was closed, the guy would get a
> dowry of some sort from the woman's family... compensation, I
> guess for taking her off their hands... So, IMO, some reciprocal
> gesture is appropriate. My suggestion is a 50" plasma TV. =R=
Sure. In fact, let the guy tell the woman what specific " token "
he wants.
Given that spending 1,000s/10,000s of $ on weddings is also for
*women* ( See plethora of bridal magazines, note lack of groomsman
magazines... Note " Bridezillas " on cable, note lack of
" groomzillas " on any media outlet... ), their demanding a shiny
and meaningless rock on top of all that, while giving nothing
to the guy is flat out triple dipping:
$1,000s wedding; hers. $1,000s diamond; hers. $1,000s anything
for him ? Nope.
Andre
William Blake Jr.
Absolutely! Having sentiments enriches your world and also gives you
more to offer in a relationship.
Now start writing poetry, and your transformation will be complete.
Cheers,
Ilya Shambat
http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
Doug Anderson
> "Rog'" (rcblin...@bellsouth.net) writes:
> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> >> Let us know when MATRImony ceremonies and practices
> >> have an equal social obligation for wife-to-be to blow " three
> >> months salary" ( *Hers* ) on a home theatre system for
> >> hubby-to-be.
> >
> > Its an absurd custom.
>
> Yet, the majority of women demand it.
>
> > IMO, only a fool buys into it.
>
> Ibid above majority of women.
>
> > My 1st wife
> > did not get and did not expect a stone as I did not have 2c to rub
> > together. My 2d wife got one that I ordered thru the 'net for 1/2
> > a months salary.
>
> " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
So? Is the singular of 'completely unjustified assertion' the same as
'citation?'
If so, you are confused about what citation means. If not, then why
should Rog reply to your unjustified assertion with a citation?
vulnero
William Blake Jr. wrote:
> Now start writing poetry, and your transformation will be complete.
OK...
The dust was thick, and the air was dense
People lined every gate and fence
Children stared, and grown men cried
As the army of flies went marching by...
Stephanie
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:eg5tq7$k42$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
My question is, why would anyone marry someone like this?
Rog'
>> Let us know when MATRImony ceremonies and practices have
>> an equal social obligation for wife-to-be to blow " three months
>> salary " ( *Hers* ) on a home theatre system for hubby-to-be...
>> Andre
> My question is, why would anyone marry someone like this?
Indeed. If a guy's not willing to fork over 3-months of his salary
or the equivilent, why marry him? This is a test of his willingness
to "share" after marriage. =R=
Stephanie
"Rog'" <rcblin...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:fdyVg.34836$tT6....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
It goes both ways. It's about seeing things the same way.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
"Andre Lieven <dg...@freenet.carleton.ca>" wrote about engagement
rituals:
> Let us know when MATRImony ceremonies and practices have an equal
> social obligation for wife-to-be to blow " three months salary"
granting the absurdity of the custom, he added:
> Yet, the majority of women demand it.
Speaking of the planet's population of women, this claim is obviously
and ridiculously false. It may be true of North American culture if we
replaced "demand" with "expect".
In any case, the solution seems to be relatively simple: don't marry a
woman like that if that's not what you want.
If you want to be able to show off your wealth by decorating your wife,
and your wife wants to be decorated so as to prove the earning power and
status of her husband, then getting her a huge hunk of carbon seems like
a win for both parties. It wouldn't make me happy to live that way, so
I don't.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"A capable wife who can find?
She is far more precious than jewels." -- Proverbs 31:10
Ilya the Bat
They marched along, under the moon,
Ray Gordon showed up and sang his tune
And Vulnero said; Enough of him!
Let's live life to the brim!
Ilya the Bat
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> Looks are not "game."
> Social status or value is not "game."
> Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
And what does the game (being emotional insincerity) make impossible?
EMOTIONAL SINCERITY.
Which means the following:
THAT IT FORBIDS LOVE.
Damn fool you be for living this way.
Krus T. Olfard
news:1160153851.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
most of us on first exposure thought gordon was being rather unfairly
picked on and made a post or two defending him... then we saw him turn
manic and desperate and felt sorry for him and made a post or two
defending him... then we saw what a lying and abrasive asshole he really
is and started giving him what he begs for...
Mark Borgerson
>
> "Andre Lieven <dg...@freenet.carleton.ca>" wrote about engagement
> rituals:
> > Let us know when MATRImony ceremonies and practices have an equal
> > social obligation for wife-to-be to blow " three months salary"
> > (*Hers*) on a home theatre system for hubby-to-be.
>
> granting the absurdity of the custom, he added:
> > Yet, the majority of women demand it.
>
> Speaking of the planet's population of women, this claim is obviously
> and ridiculously false. It may be true of North American culture if we
> replaced "demand" with "expect".
Now, don't be like Andre and forget that Mexico, with three times
the population of Canada, is also part of North America. I think
marriage customs there are quite different from those in Canada
and the US.
>
> In any case, the solution seems to be relatively simple: don't marry a
> woman like that if that's not what you want.
>
>
> If you want to be able to show off your wealth by decorating your wife,
> and your wife wants to be decorated so as to prove the earning power and
> status of her husband, then getting her a huge hunk of carbon seems like
> a win for both parties. It wouldn't make me happy to live that way, so
> I don't.
The old "three month's salary" rule may still hold if you are working
at McDonalds. However, the average engagement ring in the US
sells for about $2600----less that a month's salary for most
middle-class men. The "three month's salary" rule is purely a
marketing wish on the part of the diamond merchants.
95% of engagement rings sold are less than $5000--which is three
month's salary only if you earn less thatn $10.50/hour. I
suspect that the people at those wage levels are buying the
35% of rings that are under $1000 in price.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=747650
>
>
> Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
> "A capable wife who can find?
> She is far more precious than jewels." -- Proverbs 31:10
>
Mark Borgerson
Rog'
> ... why should Rog reply to your unjustified assertion with a citation?
Gentlemen:
My personal anecdotes were included merely to illustrate that there
are superior sentent members of the male persuasion, such as me,
who avoid the the 3-month "rule," and thus, that I could speak on
the topic with more authority than some other hapless sap. =R=
michelle70ryan
for her. You're making way too big of a thing out of this.
michelle70ryan
have been raised their whole lives by getting gifts and compliments
constantly and they just learned to take advantage of it and not
actually be respectable human beings.
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> A doctor has put together a page explaining how pathetic most "beautiful"
> women are, and how men enable these narcissistic, morally bankrupt
> creatures:
>
> http://www.bwsyndrome.com/beautiful_woman_syndrome.php
>
> The Symps of course will side with the hotties in order to get laid (if they
> loved "women" rather than "pretty women" for example, they'd care about
> things like looks bias in employment, but that might translate into an ugly
> secretary so no go).
>
>
> --
> Money is not "game."
> Looks are not "game."
> Social status or value is not "game."
> Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
>
vulnero
Now that is just beautiful.
Rog'
> C'mon...how about love. How about just wanting to do something
> nice for her. You're making way too big of a thing out of this.
Thinking that marriage is about love is looking at the world thu rose
colored lenses. Marriage is a joint venture in which both parties are
expected to bring enuff stuff to the table to make the enterprise
worthwhile. Love blinds the parties to the fact that neither have
much to offer. =R=
conn...@hotmail.com
pandora wrote:
>
>
> I not only accepted one, but married him. So there!
> All our children are geeks, even our daughter. :-)
> Geeks Rule!!!!!
>
Teddybear Loveable and Cuddly
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" <R...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:w7edncWdjv_RXrjY...@pghconnect.com...
>>> The Symps of course will side with the hotties in order to get laid (if
>>> they loved "women" rather than "pretty women" for example, they'd care
>>> about things like looks bias in employment, but that might translate
>>> into an ugly secretary so no go).
>>>
>>>
>> secretary is the first person a visitor to a company sees.
>
> Customer preference is not a legitimate reason for that type of bias. An
> employer who knew someone had that would be inviting legal difficulty.
>
See now there you go again. Talking about the law, which is a subject you
have already been told by a legal expert (Federal Judge) that you have
little understanding of. You make legal threats on this board every day,
yet why should anyone pay a bit of attention to you, since you have been
thrown out of Court so many times that you are now considered a "serial pro
se litigant". And that's the warning signs that sanctions are coming. Ask
any lawyer, if you can get one to talk to you.
>>Of course people want to put bright intelligent and attractive people on
>>the front desk.
>
> Which is a civil rights violation.
> ,
No, in your OPINION, which is a lay opinion, and as you have been told by
the Court, one that is has little corelation to the law.
>
>> Obviously you have never been in business or had to deal with the public.
>
> Notice how proud he is when he acts as if civil rights laws do not apply
> to him.
>
I can hire who I will to put on my front desk and answer my phone. SHE will
be bright, attractive, and have a good telephone voice. I wouldn't even
consider putting someone like you on the front desk. Anyway, since you are
always a temp, you get to sit in the back room and type where nobody can
hear you. I have never had a temp agency send a man in all the years I have
been in business. The thing is that computers are rapidly putting
secretaries out of business.
Oh, by the way. The same rules that appley to UPenn don't necessarily apply
to private businesses. We don't accept Federal money, so we don't have the
same rules ad UPenn. They are not required to hire you either, since you
can't get along with women.
Dadzilla
>
>Andre Lieven wrote:
>> Oh, by the way: What are women routinely expected to spend three
>> months of *their salary* to give to a man, again ?
>
>Dinner?
>
>Temily
Your time spent in ASD will be much better when you accept there are
those here who have very to offer you and are best added to the kill
file.
pandora
"vulnero" <vul...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1160154014....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Probably. The way that I see it is that if one lives long enough to become
a sentimental old fool, that IS an improvement. At least compared to the
alternative, eh?
:-)
CWQ
pandora
>
> $1,000s wedding; hers. $1,000s diamond; hers. $1,000s anything
> for him ? Nope.
Sounds like Andre's marriage is off to a good start. The poor thing.
Wonder how long that marriage will last?
CWQ
> Andre
>
pandora
are upfront and honest in the beginning about your attitudes toward what
marriage is.
CWQ
|
Rog'
> I sincerely hope that you find a partner who believes as
> you do AND that you are upfront and honest in the
> beginning about your attitudes toward what marriage is.
Well, thanks for the suggestion, but you are too late. My wife
says that she would object to my looking for a new partner at
this stage of the game. Sorry if I offended your sensibilities.
=R=
pandora
Not at all. I merely hoped that you would be upfront and honest about your
belief system prior to marriage. I certainly hope you were.
CWQ
> =R=
>
>
Rog'
> I merely hoped that you would be upfront and honest about
> your belief system prior to marriage. I certainly hope you were.
What I undertook as rhetorical reparte has now been assigned to
a belief system. Apparently, I must explain that I live to pilory
self-professed beliefs, as I believe that most folks formulate their
beliefs based on expediency and the very virtues that they extol
are little more than personal aspirations. So, I have been hoisted
by my own petard, in a manner of speaking.
Rest assured that, as my wife and I are middle-aged and both on
our 2d marriages, neither of us are babes-in-the-woods and were
smart enuff to figure each other out, before we got married 4 1/2
years ago. Something which more couples ought to try. =R=
Temily
Andre Lieven wrote:
> Thanks for proving my point, that while men have such obligations
> towards women, and women, statistically, insist upon getting them,
> women have NONE such towards men.
Cept you misinterpreted it.
Women often cook dinner.........for men, for their entire marriage.
I'm afraid that outweighs a ring that may cost 3 months income (after
taxes and expenses).
Temily
Temily
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> He got the leftovers, and odds are he overpaid.
I am his 3rd wife so what did i get?
I got a man of wonderful wisdom and experience..and thankfully, not
someone who has a narrow minded and limited view, as you do appear to
have mr self perceived creator of "pivot".
Temily
Poor excuse 4 me
>>Women often cook dinner.........for men, for their entire marriage.
>>I'm afraid that outweighs a ring that may cost 3 months income (after
>>taxes and expenses).
Sorry to mis understand, but does not a REAL relationship/marriage go
a whole lot deeper then Dinner and cost of a ring? I understand what
you are saying, but if maid service and a band of gold/diamond is ALL
there is, ya got trouble. U either have or you havn't got..love..
U got that, nothing..NOTHING else matters. It goes beyond who does
what (I cook for M'Lady as often as she cleans up our mess), but we
2 do not keep track of who did what, what needs to be done. It gets
done. Both of our parents were that way. Maybe we were lucky..
As I type this, M'Lady is making coffee. Yesterday, I woke up
1st, and made it. It's not a contest. It's life. We live it.
> He got the leftovers, and odds are he overpaid.
Parker, you have said such for years, but it just proves
you have no clue..none at all..about a real relationship.
>>I am his 3rd wife so what did i get?
>>I got a man of wonderful wisdom and experience..and thankfully, not
>>someone who has a narrow minded and limited view, as you do appear to
>>have mr self perceived creator of "pivot".
Don't forget, he also has his dolls, and a 40+year history of
being a loser. And alone. Oh yeah, U folks got the raw deal..
JJTj
I am frolicsome, I am easy,
Good tempered and free,
And I don't give a single pin' me boys
What the world thinks of me.
Rog'
> Women often cook dinner.........for men, for their entire marriage.
> I'm afraid that outweighs a ring that may cost 3 months income
> (after taxes and expenses).
There's nothing to be afraid of ('cept fear itself, according to FDR).
There's two basic things that men need to realize and accept:
1. First... Women have 1/2 the money, but also.. all the pussy.
B. Lastly, its the screwing they get... for the screwing they get.
No, wait there's three things...
III. The alternatives are just not that attractive, 'cept for gays.
... which brings up a question: Do partners in a gay/lesbian
relationship get expensive engagement rings, and if so, which one?
(I live a sheltered life).
Krus T. Olfard
news:e1lhi29cscd4jhjor...@4ax.com:
>> He got the leftovers, and odds are he overpaid.
>
> Parker, you have said such for years, but it just proves
> you have no clue..none at all..about a real relationship.
>
gordon's commenting on marriage is like an unmarried woman I knew who did
not have children giving me advice on how I should raise my son (this was
years ago when I was being a single parent). It was almost always advice
that only sounded good if you had never tried raising children, rather
like gordon's comments on marriage only seem to have validity if you have
never been married.
Krus T. Olfard
@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
> Do partners in a gay/lesbian
> relationship get expensive engagement rings, and if so, which one?
>
my niece and her partner bought themselves matching rings
seems to work
Bill in Co.
> "Temily" <tem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Women often cook dinner.........for men, for their entire marriage.
>> I'm afraid that outweighs a ring that may cost 3 months income
>> (after taxes and expenses).
>
> There's nothing to be afraid of ('cept fear itself, according to FDR).
You're a bit too young to know that. You must have been listening to
your grandpa?
Bill in Co.
What is with his use of that term? Is it that a pivot point reflects the
size of his brain, or what's the point of his pivot point?
John Riggs
jerk.
"Bill in Co." <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bRbWg.11619$UG4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Paul Robinson
> What is with his use of that term? Is it that a pivot point
reflects the
> size of his brain, or what's the point of his pivot point?
A "pivot" is when you get some female eye candy to hang on your arm, and
use her to attract other women. Idea being since this very attractive
woman finds you interesting, other women should as well.
Actually, for size of his brain (and we all know who the unnamed "he" is
on newsgroup alt.seduction.fast), I would suggest the head of a pin, or
whatever angels are alleged to dance on.
Paul Robinson
> I was thinking he was referring to himself as the pivot man in a circle
> jerk.
Oh that's *baaad*, I give you three points.
Bill in Co.
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
>> What is with his use of that term? Is it that a pivot point reflects
the
>> size of his brain, or what's the point of his pivot point?
>
> A "pivot" is when you get some female eye candy to hang on your arm, and
> use her to attract other women. Idea being since this very attractive
> woman finds you interesting, other women should as well.
I see. But if he's never actually been with a woman, it makes this all
seem pretty moot and meaningless here.
pandora
> "pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote:
> > I merely hoped that you would be upfront and honest about
> > your belief system prior to marriage. I certainly hope you were.
>
> What I undertook as rhetorical reparte has now been assigned to
> a belief system. Apparently, I must explain that I live to pilory
> self-professed beliefs, as I believe that most folks formulate their
> beliefs based on expediency and the very virtues that they extol
> are little more than personal aspirations. So, I have been hoisted
> by my own petard, in a manner of speaking.
My apologies for misunderstanding your post. Sometimes, sarcasm is
difficult to *get* when reading it in a newsgroup. I certainly thought you
were stating your belief.
> Rest assured that, as my wife and I are middle-aged and both on
> our 2d marriages, neither of us are babes-in-the-woods and were
> smart enuff to figure each other out, before we got married 4 1/2
> years ago. Something which more couples ought to try. =R=
Congrats. Of course I agree that couples need to figure each other out (and
themselves as well) prior to making a commitment to marry. It would be
better if more couples did that, as you suggest. However, not everyone
needs a second marriage to pull that off. I've only been married once and
successfuly, for 41 years. We're still in love and still best friends.
CWQ
>
Krus T. Olfard
$UG4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> I see. But if he's never actually been with a woman, it makes this
all
> seem pretty moot and meaningless here.
>
>
well, yeah, that is obvious to every thinking person...
that's why *he* can't see it...
wotta loser...
pandora
"Temily" <tem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160302962....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
As well, what Andre fails to understand is that a) it isn't a LAW and such a
woman can easily be avoided for marriage if one doesn't wish to give such a
token and b) not ALL women expect/demand such. I certainly didn't 41 years
ago when we were married. He was a student and had NO money. I was working
and did have some income. I bought him a wedding band and he bought me one.
HIS cost a lot more than mine did.
CWQ
> Temily
>
Rog'
> ... not everyone needs a second marriage to pull that off [figure
> each other out]. I've only been married once and successfuly,
> for 41 years. We're still in love and still best friends.
Well, then it is you who deserves the congrats for keeping it going.
Unfortunately, not many of us who inhabit these NG's are so gifted.
=R=
Temily
Poor excuse 4 me wrote:
> Sorry to mis understand, but does not a REAL relationship/marriage go
> a whole lot deeper then Dinner and cost of a ring?
I would hope so! And wouldn't have thought otherwise!
I know for me, I got the best and all boxes are ticked! :o) And for all
accounts, so did my husband. And..I wouldn't have cared if my ring was
a ring of a coke can, but it is nice that it is the most beautiful ring
my husband could afford. I wear it with pride.
Oh, and I love to cook dinner! :o)
Temily
Temily
Rog' wrote:
> 1. First... Women have 1/2 the money, but also.. all the pussy.
And men have...all the willy. So all is EQUAL.
Temily
Rog'
> Rog' wrote:
>> Women have 1/2 the money, but also.. all the pussy.
> And men have...all the willy. So all is EQUAL.
This is true... But women can wear strap-ons, while men....
Ummmm, let's not go there.
Temily
Rog' wrote:
> This is true... But women can wear strap-ons, while men....
Can use blow up dolls..! Or, like a guy i heard about once, who lived
in my home town, used a bath plug hole and got it stuck..and oh
dear...well the fire brigade came and oh...what a saga!
OK, shouldn't have gone there!
But that reminds me of a guy i heard about that used superglue instead
of kygel and ouuuuuch....that required surgery!
OK Definately shouldn't have gone there................
Temily
Deborah Terreson
slat-wall installation tweaked my interest!
Deb.
Andre Lieven
> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
>
>> "Rog'" (rcblin...@bellsouth.net) writes:
>> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>> >> Let us know when MATRImony ceremonies and practices
>> >> have an equal social obligation for wife-to-be to blow " three
>> >> months salary" ( *Hers* ) on a home theatre system for
>> >> hubby-to-be.
>> >
>> > Its an absurd custom.
>>
>> Yet, the majority of women demand it.
>>
>> > IMO, only a fool buys into it.
>>
>> Ibid above majority of women.
>>
>> > My 1st wife
>> > did not get and did not expect a stone as I did not have 2c to rub
>> > together. My 2d wife got one that I ordered thru the 'net for 1/2
>> > a months salary.
>>
>> " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
>
> So? Is the singular of 'completely unjustified assertion' the same as
> 'citation?'
Non sequitur.
> If so, you are confused about what citation means.
<Projection> Are you denying that bridal magazines are aplenty, while
groom magazines... fail to exist ?
That would be retarded of you. Again.
> If not, then why
> should Rog reply to your unjustified assertion with a citation?
Since he did not reply, ask him. I made my point.
Feminists are retards !
Andre
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:eg5tq7$k42$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>> "Temily" (tem...@hotmail.com) writes:
>>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>> Oh, by the way: What are women routinely expected to spend three
>>>> months of *their salary* to give to a man, again ?
>>>
>>> Dinner?
>>
>> " Math is hard ! " Talking Barbie.
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point, that while men have such obligations
>> towards women, and women, statistically, insist upon getting them,
>> women have NONE such towards men.
>>
>>
>> Let us know when MATRImony ceremonies and practices have an equal
>> social obligation for wife-to-be to blow " three months salary "
>>
>> Andre
>
> My question is, why would anyone marry someone like this?
I'll ask my fiancee.
Thanks for pointing out that you were UNABLE to debate/refute my
factual points.
As such, they stand, and your misandrous hate fails.
Andre Lieven
> "Stephanie" <m...@iwishicoud.net> wrote:
>>> Let us know when MATRImony ceremonies and practices have
>>> an equal social obligation for wife-to-be to blow " three months
>>> salary " ( *Hers* ) on a home theatre system for hubby-to-be...
>>> Andre
>> My question is, why would anyone marry someone like this?
>
> or the equivilent, why marry him? This is a test of his willingness
> to "share" after marriage.
Ah, so to *you*, " husband " equals " prostitute's john. "
Well, its clear why you are in alt.support.divorce.
I'll laugh at this sexist one way " willingness to share " at my
wedding to a NON-whore. Coming in December.
Feminists are greedy whores. They insist on repeatedly proving it.
Smart men DON'T kow tow to WHORES...
Andre
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> Thanks for proving my point, that while men have such obligations
>> towards women, and women, statistically, insist upon getting them,
>> women have NONE such towards men.
>
> Cept you misinterpreted it.
<Projection>
> Women often cook dinner.........for men, for their entire marriage.
Very light work for a free house, free stuff and free time.
> I'm afraid that outweighs a ring that may cost 3 months income (after
> taxes and expenses).
No proof offered ? Whore claim fails.
Andre
Rog'
> "Rog'" (whipped...@pussiboi.slave) writhes sexistly:
>> Indeed. If a guy's not willing to fork over 3-months of his salary
>> or the equivilent, why marry him? This is a test of his willingness
>> to "share" after marriage.
> Ah, so to *you*, " husband " equals " prostitute's john. "
> Well, its clear why you are in alt.support.divorce.
> I'll laugh at this sexist one way " willingness to share " at my
> wedding to a NON-whore. Coming in December.
Apparently, my level of sarcasm does not translate well here in
usenet-land. So I'll explain to those who take me too literally,
that I was talking to the gold-diggers in the audience, of which I
submit there are at least as much, if not more in the non-feminist
ranks as in the feminist ranks.
After all, its not the feminists who expect to marry well and retire,
as did my brother's wife, who upon their divorce will receive a
$450k house, free and clear, plus $2.5k/month in child-support.
IMHO, men get what they ask for. Hopefully, you will as well.
=R=
Rog'
> Feminists are retards !
IME, feminists tend not to be gold-diggers, but are smart enuff
to know what they want and how to get it. Many men, OTOH,
either have no idea what they want (beyond a good-lay), or if
they do, willing to settle for less (as long as they get a good-lay).
If one insists on applying the "retard" label somewhere, it falls
more squarely on men who, generally, get what they ask for.
=R=
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>> "Rog'" (whipped...@pussiboi.slave) writhes sexistly:
>>> Indeed. If a guy's not willing to fork over 3-months of his salary
>>> or the equivilent, why marry him? This is a test of his willingness
>>> to "share" after marriage.
>
>> Ah, so to *you*, " husband " equals " prostitute's john. "
>> Well, its clear why you are in alt.support.divorce.
>> I'll laugh at this sexist one way " willingness to share " at my
>> wedding to a NON-whore. Coming in December.
>
> Apparently, my level of sarcasm does not translate well here in
> usenet-land. So I'll explain to those who take me too literally,
> that I was talking to the gold-diggers in the audience, of which I
> submit there are at least as much, if not more in the non-feminist
> ranks as in the feminist ranks.
But, not in *anti* Feminist ranks.
> After all, its not the feminists who expect to marry well and retire,
<laughs> Wrong. Many studies have shown that as women's incomes go
up, their minimum " requirement " of the man's income goes up *even
more*.
> as did my brother's wife, who upon their divorce will receive a
> $450k house, free and clear, plus $2.5k/month in child-support.
Note that you don't find " equal " amounts of women paying men
such sums...
Equality; utterly *unwanted* by women...
> IMHO, men get what they ask for.
This claim ASSumes that ALL men have political power. 99.99% of
men don't. Thus, the statement is insane.
> Hopefully, you will as well.
<Projection>
Andre
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>> Feminists are retards !
>
> IME, feminists tend not to be gold-diggers, but are smart enuff
> to know what they want and how to get it.
This, of course, applies equally to child pornorgraphers, bank
robbers, kidnappers, and drug pushers.
Thank you for pointing out further your view of women...
> Many men, OTOH,
> either have no idea what they want (beyond a good-lay), or if
> they do, willing to settle for less (as long as they get a good-lay).
Misandry noted and spat upon.
> If one insists on applying the "retard" label somewhere, it falls
> more squarely on men who, generally, get what they ask for.
Feminist Handbook: " Always blame the nearest man ! "
Feminists ARE sexist sows ! And, they keep insisting on proving it.
"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion
which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he
cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." -- Former Congresswoman
Barbara Jordan
"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French,
Author, "The Women's Room"
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act,
that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that
is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, MS. Magazine Editor
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it
has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection
and desire." -- Robin Morgan
"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are
oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as
'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of
people commits against another group, specifically because of a
'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin color,
sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters,
but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of
divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no
alternative--for they have no power--but to fight. In the long run,
Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's
going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly
or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not
your mothers." -- Robin Morgan
"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little
sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the
handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet
in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to
shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his
shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." -- Marilyn French, in
"The Women's Room"
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of
contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape
because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful
consent," said Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary
Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average
dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative
difference." -- Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"
"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace
Atkinson "Amazon Odyssey" (p. 86)
"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of
intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" --
Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)
"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with
the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." -- Sheila
Jeffrys
FROM 'A Feminist Dictionary', ed. Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora
Press, 1985
*MALE: ... represents a variant of or deviation from the category
of female. The first males were mutants... the male sex represents
a degeneration and deformity of the female.'
*MAN: ... an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs
to be watched ... a contradictory baby-man ...
*TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that
the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have
it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you
are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from
"testosterone poisoning."
Letter to the Editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate"
"To Proud Feminist, (Herald-Sun, 7 February). Your last paragraph is
shocking language from a feminist. You use the entrenched, revolting
male stereotypes of women and rationalize your existence by saying you
are neither "ugly" nor "manless", as though either of these
male-oriented judgments matter.
"Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of
those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male- controlled social
structures.
"Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They
have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it.
Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it,
bad luck -- and if you get in my way I'll run you down."
Signed: Liberated Woman, Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia - 9
February 1996
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the
experience," said Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of
Student Life in Time.
"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim.
Or about being an underdog, or having to survive... women didn't go to
Vietnam and blow up things up. They are not Rambo," said Jodie Foster
in The New York Times Magazine
"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal -- a large
beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students
-- I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of
persuading students that women are oppressed," said Professor Joyce
Trebilcot of Washington University in "Who Stole Feminism: How Women
Have Betrayed Women."
"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men." Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, quoted in " One Woman, One Voice ", Wheeler, page 58.
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children.
Society should be totally different. Women should not have that
choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many
women will make that one." Simone de Beauvoir, author of _The
Second Sex_, the book that is credited with launching the
mainstream of the modern feminist movement
---
The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified
as a lesbian to be fully feminist." (National NOW Times, Jan.1988).
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the
women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution.
Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage."
(radical feminist leader Sheila Cronan).
"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to
serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a
choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change
that." (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The
Daily Illini," April 25, 1981.
"The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant
members is to kill it." (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned
Parenthood, in "Women and the New Rage," p.67.
"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from
families and communally raise them." (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and
assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate
director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).
---
___________________________________________________________
WHY HATE FEMINISM?
Feminism says this:
"How will the family unit be destroyed? ...[T]he demand alone will throw
the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin
establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight
collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become
economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -Roxanne Dunbar
in "Female Liberation"
___________________________________________________________
"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape,
originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage
meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but
possession of, or ownership." (Andrea Dworkin)
___________________________________________________________
"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because
women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent" --
Catherine MacKinnon in "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From The
Strange World of Women's Studies"
___________________________________________________________
"No woman should be authorised to stay at home and raise her children.
Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice,
precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make
that one."
Simone de Beauvoir (interview with Betty Friedan)
___________________________________________________________
"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare-up at this infamous
proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the
bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely
developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. ... The
bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement
vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. ... The
bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed
correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the
more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the
proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple
articles of commerce and industry and labor."
Karl Marx
___________________________________________________________
"We are out to destroy the family. The best way to do that is to begin by
attacking its weakest member, the unborn child."
Simone Weil, French health minister
___________________________________________________________
And feminists lie to women for the sake of their anti-motherhood,
anti-family, heterophobic, anti-child, pro-death ideology:
"Every woman has these same two questions: First, "Is it a baby?" "No"
the counselor assures her. "It is a product of conception (or a blood
clot, or a piece of tissue)" Even though these counselors see six week
babies daily, with arms, legs and eyes that are closed like newborn
puppies, they lie to the women. How many women would have an abortion,
if they told them the truth?" --Carol Everett, former owner of two
clinics and director of four
"A Walk Through an Abortion Clinic" by Carol Everett ALL About Issues
magazine Aug-Sept 1991, p 117
------------------------------------------------------------------
"If a woman we were counseling expressed doubts about having an
abortion, we would say whatever was necessary to persuade her to abort
immediately." --Judy W., former office manager of the second largest
abortion clinic in El Paso, Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
"We tried to avoid the women seeing them [the fetuses] They always
wanted to know the sex, but we lied and said it was too early to tell.
It's better for the women to think of the fetus as an 'it.' --Abortion
clinic worker Norma Eidelman quoted in Rachel Weeping p 34
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"The counselor at our clinic would cry with the girls at the drop of a
hat. She would find their weakness and work on it. The women were
never given any alternatives. They were told how much trouble it is to
have a baby."--former abortion worker Debra Harry, quoted in the film
"Meet the Abortion Providers" 1989
----------------------------------------------------------------
"It is when I am holding a plastic uterus in one hand, a suction tube
in the other, moving them together in imitation of the scrubbing to
come, that woman ask the most secret question. I am speaking in a
matter-of-fact voice about 'the tissue' and 'the contents' when the
woman suddenly catches my eye and says 'How bib is the baby now?' These
words suggest a quiet need for definition of the boundaries being
drawn. It isn't so odd, after all, that she feels relief when I
describe the growing buds bulbous shape, its miniature nature. Again, I
gauge, and sometimes lie a little, weaseling around its infantile
features until its clinging power slackens." --abortion worker Sallie
Tisdale "We Do Abortions Here" Oct 1987 Harpers Magazine p 68
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Vital signs should be observed regularly, and a Doppler [for listening
to the fetal heartbeat] inaudible to the patient should be used at
intervals to determine the presence or absence of fetal heart tones..
This [informed consent] is a controversial area, but most professionals
in the field feel that it is not advisable for patients to view the
products of conception, to be told the sex of the fetus, or to be
informed of a multiple pregnancy" --Abortionist Warren Hern in
"Abortion Practice" J.B. Lippincott Company, 1984 pgs 145 and 304
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Feminism, synonym for " sexist evil man haters ".
Andre
Rog'
>> IMHO, men get what they ask for.
>
> This claim ASSumes that ALL men have political power.
> 99.99% of men don't. Thus, the statement is insane.
I fail to grasp how political power has anything to do with
my observation that /many/ men wind up in relationships of
their own design, which I 'spose means I'm a retard, unless
that is, you've once again chosen to misundersand my intent.
However, I would submit that sanity may be a matter of
political power, as it can depend on who has the authority
to define reality. =R=
Doug Anderson
> Doug Anderson (ethelthelo...@mangina.cow) MS-es the point again:
> > dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
> >
> >> "Rog'" (rcblin...@bellsouth.net) writes:
> >> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> >> >> Let us know when MATRImony ceremonies and practices
> >> >> have an equal social obligation for wife-to-be to blow " three
> >> >> months salary" ( *Hers* ) on a home theatre system for
> >> >> hubby-to-be.
> >> >
> >> > Its an absurd custom.
> >>
> >> Yet, the majority of women demand it.
> >>
> >> > IMO, only a fool buys into it.
> >>
> >> Ibid above majority of women.
> >>
> >> > My 1st wife
> >> > did not get and did not expect a stone as I did not have 2c to rub
> >> > together. My 2d wife got one that I ordered thru the 'net for 1/2
> >> > a months salary.
> >>
> >> " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
> >
> > So? Is the singular of 'completely unjustified assertion' the same as
> > 'citation?'
>
> Non sequitur.
No. You made an unjustified assertion. Rog responded with an
anecdote. Then you made a snotty remark about his anecdote.
> > If so, you are confused about what citation means.
>
> <Projection> Are you denying that bridal magazines are aplenty, while
> groom magazines... fail to exist ?
No. Why would I deny that?
> That would be retarded of you. Again.
Easier to argue with a phantom you construct than to actually think,
isn't it?
>
> > If not, then why
> > should Rog reply to your unjustified assertion with a citation?
>
> Since he did not reply, ask him. I made my point.
He replied. You made no point.
> Feminists are retards !
Andre's rapier-like wit and intelligence score yet again.
Rog'
> Feminist Handbook: " Always blame the nearest man ! "
I find it interesting that you would blame feminists, of all stripes,
near and far, of any generation, for exercising a political and
social power that, it could be argued, was voluntarily ceded
or conceded by men, such as giving in to suffragettes who
wanted to vote, as if men have no responsiblity of anything
that happens. =R=
Bill in Co.
What intelligence?
Stephanie
> Doug Anderson (ethelthelo...@mangina.cow) MS-es the point again:
>> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
>>
>>> "Rog'" (rcblin...@bellsouth.net) writes:
>>> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>> >> Let us know when MATRImony ceremonies and practices
>>> >> have an equal social obligation for wife-to-be to blow " three
>>> >> months salary" ( *Hers* ) on a home theatre system for
>>> >> hubby-to-be.
>>> >
>>> > Its an absurd custom.
>>>
>>> Yet, the majority of women demand it.
>>>
I know I am replying way downwind of this comment. But it seems to me that
if this is indicative of a particularly noxious character trait, how can
women demand it? Just Say No. And don't marry 'em. Then they won't be able
to insist anymore.
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>> IMHO, men get what they ask for.
>>
>> This claim ASSumes that ALL men have political power.
>> 99.99% of men don't. Thus, the statement is insane.
>
> I fail to grasp
Exactly. That is *your* problem and *your* failing, which changes
the rest of the world and what goes on in it not a whit.
> how political power has anything to do with
> my observation that /many/ men wind up in relationships of
> their own design,
You mean your sexist man hating ASSumption.
For that matter, your rush to claim that such men " had
it coming " is interesting, because you would NEVER say
that about a WOMAN who was, say, raped.
<Double Standard>
> which I 'spose means I'm a retard, unless
> that is, you've once again chosen to misundersand my intent.
No, your intent is clear; hatred of men, and kow towing to
women.
Ptui.
> However, I would submit that sanity may be a matter of
> political power, as it can depend on who has the authority
> to define reality.
Learned that psychobabble in Wimminz Studies class, eh ?
Ptui.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
>
>> Doug Anderson (ethelthelo...@mangina.cow) MS-es the point again:
>> > dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
>> >
>> >> "Rog'" (rcblin...@bellsouth.net) writes:
>> >> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>> >> >> Let us know when MATRImony ceremonies and practices
>> >> >> have an equal social obligation for wife-to-be to blow " three
>> >> >> months salary" ( *Hers* ) on a home theatre system for
>> >> >> hubby-to-be.
>> >> >
>> >> > Its an absurd custom.
>> >>
>> >> Yet, the majority of women demand it.
>> >>
>> >> > IMO, only a fool buys into it.
>> >>
>> >> Ibid above majority of women.
>> >>
>> >> > My 1st wife
>> >> > did not get and did not expect a stone as I did not have 2c to rub
>> >> > together. My 2d wife got one that I ordered thru the 'net for 1/2
>> >> > a months salary.
>> >>
>> >> " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
>> >
>> > So? Is the singular of 'completely unjustified assertion' the same as
>> > 'citation?'
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>
> No. You made an unjustified assertion.
No proof offered ? Sexist cowshit fact free head-in-the-sand claim fails.
> Rog responded with an
> anecdote. Then you made a snotty remark about his anecdote.
<laughs> I pointed out, correctly, as even YOU cnanot deny, that it was
an anecdote and as such, proved NOTHING.
>> > If so, you are confused about what citation means.
>>
>> <Projection> Are you denying that bridal magazines are aplenty, while
>> groom magazines... fail to exist ?
>
> No. Why would I deny that?
Because your claim demands that you do.
>> That would be retarded of you. Again.
>
> Easier to argue with a phantom you construct than to actually think,
> isn't it?
<Massive Ad Hominem Projection>
No facts offered ? Claim fails.
>> > If not, then why
>> > should Rog reply to your unjustified assertion with a citation?
>>
>> Since he did not reply, ask him. I made my point.
>
> He replied.
Afterwards, retard.
> You made no point.
<Projection>
>> Feminists are retards !
>
> Andre's rapier-like wit and intelligence score yet again.
Indeed, as you were UNABLE to debate/refute my point.
As such, it stands, and you fail... again.
You mangina pussy.
Andre