| About me: |
1/15/12
On 1/13/12, I asked a question as to whether the existence of Andrea Dworkin proved that Neanderthal women were feminists.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2650220
I recieved a lone, angry answer (no surprise there), to which I gave a rather long, thoughtful comment in reply.
On 1/15/12 , the angry answer was gone, and of course, so was my comment in reply.
I know that A'bag is really nothing more than a popularity contest veiled in a question and answer format, but really, with all of the vulgarity, sexual overtones, slamming of religion and religious people that one can detect simply by reading the questions, why is honest discussion about a controversial person bound to be stifled?
I'm well aware that those who pose as equality seeking "feminists" (actually female supremacists) are heavily represented in the A'bag staff.
Are they so averse to honest discussion - something that reveals the moral bankrupcy of feminism- that they'll delete exchanges between members?
Are they so embarrassed by the outrageous statements made by Andrea Dworkin that they'll quell any discussion that exposes her hatred of men and her influence on other women to also hate men?
Woggy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/2/11
Well the drum beats on.
In recent weeks/months, we've heard Hannah Rosen's triumphant proclamation of the "End of Men", Guy Garcia's mangina/whiteknight (take your pick) assertion that men aren't doing their duty- letting the women down- in his book "The Decline of Males", and several editorial/commentary pieces devoted to shaming young men for not wanting marriage or LTR's.
Boo hoo hoo.
Ladies, ever since Lilith you've wanted the top spot, and now you have it.
I guess you expected the men to go along with the aggregate misandry in feminist dogma, continuing to yield lifeboat seats, hold doors and die in wars, since we're duty bound to wuv you all so much- so eager to get in your pants.
Looks like it's not working out the way the hateful broads at NOW promised you; is it?
I've had occasion, recently, to converse, via A' bag, with one who seems to be preparing for the mental health field, concentrating on rape, DV and divorce.
She cites incredibly misandrist statistics- so bad, in fact, that judging by these stats, the only appropriate measures to be taken would include castration and/or interment in male-only labor camps, for all men.
Such hatred-such skewed numbers! Does she really believe that?
Why? Maybe her bad taste in men has led to her believing it, but that shouldn't suffice as justification for villifying all of us.
I had the serendipitous good fortune to happen upon the following article:
http://paulelam.blogspot.com/2010/02/psychology-of-hate.html
There, Paul exposes the naked hatred and anti-male bias of those in the mental health field.
I guess only half the human race is worth soothing.
woggy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, I had the pleasure of reading a blog entry by an Indian-American man who calls himself "The Futurist".
His credibility is that he does NOT expend all of his energies on gender issues, yet he fully realizes the destructive influence that modern social programmers have had where gender issues are concerned.
In his blog entry "The Misandry Bubble", (a highly recommended read, btw) he describes, to a tee, what I am NOT: a so-called "White Knight".
Here's an excerpt:
"many men are still stuck in the obsolete, inobservant, and self-loathing notion that chivalry and excess servility are the pathways to sex today, despite the modern reality that a woman's sexual decisions are no longer controlled by her parents, and are often casual rather than locked in matrimony. Whether such men are religious and called 'social conservatives', or effete leftists and called 'girlie men', they are effectively the same, and the term 'White Knights' can apply to the entire group. Their form of chivalry when exposed to 'feminist' histrionics results in these men harming other men at the behest of women who will never be attracted to them."
While I admire his acumen in describing the sort of groveling toad known as the White Knight, I'd be remiss to neglect praising the bulk of his article, which confirmed many things I suspected, affirmed many things I already knew, and provided a minor epiphany in other areas I hadn't yet considered.
If you consider yourself a lover of humanity, Google it, fasten your seatbelt and read it from beginning to end.
woggy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, one of the lady A'baggers called me a curmudgeon. While such a distinctive title brings an uncontrollable grin to my hairy face, I had to be sure I was actually fit to be so honored.
So, I searched the World Wide Web for the utterings of minds greater than my own, asking:
What is a Curmudgeon anyway?
A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just mankind's absurdities. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor. . . . . . They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment. . . . . . Nature, having failed to equip them with a servicable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute perception and sly wit.
Curmudgeons are mockers and debunkers whose bitterness is a symptom rather than a disease. They can't compromise their standards and can't manage the suspension of disbelief necessary for feigned cheerfulness. Their awareness is a curse.
Perhaps curmudgeons have gotten a bad rap in the same way that the messenger is blamed for the message: They have the temerity to comment on the human condition without apology. They not only refuse to applaud mediocrity, they howl it down with morose glee. Their versions of the truth unsettle us, and we hold it against them, even though they soften it with humor.
- JON WINOKUR
That about says it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can say alot of negative things about me, but one thing you can't say is that I start an argument and then run off when the room gets too hot (i.e. "unsubscribing from comments").
That's the internet equivalent of the classic "dump n' run", at it's best; at it's worst, it's condescending and rude-as if to say "I'll drop my pearls of wisdom on you, but I don't have time for your trivial objection"..."how do I know your objection is trivial? Well, you're disagreeing with me, and that obviously means you're wrong; your argument is trivial, now buzz off, peon" |
