Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
I didn't start this - but appearantly it's a crime on this board to point out male faults,
Depends how high they register on my bullshit-o-meter, but it's no crime; it's nothing I haven't heard a zillion times before---except that now I'm commited to not remain silent or take a speck of shit off anyone, for any reason, especially women. I can take just about anything anyone has to throw at me---I simply no longer wish to. (A quarter of a century is quite enough to grin and bear it.) And I really don't take myself that seriously---I laugh at shit I do all the time and along with others do chuckle at something I did. I just call bullshit now when I see bullshit.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:yet a round of applause goes out to whoever slams females.
Ever wonder why?
Perhaps because most men are emasculated, to some degree, and have been most of their lives, shamed incessantly from the cradle by a gender utterly famous for acting either superior or (rabidly) denying that they have any faults whatsoever. Or just lying about them to maintain this illusion of pristine character, beyond reproach.
Mostly men can take a lot (infinitely more than women can ever hope to take), and laugh at other men all the time; we really are good sports at heart, yunno. But after a while---oh, a decade or two---of feminization and hearing what total slabs of raw sewage men are in
every possible way, while women are pure and immaculate and absolutely superior, especially morally, it eats away at men, a gender already alienated from itself and from the opposite gender, especially if they're not fully conscious of it.
Then comes self-hatred, eventually; self-misandry. And anger---depression or lashing out. At whom would he lash out? Sometimes other men, most often women. Why? Wait, forget it---I asked you once before about misandry in North American culture and it was like I was speaking Ugurkian or something. A generally pampered class can never relate in any real way to a generally detested class, no frame of reference, and no apparent perception (or merely interest) really to see what goes on in the world of men anyway. No matter.
Anyway, obviously, on occasion it gives one a bit a satisfaction to see
them get some of their own fucking medicine. Why not?
If your ego is in good shape, Elizabeth, I don't see why it would bother you, especially if you understand the context (regarding 'the feminine' and not necessarily physical gender). Does it provoke the aristocratic "I never!" response or something? Or any time one posts a comment about *some* women, do you feel the urge to rush in and defend "your" gender? If so, why?
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: I didn't say females were all that great (and even of the list above to Dan, there are females that do that, too) - but every fault in the universe is not "feminine" because there are non-lofty traits that are more often found in males than females.
Fair enough. I'm certainly not prosposing that men are spectacular; some are pretty decent, though. A few generally have the right idea, in my opinion, and others are trying. And the rest, like someone already mentioned here:
pathetic.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
It indicates not thinking about cause and effect. Men don't like the way a men's room smells any more than women do, but they don't realize that in a home, bathroom odors can quickly become household odors. They don't make the connection that urine dripping down the side of the toilet and drying there will make the whole house smell like a men's room. It indicates not thinking.
How exactly is it that you know what men collectively think regarding smells? I for one don't give a fart blossom what a men's room smells like---nor do the more manly men I've known (gays and quite feminized males, sure, they want everything crystal clean and fresh and smelling purdy just like most women). Why would I care? I'm not anal retentive, not a control-clean-freak, and really, I have better things to think (or fret) about.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
So in your opinion, having a preference for chancing across the right directions, even if it makes one an hour late, rather than thinking of the most efficient way of getting an answer and doing that thing – indicates what for loftier matters? To me, logic and acceptance of reality is far wiser than chance.
I don't give a shit about being on time either---I never ask for directions, and I don't wear a watch. Different priorities---if I'm late, I'm late, so bloody what? Don't care. And I don't care what anyone thinks of me being late (well, by now they all know well that I arrive in my own goddamned sweet time, or not at all).
Life goes on. There's nothing pressing in life that can command me to rush anywhere. I'd rather take my time, challenge myself to find some address left to my own devices, by feel, contemplate something along the way and get some extra exercise, or simply experience a new area that I hadn't been before. Very seldom I get lost, but when I do, that's when I learn. That's what sharpens instincts and intuition. (Ugh...modern humans and instinct. Like little kids and broussel sprouts...)
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Logic and practicality needs to rule over any desire –
Why?
Your
desire to be logical and practical at all times is not logical.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
including the natural desire for self-sufficiency and independence. As for will to overcome problems, getting the correct directions overcomes the problem. Driving around for an hour wastes time and gas.
I walk damn near everywhere or ride a bike. My time is mine to waste---
waste? What an odd way to put living and experiencing life. What else should I be doing? And who says? And why the hell should I care what they say?
Oh well, there's that priority thing again, as well as a differing point of view. There's more important things in this existence than being a good citizen and nervously following all the rules and recommendations of sheep.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Name a component of the male mind that the female mind does not manifest – even if in a different way.
Sense of responsibility. Self-sacrifice. And to a certain contextual extent, consistent truthfulness.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
The original example was that men express anger physically while women express anger verbally.
I think that's fairly accurate.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
The side of foolish misogynists arguing that women should do everything their way?
Wow. Now misogyny includes a man wanting things his way...? Let's see...so far, it means (a) anyone critical of women, (b) anyone truthful regarding women, (c) anyone who's pro-male or masculist, (d) anyone who despises a woman for any reason whatsoever, (e) anyone who generally hates or condemns one or more women, (f) anyone who condemns any sort of female behaviour whatsoever, (g) anyone who even vaguely supports any 'post-modern' or traditional role of men in everyday society, (h) anyone who defends any male position in any sense, (i) anyone who (although this, which is its original definition, doesn't seem possible) hates or condemns all women absolutely everywhere, (j) anyone who openly rejects, condemns, resists, or insults "the feminine," and, now, (k) anyone who wants things done the way in which a man insists.
Interesting; what's next? Dirty looks? Wouldn't stun me: boys as young as 6 are already being taken to court for sticking their tongues out at girls.
This meaningless spandex term is quickly expanding into the biggest shame tactic employed by women that I've seen, worse than toilet seats!---but not near alleged rape statistics or DV stats yet.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
By “toilet seat territory†I assume you mean the idiocy of fussing over leaving the toilet seat up? Directly to that – neither is thinking because whether the seat is up or down, leaving the lid up when flushing allows much more of the aerosolized germs in the toilet to go all over the bathroom.
Clean, sterile environments weaken the human immune system and leave it at greater and greater risk of disease (anti-bacterial products are the utterly stupidest thing invented in recent memory). It is unwise to be overly clean---men instinctively know this, being more natural creatures, hence we're mostly slobs.
The dirtier and smellier the better, I say. (I've gotten one viral infection---a 'cold'---since 2000, so it's safe to say that it works for me.) Plus, the stench keeps the bimbos away, so that's a really good bonus. ;)
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Most women forget to put the lid down before flushing. If someone is going to be that unconscious of germs, they might as well want the toilet seat up to make sure there are no bugs under the seat, ready to run across the privates of whoever sits down next.
Fuck the toilet---I'll piss anywhere I like. Christ, from being creatures that once roamed large areas and marked their own territory, men have been sectioned away---from total freedom and naturality to an outhouse, then inside (where women wanted it), in a sterile room which women dominate territorially and for which they employ shame tactics concerning the seat lid, just to get one last
"you get to stand to piss but i gotta squat, so i'm gonna rationalize shaming your natural biological urination process and tell you to keep the lid down, as if i'm physically incapable of doing it myself" childish stab in there. From endless territory to a little ceramic bowl in a box, both of which are controlled by women. How far we've come...
Hell, my sister would put fluffy stuffed things on the top lid to force males to sit down (the main lid wouldn't stay up, of course---that's why they came up with this device) or awkwardly position one's knee to hold it upright and usually end up pissing everywhere to prevent it from falling (last time I was there, I ripped that silly thing off and threw it on the floor). Petty, and infantile...shit, she used all manner of rationalizations to justify her petty, envious vindictiveness, and her attempt at control. Here's my favourite, registering a 7.8 on the bullshit-o-meter:
"It's yucky---I'm not touchin' that disgusting lid to put it up and down!"
It took me years to realize that it was a crock of shit---she's supposed to
wash her bloody hands after pissing anyway, so it makes no difference whatsoever what she touches (as if 'wiping' oneself after urination is a thing women don't do) before leaving the bathroom. Damn, even old filthy slob me washes his hands after bathroom activities.
A petty shame tactic, nothing more. Penis envy? What do you think, guys? Why else?
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
A choice between deathly ill with allergies and cleaning house does deserve a serious response because it speaks to responsibility as well as consideration of cause and effect.
The reason you---by that I mean humans---have so many silly allegies is because of this clean, sterile obsession within environments.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Yeah, guys are more likely to just put the dog out in the back yard to do his business most of the time. They might play with the dog in the back yard, or take it to the beach, but women are more likely to walk it in the neighborhood.
Of course. Like kids, dogs are ever-crucial (a) attention-getting devices, (b) social/conversation pieces, and-or (c) status symbols.