GENIUS FORUMS

Aaron Mathus,

You come accross as a bit of a lunatic (with all that poetry and all those exclamation marks) - - However, I feel our spirits are in some ways similar.

How did you discover fukuoka? Have you had success farming in his way?

I was glad to read the Fukuoka interview, but i was a bit dissapointed by the silly ghost gimmick.

Aaron Mathis wrote: There is too much of an abundance in nature for that talk - Wasted on baseball arenas, stadiums, casinos, factorys for gadgets and gizmos and cities. Look at all the consumer products!

Fight the good fight - not the vain one!

Well that will only make the land more expensive, won't it? So you're already working on limited returns. If you spend more for the land, there is less money available to pay employees, or less profit to be had.

You are fighting the vain fight.


Even if you are trying to make some point about using your mind for beneficial things, and perhaps you are, your metaphor is failing badly because of your obvious lack of understanding of basic economics and reality.

Try speaking in plain terms. And with fewer exclamation points.

Rory with unicorn horn of ice, who tries to use that horn to defeat the fire!

Lets be friendly. And ok, I will lay off a bit on the things that I see people are not impressed with.

Rory, you wrote

Well that will only make the land more expensive, won't it?

how can living poorly, make land more expensive? You are comprimising to the irrational mentality of Donald trump economics.

So you're already working on limited returns.

So why is it that Masanobu Fukuoka's farm produced more and more every year of his life? He is a great hero.

If you spend more for the land, there is less money available to pay employees, or less profit to be had.

Spend more for the land? Why not just own the land? Passing it along to generation after generation.

How silly is it for children to grow up, and instead of take their parents house, they go and get themselves in such great debt!

And what is the children goal, to fit into the the generic sprawl of the suberbs!

Coming home for christmas to the degraded parents you hate!

Cory, that granite-balled brother!

Aaron Mathus here!

Cory you wrote:

Aaron Mathus,

You come accross as a bit of a lunatic (with all that poetry and all those exclamation marks) - - However, I feel our spirits are in some ways similar.

How did you discover fukuoka? Have you had success farming in his way?

I was glad to read the Fukuoka interview, but i was a bit dissapointed by the silly ghost gimmick.

I heard a radio program once that featured Fukuoka. But it's hard to find people who have the lightness of being to work together and do the hard work required to achieve a great end like a sustainable food production system.

Unfortunatey the sort of people attracted to a Fukuoka sort of system and spirituality in general are very poorly adjusted to society due to their extra sensitivity, conscience and thoughtfullness - they are often damaged by a socieity that was not designed for their natural inclinations.

Souls that have spiritual inclinations are like fruit on the tip of a branch -- -easily snapped off! Fallen, brusied and they rot.

Aaron Mathis wrote:Rory with unicorn horn of ice, who tries to use that horn to defeat the fire!

Lets be friendly. And ok, I will lay off a bit on the things that I see people are not impressed with.

Such as calling me a unicorn?

Spend more for the land? Why not just own the land? Passing it along to generation after generation.

How silly is it for children to grow up, and instead of take their parents house, they go and get themselves in such great debt!

Sure, that's great for people who already own property, or people whose parents already own property. That is a very small minority of people. Plus we are specifically talking here about trying to obtain more property to increase the size of the farm. That means you don't already own the property, which makes this entire paragraph... what?

Rory he said:

Sure, that's great for people who already own property, or people whose parents already own property.

No, but even for those so called fortunate people, generally, it can't happen for them. The parents are too corrupt for that. They didnt have much part in the children's education - for they themselves were only superficially educated - - and so the children grow up to be comprimising and accepting and even envious and immitative of what is unacceptable and evil! Often they admire their parents, and sometimes they are conscious of their hatred for them. Either way, it's lose-lose.

The parents waste their property mowing the lawn, the children find the parents a sort of pain to be around because they are so dull, boring and authoritarian. Wise elders my ass!

I seen a funny fridge magnet the other day:

"Friends welcome - relatives by appointment"

Plus we are specifically talking here about trying to obtain more property to increase the size of the farm. That means you don't already own the property, which makes this entire paragraph

Well your right, you can't increase the property size of the farm because you share the world with idiots who are burning/cutting down 100 acres to lay down pavement for a shopping mall, or they are off to see the madonna concert or they are off to the wedding or funeral!

The solution?

Man must transform himself first - - however, that transformation involves thinking about the ideal socieity as you work on your transformation, and if you have the chance - start sowing the seeds of the new eco-econmic model for society

David Quinn wrote:A very good question. We sometimes get angry female music, such as with Alanis Morisette - but then again, female anger is really a form of sprightly fun and enjoyable reveling in womanly indignation. Anger is one of woman's favourite emotions. Like sex, it makes her feel so alive.

I guess you could call some of Joni Mitchell's music blues, but even here, a lot of her music is simply her reminiscing about past experiences with lovers and friends, and so on, and not really a reaction to being oppressed.

I think you're onto something there.

Yes, I've seen that too---many of the angrier female music is about relationship stuff (being Canadian, I'd followed Alanis Morisette since her early days in the late 1980s, and her first CD was mostly dance stuff with some "You left, you pig"-themed stuff that just got angrier as the 90s went on, as it seemed for most "rocker chicks"). Certainly love ballads (which seem to have decreased since the 1980s), dance songs, and reactionary "I hate you for leaving" scorned-female rock songs (almost entirely: demonizing a man who refuses to play by her rules) ...are not the Blues.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:My post, which included the “horrendous state of affairs” list was to highlight the fact that even though feminism is considered a powerful influence on society, it had actually done very little to change the lives of many women. I made the point that modern feminist’s continued to treat women’s rights and development in a “superficial and crassly egotistical way”. As they concern themselves with making their own lives comfortable by disregarding other people completely.

(Okay, I had a feeling that I was not viewing the totality of your post, and after I posted it I realized that I might be jumping to a few conclusions.)

Yes, you're right about that.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Women not caring one iota about each other explains why there is no ‘Sisterhood of Woman’.

Yes, I have not seen a "sisterhood" in terms of doing what's best for all in this group---women seem to join forces when they're either being offensive or defensive. (Makes sense---which gender works well in teams and gets shit done? One small group of men gets more done in this world than a million committees of women talking about stuff.)

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:But this doesn't stop both men and women being brought up to believe that the whole female sex is the kinder and more caring of the two. Yet there is nothing at all kind and caring in their nature, for they are purely parasitic creatures who use other people and society to their benefit. And being a parasite requires little, or no consciousness. Which then explains why they are not at all interested in promoting any change which would take away the pleasure they experience being women.

So my post was to emphasis the insanity of expecting over half the population of the planet to operate as responsible human beings towards each other (or towards the other half) when most of them obviously exist with the barest of consciousness.

Okay, makes sense.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: As you point out, most men are ‘women’, and therefore show very little potential to develop their masculinity/consciousness. But, if either a female or a male did have enough consciousness to pierce through the Feminine and free themselves of her – [1] neither could then be considered a ‘woman’. And if any individual has the potential to develop their consciousness, they need wait for no one.

[1] True, and in this feminist age, women are unknowingly trying to develop (without a lot of success or just as a whim) their "masculine sides"---which modern feminism has told them is their "feminine sides." (Feminists urging women to dismiss logical ideation as "men's stuff" are saying that left-brained strengths, which should be woman's main strength yet isn't, are masculine---hell, for years I saw logic as a "masculine trait," too.) It's a clusterfuck; they can't arrive anywhere but confusion because they have it all mixed up, even when they get serious about it.

I've come across a vast number of "Independent Feminists" who really ought to call themselves "masculists," because they value more in themselves, and in others, that which is in their right or masculine brain. But, in this feminist age, where being male is considered a disadvantage and just undesirable (to be kind; some see it as bad as being retarded), women seem to cringe when told they need to "get in touch with their masculine sides."

It slaps her female supremacy in the face, I think (subconsciously, most women do have a sense that they are superior ...especially morally, where due to her beauty---and the psychological perpetuation of that which being ugly = inherently "bad"---she is regarded as "good," and obviously that sinks in after a decade or two, dipping below the radar of consciousness, if it was ever conscious).

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: I wrote with part tongue in cheek:

Ah. I see that now. (Excuse my former presumption---we seem to agree on quite a bit here.)

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: The more conscious/masculine society becomes, the smaller and weaker the Feminine is. Women depend on other people’s attachments to delusions (the Feminine) to get hold of them. This is how they exist. When those attachments are broken, woman’s hold is also broken. Without someone to attach herself to, she is set adrift. Being set adrift is the “help” I think women so “desperately require”.

Good stuff---also, the smaller civilization is, the more masculinity is apparent.

I reason civilization itself is feminine; I reason nature is masculine. If that is sound, then the larger civilization becomes = the smaller the masculine becomes, the smaller nature becomes = the larger the feminine becomes.

On a global scale, we have deforestation and desertification, overpopulation; on a social scale, we have feminized men helping neo-feminists feminize (increasingly) the already essentially feminine school system and workplace, expanding bureaucracy and organizing committees to vote on new regulations, rules, means of control, social engineering; on a national scale, we have corporations selling products of labour and the destruction of nature, poisoning the environment, exploiting the current cult of female sexuality, among other things, to sell to men, and spreading (culturally) the current vanity and self-obsession of women (feminism) to sell to them; on a legal scale, we have women getting away with murder, receiving severely reduced sentences for similar crimes of men, even though most of the laws in society prohibit male behaviour only (there are exceptions: we still have boxing, which causes so much more damage than does a common street scrap, lasting two minutes maximum and little serious injury), and fathers getting shat on in court and denied access to their kids.

So, the question: how can society be more masculine if it keeps growing and expanding?

How can civilization be anything but feminine?

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: So, Nordicvs, I do agree with you that most women lack enough consciousness to suffer. But to the degree that they are conscious, they do experience suffering. And to the degree that they suffer, they do produce some works of interest.

Okay, that's pretty clear...all of that makes perfect sense.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: The problem with Blues – or for that matter, any music - is that most of it is used entirely by the emotions to foster the Feminine. But I do agree that women’s emotions are too superficial to create the depth of sorrow that some Blues represents.

-
Sue

True enough---"emotions" are left brained and "feelings" are right brained. Most of us know which of those are deeper.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:According to the CDC:
In 2002, 76% of IPV homicide victims were female; 24% were male (Fox and Zawitz 2004).

same site, to address more of the IPV/DV issue raised:

"Most IPV incidents are not reported to the police. About 20% of IPV rapes or sexual assaults, 25% of physical assaults, and 50% of stalkings directed toward women are reported. Even fewer IPV incidents against men are reported (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000a). Thus, it is believed that available data greatly underestimate the true magnitude of the problem."

Emphasis mine. I have other sources, posted below (ones that are heavily dependent on police reports are no good because men rarely go to the police). And frankly I do not trust the CDC (search for this story---"CDC exaggerated “fat deaths” by 1400%"), or any group of women-feminists managing stats. They cook them and twist them to create issues (to justify their ever-increasing funding), to fit them into their ideology-dogma, and to shame and demonize men.

Ever heard of the Abuse Bowl in (back in 1993)? Check it out.Luckily, someone debunked that one in time, so it probably won't grow in popularity like that "one in four women are raped" hoax from the 1970s...but who knows: urban myths have more power (with the ignorant) than facts or truth.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Male bashing is not politically correct anymore.

Huh? You see it everywhere, and it's legal and of course popular and very politically correct. (If you can stand it, watch an episode of Sex in the City, for one small but good example, and count how many anti-male statements get said compared to a "male show"---if one even exists---and anti-female comments. I don't watch TV much anymore, except here and there at other people's houses (don't own a TV), but it's got to be 95% female content now, almost entirely made for females. Shit, the male-bashing I recall way back in the 1980s---and it's gotten worse since then; it's gotten subtle and disguised more as comedy and humour now.)

I have dozens of other examples---male-bashing in its in zenith right now---but it's such a given for me, even just all that I see, and have seen, with my own eyes, that I'm not bothering to list it all right now.

Try this, though: Make a joke in public about a female getting her vagina ripped open so badly and her ovaries punctured so that she cannot have children (c'mon, how many would dare to tell that 'joke' even if it crossed their minds?)...and see how many people laugh; or just make a castration joke and join in the ensuing hilarity. (After that, apply this in many spheres, TV, the news, a Disney movie, and imagine how many would laugh at either 'joke.' Female newsanchors make castration jokes---and do not get fired or even warned.) Or merely think of a movie in which a female got punched in the breast...and then think of all the times you've seen a guy get booted in the nads; a society in which male suffering is considered comical is not only PC-ing but also legalizing male-bashing.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: As for seeing sexism - perhaps you as a male have seen more of it against males than a female would, but I as a female have seen and experienced more of it against females.

I've been conscious of it happening to both genders---but it happens far more often against men. And it puts men who start growing more aware of it at odds with themselves and with women (it's the ones exposed to it and not aware who tend to have deeper self-hatred), because it's simply unmanly to complain about it (we're supposed to suck it up, no matter what). But they see their boys struggling in school (when a six-year-old boy gets "charged" with sexual assault for sticking out his tongue at a girl...something's bloody rotten), and don't know why.

Here's another example, from an elementary school text book:

'"But in what way has this [ant] society evolved beyond that of humans? It is far ahead in women’s liberation. Male ants are totally unimportant. When their biological usefulness is over, they are discarded and not permitted to return to the nest. The entire ant social world is female, including the soldiers, the workers, the farmers, and, of course, the queen. Male ants have wings, and they are expected to use them – to get out."

—from Getting the Facts, a sixth-grade textbook used in New York state.'

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:And it may be illegal, but it is usually unenforcable. In one job as a respiratory therapist, I was told by my boss that another female therapist got more work than I did because she wore tighter shirts, was prettier (actually, she just wore more make-up), she smelled better (she wore perfume - respiratory therapists working in a hospital are not supposed to wear perfume because their patients have breathing problems), and she flirted with the male staff. His statements were not legally provable. I lost another job working in a mental health facility for reporting a company psychiatrist for dropping his pants in front of me - and mostly I'd reported it because one of his patients had complained he was staring at her chest through the entire psychiatric session. Again, legally unprovable that I lost my job for reporting him - even though it was obvious to everyone including the lawyers (there's a difference between what's obvious and what is legally provable). I've seen and heard of so many instances where the females noticed that the females who got preferential treatment were the flirtatious, made-up ones - and I've seen and heard of so many instances where if there are more males than females working in a group, lewdness is considered acceptable. In one respiratory department, the most often repeated phrase by guys was "Who's your daddy?" and I saw one guy talking to a female therapist who had just gotten back from maternity leave (and she was in really good shape) telling her that he thought her husband would appreciate it if she would do more sit-ups. She was thinner than most women who had not just had a baby, and while he was going on and on about how she should work out more since she just had a baby, she was looking at the ground and her shoulders were kind of up by her ears. I reamed the guy out for saying that to her - and shortly after that, one of the other female therapists had a private word with me about "how it is" in that department - and pretty much told to just deal with it because that's how the world works and there's nothing we can do about it - and anyone who raises a stink about it will be on their own. This was followed by examples of females who complained that didn't work there anymore.

Sure, shit happens to both genders. Most husbands battered by their wives (85% never report it; in 50% of those reported, someone else reported other than the man) do not report it---most males do not report stuff against them, for good reason. I don't do it either, for my own reasons (because I'm a man and really despise complaining and whining, even when there's no other way to express something, as well as snivelling, "telling on someone," lowering myself to grovel for assistance; real men handle their own problems, as far as I'm concerned). I've had everything I owned stolen from me four times, by four different women, and I never reported it (a. I knew that it would do me good to lose it all, and it did; b. when I leave my home, I take my life into my own hands; I expect no one to rush to help if I'm in trouble, no matter what the situation---if I can't get myself out of it, according to my own devices, then too bad for me); I've called the police and ambulances on behalf of other people, but only once regarding myself. I avoid doctors stubbornly for a similar reason. And violence? I've been in about four fights in my life; I've never hit a woman and yet at least 90% of the violence I've experienced was from women---and this hardly varies from guys I've talked to and have heard about through others.

Fact is, most men are good-natured and will only engage in violence if quite provoked or threatened, defending themselves or others (especially women and children). Man-as-abuser is the biggest hoax of the last one hundred years.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Okay, men are 4 times more likely to be murdered than women, but men are 10 times more likely to commit murder than women.

Not with children...

So what, is this a "which gender is worst" contest? If so, I'll play. I'll wager one child (mudered by its sweet, nuturing, sane mother), the value and potential of that child's young, unlived life, against every thousand walking zombies that get cut down by some evil male psychopath.

Let's compare a slap across the face with ten years of psychological abuse, nagging and games and tests and manipulations and hen-pecking, shaming and belittling. I'll wager one child "abused" by Father with a spanking compared to a child whose undergone years of psychological abuse from Mother---which heals more quickly, which is more likely to mess up the kid?

Yes, men rape---women also rape, directly, physically (but if rape is merely not wanted sex, then both sides go about getting what they want through different means---and manipulation and seducation, things like stopping the pill to have a kid...these are not illegal, but they destroy entire lives; the illusion that men want sex all the time, no matter what age, keeps men who don't want sex every second of every day in obligation mode---many men are convinced that because they're male they need it often, and their surrounding stimulus doesn't help, so many men have sex when they don't want to, just to please their lovers).

More men than women are raped by men, but since it's men doing most of the raping, we're worse? Is that the basic implication here? Why, then, is rape women's most common sexual fantasy? Why do women lie so often and spread so many false allegations?

Women, as most men know (even if they never admit it), are notorious liars. The National Scruples and Lies Survey found 94% of British women lie, and 17% with long term partners have had an affair - but only 40% regret it. The survey questioned 5,000 women with an average age of 38.

A third (32%) said they would stay with their partner if he had a one-night stand, 28% if they discovered he was a secret transvestite and 17% if he announced he was gay.

More than three quarters (76%) told researchers they tell life-changing lies, while 12% do so frequently. And 94% of British women admit they lie, with 34% telling "little white lies" most days.

Women also admit to lying about their weight (51%), background (30%) and salary (29%). They tell most lies to their friends (93%), followed by their parents (91%), partner (90%) and employer (83%).

The authors say a "staggering" 53% of women would not tell their long term partner or husband that a baby was not his if they wanted to stay with him after a secret affair. About a third (32%) would pretend to use contraception like the Pill if they wanted to get pregnant but their partners did not want a child.

The survey also found 48% fantasise about other men during sex, 50% fake orgasms and 36% admitted to disloyally tell their friends about their man's sexual performance.

Only 27% tell their partner the truth if they think he is hopeless in bed, and over half (55%) will lie to flatter him if he asks about his physique or looks. Women are also suspicious about their partners and admit to checking their pockets (46%), text messages, (47%) mobile phone bill (27%) and following them (10%).

The survey also found 23% of women would marry just for money. When asked what they would do for £1 million 24% said they'd cut off their little finger, 34% would give up sex, 20% would sleep with a boss and 25% would be prepared to run naked down their local high street.

...

Interesting. And false rape allegations? They're increasing. Any system in which women are legally able to change their decision of consent weeks after the the fact (because of intoxication) is feeding lies and encouraging liars to lie. (Usually, the threat or usage of polygraph tests---which feminists are trying to make illegal, for good reason---has been a sure way to separate those who have actually been raped and those who lie about it for whatever reason. Currently, without widespread use of lie-detectors, it's impossible to determine how many false rape allegations there really are.)

Is that the worst "crime against" women?---rape? What's the worst crime against men? What about kids? Raping a kid is pretty horrible, and yet men are women are equally bad here; killing children? That's a female crime (look up any country's official statistics on infant mortality and gender of perpetrator---you'll find it's between 93% and 98% women). And that's pretty bad...think of that woman who drowned five of them in a tub.

So, I dunno, try this: the murder of a newborn baby compared with the rape of a woman...which is worse? For a "crime against humanity," next to torture and psychological brutalty, which is worse? (For which crime does the criminal receive worse punishment? Which crime is full of false allegations?)

If you are really set on finding out which gender is worse, the answer to that question might give us some perspective. They say the measure of any society is how it treats its children...so I'm going one further and saying that the measure of a human being is how it treats its---and other people's---children.

Here's some other stats on domestic violence (it's just A through D---if you want the rest of the alphabet, let me know), still with women doubled up in most, yet it's the least biased bunch I could find...

Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988). The incidence of violence and acquaintance rape in dating relationships among college men and women. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 305-311. (A sample of actively dating college students <204 women and 140 men> responded to a survey examining courtship violence. Authors report that there were no significant differences between the sexes in self reported perpetration of physical abuse.)

Arias, I., Samios, M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1987). Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 82-90. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 270 undergraduates <95 men, 175 women> and found 30% of men and 49% of women reported using some form of aggression in their dating histories with a greater percentage of women engaging in severe physical aggression.)

Arias, I., & Johnson, P. (1989). Evaluations of physical aggression among intimate dyads. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 298-307. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale-CTS- with a sample of 103 male and 99 female undergraduates. Both men and women had similar experience with dating violence, 19% of women and 18% of men admitted being physically aggressive. A significantly greater percentage of women thought self-defense was a legitimate reason for men to be aggressive, while a greater percentage of men thought slapping was a legitimate response for a man or woman if their partner was sexually unfaithful.)

Bernard, M. L., & Bernard, J. L. (1983). Violent intimacy: The family as a model for love relationships. Family Relations, 32, 283-286. (Surveyed 461 college students, 168 men, 293 women, with regard to dating violence. Found that 15% of the men admitted to physically abusing their partners, while 21% of women admitted to physically abusing their partners.)

Billingham, R. E., & Sack, A. R. (1986). Courtship violence and the interactive status of the relationship. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 315-325. (Using CTS with 526 university students <167 men, 359 women> found Similar rates of mutual violence but with women reporting higher rates of violence initiation when partner had not–9% vs 3%.)

Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., Smith, C., & Ryan, K. (1992). Predictors of dating violence: A multi variate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 297-311. (Used CTS with 305 college students <227 women, 78 men> and found that 133 women and 43 men experienced violence in a current or recent dating relationship. Authors reports that “women reported the expression of as much or more violence in their relationships as men.” While most violence in relationships appears to be mutual–36% reported by women, 38% by men– women report initiating violence with non violent partners more frequently than men <22% vs 17%>).

Burke, P. J., Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1988). Gender identity, self-esteem, and physical and sexual abuse in dating relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 272-285. (A sample of 505 college students <298 women, 207 men> completed the CTS. Authors reports that they found “no significant difference between men and women in reporting inflicting or sustaining physical abuse.” Specifically, within a one year period they found that 14% of the men and 18% of the women reported inflicting physical abuse, while 10% of the men and 14% of the women reported sustaining physical abuse.)

Carlson, B. E. (1987). Dating violence: a research review and comparison with spouse abuse. Social Casework, 68, 16-23. (Reviews research on dating violence and finds that men and women are equally likely to aggress against their partners and that “the frequency of aggressive acts is inversely related to the likelihood of their causing physical injury.”)

Caulfield, M. B., & Riggs, D. S. (1992). The assessment of dating aggression: Empirical evaluation of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 549-558. (Used CTS with a sample of 667 unmarried college students <268 men and 399 women> and found on a number of items significantly higher responses of physical violence on part of women. For example, 19% of women slapped their male partner while 7% of men slapped their partners, 13% of women kicked, bit, or hit their partners with a fist while only 3.1% of men engaged in this activity.)

Claxton-Oldfield, S. & Arsenault, J. (1999). The initiation of physically aggressive behaviour by female university students toward their male partners: Prevalence and the reasons offered for such behaviors. Unpublished manuscript. (In a sample of 168 actively dating female undergraduates at a Canadian university, 26% indicated that they initiated physical aggression toward their male partners. Most common reason for such behavior was because partner was not listening to them.)

Coney, N. S., & Mackey, W. C. (1999). The feminization of domestic violence in America: The woozle effect goes beyond rhetoric. Journal of Men’s Studies, 8, (1) 45-58. (Authors review the domestic violence literature and report that while society in general as well as the media portray women as “recipients of domestic violence…epidemiological surveys on the distribution of violent behavior between adult partners suggest gender parity.”)

Deal, J. E., & Wampler, K. S. (1986). Dating violence: The primacy of previous experience. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 457-471. (Of 410 university students <295 women, 115 men> responding to CTS and other instruments, it was revealed that 47% experienced some violence in dating relationships. The majority of experiences were reciprocal. When not reciprocal men were three times more likely than women to report being victims. Violent experiences in previous relationships was the best predictor of violence in current relationships.)

DeMaris, A. (1992). Male versus female initiation of aggression: The case of courtship violence. In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Intimate violence: interdisciplinary perspectives. (pp. 111-120). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. (Examined a sample of 865 white and black college students with regard to the initiation of violence in their dating experience. Found that 218 subjects, 80 men and 118 women, had experienced or expressed violence in current or recent dating relationships. Results indicate that “when one partner could be said to be the usual initiator of violence, that partner was most often the women. This finding was the same for both black and white respondents.”)

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: Men and women, who have the wealth and freedom to ensure their own health, security and rights, mostly turn a blind-eye to the horrendous state of affairs that millions of women endure daily. Around the world, women continue to die from preventable diseases, starvation, poverty, over work, complications during pregnancy, complications caused by too many pregnancies, infections caused by circumcision, domestic violence, unsafe abortions, sexually transmitted diseases, illnesses caused by pollution, and as civilian casualties of civil disputes and wars. In developed, and undeveloped countries alike – these events take place on a daily bases.

Your perspective is clinically paranoid. I seriously doubt you personally have EVER experienced any of these things in your life. What are you complaining about? You sound like the folks in Indonesia claiming that because the Palestinians get the boot that Moslems everywhere are under attack. The western female persecution complex is really, really tiresome.

Lemme see, do MEN also die from "preventable diseases, starvation, poverty, over work, infections caused by circumcision, domestic violence, sexually transmitted diseases, illnesses caused by pollution, etc. etc."? Why is this a WOMAN problem and not a HUMAN problem?

Quit thinking that having a cunt somehow makes you different from everybody else.

reedsch wrote:

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: Men and women, who have the wealth and freedom to ensure their own health, security and rights, mostly turn a blind-eye to the horrendous state of affairs that millions of women endure daily. Around the world, women continue to die from preventable diseases, starvation, poverty, over work, complications during pregnancy, complications caused by too many pregnancies, infections caused by circumcision, domestic violence, unsafe abortions, sexually transmitted diseases, illnesses caused by pollution, and as civilian casualties of civil disputes and wars. In developed, and undeveloped countries alike – these events take place on a daily bases.

Your perspective is clinically paranoid. I seriously doubt you personally have EVER experienced any of these things in your life. What are you complaining about? You sound like the folks in Indonesia claiming that because the Palestinians get the boot that Moslems everywhere are under attack. The western female persecution complex is really, really tiresome.

Lemme see, do MEN also die from "preventable diseases, starvation, poverty, over work, infections caused by circumcision, domestic violence, sexually transmitted diseases, illnesses caused by pollution, etc. etc."? Why is this a WOMAN problem and not a HUMAN problem?

Quit thinking that having a cunt somehow makes you different from everybody else.

Dude, you missed the same thing I did---read my post above, or her reply which I'd quoted in my reponse above.

(Next time, it might be better to read all the posts in a thread; that way there will be less misunderstanding.)

Nordicvs wrote:Ever heard of the Abuse Bowl in (back in 1993)?

No, I had not - and the CDC is not an urban legend rumor mill.

Nordicvs wrote:Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Male bashing is not politically correct anymore.

Nordicvs wrote: Huh? You see it everywhere, and it's legal and of course popular and very politically correct. (If you can stand it, watch an episode of Sex in the City, for one small but good example, and count how many anti-male statements get said compared to a "male show"---if one even exists---and anti-female comments. I don't watch TV much anymore, except here and there at other people's houses (don't own a TV), but it's got to be 95% female content now, almost entirely made for females. Shit, the male-bashing I recall way back in the 1980s

(bold added)

No, I don't. I don't subscribe to TV either, but for someone who does not know what I see nor has television, you sure think you know what I see and what is currently on TV. Well, what can one expect from someone who can't tell the difference between what he heard somewhere and a report from the CDC.

Nordicvs wrote:...—from Getting the Facts, a sixth-grade textbook used in New York state.'

You have not established enough credibility with me for me to believe you. I don't know this isn't just some rumor.

Nordicvs wrote:So what, is this a "which gender is worst" contest?

No, it's a "let's look at the whole picture in the frame of truth" endeavor. Ryan started off this thread with the proposition that women have had it cushy all along while slave-driving the men to support their cushy lifestyles and cater to their every whim. The obvious counter is to point out where women have not had it so cushy. I did not say that women are angels - but you seem to be saying that because women are not angels, they must be monsters. Extremism is not reflective of truth.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
No, I had not - and the CDC is not an urban legend rumor mill.

How do you know? That's what they said about FAIR.

By the way, where did I say it was "an urban legend rumor mill?"

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
No, I don't.

"You" as in "anyone," I meant, of bloody course (there's no need to be intentionally obtuse or petty here, Elizabeth; I think you knew what I meant), but clearly I should have stated it: "anyone with good perception who pays attention to their surrounding social world."

No matter: I shall endeavour to be as formal and as anally retentive with my English as possible, just for you. (Just kidding: I'll write whatever goddamned way I feel like.)

Anyway, you claim matter-of-factly that "male-bashing isn't politically correct anymore"---how do you know it isn't politically correct when you don't see it? You would need to see it, along with some apparent "crack down" on it, in order to maintain that it isn't politically correct any longer, no? That would mean it was politically correct at one point, in your recollection---so when, according to you, did it mysteriously "go away?" When did you cease observing it?

Or might it be that because you don't see it that you determine it's not politically correct any longer? (Thus, when you are not aware of something, it does not exist?)

Perhaps you merely don't look or don't care enough to look... (That might be something to ponder. Because it does exist, whether you look around or not.)

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
I don't subscribe to TV either, but for someone who does not know what I see nor has television, you sure think you know (1) what I see and (2) what is currently on TV. Well, (3) what can one expect from someone who can't tell the difference between what he heard somewhere and (4) a report from the CDC.

1. Covered that above.

2. I already indicated that I had watched plenty of TV over the years and now only when over at other people's houses.

3. Excuse me? What I "heard somewhere?" To what are you referring?

4. You seem to be implying that the CDC is beyond error or corruption---obviously you did not look up that article I'd mentioned (and pretty much ignored the rest of what I'd posted concerning it). So, hey, feel free to remain ignorant and cling to your "faith" in this beloved CDC of yours. I don't much care.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: You have not established enough credibility with me for me to believe you. I don't know this isn't just some rumor.

Look it up yourself, then. I'm not your personal researcher; your fingers seem capable of typing, thus they are capable of a few simple searches.

As I said, I have loads of other examples of misandry/male-bashing, but I'm not wasting my time typing anything out only for it to be curtly dismissed as "some rumours," despite the sources being included---or ignored entirely, as were my statistics on the factual equality of domestice violence.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
No, it's a "let's look at the whole picture in the frame of truth" endeavor. Ryan started off this thread with the proposition that women have had it cushy all along while slave-driving the men to support their cushy lifestyles and cater to their every whim. The obvious counter is to point out where women have not had it so cushy. I did not say that women are angels - but you seem to be saying that because women are not angels, they must be monsters. Extremism is not reflective of truth.

Extremism is not reflective of truth, indeed, yet at times the truth is found in the extreme.

I do consider the majority of women to be "monsters"---not because they are not angels but because they're more like monsters than people, nevermind angels.

I discern most women as monsters in the sense that children are considered monsters because they lack good judgement, are greedy, ignorant, totally self-absorbed, shallow, "spoiled lazy" and ego-driven; also because they talk more than they listen, have trouble thinking abstractly (too literal), lack patience, do not think much of others except as a means to their own personal ends, are narrow-minded and manipulative (maneuvering others to do what they ought to be capable of doing for themselves, which of course does not apply well to younger children but certainly does apply to "adult" women), as well as their lack of compassion, their tendency towards untruth, and their complete absence of accepting responsibility (including their way of blaming others for their own troubles and issues), et cetera.

What is a "monster" anyway? Its definition: "an inhumanly cruel or wicked person."

In my experiences and in others' about which I'd read and heard, it fits.

No need to take that personally---I blame no woman for how she is...how can I? I don't blame children for the way they are (they're not developed enough to know any better); I don't blame a dog for crapping on the carpet (it knows only what it's been trained); both, like most women and many men, are only marginally conscious and barely self-aware.

The easiest way to tell how full of shit women are when it comes to them crying about being treated as equals of men, is how pissed they get when you treat them like men. In my experiences, it seems the more I treat women like men, the more they dislike me. How can any man with a conscience take what feminists says seriously? It' so obvious the last thing in the world a woman wants is to be treated like a man. For that would mean they will be held accountable and responsible for their thoughts and actions. Something most "men" want no part in either!

If you haven't checked it out already, Nick, the following mock dialogue in Life and Death magazine will give you a chuckle. It neatly satirizes the double standard that you speak about.

-