posted on October 28, 2000 12:04:52 AM new
The dominant feature of the 20th century American male, as brokered by the
TV
is ... "whining swinishness".
I mean this sincerely. It is completely disgusting to see grown men whining about
their horrible losses, fates, love life, misadventures, relationships and their pleas
for harmony, understanding, brotherhood, and their contemptible "earrings".
(Note: If it has an earring - it's female. No 'man' wears an earring. Pirates wore
earrings but they were "swishbucklers" (don't kid yourself ... no women ...long voyage ... yes, we understand ; ).
There is a difference between the interests of men and women. And there are similarities as well.
Interests of Men: Machinery (Physics, Geometry, Mathematics) Sports (Physical activity, Not Shopping) Killing Stuff (War, Politics - leading to war) Personal Integrity (Courage-cowardice, Fight-flight)
Interests of Women: Fashion (Clothes, Shopping) Homemaking (Shopping, Cooking, Shopping) Nurturing (Babies, Teaching, Helping the less fortunate, Shopping)
Relationships (Love, Romance,Shopping)
Shared Interests: The Arts (Music, Theatre, Art, Reading, etc.) Day to day politics (Local, State, not Global) Sex (generally for different reasons)
These are all inexact with many exceptions but the general rule is:
Men are extrospective.
Women are introspective.
But either can be both since they are not instinctually bound to any behavior.
Why is this so?
Division of labor.
Someone's got to watch the kid and someone's got to watch the horizon (literally
and figuratively). You know what happens when you try to do two things at once.
You know what happens when there are too many bosses and not enough indians. Someone leads the other follows.
Whoever leads will encounter "whatever" first. So that person should be strongest
(to contend with it). And who has the kid follows and is the weaker (physically).
Now who gets his way most often ?
Mr. Testosterone or the little Mrs.
And what psychology will each develop? The male will do as he pleases and the female, having been knocked down in so many arguments, will just give up arguing
(over centuries) and find other means to get her way.
She will find other ways by thinking introspectively about her relationship to the male thereby formulating a plan of appropriate action.
Is this genetic? Hardly.
Is it, more importantly, natural? Yes.
Now, if one wanted to catch the male off guard it would be advantageous to get him to become 'introspective' (female-like) so that he could be led around ... so that he would defer to a "higher" authority.
Deference is a crucial part of the makeup of the female. She will always defer to the nearest male in any judgement involving functionality.
Example:I saw a woman on TV who was killed because of this while walking behind a
man crossing a train track. She was watching the man (relationships-deference) not the train. The man was watching the train
(functional-mechanical). The man stopped (realizing he couldn't make it). The
woman, watching the man, continued on and was struck and killed by a 30 mph locomotive because she "deferred judgement" to the male thereby losing the half second or so that cost her her life.
Again, this is the rule not the exception.
The actual goal (as a rule) of those who preach helping the poor as the ultimate
virtue is and has always been, the castration of the male in order to subjugate him.
Of course, it can't work in the long run because it would be a violation of the
identity of the male which can be stretched but springs back to its proper shape when the reshapers get tired of wrestling with it.
In fact, the male is just hanging back ... enduring seemingly endless invective ...
and is still doing his job which is the maintenance and furtherance of civilization.
Incidentally, this is the highest male virtue.
These differences between male and female vary with the stress on civilization.
Great stress means bigger differences because it is the optimum survival strategy
(division of labor and specialization). When the planet has been "won" for man,
say... 20,000 years from now, the differences will be minimal (possibly even vestigial). Thus, you won't find any alien race in the galaxy wherein the female has big, voluptuous breasts and curvaceous hips and males endowed with bulging biceps and tight buns. They will be quite similar and share similar interests without any major "shopping" distinction.
The antidote:
The problem of feminization can be solved easily by barring women from voting. I
mean voting on a par with the male as they do now. Ideally, the women vote in a "womens election" and their representatives give their opinions to the male representatives who take them under consideration, perhaps.
posted on October 28, 2000 12:32:00 AM new
Gee, despite undeniable biologic traits, I must not be a real woman!
I like & use machinery--have a Shopsmith, bandsaw, scroll saw, circular saw, jig saw, and several other woodwrking machines.
I hold a brown belt in Kung Fu San Soo, and scuba dive. (which negates me under both Sports & "killing stuff" )
I have personal integrity
I hate shopping, especially for clothes. Actually, I don't give a damn about clothes generally & have even trained my bosses at work to accept jeans, tennis shoes & t-shirts.
I am totally uninterested in Homemaking (I think I am closely related to Oscar Madison) & rarely cook (I worship before my microwave)
I am not nurturing at all & in fact nipped my troubles in the bud when I was finally able to convince the doctor that I had no interest in going forth to populate the earth.
I saw a woman on TV who was killed because of this while walking behind a man crossing a train track. She was watching the man (relationships-deference) not the train. The man was watching the train (functional-mechanical). The man stopped (realizing he couldn't make it). The woman, watching the man, continued on and was struck and killed by a 30 mph locomotive because she "deferred judgement" to the male thereby losing the half second or so that cost her her life.
So...she was walking backwards & staring at the man when the train struck her? And what was he doing while this was happening?
The problem of feminization can be solved easily by barring women from voting.
But...by this argument you are deomonstrating that men are not, in fact, the strongest sex. If they are so weak physically & mentally that the mere fact that women can vote totally demoralizes them, then they are really the weakest sex. And, again by your own argument, *should* be in a subordinate, deferential position.
UBB!
[ edited by bunnicula on Oct 28, 2000 12:32 AM ]
[ edited by bunnicula on Oct 28, 2000 12:35 AM ]
posted on October 28, 2000 01:09:22 AM new
You may be a case in point for the exceptions I mentioned, Bunnicula, and I would not be surprised to learn that your biceps bulge.
posted on October 28, 2000 04:30:36 AM new
I'll knit you a muffler for your Christmas present krs.
now that my nurturing side is out of the way, I must be another exception to some of those rules. Prefer reading WSJ to a watching a soap opera or talk show.Can't abide romance novels. prefer global political analysis to boring local politics.
oh and raised my kid myself, having to be the man and the woman at the same time due to the failure of the father to actually be a responsible man with integrity who likes the things on your 'man' list. What civilization is present in any man, and there are many, who abandons his child? None.
(picked my brass ovaries up at the cleaners the other day.
oh I wonder what parbomber would think of this discussion?
posted on October 28, 2000 04:50:14 AM new
Too early for me. I haven't even finished my first cup of coffee yet and my head is full of cobwebs (that would be more cobwebs than ususal).
But, in the immortal words of Arnold, "I'll be back".
posted on October 28, 2000 06:22:59 AM new
Oh, no, it's much more simple and natural than that.Women are incapable of making the same quality decisions as men. Women are not stupid, but have a temperament that will destroy a country if they are allowed to control things, they are emotional beings that should not be given power to make
political decisions at any level.
posted on October 28, 2000 06:32:20 AM new
i question the "quality" of male decision making that led you to post such blatantly discriminatory statements on a public chat board
unless, could it be??? krs was bored and looking for someone to argue with last night, nah not krs
posted on October 28, 2000 07:06:30 AM new
It is she, my love, my wife, where these things abide,
And my success was made complete when she became my bride!
Now , after two and twenty years, I cannot have a doubt,
My Golden girl, by my side is all I have to tout.
When I speak of “a woman’s place,” there's no uncertainty,
Beside her man, sharing life, is where she ought to be.
For only she can make a home from just a house alone,
And only she can fill a man with pride that’s all his own.
She completes the incomplete, she makes a man a whole,
She gives a man what he most needs, right to his very soul!
This I say, straight from the heart, this is my very life...
This is the woman that I love, this is my precious wife.
A woman’s place is in the home, or home it cannot be.
After two and twenty years, it’s very clear to me!
posted on October 28, 2000 07:11:50 AM new
I figure there are 4 possibilities here.
1. Krs was bored out of his gourd
2. Krs lost a game of truth or dare
3. Krs has a bet with someone re: how many angry women he can con into responding to this thread
4. Krs has a death wish
posted on October 28, 2000 07:27:05 AM new
In ancient Rome and Greece, women were not allowed to vote. Women, it was felt in these democratic societies, were not to engage in civil life. In
Sparta and Athens, women were not even allowed to be citizens. In more modern times, polities (until recently) exhibited similar characteristics. At the turn of
this century things began to change. Women received the franchise in Great Britain in 1928. France did not allow women to vote until 1944, and Switzerland
did not grant suffrage to women until 1972. America went through a similar transformation, and extended suffrage to women in 1920. This move was a clear
violation of the founding principles of the American Republic. The second president of the United States, John Adams, once wrote to his wife Abigail that he
knew better than to dismantle the "Masculine" political system. America's third president, Thomas Jefferson, also realized the danger of feminizing politics. No
women were at the Constitutional Convention, which is why the Constitution has been so successfull. At the time the Constitution was adopted, not one state
had female suffrage. The Supreme Court in 1875 said that by prohibiting women's suffrage, a state did not deprive them of the "equal protection of the laws" (see
Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 (1875)). Currently, any lay observer of American politics knows that most women, as has been said in our nation's history a
million times by now, inherently think with their emotions. Anyone who thinks with his emotions should not be in politics, man or woman. Emotional thinking and
governing a society do not mix, as the Enlightenment taught all of mankind. James Madison, our fourth president, clearly stated that an individual should think
with his mind and reason, not his emotion and passion. Furthermore, John Locke believed that women had no political rights whatsoever. Obviously, we have
lost track of our American roots and if this nation is to survive as a great world power, our government must be invigorated with great men who think with their
reason.
[ edited by krs on Oct 28, 2000 07:31 AM ]
You men are just gettin' worried now. With cloning a reality we don't need ya around to provide us with beings to nurture any more. We just keep ya for entertainment.
**Disclaimer: If I appear arguementive, then I probably am just being a #*!@ today. It comes & goes. C.
posted on October 28, 2000 11:58:43 AM new
You Pat, of all people, pay attention. You know that I'm right.
men are made to lead, to work a career and anything that provides competition. Men are terrible mothers but are good fathers, providing protection, strength, consistency and discipline. In politics they are quite capable, as demonstrated by the founding fathers and most of two centuries of female-free political leadership in the US to bring us to the pentacle of the world.
Feminism wants to throw all of that out the window and rewrite the rules. They have done it. Just read any book today and you will see some very stupid things. You will see words like congressperson, and police officer, instead of the traditional congressman and policeman. These masculine roles are now
gender neutral, as if anyone really wants a police woman to come to their aid when a big old burglar is breaking into their house.
Traditionally men did the work to bring home the bacon, leaving the wife at home to take care of the home and the children. Feminists hated that arrangement and set out to change it, as one of their primary goals. Today, no one is doing more to assist the feminists in attaining that goal than the conservative feminist. Any traditionalist is left with absolutely no one to vote for when a woman conservative takes up the Republican slot in a political race. A vote for a woman is a vote against the traditional family. A traditional woman would never run for office, nor should she.
We are left in a situation where there is no opposition whatsoever to true feminism. The wacko lesbian man hater can be ridiculed in certain circles but when Bob Dole's wife talks of running for president as the Republican candidate, no one is laughing as they should. When conservative families send their girls off to college instead of to the marriage altar there are no tears wept for the families that have been almost certainly weakened and probably destroyed by that action. Instead of teaching our girls how to be good wives we are teaching them how to be anything else. It does not matter what, just
anything else.
posted on October 28, 2000 12:31:06 PM new
The problem with your argument, krs, is that you want to make choices on behalf over 50% of the population. I don't think all those people are going to let you do that...
posted on October 28, 2000 12:36:55 PM new
Egad, sweetheart, you're painting with a mighty broad brush...
Not all men make good fathers, providers, politicians, just as not all women are cut out to be mothers, homemakers and wives.
From my position as a double-breasted, ovary-packing female, I prefer the freedom to make my own choices, and I'm proud as hell of women such as E.C. Stanton who had the guts AND vision to fight for MY rights back when your ancestors were bopping suffragettes on their heads.
posted on October 28, 2000 01:21:25 PM new
Wonder what krs makes of Val and me (not to mention any woman who chooses not to marry, bear children, or pursue work outside her "appropriate" sphere)?
posted on October 28, 2000 02:26:42 PM new
Well toke, I just had to go find that old classic song "Get your biscuits in the Oven and your Buns in the Bed"
