Ask Dr. Helen on PJTV: From Patriarch to Patsy
I interview Toby Young, British journalist and author of How to Lose Friends and Alienate People 
on his WSJ article, "From Patriarch to Patsy." He talks about the fear that British men have of fighting back against sexism (he states some lose their careers, can't get work, and face other hardships) and why women think it's okay to treat men like the household help. Many of my readers were incensed by this article and had some pretty strong opinions. So do I. Join us for this very important conversation.
You can watch the show here.
on his WSJ article, "From Patriarch to Patsy." He talks about the fear that British men have of fighting back against sexism (he states some lose their careers, can't get work, and face other hardships) and why women think it's okay to treat men like the household help. Many of my readers were incensed by this article and had some pretty strong opinions. So do I. Join us for this very important conversation.You can watch the show here.
Labels: men's issues, PJTV
posted by Helen at 4:05 PM
172 Comments:
This was an interesting interview, and I think you handled it very well, Dr. Helen. However, I would quibble that you really don't know how unusual you truly are. But that's beside the point.
What is a man supposed to do when faced with an intractable enemy? Withdraw gracefully, of course, or fight to the death.
This is why many men are avoiding marriage, even relationships, with contemporary women. It's a lose-lose situation.
Since he cannot win, why play the game? To die? That would be stupid.
It's far more preferable to simply live out your life alone, go to work, do your job, make some money, and retire in comfort.
The alternative is a life of slavery and bankruptcy, and/or death.
GawainsGhost, I wonder if we are sort of acting out the lone male riding off into the sunset. With our horse of course. 8)
While guys under 45 do not have easy access to the archetype, those of us past 45 do. It is a sort of going our own way and becoming mountain men of a sort, rugged individualists who come down from the mountains for supplies, a drink and some sex.
I am exaggerating for effect, but there it is. I also wonder if there is a loss of male friendship and compainionship.
Trey
Well, the alternative is to find a reasonable woman.
And to fight for individual rights. It is only the "collectivization" of rights -- and the attendant moral and practical anti-individualism -- that has gotten us where we are today. (Well...the root issue is today's irrationalism.)
Yes, good interview Dr. Helen. Too bad Mr. Young was having a bad day, or just has not yet realized that he does not always need to be defensive.
On this issue of male female relationships, I'm currently reading the book Helen mentioned here a few days ago: You Still Don't Understand, by Driscoll and Davis.
I have only read about 25% so far. The theory is that women are dominant in relationships, due to dominating relationship conflict -- women initiate relationship conflict, and typically win relationship conflict because men either placate or withdraw. The book argues that this is not due to feminism, but is a long-standing pattern of relating between men and women in relationships -- a way women have of testing commitment and procuring its continuation.
The book also argues that these kinds of relationships don't make men or women happy. Men feel disrespected and belittled, and hold onto the scars for a long time. Women feel no respect for men who always placate or withdraw. The difference feminism has made is that it has created a situation where women have options, and so women (who are the ones who are prone to be unhappy in relationships to begin with, which is why they initiate conflict) are leaving these relationships, shooting up the divorce rate, and leaving many children fatherless, and driving men away from committed relationships.
The "cure" the book seems to offer is for men to resist placating and withdrawing and find a way to participate in relationship conflicts more effectively, and for women to back off the edge of their cutting words in the context of relationship conflicts.
The book deals with a lot of other things .. I will review it over at my place when I am finished, but certainly its thesis is provocative and it's worth reading. It explains, I think, why so many men and women alike feel so alienated from each other and disinterested in relationships. If that trend continues, our civilization is surely doomed.
Dr. Helen, you are incredibly unique. At some level, you realize this, but I don't think you truly grasp it. I have a list of all the women who truly support men. There's only one name on it and its yours, Dr. Helen.
While Toby Young is very good (and he inspired me to watch Top Chef more), I have to disagree that women are coming around because they have sons. I have seen it time and time again that mothers do not understand what's going on with men and if their sons bring it up they side with other women. This is true of MY OWN MOTHER. If our mothers can be this cruel, then what hope is there that women will ever understand?
I recently started a blog about how technology will liberate men. It's basically about future technologies that will replace women in some way. Why? Because men are forced into either becoming a slave to women or not having anything to do with women and there are technologies coming that will make the second option easier.
Like many males, I have a handful of female friends. Some I've known decades. Some are wives or girlfriends of long time male friends. The casusal friendships include only conversation and for short duration. That line is never crossed. Beyond that, I am with Gawain's Ghost. Been through it. Without the full support of the system, it couldn't happen, just like it doesn't happen for men.
With the majority of college students now being female, it should eventually one eighty. Let's see.
I'd be happy to stay home. And I can't have kids. Piece of cake. And if I want out, I get half the money, a car, and the house? Where do I sign?!
I forget which commenter brought it up on this blog, but he stated some stats about the Caucasian population of this planet reproducing at a rate that simply will not support the continuation of this segment of the world population. Intrigued, I ran it down. Sure enough. I wonder what will happen to Utopia when there is no one but Asians to foot the bill. Even more importantly, will they buy into it?
45 million have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. Most of the vacuum has been filled by roughly 35 million "immigrants', legal or otherwise.
@br549 said... With the majority of college students now being female, it should eventually one eighty. Let's see.
___________
I don't see a 180 any time soon, unless fathers start getting a fairer shake in regard to custody.
Of course, a handful of women have got shafted with alimony, and suddenly they don't like the laws as much.
"There is nothing sexier than a woman you have to salute in the morning. Promote them all, I say, because this is true. Until you've gotten a blowjob from a superior officer, well, you're just letting the best in life pass you by."
--A Few Good Men
br549,
That commenter on population was most likely me.
Muslim Demographics: The Islamic Tidal Wave (Youtube – 7min)
There is a bit of slight misinformation in here at the beginning. It says that there is no economic model that can sustain a population. I disagree. There is one – it is called paying down the national debt – or not paying it all. (Gee folks, what has the Big Eared Marxist been up to lately?) If 10 people owe $1,000,000, but in 20 years there is only 5 people left and they still owe the same debt, what will happen to their tax rates? (Canada’s debt is amortized over 230 years) Will Capitalism survive? NO! What is the goal of Marxism? One of them is to destroy Capitalism… and another? It is to destroy the culture. The ONLY way to survive is to take in immigrants and since there is NO place on earth where the white Christian Anglophone population is sustaining itself… where can they get immigrants from while still maintaining their culture? Multiculturalism is another Marxist ploy.
In the 1970’s & 80’s, Canada’s Prime Minister, Trudeau the Treacherous Traitor, introduced no-fault divorce, loosened abortion laws, increased our national debt by over 1200%, confused the language (the best way to destroy culture) by forcing bilingualism on a nation that is anything BUT bilingual (for the past 40 years, all Prime Ministers come from Montreal – until recently, because the West is PISSED and voted as a 77% united voting block) and the government in general is run by an ethnic minority, and he abandoned the “Melting Pot” and introduced “The Cultural Mosaic.” Ethnic minority cultures are praised and upheld while Canadian culture has been reduced to “free healthcare.” (There’s no such thing as a free lunch, people). And, not only did he screw us with the 1200% increase in the debt (it was further increase another 400% by subsequent Marxists, and since this “economic crisis” to even more – we are now over $1 Trillion, plus we also have a $2.5 Trillion unfunded Canada Pension Plan liability (we have only 10% of the population as America)… and our birthrates are at 1.5/couple, down from 3.9/couple in 1970… Trudeau also dismantled Provincial power in favour of Centralized Federal Power… He rewrote our Constitution and made it a “living Constitution” that allowed for dialectical movement and no longer protects the individual but elevates minority rights over the majority. Oh, did I also mention that he dismantled our once proud and considerable military and turned us into mere “peacekeepers” under UN direction? That is another Marxist goal. 15 years ago, another Marxist foisted a gun registry on us… In other words, Canada, bend over and kiss your ass good-bye.
Big Ears is your Trudeau.
(continued below)
(…from continued)
And sorry to say it guys… but Child Custody Laws are not the answer. (Neither is DV Shelters & Laws for men, nor mandatory DNA testing to eliminate paternity fraud.)
You have to understand how Marxists manipulate the Hegelian Dialectic. If you know how to play pool, think of the difference between a beginner who runs around trying to pot balls with only direct shots (us) and a fellow who knows how to both make bank shots and understands how to “play shape.” (Marxists) Any pool player worth his salt knows that playing shape is far more important than potting balls.
Society used to look like this:
Individual --> Family --> Community --> Province/State --> Nation --> World
Marxists want it to look like this:
Individual --> World.
The goal of Marxism is to create International Socialism. (Globalization, anyone?) It is pure treason, because its goal is to destroy the state – all the states around the world. Then the world will “pop up” to Global Governance, and they will collapse all of the nations around the world with the known economic failure of Socialism. (Once everyone is Socialist, there will be no “competitor” that will end up over-running them – there will be no place to defect to either, except the moon.)
Rope. Tree. Marxist. Some assembly required.
Here is what we don’t seem to understand, because we are playing checkers with people who are playing chess:
Marxists use radical political leftward movement to push, push, push – to the point of the extreme ridiculous, which causes so many problems that a “rightward backlash” begins to build in the population. When the backlash has built to sufficient levels, it is released and the move to the right consolidates the change!
In every case, they cause troubles where previously there was none, and the result is that the “offended party” is forced to run to the government to beg for the good gov’t to impose totalitarianism upon them to stop the madness.
Shared parenting… DV shelters for men… Mandatory DNA testing at birth… do these things increase or decrease the power of government? Will more secret family court judges & lawyers with even more power be better, or worse for society? Will more social workers meddling in our homes be good for us? Will having everyone get DNA tested at birth be better, or worse, for maintaining individual freedom?
Don’t forget, another goal of Marxism is to destroy the family and take government control of the children. Aldous Huxley says that with increased sexual freedom comes more totalitarianism in all other areas of life.
”It would be the greatest mistake, certainly, to think that concessions mean peace. Nothing of the kind. Concessions are nothing but a new form of war.” – V.I. Lenin
Screw Atlas Shrugged… it’s time for Atlas Shunned.
We’ve got to stop showing up to the gunfight with a plastic spork!
As I'm sure you know, Trust, I was kidding, and won't hold my breath on that one.
For some reason, I've always liked that line, G's G. And definitely the act. As the female says in the Irish Spring commercial, "And I like it too".
"I don't see a 180 any time soon, unless fathers start getting a fairer shake in regard to custody."
Trust --
I don't see a 180 happening either. The reason is that women are hypergamously attracted, in most cases. There are exceptions, but they're just exceptions. The reality is that the current rising generation of young women and the one behind them will have a very, very hard time finding suitable mates. They will soon outnumber educated men 2 to 1. Many women will simply not find mates.
I expect that there will be two principal impacts, in the short term. The birth rate will drop, as more women simply will not marry or have children due to not being able to find a suitable mate. And single motherhood is going to go through the roof as other women choose to have kids alone. And there will be intense political pressure, as a result of that, to socialize child care and a good deal of parenting to take the burden off of what will be a truly huge group of single mothers -- single motherhood will be more common than paired motherhood, simply due to the demographics.
Yes, Rob, it was your comments, after looking over previous posts.
Capitalism and capitalists have to be eradicated for socialism to work.
And yeah, there are a lot of blind people in the U.S. Watch out though Rob. Looks like the U.S. is heading straight for the front of the line, leaping right over Canada in the process.
Humor me, I'd like to see some statistics. Yes, I do understand that there are a percentage of fathers that would like to play a role in child rearing, even if they aren't in a romantic relationship with the mother of their children. But what percentage of fathers is that? Please don't give me a lecture about all the fathers that would jump at the chance to have a full time role in child rearing if the courts were fairer. Let's say the judicial system was perfectly fair, or even better, inclined to give custody to fathers instead of mothers. How many fathers would be willing to accept majority care for their kids?
I want numbers not personal stories here. Has anyone done a study on this?
Cham,
Those statistics can be found in the same study which illustrate the amount of mothers who wish for a meaningful/majority-care role.
Where there is a big difference, is in which parent typically feels Parental Alienation Syndrome is acceptable, and which parent traditionally will not say anything negative to the children about the other one.
Btw, Belfort Bax was discussing Parental Alienation Syndrome already back in 1915, in "The Fraud of Feminism".
And not to pick on you, Cham, but this line of thought insinuates that the "female role" is the proper one - the one that has meaning.
Children need mothers when they are young, and when they become independent enough to leave the house and start venturing out into the world, they need fathers.
It used to be, when fathers gave their children THEIR NAME through marriage, that upon divorce, the mother would have to turn the children over to the father at around the age of 7, I believe.
There was virtually zero divorce under this system.
Which meaningful role do you mean?
Nova wrote: "single motherhood will be more common than paired motherhood, simply due to the demographics."
Ouch, that is scarry. I think children need both parents, in order to properly raise them, and in order for the children to see what a healthy relationship looks and acts like.
I do not think that subsidized child care will do anything to prevent the enormous social cost of raising children without fathers. The children without fathers are statistically doomed, and the state cannot and does not provide men to love and help raise the children.
I believe that the same level of problems would exist if mothers had been taken out of the family, but I imagine that the problems would be different in type. I am not talking about dad's abusing their kids or other such mythology, but I believe that married, healthy mom and dad is the way to go, and there is tons of data to support this.
Rob, you make a lot of good points, but I take more of a couples view of parenting. But I appreciate your energy and clarity in what you say, and agree with at least most of it.
Carry on sir.
Trey
"And not to pick on you, Cham, but this line of thought insinuates that the 'female role' is the proper one - the one that has meaning."
I didn't read Cham's question that way. I read it that she's asking how many men, after the relationship blows up, really want the kids.
I think more now than previously. Men of my dad's generation wouldn't have been caught dead doing changing diapers and so forth. Notwithstanding the complaints about men being treated as household help, I think men nowadays are less likely to think of childcare as being something women do, and I think all members of the family are better for it. But I take Cham's point. It's easy to complain about not getting something you wouldn't want if you could get it. So it would be interesting to know, of men who complain that women automatically get the kids, how many really would want them 24/7. I will say - anecdotally only - that the men I've known who complained about that believed their exes to be unfit mothers and absolutely wanted those children. These same men, however, had remarried, so it still wouldn't all have been on them.
Trey and Nova - 70% of black babies are now being born to unwed mothers. In cities like Memphis, you aren't talking about what "will" happen.
"caught dead doing changing diapers"
I can proofread till I'm blue in the face and this stuff still gets past me. Hate that.
In western countries at least, boys have long been brought up with the idea that power carries responsibility. The raising of girls has been more focused on sexual restraint and has usually not really dealt with the use of power, probably because women didn't usually have much of it in the old days. Today, the raising of girls seems to focus mostly on telling them they have an obligation to go get what they can for themselves, without much concern for who gets hurt.
So when a woman has serious power over someone else--a husband in a marriage, employees at work--she is on the average less likely than a man to be concerned with that person's welfare and feelings. The treatment of husbands as household help--and not very nicely treated household help at that--is an example.
If our society is going to survive, we need a female equivalent of the idea of chivalry.
"The treatment of husbands as household help--and not very nicely treated household help at that--is an example."
If a man says he is treated as household help, what does that mean exactly? That his wife asks him to do housework? Is it that she's asking him to do more than his fair share? Or is it that she has to ask to get him to do anything, and he could change the way he is "being treated" by not waiting to be asked before he does his share?
Or does it mean something else altogether?
Laura, I THINK what he is referring to is the lack of power men feel when in conflict with a wife that can divorce him, take away his kids, throw him in jail, and have him pay for it all.
With no legal protection or status equality, men feel vulnerable to the whims of their wife. In this situation, the best that can be done is to placate the more powerful partner. You dare not oppose her, because she owns you if she wants to.
So then you go from a partner to a fix it man.
It is not about doing chores, it is about a lack of status and relevence in the marriage due to the cultural devaluing of men and the way the legal system has abandoned any protection of men in a relationship or marriage.
But I bet others can add to this answer.
Trey
"If a man says he is treated as household help, what does that mean exactly? That his wife asks him to do housework? Is it that she's asking him to do more than his fair share? Or is it that she has to ask to get him to do anything, and he could change the way he is "being treated" by not waiting to be asked before he does his share?"
You have surely seen the behavior among your own friends and acquaintances, though you may not have recognized it as what it is.
It means that the man is "labor" even in his own house, while the woman is "management". In other words, she has the unilateral privilege of defining the scope and direction of what work is needed, allocating it among the two of them, and evaluating the work that is done. It means no amount of work "counts" unless it is done according to her specifications (dishwasher loaded in a particular arrangement, towels folded this way and not that, etc.).
He has no recourse. His objections to this disparity of status are met by disparagement, denial in the bedroom, or ultimately divorce. If the latter occurs, she will then have the privilege of alienating his children from him with the full might of the state, and he will have the duty to pay her for it.
Trey, I get that a man might feel that way, but as to specifically feeling like the help, Craig's answer does make sense.
"You have surely seen the behavior among your own friends and acquaintances, though you may not have recognized it as what it is."
Yes, I've seen that. I'll go with "being treated like the help" there.
Women, of course, do not have a corner on being critical. As I've previously stated, I've had to ask my husband to stop criticizing me. One of the many things I appreciate about him is that he listens to me about things like that. If one spouse is trying to solve a problem or improve the relationship and the other simply isn't interested, I don't know what you do about that.
TO: Dr. Helen
RE: [OT] For Cry'n OUT LOUD!!!!
When is PJTV going to get to the point that one can watch it all the way through without these damnedable breaks to load.
SERIOUSLY....
....if I encounter that in other venues, I just walk away and do something else until it is FULLY LOADED and then set it back to the start and watch it without the stupid interruptions.
NOT WITH PJTV.
If you reset it, it stalls out reloading again.
Tell the people at PJTV to 'come up to the 21st Century'....PUHLEASE!!!!!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: All
RE: What Little I've Got....
....from this 'video'....
REAL men never "gave up".
We made mistakes. Sure. But we've learned from them. And, if we're smart enough, we don't get involved with the sort of women who are going to be a long-term problem.
The 'challenge' is for men to be able to recognize the 'problem woman' when they encounter her.
As I said on Dr. Helen's previous thread on this topic it requires a degree of 'internal discipline' that most young men have never been trained to be.
And I've recommended a Good Book for doing that. But, over on that other thread, when I suggested that, the atheists went 'ballistic'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: Too Late!
As mothers see their sons suffering, maybe they'll change. -- Dr. Helen
Oh...but then it's too late.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You know you were a successful parent when you see that your grand-children turned out right.]
Chuck writes: "REAL men never "gave up".
We made mistakes. Sure. But we've learned from them."
---------------------
Men of steel. Men of honor. Men like you.
What a friggin' idiot. 2 or 3 divorces (I can't keep track, but it doesn't matter because the next one is probably coming) and this dope wants to aggressively push his opinion on everyone else.
Chuck, I hate to break it to you: You're not a Real Man (whatever that is). You are a self-important dope.
What do you tell the guy in the looney bin who think's he's Napoleon?
I guess nothing - let him be Napoleon Bonaparte. But if you were to argue with him, I guess you would bring up facts: We're not in France, it's 2009 not 1800 etc. He would have an answer for everything, though. A very convincing answer.
Same with Chuckles.
You could bring up the facts: He's been married several times, he's admitted himself that previous wives have really used him. His personality on this board is borderline moronic.
But none of that matters - he will have an answer for everything. A very convincing answer.
TO: All
RE: Heh
Chuck, I hate to break it to you: You're not a Real Man (whatever that is). You are a self-important dope. -- Tether
"Dope"?
I wonder if Tether is a member of Mensa.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. See what I mean about the 'atheists'?
I don't know, Chuckles, if I say to Bill: "Bill you're an exploitive, using, nasty, whining piece of work" and he replies "I DON'T whine", it doesn't sound like much of a rebuttal for the rest of it. More like tacit acknowledgment.
You pull the same thing here: tacit acknowledgment but something thrown in to hold your ego up.
And you seem to put a lot of stock in the importance of Mensa, but you have to realize that to others - who may not regard it with the same esteem and awe that you seem to have - your answer sounds silly, childish and even a bit pathetic.
I see you are also holding up your Christianity as a mark of your superiority - I'm sure that's what Jesus intended for the religion to become.
I have an acquaintance that I have come to know recently. He proudly announced to me that he was a good friend, a good conversationalist and an all round good person. I suppose that would be to differentiate himself from all those lousy friends, lousy conversationalists and lousy people out there. I was so pleased he enlightened me. ;)
Chuck, it is your turn. This too shall pass. Maybe immediately after I hit send!
8)
Trey
"Trey and Nova - 70% of black babies are now being born to unwed mothers. In cities like Memphis, you aren't talking about what "will" happen."
Indeed, Laura. The black community is basically the canary in the coalmine for the broader community. What is happening there is already spreading to the broader community. The real wham will come when these educational demographics hit the marrying ages in the next 10-20 years, because then marriage will go into steep decline (it has to, based on the demographics) among the educated set -- the one demographic where marriage has remained relatively strong, and which has skewed the numbers away from the reality of other demographics. In other words, once that happens, it will be pretty much the end of marriage as a normative institution, and the switch will be made to the dyadic (mother and children) family model we see in animal species. In fact, the fact that we see this in animal species is one thing that some (foolish) people use as a justification for why it's "okay". Of course they don't bother to think that other animal species don't need their males building and maintaining a civilization.
"If our society is going to survive, we need a female equivalent of the idea of chivalry."
Iconoclast --
This is very unlikely to happen. The book I am reading, mentioned above, basically states that chivalry is wired. In other words, it is evolved behavior for men to defer to women, and feel the urge to support and protect them, especially in any conflicts with men. Women are wired to protect and care for their children, not men. That doesn't mean that women do not love and care for their mates -- they do -- but women have nothing inside them pertaining to men that resembles what men have inside them pertaining to women. In women, that wiring is directed towards children.
So I don't think we're going to see a female chivalry toward men. I think I'll do a full post on chivalry today over at my place.
Chivalry. Hm.
When I was a young married woman, my mother tried to train me to be a good wife. We were at my parents' home one day, my mom had made coffee, and she instructed me to ask my husband if he wanted any.
"You want some coffee?" I asked him.
"Sure," he said.
"It's in the kitchen," I said.
I was JOKING but my mom had a fit. The way she was raised, women wait on men, hand and foot. Southern country culture. I don't know if that came over from Scotland along with the last names and language idiosyncrasies, or if it was already here. That's pretty much gone by the wayside, but I promise it was there. I like the mutual stuff much better - if I make coffee I'll bring my husband a cup, he'll do the same.
I guess you could call it chivalry when the maintenance guy helps me turn a valve that's too tight for me. On the other hand, then you have to call it something when I help him straighten out his email program.
To move back to your earlier point about being like animals, I think it's part of being a human not to let the hard-wired stuff run our lives. Iconoclast said this: "So when a woman has serious power over someone else ... she is on the average less likely than a man to be concerned with that person's welfare and feelings. The treatment of husbands as household help--and not very nicely treated household help at that--is an example. If our society is going to survive, we need a female equivalent of the idea of chivalry." Chivalry, if defined as courtesy and respect (being concerned with the other person's welfare and feelings), shouldn't be a sex-specific thing.
"Chivalry, if defined as courtesy and respect (being concerned with the other person's welfare and feelings), shouldn't be a sex-specific thing."
Laura --
Chivalry is really nothing other than supporting and protecting women, and not men. It isn't courtesy and respect, although those are subsumed within it and perhaps the most visible aspects of it.
The taboo against publicly critiquing women, which we well know does not exist when it comes to men, is a result of chivalry. When a man critiques women or feminism he is seen as being a whiner. When a woman critiques men, she is listened to, and perhaps thought of as justified more often than not. I'm not talking about the blogosphere, where anonymity removes social restraints (like chivalry), but the real world. You can bet that most of the men you see posting in this blog and elsewhere do not express these views in the real world, because if they did there would be a *huge* social price exacted for doing that, precisely because of chivalry.
Other examples abound. The federal government has approximately nine offices dedicated to women's health issues, and not one dedicated to men's health issues. This is seen as okay because of chivalry. And if men complain that spending on research and therapies for prostate cancer (in a recent year 390m) is too far behind that spent on breast cancer (699m in the same year), even though prostate cancer is more prevalent in men than breast cancer is in women (1 in 6 vs, 1 in 8), a man will be immediately met with frowns and abuse and called a whiner by both men and women alike. Of course, breast cancer is a bigger concern, because it affects women, and not men. That right there is the essence of chivalry -- valuing women more than men.
I am thinking about the other points in your post, but to pause here about breast cancer for a moment - isn't a lot of the funding for breast cancer raised privately by the Susan G. Komen Foundation? If that's where the disparity comes from, maybe some private entity needs to start a foundation to fund prostate cancer research.
Just a quick note on cancer funding.
I counted the number of programs available at the cancer clinic. Eleven. (Group Counselling, Yoga, Wigs etc.) Of the 11, 8 were for women only. The three that were available for men were unisex/coed.
One in two men will deal with cancer in their lifetimes, while one in three women will. (Did you know it was only 1 in 20 people, back around 1900?)
It's not just prostate cancer that is an issue.
Our entire medical system is "female oriented" and is quite difficult for men to navigate.
When I hear someone say that men are to blame for their worse health blah blah blah, all I can think is, "Gee, maybe if we started customizing healthcare towards men, and dealing with male psychological concerns about their health etc., do ya think that might help?" (A biggie would be a restructuring of being forced to discuss your health to female receptionists and snotty mouthed female nurses before getting to talk, with confidentiality, to your doctor.
This is not just for cancer, but all areas of health.
The heart-health areas are another big concern. Dr. Helen is an exception, not the rule, for women's hearts.
Yes, heart disease is a leading killer of women... but noticeable is that it is in elderly women. (You have to die of something - and usually, your heart stops when you die).
Now the screeching is on to increase funding for women's heart disease.
However, if we could reduce/eliminate the amount of men who die of heart disease in middle age, we could go miles to eliminating the "life expectancy gap" between the sexes.
No offense meant to Dr. Helen's health concerns - all health is extremely important, to all people. It's THE most valuable thing we have, even more so than "time," in my opinion.
Still thinking about chivalry.
Hardwiring aside, there's nothing stopping a woman from being nice to a man, right? I understand that men here have had bad experiences. My first boss, a man, was fired because he pointed his finger in the owner's face and said, quote, "I'm going to kill you". Yes, he was a loose cannon, and he threatened me and his other direct reports too before he lost his temper enough to threaten the wrong person - I was too inexperienced and stupid to know I didn't have to put up with it. I'm not extrapolating from that to men on average, or whatever, being ugly to women. But I also don't think he was particularly unique in having a few wires missing from his schematic.
But anyway, if a woman says "please and thank you" and refrains from being hypercritical, then the need for reverse chivalry isn't an issue where housework is concerned, is it? Which is what the original point was in reference to.
"Now the screeching is on to increase funding for women's heart disease."
Nice. Should I have accused Novaseeker of "screeching" about prostate cancer?
Also, with more and more people living alone, Heart-Health becomes even a greater concern.
I have a friend who has now had two strokes - one in his 30's and on in his 40's.
He is a single man.
I don't know the details of his first stroke, but I know that for his second one, he was extremely lucky that he had a "play-date" with some friends, and when he didn't show, someone showed up at his house to get him, and found him paralyzed on the floor, where he had been lying for a while already. He was lucky to survive.
Nice, that heart disease is the leading cause of the Life Expentancy Gap between men and women, and women's heart health is taking precedence over men's - again.
It's also "nice" that when women's life expentancy surpassed men's in every nation, women celebrated it as a "victory."
However, there are also now those who claim victim status because they are forced to be elderly and alone, because their spouse died much earlier.
Whatever direction you go...
Why don't you screech about it. Whatever it is that you characterize as "screeching" evidently gets results.
I am. And it never fails that some snot-mouthed female supremacist shows up.
Want me to find an example?
This is one area where I will drop all chivalry towards you, Laura.
I have been so vicious about this, I pesterd all 300+ Members of Canada's Parliament with daily e-mails - especially targeting the Minister of Health - that he complained to the Mounties about me... Lol! I hadn't broken any laws though, and after that, started pestering him for thinking the Mounties were his personal Gestapo.
Notice my original point. You can screech your head off about prostate cancer. If a woman starts a foundation to fund breast cancer research, you can screech about that too. Guess which cancer is going to get the funding.
Screeching here won't get anything accomplished, Rob, except to make you feel better. But go ahead. Maybe a woman will start a foundation to address men's health issues, if you screech enough.
In fact, my heart is already pounding faster because of you.
This subject makes my hands tremble.
Well, I don't want to give you the vapors any more than I already have, so I'll stop.
Except to say that if you use ugly words like "screeching" then you really shouldn't complain when other people don't walk on eggshells when they talk to you. Most people learn this in middle school.
Go blow it out your ass, you smug little supremacist.
It took me 23 doctors to get the proper “help.”
I was repeatedly misdiagnosed. I was repeatedly degraded and humiliated. I was repeatedly left out of the loop until I declared myself my OWN doctor and demanded all inter-doctor communications be forwarded to me as if I were my own family doctor. I went everywhere with my own medical file. I was repeatedly told that Health Canada would not waste valuable resources on me to give me a proper biopsy. I was looked at as a quack for being concerned that I had the beginning stages of cancer. I was told to bugger off because they had “more important patients” – ones who had cancer.
I scared the bejeezus out of the Health Minister by swearing I was going to show up in Ottawa, painted red from head to toe, with a big sign and an airhorn, and neither him nor the Prime Minister were going to get in or out of Parliament without me attracting the attention of the national media.
The Mounties, to their credit, contacted me after I bitched them out for pestering me, and apologized. They are mostly men too, after all. Although, they asked me to target people “lower down.” Uh huh… why?
Once I forced a biopsy by being the meanest sonofabitch alive, I was manipulated by a doctor into being “tricked” into accepting vastly inferior, and life altering treatments – merely to save “time”. Once I figured out what was going on, the next doctor bitched me out for “not seeking help sooner – it was my own fault.” The jerkoff hadn’t even read my file – which is what tipped me off to that I was being tricked.
My last doctor, when I showed up (I wasn’t going to go back to the trickster)… I was seething, and told him we could both forgo wasting eachother’s valuable time if doctors would quit jerking me around and treated me like an intelligent human being. And my time is more valuable than yours!
He was a good doctor.
He smiled at me and said, “You’re lucky you’re such an asshole. If you hadn’t been, you would have been in real big trouble. But we are going to have to trust eachother, and if we can, I can help you.”
I decided to trust him, and the weight of the world fell off my shoulders. And he helped me get to the other side.
I also dropped my campaign, because it gets me too wound up. Obviously, it still does. This is a subject I rarely touch because of it.
But anyone who thinks speaking softly and reasonable gets results, is plain and simple a bloody idiot.
Not only that, but it is completely justifiable that I am mad as hell about this.
We have to start standing on the rooftops and start screaming “THE BIG TRUTH!”
Men, don’t ever let women try to talk you into “calming down your message.”
Scaring the bejeezus out of people and threatening them with a loss of their power? That works.
“Calm and reasonable” does not.
"To move back to your earlier point about being like animals, I think it's part of being a human not to let the hard-wired stuff run our lives."
Or, as Kate Hepburn's character memorably put it in The African Queen, "Nature ... is what we were put on this earth to rise above."
"Chivalry, if defined as courtesy and respect (being concerned with the other person's welfare and feelings), shouldn't be a sex-specific thing."
Squares, if defined as circles, don't have sides. Chivalry doesn't mean courtesy and respect. We have perfectly good words for those concepts.
Chivalry is a manifestation of agape / caritas, i.e., the willing subordination or sacrifice of one's own welfare to the welfare of another -- but always from the male to the female.
It is not noblesse oblige, because other social distinctions yield to the ontological principle that a man should will himself to suffer in place of a woman if he is able to spare her by so doing. A common man was expected to surrender his seat on the lifeboat to a titled woman. Of course there were occasions when the titled man did not surrender his seat to the common woman, but this was universally understood to be craven and dishonorable.
Craig, I suppose you are responding to my comment where I quoted Iconoclast, who said we needed female chivalry so that women would be nicer to men. My point was that it seemed to me that Iconoclast was defining chivalry as treating the other person with courtesy and respect, which shouldn't be related to sex. So you are explaining squares and circles to the choir.
Also, I agreed with you about a man being treated like the help if his woman is demanding and hypercritical. But if you go back to the WSJ article that triggered the whole thing, the complaint the man had was that he was being asked to do "menial" tasks (OK for a woman but men are too good to have to do?) and that women were smiling at him when he pushed his kid in the stroller. I can see several situations where a man might complain of being treated like the help. In some of those I would think he had a valid complaint, and in some I would kind of doubt it.
"Notice my original point. You can screech your head off about prostate cancer. If a woman starts a foundation to fund breast cancer research, you can screech about that too. Guess which cancer is going to get the funding.
Screeching here won't get anything accomplished, Rob, except to make you feel better. But go ahead. Maybe a woman will start a foundation to address men's health issues, if you screech enough."
That will never happen, and the reason is chivalry. Chivalry makes men care about women's concerns more than men's concerns. That's the whole point, and why it is an issue.
Novaseeker, what is preventing men from doing what the Susan G. Komen foundation is doing?
TO: MB
RE: [OT] Perhaps
I don't know, Chuckles, if I say to Bill: "Bill you're an exploitive, using, nasty, whining piece of work" and he replies "I DON'T whine", it doesn't sound like much of a rebuttal for the rest of it. More like tacit acknowledgment. -- MB
The problem is that Tether is bitching about my 'manliness', as opposed to my whining. And maybe you're not aware of it, but I think I've seen your nom des blogs before, so I think you ARE aware....
...Tether is jealous.
Of what?
Perhaps a number of matters.
• He's not a retired lieutenant colonel of infantry.
• He's not an airborne-ranger.
• He's not a member of Mensa.
• He's not married to a woman described in the latter part of Proverbs 31.
• And, last but not least, he's not a christian.
So. Your analogy fall flat on its face from the get-go.
Tether's problem, as well as some others around here, is his own. It's not MY problem. I just point out that these people have serious problems. REAL serious problems that I suspect interfere with their establishing a REAL lasting relationship.
In this particular aspect of the 'discussion' earlier, the big point seems to be a lack of 'manliness' on the part of men, as discussed by Dr. Helen and the interviewee.
I just point out that real men do exist and that we have not 'given up'. We just figured out a better 'battle plan'. One that seems to actually work.
Oddly enough, when I point that out here, people like Tether go....uh....'off the deep end'.
Dr. Helen might find THAT an interesting topic. Don't you think?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[No good deed goes unpunished.]
This comment has been removed by the author.
TO: MB
RE: Et Tu, MB?
I see you are also holding up your Christianity as a mark of your superiority - I'm sure that's what Jesus intended for the religion to become. -- MB
With THAT statement you just demonstrated your complete ignorance of christianity.
Maybe you should read a Good Book to better educate yourself before making foolish statements about something you are apparently totally ignorant of.
Don't you think?
Christians are not 'superior' to anyone. We're just outspoken about something that will actually help people. And for our efforts, we get THIS sort of 'treatment'.
As I said in my previous comment.....
No good deed goes unpunished.
You just proved the truth of that axiom.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. As many people here have no clue about christianity and how it might help them in dealing with other people, especially in the eternal battle-of-the-sexes, likewise, when they are presented with a possible solution that THEY DIDN'T THINK OF FOR THEMSELVES, they get 'belligerent'.....
Why is that?
Forgive me, wrong topic. I deleted.
What prevents LAURA from shutting her BIG YAP when men want to expand their lifespan to be equal to women's?
Huh?
Like Angry Harry says... I'd rather have a 5 year old help me put up wallpaper than to have a woman help with Men's Rights.
WTF? Laura?
What is YOUR problem with men living longer?
You supremacist piece of $%#@
As much as I am no fan of Mr. Sacks... go read his blog and see the women that come out to YAP when men discuss how to help boys who are falling behind in education.
Same shit, different pile.
5 year olds and wallpaper, people.
In the years I have been in the MRM, only two women have been useful.
Dr. Helen is one of them.
Nobody NEEDS "Laura's" permission. Nor any other woman's.
We just have to tell them to SHUT THEIR BIG YAPS!
The gloves are off, Laura.
A piece of $hit like you will oppose me getting the healthcare I deserve...
What do you think is the "proportional response?"
"Eh?"
Grrrrrr!
Watch your step, you supremacist piece of crap!
I don’t care whether Dr. Helen approves or not. You obviously did not research me enough! You silly cow!
Whatch your step!
You've got the Meadow Muffin Blues!
On the Bottom of your shoes!
Well, you dropped your dinner!
And you're standin' in 'er!
You've got the meadow muffin blues!
On the bottom of your shoes!
I think you have put effort into pissing me off... you should be proud, to have a serious enemy.
Good on ya!
Dr Helen doesn't control this.
I do!
You pissed off the wrong fucking guy.
I warned ya, but you just didn't fuckin' listen, did ya?
This comment has been removed by the author.
If you mess with the bull, you're gonna get the horns...
It's as old as the sun!
Laura seems to refuse to express her distaste for men dying 10% earlier than women... geee, could she BE more of a supremacist?
What a patriot!
PUKE!
Why should anyone take this sleeze ball's views seriously?
Could you get me a coffee?
THIS is the basis of her grievances... GEEZ!
Could you GET ME A PAYCHECK!
Didn't you say you had to go to work because there were too many gaps in your resume?
How did that happen?
Welfare?
Or was hubby working then?
Christ, lady.
Grow the hell up.
Smarmy mouth
Another smarmy mouthed supremacist tramp!
"I didn't read Cham's question that way. I read it that she's asking how many men, after the relationship blows up, really want the kids."
You know for people who have been listening to men for the past while, can't believe you are still so ignorant. Why don't you ask yourself... "Well how many women?"
And Laura before no fault divorce a lot of the times the child(ren) went to the father and if you actually did any research you would see that children are the safest when they are with their fathers.
"If a man says he is treated as household help, what does that mean exactly? That his wife asks him to do housework? Is it that she's asking him to do more than his fair share? Or is it that she has to ask to get him to do anything, and he could change the way he is "being treated" by not waiting to be asked before he does his share?"
Why do women do this, act as if they don't know? Friggin' annoying. That his wife asks him to do housework? LOL No, she doesn't ask, she nags. And when he does the inside chores she goes behind and tells him, he is doing it wrong. And another thing when this whole housework thing is being divided up why is it women are suddenly quiet when it comes to things like... going out on the roof in the middle of the night when there is a animal or getting up at 5 in the morning to shovel the snow. Where are all the women then? Are they the ones checking out what is going bump in the night? NOooo! But what do they complain about? Well I washed one dish and now you have to wash one! You have to do your share...
Yeah Laura we know... you're not like that, in fact, you don't know one person who is like that and we better just find better people to hang out with.. yada yada yada.
And the problem is no one cares about men. They never have and they never will. It will always be women and children first... and then animals... and way at the bottom of the list, men. So no, talking nicely and holding hands is not going to do any good.
What is it that you want, Laura?
Laura is an emotional terrorist.
She is an abuser.
It isn't that she disagrees about certain issues.
She follows behind people and nit, nit, nit, nit....
Like Chinese water torture.
Read some Al-Anon. Laura is a CLASSIC.
The only difference in Laura's aggression is she tones it down to 25% but extends it over 500% of the time.
Most women who are battered are like this. They go out of their way to provoke the other person until he smacks her one, and then runs away, claiming to be "abused."
She is seeking conflict.
I despise people as shiftily aggressive as Laura.
I DESPISE THEM.
Quite frankly, they deserve a smack or two.
I used to see my own mother harass my father this way. A campaign for MONTHS of nitpicking away at him... always knowing which buttons to push to make him angry, and then bursting out in tears when he actually did get angry... and then he would fell sorry and back off, and then the nit, nit, nit would start again.
An emotional terrorist.
An abuser!
I swear to God, my Dad had the patience of Job. I have seen him pick things up and smash them, but he never smacked my mom... and even though us kids would PLEAD with my mom to SHUT HER MOUTH, nope. Nit, nit, nit. "What? I didn't do anything?" BULLSHIT!
Emotional terrorist.
Emotional Violence.
Laura is a classic.
Her poor hen-pecked husband.
RUN! Run like the wind, buddy!
Leave this shrew.
There's a better life for you out there! Kick her miserable ass to the curb!
She's just a modern day Mrs. Olson from Little House on the Prarie.
I prefer butch talking Mary to this little snippet. At least Mary is somewhat honest about her aggression, and I can appreciate that.
Laura should be shunned.
Don’t forget, women’s emotional violence is equivalent to men’s physical violence.
Laura is an abuser.
She’s the most disgusting form of woman known to mankind.
An interesting thing about emotional terrorists...
When their spouse dies, and their favoured target is no longer around, these people are so addicted to creating conflict that they often start running through their children's lives in the same way.
Within a year of my father dying, my mother was so starved for conflict that she started turning on her children.
No amount of begging can stop her.
No reasoning will stop her.
Telling her that she is in her 70's and this is a time when she should be drawing her family closer, rather than pushing them away... well, that just does not compute.
She HAS TO fight.
I have seen her get so upset over stupid things, and then call me to "talk," trying to pit one sibling against the other... with always her as the main victim...
And I'm serious, I can sit there talking to her for hours, through the sobs and tears, and explain to her that SHE is the parent, and SHE should be the bigger one and let it go... SHE should be drawing her children and grandchildren closer... and she agrees! And then I go to the bathroom, and she sneaks into the bedroom, picks up the phone, and starts bitching away again, making things worse! She just can't help herself!
It is sad to see.
My brother just pushed her out of his life completely.
My one sister didn't talk to her for a year and a half, although they are speaking now again... but for how long, I don't know.
What is she gaining? She's got lots of money - she should be taking her children & grandchildren to Hawaii and having a hoot, but she'd rather bitch at people.
I think it has something to do with attention. As in, a woman who does not garner attention does not survive. I think this is a very primal thing in women. Women survive by getting attention - not by actually doing anything.
But it's sad to see.
However, SHE is my mother.
Laura is not.
Laura has not two good thoughts to put together - ever. And yet she gets attention from people all over the place here. What's up?
A couple of centuries ago, Laura would have found her ass strapped into a ducking stool for “back-biting.”
Sounds good to me.
It's really interesting to watch a family funeral.
My mother was in her glory. She was the belle of the ball! Yes, she was sad, but she revelled in the attention. A woman's two most important days are her wedding day, and her husband's funeral... both times, SHE is the center of attention.
It was interesting to watch the family. I am a pretty good silent observer.
My Mom and my two sisters were in CONSTANT motion to garner as much attention and sympathy as possible. Who is hurt more... wah, wah, wah...
It was NOT that they were sad that a very honourable man had passed. Someone who had accomplished much, and yet was as humble as could be.
It was NOT about remembering how beautiful it was to have a father like him.
It WAS about who is hurt more.
Good Lord! My oldest sister had a hissy fit after the funeral because she was "the oldest" and didn't have any cousin's her age to pay attention to her. I was a jerk-off because all of my cousin's would gather around to talk to me. It didn't even dawn on her that all my cousin's took off work, and some travelled over a thousand miles, because my Dad was their favourite uncle - and he was for a reason!
Nope. I NEED ATTENTION! Wah! Wah! Wah!
It's the same with the cancer thing.
It doesn't even dawn on emotional terrorists like my mother... to her, it was hard on HER! It was all about her!
Emotional terrorists are MISERABLE people.
" br549 said...
What is it that you want, Laura?"
br, what are you talking about? There are about four different topics here. Are you talking about health care, housework, what?
Maybe he wants to know why you insist on running around being so purposefully obtuse and nitting away at people.
Do ya think?
I'd like to know what you are trying to accomplish too!
On every forum or blog where men try to talk about their issues, some shrew like Laura shows up. The forums that actually DO accomplish things, and are educational, are the ones that don’t allow women.
Have I told you yet about my MRA colleague who used to run a divorce support group?
They used to be plagued with male suicides... every time a man would try to speak about his concerns, the howls and wails from the women would start.
He said they separated the men from the women, and the suicides drop WAY off.
You’ve made some miserable stinking enemy out of me, Laura.
Are you happy?
Or were you expecting a different result?
Please, enlighten us.
What did you think was going to happen?
You aren’t going to get the last word either.
Good Lord!
Marriage is in the shitter. Society is crumbling. Men are committing suicide at 400% the rate of women. Men lead the way in all of the top ten fatal diseases. Men's lifespans are 10% shorter than women's. Men make some 94% of workplace injuries and deaths. Boys are bailing on education and society at an alarming rate.
And Laura shows up complaining about getting a cup of coffee!
How about a bit of perspective, eh?
It's one thing that women like Laura won't lift a finger to help men...
But look at her!
She actively tries to prevent men from even helping themselves!
Rob -
My experience with the passive aggressive / nagging / conflict-seeking type of woman is that they will never acknowledge it. Not one iota.
I don't know if they really don't understand or if that's just part of the fun.
At best, you'll get: "What did I say?" - "I didn't say anything wrong" - "It's not my fault" - "Now you just want to silence women" - "Women can say their opinion too, just like men" ...
... but usually they will simply not acknowledge anything you are saying. They will go on to the next kind-of-irritating topic.
Yeah, JG, I've seen it time and time again. They stand back and act shocked that someone got pissed off, and then go running away in tears, seeking attention.
But nobody is THIS stupid.
If they are, then she ought not to be let out of the house in case she hurts herself - or others.
It is very female behaviour though.
Women aggress emotionally in an equal manner that men aggress physically.
The difference is, though, that men abhor aggressing against women, whereas shrews like Laura revel in aggressing against me.
Miserable people!
It angers me greatly that they try to stop people from helping themselves. They want to see others suffer.
Bring back the Ducking Stool!
In the meantime – DON’T GET MARRIED!
"revel in aggressing against men"
(and in Laura's case, me).
I am pleased to see that no men here are rushing up to defend her.
Society is a changing.
Women have burnt down the house of good will men have built for them.
This woman doesn't deserve any chivalry from men.
She thinks her not having to get a cup of coffee is more important than men dying.
I'm not sure why, but the nagging described here seems to be a very gender-specific thing.
Lots of men are A-holes, but not in THIS particular way. I don't know why that is - the people engaging in that behavior seem to be almost exclusively women.
The worst is when they start to involve third parties - which is the majority way women commit violence.
I had an ex-girlfriend once who was obviously still in love with me or something, in a sick way. Maybe darkly obsessed is a better description.
For a period of four years, every guy she dated suddenly got aggressive towards me. I got punched in the head several times.
She started dating a thug bouncer, and for quite a period - around 2 years, this jerk-off would run around threatening me, pushing me, fingering me when he drove by, harassing me in the grocery store... and she would stand there laughing at me. I felt like an idiot having to always fight over that miserable shrew I hadn't dated in years - it was humiliating.
I finally went to the police - and they were willing to go after him, but not her. I told them, she is conspiring to commit a crime of violence. They said "tough." So, I told them, I want to file an official complaint about this then, because I know I am allowed to defend myself, and that is exactly what I intend on doing.
The next time he pushed me around, I grabbed him and started smacking his head into a door post, and when I was finishing him off on the floor, I started yelling at her, "You'd better run, Princess, cause when I'm done here, I'm coming for you!"
She ran.
They broke up the next day.
It's sickening that women get away with this crap in society - and even get sympathy for behaving this way.
They should be shunned.
Bullying styles are generally considered to fall under two categories, direct and indirect. Direct physical bullying is to, hit, shove, kick, trip, push, and pull. Direct verbal bullying can involve name-calling, insults, threatening to hurt the other. Indirect bullying, I>also known as social or relational aggression (Crick 1997) involves attacking the relationships of people and hurting the self-esteem. It is subtler and involves behaviours such as spreading nasty rumors, withholding friendships, ignoring, gossiping, or excluding a child from a small group of friends.
There is no doubt that stereotypically, males are more physical and direct in their bullying styles and females more manipulative and indirect (Olweus, 1997; Bjorkqvist, 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist & Peltonen, 1988). Boys in our Western culture are encouraged to be tough and competitive and as they maturate slower and develop social intelligence at a slower rate they will use physical aggression longer than girls (Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kauliaien, 1992). However there is no reason to believe that females should be less hostile and less prone to get into conflicts than males (Burbank, 1987, in Bjorkqvist 1994; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). As females are physically weaker, they develop early in life other bullying styles in order to achieve their goals. Indirect aggression in girls increases drastically at about the age of eleven years (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen, 1992) whereas physical aggression among boys decreases during late adolescence, to be replaced mainly by verbal, but also indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist 1994).
There is a growing body of research in gender differences of bullying and other adolescent aggressive behaviours. There are hundreds of studies dedicated to the topic, many placing the emphasis on boys or the forms of aggression, more salient to boys. Forms of aggression more salient to girls has received comparatively little attention (Crick, 1997; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).
What a lot of people don't clue into is that male and female forms of aggression is perfectly "equal."
That ought to make all the egalitarian screechers happy, eh?
What I am doing here is HIGHLY aggressive and HIGHLY visible. Everybody knows I am being aggressive. BUT, this will be over very fast, and I will return to being a normal guy who simply wants to share valuable information with other men.
But what women do is "low-level aggression" but they extend it over great lengths of time, as Laura has been doing to me for months now.
In the end, when you add up the amounts of aggression, they are about equal.
This is the difference between men and women. Men operate on “spikes” while women operate on “rhythms.”
We are “equal” but different. Even in sin, believe it or not.
Whoever woulda thunk it?
You have to wonder about the sickos that pit a new boyfriend against an old one.
They are, quite directly, bringing extreme violence into TWO people's lives - even the new one she is supposedly "in love with."
In love and bringing violence to the person. Uh huh.
Another strange thing about female aggression is that you simply cannot ignore it - she will not let you. If you try to, she will simply escalate more and more.
Men are different this way - they can growl at eachother, but if they go their separate ways, that is often it. We all know of the two guys who almost get into a scrap at the pool table, but at the end of the night are sitting at the same table, sharing a beer together and laughing.
Men often will respect eachother for how they aggress. That's why it is so important to have fathers for little boys. My dad always taught me to WALK from a fight - but don't you EVER run. And it works.
For example: One of the toughest guys in my hometown once decided to be aggressive to me, when I was around 15 or 16yrs old. In fact, someone who was a mutual friend seen me coming down the street and warned me that he said he was going to whale on me. Well, I knew he could clean my clock, but I kept walking anyway. I heard him yelling and knew he was coming for me, from behind, running. I had him in my peripheral vision and when he got close to me, I quickly crouched down with my elbow sticking out to get him in the gut when he jumped me... he twisted and didn't collide with me. Then he started laughing and said, "Ah man, I thought you were gonna run! But you've got some spunk." Then he invited me for a coke. He stayed friendly to me until I moved away in my late 20's.
Everyone else in that town knew it too. Rob is not necessarily the toughest guy - he wins some, he loses some - but, you better count on it, he'll rock and roll with you, so you better be damn serious.
Nobody ever stopped the bullies from stealing your lunch money by being nice!
Boys need fathers to teach them these things, and how to gain respect from other men.
Women are horrible at teaching boys these things, and too often everyone winds up in the principal's office, violating "school yard rules," and making things incredibly worse. Who cares if women understand our rules? It's not their business. They have their hierarchal structures too.
But I have noticed with ex-girlfriends and things, that if you don't blow your stack at them, they will make your life miserable until you do. Letting it "roll off your back" just does not help. Being the bigger person does not help. It is as if she NEEDS you to become angry, so that she knows the way she betrayed you really, really hurts. Once she knows this - that you care about what she is doing - then she can laugh you off and go her own way.
"Not playing the game" is actually so passive aggressive to her, that it DRIVES HER NUTS!
The BEST thing that men can do to protect themselves, is to mislead women while you are dating them.
Let them know the thing that most drives you crazy, and you find the most horrific betrayal of all... but lie, and tell her something that really doesn't bother you too much, so when you break up, you can fake being pissed, she can get her satisfaction, and you can both move on.
If you are really good, you can pull a Tom Sawyer on her.
But, you can see it with Laura here too, she is escalating more and more as time passes. It will NOT stop until you get angry with her.
After all, you getting angry at her is what she after since the beginning.
Emotional Terrorism.
Laura:
Would you like me to summarize the last 40 posts for you to save time? Rob is saying that you are bad bad evil person.
Cham, don't forget that I nag, as well.
Yup.
And other women always run up to defend the woman.
But you fully understand what Laura is doing here, don't you, Cham?
One wonders where female chivalry is?
While men run up to stop another man from aggressing at a woman, you NEVER see a woman running up to an aggressing woman and chastising her for it... in fact, they often join in.
Why is that?
The patriarchal boys club? Or is it merely projection of the sisterhood, the herd sticks together for safety – no matter what – no matter who is right or wrong.
It is not hard to see why men suspect that ALL women have a low-level, subtle hatred of men.
Men would feel alot better about women in general if they would use their form of aggression to defend men from other women once in a while - but they plain and simply WON'T!
It’s pathetic, and shows what women really think of men.
Laura winds a lot of men up here uneccessarily - and I've never once you give her hell for it, Cham. Why is that? You know she’s been doing this for a long time too. I know YOU are a fairly smart person.
There is no way I am going to let women win this argument unless Dr. Helen kicks me out of here.
Like I said… Laura has been spoiling for a confrontation, and now she’s got a real serious one.
Don’t poke the bear!
I don't come here to be a pest, but Laura does. My intentions are fairly honest and straightforward. I am also fairly decent to people who are decent to me - even if I disagree with them.
Btw. There are people who come here to read my posts. I sometimes even get people asking where I am now, so they can read along.
Sometimes my comments from here end up on other people's blogs - there is even a whole thread from here that is on a forum.
Shocking, eh?
I used to do the same thing to other people. It's how we all learn.
That would make you a nagger, Laura. Now if you were black we could really combo some words here and get a rhythm going.
Oooh yes, here come the ladies.
Don't want to answer my questions, eh Cham?
If you want to get into a pissing match with me - be forewarned, I am better equipped to aim accurately.
Btw, the one thread from here is titled "The Battle of Dr. Helen's"
or something like that.
It's kinda fun to see people analyze the comments on a forum or blog. It makes me feel honoured. I'll bet a lot more people know what kinda woman x-ray yankee lima is than she thinks.
While it may irritate you women, lots of men find it refreshing to see women finally get the gears... a lot of men would like to do it, but it takes them a bit to get their legs under them and become confident - it is unnatural for men.
So sad it isn't unnatural for women.
I’m pretty sure this is why JG is not afraid to speak up either – once men see that other men think it is OK to speak out, they become more confident themselves.
I am not particularly known as a nice guy (lol, ok, not at all) – I am more known for not being a bullshitter, and as someone who spent a good deal of time studying this stuff. But if I am an asshole, I am the MRM’s asshole.
The reason we like Dr. Helen is because she doesn't demand chivalry from us. She came highly recommended from a very prominent man who everyone respects a great deal. (A guy I used to follow around the web).
The house of good-will men built for women is on fire, and women keep throwing gas on it to make it burn hotter.
The men of old warned about such things. We should have listened.
Hate Bounces
TO: All
RE: Laura Scores!
Looks like Laura has scored a catastrophic 'kill' on Rob. That's based on all his comments between 2153 hours yesterday and NOW!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: All
RE: On the Other Hand....
We have br549 asking a simple enough question....
What is it that you want, Laura? -- br549
And Laura replies.....
br, what are you talking about? There are about four different topics here. Are you talking about health care, housework, what? -- Laura(southernxyl)
....with obfuscation.
Rob may be justified in his ire. But I think he might need to take some lessons from that Old Book on how to deal with women of Laura's sort.....
.....before he busts a blood vessel where it might be important.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Woman, n., The unfair sex. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, a syndicated 'column' written in the 19th Century]
TO: Rob Feder, et al.
RE: As a 'Lesson'....
....I learned from that Old Book on dealing with this 'Laura' situation....
.....when I encounter someone who reminds me of Ex #1—I won't go into the gory details—even if it's only watching a movie, I'll turn around and walk away or turn the movie off.
I have no room in my life for dealing with that sort of person. I leave them to God's all-too-capable ministrations.
The problem IS that is you don't believe in God in the first place, you don't HAVE that option. And you're left wallowing in your anger, which is never a good thing.
And from there, you slide into the grasp of the 'Dark-side of the Force'......heh.....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. -- Yoda]
You're right, Chuck, she's definitely up several points.
You know, Cham, I really don't have much of a problem with you...
What's your point?
It's not even like Laura is trying to deny what she does - everyone here knows what the hell is going on.
How come you never jump in as a woman, with superior emotional intelligence, and put a stop to it?
I am not being obtuse - I seriously would like to know why there is no form of female chivalry AT ALL.
Women's emotional superiority is similar to that of men's physical superiority. Heck, we hear about it all the time!
And don't tell me you ladies don't "get it."
You certainly do - you can spot a woman aggressing against you or other women from 1,000 miles away - and you make no bones about it. But when it is against a man, at best, all the ladies clam up, and at worst, they join in the bashing.
I mean, women do this even when they KNOW the woman is in the wrong.
How come there aren't women calling women out for being liars about false accusations - like at work?
They can spot another woman manoevering in on their man in no time flat.
Please, answer this question for us - because a lot of us men are flabberghasted by it.
Like I said, it is not even that Laura doesn't want to help men in any way - but, she actively tries to prevent men from helping themselves too - and yes, THAT is pretty damn evil, in my opinion.
And don't tell me that nobody "gets it."
Laura has been running people around with the same silly little passive aggressive arguments since at least February.
Then she pulls back all doe-eyed... "I don't know what you meeeeeeaaaaaan!" or "I don't get this 'shaming' thing. You guys do it too!" (Yes, and it has been repeatedly explained that it is in response to her initial shaming attacks...) and then a new commenter shows up, and she goes through the SAME routine again! She CERTAINLY gets it by now.
I mean, that's 1/3 of a YEAR of drip, drip, drip.
What was Laura expecting?
She wants people to lose their cool and get angry with her... tough noogies for her if she gets what she wants.
TO: Cham
RE: Perhaps....
You're right, Chuck, she's definitely up several points. -- Cham
....but what's more important?
Here we have Rob saying....
The men of old warned about such things. We should have listened. -- Rob Fedders
And maybe he's learning from those "men of old". Hopefully from the biblical sense.
His relating the story of the ex-GF who went after a bouncer to go after him is interesting. I'm reminded of the truism about....
Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned.
All men would be well advised to remember that one. Especially based on Rob's report.
And, by the way....
...Rob's action with said 'bouncer' only reinforces my comment about REAL men have not gone away. The smart ones have learned how to avoid the prat-falls of bad-girls in the first place.
I wish Rob would consider what I'm saying about how the REAL MEN-OF-OLD learned how to deal with the bad-girls when they encountered them.
It's all in that Old Book. And maybe Rob will pick it up and look into it for a number of answers to his problems. I'm particularly concerned over his deep sense of anger, which verges on outright hatred.
Whenever I can't get what happened with Ex #1 out of my mind, I turn it over for God to deal with. As I know He'll do a much better job of dealing with her than I ever could. And, a few minutes later....
....the anger is GONE!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Do not let the Sun go down on your anger. -- Ephesians]
Chuck:
I quit reading a long Rob's posts a long time ago. I don't have the patience to wade through them. Truncation, it's a good thing.
Belfort Bax discussed this phenomenon back in 1915. The Fraud of Feminism
And Chuck, I KNOW the answers are in the Bible.
One wonders why smart-mouth sister Cham didn't open her mouth when Laura was degrading men who were trying to speak of men's health concerns?
How come you refuse to answer, Cham?
Then you are just here being another passive aggressive shrew, aren't you?
Like I said... to women, it is more important to protect the herd than it is to even let men SPEAK of male specific concerns - like dying younger.
And don't tell me that Laura has not been spoiling for a fight on almost every thread I speak on - and for MONTHS now.
She wants to be equal - why don't you get out of her way and let her be equal?
You can really tell that women do not want to be equal, because when you try to give it to them, they worm and wiggle out of it.
Children behave the same way.
The thing about the Bible is, most people today want to only look for the positive things about women - and think that the stern warnings it gives about women are irrelevant. Laura constantly tries to call herself a Christian, but then implies that God was wrong about the specific gender roles he outlines in both the Old and New Testaments. You can’t be a Christian and say God was wrong.
Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife." -- Proverbs 21:9
(Fathers 4 Justice)
Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife." -- Proverbs 21:19
(Men Going Their Own Way)
I find more bitter than death the woman is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare. -- Ecclesiastes 7:26
(The Divorce Support Group)
...while I was still searching but not findinf - I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all. -- Ecclesiastes 7:28
It relates to the “spike” vs. “rhythm” thing. (Which is being proven scientifically to be accurate – in fact, most of the Bible is proving to be waaaaaaay beyond our modern knowledge… hmmm…) For example, there is good biological reason that the Bible declares that women should not be ministers & elders. See conversations of Men’s Health or Boy’s Education, and how women treat such things. Heck, even Phylis Schlafly, who defeated the ERA, did so because she didn’t want women to give up their privilege over men. Men, however, are very generous in giving women a hand up. Hmmm…
Cham too, she doesn't want to acknowledge the stupidity of someone trying to prevent people from helping themselves.
She says she doesn't even read my posts, and yet, here she is, chirping away nonsense, and refusing to answer questions. I wonder how she knows who is talking on this thread then?
More passive aggressive bullshit from women.
She doesn't want to answer questions of why we NEVER see female chivalry towards men, either.
But she sure likes to bitch at a man! That is OK.
TO: All
RE: The 'Interview'
I see both the good doctor and her interviewee as wringing their hands over the problem and not provided much in the way of an answer to it.
Pardon my ENTJ-ness, BUT, I'm not happy with their 'answer'. As I perceive it to be nothing more than mere hand-wringing.
What I propose, as an alternative, is for men to (1) become REAL men again and (2) using tried and true wisdom, avoid having ANYTHING to do with women of the sort that cause men serious problems.
As I said on the previous thread, it's going to require 'education'—of the self form—and internal discipline. Especially in the face of the most tantalizing opportunities.
Remember....
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound[ing in court] of 'cure'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Knowing there is a trap is the first step in avoiding it. -- Thufir Hawat, mentat chief of assassins to House Atradies, in Dune]
TO: Rob Fedders
RE: Good News
And Chuck, I KNOW the answers are in the Bible. -- Rob Fedders
Too bad others don't recognize that. And even more 'sorry', are those who start beating 'the messenger' down when they are approached with such useful information.
Oh well....
....all we can do, is ALL WE CAN DO.
It's 'funny' when the start 'killing' the messenger. Neh?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Try giving all that anger to the Lord.....
I think it will help....a LOT.....
P.P.S. An additional thought....
....I think it will be VERY difficult for even 'good mothers' to teach their sons well about the pit/pratfalls their own gender will lay for them.
Another good idea for having a REAL man around the household in the growing up process.
[1] Teaching young men what to watch out for in a woman.
[2] Teaching young women how to avoid being the sort of woman all too many of us have encountered.
[Who can find a virtuous woman......?]
P.P.P.S. According to your citation from Ecclesiastes, even Solomon the wise had SERIOUS problems in this arena......
Fortunately, as I've found, the search for such a woman is not without profit......THANKS BE TO GOD!!!!!
Lol! Chuck, has it occurred to you that maybe God is using an angry person like me to minister to you, instead of the other way around?
Omniscience is reserved for God alone.
And anger is not a sin, if it were, God would have never gotten angry at the Israelites, nor Jesus at the money changers at the temple. God does not sin.
I too know my Bible, Chuck. Maybe even better than you.
What is a sin, is to go directly against God's word... something we have clearly done by believing he didn't know what he was talking about when he clearly outlined the structure for gender roles, marriage, and the family.
Also, one cannot claim that the Old Covenant was fulfilled by the coming of Christ, and therefore we can ignore the Old Testament. That only works for things like not clipping the corners of one's beard when married, or women being deemed "unclean" during menstruation... We know that gender roles & marriage/family are to remain constant because in the New Testament, they are clearly upheld again in a fashion similar to the Old Testament.
Also, the Bible does not say that women belong in the kitchen or that they ought not to be working. Proverbs 31 clearly outlines what makes a "good wife." It is quite evident that many modern women are in fact, not working hard enough.
http://www.proverbs31woman.com/
A husband can trust her, and she will not be a drain to him. She works happily, she brings food and goods from afar, she rises early and provides food for the house, she PURCHASES REAL ESTATE and plants a vineyard to make PROFITS, She works into the night by the lamp, she is generous to the poor (those less fortunate, like boys in education, or men in healthcare), SHE WATCHES HER MOUTH and only kindness comes from it, she does not sit in idleness in the home (like watching D'Oprah), her family speaks of her as a blessing, and she does not use charm for deceit, nor beauty for vain.
Also, if you look through the Bible, you will see that the vast majority of "restrictions" put on women is on the sharpness of her tongue (emotional abuse) and deceitfulness. (Women have ALWAYS been the major perpetrators of crimes of deceit - like perjury or fraud).
The Bible clearly understands that women have emotional superiority over men, and thus it restricts their ability to run wild with it.
Also, as per sexual virtue, you can clearly see that the Bible IS the "Book of Life." Not only spiritually, but also physically. Following the outlines of the Bible clearly is what makes a healthy society with birthrates that sustain it - thus, ensuring the passing on of genetic materials... eternal life in the hard physical earthly sense, as well as the spiritual we don't always understand. We are also finding that promiscousness leads to widespread STD's which reduce the overall fertility of society in general.
(Continued…)
Furthermore, since abandoning Christianity, people are now running to therapists and paying them $100/hr to do what? To learn to let go... to learn that they can't control EVERYTHING in the world about them... something that used to be psychologically provided by the act of prayer - for free, and without appointments.
God also describes himself as riddles that indicate he is "Absolute Truth" in the Old Testament. (The alpha and the omega... I am who I am...) and in the New Testament he clearly says he IS the Truth.
Therefore, put no other gods (truths) before me. God's Truth ALWAYS comes first... (anti-Marxist relativism). Believing feminist ideology has any place in Christianity is blasphemy, and clearly is putting false truth above God's Truth.
Also, as per Marxism's relativism opposing God's Absolutism... this is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It is very, very old, what we are dealing with. Mankind has a tendency to wish things to be true that he desires to be true - this is why God's absolutism is so important as a beacon to guide us through the ages - and why Christian civilization has been so successful.
Also, you can see the Bible CLEARLY understands the biological reality of man and woman in the Garden of Eden story. (Again - see the "spike" vs. "rhythym," further above.)
Eve sinned because she was deceived by the serpent (who didn't actually lie). And, she used the relative truth to over-ride God's Absolute Truth about the tree. (She saw that the fruit was good for food, pleasing to the eye, and useful for gaining knowledge).
But Adam, HE SINNED KNOWINGLY - when Eve came up to him, she had already sinned and Adam knew it. And when she asked Adam to sin with her, he went along with it willingly.
The Bible quite clearly indicates that Adam and Eve had different cognitive abilities - and this too is proveable by modern biology/science in the way the male and female brain works.
When Eve was booted from the Garden, it was because she was DECEIVED by the serpent.
But Adam... nuh uh. God BEGINS by saying, "BECAUSE YOU LISTENED TO YOUR WIFE and ate from the tree of which I commanded you..."
(Continued…again)
This too is proveable by biology... in that women are the "primary culture." Women's values are society's values... what women find to be desireable, society finds to be desireable. (Women are led & educated by socialization).
However, because of the difference of the male and female... males are led by rules & principles... which means that they will MORE OFTEN (but not always) be the ones to go against the grain and lead back towards to "right path" when things go wrong. (Again, see spike vs. rhythm - there is a reason why more geniuses, as well as the mentally handicapped, are males).
There is a good biological reason why men ought to lead women, and not the other way around - in ballroom dancing, the male leads, but both are perfectly equal. Children ought not lead adults either. Goods & Charity flow like this: Man --> Woman --> Children. To put the woman before the man, means the man will starve - and eventually, so will the woman and children... the same would happen to women if you put the child before the adult - which is clearly on the agenda, See Exhibit One: Hillary Clinton's Thesis & the UN's Rights of the Child. If you want to see what happens when you put the woman before the man, you only need to look at Healthcare and Education for men/boys vs women/girls. Women do not believe in sharing with men in the same that men believe in sharing with men. Children are the same. Nobody is "wrong." It is just the way nature works. But, we are CLEARLY going to have piss women off to "fix things." Women understand the concepts of "sharing and fairness", but only when teaching children... the simply will resist like the dickens in giving fairness to men. See above, in regard to what pissed me off about Laura in this thread, and her callous disregard for men's dire health concerns.
I know you will try to pick everything I say apart, Chuck - that's fine. Many born-agains do that. Kinda like ex-smokers are the worst. But, God did not give you the omniscience to decide what is going on in my brain, nor does he give you the authority to judge my motives as evil or good. That is for Him to decide. God only demands that you follow his Word... and clearly, what I am saying is compatible with it.
You ought to be angry as snot at Laura, who outright claims herself a Christian, and yet is running around trying to convince people that God's word was kinda not true... (Hey Adam, you should try this here fruit... what does God know anyway?)
These things are timeless, and keep popping up in humanity.
Quite clearly, if we had followed the Bible, society would not be having many of the problems we seem to be having today.
The Church has become a miserable failure in actually READING the Bible itself and standing on principle, rather than kowtowing to PCism. The Catholics are making good strides, but Protestantism seems to be failing miserably.
'Nuff said, Chuck - but I too, know my Bible. And perhaps God sent you here for me to interpret it to you, and not the other way around... after all, He does work in mysterious ways.
But, my religious beliefs are my own, and between God and myself - not between God, myself, and you... he did not give you the omniscience to decide whether I am athiest or not.
I don't know ... for being a hate-filled, better-than-thou Christian, Chuckles sure doesn't seem to know the Bible that well - I give the knowledge to Rob.
Chuckles just doesn't get the hypocrisy of hating people and trying to feel superior to people ... all through a religion that is really the opposite of that.
Chuckles is one screwed up dude, I think.
TO: Tether
RE: You....
....are SO SADLY WRONG.....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Tethers
RE: Heh....
Chuckles is one screwed up dude, I think. -- Tethers
Dumber than advertised?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: Rob Fedders
RE: This 'System'....
...is acting 'screwing'.
Sometimes I can post...to that character Tethers. But when I try to post to you, I get 'kicked'.
Hopefully, I can provide a REAL reply to you tomorrow. After some eye-opening coffee.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....for those with the eyes to accept it.....]
TO: Rob Fedders
RE: Yeah?
I too know my Bible, Chuck. Maybe even better than you. -- Rob Fedders
Let's see about that. Shall we? However, did you ever hear THIS ONE????
"Satan is a better theologian than ANY man."
What does THAT mean to you? Or to others who witness this 'discussion'?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S Answer me this ONE question NOW....
Has the Christ come in the flesh?
It says to me that you might be preaching crapola.
Pride, and arogancy, and the froward mouth... these things do I hate.
Notice that God "hates" some things?
Lol! Look Chuckles, I know real Christian men... they are not poof-tarts, but they are also humble.
My father was a REAL Christian. He took it very seriously. And very humbly. I understand what it is to be a REAL Christian. It is humbleness and humility in God's face.
But don't you worry, Chuckles, God accepts the clinically insane into his Kingdom as well... so you are likely safe.
But you sure ain't doin' God no favours here.
Btw, Chuckles,
Real Christians, pray on their hands and knees, like my father did.
And as much as he didn't like it, real Christians respect their sons when they ask them why they don't go to church and get the reply: "Dad, I don't know what I believe, but I DO think it is big insult to God to go to Church when I don't want to be there."
Just before he died, he talked to me again, and said that he would feel he failed in life if he hadn't led me to God... but, as a REAL Christian, he understood what I meant when I replied, "Dad, I would like to make you happy, but it is WRONG of me to be a Christian merely for your sake. My relationship between God and myself is between God and myself, and anything else is false."
If I could talk to my Dad again, I would like to tell him he showed me something really powerful the way he walked into the hospital. (I think we were the only two who kinda knew he was gonna die.).
He had the power of God with him. And I knew it. And I felt it. I really did. I don't know if it is a human manifestation, or if it is really God. But I knew it was REAL. And I swore never to mock it again.
I know what real Christianity is.
But, what you are doing here is useless.
There are some Christian men here... I know Trey is one of them, and I can recognize that he is trying to bear witness.
Now, that is not to say that I agree with everything what he says... but, I respect his beliefs.
I also wish the Church would move away from Ned Flanders and back into REAL MEN. Christianity is very masculine. It is actually, designed for men. It is based on principles in the face of adversity. And it calls upon men to adhere to those principles no matter the political or social climate. This is very masculine.
The Church has become very feminine, and it is no surprise to me that men are bailing on it in droves. Men seek the church to re-enforce their principled beliefs, and yet, the Church has become totally feminized, and such, is repugnant to men.
It infuriates me to hear "Christian women" yip and yap about the Church.
There was a reason why women were not allowed to lead the Church.
Laura's moral relativism, and anti-God's word style of Christianity is a biiiiiiiig part of it. She should SHUT HER MOUTH - like God tells her to!
The Church has become a disgrace. This bastion of principled beliefs and raw faith has been undermined and feminized. Men ought to abandon it. It is no longer real.
The Pope intrigues me... he's got some balls! I wonder if the Catholic Church will make a resurgence, and if it will be because its "thinkers" have forsaken sex.
Like I said before, even though I am protestant (and very strictly protestant - though not Baptist - heh, heh, fooled ya!), I find Protestantism to be disgusting. They are just manipulating the Bible into whatever they wish, to match the political climate of the day.
Ummm... wasn't that why we had the Reformation?
Wouldn't it be odd, if the Catholics "reformed" the "Reformation"?
So far, it looks like this is the direction of things.
I don't fully understand Catholocism. I am uncomfortable about the deification of Mary and the Saints.
But, I also don't fully understand it.
But, the Catholics are leading the charge - boldly. With the Bible in front of them. Which is more than the Protestants can say.
Lol! But Chuckles, I don't know what to make out of your beliefs, except to ignore them. Forcing people into Christianity is ALSO wrong.
Laura, however, should start to SHUT HER MOUTH - like the Bible tells her to.
Either you are a Christian and you follow the Bible, or you are a fembot supremacist, and you are in rebellion and are blaspheming. There are grey areas in the Bible, but this is NOT one of them.
Laura wants to be both, and she is blasphemous.
Even as a non-Church goer, I am offended by this hypocracy from her. God is probably more so. It's pretty bloody clear, and Laura is adamant in flipping God the bird, as well as me. Yup, the Garden story all over again! The Church is sunk! Because you listened to your wife... (Hey, I didn't say it! God did!)
Whether the Bible is Divine Inspired or not... I recognize that if God DOES exist, this is the book he would write... and if God does NOT exist, well, then Holy Cripes! The men who wrote this book were not just a bunch of desert crawlers looking for tasty bugs to eat, they were WAAAAAAAYYYYY beyond us in understanding human nature, and we should shut up and listen.
But, nobody should listen to Laura - like it was told to us.
By the way, Chamster,
I can provide you with definitive PROOF that you know exactly what I am talking about in regard to passive aggressive female campaigns.
I've had this conversation with you before... and here you are again, denying the obvious, and playing righteous bitch.
I've got a memory like an elephant.
In that conversation, you started out passive aggressive just like this one...
Bull = Horns.
In that conversation, you tried to passive aggressively mock the detailed differences between men's and women's aggression that I provided earlier in this thread... and when I call you on your bullshit tactics, you slinked back, and then started ranting and railing about all the bitchiness of women at your work... sending damaging e-mails, sabotaging eachother... noteable though, was that you only viewed it as female on female aggression, and denied it could be female --> male aggression - or diminished it greatly.
And now, here you are again.
I think it was in August '08. But you can go there and erase it yourself.
We're not all stupid, you know.
Despite what Cosmo says.
I think I said then too, it is amazing that you can catch women in their own traps this way.
TO: Rob Fedders
RE: In ALL....
....of your rambling on and on about how much you know about REAL christians and REAL christianity....
.....I didn't see you answer my simple question....
Has the Christ come in the flesh?
Did I miss it....there was so much to read from you.
Of did you not answer the question?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. In all of your anger, I suspect you'd have serious problems recognizing a real christian if he did you a good turn.....
You'd probably bite him/her.....
P.P.S. Where you said.....
Forcing people into Christianity is ALSO wrong. -- Rob Fedders
....just to keep thing straight....
....please show us where I, or anyone else here, is 'forcing people into Christianity'.
Go on.....
"I don't fully understand Catholicism. I am uncomfortable about the deification of Mary and the Saints.
Note to Rob Fedders: Catholics don't worship Mary and the saints. Worship is for God alone. But He is God of the living, not the dead; we venerate the saints and treat them as family because we profess a belief in the "communion of saints".
Those who have gone to their reward due to a life of sanctity or martyrdom have the privilege to pray for and strengthen their brethren here. (Aside: it's interesting how popular culture twists everything opposite to the gospel. Book and movie plots always portray people on earth being reached by the tormented souls who died badly, and portray the blessed as stuck on the other side of the divide, powerless to cross. In reality, power over death belongs to the glorified.)
The prayers of a righteous man avail much, so why not get to know the saints and ask them to pray for us?
(OK, there are some who treat the saints as wish-fulfillment engines. But that's not unique to Catholicism; some Protestants do that too, except they take their wishes for winning lottery tickets, etc., straight to God. It's not an improvement.)
TO: Craig
RE: Rob Fedders
It is my considered opinion that Rob has SERIOUS 'issues'. Not only with women, but also with God and life itself.
I think it particularly significant that he hasn't answered my simple question. And whereas English Common Law looks upon silence as 'affirmation', I think in Rob's case we should look upon HIS silence as answering in the 'negative', i.e., wishing to avoid actually answering in the first place, as it might get him (1) exposed or (2) cross-wise with HIS 'boss'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
Craig,
Thank-you for your clarification to me on this issue.
---
Chuck,
This will be my last response to you - ever.
I already clearly said that one cannot ignore what was said in the Old Testament by claiming that the coming of Christ has fulfilled the Old Covenant (teachings on gender & family), and therefore we can ignore it. Because in the New Testament (The New Covenant), He clearly re-establishes those roles in a fashion similar to in the Old Testament. They are constant all the way through.
And, to quote a self-righteous, sanctimonous, born-again who clearly believes that accepting Christ into his heart means that he has been granted the omniscience of God and therefore the authority to judge other men with it by continually suggesting I am a Satanist...
"Do you have any reading comprehention?"
"Are you a member of Densa?"
You implying that you have these powers that are clearly reserved only for God suggests that maybe YOU ought to look into your heart, and examine whether your self-righteous smugness was placed there by God, or by the Satan you're so fond of accusing me of worshipping.
God talks about people like you, Chuck. A good place to start would be to examine how Jesus talked about the Pharisees. You can find those stories in the New Testament... you know, that part of the Bible that discusses when Jesus left his footprints on the earth with his fleshy feet.
Btw, Chuck. You seem to think that Christianity means pansiness.
Jesus was no Ned Flanders pansy.
He went against the social mores of the day, he went against the government of the day, and he went against the church of the day - and its leaders.
Go stick your nose back into the Book. It's where the answers are.
In the meantime, each time you open your mouth, I will repeat this three times, and then ignore you:
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.
Wow... this chuck is completely inappropriate in his line of questioning, that is in his pressing the question, 'did Christ come in the flesh'... which may be appropriate in some fired up in person situation but certainly this is way out of line in 'blog comments'. He is trying to abuse 1 Jn 4.10 i believe and find a horn to hang you as being of the devil. This is wacko and best and again, completely inappropriate.
I have been a Xn all my life and spent some time overseas as mission field but nothing i hate worse than busybody Christians going passive aggressive and all syrupy save-ie.
I am with Rob 98% on this one, very intelligent comments and i just loved his rants, so refreshing.
Chuck owes Rob and everyone on here an apology... for prissy condescending 'religious' attitude and passive aggressive [read: cloaked] and patently offensive, terribly judgemental line of questioning. Sir chuck need go sit in the corner and gain a little humility and a week of silence like the olde monks of old would do you some good, and the rest of us as well.
ok... be it 1st John 4:3 ... is the reference to which Chuck the chuckle is sickly referring to with his cloaked 'devious' question. A bit sick, IMHO.
TO: don
RE: Last Thinks, First
this chuck is completely inappropriate in his line of questioning, that is in his pressing the question, 'did Christ come in the flesh'... -- don
How is that, don? I'm just gauging Rob for his 'christian' nature. It's a simple question. He only needs to say "Yes" or "No". What's the problem with that?
Or, perhaps, your own 'nerve' has been touched?
Okay. Since you take umbrage at the question, I ask it of you too. Just so I understand, properly, where YOU are 'coming from'.
As for your 'honest opinion', I suspect you're projecting about what is 'sick'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
P.S. Care to get back 'on-topic'?
P.P.S. So....
Chuck owes Rob and everyone on here an apology... -- don
....you expect an 'apology'?
For telling the truth?
How VERY 'odd'.....
TO: Rob Fedders
RE: Yeah??!??!?!
This will be my last response to you - ever. -- Rob Fedders
Well....
....I've heard THAT line before. And I have SERIOUS doubts as to its veracity.
And, to quote a self-righteous, sanctimonous, born-again who clearly believes that accepting Christ into his heart means that he has been granted the omniscience of God and therefore the authority to judge other men with it by continually suggesting I am a Satanist... -- Rob Fedders
Rob.....
....you STILL have not answered the simple question I asked you.
Instead, you're tap-dancing around it like someone trying their level best to avoid answering this SIMPLE QUESTION.
Why is that?
RE: Pansies? Moi!!?!?!
Btw, Chuck. You seem to think that Christianity means pansiness.
Jesus was no Ned Flanders pansy. -- Rob Fedders
Please show me where I said anythink like that. Indeed, you still haven't answered my previous questions about:
[1] Christ in the flesh.
[2] Where did anyone here call for 'forcing christianity' on people.
In truth, I'm beginning to think you're an outright liar. Of a very clever sort. But still and all....a prevaricator, at least.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Prevaricator, n., a liar in the maggot stage of development. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, syndicated columnist in the 19th Century]
P.S. And by the by....
....since when are airborne-rangers 'pansies'?
I'd like to see you make that statement, in a loud form, in a particular bar outside of Benning School for Boys.
Make sure your health insurance is paid up.....
TO: Rob Fedders
RE: Upon Reflection....
....in light of your skill at 'tap-dancing'....
....especially since you've refused to answer the first simple question and likely won't answer any of the others I've asked you....
....it is my honestly held opinion that you ARE not a 'christian'. And therefore, cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything.....
.....except as you might be able to twist it to some advantage.
Therefore....
TO: All
RE: Rob Fedders
....I recommend taking whatever this character says with the proverbial 'grain of salt'. He's hardly what most rational people would identify as an 'honest reporter'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
TO: Dr. Helen
RE: [Sort of-OT] A Possible 'Doctorate' Study....
....Maybe not for psychology. But certainly for theology.....
Why is it that 'people' won't answer a simple question?
A question like.....
Has the Christ come in the flesh?
I've asked this same question a number of times. And more times than not, there is NO RESPONSE!
Why IS that? A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice. But, oddly enough, there are darned few people who respond. And most of those few respond in the "Yes".
It's VERY curious.....don't you think?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out......unfortunately.....]
Chuck:
People don't answer because you are being gratuitously offensive, a clanging cymbal.
Rob is not obligated to answer any of your questions. Posting is currently still voluntary in every blog comments-box on the Internet.
You do Christianity no credit by hectoring, even on the points about which you are correct. Your tactic can best be described as anti-evangelization, seemingly devised to inoculate others against desiring to know Jesus Christ and Christians further. As they say: win an argument, lose a soul.
TO: craig
RE: Ansswering
People don't answer because you are being gratuitously offensive, a clanging cymbal. -- craig
Since when is point to the truth "being gratuitously offensive"?
Well....
....I think I know the answer to that one {nudge-nudge, wink-wink}. We've seen it happen so often before.
On the other hand, you're wrong.....
....they DO 'answer'. They, like Rob, just don't answer direct questions.
There's something of a difference. Don't you think?
I mean SERIOUSLY.....
I've been pointing out that a lot of answers to the problems people like Rob and MB and JG and others have been complaining about just require personal self-discipline and a better understanding of the nature of women. And a LOT of that information can be found in that Old Book.
And THAT is 'gratuitously offensive'?
Is it? Please answer me that question.
Likewise, is it 'forcing christianity on people'? To ask them to read a book?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Looking forward to your reply.....
P.P.S. Am I being 'gratuitously offensive' NOW?
Chuck.
"...they DO 'answer'. They, like Rob, just don't answer direct questions."
It is not for you to call Rob to account. God can call him to account. You cannot. You're taking on way too much here.
Chuckles,
I think I'm going to join Rob and just tune you out. A person simply can't talk to you like a normal human being - for whatever reason (either you're a troll or just a gigantic dumb-shit).
If you keep hitting all the other little kids in the sandbox on the head with your plastic shovel, they aren't going to play with you anymore. And occasionally a little psycho is going to hit you back, and it's not going to be with a plastic shovel.
But carry on soldier!
Where is Pablo when you need him?
Since when is point to the truth "being gratuitously offensive"?
1 Corinthians 13:
1 If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
Faith and politics are some tough subjects for us (we?) mere mortals.
It never ends.
As Tmink said way up there, maybe it's about going our own way, becoming mountain men (in real terms, if possible) with the addition of taking your Bible with you when you go. I lived in the southern Appalachians for 12 years, and I want to get back there. It is a goal, and I hope to live long enough to pull it off.
Sometimes I want to be around people (in general), most times I don't. But 8 to 10 hours a day, every day, is way too much. I used to think it was me. Na.
It's when you get arrogant, preachy assholes in your ranks that just won't shut up about things people don't want to hear about that you start to lose people, because nobody wants to be on their side.
I'd rather live under a gynocracy that with people like Chuck and Pablo in charge.
TO: Laura
RE: Please Learn to Read English
It is not for you to call Rob to account. God can call him to account. You cannot. You're taking on way too much here. -- Laura
Asking that question is not 'judging' someone. I'm just trying to understand where he stands. And in a more direct manner than the way you two have been having at each other.
You, supposedly, should know better. After all, isn't it written....
Test every spirit?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
TO: craig
RE: Love & Talk
If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. -- Corinthians, as cited by craig
Show me how I do not 'love' Rob by asking him simple questions.
Also, please explain how showing someone possible solutions to their problem(s) in that Old Book is NOT 'love'.
RE: [OT] Saving Souls
As they say: win an argument, lose a soul. -- craig
It is not my place, nor is it your place to save a soul. The only One who can do such is Christ, through the Holy Spirit.
All we can do, like Paul, whom you cite from Corinthians, is witness to the Truth. And, like Paul in Iconium and other places, there will be those who hate the message and damn the messenger. All because he witnessed to them about God.
I would think that you would remember such. And recognize the parallels between what happened then and what is happening here and now.
On the other hand, what would YOU do?
"Shut up"?
RE: Seeking Answers
I mean SERIOUSLY....
....look at Pete's statement. For all intents and purposes, people like Pete don't want to hear that there are answers to these issues in that Old Book.
What sort of 'mentality' is that?
It seems that these people just want to 'hate'. They're stuck in a rut and don't care to find a way out of it.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.]
P.S. How do you witness to a spirit that is not of God?
TO: br549
RE: You're Right....
Faith and politics are some tough subjects for us (we?) mere mortals.
It never ends. -- br549
...it doesn't.
And it takes perseverance, too.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one nor the other. -- John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn]
TO: craig, and some others
RE: Ever Read....
....Niven & Pournelle's Inferno?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Hell is empty and all the devils are here. -- The Tempest]
It's your Hell. You go there.
Chuck.
"You, supposedly, should know better. After all, isn't it written....
Test every spirit?"
Here it is, from I John 4
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
This is about discerning real from false prophets. Your worrying the daylights out of people asking questions that they are under no obligation to entertain would only fall under "testing the spirits" if those people had set themselves up to be prophets.
"I'm just trying to understand where he stands." Rob has made it abundantly clear where he stands. If you don't understand where he stands, I suggest you go back and read his comments. One thing he is not, is inarticulate.
TO: Laura
RE: [OT] The Basis
"You, supposedly, should know better. After all, isn't it written....
Test every spirit?" -- Chuck Pelto to Laura
Here it is, from I John 4
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." -- Laura, citing that Old Book
This is about discerning real from false prophets. -- Laura
Yes. It IS about ‘false prophets’. Good of you to notice that.
Now.....
....please explain what IS a ‘false prophet’?
As there is no longer an official office of Prophet: it passed away sometime in the older part of that Old Book. And recognizing that the newer part recognizes that ‘false prophets’ will appear. How does one recognize someone who is ‘false’ vis-a-vis God?
RE: Worrying People
Your worrying the daylights out of people asking questions that they are under no obligation to entertain would only fall under "testing the spirits" -- Laura
In truth, the only people who are being ‘worried’ are those who recognize the nature of their relationship with YouKnowWho. Their ‘reluctance’ to answer that simple question and all the wild gyrations they go through to avoid it are quite ‘interesting’, if not down-right ‘indicative’.
And maybe it’s a good think they should reflect on that, one way or another.
RE: Who Is a ‘Prophet’
.....if those people had set themselves up to be prophets. -- Laura
Again, I ask, what is a ‘prophet’, let alone a ‘false’ one these days?
I suggest that a ‘prophet’ is anyone who comes forward and says, “This is how it is.” That includes myself.
The ‘false’ ones are those who are telling lies, whether they know it or not.
Therefore, from this perspective, anyone who is giving guidance in this venue is a ‘prophet’. The question then becomes who do the readers of articles and comments in the blogosphere recognize the liars from those who are telling the truth?
"I'm just trying to understand where he stands." -- Chuck Pelto to Laura
Rob has made it abundantly clear where he stands. If you don't understand where he stands, I suggest you go back and read his comments. One thing he is not, is inarticulate. -- Laura
I HAVE read his comments. And they are an interesting admixture of hatred and scripture.
That guy who gunned down Tiller does the same. Do you think HE is a REAL ‘christian’? I certainly don’t. If he is, he’s got SERIOUS problems with understanding what’s in that old book.
Don’t you think?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Atheism is a non-prophet organization.]
Post a Comment
<< Home