PeakOil is You
Finding a wife post-peak
Re: Finding a wife post-peak
by PenultimateManStanding » Thu 08 Jun 2006, 22:20:14
I can hear a little bit, with people up close, and that's where you'll get the real me. Crawfish, anyone? UE? You're my angel. Though I think you may have some anger issues, I could melt them with patience. I have learn patience and acceptance.
-
PenultimateManStanding - Expert
- Posts: 11363
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Neither Here Nor There
Re: Finding a wife post-peak
by ubercynicmeister » Thu 08 Jun 2006, 23:01:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'D')amn, uber, you made some good points,
Thankee, I try, but it seems I offend people at the same time, mostly unintentionally. Sometimes I tease people, but I label that as teasing (see above post). I suppose this posting will also be deemed to be offensive. OH, well.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'b')ut shit, can you remove yourself from this misogyny?
Question: why is pointing out what is accurate classed as "mysogyny"? The point is made time and time again that "women are more peaceful than men"...but it's shown by history that this is simply not true. In essence, you're not objecting to me, you're objecting to what has been shown (once again, time and time again) to be fact: women get others to do their fighting for them. Take those tourneys in the Middle Ages. Think about it: the guy took an awful chance - of having his life taken away, or his money (ransoming), or his physical mobility (ie: he could end up a cripple). If men were the ones instigating and perpetuating this, why the blue blazes would a man be INeligible to fight if he did not wear a "woman's colours" ? That is if he did not have the express permission - and insistance - of a woman to fight? Is this not the example of the ultimate form of co-operation - ready to recieve punishment, especially injuries or death, and by a (gasp) man at the behest of a woman? It was the man who got the worse end of that deal - he had to thump someone else into the dirt - someone he had probably never met before and would have neither liked nor disliked. First, he had to ask a woman's permission to do so, and that meant he couldn't seek another lady's approval (until sheditched him). But for the Lady, she got her pick of Knights clamouring for her attentions, showering gifts on her and then - to top it all off - she got to call the shots when the guy was out there soaking up blows intended to kill or seriously maim. And if the guy got killed, well, there's plenty more where he came from. But the guy still had to ask the woman's permission to marry her...and that's AFTER the tourney's over, if he is still capable of speaking & walking that is. The woman could then refuse the offer of marriage, and the man would be back to square one.
OK, think about this in the opposite way around: what would we have said if it had been the women who had to go out and fight, while the men stayed in the stands (an assuredly safer place)...had to secure enough income to (firstly) buy the armour and fighting lessons and then the equipment, THEN, they had to to go and find some guy (who, may I remark, would have had his pick amongst possible suitors) who would allow them to fight on the man's behalf...knowing full well, that she would have only earnt the right to ask permission to marry and that refusal was more likely than consent...? Surely we'd call THAT "exploitation" of the woman by the man. But why don't we call it "exploitation" of the man by the women when it's the opposite to the way I've just described?
We can adopt, (if you like) the ideas from Evolution. I'm not trying to offend you, you may not be an Evolutionist, and if you are not, accept if you could, my apologies for dragging up an idea that must stink to high heavens for you. In any case, at least some of those reading this may well not be evolutionists, so I will extend that apology to them, too.
Evolution says that one has to choose a way of propagating one's DNA most successfuly (success worship, under a different name). For a woman, whichever partner can subdue and eliminate every possible threat to her DNA (ie: in the form of her children) is likely to be the one she chooses as the means to propagate her DNA. Also, the less work she, the woman, has to put into subdueing the threats means the more effort she can put into propagating her DNA, via multiple partners. This is a fairly brutal way of securing the next generation's supposed well-being (both for men and females), but it would tend to erm...."naturally select" for aggression in males. Men who don't beat the living tripe out of others don't get the woman's approval, therefore they don't have a chance of passing on their traits (of non-aggression, I mean) therefore the Human Race ends up with "Natural Selection" at work and those non-aggressive traits become extinct in men, just like the men who happen to possess them. This is one of the reasons why Aristrocracies tend to become so...aristocratic and why "arictocrat" is another word for neurotic. The charectoristic approved of by members of any given aristocracy tends to be bred for in every generation, thus exaggerating continually that charetoristic, which then becomes a neurosis. This leaves the aristocrcy unprepared for the real events of the real world and ends up with such howlers as Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" (upon being told that the starving populace of France had no bread....it seems it may not have been ole Marie who said it, but she's the one credited with it).
Bye The Way: in case you think women had no option but to accept a man's offer of marriage in the Middle Ages, no less a tyrant than King Henry the 8th had to wait for ALL of his wives to say "yes" before he could consumate the relationship. His regular letters bemoaning how difficult this was (to get 'em to say yes) are on the record, too. If the man was in charge, the the woman could not have said no, and ole Corruption Incarnate Henry would never have needed to bemoan this if it did not exist.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t was tough on me too when I was an adolescent,
LOL, I ain't an adolescent, I can assure you.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')and we all know the balance of power from those early days, but they get ugly a lot sooner than us.
The Beauty Power is but one that is granted to girls, these days.
One of the best examples of this was a friend of mine a Senior Head Teacher at the local college of TAFE: he has to keep up the Non-Smoking policy at the college (a policy that - to me, a non-smoker - is getting on the absurd side of things). He noticed two somewhat-older (ie: in their early 30's he estimates) girls smoking in the corridors and asked the politely to stop, and explained the policy of TAFE as politely as he could (and he's from the old school, too - Politeness is the hall-mark of this fellow, one of Nature's Gentlemen).
For his trouble, he got sworn at by the two girls, who spat out that they weren't going to stop smoking , and that if he didn't back off and apologise, they'd go to the Authorities and complain that he'd tried to sexually assualt / harrass them. They said this in such loud voices that the ENTIRE TAFE college section heard them, too, so there are many confirming witnesses.
This poor fellow was left white & shaking by the whole incident. As he said: "I have to uphold my employer's wishes...but what can you do when you're not even allowed to politely request something lawful of students?"
Note: can you imagine a GUY trying that one on with a women teacher...? He'd be laughed out of COURT!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')eh heh. Sorry UE but it has to be said. (you're probably one of the exceptions, a lady beautiful into her middle ages, when the men are balding losers.)
This is something else I've noticed: how "misandristic" (man-hating) everyone is these days, especially men. We apologise to a girl for saying that she might be ugly (I think the whole beauty thing is over-rated and those girls who are said to be beautiful - supermodels - I find to be VERY ugly). But we then denigrate men (like Patrick Stewart) who are bald as being losers. Gee, I'd like to be THAT rich! Loser?...heck if that's what you mean by the word "loser" then winners are most DEFINITELY not grinners!
Going back to what was said above: if men are encouraged (in tourneys) to beat the living tripe out of other men, at a woman's encouragement so she can select the best possible means of securing her DNA's propogation, then when there is a new means of doing exactly the same thing that men did (called Oil), but without men (energy from Oil replaces manpower, literally) then men have to be gotten rid of, any old how. The Old Ways have to go - and those who represent them, too, have to go - before the New Age can dawn. The easiest way of doing that is to make someone ashamed of what they are, and what they have.
ZERSETSUNG ("Tearing apart" is a loose translation) was the Nazi's version of it and it is a very successful way of getting your victims to co-operate in their own destruction.
Think about how the Nazi's made the Jews feel really ashamed of their Jewishness - that the Jews were less evolutionarily advanced; that the Jews were this, the Jews were that; - in modern parlance, they would have been called "wusses", "Losers", and every other insult word one can think of.
It worked, too. Most Jews vaguely knew that the cattle trucks they were being herded on to were taking them to execution in the gas chambers. ZERSETSUNG made them quiescent, made the co-operative, made them help their own destroyers. They were so ashamed of being Jewish, they just sorta accepted what was going to happen to them. Indeed, so successful was ZERSETSUNG, the Jews themselves would sometimes turn on anyone who tried to point out what was actually happening to Jews in Concentration Camps. This seems to have been the way the Blacks in the American South were treated (and it seems, still are treated in some places).
Political Correctness is merely the modern term for ZERSETSUNG, sure it's been dolled up and modernised and it wears the High Powered Business Suit and speaks in eloquent language, adopts the marketing techniques of the modern PR industry, uses the analysies of the Psychiatric Industry (especially to deal with anyone who happens to point out what it is is actually happening), but ZERSETSUNG it still is.
I re-state: how "misandristic" (man-hating) everyone is these days, especially men. We apologise to a girl for saying that she might be ugly (I think the whole beauty thing is over-rated and those girls who are said to be beautiful - supermodels - I find to be VERY ugly). But we then denigrate men (like Patrick Stewart) who are bald as being losers. Gee, I'd like to be THAT rich! Loser?...heck if that's what you mean by the word "loser" then winners are most DEFINITELY not grinners!
Who wants to be the first LEMMING to throw oneself off the cliff-top, anyway?
.
"To Get Rich you have to:
*Get up early;
*Work Hard;
*Strike Oil"
J Paul Getty
"To Get Rich you have to:
*Get up early;
*Work Hard;
*Strike Oil"
J Paul Getty
-
ubercynicmeister - Tar Sands
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia
![[smilie=XXjester.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/XXjester.gif "XXjester")
![[smilie=wrestleranimal.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/wrestleranimal.gif "wrestleranimal")
) You know, I don't mind the big ego part, but 
I'm up for the Job of Spoiled brat Spanker!!!