OT Angry White Man

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Terry

unread,
Feb 15, 2008, 1:04:21 PM2/15/08
to

Ernest Major

unread,
Feb 15, 2008, 1:28:04 PM2/15/08
to
In message <gskbr398av02uhlkd...@4ax.com>, Terry
<kilo...@charter.net> writes
>
>http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
>
Interesting choice of newsgroups (alt.support.hepatitis-c,
alt.politics.immigration, alt.home.repair removed). You wouldn't be
trolling, would you?
--
alias Ernest Major

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

unread,
Feb 15, 2008, 6:26:38 PM2/15/08
to
On Feb 15, 1:28 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <gskbr398av02uhlkdbp43d25g6a0j3c...@4ax.com>, Terry
> <kilow...@charter.net> writes

>
> >http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
>
> Interesting choice of newsgroups (alt.support.hepatitis-c,
> alt.politics.immigration, alt.home.repair removed). You wouldn't be
> trolling, would you?
> --

Is this the same dipshit who was so easily impressed by the cheap
Rubiks' Cube parlor trick . . . . ?

Not terribly bright, is he . . . .


================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com

Kermit

unread,
Feb 15, 2008, 6:55:34 PM2/15/08
to
On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
> http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324

"There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White
Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them
will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them
voted for George Bush."

I'm really rather tired of hearing about the whiny Real Men; they
embarrass me. If they listened to something other than Rush Limbaugh
they might be able to understand some of the changes going on around
them. Maybe even grow a pair.

Kermit

Dick C.

unread,
Feb 15, 2008, 11:49:25 PM2/15/08
to

The so called men metioned in the first paragraph are so unsure of
their manhood that
they have to tell everyone that they are real men, lest anyone
mistake them for something less.
And as real men they have to own something that spits when they tell
it to, unlike what they have
in their pants, plus they have to join a club that tells the world
that they are real men. And as real men
they are afraid of women that have more power than they do.
On the other hand, I owned some guns when I was 18. I then went into
the navy and sold them when I got out. I also joined the nra when I
was 18. I never renewed my membership. By the time I grew up
I knew I was a man, and I have not felt any urge to tell the world
that I am a man. The people that matter to me know if I am a man or
not. I do not need to tell them, andt that is all that matters.
Dick C.

Scooter the Mighty

unread,
Feb 16, 2008, 9:48:39 AM2/16/08
to

I have to judge this a pretty stupid essay.

"Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-
interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to
children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical
Christians."

Really? There's been a lot of pandering to transgendered people and
children of illegal immigrants, has there?

"There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that
will decide the election: the Angry White Man."

I really don't think so this time. They don't have a horse in this
race, I think they'll largely stay home.

"The victimhood syndrome buzzwords -- "disenfranchised," "marginalized"
and "voiceless" -- don't resonate with him. "Press 'one' for English"
is a curse-word to him."

Yeah, because he considers himself to be disenfranchised and
marginalized by the children of illegal immigrants and transgendered
people. Which is stupid.

"Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site
becomes flooded with illegal workers who don't pay taxes and his wages
drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets
shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot
in India for tech support, he simmers....He also votes, and the Angry
White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel
scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television.
Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would
want her as their leader. It's not that she is a woman. It's that she
is who she is. It's the liberal victim groups she panders to, the
"poor me" attitude that she represents, her inability to give a
straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants
to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves."

This is all bullshit. Hillary Clinton isn't any more pandering than
any other politician, nor is she especially planning to spend more tax
dollars on social programs than other democratic candidates. The AWM
doesn't like her because the idiots he listens to have been mindlessly
badmouthing her since her husband first was elected. They don't
really know why they hate her at this point, they just do.

And for God's sake, what kind of idiot doesn't mind Bush spending a
trillion dollars on what has amounted to a grossly ineffective social
program for the betterment of Iraq and then gets his panties in a wad
about the idea that maybe a couple of poor kids might get to go to
college here in America? Does he think he's not going to have to pay
for that just because Bush doesn't have the testicular fortitude to
raise taxes?

"There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White
Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them
will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them

voted for George Bush. He hopes that she will be the Democratic
nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets
beaten like a drum."

Except, see, these guys are the Republican base, so they aren't really
relevant. These are the guys who are going to vote Republican no
matter what. Moderates and independants who might vote one way or
another will decide the election.

wf3h

unread,
Feb 16, 2008, 10:02:23 AM2/16/08
to

the analysis is true. these idiots...angry white men...live under many
delusions. they imagine that, with their guns, this beer swilling pot
bellied crowd will take on the US govt if it ever decides to 'take
over'. the NRA is responsible for the slaughter that's been going on
on america's college campuses over the last week. it's a brain dead
crowd of losers if there ever was one.

Robert Allison

unread,
Feb 16, 2008, 11:22:49 AM2/16/08
to
Scooter the Mighty wrote:

> On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
>
>
> I have to judge this a pretty stupid essay.
>
> "Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-
> interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to
> children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical
> Christians."
>
> Really? There's been a lot of pandering to transgendered people and
> children of illegal immigrants, has there?

<<Snipped>>

I read that essay and thought; This is one of those examples where
ignorance is NOT bliss! It is just stupidity.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

Robert Allison

unread,
Feb 16, 2008, 11:24:07 AM2/16/08
to
Scooter the Mighty wrote:

> On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
>
>
> I have to judge this a pretty stupid essay.
>
> "Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-
> interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to
> children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical
> Christians."
>
> Really? There's been a lot of pandering to transgendered people and
> children of illegal immigrants, has there?

<<Snipped>>

Thip

unread,
Feb 16, 2008, 11:26:52 AM2/16/08
to

"Terry" <kilo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:gskbr398av02uhlkd...@4ax.com...
>
> http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324

I can't speak for the Angry White Man or for other geographic areas, but I
can tell you there are a whole lot of Angry Disgusted Folks around here.


Vend

unread,
Feb 16, 2008, 1:50:45 PM2/16/08
to

Is 'Angry White Men' an euphemism for 'White Trash'? I'm asking
because I don't know.

Free Lunch

unread,
Feb 16, 2008, 2:30:46 PM2/16/08
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:50:45 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote in
<d3f7df01-d91e-40a5...@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:

Not necessarily. It's mostly about guys who aren't dealing with the
modern world.

Inez

unread,
Feb 16, 2008, 4:01:25 PM2/16/08
to

No. It's a euphemism for "person who listens to Rush Limbaugh."
Basically they're conservative men who are angry that other people are
not conservative.

Waterspider

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 12:29:02 PM2/18/08
to
This article, from a Vancouver daily, describes the current power of racial
minority groups in upcoming elections:
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/story.html?id=0a2b3e5e-047c-4cfd-b571-2b68350b254c&k=42738


Waterspider

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 12:31:50 PM2/18/08
to
Also today, the other major BC daily ran a story on the same-sex marriage
issue splitting the Anglican church:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ceb2bdd9-01b6-4b2e-82bd-4e81f8590756


loua...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 1:34:18 PM2/18/08
to
On Feb 16, 8:48 am, Scooter the Mighty <Greyg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White
> Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them
> will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them
> voted for George Bush. He hopes that she will be the Democratic
> nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets
> beaten like a drum."
>
> Except, see, these guys are the Republican base, so they aren't really
> relevant. These are the guys who are going to vote Republican no
> matter what.

Yep. The Republicans could run on a platform of "we're going to make
you poorer, double the national debt, stop your family getting medical
treatment, and get your kids killed overseas" and these guys would
happily vote for it.

Oh, wait. They already did.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/23/the-legacy-of-bushs-presidency/

Kermit

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 2:03:39 PM2/18/08
to

I've been listening to them for thirty years and more. They pass
stories around among themselves such as "I just held a door open for a
young woman and she lit into me with the foulest language I've heard
since the Navy - called me a chauvinist pig, among other things." Some
variation of this has been told for decades. Yet it's never happened
to me. Of course, I don't run up and say "Let me get that for ya,
little miss" while I'm trying to look down her blouse. I suspect it's
just an urban legend they pass around because it sounds reasonable to
them.

I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.

Kermit

Kermit

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 2:09:46 PM2/18/08
to

You probably knew folks who still have their firearms, but don't seem
angry or insecure. It *is just something some folks do, you know. I've
done martial arts for thirty years. If it's compensation for not being
manly enough, then it was probably a mistake to encourage my wife and
daughter to study...

This type does exist in large numbers, and is worried about their
image as a stud. But there are some guys who just like loud noises or
hard thumps.

Kermit

Kermit

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 2:14:56 PM2/18/08
to
On Feb 16, 6:48 am, Scooter the Mighty <Greyg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:

<snip>

>
> "Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site
> becomes flooded with illegal workers who don't pay taxes and his wages
> drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets
> shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot
> in India for tech support, he simmers....He also votes, and the Angry
> White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel
> scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television.
> Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would
> want her as their leader. It's not that she is a woman. It's that she
> is who she is. It's the liberal victim groups she panders to, the
> "poor me" attitude that she represents, her inability to give a
> straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants
> to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves."
>
> This is all bullshit. Hillary Clinton isn't any more pandering than
> any other politician, nor is she especially planning to spend more tax
> dollars on social programs than other democratic candidates. The AWM
> doesn't like her because the idiots he listens to have been mindlessly
> badmouthing her since her husband first was elected. They don't
> really know why they hate her at this point, they just do.
>

If you ask them *why they hate her, they tend to get angry at the
question, but never really articulate any reason. At least, that's
been my experience. <shrug> It rather reminds me of some of the
reactions from Creationists when you start asking them to support
their claims of fact.

<snip>

Kermit

Andre Lieven

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 4:49:34 PM2/18/08
to

Well, if even one true example of it actually happening will take this
out of the urban legend arena, then I can factually say that a version
of this happened to me.

I was in a Salvation Army store, looking for audio cassette storage
cases ( The kind that have three drawers that each hold 12-16 tapes )
and I saw a young woman trying to move a dresser that she had just
purchased out of the store. As this is in Ottawa, Canada, where
winters
have some serious meaning, there were two separate doors to go
through. She got stuck with the dresser in the between-the-doors
space.

I came over to help, and in the process, the following conversation
ensued.

She offered some thanks for the help. I said that thats OK, its what
we guys do. Her reply to this pleasantry was " Well, its good that
they're good for *something*. " I placed my end of the dresser down,
replied " Indeed, we are good for something. We call that something
'civilisation'. " I then left her still stuck between the doors.

Dissing the sex of the person offering you help is not only sexist,
its damn DUMB. Damned rude, too.

> I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.

A proper reading of the book " Spreading Misandry; The Teaching
of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture ", Paul Nathanson &
Katherine Young, McGill/Queens University Press could offer some
factual insight in this area.

Andre

Kermit

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 6:55:47 PM2/18/08
to

Urban legends exist because they sound reasonable to the crowd that
passes them around. I've heard a few that I'm sure have happened
somewhere, sometime, but most of the tales I heard passed on were
almost certainly rumors ("It happened to a buddy, but I'll just say it
happened to me, because that will be simpler and it's still true,
almost"). Others, of course, are impossible ("Silver Manhattan - the
super pot of the Manhattan sewer system. Flushed into the sewer during
drug raids, it's powerful weed, because of all the fertilizer, but a
pale gray, 'cause it doesn't get any sunlight down there...")

>
> I was in a Salvation Army store, looking for audio cassette storage
> cases ( The kind that have three drawers that each hold 12-16 tapes )
> and I saw a young woman trying to move a dresser that she had just
> purchased out of the store. As this is in Ottawa, Canada, where
> winters
> have some serious meaning, there were two separate doors to go
> through. She got stuck with the dresser in the between-the-doors
> space.
>
> I came over to help, and in the process, the following conversation
> ensued.
>
> She offered some thanks for the help. I said that thats OK, its what
> we guys do. Her reply to this pleasantry was " Well, its good that
> they're good for *something*. " I placed my end of the dresser down,
> replied " Indeed, we are good for something. We call that something
> 'civilisation'. " I then left her still stuck between the doors.
>
> Dissing the sex of the person offering you help is not only sexist,
> its damn DUMB. Damned rude, too.
>
> > I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.
>
> A proper reading of the book " Spreading Misandry; The Teaching
> of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture ", Paul Nathanson &
> Katherine Young, McGill/Queens University Press could offer some
> factual insight in this area.
>
> Andre

There certainly are crazies in every demographic. Still, I can't help
but wonder what her tone of voice and body language were like. In
print, it sounds like the good-natured banter between buddies in my
head, but I can see how it could have been bitter-sounding and
accusatory. I wonder how she remembers *you?

Kermit

chris thompson

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 8:41:59 PM2/18/08
to

I've always been fascinated by holes in paper. I have several three-
hole-punchers on my desk for those extended times I cannot get to the
range.

The exploding melons are more problematic.

Chris

chris thompson

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 8:50:40 PM2/18/08
to

I happen to know a SMART angry white man. He's never voted for a
Democrat in his life, and he hates Hillary Clinton with a passion (not
for any good reason in my book, but at least he has a plausible one).

This year he changed his party affiliation and voted for Obama.

Chris

Years ago I heard Al Gore tell a joke about a guy who walks past a
house that has a sign outside: "FREE! Republican kittens." He
chuckles and walks by. Few days later, same thing. Then a few more
days later, the sign says "FREE! Democratic kittens." He has to ask,
so he rings the bell and says "What gives? Why Republican kittens then
and Democratic kittens now?" The cat owner replied, "Oh, they finally
opened their eyes."

Andre Lieven

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 9:55:49 PM2/18/08
to

While thats often true, its not *always* true. Ergo, there are
exceptions
that prove the rule.

> I've heard a few that I'm sure have happened
> somewhere, sometime, but most of the tales I heard passed on were
> almost certainly rumors ("It happened to a buddy, but I'll just say it
> happened to me, because that will be simpler and it's still true,
> almost"). Others, of course, are impossible ("Silver Manhattan - the
> super pot of the Manhattan sewer system. Flushed into the sewer during
> drug raids, it's powerful weed, because of all the fertilizer, but a
> pale gray, 'cause it doesn't get any sunlight down there...")

I was commenting on the one, specific claimed legend. The book that I
cited provides a lot of evidence to show that misandry is pretty
common.

> > I was in a Salvation Army store, looking for audio cassette storage
> > cases ( The kind that have three drawers that each hold 12-16 tapes )
> > and I saw a young woman trying to move a dresser that she had just
> > purchased out of the store. As this is in Ottawa, Canada, where
> > winters
> > have some serious meaning, there were two separate doors to go
> > through. She got stuck with the dresser in the between-the-doors
> > space.
>
> > I came over to help, and in the process, the following conversation
> > ensued.
>
> > She offered some thanks for the help. I said that thats OK, its what
> > we guys do. Her reply to this pleasantry was " Well, its good that
> > they're good for *something*. " I placed my end of the dresser down,
> > replied " Indeed, we are good for something. We call that something
> > 'civilisation'. " I then left her still stuck between the doors.
>
> > Dissing the sex of the person offering you help is not only sexist,
> > its damn DUMB. Damned rude, too.
>
> > > I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.
>
> > A proper reading of the book " Spreading Misandry; The Teaching
> > of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture ", Paul Nathanson &
> > Katherine Young, McGill/Queens University Press could offer some
> > factual insight in this area.
>
> > Andre
>
> There certainly are crazies in every demographic.

Thats the point; she wasn't " crazy ". She merely had a relative lack
of
not expressing misandristic comments, and, once again, the book that
I cited explains pretty well the social environment that provides a
basis
by which many millions of people decide that misandristic comments
are acceptable to express.

> Still, I can't help
> but wonder what her tone of voice and body language were like. In
> print, it sounds like the good-natured banter between buddies in my
> head, but I can see how it could have been bitter-sounding and
> accusatory.

No, up to that comment of hers, it was all fairly friendly. Even that
misandristic comment of hers was not offered with a sneer or a
hatefilled tone. She delivered it in a pretty normal tone of voice,
and
a pretty normal set of physical expressions. Thats why that comment
surprised me. But, I'm pretty fast with rejoinders, and with picking a
relevent one, so it took me only a couple of seconds ( During which,
I put down the end of the dresser that I was holding. ) to form my
reply.

> I wonder how she remembers *you?

I would bet " how dare he stand up for his sex. " <shrug>

If you really want to understand this better, read the book(s).

Andre


Dick C.

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 11:58:35 PM2/18/08
to


Oh, I realize that of course. But those are not the people the
original article was
about. While I was exagerrating abit, there are a number of gun
owners who have
no real reason to own a gun, are not well adjusted, and are probbaly
rather dangerous.

Dick

Andre Lieven

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 12:30:24 AM2/19/08
to
> original article was about. While I was exagerrating a bit, there are a

> number of gun owners who have no real reason to own a gun, are not
> well adjusted, and are probbaly rather dangerous.

Well, the gun laws and culture Down There ( As I am in Canada ) have
always
struck me as somewhat... fetishistic. So, I'm one of those " angry
( More really
" miffed ". ) white men " who not only doesn't own a gun, but one who
doesn't
particularly believe that any person should own one. Though, if I got
Power, I
likely wouldn't be sending the Black Helicopter Guys over to
everyone's homes
to grab those guns... But, if its fair to require cars to be licensed,
and to
require that car owners show proof of car insurance, treating guns
equally
sounds fair to me.

And, I have voted Liberal and NDP in my time... Heck, I've twice voted
for the
Rhinoceros Party of Canada ( Unfortunately now defunct. ).

Andre


Robert Grumbine

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 8:55:11 AM2/19/08
to
In article <2a210fc4-2e88-41ea...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 16, 1:01 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[trim]

>> No. It's a euphemism for "person who listens to Rush Limbaugh."
>> Basically they're conservative men who are angry that other people are
>> not conservative.
>
>I've been listening to them for thirty years and more. They pass
>stories around among themselves such as "I just held a door open for a
>young woman and she lit into me with the foulest language I've heard
>since the Navy - called me a chauvinist pig, among other things." Some
>variation of this has been told for decades. Yet it's never happened
>to me. Of course, I don't run up and say "Let me get that for ya,
>little miss" while I'm trying to look down her blouse. I suspect it's
>just an urban legend they pass around because it sounds reasonable to
>them.

Probably. Or pure invention except that they _think_ that's
what would happen if they ever did bother to hold a door open.

But, in truth, something like that did happen to me -- a total of
1 time, and it was 20 years ago. I held a door open for a woman
at my university (said door, at that point, requiring a lot of
force to open, but not so much to keep open; so I kept it open for
her) and she glared and growled (literally) at me. No foul language
though. I've held a lot of doors open in the subsequent decades and
it's never happened again.

>I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.

Agreed.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

John Wilkins

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 8:58:36 AM2/19/08
to
Robert Grumbine <bo...@radix.net> wrote:

It happened to me when I was 17 - I stood up for a woman on a train and
she spent the next five minutes spewing invective at me.

I always open the door if I am first to it, irrespective of gender or
age. Nobody since that day (in 1973) has done it since.


>
> >I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.
>
> Agreed.


--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

wf3h

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 9:15:40 AM2/19/08
to
On Feb 18, 1:34 pm, "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

don't forget: you can do anything to the 'angry white man'...kick his
puppy...give all his money to the rich folks who deserve it....

just don't take away his guns.

loua...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 11:24:42 AM2/19/08
to
On Feb 19, 7:58 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:

> It happened to me when I was 17 - I stood up for a woman on a train and
> she spent the next five minutes spewing invective at me.
>
> I always open the door if I am first to it, irrespective of gender or
> age. Nobody since that day (in 1973) has done it since.

Yeah, I think the "first person goes through, reaches back to hold the
door for second person" has become the new standard most places.

I used to work in a building with a lot of elderly men (tenured
university faculty) and occasionally had the problem of both of us
being _too_ polite. I was trying to follow the rule "infirm or greatly
respected people first" and they were trying to follow the rule
"ladies first."

After a few false starts I usually let them have their way. Because
a), they'd probably be hurt by the 'infirm' aspect* and b) we can't
just stand on the elevator all day, someone has to get off first.

*I am not including the 5'3" ish professor emeritus who mostly came to
campus to use the weight room, and who had a grip like a vise. Anybody
who got out of Czechoslovakia just ahead of the communists can be
officially considered tough, even if that was 50 odd years ago.


Andre Lieven

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 11:54:49 AM2/19/08
to

The silliest part of all this, IMHO, is that it attempts to treat the
vast majority
of North American men as if they were all exactly the same.

Now, who else does this kind of " profiling " WRT large ethnic
groups ? Oh
yes, the KKK, and anti semites: " Them [blank] folks is all the same.
"

Well, if its a form of unthinking bigotry when done by " white men ",
then it
remains bigotry when applied TO " white men ".

Now, there are some issues where most men do have either a standing or
a potential interest. In matters such as men's children. Are you all
aware
that the disparity between single mothers getting Child Support for
their
children, and single *fathers* getting CS for their children, is
50% ?

It'd be nice if " equality " were to be applied to that area, where
the untrue
slogan is " do it for the children "; just not the children of men.

Also, any man can just as easily as any woman become a victim of
Domestic Abuse. Yet, while women get massive funding ( See " Violence
Against Women Act ", apparently violence against men isn't interesting
to Congress - which is still mostly men. ), there are well under a
dozen
shelters for abused men in all of North America. How about some
" equality " here, eh ?

Further, as most of North America is, by population, more urban than
rural, to say that most, if not all, men are gun owners or wish to
own
guns remains an utterly unproved knee jerk comment.

Oh, there are a few of the girls who seem to like guns, too:

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/

http://www.wagc.com/ : Women Against Gun Control.
It's not surprising then, that more women than ever want to keep
their
rights to own and carry a gun.
The reason is simple: Women are concerned about becoming victims
of crime. Guns give women a fighting chance against crime.

Join Women Against Gun Control.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=73
Women & Guns

http://www.ccrkba.org/public_wg.html
If it matters to America's women gunowners, it's in Women & Guns, the
only magazine of its kind in the world.

So, facts do help in getting past empty headed and dated slogans of
both the " right " as well as those of the " left "...

Andre

Therion Ware

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 12:06:12 PM2/19/08
to
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:58:36 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
Wilkins) wrote:

[snip]

>It happened to me when I was 17 - I stood up for a woman on a train and
>she spent the next five minutes spewing invective at me.

But did she take the seat? Or did you take it back? Or did you both
stand up glaring at each other while looking at an empty seat?

>I always open the door if I am first to it, irrespective of gender or
>age. Nobody since that day (in 1973) has done it since.

But the really important question is: "how far does the person moving
towards the door have to be from the door in order for it not to be
impolite to shut it before they get there?".

I think about 8 paces.


Inez

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 12:12:22 PM2/19/08
to
On Feb 19, 5:55 am, b...@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
> In article <2a210fc4-2e88-41ea-90f8-1156bd759...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

>
> Kermit  <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 16, 1:01 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [trim]
>
> >> No.  It's a euphemism for "person who listens to Rush Limbaugh."
> >> Basically they're conservative men who are angry that other people are
> >> not conservative.
>
> >I've been listening to them for thirty years and more. They pass
> >stories around among themselves such as "I just held a door open for a
> >young woman and she lit into me with the foulest language I've heard
> >since the Navy - called me a chauvinist pig, among other things." Some
> >variation of this has been told for decades. Yet it's never happened
> >to me. Of course, I don't run up and say "Let me get that for ya,
> >little miss" while I'm trying to look down her blouse. I suspect it's
> >just an urban legend they pass around because it sounds reasonable to
> >them.
>
>   Probably.  Or pure invention except that they _think_ that's
> what would happen if they ever did bother to hold a door open.
>
>   But, in truth, something like that did happen to me -- a total of
> 1 time, and it was 20 years ago.  I held a door open for a woman
> at my university (said door, at that point, requiring a lot of
> force to open, but not so much to keep open; so I kept it open for
> her) and she glared and growled (literally) at me.  No foul language
> though.  I've held a lot of doors open in the subsequent decades and
> it's never happened again.

Well Rush Limbaugh is certainly right that the world contains
obnoxious over-the-top "feminists." However, I do not believe he is
correct that this is the sign of the Liberal Apocolypse.

> >I think your characterization is the best I've heard in a while.
>
>   Agreed.
>
> --

> Robert Grumbinehttp://www.radix.net/~bobg/Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.

wf3h

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 12:30:43 PM2/19/08
to
On Feb 19, 11:54 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:15 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > don't forget: you can do anything to the 'angry white man'...kick his
> > puppy...give all his money to the rich folks who deserve it....
>
> > just don't take away his guns.
>
> The silliest part of all this, IMHO, is that it attempts to treat the
> vast majority
> of North American men as if they were all exactly the same.
>
> Now, who else does this kind of " profiling " WRT large ethnic
> groups ? Oh
> yes, the KKK, and anti semites: " Them [blank] folks is all the same.
> "
>
> Well, if its a form of unthinking bigotry when done by " white men ",
> then it
> remains bigotry when applied TO " white men ".

since i AM a white man, i hardly think this applies. most right wing
white guys i talk to would gladly 9 out of the 1st 10 amendments,
believing the fairy tale that, as long as they have their guns, they
have power. it's a nice little bit of mythology sold to them by the
right wing.

> >
> Also, any man can just as easily as any woman become a victim of

> Domestic Abuse. \

having grown up with an violent alcoholic father, i KNOW this aint
true.


>
> Further, as most of North America is, by population, more urban than
> rural, to say that most, if not all, men are gun owners or wish to
> own
> guns remains an utterly unproved knee jerk comment.

there are 230M guns in the US. and many white man gun owners are
exceptionally hostile to individual rights...except for THEIR 'right'
to own an obsolete toy.


>
> http://www.wagc.com/: Women Against Gun Control.
> It's not surprising then, that more women than ever want to keep
> their
> rights to own and carry a gun.
> The reason is simple: Women are concerned about becoming victims
> of crime. Guns give women a fighting chance against crime.

with 11,000 gun deaths in the US last year it's apparent guns CAUSE
death, they don't PREVENT them.


Jack Dominey

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 1:49:07 PM2/19/08
to
In
<19cca187-9a4f-45d9...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 18, 1:49 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>> I was in a Salvation Army store, looking for audio cassette storage
>> cases ( The kind that have three drawers that each hold 12-16 tapes )
>> and I saw a young woman trying to move a dresser that she had just
>> purchased out of the store. As this is in Ottawa, Canada, where
>> winters
>> have some serious meaning, there were two separate doors to go
>> through. She got stuck with the dresser in the between-the-doors
>> space.
>>
>> I came over to help, and in the process, the following conversation
>> ensued.
>>
>> She offered some thanks for the help. I said that thats OK, its what
>> we guys do. Her reply to this pleasantry was " Well, its good that
>> they're good for *something*. " I placed my end of the dresser down,
>> replied " Indeed, we are good for something. We call that something
>> 'civilisation'. " I then left her still stuck between the doors.

<snip>

>There certainly are crazies in every demographic. Still, I can't help
>but wonder what her tone of voice and body language were like. In
>print, it sounds like the good-natured banter between buddies in my
>head, but I can see how it could have been bitter-sounding and
>accusatory. I wonder how she remembers *you?

Mr. Lieven may think himself the hero of the story, but it doesn't
even read that way to me. "It's what we guys do"? No, Mr. Lieven,
lending assistance is something kind people do regardless of their
gender and regardless of the gender of the other person.

The woman's remark, coming as it did out of the blue, sounds as if she
was thinking of a particular 'guy' with whom she'd had a bad
experience recently, perhaps one who'd left her in the position of
needing furniture she could ill afford.

A kind person who had just been *thanked for their assistance* could
not possibly take such a comment as a personal insult. To renege on
the offer was bad enough, but strutting off on *that* exit line was
breathtakingly arrogant. Newsflash, Mr. Lieven: *You* are not
responsible for "civilisation". You are, however, responsible for
your own actions, which in this case began well but ended
reprehensibly.
--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver

Andre Lieven

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 5:27:50 PM2/19/08
to
On Feb 19, 12:30 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:54 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 9:15 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > don't forget: you can do anything to the 'angry white man'...kick his
> > > puppy...give all his money to the rich folks who deserve it....
>
> > > just don't take away his guns.
>
> > The silliest part of all this, IMHO, is that it attempts to treat the
> > vast majority
> > of North American men as if they were all exactly the same.
>
> > Now, who else does this kind of " profiling " WRT large ethnic
> > groups ? Oh yes, the KKK, and anti semites: " Them [blank] folks
> > is all the same. "
>
> > Well, if its a form of unthinking bigotry when done by " white men ",
> > then it remains bigotry when applied TO " white men ".
>
> since i AM a white man, i hardly think this applies.

Why ? Are you of the particular delusion that people cannot be biased
against their own demographic ? Have you ever heard of the term that
is well enough understood such that it has it's own Wiki entry:
" Self hating jew ".

Its just as common for members of other ethnic groups to have
this going on, as well.

> most right wing
> white guys i talk to would gladly 9 out of the 1st 10 amendments,
> believing the fairy tale that, as long as they have their guns, they
> have power. it's a nice little bit of mythology sold to them by the
> right wing.

Well, there are at least two things flat out wrong in that.

One: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

( To forestall someone unthinkingly trying to use this against my
tale,
my tale was offered to rebut the statement that I was replying to that
said that this NEVER happens; one 'anecdote' does blow up a claim
of 'it never happens'. )

Two, the all too common ploy of dehumanising The Other is at work
in what you said. I will gladly specify that I, personally, do not
believe
that most people ought to have guns. I have no guns, nor have I ever
had one. But, I will not try to make the case for Gun Control by
claiming that folks with a different political view must be believers
in
" fairy tales. ".

One of the key differences between science and politics is that, in
science, there are facts and hard evidence. In politics, many issues
come down to what personal life values a person learned and/or
chose to adopt.

> > Also, any man can just as easily as any woman become a victim of
> > Domestic Abuse. \
>
> having grown up with an violent alcoholic father, i KNOW this aint
> true.

Well, too freakin' bad. The FACTS to be seen in works such as Philip
W. Cook's " Abused Men; The Hidden Side Of Domestic Violence ",
among many others, show that not only is it true that 50% of DV is
committed by women, but that this has been a proven fact ever since
Erin Pizzey ( Who wrote the first ever book on DV, and who opened
the first ever women's shelter in London, UK ) published in 1982
" Prone To Violence " ( Its out of print, but the Wiki page on Ms.
Pizzey has a link to an on-line copy of that work. ) in which she
proved
that fact.

So, that women commit as much DV as do men has been a matter of
proven fact now for 26 *years*.

See also:

http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm

Statistics About Domestic Abuse And Violence Against Men

Very little in known about the actual number of men who are in a
domestic
relationship in which they are abused or treated violently by women.
In
100 domestic violence situations approximately 40 cases involve
violence
by women against men.

http://www.familytx.org/research/Control_DV_against_men.pdf

Controlling Domestic Violence Against Men
Charles E. Corry, Martin S. Fiebert, and Erin Pizzey
© Copyright 2002

Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults
than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men). Women are significantly
more likely to throw an object, slap, kick, bite, or hit with their
fist or an
object.

There is no support in the present data for the hypothesis that women
use
violence only in self defense. Three common reasons women give for
male
abuse are: to resolve the argument; to respond to family crisis; and
to stop
him bothering me.
Male abuse of a woman, requiring self defense, is one of the less-
frequently
stated reasons by women for their assaults.

Why Do Women Hit Men?
Gelles (1997, p. 133) put it succinctly:
People hit and abuse family members because they can.
And in today's society, as reflected in TV, movies, and feminist
doctrine,
women are openly given permission to hit men. For example, a woman
slapping a man in the face is rarely, if ever, viewed as domestic
violence.

> > Further, as most of North America is, by population, more urban than
> > rural, to say that most, if not all, men are gun owners or wish to
> > own guns remains an utterly unproved knee jerk comment.
>
> there are 230M guns in the US. and many white man gun owners are
> exceptionally hostile to individual rights...except for THEIR 'right'
> to own an obsolete toy.
>
> > http://www.wagc.com/: Women Against Gun Control.
> > It's not surprising then, that more women than ever want to keep
> > their rights to own and carry a gun.
> > The reason is simple: Women are concerned about becoming victims
> > of crime. Guns give women a fighting chance against crime.
>
> with 11,000 gun deaths in the US last year it's apparent guns CAUSE
> death, they don't PREVENT them.
>

While I, myself, agree more with what you just said than not, the
point
remains hat these *women* are NOT " angry white men ". Duh.

Andre

Andre Lieven

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 5:34:25 PM2/19/08
to
On Feb 19, 1:49 pm, Jack Dominey <l...@my.sig> wrote:
> In
> <19cca187-9a4f-45d9-8bb3-0a606b0a2...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,

Oh really ? Whens the last time you heard of a woman stopping her
car to help a guy whose car has a flat ? Uh huh.

> The woman's remark, coming as it did out of the blue, sounds as if she
> was thinking of a particular 'guy' with whom she'd had a bad
> experience recently, perhaps one who'd left her in the position of
> needing furniture she could ill afford.

Oh sure, psychoanalyze ( In this case, thats a synonym for "find an
excuse for the chyk "... ) someone you NEVER met.

I was there, you weren't. Thus, your claim to know her state of
mind utterly fails. When then follows from that false claim also
must fail.

> A kind person who had just been *thanked for their assistance* could
> not possibly take such a comment as a personal insult.

Cowshit: Her saying " Well, its good that they're ( Men ) good for
*something* " was NOT a "thanks ".

What would you say if a guy said about women " Its good that
they're good for *something*. "Uh huh.

> To renege on
> the offer was bad enough, but strutting off on *that* exit line was
> breathtakingly arrogant.

Nope, it was am equal shot right back at her. But, SHES the one
who chose to offer sexist RUDENESS to someone *who was helping
her out*.

> Newsflash, Mr. Lieven: *You* are not responsible for "civilisation".

Newsflash, oh illiterate sexist builder of Straw Whores: I NEVER
said that. Duh !

> You are, however, responsible for
> your own actions, which in this case began well but ended
> reprehensibly.

<Massive Misandristic Projection>

Its noteworthy that this don't-know-Jack doesn't say a word about
HER being RUDE to a guy who was helping her.

Theres a term for such male misandrists: Big Daddy Sir Galahads
rushing to defend a female from any hint that *she might just be
equally responsible for HER actions and words as they insist on
trying to hold men for*.

Thats the real misandrous sexism; Jack's. Oh, and the bint at the
Sally Ann store...

Andre

wf3h

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 7:01:38 PM2/19/08
to
On Feb 19, 5:27 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:30 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Well, if its a form of unthinking bigotry when done by " white men ",
> > > then it remains bigotry when applied TO " white men ".
>
> > since i AM a white man, i hardly think this applies.
>
> Why ? Are you of the particular delusion that people cannot be biased
> against their own demographic ? Have you ever heard of the term that
> is well enough understood such that it has it's own Wiki entry:
> " Self hating jew ".

how about 'self hating conservative'?

>
> Its just as common for members of other ethnic groups to have
> this going on, as well.
>
> > most right wing
> > white guys i talk to would gladly 9 out of the 1st 10 amendments,
> > believing the fairy tale that, as long as they have their guns, they
> > have power. it's a nice little bit of mythology sold to them by the
> > right wing.
>
> Well, there are at least two things flat out wrong in that.
>
> One: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

you obviously have never read the 'american rifleman', the NRA
mouthpiece.
\\\\

> Two, the all too common ploy of dehumanising The Other is at work
> in what you said. I will gladly specify that I, personally, do not
> believe
> that most people ought to have guns. I have no guns, nor have I ever
> had one. But, I will not try to make the case for Gun Control by
> claiming that folks with a different political view must be believers
> in
> " fairy tales. ".

ever talk to an NRA fanatic?

no...i didn't think so. they honestly believe that the beer swilling
pot bellied idiots in the NRA will hold off the US army if it decides
to take over. as charleton heston said 'the 2nd amendment is the
foundation of all our freedoms'.

then he went insane and died.

>
> One of the key differences between science and politics is that, in
> science, there are facts and hard evidence. In politics, many issues
> come down to what personal life values a person learned and/or
> chose to adopt.
>
> > > Also, any man can just as easily as any woman become a victim of
> > > Domestic Abuse. \
>
> > having grown up with an violent alcoholic father, i KNOW this aint
> > true.
>
> Well, too freakin' bad. The FACTS to be seen in works such as Philip
> W. Cook's " Abused Men; The Hidden Side Of Domestic Violence ",
> among many others, show that not only is it true that 50% of DV is
> committed by women

my 100 lb wife used to hit me on occasion. if i even noticed it, i
just turned the other cheek.

when my 200 lb dad used to hit my 100 lb mom he put her in bed for a
week

BIG difference in scale, sport.


>
> So, that women commit as much DV as do men has been a matter of
> proven fact now for 26 *years*.

wrong, sport. tell me who's the murder victim more often

oh. you ignored that.


>
> Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults
> than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men). Women are significantly
> more likely to throw an object, slap, kick, bite, or hit with their
> fist or an
> object.


ROFLMAO!!! well, that just about covers the range of options, doesn't
it?

you didn't actually read that when you posted it, did you?


>
> Why Do Women Hit Men?
> Gelles (1997, p. 133) put it succinctly:
> People hit and abuse family members because they can.
> And in today's society, as reflected in TV, movies, and feminist
> doctrine,
> women are openly given permission to hit men. For example, a woman
> slapping a man in the face is rarely, if ever, viewed as domestic
> violence.

except, of course, he usually has about 100 lbs on her.

you seem to be embarrassed about that...>


> > with 11,000 gun deaths in the US last year it's apparent guns CAUSE
> > death, they don't PREVENT them.
>
> While I, myself, agree more with what you just said than not, the
> point
> remains hat these *women* are NOT " angry white men ". Duh.
>

i noticed you said zip about how many fatalities there are here...nor
how many cops get killed by these innocent white male victims you
think populate the landscape.

Andre Lieven

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 7:33:33 PM2/19/08
to
On Feb 19, 7:01 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:27 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 12:30 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, if its a form of unthinking bigotry when done by " white men ",
> > > > then it remains bigotry when applied TO " white men ".
>
> > > since i AM a white man, i hardly think this applies.
>
> > Why ? Are you of the particular delusion that people cannot be biased
> > against their own demographic ? Have you ever heard of the term that
> > is well enough understood such that it has it's own Wiki entry:
> > " Self hating jew ".
>
> how about 'self hating conservative'?

Ad Hominem Alone. My point stands, thank you for your concession.

Oh, by the way, I'm a Canadian, who, among other things, LIKES
" socialised " Canadian Medicare, and the publically funded CBC.

So, if you are trying to hang a " don't listen to him, hes a danged
conservative ", well, boy, are you OFF base.

But, thanks for showing me that you are as capable as nay creationist
in attacking the messenger *when you CAN'T attack the message*.

> > Its just as common for members of other ethnic groups to have
> > this going on, as well.
>
> > > most right wing
> > > white guys i talk to would gladly 9 out of the 1st 10 amendments,
> > > believing the fairy tale that, as long as they have their guns, they
> > > have power. it's a nice little bit of mythology sold to them by the
> > > right wing.
>
> > Well, there are at least two things flat out wrong in that.
>
> > One: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
>
> you obviously have never read the 'american rifleman', the NRA
> mouthpiece.

Why would I ? I am neither " american " nor a " rifleman ".

> \\\\
>
> > Two, the all too common ploy of dehumanising The Other is at work
> > in what you said. I will gladly specify that I, personally, do not
> > believe
> > that most people ought to have guns. I have no guns, nor have I ever
> > had one. But, I will not try to make the case for Gun Control by
> > claiming that folks with a different political view must be believers
> > in " fairy tales. ".
>
> ever talk to an NRA fanatic?

Are you trying to, dishonestly, suggest that NO gun owners are
other than " NRA fanatics " ?

You may fuck your new Straw Whore on your own time.

> no...i didn't think so. they honestly believe that the beer swilling
> pot bellied idiots in the NRA will hold off the US army if it decides
> to take over. as charleton heston said 'the 2nd amendment is the
> foundation of all our freedoms'.
>
> then he went insane and died.

Non sequitur.

> > One of the key differences between science and politics is that, in
> > science, there are facts and hard evidence. In politics, many issues
> > come down to what personal life values a person learned and/or
> > chose to adopt.
>
> > > > Also, any man can just as easily as any woman become a victim of
> > > > Domestic Abuse. \
>
> > > having grown up with an violent alcoholic father, i KNOW this aint
> > > true.
>
> > Well, too freakin' bad. The FACTS to be seen in works such as Philip
> > W. Cook's " Abused Men; The Hidden Side Of Domestic Violence ",
> > among many others, show that not only is it true that 50% of DV is
> > committed by women
>
> my 100 lb wife used to hit me on occasion. if i even noticed it, i
> just turned the other cheek.
>
> when my 200 lb dad used to hit my 100 lb mom he put her in bed for a
> week
>
> BIG difference in scale, sport.

Ask Phil Hartman. Oh wait, you can't, his wife KILLED him with a
weapon.

Duh.

> > So, that women commit as much DV as do men has been a matter of
> > proven fact now for 26 *years*.
>
> wrong, sport. tell me who's the murder victim more often

Fallacy of Moving The Goalposts. The issue on the table is domestic
violence, NOT murder.

> oh. you ignored that.

As I do with all sorts of dishonest ploys to Move The Goalposts.

> > Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults
> > than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men). Women are significantly
> > more likely to throw an object, slap, kick, bite, or hit with their
> > fist or an object.
>
> ROFLMAO!!! well, that just about covers the range of options, doesn't
> it?

Its a specific point about women using weapons/objects to compensate
for their usually smaller physical bodies.

> you didn't actually read that when you posted it, did you?

<Projection>

> > Why Do Women Hit Men?
> > Gelles (1997, p. 133) put it succinctly:
> > People hit and abuse family members because they can.
> > And in today's society, as reflected in TV, movies, and feminist
> > doctrine,
> > women are openly given permission to hit men. For example, a woman
> > slapping a man in the face is rarely, if ever, viewed as domestic
> > violence.
>
> except, of course, he usually has about 100 lbs on her.

So if a man smacked a woman no harder than a woman can smack a man,
thats fine with you ? Uh huh.

Hypocrite.

> you seem to be embarrassed about that...>

<Projection>

> > > with 11,000 gun deaths in the US last year it's apparent guns CAUSE
> > > death, they don't PREVENT them.
>
> > While I, myself, agree more with what you just said than not, the
> > point remains hat these *women* are NOT " angry white men ". Duh.
>
> i noticed you said zip about how many fatalities there are here...nor
> how many cops get killed by these innocent white male victims you
> think populate the landscape.

Fallacy of Moving The Goalposts.

Thank you for your latest round of concessions.

The facts remain; women commit as much DV as do men. In fact,
lesbian relationships have HIGHER rates of DV than do heterosexual
relationships. Kinda hard to blame the man there... Not that you
wouldn't try...

Andre

John Wilkins

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 8:31:39 PM2/19/08
to
Therion Ware <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:58:36 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >It happened to me when I was 17 - I stood up for a woman on a train and
> >she spent the next five minutes spewing invective at me.
>
> But did she take the seat? Or did you take it back? Or did you both
> stand up glaring at each other while looking at an empty seat?

I stood there conflicted while she stood there spitting on me. I got off
at the next stop and waited for the next train (and was late to work as
a result).


>
> >I always open the door if I am first to it, irrespective of gender or
> >age. Nobody since that day (in 1973) has done it since.
>
> But the really important question is: "how far does the person moving
> towards the door have to be from the door in order for it not to be
> impolite to shut it before they get there?".
>
> I think about 8 paces.

I think in meters, and 3 m is about right.

wf3h

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 8:47:26 PM2/19/08
to
On Feb 19, 7:33 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 7:01 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >
> > how about 'self hating conservative'?
>
> Ad Hominem Alone. My point stands, thank you for your concession.

says the man who brought the argument up then whines when he's whipped
like a bad puppy

>
> Oh, by the way, I'm a Canadian, who, among other things, LIKES
> " socialised " Canadian Medicare, and the publically funded CBC.
>
> So, if you are trying to hang a " don't listen to him, hes a danged
> conservative ", well, boy, are you OFF base.

ah. i see. you just hate women

my mistake.

>
> But, thanks for showing me that you are as capable as nay creationist
> in attacking the messenger *when you CAN'T attack the message*.

ROFLMAO! you've been whining and bitching about how women treat YOU
then complain when others won't buy your self pitying griping!


>
> > > Its just as common for members of other ethnic groups to have
> > > this going on, as well.
>
> > > > most right wing
> > > > white guys i talk to would gladly 9 out of the 1st 10 amendments,
> > > > believing the fairy tale that, as long as they have their guns, they
> > > > have power. it's a nice little bit of mythology sold to them by the
> > > > right wing.
>
> > > Well, there are at least two things flat out wrong in that.
>
> > > One: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
>
> > you obviously have never read the 'american rifleman', the NRA
> > mouthpiece.
>
> Why would I ? I am neither " american " nor a " rifleman ".

oh. you've been telling us how wonderful gun owners are in the US

even though you have ZERO familiarity with them

yeah. i kinda figured that


>
> > \\\\
>
> > > Two, the all too common ploy of dehumanising The Other is at work
> > > in what you said. I will gladly specify that I, personally, do not
> > > believe
> > > that most people ought to have guns. I have no guns, nor have I ever
> > > had one. But, I will not try to make the case for Gun Control by
> > > claiming that folks with a different political view must be believers
> > > in " fairy tales. ".
>
> > ever talk to an NRA fanatic?
>
> Are you trying to, dishonestly, suggest that NO gun owners are
> other than " NRA fanatics " ?

hmmmm....can't even answer a basic question...

>
> You may fuck your new Straw Whore on your own time.

you seem to be upset you lack even THAT feature. no wonder you hate
women.

>
> > no...i didn't think so. they honestly believe that the beer swilling
> > pot bellied idiots in the NRA will hold off the US army if it decides
> > to take over. as charleton heston said 'the 2nd amendment is the
> > foundation of all our freedoms'.
>
> > then he went insane and died.
>
> Non sequitur.

says the guy who believes gun ownership in the US is wonderful even
though he knows zip about it.


>
> > my 100 lb wife used to hit me on occasion. if i even noticed it, i
> > just turned the other cheek.
>
> > when my 200 lb dad used to hit my 100 lb mom he put her in bed for a
> > week
>
> > BIG difference in scale, sport.
>
> Ask Phil Hartman. Oh wait, you can't, his wife KILLED him with a
> weapon.

ROFLMAO!! well, i guess that proves it, then, doesn't it? the dinges
have a higher crime rate than whites do so the dinges are inherently
violent??

that your argument?

>
> Duh.
>
> > > So, that women commit as much DV as do men has been a matter of
> > > proven fact now for 26 *years*.
>
> > wrong, sport. tell me who's the murder victim more often
>
> Fallacy of Moving The Goalposts. The issue on the table is domestic
> violence, NOT murder.


fallacy of not addressing the issue. you seem to think murder is
irrelevant.

some argument!


>
> > > Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults
> > > than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men). Women are significantly
> > > more likely to throw an object, slap, kick, bite, or hit with their
> > > fist or an object.
>
> > ROFLMAO!!! well, that just about covers the range of options, doesn't
> > it?
>
> Its a specific point about women using weapons/objects to compensate
> for their usually smaller physical bodies.

ah. so men don't NEED weapons to beat the shit out of women. but that
makes it OK??


>
> > except, of course, he usually has about 100 lbs on her.
>
> So if a man smacked a woman no harder than a woman can smack a man,
> thats fine with you ? Uh huh.

so if a parent murders a bad kid that's the same as a spanking?

>
> Hypocrite.

misogynist.


>
> > i noticed you said zip about how many fatalities there are here...nor
> > how many cops get killed by these innocent white male victims you
> > think populate the landscape.
>
> Fallacy of Moving The Goalposts.

says the guy who thinks murder is OK because women sometimes hit guys.

>
> Thank you for your latest round of concessions.
>
> The facts remain; women commit as much DV as do men. In fact,
> lesbian relationships have HIGHER rates of DV than do heterosexual
> relationships. Kinda hard to blame the man there... Not that you
> wouldn't try...

yes, persecuted and hated communities often do have higher incidences
of violence. and few groups in teh US are as hated as gays

thanks for bringing that up.

jcon

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 9:08:05 PM2/19/08
to
On Feb 16, 3:01 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 10:50 am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 12:55 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry <kilow...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20080209/ASPENWEEKLY06/198091324
>
> > > "There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White
> > > Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them
> > > will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them
> > > voted for George Bush."
>
> > > I'm really rather tired of hearing about the whiny Real Men; they
> > > embarrass me. If they listened to something other than Rush Limbaugh
> > > they might be able to understand some of the changes going on around
> > > them. Maybe even grow a pair.
>
> > > Kermit
>
> > Is 'Angry White Men' an euphemism for 'White Trash'? I'm asking
> > because I don't know.
>
> No. It's a euphemism for "person who listens to Rush Limbaugh."

Close, but I think it's "man who listens to Rush Limbaugh and whose
dick
is smaller than Ann Coulter's".

There, that's better.

-jc

jcon

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 9:11:51 PM2/19/08
to

The Angry White Man might be less angry if he less Aspen and moved
somewhere more
redneck.

-jc

Andre Lieven

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 9:40:46 PM2/19/08
to
On Feb 19, 8:47 pm, wf3h <w...@mindless.nut> screeched Dworkiness:

> On Feb 19, 7:33 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 7:01 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > how about 'self hating conservative'?
>
> > Ad Hominem Alone. My point stands, thank you for your concession.
>
> says the man who brought the argument up then whines when he's whipped
> like a bad puppy

<Massive Ad Hominem Projection>

> > Oh, by the way, I'm a Canadian, who, among other things, LIKES
> > " socialised " Canadian Medicare, and the publically funded CBC.
>
> > So, if you are trying to hang a " don't listen to him, hes a danged
> > conservative ", well, boy, are you OFF base.
>
> ah. i see. you just hate women

Non Sequitur: " Women " and " Feminist " are NOT synonyms.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/msg/d4a29c9921ea5623

Myth: Domestic violence is committed primarily by men against
women.

False. National studies, such as Steinmetz, such as Straus &
Gelles, and such as McNeely, have repeatedly shown the rates
men->women and women->men to be almost exactly equal. See
http://www.vix.com/pub/men/domestic-index.html

Myth: We have to admit domestic violence _is_ committed by
women, but it's just because they were abused, so it's
still the man's fault.

False again! Researchers such as Coromae Mann have concluded
"I
would not define these women as battered women, I would say
they
are battering women".

Trick: "Feminist" and "woman" are interchangeable terms. The
opposite of "Feminists" is "men". Feminist interests
and
women's interests are interchangeable terms.

False and absurd. Our opinion of all women could never be so
low.

> my mistake.

Well, you make a LOT of them. But, thats your problem...

> > But, thanks for showing me that you are as capable as nay creationist
> > in attacking the messenger *when you CAN'T attack the message*.
>
> ROFLMAO! you've been whining and bitching about how women treat YOU

Oh ? I put forward ONE example of how a female thoughtlessly offered
up her
misandristic view, and of how I shoved it right *back* at her.

Your whining about my point of view is tatramount to excoriating the
US
forces at Pearl Harbor for firing *back*...

> then complain when others won't buy your self pitying griping!

<Projection>

> > > > Its just as common for members of other ethnic groups to have
> > > > this going on, as well.
>
> > > > > most right wing
> > > > > white guys i talk to would gladly 9 out of the 1st 10 amendments,
> > > > > believing the fairy tale that, as long as they have their guns, they
> > > > > have power. it's a nice little bit of mythology sold to them by the
> > > > > right wing.
>
> > > > Well, there are at least two things flat out wrong in that.
>
> > > > One: " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
>
> > > you obviously have never read the 'american rifleman', the NRA
> > > mouthpiece.
>
> > Why would I ? I am neither " american " nor a " rifleman ".
>
> oh. you've been telling us how wonderful gun owners are in the US

No. I merely pointed out that its BIGOTRY to claim that they ALL are
the ignorant stereotype that YOU put forward.

Leftist bigotry is as ugly as rightist bigotry...

> even though you have ZERO familiarity with them

My best man owns guns. So, your claimed telepathy failed you yet
again.

> yeah. i kinda figured that

Mindless bigots often say that.

> > > \\\\
>
> > > > Two, the all too common ploy of dehumanising The Other is at work
> > > > in what you said. I will gladly specify that I, personally, do not
> > > > believe
> > > > that most people ought to have guns. I have no guns, nor have I ever
> > > > had one. But, I will not try to make the case for Gun Control by
> > > > claiming that folks with a different political view must be believers
> > > > in " fairy tales. ".
>
> > > ever talk to an NRA fanatic?
>
> > Are you trying to, dishonestly, suggest that NO gun owners are
> > other than " NRA fanatics " ?
>
> hmmmm....can't even answer a basic question...

As Dr. Phil pointed out, about 80% of all " questions " are really
statements made in such a way as to try to avoid the responsibility
of making them openly and *honestly*.

> > You may fuck your new Straw Whore on your own time.
>
> you seem to be upset you lack even THAT feature.

<Laughs> My wife will be very surprised to hear *that* !

BTW, you just exposed yourself as a BIGOT who attacks others
whose views he doesn't like and CANNOT debate/refute as one
who merely slings sexually based slurs.

So, it we had proof that Behe got laid MORE than Judge Jones of
the Kitzmiller case, then creationism would win that case ?

Your bigotry leads you to frothing looniness.

> no wonder you hate women.

No, I do hate morons and bigots. Congrats, you're 2 for 2.

> > > no...i didn't think so. they honestly believe that the beer swilling
> > > pot bellied idiots in the NRA will hold off the US army if it decides
> > > to take over. as charleton heston said 'the 2nd amendment is the
> > > foundation of all our freedoms'.
>
> > > then he went insane and died.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> says the guy who believes gun ownership in the US is wonderful even
> though he knows zip about it.

Non sequitur. I merely pointed out that at least some gun owners are
not your bigoted caricatures.

> > > my 100 lb wife used to hit me on occasion. if i even noticed it, i
> > > just turned the other cheek.
>
> > > when my 200 lb dad used to hit my 100 lb mom he put her in bed for a
> > > week
>
> > > BIG difference in scale, sport.
>
> > Ask Phil Hartman. Oh wait, you can't, his wife KILLED him with a
> > weapon.
>
> ROFLMAO!! well, i guess that proves it, then, doesn't it? the dinges
> have a higher crime rate than whites do so the dinges are inherently
> violent??

The cites that I have provided showed that women use weapons/objects
far MORE often than men, so as to compensate for smaller body sizes
on their part.

Since thats yet another issue that you were UNABLE to debate/refute,
all you have left is to abuse the messenger.

How "adman" of you...

> that your argument?

No. I made my argument, but it, like much else, flew well above the
point
at the top of your skull.

> > Duh.
>
> > > > So, that women commit as much DV as do men has been a matter of
> > > > proven fact now for 26 *years*.
>
> > > wrong, sport. tell me who's the murder victim more often
>
> > Fallacy of Moving The Goalposts. The issue on the table is domestic
> > violence, NOT murder.
>
> fallacy of not addressing the issue. you seem to think murder is
> irrelevant.

Its NOT relevant to rates of assault, which is a whole other crime,
and a
far more commonly committed one, to boot.

> some argument!

<Misandrist Loony Projection>

> > > > Studies consistently find women use weapons more often in assaults
> > > > than do men (~80% for women; ~25% for men). Women are significantly
> > > > more likely to throw an object, slap, kick, bite, or hit with their
> > > > fist or an object.
>
> > > ROFLMAO!!! well, that just about covers the range of options, doesn't
> > > it?
>
> > Its a specific point about women using weapons/objects to compensate
> > for their usually smaller physical bodies.
>
> ah. so men don't NEED weapons to beat the shit out of women. but that
> makes it OK??

Where did I say that it was " OK " ? Nowhere. Thats merely your latest
frothing Straw Whore.

> > > except, of course, he usually has about 100 lbs on her.
>
> > So if a man smacked a woman no harder than a woman can smack a man,
> > thats fine with you ? Uh huh.
>
> so if a parent murders a bad kid that's the same as a spanking?

Yet another "adman " leap of fictional ILlogic...

> > Hypocrite.
>
> misogynist.

" Misogynist, a man who is WINNING an argument with a Feminist. "
Chris Raum.

> > > i noticed you said zip about how many fatalities there are here...nor
> > > how many cops get killed by these innocent white male victims you
> > > think populate the landscape.
>
> > Fallacy of Moving The Goalposts.
>
> says the guy who thinks murder is OK because women sometimes hit guys.

Lie.

> > Thank you for your latest round of concessions.
>
> > The facts remain; women commit as much DV as do men. In fact,
> > lesbian relationships have HIGHER rates of DV than do heterosexual
> > relationships. Kinda hard to blame the man there... Not that you
> > wouldn't try...
>
> yes, persecuted and hated communities often do have higher incidences
> of violence. and few groups in teh US are as hated as gays

Gads, you ARE very, very stupid. Are you seriously trying to suggest
that
LESBIANS are committing ANTI GAY acts of violence ?

> thanks for bringing that up.

I would also bring up the proven fact that you ARE freaking "adman"
class NUTS. As well as being a misandrous BIGOT.

Please die now.

PLONK.

Andre

wf3h

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 10:09:14 PM2/19/08
to
On Feb 19, 9:40 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 8:47 pm, wf3h <w...@mindless.nut> screeched Dworkiness:
> >
> > ah. i see. you just hate women
>
> Non Sequitur: " Women " and " Feminist " are NOT synonyms.

hmmm...never said they were. but you seem to have little use for
either.

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/msg/d4a29c9921ea5623
>
> Myth:   Domestic violence is committed primarily by men against
>                 women.

myth: women kill and injure men like men do women.

>
> > my mistake.
>
> Well, you make a LOT of them. But, thats your problem...

yeah. one of 'em was thinking you had even a SHRED of respect for
women

you don't.

>
> > > But, thanks for showing me that you are as capable as nay creationist
> > > in attacking the messenger *when you CAN'T attack the message*.
>
> > ROFLMAO! you've been whining and bitching about how women treat YOU
>
> Oh ? I put forward ONE example of how a female thoughtlessly offered
> up her
> misandristic view, and of how I shoved it right *back* at her.

that's kinda the point, isn't it?

when a 300 lb linebacker beats a woman senseless, to you that's the
same as when an aging grandma slaps her husband on the ass.

uh huh.


>
> > > Why would I ? I am neither " american " nor a " rifleman ".
>
> > oh. you've been telling us how wonderful gun owners are in the US
>
> No. I merely pointed out that its BIGOTRY to claim that they ALL are
> the ignorant stereotype that YOU put forward.

?? you admitted you don't know a damn thing about the US gun
scene...then tell ME that i'm a bigot!!

ROFLMAO!!! i live in PA...there are more hunters here than in any
other state in the US...so, yes, i know a few gun owners.

>
> Leftist bigotry is as ugly as rightist bigotry...

there is no leftist bigotry in the US.

the left does not exist here.

>
> > even though you have ZERO familiarity with them
>
> My best man owns guns. So, your claimed telepathy failed you yet
> again.

hey ace...you got no idea what the gun situation here in the US is.

if you DO..please tell me what amendment in the canadian constitution
guarantees the right to 'keep and bear arms' (however ridiculous that
idea is)


>
> > > Are you trying to, dishonestly, suggest that NO gun owners are
> > > other than " NRA fanatics " ?
>
> > hmmmm....can't even answer a basic question...
>
> As Dr. Phil pointed out, about 80% of all " questions " are really
> statements made in such a way as to try to avoid the responsibility
> of making them openly and *honestly*.

funny...dr phil's not in the 2nd amendment....

so what does your comment have to do with a damn thing?

>
> > > You may fuck your new Straw Whore on your own time.
>
> > you seem to be upset you lack even THAT feature.
>
> <Laughs> My wife will be very surprised to hear *that* !

if she's able, being fed through a tube...

>
> BTW, you just exposed yourself as a BIGOT who attacks others
> whose views he doesn't like and CANNOT debate/refute as one
> who merely slings sexually based slurs.

says the guy who thinks he's an expert on the US constitution because
he knows the canadian constitution...

>
> So, it we had proof that Behe got laid MORE than Judge Jones of
> the Kitzmiller case, then creationism would win that case ?
>
> Your bigotry leads you to frothing looniness.

sorry, sport. you know ZIP about the US gun scene

>
> > no wonder you hate women.
>
> No, I do hate morons and bigots. Congrats, you're 2 for 2.

if you truly hated those folks you'd have committed suicide long ago.

>
> > says the guy who believes gun ownership in the US is wonderful even
> > though he knows zip about it.
>
> Non sequitur. I merely pointed out that at least some gun owners are
> not your bigoted caricatures.

says the guy who can't name one of the most powerful political
lobbying groups in the US (hint: its initials are NRA)

>
> > > Ask Phil Hartman. Oh wait, you can't, his wife KILLED him with a
> > > weapon.
>
> > ROFLMAO!! well, i guess that proves it, then, doesn't it? the dinges
> > have a higher crime rate than whites do so the dinges are inherently
> > violent??
>
> The cites that I have provided showed that women use weapons/objects
> far MORE often than men, so as to compensate for smaller body sizes
> on their part.
>
> Since thats yet another issue that you were UNABLE to debate/refute,
> all you have left is to abuse the messenger.

ROFLMAO!! you seem to think that a linebacker assaulting a woman is
the same as granny throwing a pie tin at her husband.

does the name "O J Simpson" ring a bell?

>
> > ah. so men don't NEED weapons to beat the shit out of women. but that
> > makes it OK??
>
> Where did I say that it was " OK " ? Nowhere. Thats merely your latest
> frothing Straw Whore.

because you've being bitch slapped about your hatred of women so you
whine about how WOMEN kill men like men kill women

they don't. sorry.

>
> > > > except, of course, he usually has about 100 lbs on her.
>
> > > So if a man smacked a woman no harder than a woman can smack a man,
> > > thats fine with you ? Uh huh.
>
> > so if a parent murders a bad kid that's the same as a spanking?
>
> Yet another "adman " leap of fictional ILlogic...

ah. so it's only OK to beat WOMEN senseless.

glad to see you're sensitive to kids, at least.

how do you feel about little girls?

>
> > > Hypocrite.
>
> > misogynist.
>
> " Misogynist, a man who is WINNING an argument with a Feminist. "
> Chris Raum.

'criminal'...one who believes it's his duty to assault women.

>
> > > > i noticed you said zip about how many fatalities there are here...nor
> > > > how many cops get killed by these innocent white male victims you
> > > > think populate the landscape.
>
> > > Fallacy of Moving The Goalposts.
>
> > says the guy who thinks murder is OK because women sometimes hit guys.
>
> Lie.
>
> > > Thank you for your latest round of concessions.
>
> > > The facts remain; women commit as much DV as do men. In fact,
> > > lesbian relationships have HIGHER rates of DV than do heterosexual
> > > relationships. Kinda hard to blame the man there... Not that you
> > > wouldn't try...
>
> > yes, persecuted and hated communities often do have higher incidences
> > of violence. and few groups in teh US are as hated as gays
>
> Gads, you ARE very, very stupid. Are you seriously trying to suggest
> that
> LESBIANS are committing ANTI GAY acts of violence ?


DUH!!! read my lips...

gays are often hated here in the US because of the religious
fanaticism here. (you, of course, are an expert because in canada they
have churches, too, i'm sure).
'
what an idiot.

>
> > thanks for bringing that up.
>
> I would also bring up the proven fact that you ARE freaking "adman"
> class NUTS. As well as being a misandrous BIGOT.
>
> Please die now.
>

why? do you think i have a vagina?

Andre Lieven

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 10:57:36 PM2/19/08
to
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324

In election 2008, don't forget Angry White Man

Gary Hubbell
February 9, 2008

There is a great amount of interest in this year's presidential
elections,
as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a
lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two
groundbreaking candidates -- a woman and an African-American --
while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their
party's nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.

Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of
special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender
people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to
evangelical Christians.

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that
will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White
Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy
rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban
sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left
Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

His common traits are that he isn't looking for anything from
anyone -- just the promise to be able to make his own way on a
level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent
businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his
share of taxes and works hard.

The victimhood syndrome buzzwords -- "disenfranchised,"
"marginalized" and "voiceless" -- don't resonate with him. "Press
'one' for English" is a curse-word to him. He's used to picking up
the tab, whether it's the company Christmas party, three sets of
braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a
"living document" open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of
judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he's willing to pick up
a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay
down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the
thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn't bother
him.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim.
Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina -- he got his people
together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too
helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a
National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

His last name and religion don't matter. His background might be
Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he
might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he
considers himself a white American.

He's a man's man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch
football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a
few
bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and
build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and
doesn't ask for a penny. He's the kind of guy who can put an
addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well,
weld
a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He
can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power
plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it
took to flip that light switch.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he's a man, not
a dishrag. If they're looking for someone to walk all over, they've
got
the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and
says "Yes, sir" and "No, ma'am."

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might
be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more
emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational
manner.

He's not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people
of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst
stereotypes of their race. He's willing to give everybody a fair
chance
if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job
site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don't pay taxes and
his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his
job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some
incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers.
When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations
for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he
remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed
weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes
note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton.
Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at
the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him,
and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader.
It's not that she is a woman. It's that she is who she is. It's the
liberal victim groups she panders to, the "poor me" attitude that
she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an
honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people
who refuse to do anything for themselves.

There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry
White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and
all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great
majority of them voted for George Bush.

He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president
in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.

Gary Hubbell is a regular columnist with the Aspen Times Weekly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" ' Men are people, too, with an equal right to their own opinions,
values, and feelings ? Impossible ! ' screeched the annoyed
WomenFirster ( Feminist ) Bigot. "

Andre

wf3h

unread,
Feb 20, 2008, 7:25:08 AM2/20/08
to
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324
>
> In election 2008, don't forget Angry White Man
>

the 'angry white man' cares little except for the rich. he votes
exclusively for those who cut taxes on the rich

he cares little for civil rights. the only amendment he cares about is
the 2nd (not that the idiot Andre knows what the '2nd' is)

he's anti union...prefers companies that send his job overseas and
reaps huge tax benefits

he hasn't had a pay raise since 2000 but breaks into a cold sweat
every time someone mentions increasing taxes on the wealthy

he has no health care for him or his family.

he's one reason he's in the sorry and bitter shape he's in.

he has no one to blame but himself

loua...@yahoo.com

unread,
Feb 20, 2008, 9:45:56 AM2/20/08
to
On Feb 19, 7:47 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:

> ah. i see. you just hate women
>
> my mistake.

Seriously, I don't think it's his pissiness that's the problem. All
kinds of people get pissy for all sorts of reasons. The problem is
that he clings like grim death to the idea that "the battle of the
sexes" is not just a battle but a zero sum game.

(Like poker. It's not just that A's loss is B's gain; the only
conceivable way A can stand up from the table a winner is if he takes
his winnings from the other players.) So to him, if women win
something then it's axiomatic that men must have lost to exactly the
same degree.

In reality (e.g capitalism) very few things are zero sum games. But he
rejects that whole class of solutions out of hand as camouflage for
men lose, women win. Problems can look really hideously difficult when
you reject 90+ percent of the possible solutions.

lecody

unread,
Feb 20, 2008, 10:19:13 AM2/20/08
to
> Andre- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Keep in mind Andre, that women are just reveling in their new found
freedom to bash the men who have been bashing the women for
centuries.. My own favorite misandric comment is to relocate all men
to Austrailia where they can revel in football [either kind] beer and
pornography.

Laura

lecody

unread,
Feb 20, 2008, 10:21:27 AM2/20/08
to
On Feb 19, 7:58 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

And I always say thank you and have been known to hold doors for men.

Laura

Walter Bushell

unread,
Feb 20, 2008, 11:31:24 AM2/20/08
to
In article <1iclrun.1k9673lecduyyN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>,
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:

> Therion Ware <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:58:36 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
> > Wilkins) wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >It happened to me when I was 17 - I stood up for a woman on a train and
> > >she spent the next five minutes spewing invective at me.
> >
> > But did she take the seat? Or did you take it back? Or did you both
> > stand up glaring at each other while looking at an empty seat?
>
> I stood there conflicted while she stood there spitting on me. I got off
> at the next stop and waited for the next train (and was late to work as
> a result).
> >
> > >I always open the door if I am first to it, irrespective of gender or
> > >age. Nobody since that day (in 1973) has done it since.
> >
> > But the really important question is: "how far does the person moving
> > towards the door have to be from the door in order for it not to be
> > impolite to shut it before they get there?".
> >
> > I think about 8 paces.
>
> I think in meters, and 3 m is about right.

10 feet for the Weens.

Andre Lieven

unread,
Feb 20, 2008, 12:54:32 PM2/20/08
to
On Feb 20, 10:19 am, lecody <lecody2...@David.Duke> KKK-ed:
> Keep in mind Andre, that women are just reveling in their new found
> freedom to bash the men who have been bashing the women for
> centuries..

Utter sexist misandristic fictional lunacy. I will point out that, at
the
height of the so called " patriarchy ", men DIED so that women could
LIVE. The well known case of the sinking of the RMS Titanic is an
excellent case in point:

http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm

Category - % Saved - % Lost - Number Saved - Number Lost - Total
Aboard
Child 1st 100.0 0.0 6
0 6
Child 2nd 100.0 0.0 24
0 24
W. 1st Cl. 97.22 2.78 140
4 144
W. Crew 86.96 13.03 20
3 23
W. 2nd Cl. 86.02 13.98 80
13 93
W. 3rd Cl. 46.06 53.94 76
89 165
Child 3rd 34.18 65.82 27
52 79
M. 1st 32.57 67.43 57
118 175
M. Crew 21.69 78.31 192
693 885
M. 3rd Cl 16.23 83.77 75
387 462
M. 2nd Cl. 8.33 91.67 14
154 168

The numbers are clear: So called " male power " meant that men DIED,
while women LIVED.

> My own favorite misandric comment

A sexist bigot who has a " favorite misandristic comment " has AbZero
standing to complain about any else's alleged biases.

> is to relocate all men
> to Austrailia where they can revel in football [either kind] beer and
> pornography.

And, women with your man hating sexist misandrous views are why
The Marriage Strike is growing and growing...

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/sacks/02/thompsonsacks070502.htm

A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss

July 5, 2002 by Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks

"Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids
and
most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a 31-
year-old
power plant technician who says he will never marry. "I've seen it
happen to
many of my friends. I know guys who came home one day to an empty
house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming.
Some of them were never able to see their kids regularly again."

Yes, modern western women are, for the most part, shrill man hating
harridans who cannot understand why the men they slur, hate, and
attack don't want to be with them.

Oh, the humanity !

Andre

Andre Lieven

unread,
Feb 20, 2008, 12:58:31 PM2/20/08
to
On Feb 20, 9:45 am, "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 7:47 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > ah. i see. you just hate women
>
> > my mistake.
>
> Seriously, I don't think it's his pissiness that's the problem. All
> kinds of people get pissy for all sorts of reasons. The problem is
> that he clings like grim death to the idea that "the battle of the
> sexes" is not just a battle but a zero sum game.

The point is that Feminists have put forth their agreement that it
is a zero sum game for over 40 years now. Why should they be
surprised that men took them seriously ?

Its telling that NOW opposed laws that would make equal parenting
access for fathers more available, and that they greatly opposed any
examination of the now well proven fact that 50% of all DV victims
are men.

Don't whine at the folks who found that the game was already rigged,
go complain to the original riggers...

> (Like poker. It's not just that A's loss is B's gain; the only
> conceivable way A can stand up from the table a winner is if he takes
> his winnings from the other players.) So to him, if women win
> something then it's axiomatic that men must have lost to exactly the
> same degree.

Actually, you are, what a surprise, wholly wrong. It IS possible to
create legal situations where both sexes do well, but Feminism has
always opposed any such compromises.

> In reality (e.g capitalism) very few things are zero sum games. But he
> rejects that whole class of solutions out of hand as camouflage for
> men lose, women win. Problems can look really hideously difficult when
> you reject 90+ percent of the possible solutions.

<Laughs> Yeah, always blame the nearest man for what women have
done. You've come no way at all, baybee !

Andre

wf3h

unread,
Feb 20, 2008, 1:03:47 PM2/20/08
to
On Feb 20, 9:45 am, "louan...@yahoo.com" <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote: