Here's One For The Ladies...

[General Patton]

Let me tell you a little secret about nice guys. When guys hear that language, they decide that the best plan of attack is to pretend that they are this emasculated variety of man that the media has tried to create, this impossible dream that many woman have glommed onto because of movies that are targeted toward them which have happy conclusions. The truth is, men have been watching your movies, reading your publications, and picking up clues about what women want to see. This knowledge becomes tantamount to a sophisticated arsenal for the perceptive guy who wants nothing more than to play you like a violin. Beware the guy who targets women in this unconventional manner, because they are using unrestricted warfare. What's worse, if you really do find a guy that is what women refer to as nice, you can bet on the fact that you will undoubtedly be bored in the end.

Me, I am much more conventional in my approach. I present myself openly and honestly, with the hope that some female will recognize the characteristics that make me great. Sure, I might not be the epitome of nice. I might not try to emulate Huge Grant or any other Hollywood idiot that projects this false image, trying desperately to sell this lunacy to the female demographic. However, I have many of the traits that, just yesterday, were considered desirable in a man. I reject the metrosexual approach that many men are using in order to mate. I am sexy in the classical sense. I am great. Not because I am sensitive. Not because I am a pushover whose only purpose in life is to act as a boy-toy for the new feminists. I am great because I am confident, driven, intelligent, creative, and resourceful. In short, I am great because I am a man.

Given my thoughts on the anti-male propaganda that exists in the media, do you think that men should continue to perpetuate this surreal version of man by playing into the hands of the feminists by emascualting themselves through metrosexuality in order to attract women who would apparently rather date a gay guy, than someone with traditional male characteristics? This is really a question of liberalism and the impact that it has on traditions, and is entirely relevant to the debate between communism versus the status quo. Is the emasculation of males a positive or a negative side-effect due to the liberal attack on a nation's core values? Is it desirable in the mind of a communist to convolute traditions to a point where gender roles have been completely elliminated?

I am especially interested to hear opinions from the female demographic on this site. Would you prefer that your boyfriend have more hair care products, better fashion sense, and be prettier than you, or would you rather date somebody who clearly differs from you because of his gender?

For guys; do you want your woman to wear the pants in the family, decide what and where you eat, and leave you at home with the kids while she goes off to prove her worth as a top female executive?

Copyright 2006

[Goatse]

I could barely read this crap, but I picked up that this is advocating the "traditional" roles of men and women?

[General Patton]

I could barely read this crap, but I picked up that this is advocating the "traditional" roles of men and women?

Congratulations! You may be smarter than I originally gave you credit for. It appears that you may have the ability to recognize a theme when you see one. At least we know that you passed the first grade.

How about showing some level of critical thought now, by answering one of the many questions that were asked?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 30 2006, 09:41 PM
For guys; do you want your woman to wear the pants in the family, decide what and where you eat, and leave you at home with the kids while she goes off to prove her worth as a top female executive?


Are you turning into your own grandfather or something? This is 2006, not 1956! :lol:

One - Gender is a social construct. It exists only to divide us into little groups, chopping away at the unity that we should have as the working classes.


Two - If i lived with a woman, we would both "wear the trousers". A woman is not a man's domestic servant, existing only to cook and clean and make babies. A good relationship should have equality and respect.

Three - what and where you eat? I know you 1950's mean need a woman to look after you like a child, but if i want something to eat, i'll get something to eat. If she wants something to eat, she can get something to eat. Again, a woman is not a man's personal cook.

Four - at home with the kids? There is nurseries and schools for all children (in the west at least, anyway) to go to from the age of two or three, so it would only be small children. And why should parents not get lengthy maternity and paternity leave that lasts the same amount of time?

Five - I wouldnt have a relationship with a capitalist anyway, but I would support her with her job and she would support me - respect and equality.


GP, why do you oppose women's rights? Are they not as worthy of rights as we men?

[Goatse]

Ah right, thanks for admitting that you're a reactionary sexist. It saves me searching through your rant for the confirming sentence. Hopefully this will get you banned.

[RedAnarchist]

Just wait until the female members of revleft see this thread - he'll be ripped to pieces like the sad little phallic-obessive he is :lol:

[General Patton]

GP, why do you oppose women's rights? Are they not as worthy of rights as we men?

Where do I oppose women's rights? They enjoy, rightfully so, all the same rights as men in our society. The question is really asking whether or not there are some characteristics that are inherently male and/or female that it would be a shame to wash out in an effort to devalue all of the cultural traditions that a nation enjoys. For instance, it is true that a woman has the right to shave her head and look like a man if she so desires. However, I would find it disappointing if this were to happen to all women, because I rather enjoy their uniquely feminine beauty. I would assume that most men would agree.

Furthermore, what if a woman happens to hold these traditional values, and wants to make her spouse happy by cooking, cleaning, and caring for her kids; should she be treated poorly by a society that is changing because she holds to traditional family values and enjoys seemingly stereotypical gender roles?

I think that many of you are looking for ideas that are not there in my writings, because you don't like me, disagree with my politics, and want nothing more than to rid "opposing ideologies" of thought that you disagree with. Why don't we try talking about points that were actually raised, as opposed to putting words in my mouth.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 30 2006, 08:41 PM
For guys; do you want your woman to wear the pants in the family
If capitalism is so great, then how come your family can only afford one pair of pants?

[Goatse]

However, I would find it disappointing if this were to happen to all women, because I rather enjoy their uniquely feminine beauty. I would assume that most men would agree.

Yes, of course, it doesn't matter what they want to do with their bodies - your personal tastes are more important.


Furthermore, what if a woman happens to hold these traditional values, and wants to make her spouse happy by cooking, cleaning, and caring for her kids; should she be treated poorly by a society that is changing because she holds to traditional family values and enjoys seemingly stereotypical gender roles?

You're suggesting communists wish to take away their rights?


I think that many of you are looking for ideas that are not there in my writings, because you don't like me, disagree with my politics, and want nothing more than to rid "opposing ideologies" of thought that you disagree with. Why don't we try talking about points that were actually raised, as opposed to putting words in my mouth.

Disagreeing is fine - sexism is not.

Redstar1916: I love you. :wub:

[General Patton]

One - Gender is a social construct. It exists only to divide us into little groups, chopping away at the unity that we should have as the working classes.

This is not true. Gender is the product of biology. Men and Women have uniquely different characteristics that make them very distinct. For example, men have penises and women have vaginas. Women and men also exhibit different brain development and hormonal feedback cycles. These differences make men and women different. The idea of gender is to differentiate between men and women based on these differences in order to understand society. Anthropologists find this classification very useful when looking to past and present cultures to determine how a society is run. However, you are correct in your assertion that often times gender roles are used as a means by which to subjugate the weaker sex with societal conditions, social taboos, and moral restrictions. In fact, what you are talking about is very true in Islamic societies, and has even been successful in the United States in the past. Today, this is not really the case in America as society has been successful in advancing true “feminist” philosophies, which state that women are important members of society and have ideas and skills that are just as valid and equally useful as men's. I agree with philosophical feminism, but not with this brand of marxist-feminism that exists today. I think the differences between men and women should not be eliminated, but rather understood and appreciated, all under the auspice of equal protection and equal rights.

Copyright 2006

[The Sloth]

this impossible dream that many woman have glommed onto..

i am that perfect man.. a sort of deity, perhaps, fresh out of the "inner-city public school system," as you like to call it.

so, don't hate da playa.. hate da game.

and, again.. keep your projections on yourself. we can very easily tell that you're imperfect, so need to state the obvious. but, to assume that i'm imperfect, simply because you don't have what it takes to be a fucking god, is quite contrary to logic.

..

well, i think i'll end my sarcasm right here. everything that follows is quite serious, though, so pay attention, mr. patton.


I am great because I am confident, driven, intelligent, creative...

that's going a little too far. you may be confident, but so are a lot of other losers. i suggest you amend your list (which means, "throw it out") or, at the very least, add "delusional" to it. in that way, i can call you an idiot and a prick to my heart's content, but would never be able to accuse you of dishonesty.

as for "intelligent," you certainly aren't intelligent by any means. "creativity," hmm.. to an extremely small extent, writing an original but very stupid sentence can be considered creative. hell, playing with your own shit can be creative, too. and, no offense, and i certainly don't wish to demean or dissuade your literary aspirations, but you probably fall under that "playing with your own shit" category.

by the way.. i believe this calls for another private message, from me to you. hopefully, you'll be able to respond to some of my points and/or witticisms this time around, but, i certainly won't hold my breath. you've already proven yourself quite incapable of.. most things.

cheers.

[theraven]

One - Gender is a social construct. It exists only to divide us into little groups, chopping away at the unity that we should have as the working classes.


really? so you deny theres any difference btween man and women


Two - If i lived with a woman, we would both "wear the trousers". A woman is not a man's domestic servant, existing only to cook and clean and make babies. A good relationship should have equality and respect.


you clearly don't know many housewifes.


Three - what and where you eat? I know you 1950's mean need a woman to look after you like a child, but if i want something to eat, i'll get something to eat. If she wants something to eat, she can get something to eat. Again, a woman is not a man's personal cook.


...women didn't take care o fmen like babies in the 50s..or ever really. women did cook dinner, but so what?


Four - at home with the kids? There is nurseries and schools for all children (in the west at least, anyway) to go to from the age of two or three, so it would only be small children. And why should parents not get lengthy maternity and paternity leave that lasts the same amount of time?


mothers do better jobs then nursies and schools, and its is illogical and uneconmcial for both parents to stay at home, ro to have some sort of rotatiaon scheudle.


Five - I wouldnt have a relationship with a capitalist anyway, but I would support her with her job and she would support me - respect and equality.

so your a vigirn then :-p

[General Patton]

Two - If i lived with a woman, we would both "wear the trousers". A woman is not a man's domestic servant, existing only to cook and clean and make babies. A good relationship should have equality and respect.

I don’t know about both people wearing the trousers. I require that any of my potential mates possess a certain level of femininity. If a woman were to chew tobacco, and look like a man, then I don’t think that a basis for attraction would exist. It’s okay if she wants to wear pants. However, if she always looked frumpy, I think that our frequency of sexual activity would decrease or be non-existent. However, you are talking about equal stake and decision making in the relationship, which is a given. In fact, I find it highly annoying when I am with a female that has no input in the direction that our relationship is going. I encourage all the women that I have ever been with to be proactive. I find that I have a hard time with subservient women, and have dumped some of my ex-girlfriends based upon their lack of assertiveness. Therefore, I think we are actually in agreement on this point. However, I take both parent’s responsibility to raise their children seriously. This should also be a joint venture, and the parents should optimize their shared resources to create the greatest possible chance for success in their children. Often times, this means that one of the parents should stay home with the child and put their career second. This is a decision for that couple to make, and can be a difficult one for either sex.

Copyright 2006

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:36 PM


One - Gender is a social construct. It exists only to divide us into little groups, chopping away at the unity that we should have as the working classes.


really? so you deny theres any difference btween man and women


Two - If i lived with a woman, we would both "wear the trousers". A woman is not a man's domestic servant, existing only to cook and clean and make babies. A good relationship should have equality and respect.


you clearly don't know many housewifes.


Three - what and where you eat? I know you 1950's mean need a woman to look after you like a child, but if i want something to eat, i'll get something to eat. If she wants something to eat, she can get something to eat. Again, a woman is not a man's personal cook.


...women didn't take care o fmen like babies in the 50s..or ever really. women did cook dinner, but so what?


Four - at home with the kids? There is nurseries and schools for all children (in the west at least, anyway) to go to from the age of two or three, so it would only be small children. And why should parents not get lengthy maternity and paternity leave that lasts the same amount of time?


mothers do better jobs then nursies and schools, and its is illogical and uneconmcial for both parents to stay at home, ro to have some sort of rotatiaon scheudle.


Five - I wouldnt have a relationship with a capitalist anyway, but I would support her with her job and she would support me - respect and equality.

so your a vigirn then :-p
Of course there are differences, but the majority are simple biological ones which should not affect someone further than the function, such as pregnancy etc.

The only reason I would want to know an housewife would be to show them they do not need to be chained to the sink and bed.

They may as well have treated men like children - they had to do everything for them anyway.

I cannot understand your fourth point.


Yes, I am. I am a bisexual and a virgin. So what?

[General Patton]

Three - what and where you eat? I know you 1950's mean need a woman to look after you like a child, but if i want something to eat, i'll get something to eat. If she wants something to eat, she can get something to eat. Again, a woman is not a man's personal cook.

I am talking more about going out on a date and the expectation that women have that the man will make the decision in the choice of restraunts. This is something that I have actually had problems with in the past. Let's just say that I was confused about this whole equality issue that women have been raising. Therefore, I would inspire them to have first choice in the matter. Many times this has been met with reluctance. In fact, I find that most women want for the man to actually make this decision. For a while this was throwing me for a loop, because I thought I was being the perfect gentleman by letting them choose, but they actually wanted to see if I would take charge or the situation and reduce their need to make a decision. They wanted for me to take them out, and for them that meant that they wanted to lose a certain level of control on their part, and let the man make the decisions about the structure and timeline of the date. This really only pertains to the first couple of dates, as time goes on the women that I have known start wanting to dictate what happens on the date. At times this has presented problems, because they want me to make all the decisions in the beginning, and then expect me to give into their every whim as the relationship progresses. As I have already stated I think that the decision making should be shared. Therefore, when a woman starts wanting to have absolute power over most everything, it causes problems. The key is to find balance in both people's desire to control things as events are transpiring.

Copyright 2006

[General Patton]

Four - at home with the kids? There is nurseries and schools for all children (in the west at least, anyway) to go to from the age of two or three, so it would only be small children. And why should parents not get lengthy maternity and paternity leave that lasts the same amount of time?

Well, it depends on the benefits that are offered by the parent's place of employment. They might not have the option to take a lengthy departure after the birth of their child. In fact, many people think that it is better for their kids, if they are being raised by their parent's instead of a complete stranger that does not share their values. Therefore a decision to stay at home with the kid(s) is sometimes necessary for the well-being of your child. Not everyone wants to subject their kids to a filthy daycare and the upringing of people that are largely unknown to the parents. Stay at home parents (mother or father) offer their child many benfits that are not enjoyed by children that are stuck in daycare who later become latch key kids.


Five - I wouldnt have a relationship with a capitalist anyway

That feeling is mutual. We have already established that the only use I have for a communist woman is her vagina. If I am to develop a relationship with somebody, I must respect them based on their ability to think. Based on the level of thought that I find communists possess, I have no real use for them. In fact, I think they are trash, probably worse than the street vermin that I so despise.


You're suggesting communists wish to take away their rights?

Yes, I am.

Copyright 2006

[The Sloth]

I require that any of my potential mates possess a certain level of femininity..

you know, patton, despite all of your support for traditional masculinity, you've been emasculated on this very forum. if you didn't notice, i stopped "seriously" responding to you a while ago, when it became obvious that you didn't want to debate, or even to discuss; you wanted a game of wits, so you got what you wanted, you lost, and now you're dealing with the subsequent emasculation.. not that it matters, and not that it should matter, but, since you obviously have a sore spot on your manhood, i thought i'd bring it up, and see how you react. the less you think with your dick, the better, and the fewer posts we'll see from you.. which, by all indications, is a good thing.

personally, i don't really care about 'traditional gender roles'.. one of your main problems is your inability to recognize the circumstantial, arbitrary and purely ethereal nature of your values. indeed, you can't even conceive values different from your own.. this puts you at a disadvantage, as it allows you to the write the very drivel i'm responding to. if a guy wants to have a girlfriend that wears a 12-inch strap-on and fucks him in the ass pretty much every day, it seems as if you'd object to this arrangement on principle.. as if you can offer some kind of logical argument against this rather voluntary behavior (a behavior so complex and so deeply rooted in thousands of years of arbitrary social history and circumstantial evolution that you, for all of your claims to wisdom, have no business even pretending to criticize), you go ahead and object, anyway.

why, if i may ask? probably, because you don't know any better. probably because you do have your own preferences, but don't see where arbitrary preferences end and simple facts begin. introduce whatever subjectivity you'd like into your own existence, as there's nothing wrong with that because you're surely the product of all that is the case, but you're still confusing costumes for bones, and penises for concrete imperatives. the longer you'll continue to live in this silly game of concepts, the further your brain will rot, and the more legitimate your claims will be to being some kind of metaphysician that can "think" the world into existence, but can't even call "shit" for what it is.. even if you'd step in it.


I think that our frequency of sexual activity would decrease or be non-existent..

fair enough.. but, a sexual frequency of "zero" is still a sexual frequency, so it can't be non-existent.

for an aspiring novelist, you sure are confused about language.

[Goatse]

Yes, I am.

You are ignorant - why are you even trying to debate leftism when you don't understand it?

Isn't there some rule saying that extreme sexists in OI get banned immediately?

[General Patton]

Isn't there some rule saying that extreme sexists in OI get banned immediately?

How am I an extreme sexist? You can not debate with me, so you want to resort to the ban. You are rather weak, thus you are probably a metrosexual.

[Goatse]

I did debate, except you seem to ignore facts and just decide for yourself what we believe.

[General Patton]

Uh Huh. So that's what you call that. Very interesting.

[B.E. Jones]

All of these posts are so ridden with sarcasm on both sides of arguement that their is little to no productive responses. In fact perhaps even counter-productive especially when it seems mocking the opposing party is set on a higher priority then actually refutting responses.

Gah! Come on Gents/Ladies.

Sarcasm is the defense of the weak, let's just argue the points and the points alone.

:wacko:

[theraven]

Of course there are differences, but the majority are simple biological ones which should not affect someone further than the function, such as pregnancy etc.

there are also differnces which effect our actions and choices. men and women s brains have subtle difference, though the effects is not know for ceritan, and of course women are generaly physicaly weaker then men


The only reason I would want to know an housewife would be to show them they do not need to be chained to the sink and bed.

perhaps this would be a valid point in...saudi arabia, however if a women is a stay at home mom in the west chances are she does it out of choice.


They may as well have treated men like children - they had to do everything for them anyway.

if by everything you mean house hold chores perhaps, however men did plenty of things fro women too..like pay for everyithng, do most outdoor chores as well as well as in home repair work..basicly anything that demanded phsycail strength.




Yes, I am. I am a bisexual and a virgin. So what?

nothing is worng ith either, h owever you stated you wold not have a relationship with a capilist, something which has the efefct of vastly decreasing your pool of possible mates.

[General Patton]

All of these posts are so ridden with sarcasm on both sides of arguement that their is little to no productive responses. In fact perhaps even counter-productive especially when it seems mocking the opposing party is set on a higher priority then actually refutting responses.

Not all of them. Perhaps instead of complaining, you'd care to take your own advice and actually respond to any of the points that I have made. As it stands, I have made some excellent points that nobody has cared to really discuss.

[RevSouth]

How can theraven and GP consider themselves libertarian when they think gender roles should be enforced? Gender roles are dying, with or without leftism in the picture. The differences are only physical, and to a point, hormonal. These should not dictate what goes on in our home lives, who makes the decisions, etc. On "who wears the pants", different relationships have different dominant partners. Some people are more inclined to leadership. In short, your role is what you make out of it. Therefore, gender roles are truly non-existent, just something reactionaries and religion have hammered into us.

And define metrosexual, General Patton? What am I? I wear girl pants, I take a shower about every two days, I have long hair, I buy clothes exclusively at thrift stores, I smoke, I enjoy fights, but I also like poetry and art. People generally do not fit in one category. To define people exclusively by what they wear and how they act may not be accurate as well.

I can't wait till TragicClown gets ahold of you. :D

[General Patton]

You wear girl pants. Well, that makes you confused. Most likely you are an emo that walks around with the dumbest hairstyle imaginable thinking that it makes you cool to look stupid. News Flash: It doesn't. Those people are laughing at you, not with you.

[theraven]

How can theraven and GP consider themselves libertarian when they think gender roles should be enforced?

I don't want laws about it....


Gender roles are dying, with or without leftism in the picture. The differences are only physical, and to a point, hormonal.

doubtful, since many are resutls o fbiologiy


These should not dictate what goes on in our home lives, who makes the decisions, etc. On "who wears the pants", different relationships have different dominant partners. Some people are more inclined to leadership. In short, your role is what you make out of it. Therefore, gender roles are truly non-existent, just something reactionaries and religion have hammered into us.

its true that whoever is more leader like should be the leader, but you want to bet that in most relaitonshisp men are the leaders? that doesnt' mean there aren't ones with women, but just that men are more liley.


And define metrosexual, General Patton? What am I? I wear girl pants, I take a shower about every two days, I have long hair, I buy clothes exclusively at thrift stores, I smoke, I enjoy fights, but I also like poetry and art.

your probably about normal here :-p

[Entrails Konfetti]

Wow GP your paranoia over gender is so hillarious!

You probably shat yourself after reading the S.C.U.M. (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto.

I'm not going to even bother debating with you since you don't even present any facts. All this talk about "Traditional Gender roles" is bullshit, they aren't traditional if you go back far enough in time you'd hear about men wearing makeup or even Matriarchal societies. You can't even claim how theres a return to matriarchy, all you say it's because of actors wearing more hair-products, and men pushing for womens rights. You come on a Communist website to complain about the liberal media, what the hell!

FYI there has always been some men trying to apeal to women with "unconventional" approaches to get a fuck. And inversely some women try to appeal to a mans dick so they can get money, or things.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 30 2006, 06:56 PM
You wear girl pants. Well, that makes you confused. Most likely you are an emo that walks around with the dumbest hairstyle imaginable thinking that it makes you cool to look stupid. News Flash: It doesn't. Those people are laughing at you, not with you.
I am actually pretty anti-emo. No need feeling sorry for myself when I can be out helping others.

[General Patton]

I am actually pretty anti-emo. No need feeling sorry for myself when I can be out helping others.

Well, based on your description of yourself, I feel sorry for you. Exactly how do you help others? This I got to hear.

[RevSouth]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 30 2006, 08:27 PM
Well, based on your description of yourself, I feel sorry for you. Exactly how do you help others? This I got to hear.
By being Leftist. Social programs, etc. Give out meals for underpriveleged children on the weekends. I volunteer at the Humane Educational Society. Work at the soup kitchen on occasion, or the food bank. Meet with your approval?

I'm pretty sure you don't do any of the above, especially with the disdain you've shown for the impoverished.

[Ali.Cat]

Me, I am much more conventional in my approach. I present myself openly and honestly, with the hope that some female will recognize the characteristics that make me great. Sure, I might not be the epitome of nice. I might not try to emulate Huge Grant or any other Hollywood idiot that projects this false image, trying desperately to sell this lunacy to the female demographic. However, I have many of the traits that, just yesterday, were considered desirable in a man. I reject the metrosexual approach that many men are using in order to mate. I am sexy in the classical sense. I am great. Not because I am sensitive. Not because I am a pushover whose only purpose in life is to act as a boy-toy for the new feminists. I am great because I am confident, driven, intelligent, creative, and resourceful. In short, I am great because I am a man.


Is this your dating advertisement? If so - no dates for you...

I can't beleive this pile of crap. You put men and women into these huge gender roles, gender roles that have been enforced on society by people like you who refuse to beleive that things change. Women can "wear the pants" if they want to, men can make themselves feel good by puting effort into their appearance if they want to as well - how is that wrong. It does not make them any less of a man.


Let me tell you a little secret about nice guys.

Why talk about something you know nothing about? Last time I checked nice guys were the guys who, among other things, are more than cool with women "wearing the pants" as you put it.


The truth is, men have been watching your movies, reading your publications, and picking up clues about what women want to see

Ya, because a blockbuster hit and this months cosmo know EXACTLY what women want. It is ridiculas to beleive that just because Hugh Grant put on a nice outfit and "was a boy standing in front of a girl" that he knows what women want. So don't generalize women - it is not appealing at all.


What's worse, if you really do find a guy that is what women refer to as nice, you can bet on the fact that you will undoubtedly be bored in the end.


But we will be oh so happy with a jack-ass that puts us in specific gender roles and expects us to "be the little woman"?

Your comments have officially blown my mind. Why do you even care that women are falling for these "nice guys"? Can't get a date? Feeling lonely and are angry about it? Maybe you could pick up a few tips from these guys who are supposedly pulling the lids over our eyes.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Hey, I'm not wearing any pants!
http://www.e-kilts.com/ekilts/images/misc-images/devlin-dance.jpg

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 30 2006, 10:42 PM
How am I an extreme sexist? You can not debate with me, so you want to resort to the ban. You are rather weak, thus you are probably a metrosexual.

lol, that this loser actually has the gall to accuse us of "not debating" with him.. how funny.

patton, you've managed to evade my post again. before accusing anyone of "not debating," you should consider responding to the points, and posts, presented.. maybe then you'd have a legitimate complaint. until then, just keep the accusations in your mind, so when they finally do burst out of your mouth, they can burst justifiably.

hmph, i'll just present the relevant parts again:

--

personally, i don't really care about 'traditional gender roles'.. one of your main problems is your inability to recognize the circumstantial, arbitrary and purely ethereal nature of your values. indeed, you can't even conceive values different from your own.. this puts you at a disadvantage, as it allows you to the write the very drivel i'm responding to. if a guy wants to have a girlfriend that wears a 12-inch strap-on and fucks him in the ass pretty much every day, it seems as if you'd object to this arrangement on principle.. as if you can offer some kind of logical argument against this rather voluntary behavior (a behavior so complex and so deeply rooted in thousands of years of arbitrary social history and circumstantial evolution that you, for all of your claims to wisdom, have no business even pretending to criticize), you go ahead and object, anyway.

why, if i may ask? probably, because you don't know any better. probably because you do have your own preferences, but don't see where arbitrary preferences end and simple facts begin. introduce whatever subjectivity you'd like into your own existence, as there's nothing wrong with that because you're surely the product of all that is the case, but you're still confusing costumes for bones, and penises for concrete imperatives. the longer you'll continue to live in this silly game of concepts, the further your brain will rot, and the more legitimate your claims will be to being some kind of metaphysician that can "think" the world into existence, but can't even call "shit" for what it is.. even if you'd step in it.

[General Patton]

personally, i don't really care about 'traditional gender roles'

Hey shit for brains, you admit to having no interest in actually discussing the topics or issues that I raise, hence the lack of a response to your poorly written and unintelligible ramblings. You kind of remind me of that guy on In Living Color who was incarcerated, bought a dictionary, and then started throwing words around because they sounded good, without any concern for their actual meaning. The sooner you present actual ideas to discuss the sooner you will get an actual response. I have no intention of arguing the points of your ad hominem attacks. If you wanted to actually debate, you'd be debating. You can't, so you won't.

[violencia.Proletariat]

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/5/5d/180px-Woman_with_cntfai_flag.jpg


Dont feed the troll, just cut off its tongue.

[The Sloth]

you admit to having no interest in actually discussing the topics or issues that I raise

lol, i guess that would explain why you completely avoided my posts and/or arguments a week prior to this admission ? what now, shall you make appeals to clairvoyance? or shall you remain silent, your thumb up your ass, waiting to further speculate on my education? hehe, you're transparent as the bottled water that's hitting my communist stomach as i type.

but, nice try.. whenever you see the chance to make some "chit chat" is the only time you ever address me.. and let me emphasize that you address "me" and not "my points," as people of your intelligence are keen on ad hominem, and strictly ad-hominem. chit-chat, in these forums, is about all you're actually capable of, so your shortcomings are understandable in that context.

your careless "waving away" of whatever discussion is at hand does not indicate that you consider the discussion below you.. it's simply indicative of the fact that you're a little ignorant.


...your poorly written and unintelligible ramblings.

ouch.. i guess this should really hurt coming from an aspiring novelist (and a copyrighted poet to boot).

but, i guess i should be flattered, as this indicates you at least read my posts.. even if you fail to understand them. again, i suspect that it's not my fault that you mis-understand, but your own. for all your talk of refusing to blame others for your failures, you seem to project a lot of your stupidity on other people, as if i have anything to do with the fact that you're mildly illiterate.

yet, for some reason, i still do not consider any of my posts poorly-written.. except, perhaps, my posts in the french-language forums. and still i get the feeling that, somehow, my amateur french is better than your (assumingly) native english. hehe. which is why, after all, your insults strike me as a little delusional, if not outright stupid.


You kind of remind me of that guy on In Living Color who was incarcerated and bought a dictionary and then started throwing words around because they sounded good without any concern for their actual meaning..

hehe, then that indicates your ignorance of the "good-sounding" words in question.. which is, again, a shortcoming of your education, and not mine. again, please keep your projections on yourself, as i would dread being placed in your.. category.

but, if you'd like, you may, of course, entertain me further.. go ahead and analyze my diction, and point out the words you think are mis-used. i get the feeling you won't go through with it, and not only because it'll take precious time away from your soon-to-be best-selling novel, but also because you simply won't find the errors you wish to find. i also suspect that your recent obsession with my diction has nothing to do with the diction itself (well, maybe it does, as it's reasonably superior to yours), but with the fact that i noted your poor writing skills from the very get-go.


The sooner you present actual ideas to discuss the sooner you will get an actual response.

oh, ideas have been presented.. i just didn't think they would fly way over your head like that. sorry.


I have no intention of arguing the points of your ad hominem attacks. If you wanted to actually debate, you'd be debating. You can't, so you won't.

hehe, how cute.. and how convenient. you seem to be accusing me of the very same things i've been accusing you of, for a while now.. except, of course, the difference being that i'm able to justify my accusations, which are all, by the way, quite in the open. anyone interested in this little game is free to browse our threads, and see your dim-witted evasions. hell, a moderator might even browse through my personal messages, and see that i sent you a very serious PM indicating your evasion of discussions (and even listing the points that you avoided).. to which, of course, you never replied.

who's bullshiting who here, exactly? i suspect it's you, bullshitting everybody here regarding your self-proclaimed wisdom, intelligence, superiority, and et cetera. sadly, our beliefs about and conceptions of ourselves have no bearing on us as we are in the real world.. so, you might want to step outside of your bullshit, and breathe some fresher air. it'll clear up some of those ego-maniacal delusions rather quickly.

and, again, if you find anything here incomprehensible, i suggest you re-read the parts that baffle you.. most likely, you're the obstacle to full and easy comprehension, not anything or anyone else.

cheers.

[Korol Aferist]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 30 2006, 11:56 PM
You wear girl pants. Well, that makes you confused. Most likely you are an emo that walks around with the dumbest hairstyle imaginable thinking that it makes you cool to look stupid. News Flash: It doesn't. Those people are laughing at you, not with you.
Your homophobia is quite detestable...
I think you should bury your own grave before it gets to you badly.

And you know in our little world, men that express their homophobia are the ones that want to fuck every men out there.


Me, I don't have that problem, because dumbasses like you took away the natural sexuality from the real men. Homosexuality in the form of bisexuality is natural.

[General Patton]

There's a difference between homophobia and thinking that guys who wear girl pants look like idiots.

[RevSouth]

It appears that you haven't replied to my post about what I do for the community, General Patton. Ashamed, or just ignorant?

[Rollo]

I think my testicles just imploded in on themselves.

[General Patton]

By being Leftist. Social programs, etc. Give out meals for underpriveleged children on the weekends. I volunteer at the Humane Educational Society. Work at the soup kitchen on occasion, or the food bank. Meet with your approval?

I'm pretty sure you don't do any of the above, especially with the disdain you've shown for the impoverished.

Well, that is all very commendable, except for being a detestable leftist. No, I don't do any of the above. It isn't out of disdain, because there are some people that honestly have a hard time in life at no fault of their own. For me, it's more of a time issue. I get a couple hours a night as a respite from my daily work, and I cherish my weekends too much to give them up for people that I do not know. I guess that makes me selfish.

I knew a guy that used to help out with this week long camp on my college campus dedicated to helping children who were dying of cancer have a bit of fun and enjoyment. I actually admired him.

That's something that is near and dear to my heart, because I was friends with a guy who died of brain cancer. I flew out to visit him in San Fransisco and went to a support group that his mom forced him to go to, and went to the hospital where they administered his chemotherapy. He was still young enough to be in the pediatric wing of the hospital. Because of this, I met a six year old kid that was going to die. The beautiful thing about it was that the attitude of the child was just as I would expect from any other child of that age. It was sad to me, but the kid seemed very happy and full of energy despite the fact that his prognosis was poor. I think that there was a lesson to be learned there. It's only a matter of time for all of us. It's what you do with your life and your own perspective that counts and really makes life living, even in the most dire circumstances. Kids are wonderful, they are the best humans that I know.

If I were to be charitable, it would be something along the lines of cancer research, possibly working with underpriviledged kids, and giving money to scholarship programs. Hopefully, as my pool of time and money grows, I will find it in my heart to dedicate some time to the realities that I don't always get to view face to face, because as I have said there are probably lessons to be learned from those situations. My interaction with the dying kid, definitely changed my perspective.

[Morag]

Would you prefer that your boyfriend have more hair care products, better fashion sense, and be prettier than you, or would you rather date somebody who clearly differs from you because of his gender?

…Your inability to attract women is not our fault, Patton. And as it turns out, most women would prefer a man with hygiene.


Where do I oppose women's rights? They enjoy, rightfully so, all the same rights as men in our society.

Which is why I make $2 an hour less then the guy who works next to me, even though I am more senior and have more education. Which is why some guy today on the bus thought it was all right to grope my ass, and some guy yesterday propositioned me in the pub because I was alone. Which is why, in the power ratio, women have 70% of the power men do, simply because they are born as women. Which is why I can’t be as aggressive sexually as a male without being a slut, but if I don’t want to have sex with a man, I’m a frigid *****. Yeah. Equality.



Furthermore, what if a woman happens to hold these traditional values, and wants to make her spouse happy by cooking, cleaning, and caring for her kids; should she be treated poorly by a society that is changing because she holds to traditional family values and enjoys seemingly stereotypical gender roles?

No, she shouldn’t. But I shouldn’t be treated poorly by society for rejecting those roles. I shouldn’t be penalized for my lack of a penis when I join the work force.


I am great because I am confident, driven, intelligent, creative, and resourceful. In short, I am great because I am a man.


So men are confident, driven intelligent, creative and resourceful. If women are the social and biological opposite of men, what does that make us? Insecure, unambitious, stupid, undynamic, and unresourceful. Great mind you’ve got there, Patton.



I am talking more about going out on a date and the expectation that women have that the man will make the decision in the choice of restraunts. This is something that I have actually had problems with in the past. Let's just say that I was confused about this whole equality issue that women have been raising. Therefore, I would inspire them to have first choice in the matter. Many times this has been met with reluctance. In fact, I find that most women want for the man to actually make this decision… because I thought I was being the perfect gentleman by letting them choose, but they actually wanted to see if I would take charge or the situation and reduce their need to make a decision.

If you’re so confident, then choose a fucking restaurant! Did it ever occur to you that the simple act of allowing a woman to choose a restaurant has absolutely nothing to do with them expressing their equality? If you have to allow a woman to do something, then you aren’t treating them as an equal, are you? Maybe they just don’t care where you guys eat. Maybe they’re trying to let you feel comfortable with them, or want you to enjoy the date as much as possible. Maybe they have no problems with any type of food, but understand that some people can’t handle some cuisine. Or, maybe, they aren’t fully liberated yet and are hesitant to fully express their wishes.


We have already established that the only use I have for a communist woman is her vagina.

You sicken me. Thankfully, after this you stopped debating people and went to your old stand by of accusing others of not debating. So.

Here’s the thing, Patton. Your opinions on feminism are not actually opinions on feminism. They are a reflection of your inability to accept that women want more then to do shit for you. Feminism, at its base, is the acceptance of real equality for both men and women. Social, political and economic equality, not just the lip-service of equality we have now. Not just, “Yeah, your sexually liberated, now suck my cock.” Not, “Yeah, you can work outside the home now. Take this job, at a lesser wage then your co-worker, and put your kids in an expensive daycare which eats up to half of your wage.” Not, “yeah, your equal now. Now go become a nurse or a teacher or a social worker, so that we can pay you shit all for your hard work.” Not, “Yeah, your working now! But don’t forget to clean and cook and drive your kids around, while your husband builds you a spice rack.”

Your views on men who don’t care what society tells them is correct is telling. If you care so much about these guys looking “pretty,” you have so much insecurity that you’ll never be what any woman wants. Insecure men, like the ones who complain about us not wanting to choose a restaurant, set off alarm bells because we’ve all dated a loser who takes their frustrations and insecurities out on us.

And further, by the way, and finally. Women don’t want nice men. Women who are attracted to men want good men. There is a huge difference. A man can be a complete arse and still be fully supportive when he’s needed to be; a nice man can be a sweet as sugar and useless to boot. Unfortunately, I doubt you can understand such a complicated idea as that- it means you have to accept women have emotional needs that can’t be done away with by allowing them to choose a restaurant.

[ebeneezer]

Let me tell you a little secret about nice guys. When guys hear that language, they decide that the best plan of attack is to pretend that they are this emasculated variety of man that the media has tried to create, this impossible dream that many woman have glommed onto because of movies that are targeted toward them which have happy conclusions. The truth is, men have been watching your movies, reading your publications, and picking up clues about what women want to see. This knowledge becomes tantamount to a sophisticated arsenal for the perceptive guy who wants nothing more than to play you like a violin. Beware the guy who targets women in this unconventional manner, because they are using unrestricted warfare. What's worse, if you really do find a guy that is what women refer to as nice, you can bet on the fact that you will undoubtedly be bored in the end.
This is so true. Look at the clubing metrosexuals. I am so so sick of their greasy hairstyles and slick clothes. I wish the bouncers would do their job and not let them in. If I ever own a nightclub I am not letting them in!! I know girls like them though. I never even comb my hair b/c it is sorta naturally really wavy/curly. I do not feel compromised by not dressing metrosexual though, otherwise i suppose I would do myself up like that.


For guys; do you want your woman to wear the pants in the family, decide what and where you eat, and leave you at home with the kids while she goes off to prove her worth as a top female executive?

But if ur married, ur stuck with only one girl. And you need huge pre-nup agreement. Whats the fun in that? Better lotsa women, right? I only like a bossy chick if sh'es cute. Plus almost 50% eventually divorse - yuk.

[General Patton]

I do not feel compromised by not dressing metrosexual though, otherwise i suppose I would do myself up like that.

Nor do I, but I don't think I would ever become a metrosexual. I would rather lower my standards than be something that I am not.



Better lotsa women, right?

Not necessarily. I have a really good one, right now. I might even consider marrying this girl. However, I have to remain skeptical about her because she seems too good to be true. I find myself wondering whether she has an agenda and what that might be. Therefore, I am with you on the prenuptial agreement. I would do that no matter who I was marrying. If she doesn't like it, fine, we won't get married.



I only like a bossy chick if sh'es cute.

Copy that. I like women that are assertive in bed. Women that are assertive in other situations are usually the type. However, occasionally you find the quite type that has a tendency to go nuts.

[General Patton]

Is this your dating advertisement? If so - no dates for you...

Actually, this is my personal profile on a dating site. You'd be surprised at the responses that I get.

"Finally, someone worthy of discussion. Let's get some coffee."

"My favorite thing to do in the world is debate feeble-minded communists. Wanna cyber?"

"The pinnacle of human greatness. I can appreciate your disdain for 95% of all humanity. Wanna f*ck?"

"You sound like a real man who doesn't take sh*t from nobody, here are some naked pictures of myself."

Yes...This is my personals profile. What follows is my most effective e-pickup line:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I am amazed ...to find such a rare breed in this day in age. You strike me as the type of woman that has class, style, dignity, intelligence, compassion, and morality. I know you don't say much about yourself on your profile, because you are rather reserved, possibly even shy at times. However, what you do say, and how you say it speaks volumes about you as a person. Your profile is a refreshing break from a lot of the utter nonsense that I have been wading through. To be perfectly honest, you are definitely wife material for some lucky guy. I say this with the utmost respect, and not because I want to get into your pants.

Quite honestly, I don't think we are a match. There are certain aspects about myself that lead me to this conclusion. First of all, I think that I possess a criminal psychology, have the tendency to be manipulative, and, in general, lack compassion for most people. In addition, I am borderline anti-social and despise many of the rules as they are applied to me. The prior list was what I would consider to be my greatest weaknesses. However, I am also open, honest, creative, intelligent, knowledgeable, loyal, resourceful, outspoken, persistent, free, and enthralling.

Although I have many great qualities, I am realistic about my prospects with a girl of your rare beauty and qualities. Sometimes I think that I am incapable of the kind of stability and partnership that someone like you desires and deserves. Although I love to dream about a perfect life, in a perfect house, with a perfect wife, I somehow imagine that I, myself, am too imperfect to actually obtain such a life for myself. What lies ahead for me? I have no idea. Somehow I doubt it's a beautiful yard with a white picket fence. Although that has an appeal, I think, in the end, I would tend to find that life too confining, and start viewing that fence as just another boundary that needs to be crossed.

Best of luck to you.

Copyright 2006

[BurnTheOliveTree]

GP - I can barely conceal my guffaw. I won't debate with you, because:

A. Everything's already been said.

B. Everything you say is bullshit. I think we can establish that as an a priori truth.

-Alex

[General Patton]

Everything you say is bullshit. I think we can establish that as an a priori truth.

If it makes you feel better to believe that, then that is your problem.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Mmm, and if it makes you feel better to slap kids for wearing t-shirts you dislike, or yelling at homeless people, that is equally your problem. If it makes you feel better to churn out archaic and idiotic opinions as if your life depends on it, that's also your problem.


Copyright 2006. Just in case you try and pass that post off as your own. :lol:

-Alex

[General Patton]

if it makes you feel better to slap kids for wearing t-shirts you dislike

If you could read, you'd know that I didn't slap him. Although I think that General Patton did the right thing when he slapped that yellow bastard who was sitting there crying in an army hospital near guys who actually had something to cry about (like the loss of their legs).



or yelling at homeless people, that is equally your problem.

Actually, I'd feel better if I didn't have to yell at them because they weren't harrassing me, or bothering me with their foul stench as I am trying to eat, walk down the street, or otherwise minding my own business. It would make me happier if they'd start arresting these pieces of sh*t for vagrancy.



If it makes you feel better to churn out archaic and idiotic opinions as if your life depends on it, that's also your problem.

If they are so idiotic, then you should easily be able to ague against them, which the communists here seem to have a hard time doing. If they were so idiotic, then you guys wouldn't feel the need to ban me. Fact is, you're scared.

[B.E. Jones]

It would make it easier for us to read said posts and refute if they weren't sprinkled with a lair of "I am vastly superior" mentality. It tends to end in normal mudslining. I wasn't specifically targeting you, I was targetting both parties cause once a insult is thrown you got yourself a domino effect. I'm just saying it may lead to more of a "Who's got the bigger internet penis" match rather than just a few blokes respectivlly debatting on some internet site.

I'd just rather have a common ground of respect, rather than just have hatred for some faceless person over the internet.

P.S.

I myself have learned not to reply to your posts because I know for a fact I will change my beliefs or ponder them differently (from what posts I've seen) from you, Nor will you from any of my replies. So what's the point?

[RaiseYourVoice]

am great because I am confident, driven, intelligent, creative, and resourceful. In short, I am great because I am a man.


Actually, this is my personal profile on a dating site. You'd be surprised at the responses that I get.

I LOL'ED

[Qwerty Dvorak]

"The pinnacle of human greatness. I can appreciate your disdain for 95% of all humanity. Wanna f*ck?"
*cough*emo*cough*

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by B.E. [email protected] 31 2006, 09:38 AM
It would make it easier for us to read said posts and refute if they weren't sprinkled with a lair of "I am vastly superior" mentality. It tends to end in normal mudslining. I wasn't specifically targeting you, I was targetting both parties cause once a insult is thrown you got yourself a domino effect. I'm just saying it may lead to more of a "Who's got the bigger internet penis" match rather than just a few blokes respectivlly debatting on some internet site.
the only reason why i target that idiot is because his posts are sprinkled with that superior, ego-maniacal attitude. realistically, i'm very much against aggressive and un-provoked name-calling and "penis matches," as you call them.. i recognize that those kinds of insults, when un-provoked, are mostly an ego-issue.. which makes them rather stupid. why come to OI if you'd simply like to flex some ego, anyway? why not debate?

so, do you consider my insults unprovoked? i simply get tired of every thread of his being some kind of treatise on his alleged superiority, or some kind of venting of his desire to kill illegal immigrants. really, how would you go about responding intelligently to a thread that supports that kind of murder? you can't.. it's not within the scope of intelligent and rational debate. so, you could either ignore it, or insult some sense into the author.. or, maybe he's just impervious to sense. fine, in that case, just bring his ego down a little bit.. he deserves it.

i mean, i'm sure he feels humiliated every time he avoids a point one of us makes, such as the points i brought up repeatedly in this very thread, only to get a dramatic, red-faced, foot-stomping, angry reply.. the dude can't even control himself, or his emotions. and sure, why not? i don't feel bad at all about being "mean" to such a malicious person.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Actually, this is my personal profile on a dating site. You'd be surprised at the responses that I get.

"Finally, someone worthy of discussion. Let's get some coffee."

"My favorite thing to do in the world is debate feeble-minded communists. Wanna cyber?"

"The pinnacle of human greatness. I can appreciate your disdain for 95% of all humanity. Wanna f*ck?"

"You sound like a real man who doesn't take sh*t from nobody, here are some naked pictures of myself."

You forgot to list the trait: "modest" in your profile.

This guy reminds me of Biff Tannen from the Back to the Future movies.

[Korol Aferist]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 31 2006, 05:25 AM
There's a difference between homophobia and thinking that guys who wear girl pants look like idiots.
Nope... not to your local psychologist... ;)

[ebeneezer]

Why is my friend General Patton banned?

Was it because he exhibited patriotism to the greatest society on earth?

Was it because he demonstrated and championed freedom, morality and the cause of justice?

Was it because he defended private property as a basis for freedom and happyness?

Was it becasue he wished to live in a society free of vagabonds and traitors to common decency?

He is a true patriot and champion of liberty. General Patton, I salute you.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

It was because he was/is essentially a troll. Stoopid.

-Alex

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:08 AM
Why is my friend General Patton banned?
The only person I could imagine being friends with him is either his sock puppet or some kind of toothless mouthbretaher. As you don't appear to be the former I shall give you a friendly reminder you won't suffocate if you close your mouth you just have to use your nose.


Was it because he exhibited patriotism to the greatest society on earth? I think he spent a lot of time doing the opposite


Was it because he demonstrated and championed freedom, morality and the cause of justice? What? When did he become a communist? It must have been sometime while I wasn't reading his idiotic ramblings against freedom, his warped sense of morality or his fucking stupid idea of justice.


Was it because he defended private property as a basis for freedom and happyness? We let cretins like you and theraven lurk around here spouting your crap don't we?


Was it becasue he wished to live in a society free of vagabonds and traitors to common decency? What the fuck is wrong with vagabonds? Also traitors to common decency? Your decency is outdated.


He is a true patriot and champion of liberty. General Patton, I salute you. He's still alive you don't have to get so fucking melodramatic.

He was banned because he's a sexist, chauvanist, trolling fuckwit and good riddance to his filth.

[Zero]

He was banned because he makes less sense than my signature.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by eben[email protected] 1 2006, 07:08 AM
Why is my friend General Patton banned?

because he's an idiot.

and i suggest you find a better friend.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by General [email protected] 30 2006, 08:41 PM
Let me tell you a little secret about nice guys. When guys hear that language, they decide that the best plan of attack is to pretend that they are this emasculated variety of man that the media has tried to create, this impossible dream that many woman have glommed onto because of movies that are targeted toward them which have happy conclusions. The truth is, men have been watching your movies, reading your publications, and picking up clues about what women want to see. This knowledge becomes tantamount to a sophisticated arsenal for the perceptive guy who wants nothing more than to play you like a violin. Beware the guy who targets women in this unconventional manner, because they are using unrestricted warfare. What's worse, if you really do find a guy that is what women refer to as nice, you can bet on the fact that you will undoubtedly be bored in the end.

Me, I am much more conventional in my approach. I present myself openly and honestly, with the hope that some female will recognize the characteristics that make me great. Sure, I might not be the epitome of nice. I might not try to emulate Huge Grant or any other Hollywood idiot that projects this false image, trying desperately to sell this lunacy to the female demographic. However, I have many of the traits that, just yesterday, were considered desirable in a man. I reject the metrosexual approach that many men are using in order to mate. I am sexy in the classical sense. I am great. Not because I am sensitive. Not because I am a pushover whose only purpose in life is to act as a boy-toy for the new feminists. I am great because I am confident, driven, intelligent, creative, and resourceful. In short, I am great because I am a man.

Given my thoughts on the anti-male propaganda that exists in the media, do you think that men should continue to perpetuate this surreal version of man by playing into the hands of the feminists by emascualting themselves through metrosexuality in order to attract women who would apparently rather date a gay guy, than someone with traditional male characteristics? This is really a question of liberalism and the impact that it has on traditions, and is entirely relevant to the debate between communism versus the status quo. Is the emasculation of males a positive or a negative side-effect due to the liberal attack on a nation's core values? Is it desirable in the mind of a communist to convolute traditions to a point where gender roles have been completely elliminated?

I am especially interested to hear opinions from the female demographic on this site.

For guys; do you want your woman to wear the pants in the family, decide what and where you eat, and leave you at home with the kids while she goes off to prove her worth as a top female executive?

Copyright 2006
Would you prefer that your boyfriend have more hair care products, better fashion sense, and be prettier than you, or would you rather date somebody who clearly differs from you because of his gender?"

I like men that look like men, and are men, I dont like men who are afraid of feminists because I think their *****es. Men who have this conversation aint shit.
Make me feel like I want to stay home and raise your babies. It shouldnt take a sermon. Thats what yall motherfuckers dont understand in the '06... cause you got a 1950's mentality but youre little asses isnt from the 1950's. You show with actions to a woman that you got shit, and that she is a QUEEN. Thats what makes us stay home and make you food. Cause if shes a queen then youre ass must be a KING.
You dont talk about tradition. You dont talk about nothing. You be a man.

"For guys; do you want your woman to wear the pants in the family, decide what and where you eat, and leave you at home with the kids while she goes off to prove her worth as a top female executive?"

WHen I have children, I want to be a stay at home mother, and do hair in my house and shit. I dont have a damn education anyway. I struggled so hard economically emtionally and physically in highscool it may as well count for college. Now I got life knowlege. I want to homeschool my children and take them to many social events. But my man and me need to be eating the same shit anyway because we need to have the same values. THis isnt no "he decides what I eat"
Hell nah, we better eat the same shit to begin with, cause we better be on the same shit.


If I have to prove my worth as a female executive, its because you fucked up at home. Now make shit happen!
If I am an executive because its bringing me money and I always had to get my own money since before I met you and I moved up while we were married, and you dont support that....you better give me a damn good reason not to. Because cheavanism doesnt pay the bills.

Thats the female demographic. Say somethin!

[TC]

Raisa are you trying to be ironic or what?



I certaintly like men to 'look like men' (but, fit, well cared for, non-lazy, hygenic and not sloppy, attractive men) and i frankly think that the geeky loserly guys like General Patton who seem to think that women want 'nice guys' (who yes, are truely boring) or overly pretty emoish guys (who aren't masculine and therefore aren't sexy) are just showing how limited their social lives are...

Traditionally masculine male gender presentation (which is not to say chauvenist, but merely not effeminate) is something that was developed by people who the power structure favored so it doesn't have the degrading and undesirable characteristics of the social roles created by economic exploitation like the traditional "family values" notion of traditional feminine gender roles...so i'd argue that the problem is not with traditionally masculine men but with traditionally feminine women since the later was a role defined almost entirely by an inferior and marginal role in labor...

...so while i can certaintly see why someone would want a non-"metrosexual" guy, i think its frankly disturbing that anyone would ever want to be a stay at home mother. It is a position of absolute financial depedence on a partner which means that the relationship is inherently asymetrical and the power dynamics can never be equal...it also means that by literally staying at home, having no working community, one's social circle would be limited to their relationship (and people associated with it, like mother's of your kids friends and what not) which in of itself is isolating and marginalizing.


I visited a friend of a friend's place this weekend who has a 2 year old girl, had her when she was my age, and i don't know i just thought it was profoundly depressing...her little girl was adorable of course but because she had a child she basically couldn't do anything on her own and her life seemed to completely revolve around careing for her, when she was in her very early 20s and would otherwise be socializing and working in the real world with people her own age.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 12:37 PM
Raisa are you trying to be ironic or what?



I certaintly like men to 'look like men' (but, fit, well cared for, non-lazy, hygenic and not sloppy, attractive men) and i frankly think that the geeky loserly guys like General Patton who seem to think that women want 'nice guys' (who yes, are truely boring) or overly pretty emoish guys (who aren't masculine and therefore aren't sexy) are just showing how limited their social lives are...

Traditionally masculine male gender presentation (which is not to say chauvenist, but merely not effeminate) is something that was developed by people who the power structure favored so it doesn't have the degrading and undesirable characteristics of the social roles created by economic exploitation like the traditional "family values" notion of traditional feminine gender roles...so i'd argue that the problem is not with traditionally masculine men but with traditionally feminine women since the later was a role defined almost entirely by an inferior and marginal role in labor...

...so while i can certaintly see why someone would want a non-"metrosexual" guy, i think its frankly disturbing that anyone would ever want to be a stay at home mother. It is a position of absolute financial depedence on a partner which means that the relationship is inherently asymetrical and the power dynamics can never be equal...it also means that by literally staying at home, having no working community, one's social circle would be limited to their relationship (and people associated with it, like mother's of your kids friends and what not) which in of itself is isolating and marginalizing.


I visited a friend of a friend's place this weekend who has a 2 year old girl, had her when she was my age, and i don't know i just thought it was profoundly depressing...her little girl was adorable of course but because she had a child she basically couldn't do anything on her own and her life seemed to completely revolve around careing for her, when she was in her very early 20s and would otherwise be socializing and working in the real world with people her own age.
I don't know about the housewifes you know but whenever my friends/cousions had a stay at home mom it was clear that she, not the husband ran the house. the moms i know who were housewifes were generally intellegent and usually had college degrees but stayed at hoem hwen their kids came. of course as the kids get older a job becoesm more logical

as for your friend-she might have looked at you and thought the ame thing "how sad..she doesnt have a wonderful thing like my daughter in her life"

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:53 PM
I don't know about the housewifes you know but whenever my friends/cousions had a stay at home mom it was clear that she, not the husband ran the house. the moms i know who were housewifes were generally intellegent and usually had college degrees but stayed at hoem hwen their kids came. of course as the kids get older a job becoesm more logical

Oh yah, "running the house" sounds brilliant, keep the wife busy "running the house", while the husband goes out and "runs his career", "runs a buisness" "runs a company", "runs the govenrment", and generally "runs his life."


Mothers and housewives 'running the house' have been held up as an ideal because it keeps them from running anything important, it makes their sphere the private, home, family life rather than the public, shared, social life where everything important occurs. They imagine endless housework and chores that don't have to be done but they're made to think, probably by their own mothers, that there is some value in doing it and spending hours and hours on it, simply to keep them busy at home so it doesn't occur to them that they're wasting their lives. Romanticizing things like a well prepaired "home cooked meal", suggesting that menial tasks around the house are appropriate ways of expressing affection for husbands and children, are ways of trying to get people to see value in what amounts to activities that do nothing more than keep them out of trouble, the same way children are taught in school to cram useless information for exams and then base their worth and status on how well they do, forgetting it immediately afterwards.

All of the endless crap in political discourse and the psudo-psychology that supports it about how very important mothers are (along with teachers, another underpayed marginal occupation,), perhaps 'the most important thing you can do' or whatever, is only necessary as a way of encouraging people to do it, because percisely the opposite is true. Its not important, its meaningless.


as for your friend-she might have looked at you and thought the ame thing "how sad..she doesnt have a wonderful thing like my daughter in her life"

Actually she asked me and my friend seperately how we felt about having children...theres really no good way to say 'uh, no' when someone is posing the question as a reaction to you having spent an afternoon with their kid...

But i think the only good way to have children is to do it after you're financially secure enough that you can pay other people to take care of them so you can have a normal life (and besides its healthier for children i think to be in daycare with lots of people rather than at home alone or with their parents)...no ones life should be limited to any one other person.

[theraven]

Oh yah, "running the house" sounds brilliant, keep the wife busy "running the house", while the husband goes out and "runs his career", "runs a buisness" "runs a company", "runs the govenrment", and generally "runs his life."


and she doesnt run her life? what makes a company more importna then a house?


Mothers and housewives 'running the house' have been held up as an ideal because it keeps them from running anything important, it makes their sphere the private, home, family life rather than the public, shared, social life where everything important occurs. They imagine endless housework and chores that don't have to be done but they're made to think, probably by their own mothers, that there is some value in doing it and spending hours and hours on it, simply to keep them busy at home so it doesn't occur to them that they're wasting their lives. Romanticizing things like a well prepaired "home cooked meal", suggesting that menial tasks around the house are appropriate ways of expressing affection for husbands and children, are ways of trying to get people to see value in what amounts to activities that do nothing more than keep them out of trouble, the same way children are taught in school to cram useless information for exams and then base their worth and status on how well they do, forgetting it immediately afterwards.


I don't know what century you live in but thansk to modern iinventions few women spend all day doing household chores. chances are a stay at home mom (when the kids are little) will spend a lto fo time going back and forth to social visits with other kids going to the park etc. as the kids get older generally the mother goes out and works because there isnt' anything to do at home


All of the endless crap in political discourse and the psudo-psychology that supports it about how very important mothers are (along with teachers, another underpayed marginal occupation,), perhaps 'the most important thing you can do' or whatever, is only necessary as a way of encouraging people to do it, because percisely the opposite is true. Its not important, its meaningless.

not at all, teaching-besides paying quite well esp. if you do it long enough is amazingly important as you, if you are good, haev a posivitve impact on many people. now being a stay at home mom has no moneteray reward however that doesnt mean being a mom isn't imoprtant.



Actually she asked me and my friend seperately how we felt about having children...theres really no good way to say 'uh, no' when someone is posing the question as a reaction to you having spent an afternoon with their kid...

But i think the only good way to have children is to do it after you're financially secure enough that you can pay other people to take care of them so you can have a normal life (and besides its healthier for children i think to be in daycare with lots of people rather than at home alone or with their parents)...no ones life should be limited to any one other person.

1) so wait till your rich to have kids? that makes sense :-\

2) how is it healtiher for a kid to be raised by the hired help?

[Zero]

Stay at home mom... my mother and father, and most of my friends parents have been forced to work full time to support a less than average home.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 12:37 PM
Raisa are you trying to be ironic or what?



I certaintly like men to 'look like men' (but, fit, well cared for, non-lazy, hygenic and not sloppy, attractive men) and i frankly think that the geeky loserly guys like General Patton who seem to think that women want 'nice guys' (who yes, are truely boring) or overly pretty emoish guys (who aren't masculine and therefore aren't sexy) are just showing how limited their social lives are...

Traditionally masculine male gender presentation (which is not to say chauvenist, but merely not effeminate) is something that was developed by people who the power structure favored so it doesn't have the degrading and undesirable characteristics of the social roles created by economic exploitation like the traditional "family values" notion of traditional feminine gender roles...so i'd argue that the problem is not with traditionally masculine men but with traditionally feminine women since the later was a role defined almost entirely by an inferior and marginal role in labor...

...so while i can certaintly see why someone would want a non-"metrosexual" guy, i think its frankly disturbing that anyone would ever want to be a stay at home mother. It is a position of absolute financial depedence on a partner which means that the relationship is inherently asymetrical and the power dynamics can never be equal...it also means that by literally staying at home, having no working community, one's social circle would be limited to their relationship (and people associated with it, like mother's of your kids friends and what not) which in of itself is isolating and marginalizing.


I visited a friend of a friend's place this weekend who has a 2 year old girl, had her when she was my age, and i don't know i just thought it was profoundly depressing...her little girl was adorable of course but because she had a child she basically couldn't do anything on her own and her life seemed to completely revolve around careing for her, when she was in her very early 20s and would otherwise be socializing and working in the real world with people her own age.
Nah im not trying to be ironic.

I want to educate my kids, and then after four hours of learing shit, I want to take them all over to learn in real life and I can go where ever the hell I want. I can go to live music, I can go to a library a book store a salon, an open mic whatever.
And I can also have my own income too whether I decide to work alittle bit or work form home, its a nice dream. That is the ideal. I want to be able to be there for my kids.


Just cause you dont work for the system doesnt mean that you are cleaning the floor and is isolated all day...or OPRESSED.

I think that is a onesided thought.
I probably wont be able to stay home with my kids all the time, but it would be nice to be able to homeschool my kids.
I dont believe children should be in school for six hours. I think they need to learn and then explore their interests with guidance and then I think they need to go fucking play.

And I do like men who look like men.
I want men with character.
Where I live alot of men got their eyebrows all done real cute, and powder themselves and come off as cosmetic. And I do not respect that!
It is submission to capitalism. It is commodifying yourself too much.
Theres a line between accenting your natural beauty and then losing yourself in vanity that is created by the system.

Women dont do that cause their free. THey do it cause their opressed.