THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES

Post questions or suggestions here.

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:13 am

Okay Nordi, more reply...

re: "misogyny" - to me, it seems a bit more than chauvinism because chauvinism would end at just the statements of superiority of men. It is the specific pointing to undesirable behavior and linking it to women that makes it look like more than chauvinism.

I read the Prizzy link, and that looked like good work which was not misogynistic. She pointed out that men can act like that too, but that she was generalizing about women because that is what gender she worked with. Her description of the family terrorist actually described my mother quite well, although the "if you leave me, I'll kill myself" I've seen and heard of more often from males. I read the linked excepts from The Manipulated Man, but not the whole book. I agree that it is unfair to only send men into battle zones (although I think that is changing now),agree the draft is unfair, but I don't see any evidence of what she was talking about where female retirement age is earlier (I checked the US social security website - it may be different in some other country), and do agree that for men who want children - the reproductive options are more of a challenge (but it seems that most non-hispanic men don't want children anyway). As for why they get death threats, it seems to me that the people who make death threats tend to not be particularly intelligent, especially in the areas of social intelligence.

Rule of thumb - well, part of communication is to help sort out what one thought was true from what wasn't - but according to this, the origins of it meaning the size of a stick to beat one's wife with was from a satirical cartoonist by the name of James Gillray - although the spreading of the misconception can be traced to the feminists.

Regarding abuse of the giver who has nothing left to give - I didn't mean just physical abuse from the taker, I meant verbal abuse - although I suppose physical abuse can happen too.

As for the "sex for stuff" system you were talking about and the "spending $200 for an evening out and only getting a kiss" - well that's just thinking of her as a prostitute. If he wants to go somewhere and wants to take her with him, that's what he's paying for. If a guy is being real and he just wants time with her over dinner, he could just make dinner himself and have her over, or go out to the beach, go horseback riding, canoeing - whatever it is he really wants to do. If he's just calculating what's most likely to get him laid, that's treating her like a thing for his use rather than treating her like a person.

Regarding circumsicion, you might be interested in a previous thread on that.

Here are your suicide statistics. Females attempt suicide more often, but males succeed at it more often. This link also mentions that the increase may be a statistical correction as previously suicides may have been listed as accidents. Another possible reason that males may have a higher "suicide" rate is from auto erotica asphyxiation. This is an activity that is almost exclusively done by males, and for reasons listed on the link, often get classified as suicide. The almost exclusively male willingness to risk his life for a particular type of masterbation does not support your contention that males are killing themselves because they have it rougher than females, nor does any of this support your claim that women do not feel as much pain as men do.

In fact that ranks absolute top on my assessment of what is BS. No one can know how much pain another is in without being inside that person's head. And whether or not someone attempts suicide or commits suicide is not a direct reflection of pain, either. A person could be in hellacious pain for decades and have the strength to never show it, and have some reason to continue life. Trying to say that if females really did feel pain like a man feels pain then more would commit suicide has to be the most idiotic attempt at correlation I have ever seen.

This is getting tedious. I've gone through a lot of points, and I have said that things are unfair for both sides - and shown this repeatedly. You are insisting on playing the role of the poor put-upon male - ah, I'll finish this paragraph in the response under your thread in Worldly Matters.
.
edit to add link to the rest of the paragraph
.
Last edited by Elizabeth Isabelle on Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Katy » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:25 am

Also, the fact that the majority of suicides are men can be attributed to the fact that men are more likely to succeed because they use guns while women use slower, less effective methods such as pills or cutting making them more likely to be found or just do it wrong.

Men can use guns because they're more likely to own a gun.
-Katy
User avatar
Katy
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia

Postby Cory Duchesne » Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:23 am

The Female Brain

The difference between males and females is due largely to biology. The brain is to different degrees biologically masculinized or feminized. Now, some people believe that one is no better than the other, and that the two types need each other for the species to function harmoniously.

On the other hand, there is the view that a feminized brain has outlived its usefulness and that we need to encourage feminine brains to..........what can they do? (besides endlessly churn back arguments in defense)

What can they do besides develop feelings of worthlessness, self-loathing, depresssion, helplessness?

Oh, but that's just because their being egotistical, right. They just need to end the ego, that's all.

What is the ego other than biology? QRS rhetoric only makes sense if, through rational thinking and discplined negation, the human brain can gradually change biologically. As far as I can tell, gradual biological change is what Q, R, and S are advocating, whether they realize it or not.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada

Postby Esoterix » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:25 am

- Page Left Intentionally Blank -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:03 am

- Page Left Intentionally Blank -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:23 am

- Page Left Intentionally Blank -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:47 am

- Page Left Intentionally Blank -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Esoterix » Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:26 am

- Page Left Intentionally Blank -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Nordicvs » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:21 pm

Elizabeth, responding to yours in both threads...

You're right: this is becoming tedious, and quite petty---and obviously it sounds like whining (as you say, "playing the role of the poor put-upon male"), which is another point I just made regarding another thread:

A man cannot speak up about anything (even regarding male infants being mutilated, for crissakes, and I've only scratched the surface with those first five points of mine regarding boys) without it by definition being called whining or moaning. What other word is there for it? "Standing up for rights?" "Being assertive?" Not so much. Ah, but don't we have oodles of rights already---like reproductive rights? Say, if a female can choose to abort without the father's consent, or have it against his expressed objection...and yet he has no say whether he wants the burden of eighteen years of paying (and not even seeing it or being a father to it) for it if he didn't want the child? Or, say, something practical (aside from a 12-hour erection via Viagra, which is just crucial, I suppose, for some reason) like a male birth control pill? Men have no biological rights and have no power when it comes to sex (rape is a way they alleviate this powerlessness).

Another example. It turns my fucking stomach every time I'm taxed or coaxed to explain anything, and so I tend to get in a snarly mood and get aggressive about it. Rest assured, stuff in this thread was no great thrill to write either. I fucking hate pissing and moaning, and I can't stand listening to it, or listening to myself do it, but I also will not abide the notion of how tortured and tormented girls (oppressed) are compared to boys when I know for a fucking fact how utterly false that is.

No worries. I'm done, I'm calm. Wrapping up...

1. There is no way for a guy to discuss this shit without it being seen as wussy complaining---why is that? This is why guys bark and smash things, because if there isn't another male around who can identify with a problem, he's fucked, gone into a bottle of JD's to drown his pain, or the rope or gun.

(For someone with your psychological background, one would think you would have the compassion and empathy to extend to men as well as women, or hell, even little boys who couldn't possibly have done you any wrong, but, as I've just shown, you're far from exempt---and this is obviously linked to (a) boys killing themselves, (b) male youth not reporting sexual assualt or later spousal abuse, both of which actually foster more violence towards both genders, (c) depression (anger turned inward) and alcohol abuse (painkiller; escape), among many other things I'm not getting into again).

I don't want to see males more touchy-feely, sensitive and crap (nor do I want to see them lost in bottles of alcohol); fuck, we're too far into that snivellery already and it weakens us instead of making us stronger. Nor do I want to see, as I have seen often, young males lost and despairing alone in silence.

As someone who suffers, intentionally, in many ways on any given week, I am not opposed to it or to discomfort or to pain---when it's for a purpose. When it's used to build, strengthen---not weaken, destroy. As cruel as this sounds, if a boy needs to go through some hell to maximize his potential, that's what he needs to go through...but boys aren't maximizing shit---as I already clearly indicated. They're in misery and killing themselves for no purpose; to me this is so stupid, pointless, and simply cruel. (Cruel---in the opinion of a man like me who always says, "Cruel to be kind," who'd not think twice about bleeding or breaking his own arm for any reason, and probably has more scars than you have freckles. If I'm anywhere near smart, and so hard-assed, and I think that's cruel . . . ? Anyway, that was another point.) Cruelty for its own sake; vindictive malice. I'm against that.

2. I am a fucking hard-nosed sonofabitch, often viewed as cold and unfeeling, and I'd be the first to say so; and yet I have compassion enough for boys and girls, men/males and even women/females---which I'll rarely show anymore because I did that for 25 years, and that's enough---so...what's your excuse?

[I'll never coddle another female---that's the direct opposite of what they need (plus, that's what they want and ultimately, subconsciously, they resent it; it's a grand disservice to them). So when I fail to present or even acknowledge the "female side" of things, this is why---I'm sick to death of doing that. You can view that as biased if you want, that's your misconception.]

I never said all girls are absolutely devoid of suffering, or are carried about on gold carts by male slaves dressed in rags---and many, as you did, had generally shitty childhoods, yet I feel that someone (unaffected by the inevitable shame tactics intended to silence) needs to put forth a male perspective and point out feminist hoaxes and factual distortions (for reasons that only hurt their own bloody gender ultimately, anyway (duh!), by alienating it from its opposite half and itself, feeding its anger and detachment from reality and fueling this entire cycle, steeped in lies, immaturity, silly entitlement, narrow-minded self-interest, and half-truths), et cetera. To tell the goddamned truth. To address this curious concept called "equality," as well, and whatever the fuck it's supposed to mean.

Do females kill themselves? Yes, I'm not denying that or that they feel pain from this shit-state we're all wallowing in---but they attempt it more not for this reason; five of my girlfriends told me that if I left them, they'd kill themselves. I've been through the "helping professions" and have spoken to many males and females, and the ones who attempt are those who don't want to live (the ones who want to genuinely die, just do it); it is very much for attention, for change, or to be taken care of (and yes, I've both attempted and have gone through it---revived twice after I was discovered, clinically dead---so I know both sides personally).

I've read feminist tripe for years---I never called myself that, but for a decade I was misandrist and supported PC-feminism and strongly supported women in all stations in life and shamed men around me for their behaviour, like a good parrot; but after all the depression and garbage, experiences with women, observations, I began to realize that many things...just weren't adding up. The reflexive "women are innocent angels" kept tugging me back, double-think, until the next fact I encountered, until I felt guilty and was drunk for most of the time. And then I began waking up.

I grew up with that "one in four women get raped" horseshit and felt a deep sense of shame as a youth, for things I never did or would dream of doing---in some cases, I felt like apologizing to women around me, and indeed, was unbelievably sensitive and gentle with my first few girlfriends, letting them make all the moves and decisions because I didn't want to be like those 'evil bastards straight out of hell' I'd heard about yet never met (my girlfriends utterly hated that and, as I've stated before, really milked it and did a number on me---again, this is stating a fact, I'm not complaining, as I already stated several times I do not regret it now, so the only bitterness is at myself for being so fucking ignorant). It was my own damned fault, yet I learned a helluva lot, and gained far more than I lost, after it all started making sense, eventually.

Anyway, I was an unprofessed feminist for half of my life and then a misanthropist-nihilist for many more, and then finally I slowly worked my way into masculism about six years ago---so my final point is that I have seen and studied, intensely, both sides of this gender politics deal, and of course I recommend that you do the same, if you really are interested in truth and not victimhood.

But enough. The points I wanted to make have been made, and I'm not here to bullshit and will not stomach bullshit, so I'll leave you to accept the facts or not accept them.

3. As for the pregnant women's leading cause of death being murder---it's fishy, because I vaguely recall coming across this stat years ago. But I'm going to check out all the sources she listed there and track down where they came from (they might be only for one district or city or state, for example; this is a common way of cooking stats). With what I know of feminine addiction (this "cult of female personality") and the reverence men have for pregnant women, this seems too bassackwards to be true, illogical (although I'm sure it does happen---the same way males are burned alive while sleeping, while women get off with one-gender-only abuse defenses, violating the whole "Equal protection under the law" deal---I seriously doubt it's the "leading cause"), but I'll see.

4. And the "sex for stuff" is not as much "thinking of her as a prostitute" as much as it is calling her what she is. I never considered women prostitutes and was one of those "Aw, poor female forced to service others sexually for money," yadda yadda. Until I had a few girlfriends, then this too started to change. After a dozen, and after countless conservations with other men (I've read accounts, books, been to dozens of forums, reading marriage problems, et cetera), and much more, I knew there was a universal pattern emerging: women are thought of as prostitutes because that's how they act. Then I met a few crack hos in Vancouver, and went to an actual (more "high-class") prostitute as well. They enjoyed doing it, nobody was forcing them. (I made a point of asking the two I got to know in Van., if they had been sexually abused as children, because this is where I figured it came from. Neither had---they liked fucking and decided they could make good money doing it---but both knew of others who had been.)

Anyway, it *seems* like a chicken and the egg scenario ("do men treat women like prostitutes because they act like it, or do women act like prostitutes because men treated them that way?"---similar to the question of "shadow rulers" in Rome: "were women denied official power and had to lurk in the shadows, plotting and manipulating, or were women prone to the shadows, plotting and manipulating, and that's why men denied them official power?"), but it's not...

Prostitution is the oldest profession for a reason (even among chimpanzees we see males more sharing of meat with females in estrus, which is likely how it developed). I'm not judging it, don't care (I've never been religious). But I consider it a fact: most women (biological females) exchange sex for goods and services, and both genders know this on a subliminal level. Sex is the most valuable currency women have in relationships. "All women are whores"---is ultimately true, but certainly not all biological females are whores.

5. "Projecting my mother." Tsk tsk. (I had expected more from you, honestly.) A common text-book assumption/bait-n-switch tactic that I've heard and pondered over and over and rationally refuted each time. I could do so now, but I'm not going to, because there's no point to it: you'll believe what you wish in the final anaysis. I know myself extremely well and don't feel the obligation to explain myself anyway.

At any rate, make of all this what you will.
User avatar
Nordicvs
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Postby Nordicvs » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:49 pm

Esoterix wrote:Dad was a bit more of a preacher than a doer. A lot of that had to do with the fact that he worked away from home, (*) busting his ass for the social status quo that said he had to earn enough money so his kids could keep up with the Jones's. When he came home for the weekend, usually every other, he was a little edgy. Sometimes my brother and I didn't quite do to suit him, which turned out to our benefit.


(*) I hear ya. My father was similar---many dads fall into this well-meaning trap, I've noticed: they "had it rough" as kids and compassionately don't want their own kids to go through that. I was the same way when I began wanting to have a family of my own. It never occurred to me, though, until my late 20s that he became the honest, honourable "good" man he was precisely because he had it rough, learned how to go without, looked after his brothers and sisters at a young age (learned crucial responsibility and discipline and sacrifice early on) and then I realized that his strictness and occasional assholeness was exactly what toughened me up and helped me to survive in many situations later on.

So, it's really a trap because by wanting a "better future" for their own kids they tend to create spoiled brats, giving their kids everything they themselves had been "deprived" of growing up---almost entirely regarding material possessions, of course---and the point gets lost, and their sons don't respect them for that.

Here's a big reason why this current young generation of males is called "the wuss generation."

"A hard man is good to find." ---Jack Kammer.

Esoterix wrote:Me, being older, was the one who had to learn how to do all kinds of things. It seemed natural to figure out the better and faster angle so we could haul ass to the creek in the summertime, or in winter, saddle a horse, grab a rifle go see how far we could get from the house. Mom knew we'd be back in time to feed the livestock, or we'd make arrangements. Sometimes we'd be gone two or three days.

I should mention that my Mom was an ever' lovin' doll in all ways. To her great credit she didn't do anything to keep Frank and I from growing up. We're best of friends these days, and think alike. Can't say that for the older brothers, or for the sister, since Mom over-mothered her big time.

Dad and Mom had two families. The first was three boys. Then they waited 15 years to have me and my twin sister and my younger brother, Frank. He's a little less than two years our junior.

I guess it helps to be fucked up on purpose. The problem was, when Dad and Mom decided to fuck up a kid, they ended up fucking up a pair of 'em. I ended up with a very dingbat twin sister who's an xian fundiotic to boot. Talk about a lost cause. And she doesn't like me either. None of that means we don't have a hello/goodbye hug at family gatherings. In that regard we get along marvelously.

All in all my childhood was about as idylic as it gets. Soon enough, tho', sex and girls turned everything upside down; that and fast cars, beer, and a general rebellion against anything that moved too slow or smelled like my sixth grade teacher.

I got married in the back seat of a Ford to this little redheaded fireball. That's a real pistol, by the way. We used to go rabbit hunting in the snow and plinking on the weekends.

Anyway, I asked her once if she wanted to fuck up a couple kids -- and she didn't. We're very glad about that. This isn't a good time for such things, and hasn't been for quite awhile.


Heh. True enough. ---Oh, I have to ask, being a Canuck, what's "plinking?"
User avatar
Nordicvs
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Postby sue hindmarsh » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:13 pm

Nordicvs wrote:

Here's a big reason why this current young generation of males is called "the wuss generation."

"A hard man is good to find." ---Jack Kammer.


Yes, young men today need good role models. Someone of the ilk of Oscar Wilde would definitely help begin the forming of true masculine minded men.

Sadly, men like him are in short supply. Lucky for us we have his words to remind us of what is possible.

(Warning: the following contains language that may offend wusses.)


~ The public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius.

~ A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.

~ These days man knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

~ It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless information.

~ Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess.

~ A man can't be too careful in the choice of his enemies.

~ Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.

~ Women are never disarmed by compliments. Men always are. That is the difference between the sexes.

~ A man's face is his autobiography. A woman's face is her work of fiction.

.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
 
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:45 am

Nordicvs wrote:one would think you would have the compassion and empathy to extend to men as well as women, or hell, even little boys who couldn't possibly have done you any wrong


I have gone over and over that I do see both sides - and you are blind to my seeing. More on this later in this post.

Nordicvs wrote:A man cannot speak up about anything (even regarding male infants being mutilated, for crissakes, and I've only scratched the surface with those first five points of mine regarding boys) without it by definition being called whining or moaning.


Wrong. A man can speak up for things without it being whining or moaning - just like a female can.

Nordicvs wrote:I have compassion enough for boys and girls, men/males and even women/females---which I'll rarely show anymore because I did that for 25 years, and that's enough---so...what's your excuse?


So, 25 years is long enough to see both sides of an issue, and now you are going to narrow your vision to just the male side? I am seeing both sides of the issue, but you can not even see that I'm seeing both sides because I'm not just seeing the male side. You only have one eye open. A person has to open both eyes to see more depth.

Nordicvs wrote:I'll never coddle another female---that's the direct opposite of what they need


Half true - no reasonably healthy adult - male or female - needs to be coddled.

Nordicvs wrote:five of my girlfriends told me that if I left them, they'd kill themselves. I've been through the "helping professions" and have spoken to many males and females, and the ones who attempt are those who don't want to live (the ones who want to genuinely die, just do it); it is very much for attention, for change, or to be taken care of (and yes, I've both attempted and have gone through it---revived twice after I was discovered, clinically dead---so I know both sides personally).


I did my best to kill myself in my late teens, too (with the full intent to die) - but I don't know if you phrased what you got from the "helping professions" badly or if you actually misunderstood. It is true that there are people out there who attempt to manipulate through suicide threats - you've encountered exclusively females who do this (and it is a technique that tends to fail if a strait guy tries it on a straight guy, so that doesn't surprise me), and I have encountered it more often from males than from females. I have heard of more males doing this than females, but the females do this to either gender, and the males only do this to females - in my observation.

That five of your girlfriends did this to you, I'd suggest you look into why you are going for girls either with borderline personality disorder or borderline traits. When they love you, they think you are the best thing in the world and can really boost your ego, but if you don't live up to one of their impossible expectations, they hate you for awhile - but the whole time they still cling to you, even when they hate you. The constant clinging can be reassuring to the ego as well - even when the person who is clinging isn't making your life any better. Of course what you fall for in the first place is the unconditional "you're right - you are so right" that borderlines give off.

What I'm seeing from your interaction with me is that you are looking for a "yes man" - and I wonder why you are so binary (thinking either people agree with you or they do not) that you can not see a partial agreement. I wonder if you see how you are looking for ego striking,

Nordicvs wrote:The reflexive "women are innocent angels" kept tugging me back, double-think, until the next fact I encountered, until I felt guilty and was drunk for most of the time. And then I began waking up.

I grew up with that "one in four women get raped" horseshit and felt a deep sense of shame as a youth, for things I never did or would dream of doing---in some cases, I felt like apologizing to women around me


Women are not angels, but that does not mean that 1 in 4 do not get raped. Neither does that mean that all men are rapists - actually relatively few men are rapists, but they get around - hence the 1 in 4. It sounds like you were taking on too much responsibility for what your whole gender was doing, and now you are swinging the pendulum in the other direction and going into denial about anything any of your gender does wrong. Reality isn't even on that track.

Nordicvs wrote:indeed, was unbelievably sensitive and gentle with my first few girlfriends, letting them make all the moves and decisions because I didn't want to be like those 'evil bastards straight out of hell' I'd heard about yet never met (my girlfriends utterly hated that and, as I've stated before, really milked it and did a number on me


Gads, that's as bad as a Christian feeling guilty for Original Sin. You are you - you are not all men, and trying to pay the price for the sins of all men is just going to get you run over - as you found out.


Nordicvs wrote:indeed, was unbelievably sensitive and gentle with my first few girlfriends, letting them make all the moves and decisions because I didn't want to be like those 'evil bastards straight out of hell' I'd heard about yet never met (my girlfriends utterly hated that and, as I've stated before, really milked it and did a number on me


Nordicvs wrote:"Projecting my mother." Tsk tsk. (I had expected more from you, honestly.) A common text-book assumption/bait-n-switch tactic


Oh, you want to talk tactical maneuvers? Okay, let's look at your attempts at manipulation:

Nordicvs wrote:You're right: this is becoming tedious, and quite petty---and obviously it sounds like whining (as you say, "playing the role of the poor put-upon male"), which is another point I just made regarding another thread:

A man cannot speak up about anything (even regarding male infants being mutilated, for crissakes, and I've only scratched the surface with those first five points of mine regarding boys) without it by definition being called whining or moaning. What other word is there for it? "Standing up for rights?" "Being assertive?" Not so much. Ah, but don't we have oodles of rights already---like reproductive rights? Say, if a female can choose to abort without the father's consent, or have it against his expressed objection...and yet he has no say whether he wants the burden of eighteen years of paying (and not even seeing it or being a father to it) for it if he didn't want the child? Or, say, something practical (aside from a 12-hour erection via Viagra, which is just crucial, I suppose, for some reason) like a male birth control pill? Men have no biological rights and have no power when it comes to sex (rape is a way they alleviate this powerlessness).


Start with a posture of submissiveness by saying "you're right"
and then combine an obvious lie (i.e. sarcasm) with an appeal to emotion ("A man cannot speak up about anything (even regarding male infants being mutilated, for crissakes"), go on to list a number of things that are unfair to males, and wrap it up with a justification for rape.

Next...

Nordicvs wrote:Another example. It turns my fucking stomach every time I'm taxed or coaxed to explain anything, and so I tend to get in a snarly mood and get aggressive about it. Rest assured, stuff in this thread was no great thrill to write either. I fucking hate pissing and moaning, and I can't stand listening to it, or listening to myself do it, but I also will not abide the notion of how tortured and tormented girls (oppressed) are compared to boys when I know for a fucking fact how utterly false that is.


Protest what you are doing. This way you can alleviate responsibility for what you are saying, then insert your biased view phrased as a negation.

When a person is asked a series of yes/no questions, and the answer to the first 5 is no, the person is psychologically more inclined to say no to the next one as well. If the answer is yes to the first 5 questions, they are more inclined to say yes. You are using this tactic over and over to try to win the agreement of the reader. It's a pretty advanced strategy, and it seems to be ingrained in your subconscious. Yeah, your mother did do a number on you, didn't she?

Enlightenment involves recognizing your programming and then either using it or discarding it intentionally.

Nordicvs wrote:No worries. I'm done, I'm calm. Wrapping up...

1. There is no way for a guy to discuss this shit without it being seen as wussy complaining---why is that? This is why guys bark and smash things, because if there isn't another male around who can identify with a problem, he's fucked, gone into a bottle of JD's to drown his pain, or the rope or gun.


Repeat of tactic used above.

Nordicvs wrote:(For someone with your psychological background, one would think you would have the compassion and empathy to extend to men as well as women, or hell, even little boys who couldn't possibly have done you any wrong, but, as I've just shown, you're far from exempt---and this is obviously linked to (a) boys killing themselves, (b) male youth not reporting sexual assualt or later spousal abuse, both of which actually foster more violence towards both genders, (c) depression (anger turned inward) and alcohol abuse (painkiller; escape), among many other things I'm not getting into again).


Pure appeal to emotion. First trying to flatter by acknowledging experience and education, and then show that there is a string attached to the acknowledgment of absorption of the experience of education, and then list things that are truthfully occurring and wrong....

Nordicvs wrote:I don't want to see males more touchy-feely, sensitive and crap (nor do I want to see them lost in bottles of alcohol); fuck, we're too far into that snivellery already and it weakens us instead of making us stronger. Nor do I want to see, as I have seen often, young males lost and despairing alone in silence.


then make a statement of noble sentiment....

Nordicvs wrote:As someone who suffers, intentionally, in many ways on any given week, I am not opposed to it or to discomfort or to pain---when it's for a purpose.


...and contribute to to outlining your current credentials...

Nordicvs wrote:When it's used to build, strengthen---not weaken, destroy. As cruel as this sounds, if a boy needs to go through some hell to maximize his potential, that's what he needs to go through...but boys aren't maximizing shit---as I already clearly indicated. They're in misery and killing themselves for no purpose; to me this is so stupid, pointless, and simply cruel.


point out the ideal vs the reality

Nordicvs wrote:(Cruel---in the opinion of a man like me who always says, "Cruel to be kind," who'd not think twice about bleeding or breaking his own arm for any reason, and probably has more scars than you have freckles.


Do you intentionally injure yourself?

Nordicvs wrote:If I'm anywhere near smart, and so hard-assed, and I think that's cruel . . . ? Anyway, that was another point.) Cruelty for its own sake; vindictive malice. I'm against that.


qualifying your opinions on the obvious (defensiveness)

Nordicvs wrote:2. I am a fucking hard-nosed sonofabitch, often viewed as cold and unfeeling, and I'd be the first to say so; and yet I have compassion enough for boys and girls, men/males and even women/females---which I'll rarely show anymore because I did that for 25 years, and that's enough---so...what's your excuse?


Ooh, backhanded insult.

recap of maneuvers: Prop up your nobility and qualifications, take a position, claim I'm there too (though on opposing sentiments), and expect that one needs an excuse to be there.

I'll pos this much and finish later - my computer is suddenly actig funny.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:21 pm

Nordicvs wrote:I'll never coddle another female---that's the direct opposite of what they need (plus, that's what they want and ultimately, subconsciously, they resent it; it's a grand disservice to them). So when I fail to present or even acknowledge the "female side" of things, this is why---I'm sick to death of doing that. You can view that as biased if you want, that's your misconception.


Well, if you know that you are only presenting one side of a two-sided issue, you should expect the other side to come along. As for your tactic - start with an obvious truth, show the nastiness of it, then take the diametrically opposite position. (the problem with that is that it only works in binary logic - if one is wrong, the other must be right. Reality has gradients, so when the middle is right, both ends - however opposite - are wrong) then you wrap it up with a negation.

Nordicvs wrote:I never said all girls are absolutely devoid of suffering, or are carried about on gold carts by male slaves dressed in rags---and many, as you did, had generally shitty childhoods, yet I feel that someone (unaffected by the inevitable shame tactics intended to silence) needs to put forth a male perspective and point out feminist hoaxes and factual distortions (for reasons that only hurt their own bloody gender ultimately, anyway (duh!), by alienating it from its opposite half and itself, feeding its anger and detachment from reality and fueling this entire cycle, steeped in lies, immaturity, silly entitlement, narrow-minded self-interest, and half-truths), et cetera. To tell the goddamned truth. To address this curious concept called "equality," as well, and whatever the fuck it's supposed to mean.


Reasonable concepts, though presented emotionally.

Nordicvs wrote:Do females kill themselves? Yes, I'm not denying that or that they feel pain from this shit-state we're all wallowing in---but they attempt it more not for this reason; five of my girlfriends told me that if I left them, they'd kill themselves. I've been through the "helping professions" and have spoken to many males and females, and the ones who attempt are those who don't want to live (the ones who want to genuinely die, just do it); it is very much for attention, for change, or to be taken care of (and yes, I've both attempted and have gone through it---revived twice after I was discovered, clinically dead---so I know both sides personally).


The logical fallacy would be fallacy of composition. (and the fallacy that your ex-girlfriends used was appeal to emotion) Fallacy of composition because whenever a guy says "all of my ex-girlfriends" what that reflects is a cluster of characteristics that you repeatedly date.

Nordicvs wrote:I've read feminist tripe for years---I never called myself that, but for a decade I was misandrist and supported PC-feminism and strongly supported women in all stations in life and shamed men around me for their behaviour, like a good parrot; but after all the depression and garbage, experiences with women, observations, I began to realize that many things...just weren't adding up. The reflexive "women are innocent angels" kept tugging me back, double-think, until the next fact I encountered, until I felt guilty and was drunk for most of the time. And then I began waking up.


Appeal to emotion, and fallacious appeal to consequence.You noted that things didn't work out for you when you just jumped on the bandwagon, so you are trying to show an excuse for speaking the opposite extreme. You also infer that men who go along with feminists become alcoholics. Still, all you are addressing are the extremes - not where the truth is, in the middle.

Let me pause for a moment to note that I do think you see both sides, but you are under the misimpression that some time talking like a misogynist will help you feel better about the times you spoke like a misandrist. You have to forgive yourself for your misandristic days, and just pick up the truth. The old saying is "two wrongs don't make a right" - and all you can live in is the present. The past is just a memory that you can learn from, but life is now. Don't ever forget the past - but learn how to look back at it objectively so you can make full use of your experiences.

Okay, back on to the analysis of tactics...

Nordicvs wrote:I grew up with that "one in four women get raped" horseshit and felt a deep sense of shame as a youth, for things I never did or would dream of doing---in some cases, I felt like apologizing to women around me, and indeed, was unbelievably sensitive and gentle with my first few girlfriends, letting them make all the moves and decisions because I didn't want to be like those 'evil bastards straight out of hell' I'd heard about yet never met (my girlfriends utterly hated that and, as I've stated before, really milked it and did a number on me---again, this is stating a fact, I'm not complaining, as I already stated several times I do not regret it now, so the only bitterness is at myself for being so fucking ignorant). It was my own damned fault, yet I learned a helluva lot, and gained far more than I lost, after it all started making sense, eventually.


Okay statistician, when we were teens and early 20's, the one in four was a true statistic - yet you call it horseshit. Since 1993, rape/sexual assault has decreased by over 69% - so now it is only one in 6 women who are the victims of sexual assault, and one in 33 men. And yeah, guys don't report, but neither do a lot of females. Even the one I had to go to the hospital for, I don't think got officially reported. The statisticians know this, and on the link I provided, they estimate, to include the unreported rapes, that 10% of rape victims are male. So in this case, you are dismissing the facts.

Nordicvs wrote:Anyway, I was an unprofessed feminist for half of my life and then a misanthropist-nihilist for many more, and then finally I slowly worked my way into masculism about six years ago---so my final point is that I have seen and studied, intensely, both sides of this gender politics deal, and of course I recommend that you do the same, if you really are interested in truth and not victimhood.


Oooh, false shaming tactic. Polish your shining armor of having been a feminist, then show you were a misanthropist-nihilist, and make that your excuse for masculinism (hmmmm, I don't see "realist" anywhere on the list) and then shift the suggestion of victimhood over to me.

Nordicvs wrote:But enough. The points I wanted to make have been made, and I'm not here to bullshit and will not stomach bullshit, so I'll leave you to accept the facts or not accept them.


Ah, the brush-off method of labeling facts - in general.

Nordicvs wrote:3. As for the pregnant women's leading cause of death being murder---it's fishy, because I vaguely recall coming across this stat years ago. But I'm going to check out all the sources she listed there and track down where they came from (they might be only for one district or city or state, for example; this is a common way of cooking stats). With what I know of feminine addiction (this "cult of female personality") and the reverence men have for pregnant women, this seems too bassackwards to be true, illogical (although I'm sure it does happen---the same way males are burned alive while sleeping, while women get off with one-gender-only abuse defenses, violating the whole "Equal protection under the law" deal---I seriously doubt it's the "leading cause"), but I'll see.


Would that be the "aw, crud, I didn't think she'd go and link the facts" defense? He asks for statistics/resources, then when they are produced, he dismisses them as "cooked" - oh, and throw in an unsubstantiated "males are burned alive while sleeping," appeal to emotion just in case someone looks at the linked facts.

Nordicvs wrote:4. And the "sex for stuff" is not as much "thinking of her as a prostitute" as much as it is calling her what she is. I never considered women prostitutes and was one of those "Aw, poor female forced to service others sexually for money," yadda yadda. Until I had a few girlfriends, then this too started to change. After a dozen, and after countless conservations with other men (I've read accounts, books, been to dozens of forums, reading marriage problems, et cetera), and much more, I knew there was a universal pattern emerging: women are thought of as prostitutes because that's how they act. Then I met a few crack hos in Vancouver, and went to an actual (more "high-class") prostitute as well. They enjoyed doing it, nobody was forcing them. (I made a point of asking the two I got to know in Van., if they had been sexually abused as children, because this is where I figured it came from. Neither had---they liked fucking and decided they could make good money doing it---but both knew of others who had been.)


Hmmm - paradigm shift for a moment - let's say you're a prostitute, and you have a paying customer who seems like a caring, sensitive guy. He asks you if you were sexually abused as a child. Which answer is more likely to get the paying customer to come back? You really think you got to know some prostitutes? As a paying customer? No - they told you what they thought you needed to hear to have a good fantasy, and come back again.

And then you draw the connection that all women are prostitutes.

Nordicvs wrote:Anyway, it *seems* like a chicken and the egg scenario ("do men treat women like prostitutes because they act like it, or do women act like prostitutes because men treated them that way?"---similar to the question of "shadow rulers" in Rome: "were women denied official power and had to lurk in the shadows, plotting and manipulating, or were women prone to the shadows, plotting and manipulating, and that's why men denied them official power?"), but it's not...

Prostitution is the oldest profession for a reason (even among chimpanzees we see males more sharing of meat with females in estrus, which is likely how it developed). I'm not judging it, don't care (I've never been religious). But I consider it a fact: most women (biological females) exchange sex for goods and services, and both genders know this on a subliminal level. Sex is the most valuable currency women have in relationships. "All women are whores"---is ultimately true, but certainly not all biological females are whores.


Um, the only ones who are not whores are the virgins and those who have never consented to sex?

Nordicvs wrote:5. "Projecting my mother." Tsk tsk. (I had expected more from you, honestly.) A common text-book assumption/bait-n-switch tactic that I've heard and pondered over and over and rationally refuted each time. I could do so now, but I'm not going to, because there's no point to it: you'll believe what you wish in the final anaysis. I know myself extremely well and don't feel the obligation to explain myself anyway.

At any rate, make of all this what you will.


Ooooh, look! A carrot! dangling just out of reach. Tsk, tsk. And then use a bait-n-switch tactic while accusing the other party of a bait-n-switch tactic. Classic.

Listen Thomas, we've both been through personal hells. It's time to leave the hell realms. Truth and realism is a step above because we can see all of it from above - and seeing all of it is what the truth is about.
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Faust » Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:12 pm

indeed.
User avatar
Faust
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Esoterix » Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:26 am

- Page Left Intentionally Blank -
Last edited by Esoterix on Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Esoterix
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: A place with connections

Postby Nordicvs » Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:39 pm

Elizabeth, not bad. You caught a couple tactics there---but I really don't know where the hell you got half of the others. As I suspected, you do tend to think everyone's out to get you, hey? Male vipers in every shadow...

Logical fallacy? We were supposed to be discussing things logically here? Since when?

As for your rape "data," those are alleged increases. That's the year Hillary became president---and not only did laws change but the defintions were expanded. A slap on the butt was considered mini-rape; loud voices = "abusive." Gimme a break. You think I haven't checked into all that? (Showing again you don't care about how truthful a thing is, so long as it supports your point of view. You have an agenda here, I think. Again, it reminds me of a Creationist who just shakes her head vehemently when you tell her where flood myths originated.) I do admire your stubbornness, though.

It wasn't a shaming tactic---I really think you're into this for victimhood, nothing else makes sense, and I definitely don't think you look at both sides of it. Your blind belief in things proves this, again and again.

[It might be wise to look at, also, which buttons get pressed in you---of course keeping in mind that you are the one who pressed them---and why. Your composure really slipped here, don't you think? Don't you wonder why? Or is that type of truth off-limits?]

Both those women I knew---I wasn't a "paying customer." With one I spent two months, and I knew her well. Not that I had to ask, she talked about everything.

And then you draw the connection that all women are prostitutes.


They are.

Um, the only ones who are not whores are the virgins and those who have never consented to sex?


A biological female abstaining fom sex is not my conception of Woman.

What is consent anyway? And why is it one-way? If "all sex is rape" then "all rape is sex," no?

A few of my girlfriends had experienced rape, or so a few claimed; two of them had gotten into fights with other girls and had gotten their asses kicked---and they said getting beaten up was far worse. So, like I said, try your stuff on someone else; men take beatings all the time. So? I believe in equal compassion for all people---you do not.

Ooooh, look! A carrot! dangling just out of reach. Tsk, tsk. And then use a bait-n-switch tactic while accusing the other party of a bait-n-switch tactic. Classic.


Sigh. I guess I should explain one of these, because you're just not getting it. I tried to point out some things I sensed---in actually the most neutral, even polite fucking way I could, and I stated clearly it was my opinion and take it or leave it, that I wasn't attacking you---and you come back, defensive as hell, ignoring it and instead tossing your "projecting my mother" crud in my face, hence "bait-n-switch."

And now your calling my detection of your bait-n-switch my own bait-n-switch. Holy fuck, that is classic. What a Chinese box of bullshit!

Whatever---no really, seriously: I mean that---rationalize whatever you want, cling to whatever you want, and roar away. It's your deception, I don't have it to live with it. (But don't expect me to buy this "I seek the truth" twaddle when I know that's not the case.) Yeah, that's right---I think you're more interested in appearing as though you know the truth other than actually knowing any of it. How you reacted to me told me everything---and what you choose to ignore in some threads speaks volumes. What I find sad is that you know this. You do. It's all right there. It's like watching someone smash themselves with a hammer, wondering where all the blood is coming from...

So that's perfectly okay. I give you my word that I won't attempt to offer any further insight or point out anything to you again---I swear. I just spat on the floor, so it's as good as gold. I'll pretend you're like most women out there and I'll just humour you, if that's what you prefer. Okay? Any pet names you prefer, like "Sugarplum," "Deary," stuff like that? Because, hey, I don't mind adding stuff like that :)

Listen Thomas, we've both been through personal hells. It's time to leave the hell realms. Truth and realism is a step above because we can see all of it from above - and seeing all of it is what the truth is about.


This is basically what I already said that you considered "Reasonable concepts, though presented emotionally" and such. So, I'll take this as code for agreement to disagree. No biggie.

Later.
User avatar
Nordicvs
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Postby Nordicvs » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:42 pm

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Yes, young men today need good role models. Someone of the ilk of Oscar Wilde would definitely help begin the forming of true masculine minded men.


Yunno, I've been meaning to read some of his stuff for a year, just haven't gotten round to it yet. Anything you could recommend?

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Sadly, men like him are in short supply. Lucky for us we have his words to remind us of what is possible.

(Warning: the following contains language that may offend wusses.)
<snipping quotes>


Bloody awesome. A couple of those gave me a chuckle.

Esoterix wrote:Yeah, the 'depression era' syndrome. But I've noticed it often mutates into a drive to live better than the neighbors. That's another part of human nature I tend to despise. Competition. If I'm ever competitive it's with myself. In high school I never cared for sports. I got my ass kicked in a boxing match because my instincts treated it as pointless. A few years later I cold-cocked the principal and got kicked out of school.


Yeah, competition seems to me rooted in sex---trying to appear 'alpha' and shit. The trick, I think, is self-competition, trying to out-do oneself and not being at the whim of ego; competition is just a domain of boys.

I always wanted to cold-cock the principal, just never got the chance, I suppose. Ultimately, I got expelled for throwing a snowball, which was perfect: after that I got an education.

Esoterix wrote:I get a little antsy when wronged, is all. Rules don't govern a street fight, which is a lot more stupid than a rule-bound boxing match. I carried a gun for a few years when living in cities back in the late sixties. Among other tedious incidents, one time five young bebopping blacks in a dumpy part of St. Louis decided to 'take me down.' The threat of a .38 Colt is a show stopper. Under such circumstances it tends to save a lot of trouble for all involved. Violent people instinctively know when they're dealing with somebody able to pull the trigger.


True enough. One can write a book about this, and still no one who hasn't been in that situation would even begin to comprehend it. This is where men and women generally part company as well---and where psychology and its communicative approach reveals its grand ignorance of human male experience. In many situations, talking through it is a death sentence, showing any sign of weakness is; like the time I wandered through the worst streets, the drug-infested ones, in Vancouver years back, at three in the morning, down back allies and all---where the previous night a guy got his skull cracked wide open for the contents of his filthy old napsack. Had no weapon and didn't think at all, went on instinct; once you have the right look about you, the right walk, and most importantly the right look in your eye---unless someone's drunk or a complete moron---they'll pick up on that and leave you alone. 'Street-smart' people can practically smell fear.

Esoterix wrote:Funny how that works..., those instincts; an instantaneous phenomenon that's long been the focus of my studies about the nature of electrical vibrations. I'm a 1945 model, time enough to have put some human peculiarities to the test, including the way most women compete -- at about ten thousand different levels. It pisses me off when a woman denies it.


Why do you think they deny it?

Esoterix wrote:On a different level of exchange -- with the snaky Feminine Mystique -- there are those keen legalisms wrapped around attempts at intellectual emascuation. A take-down robbery by any other name. Trying to communicate with a high-minded woman on the deep side is like trying to wipe your ass with your toenails.


Heard that.

Esoterix wrote:The best approach is to goose their secret innards and watch them go goofy. And after they've gone goofy they do that hell hath no fury thing. It's good to make them bite their lips for a little while. Next they'll usually conspire to radical measures. And a daddy-o comes to the rescue.


Not me, man; far better to avoid them altogether, I think. No headaches, no games. Plus, I've more important things to be pissed off about and better things with which to occupy my thoughts.

Esoterix wrote:A large part of what's wrong out there is women fucking up women, and then fucking up their kids. Given the reasons that underwrite it, there's no greater brutality on the green earth. Unforgiving, vicious as wolverines. A witless man enters the mix and you get 'Fatal Attraction,' a blight on the affairs of men. Who knows what happened? Did she try to cut his dick off and he stabbed her? Why don't men just avoid those God damned coy women who play games with their high-priced cunts? I never chased women and hated the coy evasiveness when approaching a girl. If she didn't want me I sure as hell didn't want her, and that was the end of that. I never asked again.


It's what I usually get into---left-brainedness, seeing only the details, what's obvious. Any guy will tell you he'd rather get a smack to the face compared with weeks of nagging and belittling and other such emasculation (shame), but a bruise is seen as "violence," and shame is okay and quite commonplace. Plus, men simply handle their problems in different ways---two men can have a shoving match that solves more in five minutes than hours of tedious conversation or getting police and lawyers involved (depending on the masculinity of these males, obviously), and afterwards they're best friends again. The system was not designed for men. This dude hereis on the ball and says it better than I could. (In "The Methods of Women.")

Esoterix wrote:So..., men going bonkers trying to figure out what the hell's going on. Coy and titillation spreads like a canker. Effeminate macho men (sic) in positions of political authority send sucker soldiers off to war, making them believe they're dying for God and country. And who knows the secrets that emerge from art? (You might want to set your browser at full screen (F11 in IE), and pay particular attention to the navigation tools and links and alt text.)

I'll leave off with all that. Bad mood trying to seize my short hairs. Am I too easily pissed these days? Or maybe it's just frustration. Not many out there able to talk about such things.


Yeah, I know what you mean. I get the same way, but I seem to do my best work when I'm quite fired up about things, so I guess it's better than flat-lining like a zomibe through life. It's best to focus that energy on something constructive, I think, than let it eat away at you.

Cool paintings---I'm sure most men could relate to that first one in particular.

Esoterix wrote:I never felt the urge; was always terrified I might knock up some bubble-head.


Christ, that one looks familiar actually.

Esoterix wrote:Discipline is love. Abuse is another animal. I can't speak to that because when abuse threatened me I tended to weaponize. My parents didn't spare the rod but they didn't abuse. So I didn't talk back. In fact, any authority figure that catches me wrong, I cow.

I had a really good childhood up until above twelve or thirteen. And what happened after that wasn't the fault of my parents, except for the fact that they didn't know how to help. But it thrust me into the larger world a bit prematurely.


Mine didn't get good until thirteen or so; then it was two years with my dad and sister, one more year with just my dad, and then I was out on my own.

My father's strictness was a great challenge, though; the more he'd clamp down, the more I resisted and found a way around. I positively hated him for it, but I never realized all that benefitted me until much later. No offense to him at all, but it was also his profound ignorance that helped me---I asked a thousand questions a day as a kid, and he never knew any answers: so I found out on my own, which is what he told me to do, so... There's probably a million things I'd like to thank him for---after six years of not seeing him, and being a real dick to him, I'll get the chance this summer, at a big family reunion in BC, so that'll be good.

Esoterix wrote:About spoiled brats and material possessions, I see it as a failure to discipline (properly) that sets things haywire. I've never been what one would call financially responsible. Never loved money. Don't save money. Don't take vacations. Don't own any insurance except what's required by law. The house isn't insured. Same with both rigs, except for liablity. So I don't do insurance, not life, not health, not on possessions. I drive an '03 Silverado SS, a bit of a luxury 345HP hotrod pickup. She drives a pristine supercharged '98 Buick Riviera she refuses to give up. Cars are a good way to get rid of excess money.


Yeah, my friends and I were little terrors around the neighbourhood, but as bad we sometimes got, mainly when we were bored stupid, we had respect for our elders, our fathers saw to that. And we had a rudimentary code of honour; we sought thrills, sure, but we had limits. What I see kids getting away these days blows my mind---not just the stupidity but the gall. The sheer, cocky, lippy gall, like carbon copies of those little pukes from Southpark---oh, how life imitates pop culture. Like Sue mentioned, there's a disturbing poverty in role models.

This is probably the first time in history that old people were so openly disrespected, especially old men; I keep looking at other cultures, but it's just not there. I wonder if this is how it was in Sparta or Babylon before they collapsed...

Esoterix wrote:That's pretty good. Reminds me of "Time wounds all heels." So the thing to do is not be wounded, heel or no heal; and time be damned. I'm sixteen years beyond a death sentence. Just because I fell over dead they tried to tell me something was wrong with my heart. Sure enough. Full cardiac arrest. November 10th, 1989. I walked into an emergency room foyer and went out like Lottie's eye. It was 1991 that they decided I was dog food. So I never set foot back in a doctor's office or hospital for the next fifteen years. I went to VA a couple months ago because my friggin' thyroid quit. That goes along with the failure of my pancreas back in 1967. Some say I'm a wreck. I say, well, no it's just that I'm a hotrod boy and my Dixie Wrecked.


That had to suck. 1991---same year I got a bullet through my stomach. Doctors seriously don't know shit---same here, haven't seen one in years, no plans to either. If I can't take care of it myself, then sinara.

I remember a buddy got a CT scan and they found large black spots in his frontal lobes (from drinking); they were dumbstuck that he could still walk and talk, like monkeys trying to figure out how a car works---into their books went their noses, and months of tests and tubes and prodding, revealed...?

Fuck all. Hadn't a clue, but they would never admit it, of course. They rationalized and smiled and told him further study was needed, more tests, this specialist, that specialist, yadda yadda; he finally told them to suck a fart out of his ass and then got on with his life. He quit his job as a sales whore, started delivering water bottles, cut down his drinking, sold his Porsche and other material crap, and a year later I'd never seen him so fulfilled, in such good physical and mental shape, must've lost fifty pounds and was in better shape than I was, ten years his junior (his lifestyle was for his wife's benefit, of course---he hated his job and drank to kill the emptiness of it, but finally put his damned foot down with her and did what he wanted to do).

Esoterix wrote:That's when you take a small caliber rifle like a .22 rimfire and go out shooting at beer cans and toadstools. Whatever makes a target, like a small white rock or a nail head. Whatever. It's a sport that requires lots of room, however. We have that around these parts. With a little over eight thousand people and something like a thousand square miles that translates to about eight people per square mile. Wad up about 3500 of those in the four towns and you'll find lots of 3 and 4 thousand acre tracks of forest cropland.


Okay, right---I've done that. Pellet guns, bows and arrows, and a .22 once. Here in Alberta, that's probably called something else. Not sure what, though.

Later.
User avatar
Nordicvs
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Sat Mar 24, 2007 1:45 am

Nordicvs wrote:As I suspected, you do tend to think everyone's out to get you,


I don't know where you are getting this.

Nordicvs wrote:Logical fallacy? We were supposed to be discussing things logically here? Since when?


Since always. Trying to discuss philosophy illogically is silly.

Nordicvs wrote:As for your rape "data," those are alleged increases. That's the year Hillary became president---and not only did laws change but the defintions were expanded. A slap on the butt was considered mini-rape; loud voices = "abusive." Gimme a break. You think I haven't checked into all that?


I say you are in denial. However, since watching the video of a circumcision, I have altered my view on the statistics to be inaccurate because now, in my opinion, every male who was circumcised without his consent (unless it truly was for a dire medical need) was raped.

Nordicvs wrote:(Showing again you don't care about how truthful a thing is, so long as it supports your point of view. You have an agenda here, I think. Again, it reminds me of a Creationist who just shakes her head vehemently when you tell her where flood myths originated.)


Bullshit. You're the one with an agenda, and you are the one looking at data and dismissing everything that does not support your preconceived ideas.

Nordicvs wrote: I do admire your stubbornness, though.

It wasn't a shaming tactic---I really think you're into this for victimhood, nothing else makes sense, and I definitely don't think you look at both sides of it. Your blind belief in things proves this, again and again.


If you really believe that, show me exactly where because I do not see myself as being into it for victimhood.

Nordicvs wrote:[It might be wise to look at, also, which buttons get pressed in you---of course keeping in mind that you are the one who pressed them---and why. Your composure really slipped here, don't you think? Don't you wonder why? Or is that type of truth off-limits?]


Whenever a button gets pressed, I do look into why, and regard it as an opportunity to grow. I don't see my composure as having slipped, so please point that out specifically rather than just making a general statement. And no truth is off-limits with me.

Nordicvs wrote:
And then you draw the connection that all women are prostitutes.


They are.

A biological female abstaining fom sex is not my conception of Woman.

What is consent anyway? And why is it one-way? If "all sex is rape" then "all rape is sex," no?


It is not just one way. The focus of this part of the discussion is why you think all women are prostitutes, so that is where the focus of my response came from. All sex is not rape - if both consented, it was sex. If someone withdraws consent and makes it known to the other person that consent is withdrawn, IMO they have about 5 seconds to stop before it would be considered rape. Withdrawing consent after the act is complete and calling it rape is wrong. Withdrawn consent after the fact is regret, not rape. And all rape is not sex, either. The most obvious example is circumcision.

Nordicvs wrote:A few of my girlfriends had experienced rape, or so a few claimed; two of them had gotten into fights with other girls and had gotten their asses kicked---and they said getting beaten up was far worse.


I've previously pointed out how using your ex-girlfriends as a complete sampling pool is erroneous. (Katy, Bryan, prince, and other "Women" should skip the remainder of this paragraph). When one of my exboyfriends responded to my breaking up with him by saying "Oh, yeah? Well let me show you what you'll be missing" knocked me down, pulled up my skirt and down my underwear and forced himself on me - I'd agree that time was not as bad as being beat up. The times that my ex-husband either injured or re-injured me by ripping the tendon in my groin and refusing to stop intercourse was either as bad or worse than getting beat up, depending on the severity of the beating. Funny thing was, I didn't even recognize that one as rape at first because I did not believe there was any such thing as marital rape. The increasing terror for the remainder of my marriage from him continually either forcing himself on me, pressuring me into sex, or coming at me in a really obscene way (like one time when I was getting ready for work, came out of the shower and wore a towel to get from the bathroom to my room [I'd moved out of the bedroom when it was obvious that I could not get into the bed with him without him forcing himself on me] and he saw me from down the hall, grabbed his penis with one hand and reached out for me with the other, calling "ooo, ooo" as he ran at me while jerking off) - nothing was worse than that time period. I have not had sex since then, and I don't know if I am even capable of it anymore. I don't even go to the gynecologist anymore because I can not tolerate the exam. The last time I went was during my marriage after the rapes had started, and the gyn fussed at me because I was clamping down so hard on the instrument they use to open the vagina that I was hurting her hand. I know that I should go to the gyn to be on bc pills to control my PCOS (which causes a uterine lining to become extra thick, sometimes skip periods and eventually the uterine lining bursts and rips away in chunks rather than just shedding like it is supposed to - just about 3 months ago during a period I passed out from the pain and woke up in a puddle of blood (I thought it was the next day until a friend who I was emailing noted that I was acting funny, and eventually I figured out where the time differential came from) - but I'd rather go through that than have my vagina pried open. The last time that it looked like a guy was flirting with me was in an internet chat room, and my hands started shaking so bad that I couldn't even hit the right keys. Hell, my hands are shaking pretty bad right now just thinking about it. So is rape worse than getting beat up? Sometimes it can be. And people who dismiss it all as no big deal need to get a clue. Right now I can't even begin to tell you what that kind of response does, even to people who do not reveal that they were raped - so you don't even know what you are doing to who. You might as well be firing a gun up in the air, completely mindless of where the bullet might come down.

I need a break - I'll respond to the rest of this later.

edit - And yes, I do recognize that my needing a break indicates a loss of composure. I didn't say I was perfect - but I did not lose my composure up until the point. And it isn't about wanting to be a victim, or wanting sympathy - I despise either of those things. Yes, I know I need to look into how I still despise those things rather than having no reaction. Anyway, what it is about is needing more truth in the world. That need won't get met well enough for me, but if I can get you to understand the truth of this a little better, maybe your stray bullets won't land on anyone else. Keep talking to me about this until you do understand - I'm already as damaged as I can be, so you can't do me any harm. It's other people I'm trying to protect.
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:19 am

Nordicvs wrote:
Ooooh, look! A carrot! dangling just out of reach. Tsk, tsk. And then use a bait-n-switch tactic while accusing the other party of a bait-n-switch tactic. Classic.


Sigh. I guess I should explain one of these, because you're just not getting it. I tried to point out some things I sensed---in actually the most neutral, even polite fucking way I could,


Nordicvs wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:And the reason the guy tends to do most of the work during intercourse is because he wants it done a certain way so he can achieve an orgasm and to ejaculate. He controls the angle and speed to facilitate his pleasure. He may, during part of it, try to angle things for her pleasure as well, but mostly it is about meeting his needs.


Puh. (You read male minds now?) Rubbish. A guy doesn't hump and thrust away, concentrating on how deep he's going, how fast, how hard, not to mention rhythm and angle and position and trying not to blow his load too soon, et cetera, enduring leg cramps and ass cramps and soaking sweat, all "because he wants it done a certain way so he can achieve an orgasm and to ejaculate."

Gimme a break. A guy can use his hand for a fraction of the effort (and time, and cost, and odour factor, and headache factor, and difficulty factor, not to mention the risk of being suckered into 18 years of child support if she didn't feel like taking her pill or missed it on purpose---which is the manner in which I was conceived into the world----or the fact that now she can charge him with rape weeks or months later by reversing her consent even though both had been drinking based on her having a couple drinks prior to letting him into her room and pants----and all of the other strings attached and crap) and can climax in a matter of minutes if that's all he really wants.


That's as polite as you get? Dude, it wasn't worth whatever effort you put into that.

Nordicvs wrote:Gimme a break. A guy can use his hand for a fraction of the effort (and time, and cost, and odour factor, and headache factor, and difficulty factor, not to mention the risk of being suckered into 18 years of child support if she didn't feel like taking her pill or missed it on purpose---which is the manner in which I was conceived into the world


Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Nordicvs wrote:she didn't feel like taking her pill or missed it on purpose---which is the manner in which I was conceived into the world


Looks like you're projecting your mother onto females in general.


How is that not projecting your mother onto females in general?

Nordicvs wrote:and I stated clearly it was my opinion and take it or leave it, that I wasn't attacking you---and you come back, defensive as hell,


How is calmly stating the obvious being "defensive as hell"

Nordicvs wrote:and I stated clearly it was my opinion and take it or leave it, that I wasn't attacking you---and you come back, defensive as hell, ignoring it and instead tossing your "projecting my mother" crud in my face, hence "bait-n-switch."

What are you thinking is the bait?

Nordicvs wrote:Whatever---no really, seriously: I mean that---rationalize whatever you want, cling to whatever you want, and roar away. It's your deception, I don't have it to live with it. (But don't expect me to buy this "I seek the truth" twaddle when I know that's not the case.) Yeah, that's right---I think you're more interested in appearing as though you know the truth other than actually knowing any of it. How you reacted to me told me everything---and what you choose to ignore in some threads speaks volumes. What I find sad is that you know this. You do. It's all right there. It's like watching someone smash themselves with a hammer, wondering where all the blood is coming from...

So that's perfectly okay. I give you my word that I won't attempt to offer any further insight or point out anything to you again---I swear. I just spat on the floor, so it's as good as gold. I'll pretend you're like most women out there and I'll just humour you, if that's what you prefer. Okay?


No, not okay, and you know it. You're just trying to egg me on here.

Nordicvs wrote:Any pet names you prefer, like "Sugarplum," "Deary," stuff like that? Because, hey, I don't mind adding stuff like that :)


How stupid do you think I am? I already got it that you're trying to egg me on; there's no need to resort to threatening to start name-calling.

Nordicvs wrote:I'll take this as code for agreement to disagree. No biggie.


No, it isn't some kind of code or agreement. Take your head out of the sand so you can see the whole picture and talk.
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Nordicvs » Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:15 am

All of the above.

+

Dan Rowden wrote:The trouble is this stuff tends to decend into a petty gender war squabble when it's not about that. It's about consciousness and the degree to which behaviours reflect that. Most of the criticisms you cited in this post are the stuff of petty gender disputes rather than consciousness. You're underminging your point somewhat by mixing in the sorts of points foolish feminists bring up in their attempt to argue that men should do everything their way.


=

Fuck, I knew I should have heeded that advice. (Dan, you're wiser than I thought. Spot on.)

I read all that, Elizabeth, but I'm not continuing this pointlessness---I am done. I was done a few posts ago and now I'm so fucking done. The points were made and we disagree. That's okay. I can live with that.

So, continue if you wish, but this no longer interests me or serves any purpose in my reckoning.

Ciao.
User avatar
Nordicvs
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:49 am

Nordicvs wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:It's about consciousness and the degree to which behaviours reflect that.


Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: So is rape worse than getting beat up? Sometimes it can be. And people who dismiss it all as no big deal need to get a clue. (...) You might as well be firing a gun up in the air, completely mindless of where the bullet might come down.


I was talking about your behavior based on your unconsciousness of reality. Why do you run from the whole of the truth?
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Katy » Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:17 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Nordicvs wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:It's about consciousness and the degree to which behaviours reflect that.


Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: So is rape worse than getting beat up? Sometimes it can be. And people who dismiss it all as no big deal need to get a clue. (...) You might as well be firing a gun up in the air, completely mindless of where the bullet might come down.


I was talking about your behavior based on your unconsciousness of reality. Why do you run from the whole of the truth?
.


Are you talking to yourself, Dan or Nordic there? I'm confused. :(
-Katy
User avatar
Katy
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:25 am

I was talking to Nordi.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:31 pm

Nodicvs,

I actually got out of bed and turned the computer on because there was one thing I tried to let go earlier that I just can not let go of:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Okay statistician, when we were teens and early 20's, the one in four was a true statistic - yet you call it horseshit. Since 1993, rape/sexual assault has decreased by over 69% - so now it is only one in 6 women who are the victims of sexual assault, and one in 33 men. And yeah, guys don't report, but neither do a lot of females. Even the one I had to go to the hospital for, I don't think got officially reported. The statisticians know this, and on the link I provided, they estimate, to include the unreported rapes, that 10% of rape victims are male. So in this case, you are dismissing the facts.


Nordicvs wrote: As for your rape "data," those are alleged increases. That's the year Hillary became president---and not only did laws change but the defintions were expanded. A slap on the butt was considered mini-rape; loud voices = "abusive." Gimme a break. You think I haven't checked into all that? (Showing again you don't care about how truthful a thing is, so long as it supports your point of view. You have an agenda here, I think.


1993 was the year the Clinton administration went in, but the rape statistics show a decrease since then, not an increase like you accused me of finding to support some kind of agenda. You are being blinded by your own flag of victimhood. And the only reason I even brought up the statistic (and the supporting link) was to wake you up from your unconciousness which prompted you to write this:

Nordicvs wrote:I grew up with that "one in four women get raped" horseshit


I am not going to tolerate ignorance in someone with a brain. You are blind and you don't even want to see right now. All I can do is muddy your face to show you that you are blind, but when the mud is washed away, you will see.

Good night Thomas.
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:52 am

Nordicvs (and anyone else who still thinks rape is no big deal),

Nordicvs wrote:A few of my girlfriends had experienced rape, or so a few claimed; two of them had gotten into fights with other girls and had gotten their asses kicked---and they said getting beaten up was far worse. So, like I said, try your stuff on someone else; men take beatings all the time.


Here are some more statistics for you:

A higher proportion of people who are raped develop PTSD than who suffer any other traumatic event. Because women are much more likely to be raped than men (9 percent versus less than 1 percent), this helps explain the higher prevalence of PTSD in women than men.


If the beatings that men take "all the time" are worse than rape, why is it that a higher proportion of people who are raped develop PTSD? This is the lowest statistic I have seen on numbers of women who get raped, yet even with that, it shows the prevalence of PTSD as higher than with men, and PTSD is primarily thought of as something guys get in war. Actually, a previous name for it was "shell shock" which reflects this - yet who would accuse a guy of "making a big deal out of nothing" for being in combat? Yet this sort of behavior is a common response to people who have been raped. Another supporting document mentions that "PTSD was aggravated for Viet Nam veterans because they returned to a country that had negative attitudes toward them." Dismissing trauma does make it worse. Do you get it yet Nordicvs?
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Help Desk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests