Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

(Continued from previous posting)



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

Dear Mr. Xenakis,

I have recommended the works of slave owners: Geo. Washington, John Taylor of Caroline, John Randolph of Roanoak, of anti-semites: Martin Luther, Henry Adams, Edward de Vere-17th Earl of Oxford, sodomites: Andre Gide, Marcel Proust, Oscar Wilde. anti-Americans: Samuel Johnson, Evelyn Waugh, royalists: Madame de Lafayette, Edmund Burke, skeptics: David Hume, Voltaire, etc., etc. so I do not quail at Ms. French. I have not read her The War Against Women--thus I find it hard to urge another to do so.



Yo. Ob. Sv.

VKS




**********

I do not usually download images when browsing T4T with Opera as my connection to the Internets is slow. But, to post with MS IE I saw that you had represented a Californian of Jewish extraction with pictures of a parasite to be restricted by following the strictures of Leviticus and a picture of a Porcine-American. I think your links may be broken and you may wish to repair them. HTH

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Mr. Saari,



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.
I hope you will not resort to self injury.
With your permission, I would include
you in my devotions.



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.



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"?
No, I have "farmed solo"
(with the aid of the manufactures
of Allis-Chalmers to be sure).

[/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.

They, being much wealthier and better credentialled,
than I have a less Commercial Republican
( and less Progressive) attitude toward the
monetary issues of gender than those of your
acquaintance. The other six deadly sins may be
more in evidence but Avarice is much more remote
than Pride, Envy, Anger, Sloth, Gluttony and Lust in
that particular portion of The Children of Men with w
hom I have had occasion of social intercourse.

Incidentally, there's nothing wrong with women being concerned about
money. The fault with society is not that women put money above
almost anything,
I think this is wicked for both men and women,
it is both ungentlemanly and unladylike but
honor is an aristocratic value and justice a royal one
and the Commercial Republic sinking into Market Democracy
will have not much time for either.

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

Yo. Ob. Sv. VKS

Originally Posted by herbal tee

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?

Condoleezza Rice Deserves Apology

[Opinion] Comments on Rice's family status by U.S. Senator out of line

Njei Moses Timah (njemotim)

There was drama on Friday in Washington, D.C. during the appearance of
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer apparently
attacked Rice as a childless woman who did not understand the
sacrifices made by families of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The U.S.
secretary of state (who is single and childless) was there to do her
duty of defending the Bush administration's unpopular Iraqi policy.

Boxer was apparently trying to drive home the point that Rice did not
comprehend the price of war because of her family status. "You're not
going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, within your
immediate family," said Boxer to Rice. "Who will pay the price? I'm
not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, my grandchild
is too young. So who pays the price? Not me, not you."

Some observers interpreted Boxer's statements as a nasty personal
attack on the Secretary of State. Rice, who later said she was
confused by Boxer's outburst, responded in a composed manner; "I know
what they are going through [the soldiers]. I talk to their families,
I can never do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in
uniform."

Boxer's statements to Rice were in poor taste, and it was not long
before reactions started coming. White House spokesman Tony Snow
called the comments "outrageous." The Independent Women's Forum (IWF)
called on Boxer to issue an apology to Rice and to single and
childless women everywhere.

Many of us (and I am one) may be opposed to the current U.S. policy in
Iraq, but it is certainly immoral and unacceptable to remotely link
the judgment and competence of policymakers to their family status.

It is common knowledge that the children of those with powerful
political connections in the U.S. and elsewhere have historically not
been the ones that engage the enemy in active warfare. They may serve
in the military, but they somehow always find themselves doing jobs
far away from the killing fields. If Condoleezza Rice and Barbara
Boxer had adult kids in the U.S army, I am pretty sure that they would
not be among those patrolling the streets of Baghdad. So neither of
them will pay the price with immediate family members anyway. The
issue of paying the price is therefore a nonstarter for the ruling
elites of our world.

The Uncomfortable Truth Behind the Draft

Unfortunately for Rice, this controversy was stirred again during her
visit to Israel on Saturday, when a reporter asked whether as a single
childless woman she had difficulties appreciating the consequence of
war. Rice sighed and answered, "no," adding, "I also think that being
a single woman does not in any way make me incapable of understanding
not just those sacrifices but also that nothing of value is ever won
without sacrifices."

This type of question does no credit whatsoever to the profession of
journalism. It was a display of reckless insensitivity by the person
that asked that question, especially coming on the heels of Rice's
embarrassing encounter in the Senate the previous day.

That question was not thrown only at Rice, but at the hundreds of
millions of single and childless women of this world. It was thrown at
the hundreds of millions of responsible, competent, and compassionate
single childless women. We should not forget that the person that
epitomized compassion and care for humanity in recent memory was
Mother Theresa. She was a single and childless woman who won the Nobel
Prize and more than six other awards for caring for the downtrodden
children and adults of our world. There are hundreds of millions of
this class of women serving humanity in various capacities.

Condoleezza Rice rightly deserves an apology from those that have hurt
her and other women of her status. The statement released by Boxer
defending her comments, in my opinion, does not go in any way to close
the topic.

"I spoke the truth at the committee hearing, which is that neither
Secretary Rice nor I have family members that will pay the price
for escalation. My point was to focus attention on our military
families who continue to sacrifice because this administration has
not developed a political solution to the situation in Iraq."

That is true, madam, but what we are saying is that the contextual
meaning of this statement when applied to both of you does not have
the same connotation. That is more so when you consider it within the
framework of what you said in the Senate. Ms. Rice therefore deserves
an apology.

A version of this article will appear on my Web site.

2007/01/15 ?? 2:20 © 2007 Ohmynews

http://english.ohmynews.com/articlev...40006&rel_no=1

So why is this persons opinion any more valid than anyone elses'?
In my opinion, Rice owes America an apology for helping to foist the plans of that have led to all that has happened scince March, 2003.

Dear Rick,

Originally Posted by herbal tee

> So why is this persons opinion any more valid than anyone elses'?

> In my opinion, Rice owes America an apology for helping to foist
> the plans of that have led to all that has happened scince March,
> 2003.

I follow this stuff pretty closely and I've never heard anyone give
any credible explanation of why the 2003 ground war in Iraq was the
wrong decision for the United States, unless you assume that all that
matters are public opinion polls and exit polls. So I'm not aware
that Rice has anything to apologize for.

Now let's take a look at your previous posting:

Originally Posted by herbal tee

> I'm calling bullshit. Boxer pointed out that just as she had no
> family members in danger due to Iraq, neither does Rice.
> http://operationyellowelephant.blogs...e-further.html

> Scince when did telling the truth about something become
> offensive?

You mischaracterized Boxer's statement when you referred to "family
members." If she had said "I have no family members in danger, and
neither do you," then there wouldn't have been the controversy. The
controversy arose because Boxer offensively referred specifically to
children and grandchildren, which made her remarks a personal attack
on Rice as a single, childless woman.

By mischaracterizing Boxer's statement and omitting the mention of
children and grandchildren, you've purposely lied to me and to the
other people in this forum who might be reading your post.

Furthermore, you lied in defense of a chauvinist pig in the context
of a discussion where unsupported accusations of lying have been
directed at Rice (by Kiff). And furthermore again, your lie used the
phrase "calling bullshit," which was an indirect accusation that I
was lying, and this accusation is also unsupportable. This makes
your lie as bad as it can get.

Please don't insult my intelligence by excusing this away. You
purposely lied repeatedly about an important question, and you've been
caught red-handed.

It's time for you finally to apologize for lying, so that we can all
move on.

Sincerely,

John

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

Originally Posted by herbal tee

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?

I do not have any relatives in the active military (at least that I know of). But I still consider it within my right to criticize the decision to go to war, in the interest of the country as a whole and our military personnel in particular.

The senator could have phrased her statement differently, and without getting personal about it.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

In my opinion, Rice owes America an apology for helping to foist the plans of that have led to all that has happened scince March, 2003.

Or at least not doing much of anything to stop them from happening, when she might have been in a position to do so.

John- have you ever read Philip Wylie's First Turning classic "A Generation of Vipers"? I think you might like it. (signed) one of his Size 40 scorpions

About Boxer vs Rice: Robert Heinlein in one of his essays pointed out that a woman without children was functioning, socially, as a man. I think that's what Boxer was driving at. (Mother Teresa was functioning as a monastic). However, from the outside it looks as if she's starting up the Mommy Wars again. Like Nancy Pelosi, she's starting them from the maternal side of the fence, which is contrary to how they were playing out in the 2nd and 3rd turnings. That said, Boxer no more has a dog (or bitch) in this fight than Rice does. Or for that matter, than I do, my entire family being of those in-between generations who are either too old or too young to be drafted.

Nor have either of them, to the best of my knowledge, ever served in the military, which makes them 'socially-men-manque' in Heinlein's view. Or as S&H keep pointing out, those who know nothing of war are the figthto declare war.

Now, one childless politician who really does have a dog in this fight is Representative Heather Wilson (R, NM), because she IS a veteran.

If the children of our aristocracy were really expected to be the first to put themselves on the line in battle (as Harry Windsor the Millie Prince is) that would be a totally different story.

Just my $0.02,

Pat, who knoweth not whereof she speaketh, my father being the last member of our family to ever see combat.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Rick,



I follow this stuff pretty closely and I've never heard anyone give
any credible explanation of why the 2003 ground war in Iraq was the
wrong decision for the United States, unless you assume that all that
matters are public opinion polls and exit polls. So I'm not aware
that Rice has anything to apologize for.

1.It has prevented going after Osama bin Laudin in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
2. It has prevented effectively confronting North Korea over nuclear issues.
3. Ditto for Iran.

You mischaracterized Boxer's statement when you referred to "family
members." If she had said "I have no family members in danger, and
neither do you," then there wouldn't have been the controversy. The
controversy arose because Boxer offensively referred specifically to
children and grandchildren, which made her remarks a personal attack
on Rice as a single, childless woman.

By mischaracterizing Boxer's statement and omitting the mention of
children and grandchildren, you've purposely lied to me and to the
other people in this forum who might be reading your post.

Furthermore, you lied in defense of a chauvinist pig in the context
of a discussion where unsupported accusations of lying have been
directed at Rice (by Kiff). And furthermore again, your lie used the
phrase "calling bullshit," which was an indirect accusation that I
was lying, and this accusation is also unsupportable. This makes
your lie as bad as it can get.

She did mention the fact that she has has no family in danger. My link as the relivant part of the conversation, I have concealed nothing. If you want to mince my words to make me appear as a liar, that just reflects on your lack of honesty. I have nothing to aplogize for.

You will get no apology nor do you deserve one.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I follow this stuff pretty closely and I've never heard anyone give
any credible explanation of why the 2003 ground war in Iraq was the
wrong decision for the United States, unless you assume that all that
matters are public opinion polls and exit polls. So I'm not aware
that Rice has anything to apologize for.

Have you heard any credible explanation of why the 2003 ground war in Iraq was the right decision for the United States? If so, what was it?

Dear Rick,

Originally Posted by herbal tee

> 1.It has prevented going after Osama bin Laudin in Afghanistan or
> Pakistan.

> 2. It has prevented effectively confronting North Korea over
> nuclear issues.

> 3. Ditto for Iran.

You've given three reasons without any explanation, and I can't
figure out what any of them have to do with the Iraq war. Are you
saying that without the commitment to Iraq, we would have had the
available forces to invade Pakistan, North Korea and Iran? This makes
no sense to me.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

> She did mention the fact that she has has no family in danger. My
> link as the relivant part of the conversation, I have concealed
> nothing. If you want to mince my words to make me appear as a
> liar, that just reflects on your lack of honesty. I have nothing
> to aplogize for.

> You will get no apology nor do you deserve one.

This is another lie intended to cover up the previous lie. Your link
doesn't quote any of Boxer's words at all. Quoting Boxer's actual
words to Rice would have been the honest thing to do; instead your
link only quotes a press release by Boxer's public relations spin
staff.

In response to you, I posted an article that quoted Boxer's offensive
words. It was by someone who opposed Bush's policy, so it gave you an
out. Instead, you just lied again to cover up the previous lie.

You could have started out this conversation by being honest and
truthful with me and with the people of the TFT forum community.
Instead, you indirectly accused me of lying, and then told a lie
yourself. Then you tried to cover up the lie by telling another lie.

You're in a cycle. You tell a lie, then you tell another lie to
cover up the first one, then you tell another lie to cover up the
last one, and so forth. And we all know that it's the cover up
that's worse than the lie.

I haven't minced your words at all. I don't need any Rose Mary
Woods to transcribe tapes to prove what you said. This is an
online conversation. Anyone can just go back and read what you said.

You need to stop lying, covering up, lying, covering up. You need to
be honest with me and with the people in the TFT forum community.
Every time you tell another lie, you dig a deeper hole for yourself.

And you need to stop attacking the messenger. I'm just reporting
what's happening. Do you have an enemies list too?

It's time for you to stop lying, to stop covering up, to start being
open, honest and truthful with the TFT forum community people. That's
what the the TFT forum community people want to see. And it's time
for you to stop defending chauvinist pigs who attack and demean
single, childless women everywhere.

There's nothing wrong with admitting that you've made mistakes. It's
time for you to admit that you've made mistakes. It's time for you to
apologize for lying, so that we can all move on.

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Pat,

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

> John- have you ever read Philip Wylie's First Turning classic "A
> Generation of Vipers"? I think you might like it. (signed) one of
> his Size 40 scorpions

I think we had to read chapter of it in high school. Anyway, I found
something online about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...902124_pf.html

He was in the Lost generation, and seems to have the full
manifestation of a Nomad who hates everything that came before, and
has a totally dysfunctional view of history. He says a number of
nasty things about women. Is that the reason you think I would like
it? Why do you think I would like it for that reason? Do you think
I say nasty things about women? I don't. In fact, right now I'm
defending women against a chauvinist pig in the Senate.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

> About Boxer vs Rice: Robert Heinlein in one of his essays pointed
> out that a woman without children was functioning, socially, as a
> man.

That's weird. Until last week, I knew that Rice wasn't married, but
I didn't know whether she was divorced, or whether she had children.

On the other hand, I've seen her many times in international news,
and I can't recall ever thinking, "There goes a man."

Do you think she's like a man?

Please help me understand how to figure this out. If I understand
you correctly, then all those times I saw her TV, I should have been
able to discern some manly trait and, from that fact alone, conclude
that she's single and childless. Could you tell me how to do that?
I'd love to know.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

> I think that's what Boxer was driving at. (Mother Teresa was
> functioning as a monastic). However, from the outside it looks as
> if she's starting up the Mommy Wars again. Like Nancy Pelosi,
> she's starting them from the maternal side of the fence, which is
> contrary to how they were playing out in the 2nd and 3rd
> turnings. That said, Boxer no more has a dog (or bitch) in this
> fight than Rice does. Or for that matter, than I do, my entire
> family being of those in-between generations who are either too
> old or too young to be drafted.

I don't think that at all. I think Boxer was intentionally insulting
her and demeaning her as a single, childless woman.

Isn't this always the way. Clinton was credibly charged as a violent
serial rapist, but feminists love him. Boxer is a chauvinist pig,
but feminists love her. Kinda makes you think that feminism (except
as practiced by Kiff) is a pile of crap, doesn't it?

Sincerely,

John

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

Dear Kiff,

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> My daughter would quickly set you straight here.

I don't mean anything sinister by this, but I've spoken to enough
Millennials to know that she may be telling you what you want to
hear. I don't believe that many Xer and Millennial young women
identify with feminist principles, except in the broadest sense that
women should be respected.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

> Have you heard any credible explanation of why the 2003 ground war
> in Iraq was the right decision for the United States? If so, what
> was it?

I've actually written on this subject several times on this forum and
on my web site, but it's scattered around in several places. I'll
take a couple of days to pull everything together, and I'll post it
in the "Objections to Generational Dynamics" thread.

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

> I hope you will not resort to self injury. With your permission, I
> would include you in my devotions.

No, there are no such plans. I'm not a religious person, but you
have my permission anyway, since it's nice to know that someone
considers me worthy enough to do so.

Sincerely,

John

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

Radio Evangelism:

Originally Posted by The New England Divines- Fra Click & Fra Clack

A store that sells new husbands has just opened in New York City, where a woman may go to choose a husband. Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the store operates: "You may visit this store ONLY ONCE! There are six floors and the value of the products increases as the shopper ascends the flights. The shopper may choose any item from a particular floor, or may choose to go up to the next floor, but you cannot go back down except to exit the building!"

So, a woman goes to the store to find a husband. On the first floor the sign reads: "These men Have Jobs".

The second floor sign reads: "These men Have Jobs and Love Kids".

The third floor sign reads: "These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, and are Extremely Good Looking."
"Wow," she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going.

At the fourth floor the sign reads: "These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Good Looking and Help With Housework."
"Oh, mercy me!" she exclaims, "I can hardly stand it!"

Still, she goes to the fifth floor and the sign reads: "These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Gorgeous, Help with Housework, and Have a Strong Romantic Streak."

She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor and the sign reads: "You are visitor 31,456,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please. Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store."

To avoid gender bias charges, the store’s owner opens a New Wives store just across the street. It too has six floors. The first floor has wives that love sex. The second floor has wives that love sex and have money. The third through sixth floors have never been visited.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Mr. Saari,



No, there are no such plans. I'm not a religious person, but you
have my permission anyway, since it's nice to know that someone
considers me worthy enough to do so.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis

Dear Mr. Xenakis,

As one of the Children of Men you certainly are worthy enough.

Originally Posted by Mr. Daniel Larison contra Ms. Heather MacDonald

Imagine, if you will, a man on an island in the middle of a wide and deep river. On the far shore there is a fisherman casting his nets. The fisherman has a boat and has a large catch of fish, and could bring the man food or even take him over to the shore if the man were to ask it of him. The man has no nets and nothing else on the island with which to fish, and he has no other means of sustenance. In the course of time, the man will gradually starve if he does not humble himself and ask for help from the fisherman. If Ms. Mac Donald were there to advise him, she would tell him that he should not say anything to the fisherman. He should not have to ask the fisherman, because he should already know that the man is in need and should provide for him without any word from the man. Perhaps Ms. Mac Donald would be more satisfied if everyone spiritually starved in their own autonomy rather than engage in something so irrational as prayer.

Indeed, it would be even more absurd, according to Ms. Mac Donald, for other people on the shore with the fisherman to ask the fisherman to intercede on behalf of the man. Ms. Mac Donald would interrupt: “What possible difference could that make?” (Of course, the number isn’t really what matters, but the spirit in which the prayer is offered and the purity of the petitioner’s intention.) All that it might take for the fisherman to answer could be one petitioner, but supposing that there were more than just one the fisherman would see the love that these petitions represent and would probably hasten to fulfill the good desire of so many people. Beseeching the fisherman on behalf of the man is part of the fulfillment of the Christian obligation to love one another, and it is at least partly to instill in men love for one another that we are called to offer up prayers for others. On this point, I would borrow an idea from Lewis’ apologetics and frame the question this way: “How much worse might a person’s suffering be without others praying on his behalf? How much better might his condition be because others have prayed for him? ” If the atheists’ grandmother is truly beloved, does Ms. Mac Donald think that this love is in vain? Presumably not, or she would not have brought it up. If it is not in vain, but is indeed truly love, how is it that God will ignore this beloved person, since all love comes from Him and participates in Him? Will Ms. Mac Donald be grateful for this response? I am somehow doubtful.

That even the Weird might be blessed

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

This is another lie intended to cover up the previous lie. Your link
doesn't quote any of Boxer's words at all. Quoting Boxer's actual
words to Rice would have been the honest thing to do; instead your
link only quotes a press release by Boxer's public relations spin
staff.

In response to you, I posted an article that quoted Boxer's offensive
words. It was by someone who opposed Bush's policy, so it gave you an
out. Instead, you just lied again to cover up the previous lie.

You could have started out this conversation by being honest and
truthful with me and with the people of the TFT forum community.
Instead, you indirectly accused me of lying, and then told a lie
yourself. Then you tried to cover up the lie by telling another lie.

You're in a cycle. You tell a lie, then you tell another lie to
cover up the first one, then you tell another lie to cover up the
last one, and so forth. And we all know that it's the cover up
that's worse than the lie.

I haven't minced your words at all. I don't need any Rose Mary
Woods to transcribe tapes to prove what you said. This is an
online conversation. Anyone can just go back and read what you said.

You need to stop lying, covering up, lying, covering up. You need to
be honest with me and with the people in the TFT forum community.
Every time you tell another lie, you dig a deeper hole for yourself.

And you need to stop attacking the messenger. I'm just reporting
what's happening. Do you have an enemies list too?

It's time for you to stop lying, to stop covering up, to start being
open, honest and truthful with the TFT forum community people. That's
what the the TFT forum community people want to see. And it's time
for you to stop defending chauvinist pigs who attack and demean
single, childless women everywhere.

There's nothing wrong with admitting that you've made mistakes. It's
time for you to admit that you've made mistakes. It's time for you to
apologize for lying, so that we can all move on.

Sincerely,

John

John, this really comes off (to me, anyway) as being over the top. Methinks you protest too much. I think the Senator was wrong to personalize the matter, but the overreaction is getting plain silly.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I don't mean anything sinister by this, but I've spoken to enough
Millennials to know that she may be telling you what you want to
hear. I don't believe that many Xer and Millennial young women
identify with feminist principles, except in the broadest sense that
women should be respected.

John, for what it's worth, she was completely enthralled by the show "Commander-in-Chief" for the brief period it was on, because it starred Geena Davis as the President. Her favorite "Star Trek" series was Voyager simply because it had a female captain. Her favorite movie is "A League of Their Own." She admires Pink and Avril Lavigne and thinks Britney Spears is a talentless airhead.

She wears make-up, homemade tie-dyed T-shirts, and ripped jeans. She went to Homecoming with her girlfriends. She has pictures of teen hearthrob Teddy Geiger on her walls. Her goal in life is to meet Packers quarterback Brett Favre. She writes poetry, dives for the loose basketball, and is not afraid of the close play at the plate.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

It's time for you to stop lying, to stop covering up, to start being
open, honest and truthful with the TFT forum community people. That's
what the the TFT forum community people want to see. And it's time
for you to stop defending chauvinist pigs who attack and demean
single, childless women everywhere.

There's nothing wrong with admitting that you've made mistakes. It's
time for you to admit that you've made mistakes. It's time for you to
apologize.[/QUOTE]


I cut your ad hominum attack down to its essentials. Calling me a liar redundantly does not make me one. I have lied about nothing. The record is what it is.

Defending pigs? Oh, I get it, you post a picture of a pig and label it with the name of a jewish woman-Senator Boxers name, how classy can you get.

Your a real work Xenaxis, I have nothing to aploigize for and will not apoligize to you about anything.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Pat,



I think we had to read chapter of it in high school. Anyway, I found
something online about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...902124_pf.html

He was in the Lost generation, and seems to have the full
manifestation of a Nomad who hates everything that came before, and
has a totally dysfunctional view of history. He says a number of
nasty things about women. Is that the reason you think I would like
it? Why do you think I would like it for that reason? Do you think
I say nasty things about women? I don't. In fact, right now I'm
defending women against a chauvinist pig in the Senate.

Well, at least women in politics. BTW, he totally miscalled the First Turning.


That's weird. Until last week, I knew that Rice wasn't married, but
I didn't know whether she was divorced, or whether she had children.

On the other hand, I've seen her many times in international news,
and I can't recall ever thinking, "There goes a man."

Do you think she's like a man?

Please help me understand how to figure this out. If I understand
you correctly, then all those times I saw her TV, I should have been
able to discern some manly trait and, from that fact alone, conclude
that she's single and childless. Could you tell me how to do that?
I'd love to know.

Not "Like a man" as in being butch. "Functioning socially as a man" with the attitudes & values of one (these days, the single working person - in Heinlein's day quite different from the way a mother was functioning in the world.) In short, that someone who has had and reared children has a totally different outlok on things than one who hasn't, because of having had to put those children first and still doing so.

There are, of course, always exceptions. Lots of them.

I don't think that at all. I think Boxer was intentionally insulting
her and demeaning her as a single, childless woman.

As I said. Starting up the Mommy Wars again, and shame on her. Did you think I wasn't ready to cry "Shame on you" at my fellowe liberals? Ask the Justices who signed off on Kelo v. New London if I didn't give them an earful!

Isn't this always the way. Clinton was credibly charged as a violent
serial rapist, but feminists love him. Boxer is a chauvinist pig,
but feminists love her. Kinda makes you think that feminism (except
as practiced by Kiff) is a pile of crap, doesn't it?

Sincerely,

John

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

Excuse ME! I'M a feminist and I say Boxer was way out of line.

Your a real work Xenaxis

Think how cool this would sound if Sam Spade said it

I don't believe that many Xer and Millennial young women
identify with feminist principles, except in the broadest sense that
women should be respected.

Early wave xer's definitely identify with feminism, and they were the ones who really blured the gender lines after boomer men wore their hair long. Take a look at some pictures of Madonna and she looks like a fucking dude, not even hot at all when she did really have potential, but instead she chose to look like a dude. A lot of 90's girls look really ugly in hindsight because they wore their hair too short, but not Tyra Banks who is a Millenial role model.

As far as Millenial girls go, they definitely identify with feminism, but it's a cheery feminism, not a militaristic thing like it is for boomers and xer's. So basically, it isn't really feminism at all, they're just happy to have good opportunities and a lot of times more than guys. Don't expect our future senators to make a big deal about whether someone has a baby or whatever this is all about (Sorry, I'm only getting my news through the Onion these days. Even Jon Stewart is a fairy now) Anyways, 4th periods almost over, I'm going to go deal a crushing blow to militaristic feminism by shamelessly hitting on as many girls as I can at lunch. Au revoir.

John, for what it's worth, she was completely enthralled by the show "Commander-in-Chief" for the brief period it was on, because it starred Geena Davis as the President. Her favorite "Star Trek" series was Voyager simply because it had a female captain. Her favorite movie is "A League of Their Own." She admires Pink and Avril Lavigne and thinks Britney Spears is a talentless airhead.

She wears make-up, homemade tie-dyed T-shirts, and ripped jeans. She went to Homecoming with her girlfriends. She has pictures of teen hearthrob Teddy Geiger on her walls. Her goal in life is to meet Packers quarterback Brett Favre. She writes poetry, dives for the loose basketball, and is not afraid of the close play at the plate.

I don't know what you're proving, beyond maybe that your child has mediocre taste in entertainment (And quarterbacks for that matter), but does what entertains you really define who you are. This sounds like a lot of girls a few years younger than me, but does this really mean feminism is still alive or something?

Also, fuck that shit dude. Britney Spears is as hardworking as Avril or Pink or any other floosey you wanna throw up with her. Britney Spears is the pop princess my Millenial wave grew up with, and I'll be damned if anyones going to slander her name on a gender issues thread. See, that's what's wrong with feminism is the first place, they all claim it's men holding them down, but it's you saying Britney Spears doesn't qualify as a model woman, or Barbara Box-Munching Boxer saying Condi isn't a real woman or whatever she said because she doesn't have kids. It's always about women vs women, stop holding yourselves back. Maybe it'll be hard though, because women naturally have to compete for men, just as men do, but for us it's more sport. Men break things down soooo much easier.

I'm gonna go back and read the things I've wrote in the last ten minutes, to see if it makes any sense. I smoked out two blunts during break because this is my open period, but I thought everything was getting to heated here. Sam Spade 08!

Originally Posted by BigStar

I don't know what you're proving, beyond maybe that your child has mediocre taste in entertainment (And quarterbacks for that matter), but does what entertains you really define who you are. This sounds like a lot of girls a few years younger than me, but does this really mean feminism is still alive or something?

I'm not sure what you're proving, besides that you're rude when you're stoned.

My point is that my daughter doesn't fit any particular feminine or masculine stereotype; she is unique, pretty self-assured, and probably a lot more confident than I was at her age.

Also, fuck that shit dude. Britney Spears is as hardworking as Avril or Pink or any other floosey you wanna throw up with her. Britney Spears is the pop princess my Millenial wave grew up with, and I'll be damned if anyones going to slander her name on a gender issues thread. See, that's what's wrong with feminism is the first place, they all claim it's men holding them down, but it's you saying Britney Spears doesn't qualify as a model woman, or Barbara Box-Munching Boxer saying Condi isn't a real woman or whatever she said because she doesn't have kids. It's always about women vs women, stop holding yourselves back.

Would you like to hear her opinion on George Dubya Bush or Mike Holmgren?

Maybe it'll be hard though, because women naturally have to compete for men, just as men do, but for us it's more sport. Men break things down soooo much easier.

Yes, you do. It's one of the things I love about you guys. Seriously.

I'm gonna go back and read the things I've wrote in the last ten minutes, to see if it makes any sense. I smoked out two blunts during break because this is my open period, but I thought everything was getting to heated here. Sam Spade 08!

Just make sure you say it with that true Bogart attitude.

I'm not sure what you're proving, besides that you're rude when you're stoned.

Rude? Shit. I was trying to be funny and lighten things up. Maybe it would've been if you were lit up. It's just Commander In Chief was just such a cheesy show. I'm cool with Star Trek though, and Avril Lavinge got me considerable ass when I was in my skating phase. Also, A Leauge of Their Own is like, my favorite movie pretty much, because it has a lot of alien killing and humans having sex. Or was that Starship Troopers? I get those two confused sometimes, like De Niro and Pacino. Problem is, I watched the Superbowl Shuffle like 140 times already today on youtube just to get myself pissed off and ready for the bears to lose to NO, so I'm a little bit tired and forgetful.

Also, I'd be curious to know what your daughter thinks of Mr. Micheal Holmgren, seeing as he is my favorite Seahawk and probably the best coach of all time beter than Bill Cowher who spits when he talks and is actually a hermaphrodite (True story). But no, I don't care about her opinion on Bush (Or anyones for that matter) because I'd rather talk about football.