Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Roy

This ruse will be exposed to REAL MRA sites .... if you choose.

How did you take such a sorry, wrong path?
This will never be published, because Dr. Evil has programmed my posts, after "welcoming me back to SYG" to APPEAR as if they are being published, but he has decided that I am amusing enough to play with for a while.

Cute little ruse Dr. Evil.

Post replies without replies.... ever.

If I wasn't working 60 hours a week I would have noticed it three days ago.

You are in fact Dr. Evil.

I cannot imagine the lack of self-esteem that could inhabit a soulless shell like your ummmm "self."

What a sad, sad man.



(Now, if I were you, I would publish all my past few posts.... and do some silly infantile editing to make it look like I was actually posted after your "amnesty" appeal.

You know what's really funny?

You passed on one of the best allies you might have ever had.

My final advice to you is a pop cliche' ----

"Wherever you go, there you are..."

Over and out, Dr. E!!!!
Main / I was sent this today
Feb 03, 2006, 05:23 PM
Dr. E. --
I remember recently sitting with a politician and asking him straight up whether he thought women had been oppressed. He said, "Of course." He was completely shocked when I told him I didn't think so. Guess what? After several months this man is now on our side. He isn't going public or seeking bills just yet but his mind has changed on this topic. We need to spread this idea as far and wide as we can. Force the fembots to prove the oppression of women. If they can't, they are in deep yogurt.

It's heartening to learn that leading MRA's can have lunch with a pol.

That in itself is some kind of breakthrough...

Did this pol vote for VAWA 2005? (I'm assuming Congressional level... not the county commissioner?)

Since it was a unanimous vote, I guess we know his mind is changing very s-l-o-w-l-y?

How would you determine "he is on our side?"

Has he proposed any concrete action, future dialogue, media coverage for MRA's, putting himself in a public forum as aligned with Men's Rights, asking you to feed him further relevant MRA info?

Has he said --- "Contact my assistant Ms. Lovely..." and she will make sure you get through to me on these issues?

I am not being critical of Dr. E. in any way, merely suggesting that it's a good strategy to leverage any pol conversations into actions.

Dr. E. --  is there anything SYG posters can do to communicate with, and/or encourage this pol to take the next step?
Main / Hoff-Sommers reviews O'Beirne's book
Feb 02, 2006, 06:44 PM
MRA --
IMO, since not all women comprise those groups as she as pointed out in the book, it is only some women who make the world worse. Looks like you dodged the bullet this time Roy

You're right...because she precedes her every condemning remark with "women who make the world worse..."

So the author refers only to a sub-category of women. Only those who subscribe to, or support, or tacitly go along with feminism.

But there's a problem.

She ends her book (the very final sentence) by stating -- "Mother Nature Is a Bitch!"

Where's the disclaimer in that?
Main / Male free zone
Feb 01, 2006, 07:40 PM
Let's try a logical syllogism --

(A) Maureen is a woman.

(B) Some women have defined themselves as commodities.

(C) Therefore, Maureen is a silly ?????

Millionaire journalist?
Main / Hoff-Sommers reviews O'Beirne's book
Feb 01, 2006, 07:13 PM
Well, Dr. Evil invited me back after my banning.

He was very apologetic! Contrite, even....

Glad to have you back.  Please try to stay within the
frickin rules. ;>)

(I have edited all my profusive praise and ass-kissing from the PM's....   :wink: )

I'm thrilled to be back (who said that..... Lazerus?), though I suspect a set-up already.

Anyway, here's the final paragraph from Kate O'Beirne's book: Women Who Make the World Worse - and How Their Radical Feminist Assualt Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports.

(BTW --- everyone here at SYG should buy a copy.... it's been all the rage over at, where Dr. Evil posted the first intelligent analysis of the covert plot to tank the book with faux-negative reviews.)

Women who make the world worse by denying the complementary roles of husband and wife and father and mother dismiss children's need for the example and attention of both parents. They have weakened the family and put children at risk. Women who make the world worse by encouraging careers at the expense of family seek to deny women the choices they freely make. Women who make the world worse by demanding that sex differences be eliminated in the classrooms and on playing fields engage in a radical social engineering that harms young boys and girls alike. Women who make the world worse by insisting that American women engage in combat weaken the military and jeopardize lives. Women who make the world worse by holding candidates hostage to a phony gender gap have poisoned our politics. Women who make the world worse by lying about their radical abortion agenda betray women and their unborn children.
 All of these women who make the world worse by waging a destructive war between the sexes are at war with Mother Nature.

Please note that Ms. O'Beirne does not qualify her statements by inserting the grammatical device of "some" before her every declaration pertaining to women.

Dr. E., have I just violated the freakin' rules.... again?

Do I get three strikes, since by my calculations my re-admission means a "reset" to zero infractions?

I'll be better now... I promise!  

I just need to know how much better.....   :roll:
Main / The psychology of false allegations
Dec 03, 2005, 12:20 PM
One of the members of my M.F.A. committee way back in university daze was a prominent feminist lesbian professor. ( I liked her perky smile and her perky ummm.... politics!  :lol: )

Well, in her mid-thirties, she started to question her sexual identity.

Got into intensive therapy, and the whole "repressed memory" trip.

She was therapized into recovering memories of being abused by her father.

This caused her to futher question her lesbianism, and to seek alternative counseling.

After further years in the therapeutic house of cards industry, she "discovered" that her father had never molested her, that her promiscuous mother was the demon she was rebelling against, and that she was, in fact, heterosexual.

Today she is a happily married mother and still teaches cultural studies from a more nuanced feminist perspective.

(On the flip side, her brother recently had sex-change surgery. I wish I was making this up.... )
I try to keep up with N.O.W. Prezident Kim Gandy's frequent personal commentary columns, seductively titled Below the Belt.  :shock:

But I missed a recent Thanksgiving week-end one where Commander-Go-Girl wrote -

Women in this country have a higher opinion of the women's movement now than ever before --

a recent CBS News poll found that fully 69% of women say the movement has made their lives better, up 45 percentage points since 1983!

At this time of year, and after more nearly four decades of NOW, it sure is nice to know that lots of women are giving thanks for the work you and we are doing together.

And lest you think it's just them, let me end on a note of personal thanks.

In addition to my wonderful family, what I am most grateful for this year is you.

All of you.

Your hard work and dedication keeps me going. Yes, we still have a long way to go, but once in a while it's also nice to remember how far we've come. Together, we have changed the culture, we have changed our world.

And that is something for which we can all be truly thankful.

Now, I have come to expect that Kim PropaGandy seldom provides references or links to the data she quotes.

So, I looked up the CBS poll she cites. Here's a bit more data and a link to the full monty:

According to a CBS News Poll conducted this past May, an overwhelming majority of women say their opportunities to succeed in life are better than the opportunities their mothers had -- and most credit the women's movement for making their lives better.

But while nearly all women say the status of women has gotten better in this country, they are divided as to whether there is still a need for a strong women's movement.

Even though many women value the achievements the women's movement has made, most are reluctant to call themselves a feminist outright.

Just a quarter of women say they consider themselves a feminist;
70 percent do not. These numbers have changed little over the years.

The low numbers of self-described feminists may have more to do with the feminist label than with views on goals of the women's movement.

Even though most women (64 percent) consider the word "feminist" a neutral term, they are a bit more likely to think of it as an insult, rather than a compliment.

Women are divided .... on whether there is still a need for a strong women's movement. Today, 48 percent say a strong women's movement is still needed, while 45 percent say that most of the goals of the women's movement have been met.

Of course, I've put my own "spin" on this issue by editing IN the stats that Ms. Gandy edited OUT with her typical feminist deference to objectivity, diversity of opinion, and MANipulation of her audience.

I found the poll's observation that women are divided especially heartening, since this suggests that women are increasingly behaving like real adults, instead of the lock-step infantilized feministas that Kim Gandy would like to believe she is "leading."

There's lots more context in the complete survey, link above.

(So, how can an outfit like N.O.W. claiming an unverified membership of 500,000 paying members -- a statistically trivial percentage of American women -- continue to wield so much influence? )
typhon --
Roy, you're one weird f*cker.

As usual, typhon, I don't know whether that's a compliment or a trail of bread crumbs leading to a better story....

That's what I like about you.

Your indirectness.


Same reason I divorced my ex-wife.

The mystery has to pay off at some point, else it fails....
Main / Researching!
Dec 02, 2005, 11:03 PM
Unless you do research specifically seeking causation, you have no way of proving this statement.

It appears that we've returned to the long-ago shelved debate which posed this (paraphrased) question ---

"Can you identify one anti-women law, act, behavior, or crime that is socially sanctioned in our current day and age?"

In other words, if oppression against females is rampant in our culture, how come all the laws and customs discriminate against men?

Or, can you find even one socially approved example of discrimination against women?

One trivial instance of state-sanctioned Patriarchy?
EDIT: My intention with the quest was to have a little fun and send some traffic Typhon's way. Not so unlike Roy's intent in starting the thread.

Speak for yourself TG.

I was neither intending to send traffic to Typhon nor, for gawd's sake, trying to incite F-U-N.

And, just for future reference, my intent is none of your business!  :evil:

Though you are perfectly within your rights to inquire about my quest.
Sir Percy ---
I have said before that I do not wish to play defence lawyer to anyone. I am not playing devil's advocate either. But frankly I find this picking on Lisa to be offensive and whilst Dr E puts it in terms that make it appear to be an offer to discuss, I think this is sophistry and against his own 'personal attack' rules. In spirit, if not in black-letter.

Sir Percy and I usually find some way to morph an agreeable gesture into a contest.

So I am shocked to have to depart from our comradely tradition.

( I really admire this Sir Percy "person/identity/scribe", even though we've never "met...")

Which brings me to my point of agreement with S.P.   :D

I just do not get the "personal" attacks basis of Dr. Evil's philosophy of manners. Originally it was about not making generalizations and using grammatical devices to exempt one's remarks from banning. The easiest trick is to quote someone and express your personal ambiguity about the point the quote makes.... (Dr. E. ..... you taught me this tactic!   :wink: )

Though I admire Dr. Evil's idealistic intentions to create a web "salon" where civility still matters, it all breaks down in this postmodern arena.

Problem is, the web is not a civil neighborhood where real people know their neighbors.

America has not been like that for about 50 years now...

So, in a space where no one knows their neighbor, how can anything be "personal?"

But, now, here's my trick of rhetoric.....

If Sir Percy finds Dr. E's "picking on" Lisa to be offensive....

where among all the words-on-a-screen is the victim .... really?

How can you actually assault a textual impression of an apparition?

If you are reading this, you are looking at phosphorous dots on a screen
assembled to project a "voice..."

You cannot assault an on-screen "voice."

(And, if feminists get their way soon, cyber-hate-speech will be outlawed, count on it! Already two hostile and intimidating e-mails sent from person-to-person can be legally construed as "cyber-stalking!)

You can express any logical or emotional like or dislike of the inscribed person-on-a-screen.

That is not the same as making a physical gesture of affection or hostility.

I am going to have to write a post about "signs and meanings...."

It's time for SYG to consider semiotics....
Main / Personal Ads
Nov 29, 2005, 09:44 PM
Every once in a while, (oh, maybe twice a week), a thread will inspire me to re-post a quote or two from Arthur Schopenhauer's essay "On Women."

Because, when all the P.C. censored talk trying to dismiss real gender warfare grows weary, it's comforting to read a quote or two from a true radical. (And he's long dead, so he can't be sued or crucified by N.O.W.)

In the full essay (link below), A.S. does admit of exceptions to the general rule.

For this lapse in judgement, I have become more critical of him over the years; though I appreciate his charitable weaknesses....

ON WOMEN  (minimal excerpts)  --

It is because women's reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them.

On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote.

Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it. Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.

So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no "sense of justice." This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie.

For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form.

Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights.

Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them.

From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all.
Main / Researching!
Nov 29, 2005, 08:53 PM
One of the things I admire about SYG and its convivial community is a respect for history.

And, trying to figure out who's telling of the story gets to define the reality of our current understandings.

The Evil Patriarchy is the feminists' default argument, and they can interpret even white men not getting to vote as part and parcel of that insidious, vile, gender-conspiracy.

MRA's look through contemporary glasses that focus on misandry and anti-male bias in the courts and media, and then work backwards to see how women were never really all that discriminated against, men were just behaving according to the economic and domestic codes of prior days. (Mostly having to do with providing for and protecting women and children.)

I think Sting said it best --- "History will teach us nothing!"

Pop logic, pop culture, pop justice, pop truths.

America has to embrace it pop-ness, if only because we have no really significant history to compare with 6,000 year-old European and Asian cultures.

Which is my way of saying, I'll continue to be tolerant of IK's attempts to "get the record straight."

Of course, I won't read too-long or too-annotated posts, any more than I would listen to a pop song that violates the 3:52 rule.

( The extreme length of any 1964 Beatles 45 rpm vinyl single ....)
IK --
Dr. E--how about this: I figured out how to do the author and keyword search and found the 25 hits you mentioned for author=lkanneg and keyword=research. I will start a separate thread and address each one, not posting elsewhere until I have made at least one post per issue raised in the 25 hits

That, my dear....

Would be my definition of HELL!

Unless you are naked while typing it all up....    :lol: