rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:24 pm**

If you find eating the rich distasteful, perhaps you didn't marinate them long enough.

Sorry, I have nothing to contribute at the moment but a cheap joke. It simply couldn't be helped. Please carry on.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:15 pm**

justdrew: but are the type of woman you're complaining about really feminists? Here in the US the type I think you're referencing would most likely not identify as feminist. The Petite Bourgeoisie would be the classical term for the types you're upset with wouldn't it?

In my role as a member of the proletariat I don't come across a lot of feminists, I'll tell you that. feminism is a fundamentally middle-class movement.

Hillshoist: Is that why he's not in your sig line anymore?

I don't remember him being in there. Anyway, he's not all that bad, just as long as you avoid his prescriptivist linguistic tendencies.

justdrew: .. he is a national treasure you know? weird though, I thought modern Britain loved to celebrate it's regional accents; guess I'll have to give it a listen and see what's up

Well, there's the Scottish Raj, and Channel 4 employ a Geordie. Or perhaps someone putting on a Geordie voice. Besides that there's a linguistic apartheid, even in local radio where equally local locutions are verbotten.

As for the national treasures, don't get me started on these people commonly deemed the best of mankind. Churchill, greatest ever briton? No, fool who caused the great strike of 1926, claimed the 1945 Labour government would institute a gestapo when it's leader had been his own wartime deputy prime minister, and so forth, yes. Mandela with his terrorism and Zulu-nationalist killing, Mother Theresa with her, well, whatever it is I heard she was up to, Ghandi who told his followers not to fight the Japanese, who because anti-British when he was treated like a black man in South Africa, believing he deserved to be one of the priveleged, "living in the slums" by living in a mansion in the midst of the slums, etc.. At least Stephen Fry is quite witty.

erosoplier: Stephen, you can’t let the fact that this world is run wrong stop you from getting what is rightfully yours.

Of course, but it's also unacceptable to go down to the level of the thief, embezzler or entrepreneur and grub around for anything I can sequester for myself at the expense of society.

If modern relations with women are wrong, duly note it, but focus on cultivating proper relations with women. It’s all you can do, really.

Astonishing as it may seem, my relations with women are quite satisfactory. Not ones that work in the jobcentre, of course, but women I know in my everyday life (the jobcentre need only be attended every fortnight).

You’ll have to make compromises, but you alone will be the biggest loser if you don’t make some unsavoury compromises here and there.

I'd much rather be a loser than a sell-out. After all, if the game is rigged taking part becomes acceptance of the unfair system, rather than fair engagement in competition. For me the ideal job would be as part of a non-repressive branch of the state, perhaps as a medical orderly in the NHS.

Did you seriously not for a moment consider comparing “white-collar low- or middle-management” jobs with UNEMPLOYMENT before you concluded that they’re “really not so very cushy”?

I was thinking more along these lines:

someone: (my doubt is running out of benefits)

Try faith in stead.

Of course at one time or another I've said terrible things about yuppies, republicans, juggalos and crossover-country acts in general. but I'm trying to be less judgmental too. Hopefully SM can too. It almost reads like a rejected Sir Digby Chicken Caesar voice-over monologue

You've found a person or group I will openly admit to hating with a passion: Sir Digby Chicken Caesar.

JackRiddler: Hey, Morgan: Was Margaret Fucking Thatcher your mom? Cos' I think that might just be bad enough to explain your issues.

A greater insult it would be hard to imagine.

erosoplier: The question is, should we be gearing up to fight [i]males, or should we be gearing up to fight [/i]patriarchy? How many women live beside and directly benefit from those "derivatives traders who created the trillions-bubble that the taxpayers are now shovelling endless trillions into a bottomless pit to "cover""? And the millions of males scratching out an existence for themselves and their families in third world nations - are they somehow in on all this Wall Street chicanery?

If "patriarchy" means "capitalism", then I believe it exists and is worth fighting, however it would then be nonsensical to call it patriarchy rather than capitalism. If patriarchy is a male system persecuting females, it doesn't exist. If it's a system of the rich persecuting the poor, it's capitalism, not patriarchy. Might seem like nit-picking, semantics and the aforementioned presecriptivism, but the language we use influences our thoughts. If we call it capitalism, the enemy is capitalists, the controllers of money. If we call it patriarchy, the enemy is patriarchs, fathers, who are not in reality the enemy.

wintler: Sales is sometimes whitecollar and is physically cushy, but it corrupts the soul.

Being rich, or abusive, or any number of other things, corrupt your soul. That doesn't mean you aren't the privleged one.

c2w: Working in a white-collar low- or middle-management job of the kind we're using as examples is really not so very cushy.

It's not a question of absolute cushyness, but what is more or less cushy than what else.

when they're on the phone if they're not exhibiting enough signs of stress and misery to make it clear at a glance that they're not spending two minutes on -- [i]gasp -- a personal call. [/i]

Of course if you're digging a ditch all day there aren't likely to be many available phone lines.

m also not in the mood to hear about how men are victimized by the false rape claims of women, even in passing

You never are, and I'm never in the mood to hear that you're still ignoring the conclusive evidence that this is a common thing. I was, in this case, merely hoping we could agree that when it happens it's bad. And, ideally, not because it makes it harder for real victims to come forward, but for the simple reason that a man may be wrongfully imprisoned for a long time.

Sorry to be so intransigent. Please accept the compensation of this story about a woman who tried to monetize her rape claims that should make you happy. Because she sure got taught a lesson.

Yeah, she seems to have been raped. I don't think she should get any money out of it, after all it wasn't the hotel that raped her and there wasn't really anything they could have done to stop it. It doesn't make me happy to see that someone has been raped, as for the claim that she was negligent and basically asked for it, that was merely the defence most likely to save the hotel money, "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities" is what it says. "Such defenses allow defendants in civil suits to argue they are not responsible for damages even if the plaintiff's story is true." In other words if they accept the story is true, which they seem to, but don't accept it as their own fault, this is the only way to go.

Your own statement implies that she was "taught a lesson" because she "tried to monetize her rape claim". This doesn't seem to be the case, her name isn't even given so these accusations of negligence and so forth can't even be considered insulting and slanderous.

OP ED: if my choices are seemingly a) starve now or b) starve later after helping others starve now; then frankly, i think i want another option.

That's rather my point, dear. I would like to see the nationalisation of the natural monopolies and so forth as much as anyone, but it can only happen through a mass movement. Feminist is one of the leading, probably the leading, obstacles to the formation of such a movement. For as long as normal women see themselves firstly as disadvantaged relative to men, rather than to the rich (or even specifically to rich women if that's easiest for them to relate too, I don't say), then no unified movement in opposition to oppression can be formed.

why is it okay to eat people because they're rich?
what about their rich kids? can we eat them too?

No, but we can assign them housing on a sink estate after their worldly goods have been confiscated for the greater good. Apart from you opposition to class warfare (by the poor) I largely agree. Oh, and I don't consider my words "ultra misogyny", but that's neither here nor there.

c2w: Does anyone doubt that if "they" = Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, blacks, illegal immigrants, alien abductees, RA survivors, members of the GLBT community, Alex Jones fans, or -- in short -- pretty much any class of people on earth besides women (with the possible exception of Democrats), I'd be looking at 14 pages of flame instead of at a half-dozen dispassionate, okay-bored-now posts?

But those are birth groups, or in the case of abductees immigrants and RA survivors, victims. They haven't chosen to be what they are. Feminists have, if only after thorough brain washing. As I've made quite clear women aren't my targets, only those who put themselves in the same classification as those other mostly male groups, occupation soldiers, bailiffs and so forth. I really don't like bailiffs.

Feminists are an ideology.

Also I'm not sure you've been paying attention, I haven't noticed an unwarranted degree of support for my positionings.

Also, for the record, I am not merely evil, verminous scum.

I decline to make value judgements about fellow forum members, pal.

me, apparently: Of course they don't constitute the ruling class of society, they are merely evil, verminous, scum....although their power is not their own but that of their masters.

Yes, the first part of that was aimed specifically at the people in the immediately preceding sentence, ie the people who work in jobcentres who would be my first targets if I became a spree killer. I probably won't though. Gun control, you know. Killing people with a bicycle pump is just too slow, the police turn up and your potential victims flee rather than being killed quickly in a burst of lead.

The last bit, of course, applies to all groups intermediate between the powerful elites and the potentially revolutionary masses.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:33 pm**

erosoplier wrote:
compared2what? wrote:On an unrelated note/Elsewhere in capitalism,*** white-collar low- or middle-management jobs are not so very cushy. The people who do them are not pampered, spoiled, or favored. Those assertions had been made. They were incorrect. So I was addressing that.

Compared to most blue collar jobs, and especially to most unwanted unemployment, white-collar low- or middle-management jobs are totally very cushy. I don't see how this can be a controversial claim to make. Of course it depends on what you're capable of, and what you prefer, and the exact job in question, but I've been unemployed, I've worked in a factory, I've got a kind of white collar job right now, and I am friends with some spoilt whiney public servants: I think most white collar jobs are cushy compared to the alternatives. This isn't an assertion, this is an observation based upon my experience.

I agree with you 100 percent in spirit, and as close to 100 percent in letter as makes no difference. (Some blue collar jobs are better remunerated, less restrictive, and more personally rewarding than some white collar jobs; I'm not sure I'd call any work "cushy," assuming that it entails work, and other, similar picayune details.)

It does depend on what you're capable of, not just in terms of skill but also in terms of what you, as an individual, enjoy/can live with/can't survive with your spirit intact, which is a highly variable thing. That's neither acknowledged nor respected by the system and it should be, starting in childhood. The truth is that the vast majority of people have a very narrow range of choices if they have any at all, and increasingly so with the passage of time. And that's in "wealthy" industrialized, ostensibly non-tyrannical societies. Including the whole world, I think you'd have to make that: Overwhelming majority.

Incidentally, at different stages of my life, and for sustained periods, I've been totally down and out, worked in hum-drum office jobs, and been disgustingly successful in a disgustingly competitive and well-compensated line of work. I've been a menial laborer, too, albeit too episodically to failly claim I know what it's like to live that way. I'm acquainted with it, but it would be misleading for me to claim a whole lot more than acquaintanceship with that sector, kinda like reverse-name-dropping. There's not that much menial labor I'm able to do well enough to be much of a contender in that field, to be honest. Someone would have to give me a break for me to have the opportunity to do it.

In any event. I'm technically living at or near the poverty line now, and have been for long enough that if the world continues to run true to course, by now it would probably be regarded as such a black mark on my resume by the hiring departments of most of the cushier enterprises in which I am qualified to work that I'm not so certain those doors would still be open to me were I to try knocking on them. Which I haven't, because I'm happier by a factor of approximately infinity now than I ever was when I was one of the world's winners. Either way, I'm not any better positioned to survive the probably coming economic collapse than anyone else in precarious financial circumstances. In some ways, less well positioned, in fact. I do know how brutal and sometimes lethal true poverty is, as it happens. Nevertheless, I don't regret choosing to be a loser back when there was no doubt that it was a choice. I mean "loser" in conventional terms, btw. I don't regard myself as a loser. (And the same qualification goes double for my earlier use of the phrase "world's winners," I guess I should also make clear.) I was so exceptionally lucky to even have had the opportunity to choose, I'd have to be a blind and cold-blooded narcissist to regard myself as anything other than the beneficiary of a class privilege that no one should have unless everyone does. I mean, naturally I'm grateful for all good luck of any kind that I've ever had on a personal level, seeing as how I'm a person and all. But the part of it that derived from class privilege is a legacy of evil, from my POV. However, there's really not much I can do about that other than live with it while doing what I can to use the benefits conferred on me by class privilege to oppose the system that conferred them. Which I'm happy to do. I regard it as a privilege. Because it is one.

Sorry to have been so all-about-me. And solely in order to make a point for which I'm not actually the best example, too. But you seemed to be under the impression that I'm just burbling thoughtlessly on while lounging on the settee and eating chocolate-covered cherries or something. That's not the case. I try to think seriously before I address issues that are, as it happens, very serious to me. With mixed results, admittedly. In light of which, I'll do everyone a favor by abruptly concluding right now.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:57 pm**

Good morning job seekers

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:46 pm**

Stephen Morgan wrote:In my role as a member of the proletariat I don't come across a lot of feminists, I'll tell you that. feminism is a fundamentally middle-class movement.

if we can replace the word "middle class" with "first/second world" i might consider this statement reasonable. Otherwise it is unseasoned hyperbole.

There isn't much a middle class left around here. perhaps you haven't noticed.

The overwhelming majority of self identifying feminists i'm aware of, primarily through university, are ladies [and men] who live at, below or really damned close to the poverty line. Perhaps you should leave your bubble occassionally and meet people in the world. Frankly, for that matter, i know more than a couple former third world feminists, while admittedly most of the third world is too busy trying to survive to have time for branding themselves.

Astonishing as it may seem, my relations with women are quite satisfactory. Not ones that work in the jobcentre, of course, but women I know in my everyday life (the jobcentre need only be attended every fortnight).

oh no, not astonishing. i don't doubt it whatsoever, and indeed i'd venture that this is probably one of the largest blocks preventing you from considering that your opinions/"data" might be inherently flawed.

someone: (my doubt is running out of benefits)

Try faith in stead.

i have faith that god will forgive the abovementioned women for their tolerance which has enabled your behavior.

JackRiddler: Hey, Morgan: Was Margaret Fucking Thatcher your mom? Cos' I think that might just be bad enough to explain your issues.

A greater insult it would be hard to imagine.

agreed. that is worse even than anything i've said to you.

erosoplier: The question is, should we be gearing up to fight [i]males, or should we be gearing up to fight [/i]patriarchy? How many women live beside and directly benefit from those "derivatives traders who created the trillions-bubble that the taxpayers are now shovelling endless trillions into a bottomless pit to "cover""? And the millions of males scratching out an existence for themselves and their families in third world nations - are they somehow in on all this Wall Street chicanery?

If "patriarchy" means "capitalism", then I believe it exists and is worth fighting, however it would then be nonsensical to call it patriarchy rather than capitalism. If patriarchy is a male system persecuting females, it doesn't exist. If it's a system of the rich persecuting the poor, it's capitalism, not patriarchy. Might seem like nit-picking, semantics and the aforementioned presecriptivism, but the language we use influences our thoughts. If we call it capitalism, the enemy is capitalists, the controllers of money. If we call it patriarchy, the enemy is patriarchs, fathers, who are not in reality the enemy.

and if we call it "feminism" the enemy is women who want a fair shake.

also, your definitions of these terms above is sub par.

patriarchy refers to an abstract set of institutions which promote male-centric values and aggression also the marketing of women as objects for sale. Which means it interacts with, and is often allied to, capitalism, but is distinct and seperate insomuch as it exists at all, being an abstract term.

wintler: Sales is sometimes whitecollar and is physically cushy, but it corrupts the soul.

Being rich, or abusive, or any number of other things, corrupt your soul. That doesn't mean you aren't the privleged one.

"an equal distribution of money would not change its status as the root of all evil"

[paraphrased]

c2w: Working in a white-collar low- or middle-management job of the kind we're using as examples is really not so very cushy.

It's not a question of absolute cushyness, but what is more or less cushy than what else.

it isn't a question of either.

when they're on the phone if they're not exhibiting enough signs of stress and misery to make it clear at a glance that they're not spending two minutes on -- [i]gasp -- a personal call. [/i]

Of course if you're digging a ditch all day there aren't likely to be many available phone lines.

again i suggest you get out more. today, my neighbor had her cable company changed, and thee utility workers came to remove the old pole and replace it with a new one. they required access to my yard to do so, is how i know. i watched them, cuz i'm paranoid. in between and during chain sawing and pole climbing, the big burly guy in the hard hat chattering incessantly on his cellular.

also, people talking on the phone is irrelevant.

m also not in the mood to hear about how men are victimized by the false rape claims of women, even in passing

You never are, and I'm never in the mood to hear that you're still ignoring the conclusive evidence that this is a common thing. I was, in this case, merely hoping we could agree that when it happens it's bad. And, ideally, not because it makes it harder for real victims to come forward, but for the simple reason that a man may be wrongfully imprisoned for a long time.

couldn't it "ideally" be for both reasons?

i am aware of both issues, non-reports of rapes and false claims, both of which i've personally seen, btw. i do not consider these problems as being in some sort of hierarchy wherein one should receive greater public attention than another, except perhaps in terms of sheer numbers. in which terms you'd lose, i'm sure you must know.

OP ED: if my choices are seemingly a) starve now or b) starve later after helping others starve now; then frankly, i think i want another option.

That's rather my point, dear. I would like to see the nationalisation of the natural monopolies and so forth as much as anyone, but it can only happen through a mass movement. Feminist is one of the leading, probably the leading, obstacles to the formation of such a movement. For as long as normal women see themselves firstly as disadvantaged relative to men, rather than to the rich (or even specifically to rich women if that's easiest for them to relate too, I don't say), then no unified movement in opposition to oppression can be formed.

oh nonsense. get out more. again.

feminism as i encounter it, in the ghetto and at the university is one of the best hopes for formation of a mass movement. there are lots of women, after all, and they're underrepresented among the powerful.

your framing of it as an either/or question: feminism or the revolution is horsepucky. how old are you?

why is it okay to eat people because they're rich?
what about their rich kids? can we eat them too?

No, but we can assign them housing on a sink estate after their worldly goods have been confiscated for the greater good. Apart from you opposition to class warfare (by the poor) I largely agree. Oh, and I don't consider my words "ultra misogyny", but that's neither here nor there.

see: equal distribution, above.

i'm opposed to warfare based on vaguely defined subcategorizations of humanity, regardless of what one calls them. Always.

c2w: Does anyone doubt that if "they" = Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, blacks, illegal immigrants, alien abductees, RA survivors, members of the GLBT community, Alex Jones fans, or -- in short -- pretty much any class of people on earth besides women (with the possible exception of Democrats), I'd be looking at 14 pages of flame instead of at a half-dozen dispassionate, okay-bored-now posts?

But those are birth groups, or in the case of abductees immigrants and RA survivors, victims. They haven't chosen to be what they are. Feminists have, if only after thorough brain washing. As I've made quite clear women aren't my targets, only those who put themselves in the same classification as those other mostly male groups, occupation soldiers, bailiffs and so forth. I really don't like bailiffs.

women are a birth group.

no one would tolerate you if you only insulted the "bad jews", would they?

Feminists are an ideology.

well sometimes you slip and say "women" instead of "feminists".

but as to the point c2w brought up {again} if we were to replace an instance of your word "feminist" with, say, "zionist" we'd have orz and AD here giving you fifteen pages worth of scorched underpants...

Also I'm not sure you've been paying attention, I haven't noticed an unwarranted degree of support for my positionings.

wow, really?

i wonder why. must be the evil feminists have brainwashed us all.

Also, for the record, I am not merely evil, verminous scum.

I decline to make value judgements about fellow forum members, pal.

no. you did already. that was the point.

me, apparently: Of course they don't constitute the ruling class of society, they are merely evil, verminous, scum....although their power is not their own but that of their masters.

Yes, the first part of that was aimed specifically at the people in the immediately preceding sentence, ie the people who work in jobcentres who would be my first targets if I became a spree killer. I probably won't though. Gun control, you know. Killing people with a bicycle pump is just too slow, the police turn up and your potential victims flee rather than being killed quickly in a burst of lead.

move to usa. but be careful, our women might return fire.

The last bit, of course, applies to all groups intermediate between the powerful elites and the potentially revolutionary masses.

talk about a broad brush.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:28 pm**

Stephen Morgan wrote:erosoplier: Stephen, you can’t let the fact that this world is run wrong stop you from getting what is rightfully yours.

Of course, but it's also unacceptable to go down to the level of the thief, embezzler or entrepreneur and grub around for anything I can sequester for myself at the expense of society.

If modern relations with women are wrong, duly note it, but focus on cultivating proper relations with women. It’s all you can do, really.

Astonishing as it may seem, my relations with women are quite satisfactory. Not ones that work in the jobcentre, of course, but women I know in my everyday life (the jobcentre need only be attended every fortnight).

You’ll have to make compromises, but you alone will be the biggest loser if you don’t make some unsavoury compromises here and there.

I'd much rather be a loser than a sell-out. After all, if the game is rigged taking part becomes acceptance of the unfair system, rather than fair engagement in competition. For me the ideal job would be as part of a non-repressive branch of the state, perhaps as a medical orderly in the NHS.

I can only repeat what I said in my original post, so I won't bother doing that.

erosoplier: The question is, should we be gearing up to fight [i]males, or should we be gearing up to fight [/i]patriarchy? How many women live beside and directly benefit from those "derivatives traders who created the trillions-bubble that the taxpayers are now shovelling endless trillions into a bottomless pit to "cover""? And the millions of males scratching out an existence for themselves and their families in third world nations - are they somehow in on all this Wall Street chicanery?

If "patriarchy" means "capitalism", then I believe it exists and is worth fighting, however it would then be nonsensical to call it patriarchy rather than capitalism. If patriarchy is a male system persecuting females, it doesn't exist. If it's a system of the rich persecuting the poor, it's capitalism, not patriarchy. Might seem like nit-picking, semantics and the aforementioned presecriptivism, but the language we use influences our thoughts. If we call it capitalism, the enemy is capitalists, the controllers of money. If we call it patriarchy, the enemy is patriarchs, fathers, who are not in reality the enemy.

The terms are largely interchangable. The way I see it, feminism is legitimate at its core, but is a failure and a sham so long as it doesn't attack/address capitalism directly.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:39 pm**

OP ED wrote:retard

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:07 pm**

yeah well i tried to edit out all the kneejerk reactional insulting, but it seems you noticed one.

not that i was being nice or anything just saving it for later. thanks, btw.

well you've ruined that, so now i suppose that later on i'll be forced to resort to my next in line [after "distasteful"] set of insults based on amoralist aesthetic value judgements....

these being the 5D's. Roughly in worsening order:

Decadent
Delusional
Degenerate
Depraved
Diseased

...

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:13 pm**

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 38&start=0

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:33 pm**

Sorry if I threw a wrench in your process, OP ED. I was really just whispering my assent. I'm not one to flippantly diagnose illnesses of the mind based upon postings on anonymous boards like this one, but I recognise a real problem when I read it. I've known a few and had a few of my own, I guess. This one strikes me, though, as a disorder too common to merit much sympathy. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts upthread.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:41 pm**

STOP FEEDING THE ASSHOLE (troll). How f'n hard is that?

"The Myth of Female Masochism." Yeah, right.

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:01 am**

Project Willow wrote:STOP FEEDING THE ASSHOLE (troll). How f'n hard is that?

"The Myth of Female Masochism." Yeah, right.

who? me?

trolls need hugz too!

barracuda wrote:Sorry if I threw a wrench in your process, OP ED. I was really just whispering my assent. I'm not one to flippantly diagnose illnesses of the mind based upon postings on anonymous boards like this one, but I recognise a real problem when I read it. I've known a few and had a few of my own, I guess. This one strikes me, though, as a disorder too common to merit much sympathy. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts upthread.

well i almost always edit my posts. unless they're long in which case i do it beforehand in word or something.

(see, i just added this in after posting the reply to PW, above...)

if you do it fast, before another reply hits, it doesn't even catch it.

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:52 am**

I won't even touch it. I am far too tempted to just take it on a personal attack level. Men are such pigs, you know?

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:20 am**

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/life/the ... en-503004/

[via Forbes]

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/11/pow ... yahooshine

100 most powerful women

1 Angela Merkel Chancellor Germany
2 Sheila Bair Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. U.S.
3 Indra Nooyi Chief executive, PepsiCo U.S.
4 Cynthia Carroll Chief executive, Anglo American U.K.
5 Ho Ching Chief executive, Temasek Singapore
6 Irene Rosenfeld Chief executive, Kraft Foods U.S.
7 Ellen Kullman Chief executive, DuPont U.S.
8 Angela Braly Chief executive, WellPoint U.S.
9 Anne Lauvergeon Chief executive, Areva France
10 Lynn Elsenhans Chief executive, Sunoco U.S.
11 Cristina Fernandez President Argentina
12 Carol Bartz Chief executive, Yahoo U.S.
13 Sonia Gandhi President, Indian National Congress Party India
14 Ursula Burns Chief executive, Xerox Corp. U.S.
15 Anne Mulcahy Chairman, Xerox Corp. U.S.
16 Safra Catz President, Oracle U.S.
17 Christine Lagarde Minister of Economy, Finance & Employment France
18 Gail Kelly Chief executive, Westpac Australia
19 Marjorie Scardino Chief executive, Pearson Plc. U.K.
20 Chanda Kochhar Chief executive, ICICI Bank India
21 Mary Sammons Chief executive, Rite Aid Corp. U.S.
22 Michelle Bachelet President Chile
23 Paula Reynolds Chief restructuring officer, AIG U.S.
24 Carol Meyrowitz Chief executive, TJX Companies U.S.
25 Andrea Jung Chief executive, Avon U.S.

26 Patricia Woertz Chief executive, Archer Daniels Midland U.S.
27 Guler Sabanci Chairman, Sabanci Holding Turkey
28 Barbara Desoer President, Bank of America Mortgage, Home Equity, & Insurance U.S.
29 Brenda Barnes Chief executive, Sara Lee Corp. U.S.
30 Risa Lavizzo-Mourey Chief executive, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation U.S.
31 Ann Livermore Executive vice president, Hewlett-Packard U.S.
32 Cathie Lesjak Executive vice president, Hewlett-Packard U.S.
33 Marina Berlusconi Chairman, Fininvest Group Italy
34 Melinda Gates Co-chairman, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation U.S.
35 Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House, House of Representatives U.S.
36 Hillary Rodham Clinton Secretary of State U.S.
37 Jane Mendillo Chief executive, Harvard Management Co. U.S.
38 Margaret Chan Director-general, World Health Org. Switzerland
39 Susan Chambers Executive vice president, Global People Division, Wal-Mart Stores U.S.
40 Michelle Obama First Lady U.S.
41 Oprah Winfrey Chairman, Harpo U.S.
42 Queen Elizabeth II Queen U.K.
43 Nancy McKinstry Chief executive, Wolters Kluwer Netherlands
44 Gloria Arroyo President Philippines
45 Ana Patricia Botin Executive Chairman, Banesto Spain
46 Ann Veneman Executive Director, UNICEF U.S.
47 Yulia Tymoshenko Prime minister Ukraine
48 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court Justice U.S.
49 Janet Robinson Chief executive, The New York Times Co. U.S.
50 Dominique Senequier Chief executive, AXA Private Equity France

51 Janet Napolitano Secretary of Homeland Security U.S.
52 Neelie Kroes Commissioner for Competition, European Union Belgium
53 Gail Boudreaux President, UnitedHealthcare U.S.
54 Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court Justice U.S.
55 Mary Schapiro Chairman Securities & Exchange Commission U.S.
56 Kathleen Sebelius Secretary of Health & Human Services U.S.
57 Ellen Alemany Chief executive, RBS Americas and Citizens Financial Group U.S.
58 Susan Ivey Chief executive, Reynolds American U.S.
59 Amy Pascal Cochairman, Sony Pictures Entertainment U.S.
60 Helen Clark Chairman, United Nations Development Group New Zealand
61 Judy McGrath Chief executive, MTV Networks U.S.
62 Stacey Snider Chief executive, DreamWorks SKG U.S.
63 Navanethem Pillay High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations South Africa
64 Janet Clark Chief financial officer, Marathon Oil U.S.
65 Sherilyn McCoy Worldwide chairman, Pharmaceuticals Group, Johnson & Johnson U.S.
66 Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf President Liberia
67 Tarja Halonen President Finland
68 Mary McAleese President Ireland
69 Virginia Rometty Senior vice president, IBM U.S.
70 Angela Ahrendts Chief executive, Burberry Group Plc. U.K.
71 Sri Indrawati Coordinating Minister for the Economy and Minister of Finance Indonesia
72 Terri Dial Chief executive, U.S. Consumer Bank, Citigroup U.S.
73 Deirdre Connelly President, North American Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithkline U.S.
74 Johanna Sigurdardottir Prime minister Iceland
75 Queen Rania Queen Jordan

76 Christina Gold Chief executive, Western Union U.S.
77 Colleen Goggins Worldwide chairman, Johnson & Johnson U.S.
78 Hasina Wajed Prime minister Bangladesh
79 Hyun Jeong-eun Chairman, Hyundai Group South Korea
80 Amy Schulman Senior vice president, Pfizer U.S.
81 Penny Pritzker Chairman, Classic Residence by Hyatt U.S.
82 Drew Faust President, Harvard University U.S.
83 Melanie Healey Group president, Feminine & Health Care, Procter & Gamble U.S.
84 Elizabeth Smith President, Avon U.S.
85 Deb Henretta Group president, Asia, Procter & Gamble Singapore
86 Ann Moore Chief executive, Time Inc. U.S.
87 Sallie Krawcheck Chief executive global wealth management, Bank of America U.S.
88 Pamela Nicholson President, Enterprise Rent-A-Car U.S.
89 Janice Fields Chief operating officer, McDonald's USA U.S.
90 Stephanie Burns Chief executive, Dow Corning U.S.
91 Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw Chairman, Biocon India
92 Eva Cheng Executive vice president, Amway Greater China & Southeast Asia Hong Kong
93 Efrat Peled Chief executive, Arison Investments Israel
94 Sheikha Lubna Al Qasimi Minister of the Economy United Arab Emirates
95 Charlene Begley Chief executive, GE Enterprise Solutions U.S.
96 Mindy Grossman Chief executive, HSN, Inc. U.S.
97 Sharon Allen Chairman, Deloitte & Touche U.S.
98 Anne Sweeney Co-chairman, Disney Media Networks U.S.
99 Heidi Miller Chief executive Treasury & Securities Services, JPMorgan Chase U.S.
100 Mary Erdoes Chairman, JPMorgan Global Wealth Management U.S.

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:50 am**

Project Willow wrote:STOP FEEDING THE ASSHOLE (troll). How f'n hard is that?

"The Myth of Female Masochism." Yeah, right.

Well, okay. After I'm done with a few more points. I have several things to say.

But since all but one of them require a clear presentation of an assortment of fun facts -- to which I couldn't be looking forward more eagerly, to be honest; it's just that your basic, industry-standard two rounds of fact-checking is too inherently time consuming a task to embark upon at this hour -- for the moment, I'll just stick to that one.

Stephen Morgan wrote:
c2w wrote:Also, for the record, I am not merely evil, verminous scum.

I decline to make value judgements about fellow forum members, pal.

Is that a fact. Well, I'm sorry to hear it. I don't. However, I myself authentically, naturally and spontaneously don't regard any human being (or for that matter, any species of vermin) as merely evil, verminous scum. So I would say that I wouldn't have to go to the trouble of declining to make that one, if it were in fact a value judgment. Which it's not. Because I'm not. In objective terms, either literally or figuratively speaking. Neither is any person. Or any group of persons. And needless to say, that does include you.

But whatever. While I couldn't honestly say that your ignorance of such a fundamental truth has no impact on my judgment of your value at all, neither could I honestly say it affects my estimation of your personal value one way or the other. Not that that means very much. I haven't been engaged in long-term conflicts with evil and dangerous people with whom, owing to my having dedicated all my energy to their exposure, I was kinda naturally frequently in contact often. But it has happened. And when it has, my estimation of their personal value wasn't particularly affected by my knowledge of their evil actions. Being people, on a personal level they had their pros and cons, same as everybody else.

Quite apart from which, on an attainment-of-goal level -- and irrespective of the goal. provided that it involves people -- it's always a mistake to forget that's what they are. And also all they are. Plus it's always been my experience that the more consequential the goal is, the more consequential that mistake is. I mean, obviously, just as a matter of plain common sense, you can't afford to lose touch with reality when the stakes are high. It's too slippery a slope.

In any event. Earning my personal animosity is a pretty fucking high bar to clear, and you haven't even approached the starting line yet. My judgment of your value as a political or practical ally is a separate question. But honestly, why should you give a fuck about that? You shouldn't. Especially in light of it being somewhat lower on the scale of things that matter than "total non-concern" from my perspective. And I'm sure you don't. So it's all good. See ya soon. Probably tomorrow. I'll be the non-verminous non-evil not-scum who's posting material of substance. So you might not recognize me at first.

But it'll still be me.

rigorousintuition.ca

Did women cause the recession?

100 MPW