YSFOM, Mr. Saari? :?

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

And, what of all those Childhold Tales that mix species in Matrimony? Is the Bestialist Union of Beauty & the Beast what we wish for our youth? Such confusion has been noted in the case of the poor Afghan and an unhappy donkey. And, The Frog Prince combines Magick and cross-species affection - can public education be saved?

I think there might be a "pony" in that barn, somewhere: The "Kings" tail, er, tale comes about fifteen years, I think, after "Heather has two mommies" began to be hailed in puplic schools everywhere. Perhaps the brightside can be seen in a belated "equal time" for men, er, boys? I mean, even if the boys are sissys, at least it's a start in the right direction, eh?

I mean, can the women who finally knows how to transform the "beast" into real men, rather than wimps and barbarians, be far away?

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

And, what of all those Childhold Tales that mix species in Matrimony? Is the Bestialist Union of Beauty & the Beast what we wish for our youth? Such confusion has been noted in the case of the poor Afghan and an unhappy donkey. And, The Frog Prince combines Magick and cross-species affection - can public education be saved?

I think there might be a "pony" in that barn, somewhere: The "Kings" tail, er, tale comes about fifteen years, I think, after "Heather has two mommies" began to be hailed in puplic schools everywhere. Perhaps the brightside can be seen in a belated "equal time" for men, er, boys? I mean, even if the boys are sissys, at least it's a start in the right direction, eh?

I mean, can the women who finally knows how to transform the "beast" into real men, rather than wimps and barbarians, be far away?

In my experience, many young women are upset, but not about an elusive Prince Charming or even the shortage of "cute guys" around. Rather, they have very specific complaints against how they have been treated in shopping malls or on college campuses by immature and uncouth males, and even more pointed complaints against their boyfriends or other male acquaintances who fail to protect them. At times, they appear desperately hopeless. They say matter-of-factly that the males around them do not know how to act like either men or gentlemen. It appears to them that, except for a few lucky members of their sex, most women today must choose between males who are whiny, incapable of making decisions, and in general of "acting like men," or those who treat women roughly and are unreliable, unmannerly, and usually stupid.

Young women have been saying that about young men since the Stone Age.

It's been true since the Stone Age, too.

In my experience, many young women are upset, but not about an elusive Prince Charming or even the shortage of "cute guys" around. Rather, they have very specific complaints against how they have been treated in shopping malls or on college campuses by immature and uncouth males, and even more pointed complaints against their boyfriends or other male acquaintances who fail to protect them. At times, they appear desperately hopeless. They say matter-of-factly that the males around them do not know how to act like either men or gentlemen. It appears to them that, except for a few lucky members of their sex, most women today must choose between males who are whiny, incapable of making decisions, and in general of "acting like men," or those who treat women roughly and are unreliable, unmannerly, and usually stupid.

Young women have been saying that about young men since the Stone Age.

It's been true since the Stone Age, too.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

YSFOM, Mr. Saari? :?

Young Skulls Full Of Mush.

HTH

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

YSFOM, Mr. Saari? :?

Young Skulls Full Of Mush.

HTH

Here's a 4T sign. The new Time Magazine reads: "The Case For Staying Home: Why more young moms are opting out of the rat race"

Is this a sign of a newly rewidening gender gap?

Here's a 4T sign. The new Time Magazine reads: "The Case For Staying Home: Why more young moms are opting out of the rat race"

Is this a sign of a newly rewidening gender gap?

Definitely!

This has actually been going on for some time now my nomad sister('62) decided in 1991 to be a stay-at-home mom. I've noticed an increase among upper-middle class friends, aquaintances, and clients for the past ten years or so.

Definitely!

This has actually been going on for some time now my nomad sister('62) decided in 1991 to be a stay-at-home mom. I've noticed an increase among upper-middle class friends, aquaintances, and clients for the past ten years or so.

My 1961 mom did a variant on this. We needed the extra income, so she worked. But she worked at night and my dad worked during the day, so I didn't need daycare. I always had one parent at home. The downside was that I didn't see my mom for very much because she slept during the day. Nowadays we could get by if my mom didn't work (my dad makes 70% of the income), although at my age there wouldn't be a point to it.

My 1961 mom did a variant on this. We needed the extra income, so she worked. But she worked at night and my dad worked during the day, so I didn't need daycare. I always had one parent at home. The downside was that I didn't see my mom for very much because she slept during the day. Nowadays we could get by if my mom didn't work (my dad makes 70% of the income), although at my age there wouldn't be a point to it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In my experience, many young women are upset, but not about an elusive Prince Charming or even the shortage of "cute guys" around. Rather, they have very specific complaints against how they have been treated in shopping malls or on college campuses by immature and uncouth males, and even more pointed complaints against their boyfriends or other male acquaintances who fail to protect them. At times, they appear desperately hopeless. They say matter-of-factly that the males around them do not know how to act like either men or gentlemen. It appears to them that, except for a few lucky members of their sex, most women today must choose between males who are whiny, incapable of making decisions, and in general of "acting like men," or those who treat women roughly and are unreliable, unmannerly, and usually stupid.

Young women have been saying that about young men since the Stone Age.

It's been true since the Stone Age, too.

Oh, gee...could it be, Brian, that the young women in question actually like the attention from all those rough, unmannerly and usually stupid guys?

In 1987 at Cal State Northridge, I was jumped and almost beaten up by a bunch of frat guys after I verbally defended the honor of my sister and her best friend, whom the lowlife assholes insisted on speaking to as if they were common whores rather than the polished college women that they were. Would you like to know what happened after the dust settled? My sister was very angry with me, insisted that I should have been one of those whiny, indecisive, submasculine guys you speak of and kept my mouth shut. Why? Oh...um... I could have been... um... badly hurt....she half-heartedly said. Bullshit. It was completely obvious to me that she enjoyed the attention, vulgar as it was, which was in turn completely ruined by my defense of her, and she did not like it one bit. What gratitude! :evil:

After seventeen years that incident is still a sore point between us, so we don't speak of it. And I still feel she's perhaps just a tad closer to common than I would prefer a close family member to be, after all. Boomer fire-and-brimstone, you know.

So, Brian, I don't know whether or not it's "been true since the Stone Age" that guys are either violent bastards or wimps. What I do know that women have nobody to blame but themselves if it is true. As a man, you just really can't win for losing.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In my experience, many young women are upset, but not about an elusive Prince Charming or even the shortage of "cute guys" around. Rather, they have very specific complaints against how they have been treated in shopping malls or on college campuses by immature and uncouth males, and even more pointed complaints against their boyfriends or other male acquaintances who fail to protect them. At times, they appear desperately hopeless. They say matter-of-factly that the males around them do not know how to act like either men or gentlemen. It appears to them that, except for a few lucky members of their sex, most women today must choose between males who are whiny, incapable of making decisions, and in general of "acting like men," or those who treat women roughly and are unreliable, unmannerly, and usually stupid.

Young women have been saying that about young men since the Stone Age.

It's been true since the Stone Age, too.

Oh, gee...could it be, Brian, that the young women in question actually like the attention from all those rough, unmannerly and usually stupid guys?

In 1987 at Cal State Northridge, I was jumped and almost beaten up by a bunch of frat guys after I verbally defended the honor of my sister and her best friend, whom the lowlife assholes insisted on speaking to as if they were common whores rather than the polished college women that they were. Would you like to know what happened after the dust settled? My sister was very angry with me, insisted that I should have been one of those whiny, indecisive, submasculine guys you speak of and kept my mouth shut. Why? Oh...um... I could have been... um... badly hurt....she half-heartedly said. Bullshit. It was completely obvious to me that she enjoyed the attention, vulgar as it was, which was in turn completely ruined by my defense of her, and she did not like it one bit. What gratitude! :evil:

After seventeen years that incident is still a sore point between us, so we don't speak of it. And I still feel she's perhaps just a tad closer to common than I would prefer a close family member to be, after all. Boomer fire-and-brimstone, you know.

So, Brian, I don't know whether or not it's "been true since the Stone Age" that guys are either violent bastards or wimps. What I do know that women have nobody to blame but themselves if it is true. As a man, you just really can't win for losing.

Kevin:

I was, of course, totally exaggerating. There are some young men who are neither barbarians nor wimps.

However, I do believe that women/girls mature socially faster than do men/boys. And the barbrians and wimps are examples of socially immature behavior. Each is selfish in a different way.

The key here is that I was talking about YOUNG men.

Kevin:

I was, of course, totally exaggerating. There are some young men who are neither barbarians nor wimps.

However, I do believe that women/girls mature socially faster than do men/boys. And the barbrians and wimps are examples of socially immature behavior. Each is selfish in a different way.

The key here is that I was talking about YOUNG men.

We be 3T

In the daze following the 9/11 attacks, the fourthturning.com's highly esteemed poster, Brian Rush, sought to place certain issues into their proper turning context. We be 4T, claimed Rush, and "we can pretty much forget about legalizing gay marriage, at least until the next Awakening," He said.

Nothing's changed, of course, and Mr. Rush is still as convinced a turning has occured and that "gay marriage" is not an issue that matters anymore. In April of last year, Rush was heard to say:

• Liberals don't need to abandon any of their old causes. But they do need to do some priority-shuffling and recognize that, in today's more serious climate, gay marriage just can't take priority over global warming, the coming resource crisis, or the growing instability of the world.

Indeed, even his fouthturning.com Amen Corner, a substantial number I might add, seemed convinced that this was the case. Kifflie Scott, a high ranking Amen Corner member, declared, "I am becoming more and more convinced, as time goes on, that we on the left must, as Brian said earlier, declare victory in the culture wars, and move on to address the issues that are looming in the 4T."

Back when all this was being hoped for, one could google the exact phrase "gay marriage" and get less than 200,000 hits. Well, then last summer a bomb dropped on these liberal's head. The Supreme Court opened the gay issue door, a crack, and I quickly predicted that in "about a years time you can easily count on adding several millions to that number."

Brian Rush, of course, continued his dire 4T prediction that environmental catastrophe lay "just around the corner," and that gay were just gonna have to get over it. In the meantime googling "gay marriage" grew to 3,250,000 hits. I was pretty low on my prediction.

Gay marriage is the Prohibition issue of "our time," folks. And Brian Rush and his Amen Corner, are just gonna have to get over it. Not that they really have any problem with that. Hell, anytime you can stuff something in the face of the religious fanatics in America, is well worth that price of admission.

Yet to be determined, however, is what exactly that price will turn out to be. But one things for sure: We be 3T.

We be 3T

In the daze following the 9/11 attacks, the fourthturning.com's highly esteemed poster, Brian Rush, sought to place certain issues into their proper turning context. We be 4T, claimed Rush, and "we can pretty much forget about legalizing gay marriage, at least until the next Awakening," He said.

Nothing's changed, of course, and Mr. Rush is still as convinced a turning has occured and that "gay marriage" is not an issue that matters anymore. In April of last year, Rush was heard to say:

• Liberals don't need to abandon any of their old causes. But they do need to do some priority-shuffling and recognize that, in today's more serious climate, gay marriage just can't take priority over global warming, the coming resource crisis, or the growing instability of the world.

Indeed, even his fouthturning.com Amen Corner, a substantial number I might add, seemed convinced that this was the case. Kifflie Scott, a high ranking Amen Corner member, declared, "I am becoming more and more convinced, as time goes on, that we on the left must, as Brian said earlier, declare victory in the culture wars, and move on to address the issues that are looming in the 4T."

Back when all this was being hoped for, one could google the exact phrase "gay marriage" and get less than 200,000 hits. Well, then last summer a bomb dropped on these liberal's head. The Supreme Court opened the gay issue door, a crack, and I quickly predicted that in "about a years time you can easily count on adding several millions to that number."

Brian Rush, of course, continued his dire 4T prediction that environmental catastrophe lay "just around the corner," and that gay were just gonna have to get over it. In the meantime googling "gay marriage" grew to 3,250,000 hits. I was pretty low on my prediction.

Gay marriage is the Prohibition issue of "our time," folks. And Brian Rush and his Amen Corner, are just gonna have to get over it. Not that they really have any problem with that. Hell, anytime you can stuff something in the face of the religious fanatics in America, is well worth that price of admission.

Yet to be determined, however, is what exactly that price will turn out to be. But one things for sure: We be 3T.

Originally Posted by oy

We be 3T

In the daze following the 9/11 attacks, the fourthturning.com's highly esteemed poster, Brian Rush, sought to place certain issues into their proper turning context. We be 4T, claimed Rush, and "we can pretty much forget about legalizing gay marriage, at least until the next Awakening," He said.

Nothing's changed, of course, and Mr. Rush is still as convinced a turning has occured and that "gay marriage" is not an issue that matters anymore. In April of last year, Rush was heard to say:

• Liberals don't need to abandon any of their old causes. But they do need to do some priority-shuffling and recognize that, in today's more serious climate, gay marriage just can't take priority over global warming, the coming resource crisis, or the growing instability of the world.

Indeed, even his fouthturning.com Amen Corner, a substantial number I might add, seemed convinced that this was the case. Kifflie Scott, a high ranking Amen Corner member, declared, "I am becoming more and more convinced, as time goes on, that we on the left must, as Brian said earlier, declare victory in the culture wars, and move on to address the issues that are looming in the 4T."

Back when all this was being hoped for, one could google the exact phrase "gay marriage" and get less than 200,000 hits. Well, then last summer a bomb dropped on these liberal's head. The Supreme Court opened the gay issue door, a crack, and I quickly predicted that in "about a years time you can easily count on adding several millions to that number."

Brian Rush, of course, continued his dire 4T prediction that environmental catastrophe lay "just around the corner," and that gay were just gonna have to get over it. In the meantime googling "gay marriage" grew to 3,250,000 hits. I was pretty low on my prediction.

Gay marriage is the Prohibition issue of "our time," folks. And Brian Rush and his Amen Corner, are just gonna have to get over it. Not that they really have any problem with that. Hell, anytime you can stuff something in the face of the religious fanatics in America, is well worth that price of admission.

Yet to be determined, however, is what exactly that price will turn out to be. But one things for sure: We be 3T.

Marc,

I agree with you that it is very likely we still be 3T. And as others here have said, you are to be commended on your going-against-the-grain and standing up for your 3T position when it was unpopular.

However, your venom against Brian is, well, odd. I met him yesterday (along with dbookwoym) and I have to say I was disappointed. I was expecting to meet someone with a pitchfork and horns. I observed neither. :wink:

Originally Posted by oy

We be 3T

In the daze following the 9/11 attacks, the fourthturning.com's highly esteemed poster, Brian Rush, sought to place certain issues into their proper turning context. We be 4T, claimed Rush, and "we can pretty much forget about legalizing gay marriage, at least until the next Awakening," He said.

Nothing's changed, of course, and Mr. Rush is still as convinced a turning has occured and that "gay marriage" is not an issue that matters anymore. In April of last year, Rush was heard to say:

• Liberals don't need to abandon any of their old causes. But they do need to do some priority-shuffling and recognize that, in today's more serious climate, gay marriage just can't take priority over global warming, the coming resource crisis, or the growing instability of the world.

Indeed, even his fouthturning.com Amen Corner, a substantial number I might add, seemed convinced that this was the case. Kifflie Scott, a high ranking Amen Corner member, declared, "I am becoming more and more convinced, as time goes on, that we on the left must, as Brian said earlier, declare victory in the culture wars, and move on to address the issues that are looming in the 4T."

Back when all this was being hoped for, one could google the exact phrase "gay marriage" and get less than 200,000 hits. Well, then last summer a bomb dropped on these liberal's head. The Supreme Court opened the gay issue door, a crack, and I quickly predicted that in "about a years time you can easily count on adding several millions to that number."

Brian Rush, of course, continued his dire 4T prediction that environmental catastrophe lay "just around the corner," and that gay were just gonna have to get over it. In the meantime googling "gay marriage" grew to 3,250,000 hits. I was pretty low on my prediction.

Gay marriage is the Prohibition issue of "our time," folks. And Brian Rush and his Amen Corner, are just gonna have to get over it. Not that they really have any problem with that. Hell, anytime you can stuff something in the face of the religious fanatics in America, is well worth that price of admission.

Yet to be determined, however, is what exactly that price will turn out to be. But one things for sure: We be 3T.

Marc,

I agree with you that it is very likely we still be 3T. And as others here have said, you are to be commended on your going-against-the-grain and standing up for your 3T position when it was unpopular.

However, your venom against Brian is, well, odd. I met him yesterday (along with dbookwoym) and I have to say I was disappointed. I was expecting to meet someone with a pitchfork and horns. I observed neither. :wink:

Originally Posted by Sean Love

However, your venom against Brian is, well, odd. I met him yesterday (along with dbookwoym) and I have to say I was disappointed. I was expecting to meet someone with a pitchfork and horns. I observed neither. :wink:

Venom?

Your expectations were naive. I'm the demon-possessed drunk (why else would I try to disclaim it in a disclaimer?). The guy you met out there in la la land is, of course, an angel of light. :wink:

p.s. Btw, thanks for not correcting my spelling on "fouthturning.com." I really appreciated that. 8)

Originally Posted by Sean Love

However, your venom against Brian is, well, odd. I met him yesterday (along with dbookwoym) and I have to say I was disappointed. I was expecting to meet someone with a pitchfork and horns. I observed neither. :wink:

Venom?

Your expectations were naive. I'm the demon-possessed drunk (why else would I try to disclaim it in a disclaimer?). The guy you met out there in la la land is, of course, an angel of light. :wink:

p.s. Btw, thanks for not correcting my spelling on "fouthturning.com." I really appreciated that. 8)

Originally Posted by oy

Originally Posted by Sean Love

However, your venom against Brian is, well, odd. I met him yesterday (along with dbookwoym) and I have to say I was disappointed. I was expecting to meet someone with a pitchfork and horns. I observed neither. :wink:

Venom?

Your expectations were naive. I'm the demon-possessed drunk (why else would I try to disclaim it in a disclaimer?). The guy you met out there in la la land is, of course, an angel of light. :wink:

I'm sure he has his foibles. For all I know, he smokes crack. I do.

Originally Posted by oy

p.s. Btw, thanks for not correcting my spelling on "fouthturning.com." I really appreciated that. 8)

I didn't notice. But I wouldn't have corrected you anyway. Mr. Meece on the other hand . . . I would have. :wink:

Originally Posted by Sean Love

I'm sure he has his foibles. For all I know, he smokes crack. I do.

Were you clear headed enough to ask that "dbookwoym" guy what that handle means? Everytime I see that name my brain registers dbookyworm, and I imagine some sorta weird kinda guy who's a cross between a bookie and a librarian.

Funny, huh? :wink: