Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Gender Issues- A Slightly Different Perspective

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Postby PenultimateManStanding » Thu 17 Mar 2005, 00:30:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
')" I don't know if we can be friends. You just refuse to look back on your life through the lens of male domination and oppression and it's getting in the way."
Brings to mind the old adage about becoming that which you hate. If we are going to ever get over wrongs that were done to us, men or women, it has to be by growing into something better, calmly and wisely. Obsessing about it and resenting the hell out of it will leave us cripled. The oppressed becomes the oppressor. Your ex-friend is a good example. It sounds like she was trying to use oppressive, coercive tactics to try and dominate you. Obviously a waste of time on her part.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Postby lotrfan55345 » Thu 17 Mar 2005, 17:41:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'L')otrfan everybody has role models of some sort. If you had grown in another environment you would be different than you are. You know about the old Nature vs. Nuture debate. Its a debate because both sides have some truth. The biggest influences are the adults who looked after you when you were an infant, toddler, then little kid. If you are like most of us, you'll be taking a closer look at who you are in the coming years and know that at lot of stuff is there in you because 'they' put it there.


Oh, yeah, I totally agree, but I ment a single role model, like Arnold or something. :-x
lotrfan55345
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Minneapolis / Pittsburgh

Postby RIPSmithianEconomics » Thu 17 Mar 2005, 18:31:27

One of the most under-reported and non-addressed issues is domestic violence on males. It's a taboo subject- a scientific paper published by a woman in 1978 received death threats both to the woman and her children. I'd be amazed if there are more than 50 shelters WORLD-WIDE for male victims of domestic violence.
There'll be war, there'll be peace
But one day all things shall cease
All the iron turned to rust
All the proud men turned to dust
So all things time will mend
So this song will end
RIPSmithianEconomics
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun 11 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Scotland

Postby ubercynicmeister » Thu 17 Mar 2005, 19:35:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RIPSmithianEconomics', 'O')ne of the most under-reported and non-addressed issues is domestic violence on males. It's a taboo subject- a scientific paper published by a woman in 1978 received death threats both to the woman and her children.


EXACTLY.

Warren Farrell's book has an awful lot on males-as-victims of domestic violence.

Some quotes:

"Most people still assume domestic violence is more likely to be perpertated by men, despite overwhelming evidence that it [domestic violence] is perpetrated...more by women.

The misconceptions are so fundamental that mandatory arrest laws [for domestic violence] were created with the assumption they would lead to the arrest of almost all men.

But the Police saw the evidence and [then] didn't have the option of ignoring the [actions] of women, the mandatory arrest laws [for domestic violence] resulted in the marked increase in the number and percentage of women arrested [for domestic violence] .
" (Page 4, 'The Myth Of Male Power' Warren Farrell)

He (Warren Farrell) goes on to say:

"There a few messages of the women's [right's ] movement that demonstrate a deeper misunderstanding of what masculinity is about than the belief that domestic violence eminates from males learning that they have a right to beat up females. Boys who beat up girls [at school] are called sissies, and are beaten up by other boys.

Treatment programs based on [the women's right's point of view] unwittingly encourage domestic violence.
" (Page 4, 'The Myth Of male power').

Let me recommend the book to ALL of the guys here, especially the younger ones, who have been force-fed the diet of Political Correctness (which Warrren Farrel gives a good kicking to) .

Warren Farrel's web-page

(Edited to correct spelling)
Last edited by ubercynicmeister on Thu 17 Mar 2005, 21:53:16, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ubercynicmeister
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia

Postby ubercynicmeister » Thu 17 Mar 2005, 21:43:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'U')bercynicmeister, Good quotes, though the dude who's now voting republican---I don't know. Voting against one form of weirdness in support of another?


Hi threadbear.

Yeah, think about it in the following way - what the Neocons (now THERE is an accurate description - cons!) are doing to Iraq, the Politically Crrect wants to do to one's own country.

What do I mean?

Take the following examples from Australia, the greatest Politically Correct country on the planet:

Yesterday, a man who has been getting bilked by his crummy ex-missus for child support for two children who weren't his own (DNA evidence proved it) was NOT allowed to stop paying the Child Support payments, as a court ruled the woman 'didn't know' at the time of the divorce settlement that she'd had sex with someone other than her then hubby to have the two children.

From Warren Farrell's book:

"...in Australia....domestic violence is now defined to include a a man raising his voice to his wife - 'the domestic decibel rule'. However, the opposite, a woman raising her voice to her husband, is considered an understandable defence to male dominace.

[These laws] apply to marriage [and] also to couples living together.

These double standards have made men in Australia very fearful of getting married.
" Page 254, The Myth Of Male Power

(A statement I can heartily concurr with, as an Australian man)

"ITEM: A husband and wife in Australia are making love (or so he thought) and she asked him to stop. The following morning she called the Police and reported him as a rapist, claiming it took him 30 seconds to stop. He claims he stopped right away. He recieved four (4) years in Prison." page 303, "The Myth Of Male Power"


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'R')adical feminists's political view, that the patriarchy was oppressive, had merit


I disagree entirely and Warren Farrell's book takes that point of view apart. Merit?

The oft-derided Patriarchy had division of labour - women did one thing (generally the safe-but-boring stuff) while the men went down the dangerous coal-mines and literally died by the millions in war in a male-only draft (one of the reasons that women are now starting to feel a little less than happy about feminism is the prospect of a female draft, hee hee, what HYPOCRITES they are for wanting to 'duck out of it' too.) .

But hang on, let's examine the traditional MATRIARCHIES that exist in Indonesia, just to Australia's north - there is a MASSIVE division of labour - the women are in charge, absolutely - a male cannot own ANYTHING without his wife's express permission and she can withdraw that permission at any time - but it's the women who stay home and do the cooking and cleaning and looking after the children.

A woman in these societies can order a male to do anything - for example she can order her hubby to give up all of his property if she tells him to do so. And he must comply. Immediately.

The older females choose which girl the guy will get married to, guys have NO CHOICE about whom their partners will be. The girls can reject the guy in that case, but the guys cannot say no to the older female's choosing who will be their partner.

So why is it we see the men going out and building the houses the women order them to make? And building and repair of the boats and the other "heavy outdoor jobs"?

Why is it we see the women staying in the houses the men construct (and get badly injured in constructing, may I add) - cooking and cleaning and looking after the children?

It's a MATRIARCHY fer cryin' out loud!

A matriarchy!

If the "division of labour" (which is what the idiot Politically Correct object to) is so terrible, and "women would never have invented it", then why do we see it even MORE formalised in a matriarchy?

OK, let's look at the most peacable socity I know about - the Tarahumara indians on North Eastern Mexico - they are a traditional PATRIARCHY.

Ther's never been a murder, there's never been a rape...or has there?

Y'see the guys are so shy around their own wives they will not even KISS them. (that last part sounds like a feminist paradise).

Indeed, in order to have children, the Tarahumara Indian women have to get the ir own partners drunk in order for the guys to have sex.

BUT hang on, isn't getting your partner drunk in order to have sex with them...isn't that RAPE?

So, under that definition, every Tarahumara Indian Woman is a rapist.

The Tarahumara Indians are VERY Patriarchal - and incredibly peacable. Give me a peaceful patriarchy ANY time over any other form of government - it seems to be the fairest we humans have come up with...

No rapes?

I think that's fair.

No murders?

I think THATS' fair.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'I')n the last 40 years, using guilt as leverage, an equally oppressive matriarchy has almost replaced it. This is what feminists have to look at. I'm extremely suspicious of feminist deconstructionists who are able to deconstruct every ideology and mind-set but their own. I've lost women friends over this. My favorite quote from someone who had been a pretty good friend:

" I don't know if we can be friends. You just refuse to look back on your life through the lens of male domination and oppression and it's getting in the way." :lol:

My brother says it best--"Men are the new women"


No, Warren Farrell says it best:

Man as 'nigger'?

Blacks were forced, via slavery, to risk their lives in cotton feilds...blacks died premarurely. Men were forced, via the draft, to risk their lives on the battlefield, so that everyone might benefit...men died prematurely.

Both slaves and men died prematurely to make the world safe for freedom - someone ELSE's.

Slaves had their own children involuntarily taken away from them; men have their own children involuntarily taken away from them. We tell women they have a right to children and we tell men they have to fight for children.

[Slaves] were forced...into society's most dangerous jobs; men are forced , via socialistation, into society's most hazardous jobs.

Both slaves and men constituted almost 100% of the 'death professions'. Men still do.
[we freed the slaves, but not the men - ubercynic]

When slaves gave up their seats on buses for whites, we call it subservience. When men give up their seats on buses for women, we call it politeness.

[W]e called it a symbol of subservience when a slave stood up as their master entered the room.; but [we] call it a symbol of politeness when men stand up as a woman enters the room.

These symbols of deference and subservience are common to with slaves to masters and with men to women.

Blacks are more likely than whites to be homeless; men are more likely than women to be homeless. Blacks are more likely than whites to be in proison; men are 20 times (2000%) more likely than women to be in prison. Blacks die earlier than whites; men die earlier than women.

Apartheid forced blacks to mine diamonds
[in EXTREMELY dangerous conditions - ubercynic] for whites; socialistaion expects men to work in different mines [coal mines, uranium mines - and the 'salt mine' that is a common name for one's place of employ - ubercynic] to pay for diamonds for women.

Nowhere in history has there been a ruling class working to afford diamonds they could give to the oppressed in hopes the oppressed would love them more.

Women are the only 'oppressed' group to systematically grow up having their own member of an 'oppressor' class (called fathers) 'in the field', working for them.

Traditionally, the ruling class had people 'in the field' working for them - called slaves.
"
From the Myth Of Male Power, pages 27 and 28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'C')ynic, Keep holding your head high, and try not to hold individuals accountable for the new systemic social insanity,


But we have to - where the blue blazes d'you think "feminism" would have been without, say, Germaine Greer?

Or that most unacknowledged of feminist thinkers, who united the two modern strands of truly Machiavellian thinking - Political Correctness and Economic Rationalism - Ayn Rand, in her work 'The Virtue Of Selfishness"?

Neither 'philosophy' would have taken a foothold without her, though she remains largely unknown.

We have to hold accountable those who did the wrong thing - like the rottenly corrupt executives of Worldcom, whom I understand have been sent to jail, if so deservedly.

If we throw out accountability - if we leave it to someone ELSE, then we are as bad as those executives are.

In that sense, apathy ("leave it to someone else, don't get involved; Peak Oil isn't happening, the free-market will take care of everything") is worse than hostility.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', ' ')It's going to change and hopefully for the better.


We'll agree to disagree on this point.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'C')orporations just love isms that drive wedges between individuals.. More single owner homes and apartments, equals more stuff to sell. So much of this crap is corporate driven.

I couldn't put it better, Threadbear, yes, you are SO right, and the theoriser (I hesitate to call her an intellectual or thinker) who combines the two strands into one is Ayn Rand, who wrote the most evil book of modern times "The Virtue Of Selfishness", which predated both Economic Rationalism and Radical Feminism (both of which owe a great debt to Ayn Rand but refuse to acknowledge it).

Isn't it ironic that the idiot Politically Correct morons have played into the hands of those who would exploit them so completely, while objecting strenuously to "exploitation"?
User avatar
ubercynicmeister
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia
Top

Postby PenultimateManStanding » Thu 17 Mar 2005, 22:21:00

I have trouble with your analysis of Ayn Rand - politically correct? Where the heck does that come from? She was primarily a philosophical novelist writing in defense of Capitalism and against socialism. The left is where politically correct thinking comes from and Ayn Rand is the arch enemy number one as far as the left is concerned. Now I like what your author Farrell has to say. If our experiment in gender equality is to work then we have got a long way to go and Farrell is helping. But this stuff about Ayn Rand is so far removed from what I know about her. Can you be more specific about this?
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Postby ubercynicmeister » Thu 17 Mar 2005, 22:44:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'I') have trouble with your analysis of Ayn Rand - politically correct? Where the heck does that come from? She was primarily a philosophical novelist writing in defense of Capitalism and against socialism. The left is where politically correct thinking comes from and Ayn Rand is the arch enemy number one as far as the left is concerned. Now I like what your author Farrell has to say. If our experiment in gender equality is to work then we have got a long way to go and Farrell is helping. But this stuff about Ayn Rand is so far removed from what I know about her. Can you be more specific about this?


URF, yes I can but not without boring everyone to death. And not in the few minutes I have left online

Firstly, Ayn Rand really likes Capitalism, so much so she really IS a fore-runner of Economic Rationalism. It wasn't called that way-back-when.

But think about her book "The Virtue Of Selfishness", (the title alone should give you a clue as to what she thought of 'altruism")...she argued in it that if we all look after our own interests (read: stand up for our rights) then we are all looked after.

Sure she doesn't use the language of the left-leaning Politically Correct - but that's what Political Correctness essentially means - at least in practice.

'The Virtue Of Selfishness' is the book that combines the two elements of modern society.

Urk, sorry, I'm about to be cut off by my ISP, so I gotta go.
User avatar
ubercynicmeister
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia
Top

Postby PenultimateManStanding » Thu 17 Mar 2005, 23:01:02

Too bad you have to go for now. Maybe you can get back to this tomorrow. I don't remember if I ever read the selfishness tract but I read Atlas Shrugged long ago. That was her major work and it has her philosophy all summarized in a big speech given by the hero of the book, John Galt. She was writing in defense of individualism against collectivism which she saw as a nihilistic destructive philosophy epitomized by the country of her youth, Russia. The attitude of the collectivists towards individualism was well summed up by one of the old time Bolsheviks: 'individualism is about picking your nose and looking at sunsets.' To Rand, human progress is the result of individuals following their own creative impulses without any grand altruistic motivations.
Last edited by PenultimateManStanding on Thu 17 Mar 2005, 23:01:59, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Postby threadbear » Thu 17 Mar 2005, 23:01:31

Ubercynic, I'm certainly not saying women had no power in the past, but can state with authority that men could get away with beating the crap out of their wives and NOONE intervened-- not the courts, and often not the woman's family. It was a legal, social and familial disgrace. The end result of this is what you're living through now. The pendulum swinging too far in the other direction, spearheaded by many women who aren't seeking justice and equality, but revenge.

To dismiss the real fact that women had very few basic rights, in the past, is just silly. I'm really intolerant of radical feminist idealogues, but am equally suspicious of red-neck authors who exaggerate so much to make a point, they distort reality. I'd take whatever this author says and divide by two. Seems like he has an axe to grind. Don't get taken in. Appreciate what's observably true and toss the rest.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Postby PenultimateManStanding » Thu 17 Mar 2005, 23:04:52

Threadbear, how can we get that stupid pendulum to just stop swinging?
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Postby ubercynicmeister » Fri 18 Mar 2005, 18:12:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'T')oo bad you have to go for now. Maybe you can get back to this tomorrow.


URK, sorry, I can only stay long enough to offer my apologies - I am going to a Save Our Rail meeting in my "home town" of Newcastle, New South Wales Australia - and we're trying to stop the morons in charge from ripping out our local railway line which runs deep into the heart of Australia's sixth largest city.

Given that rail travel is at least 6 times more efficient than road transport, they (the goverprize of the New South Wales govt. which is firmly in the pocket of the developers...or is it a corperment?)wanna rip out our means of electrified rail travel...and replace it with Oil-Consuming buses.

In already congested streets, it'll be chaos.

I'm beginning to seriously wonder - is Chaos the result they actually DO want to acheive?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', ' ') I don't remember if I ever read the selfishness tract but I read Atlas Shrugged long ago. That was her major work and it has her philosophy all summarized in a big speech given by the hero of the book, John Galt. She was writing in defense of individualism against collectivism which she saw as a nihilistic destructive philosophy epitomized by the country of her youth, Russia.


Yes, I've never read Atlas Shrugged but like "1984" and "Brave New World" I'm told it's worth the read.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'T')he attitude of the collectivists towards individualism was well summed up by one of the old time Bolsheviks: 'individualism is about picking your nose and looking at sunsets.' To Rand, human progress is the result of individuals following their own creative impulses without any grand altruistic motivations.


Given that idealism almost always turns to dictatorship, I can well understand her disillusionment.
User avatar
ubercynicmeister
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia
Top

Postby threadbear » Sat 19 Mar 2005, 01:34:10

Ubercynic, Penultimate, One of the best books I've read in the last few years, is about a young staffer from England, Toby Young, who went to work for Vanity Fair magazine, for a year or two, in New York city. The book is called, "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People".

He describes SO well exactly what Ubercynic is describing; the utter tyranny of unbridled revenge and lust for power, expressed through a strange form of political correctness , accepted and encouraged in NYC.

What socially sclerotic, status seeking empty suits these people at the top of the publishing and p.r world are.

Uber, Hope your fight for the rail line is successful. It really does seem like some people are actively trying to destroy the world, sometimes, agreed. Very depressing. Keep up the good fight.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Postby PenultimateManStanding » Sat 19 Mar 2005, 01:40:03

Yeah. Makes the Salem Witch trials seem like just another day at the office. Then how about the scandals in Washington State about reckless prosecutors destroying peoples lives over bogus satanic child molester cult charges.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Postby ubercynicmeister » Sat 19 Mar 2005, 22:07:33

Hi Threadbear

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'U')bercynic, I'm certainly not saying women had no power in the past, but can state with authority that men could get away with beating the crap out of their wives and NOONE intervened-- not the courts, and often not the woman's family. It was a legal, social and familial disgrace.


Threadbear - there was just as much violence BY women TO men in the past - all through the ages.

Women can still get away with beating the living tripe out of men..and children...and elderly people...

The difference is that Men are now targetted , and , well if violence is bad, how come women get away with it?

Y'don't think women were as brutal as men? Queen Elizabeth the First of England slaughtered THOUSANDS in Ireland and Scotland in her reign. My parents came from Scotland (where women could be Clan Chiefs - and were - just as often as the men) and they told me how much the Scots STILL hate Lizzy The First Of England.

(Historical Aside - the present British Monarch is Elizabeth the SECOND, just in case anyone didn't know)

Ethnic Cleansing was alive & well and practiced by ole Blood-and-Guts Elizabeth, as my parents called her.

And the female clan-chiefs in Scotland (I am told by my parents) were far more brutal than the male version - if a female clan chief attacked a neighbouring clan, she would kill off not only the men but the women and children, and domestic animals too. Male Clan Cheifs tended to leave the women and children and domestic animals alive.

While on the topic, think of Lucretia Borge, the arch-poisoner of Renaissance Italy. And that Countess, Elizabeth Esterhazy (???Unsure of spelling) - she used to drink children's blood with every meal.

Caesar August's mother kept so many poisons that when she died, her son threw the poisons box into the Tiber river. It killed all the marine -life down-stream of that point for SEVERAL YEARS. She didn't just collect poisons - she USED them on people, mainly men - and the more painful the death the better, from her point of view.

As TA Shippey pointed out in his book on Tolkien: You'll show what you are, when you can do what you want (it was on a part about the Ring of Sauron, I'm, sorry I cannot remember the page number, but it from the book 'The Road To Middle Earth').

This saying from the Middle Ages applies here too - women, as well as men, are both victim AND perpetrators - of every kind of vicious evil that can be managed by humans, in our inhumanity to other humans.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'T')he end result of this is what you're living through now. The pendulum swinging too far in the other direction, spearheaded by many women who aren't seeking justice and equality, but revenge.


Revenge? Given the women are just as bad as the men, who should be taking 'revenge' on whom?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'T')o dismiss the real fact that women had very few basic rights, in the past, is just silly.


No, they had different 'rights' - as part of their different roles in Society. Think about the Middle Ages. It was a MAN who had to 'earn his colours', by fighting FOR a lady's approval.

Ole Currupt-as-they-can-get Henry the VIII had lots of wives - BUT he could not marry any of them without their permission. Indeed, he often complained, it is said, of the 'women's right to change her mind'.

In other words, the average woman had more power than a despotic dictator. Sure, ole corrupt-as-they-get Henry VIII could have ordered anyone put to death on a whim - and did - but he could NOT order a woman to marry him.

CS Lewis points out in his book "The Allegory Of love" that the entire middle-ages court system revolved around the Lady Of The House - her hubby was more often than not off fighting to protect his lands from invaders (such as the 'Normens' (men-from-the-North) that King Alfred had to fight off) - and so she was de facto in charge.

To advance yourself under such circumstances you needed to win the Lady's approval. Men especially.

Who had the 'power' then? The absent Lord...or the very-much-present Lady?

Go back earlier...Cleopatra was the best-known of the Egyptian female Pharoahs, and literally bedded whomever she chose, including Julius Caesar. To whom she bore a son. She then seduced Octavian, after Julius' assasination and upon realising she'd picked the wrong guy to back, promptly committed suicide.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', ' ')I'm really intolerant of radical feminist idealogues, but am equally suspicious of red-neck authors who exaggerate so much to make a point, they distort reality.


RED-NECK?

LOL,,this is a quote from the book 'The Myth Of Male Power"...you tell ME if it's red-neck or not:

"Giving permission to homosexuality [in traditional times] involved the same problem as giving permission to masturbation: it was permission for sexual pleasure without a price. Think about it. A homosexual experience might mean two hours of sexual pleasure. The consequences? Two hours of sexual pleasure [ Note: a germ theory of disease might have been an assistance here - ubercynic] A heterosexual experience might mean two hours of sexual pleasure. But the consequences? Eighteen years of responsibility.

In breif, heterosexuality was a bad deal! [author's emphasis, not mine - Ubercynic].

Homophobia reflected an unconcious societal fear that homosexuality was a better deal than heterosexuality for the individual. Homophibia was like OPEC calling
[other] nations wimps if they bought Oil from a more reasonably priced source. It was society's way of giving men no option but to pay full price for sex.

Homosexual relationships promised more then sex for free; they promised relationships for free, companionship for free, love for free. All free of the cost of feeding
[and raising - ubercynic] offspring."

Warren Farrell goes on to say:

"All of those fears [were] functional for survivial in [traditional times] ,but they are dysfunctional for love in [modern times]. And homophobia is also dysfunctional ... - it teaches the objectification [BEELEZBUB, what a useful word! Ubercynic] of a human, a prerequisite for killing humans which...threatens survivial.

One trademark
[of the type of Society Warren Farrell is recommending - Ubercynic] , then is the degree to which it frees itself from [traditional Society's ] fear of homosexuality, from the discrimination [BEELEZBUB, another useful word! Ubercynic] against homosexuals that is it's consequence and from the fear of loving our neighbour as ourselves.

OK, I'll let everyone ELSE decide - are the above quotes the usual language of someone called a red-neck?

I, personally, think not.

Ity's a direct quote from Warren Farrell's book, the Myth of Male Power, on pages 73 and 74. He has an awful lot more to say on homosexuality, and how Warren Farrell's Society would treat them (very well, from all accounts).

This neither adds nor subtracts (in my opinion) on, to or from what he has to say about "women's rights".

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', ' ')I'd take whatever this author says and divide by two. Seems like he has an axe to grind. Don't get taken in. Appreciate what's observably true and toss the rest.

You tell me, threadbear...he DOES have an axe to grind, all right...but I really don't think it's a red-neck one. Honestly!

And can anyone tell me - where the HELL did the term "red-neck" actually come from?

From what I've seen, the neck-colour of those who hold "red-neck opinions" is not in the LEAST red-ish, by any standards of the word "red"...it's usually the same colour as the REST of them.
User avatar
ubercynicmeister
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia
Top

Postby PenultimateManStanding » Sat 19 Mar 2005, 23:40:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', '
')
Go back earlier...Cleopatra was the best-known of the Egyptian female Pharoahs, and literally bedded whomever she chose, including Julius Caesar. To whom she bore a son. She then seduced Octavian, after Julius' assasination and upon realising she'd picked the wrong guy to back, promptly committed suicide.

And can anyone tell me - where the HELL did the term "red-neck" actually come from?
great, thought provoking post Just goes to show, if there's anything more confusing and complex than male/female issues I'd like to know what it is. Couple of notes: Cleopatra backed Mark Antony, not Octavian, but I get your point. Rednecks: poor white American Southern sharecroppers who most needed to look down on blacks. hence the racist views.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Postby PenultimateManStanding » Sun 20 Mar 2005, 13:05:20

Speaking of male/female issues and Antony and Cleopatra, how about this line from Shakespeare's play of that title:

Cleopatra (talking to Antony):

I would I had thy inches; thou shouldst know
There were a heart in Eygyt.

She's talking about male inches.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Postby threadbear » Sun 20 Mar 2005, 15:25:15

Uber, Much of what you've written is true. Perhaps the real issue isn't one of gender but has more to do with dominant versus passive personalities .

You quote CS Lewis. He's my favorite author. My mother is Scottish background from Caithness, a Gunn. I guess her family was driven into the highlands by the English, many years ago.

Lewis seems to be describing the period of time in Europe when chivalry was actually created. Trust me, Uber, there was a reason for this. The average woman had the ultimate indignity to put up with, child birth, one after the other, after the other. Men had it bad. But women were livestock. The upper classes passed the idea of courtly love down to the peasant classes and this likely helped a bit. In those days, rape was probably the norm in marriage. I have no doubt. Perhaps courtly love just gave women the right to say no once in a while.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Postby ubercynicmeister » Sun 20 Mar 2005, 22:11:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'U')ber, Much of what you've written is true.


Hi Threadbear. LOL, and that implies (in the most good-natured of ways) that some of it isn't. So no offence taken on my part, LOL, if you'll pardon me for being so pompous. I mean no offence to yourself in what I say - but recently, I discovered both Peak Oil and Warren Farrell's book The Myth Of Male Power, a book that should (in my opinion) be compulsorally read by every man. I'm not trying to stir you, or tease you, or annoy you, though I suspect that I may be doing both.

I apologise if you have taken offense. my reasonings are valid, though:

I had always been awfully disquieted by what the Politically Correct were saying, but Dr Warren Farrell's book put my disquiet into coherent form.

I have also been awfully disquieted by the excessive who-gives-a-damn Consumerist Society we have to endure. Thanks to places like this board, my disquite on THAT issue has also been put into coherent form.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'P')erhaps the real issue isn't one of gender but has more to do with dominant versus passive personalities .


Yes, Rule By The Most Selfish...a la Ayn Rand's idea "The Virtue Of Selfishness" - the link is obvious if one realises that selfishness is not limited to neo-cons. Selfishness is even more practiced by the Politically Correct - admittedly without Ayn Rand's in-your-face blatantness, but still, if it stinks like a sewage treatment works, and the same stuff flows IN as would to a sewage treatment works, and the same stuff comes OUT as for a sewage treatment works, it probably IS a sewage treatment works.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'Y')ou quote CS Lewis. He's my favorite author.


Yes, he is mine, too, though Tolkien puts things even more forcefully than Lewis. Have you ever read The Abolition Of Man, by CS Lewis? The way he predicts not Peak Oil per se but the mentality behind it (ie: consumptrion unobstructed by ethics) is uncanny. Tolkien's excellent lecture "On Fairy Stories" also contains much that seems to predict "Peak Oil-like" things to end Society.

I assume you've read That Hyddeus Strength ? (sorry for the Middle English spelling, but Lewis was a professor of Mediaeval Literature) It's the Abolition Of Man translated into a story.

The Abolition Of Man is another "compulsory" book.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', ' ')My mother is Scottish background from Caithness, a Gunn. I guess her family was driven into the highlands by the English, many years ago.


North O' The Heelan' Line, eh? Ach, the damn sassanachs, they dinna ken.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'L')ewis seems to be describing the period of time in Europe when chivalry was actually created.

Heck, yes...and long before that time-period in his Book The Allegory Of Love (he starts with Ovid, the Roman Reprobate, and goes through to Spenser and the Romance Of The Rose).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', ' ')Trust me, Uber, there was a reason for this. The average woman had the ultimate indignity to put up with, child birth, one after the other, after the other.

Yup, and that's something , according to Warren Farrell's book, which they really worked hard to exclude men from - the childbirth "club" was Women's Only. Until men proved that via the use of male-made technology, we men could stop a woman from dying in childbirth. And releive pain of childbirth via anasthetics that were TESTED on men, but rarely tested on women. (men died in the testing process(es), which were primitive to say the least - but no-one thinks it is 'sexist' that men only died to test medicines that ended up helping women)

See pages 80 to 81 of the Myth Of Male Power.

But most females (infants, girls, and women) who died early, they died of things like Tuberculosis, and dyptheria, and , well, starvation. Any man can die of the same causes, too. Indeed, most MALES died before their second birthday - same as most females!

The infant mortality rate amongst the peasantry in the Middle ages was exceedingly high. It was only just lower amongst the Upper Classes, mainly because of slightly better eating conditions.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'M')en had it bad. But women were livestock.

That's the feminist point of view, sorry, it gets taken to task and is found very wanting in many books, but especially Warren Farrell's Myth Of Male Power.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'T')he upper classes passed the idea of courtly love down to the peasant classes

Ahhh, the class barrier really was quite rigid, threadbear - the "upper class" really did not have much to do with the lower classes at all if they could help it. I wish you had read T. A Shippey's book "the Road To Middle Earth" - in it he talks about life for the peasantry in the Middle Ages - and they weren't all that down-trodden as modern Politically Correct critters like to make out. A tough brutal life, yes - but it had it's compensations (such as free beer).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', ' ')and this likely helped a bit. In those days, rape was probably the norm in marriage.

In the Middle Ages, a married man would wait 10 days before engaging in sex with his newly-wed wife. Even women's magazines now acknowledge that.

This 'waiting' was still the case until the Second World War in Europe & Britain - As an example of "waiting" for his wife to expressly say "yes", British Prime Minister Winston Churchill would not go into his wife's bedroom (they slept not only in separate beds but also in separate rooms) without her written, signed, dated consent.

Yes, it had to be in writing, it had to have her signature at the bottom and a date at the top. This was actually quite usual in marriages at the time.

You're thinking of Ancient Sparta, where they had a very ...ahhh...interesting...society - basically state enforced padeophillia, where men and women lived more-or-less completely separately, with boys being given as sexual "partners" to older youths, who would then train them in fighting, and seven year old girls being given (as 'lesbian' sexual "partners") to older girls to "look after the place" while the men were away getting killed defending the place.

The women of Ancient Sparta would not accept that a man could sleep with her, even though she was ordered to by "the Powers That Be", unless he could literally chase her down and endure the punishment she was dishing out, physical and verbal. The women could fight (it is said) "better than the men".

I think the whole society was a tragedy, but they did have the most effective fighting force of ancient times. They were forced to, by repeated invasions, revolutions, starvations, famines, droughts, disease, disasters, earthquakes, tsunamis...as a matter of fact, just about every man-made and natural catastrophe that could happen DID happen to the Spartans.

Besides, if that Politically Correct lie is true - think about it - it makes not only EVERY father a rapist, it also makes every MOTHER into someone who covers up repeated rapes - therefore every mother is a willing accomplice to rape. The accomplice is just as guilty (according to Political Correctness) as the person who actually did the rape.

But hang on...isn't a willing accomplice someone who is "willing"? And if the person is "willing" - is that still rape?

Political Correctness, it is true, defines ALL Penetrative Sex as rape...but that introduces us to yet another difficulty - all male homosexuals have penetrative sex. If all penetrative sex is rape, then that gives us the absurd conclusion that all gay men are rapists.

And 'victims' I suppose...or can one be a victim and a perpetrator at the same time?

Of course, this does not mention the lesbians who use "sex toys" on each other...but, then, to me the whole fatally flawed idea of "all penetrative sex is rape" is just absurd.

Rape in Marriage? Well, an example would be good at this point - if one of the partners drugs the other partner (via alcohol) in order that the couple may engage in sexual intercourse in order for the couple to have a child, is that 'rape'?

The reason I ask is because in the Tarahumara Indians culture of North Eastern Mexico (a Partiarchal Society) the women get their husbands drunk, in order to have sex so they can have children.

The reason for the booze? The Tarahumara Indian GUYS are so shy around their women folk they won';t even kiss their own wives. Let alone have sex with them- when sober.

As one anthropologist has said - if the Tarahumara Indians ever become teatotallers, then they'd die out in a generation.

Look them up under a Google search....they have a fascinating culture.

But the question then becomes - if this example (above) IS rape, then every Tarahumara Indian woman IS a rapist. So is this example an example of rape?

The GUY certainly hasn't consented - he's too shy to do that.

So, what's the 'call' on this one?

Rape?

Or not, because it's a GUY that is being forced?....and we "all know" that a male's penis will become erect if stimulated, therefore he obviously "wants it", right?

But that idea introduces us to yet ANOTHER difficulty - as Doctor Warren Farrell (MD) says - male babies and infants get erections...is that a sign that they are consenting to have sex?

Or should we pay attention to what Warren Farrell Calls"Mercy sex" where one of the partners allows the other to have sex...even though they may not "feel like it" because they are being merciful?

Y'see, Warren Farrell notes that "mercy sex" is demanded of males...just as often as it's demanded of females.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', ' ')I have no doubt. Perhaps courtly love just gave women the right to say no once in a while.

They had the 'right to say no' for all of The Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, Renaissance times, and Modern times...and the good guys did as they were asked. All the time.

The rat-bags, who never pay attention to ANYONE but just do as Ayn Rand suggests and have the "Virtue Of Selfishness" as their prime motivation, well, THEY never pay attention to ANYONE . For any reason.

It was the same all throughout history.

Look at Magna Charter - it was forced on the selfish King John by the barons and the Church - since then every single last selfish moron (especially the Politically Correct) have been trying to erode the 'rights' given under Magna Charter - such as the Right To Face One's Accuser, which men no longer have.

This is the problem - we have an uncritically assumed idea - All Penetrative Sex Is Rape - and we just accept it?

Because it's a recent idea? Is it a case of 'the newer the truer"?

For all of the Dreadnought rhetoric in supposedly challenging "accepted ideas" the Politically Corrrect are remarkably timid when it comes to challenging MODERN stuff-ups.

One last item: until VERY modern times, if a woman committed a crime, it was her HUSBAND who 'did the time' in prison.

One last quote, from Themistocles (528 to 462 BC):

I govern the Athenians, my wife governs me.
User avatar
ubercynicmeister
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia
Top

Postby ubercynicmeister » Sun 20 Mar 2005, 22:12:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', '
')
Go back earlier...Cleopatra was the best-known of the Egyptian female Pharoahs, and literally bedded whomever she chose, including Julius Caesar. To whom she bore a son. She then seduced Octavian, after Julius' assasination and upon realising she'd picked the wrong guy to back, promptly committed suicide.

And can anyone tell me - where the HELL did the term "red-neck" actually come from?


great, thought provoking post


LOL, thanks, Penultimate man Standing, I should apologise to others for "hogging" the board, and I should apologise for not reply to the other posts, too - yesterday was a sort of disaster for me, LOL.

A friend of mine came around to give me a lift to a mutual friend's place, where we were to talk about the 'stacked' (as in "stacked the vote") meeting on Save Our Rail, where Those In Charge had fixed the meeting so the politicians who were present didn't have to answer any difficult questions.

We Australians have a name for such things - Dorothy Dix questions: A 'slow ball' from a grovelling Party Hack to an overprepared Politician.

In any case, my friend turned up when I was in the shower, and my dog, who is getting VERY deaf , didn't hear him come up the garden path and through the gate and so decided to bite him.

Which meant I (more or less) had to Abandon All Other Activities and attend to my dog (who was trying very HARD to look innocent) and my friend's fingers, which were bleeding a lot.

Several bandages and a lot of profuse apologies later...


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'J')ust goes to show, if there's anything more confusing and complex than male/female issues I'd like to know what it is.


Here's one I know of: your (American) Constitution. In August of 2001 (just before the Trade Centre attacks) one of your courts decided that any document with the word "God" in it was "unconstitutional". OK, now, it doesn't matter whether you believe in God or not - your own Constitution mentions God quite extensively.

Which meant that your own Constitution is Unconstitutional. This means that the court's decision is NOT legally binding - because the Courts have to be established under a Constitutional Constitution, and thus if they are NOT, then the decision is not legally binding.

Which means that the Court's decision to make the US Constitution Unconstitutional is from a court which was Unconstitutional, therefore the decision wasn't legal, therefore the Constitution of the US IS Constitutional, therefore the Court's decision is legally binding therefore the US Constitution is NOT Constitutional, therefore....you get the picture?

LOL, it also means that the decision cannot be appealled, because the Appeal Court is established under the Unconstitutional Constitution, therefore it cannot make Legally Binding decisions...


Good One, Guys.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', ' ') Couple of notes: Cleopatra backed Mark Antony, not Octavian, but I get your point.


YES, you are quite correct, my apologies.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', ' ') Rednecks: poor white American Southern sharecroppers who most needed to look down on blacks. hence the racist views.

Ahhhh....I get the inference, but were their necks really "reddish"?

Listen, a fellow by the name of Morgan Freeman (American Actor) referred to a group even more disadvantaged than the blacks (his words, not mine): The Poor White Trash. Who the heck are they?
User avatar
ubercynicmeister
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia
Top

Postby PenultimateManStanding » Mon 21 Mar 2005, 02:49:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', '
')Ahhhh....I get the inference, but were their necks really "reddish"?

Listen, a fellow by the name of Morgan Freeman (American Actor) referred to a group even more disadvantaged than the blacks (his words, not mine): The Poor White Trash. Who the heck are they?
Your analysis of our UnConstitutional Constitution was the most hilarious thing I've read in a long time. Yes their necks were reddish, hence the term 'redneck'. They didn't work the fields 'nekkid' but wore overalls that left their necks exposed. As for Poor White Trash, one of our more colorful political type commentators, James Carville, refered to them by saying that's what you get when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Previous

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron