You accuse me of being a racist, wife beating rapist. Then you argue for the intellectual value of the feminist movement and the virtue of an open mind. You then decide to follow up with an assumption of me of having a "tiny winy" hog and difficulty getting it into the game, and, and make this a root cause of some fear of women.
It pleases me to see that, upon having nothing to say (see previous post) you fell back on raw, unfiltered emotion, allowed it to feed upon itself, and released a volley of nonsensical, groundless accusations, which, with slight differences in subject matter remind one of schoolyard name calling. I never posted anything remotely inappropriate. A couple of joking comments were enough to expose your significant insecurities & trust issues. You identified with the subservient role that was implied and, hating yourself for it attempted to gain the moral high ground, using, in order, the race, faith, nationality, and sexual orientation cards. These are parallels used by weak minds because of the nearly universal sympathy they garner. In so doing YOU are the racist, nazi homophobe. By using them for your own purposes, you legitimize the hatred of each group, and you condone the SEGREGATION of each into a distinct group in the first place, as opposed to just other human beings. Allow me to expound upon the true nature of gender relations. Consider yourself lucky because this is akin to Cliffnotes that never made it to print. Feminists are feminists because they loathe the subservient role they are expected to play in society. A fact they are aware of but consciously ignore is that in the end, might wins out over ideals. -The average man can *destroy* the average woman with relatively little effort because of physiological differences (musculature + bone density). -The average man has thought processes that tend to logic/reason vs emotion. -Biologically, the man must WANT to mate. The woman can be forced to mate. Or, to bring it down to your level of understanding, man is the f*ckER. Woman is the f*ckEE ********I mention these points because you yourself alluded to them.******* A woman knows these facts on a subconscious (and occasionally conscious level) and can counteract them with one tool: emotion. Emotion is a state of mind every human experiences but which males suppress or ignore. It makes us uncomfortable because it is at odds with our logical thoughts. (example, wanting a Limited lens when you intellectually know the differences in image quality will be minor at best) Women have used their emotional acuity to manipulate men since time immemorial. This is not always done consciously or maliciously, but it can take these forms. It is how women make a place for themselves in the world. Playing on insecurities, manipulating attraction, encouraging dissent, etc. This is not to say that there are no women who can stand on physical merits or mental prowess, and this is not to imply that emotionalism constitutes arrested mental development. However, I have met many brilliant women who have experienced abusive relationships simply because they are conscious of the above facts and are susceptible to manipulation because of them. I have also met women who are incapable of making the simplest logical decisions but can spot every last nuance in a social setting. Militant feminists demand that both men and women be given the same social rights. This is hypocrisy at its most odious because the same social right would mean it's OK to hit women. It would mean that it's OK to deny women maternity leave. Feminists believe in equal rights, whenever it's convenient. On the subject of wife beating, any man secure in his sense of self wants to be the dominant player in the relationship. The intelligent man will be able to outmaneuver the woman and get her in a mental state in which she couldn't IMAGINE going against his will, would do anything for her man (hence, dominance) despite the man being an emotional neophyte in comparison. The unintelligent man will dominate in any possible way, and this is usually violence. As an aside, I would like to state that I would never hit a woman, even one as heinous or as oblivious to common decency as you. Since you have brought us into the business of judging others with no real basis, I will partake. You have been ravaged by stupidity and years of superficial, meaningless thought. I can only hope you never succeeded in tricking a man into impregnating you, for the damage to his bloodline would be catastrophic. You offer precisely nothing, and it disgusts me that I've taken the time to respond to you. Which leads me to my next point. To the Gents on this list: I take it that the complete non-reaction to Eactivist's post means either a) This is normal behavior for her, and is to be ignored b) You agree with her accusations of my being an utter scumbag c) You've seen enough drama and bullshit, often involving Aperture Simulators to not care enough to respond. Which is it? If I have acted inappropriately, or inappropriately enough to warrant such a psychotic response, please tell me so. I haven't been on this list long but I respect your opinions. As for why I took offense, I fail to see how believing in the 1950s nuclear family unit makes me a barbaric, cross-burning, neo-nazi, country-invading sexual deviant. On 5/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a message dated 5/29/2007 6:54:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I see no reason to respond to ignorant prejudice. > > If you substituted Black, Jew, Pole, Gay or any other designation for women > in your sentences it would be very clear to everyone how extremely prejudiced > you are. Should I respond that you probably beat women in real life? Maybe > rape them? That much misogynism in a man is always suspect. > > Feminists only argue about sexism with men when they think minds can be > changed. With normal men who they are trying to get to see another, wider > viewpoint. That has worked over the years because most men, when they act > sexist and > say sexist tings, are basically being sexist unconsciously without thinking > things through. Because most men basically like women and when it is pointed > out they are making assumptions that hurt women, they change or will try to > change. > > You, sir, are way, way, way beyond that. Maybe I should say a man so > threatened by women must have a tiny winy dick? Or can't get it up? I could > say lots > of nasty things in response, but why bother? Your head is obviously up your > ass and anyone reading your comments about women can tell that. > > I won't respond anymore. You are killfiled. Right now I am only reading > quotes. I won't respond to quotes in the future either. I am just making my > stance extremely clear to others on this list who may read your shit. > > Prejudice this strong should have consequences, but also pointed out for > what it is. Ignorant and blind and hurtful. > > Marnie aka Doe > > --------------------------------------------- > Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. > > > > > ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Wanna get in shape? Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
