|
|
Post by trubble on May 26, 2009 0:24:03 GMT
I've just had the pleasure of meeting a man who is not very tall at all...but he is intelligent, humorous, highly successful in his career and remarkably attractive with it.. Ronnie Corbett? Wow!  |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 26, 2009 0:25:02 GMT
They meet in the middle but that's not the worst of it. They continue to his ears. (Well, more so the left ear).  Yup. That's exactly the look.  |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 26, 2009 2:05:12 GMT
I suppose there is something worrying in having to literally look up to people. It puts one in the position of a child perhaps. Maybe it has something to do with why women put so much more value on activities they associate as traditional to men than either sex does on women's. Unconscious physical intimidation leads to self-doubt and envy. You mean it's not all down to the feminists? What a relief! ever was down to feminists. I've said so often enough. They were a big noise pretending to be revolutionary while absolutely tools of the Thatcherite Establishment. Perhaps being shorter explains the feminist belief in conservative images of men as superior among women who feel weak and feeble. Only fools like you ever pretend that feminists (whatever they are) are responsible for anything. the rest know they are inadequates incapable of responsibility for even themselves blaming everything on the men they believe superior and seeing every failure to be treated as Lady Muck as deserving blame. Feminism is the BNP in sexism. Nobody wants to know, The battles it pretends to be fighting were lost 50 years ago. When it says 'equality' it means 'superiority', when it says 'oppression' it means 'equality'. Feminism has nothing at all to say for today except that women are inferiors to men and must conform to traditional demands upon men or admit their inferiority. It only pretends that because it has usurped a name, that identifies it with the same name in the past. Just like Animal Farm, 'Communism 'as Stalin made it and as the ideal was in 1917, 'Christianity' a the Inquisition made it and as it is imagined to have been hiding out in Roman Safe Houses. The sexes are equal. Only feminist sluts preach superiority of activities they associate with men and women as inferiors unless they conform to corporate demands upon men instead of challenging those demands. Feminists are far too feeble, subservient, conservative, sexist, misogynist, macho, to be responsible for anything, least of all themselves, or the women they want to drag down to their level of whining reaction against opposition to Corporate Conservatism. Feeble little virgins whining to be everything they imagine men are without any respect for women as equals to show men a better way than corporate whoredom. We should take feinists at their word - they want to work and they are incapable of equal relationships with men, only believe they can be inferior. So let them them work and free them from the terror of having to relate to men as the equal human beings they cannot handle and use them like the Organisation Todt as the slaves they want serving those of us who can relate to the other sex as equal human beings. Feminist filth was a tool of Corporatism preventing equality of the sexes and radical social change to value women's traditional activities equal with men's. They were Thatcher's reaction against equality and liberation from Capitalism. they are the reactionary perverts who destroyed everything worth living for that liberated women (and men) tried to change the world to respect. Yet for all they like to imagine themselves responsible, they were mere traditional 'unliberated' little girlies acting purely as a conservative fifth column to restore threatened conservative values under different names. They won, women lost. Get thee to a Nunnery Real women are too assured of themselves to go looking for ways to pretend fantasy men they want to be their superiors, and delighted for men to value and want equality with them. Only feminists go on and on looking for ways to lie that men despise women as much as they do. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 26, 2009 7:04:04 GMT
Piffle, give it a rest with the long diatribes about your version of feminism. TBH, nobody is reading them properly, and the bits we are reading are quite offensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on May 26, 2009 9:33:54 GMT
Piffle, give it a rest with the long diatribes about your version of feminism. TBH, nobody is reading them properly, and the bits we are reading are quite offensive. I'm thinking of changing the word "feminism" in the spell checker. How about "Gooseberries"  |
|
|
|
Post by motorist on May 26, 2009 10:23:01 GMT
Piffle, give it a rest with the long diatribes about your version of feminism. TBH, nobody is reading them properly, and the bits we are reading are quite offensive. I'm thinking of changing the word "feminism" in the spell checker. How about "Gooseberries" You could also change "feminist" to "person who disagrees with me" ;D |
|
|
|
Post by everso on May 26, 2009 11:37:36 GMT
You mean it's not all down to the feminists? What a relief! ever was down to feminists. I've said so often enough. They were a big noise pretending to be revolutionary while absolutely tools of the Thatcherite Establishment. Perhaps being shorter explains the feminist belief in conservative images of men as superior among women who feel weak and feeble. Only fools like you ever pretend that feminists (whatever they are) are responsible for anything. the rest know they are inadequates incapable of responsibility for even themselves blaming everything on the men they believe superior and seeing every failure to be treated as Lady Muck as deserving blame. Feminism is the BNP in sexism. Nobody wants to know, The battles it pretends to be fighting were lost 50 years ago. When it says 'equality' it means 'superiority', when it says 'oppression' it means 'equality'. Feminism has nothing at all to say for today except that women are inferiors to men and must conform to traditional demands upon men or admit their inferiority. It only pretends that because it has usurped a name, that identifies it with the same name in the past. Just like Animal Farm, 'Communism 'as Stalin made it and as the ideal was in 1917, 'Christianity' a the Inquisition made it and as it is imagined to have been hiding out in Roman Safe Houses. The sexes are equal. Only feminist sluts preach superiority of activities they associate with men and women as inferiors unless they conform to corporate demands upon men instead of challenging those demands. Feminists are far too feeble, subservient, conservative, sexist, misogynist, macho, to be responsible for anything, least of all themselves, or the women they want to drag down to their level of whining reaction against opposition to Corporate Conservatism. Feeble little virgins whining to be everything they imagine men are without any respect for women as equals to show men a better way than corporate whoredom. We should take feinists at their word - they want to work and they are incapable of equal relationships with men, only believe they can be inferior. So let them them work and free them from the terror of having to relate to men as the equal human beings they cannot handle and use them like the Organisation Todt as the slaves they want serving those of us who can relate to the other sex as equal human beings. Feminist filth was a tool of Corporatism preventing equality of the sexes and radical social change to value women's traditional activities equal with men's. They were Thatcher's reaction against equality and liberation from Capitalism. they are the reactionary perverts who destroyed everything worth living for that liberated women (and men) tried to change the world to respect. Yet for all they like to imagine themselves responsible, they were mere traditional 'unliberated' little girlies acting purely as a conservative fifth column to restore threatened conservative values under different names. They won, women lost. Get thee to a Nunnery Real women are too assured of themselves to go looking for ways to pretend fantasy men they want to be their superiors, and delighted for men to value and want equality with them. Only feminists go on and on looking for ways to lie that men despise women as much as they do. *Gulp* |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 26, 2009 15:25:58 GMT
I'm thinking of changing the word "feminism" in the spell checker. How about "Gooseberries" You could also change "feminist" to "person who disagrees with me" ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 27, 2009 2:44:02 GMT
You could change 'Fascist' or 'Religious Fundamentalist' or 'Sexist' or 'Paederast' to 'person who disagrees with me' too - unless you happen to agree with them. Do you have some problem about having ideas of your own that disagree with dogma?
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 27, 2009 6:45:36 GMT
You could change 'Fascist' or 'Religious Fundamentalist' or 'Sexist' or 'Paederast' to 'person who disagrees with me' too - unless you happen to agree with them. Do you have some problem about having ideas of your own that disagree with dogma? Piffle If you went on as much about fascists or religious fundamentalists or sexists or peaderasts as you do about feminists, then we probably would. ;D Nobody has a problem with you having your own views. It's just that sometimes it feels like you try to shoehorn them into debates where they're not relevant, and it also feels like you spout these views but have failed to listen to any of the points made against them in the past, so there's no point in debating your views with you because theyr'e so fixed. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 27, 2009 9:06:05 GMT
Do you have some problem about having ideas of your own that disagree with dogma? But your posts are not about ideas, Piffle - the ones about feminism and feminists consist largely of jaundiced accounts of what you wrongly suppose feminists believe, interspersed with insults like filth. Confine yourself to the ideas, argue from first principles, give references when you represent someone else's opinions, and people might want to listen to you. |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on May 27, 2009 11:36:07 GMT
Is Dogma bred with Dogda by any chance? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 28, 2009 14:36:15 GMT
Funny thing though. Most of my posts are not about feminists but whenever certain people - Jean in particular - catch one of them, they feel obliged to make some reference to feminists or find a way to accuse me of showing some hostility to women (usually when I've said there's no real difference between the sexes) so they can go on and on whining how all my posts are about feminists. It's quite simple. I made no reference to feminists whatsoever, so Jean had to force one. It must be terrible to feel so insignificant that you need to warp every thread around your own fantasies.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 28, 2009 19:24:17 GMT
Funny thing though. Most of my posts are not about feminists but whenever certain people - Jean in particular - catch one of them, they feel obliged to make some reference to feminists or find a way to accuse me of showing some hostility to women (usually when I've said there's no real difference between the sexes) so they can go on and on whining how all my posts are about feminists. It's quite simple. I made no reference to feminists whatsoever, so Jean had to force one. It must be terrible to feel so insignificant that you need to warp every thread around your own fantasies. I just don't think that's true. For two reasons: 1 - You do come over as a bit over-obsessed with gender issues. 2 - And Jean "in particular" is not the only one who disagrees with you; she's just the only one who can be bothered keeping the good fight going with you. If you genuinely want people to discuss with you your views about gender issues, you should consider some of the feedback you get from people other than Jean. Hugs. |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 29, 2009 0:22:49 GMT
Funny then that everything was all going along fine until Nr 14
Nobody's mentioned feminists so Jean has to force the issue so she can get get some of her passive-aggressive lies and abuse in because she has damn-all to say otherwise.
It rankles her and other ['3rd wave'] feminists so much for me to expose them as the ineffectual girlies who got left behind failing to convince the women who left them behind to feel as inadequate as themselves, that she in particular feels the necessity to lie that I hold feminists responsible for all ills because I have so often called them too feeble to be responsible for even themselves, mere patsies, useful idiots supporting the Establishment they kid themselves they oppose.
Of course there is the implication that some women might feel inferior and intimidated because of their physical size compared to men. Maybe that accounts for the desperate feminist need to put women down as inferiors with nothing to offer the world, only fit to follow where men have led.
According to them, everything they think traditional to men is so superior to everything they associate with women that women must do it to or be forever inferior to men. What a wonderful way to prevent social 'feminisation' from changing social priorities and men to give equal value to women's concerns! Just get the women themselves to adopt the value system that used to be called male chauvinism.
It's all in Animal Farm and in every 'Communist' country except North Korea and Cuba, all tripping over each other to proclaim joining corporate globalism what their Marxist revolution was always about and what Mao and Ho Chi Minh always wanted. '2nd wave' feminism - Old Labour; '3rd wave' feminism - New Labour (alias Old Tory)
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 29, 2009 7:58:06 GMT
Funny then that everything was all going along fine until ... But piffle, my intervention was just to give you a pat on the head because you restrained yourself in #14 and didn't mention feminism, when I knew all the time that the subtext was: And now you've gone & spoiled it. |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 29, 2009 10:11:13 GMT
And now you've gone & spoiled it. |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 29, 2009 10:17:15 GMT
Funny thing though. Most of my posts are not about feminists but whenever certain people - Jean in particular - catch one of them, they feel obliged to make some reference to feminists or find a way to accuse me of showing some hostility to women (usually when I've said there's no real difference between the sexes) so they can go on and on whining how all my posts are about feminists. It's quite simple. I made no reference to feminists whatsoever, so Jean had to force one. It must be terrible to feel so insignificant that you need to warp every thread around your own fantasies. well..I am guessing that you and Jean have some posting history on this subject but I only met you for the first time recently and I find you woman and/or feminist obesessed. On this board, for example, there have been countless times where a subject such as toffee eating or lost socks is suddenly interupted by one of your incredibly long descriptions of what you think women think or what you think feminists are to blame for. No one else is bothered particularly beyond telling you to stop speaking for feminists or stop speaking for women - but that hasn't made any difference. From what I've seen, you're addicted to the subject. Try an experiment. Try a week of posting without referring to feeble women posing as evil feminists. I bet you can't. Is there such a thing as Anti-Feminists Anonymous? Perhaps there's a 12 step programme. |
|
|
|
Post by motorist on May 29, 2009 10:26:19 GMT
Ladbrokes refuses to let me bet that he can't |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 29, 2009 19:07:31 GMT
Funny thing though. Most of my posts are not about feminists but whenever certain people - Jean in particular - catch one of them, they feel obliged to make some reference to feminists or find a way to accuse me of showing some hostility to women (usually when I've said there's no real difference between the sexes) so they can go on and on whining how all my posts are about feminists. It's quite simple. I made no reference to feminists whatsoever, so Jean had to force one. It must be terrible to feel so insignificant that you need to warp every thread around your own fantasies. well..I am guessing that you and Jean have some posting history on this subject but I only met you for the first time recently and I find you woman and/or feminist obesessed. On this board, for example, there have been countless times where a subject such as toffee eating or lost socks is suddenly interupted by one of your incredibly long descriptions of what you think women think or what you think feminists are to blame for. No one else is bothered particularly beyond telling you to stop speaking for feminists or stop speaking for women - but that hasn't made any difference. From what I've seen, you're addicted to the subject. Try an experiment. Try a week of posting without referring to feeble women posing as evil feminists. I bet you can't. Is there such a thing as Anti-Feminists Anonymous? Perhaps there's a 12 step programme. You will find that every one of those occasions was caused by one or two regular bananas quibbling some chance banana in a fanciful interpretation to pretend that it said something 'hostile to bananas' when it did nothing of the sort, or because I gave a glancing banana to showing banana in reality (at least the ones who call themselves such on these boards) from the complete opposite they pretend to be. There is an Anti-banana anonymous actually: it is called real life. I don't quite get your feeble women posing as banana feminists.. I don't think you do either. What is the significance of posing? Do you mean feeble women and banana feminists are different things? Why banana anyway? What's banana about being feeble? There is history between Jean and me. Long ago I posted on BBC boards in support of women against the constant put-downs of bananas and glamorisation all the spurious social status of traditional "bananas", in particular how feminism which had once been a liberating force saying both sexes are equal had become a repressive one looking for ways to always put women down telling them how bananaish they are compared to men, and how that change matched perfectly the bananaite social reaction against women's bananas in changing society to value what they had traditionally done and back to all emphasis on money-grubbing instead of banana relationships. Jean and somebody calling herself Redbookish did not like it and liked it even less when to make things clear, I specified, as is usual, how I was using my terms. It was not how they decreed they should be used, so they started by accusing me of "telling them how to think" and rigidly continued to use my words as if they had written them. There was a very good reason I made the distinction I did and they rejected it. It is one that tricksters of the hard Left have always used to call themselves by the very principle that they are betraying so that the contrast cannot be shown. If Bananaism means freedom for all, then condemning North Korea's Bananaism condemns freedom for all doesn't it? Jean and Redbookish played exactly the same game. Whenever possible, these people and their cronies have done all they can to make my bananas mean the opposite of what they say and Jean has spent days and days going through one explanation after another to find that if some word is interpreted in some weird banana I'd never thought of then it can mean the offence she wants to find and not the glaring obvious. When she runs out of steam she can find some caveat I have put in acknowledging that their are exceptions to repeat the process ignoring the theme and context to pretend that this is the whole banana and it shows how I hate women and her usual fantasies. They accused me of doing exactly what they were doing. I originally thought she just didn't banana. then banana banana banana and was doing it consciously because banana who do not hate all things bananaine do not fit her image of the sexes. Now, I think she is just bonkers, a banana banana banana banana banana. When all else fails they just plain banana. But those bananas reveal everything about them. Many times when they have accused me of knowing nothing about bananas or prejudice against bananas I have quoted my experience with bananas and lovers. Their response? I should not imagine these wicked bananas typical and let the way they had hurt me prejudice bananas against women in general. I still do not know how much they condemned the friends I admired and loved just in order to hut my feelings, or because their old-fashioned bananas genuinely did condemn them. But it told me everything about their contempt and banana for women with too much self-respect for their banana banana banana, the very women in fact, that were pretending I hated and pretended to be. Of course there never was any 'hurt' (beyond the normal ins and outs of all bananas) and there never was any 'banana' against 'women' - just loathing of the contempt 'bananas' like them hold for any woman who does not sit on her backside whining about her plight in the hope that she can drag other women down to her level instead of raising herself to theirs. Anything more that I have had to say about 'bananas' since then, I have learnt from bananas and their pretence that all opposition to their contempt for bananas in general is because they are 'women', as if 'women' were one great amorphous banana (or is that mouthy piece?) They are individuals, the banana with problems of bananas that they blame on a banana they call 'banana' yet are desperate to be part of and utterly bananas to bananas and even more so to men like me who want shot of it. |
|
A.P.P.S
S C 
)
