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.
Topics - Amber
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14
81
I'm doing some work on what makes a woman feminine. I think I finally nailed it.
"Hero-worship is the primary quality that makes a woman feminine. A woman who revels in, appreciates, and loves men is the hallmark of a feminine woman. Nothing else, in comparison, matters in determining if a woman is feminine or not. She can play sports, become an engineer, never have children, and do a host of things traditionally thought of as masculine, but so as long as she adores and appreciates men, she will remain feminine, i.e. sexual.
It is the woman who rejects hero-worship, is in denial of her nature as a woman, and tries to outcompete men that becomes an unfeminine, sexless brute. A woman has two possible responses to the fact that men are stronger than she: reverence or jealousy. The current establishment is doing their best to sway the female response to the latter. "
83
I'm not sure if any of you follow Chapin Nation but Bernard has been making posts about Lucy the feminazi lately. Lucy is some feminist who emaild all of us who post at chapin and said Bernard was fat and asked if the rest of us were. Anyway, I sent her my picture and Bernard came back with smart comments. Then she sent out another email calling us all fat again. Another guy emaild her and said he had 8% body fat but he wanted to know what she thought about his fat cock, rofl. She emaild back and taunted us further about being fat. I emaild back and asked if she had terret's syndrome - the syndrome where you just keep stuttering out words and flickering with body gestures. She emaild back and said we were all fat. ROFL. It went on like this forever. This was my final email to her.
Oh shut up Lucy. Bernard's not only not fat, he's hot. I'd do him. Seeing as your oh-so-mature and deeply insightful taunts of how other people are fat are going to get you real far in life, I sincerely hesitated whether or not I should block your email. You know, if someone can do something for me, I don't want to cut them out of my life. I'm selfish as hell, you know. Anyway, I did a cost-benefit analysis, and I decided you probably are not going to have any amount of influence throughout your meager, pathetic, terret syndrome existence. As such, your email is officially being blocked from coming into my inbox. As much as it pains me to say it .... I'm going to have to break off this relationship. Bye!!!
Anyway, I just wanted to give a lesson regarding the mindset of leftists. Despite their pleas about not judging anyone and being tolerant of all body shapes, etc.; they are the first to hit below the belt with this kind of personal insult. Actually, that is all the left is filled with ... including accusing people of having mommy/daddy issues, of being latent homosexuals, of having an inferiority complex ... and on and on. :roll: :laugh2:
84
I did some research one night on suidice rates. I was told that suicide was most likely for 20 yr olds. I really thought that was true, seeing as the ages of about 19 1/2 to 20 1/2 were the worst for me. As soon as I hit 21, smooth sailing. My hypothesis was that whatever positive sense-of-life got you through being a teenager starts to fade at 20. Before 20, you learn things easily, you aren't afraid to do anything. At 20, you become ... more conscious of everything. I felt it was kind of a make or break age.
Well I did some research on it, and it wasn't really true about the 20 yr old thing. Here is how it breaks down.
Being an 85+ yr old man is absolutely the worst age to be. They have a uber-high suicide rate, and in an interesting twist, 85+ yr old women have one of the lowest suicide rates.
Of course, this is sad, but clearly these men have lived a full life, and are likely either putting themselves out of pain or can't bear to live when they are starting to lose it. It is interesting that women don't kill themselves, even as they are losing it in old age.
Most of the propaganda out there about young people committing suicide, is spun. The reason why is young people committing suicide has strong emotional impact. The statistic they threw around all the time while I was doing research was that suicide was the 11th leading cause of people everywhere, but the 3rd leading cause for people aged 15-24. Well, duh. People aged 15-24 don't usually die from things like AIDS or heart attack. Suicide is not competing with any other type of disease so of course it's in the lead. That doesn't mean there is an epidemic at this age or that this age is more likely than others to commit suicide.
From what I can tell as far as demographics, males aged 85 or over have the highest rate at about 59/100,000 of them committing suicide; males aged 65-74 are next at like 30/100,000 and then men aged 35-44 at about 25/100,000, who are followed closely by men aged 25-34 and men 15-24 are the lowest of the men. Women are way lower than any male group.
In an interesting twist, adolescents and young children have very very low suicide rates. This across all cultures. Especially given the emotional roller coaster that adolescents go through, it is intuitive that they might commit suicide, but thankfully, for some reason, they usually don't.
I believe women are most likely to commit suicide in their late 30s. There was a really good chart I found about demographics of suicide. It's nothing more than what I've presented here.
Another thing about suicide is you have to measure it as a proportion. For instance, you could say that 50,000 people committed suicide who were between the ages of 20 and 30. Then you could say 5,000 people committed suicide who were between 80 and 90. It seems like the 20-30 bracket has an epidemic, but when there are a couple million 20-30 yr olds and only a couple thousand 80-90 yr olds, it makes a difference (I am making these numbers up). Hence the only stat you should really worry about is the x/100,000 stat. (you also shouldn't care about the "suicide is the X leading cause of death among X age group" either as I explained why above).
Anyway, I'm not really posting this for any other reason than I felt I found some good information on the subject, organized it well, and could present it for anyone interested.
85
David Huntwork appears to agree with me on women in the military.
"It is ridiculous that we have allowed 105-pound females to be captured, beaten, raped, and sodomized in the name of social experimentation and equal opportunity. It is bad enough that we have male soldiers shot, blown apart and killed. Do we really want to have our wives, daughters and sisters returned to us in body bags or with the often devastating physical and mental scars of war? In the end what does it say about our society that we send our women to fight our wars for us? "
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/h/huntwork/03/huntwork111503.htmGood for him. He's not wrapped up in the "gender equality" myth which logically leads to such stupid notions that women should also be in combat, dying and being beaten, because men have to do it.
86
Someone tells me my article is linked in this article. I'm almost afraid to look at it.
Selling Pvt. Lynch
From the White House to Random House, the plucky ex-POW has been badly used. But even as the right turned on her, she handled her week in the spotlight like a hero.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert
Nov. 15, 2003 | During the climactic moments of NBC's Sunday night prime-time, made-for-TV movie "Saving Jessica Lynch," viewers watched make-believe U.S. commandos storm an Iraqi hospital to rescue the wounded 19-year-old prisoner of war. Of course, the scene came with a sense of déjà vu, since most people had seen grainy footage of the actual rescue last spring, thanks to riveting night-vision pictures provided by the Pentagon, just hours after Lynch was whisked away, in the first successful liberation of an American POW since World War II.
The depiction of soldiers rushing Lynch out of the Nasiriyah hospital on a stretcher was a dead-on re-creation. Yet something crucial was missing on-screen: the flag U.S. troops dramatically laid across Lynch's chest as they videotaped her rescue. (In retrospect it was the surest tip-off that the mission had been at least partly staged -- it came complete with feel-good props.)
Everyone saw the flag on the incessant news clips last spring. But on NBC Sunday night, the telltale flag was missing. It's as if the Pentagon had out-Hollywooded Hollywood, and the TV producers thought they went too far. Apparently they decided that the idea of draping the stars and stripes over Lynch during the final rescue scene was too over-the-top, too schmaltzy even for them.
Welcome to the strange world of Jessica Lynch Media Week, where seeing was not necessarily believing. As Gary Dorsey of the Baltimore Sun put it, "After the fog of war came the fog of media, followed by the fog of war and media, then clarifications and alternative views, then the fog of publicity and the war of competing media."
With a made-for-TV docudrama, prime-time interviews, a Time magazine cover story, and a new book out, the week represented a chance to find out the truth. Or to at least pick the most appealing version of the truth: NBC's, the Pentagon's, Time Warner's or Random House's.
After being used by the Pentagon, which planted a phony war story about Lynch "fighting to the death" during her capture, and by a White House that refused to correct the record when it became obvious the spin was fiction, Lynch moved into equally dangerous mass media waters. This time she was telling her own story, that of a reluctant star who insists she was no hero. But it was impossible to escape the feeling that she was getting used all over again.
In fact, there's an eerie parallel between the way the Bush administration sold the Lynch saga and the way it sold the war: Having decided the existing case for toppling Saddam Hussein wouldn't sell, it apparently trumped up the evidence. Likewise, someone decided the Lynch capture and rescue wasn't sexy enough on its own -- it had to be tarted up. But then, having been used by the White House, Lynch was treated shabbily by Random House, which flogged her book last week on the disturbing news that she'd been raped -- news Lynch couldn't confirm herself, and about which the evidence is inconclusive. The humble, plucky Lynch came through her ordeals a hero, but the administration and the media certainly did not.
To their credit, Lynch and her family tried to keep a little distance from the media machine madness. For instance, they refused to ink a lucrative deal with any TV network for an authorized miniseries. Instead they wanted to tell her story in a book -- and one written by a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaperman, Rick Bragg. But once she signed the book deal ($500,000 for her, $500,000 for him), that meant she had to promote it, which meant time on the couch with Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, David Letterman and, coming Monday, Larry King.
The talkmeister should be forewarned: The petite, tight-lipped Lynch is one tough interview. Sawyer, notorious for her creepy, how-do-you-really-feel questions designed to elicit some on-camera tears, couldn't get Lynch to budge, even after she pulled out a surprise photograph of the Iraqi hospital room Lynch was held in. Sawyer's voice-over informed viewers this was the first time she'd seen the room since her rescue. The camera zoomed in on Lynch for a reaction. Yes, she calmly replied, that was the room she stayed in.
Things were even rougher for "Today's" Katie Couric, who interviewed Lynch live. Couric ended up doing most of the talking during the Wednesday segment -- 1,530 words compared to Lynch's 950. And approximately 30 different times Lynch gave one-word answers to Couric's questions. Her favorite being the lonely, "Yeah," which she offered up 22 times.
Lynch appeared at times surprisingly detached from her own tale. She said she only watched parts of NBC's Sunday night movie about her life and has not read all of Bragg's book, 500,000 copies of which were shipped to stores on Veteran's Day.
There were signs the incessant media hype outpaced public interest. After all, it was Elizabeth Smart, the former kidnapped Utah teen, and her CBS real-life drama, that won the ratings war Sunday night, crowning her America's Recovering Sweetheart. Asked by the Hartford Courant if her store was ordering extra copies of Lynch's new biography, one bookstore owner guffawed, "You must be kidding! Who cares? This story has been told to the nth degree."
Even readers of Lynch's hometown newspaper seemed underwhelmed. In an online -- and unscientific -- poll conducted by West Virginia's Parkersberg News and Sentinel, the daily asked readers if they planned to buy Lynch's book; 72 percent said no.
No doubt the Bush administration hoped viewers and readers would stay away. The Lynch rollout came during a bleak week for the White House, as it hastily summoned Paul Bremer, its top administrator in Iraq, back to Washington for crisis talks on how to quickly fix the political and security mess in Iraq. And Lynch's insistence on national television that she felt used by the Pentagon for making a show of her rescue and for telling absurd tales about her alleged heroics was just the latest cut at the White House's shrinking credibility when it comes to the war in Iraq.
Also, her personal Iraq tale about an unprepared group of lost, confused and exhausted soldiers making wrong turn after wrong turn before being boxed into an ambush where 11 soldiers were killed is not exactly the stuff of recruiting brochures.
Meanwhile, Fox News was noticeably shut out of the Lynch sweepstakes, the only major broadcast or news network that did not get any access to the former POW. So Fox talker Bill O'Reilly focused on reports that topless photos of Lynch were reportedly purchased by Hustler publisher Larry Flynt, who now says he won't publish them.
Note this absurd exchange between O'Reilly and ABC's Sawyer, out front plugging her exclusive interview "get":
O'Reilly: By the time you talked to her, this topless thing wasn't out yet, right?
Sawyer: No.
O'Reilly: OK.
Sawyer: But we've checked and I don't think she's going to have a comment on it.
O'Reilly: No, I wouldn't either. But -- and isn't it a sad commentary that this is the country we live in now?
Sawyer: Yes, and somebody sold these. I mean this ...
O'Reilly: Of course they did. I mean, you know, we're going to have this Paris Hilton video tomorrow. You know about this thing?
Sawyer: You're going to have it here?
O'Reilly: We have it, yes. We have it right here.
Sawyer: Are you going to put it on?
O'Reilly: I'm going to put some of it on, not a lot. I'm going to show the folks tomorrow. But isn't it a sad commentary that everybody now ...
Sawyer: Why are you going to put it on?
O'Reilly: Going to put what?
Sawyer: Why are you going to put it on?
O'Reilly: I'm not going to put on the sex stuff.
Sawyer: Oh, all right.
O'Reilly was referring to a 3-year-old sex tape of celebrity rich girl Paris Hilton that's currently making the Internet rounds. Lumping Lynch with the lurid Hilton sex tape seemed symbolic of the way the right has tried to discredit her, once she blew the whistle on the Pentagon for hyping her heroics.
"I won't read Lynch's book either. There's just something not right about all of this. I don't care for the fact that a nasty finger is being pointed at our Military," read one bulletin board post at GOPUSA.com. "This is not the time to condemn, it's the time to support."
The other constant conservative online theme during Lynch Week was that her ordeal simply confirmed that women should not be in the military. Lynch, wrote conservative commentator Chuck Muth, "is now being used by anti-war liberals to cast further doubt on America's mission in Iraq, instead of casting doubt on the dubious -- some would say outright stupid -- Army decision to put women in combat and harm's way in order to placate loud-mouthed feminists. It's LONG past time for Jessica Lynch's 15 minute of fame to be over."
But despite the right's fervent wishes that she'd go away, Lynch has been everywhere lately. Last week was book rollout week, which meant getting photographed by Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair's year-end Hall of Fame issue. And it meant sharing Glamour magazine Women of the Year honors with Britney Spears, who's out promoting her own product this week -- a new CD -- and who also sat down, exclusively, for a Sawyer interview of her own. (On ABC Tuesday night, we learned Lynch was a "prissy" child. On ABC Thursday night, we learned from the Madonna-kissing Spears that "when I was younger, I used to run around my house, naked, when I was 13.")
The fact POW Lynch kept bumping into pop tart Spears out on the marketing matrix wasn't the week's only absurdity. Watching competing media outlets scrap over Lynch was sadly amusing. Time magazine devoted 22 pages, complete with 19 photos and illustrations, to the Lynch saga, while online Time.com asked readers, "Is Jessica Lynch a hero? Yes or no?" So, in a classic jab, rival Newsweek, trying to piss on Time's Lynch bonanza, committed just 500 words to her in this week's issue, opting with the dismissive lead, "The Jessica Lynch blitz isn't a feel-good celebration for everyone."
As for the book, "I Am a Soldier, Too," Time magazine managed to condense it to 4,500 words, without losing much in the process. Bragg does his best to rev up the story and give it a real country holler feel ("Bad luck followed the little caravan like a hungry dog"). But he seems to be straining just to spread the story out over 207 pages. And that where's-the-beef quality served to highlight the one sensational allegation Bragg makes -- that during a three-hour block between the time her Humvee crashed and she was brought to the hospital, Lynch, unconscious, was tortured and raped by her captors. The passage, which takes up just two paragraphs in the book, grabbed headlines around the world.
Lynch told Sawyer upfront the whole rape notion was "questionable," but Bragg said Lynch's parents wanted it included in the book. Still, the red-hot allegation, stuck inside an otherwise sleepy read, couldn't escape the whiff of publishing desperation that accompanied it.
As one furious Philadelphia Inquirer book reviewer put it, "Last week's revelation that she was sexually assaulted during those lost three hours, timed specifically to promote this book and her appearances, is repugnant, virtually unparalleled in the rancid history of publicity. It's rape as a marketing tool."
Whether Lynch was in fact sexually assaulted may never be known. (Iraqi doctors who examined her insist she was not.) But it's hard to attribute lofty journalistic motives to a publisher who decided to introduce such an inflammatory accusation, based on relatively sketchy evidence, into a story that's already drowning in contradictions and revisions.
Likewise, NBC had high hopes for its Lynch movie. "This story is Mission: Impossible, but it's real," one NBC insider told Daily Variety last spring, before some of the shine began to fade. "It's as good a story as you can get from this war. It's uplifting, heroic, compelling and dramatic."
But in the end, after seven script revisions, the disclaimer that popped up on the screen Sunday night said it all: "This motion picture is based on a true story. However, some names have been changed and some characters, scenes and events in whole or part have been created for dramatic purpose."
That's because NBC failed to get the rights to Lynch's story, and had to rely on the tale of a 32-year-old Iraqi attorney, Odeh al-Rehaif, and his tell-all book, "Because Each Life Is Precious: Why an Iraqi Man Risked Everything for Private Jessica Lynch." Clearly al-Rehaif put his life, and the life of his family, in danger by alerting U.S. troops to Lynch's whereabouts in an effort to get her rescued. And in the end he was rewarded with political asylum in the States, a job at a Republican-run lobbying firm in Washington, as well as a handsome, six-figure book deal. (Not to mention the fact NBC turned al-Rehaif into a dashing Andy Garcia-like star, not the Jon Lovitz look-alike he is in real life.)
On-screen, al Rehaif came across as Ahmad Chalabi's long-lost cousin; a native Iraqi who laid out the kind of script Pentagon war planners dreamt about. But like Chalabi and his rosy pre-war prediction that U.S. troops would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and resistance would crumble with Saddam's collapse, al-Rehaif's tale of an Iraq desperate for U.S. intervention, of Iraqis with an almost insatiable love of Americans, had some holes in it. It's not Swiss cheese holes like Chalabi's fantasy, but al-Rehaif's claim that his wife worked as a nurse in the hospital where Lynch was treated have been dismissed by others on staff there. "He's a big liar who should be hung by his ears," one Iraqi nurse told ABC.
And al-Rehaif's most chilling, dramatic claim, that while peering through a glass panel into her room he saw a Fedayeen soldier slap Lynch during an interrogation, was denied by a hospital staffer in a Washington Post report this summer: "Never happened. That's some Hollywood crap you'd tell the Americans."
Tuesday on ABC, Lynch herself denied al-Rehaif's graphic account of a beat-down, telling Sawyer it never happened. That may explain why Lynch refused to meet with al-Rehaif last month when he come calling in Palestine, W.Va., in search of an audience with the former POW on the heels of his own book release.
Wednesday morning on the "Today," show, Lynch softened her tone, saying she wants to meet with al-Rehaif and thank him, but that she "want[ed] to do it on my own time, whenever there's no media around."
As soon as the current marketing rollout wraps up and al-Rehaif and Lynch send the press away, they should be able to get some time to themselves.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer
Eric Boehlert is a senior writer at Salon.
Sound Off
Send us a Letter to the Editor
88
This is an ongoing email I have with this guy.
From QB:
> > Amber,
> >
> > Your comments on Shirin Ebadi frankly sound
> > short-sighted and juvenile. I found your articles
> on
> > mensnewsdaily.com, a site that is openly sexist. I
> > don't know if you choose to associate with them or
> not
> > but your "work" can be criticized on it's own
> merrit.
> > I find it hard to believe that "every single"
> person
> > who responded to your article on Ebadi was
> favorable.
> > At least I know that after tonight, you can't
> honestly
> > make such claims anymore.
> >
> > You attack Islam as brutal and un-democratic
> > forgetting that many of the things you criticize
> are
> > also present in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism
> and
> > many other religions around the world. The fact
> that
> > some western Christian countries do not implement
> > biblical law is a testiment to democracy, not to
> > Christianity. There are zealots in every religion,
> but
> > only the ones that can successfully harvest
> feelings
> > of severe injustice (like abortion clinic bombers)
> > gain any support. People like Bin Laden or the
> > hardline Iranian Mullahs rally around and use
> religion
> > to take advatage of people's anger in the face of
> > injustice, as any western politician would. Much
> of
> > this injustice has been perpetrated by the United
> > States government. It is therefore not Islam but
> what
> > is done with it that is the problem. If I chose to
> > implement biblical-era law in the United States,
> would
> > you blame Christianity? Or me?
> >
> > The People of Iran are Muslim. Just like the
> people
> > of Europe are Christian. What happened 13
> centuries
> > ago (Muslims took over a Zoroastrian people), does
> not
> > mean that Iranian reject Islam. That argument can
> be
> > made for almost any country, anwhere in the world.
> Do
> > people in Italy "reject" christianity? Whatabout
> > people in the Philipines? Russia? South America?
> > Futhermore you either don't know or are actively
> > ignoring the fact that Iranian people VOTED for an
> > islamic republic in 1979. The results were over
> 90% in
> > favor.
> >
> > I realize you may have had some correspondence
> with
> > certain Iranians who blame Islam for problems in
> Iran.
> > But do you realize who are talking to? The
> > "secularist" shah was so corrupt and bought that
> > people overthrew him in the revolution. Khomeini
> was
> > welcomed by the Iranian people, there was no
> "brutal"
> > regime to suppress people and generate that result
> > than! So, how do you explain it? Think about it.
> Just
> > like Mr. Chalabi and his ex-pat possee find that
> they
> > don't have any popular support in Iraq, the
> > Monarchists who have your ear, know they have no
> > popular support in Iran. They are the ones that
> used
> > to reap the benefits at the expense of poor
> iranians.
> > They are the ones whom the Shah used to favor by
> > giving them money and exclusive contracts. And
> > naturally, after the revolution, THEY are the ones
> > that could afford to take their money and run away
> to
> > Europe and America. They do not represent the
> average
> > Iranian, far from it. Of course they are pissed
> off...
> > so were the Bourbons after the french revolution.
> If
> > you truly care about freedom, especially freedom
> of
> > religion, you would respect the choices that
> Iranians
> > have made and start addressing the real problem.
> >
> > You probably don't know. But the Islamic Republic
> > didn't start out so islamic. The original
> conception
> > of Khomeini was a true republic with Islamic
> advisors.
> > It was the (US-backed) War with Iraq that
> successfully
> > allowed the more hard-line elements of the Iranian
> > clergy to take control and manipulate the
> government.
> > Faced with an enemy that had support of all Iran's
> > neighbors and both superpowers, Islam was sold as
> the
> > only salvation. It was than that they got rid of
> the
> > office of the prime minister and began brutal
> > crackdowns under the guise of Islam. If US hadn't
> been
> > so hostile by backing Iraq, the democratic
> > developments you see now, would've occurred 20
> years
> > ago and by now would've been much further along.
> If
> > the US CIA hadn't overthrown the DEMOCRATIC
> government
> > of Mussaddeq in '53 to reinstall the Shah, there
> would
> > be NO Islamic republic right now.
> >
> > I don't blame you for not knowing all of this, it
> is
> > heavily suppressed in the United States, and you
> sound
> > really young. But please, do yourself a favor and
> do
> > some homework before you solve the worlds problems
> > from the comfort of your college dorm room.
> >
My response:
> So where in europe do you live?
QB:
Is that really the only thing you can say?
Rather sad.
At least your friend Anne Coulter can throw in some
personal insults to keep it more exciting.
-QB
My response:
Come on ... tell me. I just got off the phone with an Iranian in Tehran right now and he said your email was incredibly misguided and not truthful. One thing is for sure: you are not an Iranian and do not know what the Iranian people are going through. Your positions sound more like that of an arrogant European. So tell me. What part of Europe are you from?
89
An email I sent to someone who wrote to me about my last article and asked if I support drafting women. I said no it was anti family and anti mother. He wrote back with some nonsense. This was my response to him
----
You know, men like you are worse than the feminists. At least feminists did what they did in the name of equality of GOOD things for women, such as getting high level jobs, etc. But the mens activists want equality of BAD things, like forcing women to be drafted.
Drafting women has to be the most out of touch with reality, stupid notion ever. You're going to draft Donna Reed into the military??? Please. Men like you are leftists not conservatives; a conservative would have better family values than this.
I see no benefit to drafting women other than to be able to put women through misery. I don't support the draft at all, but if it is going to exist, I would do what makes common sense and only draft men.
---
People who are out of touch with reality annoy me.
90
A relatively well known pundit sent this to me. I'm not telling you their name.
And now I hear men advocating similar things as feminists. They tell other men to stop paying for dates, to not be chivalrous, to hate women, to not get married, etc - not out of tactic - but because they hate these things. These positions sound more like feminism than conservatism.
True leaders need to step up against feminism and point the rest of us towards a real goal: gender healing. We need to go after the leaders, not women. Do not make it a war of men versus women. Make it a war of those who want to re-unite men and women and those who don't. Do not turn against the female gender at large. Do not give them what they want.
Amber, I applaud your Gender Healing: Seeing Bees, Not the Swarm. It was a nice attempt at trying to get the mens' movement to understand that much of it has become the Meninists Movement, and not one bit different than the feminists. But it's too late, I fear, for the Meninist Misogyny has picked up so much steam, and it's rolling downhill fast, in all of its hatred and victimology. It's a shame that your column got dissed on the Mensnewsdaily bulletin board.
-----
It's comforing to know I'm not the only one who can see the anger, victomology, and misogyny of the MRA. I don't really have to spend any time on it, knowing intelligent people can see it for themselves. :yes:
Besides, all I have to do now is mentin that MRA are the type that cheer on the murder of people. I seriously cannot see this angry emasculated victim-minded political movement gaining any type of influence. Blah, they make me want to vomit.
91
http://www.angryharry.com/tickertapecurrent.htmAbout halfway down he takes my drunken post from an internet forum and posts it on his website.
:roll:
He takes it as proof that women aren't intellignet. Can you believe it? My ode to cock!
One would think these angry menists would like when a woman is giving an ode to heterosexuality. I guess their anger, hatred, and inability to get laid clouds all that though ...
Angry Harry needs to get a life. As do anniee, ur, and analog worms.
92
I think I finally found a book that will give insight into the arguments for gender bending. It's called The Apartheid of Sex.
This is from the flap.
"Is the categoriazation of people from the moment of birth as either male or female a form of sexual segregation as pernicious as racial apartheid? In this bold and provocative manifesto, martine Roghblatt cites current academic opinion and research to argue that the answer is yes - and that the time is right for a new sexual revoltion."
There you have it. If you are of the belief that certain people in the world are in the category of "male" and others are "female," then you are an oppresive sexual apartheidist tyrant. And your own two eyes and ears which tell you there are two different categories of people is not good enough; they have the academic research to prove you wrong!
See what I mean when I say gender bending isn't about "choice," but a war on reality?
I'll be back with a book report.
94
I was thinking today of why they invented global warming. First of all, the whole notion that the earth is warming up due to man made causes is almost ridiculous. It was started by envioros who hate man, technology, capitalism, etc. and want to destroy it. But I thought of specifically why they chose global warming. If they chose, say water pollution, they would be limited in what business they could go after. If a person is hurting said water system, it will only hurt specific people in a certain region and they can only go after certain businesses. But global warming is everywhere. Therefore, they can go after any business at any time.
96
More on human nature and what heterosexual woman naturally gravitate towards in life.
Feminism Is Mugged By Reality
November 12, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Phyllis Schlafly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The feminist revolution that swept across America in the 1970s promoted the dream of a land in which at least half of corporate officers, Fortune 500 C.E.Os, partners in law firms, and doctors would be women. The feminist movement was always elitist; it was about getting political and corporate power for educated women.
But a funny thing happened on the way to achieving that promise. Feminism was mugged by the reality that most women don't seek those goals.
How the best and the brightest are rejecting the career track laid out for them by the feminists is detailed in a lengthy new article titled "The Opt-Out Revolution" by Lisa Belkin in the persistently feminist New York Times Magazine. That is the same publication that a few years ago featured a cover glamorizing the feminists' number-one role model as Saint Hillary Clinton in radiant white robes.
Ms. Belkin interviewed hundreds of women and presented as typical a group in Atlanta, all of whom had graduated from Princeton more or less twenty years ago, earned advanced degrees in law or business from other prestigious institutions such as Harvard and Columbia, and waited until their thirties to marry and have children because their careers were so exciting.
Eager graduates during the heyday of feminism, they felt both entitled and obligated to make good. As one of them told Ms. Belkin, what she then wanted was to be "a confirmed single person, childless, a world traveler."
These Atlanta women are typical: for the last couple of decades, roughly half of M.B.A.s, J.D.s, and M.D.s have been granted to women. In the feminist game plan, these are the very women who should now be at the top of the business and professional world, wielding the fantasy power attributed to the tiny percentage at the top.
But of these ten Princeton graduates interviewed by Ms. Belkin at a book-club meeting, five are not employed outside the home, one is in business with her husband, one is employed part time, two freelance, and the only one with a full-time job has no children. Nationwide, only 16 percent of corporate officers are women, only eight Fortune 500 companies have female C.E.O.s., and only 38 percent of Harvard Business School 1980s female graduates are now working full time.
Feminist ideology for years has preached that if women fail to cross those thresholds of power, it is because women are held down by a "glass ceiling" imposed by a discriminatory and oppressive male- dominated society. But these smart, talented, successful women told Ms. Belkin that they opted out of their accelerating careers voluntarily.
The work days kept getting longer and longer, and the women walked away from six-figure incomes. Typical comments were: "I don't want to be on the fast track leading to a partnership at a prestigious law firm." "I don't want to conquer the world; I don't want that kind of life."
One easily predictable explanation for this attitude is, in one Belkin quote, that many women never get near the glass ceiling because "they are stopped long before by the maternal wall."
These women don't admit that they abandoned the workforce because their children needed them. They said they opted out because "life got in the way"; they were "no longer willing to work as hard, commuting, navigating office politics," and "balancing all that with the needs of a family."
One woman told Ms. Belkin that she is just not interested "in forging ahead and climbing a power structure," and "that is one of the inherent differences between the sexes." She quickly caught herself after making such a politically incorrect statement, adding, "to turn that into dogma is dangerous and false."
One of the Atlanta group staunchly maintained that "the exodus of professional women from the workplace isn't really about motherhood; it's really about work. ... Quitting is driven as much from the job- dissatisfaction side as from the pull-to-motherhood side."
Princeton University, a former male citadel, is now run largely by women, and Ms. Belkin interviewed the president, Shirley Tilghman. Commenting on her current crop of female students, she said that for every one "who looks at an Amy [Gutmann, the Provost] or an Ann-Marie [Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs] and says, 'I want to be like her,' there are three who say, 'I want to be anything but her.'"
It turns out that the workplace (like child care) has its drudgery, its long hours, its repetitious duties, its demands that an employee accommodate herself to the schedule of others. Maybe the home is a pleasanter and more fulfilling work environment than the office, after all.
I wonder if someday a feminist will ever say the office is "a comfortable concentration camp," as Betty Friedan famously described the home of an affluent suburban housewife. Or if a feminist will ever admit that there is an eternal difference between men and women in their goals and in how they want to live their lives.
Phyllis Schlafly
97
I keep a professional journal about my writing, which includes advice to myself on what works and what doesn't. I thought what I wrote to myself a few months ago was adorable. It gets across the type of mentality you need not just to write but to do anything. It is a mentality intent on mastering the specifics of reality, not trying to do more than it is is capable, but at the same time is always seeking to improve itself. These are two rules I wrote to myself about writing:
Rule #1: Write about what you know
Rule #2: Know as much as you can
98
You lucky dogs get to preview one of my articles before it goes up on mnd, hopefully today.
I need a better title!! :!:
:!:
Jessica Lynch and Why Women should not be in the MilitaryLet's discuss the story of Private First Class Jessica Lynch. It's a story of a 19 yr old girl who signed up for the military to get tuition money and ended up getting raped mercilessly by Saddam loyalists.
This story truly has to be one of the most bizarre, butchered, and hyped stories of all time. Lynch - an army clerk - was taken captive after a shoot down between Iraqis and Americans. She, and only she, was rescued by American soldiers in an Iraqi hospital. The whole thing was taped, the media went nuts over it, and liberals, conservatives, and feminists alike have not really been able to decide how they are going to take the whole story.
The only real set divide is between people who support the war and those who don't. Anti-war advocates, from the very beginning of the Lynch story, were crying that the military was lying about certain things regarding the rescue. It turns out they were right. Anti-war protestors have complained, consistently, that the story was nothing more than hype to drum up support for the war. And, vice versa, pro-war and, in particular, pro-military people have seemed to embrace Lynch. The fact that her book is being released on Veteran's Day is proof. Marketers know that military people support her and that sales will go up when pro-military, patriotic fever is high.
Some have been shrieking that Lynch is going to become the new poster girl for feminism. Frankly, I was and am suspicious of that. The Lynch story is one that drums up support for the war, and feminists hate the Iraqi War (and, knowing what I know about feminists, I know they hate the war more than they support women or even feminist causes). So I did a search among various feminist sites to see their reaction to the Lynch story.
Most sites had absolutely nothing. One site actually had an article complaining that Lynch was getting all the attention, but the woman who was bulldozed by an Israeli tank got none. On msmagazine.com, search results only yielded 3 results. The only story really pertaining to Lynch was one written when it was still thought that Lynch had gone down fighting. This, of course, was taken as proof that women can handle combat just fine (this was only given one paragraph though, and the rest of the 3 page article was dedicated to complaining about sexual harassment in the military). However, there were no articles about Lynch after it was known that she did not go down fighting and in fact was brutally raped.
Leave it to feminists to drop a girl when she doesn't fit their agenda. Leave it to conservatives and soldiers to still remember her.
And, of course, it is in feminists' interest to cover up the Lynch story. This story, originally spun to drum up support for the war and boost morale among military members, has turned, mainly, into a lesson in the harsh realities of women not only in combat but in the military altogether
We, as a nation, have completely lost touch of what the military or war are about. For almost 3 decades, with the exception of the first Iraq war, (which did not last long and was not part of a "war on terror") America has enjoyed peace and prosperity.
The military, thus, became just another job. In order to recruit, the military pandered not to being all you can be, duty, or honor, but tuition money and medical benefits. Like Lynch, people signed up for their own rational self-interest reasons, expecting to serve their 2-8 years and get out.
This also allowed feminists to go wild with their lies, fanciful imaginations, and social engineering projects regarding women in the military. Although feminists hate war and the military, nothing excites them more than a woman in uniform - being as unfeminine as humanly possible. When I saw Gloria Steinem speak once, an audience member asked her, as a pacifist, if she supported women being in the armed forces. Steinem said yes, "to put women in a masculine role."
Feminists want us to believe that women in the military is great - the hallmark of female independence - and all stories are like that of Demi Moore's portrayal in GI Jane. All that comes crashing down with the Jessica Lynch story.
When you are thinking of women joining in the military - let's say your own daughter who wants to join - I don't want you to think of the tuition money, of the basic training that lies ahead, or even the stupid allegations that the military is ripe with sexual harassment. I want you to think of her in a real, live war.
Let's imagine a situation like Jessica Lynch's, which I am taking straight off the NBC movie about it. Your daughter - a supply clerk who signed up so she could get tuition money and become a teacher - is in Iraq. She may only be a supply clerk, but she still needs to travel. As she travels with her unit, a group of Saddam loyalists block off the road. They surround all the American soldiers. Your 18 yr old daughter is a sitting duck, waiting for one of their bullets to hit her head.
In the movie, it showed Lynch being taken off by the Iraqis to a hospital. It showed her being slapped. Indeed, this did not happen as Lynch herself said. Something worse happened: she was raped. Mercilessly, by Iraqis who were professional rapists - known for raping women and children under Saddam's terrorist regime.
I know my mother had trouble going to sleep at night when I did not have health insurance. I'm not quite sure how she would have handled me in Lynch's position - being raped in an Iraqi hospital with inadequate care.
Or, perhaps your daughter wouldn't have met a fate as happy as Lynch's was. She could have just easily ended up like Lynch's buddy, Lori Piestewa, who was killed in the ambush that Lynch survived.
Some may complain that the public has overwhelming sadness when a woman dies but not a man. Well, first of all, I take offense to that as I spent the first nights especially of Iraq War II crying (especially as I watched Geraldo interview them on Fox News) because our male soldiers were about to go in and many were likely to die - especially since in this war, unlike the first Iraq War, the men were my age. The overwhelming sadness our country experienced after 9-11, also, in which 3000 people were killed, almost all of them men, is also proof against the claim that we don't value male life.
But there is a reason why the public can't handle a woman in this situation, and in fact, never will. It is because women are the child bearers. It is also the reason why women play many sports including volleyball, basketball, etc. but not football - because it's too rough. We, intuitively, want to protect the female body, the carrier of life.
Well, just about everyone that is, except feminists, want to protect female life. If you want to find people who support sending women into combat, don't look among female soldiers. Most will tell you they appreciate the protection of not going into combat zones. If you want to find people who support sending women into combat, look among radical feminists, who seem quite intent to send women off to die.
What exactly are we doing sending women off into combat zones? And, for the record, there is no such thing as a non-combat position. If you're wearing a military uniform, you can and very possibly will be in a combat situation, as Lynch, a supply clerk, was.
What do we want women in the military for? To decrease military readiness? To fulfill a woman's desire to fulfill her lifelong dream of being in a situation where she could get brutally raped and/or killed?
I can see no positive benefit to women joining the military. Besides the added benefit of letting our 19 yr olds go off to be raped by Saddam loyalists, letting women join has decreased military effectiveness.
Some may argue if a woman is qualified for the job, she should be allowed to join the military. But this attitude adopts the notion that the military is like any other job - where one just does their individual task and goes home. This is not how the military operates. In the military, comradery and unit cohesiveness are key. A female's presence - including qualified females - decreases these things significantly. From what I can tell, the only people who don't fundamentally seem to understand how a female's presence would effect cohesiveness are lesbian feminists.
I have been told before that women served men in the military greatly as nurses and combat medics. Sure anyone can see how this would happen. But women have always served the military in this role. They wore Red Cross uniforms not military uniforms. This is a logical solution and keeps women (largely although not completely) out of combat.
I believe the primary reason why they wanted women in the military is to decrease military readiness. Their goal is nothing except to destroy the United States. Decreasing our military might, by letting women join - which does nothing except tear down unit cohesiveness and effectiveness - was just one method in that.
It's time to stop these stupid social engineering projects. Conservatives have largely sold out on this issue of women in the military because their overwhelming support for military people trumps politics. This means they support the women who are serving side by side by them and aren't going to speak up on the issue for fear of hurting those female soldiers. Well, I also have no problem with the actual women in the military, including Lynch. Most are good, patriotic people. But the fact is the military would operate just fine as an all male institution. Allowing women in does nothing except needlessly put them in dangerous situations: much like Jessica Lynch's
99
Someone sent this to me. There's no way I'm going through the whole thing. Will someone look at it and tell me what the fuck they said?
The Dickification of the Western Female
Saturday, November 08 2003 @ 08:00 PM CET
Contributed by: SadlyNo
[Disclosure: This post is rated I for Irony and S for Sarcasm.] Earlier this
week, we heard about a controversial essay written by Kim "I am too a man" du
Toit. In it, Kim discussed one of the greatest evils of the 21st century, The
Pussification Of The Western Male. Commentary can found in many places,
including on The Tooney Bin, A Small Victory, or Josh Reynold's blog to cite
one example we found randomly on Technorati. Because Sadly, No! is a blog that
prides itself on being connected with all that is hip and happening, we knew
there had to be people out there who had a different point of view. No -- not
girly men who disagreed they have become pussified, and no, not women who think
a KimMan® is a dickless wanker. We mean women who think society's greatest
problem is not the pussification of the western male, but rather the
dickification of the western female. As luck would have it, we were right. We
reprint below an essay sent to us from a woman blogger who has aske!
d that she remain anonymous for now, so we will call her Amber Pawlik to
protect her identity. So please sit back, grab an alcoholic beverage, and see
what Amber Pawlik [not her real name!] has to say about:The Dickification of
the Western FemaleWe have become a nation of men. It wasn't always this way, of
course. There was a time when women put their apron on, knowing full well that
this single act had better result in a great meal, or their husbands might have
valid grounds for having their secretaries work "overtime" with them. Their
Cosmo allowance would be turned over to the kids, or given to a woman who could
make a great beef stew, for fcuk's sake. There was a time when women went back
to the bedroom after dinner, with expressions like "If you need a beer to
relax, no need to get off the couch, just call and I'll get it for you."There
was a time when women had sex with their husbands, sometimes against their own
wishes, so that other men wouldn't need to suff!
er the grumpiness that comes from sex deprived men. And there was a ti
me when it was ok to sleep with the local hoe if men had to be on the road for
work, because when a man has to do what a man has to do, it's ok. There was a
time when a woman would threaten to scratch another woman's eyes out, because
she had the temerity to say bad things about her meatloaf. We're not like that
anymore. Now, girls in high school are being told to stop playing with their
cooking set and learn about home financing and compound interest, told to put
down their knitting set and other familiar variations that helped them learn,
at an early age, what it was like to have to satisfy your man, to provide for
him, because you're not as good as him. Now, women are taught that
subordination is bad - that when a man wants sex or a quiet evening with the
guys at the strip club-- that the proper way to deal with this is to "give him
hell," instead of retreating to the bedroom with a vibrator, a bottle of Jimmy
Dean, and a pair of AA alkaline batteries. Now, wom!
en's fashion includes not a woman dressed in a proper skirt from Sears, but
loose-fitting pants worn by a woman without breasts. Now, instructions are
included with microwave ovens, as though women have somehow forgotten how to
cook. Now, women are given leadership responsibilities as little girls, so that
their natural obedience, subservience and deference can be controlled, instead
of nurtured and directed. And finally, our former First Lady, who had the
audacity not only to attend law school but also to graduate from it, gets
elected to the US Senate -the US fcuking Senate--and tries to do a man's job
while her husband stays at home. No wonder the Europeans (and NOW) love her,
because the process of dickification is almost complete. How did we get to
this? In the twentieth century, men became more and more involved in the
raising of the children, in parents-teachers associations, and in discussing
important decisions with their wives -- and mostly, this has not !
been a good thing. When men got to be role models for their daughters,
it was inevitable that they were going to become more powerful, more assertive,
and more "demanding" (i.e. more masculine), because men are hard-wired to
treasure independence, more than respect for authority. It was therefore
inevitable that their masculine influence on children was going to emphasize
(lowercase "t") testosterone.I am aware of the fury that this statement is
going to arouse, and I don't care a fig.What I care about is the fact that
since the beginning of the twentieth century, there has been a concerted
campaign to praise women, to raise them to figures to be respected, and to
render them unattractive, literally speaking.I'm going to illustrate this by
talking about TV, because my husband doesn't let me out of the house unless we
need groceries. In the 1950s, the TV Mom was seen as the lovable clueless
figure in need of assistance -- perhaps not the beginning of the trend -- BUT
yet even back then there were times when she was allowed to resolve!
a problem on her own. Once women were shown it was ok to change a light bulb
of fix a leaky faucet, the door to evil had been opened (think of the line:
"Honey, don't worry about changing the oil on the car, I can do it.") From
that, we went to this: the AFLAC figure skating commercial on supplemental
insurance. Now, for those who haven't seen this piece of shiit, I'm going to go
over it, from memory, because it epitomizes everything I hate about the
campaign to dickify women. The scene opens at a skating rink, where the two
figure skaters are practicing. The dialogue goes something like this:Female
skater (note, not male skater): You should get supplemental insurance.Male
Skater: What's that?FS: It helps cover you in case you get injured and can't
work.MS (humorously): Uh?Mother (not humorously): If you don't get any, you'll
end up on the street a penniless [ why doesn't she just come out and say
penisless??? -AP ] drunk you moron.Now, every time I see that TV!
ad, I have to be restrained from smashing the TV with my 3-inch heels
. If you want a microcosm of how women have become like men, this is the perfect
example.Even the fcuking duck is smarter than the man in that piece of crap,
and the woman now has the knowledge, wisdom and experience to make complicated
financial decisions. If I tried to tell my husband how to run our risk
management, he'd slap me across the face and I'd thank him for it. He could
then go and fcuk his secretary, who doesn't try to tell him how to run his life
on a daily basis. But today, when the affair is discovered, people are going to
rally around the suffering lesbian called his wife, and call him all sorts of
names. He'll lose custody of his kids, and they will be brought up by our
ultimate modern-day figure of sympathy: The Single Dyke.You know what? Some
women deserve to be bitter and single, having to rely on out of town truckers
to satisfy their sexual needs. When I first started my website, I think my
primary aim was to blow off steam at the stupidity of our !
society.Because I have fairly set views on what constitutes right and wrong, I
have no difficulty in calling Hillary "Rodham" Clinton, for example, a fcuking
liar and hypocrite.But most of all, I do this website because I love being a
woman. Amongst other things, I talk about makeup, haircuts, fashion, beautiful
scarves, sewing, cooking, cleaning, and vacuum cleaners -- all the things that
being a woman entails. All this stuff gives me pleasure.And it doesn't take
much to see when all the things I love are being threatened: when the prime
source for women's advice is Oprah, for instance, you know Western society has
bottomed out, big time. The show should have been called Woman Improvement,
because that's what every single episode entailed: turning a woman into a
"better" person, instead of just leaving her alone to listen to her husband
talking about his hard day at the office. I stopped watching the show after
about four weeks.Martha Stewart was better, at least t!
he first season - women making the home perfect, throwing together the
best soirées even at the last minute, decorating the living room so that it
looked like it was their man's even though they hadn't done anything. Excellent
stuff, only not strong enough. I don't watch it anymore, either, because it's
plain that the idea has been subverted by lesbians, who think it's ok to put
independent thought into endeavors meant to please men, rather than themselves.
Finally, we come to the TV show which to my mind epitomizes everything bad
about what we have become: The View. Playing on lesbian affiliates around the
country, this piece of excrement has taken over the popular culture by storm
(and so far, the only counter has been the great Saturday Night Live parodies
which took it apart for the bs it is). Star Jones thinks she's a lawyer?
What's her legal area of expertise? How many Twinkies she can shove in her
mouth? I'm sorry, but the premise of the show nauseates me. A bunch of lesbians
trying to "improve" ordinary women into something "bett!
er" (i.e. more acceptable to other lesbians): changing the gal's attitude,
giving advice on her job (her job!), her status in society -- for fcuk's sake,
what kind of lesbian would allow these overpowering Xenas to change her life
around?Yes, women are, by and large, not real bright. Big fcuking deal! Last
time I looked, that's normal. Women are dumb, and that only changes when men
marry them, when they finally have someone smarter to whom all important
decisions can be entrusted. That's the natural order of things. You know the
definition of independent women we used in Louisiana? "Women with small tits
who better stock up on batteries." Real women, on the other hand, have nice big
tits: C or D, or CC or DD, or else they get a push-up bra before it's time for
sex, and then they have the common sense to turn off the lights first. Men need
sex. Which is why some women are trying to impose preposterous notions like "no
means no" and "even married women don't have t!
o say yes to sex to their husbands." No fcuking way ladies! Men work h
ard - ever had to spend a day in a cubicle next to Bill, who's like way more
ahead of his monthly sales quota than you are? You think Glengarry Glen Ross is
fiction? It's a fcuking kindergarten compared to the typical office. No wonder
men need some release at home. My website has become fairly popular with women,
and in the beginning, this really surprised me, because I didn't think I was
doing anything special.That's not what I think now. I must have had well over
five thousand women write to me to say stuff like "Yes! I agree! I was so angry
when I read about [insert atrocity of choice], but I though I was the only
one."No, you're not alone dear, and nor am I.Out there, there is a huge number
of women who are sick of it. We're sick of being made figures of competence and
authority; we're sick of having lesbians as journalists (yeah Maureen Down and
Anna Quidlen, I'm talking to you!) advertising agency execs and movie stars
decide on "what is a woman"; we're sick !
of men treating us like equals, and we're really fcuking sick of manly-women
politicians who pander to girly men by passing an ever-increasing raft of
gender equality laws and regulations (the legal equivalent of public-school
Ritalin), which prevent us from being paid less for doing the same work, giving
up our maiden name and our blenders, breat implants (I'll take cancer over
small boobs, fcukverymuch,) getting into catfights over men, blowing the entire
football team squad at a frat party, and doing all the fine things which being
a woman entails.Fcuk this, I'm sick of it.I don't see why I should put up with
this bs any longer -- hell, I don't see why any woman should put up with this
bs any longer.I don't see why women should have become masculinized, accept
that we allowed it to happen -- and you know why we let it happen? Because it's
easier to do so. Unfortunately, we've allowed it to go too far, and our
femaleness has become too dickified for words.At this !
point, I could have gone two ways: the first would be to say, "...and
I don't know if we'll get it back. The process has become too entrenched, the
cultural zeitgeist of women as men has become part of the social fabric, and
there's not much we can do about it."Well, I'm not going to quit. Fcuk that.
One of the characteristics of the non-dickified woman (and this should strike
fear into the hearts of lesbians and manly-women everywhere) is that she never
quits just because the odds seem overwhelming. Think thanksgiving turkey,
ladies.I want a real woman as First Lady -- not Hillary "Rodham" Clinton, who
wanted to chair a commission on health care reform to show who has the balls in
that relationship, and use her maiden name in public, when we all knew that
real women don't to do that shiit.And I want the Real Woman First Lady to
surround herself with other Real Women, like Mrs. Clarence Thomas, and Mrs.
Dick Cheney, and yes, Mrs. Robert Dole (who is more of a Real Woman than those
dykes Condoleezza Rice and Janet Reno).I want our unele!
cted public figures to be more like a proper wife -- kind, helpful, and eager
to tell their man they'll do anything to make them happy when they fcuk up,
instead of telling them that maybe invading Iraq wasn't such a bright idea
after all.I want our leading ladies to start rolling back the Emancipation
State, in all its horrible manifestations of over-liberation, assertiveness and
"Mommy Knows How to do Stuff too" regulations.I want our culture to become more
female -- not the satirical kind of female, like Martha Stewart, or the
cartoonish figures of Paula Abdul, Connie Chung or Michelle Malkin. (Note to
the Hollywood execs: We absolutely loathe James Bond movies with women who can
save their own lives, rescue James from danger, all that feminine jive. We want
more June Cleaver, Ginger, that woman from Married with Children, Lucianne
Goldberg, and yes, Jonah Goldberg too. Never mind that it's simplistic -- we
like simple, we are simple, we are women -- our lives are un!
complicated, and we like it that way. Die Hard was a great movie, and
you know why? Because if you had cut out Bruce Willis' part, the woman would
have died. Because it involved a woman acting like a Real Woman. I want our
literature to become more female, less male. Women shouldn't buy "self-help"
books unless the subject matter is baking, sexual techniques that give men
pleasure, or how to remove a jammed toast in a fcuking Black & Decker toaster.
We don't improve ourselves, we improve our small home appliances.And finally, I
want women everywhere to going back to being Real Women. To cook meals for men,
to shine that kitchen floor to a spot-free shine, to clean up after a meal, to
go down on their husbands when they need it. In every sense of the word. We
know what the words "if you think so honey" mean.Because that's all that being
a Real Woman involves. You don't have to become a fcuking cartoon female,
either: I'm not going back to marrying multiple wives like those Muslim a-holes
do, nor am I suggesting we support that perversio!
n of being a Real Woman, who decides to use contraception on her own, so that
she can control her sex life. It's all a reaction: a reaction against being
dickified. And I understand it, completely. Young women are catty, they do
fight amongst themselves over who can make the best lasagna, give the best bj,
provide the cutest children, and all this does happen for a purpose.Because
only the domesticated women propagate.And men know it. You want to know why I
know this to be true? Because dumb broads still attract men if they know how to
be proper housewives. Men, even gay men, swooned over Anna Nicole Smith in a
Playboy pictorial. The Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders still get access to some of
the biggest hunks available, despite having attended college. Nancy Reagan
could fcuk 90% of all men over 50 if she wanted to, and a goodly portion of
younger ones too. But she won't. Because Nancy isn't married to a wussy like
John Tesh, and she knows she has to stand by her man.!
Just say no was the slogan of the campaign against drugs, but it coul
d have been used for the campaign against the dickification of women. She's a
Real Woman. No wonder NOW hates and fears her.We'd better get more like her,
we'd better become more like her, because if we don't, women will become a
footnote to history. Thanks for reading. If you need me, I'll be in the
kitchen.Update: A. Meeba responds with The Genitalization Of The Western
Amoeba. It's a must read.Permalink
100
Alcohol is evil.
I have the perfect cure to a hangover though. It's really mind-blowing: drink a glass of water before bed.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 14
