R. A. Davis, c. 2009 Women
As a lifelong confirmed bachelor, the only thing I know for sure about women is this: I don't know a damned thing about women.
Well, there are some things — how could I have survived without knowing at least something about women?
I can close my eyes shut my mouth block my ears and nose, and remember how women smell & how they feel, how women taste, how they look and how they move and all those little involuntary sounds they make under certain conditions, yes, all these things about women are embedded in my psyche.
I love the sound of their voices, even when they're talking in a language I don't understand (usually the case), because somehow they make a certain sense that I can't find by myself, especially when I'm trying real hard to be logical.
I love that for about the last ten years every important message in my dreams has been delivered by a woman, usually someone I've never met & always a different woman. But I suspect they're really all a single Entity able to manifest via an infinity of guises, costumes.
I'm writing this while listening to "Taking the Long Way" by the Dixie Chicks. Thinking about the fortysomething black woman I flirted with on the bus yesterday, and if I ever run into her again I'll invite her to get off with me. Take that anyway you want.
Omygod&goddess, women head up my Bucket List. They end it, too. That's called the "Death of Kings."
I love Sarah Palin, despite my aversion to politics of the Christian Right. Don't know why. Except that 2008's Final Four consisted of two male fuddyduddies, one Tavistock freshman long on charisma and perhaps nothing else, and one woman who speaks straight and who hunts & fishes — which I don't do, having seen "Bambi" preschool, but can certainly respect as long as she eats what she takes. And the press (bless their flinty, mercenary hearts) concedes that she does.
Too preoccupied trying to become a human being to be a feminist. I like being male. Like having some height. Like my deep resonant voice, product of several decades of two packs a day plus lotsa hard liquor. I also like my male equipment — as much for what it gives as for what it gets.
Here's some advice to dudes, from a mostly loser who's learned some things the hard way:
If you're still waiting for the Dixie Chicks to apologize to George Walker Bush, you're an asshole. Go immediately to a porn site so you don't pollute the gene pool.
Still here? okay. BE YOURSELF. Impossible to overstress. BE YOURSELF. If you can't, don't be surprised if your relations with women aren't satisfying, and you end up telling yourself "women play too many games. " You deserve what you get. Look in the mirror, pal.
The major reason men and women have trouble communicating is because women are firmly rooted in something men are not. Men used to be rooted in it too, till they were raised to join armies that went out to kill other men. We men wander around rootless. And it's unfair to latch onto to any woman because you're rootless and she's not — to feed on what her roots produce. Jesus, dude, you gotta be a self-sufficient male!
Whatever this thing is that women are rooted in and most men are not, don't ask its name. You'll know it when you rediscover it.
BE YOURSELF.
And NEVER chase a woman. Because as long as you chase women, you're not gonna get laid.
Well, there are some things — how could I have survived without knowing at least something about women?
I can close my eyes shut my mouth block my ears and nose, and remember how women smell & how they feel, how women taste, how they look and how they move and all those little involuntary sounds they make under certain conditions, yes, all these things about women are embedded in my psyche.
I love the sound of their voices, even when they're talking in a language I don't understand (usually the case), because somehow they make a certain sense that I can't find by myself, especially when I'm trying real hard to be logical.
I love that for about the last ten years every important message in my dreams has been delivered by a woman, usually someone I've never met & always a different woman. But I suspect they're really all a single Entity able to manifest via an infinity of guises, costumes.
I'm writing this while listening to "Taking the Long Way" by the Dixie Chicks. Thinking about the fortysomething black woman I flirted with on the bus yesterday, and if I ever run into her again I'll invite her to get off with me. Take that anyway you want.
Omygod&goddess, women head up my Bucket List. They end it, too. That's called the "Death of Kings."
I love Sarah Palin, despite my aversion to politics of the Christian Right. Don't know why. Except that 2008's Final Four consisted of two male fuddyduddies, one Tavistock freshman long on charisma and perhaps nothing else, and one woman who speaks straight and who hunts & fishes — which I don't do, having seen "Bambi" preschool, but can certainly respect as long as she eats what she takes. And the press (bless their flinty, mercenary hearts) concedes that she does.
Too preoccupied trying to become a human being to be a feminist. I like being male. Like having some height. Like my deep resonant voice, product of several decades of two packs a day plus lotsa hard liquor. I also like my male equipment — as much for what it gives as for what it gets.
Here's some advice to dudes, from a mostly loser who's learned some things the hard way:
If you're still waiting for the Dixie Chicks to apologize to George Walker Bush, you're an asshole. Go immediately to a porn site so you don't pollute the gene pool.
Still here? okay. BE YOURSELF. Impossible to overstress. BE YOURSELF. If you can't, don't be surprised if your relations with women aren't satisfying, and you end up telling yourself "women play too many games. " You deserve what you get. Look in the mirror, pal.
The major reason men and women have trouble communicating is because women are firmly rooted in something men are not. Men used to be rooted in it too, till they were raised to join armies that went out to kill other men. We men wander around rootless. And it's unfair to latch onto to any woman because you're rootless and she's not — to feed on what her roots produce. Jesus, dude, you gotta be a self-sufficient male!
Whatever this thing is that women are rooted in and most men are not, don't ask its name. You'll know it when you rediscover it.
BE YOURSELF.
And NEVER chase a woman. Because as long as you chase women, you're not gonna get laid.
Bookmark
Comments (17)
Medal of Honor
Mr. Davis deserves a Congressional Medal of Honor for this essay, which displays remarkable courage, wisdom and candor.
One might add that there's an additional "major reason men and women have trouble communicating." It's that around women most men tend to turn off their most vital equipment: their ears. They often listen carelessly or ignore what a woman is saying, or interrupt her to change the topic, thereby implying that what she says isn't worth hearing. Men also listen with negative filters and warpers in their hearing, which can perceptually reverse the woman's actual message. (Thus, her "Yes, OK" may be heard as "Pest! Go 'way!") The result can be a comedy of errors, misperceptions and resentments, as revealed when recordings of a couple's conversation are analyzed.
Thus, a guy may be quite mistaken in assuming that he was a loser with a lady. (Anytime the inner cynic says "You loser" one should add, "of weight!"). The truth may be that he was simply clueless regarding the favorable signals she tried to convey.
One might add that there's an additional "major reason men and women have trouble communicating." It's that around women most men tend to turn off their most vital equipment: their ears. They often listen carelessly or ignore what a woman is saying, or interrupt her to change the topic, thereby implying that what she says isn't worth hearing. Men also listen with negative filters and warpers in their hearing, which can perceptually reverse the woman's actual message. (Thus, her "Yes, OK" may be heard as "Pest! Go 'way!") The result can be a comedy of errors, misperceptions and resentments, as revealed when recordings of a couple's conversation are analyzed.
Thus, a guy may be quite mistaken in assuming that he was a loser with a lady. (Anytime the inner cynic says "You loser" one should add, "of weight!"). The truth may be that he was simply clueless regarding the favorable signals she tried to convey.
,
July 23, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
The Chase
While it's hard to go along with some of the idiosyncratic views of Mr. Davis (e.g., the appeal of Sarah Palin), they're expressed in a gutsy, entertaining style. Even his sweeping pronouncements, proclaimed as do-it-or-be-damned edicts to his fellow man, have real amusement value but seem in need of explanation or at least qualification.
For example, the commonplace to "Be Yourself" is probably intended to mean something about being authentic in personality and/or using one's real name. Taken literlly, however, it would suggest that a slob shouldn't shower and a brute should be his usual rude self on a date. Better advice would be to improve yourself, or show your best side.
The last line of the essay is an odd bit of advice, delivered ex cathedra: "NEVER chase a woman." Comparable advice was traditionally given to young girls by their mothers and grandmothers: "Never chase a boy." This would seem to be an example of the gender role reversal that Celia Farber lamented so eloquently in "Night Glitter". I'd suggest that the advice is valid only if qualified, e.g., Never chase a woman who's hostile,
If male birds followed Mr. Davis' advice, there's be a silent spring. If horses and other mammals followed suit the females would be fallow. In humans, also, "The Chase" is very much a part of courtship rituals, and probably an instinctual requirement for it demnstrates male interest, determination, and fitness. However friendly a woman may act, at some point she's likely to take flight, saying "Nice to meet you, Good night!" as she dashes on, or raising objections if she remains. While followers of R.L. Davis may give up at that point, presuming that she's a lost cause or will return in a minute, they'd be wrong on both counts.
Actual field research has shown repeatedly and consistently that a friendly-responding woman who dashes off is nearly always pleased when the fellow chases after her and resumes the conversation. The rule should be: if you're interested, gentlemen, do give chase for "faint heart ne'er won fair lady."
For example, the commonplace to "Be Yourself" is probably intended to mean something about being authentic in personality and/or using one's real name. Taken literlly, however, it would suggest that a slob shouldn't shower and a brute should be his usual rude self on a date. Better advice would be to improve yourself, or show your best side.
The last line of the essay is an odd bit of advice, delivered ex cathedra: "NEVER chase a woman." Comparable advice was traditionally given to young girls by their mothers and grandmothers: "Never chase a boy." This would seem to be an example of the gender role reversal that Celia Farber lamented so eloquently in "Night Glitter". I'd suggest that the advice is valid only if qualified, e.g., Never chase a woman who's hostile,
If male birds followed Mr. Davis' advice, there's be a silent spring. If horses and other mammals followed suit the females would be fallow. In humans, also, "The Chase" is very much a part of courtship rituals, and probably an instinctual requirement for it demnstrates male interest, determination, and fitness. However friendly a woman may act, at some point she's likely to take flight, saying "Nice to meet you, Good night!" as she dashes on, or raising objections if she remains. While followers of R.L. Davis may give up at that point, presuming that she's a lost cause or will return in a minute, they'd be wrong on both counts.
Actual field research has shown repeatedly and consistently that a friendly-responding woman who dashes off is nearly always pleased when the fellow chases after her and resumes the conversation. The rule should be: if you're interested, gentlemen, do give chase for "faint heart ne'er won fair lady."
,
July 24, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
...
R. A. Davis writes with an engaging combination of subtle humor and poetic flashes. I especially liked the part about how the different women in his dreams may be "really all a single Entity able to manifest via an infinity of guises, costumes." One suspects this might also be true of the women in ones life.
Looking back, most men can probably recall an occasion when a special woman fell into ones life seemingly from heaven without any chasing or even much effort on ones part. However, if one's not very handsome, rich or famous, one will probably need to do some chasing along the way. Most men can probably also recall experiences of women they successfully chased. Davis' contention that such behavior would lead only to a life of celibacy is obviously a comical conjecture which has been thoroughly disproven by skirt chasers the world over.
But what's called "The Chase" is not necessarily a one-sided pursuit. In birds and animals as well well as humans, it can resemble a mutual game of tag or even a ballet, in which both parties take turns chasing the other. The movie "Tango" made a striking analogy of the mating game to the retreating and advancing steps of the dance, and even showed how the "Davis tactic" of Zen forbearance can bring a fleeing woman back to the man.
The previous commenter misstated the name of Celia Farber's novel; it's "Night Vision" and the introduction can be found in the Novel section on the masthead. Well worth reading!
Looking back, most men can probably recall an occasion when a special woman fell into ones life seemingly from heaven without any chasing or even much effort on ones part. However, if one's not very handsome, rich or famous, one will probably need to do some chasing along the way. Most men can probably also recall experiences of women they successfully chased. Davis' contention that such behavior would lead only to a life of celibacy is obviously a comical conjecture which has been thoroughly disproven by skirt chasers the world over.
But what's called "The Chase" is not necessarily a one-sided pursuit. In birds and animals as well well as humans, it can resemble a mutual game of tag or even a ballet, in which both parties take turns chasing the other. The movie "Tango" made a striking analogy of the mating game to the retreating and advancing steps of the dance, and even showed how the "Davis tactic" of Zen forbearance can bring a fleeing woman back to the man.
The previous commenter misstated the name of Celia Farber's novel; it's "Night Vision" and the introduction can be found in the Novel section on the masthead. Well worth reading!
,
July 26, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
The Chaste
Good article, with some interesting comments by a couple of would-be men about town. But have any of these august authorities on women ever gone on a date? Can any of them recall ever actually getting, um, lucky? I mean with a real woman, not an inflatable doll.
The first commenter seems to chaulk it up as a big success if one can catch up to an already friendly gal crossing the street and get her to say "Hi" again. Although the article could have been more specific, I think it meant something different by "Never chase a woman," such as: Don't relentlessly pursue an unfriendly woman to the point of being a pest or stalker. Something more serious than catching up.
The same commenter claims that recordings of conversations, when analyzed, show that women often say "Yes" when men hear them say "No." Sure, if the analysis involves playing the tape backwards. Women are always speaking in a code that makes sense only if heard backwards. A more careful tape analysis, however, would probably show that she did indeed make a secret mumbled utterance. It was "Get lost, Bozo!"
The second commenter is apparently a juvenile who thinks that the "mating game" refers to a game of tag. He believes it can be mastered by learning some fancy Tango steps, cause they showed that in a movie. In fact, I saw that 1999 Argentinian movie called Tangohttp://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1033175321/ ( see Trailer) and would also recommend it for the fine dancing and great musical score by Lalo Schifrin. It had an intriguing philosophical theme that "Love is a Tango" - but it was, after all, just a movie
The first commenter seems to chaulk it up as a big success if one can catch up to an already friendly gal crossing the street and get her to say "Hi" again. Although the article could have been more specific, I think it meant something different by "Never chase a woman," such as: Don't relentlessly pursue an unfriendly woman to the point of being a pest or stalker. Something more serious than catching up.
The same commenter claims that recordings of conversations, when analyzed, show that women often say "Yes" when men hear them say "No." Sure, if the analysis involves playing the tape backwards. Women are always speaking in a code that makes sense only if heard backwards. A more careful tape analysis, however, would probably show that she did indeed make a secret mumbled utterance. It was "Get lost, Bozo!"
The second commenter is apparently a juvenile who thinks that the "mating game" refers to a game of tag. He believes it can be mastered by learning some fancy Tango steps, cause they showed that in a movie. In fact, I saw that 1999 Argentinian movie called Tangohttp://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1033175321/ ( see Trailer) and would also recommend it for the fine dancing and great musical score by Lalo Schifrin. It had an intriguing philosophical theme that "Love is a Tango" - but it was, after all, just a movie
,
July 27, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
The simple truth about women
Extraordinary discussion, reminiscent of Freud, who also admitted he did not understand women, by concocting absurd theories and finding they did not work.
The fundamental problem is that those with great experience with women rarely have great intelligence, otherwise they wouldn't bother to waste it in such a fashion. As Schopenhauer noticed, women rarely have anything worthwhile to say as long as they are preoccupied with attracting men, and this phase lasts as long as they are attractive to men in most cases.
So pursuing attractive women is a guarantee of mental inertia for as long as it lasts, and many who waste their youth in this game later regret the world shaking achievement they did not make, as a result.
But what is the eternal truth they do learn, small though it is? As one who wasted years in this pursuit, to very little avail, it is this. Women want presentable men who are anxious to fund their activities, and who will support them with love and encouragement, and constantly tell them how wonderful they are. Youth is a factor - an advantage because it implies idealism, and this the willingness to let women pull the wool over their eyes. Age is a factor, also - the more of it, the more wisdom and more financial resources to fund the female's nesting urges.
Essentially, it all boils down to wearing a clean shirt, and keeping one's credit cards functional. One can never reasonably demand anything at all from any woman once in their power, so just be grateful when you escape it.
The secret of marital harmony, of course, is always to use the word Yes at frequent intervals, preferably not longer than twenty seconds.
But is this necessary, one may ask, if one has married an intelligent female? No, indeed. Then one may simply grunt in acquiescence.
On the whole, the principle seems to be that women must rule the world, or they are not happy. The trick is to give them that impression, as Obama has managed to give Hillary, even when it is not true.
The fundamental problem is that those with great experience with women rarely have great intelligence, otherwise they wouldn't bother to waste it in such a fashion. As Schopenhauer noticed, women rarely have anything worthwhile to say as long as they are preoccupied with attracting men, and this phase lasts as long as they are attractive to men in most cases.
So pursuing attractive women is a guarantee of mental inertia for as long as it lasts, and many who waste their youth in this game later regret the world shaking achievement they did not make, as a result.
But what is the eternal truth they do learn, small though it is? As one who wasted years in this pursuit, to very little avail, it is this. Women want presentable men who are anxious to fund their activities, and who will support them with love and encouragement, and constantly tell them how wonderful they are. Youth is a factor - an advantage because it implies idealism, and this the willingness to let women pull the wool over their eyes. Age is a factor, also - the more of it, the more wisdom and more financial resources to fund the female's nesting urges.
Essentially, it all boils down to wearing a clean shirt, and keeping one's credit cards functional. One can never reasonably demand anything at all from any woman once in their power, so just be grateful when you escape it.
The secret of marital harmony, of course, is always to use the word Yes at frequent intervals, preferably not longer than twenty seconds.
But is this necessary, one may ask, if one has married an intelligent female? No, indeed. Then one may simply grunt in acquiescence.
On the whole, the principle seems to be that women must rule the world, or they are not happy. The trick is to give them that impression, as Obama has managed to give Hillary, even when it is not true.
,
July 27, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
Writer
Well, well! I'm so glad to have sparked some comment, whether or not it agrees with what I wrote. Thank you all.
Taken in toto, the gist of your several opinions suggests women remain a mystery to most men, and that most of us define women based on our experience of them. Reasonable, I suppose.
Taken in toto, the gist of your several opinions suggests women remain a mystery to most men, and that most of us define women based on our experience of them. Reasonable, I suppose.
,
July 30, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
As interesting for what it reveals as what it does not
The raging hatred of Sarah Palin always tells me far more about the men, particularly the men of the left, who express the hatred and contempt than it does about Palin herself. What it says about the women of the left is equally revealing, although since the essay is mostly about how a man sees women we'll leave that aside.
And by the way, I'm not waiting for the Dixie Chicks. After all, they acted like complete assholes, then played victim, as so many people are wont to, when they got called out for acting like assholes. Women do have this ability in this culture--to act like complete assholes and then get defended simply because they're women. Which is remarkable not only because it's true, but because of the blind rage people will fly into when you point out that it's true--even though it obviously is. So no, I'm not waiting for the apology; after all, women are never expected to apologize when they act like complete jerks.
What I've also learned most about women is that they mostly don't like us when we're being ourselves. Or they might like us when we're being ourselves but don't want to "be with" us. We spill so much ink on how men don't understand women, but never consider how little they understand us.
And is it honestly true that men were different until we were "raised to join armies" and kill other men? I rather doubt it. Indeed, I think it's such a bad cliche it barely rises to the level of risible. People, men and women, have been forming groups to go out and kill since before we were even people. If we weren't killing animals to eat, we were killing other people who were competing with us to get whatever meat or other goodies we wanted. Oh, sure, the men usually do most of that when it comes to hunting and war, but women have always--always--supported men doing that, and played their own hand in killing for what they want. It shows a remarkable contempt for (and ignorance of) the female half of the species to suggest otherwise.
If what you're saying is that you don't want to change yourself, shouldn't change yourself, just to please a member of the opposite sex, I applaud. But that's easier said than done, especially when you're young, because (whether you're male or female) the urge to find a mate and procreate is very strong, at any age but especially when young, and doing this requires a boatload of compromises that are often difficult for men and women both. The sexes just generally have different struggles to make that happen.
Seeing each other as human beings with more in common than not is a good start. Realizing that the few areas we don't have in common still tend to loom large is also helpful. Imposing rationality on it all is necessary, but also necessarily limited as too much goes on at levels that aren't entirely rational--competition, self-worth, and sexuality don't always conform very well to the rational, or what we'd like to think of as rational.
I'm no great success with the opposite sex myself, but I do know this: relationships are tough, especially when you both want things from each other that aren't always easy to deliver.
And by the way, I'm not waiting for the Dixie Chicks. After all, they acted like complete assholes, then played victim, as so many people are wont to, when they got called out for acting like assholes. Women do have this ability in this culture--to act like complete assholes and then get defended simply because they're women. Which is remarkable not only because it's true, but because of the blind rage people will fly into when you point out that it's true--even though it obviously is. So no, I'm not waiting for the apology; after all, women are never expected to apologize when they act like complete jerks.
What I've also learned most about women is that they mostly don't like us when we're being ourselves. Or they might like us when we're being ourselves but don't want to "be with" us. We spill so much ink on how men don't understand women, but never consider how little they understand us.
And is it honestly true that men were different until we were "raised to join armies" and kill other men? I rather doubt it. Indeed, I think it's such a bad cliche it barely rises to the level of risible. People, men and women, have been forming groups to go out and kill since before we were even people. If we weren't killing animals to eat, we were killing other people who were competing with us to get whatever meat or other goodies we wanted. Oh, sure, the men usually do most of that when it comes to hunting and war, but women have always--always--supported men doing that, and played their own hand in killing for what they want. It shows a remarkable contempt for (and ignorance of) the female half of the species to suggest otherwise.
If what you're saying is that you don't want to change yourself, shouldn't change yourself, just to please a member of the opposite sex, I applaud. But that's easier said than done, especially when you're young, because (whether you're male or female) the urge to find a mate and procreate is very strong, at any age but especially when young, and doing this requires a boatload of compromises that are often difficult for men and women both. The sexes just generally have different struggles to make that happen.
Seeing each other as human beings with more in common than not is a good start. Realizing that the few areas we don't have in common still tend to loom large is also helpful. Imposing rationality on it all is necessary, but also necessarily limited as too much goes on at levels that aren't entirely rational--competition, self-worth, and sexuality don't always conform very well to the rational, or what we'd like to think of as rational.
I'm no great success with the opposite sex myself, but I do know this: relationships are tough, especially when you both want things from each other that aren't always easy to deliver.
,
August 02, 2009
|
-
- +0
-
-
...
Yeah, pretty much what I expected.
"The Dixie Chicks acted luck fucking asshole"--which they did--does not play into the "ooh poor women as pathetic victims" mentality that's so popular.
But yeah, I'm saying it. Fucking assholes who didn't get half the kicking around they deserved. Elitist, pompous fucking assholes.
Ooh, but we're evil for saying so. We must "hate women" for saying so.
Because it's always bad to criticize women, right?
Yeah, you "progressives" you.
"The Dixie Chicks acted luck fucking asshole"--which they did--does not play into the "ooh poor women as pathetic victims" mentality that's so popular.
But yeah, I'm saying it. Fucking assholes who didn't get half the kicking around they deserved. Elitist, pompous fucking assholes.
Ooh, but we're evil for saying so. We must "hate women" for saying so.
Because it's always bad to criticize women, right?
Yeah, you "progressives" you.
,
August 03, 2009
|
-
- +0
-
-
Hurray for the Dixie Chicks
The previous comment exemplifies the blatant misogyny of the right-wing supporters of the Cheney-Bush administration and of their rush to an unnecessary war. Why was the level of villification that was heaped on the Dixie Chicks never directed against male singers who at the same time were publicly opposing the Iraq war, such as Bruce Springsteen, Richie Havens, and Harry Belafonte? Is it because of an old-fashioned attitude that war and politics are topics reserved for the menfolk, and that women should confine their attention to children, cooking and sewing?
Ironically, it was at the "Bush Empire Theatre" in London on 3/10/2003 that Dixie Chick Natalie Maines, lead singer of the Texas group, made the fateful remark that started the controversy. "Just so you know...We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States if from Texas"
Contrary to the suggestion of Mr. Davis, the Dixie Chicks did apologise. After a storm of outrage from the American right, Dixie Chick Maines issued this statement on 3/14/2003:: "I apologise to President Bush beause my remark was disrespectful." Here's the CNNnews report: http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBI...index.html The apology did little, however, to appease the rightwing bullies and their intolerance of dissent by women. In 2006, the Dixie Chicks expressed regret that they ever bothered to apologize.
Ironically, it was at the "Bush Empire Theatre" in London on 3/10/2003 that Dixie Chick Natalie Maines, lead singer of the Texas group, made the fateful remark that started the controversy. "Just so you know...We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States if from Texas"
Contrary to the suggestion of Mr. Davis, the Dixie Chicks did apologise. After a storm of outrage from the American right, Dixie Chick Maines issued this statement on 3/14/2003:: "I apologise to President Bush beause my remark was disrespectful." Here's the CNNnews report: http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBI...index.html The apology did little, however, to appease the rightwing bullies and their intolerance of dissent by women. In 2006, the Dixie Chicks expressed regret that they ever bothered to apologize.
,
August 05, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
Blatant misogyny? Kiss my ass.
Yeah, play into your steroetypes dude. It obviously works for you. Let anyone criticize a woman, and you'll be whining about how that critic is a "misogynist."
Because let's face it: in this misandrist universe, everyone hates men.
(Hey, you never heard the word "misandrist" before? Look it up. You need to learn it. Feminists have been abusing little boys for 20 years now, and it's time someone called them out on their abusive shit.)
And otherwise, Mr. "Hurray for the Dixie Chicks" guy? The Dixie Chicks got called out for acting like total assholes, and all you're doing is showing your misogynist side by defending them. Because you're only defending them because they're girls. You're only defending them because they're girls. You sexist asshole.
Because let's face it: in this misandrist universe, everyone hates men.
(Hey, you never heard the word "misandrist" before? Look it up. You need to learn it. Feminists have been abusing little boys for 20 years now, and it's time someone called them out on their abusive shit.)
And otherwise, Mr. "Hurray for the Dixie Chicks" guy? The Dixie Chicks got called out for acting like total assholes, and all you're doing is showing your misogynist side by defending them. Because you're only defending them because they're girls. You're only defending them because they're girls. You sexist asshole.
,
August 05, 2009
|
-
- +0
-
-
...
"Oh, they're girls. So they're automatically entitled to defending. Because they're girls."
,
August 05, 2009
|
-
- +0
-
-
A Double Standard for Women Who Dissent
Yes, it's proper to defend girls when they're unfairly condemned. What the Dixie Chicks were saying in early 2003 about being ashemed of a President who was rushing to war was not different in substance from what a number of other famous singers were voicing at the time, including Springsteen, Havens, Belafonte, Seeger, and even country star Merle Haggard. What was different was that these others were male.
Haggard came to the Chicks' defense: "I don't even know the Dixie Chicks, but I find it an insult...when almost the majority of America jumped down their throats for voicing an opinion. It was like a verbal witch-hunt and lynching."
Thus, the guys were tolerated in their dissenting views, but the Chicks were trashed. It's another instance of an unfair double standard for women, continued to this day by even as keen a social critic as Dean Esmay, who often writes interesting dissenting opinions at his famous website.
Haggard came to the Chicks' defense: "I don't even know the Dixie Chicks, but I find it an insult...when almost the majority of America jumped down their throats for voicing an opinion. It was like a verbal witch-hunt and lynching."
Thus, the guys were tolerated in their dissenting views, but the Chicks were trashed. It's another instance of an unfair double standard for women, continued to this day by even as keen a social critic as Dean Esmay, who often writes interesting dissenting opinions at his famous website.
,
August 06, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
Dixie Chicks forever
The Chicks' remark was unexceptional, and given that Bush's capacities were revealed in eight years to be severely sub Presidential in every respect except low cunning, entirely appropriate. Bush Jr is a shame on every Texan, misleading the world that Texans are illiterate dunces when in fact they are among the finest species of upright male citizen known, and make a top priority to protect and serve the fair sex in every way. The Chicks never should have apologized, but that's the point. They have to make a living, and the confused electorate imagines that just because Bush stole the Presidency twice, he deserved it.
The Chicks took a stand of sorts and were crushed by people who feared dissent, but as the election of Obama showed, the one thing America wanted after eight years of Bush was someone fitted for the White House who would not sacrifice thousands of our best to distract us from his self serving thievery on the home front.
The Dixie Chicks deserve respect, and anyone who can't understand that is exhibiting his lack of understanding of women, who are the standard bearers of social and political morality and not to be contravened in that sphere unless they are blatant lever pulling nitwits like Nancy Pelosi, or sexy fruitcups like Sarah Palin, who is undoubtedly the finest specimen of womanhood ever to aspire to high office in this country, and who thus gets a free pass when it comes to concern about her sub Bush level of comprehension of current affairs of the political kind. .
This kind of admiration for women is the key to success with them. One must love women if one wants to be a fully paid up member of the human race. One bore us, for Gawd's sake. They brought us up with love and gentle care, even if they thought we were rascals. Even if we are arrested for serial killing, they will visit us in jail, I believe.
This is what is so right about the essay above. The author is essentially besotted by women. He has a winning attitude from the beginning.
We know who the Dixie Chicks would bestow their charms upon.
The Chicks took a stand of sorts and were crushed by people who feared dissent, but as the election of Obama showed, the one thing America wanted after eight years of Bush was someone fitted for the White House who would not sacrifice thousands of our best to distract us from his self serving thievery on the home front.
The Dixie Chicks deserve respect, and anyone who can't understand that is exhibiting his lack of understanding of women, who are the standard bearers of social and political morality and not to be contravened in that sphere unless they are blatant lever pulling nitwits like Nancy Pelosi, or sexy fruitcups like Sarah Palin, who is undoubtedly the finest specimen of womanhood ever to aspire to high office in this country, and who thus gets a free pass when it comes to concern about her sub Bush level of comprehension of current affairs of the political kind. .
This kind of admiration for women is the key to success with them. One must love women if one wants to be a fully paid up member of the human race. One bore us, for Gawd's sake. They brought us up with love and gentle care, even if they thought we were rascals. Even if we are arrested for serial killing, they will visit us in jail, I believe.
This is what is so right about the essay above. The author is essentially besotted by women. He has a winning attitude from the beginning.
We know who the Dixie Chicks would bestow their charms upon.
,
August 06, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
Blatant misogyny? Kiss my ass.
Yeah. The Dixie Chicks unfairly maligned a President who had done nothing wrong at all, and who had lied to no one.
And they got grief for it. For unfairly maligning a President who had done nothing wrong at all.
So yeah, they got some grief for slandering and smearing their own President. Who hadn't lied about a God Damned thing. And who just wanted to take out a fascist mass-murderer.
And they got criticized for it. Boo-hoo. We aren't allowed to criticize these apologists for mass-murdering fascists?
I ask it again: we aren't allowed to criticize the Dixie Chicks? We aren't allowed to?
Why, because they're girls?
They blatantly lied. They blatantly sided with fascists. It's what they did.
What, we aren't allowed to say so because they're girls?
Fascist-loving scum. That's what the Dixie Chicks were, and are.
Fascist-loving assholes. That's what they were all about.
They didn't get half the kicking around that they deserved.
Oh, but they were GIRLS. And girls should never be criticized, right?
Right?
And they got grief for it. For unfairly maligning a President who had done nothing wrong at all.
So yeah, they got some grief for slandering and smearing their own President. Who hadn't lied about a God Damned thing. And who just wanted to take out a fascist mass-murderer.
And they got criticized for it. Boo-hoo. We aren't allowed to criticize these apologists for mass-murdering fascists?
I ask it again: we aren't allowed to criticize the Dixie Chicks? We aren't allowed to?
Why, because they're girls?
They blatantly lied. They blatantly sided with fascists. It's what they did.
What, we aren't allowed to say so because they're girls?
Fascist-loving scum. That's what the Dixie Chicks were, and are.
Fascist-loving assholes. That's what they were all about.
They didn't get half the kicking around that they deserved.
Oh, but they were GIRLS. And girls should never be criticized, right?
Right?
,
August 06, 2009
|
-
- +0
-
-
St. George
Right. Girls should never be criticized for voicing their opinions - regarding a President, a war, or anything else - for it's their right to do so in a free society. The Dixie Chicks' antiwar views were shared by millions of other citizens and do not warrant Esmay's vulgar calumny (e.g., "Fascist-loving scum").
Dean Esmay describes Bush as "a President who had done nothing wrong at all, and who had lied to no one." It's well-established that George the 2nd violated international and US law by approving torture, and broke more laws by authorizing massive warrantless wiretapping. He took the US into a war with Iraq based on deceptions and fabricated intelligence about WMDs, which were later proven nonexistent. Given such malfeasance and dishonesty, what the Chicks said about Bush ("We're ashamed" he "is from Texas") was unduly gentle.
A study by two independent journalism groups actually counted the number of falsehoods propounded by Bush and his top officials in the run-up to the war in Iraq. They documented 935 lies. (Here's CNN's report of 1/23/2008: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...index.html )
In retrospect, the Dixie Chicks were correct and their wise and womanly concern for peace should have been heeded, not scorned.
Dean Esmay describes Bush as "a President who had done nothing wrong at all, and who had lied to no one." It's well-established that George the 2nd violated international and US law by approving torture, and broke more laws by authorizing massive warrantless wiretapping. He took the US into a war with Iraq based on deceptions and fabricated intelligence about WMDs, which were later proven nonexistent. Given such malfeasance and dishonesty, what the Chicks said about Bush ("We're ashamed" he "is from Texas") was unduly gentle.
A study by two independent journalism groups actually counted the number of falsehoods propounded by Bush and his top officials in the run-up to the war in Iraq. They documented 935 lies. (Here's CNN's report of 1/23/2008: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI...index.html )
In retrospect, the Dixie Chicks were correct and their wise and womanly concern for peace should have been heeded, not scorned.
,
August 07, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
...
Sir, you are confused, apparently, which is understandable, if you supported the Iraq adventure on the basis of standing up for democracy, but see now that perhaps it wasn't as cut and dried as you thought. Personally we are with you. If the US of A is going to hog most of the resources of the world, it surely has a duty to earn its supper by hanging the dictators of the world who oppress their people. But why only Iraq? Aren't there other nations suffering under robbers who rule by violence and torture? We might start with Iran before it assembles its nukes, don't you think? Free Iran from the dictatorial mullahs, and free the women of Iran, in the name of Neda, God rest her soul,
But the subject of the gentleman's essay was how to handle women in your life. so fulminating that the Dixie Chicks get a free pass simply shows lack of realism. The fundamental principle in any kind of social activity involving the fair sex is that women are always right in their own minds about everything, and therefore you have go along with this or pay the consequences, which may be dire.
Your first two sentences showed you can manage it, so why not continue with what you think is sarcasm but is merely the tribute one pays to the superior sex. on penalty of being kicked out of their good books, which is to mirror their every thought as far as possible. Since they are often right this saves a lot of energy, also, in forming opinions about things one knows nothing about, such as the chances of success in using US troops to make over the politics of the Middle East.
But of course there is no need for any of this, because there is a first principle which must always be respected. Blondes are always right.
But the subject of the gentleman's essay was how to handle women in your life. so fulminating that the Dixie Chicks get a free pass simply shows lack of realism. The fundamental principle in any kind of social activity involving the fair sex is that women are always right in their own minds about everything, and therefore you have go along with this or pay the consequences, which may be dire.
Your first two sentences showed you can manage it, so why not continue with what you think is sarcasm but is merely the tribute one pays to the superior sex. on penalty of being kicked out of their good books, which is to mirror their every thought as far as possible. Since they are often right this saves a lot of energy, also, in forming opinions about things one knows nothing about, such as the chances of success in using US troops to make over the politics of the Middle East.
But of course there is no need for any of this, because there is a first principle which must always be respected. Blondes are always right.
,
August 07, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
DEAN ESMAY
What to make of Dean Esmay when he's all over the ideological map? A synergist who takes what's of value from any vein? I think not.
Mr. Esmay, I believe you are a dialectician practicing his craft on your own website in order to confuse people into stultification, not that that's necessary given the mindset of the average American. What you're doing here is disrupting a thread with side issues, so that little meaningful dialog on women can proceed. What a fatuous way to waste one's talent.
A webentity named Emily quotes you: "I have long supported the Palestinian cause. I've also long insisted that they will not have any hope of freedom until the thug Arafat is removed, and the terrorist organizations like Hizbullah and Hamas are crushed. Because they are the people ultimately responsible for the plight of the Palestinians."
If you wrote that, you are either lying or naive. Hamas is a creation of the Mossad. Arafat was likely a CIA-controlled agent.
You are free to disagree with what I wrote. Yet I fail to see how anything you've posted here makes any kind of positive statement about anything.
What's your game, Dean Esmay?
Mr. Esmay, I believe you are a dialectician practicing his craft on your own website in order to confuse people into stultification, not that that's necessary given the mindset of the average American. What you're doing here is disrupting a thread with side issues, so that little meaningful dialog on women can proceed. What a fatuous way to waste one's talent.
A webentity named Emily quotes you: "I have long supported the Palestinian cause. I've also long insisted that they will not have any hope of freedom until the thug Arafat is removed, and the terrorist organizations like Hizbullah and Hamas are crushed. Because they are the people ultimately responsible for the plight of the Palestinians."
If you wrote that, you are either lying or naive. Hamas is a creation of the Mossad. Arafat was likely a CIA-controlled agent.
You are free to disagree with what I wrote. Yet I fail to see how anything you've posted here makes any kind of positive statement about anything.
What's your game, Dean Esmay?
,
August 31, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
