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 - The Gonzman

Main / An email I sent to a MRA
Nov 18, 2003, 03:04 AM
Okay, Steve, it's harsh language to give a wake-up slap in the face.  There's a lot of very good women - as human beings - in uniform, but worth a damn as a human being does not mean worth a damn as a soldier.  A lot could do their jobs, but for the most part those same jobs could have been done by civilians.
Main / What makes a woman feminine
Nov 17, 2003, 09:18 PM
Hero Worship?  God forbid.  I can think of no more precarious position than up on a pedestal.  The pressure of that "must do" balancing act makes me want to vomit.  Such a woman is fit for only one thing, and to be cast aside when you're done with her, before your feet get tired.

The sexiest women are quite simply the ones that don't try to change their men, and don't force their men to compete with them.  Once you have that down there ain't the real man living who wouldn't sell his soul to have you.

Once any man knows he's wanted and needed in his own house, and he doesn't have to wear the mask or constantly prove himself or pass the same tests (And you know which ones I am talking about) over and over and over again, there ain't nothing - and I mean nothing - he wouldn't do for you.

I don't care if you are a leggy blond with the world's most perfect knockers, and a phone book full of friends for a nightly threesome, and know tricks that could add a dozen or more chapters to the Kama Sutra -  if you constantly act like a man's mother, correct him, nag at him, throw out his comfy sweatshirt because it offends you, and one-up him all the time, especially with sly put downs in public - he'll be down the street banging the frumpy brunette who greets him with a "It's so good to see you" so fast it'll make your head swim.

And I'm not talking hero worship.  Just be glad to see him walking through the door, and he will rush home to walk through it every day.
Main / Meninist misogyny
Nov 17, 2003, 08:58 PM
Quote from: "InternetDevil"
Men who complain about discrimination are hated by many or most.  The only way for them to survive is to have devoted friends.  While I am strongly against discrimination I have suffered I do not think I can risk being blacklisted for active defense of men's movement.  Had the movement given me support my reaction would of been different.  And so would the reaction of many men in my situation.

I've heard this one before.  Let me ask you something - ever ask for that support?  Ever offer it?

Ever helped a brother out, helped him keep his car, let him stash a few things with you so the ex wouldn't get her mitts on it?  I tell ya, the amount of women in even happy marriages who have an "escape kit" all set up at their best girlfriend's house would rock your mind.

Troll the internet sometime, my brother.  You'll find site after site of "How to Stick it to that Rotton SOB of a Husband of yours in a divorce" all for the plucking, with activist attorneys willing to pro-bono it for the sisterhood and all that crap.

You're just making sure the thinking of men doesn't change, that it's weak to need or ask for help, and weak to even offer it and admit help is needed by men.
Very simple indeed.

Feminism is, and has always been, about "More Stuff For Women."  Now whether this comes at the expense of men or not, it doesn't matter.  It's what it's about.

Trouble is, feminism was hijacked  No.  It wasn't hijacked.  The early feminist leaders (Friedan, et al) were always about two other things, namely, revenge on men, and making sure that more stuff for women came at the expense of men.  They just didn't show their true colors until later.  Until after the "feminist movement" had gained a life of it's own.

Now people like to talk about X kind of Feminism, and Y brand Feminism, and neo-feminism, and the New, Improved, Kinder and Gentler Feminism.  Hogwash.  Absolute bunk.  Feminism is feminism is feminism.  It's an ism, just like racism, and sexism, and jingoism and all that.  To wear the label of an "ist" is to be a bigot.  People like Amber rightly reject it.  It's dispicable and subhuman.

All that aside, it doesn't change the fact that the "Womyn's movement" went down the wrong set of tracks long ago, and a great many of their gains  - indeed, most of them - are ill-gotten, and done at the expense of men.

Two big points come up here.  It is a logical consequence that to undo the damage done against the male half of the species by that breed of women known as feminists ios going to hand in hand with -

Are ya ready for it?

Less Stuff for Women

Now to the women who abhored, have always abhored, and have always tried to live as if the monstrosity known as feminism has never existed, this is no big deal.  To the fence straddlers, and to the women who have grown up knowing none other than female privilege without responsibility, this is frightening.  It has always been their birthright to do as they please, to bash men (all in good fun.  Of course.) To choose to have a baby or not and make a man abide by their choice, and so forth.  

They have never known a social contract based on true equality, and mutual interdependance and responsibility.  All they can see is that this amounts to - More Stuff for Men at the Expense of Women.

Crazy like a fox, these Feminists of Yore.  They made sure to arrange things so that to bring the pendulum back to the middle, for men to gain that ground, that women must lose ground.  Thus the boogeyman of "Turning Back The Clock."

So who gets to personify evil?  Who gets to be the messenger with the target's painted on their shirts?  The Mean ol' misogynistic He-Man Women Hater Men's Right's Activists, of course.

Well, fact is, men are sick of being chivalrous, and acting like gentlemen, because we have to call out Sherlock Holmes to find a lady to be gentlemanly to.  I got sick of holding doors and being chirped at for being a chauvanist back before Amber was born.

I fought for this country.  I will be damned though if I will fault one young man alive today for choosing not to want a thing to do with shedding his blood for a nation where he is a second class citizen.  I've got the scars in my back and down my leg from a combat injury that gives me the right to say that.

Men don't want a thing to do with marriage more and more.  Why?  Check the odds on having your wife divorce you, take half of all you ever had, probably more, keep your kids, decide if and when you will see them, ignore your wishes on their upbringing, and make you pay for years for the privilege, often so much so that you never get a second chance.  Even the most depraved gambling addict would think twice on those odds.

Want to know the reason behind the rise of the popularity of oral sex, and what amounts to being anonymous orgies these days?  Harder to finger you as a father and saddle you with twenty years of child support that way.  Hell, it used to be that a man would complain about whizzing in a wet suit over a condom, now  - and guys, you know what I''m saying - it's easy to spot the daddy shopping women because they are the ones getting bent out of shape when you insist on using one.

It's now anti-family and anti-female to not want to go off and fight for a society where you're constantly made a buffon of in the media, and get zero respect in a court of law.  It's basic human nature - women have the rights and power.  Your rights, YOU defend them.

It's anti-woman to not want that alone time with women, when just about every man walking around today at the very least is on a first name basis with a man who has been accused of harassment, or abuse, or something else.

It's anti-family to wish for un-obtrusive male birth control, or for the same right to get a private vasectomy as a woiman has in most states to be sterilized without her husband's knowledge

It's anti child to want the same right to not be forced into parenthood and have your life "ruined" by an unwanted child.  

I can't think of a single one of my MRA buddies that don't hold these as negotiable - but the line in the sand is the level playing field.  They'll accept  defending their country for a little (well deserved) deference and benefit of the doubt once they come back from a foreign hell-hole.  Stop making "She Said" worth two of what "He Said."  Stop the presumption of guilty until proven innocent for men in "Domestic" issues. Either lessen male responsibility to a female level on matters of reproduction - or reduce women's choices to the same as that of men.

Trouble is, all of these will cost a woman something.    But young women never saw the day when what they have now came from men to begin with.  Sure, once upon a years ago, it was slanted the other way, but where the inevitable confict arose was when it was decided by Friedan and Company that Level wasn't good enough - that men had to pay collectively and do penance by "Suffering like women used to."

Well, Betty, the time is up.  We've said our "Hail Marys" and "Our Fathers" and we're getting out of the pew.  The only men alive who have ever "oppressed" a woman are drooling in their cream of broccoli soup in the Sunnydale Nursing Home, and same for the last few women who were ever "oppressed by a man."

If you want "equality," well that word means something.  The gender blind society cuts indiscriminately.  That means women pay child support, can commit rape and abuse, go to war, and all the other "Hateful anti-woman" things you deplore.  You don't want a gender blind society?  Well, that cuts two ways as well - if you want women to keep their role as "primary caregiver" and make men the "Primary breadwinner" then I am afraid it does indeed mean that it is just and fair to pass you over for job or promotion to give it to that man  - because he has a family to support, which comes higher than your personal fulfillment.  Because to demand that a family suffer and do without for one's sense of personal accomplishment is about as anti-family as it comes.

Far as I'm concerned, I'll flip a coin.  At 44, my youth and days of father and family are long at an end, and no second chance.  Or let the women decide - just be prepared to stick with it, and take the bitter with the sweet.
Yeah, yeah, whatever, Alicia.  Sucks when I show you speaking to one subject when my posts say another don't it?

But -  that is a typical feminist - and make no mistake dearie, you are one - finding a way to deflect the blame on a man for her own shortcomings.

Next time read the whole post and digest it before you hit that reply button after the first thing you don't like, "kay?  Thassa good girl!
Alicia, the only problem women I run into are the self centered little twits who think every man is coming on to them, or at least ought to be unless they are gay.  Other than that, I will only once in a blue moon run into a woman who mistakes my intentions.  Last time I recall was 1999 - and since I was more than a little drunk, it was probably my fault.  (And quite possibly I was hitting on her too.)

You might want to read and think before you emote - in my younger days I had that problem - then I learned - and I learned, that it was me, that I *was* speaking and acting in hyper male mode.  I learned, and understood why women took it "that way." Then, I changed me and my way of doing things.

Now - go thou and do likewise.
Main / Re: An email I sent to a MRA
Nov 17, 2003, 05:42 PM
Quote from: "Amber"
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.

Anti-family and anti-Mother?  So is it then, pro-family and pro-father to draft men?

Quote from: "Amber"
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..

There, I must say, is a laugh.  Feminists did what they did for three reasons, and three reasons only:  1) to get access to places that they thought were "running things." 2) To get higher pay, and 3) For greater sexual freedom - in a nutshell, for power, money, and sex.

Quote from: "Amber"
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'm afraid it's part and parcel with "equality."  This is a clear and unambiguous case where men "give" and women "take."  What "give" are you, as a woman, willing to let go of so men can have their "take?"  Voting?  Willing to let men's vote count more than yours, since they give more?  How about taking second place in the student aid line to all those who have a draft card on file?  Willing to accept a layoff as being "with just cause" because your job went to a returning veteran?

I'm a decorated combat veteran, Amber.  Combat Action ribbon, Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. Plus the usual "I was HERE" folderol.  Right now, for my service, and for walking with a limp for the rest of my life, I get a parade once a year, one that is becomeing more and more rote and hollow as time goes on.  I didn't even bother the last couple years.  I volunteered, but could just as easily have been forced.

Are you telling me it's my duty to go and maybe die, and your right to make the choice to serve in a stateside support unit?

Quote from: "Amber"
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.

Well, I agree, but for different reasons - with the rare exception that 12 years of service left me able to count on one hand and still have a couple fingers left over for an obscene gesture, I never met the female soldier who was worth a bag of sour owl crap.  It takes two of them to do the job of one man - at least - and that doesn't count the time when they get a man to do their work for them while they sit on their ass.  The fabled and vaunted female multitasking usually consisted of gossiping, doing their nails, and doing a half-assed job of ansering the phones at the same time.  While men marched with packs, women rode, and often the men carried their packs.  Physical training?  Forget it.  Following orders?  Not without whining and arguing, and complaining about how being barked orders at hurt their feelings, or how they didn't have enough toilet paper in the middle of a war in Kuwait.  Run a column of men on transports, and they'll whizz out of the back of a truck - but no, with women there they'lkl get all "offended" and you have to stop, do a recon (War zone, remember?) and post guard while the women squat and piddle because they can't go two hours without peeing.  Why God ever saw fit to give ya'll bladders the size of a tangerine is one of the great mysteries of my life

I tended attack helicopters, and after I became E-7, I learned that as crew chief my first job in a new posting was to get rid of the women and give them to some other poor slob who didn't know any better.

I'm not one to dissemble in a politically correct fashion, but I'll agree - women don't belong in the military, mainly and frankly because they're pussies.

Quote from: "Amber"
People who are out of touch with reality annoy me.

When you've put in twelve years of service to God, Mom, and Apple Pie, and have been shipped home on a stretcher, you go ahead and start your lecture series on reality, young lady.  I had to attend the funeral of one of my comrades in a wheelchair, and couldn't even stand at attention to render a proper salute as they lowered him into the ground.  I fought because it was the right thing to do, but having done so I'll say that its up to those who have served in combat, and the shades of those who have paid the final price, to say what does and does not constitute honorable service honorably rendered.

With extremely few exceptions, madam, this is for practical purposes an exclusively male club.  If that MRA was a veteran, my dear, you find yourself in the unenviable position of owing a very deep and heartfelt apology to him.
Main / Hm.
Nov 17, 2003, 04:49 PM
I think it would be safe to say that I put myself in charge of a relationship.  And since I stopped worrying about "pleasing women" I've never done without.  I've lost track of the times I've dropped a woman off at her house, and announced "Date's over.  Let me know if you decide to get off the bitch pills" and have had them apologizing like hell on my answering machine, or showing up at my door twenty minutes after I settle back with a cold one begging to make it up to me.

Denorex Shampoo, Dial Soap, Witch Hazel for After Shave, and some Anti-perspirant, whatever's on sale.  Comb the hair back, band up the ponytail, and keep my nails trimmed back regularly with a 49 cent pair of clippers.  That's about the extent of my primping.

My policy of zero tolerance of mind games - heh.  Chances are I'm slipping the bone to the same girl the Metrosexual dropped $200 bucks on the night before, and he went home with a case of the azure cojones.

I've a good term for them - suckers.
Main / Tax and spend
Nov 17, 2003, 04:10 PM
It's not the sole baliwick of the left.  I get disgusted with people like Darth Ashcroft and all other big-government conservatives who never saw something they couldn't make a law to control and generate revenue with.

As a small-government conservative, I'm leery of any "policy initiatives" because 99 falls out of a hundred they come with a bill, and someone becoming a big-shot over it, with a fancy title, and oak paneled office, and the power to push someone around and tell them how to live their life.
Main / No
Nov 17, 2003, 04:05 PM
Alicia, you're moving from one extreme to another.  There is a middle ground.

I had to learn long ago how to communicate with women in a fashion that didn't make them think I was coming on to them.  When I approach a man, I size him up.  I move to within a conversational distance, but no further, I don't assume a hostile posture, and I speak in a level and even tone of voice while looking him straight in the eye.

When I speak to a woman like this, she thinks I'm on the prowl.  Sizing her up becomes ogling.  Standing back from her is further ogling, taking in the whole picture.  Speaking in a modulated tone of voice is heard as attempted "smoothness."  Speaking directly is considered intimate.  Looking her in the eyes - I don't know what it is about women, but I had a woman long ago tell me that women react to it.

When I do that, I might as well douse myself in pheromone and scream "I'm a MALE on the PROWL!"

Now do you hear me whining about adjusting my posture, tone of voice, and approach to account for different communication styles?  No.

What do I interpret as a come on?  A playful tone of voice.  Sticking your chest out to expose cleavage.  Giggling at a stupid joke.  Physical contact.
Looking me in the eyes and smiling.  Being flirty.

I'm sure, as a female, when a man approaches you, it floats through your mind whether you're going to be hit on or not.  You have an advantage there in that men are "supposed" to make the first move.  Them's the rules, as laid down by women.  I have had more damn women cuss about some guy to me that just won't "make his move."

Well, the other side of that game is that if you expect men to make the move, he relies on your signals.  Don't want the move made - well, it then becomes your responsibility not to send the signals.  Men react to flirting, because it is thye age old way that women say, "I'm approachable in an intimate manner."

Being a "Stone Cold Bitch" is not the only other alternative a woman has, it's an extremeist reaction and choice made out of pique that men just won't communicate like women.  Duh!  It's because we're NOT.  You can be polite.  Businesslike doesn't mean curt and clipped.  Speak to a purpose, say thank you, and move along.  Keep your personal space yours - men are very aware of personal space, and very aware when someone is keeping theirs.  This doesn't mean cower or shrink - just stay at the closest at the end of arm's reach.  Don't toss your hair, give cute looks, stroke your neck, and so on and so forth.

And yes, to some men they are going to be offended if you aren't into them as the stud du jour - just like some women get in a perfect snit when a man they have their eye on won't "make a move" on them.
Main / No, Amber, you miss the point here.
Nov 17, 2003, 05:50 AM
Like most conserberals, you get fixated on what you see as an "Obvious Truth" and wonder why nobody else can see it.  It's not thinking, logic, or debate.  It's polemics.

Your reaction to women being in the military, being force-marched, under fire, killed, raped, maimed is a visceral and emotional one.  This isn't bad in and of itself.  The reaction is a correct one.  But you show your youth and inexperience when you flare after someone asks you to analyze "Why?"

Let's take the concept of "Chivalry."  It's a word which when I use, I tend to spit after saying it.  You'll be quick to rubricize with "men's activist" and all, but you don't see the why.

Why is because "Chivalry" is one-sided in this day and age.  Men are expected to act as noble and honorable gentlemen, and women are expected to - act in whatever way suits them at the moment.

Feminism, ultimately, to most of us EEEEEE-VUL MRA's is about "More stuff for women on the man's nickel."  It's about rights without responsibilities.  I fulfill the man's role, and you're oppressed if you fulfill the women's role?  Nope.  Doesn't work that way.  

Here's a blunt truth for you - if you want to go back to the days when men were men, then what goes hand in hand with that is the days when women were women.  YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

This means if I go off to war, and come back maimed, impotent, and infertile, it's tough for you if you're my wife.  You are indeed expected to care for me the rest of my life, remain childless, and remain faithful even if sexually unfulfilled.  If I come home to another man's baby, then you wear that social stigma  of "slut" - because I would wear the social stigma of "coward" if I stayed home.  Anything less is laughable.  If you honestly expect men to go off and fight, and die, and come back a half of a human being and then be disposable, you need to surrender your objectivist credentials because you are living a fantasy.

You'd be suprised, if you'd listen, at how many MRA's would love for real Chivalry - with all the obligations, restrictions, AND BENEFITS - to exist.  But those things are a two way street.  Modern "Chivalry" isn't, which is why we loathe and resent it so.  We don't want to be women's defenders and caretakers because the ones that truly appreciate it, and are willing to offer to us the  - honors? - due are very few and damned far between.  This is why we aren't impressed when a lone female chips up and protests "Well, I am!"  Fine. You and about half a dozen others.  Expect that, then, out of YOUR BFs and husbands.  Don't expect the rest of us, though, to want to go out and fight and die for a bunch of ungrateful, spoiled, post-feminist wimmin.

We've done the feminist thing for almost fifty years now, and despite the best efforts of men to "do the honorable thing" all that has been heaped un us is more obligation with no return, more scorn, more loss of freedom, removal from our homes and family, and so on.  To damn many women say "Well, keep being men, and women will come around!"  Really?  Almost - or over, depending on how you count it - two generations have come and gone, and where is it?

You've said that while you deplore the draft, if it's going to continue, you have no problem with men continuing to shoulder the burden.  Trouble is, when you stop there, you have no right to peep when men hear added on the end of that "and women continuing to ride for free."

Men used to do the honorable thing, because they recieved honor for it.  What honor are you willing to give to those men beyond lip service, and out of your metaphorical pocket of modern female privilege?  If you can demonstrate and articulate that, then you'll find less objection to your statements.  If you're sole reasoning is "Because I'm sporting a pair of D-cups and bleed once a month!" then expect to recieve heckling, at the very least.
Let's admit the truth - women shouldn't be drafted because they are totally unfit for combat duty.  They are weaker, naturally seek protection from men, and men naturally tend to seek to protect them.  They're a freaking hazard on the battlefield, and have no place in it.

And, I'll add, so long as they can't do the same physical training as a man does, and since all military units may at one time be forced into a combat situation, I'll argue they have no place in the military.

That said, I'll argue that women should be drafted for the precise reason that the panic it creates is probably the quickest way to abolish the draft in toto.
Main / Here's another idea
Nov 17, 2003, 05:02 AM
If women don't want men to assume they have a chance - stop flirting.

As a guy, when a woman acts businesslike with me, I generally take it to mean she has no interest.  When she starts winking, giggling, getting close to my personal space, making small talk, asking me questions that seem to probe into my personal life, twirling her hair, and so on, I assume she's interested.

Smileys, and blusheys, and all those emoticons are usually interpreted as being coy.  Deflect the flirting probes from his end, and act like "one of the guys" and lo and behold, watch yourself be treated as a friend instead of a potential hook-up.

Women make the mistake too often of treating their guy friends as girlfriends, and then wondering "WHY does he interpret that the wrong way?"  You're not speaking to another woman.  You're speaking to a man.  Going into uber-feminine mode is just begging for him to go-into uber masculine mode and respond to you  - AS A WOMAN.

What a shock.

Yes, this means women have to watch what they say lest it be interpreted the wrong way.  Just like men do.  Welcome to Reality, USA on Planet Earth.
Deal with a few facts instead of polemics.  Want to be shocking and offensive?  Go for it - just intersperse your witty repartee with a few tidbits of, oh, I don't know, actual evidences such as ancedotes, examples, or some cogent argument?  Hmm?  What say?

Ya know, bucky, I'm famous for getting in people's faces and calling a royal jackass a royal jackass.  I just have developed the good sense to be able to tell them why they are a jackass.

Conserberals provide plenty of fodder all on their own.  To not be able to cite them chapter and verse on it is pure laziness.  Do your homework man.