Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

My Apology To Wendy McElroy and a Clarification

15 views
Skip to first unread message

Tom Smith QIM

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 5:59:05 PM6/23/03
to
Dear Wendy and lists,

I'm sending this to document a serious mix up that occurred on usenet
and to apologize to Wendy McElroy who was a victim of this "mix up".
She has done excellent work, the best I have seen of a journalist, in
correcting the injustices to men of "gender" feminism. While she and
I disagree on certain things, we do agree on the most important aspect
of the problem, and that is getting the government out of the sex role
business.

Here's the exchange that happenned between Giant Attitude and myself
yesterday on soc.men which understandably caused Wendy great
discomfort.

Giant Attitude Wrote:
> I just got through saying that God would bless the hands of the man who
> beat up Pistol Packing Wendy McElroy. Tom knows how I feel about Pistol
> Packing Wendy, and I have never told him otherwise.

Yep, I know exactly. Go get her, but I'm going to be cutting deals
with her in the back room

I either skimmed what GA said and then responded or simply didn't
think anything of his male bravado about God blessing the man who beat
on poor Wendy. I must have skimmed it because there is no way I would
have let that slip by and then said "go get her".

I know exactly what I was thinking when I said "go get her". GA and I
have had a running disagreement about how to approach Wendy's
innovation of "Individual Feminism" or "ifeminist" for short. While
both of us aren't too happy about the feminist identification, GA is
much more stridently against that and other aspects of her advocacy.
I chose to ignore or minimize the importance of that and concentrate
instead on the consistencies of her approach with my clearly defined
masculist treatise in the "Masculist Trinity". She passes muster
enough for me to consider her an excellent alternative advocate for
women than the more powerful feminists who now run things. She is
also the best versed journalist in America on the important men's
issues and writes concisely and clearly. I began to publically
support her work six or more months ago and have personally thanked
her.

GA doesn't agree with all that and continues to diss Wendy. We
discussed it months ago and I agreed that he had the right to go ahead
and diss her. That's what I was thinking with the "go get her".
Anyone who has followed my work closely knows that I have boldly
danced and pranked around these sensitive areas, like domestic
violence and much else, and they know that I wouldn't have blatantly
encouraged violence to Wendy or anyone else. I don't even encourage
violence subtly as anyone reading my "AUM" list would testify. It's
not only important to me to take non violence to extremes as a
practical matter in the kind of political advocacy I'm doing, but I
have a serious religious advocacy in which it is even more important
for me to represent myself clearly. And then there's the fact of my
life history. Except for one minor but very sad incidence of violence
in my life, even God couldn't have trained one better at non violence
than the work I did and the situations I was confronted with in my
life.

So once again I apologize to Wendy and will go now to usenet and slap
GA's hand. Bad boy GA.

Tom Smith
AUM/IUM

wd

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 6:17:30 PM6/23/03
to
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:59:05 +0000, Tom Smith QIM wrote:

> Dear Wendy and lists,
[..]

I have been telling GA that Wendy is an execellent author of many fair and
honest articles.


~wd


wd

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 7:59:35 PM6/23/03
to
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:38:18 +0100, James Cameron wrote:

> She is a feminist. There are no fair and honest feminists.

Well, you are wrong.

Goto her web site, and read through the archives.

~wd

Giant Attitude

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 9:01:31 PM6/23/03
to


<Sigh> I have never advocated violence against anyone.

Wendy McElroy has already been beaten up by some man, so when I said
that God would bless the hands of that man, I was responding to an
incident that was already a fait accomplait - not advocating prospective
violence against her or anyone else.

All right, maybe you think that distinction doesn't do me a whole lot of
credit but it's the best I can do, and a Western code of law and ethics
does recognize the significance of that distinction.

I was going to stay out of the whole Wendy McElroy/AUM thing. I was
going to stay out of what seems to be a personality dispute between you
and ray remarksman. I was simply going to avoid responding. But there
seem to be forces vacuuming me into it.

So I have three observations to make in response:

1) Wendy McElroy, by her own admission, is a feminist. As such, she
wishes to obliterate the natural distinctions between men and women,
even if her methods differ a little from those of the conventional
leftist feminists. This is made very clear by reading her articles.

2) In his treatise, Suicide of the West, James Burnham (yes, a National
Review conservative; I apologize for that), remarks at one point,
"Suppose you observed that over a period of time I was frequently
exercised over threats to the freedom of Christians, but seldom if ever
over threats to the freedom of Jews. You would then be entitled to
suspect that it was not just freedom, plain and simple, that I primarily
valued."

Wendy McElroy is a fanatic on the issue of women owning guns and says
nothing at all about whether men need or should have the right to own
guns. A savvy reader should be entitled to suspect that it is not just
the Second Amendment, plain and simple, that Wendy McElroy primarily
values.

3) I have a better understanding of what ray is talking about when he
talks about official mens rights organizations cutting back-room deals
with others.
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?soc.men

Sir Jessy of Anti

unread,
Jun 23, 2003, 11:34:55 PM6/23/03
to

"James Cameron" <bug...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bd7vh6$q0sn8$1...@ID-13547.news.dfncis.de...

> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:17:30 -0500, "wd" <ro...@localhost.localdomain>
> wrote:
>
> She is a feminist. There are no fair and honest feminists.

She's the best they have. I respect her work, even if it is fundamentally
misguided with certain tenets.
She is at least working towards some kind of humanitarian ideal on certain
levels.

>


Sir Jessy of Anti

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 1:01:20 AM6/24/03
to

"Giant Attitude" <giantattitud...@web2news.net> wrote in message
news:4360...@web2news.com...

She still wants to keep many feminist [natural] distinctions actually.

> 2) In his treatise, Suicide of the West, James Burnham (yes, a National
> Review conservative; I apologize for that), remarks at one point,
> "Suppose you observed that over a period of time I was frequently
> exercised over threats to the freedom of Christians, but seldom if ever
> over threats to the freedom of Jews. You would then be entitled to
> suspect that it was not just freedom, plain and simple, that I primarily
> valued."
>

Great quote, and the point is well taken and understood.

> Wendy McElroy is a fanatic on the issue of women owning guns and says
> nothing at all about whether men need or should have the right to own
> guns. A savvy reader should be entitled to suspect that it is not just
> the Second Amendment, plain and simple, that Wendy McElroy primarily
> values.

GA, I suspect this is just paranoia...does she have a list of Pargisms or
something? You know like, "Get a gun and hope" ...that type of thing?

>
> 3) I have a better understanding of what ray is talking about when he
> talks about official mens rights organizations cutting back-room deals
> with others.
> --

How does the old adage go again, "Don't sell your soul..."?

Giant Attitude

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 1:00:19 AM6/24/03
to
Sir Jessy of Anti wrote:
> "Giant Attitude"
> <giantattitud...@web2news.net> wrote in message
> news:4360...@web2news.com...
>> Tom Smith QIM wrote:
>>> Dear Wendy and lists,
>>>
>>> I'm sending this to document a serious mix up that
>>> occurred on usenet
>>> and to apologize to Wendy McElroy who was a victim of
>>> this "mix up".
>>> She has done excellent work, the best I have seen of a
>>> journalist, in
>>> correcting the injustices to men of "gender" feminism.
>>> While she and
>>> I disagree on certain things, we do agree on the most
>>> important aspect
> etc..

>>>> I just got through saying that God would bless the hands
>>>> of the man who
>>>> beat up Pistol Packing Wendy McElroy. Tom knows how I
>>>> feel about Pistol
>>>> Packing Wendy, and I have never told him otherwise.
>>>
>>> Yep, I know exactly. Go get her, but I'm going to be cutting deals
>>> with her in the back room
>>>
>>> I either skimmed what GA said and then responded or simply didn't
>>> think anything of his male bravado about God blessing the
>>> man who beat
>>> on poor Wendy. I must have skimmed it because there is no
> etc..

>>
>> <Sigh> I have never advocated violence against anyone.
>>
>> Wendy McElroy has already been beaten up by some man, so when I said
>> that God would bless the hands of that man, I was responding to an
>> incident that was already a fait accomplait - not
>> advocating prospective
>> violence against her or anyone else.
>>
> etc..


No. I have to give her credit for having considerably more intellect
than Puke.

It's just as I said - she has a tremendous interest in the rights of
women to own guns and no interest at all in the Second Amendment rights
of men. I wonder what she has in mind.

And she IS a feminist. She talks about empowering women. Women can
only be empowered at the expense of men.
--

ray

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 1:44:33 AM6/24/03
to
"Giant Attitude" <giantattitud...@web2news.net> wrote in message news:<4360...@web2news.com>...

i never for an instant interpreted tom's comment as a threat, nor as
advocacy of violence

i'd have jumped him if i thot different

:)

and i figgered the "back room" stuff was a skankprank on me, typical
of his methods

but that sed, it's too much mea culpin fer my blood -- i mean, does
wendy and her boys think we're gonna squeeze thru the lines and pummel
her?

puh

lease

>
> <Sigh> I have never advocated violence against anyone.


your comment, on the other hand, gave me pause, and i made mental note
to get around to you

you know how i feel about unauthorized violence

although we haven't met physically, i'm confident that you aren't a
bodily threat (to anyone)

i usually know who is and isn't

i'm glad you took time to explain your intentions/meaning clearly, and
if necessary, i'll back you on this one

Tom Smith QIM

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 4:50:47 AM6/24/03
to
"Giant Attitude" <giantattitud...@web2news.net> wrote in message news:<4360...@web2news.com>...
> Tom Smith QIM wrote:

> 3) I have a better understanding of what ray is talking about when he
> talks about official mens rights organizations cutting back-room deals
> with others.

If they cut any deals than it must have been in feminism's favor.
It's a documented fact that we keep losing ground.

Are you kidding man, we don't have a leg to stand on to cut any deals.
The most progress we have ever made has come from our association.
It was my Masculist Trinity combined with your very effective tactics
that has the Canadian feminists and the rest all running to their
corporate bosses pleading for protection from the Masculist hordes.

What a bunch of fuckheads. All we need to do is call ourselves
masculists and make faces at the ninnies. They'll do our recruiting
for us. They simply can't handle any opposition, it's not something
they ever were confronted with. What it means when it happens is that
they say to themselves "gee, we are here in traditional men's
positions of power and here we have men who say we are oppressing
them. Didn't the oppressed use to kill men in power? Will they do
that to us? Daddy corporate guy please help, I'm a girl and can't
deal with that. You can't let them threaten us like that, afterall we
were put in power to do your bidding against those nasty poor and
middle class men."

If Leftist men ever woke up and started calling themselves and
organizing as Masculists, it's lights out for more than feminism.
It's the New Age. The fact is they don't really have a choice if they
want to be men and have any influence in their societies. Otherwise
they will continue to serve their corporate feminist masters in the
Greens, the fundie's and assorted other jerk off feminist front
organizations. Now if they all collected together under the masculist
umbrella, then they can burst out into the Hair song "Age of
Aquarius". Alittle late perhaps, but better late than never.

The only problem is that the girls run all those organizations and the
boys are just along for the ride. I guess that's the strength of the
father's rights guys. They are the only all male org insurgencies.
Let's keep that in mind.

Oh GA BTW, Wendy lost an eye in that little altercation. Just thought
you should know. One last thing. Leave God out of that kind of thing
when you're writing to me and pushing the envelope. The Big Guy is
sitting on my shoulder and much too close for comfort on big issues
like that.

I tried to reassure Wendy about you, but naturally she's concerned and
knows her legal alternatives. You apparently are ahead of the curve
on all that.

Otherwise, keep up the good work.

Tom

Aleph Null

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 12:19:34 PM6/24/03
to
q...@sbcglobal.net (Tom Smith QIM) wrote in message news:<51bb0c1b.03062...@posting.google.com>...

>
> I know exactly what I was thinking when I said "go get her". GA and I
> have had a running disagreement about how to approach Wendy's
> innovation of "Individual Feminism" or "ifeminist" for short.

Yo, very decent of you to apologize. Hands off Wendy McElroy.

I haven't read the entire text of the dispute, but my understanding is
that this has something to do with the moniker of "ifeminists."

Well, all I have say about that, is that, as a guy, it's never really
been my concern so much what people call themselves, but what they do.

As they say, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

"Feminist." Not "feminist." Who cares what the name is.

Substantively, McElroy advocates a wonderful philosophy regarding
gender and life in general. That's all I have to say about that.

Sir Jessy of Anti

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 4:42:13 PM6/24/03
to

"Aleph Null" <AlephN...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7a3d5c77.03062...@posting.google.com...

> q...@sbcglobal.net (Tom Smith QIM) wrote in message
news:<51bb0c1b.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > I know exactly what I was thinking when I said "go get her". GA and I
> > have had a running disagreement about how to approach Wendy's
> > innovation of "Individual Feminism" or "ifeminist" for short.
>
> Yo, very decent of you to apologize. Hands off Wendy McElroy.
>
> I haven't read the entire text of the dispute, but my understanding is
> that this has something to do with the moniker of "ifeminists."
>
> Well, all I have say about that, is that, as a guy, it's never really
> been my concern so much what people call themselves, but what they do.
>
> As they say, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
>

True. That's why I respect her.

Sir Jessy of Anti

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 5:10:34 PM6/24/03
to

"James Cameron" <bug...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bda3nf$qu6uv$3...@ID-13547.news.dfncis.de...

> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:42:13 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti"
> <evilinco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Aleph Null" <AlephN...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:7a3d5c77.03062...@posting.google.com...
> >> q...@sbcglobal.net (Tom Smith QIM) wrote in message
> >news:<51bb0c1b.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> >> >
> >> > I know exactly what I was thinking when I said "go get her". GA and
I
> >> > have had a running disagreement about how to approach Wendy's
> >> > innovation of "Individual Feminism" or "ifeminist" for short.
> >>
> >> Yo, very decent of you to apologize. Hands off Wendy McElroy.
> >>
> >> I haven't read the entire text of the dispute, but my understanding is
> >> that this has something to do with the moniker of "ifeminists."
> >>
> >> Well, all I have say about that, is that, as a guy, it's never really
> >> been my concern so much what people call themselves, but what they do.
> >>
> >> As they say, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
> >>
> >
> >True. That's why I respect her.
>
> Changed your name to Lady Jessy, have you?

Do you or have you read her articles?

>
> In Scotland, jessy is a slang term for a queer or effeminate man.

So because I believe Wendy has gone to bat for men, you intone I'm gay?
Fuck you. Get a grip.
We need more feminism like a hole in the head, but we DO need more people
like Wendy.


ray

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 6:47:23 PM6/24/03
to
AlephN...@yahoo.com (Aleph Null) wrote in message news:<7a3d5c77.03062...@posting.google.com>...

> q...@sbcglobal.net (Tom Smith QIM) wrote in message news:<51bb0c1b.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > I know exactly what I was thinking when I said "go get her". GA and I
> > have had a running disagreement about how to approach Wendy's
> > innovation of "Individual Feminism" or "ifeminist" for short.
>
> Yo, very decent of you to apologize. Hands off Wendy McElroy.

o yah, null'n void?

who are you, the wendypolice?

or her new bitch?

just for conversational purposes, how about if i said wendy mcelroy is
a reactionary, gun hustling neofascist wolf dressed in lambski

whatcha gonna do about it, mister shivarly?

Greg

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 8:23:01 PM6/24/03
to
q...@sbcglobal.net (Tom Smith QIM) wrote in message news:<51bb0c1b.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> Dear Wendy and lists,
>
> I'm sending this to document a serious mix up that occurred on usenet
> and to apologize to Wendy McElroy who was a victim of this "mix up".
> She has done excellent work, the best I have seen of a journalist, in
> correcting the injustices to men of "gender" feminism. While she and
> I disagree on certain things, we do agree on the most important aspect
> of the problem, and that is getting the government out of the sex role
> business.
>
> Here's the exchange that happenned between Giant Attitude and myself
> yesterday on soc.men which understandably caused Wendy great
> discomfort.

How did you find out about this discomfort? Did she write you and
tell you? Does she read the group?

[...]

Sir Jessy of Anti

unread,
Jun 24, 2003, 9:00:36 PM6/24/03
to

"James Cameron" <bug...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bda6m5$qbuv4$1...@ID-13547.news.dfncis.de...
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:10:34 -0700, "Sir Jessy of Anti"
> Yes, I have read a number of her articles. I've also noted her
> reaction to legitimate criticism.

In this newsgroup it was poor. I will say that I was disappointed that she
did not stay and fight, but I do think there may have been mitigating
factors. Some people have to get used to the style and tone of newsgroups.
This group can also be overly hostile. We get spammed by racists and vegan
killers. It's a lot to take in if you're not super tech savvy and expect a
moderated group. Then there is the whole issue of time and priorities.

>
> >> In Scotland, jessy is a slang term for a queer or effeminate man.
> >
> >So because I believe Wendy has gone to bat for men, you intone I'm gay?
> >Fuck you. Get a grip.
>

> That's better! I thought you'd lost your family jewels for a moment.

Well she can't really be expected to continue to go to bat for us if we
treat her like shit just because we disagree with her. That's just stupid.
You can shoot as many holes in your feet as you want, but leave me the fuck
out of it.

> >We need more feminism like a hole in the head, but we DO need more
people
> >like Wendy.
>

> No, we don't need her sort. Associating with anything that smells of
> feminism will alienate us from the young men who detest the very word.

Then they are going to detest it anyways, and we have nothing to worry
about.

> There's a new generation warming up to take over now. They've only
> read about chivalry in the history books. They don't step aside to let
> women go through a door first, much less into a lifeboat.
>
> European newspapers published some eyewitness accounts of what
> happened inside the twin towers on 9/11. Some guy, still steeped in
> chivalry, tried to stop men getting into the elevators (they were
> still operational) because he wanted to let women get in first.
>
> The eyewitnesses, who were young men, got in anyway. Mr Chivalry
> didn't make it and neither did the women he was trying to save.
>
> Now tell me that would have happened back in the 1970s.

The progress of feminism in action.

Aleph Null

unread,
Jun 25, 2003, 4:31:43 AM6/25/03
to
remar...@yahoo.com (ray) wrote in message news:<3b99cd5a.03062...@posting.google.com>...

>
> o yah, null'n void?
>
> who are you, the wendypolice?
>
> or her new bitch?

Her new bitch. What's it to you? ;)

> just for conversational purposes, how about if i said wendy mcelroy is
> a reactionary, gun hustling neofascist wolf dressed in lambski

I would ask you why you would harbor an opinion such as that...

> whatcha gonna do about it, mister shivarly?

Sir Galahad I most certainly am not... That Wendy though, she's a good knight!

Aleph Null

unread,
Jun 25, 2003, 4:42:41 AM6/25/03
to
greg...@yahoo.com (Greg) wrote in message news:<ac57efe0.03062...@posting.google.com>...

Seriously. Does she read here? Post here?

Oh dear. I hope she doesn't take the more inflammatory commentary that
appears here very seriously.

wd

unread,
Jun 25, 2003, 7:01:39 AM6/25/03
to
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:00:36 +0000, Sir Jessy of Anti wrote:

>
> Well she can't really be expected to continue to go to bat for us if we
> treat her like shit just because we disagree with her. That's just stupid.
> You can shoot as many holes in your feet as you want, but leave me the fuck
> out of it.

Leave me out as well. I think Wendy is a brillant writter that keeps abreast of
current issues in a fair and balanced manor.

~wd


Michael Snyder

unread,
Jun 25, 2003, 11:16:30 AM6/25/03
to

Good on ya, Tom.

Tom Smith QIM wrote in message <51bb0c1b.03062...@posting.google.com>...

Hope Munro Smith

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 11:01:13 AM6/26/03
to
"wd" <ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in
news:pan.2003.06.25....@localhost.localdomain:

Yes, I agree, she is a good writer. Sometimes more conservative than me,
but she has a level head and endures differences of opinions. You should
contribute to her forum.

wd

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 12:11:00 PM6/26/03
to

What forum?


Michael Snyder

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 1:20:37 PM6/26/03
to

wd wrote in message ...

www.ifeminists.com

wd

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 3:34:31 PM6/26/03
to

I dont remember a BB at her web site

Hope Munro Smith

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 4:36:32 PM6/26/03
to
"wd" <ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in
news:pan.2003.06.26....@localhost.localdomain:

If you go to www.ifeminists.net you can click on "interaction" at the
very top of the page. Then click on "bulletin board" on the page that
comes up. Have fun!

wd

unread,
Jun 26, 2003, 5:05:44 PM6/26/03
to

Thanks, but no thanks.

I spend too much time here , adding another NG would be just more time.

But i may go read some stuff.

Thanks again


Tom Smith QIM

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 3:31:52 PM6/27/03
to

She emailed me about it. Apparently someone infromed her of GA's
email and past comments of this sort by GA. It was when I appeared to
support those comments that she became concerned and said in an email
to me:

"It was when I thought your voice was added that I became adamant
about standing up for myself because I know of your reputation and the
influence you wield as the head of AUM."

She read GA's explanation here and is now satisfied that there isn't
any danger. NOW if the Candaian Feminists had handled it the same way
Wendy did, there would have been no "Status of Women" fascist report.
That's an important difference between Wendy's female advocacy and the
("gender") feminists.

We all know that GA has been pushing the envelope, not so much for
acting out reasons, but to make some important educational points.
It's clear to many of us here that he is doing so within legal limits.
It also should be pointed out that the rest of the group here has
been sensitive all along to the whole violence issue in this political
advocacy, much more so than if it were male aganist male. We remain
somewhat chivalrous despite the fact that chivalry has been used
against us.

This group reinforces "Society's" tag line, "Men are good people too".

Tom Smith
AUM/IUM

The American Union of Men (AUM)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/?yguid=10837983

The Masculist Trinity
http://www.geocities.com/qim/masculisttrinity.htm

Tom Smith QIM

unread,
Jun 27, 2003, 3:34:55 PM6/27/03
to
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<i1jKa.5368$%3.27...@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> Good on ya, Tom.

Thanks Mike, but I couldn't do didley without guys like you.

Tom

ray

unread,
Jun 28, 2003, 10:10:25 AM6/28/03
to
q...@sbcglobal.net (Tom Smith QIM) wrote in message news:<51bb0c1b.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> greg...@yahoo.com (Greg) wrote in message news:<ac57efe0.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> > q...@sbcglobal.net (Tom Smith QIM) wrote in message news:<51bb0c1b.03062...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Dear Wendy and lists,
> > >
> > > I'm sending this to document a serious mix up that occurred on usenet
> > > and to apologize to Wendy McElroy who was a victim of this "mix up".
> > > She has done excellent work, the best I have seen of a journalist, in
> > > correcting the injustices to men of "gender" feminism. While she and
> > > I disagree on certain things, we do agree on the most important aspect
> > > of the problem, and that is getting the government out of the sex role
> > > business.
> > >
> > > Here's the exchange that happenned between Giant Attitude and myself
> > > yesterday on soc.men which understandably caused Wendy great
> > > discomfort.
> >
> > How did you find out about this discomfort? Did she write you and
> > tell you? Does she read the group?
>
> She emailed me about it. Apparently someone infromed her of GA's
> email and past comments of this sort by GA. It was when I appeared to
> support those comments that she became concerned and said in an email
> to me:
>
> "It was when I thought your voice was added that I became adamant
> about standing up for myself because I know of your reputation and the
> influence you wield as the head of AUM."

"reputation and the influence you wield"?!

gosh, she's adept at political pandering, too!

>
> She read GA's explanation here and is now satisfied that there isn't
> any danger. NOW if the Candaian Feminists had handled it the same way
> Wendy did, there would have been no "Status of Women" fascist report.
> That's an important difference between Wendy's female advocacy and the
> ("gender") feminists.

yah, yah, same old wine, brand new bottle

>
> We all know that GA has been pushing the envelope, not so much for
> acting out reasons, but to make some important educational points.
> It's clear to many of us here that he is doing so within legal limits.
> It also should be pointed out that the rest of the group here has
> been sensitive all along to the whole violence issue in this political
> advocacy, much more so than if it were male aganist male. We remain
> somewhat chivalrous despite the fact that chivalry has been used
> against us.
>

one can embrace non-violence without submitting to chivalry

and chivalry, make no mistake, is a conditioned state of enforced subjugation

Giant Attitude

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 2:52:16 AM6/29/03
to
ray wrote:
> AlephN...@yahoo.com (Aleph Null) wrote in message
> news:<7a3d5c77.03062...@posting.goog
>> q...@sbcglobal.net (Tom Smith QIM) wrote in message
>> news:<51bb0c1b.03062...@posting.goo
>>>
>>> I know exactly what I was thinking when I said "go get
>>> her". GA and I
>>> have had a running disagreement about how to approach Wendy's
>>> innovation of "Individual Feminism" or "ifeminist" for short.


Actually, there really isn't any such dispute.

The description of aum states as follows: "We have no delusions about
the evil nature of feminism. Anything resembling feminism is quickly put
on moderated status. Legitimate feminist critiques are welcomed, but
need to be tightly controlled due to the nature of the list."

Or to put it succinctly, feminism is evil in all of its incarnations.

Wendy McElroy is unquestionably a feminist and is pursuing feminist
ends, even if her modus operandi is slightly different. Therefore, by
embracing Wendy Mcelroy, Tom Smith is doing battle against Tom Smith.
Not against me because I am no longer in the picture.


>> Yo, very decent of you to apologize. Hands off Wendy McElroy.
>
> o yah, null'n void?
>
> who are you, the wendypolice?


Considering the way that I, in particular, was addressed, I was
wondering that myself.


> or her new bitch?
>
> just for conversational purposes, how about if i said
> wendy mcelroy is
> a reactionary, gun hustling neofascist wolf dressed in lambski
>
> whatcha gonna do about it, mister shivarly?


I would agree only with the "gun-hustling neofascist wolf" portion of
the critique.

Wendy is an androgynous feminazi who wants to eradicate gender. She
wants to masculinize women, and, I suppose, turn all women into Wendy
clones. I would call that a very radical position, however
right-wing/libertarian she might be on other issues.

And I also would not agree that she is dressed in lamb's clothing. She
is pretty open about what she wants. She is a wolf dressed in wolf's
clothing.

I understand that coalition-building sometimes requires a spirit of
compromise, but there is no room for compromise on this. Wendy McElroy
is evil, and a men's organization that forms alliances with her is
making a Faustus-like pact with Mephistopheles.

Anyone who has read the famous Marlowe play knows that Mephistopheles
never once lied to Dr. Faustus. Faustus followed Mephistopheles into
hell because of his own capacity for self-deception. That's what I see
going on here when I see men's rights people forming a Wendy McElroy
Marching & Chowder Society.


>> I haven't read the entire text of the dispute, but my
>> understanding is
>> that this has something to do with the moniker of "ifeminists."
>>
>> Well, all I have say about that, is that, as a guy, it's
>> never really
>> been my concern so much what people call themselves, but
>> what they do.
>>
>> As they say, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

>> "Feminist." Not "feminist." Who cares what the name is.
>>
>> Substantively, McElroy advocates a wonderful philosophy regarding
>> gender and life in general. That's all I have to say about that.


Like I said...

Giant Attitude

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 3:01:52 AM6/29/03
to
ray wrote:
> q...@sbcglobal.net (Tom Smith QIM) wrote in message
> news:<51bb0c1b.03062...@posting.googl
>> greg...@yahoo.com (Greg) wrote in message
>> news:<ac57efe0.03062...@posting.google.com>.
>>> q...@sbcglobal.net (Tom Smith QIM) wrote in message
>>> news:<51bb0c1b.0306231359.3afb1eec@posting.g

>>>> Dear Wendy and lists,
>>>>
>>>> I'm sending this to document a serious mix up that
>>>> occurred on usenet
>>>> and to apologize to Wendy McElroy who was a victim of
>>>> this "mix up".
>>>> She has done excellent work, the best I have seen of a
>>>> journalist, in
>>>> correcting the injustices to men of "gender" feminism.
>>>> While she and
>>>> I disagree on certain things, we do agree on the most
>>>> important aspect
>>>> of the problem, and that is getting the government out
>>>> of the sex role
> etc..

>>>
>>> How did you find out about this discomfort? Did she write you and
>>> tell you? Does she read the group?
>>
>> She emailed me about it. Apparently someone infromed her of GA's
>> email and past comments of this sort by GA. It was when
>> I appeared to
>> support those comments that she became concerned and said
>> in an email
>> to me:
>>
>> "It was when I thought your voice was added that I became adamant
>> about standing up for myself because I know of your
>> reputation and the
>> influence you wield as the head of AUM."
>
> "reputation and the influence you wield"?!
>
> gosh, she's adept at political pandering, too!


She's not the only one...


>> She read GA's explanation here and is now satisfied that there isn't
>> any danger. NOW if the Candaian Feminists had handled it
>> the same way
>> Wendy did, there would have been no "Status of Women"
>> fascist report.
>> That's an important difference between Wendy's female
>> advocacy and the
>> ("gender") feminists.
>
> yah, yah, same old wine, brand new bottle


Yeah, that's what I think.


>> We all know that GA has been pushing the envelope, not so much for
>> acting out reasons, but to make some important educational points.
>> It's clear to many of us here that he is doing so within
>> legal limits.
>> It also should be pointed out that the rest of the group here has
>> been sensitive all along to the whole violence issue in
>> this political
>> advocacy, much more so than if it were male aganist male. We remain
>> somewhat chivalrous despite the fact that chivalry has been used
>> against us.
>>
> one can embrace non-violence without submitting to chivalry
>
> and chivalry, make no mistake, is a conditioned state of
> enforced subjugation
>
>> This group reinforces "Society's" tag line, "Men are good
>> people too".


It's all wrong. The "too" suggests that women are good people. The
sentence as a whole suggests that men should remain "good people" when
what men really need to do is to become considerably meaner towards
women than they are.

Giant Attitude

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 3:09:18 AM6/29/03
to
ray wrote:
> "Giant Attitude"
> <giantattitud...@web2news.net> wrote in message news:<4
>> Tom Smith QIM wrote:
>>> Dear Wendy and lists,
>>>
>>> I'm sending this to document a serious mix up that
>>> occurred on usenet
>>> and to apologize to Wendy McElroy who was a victim of
>>> this "mix up".
>>> She has done excellent work, the best I have seen of a
>>> journalist, in
>>> correcting the injustices to men of "gender" feminism.
>>> While she and
>>> I disagree on certain things, we do agree on the most
>>> important aspect
> etc..

>>>> I just got through saying that God would bless the hands
>>>> of the man who
>>>> beat up Pistol Packing Wendy McElroy. Tom knows how I
>>>> feel about Pistol
>>>> Packing Wendy, and I have never told him otherwise.
>>>
>>> Yep, I know exactly. Go get her, but I'm going to be cutting deals
>>> with her in the back room
>>>
>>> I either skimmed what GA said and then responded or simply didn't
>>> think anything of his male bravado about God blessing the
>>> man who beat
>>> on poor Wendy. I must have skimmed it because there is no
> etc..

>>
> i never for an instant interpreted tom's comment as a threat, nor as
> advocacy of violence
>
> i'd have jumped him if i thot different
>
> :)
>
> and i figgered the "back room" stuff was a skankprank on me, typical
> of his methods
>
> but that sed, it's too much mea culpin fer my blood -- i mean, does
> wendy and her boys think we're gonna squeeze thru the
> lines and pummel
> her?
>
> puh
>
> lease


She certainly frightens easily for someone who portrays herself as a bad
tough-talking gun-toting momma.


>> <Sigh> I have never advocated violence against anyone.
>
> your comment, on the other hand, gave me pause, and i made
> mental note
> to get around to you
>
> you know how i feel about unauthorized violence
>
> although we haven't met physically, i'm confident that you aren't a
> bodily threat (to anyone)


Jesus Christ!


> i usually know who is and isn't
>
> i'm glad you took time to explain your intentions/meaning
> clearly,


You're welcome, I guess, but I'm upset that it was necessary for me to
explain.


> and
> if necessary, i'll back you on this one


Thanks.

ray

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 11:48:48 AM6/29/03
to
"Giant Attitude" <giantattitud...@web2news.net> wrote in message news:<4566...@web2news.com>...

obviously the "personal threat" angle is extremely minimal to zilch

so it's fair to assume that the "oh poor me" stuff was a political
manouver, designed and executed to draw converts -- chivalrous
converts -- to her side

see? it's lil wendy against big ole evil g.a., and folks are thereby
suck(er)ed to "her side"

you are thus (more) marginalized, while the position of her and her
boys is strengthened

we are dealing with political animals here (no metaphor intended)

they wanna be the next drudge, the next rush, the next blah blah blah

makes me wanna heave

>
> >> <Sigh> I have never advocated violence against anyone.
> >
> > your comment, on the other hand, gave me pause, and i made
> > mental note
> > to get around to you
> >
> > you know how i feel about unauthorized violence
> >
> > although we haven't met physically, i'm confident that you aren't a
> > bodily threat (to anyone)
>
>
> Jesus Christ!

oop, sorry

what i meant was, you strike me as a hulking, vicious madman, stalking
the highways n byways for crippled babies ta devour

better?

ray

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 12:54:10 PM6/29/03
to
"Giant Attitude" <giantattitud...@web2news.net> wrote in message news:<4565...@web2news.com>...

> ray wrote:
> > AlephN...@yahoo.com (Aleph Null) wrote in message
> > news:<7a3d5c77.03062...@posting.goog
> >> q...@sbcglobal.net (Tom Smith QIM) wrote in message
> >> news:<51bb0c1b.03062...@posting.goo
> >>>
> >>> I know exactly what I was thinking when I said "go get
> >>> her". GA and I
> >>> have had a running disagreement about how to approach Wendy's
> >>> innovation of "Individual Feminism" or "ifeminist" for short.
>
>
> Actually, there really isn't any such dispute.
>
> The description of aum states as follows: "We have no delusions about
> the evil nature of feminism. Anything resembling feminism is quickly put
> on moderated status. Legitimate feminist critiques are welcomed, but
> need to be tightly controlled due to the nature of the list."
>
> Or to put it succinctly, feminism is evil in all of its incarnations.
>
> Wendy McElroy is unquestionably a feminist and is pursuing feminist
> ends, even if her modus operandi is slightly different. Therefore, by
> embracing Wendy Mcelroy, Tom Smith is doing battle against Tom Smith.

exactly

a minute ago i replied to a separate post of yours addressing this,
and i'll be publishing a piece on this issue in the next few days

it's called "Men: The Constipated Movement"

basically, like any politician, tom tries to paint both sides of the
fence simultaneously

the movement is full of people acting primarily from personal and
ideo-political ambition, not from an over-riding desire to stomp and
oust our real enemies -- the femz and the moneyed elite who support,
fund, and act as enforcers for them

i mean: has tom and the boys' favorite son, king george the second,
done ANYTHING AT ALL to indicate his opposition to feminism?

virtually nothing

he made a couple token waves at affirmative action, which pointedly
EXCLUDED repealing that nonsense for the "protected class" of females

only race was addressed, and that wasn't an accident

the righties USE the femz -- USE our own women against us -- to KEEP
our movement from succeeding, and to keep disempowered males in their
place

the movement, like the nation in general, is heavily weighted to the
political right (in terms of real power)

"conservatism" means precisely that: "no change": let's all wave our
arms about n shout n bluster

and my bros still end up in the ditch

that's gonna change, if i have to kick every butt in this once-great
land


> Not against me because I am no longer in the picture.
>
>
> >> Yo, very decent of you to apologize. Hands off Wendy McElroy.
> >
> > o yah, null'n void?
> >
> > who are you, the wendypolice?
>
>
> Considering the way that I, in particular, was addressed, I was
> wondering that myself.
>
>
> > or her new bitch?
> >
> > just for conversational purposes, how about if i said
> > wendy mcelroy is
> > a reactionary, gun hustling neofascist wolf dressed in lambski
> >
> > whatcha gonna do about it, mister shivarly?
>
>
> I would agree only with the "gun-hustling neofascist wolf" portion of
> the critique.
>
> Wendy is an androgynous feminazi who wants to eradicate gender. She
> wants to masculinize women, and, I suppose, turn all women into Wendy
> clones. I would call that a very radical position, however
> right-wing/libertarian she might be on other issues.

well, in mainstream political theory, "radical" indicates the far
left, while "reactionary" indicates the far right

libertarianism pretends otherwise, of course, but it is essentially a
rightist political philosophy, especially as regards economic policy
("market" forces)

of course, what do i know about politics, having spent ten years
working inside it? better to rely on those who listen to rush, read
biographies in their bedrooms, and form pitiful cabals

>
> And I also would not agree that she is dressed in lamb's clothing. She
> is pretty open about what she wants. She is a wolf dressed in wolf's
> clothing.
>
> I understand that coalition-building sometimes requires a spirit of
> compromise, but there is no room for compromise on this. Wendy McElroy
> is evil, and a men's organization that forms alliances with her is
> making a Faustus-like pact with Mephistopheles.

i disagree

first: we're all a mix of "good" and "evil," and the time to decide
who's who and what's what is when the Show's over

second: i think wendy and her rightie associates have a place in the
movement

we need everyone we can get, and the movement has been stalled
precisely because it's not using the resources it's been given

that sed, i simply don't think that someone calling themselves a
"feminist" -- whether it be wendy or warren -- should assume
leadership, either in the personal or political sense

>
> Anyone who has read the famous Marlowe play knows that Mephistopheles
> never once lied to Dr. Faustus. Faustus followed Mephistopheles into
> hell because of his own capacity for self-deception. That's what I see
> going on here when I see men's rights people forming a Wendy McElroy
> Marching & Chowder Society.

yup, yup, n yup

you ain't just a common barrister, which is what distinguishes you
from the rest

keep pluggin, but above all, remain independent

that's what "masculinity" started out meaning, and what it'll end up
meaning

Giant Attitude

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 1:26:36 PM6/29/03
to
> etc..

>> etc..
>>>>
>>> i never for an instant interpreted tom's comment as a
>>> threat, nor as
>>> advocacy of violence
>>>
>>> i'd have jumped him if i thot different
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> and i figgered the "back room" stuff was a skankprank on
>>> me, typical
> etc..

>>
>> She certainly frightens easily for someone who portrays
>> herself as a bad
>> tough-talking gun-toting momma.
>>
> obviously the "personal threat" angle is extremely minimal to zilch
>
> so it's fair to assume that the "oh poor me" stuff was a political
> manouver, designed and executed to draw converts -- chivalrous
> converts -- to her side
>
> see? it's lil wendy against big ole evil g.a., and folks are thereby
> suck(er)ed to "her side"
>
> you are thus (more) marginalized, while the position of her and her
> boys is strengthened


Yeah, that's how I see it. When all is said and done, Pistol Packing
Wendy is still a helpless female. Well, maybe not entirely helpless -
if she was able to point her ouzie at her monitor and fire into the
monitor and nail me at the other end, she would do that and claim
self-defense.

But since she can't, she's falling back on female histrionics.


> we are dealing with political animals here (no metaphor intended)
>
> they wanna be the next drudge, the next rush, the next blah blah blah
>
> makes me wanna heave
>
>>>> <Sigh> I have never advocated violence against anyone.
>>>
>>> your comment, on the other hand, gave me pause, and i made
>>> mental note
>>> to get around to you
>>>
>>> you know how i feel about unauthorized violence
>>>
>>> although we haven't met physically, i'm confident that you aren't a
>>> bodily threat (to anyone)
>>
>> Jesus Christ!
>
> oop, sorry
>
> what i meant was, you strike me as a hulking, vicious
> madman, stalking
> the highways n byways for crippled babies ta devour
>
> better?


I've spent the last few days being personally used as a bargaining chip
between Tom Smith and Wendy McElroy. I guess that's my reward for what
he has referred to as my "effective counterinsurgency tactics".

I didn't receive my mail for a couple of days and I was starting to get
very paranoid - thinking that maybe the Bobbsey Twins had gotten the
police to intercept and open it (now I'm more or less convinced that it
was just a slow week for mail).

It's nice that the two of them have decided to spare me from the
midnight knock on the door - at least, that's what they're saying.

I responded to you by saying "Jesus Christ" because I'm not in a
position to assume the personality that you describe, even in fun.


>>> i usually know who is and isn't
>>>
>>> i'm glad you took time to explain your intentions/meaning
>>> clearly,
>>
>> You're welcome, I guess, but I'm upset that it was
>> necessary for me to
>> explain.
>>
>>> and
>>> if necessary, i'll back you on this one
>>
>> Thanks.

--

Giant Attitude

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 1:49:35 PM6/29/03
to
ray wrote:
> "Giant Attitude"
> <giantattitud...@web2news.net> wrote in message news:<4
>> ray wrote:
>>> AlephN...@yahoo.com (Aleph Null) wrote in message
>>> news:<7a3d5c77.03062...@posting.goog
>>>> q...@sbcglobal.net (Tom Smith QIM) wrote in message
>>>> news:<51bb0c1b.03062...@posting.goo
>>>>>
>>>>> I know exactly what I was thinking when I said "go get
>>>>> her". GA and I
>>>>> have had a running disagreement about how to approach Wendy's
>>>>> innovation of "Individual Feminism" or "ifeminist" for short.
>>
>> Actually, there really isn't any such dispute.
>>
>> The description of aum states as follows: "We have no
>> delusions about
>> the evil nature of feminism. Anything resembling feminism
>> is quickly put
>> on moderated status. Legitimate feminist critiques are
>> welcomed, but
>> need to be tightly controlled due to the nature of the list."
>>
> etc..


Well, be careful that that last remark doesn't cause you to be charged
with inciting violence.

I agree with you about what might be regarded as "mainstream
conservatism".

The mainstream conservatives are impotent against the feminist
dictatorship and indeed often collaborate with the feminists. Check out
(if you haven't already) "Jack Maybrick's" Amazon reviews of the latest
George Will book ("With a Happy Eye, But") and the 1964 James Burnham
classic "Suicide of the West".

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-glance/-/A6KC62CITSUA8/ref%3D/10
3-6007303-8107846

That was why I risked the wrath of the great Sobolewski and stayed home
on Election Day 2002. It was the first time in my adult life that I did
not go to the polls and vote Republican. I had voted for W in 2000 and
do not intend to vote for him or anyone else in 2004.

Oddly enough, Tom Smith was a major factor in my decision to abandon the
GOP - then I find out that he voted GOP in November 2002 as I stayed
home (in effect, we switched sides) and he is supporting King George's
2004 re-election.

Yes, he's accommodating the pussified right, even as I am in the process
of breaking away.

BUT - I don't agree with you about the right from a historic standpoint.
From a historic standpoint, I think the right is best suited to oppose
feminism. I just think that today's conservatives, in business and
politics, have moved away from traditional conservatism in order to
accommodate female voters and consumers.

Jonah Goldberg referred to me as a paleocon, and while I'm not sure that
description is 100% accurate, it's as accurate as any other description.
Maybe now you feel that you want to kick my butt, but this is who I am.


Well, you missed my point. I am a conservative in regards to
traditional gender roles, and I see Wendy McElroy as far left-wing
radical who is making war on gender - as noxious in her own way and
quite similar to Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas.

Now I regard virtually every woman as Andrea Dworking and Valerie
Solanas at heart, so you can make what you will of this critique of WM.

Nevertheless, it is clear to me that WM is making war on gender and is a
leftist at heart - even if she wants to use conservative/liberatrian
means of eradicating gender.

Has anyone ever seen Wendy McElroy, Laura Ingraham, Jessica Gavora, and
Karen DeCoster together in the same room at the same time? I have a
theory that they are all the same person.


Thank you.


> keep pluggin, but above all, remain independent

> that's what "masculinity" started out meaning, and what it'll end up
> meaning

--

Tom Smith QIM

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 5:46:33 PM6/29/03
to
"Giant Attitude" <giantattitud...@web2news.net> wrote in message news:<4574...@web2news.com>...

> The mainstream conservatives are impotent against the feminist
> dictatorship and indeed often collaborate with the feminists. Check out
> (if you haven't already) "Jack Maybrick's" Amazon reviews of the latest
> George Will book ("With a Happy Eye, But") and the 1964 James Burnham
> classic "Suicide of the West".
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-glance/-/A6KC62CITSUA8/ref%3D/10
> 3-6007303-8107846

Dear GA and ray,

How delightful seeing you two guys find common ground...thanks to
Wendy and me <smile>.

GA, you seem to think Wendy and I are "aligned". Nothing could be
further from the truth and I have my emails to her to prove it. I
made it clear to her where I stood in regards to her approach. The
important quote was that "ifeminism" was one half of masculism. I
called our possible work together a "collaboration" of my men's
advocacy to her women's advocacy. Separate but equal. Just imagine
if you will that men had equal "advocacy" to women. It would be a
damn patriarchy!! Such are the realities of "equality" when the sexes
are so "unequal". Under feminism, they chose the areas of equality
that serve their female natures and interests best. Equal advocacy is
death to feminism.

I wish you and ray would stop acting like a bunch of hysterical
feminists. I know you guys are better than that.

Tom

Giant Attitude

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 6:17:35 PM6/29/03
to
Tom Smith QIM wrote:
> "Giant Attitude"
> <giantattitud...@web2news.net> wrote in message news:<4


Really? I thought that the hysterical feminist was the poor little
helpless pistol-packing screech owl whining that I was threatening poor
little her because I was being just plain mean to her.

So she lost an eye, did she? I guess that'll make it more difficult for
her to squint when sighting down the barrel at all of those male
enemies.

I thought that the one behaving like the hysterical feminist was the
"masculist" selling me out in exchange for an alliance with the
ifeminist - except that now I"m informed that it's not an "alliance",
just a "collaboration". Oh, well now, THAT'S different! A
collaboration, not an alliance. I see.

And no, in a society with female numerical majorities and compliant
chivalrous men to boot, equal male and female advocacy will NOT lead to
a patriarchy, it will lead to a continuation of matriarchy by other
means.

wd

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 6:55:42 PM6/29/03
to

I think you are a great guy GA. And i like you. If we were face to face i
would buy you a beer and go to a game with you.

But you are not being reasonable on this subject. You are being stubborn.

Feminism is not going anywhere. You have to come to terms with that.

And there are so many women that DO NOT subscribe to the hard-line radical
version of feminism. I could only hope these women find the Ifeminist
agenda first and not the Radical Feminist Agenda to follow.

Tom makes a good collaboration.

You really should reconsider your position and re-read Wendy's thoughts
with a fair and open mind. She is a decent person judging from her
articles.

~wd

ray

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 8:43:13 PM6/29/03
to
"Giant Attitude" <giantattitud...@web2news.net> wrote in message news:<4574...@web2news.com>...

if i were "careful" i wouldn't be doing this

and i'll be doing the "charging," thx just the same

>
> I agree with you about what might be regarded as "mainstream
> conservatism".
>
> The mainstream conservatives are impotent against the feminist
> dictatorship and indeed often collaborate with the feminists. Check out
> (if you haven't already) "Jack Maybrick's" Amazon reviews of the latest
> George Will book ("With a Happy Eye, But") and the 1964 James Burnham
> classic "Suicide of the West".
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-glance/-/A6KC62CITSUA8/ref%3D/10
> 3-6007303-8107846

thankee, i'll look


>
> That was why I risked the wrath of the great Sobolewski and stayed home
> on Election Day 2002. It was the first time in my adult life that I did
> not go to the polls and vote Republican. I had voted for W in 2000 and
> do not intend to vote for him or anyone else in 2004.
>
> Oddly enough, Tom Smith was a major factor in my decision to abandon the
> GOP - then I find out that he voted GOP in November 2002 as I stayed
> home (in effect, we switched sides) and he is supporting King George's
> 2004 re-election.
>

yah, he switches sides more often than a drunk in an alley


> Yes, he's accommodating the pussified right, even as I am in the process
> of breaking away.
>
> BUT - I don't agree with you about the right from a historic standpoint.


of course, but we're talkin now, not history

the "right" has been all over the board, in historical terms


> From a historic standpoint, I think the right is best suited to oppose
> feminism.

no

this is the trap, the sweet labyrinth, into which western men have
been herded

even while the whip is upon your backs, you don't get it

the only aspect of men's liberation that the right is interested in is
the one championed by valerie solanas

the unholy alliance between the femz and the bully boys is
mutualistic, and extends to the paleolithic

this theme is absolutetly clear across anthropology, archaeology,
comparative mythology, iconography, etc etc

the greeks of the classical period had the best handle on the
interdependence between the femz and weak males

in modern times, it's best captured by bachofen and erich neumann


> I just think that today's conservatives, in business and
> politics, have moved away from traditional conservatism in order to
> accommodate female voters and consumers.
>

our rulers are mega-right, and they've been scheming for
re-establishment of global matriarchy for quite sum time now

they think they'll retain the throne thattaway

they're wrong


> Jonah Goldberg referred to me as a paleocon, and while I'm not sure that
> description is 100% accurate, it's as accurate as any other description.
> Maybe now you feel that you want to kick my butt, but this is who I am.
>

if you decide to support feminism, i expect i'll get around to you

:)

> >> Not against me because I am no longer in the picture.
> >>
> >>>> Yo, very decent of you to apologize. Hands off Wendy McElroy.
> >>>
> >>> o yah, null'n void?
> >>>
> >>> who are you, the wendypolice?
> >>
> >> Considering the way that I, in particular, was addressed, I was
> >> wondering that myself.
> >>
> >>> or her new bitch?
> >>>
> >>> just for conversational purposes, how about if i said
> >>> wendy mcelroy is
> >>> a reactionary, gun hustling neofascist wolf dressed in lambski
> >>>
> >>> whatcha gonna do about it, mister shivarly?
> >>
> >> I would agree only with the "gun-hustling neofascist
> >> wolf" portion of
> >> the critique.
> >>
> >> Wendy is an androgynous feminazi who wants to eradicate gender. She
> >> wants to masculinize women, and, I suppose, turn all
> >> women into Wendy
> >> clones. I would call that a very radical position, however
> >> right-wing/libertarian she might be on other issues.

no

check who funds her candidacy

'cmon, you took legal research in school

> >
> > well, in mainstream political theory, "radical" indicates the far
> > left, while "reactionary" indicates the far right
> >
> > libertarianism pretends otherwise, of course, but it is essentially a
> > rightist political philosophy, especially as regards economic policy
> > ("market" forces)
> >
> > of course, what do i know about politics, having spent ten years
> > working inside it? better to rely on those who listen to rush, read
> > biographies in their bedrooms, and form pitiful cabals
>
>
> Well, you missed my point. I am a conservative in regards to
> traditional gender roles, and I see Wendy McElroy as far left-wing
> radical who is making war on gender - as noxious in her own way and
> quite similar to Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas.
>
> Now I regard virtually every woman as Andrea Dworking and Valerie
> Solanas at heart, so you can make what you will of this critique of WM.

that's where you fall in the ocean, mon frer -- victim to typhon and
melusina

the vast majority of women are part of Woman, and in this you are
correct

but there are some bright stars amongst them, rare gems of heaven, and
not all thirst for manblood

>
> Nevertheless, it is clear to me that WM is making war on gender and is a
> leftist at heart - even if she wants to use conservative/liberatrian
> means of eradicating gender.

no, she uses the ideo-political structures for support and funding

but her motivations, as with most folk, are far more personal

>
> Has anyone ever seen Wendy McElroy, Laura Ingraham, Jessica Gavora, and
> Karen DeCoster together in the same room at the same time? I have a
> theory that they are all the same person.
>

yah

Woman

ray

unread,
Jun 29, 2003, 10:19:05 PM6/29/03
to
"Giant Attitude" <giantattitud...@web2news.net> wrote in message news:<4566...@web2news.com>...

actually the subliminal message is worse n that

the sentence assumes the inferiority of men, against which we must
(and do) constantly defend ourselves in order to "rise" to the exalted
level of Her Goddessness

>when what men really need to do is to become considerably meaner
towards
> women than they are.

fist ain't the route, it only legitimizes our
oppression/bestialization

digs the pit deeper

it's not a matter of becoming "meaner," but of withdrawing ourselves
from The Teat in all its forms (sex, money, power, emotional
support/praise, etc)

woman will not follow meanness, even by force -- she will seek to
rebel, and she will always find weak men with whom to ally herself

we are failing because we have abandoned the loving strength of the
masculine principles that pulled this rock outta the muck to begin:
justice, sacrifice, mercy

properly, by result, womenandchildren rule over us

Giant Attitude

unread,
Jun 30, 2003, 12:31:06 AM6/30/03
to
wd wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:17:35 +0200, Giant Attitude wrote:
>
>> Tom Smith QIM wrote:
>>> "Giant Attitude"
>>> <giantattitud...@web2news.net> wrote in
>>> message news:<4
>>>> The mainstream conservatives are impotent against the feminist
>>>> dictatorship and indeed often collaborate with the
>>>> feminists. Check out
>>>> (if you haven't already) "Jack Maybrick's" Amazon reviews
>>>> of the latest
>>>> George Will book ("With a Happy Eye, But") and the 1964
>>>> James Burnham
>>>> classic "Suicide of the West".
>>>>
>>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/cm/member-glance/-/A6KC62CITSUA8/ref%3D/10
>>>> 3-6007303-8107846
>>>
>>> Dear GA and ray,
>>>
>>> How delightful seeing you