|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
Maureen Dowd..Anti-Male Feminist Nazi
 Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:04 am
|
 |
|
Yes, Maureen Dowd, men are necessary.....
LORI BORGMAN/Knight Ridder Newspapers | December 2 2005
There are a lot of things I sometimes think I'd like to be, but a man is never one of them.
Talk about a group maligned, vilified and marginalized.
For the most part - abusers, perverts and slackers aside - most men are stand up guys. They work hard. They create, tinker, build, engineer and achieve. They take carping, criticizing and complaining on the chin, and rarely get the thanks they deserve.
And now comes New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's new book asking "Are Men Necessary?"
In the name of equality, I hope there will be a future release titled, "Is Maureen Dowd Necessary?"
Ms. Dowd needs $25.95 and 352 pages to answer the question as to whether men are necessary.
This Mrs. needs no cash and will answer the question in fewer than 500 words.
Are men necessary?
Yes, absolutely, positively yes.
How do we need thee? Let me count the ways:
The primary reason we need men is because they are not women. ("Hallelujah Chorus" should be sung here.)
Not that the feminist movement didn't try to make men into women. They gave it their best shot over the years, nudging boys to trade in their cowboy hats and chaps for dolls that wet and Suzy Homemaker ovens, and urging men to get in touch with their softer side, emote more frequently and turn from being brutes and oppressors.
Some men accepted the upbraiding without blinking. Others simply said, "Huh?" or "What channel is the game on?"
As feminism evolved, it split into two camps. Equity feminists focused on the need for equal pay and equal opportunity. Gender feminists ("A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle)" carved out the disposability of men and abortion rights as their hallowed ground. Today, gender feminists use words like herstory instead of history and make visits to the wymyns room.
Through sheer strength and frequent spikes of testosterone, men have managed to survive. And a lot of women are glad they did.
Men are necessary because men complement women.
Men protect.
Men provide.
Men take responsibility.
Men tend to be steady.
Men temper womens' concerns for security and safety with a sense of adventure and risk.
Men teach boys what it means to be male.
Men and women together can accomplish what neither is able to accomplish alone.
Men tend to be direct and have simple needs; chief among these would be food, love and respect, though not necessarily in that order.
And ladies, this seems like a good place to mention Relationship Tip No. 37: Do not attempt to turn your man into your girlfriend. Do you seriously think shopping is going to be his thing?
Last year in our nation, 1.5 million babies were born out of wedlock. These children have no "man of the house," no dad who wants to marry mom. Statistics say the overwhelming majority of these kids will be at risk for a variety of dangers and behaviors. In simple terms, life is going to whoop the stuffin' right out of a great number of them.
Are men necessary? Very much so. It is a tragedy we have spent so long telling them they weren't. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:30 am
|
|
|
FRED Columns
Will Someone For God's Sake Marry Maureen?
Maybe She'll Shut Up
November 21, 2005
I read with ashen resignation that Maureen Dowd, the professional spinster of the New York Times, will soon birth a book, no doubt parthenogenetically, called Are Men Necessary? The problem apparently is that men have not found Maureen necessary. Hell hath…. Clearly there is something wrong with men.
I weary of the self-absorbed clucking of aging poultry.
Why is Maureen hermetically single? For starters, she is not just now your classic hot ticket. She’s not just over the hill, but into the mountains, to Grandmother’s house we go. She probably gets more daily maintenance than a 747, but she still looks as though a vocational school held an injection-molding contest and everyone lost. That leaves her with only her personality as bait. The prognosis is grim.
Was that ungentlemanly? She makes a career of being disagreeable about men. What’s sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose, say I.
Reading her unending plaints, one concludes that she is deeply in love—with herself, and too loyal ever to cheat with a man. Behind her writing you always hear the little voice, “I’m so wonderful, so elite…why doesn’t somebody marry me?” (Well, Maureen, I can give you a few ideas. You’re a pain in the ass….) “I’m so smart, I’m so powerful, I’m so, sooo elite, so talented, so…special.” As, in their way, are ingrown toenails. “I’m successful, shriek. Men hate me because I’m smart. They feel threatened because I’m so wonderful.”
Actually, Maureen, you are no more threatening, or appealing, than somebody else’s gym socks. I suspect that men don’t like you because you aren’t likeable.
Now, precisely why are you so wonderful? Clearly you aren’t stupid. You are a competent if sophomoric writer. Dummies can’t do that. But I’ll tell you what, Sweet Potato: I don’t think I know anyone who would want to go out with you. As best I can tell, should you have an original thought, it would need counseling, for depression and loneliness.
Smart women are an attraction of Washington, at least the parts off the cocktail circuit. They made fifteen years in that wretched city bearable for me. I knew women with serious brains, golden-girl biochemists at NIH, a gal who ran a federal positron-emission tomography lab, weirded-out computer techs, startlingly good writers and chicks who had popped scores you wouldn’t believe on tests at NSA that aren’t supposed to exist. They’d eat you for lunch, Maureen.
Now, I know that people at the New York Times have ample self-esteem, and indeed come coated with it to a depth of inches. How about we have a little understanding here. In journalism as in politics, advancement has little to do with merit. Have you checked the contents of the White House lately? Dan Rather and Connie Chung are pinnacles of anything at all? I’ve been around this game as long as you have and I know how the scam works. Getting to the upper ranks of journalism is a matter of luck, sexual sharing, brown-nosing, and staying carefully within the bounds of the regnant politics of the newsroom.
You are journalistic glitter, Maureen—Reporter Barbie, a literary Streisand. While working for the Times is perhaps nothing to be ashamed of, I’d keep quiet about it. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:38 pm
|
|
|
Setting aside the fact that the two writers are using Maureen Dowd in a thinny veiled attempt to attack being gay and the "Liberal" New York Times to radical feminism, some things I agree with. Right Wing writers do that. They will never understand what it like to be a female because by nature they are isolationists, and therefore could not conceive of equality, or at least some type of gender merging.
What they failed to mention is a male dominated society has gotten us into the Grim situation we face today. If we look at the Mullahs that are running Islamic countries and the USA, we can see that in action. The Inquisition, which continues to this day, targeted mostly females.
I do agree that some fems like Dowd have swung too far in the other direction. I see nothing wrong in men staying at home, and women working, if they so choose. I see nothing wrong in woman being assertive. There is no turning back evolution and keeping staunch traditional roles, which have led to ultra-feminism and ultra-machoism. What gets left behind in the dust is the senstive and caring nature that both men and women posess.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:52 pm
|
|
|
I agree 100% with Lori Borgman...a FEMALE..who exposes dried up, man hating old hags like Maureen Dowd for what they are.
Face it.
Men are men.
Women are women.
Idiot radical female supremacists trying to change men into women is stupid.
Unless you are a transexual. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:21 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mech
I agree 100% with Lori Borgman...a FEMALE..who exposes dried up, man hating old hags like Maureen Dowd for what they are.
Face it.
Men are men.
Women are women.
Idiot radical female supremacists trying to change men into women is stupid.
Unless you are a transexual.
What makes the difference in the sexes? Gonads? The brain? Conditioning? The brain is comprised of two halves, a spatial/artistic/mathematical part, and a ventral/dorsal/linear part. Do men have a domination on one half and women the other? I doubt it.
The feminine/artistic aspect of humans in both males and females has been suppressed with people that believe the saying "men are men and women are women". Men can't stand the fact that from an evolutionary standpoint, women are superior. It would do well for men to understand what makes women tick, and stop trying to put their Dicks on the table to see who's is bigger.
Then perhaps DNA would stop creating mutants like Maureen Dowd, Bill O'Reilly, Lori Borgman, Rush Limbaugh, ad nauseum.
Face It.
Men and women are not that much different, and we will see more human hybrids in the future. Does not bother me one bit.
Perhaps as Firesign Theater said in "Everything You Know is Wrong"
"Men and Women of the same Sex"
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:42 pm
|
|
|
http://feministblogs.org/tag/gender-issues
Twisty found a piece in the Indianapolis Star that she correctly describes as a putrid little Hummel figurine of a piece called "Yes, Maureen Dowd, men are necessary". The writer of the piece, Lori Borgman, apparently didn't read a scrap the infamous excerpt of Dowd's book, much less the book itself, or else she would have possibly noticed that Dowd thinks that not only are men necessary, she finds even sexist pigs who despite making a gazillion dollars and being famous and s!@# still must soothe their fragile egos by purchasing trophy wives with only three settings--"Suck", "Giggle" and "Pretend It's Huge"--to be necessary and even desirable. But she did read the title and has something pouty to say about it.
There are many things I sometimes think I'd like to be, but a man is never one of them.
Talk about a group maligned, vilified and marginalized.
For what it's worth, the reason that anti-feminists think everyone hates men is that if you run in non-feminist circles and see men behaving like utter pigs, they're kind of hard to like. I've never heard anyone trash men like non-feminist straight women do, and frankly it's hard to blame them. When, for instance, your husband acts like you're his maid and mommy, it's hard not to start feeling towards him roughly like the characters in "Dilbert" feel about the pointy-haired manager.
And let that be the last "Dilbert" reference ever made on this blog.
For the most part -- abusers, perverts and slackers aside -- most men are standup guys. They work hard. They create, tinker, build, engineer and achieve. They take carping, criticizing and complaining on the chin, and rarely get the thanks they deserve.
After wiping the drool off my keyboard, I tried, I really did, to make fun of this by writing things like, "Except for the child molesters, priests in general are really nice, so why make the Catholic church answer for anything?", but I just got depressed so I leave this inane sentiment up there for your perusal.
And now comes New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd's new book, "Are Men Necessary?"
In the name of equality, I hope there soon will be a book titled, "Is Maureen Dowd Necessary?"
Ms. Dowd needs $25.95 and 352 pages to answer the question.
This Mrs. needs no cash and will answer the question in fewer than 500 words:
Are men necessary?
Yes; absolutely, positively yes.
Jesus H. Christ, if the star quarterback of the high school football team who tried to write his book report off the summary off the back and the picture off the front was this obvious about it, the teacher, even if she was a football fan, would be forced to give him an F. I hope they didn't pay her for this. I'd love to make money doing book reviews like this. "War and Peace is a heavy book that costs $3.50 at the used bookstore. I don't need to actually read it to know that I'm against war and for peace, unless of course that's not politically feasible at this time."
How do we need thee? Let me count the ways: The primary reason we need men is because they are not women. ("Hallelujah Chorus" should be sung here.)
Weak attempt to get into the Bad Sex finals. A better way to write that to be of the Updike caliber of crappy sex writer is to write something like, "The primary reason we need men is their throbbing, hot, dripping love rods." Though that is still not Updike quality of bad sex. Try to work some nosy birds in there. Or mice, to mix it up some.
Not that the feminist movement didn't try to make men into women. They gave it their best shot over the years, nudging boys to trade in their cowboy hats and chaps for dolls that wet and Suzy Homemaker ovens, and urging men to get in touch with their softer side, emote more frequently and turn from being brutes and oppressors.
You know, if I believed in Strawfeminists, I'd hate them for banning men from wearing chaps, too, at least for personal reasons. Luckily, I don't. I don't believe in the damn Tooth Fairy, either, which is just as well, because she was so cheap when I was a kid. It took a whole mouthful of teeth to buy one Barbie doll. But I don't believe in that bitch or these bitchy Strawfeminists who think that a private game of Horsey between consenting adults has much to do with very real issues like rape and domestic violence and sexual harassment and all those other things real feminists care very much about.
Some men accepted the upbraiding without blinking. Others simply said, "Huh?" or "What channel is the game on?"
Exhibit #357 in the ongoing collection of How Anti-Feminists Think Men Are Stupid and Mean.
As feminism evolved, it split into two camps. Equity feminists focused on the need for equal pay and equal opportunity. Gender feminists ("A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle") carved out the disposability of men and abortion rights as their hallowed ground. Today, gender feminists use words like herstory instead of history.
Through sheer strength and frequent spikes of testosterone, somehow men have managed to survive. And a lot of women are glad they did.
Men managed to survive the endless assault on their existence by Strawfeminists (euphemistically called "gender feminists" by anti-feminists), but their sex was nearly wiped out the year that Santa Claus mixed up his "naughty" and "nice" lists with his "boys" and "girls" list the very same year that Bill O'Reilly demanded that the "naughty" list get the death penalty, or Liberals Hate Christmas. Luckily, Santa was distracted by a VCR sale at Wal-Mart that year and the impending Death of Christmas was cancelled until next year.
Men are necessary because men complement women.
I think she means "offer a counterpoint", because if she meant, "says nice things about how you look", then she might have a point.
Men protect.
Men provide.
Men take responsibility.
Men tend to be steady.
Read: Women need protection and being provided for and some guidance. Which is why this next one makes zero sense.
Men temper women's concerns for security and safety with a sense of adventure and risk.
So, women need guidance and security and men provide it.....by being risky and stupid? Wonder-f@#$%-ful. Next is probably, "Men can cook. Men temper women's need for flavor by serving them sawdust."
Men teach boys what it means to be male.
"No, son! Don't put salt and pepper on the sawdust! Just put it on the plate as is!"
Men and women together can accomplish what neither is able to accomplish alone.
Which of course is why porn isn't a gazillion dollar a year industry, but whatever.
Men tend to be direct and have simple needs; chief among these would be food, love and respect, though not necessarily in that order.
I looked for the selling point in there, but didn't find it. The selling point would be something like, "and some even realize that women need those things, too, and they don't resent it, but don't look for them at V*x D*y's blog." Nowhere to be found, though.
And ladies, this seems like a good place to mention Relationship Tip No. 37: Do not attempt to turn your man into your girlfriend. Do you seriously think shopping is going to be his thing?
Heh, obviously she's never played, "Help me try this on." Shopping is so a man's thing, which is why if you're a straight woman and it's not your thing, you might want to play stupid on that particular game.
Last year in our nation, 1.5 million babies were born out of wedlock. These children have no "man of the house," no Dad who wants to marry Mom.
They were too steady and stable, I guess. Of course, that's assuming that it's Dad who doesn't want to get married. Women of course are pathetic slaves to the "bling". I for instance, married every person who ever gave me a toy won in Skee Ball. Divorce lawyers love me.
Are men necessary? Very much so. It is a tragedy we have spent so long telling them they weren't.
Sounds like a personal problem. I'm not in the habit of just walking up to random men and saying, "You're a waste of oxygen." But Borgman and whoever else is doing this to create a "we" should indeed be ashamed of themselves. Save that sentiment for sexists, Borgman, of either sex.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:44 pm
|
|
|
http://twistyfaster.typepad.com/i_blame_the_patriarchy/2005/11/lori_borgman_di.html
quote:
The Indy Star is owned by the Quayle family. Need we say more?
Lori Borgman: $#@#!
Science Daily reports on a treatment for heart failure called CRT, an implant that enhances "quality of life" for patients with this disease. That it is overwhelmingly offered exclusively to old men can come as no surprise, for nobody who loves patriarchy--and who loves it more than the medical establishment?-- gives a fig for a sick woman in her 60s. Yet once in a blue moon, when some visionary MD dares to see the human being behind the wrinkly old f@#$% crone, a woman gets this implant. When she does, she is likely to live twice as long as any dude who gets it.
In other words, there exists a therapy for heart disease that is of greater benefit to women than men, yet women aren't getting it. Nobody wants a bunch of useless old women hanging around. Kill'em off!
It's too bad there is no similar treatment bias against very bad writers.
I allude to $#@#! columnist Lori Borgman, who has a putrid little Hummel figurine of a piece in the Indianapolis Star entitled "Yes, Maureen Dowd, men are necessary." In it she appears to mistake Dowd for a feminist, explaining how dirty women's libbers like Dowd try to turn men in to women and "use words like herstory instead of history."
Borgman, moved to the core that men have been so tragically impeded in this girlcentric world by conniving bitch-feminists, then extracts, probably from a Frank Capra movie, a series of sentimental mauve-colored slogans, suitable for framing and sure to the the centerpiece of any rec room, as proof that men are the greatest thing since the Pill. It's really icky writing, and I'm not even talking about the way she tries to smear Shakespeare all over it like artificially-flavored grape jelly.
"How do we need thee? Let me count the ways: The primary reason we need men is because they are not women. ("Hallelujah Chorus" should be sung here.)"
Also:
"Men protect."
"Men provide."
"Men take responsibility."
Borgman appears to suffer from some sort of romantic disease, or fugue state. She seems unaware, for instance, that one-third of all New Zealand women have been abused by men in their lifetime, or that men in Africa can't distinguish between women and cattle, or that men overwhelmingly control the world's uteruses.
Maybe one day Lori Borgman will find herself among those many women who are not referred for CRT treatment because men don't think she is necessary, and she will die die die of patriarchy.
Comments
We can only hope.
Posted by: Carol | November 28, 2005 at 11:08 AM
I protect, provide and take responsibility. Does that make me a man?
Posted by: Hattie | November 28, 2005 at 11:33 AM
Re: the CRT issue --
According to a doctor quoted in the article: "Gender referral bias needs to be addressed by further studies, since women with congestive heart failure who qualify for CRT may have equal or greater benefit than men."
Now, for some medical procedures (transplants, say), doctors factor into the decision the question of the risk factors you are imposing upon yourself. Do men in their 60's do more things that contribute to heart disease (eat more red meat, less fiber, exercise less, drink more alcohol) than do women? Are women more likely to make radical lifestyle changes when faced with a life-threatening illness? Could this in part explain the skewed numbers on patient benefit?
If so (and this is all pure speculation at this point): might the medical establishment conclude that women ought to be *favored* for such treatments?
Just a thought.
Posted by: CafeSiren | November 28, 2005 at 11:43 AM
tsk tsk tsk
Posted by: smasherjane | November 28, 2005 at 11:47 AM
Re: the Bergman piece --
Again, Twisty tries to induce vomiting in all of us. Thanks a lot, TF!
Seriously, I started composing a satirical list in my head to counter Bergman's: "Men rape. Men start wars. Men throw tantrums when things don't go their way." Most importantly: "Men validate our place in a patriarchy that we never made, but which we cannot escape, and which will marginalize and villify us if we try."
I used to have a list of what *I* personally needed a man around for: fixing cars and opening jars. Then I realized that I'd never owned a car, and that manufacturers had started making jar lids small enough to get a non-male-sized hand around, and I realized that my list had shrunk to zero.
I would much rather have men in my life because I like them, not because I need them.
Posted by: CafeSiren | November 28, 2005 at 11:50 AM
Whoever said that men "take responsibility," "provide," and "protect" has got to be out of her tiny little brain! Most men tend to bounce the blame off to whoever is handiest at the time, worry about providing for themselves first and then, maybe, periferally, if it reflects sufficient glory on them with the patriarchy, whoever else happens to be around (i.e. families); and as for protecting! Please! Who do you think we need to be protected from???? Well, let's see. That would be men! So, I agree with CafeSiren, none of us actually NEED men around.
Posted by: PrissyNot | November 28, 2005 at 12:08 PM
Please forgive me, but I have to put my nerd hat on now. I wasn't able to get the link to the originaly article to pull up (and perhaps that's for the best), but on the chance that the paraphrased "how do we need thee?" is the part that is being attributed to Shakespeare, well, it's actually from Elizabeth Barrett Browning's _Sonnets from the Portuguese_, Sonnet XLIII.
The Sonnets were written for Barrett Browning's husband, poet Robert Browning, who nicknamed her his "little Portuguese." Several of her sonnets are known for their strong feminist themes, although the sonnets in _Sonnets from the Portuguese_ are pretty much straightforward love poems.
Posted by: flea | November 28, 2005 at 12:46 PM
'"How do we need thee? Let me count the ways: The primary reason we need men is because they are not women. ("Hallelujah Chorus" should be sung here.)"
Also:
"Men protect."
"Men provide."
"Men take responsibility."'
(I know my quotation marks are off.)
Reading this felt like being hit in the face with a particularly nasty, heavy bag of "Be a Little Lady and Hope People Like You!" - in other words, $#@#!.
Why why why do women have to turn against other women, in the silly and desperate hope that a man/more men might like *them* instead?
I think we "ladies" (har har) should start valuing each other's opinions and acknowledgement as a nice start to offing the Patriarchy - rather than some of these women going all cutthroat and ridiculous.
Hey! Guess what! Some men really really REALLY don't give a s!@#, and view women as other, lower, lifeforms! See international horrid prostitution as a start.
Gah. GAH! I say.
Posted by: laughingmuse | November 28, 2005 at 01:09 PM
Amen and thanks!
Posted by: susan | November 28, 2005 at 01:27 PM
Ms. Borgman states:
"Men protect.
Men provide.
Men take responsibility.
Men tend to be steady."
But then:
"Last year in our nation, 1.5 million babies were born out of wedlock. These children have no "man of the house," no Dad who wants to marry Mom."
These statements don't go together. That's 1.5 million men (more or less) who are NOT protecting, providing, taking responsibility or being steady. And that doesn't include those men who ARE married but don't bother to do any of those either (I was married to one of those; a guy who was proud of having never "grown up" -- and I hear that frequently from men of my generation).
It is NOT the fault of someone else when an individual isn't responsible. To be responsible is up to that individual; to expect someone else to force you to be reponsible just shows how irresponsible and immature you are.
Posted by: anon | November 28, 2005 at 01:34 PM
Hu-what??? Hold on there...did she say that "men take responsibility?".
For what?
Posted by: wordgirl | November 28, 2005 at 01:54 PM
"I would much rather have men in my life because I like them, not because I need them."
Exactly! The whole "Are men necessary?" debate really bugs me. Who cares? They're here, and we have to find a way to deal. In my dream world, men and women are equally necessary and valued as human beings.
Honestly, it just seems so silly to me that Borgman thinks her views differ so vastly from Dowd's. The truth is, neither of them really get it, and neither of them were willing to do any level of real research or even a teensy bit of catch-up reading of feminist theory before spouting off. I don't claim to be an expert, but at least I acknowledge that.
Posted by: Sneaksleep | November 28, 2005 at 01:54 PM
I'm leaving for the vomitorium right now. Who's with me?
Posted by: wordgirl | November 28, 2005 at 01:56 PM
"Men temper women's concerns for security and safety with a sense of adventure and risk."
hmm--this one is hilarious
It reminds me of the old 1950s kids book my teacher found in the library. it had jobs and went something like this:
boys are pilots
girls are stewardesses
boys are chefs
girls are waitresess
boys are lawyers
girls are secretaries
boys are doctors
girls are lawyers
my teacher asked me what was wrong with the book (i was 9)and it took me a minute, even though my mom is a doc.
Posted by: curiousgyrl | November 28, 2005 at 02:03 PM
Flea is correct. I'm not sure how it happened, but my chemo-brain mixed up the Browning, for some reason, with "shall I compare thee to a summer's day," which is Shakespeare, but which is not the grape jelly used by Lori Borgman. Yipes.
Posted by: Twisty | November 28, 2005 at 02:14 PM
"Why why why do women have to turn against other women, in the silly and desperate hope that a man/more men might like *them* instead?"
Men and women both take an evil pleasure in degrading those they deem deserving of their contempt. Men do it because it is their birthright under a patriarchy, women do it because they can vent the anger engendered by suppressed frustration under a patriarchy on victims they see as not sucking up enough.
I think there is a sexual delight that conservatives are too deluded to acknowledge in the evil tendencies they openly espouse. For example their approval of torture and depriving the poor of anything they can take from them. Day by day they seem to grow bolder and bolder, as if testing the waters of public opinion to see how evil we will allow them to be.
Many people, women included, will be very happy to degrade and abuse those below them. It seems to keep their own abasement from driving them crazy.
Posted by: Tony Patti | November 28, 2005 at 02:44 PM
"Men tend to be steady." i.e. - women are oh-so-flighty & need a grounding influence.
"Men temper womens' concerns for security etc. w/ a sense of adventure and risk." i.e. women are SO grounded that that it's boring and anal & they need men around to shake things up a bit.
She doesn't even bother to separate these contradictory stereotypes by as much as a single sentence.
And yet, how much do you wanna bet that her actual treatment of her husband is sweetly and primly matronizing and that there is no doubt in her mind that she's the boss when you get right down to it? And no doubt that she should be because she is more clever & has more strength of character than the type of himbo she describes?
Maybe hetero feminists need to explore some sort of language that would make it clear that we DON'T WANT to be the boss anymore. At least not at home.
Posted by: antelope | November 28, 2005 at 02:46 PM
Rock on, Toni Patti. Rock on.
Posted by: laughingmuse | November 28, 2005 at 02:53 PM
With apologies to Twisty: I would so make out with *all* of you.
Posted by: CafeSiren | November 28, 2005 at 03:41 PM
"Men protect."
"Men provide."
"Men take responsibility."
That's the weirdest bunch of hog-wash I've heard in a while. I have six sisters. Any of their names could be inserted into above statements in place of the word "men." I am daily confounded by the way people are still thinking in the 21st century.
Posted by: Jay Woolsrake | November 28, 2005 at 03:42 PM
Sing it, Twisty!
Posted by: yankee transplant | November 28, 2005 at 03:45 PM
I am highly amused by the thought of Dowd *ever* using the word "herstory."
Posted by: bitchphd | November 28, 2005 at 03:57 PM
Hork! Urk! Bleuoagh!!!
Failed to make it to the vomitorium.
Posted by: mcmc | November 28, 2005 at 04:02 PM
Little Lori seems to miss the point that Dowd's title is apparently ironic. Because men are apparently so necessary to MoDo that she pretty much spends the entire book complaining that she can't snag one.
Posted by: jp | November 28, 2005 at 05:00 PM
I think Bergman is really a man. A man undercover. Yup
Posted by: MaRy | November 28, 2005 at 05:17 PM
Absolutely. A man who can't get a woman (undercover or otherwise), so he feels the need to write about why he's so necessary. Lori Borgoman, my ass! His real name is Harry Dickman. Bet on it!
Posted by: wordgirl | November 28, 2005 at 05:29 PM
Oh boy--men take responsibility? That's giving me one hell of a belly laugh, especially when I consider the exactly $638 in child support that I've received in the 9 years of my daughter's life.
Posted by: kactus | November 28, 2005 at 05:58 PM
Ergo:
Women do not protect?
If you'd ever met my mom, or for that matter fouled my boyfriend in a soccer game, you would be quickly disabused of that notion.
Women do not provide?
My mom, grandmother, godmother, and various related and not related aunts all belie that proposition.
Women do not take responsibility?
Not to bring it all back around to my mom again but . . . I know a lot of dads (some very well) who've cut and run and very, very few moms who have done the same. Not to diss all men. Some are great. Some take lots of responsibility. Some moms are crappy moms. But by and large I don't see the ladies dropping the ball when it comes to kids, bills, friends, parents, jobs, carpools, birthday parties, etc.
Women do not tend to be steady?
What does that even mean? That women are raging psychos? My women friends and relatives are unfailingly steadfast. I'm sorry for the author of this piece if she has not had the same experience. So have some men - but the implication of the piece is that these are male virtues rather than female traits. Not so.
I'm hardly saying that men aren't necessary. I'm just saying that men aren't one set of things and women are another set of things. The more people who love and raise a child the better - two parents who care for a child are certainly better than one. I'm also not saying I don't want (or need, even) a partner in my life (and as a more-or-less hetero girl, it's likely to be a man). What I'm saying is this:
A little less with the f@#$% GENDER ROLES ALREADY! They really don't do any of us any good.
Posted by: Joolya | November 28, 2005 at 06:34 PM
Men protect their own interests. As for protecting women, dream on stoupidde twit! Just like Charles Stuart protected his pregnant wife. Just like Scott $#@#! protected Lacey. Just like any homicide department in the country will tell you that husbands are automatic suspects because they are their wife's killers >50% of the time.
Some men are responsible, for themselves, children, and families. Others take the traditional "I went out for a pack of cigarettes and never came back" approach tempered only in recent years by the IRS tracking their deadbeat asses. Stable. Right.
And how many traditional protective men would suffer a wife with a taste for adventure? Yeah, right.
What a racket!
Posted by: Ms Kate | November 28, 2005 at 06:36 PM
Not to belabor the point, but:
Men provide, protect, and take responsibility?
What kind of a dreamworld does this yo-yo live in?
Ask any woman who is the mother of a child with a deadbeat dad, and you'll get the answer!
Posted by: Julia | November 28, 2005 at 06:47 PM
Tony says Many people, women included, will be very happy to degrade and abuse those below them. It seems to keep their own abasement from driving them crazy.
Also, you can justify to yourself that you are the exception to the role stereotype without challenging the stereotype. If most women are dumb, and I'm smart, then I'm the one who deserves to be in the Boys' Club.
Posted by: Buffalo Gal | November 28, 2005 at 06:54 PM
When I was in the late teens, early 20s neighborhood, there was this conversation that would come up late at night when talking one-on-one w/ my closest women friends. Who is more guy-like?
It always turned out that each of us considered herself to be more guy-like, and had several specific positive traits in mind as the reason why. In other words, we dealt w/ some of the competitiveness in our friendship through the old, "well, but she's just a girl..." thing. Also it was obvious to us that most anything we actually LIKED about ourselves must not be a female trait. We understood just as clearly as Ms. Borgman that female=bad, so therefore if you were smart, rational, competent, light-hearted & likely to tease, serious, athletic, bookish, take-charge, assertive, quietly helpful, and so on - all of these were 'guy-like' traits.
So I agree 100% with Buffalo Gal, and I'm SO glad to have grown out of that.
Posted by: antelope | November 28, 2005 at 07:51 PM
oh $#@#!.
"Men protect."
"Men provide."
"Men take responsibility."
Tell that to Trish Wilson - where are the "Father's Rights" people when their kids need money? Trying to get their ex wives committed, probably, and using the kids as pawns in the process.
Tell that to the NYT article this past weekend about women giving up their careers in the primes of their lives to go home and take care of aging parents. WOMEN are doing this, not MEN.
Tell that to ... oh, you get the idea. Men sit around on their asses and wait for their sisters or wives or mothers to take care of whatever the problem is.
What an infuriating load of $#@#!.
Posted by: San Francisco Knitter | November 28, 2005 at 07:58 PM
Twisty, it's not nice of you to pick on people who have Daddy fantasies. Who are we to judge Ms. Borgman's erotic needs?
If most women are dumb, and I'm smart, then I'm the one who deserves to be in the Boys' Club.
Plus, I get all the boys' attention because I am the only one who has overcome my unworthy femaleness!
Posted by: mythago | November 28, 2005 at 09:33 PM
No doubt about it, Borgman is a handmaiden of the Patriarchy. But how did you ever end up finding her column? I mean, who the hell reads the Indianapolis Star? I can't believe even people in Indiana read it.
And thank you for scoffing at the idea that Smurfette is a feminist. Dowd is such a daddy's widdle gwirl. Really not an attractive pose for a 50-something woman. The only reason she is the NYTimes token female columnist is because she does not threaten the Patrarchy one jot.
It's pretty sad that the Times can't get a better quality female columnist than the Indianapolis f@#$% Star.
Posted by: Nancy | November 29, 2005 at 02:56 AM
The most disgusting part about the Stuff one-in-three report is not merely the appalling statistic, but that the story is buried in the Health section.
Because an appalling and widespread human rights violation in a First World nation is apparently a *health* issue, not a crime.
Posted by: Karen | November 29, 2005 at 04:12 AM
Jesus, Lori, SHUT UP!
What if the other genders see men being defended by women?
They'll make fun of us, that's what! They'll laugh that we have to have a silly girl defend us from another girl.
They'll call us "sissy" and "pansy" and "pussy-whipped" and other hurtful names.
Can't you see you're emasculating us?!
Posted by: Christopher | November 29, 2005 at 06:47 AM
"No doubt about it, Borgman is a handmaiden of the Patriarchy. But how did you ever end up finding her column? I mean, who the hell reads the Indianapolis Star? I can't believe even people in Indiana read it."
Nancy - it's true. I'm there (here) and I don't read it one bit. Give me the BBC online any day. Then I can actually read about world news.
Posted by: laughingmuse | November 29, 2005 at 10:54 AM
let's link twisty's site and these spot-on observations to the lori borgman site.
anybody know how to do that?
I also want to read the letters to the editor the lori-thang gets.
austin has its own "lori" in ashley sanchez. here's a sentence from one of her bits from an august edition of the statesman: "Some research suggests that pregnancy re-shapes and improves females' brains."
[this isn't the best example of her pro-patriarchy-ness, just what I could find without an archive search.]
so pregnancy reshaped my brain?? damn! and I'd wondered what had happened!
...
Posted by: peacebug | November 29, 2005 at 11:25 AM
"improves" women's brains?
Someone explain to me where a dickwad scientist said that.
People. Gah.
Posted by: laughingmuse | November 29, 2005 at 01:40 PM
Here's the link to the "study" about how pregnancy reshapes the female brain:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2005/10/31/giving_birth_to_a_better_brain_do_babies_sharpen_parents_minds/
Salient points:
1. The study was done on rats.
2. Rats with pups became more skilled at finding food.
3. Anecdotal evidence suggests that human women with children become more adept at juggling work and family obligaitons than they were before they had family obligations to juggle.
4. Ergo: Pregnancy and/or parenting ("researchers" seem to want it both ways) makes human girls smarter.
Even my non-maternal brain can figure out the problems with this logic. Imagine what I could do if I were pregnant. Why.... why, I'd rule the world! Bwah-haa-haa-haa!!!
Posted by: CafeSiren | November 29, 2005 at 03:31 PM
Sorry: that URL cut off. Here's the rest of the URL, after tha last slash:
giving_birth_to_a_better_brain_do_babies_sharpen_parents_minds/
Euphonious, no?
Posted by: CafeSiren | November 29, 2005 at 03:36 PM
Hey WordGirl, I'll accompany you to the vomitorium. I'll even hold your hair ... well, I will if I can make it that long!
Posted by: Betsy | November 29, 2005 at 05:04 PM
The Indy Star is owned by the Quayle family. Need we say more?
Posted by: emjay | November 29, 2005 at 07:11 PM
Yeah, I got a comment today when my local newspaper linked to my blog in an effort to find people who really can write.
Some man wrote that I was a "feminist wack-job" because I dared to say that men have some "issues."
Of course, he didn't sign his name there by not taking responsibility for his remarks.
Posted by: jaye | November 29, 2005 at 08:01 PM
To get back to the CRT issue for a moment, my mother might be alive today had the patriarchy not so influenced cardiology.
Because everyone knows that if you have a heart attack, you get shooting pains in your left arm, right?
Except, not so much if you're a woman, but given how little research is done on female cardiac patients, this is not well known.
When my mother had her heart attack, she didn't even realize that's what it was. She just felt run-down and crummy, like she had the flu. She didn't seek medical help for three days, when the symptoms worsened to the point that even she, who generally refused to go to the doctor for anything, called an ambulance. But by then, the damaged tissues in her heart were being shredded more and more with every beat of her heart, so much so that surgery only had a small chance of success. We decided to try, of course, but just before Thanksgiving three years ago, my siblings and I made the decision to take her off the ventilator.
So the patriarchy killed my mother.
Posted by: zuzu | November 29, 2005 at 08:49 PM
then extracts, probably from a Frank Capra movie, a series of sentimental mauve-colored slogans, suitable for framing and sure to the the centerpiece of any rec room, as proof that men are the greatest thing since the Pill.
That is exactly what I needed tonight. Thank you. A belly laugh a day keeps the Hummel figurine(-sized) phallus worship away. Men are the greatest thing since the Pill! Bwahahaha! Twisty, I heart you immensely.
One question: why come these protectin', cow-ropin', Marlboro smokin', steady-on, pro-responsibility mensches (and their bootlickers) always need to be reassured and stroked and consoled about their oh-so-high status? Sounds kinda wimpy and childish to me, and -- to quote ol' Bill -- protesting too much-ish.
I'm v. sorry, Zuzu.
Posted by: ae | November 29, 2005 at 09:27 PM
I was really impressed with Lori's ability to boil down men's needs to food, love, and respect. Judging from the rest of the article, I assume she means dinner on the table and available sex from a wife who doesn't talk back.
I guess her column is supposed to be funny, but unfortunately it's saccharin Reader's Digest,'$5 for a quip' humor and not satire (which would at least start to make her Beaver Cleaver generalizations excusable.)
Posted by: John | November 29, 2005 at 10:27 PM
Oh thanks, AE. Now I've got this image of a Pwecious Moments Widdlest Penis figurine, probably with a halo.
The Twisty Stadium and Patriarchy Barbeque will have to install pukeatories like those trough-style urinals in the boys' room, so we can line up all at once and hold each others' hair.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | November 29, 2005 at 11:30 PM
Sadly, Twisty, your phraseology is once again perfect (and Zuzu, your story is wrenching and outraging all at once). Can we start putting up appropriate tombstones somewhere? 'Cause I'm guessing we all know someone who died from patriarchy.
Posted by: sois disant | November 30, 2005 at 03:31 AM
If there was a way to make men taste good, THEN there would finally be a use for them.
Posted by: Cindy | December 01, 2005 at 03:45 PM
Sorry if I've missed someone pointing this out above, but...
doesn't Mrs Borgman have the most marvellously appropriate name?
She has, indeed, assimilated.
Posted by: Liss | December 02, 2005 at 01:12 AM
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:04 pm
|
|
|
Sawp Gas:
quote:
Men can't stand the fact that from an evolutionary standpoint, women are superior.
Thats $#@#! female supremacy garbage.
I don't buy it for one second.
These radical feminist hags starting with Steinem have been trying to demonize and vilify men for years.
Frankly, Ive had enough of it.
Its time for men to stand up..and take a stand against crap statements like" All the problems in the world are caused by men"
That is a bunch of bull. I can come up with a LIST of FEMALES who are 100% wholly contributors of the fall of society and pushing the NWO.
Funny how most of them are card-carrying NOW members.
They want men disarmed, broke, trained and domesticated.
Guess what? NOT happening. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:08 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mech
Sawp Gas:
quote:
Men can't stand the fact that from an evolutionary standpoint, women are superior.
Thats $#@#! female supremacy garbage.
I don't buy it for one second.
These radical feminist hags starting with Steinem have been trying to demonize and vilify men for years.
Frankly, Ive had enough of it.
Its time for men to stand up..and take a stand against crap statements like" All the problems in the world are caused by men"
That is a bunch of bull. I can come up with a LIST of FEMALES who are 100% wholly contributors of the fall of society and pushing the NWO.
Funny how most of them are card-carrying NOW members.
They want men disarmed, broke, trained and domesticated.
Guess what? NOT happening.
Here ya go again with your Right Wing Patriarchy Religious Fanatic $#@#!
Again, Sounds like Rush Limbaugh
I learned a long time ago to recognize the enemy
And it is NOT coming from feminists
Men have caused the problems we are in, and there is no proof whatsoever that woman are the cause of it.
Your views are more aligned with George W Bush, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly,and Rush Limbaugh.
Does that not throw a mental flag up?
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:16 pm
|
|
|
Collected Quotes from Feminist Man-Haters
Don't like the term 'feminist man-haters'? Well, read the quotes and come up with your own term, then.
Quotes from Robin Morgan
(current editor of MS magazine)
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
-- Robin Morgan,
From her "The Demon Lover" (NY: Norton & Co., 1989 Morgan doesn't hide her bigotry ):
* p. 138-9: The phallic malady is epidemic and systemic... each individual male in the patriarchy is aware of his relative power in the scheme of things.... He knows that his actions are supported by the twin pillars of the State of man - the brotherhood ritual of political exigency and the brotherhood ritual of a sexual thrill in dominance. As a devotee of Thanatos, he is one with the practitioner of sado-masochistic "play" between "consenting adults," as he is one with the rapist.
* p. 224: My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony.
* p. 229: Sex to this point in my life has been trivial, at best a gesture of tenderness, at worst a chore. I couldn't understand the furor about it.
* p. 316: Did she die of the disease called "family" or the disease called "rehabilitation", of poverty or drugs or pornography, of economics or sexual slavery or a broken body?
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan, in 1974
...rape is the perfected act of male sexuality in a patriarchal culture-- it is the ultimate metaphor for domination, violence, subjugation, and possession. -- Robin Morgan
"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the $#@#! that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do." -- Robin Morgan
"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin color or sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed f@#$% UP by being masters (racism hurts whites, sexual stereotypes are harmful to men) but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power--but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to COST men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers."
-- Robin Morgan
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."
- From Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape" in "Going to Far," 1974.
From Marilyn French
[The quote below is from a novel by Marilyn French. Feminists often say "it is only a quote from a fictional character. Yet this notion is seen throughout feminist so called scholarship. -AG]
"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room"
"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." -- Marilyn French, in "The Women's Room"
From Andrea Dworkin
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
"Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating.
Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love.
Rape is the means by which a woman is initiated into her womanhood
as it is defined by men.
...
Rape, then, is the logical consequence of a system of definitions of what is normative. Rape is no excess, no aberration, no accident, no mistake--it embodies sexuality as the culture defines it."
Andrea Dworkin
"The Rape Atrocity and the Boy Next Door"
Our Blood
Susan Griffin
"And in the spectrum of male bahavior, rape, the perfect combination of sex and violence, is the penultimate (sic) act. Erotic pleasure cannot be separated from culture, and in our culture male eroticism is wedded to power."
Susan Griffin
Rape: The Politics of Consciousness
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference."
-- Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"
Germain Greer
When asked: "You [Greer] were once quoted as saying your idea of the ideal man is a woman with a dick. Are you still that way inclined?"
Dr Greer (denying that she said it): "I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I'm concerned, men are the product of a damanged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they're doing sitting there with benign smiles on their faces is they're manufacturing sperm. They do it all the time. They never stop.
"I mean, we women are more reasonable. We pop one follicle every 28 days, whereas they are producing 400 million sperm for each ejaculation, most of which don't take place anywhere near an ovum. I don't know that the ecosphere can tolerate it."
- Germaine Greer, at a Hilton Hotel literary lunch, promoting her book "The Change-- Women, Aging and the Menopause". From a newsreport dated 14/11/91.
Other Assorted Quotes
"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson "Amazon Odyssey" (p. 86)
"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)
"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." -- Sheila Jeffrys
Sharon Stone:
* On David Letterman presenting a top ten list of ways to keep your man.
"Number 10: Regularly beat him on the head with your shoe."
* "The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men."
"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated. You might think thats too broad. I'm not talking about sending all of you men to jail for that." -- Catherine MacKinnon "A Rally Against Rape" Feminism Unmodified
"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." -- Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
MALE: ... represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. 'The first males were mutants... the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.'
MAN: ... an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ... a contradictory baby-man ...
TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning."' -- from A Feminist Dictionary", ed. Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985
Letter to the Editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate"
"To Proud Feminist, (Herald-Sun, 7 February). Your last paragraph is shocking language from a feminist. You use the entrenched, revolting male stereotypes of women and rationalise your existence by saying you are neither "ugly" nor "manless", as though either of these male-oriented judgments matter.
"Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures.
"Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down." |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:21 pm
|
|
|
Your views are more aligned with George W Bush, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly,and Rush Limbaugh.
Does that not throw a mental flag up?
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:29 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Swamp Gas
Your views are more aligned with George W Bush, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly,and Rush Limbaugh.
Does that not throw a mental flag up?
Says you.
But whatever.
The more radical feminists there are..the more ANTI-feminist i become.
Just like for example: The more La Raza Mexican supremacists there are..the more I hate racists.
All radical feminists want to do is DIVIDE....DIVIDE..DIVIDE and BLAME MEN for everything above all else. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:01 pm
|
|
|
More RADICAL feminist/supremacist HATE:
http://www.gabnet.com/lit/deich3e.htm
Patriarchy/Matriarchy =
ONE IN THE SAME |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:28 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Et in Arcadia ego
I will always question obviously Christian Right Wing Conservative Ideology when presented in an article.
the problem is this......I counter the writer of the article, and Mech starts with personal attacks. No need for that.
?????? Why???????
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page
1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:50 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
