03-29-2014, 12:00 AM
Maybe I have not understood what was written in an earlier post so maybe you can clarify what '' You go girl! I mean that. Go! Go away! Shoo! You ain't wanted here. Git! '' means?
I took this to mean that you do not want to hear views like Kelly's.
I interpret the meaning that she should take her views somewhere else? I don't want to hear views like Kelly's as I don't enjoy listening to people promoting bigotry. Its been a while so let me remind you of how I define, (and how I think its sensible to define), bigotry. Bigotry is the belief that certain people, based solely upon which group they were born into, are deserving of entitlements that other people, based solely on what group they were born into, have an obligation to meet those entitlements. It doesn't require hatred, which is what really makes it so dangerous. Owning slaves is bigotry even if you don't hate them.
In the article of Kelly's that I wrote that as a reply too, (the one I posted), she promotes men as having an obligation to pay for women on dates and uses all kinds of shaming techniques, (questioning the masculinity of any man who doesn't conform to the bigotry being her apparent favorite), in order to emasculate men into it. Like all the "consciously awake" women she speaks for, she wants "to be treated like a GODDESS" and reminds us that in her heirarchy "Women are the prize, men need to impress you" and that men who "want to be the prize" are "self-entitled little brat boys". Its all bigotry, and I don't care for it.
Kelly is a gender elitist, and I would say she is a narcissist. She wrote that "Narcissists need a dose of their own medicine
and since almost nothing gets them to awaken, a rude awakening is just
the kind of wake up call these women need." Well, she should have no issue with my shooing her away here then.
I'd like to stand by my comparison.Its you're right to stand by it, but everything in the comparison that demonstrates a business having an obligation to it's customers fails as a reason why I should treat the media-manufactured grievances of women that men are failing to meet all their birthright entitlements as legitimate.
keep those pesky customers happy.That assumes I want to do business with them and keep them from going elsewhere. I'm only interested in "customers" who value me as an equal and will treat me that way, even when that means going against social standards that benefit them at my expense.
hmmm, isn't a legitimate grievance one that is voiced? If I were to say "Littlepaw, I have a grievance against you for not having come over and painted my house last week" would you think that just because I said it that it was legitimate?
It surely is a problem if men are made to feel like they are to keep
their grievances to themselves but is it right to condemn women for
voicing theirs? I'll condemn anyone for promoting bigotry.
Lastly I took your recommendation and selected three lines at random No, it doesn't work that way. You have to do it to the entire thing to see the big picture. Sure you might be able to spot the sexism when reversing a line like...
"Emotionally stunted MEN are an epidemic in our culture."... to read "Emotionally stunted WOMEN are an epidemic in our culture", but you see so much more when you reverse a whole paragraph...
"A
lot of these emotionally stunted gals have awesome personalities, cause
they’re cool in every other way than how they choose to deal with their
emotions. ALL MEN get caught up with these types at one stage or
another until they wise up. WHY? Cause we aren’t living in a culture
where the emotional intelligence of women is predominately great and
sometimes it takes awhile to see people for who they actually are.
A
lot of men are so starved for connection that they make excuses and
then get roped into year long love affairs when WARNING SIGNS have been
flashing the entire time. It gets lonely out there for men when 9 out
of 10 gals have fractured female egos. The choices for men are not
exactly far reaching.
Listen
up lords, stop falling for a gal’s potential or what she could be. If
she has major emotional issues (like the ones I highlighted), you will be
baby siting, playing daddy, and living with a headache larger than
life! Unless she is willing to work her **** out without you nagging her
to woman up, or she has her own personal desire to grow herself, you will
suffer her shortcomings. I can guarantee that."
One last point. You didn't reverse everthing int the last quote you randomly chose. It should have read...
"Some Women like to call men complainers, bastards, ignorant, wankers,
idiots and whatever else you can muster, but let me be the first to tell
you Mens feelings have an origin. Men aren’t bastards or ignorant for
no reason. Men are not crazy either. Men are tired of dealing with
emotional and mental morons they can’t grow a relationship with."
I took this to mean that you do not want to hear views like Kelly's.
I interpret the meaning that she should take her views somewhere else? I don't want to hear views like Kelly's as I don't enjoy listening to people promoting bigotry. Its been a while so let me remind you of how I define, (and how I think its sensible to define), bigotry. Bigotry is the belief that certain people, based solely upon which group they were born into, are deserving of entitlements that other people, based solely on what group they were born into, have an obligation to meet those entitlements. It doesn't require hatred, which is what really makes it so dangerous. Owning slaves is bigotry even if you don't hate them.
In the article of Kelly's that I wrote that as a reply too, (the one I posted), she promotes men as having an obligation to pay for women on dates and uses all kinds of shaming techniques, (questioning the masculinity of any man who doesn't conform to the bigotry being her apparent favorite), in order to emasculate men into it. Like all the "consciously awake" women she speaks for, she wants "to be treated like a GODDESS" and reminds us that in her heirarchy "Women are the prize, men need to impress you" and that men who "want to be the prize" are "self-entitled little brat boys". Its all bigotry, and I don't care for it.
Kelly is a gender elitist, and I would say she is a narcissist. She wrote that "Narcissists need a dose of their own medicine
and since almost nothing gets them to awaken, a rude awakening is just
the kind of wake up call these women need." Well, she should have no issue with my shooing her away here then.
I'd like to stand by my comparison.Its you're right to stand by it, but everything in the comparison that demonstrates a business having an obligation to it's customers fails as a reason why I should treat the media-manufactured grievances of women that men are failing to meet all their birthright entitlements as legitimate.
keep those pesky customers happy.That assumes I want to do business with them and keep them from going elsewhere. I'm only interested in "customers" who value me as an equal and will treat me that way, even when that means going against social standards that benefit them at my expense.
hmmm, isn't a legitimate grievance one that is voiced? If I were to say "Littlepaw, I have a grievance against you for not having come over and painted my house last week" would you think that just because I said it that it was legitimate?
It surely is a problem if men are made to feel like they are to keep
their grievances to themselves but is it right to condemn women for
voicing theirs? I'll condemn anyone for promoting bigotry.
Lastly I took your recommendation and selected three lines at random No, it doesn't work that way. You have to do it to the entire thing to see the big picture. Sure you might be able to spot the sexism when reversing a line like...
"Emotionally stunted MEN are an epidemic in our culture."... to read "Emotionally stunted WOMEN are an epidemic in our culture", but you see so much more when you reverse a whole paragraph...
"A
lot of these emotionally stunted gals have awesome personalities, cause
they’re cool in every other way than how they choose to deal with their
emotions. ALL MEN get caught up with these types at one stage or
another until they wise up. WHY? Cause we aren’t living in a culture
where the emotional intelligence of women is predominately great and
sometimes it takes awhile to see people for who they actually are.
A
lot of men are so starved for connection that they make excuses and
then get roped into year long love affairs when WARNING SIGNS have been
flashing the entire time. It gets lonely out there for men when 9 out
of 10 gals have fractured female egos. The choices for men are not
exactly far reaching.
Listen
up lords, stop falling for a gal’s potential or what she could be. If
she has major emotional issues (like the ones I highlighted), you will be
baby siting, playing daddy, and living with a headache larger than
life! Unless she is willing to work her **** out without you nagging her
to woman up, or she has her own personal desire to grow herself, you will
suffer her shortcomings. I can guarantee that."
One last point. You didn't reverse everthing int the last quote you randomly chose. It should have read...
"Some Women like to call men complainers, bastards, ignorant, wankers,
idiots and whatever else you can muster, but let me be the first to tell
you Mens feelings have an origin. Men aren’t bastards or ignorant for
no reason. Men are not crazy either. Men are tired of dealing with
emotional and mental morons they can’t grow a relationship with."