Originally Posted by BigStar

> Boys are becoming extremley alienated from society because no one
> cares about us, and I was referencing the "boys crisis" that
> exists even though it's definitely exagerated. The focus, whether
> it be teaching kids how to read or what have you, is centered on
> girls. No one cares about white male boys anymore because of
> course we're the ones who fuck up the world.

This is true, as I learned from various experiences with my son Jason
and female teachers and social workers.

The way I like to put it is that they think of boys as nothing more
than defective girls.

One thing I came to realize in dealing with these female
"professionals" is that they don't have the vaguest idea what boys
are about. Men naturally tend to think that social workers and such
know a lot about boys because they "professionals" -- at least that's
what I used to think -- but what I discovered is that there's nothing
farther from the truth. They have NO IDEA what's going on with boys.

Now, you might say that men don't know much about girls either, and
maybe that's true, but we know a lot more about girls than women know
about boys. This extends to adulthood as well -- men know a lot more
about women than women do about men.

And the reason for all this is simple -- women listen to all this
feminist and "women's studies" crap, which is total garbage. This
literature paints men as in one or the other of the following two
categories: feminist or abusive and violent. This is the same as
saying that a boy is just a defective girl; if he doesn't act like a
girl, then he must be violent.

Everything that a boy does in school is interpreted by feminists in a
negative way. If he contributes in class then she's shutting out the
girls. If he doesn't "share feelings," then he's harboring dangerous
thoughts. If he says "boo" the wrong way, then he's growing up to be
a criminal or batterer.

The difference between boys and girls can be seen right away in the
games they play.

Girls like to hear themselves talk and to "share" feelings, so they
play hopscotch. There's no objective to hopscotch except to jump
around squares and share your feelings between turns. I never
figured this game out and most boys don't. (Kevin did -- and he
skillfully used it as a way to meet girls.)

But boys enjoy games with action and competition. Boys like games
with rules and winners and losers. Women teachers have no clue about
this. Boys don't like to hear themselves talk sharing feelings, and
women teachers consider that as proof that boys are defective.

So when a boy does something that a girl wouldn't do, the woman
teacher freaks out. Remember, she doesn't have the vaguest clue
about how boys think and act. All she knows is that there are two
kinds of boys: Boys that act like girls, and violent boys. So when a
boy plays a prank, or tries to excel, or "is scary" to some wayward
girl, the woman teacher naturally assumes that he's a criminal.

What girls and women really don't understand is that boys operate
within a strict set of rules, much stricter than girls do. Boys have
an innate sense of fairness, a need to play the game according to the
rules, and a need to keep the game from being disrupted. All this is
completely foreign to girls playing hopscotch. And if one boy plays
unfairly, then there has to be some payback, usually ostracism.
Occasionally things go a little too far, such a tripping someone or
having a fight, but it's not a sign of juvenile delinquency; it's
just everyone playing by the rules.

Furthermore, another thing that women don't understand is that boys'
emotions are more powerful than girls'. Girls can relieve their
emotional conflicts by talking and sharing while they're playing
hopscotch, but boys have no similar outlet. Boys are naturally more
aggressive than girls, which makes their emotions more aggressive,
but they quickly learn that they dare not express these emotions or
they'll get into serious trouble. As a result, boys are ABSOLUTELY
REQUIRED to suppress their emotions, which puts them at a big
disadvantage to girls.

Anyway, hang in there. I think the pendulum is swinging back now,
and if you survive the war then you'll be OK until the next Awakening
era, when your kids will stop speaking to you.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

To all: Odin posted this in his "1973-2006" thread. I hope he won't
mind my repeating his post here, because it's so hilarious and so
relevant to this discussion. However, I would say that "1955-2006"
would be more accurate in most cases.

Scenario: Jack pulls into school parking lot with rifle in gun
rack. || 1973 - Vice Principal comes over, takes a look at
Jack's rifle, goes to his car and gets his to show Jack. ||
2006 - School goes into lockdown, FBI called, Jack hauled off
to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in
for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
|| 1973 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands
and end up best friends. Nobody goes to jail, nobody arrested, nobody
expelled. || 2006 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests
Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though
Johnny started it.

Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other
students. || 1973 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good
paddling by Principal. Sits still in class. || 2006 - Jeffrey
given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. School gets extra money
from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his father's car and his Dad
gives him a whipping. || 1973 - Billy is more careful next
time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful
businessman. || 2006 - Billy's Dad is arrested for child abuse.
Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang.. Billy's sister is told
by state psychologist that she remembers being abused herself and
their Dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some headache medicine
to school. || 1973 - Mark shares headache medicine with
Principal out on the smoking dock. || 2006 - Police called,
Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs
and weapons.

Scenario: Mary turns up pregnant. || 1973 - 5 High
School Boys leave town. Mary does her senior year at a special school
for expectant mothers. || 2006 - Middle School Counselor calls
Planned Parenthood, who notifies the ACLU. Mary is driven to the next
state over and gets an abortion without her parent's consent or
knowledge. Mary given condoms and told to be more careful next time.

Scenario: Pedro fails high school English. || 1973:
Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college. ||
2006: Pedro's cause is taken up by state democratic party.
Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English
as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action
lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher.
English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but
ends up mowing lawns for a living because he can't speak English.

Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the 4th
of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red
ant bed. || 1973 - Ants die. || 2006 - BATF, Homeland
Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI
investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers
confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never
allowed to fly again.

Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes
his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary, hugs him to
comfort him. || 1973 - In a short time Johnny feels better and
goes on playing. || 2006 - Mary is accused of being a sexual
predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison.

Not all of these scenarios are literally possible, but they
illustrate how much harsher the school environment is. There are
things that a girl can still do to get in trouble -- get pregnant,
for example -- but boys can get into trouble just for sucking air.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

John, I think you should seriously consider posting to soc.men.moderated. The regulars there discuss the same issues you do, and it's a relatively safe, troll-free environment. Follow the link below for the Google Groups gateway to the group.

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men.moderated?hl=en

Suppose an angry masculinist (No, I am NOT mentioning names!) were in town and I suggested dinner. We immediately have a very knotty issue which hasn't been an issue with anyone I know for 30 years. If he pays, I've revealed myself as one of those Greedy Women - oh, dear, that's redundant, isn't it?

If I pay, is that a sign of trying to be dominant? (30 years ago the term used was a lot blunter.) Or will I see a gleam of triumph in his eye that he, on behalf of all men everywhere, has gotten a tiny bit of what we greedy women owe their gender?

Actually, the usual custom is to either go Dutch or to each one pay for a different meal. Unfortunately ---

That has been the official feminist position for the past 30 years at least!

Sigh. What's a feminazi to do?

(Well, duh. Cook, of course.)

Aren't we all glad not to have to wrestle with these issues in everyday life any more?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Suppose an angry masculinist (No, I am NOT mentioning names!) were in town and I suggested dinner. We immediately have a very knotty issue which hasn't been an issue with anyone I know for 30 years. If he pays, I've revealed myself as one of those Greedy Women - oh, dear, that's redundant, isn't it?

If I pay, is that a sign of trying to be dominant? (30 years ago the term used was a lot blunter.) Or will I see a gleam of triumph in his eye that he, on behalf of all men everywhere, has gotten a tiny bit of what we greedy women owe their gender?

Actually, the usual custom is to either go Dutch or to each one pay for a different meal. Unfortunately ---

That has been the official feminist position for the past 30 years at least!

Sigh. What's a feminazi to do?

(Well, duh. Cook, of course.)

Aren't we all glad not to have to wrestle with these issues in everyday life any more?

If I were in your town and we had been introduced, I would be most pleased with an invitation to a dinner at your home or a commercial establishment of your choice. I could of course then accept or refuse.

But, I don't quite know what a suggestion of dinner is.
Are you concerned about my lithe shape and wish to make sure that I receive victuals so as to fit the stereotype of Boomer body image? You may have judged that I am anorexic (I am not).

You think my attention is slipping due to hunger and you would rather that I was more trained upon your side of the conversation than my lust for a phantom pork chop.

An invitation is just that. I am to dine at your expense. It is not an invitation to demand that I invest in the profits of the eatery of your choosing. If you cannot pay or do not wish to pay or cannot cook or do not wish to cook, do not make an invitation (sic) to spend my money for me; that is the proper occupation of the several governments under which we both labor and not even the most Progressive of private individuals.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

If I were in your town and we had been introduced, I would be most pleased with an invitation to a dinner at your home or a commercial establishment of your choice. I could of course then accept or refuse.

But, I don't quite know what a suggestion of dinner is.
Are you concerned about my lithe shape and wish to make sure that I receive victuals so as to fit the stereotype of Boomer body image? You may have judged that I am anorexic (I am not).

You think my attention is slipping due to hunger and you would rather that I was more trained upon your side of the conversation than my lust for a phantom pork chop.

An invitation is just that. I am to dine at your expense. It is not an invitation to demand that I invest in the profits of the eatery of your choosing. If you cannot pay or do not wish to pay or cannot cook or do not wish to cook, do not make an invitation (sic) to spend my money for me; that is the proper occupation of the several governments under which we both labor and not even the most Progressive of private individuals.

Ah, so. Among my friends it's usually phrased as "Anyone interested in dinner?"

I would certainly gladly issue an invitation and, of course, then pay. Or cook. As for rotund shapes and pork chops - I have entertained vegans, people with multiple allergies, etc ... and am just as likely to accept. Last night a couple of friends entertained me for New Year's Eve. She made turkey chile in bread bowls; he braved the icy roads in his 4 wheel drive to give me a ride to and from.

I shouldn't have been so snarky, but beig of the neurological configuration that detests social mind fields and tends to engage mouth before brain is in gear, I ended up living up to my lj name - idiotgrrl.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I shouldn't have been so snarky, but beig of the neurological configuration that detests social mind fields and tends to engage mouth before brain is in gear, I ended up living up to my lj name - idiotgrrl.

<derail>There are at least four T4T participants on LJ. I wonder if that would be enough to start a community there.</derail>

An invitation is just that. I am to dine at your expense. It is not an invitation to demand that I invest in the profits of the eatery of your choosing.

LMAO

Supposedly I need 10 characters to make a post. How lame.

Dear Mr. Xenakis,

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Mr. Saari,



Are you saying that I'm on a sugar high? I fear the evil influence of too many molasses cookies, treacle tart, or demon rum.

I think that the intensity came about because of a combination of
factors: 1 - my personal feelings about the subject; 2 - the fact
that a friend of a friend had just blown his brains out after his
ex-wife lied for the umpteenth time and the judge said he'd go to
jail if he didn't pay thousands of dollars that he didn't have; 3 -
proximity to Christmas, which is always a time of heavy contemplation
for me. This posting style must be a very Cotton Matherish /New Englander/ Reformed/ Puritan implementation of contemplation. We Mesabi Lutherans are taught to consider the beam in our own optic at this time of the year rather than the motes dancing in anothers when we contemplate. But, there is great variety in Holiday Practice and yours may be quite the proper one for Our Commercial Republic's Progress.



I liked Al Gore, and think he would have made a good President. I
view his current lunacy as part of a conscious decision to change
directions in life and get people to stop asking him to run for
President again.

It's true that Boomers can't govern, but that's true of all Prophet
generations. I've been pointing out on my web site that 4T countries
around the world can't govern -- the Palestinians and the Israelis
are (each) completely paralyzed, and France and China are other good
examples. At least Ahmadinjehad and his clerical superiors seem able
to govern. Aren't we lucky.



I don't think it's fruitful to use the Hitler comparison. I would
also ask you to consider the fact that we can't really blame Boomers
for our becoming Policemen of the World -- that belongs to Truman.
Since then we've had Korea, Vietnam, two pre-emptive wars on Cuba,
two pre-emptive wars (or one long pre-emptive war) on Iraq, a
pre-emptive war on Bosnia, a pre-emptive war in Afghanistan, and
probably others I can't think of right now.

And we still have people wondering why we aren't sending troops in to
save the Darfurians.

You see, Mr. Saari, everyone has his favorite war. It's only the
other guys' wars that people don't like. While I must admit to a certain fondness for acts that involve some hard result such as the Sullan proscriptions to Reform the Senate, I cannot think of a war that I hold in great esteem. In fact, I have even held the recent Not-Wars under Boomer leadership to some scorn.



No, this wouldn't happen. The only place where a moderator can truly
get away with exerting such controls is in single-threaded,
single-subject forums, such as business forums, which are required to
"stick to business." In other environments, the user community would
scream bloody murder at unwarranted interference. A moderator only
works when he's enforcing the rules that the community wants
enforced. Without a moderator, bottom-feeders get to control things.



Feminism as we know it really began in the 1830s or thereabouts. I am afraid I was introduced to a feminism quite unlike that which has taken hold in Our Commercial Republic. It was celebratory and historical and not a claim to injury and Presentist. It was an élitism of achievement and not a shopworn shopgirl's dream of the theft of the petty cash.

You have to remember that feminism is not about men versus women.
It's about women versus women -- ex-wives versus second wives, black
women versus white women, rich women versus poor women, etc. --
usually in competition for a man's money or for public resources.
And when women fight with one another, there's always a man around to
blame. Feminism was (in my tender years at a Land Grant institution which was the creature of the Minnesota Territory) about the ability and achievement of the other than I; it was concerned with the likes of St. Helena, Christine de Pisan, St. Catherine of Siena, Madame de Lafayette, Edith Wharton, Virginia Woolf, Nancy Mitford and her sisters. It was good and great women doing good and great things. It was replaced by a shabby materialist analysis as Americans are often uncomfortable with the Past and most fearful of an un-levelling of any sort other than the commercial.

In the 1840s it was women working in factors versus high-class women
disdaining such work. The working women were jealous of the
high-class women's wealth, and the high-class women were angered at
the working girl's sexuality, especially when they used their
sexuality to get money from their husbands.

You just have to remember: It's never about anything but money. This is true for Commercial Republicans but not for Yo. Ob. Sv. I have had not attempts upon my person or my fortune by golddiggery. (It may be that manure on a yeoman's boots is the warding-off agent that works upon such creatures just as garlic is held to revolt the blood sucker.) The women and the feminists of my acquaintance (even if fevered in the most agued of Awakening ways) were least interested in money. They wished for respect, lusted for power, or wish to return an injury-often real and sometimes imagined. But, even they had little regard for financial return. Things may be ordered differently in New England than in either the Kingdoms of Europe or the Great Lakes States and your experience is due to the culture you do inhabit; you might try more profitably elsewhere or elsewhen.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis

Yo. Ob. Sv.
VKS

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

You're a fair person, Kiff, and I appreciate it. Thank you.

You're welcome.

But who doesn't believe in fairness? Every political persuasion of
all types use "fairness" as a justification. The Ku Klux Klan makes
a fairness argument that it's only fair for white's to have their own
land. No one's against fairness.

OK, "fairness" may be too namby-pamby a word here. How about "respect?" The KKK may have a tougher time justifying themselves there.

I always like to point out that the so-called "unfairness" of the
evil 1950s was a consequence of what most women themselves wanted.
There was never any discrimination at all; in fact, my own mother did
quite well going from bookkeeper to top-level financial executive for
a midsized manufacturing firm.

During the 1930s, families became homeless and were forced into the
streets. During the war, tens of millions of women lost their
husbands to the war, and women who would have liked to stay home and
take care of the kids were forced to take "Rosie the Riveter" jobs
that they hated, but took them anyway out of patriotism.

By the time the 1950s came around, the "American way of life" meant
that every woman could have a husband, a couple of kids, and a nice
home (with a nice picket fence), and women wouldn't be forced to work
unless they wanted to. 1950s women didn't want their daughters to
suffer as they had, and they considered it to be a gift to their
daughters that they handed them a country where all that was
possible.

I am with you to this point.

1960s women's libbers humiliated their mothers by rejecting
that message. They were mad at their mothers for telling them to
wear girdles and not to have sex before marriage. They burned their
bras in rebellion against their mothers. But women were never
discriminated against.

I have yet to come across a late-wave GI or early Silent woman who reported being humiliated by the message or actions of the women's libbers, except maybe for Phyllis Schlafly. Could you show me where these mothers talked about how their daughters humiliated them?

As I've said before, it's rare to find men
who are misogynists, except for psychopaths like anger retaliatory
rapists, but it's not at all uncommon to find women who are
misogynists.

I'm not necessarily talking about misogyny. That's pretty extreme. I'm thinking more that quite a few men, perhaps not the majority, but a fairly substantial percentage, downgrade femininity because they perceive it as weakness.

"Throwing like a girl" is one of the more common put-downs a boy hears when his athletic prowess doesn't measure up. Why is that? Why is "...like a girl" used? Why not say "he doesn't cock his arm right" or "he needs to follow through better on his throw?"

Fair enough. As for the "incident", I'm really not being obscure; I'm
still referring to this.

All right.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Actually, divorces are overwhelmingly initiated by women

This is actually true, but doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. Here's three examples to show what I mean. My wife's ex was the one who wanted the divorce. But he didn't initiate the divorce, he just moved out and expect her to do it. So she did. They used the same lawyer and it cost $800.

My daughter is currently getting a divorce. She and her husband mutually decided on splitting up since both of them were unfaithful. He moved out and in with his sister. When that got old he moved back in with my daughter. Neither of them had filed for divorce and so they decided to try a reconcilliation. It didn't work so they stayed together until they got their refund check, which they split. He bought a car and moved out again, quit his job and moved in with his girlfrend, who started to call herself his wife. He got a new means of support--writing bad checks. Meanwhile my daughter quit her job to live off her savings and unemployment checks and started sleeping with a long line of losers. One of the losers had a loser sister who moved in with her to help with the rent. She paid no rent, invited two loser friends in and threw my daughter out of her trailer. While all this drama is going on, hubby calls and asked when the divorce will be final so he can marry his girlfriend. Nobody has actually filed anything. So my wife files the paperwork for our daughter. The husband isn't doing it and I am not doing it--my wife is doing it on behalf of our daughter.

Now we have my step daughter. She is getting divorced from her husband. And I suppose she will be the one to initiate the divorce because he has never initiated anything in his life (this was her complaint).

So here we have three cases in which the woman initiates the divorce. In one case it was the husband who wanted the divorce. In another it was the wife and in a third it was mutual.

Initiating a divorce is part of "marriage work" or 'relationship work". In many couples the primary responsibility for the marriage or relationship falls with the woman so she is expected to start the divorce proceedings.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

But, I don't quite know what a suggestion of dinner is.

It's a proposal, not an invitation, to dine together. When I have lunch with a colleague we each pay our own tab.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I only have anecdotal information, so I can't be sure. But let me point something out: Here in Massachusetts, there are 70,000 restraining orders issued each year. Now, I don't believe that more than a few hundred of these are anywhere close to being valid. So that means that women are using phony restraining orders as a common everyday tactic.

No it doesn't. It means you believe that women are using phony restraining orders as a common everyday tactic

Their lawyers encourage them to.

My daughter's boyfriend (who was living with her) invited his wife and mother-in-law move into my daughter's trailer. She got into a fight with his wife and his wife got a restraining order on my daughter who now believed she was required to stay away from her own residence. She moved in with a friend and the boyfriend, his wife and mother-in-law got a place to stay in until the trailer park evicted them and took the trailer.

My daughter, for her own part got a restraining order on her husband. It seems that just about everybody in their sphere has restrainng orders on themselves or somebody or other. All with no lawyers at all (none of them have jobs so none could possible afford a lawyer). So the assumption that lawyers have anything to do with a great many (perhaps most) of those 70,000 restraining orders may very well be wrong. And don't think that most of them are against male spouses. A lot are cat fights amongst society's losers.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

It's a proposal, not an invitation, to dine together. When I have lunch with a colleague we each pay our own tab.

A proposal would require a long term relationship (due diligence or an extended courtesy of courtship); I don't think I would be in any position to even consider a proposal from someone in a town not my own after a short visit. Some would think it charming (as they do, the use of one's Xian Name so easily)- to propose after a third introduction; but this is from the romances of the literary and film worlds and not from "real life".

A proposal brings about the sharing of resources in a larger project; this is certainly more than either an invitation (host/guest) or a suggestion/query of mutual interest.

For an exposition of a Progress by a person like us (T4Ter-like in education, class, etc.,) I think the journey of Ms. Marilyn French as shown by the reading of her 1977 Awakening novel, The Women's Room which is propelled by an angry energy and her 2002 Unravelliing work In naam van de vriendschap (in the Dutch) and now In the Name of Friendship (2006, Feminist Press) in English might interest some posters here.

I would read them in the order of their being published if Ms. French is an undiscovered writer.

The former is a better book; the latter, though in need of an editor, is a much wiser book in that it accounts for a generational and gendered view of the plights of the Children of Men.

If anyone has a book on the generationalism of gender, please do advise. Thank you.

Dear Kiff,

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> No, it is Michelle Malkin and her ilk who are the losers here.

It seems to me that good feminism demands that you should hold up
women like Michelle Malkin and Condi Rice as role models so that any
girl can see that she can be anything she wants to be, even if she's
not white.

With all the recent publicity given to Nancy Pelosi, a 15-year-old
girl might well think that she has to wait 50 years to make anything
of herself, and if she's white, she might think that she has no
chance at all.

Michelle Malkin, in her 30s, ethnically Filipino, has become a major
political commentator in print, radio and television. Any 15 year
old girl could look at Malkin as a role model to guide her in becoming
a successful media personality, if that's what she wants to do.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a black woman aged 52, has been,
for many years, considered to be the most powerful woman in the
world. Her successful career makes her a suitable role model to any
15 year old girl looking to make her mark in politics, education or
government.

Unfortunately, these women are often treated offensively, simply
because they're women. For example, just a few days ago, chauvinist
pig senator Barbara Boxer insinuated that Condoleezza Rice shouldn't
be permitted to express an opinion, since she didn't have any
children. These chauvinist pigs should be condemned by the feminist
community as being offensive and demeaning to all women everywhere.



Photo of Michelle Malkin




Photo of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice




Photo of Senator Barbara Boxer

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Vince,

Originally Posted by The Pervert

> John, I think you should seriously consider posting to
> soc.men.moderated. The regulars there discuss the same issues you
> do, and it's a relatively safe, troll-free environment. Follow the
> link below for the Google Groups gateway to the group.

> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men.moderated?hl=en

Thanks for the suggestion, but those groups only depress me, because
they keep posting stories day after day of fathers who are being
totally screwed simply because they're fathers, and it infuriates me.
I'm on the Massachusetts fathers list, and that's enough depressing
news on a regular basis. I've been involved in fathers' rights issues
for almost 20 years now, and I'm quite familiar with all these
support groups. I've disengaged from all but one of these groups,
because one group is all the "support" that I can stand.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Mr. Saari,

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

> This posting style must be a very Cotton Matherish /New Englander/
> Reformed/ Puritan implementation of contemplation. We Mesabi
> Lutherans are taught to consider the beam in our own optic at this
> time of the year rather than the motes dancing in anothers when we
> contemplate. But, there is great variety in Holiday Practice and
> yours may be quite the proper one for Our Commercial Republic's
> Progress.

There's one more cause for my intensity that I failed to mention:
That I'm carrying the world on my shoulders. I don't have the
physique of Atlas, but I share his burden, thanks to my web site.

This experience has transformed me somewhat, making me more intense
about a number of things. I genuinely have little expectation of
surviving much longer, and that tends to focus the mind.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

> I am afraid I was introduced to a feminism quite unlike that which
> has taken hold in Our Commercial Republic. It was celebratory and
> historical and not a claim to injury and Presentist. It was an
> élitism of achievement and not a shopworn shopgirl's dream of the
> theft of the petty cash.

This isn't quite accurate. There have always been two strains to
feminism -- the celebratory side that you reference, and the victim
side. However, the shopgirl's strain is the celebratory side; she's
actually making something of herself, striving to meet her own goals.
It's the victim side of feminism that's élitist: adopted by the
"high-class" woman, jealous of the shopgirl's sexuality, who declares
war on men as a result.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

> This is true for Commercial Republicans but not for Yo. Ob. Sv. I
> have had not attempts upon my person or my fortune by golddiggery.
> (It may be that manure on a yeoman's boots is the warding-off
> agent that works upon such creatures just as garlic is held to
> revolt the blood sucker.) The women and the feminists of my
> acquaintance (even if fevered in the most agued of Awakening ways)
> were least interested in money. They wished for respect, lusted
> for power, or wish to return an injury-often real and sometimes
> imagined. But, even they had little regard for financial return.
> Things may be ordered differently in New England than in either
> the Kingdoms of Europe or the Great Lakes States and your
> experience is due to the culture you do inhabit; you might try
> more profitably elsewhere or elsewhen.

This is another little joke, similar to the joke played by Grey
Badger in a previous posting.

Let me tell you a little story.

[intensity] Have you ever heard of a book called "Flying Solo"? If
you did then you probably don't remember it, since it came out in
1994.

In 1994, I had lunch with three friends, all divorced women, and they
were all absolutely bubbling with excitement about this new book,
"Flying Solo." "The authors interviewed a lot of single and divorced
women," I was told. "The women were miserable when they were
married, but now they're perfectly happy living by themselves or just
with their kids. And if a woman wants to have sex, she can have a date
or spend the weekend with her boyfriend. But for the rest of the
week, she's much happier being on her own." My three women friends
obviously approved very highly of this attitude.

In one story from the book, Terry and her husband were the parents of
three boys, and Terry decided marriage wasn't for her. "I don't think
it was ever so much about marriage per se as it was about marriage
not fitting _me_, personally." So, she told her husband she was
dumping him. According to the authors, it was tough for poor Terry
for a while, since she had to raise those three boys as a single
parent on her own, but in the end everything worked out great:
"Midlife had extended its invitation to a dance of renewal, and dance
she did. ... The changes she made have brought her the incredible
gifts of selfhood and joy."

In another story from the book, Julia also had a Dance of Renewal.
"Staying home with two young children was not the life Julia had
imagined, but she tried to make it work. ... She constantly felt like
a failure and a fraud because she did not feel comfortable in her
role as traditional wife and mother. She recalls, 'I didn't know
what it meant to be a wife. I didn't know what it meant to be a
partner to anybody. ... I figured I just wasn't doing it right, that
there was something lacking in me.'" Relations between Julia and her
husband became increasingly tense, and "Julia increasingly realized
that she could not develop into a real person within the structure of
her marriage," so she dumped her husband, and took away their two
daughters, then eight and five.

Then, according to the book, "life on her own with two children was
frightening and overwhelming" for poor Julia. "At the time I left my
marriage...," she says, "I was very much a struggling embryo of a
person. But I knew I had to develop in a different direction if I was
going to become the person I wanted to be."

So, as a single parent, she went back to college, and eventually got a
job as an executive at a department store. "In her spare time, she
loves to write and paint. ... She also enjoys a relationship with a
man whom she has known for the past nine years; it is an alliance
that meets her needs for intimacy and sex without infringing on her
independence."

There are a lot more stories in this book in a similar vein. They're
all about the trials and tribulations of these poor, poor women, and
all the various struggles and difficulties that they had to suffer,
because life is so hard for women. There's even a chapter on how to
deal with money issues.

But here's the thing: You can read this book from cover to cover, and
not find the phrase "child support" mentioned anywhere, not once!

I like to compare this book to those war movies where you see the good
guys win, but somehow you never see the body parts, the blood, the
gore, dead and mutilated bodies, since they're always dead or dying
off-screen.

When you read through the stories, it's perfectly obvious what's
going on: These women are completely screwing their husbands over
just to collect child support. And yet, the phrase "child support"
is never mentioned!!

Basically, "Flying Solo" is a book written by self-centered,
self-absorbed women about self-centered, self-absorbed women who
destroy other people's lives without even having a thought about it.

Without a thought about anyone's needs but their own, the women in
these stories destroyed their husbands' lives, and tore their children
away from their fathers. In doing so, they increased the statistical
likelihood, that their children would become abused and abusive, a
teenage parent, and in the criminal justice system. The authors
never even hint at these problems while gushing about the dance of
renewal, just as they never use the phrase "child support."

[/intensity]

So, getting back to your point, I think if you talk to these feminist
acquaintances of yours, you may find that the claimed lack of interest
in money is a joke, or perhaps a mask, and that underneath the mask
it's still all about money.

Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with women being concerned about
money. The fault with society is not that women put money above
almost anything, but that society considers it "ungentlemanly" at
best or a crime at worst to make that statement. After all, women
are tied to their children, so it's only natural that women will put
money above everything else, so that their children will be
protected. The only issue here is that it's sooooo politically
incorrect to say so.

(Continued in next posting)

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

(Continued from previous posting)

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

> For an exposition of a Progress by a person like us (T4Ter-like in
> education, class, etc.,) I think the journey of Ms. Marilyn French
> as shown by the reading of her 1977 Awakening novel, The Women's
> Room which is propelled by an angry energy and her 2002
> Unravelliing work In naam van de vriendschap (in the Dutch) and
> now In the Name of Friendship (2006, Feminist Press) in English
> might interest some posters here.

> I would read them in the order of their being published if Ms.
> French is an undiscovered writer.

> The former is a better book; the latter, though in need of an
> editor, is a much wiser book in that it accounts for a
> generational and gendered view of the plights of the Children of
> Men.

> If anyone has a book on the generationalism of gender, please do
> advise. Thank you.

Why didn't you recommed Marilyn French's 1992 book, "The War Against
Women"?

This is a hate-filled book filled with crap from cover to cover. The
section titles summarize it: "The war against women in education,"
"the war against women's personhood," "the war against women as
mothers," "sexual war," "wars of control: legal system," "wars
of control: scientific researchers," and so forth.

In it's way, this is a monumental work. There's no male action that
French can't use to spew her vitriol. Men obliterate women from
history, and "close ranks to appropriate women's projects or attribute
them to men; male historians present a united front in omitting women
from all kinds of history." The political New Right is a group of
"social revolutionaries whose doctrines center on a return to
patriarchial family structure." The Catholic Church teaches boys that
"they must renounce the mother, be reborn through men, and maintain
male solidarity against women. They are taught men's secret ways of
terrifying women (with the fearful sound of a swinging whip, say),
taught that the essence of maleness is control of female power. The
ritual teaches boys to war against women, to subjugate _them_ as they
are being subjugated, by male solidarity and intimidation."

She argues over and over that men subjugate women, not only making
them sexual objects, but even forcing "women into the position of
domesticated animals." And yet, she later argues that men consider
women so worthless that they massively eradicate them. Well, if women
are such useful sexual playthings and workhorses, why would men even
want to eradicate them? She doesn't answer that.

With regard to rape, she says "so automatic is society's acceptance
of male rapists as a fact of life that journalists often conceal this
form of male predatation." She says that men who commit
rape and incest are in fact "normal," and adds, "My own informal
survey of adult women suggests that very few reach the age of
twenty-one without suffering some form of male predation -- incest,
molestation, rape or attempted rape, beatings, and sometimes torture
or imprisonment."

One issue that some feminists don't answer is the fact that many more
men than women are killed, either by crime or by war, indicating by
the logic of feminism that it's not women but other men that men
hate. However, French has an answer to even this: "wars kill the
children to whom most women devote their lives." So if women are
killed, it's proof that men hate women; and if men are killed, they're
depriving women of their sons, so once again it's proof that men hate
women.

You're free, of course, to recommend any author you wish to other
people, but you should at least be aware that when you're flacking
Marilyn French, you're flacking someone who's no better than the
leader of a KKK lynching.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Kiff,



It seems to me that good feminism demands that you should hold up
women like Michelle Malkin and Condi Rice as role models so that any
girl can see that she can be anything she wants to be, even if she's
not white.

With all the recent publicity given to Nancy Pelosi, a 15-year-old
girl might well think that she has to wait 50 years to make anything
of herself, and if she's white, she might think that she has no
chance at all.

Michelle Malkin, in her 30s, ethnically Filipino, has become a major
political commentator in print, radio and television. Any 15 year
old girl could look at Malkin as a role model to guide her in becoming
a successful media personality, if that's what she wants to do.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a black woman aged 52, has been,
for many years, considered to be the most powerful woman in the
world. Her successful career makes her a suitable role model to any
15 year old girl looking to make her mark in politics, education or
government.

Unfortunately, these women are often treated offensively, simply
because they're women. For example, just a few days ago, chauvinist
pig senator Barbara Boxer insinuated that Condoleezza Rice shouldn't
be permitted to express an opinion, since she didn't have any
children. These chauvinist pigs should be condemned by the feminist
community as being offensive and demeaning to all women everywhere.

Congratulations, John, you've just fell for right-wing spin!

Dear Kiff,

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> I have yet to come across a late-wave GI or early Silent woman who
> reported being humiliated by the message or actions of the women's
> libbers, except maybe for Phyllis Schlafly. Could you show me
> where these mothers talked about how their daughters humiliated
> them?

Well, that's certainly the impression I got from reading "The
Feminine Mystique" in the 60s, but I haven't seen that book in a long
time so I can't quote passages.

Today I would answer this question by saying that the entire
Awakening political battle is based around Prophets doing everything
they can to humiliate their parents -- wear long hair (for males),
wear hot pants (for females), call them capitalist pigs or
controlling bitches, or whatever comes to mind.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> I'm not necessarily talking about misogyny. That's pretty extreme.
> I'm thinking more that quite a few men, perhaps not the majority,
> but a fairly substantial percentage, downgrade femininity because
> they perceive it as weakness.

> "Throwing like a girl" is one of the more common put-downs a boy
> hears when his athletic prowess doesn't measure up. Why is that?
> Why is "...like a girl" used? Why not say "he doesn't cock his arm
> right" or "he needs to follow through better on his throw?"

OK, look Kiff, here we have a problem. Women ARE (on the average)
weaker than men in some areas -- physical strength and willingness to
work day and night on a computer software project are areas that come
to mind in my experience.

And a girl does generally throw a ball in a distinctive manner that,
when employed by a boy, is going to earn him some humiliation from
his friends.

But there's a big point here that you're missing. I've heard the
phrase "he throws like a girl" more often from females than males.
It's girls and women that are most ruthless in humiliating some boy
that doesn't meet their masculinity standards. It's females that set
the social standards for masculinity much more than males do.

Oh, and let's not forget: OJ Simpson has never had a problem getting
all the dates he wants.

Have you ever heard anyone say, "He doesn't cock his arm right"? I
don't think I have. And I think that if you said something like that
to a group of boys, the response would be a lot of giggling.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by Odin

Congratulations, John, you've just fell for right-wing spin!

Oh please, Taylor, I'm pulling Kiff's chain.

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Girls like to hear themselves talk and to "share" feelings, so they
play hopscotch. There's no objective to hopscotch except to jump
around squares and share your feelings between turns. I never
figured this game out and most boys don't. (Kevin did -- and he
skillfully used it as a way to meet girls.)

Oh, I don't know how much skill was involved, really. All the boys in the neighborhood aged 12-14 used to play hopscotch with the girls... all of whom we already knew. It gave us a chance both to hang out with them without looking like wimpy skirt-chasers, and to beat them at their own game... literally. The 'feelings' shared between turns mostly involved the winners' bragging rights... usually ours.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

It seems to me that good feminism demands that you should hold up
women like Michelle Malkin and Condi Rice as role models so that any
girl can see that she can be anything she wants to be, even if she's
not white.

Hell, no. A female liar is still a liar. An Asian American liar is still a liar. An African American liar is still a liar.

With all the recent publicity given to Nancy Pelosi, a 15-year-old
girl might well think that she has to wait 50 years to make anything
of herself, and if she's white, she might think that she has no
chance at all.

My daughter would quickly set you straight here.

Unfortunately, these women are often treated offensively, simply
because they're women. For example, just a few days ago, chauvinist
pig senator Barbara Boxer insinuated that Condoleezza Rice shouldn't
be permitted to express an opinion, since she didn't have any
children. These chauvinist pigs should be condemned by the feminist
community as being offensive and demeaning to all women everywhere.

I haven't been paying attention to the news lately, so I missed this one until now. It was a terrible thing for Senator Boxer to say, for a multitude of reasons. Shame on her.

I'm calling bullshit. Boxer pointed out that just as she had no family members in danger due to Iraq, neither does Rice.

Scince when did telling the truth about something become offensive?