rigorousintuition.ca

Quoth Mr. Nemo:

Read how groups like the Red Stockings were calling for the death of all males, in their "slaughter the pigs" manifestos.

Just seen this and can't let it pass. While I agree with much of what you've said, particularly that

The voices that fought for equality were quickly silenced.

I believe you're confusing the Redstockings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redstockings), who produced the Redstockings Manifesto, with the SCUM Manifesto of the nonexistent Society for Cutting Up Men, written by that lone nutter (literally) Valerie Solanis, who tried to kill Andy Warhol.

I defy you to produce any statement by the Redstockings group themselves calling for the death of all males, or indeed, any male.

As for "menstruating openly" (ewww!), why, how dare they!

(You do know about the toxic shock syndrome deaths associated with high-aborbency tampons, right? Here's a useful advice leaflet from a university health center: http://www.mckinley.uiuc.edu/Handouts/t ... drome.html
You'll note that it advises women to reduce the risk of toxic shock by alternating tampons with pads. But, ewww, that would mean they'd be menstruating openly!)

I believe you're confusing the Redstockings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redstockings), who produced the Redstockings Manifesto, with the SCUM Manifesto of the nonexistent Society for Cutting Up Men, written by that lone nutter (literally) Valerie Solanis, who tried to kill Andy Warhol.

And even she didn't actually advocate cutting up men ("it was just a literary device" she said later), and she "only" tried to kill Warhol because of a personal grievance. She was apparently pretty ****ing insane, but the Manifesto itself contains some relatively sensible albeit very anti-male stuff.

FourthBase wrote: People underestimate how different the world was only about 100 years ago.

Don't forget I am a child of the Reagan era. Look how skeptical I turned out...

I believe throughout all cultures in all times, there have been those who have been able to glimpse beyond consensus reality.

The priest-class used to control it, now behavioral scientists do. People are still in the same predicament, except, for now, the independents have a chance of communicating more widely.

Oh, FourthBase, I tried and tried to get that "ignore" button to work, but it seems to be malfunctioning:

I was merely talking in the same ugly steroetypes and vitriol that you use when you post your hatred of Jews and, in this thread, your hatred of men.

I don't think you were pretending to be a hateful racist. You're pretending now, because I exposed you for what you are.

The only vitriol here is your slander about me: I don't hate Jews or Judaism at all. I hate a racist ideology called zionism, which advocates the supremacy of one ethnic group over another, and which has been the driving force behind the slaughter and dispossession of a whole nation of people because they are the "wrong" ethnicity.

There's an importance distinction between hating men and hating the violence that appears to be endemic to patriarchal societies, ie ones dominated by men, where women bear the brunt of the violence and its associated economic and social costs, but are almost totally absent at the highest levels where decisions are made.

I thought you'd figure that out, but you're not very bright, so it's not a bigh shocker that you didn't.

Yeah, well, until you and I can compare IQ test results, you're welcome to call me "stupid" all you want. It makes you sound so very intelligent.

I also pointed out that you don't know anything about American women, but assume, that because they are the same gender as you, that they should be handed the reins of power, as they are "innocent victims of male oppression".

Why do you think that I don't know anything about American women?

Besides, were we discussing whether "American women" "should be handed the reins of power"? I wasn't. Were you?

Mind you, whoever IS holding the reins of power is also responsible for the disastrous condition humanity finds itself, and it ain't women, American or otherwise.

The problem is that the "reins" themselves, in our current system, depend on the capacity to commit or threaten violence. That, and that alone, determines who holds the "reins of power".

Authority and genuine leadership are very different from bullying, and they lead to a very different kind of world. The former inspire admiration and respect, even sincere gratitude (dare I say love?); the latter inspire fear and hatred. A world ruled by terrorists is what we have, so it's not surprising that fear and hatred permeate so much of it.

The challenge is to create a system that promotes leaders who are capable of leading wisely, and prevents terrorists from using violence to force their will on the rest of us and dictate the kind of world we all live in.

I'm merely suggesting that male-DOMINANT systems seem invariably to be associated with violence. Since violence is the single biggest problem we face globally, the solution may very well be to come up with a system that is not male-DOMINANT. One that effectively, once and for all, puts the 'reins of power' in the hands of LAWS that protect the rights of all of us, instead of in the hands of particular categories of individuals.

Nevermind the fact that Nancy Pelosi was elected on her promise to impeach Bush and end the war in Iraq and has done neither.
She is better, because she has ovaries.

You talking to me? Nancy Pelosi? Ovaries? Oh, ok, you were just arguing with that straw woman again. Carry on.

People who are mentally sound know that a person is judged by their behavior, and not condemned by their gender.

Their words too. You might be a woman, for all I know. You'd still be a racist, zionist asshole. (I know, I know: civility. I thought of deleting that, but I just-can't-do-it!)

This kind of sexist paralogism is typical of the kind of irrational behavior that is indicative of mental disease.

If you went around spouting this kind of fanatical banter about Zionists, Jews and men, in America, that you do in Egypt, your children would probably be taken away from you and you would be put somewhere so that you could receive the help you desperately need.

I hope you're just mixed up: it was in Stalinist Russia, I believe, where dissidents were locked up in mental hospitals for reprogramming. I thought America was a place where freedom of speech and freedom of thought were guaranteed. Or maybe you're talking about USrael. I don't know. If you say so.

...your children would probably be taken away from you...

Enjoy your sadistic fantasy, little man. If someone really tried to lay one finger on my kids, I'd almost pity them. Almost.

Hugh,
Be the Washington Post as it may, I've read the book and it simply balances the scales.
Mr. Farrell's worked with many women's groups and I doubt that he's CIA.
There's simply NO vitriol in the book, and the author goes out of his way to explain that he is righting wrong infomation (floated by the 3 Letter Losers).

It is NOT a woman-bashing book.


Mr. Lurquacious.

I suggest you read Mr. Abe Peck of the Chicago Seed and Underground Press Syndicate.

He chronicles a moment where a woman is about to breastfeed her baby and is told by a member of the Red Stockings that she should "kill that pig", instead of feeding it.

This is the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Uncovering-Sixtie ... 0394527933

BTW, I am very familiar with Ms. Solanas, and in fact agree wholeheartedly with some of what she says in the SCUM Manifesto.

Such as...

Sex is the refuge of the mindless.

Sex is not part of a relationship: on the contrary, it is a solitary experience, non-creative, a gross waste of time.

The male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he'll swim through a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there'll be a friendly pussy awaiting him. He'll screw a woman he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and furthermore, pay for the opportunity.

I just don't want to see men literally cut up, but I sometimes consider myself a member of the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM, because I'm one of the, in the words of Val, "men who tell it like it is."

Mr. Nemo, you said:

Read how groups like the Red Stockings were calling for the death of all males, in their "slaughter the pigs" manifestos.

To which I replied:

I defy you to produce any statement by the Redstockings group themselves calling for the death of all males, or indeed, any male.

In response to which you produce an anecdote about an individual woman who is said to be a member of the Red Stockings and is said to have made a verbal comment about killing a male child.

Quite a step-down, isn't it?

Alice,

Only racial hatred can fuel your multiple, constant attacks on "Zionists." (you don't dare say Jews, lest you show your true colors.)

You never condemn violence against Israel.
You have not written 1 post saying that it's wrong for people to blow up school buses filled with women and children.
You, in fact, encourage it with these repeated one-sided attacks on "Zionists".

You also never push for a state of Palestine and state of Israel.
The people who want peace, such as myself, do.

In America, it used to be that only Nazi skinheads and the KKK would talk about "USrael" or the "Zionist government of America".

Very telling that use the same language as open racists and Nazis.

Nice threat at the end of your long, babbling post.
I thought violence was an evil "male" trait.

Lurquacious wrote:Mr. Nemo, you said:

Read how groups like the Red Stockings were calling for the death of all males, in their "slaughter the pigs" manifestos.

To which I replied:

I defy you to produce any statement by the Redstockings group themselves calling for the death of all males, or indeed, any male.

In response to which you produce an anecdote about an individual woman who is said to be a member of the Red Stockings and is said to have made a verbal comment about killing a male child.

Quite a step-down, isn't it?

I proved that a member of the group made that statement, which you denied.

Now you're splitting hairs.

Do you honestly believe she was the only person to say this?

Things got crazy back then and the Weather Underground were bombing buildings, papers were circulating with pics of dead white cops ("pigs") on their covers and such.

Read that book.

I suppose next you're gonna tell me that the Manson Family was all-male.

Mr. Nemo, surely you can see that there's a difference between an individual making an off-the-cuff comment in private and a group making an official statement in a manifesto.

I proved that a member of the group made that statement

Well, no, you proved that a guy wrote a book in which he claimed that a woman he claimed was a member of the Redstockings made that statement.

Things got crazy back then

Certainly did, and all sort of weird shit was said. I'm simply defending the estimable Redstockings.

BTW, I am very familiar with Ms. Solanas, and in fact agree wholeheartedly with some of what she says in the SCUM Manifesto.

Such as...

Sex is the refuge of the mindless.

Sex is not part of a relationship: on the contrary, it is a solitary experience, non-creative, a gross waste of time.

Say fucking what?????

You agree with that? IMO that is a pretty fucking sad reflection on how imprinting and conditioning influence the way we experience the world.

Only racial hatred can fuel your multiple, constant attacks on "Zionists."

Don't blame me for your tunnel vision and ignorance.

You never condemn violence against Israel.

Only in zionist fantasies is it possible or moral to demand that an entire people be disposessed, slaughtered at will, NEGATED, so that another people can grab everything that is theirs. Violence, especially the vicious, savage, extreme violations that have been perpetrated against the Palestinian people over the last century in defiance of international law, UN resolutions and basic human decency, has pushed some desperate individuals to seek revenge. It's a testament to the beautiful, powerful spirit of the vast majority of the Palestinians, that they have resisted becoming like their soulless tormentors.

You also never push for a state of Palestine and state of Israel.
The people who want peace, such as myself, do.

You have your opinion, and I have mine. I don't believe that either peace or justice is possible as long as the zionist entity continues to benefit from the fruits of its war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Justice, international law and the zionist entity are mutually exclusive. If the zionist abomination implements the law, and UN resolutions, it will cease to exist as a zionist entity, a fact that has been openly admitted by almost all its own leaders.

If the choice is between justice & the law on one hand, or the continued existence of a criminal Judeo-supremacist regime on the other, I choose the former. Bite me.

You have not written 1 post saying that it's wrong for people to blow up school buses filled with women and children.
You, in fact, encourage it with these repeated one-sided attacks on "Zionists".

No. I have written many, many posts saying that it's wrong for people to blow up, not just school buses, but residential buildings, beaches, hospitals, and refugee camps filled with women and children.

You know very well whose children are being "blown up", shot, kidnapped, starved, tortured and terrorized. If you don't, look it up. Their killers are being rewarded and promoted, and money from your pocket is being poured into their coffers.

It's not enough for zionists to crush an entire people with impunity: it's part of the pathology to demand that their violence be sanctified as "pure" and "moral", that they be admired for being "democratic" even as they violate the basic human rights of millions of people under their rule.

I just don't see that working too much longer. Despite the Israelis shooting journalists, beating up and killing human rights activists and otherwise trying to keep witnesses out of the territories, more and more people around the globe know too much to be fooled by the hasbara talking points. The stench of death and the screams of the innocent victims are drowning them out.

By the way: it's "Zionist Occupied Government" (ZOG), not "Zionist Government of America". Twit.

Back OT for a moment

I was speaking to a female colleague last night about this thread (a clinical psychologist who thinks, affectionately, that I'm basically a quack). She went to an all girls school in Brazil. She asserted that if the women of the world were to take over:

- The world would become even more competitive and hierarchical.
- The world would become even more image driven.
- There would be less focus on substance, and less direction.

To balance that she pointed out strongly that men haven't done a very good job so far.

She believes that men are relatively straightforward creatures in comparison to women (I agree as it happens).

We both agreed that men have a greater tendency to become unnecessarily aggressive.

Although she agrees that women can display great compassion, perhaps more so than men, she pointed out that women can also succumb to vengeful rage, perhaps more so than men. Hell hath no fury etc...

All in all she found the whole premise pretty stupid, instead pointing out that real strength comes from "male" & "female" traits woven together in balance. Imbalance of any kind leads to dis-ease.

Thanks,

Telexx

She asserted that if the women of the world were to take over:

- The world would become even more competitive and hierarchical.
- The world would become even more image driven.
- There would be less focus on substance, and less direction.

With all due respect to your friend, Telexx, I fail to see either why or even how the world would become more "competitive and hierarchical", more "image-driven", less focused on substance" and with "less direction" in a world not dominated by men.

Just saying so means nothing, less than nothing actually, as it contradicts the fact that men generally exhibit so much more competitive, agressive behaviour, are more prone to engage in or encourage violence, to sexualize violence, and to consider militarism to be the ultimate expression of manliness.

The history of the world as we know it, is the history of war. Wars have determined which civilisations survived and which were exterminated, they've drawn our national boundaries, decided our religions, shaped our knowledge of the past, made some groups masters and others slaves. Even the food we eat is greatly determined by wars, as is the clothing we wear. Wars have shaped our technology, decided how our resources are allocated, how we view others, and which qualities we respect in our leaders. They've even shaped our ideals of beauty, the languages with which we express ourselves.

The history of war, as any historian will tell you, is the history of men, with women relegated to the shadows, anonymous and silent, except in the very rare occasions when they intrude into the male sphere of dominance. At a price.

Queen Hatshepsut wore a man's beard attached to her chin as a symbol of her worthiness to rule Egypt; Queen Elizabeth I never married nor bore children in order to preserve her power. Cleopatra, on the contrary, known as a multi-lingual philosopher, one of the greatest intellects of her time, had herself wrapped in a carpet and delivered to Caesar, reinventing herself as a sex kitten in her quest for power and to rescue Egypt's then-fading glory. In the end, the fame she achieved, her place in history, was not for her brilliance, nor her great patriotism, but for her relations with two great men: Caesar and Mark Anthony.

Even today, the higher a woman's position, the less likely she is to have the basic benefits of a family enjoyed by most of the world's women and men, for that matter. Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect that it's far more difficult for a woman to have both a "high-powered" career and healthy family life, than for men. Is it a coincidence that the two most powerful women in the past two US administrations have not? Madeline Albright never bore children, nor has Condaleezza Rice.

When Hillary Clinton, in order to help her husband look like presidential material, felt the need to reassure voters that she had no political ambitions of her own, she had to pretend to love baking cookies.

Now that she is openly seeking the presidency, her views have become as male-oriented and militaristic and corrupt as those of any other candidate who becomes a contender. If they didn't, she would probably still be baking those cookies, or working anonymously in some law firm.

Warriors make the system, write the rules, and women who don't want to stay in the shadows then must conform to those essentially male structures by becoming she-men, or attaching themselves to he-men.

All I'm saying, is that maybe there's still time to try something different, because the way we're going now, we all lose, big time.

That way is removing war/violence from the equation, something that women have FAR more practical experience with, and are FAR better equipped for, since war/violence have not historically been things they have sought or benefitted from. On the contrary, women, especially mothers and their children, are the primary victims of war and violence.

More importantly, it is women who have borne most of the burden of making and nurturing new life even in the face of death and destruction, mostly perpetrated by men. Is it such a stretch to consider that perspectives, strengths, and approaches to problem-solving associated with women therefore represent a genuine, life-affirming, untapped treasure?

theeKultleeder wrote:Not when the standard of beauty is determined by consumer culture and men are conditioned to select trophy wives. (Most of the trophy takers have a certain psychological profile, IMO.)

The self-proclaimed alpha males. Scum. In the same way that you can't have grammar schools without secondary moderns you can't have alpha males without betas to be lorded over.

Call it "artificial selection" - it's like choosing Coca-Cola over water!

It's natural for humans to like sweet drinks. That's natural selection. Humans are part of nature, everything we do is part of natural selection. Also, when capitalism fails and the government steps in, that's not a market failure, but the market correcting itself. People not buying something because it's immorally produced are effecting the market as much as if they made their decision based on price.

Nemo wrote:Did that many moons ago and the thread got shut down when I started mentioning how Susan B, Anthony made racist remarks and how Planned Parenthood was originally a racist eugenics program.

People do NOT like having their sacred cows slaughtered.
(which is sad, because, as Abbie Hoffman once pointed out, they make the best hamburgers.)

Also, this entire thread was started with a sexist agenda, which is hardly de rigeur for RI.

Sacrilicious.

This is the way of things.

FourthBase wrote:Even if women are the "force behind SUV purchases" and a large portion of them support the Republican party and on and on, you're talking about the consequence of social conditioning, marketing, consumer mentality. What I have been talking about is their nature, beneath all that.

When women are evil it's conditioning. When women reach power and are evil it's because they're elitists, not really women. Because by doing evil they stop being women because they can no longer be kept on the pedestal. When men do evil it's because men are evil. When men reach power and do evil it's because men are evil. When female elitists do evil it's because they're in a male paradigm, ie because men are evil. When women kill their children or vote republican it's because of patriarchal social conditioning, ie, because men are evil. I see. There's a pattern here, but perhaps my paranoid conspiracy theorist's brain is seeing patterns that aren't there.

I like a bit of equality. Can't be treating women like children. Unless it's convenient for them, of course.

The truth is that both sexes have evil and pleasant representatives. Humans are individuals.

Hugh wrote:Gloria Steinem IS CIA all the way but that is because fascism fears feminism and put their horse in the race to mislead it.

It was fear, but not of feminism. Feminism was a laughing stock, as it should rightly be when ever the priveleged class proclaim their oppression. The anti-war movement and the left whose decline has mirrored feminism's rise were the targets. Steinem wasn't recruited as an infiltrator of feminism, but an agent provocateur of the peace movement. Then tactics changed and she became the CIA's candidate for dominance of what's now called second wave feminism or gender feminism.

Look what happened to Fathers 4 Justice, a harmless group of tragic clowns. They were led by a CND man. Couldn't be allowed. Infiltrated and stitched up like a kipper. Framed for trying to kidnap the PM's son.

Nemo, you know Farrell. He's good. Him. Kammer. Baskerville. Hoff-Summers. She's a woman and therefore got more media attention. Women criticising feminism, more acceptable.

"Golden Age Of Women", you say. You might want to look into the origins of the idea in Marija Gimbutas, a nazi-educated ethnographer who posutlated ancient paradisiac wonderlands in the Baltic until the patriarchal Kurgans showed up and degenerated them through interbreeding. Similarities with Nazi doctrine of Aryan supermen in the Baltic, including SS men digging at the same sites she chose for her excavations of the ancient matriarchy, are pure coincidence.

Alice wrote:Mind you, whoever IS holding the reins of power is also responsible for the disastrous condition humanity finds itself, and it ain't women, American or otherwise.

The Frontman Fallacy.

Alice, who the is Alice? Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew, Cuthbert Dibble and Grub.

With all due respect to your friend, Telexx, I fail to see either why or even how the world would become more "competitive and hierarchical", more "image-driven", less focused on substance" and with "less direction" in a world not dominated by men.

We have a way of seeing what the world would be like if not dominated by men: it's called looking out of the window.

That way is removing war/violence from the equation, something that women have FAR more practical experience with, and are FAR better equipped for, since war/violence have not historically been things they have sought or benefitted from. On the contrary, women, especially mothers and their children, are the primary victims of war and violence.

Very few peace envoys are women. Of course one is Tony Blair, so we shouldn't read too much into that, but it only takes a reading of the Norse Sagas to see that women generally play a major role in provoking violence. No man ever handed out a white feather. As we can see by looking at the Domestiv Violence stats, women are at least as violent as men. As for the victims of war and violence, as Nemo says men are the vast majority of victims of violent crime. For war, well, women were 75% of the refugee from Afghanistan. Not because they were more mobile or more cowardly or found it easier to escape but because most of the men were dead. But it's a typical feminsit position, better dead than female, ooh the woe.