About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 2:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thanks for your reply Peter. Your argument makes sense :-)

 

Vera,

 

"Face facts boys: the y-chromosome is just a damaged x that cannot even stand on one foot ... certainly not when it's drunk :-)"

 

Face facts girls - you have one X-chromosome too many, so that is why one of them has to be shut off!!!!! However, the X-chromosome that is switched off in each cell is not always the same one, as this is a random process. Therefore, all women are natural chimeras. For example, this is the cause of "mixed skin types" in women that cosmetic companies are always going on about. Also remember that one of your X-chromosomes comes from your father. That means that on average a woman will be composed of 50% male X. I think it is time women got in touch with their male side and became more tolerant of  "us" men and our behaviour :-)

 

The random X is why Women are so scatter-brained and emotionally all over the place :-)

 

 

 


Post 21

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 7:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A Woman's Perspective:
      
     Women are like apples on trees The best ones are at the top of the tree.
     
     Most men don't want to reach for the good ones because they are
     afraid of falling and getting hurt. Instead, they just take the rotten
     apples from the ground that aren't as good, but easy....... The apples
     at the top think something is wrong with them, when in reality, they're
     amazing. They just have to wait for the right man to come along, the one
     who's brave enough to climb all the way to the top of the tree. 
      
     Now Men.... Men are like a fine wine. They begin as grapes, and
     it's up to women to stomp the crap out of them until they turn into
     something acceptable to have dinner with.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 8:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
While I agree with the comment on women, I think the comment on men illustrates one of the sad results of the feminist movement.  I think men have been done a great disservice, and now, more often than not, they are emasculated for sport.

Jennifer


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 12:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
it is a shame that the first response is a cry of so-called 'feminist' revisionism, instead of actually taking the time to read those works and do a rational disclaimer, if possible... in effect, perpetuating the stereotype of the male-as-buffoon, instead of the thinking being...

humor is fine, but brainless ridicule only belittles the one ridiculing, not exactly what I would have thought of an objectivist as being a party to...


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 2:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I really, really liked this essay.   Great reading...

This article reminds us of the unique significance of this particular website, which I think some people have misunderstood, and which has created a lot of friction:

SOLOHQ is about Objectivism, and particularly how it applies to our sense of life.  In other words, real, actual living.  And what do we do in our daily lives?  We eat, we drink, we um... make merry (according to our various needs, of course, and in quite a number of ways that hopefully exclude consensual or nonconsensual cannibalism).  This is the all-important niche that SOLOHQ fills, and why it's drawing people to it like hillbillies to a hoedown. 

So yes, contemplative, philosophical and/or political issues are open for raising here, but always the most relevant and vibrant SOLO topics are about EDM (you remember; eating, drinking... making merry).  Sometimes I can accomodate this purpose, sometimes not... but I always try to make what I say relevant to daily life.

=========

Peter,

I once saw a TV nature special that showed that various species of wild animal would make a regular pilgrimage to a particular set of fruit-bearing trees in Africa... not to eat the ripe fruit, to to eat the overripe fruit that had since fallen to the ground and fermented

You would see them, from several species... monkeys, wild pigs, wild cats, all laying around together on the ground under that tree, enjoying a nice buzz from the booze-fruit. 

Yes, it's true... a shared drink makes friends.  I wonder if there are any animals who become mean drunks?


Post 25

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 2:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jennifer,

Bully for your "emasculation as sport" comment... I think you have pointed out the most important but concealed, real motive for male persecution.  I'm gonna quote and sanction you.

Will you marry me?  *S*


Post 26

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 10:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just might.   ;)

J


Post 27

Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
See, Jennifer - I *told* you SOLO was a much more fruitful hunting ground than Atlasphere. You're here five seconds & the handsome young men are all over you. Five seconds later, you're married!

What was that I said about delivering faster than Fedex?

Linz

Post 28

Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz,

If I manage to accomplish the magnificent feat of marriage due to my participation on this site, I will personally fly you from New Zealand to give a toast at my wedding.  And that is a promise.  ;)

Jennifer

P.S.  I can also promise the food and drink will be really good.  :)


Post 29

Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Never mind that. Just make sure your groom has a gay, single brother who likes slightly more ... er ... seasoned men!

Linz

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 2:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Speaking of the disservice feminists sometimes do to men, there have been a rash of TV commercials the last few years, in the U.S. at least, in which the man is always a total buffoon, helpless, stupid, bumbling,and rightly in awe of the woman -- while the woman is a problem-solver, decisive and intelligent, who takes on the ghastly burden of helping her idiot husband through life. These commercials are disgusting!

Post 31

Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 4:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Markus:
Your post just proves my point: some people can't swallow what they dished out ... I was merely handing back the slander to the 'feminist conspiracy' post ... if you really do want an objective discussion on sex and gender, feel free to bring up some facts and I'll happily answer with more content than sarcasm ... and for my pleasure find something more challenging than addlebrained x- and drunken y-chromosomes ;-) ...
Let's start with your challenge of getting in touch with my male side as it coincides with a funny occurence this morning when I went to the girls room at the office ... another woman was standing at the sink looking at me with a very startled expression when I came in ... after she got over her initial shock she stammered: 'Are you sure you're in the right door ...?'
Apart from refusing to be backed into those pidgeon-holes, she had a point: my hair is currently shaved to the skin and I'm wearing some of my brother's old clothes ... so don't judge a book by it's cover (Solo-picture) ... passing as a man sometimes comes in handy in my profession as a freelance computer consultant - though that's not the reason why I change gender as other people change couture. It breaks the ice of not being only an ornament to the 'hardware' in a profession that is still dominated by a great lot of machos ... though once or twice a day it also causes some very startled females, for which the feminists now can denouce me for making women's toilet an unsafe 'woman's space' :-]

Orion:
I like your 'emasculation as sport' quote which I also sanctioned ... but I can't really bother looking after the males, when many of them (as individuals, not as a group) treat me with the same prejudice you see in some of the embittered feminists ... and this emasculation comes not just from women, but from men as well ... but I'm sure you can take care of the boys - I'll keep my eyes out for the girls ;-)

VSD


Post 32

Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Vera,

I just wanted women to be more tolerant of men’s behaviour.

 

I don't want women however to think they have behave like men, walk, talk, drink, or look like men!!!

 

Heaven forbid!!!

 

Men (such as myself) love the female form and femininity in its natural state. 


Post 33

Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Point granted Markus: each to their own pleasures ... let men enjoy their pleasures - after all I'm not the one who has to live with them :-)
But my tolerance runs short when those 'pleasures' are imposed on 'unconsenting' women. That slander about 'feminist conspiracy' was trying to do just that: force women (and men) to back down on an argument presented with objective proof (as far as that is verifiable on a forum) by baiting them into a maligned (feminist) group of women. That I will never tolerate - from men or women! I still use one great 'feminist' answer to such taunts: 'Are you my alternative?'
As for the 'natural state of the female form and femininity': what do you think butches (the more masculine variety of dykes) are? To quote from the title of a great book by JoAnn Loulan: 'Femmes are no Whimps - And Butches are Women, too' ... have fun with the women you like - there's plenty of those out there :-))
VSD


Post 34

Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

Your post illustrates exactly what I mean about this phenomenon of emasculation.  It is present in so many forms of media, from television sitcoms to literature, that I often turn away from such "entertainment" in disgust.  (This is also why I don't bother to watch much television anymore.)

I am equally disgusted by couples who actively display this type of interaction in public.  When I hear a woman ridiculing her man in front of a group of friends, for example, while he sits there looking sheepish and apologetic for being a male, I want to slap both of them.

J


Post 35

Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 12:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
to the female supremacists (you know who you are)
 
""Face facts boys: the y-chromosome is just a damaged x that cannot even stand on one foot ... certainly not when it's drunk :-)"

 
define "damaged"? by what standard is something damaged? by what standard is something properly or improperly function. if you cannot substantiate this construct, you must abandon it. as it stands, this really is just as nonsensical as the "women have too many X chromosomes" comment.
 
 
"But my tolerance runs short when those 'pleasures' are imposed on 'unconsenting' women"
 
speaking of trying to get people to back down, here you do the same, by implicitly comparing our counter arguments to rape in hopes of morally intimidating us.
 
"As for the 'natural state of the female form and femininity':"
 
I will side with you on this one, vera. i'm not one for rigid aesthetic standards on gender either. actually, I sometimtes have the reverse problem of the one you mentioned: going into a male bathroom and being told its not the girl's room.  or being told that I come across as being gay or feminine without really meaning too. I do not know where this particular cue comes from, as I do nothing intentionally to this effect, but apparently I sometimes come across this way.
 
"thinking came first from the women, not the men"
 
mr malcolm: the fact of the matter is that  questions of whenever conceptual integration was first done and by whom are long lost to history and will not be resolved within our lifetimes. however, you come to assert that women, as a group, as such, thought earlier and more significantly than men. again, given that this would have happened far before the dawn of the written record, there is really no grounds to say this. but not only do you assert this, you assert that this without qualification, so as to imply that this is a categorical truth across all developing early cultures. your motivation betrays itself, mr malcolm: you are a traitor to the male gender who promotes non-verifiable mythologies in the name of promoting the post-feminist doctrine of collectivist biological superiority of women. the phrase "war children" comes to mind.
 
 
"biology is the passing of the children, without which there'd be no men... which made the women equally important.."
 
fine, but this has no connection to your earlier point: you still have not proven that women used conceptual consciousness before men did.
 
"the many facts that indeed the women were first, were better and will remain last"
 
here we have said doctrine of female biological supremacy spouted out blatantly. while females on average live longer, there is no evidence for any other point:
 
were first? for what? to what? and by how big a time frame? this statement is vague to the point of being conceptually meaningless, and serves not to present actual argument, but to rally her allies in a sexist, collectivist call for tribal pride.
 
"were better?"
this statement speaks for itself. you can literally feel the collectivist tribalism ooze out of it. females, vera flatly asserts, are superior to males. collectively. so much for individual achievement. so much for howard roark. one's worth as a human being in this world view is decided by by the fact that women are asserted to be superior, and, thusly, men are inferior. and note that no qualifications are given, clearly implying that she expects this belief to be so significant that it is unneccessary to grant qualifications and exceptions to it. contrary to this borderline naziism (replace the word "women" with the word "aryan" and what do you get?) the plain fact is that the range of abilities and moral worth is so scattered across both genders that it is senseless to declare one superior to the other, as she has done here, and that one must instead judge human beings as volitional individuals. we may also ask questions of by what standard she believes women to be superior, as this remains unexplained.
 
"will remain last"
and here, we have the final conclusive evidence of her tribal collectivism: she envisions a future in which only her collective remains, and the alternate groupings are extinct. in other words, will "remain last", after all males are dead. in other words, there is some point in the future, which vera is clearly looking forward to, in which males will be extinct and women will rule the earth alone and all XY hominid specimens are just rot and bone. I wonder, vera, do you simply believe this to be some sort of inevitability, or do you wish that women take action to enact this? the similarities between feminism and naziism become clear with even this cursory analysis, both cases believe in the utmost superiority of their tribal unit to the other, propose that their tribal unit deserve all credit for the creation of civilization, and wish, whether idly or with plans to enact also, for a future in which the other is extinct and their "master race" (or "master gender") is free to dominate the earth, unfettered from the burden of subhuman monstrosities.

(Edited by Robert Bisno on 8/26, 2:03pm)


Post 36

Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 3:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Darling Linz,

My four handsome brothers are all straight as an arrow, so I will have to compile a separate list of appropriate guests to satiate your wanton lust.

J


Post 37

Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 5:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara said: "Peter, like all great new ideas, yours seems ridiculously simple and obvious when finally stated."

Thank you Barbara for your enthusiastic endorsement of my thesis -- unfortunately your accolade was buried under several other theses not all related to my original. I thank you for it and have already framed it and hung it. Furthermore, I agree with you: the idea is both ridiculous and simple. :-)

 I trust you will enjoy in equal measure subsequent parts of the hiftory.

(Edited by Peter Cresswell on 8/26, 5:31pm)


Post 38

Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 7:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Orion and Jennifer. Think of the children! The world is saved! This is a marriage that even Hollywood could not have dreamed up.
Well if you decide to "tie the knot"* in Hollywood, I humbly offer a huge party at my house afterwards. And if you decide to marry at home, find any old excuse to come here, as long as Jennifer cooks.

*interesting expression...

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow!

Thanx for the detailed response to this post Robert.
Let me assure you (as already stated in my answer to Marcus), that I definitetly do not endorse any of the views presented in that post. I was merely taking the 'feminist conspiracy' slur to it's ridiculous conclusion by turning the tables on the men and exaggerating grossly. So you are absolutely right that I was using the same 'intimidation game', as I think it's the only answer to give to such posts.

Rational argument can only be used to counter rational arguments presented.

As for the other points about female supremacy, you are partly right. As already said I do not believe in any genetic or gender superiority (which would entail that others are just as great as I am simply by having the same genes ;-)). This is just another gender trap to make us defend 'our own camp', by putting us on a pedestal and trying to push us down. No thanx.

What I do believe in though is a superiority of women because I prefer women over men: for their physical attributes, for their intellectual attributes, for purely egoistical and emotional reasons. This superiority is of course not based on any fixed sex, race, class, religion, what-not, but simply on my own judgement of persons in my life that are of value to me - these tend to be an ovewhelming majority of women and thus are in my world 'superior' to men. 

As a result of this superiority I tend to 'overprotect' women when under any kind of attack (not just physical, but mostly verbal and emotional), and to favor their accomplishments over those of men, as they have a greater value for myself. This applies to women I have already 'evaluated' and to women of possible value to me in the future.

What this sexism does not mean is that I actively go out and 'emasculate men for sport' simply because they are men. I have too little interest in men to go to that much trouble. Kicking ass is hard work! I would prefer a world of women as of my own inclinations, and I do my best to surround myself with women of my own choice, but not at the cost of extinguishing the whole male gender.

Point in case: my brother has for years been my most trusted confidante, and the only other 'objectivist' (though he does not use that term) and creator I currently can share my views on objectivism and our (mostly parasitic) world with. I'd defend him with the same alacrity as I would any woman and praise his accomplishments with the same fervor.

My above disclaimer not withstanding let me finish my article by repeating my allegation that:

'Women were First - Are Better - Will remain Last' - to ME!

VSD


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.