- Flaming apeshit. Have you ever had a woman go flaming apeshit on your ass? Of course you have, but a mere excuse for indulging in the rhetoric I allowed myself.
- It’s enough to put the fear of God in you, I’ll tell you that. Eyes bulging out of sockets and eerily blank while fixating you, face swollen and scarlet, the voice a high pitch shrill of incoherent babble culminating in deafening screams, stuff flying through the air menacingly. Oh yes. Truly a frightful sight to chill you to the bones.
- There is little you can say or do, as a man, to quell or allay the imminent tide of rising hysterical paroxysm. It’s a thing wise to behold from a cautious distance as it feeds off itself, kind of like feminism, in a vicious cycle of growing magnitude. And anything you say or do will likely not alleviate anything in the slightest but, to the contrary, only make it worse faster. Well, there is something actually.
- Very rarely, calm soothingly toned conveyed reason can sometimes thwart escalations and even defuse the situation, supposing you’ve got enough psychological leverage over the woman to open her up to reason, either in the form of her respect for you or her shame for her own unfairness – rare indeed.
- Either she holds you in high enough esteem to want to be reassuringly calmed down or you’re merely a proxy, a safety valve for her anger as she can’t dish it out on the person she actually intends at that very moment.
- Sometimes it’s really bottled up anger lashing out at the nearest person and you need only point this out to her.
- However, it can just as well worsen the situation through being interpreted as a condescending tone in the blurry heat of the moment, just as happened with me, and you can only vouch for your own manly restraint not anyone else’s, especially a woman’s, especially dealing with a man, no matter what she thinks/feels of him. Though it may not occur to her at most times except this one moment of angst and strife, a slapfest cannot be confidently ruled out so keep an appropriate distance.
- The most recent instance I’ve personally experienced such an odious spectacle just occurred last week.
- I found myself reduced to staring in bewilderment at the woman in question for her enormously disproportionate response to my offence. Personally, I view the situation as me being ever so slightly in the wrong, however far from the objective, unobjectionable truth that may seem. And it so happened that this time the woman in cause was also the woman in charge. I do believe she had quite a deal of remnant tension left over from other issues of hers, personal or business related – whatever, and I unfortunately served as the handy safety release valve.
- Thus my employment there promptly ended thereafter, today. First thing in the morning. Obviously consequential, wouldn’t you say?
- You are well within your prerogatives to assume some idiotic course of action or idle inaction on my part.
- And somewhat correct. As I said, I was, though marginally, in the wrong. Perfectly innocent indulgence in sedentarism on the job, whilst entrusted to be of no need at the particular time. Trivial.
- The consequences ensued disproportionately and I don’t really deserve the opprobrium I’m still receiving as I propagated home the news. All for such a trifle offense as endeavouring to play CS:S in the mean hours of idleness, – apparently - safely tucked away in my little maintenance office. Can I help it that I do lasting work?
- Where those angels when you need ‘em?
- [edit]What is it with wordpress and break lines?
This entry was posted
on Monday, October 9th, 2006 at 9:15 am and is filed under Elucubrations.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 9th, 2006 at 11:09 am
I’m sorry to hear you lost your job Sonyad. She sounds like she is under enormous pressure and you served as the whipping boy. It happens to us all at some point and the valve can be male or female.
October 9th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
It outlived its usefulness. More chillout time for me.
October 9th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
heh. Too cool for skool . More time to teach your friend how to drive;
October 17th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Someone needs to hold Female to her vow of departing mabtw permanently. The blog included. Just when I again thought I could stomach her views I came across yet another homophobic gem to put me straight.
No amount of death and destruction of flora and fauna is worth one single human life, whoever that life may be or done, or will supposedly do in the future.
Notice the hypocrisy involved in advocating for the sanctity of human life while advocating for my virtual death?
October 18th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
No. Not at all, actually. And you’re being more than a tad melodramatic.
1 Person for 10000 wolves? Would you qualify as that persons? Or is the rationale only applicable to others?
Nice of you quoting Stalin, also. Real classy.
October 21st, 2006 at 1:52 am
quoting Stalin? The only person I quoted was you…hmmm. Re the wolves, yes I would make the personal sacrifice because I am talking about an ecosystem here not just wolves. Anyway, I am not here to discuss wolves. I mentioned yesterday that I would continue a discussion on feminism with you, unfortunately I cannot recall which thread your post was in and I cant find it. wolfe is going to blog soon on 1st, 2nd and 3rd waves of feminism. I suggest you join the discussion on these topics on his blog…if you dare ;
October 21st, 2006 at 6:43 am
I’ve found the post and it wasn’t on feminism *ahem* but I still think you should give your opinion on wolfe’s blog, think of it as a personal challenge to try and not get turfed.
Anyways…here is what I said (we were talking about a newborn infant being found buried alive and the consequences for the mother).
October 21st, 2006 at 6:44 am
Here is what you said
198
sonyad (838) Says:
October 19th, 2006 at 2:52 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
October 21st, 2006 at 6:54 am
Of course she should be held accountable, however, of course her mental state was obviously impaired at the time. You should note that she didn’t abort the child; she didn’t give birth and then murder the child with a weapon; she buried it. Her actions show that she didn’t really want to kill the child (as she couldn’t bring herself to do that effectively) and seem to suggest that she wanted to hide the child. Maybe she was planning on returning to the scene or maybe she wasn’t - in any case, these aren’t the actions of a cold-blooded killer. They are the actions of a desperate person who regardless of her actions is entitled to some compassion for being unable to deal appropriately with the circumstances of having a child.
I never stated that it was anyone’s fault, I mentioned possible mitigating scenerio’s in her environment/life. I don’t believe it is ever possible to point a finger and say that one thing and one thing only is the cause of any other action. Life isn’t that simple or linear.
Yes I was. I stand by that for situations where it is provable beyond doubt that the accused is guilty and that the act was definately sex against another person’s will.
The rest of your questions are simply inflammatory and obviously not in line with my thinking.
October 21st, 2006 at 11:52 pm
“One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.” A particular sentence you said invoked in me recollection of that quote. The spirit of the qoute at least, if not ad literam, the meaning resembles.
Provided you don’t personally know the people you decimate, culling is morally and ethically sound. And it might still be okay even if you do, provided they’re only those you deem undesirable, or unworthy, evil from past and present peer interactions and precluding those you deem to be ok or deserving to be spared.
I would like to ask Gwallan what retribution he deems and ever deemed appropriate, if at all for the crime you cited that he was a victim of. If he should happen to wander by this desolate blog, that is.
You seem far more preoccupied with the welfare and wellbeing of dumb fucking animals and humaness showed towards said creatures than people, be they even convicted rapists. You’re oversimplifying the problem. You’ve done this before. What about that man that rotted in jail for 3 years cause that flapping cunt cried wolf? Perhaps he should have returned
Not to mention the physical harm caused by rape, in adult human beings, is nowhere near the damage that extirpation of the genitals amounts to.
Don’t get me wrong, I find needless or easily (cheaply, for those more libertarian of you) avoidable torture or pain caused to any mammal, lizard, bird or fish appalling. Not bugs or insects of any kind, though. Damn those buggers. That’s not to say I’d ever even equate extermination of countless animals to the imposed, arbitrary imposition of a mandated killing of one human being. Call it speciarchy, if you will.
The trouble with you, Female, is you quite often advocate either cruelty or insanity with respect to human beings, or both. And you don’t have a clue you’re doing it. Or don’t care in the slightest, which is even more distraughting. You also seem to be quite a lot more fond of animals than people in general, which is again disturbing.
Yes, they’re cute and fuzzy and stuff, but they’re just dumb animals put on Earth to serve man and to decorate the land and please the eye as well as fulfill or aid in reproductive functions for species of flora. That’s all.
Yes, it’s nasty future generations might not get to enjoy species that go extinct today. Sure, care must be taken that loss which is preventable. But putting any animal’s whatever interests above human beings welfare or wellbeing is off.
October 22nd, 2006 at 12:10 am
So, you would commit sepuku for the sake of 10000 wolfies? Or was that a personal sacrifice of someone else? Either way, I find it disturbing.
I’ve solemnly sweared I’ll not post on Wolfe’s blog again, for reasons unimportant. I’m a man so I’ll stand by my vow.
The reason she didn’t kill her young is cowardice, not some remnance of humanity or consideration, good nature. Had she acted at all in good faith she’d have given him up for adoption or deserted him in the hospital after interning herself with no ID and lying about her identity.
She needn’t had jeopardised the kid’s wellbeing like that. She meant for the kid to die there, already hidden from those that might seek her out and exact retribution if a corpse was found, for all of having conceived, beared the child and abandoned it.
She didn’t have the guts to kill her kid outright, with her own hands, so she trusted exposure and/or starvation to do her whim for her.
Her actions were also quite stupid, having had 9 months to plot an appropriate, dignified course of action she chose instead to attempt infanticide by proxy and hoped no one would ever notice her grandiose belly, evidently in terminal pregnancy, going away with no kid in sight.
Amasing what superb disposition listening to Daft Punk facilitates. You should try it. Do you need it? I need it too, Well, alright! It’s good for you. Don’t move.
October 22nd, 2006 at 12:36 am
It’s not cause of some debilitating fear of debate with Wolfe that I don’t comment there.
My view of the world is flawless for all of the limited knowledge that it contains, albeit incomplete. Greter proximity to completeness of knowledge, to the extent it’s possible, would perhaps impose a revision of some views or others, Then again it might not. It might validation my view of the world, as Wolfe puts it.
Did you see rice with those chicken legs spread all over the fucking place at the gooks’ meeting today? Something to die against, to be sure. A lower grade, more repulsive way of carrying one’s unflatteringly repelling, to be sure, countenance I’ve yet to see. Then again, if it will scare people into submission, flaunt it, I guess.
October 22nd, 2006 at 1:23 am
And that is where we see things differently which leads to our different beliefs. I believe being raped damages the mind/soul, the relationship to one’s own body, leads to depression, anxiety and in many cases, self-harm or self-destructive behaviours. I therefore consider the pain of the mind/soul to be greater and longer than physical pain caused by the operation to neutor. I also believe the impact on the rapist/enuchs mind/soul from being neutored would would then be equivalent to the mental damage he/she inflicted on their victim(s).
One problem, I admit, with this particular punishment, is that it is easier to neutor a man than a female rapist. The neutoring should therefore perhaps be done in the brain. I’m sure this type of enforced behavioural control will occur in a future society. You probably see these words as evil. If so, you should perhaps stop imagining what it be like for you to be neutored, or in other words, stop sympathising with the rapist. I am not talking about removing your genitals, unless you yourself have raped someone.
Personally, I find your words shocking. You sound as if rape isn’t much of a crime at all and are not able to get past your own biological urges and consider the victim of the crime. Here is a direct question for you to answer without any subterfuge or confusion - if you were anally raped, what sort of punishment would you like for the person who did this to you? If you cannot imagine that, then what if your mother or putative wife or daughers where raped?
The following two quotes I do not understand. Can you explain? No offense, but were you stoned and/or drunk when you posted your replies?
At the moment I am revisiting Massive Attack’s Blue Lines.
October 22nd, 2006 at 1:43 am
I would kill the guy, if at all possible. I would not touch his genitals, though. Trouble is, a lot of women are fickleness embodied and resort to blatant lies and infidelity. So many it’s like it’s some character trait innate to your gender. How potentially twisted enough would you grant a woman is to be prone to crying “wolfe” when a squirrel shows up or when caught in an adulterous relationship or claiming retroactively after a sudden change of heart? Leaving man after man to do time of internment for lies, like that woman did.
I take it you did not catch glimpse of that awful sight. I envy your blissful ignorance.
I do not use hallucinogens nor jave I ever. I’m not drunk right now.
No matter what, anyone ever comes after my balls and sceptre, irrespective of the reasons, they’d best expect a thorough fight. I’d have no compunctions about killing, excruciatingly, someone, or at least putting in a good effort, for attempting it. No qualms either even I were guilty. Take that as you will.
October 22nd, 2006 at 2:30 am
A light has gone on in my brain, I wonder whether you are talking about Cond. Rice? You obviously believe she has skinny, ugly legs..she must be in Asia…and you are racist. I would prefer it if you cut down on your racist remarks - they reveal nothing about what you dislike about the other ethnicity other than the fact they look different to your own, and that is a pretty weak reason.
Okay, the problem is, is that rape, where the victim is left alive, even if only a shell of their former person, is never going to be seen as a capital crime, worthy of capital punishment, because the victim is not dead. Sure, their soul may be dead, but physically they are not.
Secondly, while I originally advocated for castration, I changed my position above (to be more gender fair) to neutoring by lesioning applicable parts of the brain. Therefore, there is no need for you to worry about the crown jewels anymore.
Thirdly, I do agree that many women lie about being raped and that is why I also said in one of my earlier posts, that the rape must be proven and without a shadow of a doubt that it was non-consenual.
I think it would be worthwhile for you to be more clear in future about why you are so anti-neutoring or anti-castration because it really comes off as you are extremely sympathetic towards rapists…perhaps this is why militant feminists sprout that all men really are just rapists (because even if you haven’t raped someone, your sympathetic views make it appear as if you can easily imagine how one could do so).
I don’t know what you mean.
October 22nd, 2006 at 6:48 am
btw, yes I love animals, I don’t appreciate you calling them fucking dumb. They are what they are. And I don’t prefer them over humans…I like them equally but differently. I think humans are their caretakers and they need special attention not exploitation. Before you call me a hypocrite for not being a full vegie - I don’t eat eggs or seafood. I do eat Abschickens, diary products and red meat, but the former and latter very, very rarely. Vegetarian meals simply taste better due to the greater emphasis on spices and herbs.
Also, if you want your blog to be less desolute you should mention it on mabtw and invite people here. People may not be aware that it exists because you haven’t said anything about it (I don’t think) and it isn’t listed on the mabtw blog network list.
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:23 am
If the reasons are unimportant, then your vow is simply an excuse not to post there, which has nothing to do with honour, in fact, it is pretty much the opposite.
Like I outlined before, there were have to be some pretty powerful mitigating factors for why she didn’t feel she could safely give the child up for adoption. Worst case scenerio, she is an intellectually disabled woman who was raped by a family member.
Your view seems to judge her as a person of fully functining mental capacity who simply buried the child callously in order not to have to go through adoption paperwork.
It must have looked to her at the time that she had no other option and it is possible that she hid the fact she was pregnant for the full 9 months. Unless she is intellectually impaired, she cannot have believed she would get away with it, unless she knew that no one else knew she was pregnant. It therefore seems highly likely that she was raped and doesn’t have a partner who would have realised she was pregnant at some point during their sexual relations over the term of the pregnancy. If she hid the child, then she definately hid the pregnancy and most likely did not give birth in a hospital. Of course, this is all speculation.
It is also possible that she had a psychotic episode while in the midst of a postnatal depression. Psychotic PND is primarily characterised by the mother having nightmarish visions, thoughts and anxiety that she is unable to care for her child and that she may damage or kill the child, or in the case of full blown psychosis, delusions that the child is going to kill her…thus leading to violence against the child to protect herself, needlessly. It is an extremely serious and real disorder due to the chemical changes occurring in the body after giving birth.
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:40 am
Yes, I am racist. If casually, on occassion employing the slang word ‘gooks’ when referring to Koreans entitles me that way.
I understand you loath being soiled by a conversation with a racist that sympathises with rapists. But you should really shut up about it. Gipsy queen. Remember that sock puppeting little discourse of yours about my fix address? Or is your memory prone to convenient lapses?
Do I resent covertly being labeled a gipsy as somehow relating to my nationality by an ignorant and at times obnoxious Australian sock puppeting, tree-hugger feminist? Hell ya! Am I a racist for that as well? Then so be it.
It seems to me like you’re seeking a scandal with respect to your feminist like sadistic obsession with rape. The explicit imagination of the hideous retributions you concoct is mind boggling. Do you take time contemplating them, running them through in your head?
I did not ask of you what your diet is. I am not really that interested now that I know either.I assume you would find mine at least distasteful and probably repugnant, by comparison. Oh yes. quite a few animal corpses lie in my wake. A great deal decimated eggs along with their mommas, daddas and siblings as well.
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:50 am
The funny thing is, you were admonishing me for my racism by implying I’m a gipsy. Real classy.
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:58 am
I didn’t believe you were a gypsy but I did realize that you wouldn’t like being characterised as one. I did so, merely to draw your attention to your own mischaracterisations of others, to make clear that bigotry is wrong. Guess you couldn’t see that.
Behavioural modification control is already occurring in prisons in the US, I think. It is via the installation of a microchip into the brain which stimulates the release or suppression of certain neurochemical transmitters. Seeing as the prison system really isn’t focussed on rehabiliation and that many prisoner’s behaviours just become worse once they are in jail, for those who are to be released back into society, I think external behavioural control via implantation is necessary.
The ethics of this though are that it removes a person’s free-will option to change their life for the better. And if the microchip doesn’t work, then it may also remove their accountability if they were to commit another crime, for they could always plead, that they didn’t do it but that the malfunctioning chip made them do it. Religious conservatives who believe in free-will and who believe this will remove a person’s option to redeem themselves through faith may be extremely against this type of invasive intervention. If I wanted to be cynical I would say they will be the first group to call for widespread implementation of it. The cost-effective benefits of it are that if a person receives an implant to make them a low social saftey risk towards others, then there is no need for prisons to protect society. Of course, they will still be incarcerated because society will damage punishment - but those prisons will simply be factories or call centres with the prisoners as the unpaid or low wage labour (In fact, I think some privatised prisons in the US are already using inmates as call centre operators).
Do I spend time thinking about these sorts of things? No, I just thought of all that while I typed it.
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:22 am
And what’s more, my remarks weren’t racial in nature. At worst they could be construed as culturally bigoted.
Forgive my intolerance for having a sip of cow pee right after a cup of tea or feeding milk and honey to rats in temples designate, all for the interests of religious worship.
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:27 am
Here is an updated cliche for you then, the world will be a very boring place when we are all the same.
October 22nd, 2006 at 9:56 am
Especially if we all not drink cow piss or worship rats in temples we built for their highnesses. What an odious uniformity that would be.
BTW, you specifically called me racist back then, with the cow piss and stuff. Wolfe has seen my “gook” outbursts as well, yet has not reacted nearly as vehemently. In fact, he took no offence at all at my ‘blatant’ racism. Remember, he himself did state to no uncertainty that he finds racism repugnant and its absence on the main site is one of the reasons he continues to participate in discussion there.
And, fyi, I’m against globalisation. I also happen to believe that the IMF and those that enact its biding are the source of most evil on Earth today, as well as ushers of the end times.
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:06 am
No, bigotry is not in itself wrong. You yourself are inclined to show more respect and deference to pee snatchers’ culture than Christianity and the one true, living God, as evidenced multiple times by your writing. Including a little up where you covertly derogatorily hit on Christians. I, to the contrary, happen to frown on pee snatchers and misandrist tree huggers wannabe genocidal.
“Religious conservatives”. Bah. You were specifically referring to Christians, weren’t you? With your mentioning of free will and and redeeming oneself through faith (and good deeds). Please don’t stoop to denying it. It’s as plainly evident as the tree you’re hugging right now. Typically feminist.
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:07 am
Also, you are evil. Do you have a corny little mustache and wear olive fatigues held up by straps, by any chance?
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:18 am
I don’t see what wolfe’s reactions to your racist remarks have got to do with my reactions, we are not the same poster. I again urge you not to call other ethnicities by a derogatory name, it just makes you look like a brainless idiot who must think his cultural background is superior to others. My honest reaction whenever I see racist remarks is “urgh”, so if you drop one into the middle of a post in which you are trying to persuade others to your thinking through credible reasoning, then it completely works against you.
Re: globalisation, yes, I don’t want to see McDonalds every five metres either.
Re: IMF and World Bank - they need to write off many loans, true.
Re: End times. Is this religious speak? Look, I used to date a Jehovah’s Witness. That whole religion is based on Revelations. I honestly think that thinking about whether it is the end of the world is extremely damaging and makes one prone to depression. Think about something else K, the sun is still shining, right?
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:28 am
No, I was referring to Republicans. I admit my understanding of American political parties is not the best, so perhaps it is wrong to assume this is the religious party.
I prefer to show respect for all cultures but I do find it easier to complain about my own, because that at least I understand. I don’t believe it is right to slander another cultural practice which you are unable to understand because it is not from your own. Of course some things are wrong across cultural differences and they can be condemned - ie rape (oh no, there’s the R word again), murder, incest, theft, etc.
I was raised Anglican, my parents are largely secular, though I was sent to Sunday school. I do have faith and I consider it largely rude to discuss religion, but I am telling you this so you are aware what kind of “evil” Christian I am.
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:51 am
And delectation in a few pints of cow piss is aok accross cultural boundaries? Hell, I wouldn’t mind in the slightest if everyone but me decides for themselves to start drinking and bathing in cow piss as of tomorrow. I would if the faucet or shower outlet started cow peeing on me, though.
I only resort to revealing my disdain or dissent, not to force cultural changes. Even relating to the gun culture issue I am not advocating arbitrary impositions on anyone, except where innocent people’s lives and livelihoods are concerned. You, however, stop short of nothing on anything.
From crying for regularising, insitutionalising atrocities and uniform inhuman punishment to calling for the culling of the population (oh yes, everyone’s got this one pinned on you and you ain’t never getting away) and up to driving 20 mph in the fast lane.
Stop trying to analyse my reasons for writing in a particular fashion or my semantics. Just read what is there written for you, and reply to or comment on it. Roundabout implications, covert claims and seeming advice on how unflattering I come across using some less appealing wording don’t matter to me in the slightest, except as possible annoyance, easily avoidable I might add. It’s a very womanly thing to be doing.
You also called me racist when I was at most a cultural bigot, albeit an enlightened one.
Benevolent despot, you would not be.
October 22nd, 2006 at 10:55 am
I’m off to bed. Every muscle is aking. I can’t stand it. G’nifght.
October 22nd, 2006 at 11:00 am
I was wrong to infer you were racist when you were talking about Indians, it is true that the correct term should have been culturally bigotted, however, as you do use terms likes “gooks” to describe Asian people, you are most definately a racist. You have even admitted above that you are racist. As you also seem to consider yourself a Christian, how exactly do you reconcile Christian love for all neighbours, with hate for other ethnicities?
From my perspective, I am only replying to your exact words, ie, “gooks”, being against emasculation of rapists etc. You seem to be the one who questions my semantics; who infers meanings behind my words that don’t exist; you make OVERT claims that I am evil, a misandrist etc.
re: the culling. Yes, I’m sure those pandas will be make excellent mercenaries. Not.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:55 am
So, by your reasoning, calling Koreans ‘gook san’s necessarily implies hate? See, this is the way you build all your exposes. Your argumentations are full of leaps of faith. Like little dotted lines whisking off to points unclear…
You women really have a problem reconciling with words having precise meanings, both denotative and connotative. Still precise, either way. Yes, groups of words, sentences, also imbue implications. But the implications you pointed out are far fetched and untrue. ‘Hate’. Bah. Why would I hate them? Or is it that women hate so much of everything, they’re inclined to believe men do to? I’m hard pressed to remember when, if ever, I felt hatred towards somebody or something. Even simmering hatred, again a field of expertise of women’s - I speak out of experience on this one.
At most atrocious, what I ever recall feeling was deep anger, rage towards somebody - not unmotivated. Women being weaker - less physically or emotionally strong than men - will often because of their innate inability of outright, right away or asap resolving their quarrels by direct confrontation. Perhaps they also dread the possible physical or social status harm that could result in resolving their issues, this being yet another reason for passive aggressiveness and bottling up of hate.
Why would I hate them? I would I even be angry at them?
Disdain? Disgust even? Oh yes, I’ve plenty of those for them for their stupid nuclear ambitions and blatant threats of ushering in war.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:55 am
So, by your reasoning, calling Koreans ‘gook san’s necessarily implies hate?
The word is a racial slur, so yea, it kind of does imply dislike and possibly hate.
You women really have a problem reconciling with words having precise meanings, both denotative and connotative.
Maybe you should consider applying that to yourself.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
The thought never crossed my mind.
‘Love’ and ‘hate’ are 2 words that shouldn’t be taken nor used lightly.
Let me ask you something. Do you morally support the advent of female Captains, which is a direct end product of feminism? That used to be an oxymoron. Now it’s just moronic.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Please do tell me on respected tradition of women’s only that men have trampled upon by barging in unsolicited.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
About 8 years ago I worked with someone who had a sister who was a Captain of a cargo ship. This woman Captain regularly navigated through the Timor Strait (one of the most dangerous stretches of sea on the planet) without incident. I think she retired at age 36. Your delusions about women’s incompetence are a tad off the mark.
Please cite your research proving women make terrible captains. I’m waiting.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Please do tell me on respected tradition of women’s only that men have trampled upon by barging in unsolicited.
Just because men build ships does not mean that women shouldn’t be able to steer them. What if I bought myself a boat. Just because a men may have built it, does that mean I should only allow a man to sail it? If you are thinking in the affirmative, then maybe you should move to an Islamic state because your misogynistic narcissicism is laughably stupid. Oh and in answer to your question, men have barged into reproductive sciences like a bull to a red rag, so don’t even try and take the intellectual or moral high ground.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
I don’t have to make for moral high ground. I’m hovering over it in a Chinook.
It’s not because women are not as capable or aptitudinally developed for the task of Captain of a vessel as men, although they axiomatically aren’t, that women aren’t meant to be Captains. It’s naval ancient tradition. Skippers can only be comprised of men.
Own the ship, no probs. Drive a car, you have the same grudging support I extend to the next menace behind the wheel. Fly, even Captain the shuttle, I don’t care. But leave this tired little naval tradition alone, for God’s sake! Lord knows, men ask for little and expect less of feminism. At least this much should have been preserved untarnished and trampled upon.
Alas, it’s all pointless anyway. The harm’s already been done. That’s the thing with traditions. They’re damned hard to keep and so easy to burst, and it’s only their breaking that’s prone to happen. Thank you, ladies. For being anything but.
And nice comparison, btw. Very telling. Comparing sea faring tradition with reproductive sciences… Guess it takes a woman.
And considering men probably fathered and pioneered those too, one but must ponder just who is barging on whom there as well…
October 24th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
Ah I see. The dismantling of the male archetype is your gripe. Do not worry so much, a woman in uniform will never look as good as a man in one.
I am willing to extend to men, the chance to take on the tradition of wearing feathers in their hair or ginormous, ridiculous hats at racing carnivals, which is a traditionally female expression of wtf womaness.
October 25th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Dismantling of the male archetype?! You’re deluding yourself.
A woman putting out of uniform usually looks better than a woman putting it on. But it depends on the woman.
Can you grasp the difference between a long lasting tradition of elitism and exclusivity and one of silliness and inclusivity? Is that even a tradition? What ancient traditions of exclusivity do women have besides their restrooms and seizing paychecks?
October 25th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Dismantling of the male archetype?! Well that’s your whole problem with the “feminisation” of society, isn’t it? Aren’t you accusing feminism of turning men into ’soft’ manginas? And of excluding those who do not conform to politically correct norms such as acceptance, tolerance and inclusion for all? Which then forces certain men to remove from their behavioural repetoire, machismo behaviours which would not fall within the sphere of political correctness?
What ancient traditions of exclusivity do women have besides their restrooms and seizing paychecks?
See, you just don’t have any respect for womens business. This is why feminism has gone overboard (if indeed, it even has) - it cannot respect that which does not respect it.
October 26th, 2006 at 11:56 am
I see you are you are unable to answers my questions and you didn’t answer the one on how you are able to reconcile your “Christian” beliefs with being racist either. That’s okay though because I have still come with some photos for you to pick a hat from http://www.rebeccasharemilliner.com.au/html/
October 26th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
I could have, just couldn’t be bothered to. Subtle difference. Explaining such complex yet sublimely subtle matters would likely have proved pointless.
Huh? That hat page is downright comical. Move your cursor slowly inbetween two of the 3 pics. Bad design right there. A gap big enough so the 2 pics don’t overlap when both enlarged would have been called for. The artist must have been a woman.
I asky of you, do you still harbour any uncertainty that men are better than women?
October 26th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
I think your asky answers your own question there.
October 26th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
I’ve just finished your web design test and there is no overlap on my screen when scrolling between all three. Tsk, tsk, guess you need a different and/or *cough* better browser/bigger monitor.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:59 am
That’s ok, Female. It’s my fault, really. I should have envisioned even such simple explorative testing is beyond your mischievious little pink self, as was beyond whoever should have tested it, apparently.
Different browser, bigger monitor? Not everyone’s a twat, Female. I’d rather spend my money on a new processor or gfx board, if I should spend any money at all on my computer. My ‘98 15inch Philips 105S is doing quite fine.
I have hardly any respect for women’s studies, women’s business (what ever that is) and woman stuff in general. You’re absolutely right on this.
Most women are nothing more than a means to an end. Momentary pleasure, house adornment or car decoration, baby/bastard churning twats, etc. Few, if any (?), left are anything more.
‘Uncovered meat that invites rape’? ROFL.
Daft Punk - Aerodynamic.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:26 am
That’s ok, Female. It’s my fault, really. I should have envisioned even such simple explorative testing is beyond your mischievious little pink self, as was beyond whoever should have tested it, apparently.
If you were referring to the shadow, Sonyad, then you your explanation of that wasn’t the best. I also think that is an effect they deliberately wanted, ie, take a look at the title which is also in shadow.
Different browser, bigger monitor? Not everyone’s a twat, Female.
And not everybody who is skint goes around calling people who aren’t, twats either.
‘Uncovered meat that invites rape’?
That Sheik is a fool but you’re an even bigger one for finding that amusing. We have a serious gang rape problem in Sydney due no doubt in part to the incitement created by this ignorant *(*&(*&( who should be, and may soon be, deported. If the man can’t abide women wearing western style clothes, then he best fuck off back to whatever godforsaken land he came from. That’s assuming he even makes it to the airport. You can guess where I stand on that.
The Dissociatives - Lifting the veil from the braile.
October 27th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
I do find what he said hilarious, actually. Mostly because it’s at least in part true.
And about that site, read my original post again, slowly. Several times if needs be. I opinionate that either you don’t take the time to read properly, or don’t have it, or you’ve a problem with reading comprehension. I suppose that’s why you come up with such incensing strawmen.
The images enlarge when you place the cursor over them but take a bit to revert to originary size, during which time the other pic enlarges somewhat. If you run over any 2 adjacent pics in quick succession then immediately keep the cursor perfectly still half way amid them they’ll oscillate alternatively in quick succession between enlarging and shrinking back down because, when both enlarged, they overlap under where the cursor is. The effect is comical.
You’ve just made me write somewhat of an essay describing why crap is crap. You’ve such a talent for doing stuff like this. I don’t know who’s the sillier. You for not comprehending my simple statement or me for attempting to elaborate. Unless you’re pulling my leg and having a good laugh on how elaborately gullibly obliging I am.
And have you no consideration for the penniless? You evil tree-hugger, you.
Supermode - Tell Me Why (Axwell & Steve Angello Remix)
October 27th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
I do find what he said hilarious, actually. Mostly because it’s at least in part true.
And what part would that be, Sonyad? The “uncovered meat” or the “invites rape”?
That Sheik is a very stupid man and even those in the Sydney Muslim community who are not extremists are annoyed by his words (it’s not the first time he’s shown how unintelligent he is). They should be, there will be a backlash by the larger community.
The breaking of the story on the Sheik’s comments on women inviting rape comes on the eve of the anniversary of the Cronulla riots, which in case you don’t know, was a racial riot/fight on Cronulla beach last year between Anglo-saxon’s and Middle Eastern men. People died. For a couple of months after the riots, the beaches were locked down (in the height of summer, you can imagine how annoying that was). That riot started because some men of middle eastern appearance went to cronulla beach and started to harrass Australian women calling them Aussie sluts etc. IIRC the life-savers intervened and all hell broke loose.
To this day, if a non-anglosaxon visits Cronulla, they have to watch their backs.
Your flippant amusement is not appreciated because the Sheik’s words equate to sabre rattling and have basically ensured that we are in for another violent summer. We are sick and tired of having our culture disrespected. If people from other countries migrate here and they don’t like the practice of the dominant culture, then they can turn 360, hop back on the plane and piss off because Australians have had an absolute gut-full.
October 28th, 2006 at 12:27 am
That would be 180, I presume. Please don’t assume arrogance of me towards the whole of your comment and points espoused therein because of my remark on this point alone. The easiest way to remember it is that a straight corner is 90 degrees.
But you simply must admit the ‘uncovered meat’ part of that line in itself, removed from context as per my finite knowledge of Australian current affairs and indeed recent or past affairs, is pretty damned funny to a cultural and geographical outsider such as myself. As for the inviting rape part of it… sorry, but it’s true also. That’s not tantamount to excusing the deed, pleas don’t misunderstand, but I’m sure there’s a causal relationship between the two. I’m not saying rather revealing clothing is sole reason enough to cause rape, but it surely increases the odds and might just
Of course, everyone knows the reason Arab women adorn themselves into complete obscureness is how fucking ugly most of them are, lest they indispose and repel their husbands needlessly or, even worse, cause innocent pedestrians to be unwell at the very sight of them.
October 28th, 2006 at 12:58 am
It’s not funny at all. Now we’ll have imbeciles who will think raping a woman is justified, that she must have wanted it and that it is her fault because she wasn’t wearing a fucking burkha. Pure projection. I’ve never come across such idiocy in my life, I’m sure the man must have mild brain damage.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:23 am
Nuances, Female, nuances. A little more female prudishness regarding vestimental austereness would hurt no one. I’m talking here about those women engaged in some sort of relationship or other. It’s only common sense and tactful upbringing to wear something a tad less revealing and more respectful to one’s spouse or boyfriend and caring to both his pride and her honour as a woman.
It’s self evident but I shall iterate. Don’t advertise if you’ve closed up shop. The dress code you abide by, or don’t, projects how you wish to be seen by people around you and perhaps how you wish to be treated or will willingly oblige to being treated. Make-up as well. Women, of all people, should know this.
October 29th, 2006 at 6:17 am
What about a woman in her own home? According to the Sheiks logic, if a woman stays inside and dresses appropriately, then her meat wont be uncovered and she obviously then wont be subjected to a house invasion or home rape. What a genius the man is. He also belives that the female sex is Satans greatest weapon. Maybe you and your friends on mabtw should join his pathetic cult.
Nuff said.
October 29th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Quite.
October 30th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Guess what your attention whore Sheik has done. Why, rather than face the music, he’s gone and faked a fainting spell hasn’t he! What a predictable coward. Oh and so much for men always holding themselves accountable.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/061025/2/11255.html
October 30th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Fascinating.
October 30th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Female, you need to take me more lightly with such stupendously interesting news and analysis. Lest you yourself cause me to be unwell.
October 30th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
That link keeps changing. I’ve seen the transcript of the sermon - he said that women were Satans greatest weapon. All he is doing now is eating his words to hold onto his position of mufti. Apology not accepted.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Earlier, Sheik al Hilaly said in a statement that he wanted an ethical tribunal to decide whether he has blamed women for being raped or incited violence against them.
He said the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission could select a judge and two lawyers who would be assisted by interpreters in examining a recording of his controversial September sermon.
The sheik said if found guilty, he would resign from all religious work and wear masking tape on his mouth in public for six months.
He also said he would work 600 hours in a women’s welfare organisation
November 6th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
That somehow fails to impress me.