The Futurist is apparently the President of the He-Man Woman Hater's Club

Tell us how you really feel, dear. Don't hold back!

er.. then why does Cassy Fiano agree with the same article?

http://www.cassyfiano.com/2010/01/the-number-one-cause-for-the-destruction-of-western-civilization

Or is Cassy Fiano not a woman?

You can't actually address the factual and well-researched points, nor provide anything backing your humilated protests, can you? You are merely ashamed at being intellectually outclassed.

Plus, he doesn't delete any comments, including unhinged man-hating ones like yours, so quit lying, and quit being a racist.

Plus, I can tell that he has MUCH better women in his life than you, and it shows from both his writing and yours.

You give all real women a bad name.

Wait, the name of this blog is "She who will be obeyed?"

Nope, no feminazi issues there.

Perhaps you are troubled that the article calls you out so accurately. I notice you can't post any intelligent rebuttal, just hissyfits.

Plus, you will REALLY LIKE this blog, written by a woman such as myself : http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-i-am-male-chauvinist.html

It will educate you about why you are not capable of intelligent thought.

Now, go graze in the field of your farm (which is what bovine women do).

Actually, this article describes why you are having so much trouble making sane points, and equate emotion with debate :
http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-men-and-women-argue.html

RWW - you're correct, there are *no* feminazi issues at SWWBO's place. Her background music out working the farm is Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

If anything, aside from perferring that I not sleep with any sleazy cheap piece of cooze that comes down the pike, she's pretty much the stay-at-home, keep the fires lit, good little farmer woman while I'm the big, strong man who goes off to earn the daily bread and do strong, manly things.

One can like those two and still think much of what is being bandied about at the Futurist is twaddle. One can be an erudite conservative and not think that polyamory and a reversion to "nature" is a way to manage a civilization. After all, it's worked so well for good chunks of the muslim world, hasn't it?

Regular bastions of enlightened living, in some of those places.

I am quite thankful for many of the changes brought on by the femi movement.

For a large chunk of my growing up years, I was part of a single parent household. My mother was able to earn enough coin in her work to keep us kids well fed, well clothed and well housed.

I have 2 sisters. Their options have been greatly expanded over the years. They are, both, earners for their families. One sis earns alongside her hubby, the other is a single earner due to her hubby dieing young.

I am also a fan of the changes that allow women greater access to more job slots in the military and law enforcement. Just keep women out of the infantry, please. The deployment conditions, living conditions in the field, work requirements, etc and so on just make it too ridiculous for words.

On the other-hand, there are parts and pieces of the femi movement that are oppressive and destructive. Such is the way with such things. Always has been, always will be. It is up to the individual to pick up and carry on with those parts that are good and scrap those that are not.

See? I can do nuance.

Grimmy - I'm impressed... ;^ )

Wow... RWW is apparently cut from raw edge of the female fabric. It is YOU who is an embarassment to the female gender; SWWBO, on the other hand, is an incredible woman. And racist?? Where do you see any racist comments around here? I see none. I really don't know where to start, so I think I'll just go back to WORK instead.

Yeah.

Work.

You know.. that thing people of all genders do to support themselves and their families??

Oooh...RWW has her panties in a twist because SWWBO disagrees. Maybe RWW is a misogynist.

SWWBO, from what I have read, and heard about her, is a great lady and a fine woman.

In terms of a debate, name calling doesn't cut it. SWWBO says she checked the statistics and found they were to be off by a significant amount, as 20-30% is huge when doing a sample and can change the outcome if they are not correctly reported.

There are all kinds of tricks one can use to make their take seem plausible, so first, the issue he is taking on is examined, and then the data, with the resulting information pulled from it in the form of statistics.

Since SWWBO ran the numbers, and found a discrepancy, it would stand to reason that his data or his math would need to be examined, since he is putting a theory out there with supposedly accurate information to back it up.

Statistics are only part of the story, so I await SWWBO's fisking with delight.

I glanced at that article. Got the same vibe as the nutters who think quoting "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" proves something. Life is too short to read word salad.

I also think if the author of the article were the last man alive and surrounded by nubile women the human race would die out from their lack of interest, so his fantasies will remain just that. Rampant feminism is not the reason you keep getting rejected, bud.

Ya think?

Whew!!!! RWW - Normally, I would suspect that one whose "handle" is anything right wing, would be a Republican, or perhaps, a Libertarian. However, the evidence SEEMS to be to the contrary. It is a DNC, and generally Democrat party norm to resort to name-calling when logic fails; and if that doesn't work, slime the person so the message can't be heard. As to racism, unless the president of the HMWHC is ethnic (and we can't know since he is undeclared)what possible explanation do you have that results in the conclusion of racism? And, by the way, playing the race card so early is worse than the Hitlerian comparison.You are an idiot - based on the illogic of your rantings, not my fear of you being heard. Get a life, and by the way, an education. Oh, and your mother wears combat boots. Nanny, nanny, boo boo!!

ML

A few things irritate me about that essay-
1. No citing of sources. Anyone who has actually done good research should be willing to show it.
2. The juxtaposition of the very worst behavior of women against the behavior of good or average males. (Are ALL women crazy manipulative feminists?)
3. Excessive concentration on a woman's physical beauty. No fair saying women only want money, when you apparently only want eye candy.
4. Really, really arrogant conclusion.

Um, only about 1/3 of the way thru this guy's thesis and waiting for the 'holy shcnikees is he an indjit' moment. I don't necessarily agree with his bit about the rise of 'civilization' and 'marriage/religion' combo, seeing as how monogamy isn't a Christian imposed norm but a Roman norm overlaid upon Christianity, but it's like reading a sociology journal so far.

And, yeah, I agree about the paucity of 'manly man' role models being a problem. When the most popular characters on TV are the penis with pants(names Joey), the goofball brainiac(known as Ross), and the hipster jokemeister who can't get any(known as Chandler) you're saying something. Of course, the other problem is that you get something like the Buffy the Vampire Slayer thing going: guys are given the impression that what women want is the character Angel. Very confusing.

I'll say more when I'm actually finished.

How Game secured American Independence.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/11/how-game-secured-american-independence/

By the way, I found the article at The Futurist to be excellent and well-researched. I admit that people with IQs below 105 (such as Beth and the others here) would not grasp it well, and would not be able to rebut it.

Beth seems to think that a reversion back to 1980s gender norms (which is what the article advocates) immediately equals the Taliban. That is why Beth has no coherent points, and even in the comments, there, other commenters schooled her, but she was to ashamed to admit she was wrong, and remained silent.

I demand a better quality troll! These are boring and bottom-of-the-bin. What is especially amusing is they demonstrate the very qualities and behaviors (unable to grasp reasoned arguments, failure to produce evidence to back up statements) that they accuse Beth of. One suspects the habit of logical thought is new to them, and therefore painful.

What is strange is I have only seen this level of misogyny (and with roughly the same complaints) in one individual on the web--a commenter at Belmont Club hight whiskey. He's got the women-can't-see-me-blues too, and concludes that wimmins is EBIL! I wonder if they are the same person? Somebody take up a collection and get him a Real Doll so he'll stop spamming the internets ...

bad cat robot,

Total projection on your part. In fact, your accusation of projection is itself projection.

The Futurist article even talked about how women who scream 'misogyny' (even though there is zero misogyny in his article) simply want to shut down free speech and questions. But beyond this one word, they have nothing else in their arsenal.

You can't actually debate points on their merit, can you?

Beth was heavily exposed to logic by other commenters there (which she avoids like she avoids healthy non-fattening foods), which is why she fled and is blubbering over here.

I agree with Ry that this guy isn't an idiot- just biased.

And men aren't the only ones suffering from lack of appropriate role models.

Thomas- argue like a big boy. Facts, not ad hominem attacks.

I have an IQ in the range of 120-140; graduated with a BS and MS in a scientific field from a major university in 4.5 years having conducted actual research; have held responsible jobs for over 30 years; been married (happily) to the same responsible, hard working man for over 25 of those years; and, am well read and well traveled. I read as much of the article as I could stomach and must say that I agree with Beth that he does not really understand the use of logic and evidence versus supposition and anecdotal inference. I will not go so far as to say that the Futurist writes as he does because he cannot attract women (I have no quantifiable evidence of that), but I can say that writing and thinking as he does, he certainly could not have attracted me, either when I was young and attractive or now that I am obviously a fat old hag, even if he were an alpha male.

Robin,

You are not applying logic. Why not debate actual points from that article.

Plus women are incredibly poor predictors of who they will be attracted to. That is a fact, whether youc an admit it or not.

The evidence remains that Beth was called on her blithering lunacy in the comments there by multiple commenters, and since fled rather than make logical points. That is why she is whining over here.

Saker,

The ad hominems are by Beth. That is why she whines here, in the hopes of getting sycophants to defend her, after being exposed to logic over there.

Her poor performance is clear in the comments over there. She was taken to task by many people.

Wow! Nice troll you got there Lady!

And to said troll:
The SWWBO moniker isn't due to her DEMANDS to be respected, but due to innumerable points that have earned respect.

She's not unlike my mother, who, at a petite 5'2" 98 pounds, looks up at her hulking son and says (if need be): "Bend down so I can slap your face."

To whit said son, more than capable of breaking her into very small pieces multiple times over, says "Yes Ma'am." and bends at the waist.

A quintessential female, a woman, and moreover, a Lady.

Now get back in your hole...

well, I checked the comments - could not read through the entire article - and I could not find ANY comments made by Beth. There was a person who commented under "Bleh" and he did say he was a guy when asked (for what it's worth)...
So Thomas is really a troll...

olga,

Actually, Beth's comments are here :
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html?cid=6a00d83452455969e2012876a06a25970c#comment-6a00d83452455969e2012876a06a25970c
and here :
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html?cid=6a00d83452455969e20120a79b3da6970b#comment-6a00d83452455969e20120a79b3da6970b

and the rebuttals that expose her as a semi-literate cow are numerous, while NO ONE agreed with her :
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html?cid=6a00d83452455969e20128769de2f7970c#comment-6a00d83452455969e20128769de2f7970c

olga, there might be some special ed. classes you can sign up for that will teach you how to use the Internet, and how to read.

I seriously think you people don't have any exposure to people with IQs higher than 60.

Beth the farm animal couldn't 'fisk' her way out of a feed trough placed in front of her. No wonder she retreated here to a collection of idjits rather than face actual thinkers.

The Futurist is certainly not a 'misogynist', but you are certainly making all women look dumb (which sadly hurts me too).

Thomas, you aren't even arguing, you're just saying "You're all stupid, go read the article."

Oddly enough you've called two genius-level genuine rocket scientists stupid essentially because they are women and don't support the article you seem so heavily invested in.

Me, I'm just a retired soldier who works as an intel analyst, so clearly I'm just as stupid as the others, even if I'm not defending SWWBO's right to express an opinion (which you still haven't bothered to actually refute, but, in fairness, she's not finished and posted her critique, either) simply because I sleep next to her in the dark hours of the day.

Somewhere I could dig up the IQ tests, too, but, frankly, they're 40 years old and I probably am stupid, though I did manage to get through a Bachelor's and Master's (admittedly the Masters, while an MS, is in fact just a Public Admin degree with a farking huge amount of stats). I did earn my Bachelors back before they just started giving them away for showing up and paying your bills.

Clearly, based on the level of your argumentation, I will just concede the field, as I am stunned into a stupor by the force and massively supported weight of your argument.

Please come tell me how to live my life, you are my only hope. Because, well, I've only got the one wife, and don't boink every tart who oozes down the street looking for a room in the back where she can polish my shoes.

Wow. I hit the first two statistics (which are found in the underlying cites) in the article and bailed.

Beth, honey, there is a cottage industry that services bitter divorced men. They have all kinds of things to say, but their objective is one of three things: reduce the child support, reduce the alimony, or reduce the property settlement.

I wouldn't waste my time with a rebuttal. You aren't going to change their minds because they aren't trying to think straight, and they aren't going to convince anybody who is reasonable.

olga,

Beth's comments are visible there. Can't you read?

There are remedial Internet usage and reading courses for people like you to take.

Trolls are funny! This group seems quite fond of the ipse dixit approach to debate.

No time right now to finish the linked article, but I have a couple of remarks for Beth:

First, go git 'em girl! The above reactions kinda remind me of how the beltway Rethuglicans are reacting to Sarah Palin.

Second, I think a man or a woman can be a feminist, yet still adhere to other values such a being pro-life. Of course, I'm going by the original definition; pretty much "Women are every bit as smart, brave, and determined as men. As such, they should be accorded the same level of respect, and the same opportunities." Excluding those areas where physical differences intervene, natch. Pretty simple, really.

Beth's comments are here, and here.

Beth's illogical wailing was dismantled here, among 10 other places.

In fact, NONE the commenters there agreed with Beth, which is why she ran away rather than face people with IQs higher than she is used to. Beth couldn't 'fisk' the feed trough placed in front of her.

olga was hoping she could get away with lying, even though visible evidence to catch her was right there, plain as day. It seems you cows really have no experience dealing with people who have an IQ above 60.

So olga is foond to be a troll.

Valerie,

er... why are you entitled to what a man earned if YOU left the marriage? You clearly think mooching is your right.

Plus, you dont care about the children, otherwise you wouldn't have behaved in such a selfish manner.

This blog, written by a woman, shows why you fat cows are giving all women a bad name. Read it, and you will learn about how women think :

http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/2008/03/feminine-morality-vs-masculine-morality.html

Whoops! (Jtg blushes) I just spent an hour or two reading that article and chasing links from it, and then I see you posting about it!

While I was reading it, I thought of Cassandra, and you.

Two sensible wimminz who are obviously immune to "game", and resistant to cads. The guy actually approves of women like y'all, and wishes that there were more of you. Having lots of silly sluttish bimbos around is fun for a certain kind of guy, but is bad for Western Civilization, as is a certain kind of guy.

P.s. You and Cass appear to be married to _actual_ IRL Alpha Males, not the internet variety. The kind that guys like, too.

Gee, Dr. Helen (who is a woman, in case you cows didn't know) linked to the same essay, and agreed with the whole thing :

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/

A grazing animal like Beth thinks she can 'fisk' the article, when she can't even fisk the feed-trough placed in front of her.

Hey Beth / John - just wondering how many different IP addresses the 'various' trolls come from?

Remove the IDs and it's awfully hard to tell them apart.

And to save you time, I freely admit that I'm an idiot. Heck, I barely broke 140 on any of the many IQ tests they gave me and was only a National Merit Finalist. But the fact that I'm responding you you is clear and sufficient proof of idiocy. ;)

KCSteve, I was noticing the same thing--the similarity of word choice is rather striking. 'Course, I only have a PhD in English, so "why should I speak, since I know nothing?"

I checked and saw that Beth the cow is getting flattened pretty handily on the Dr. Helen thread.

Again, that is unsurprising when she actually ventures out of this intellectual cesspool.

What do we have so far :
Beth : A farm animal with no debate skills.
olga : A pathological liar who lies about easily-verifiable things.
Valerie : A moocher and free-loader.

No wonder you make women look so bad. That is why I oppose you. Go read the 'Male Chauvinist' blog, also written by a woman.

Oy! The stupid is thick in here. I can smell the troll breath all the way down here. All I can say is that you brought it on yourself Beth, you tried to use rational thought to argue your points and now you are reaping the reward.

I have to agree with Casey on just about all points, especially the "go get 'em" part.

Beth, I just got back from that comment thread at the Insta-wife's. Dayum! Even Porretto was kinda, Idunno, something or other to you. If you and The Donovan like, I'll go over there and explain to them that I've been internettin' with y'all for 5 years or so, and that they have No Idea of what they speak. Just thought I'd ask permission first.

Should I mention the Arsenal of Doom?

Interesting that he claimed he didn't delete your comments. I posted

"Today, on the first day of the new decade of '201x' years, I am going to tell you why that is.
Sorry, you merely expounded on some of the symptoms. And badly. Your stats don't stand up to scrutiny.
If you truly believe "America is sufficiently in control that the War on Terror is no longer nearly the threat it was during the recently concluded decade," I don't think your self-proclaimed accuracy rate in predicting the future will stand up in the coming decade.

ten minutes ago.

It's gone already.

Ummmmm -- "Right Wing Woman" is actually Andrew Sullivan, right?

Tommy-boy --

The ad hominems are by Beth. That is why she whines here, in the hopes of getting sycophants to defend her, after being exposed to logic over there.

That's *ad hom*, chum. Let's have some intellectual honesty -- if you have to Google that term, I'll wait.

Her poor performance is clear in the comments over there. She was taken to task by many people.

Pointing out inconsistencies and statistical fallacies is not "poor performance" -- and she wasn't taken to task, she was *insulted*.

Hah! Made another comment at Teh Futurist, asking why my previous comment had been deleted and it, too, was deleted.

But I got a screenshot before it was snipped.

Heh...

BillT

Fire for effect.

Back in the day, the Code Duello would have gotten somebody dead or other.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Right Wing Woman is a piece of work, isn't she?

She doesn't argue anything, she's just a cheerleader. She's not in the arena, she's in the stands. She basks in the reflected glow of the efforts of others, and then sits in judgement, displaying her Solomonic wisdom for all to enjoy and be edified by.

Simply.amazing.

So, RWW, my wife is a cow, eh?

You have a standing invitation to come say that to her face. She's college-degreed, had a job that paid in the 90's, from which she was driven by misogyny and ageism. Seems the young bucks in the IT bidniz can't take it when their *mom* knows more than they do, and has *shudder* customer skillz to boot.

She's raised a family and is a grandparent.

She's also a life member of the NRA and a pretty decent shot.

She can doctor animals and people, raises much of her own food, spins her own fiber and manages a business and all you got is "A farm animal with no debate skills."

What, exactly, am I to deduce *your* debate skills are?

Difficult, as all you display thus far are groupie-skillz.

Your just a jackal, hanging around the fringe, hoping to curry enough favor to be allowed to nibble on the carcass. Too bad she isn't dead yet.

So, RWW, my wife is a cow, eh?

Yes. I pity you. [Don't, the better part of you ran down your mother's leg. You are a typical troll who hides behind their anonymity and bogus email addresses, creates nothing of utility but shits in other people's homes while fingering themselves to self-admiring glory. -the Armorer]

Beth,

So where is your 'fisking' of the article? Surely you cannot spend so many days at the feedtrough.

I see you got flattened and humiliated at Dr. Helen's and elsewhere. Perhaps you realized that outside of this cesspool, you are out of your league?

I see none of your dumbshits has the courage to comment on the blog that I posted :

http://malechauvinist.blogspot.com/2008/03/feminine-morality-vs-masculine-morality.html

Listen, bitch -that is the very last comment you are making on my blog.
You have been banned.

If you had a brain, you would have seen the newer post on my blog which refers you to the best fact-checking/fisking of that Futurist Fraud's fanatical fantasy.

But, you don't have a brain, else you would find yourself busy doing something of value in life.

*claps*

Don't worry about. This is the right thing to do.

Btw, you're both too kind.

You showed patience, Beth. Don't worry about the trash. The trash collectors will come take them away.

I see none of your dumbshits has the courage to comment on the blog that I posted :

Actually, I did -- over at Cassie's place. Which you ignored.

Someone who can't do better than a cut-paste of an e-mail joke from 2007 about the difference between Conservatives and Liberals, then re-labeling it, should tread lightly about flaunting one's (supposed) intellectual skills...

Just made another comment at the Futurist's and the section refreshed before I couldt get another screenshot. The guy may be an intellectually-dishonest blowhard, but he's *fast*...

That's cause you got tagged, Bill.

Wow. This ended nicely. NOT.

I lurves me the debate tactic of 'you're an idiot, prove me wrong'. I'd whip out my texts to find exactly which fallcy it is, but it's not worth the time.

Logic, like the Genenva Conventions, don't say who is right or wrong. It's a tool for discerning validity. Showing up and calling people idiots or mouth breathers or any variation on that because they don't agree with a given position is not based in anything but a very superficial proem or syllogism. (Anyone who disagrees with this is stupid. These people disagree. Therefore these people are stupid. I mean, it's a self consisten bit of logic, but your initial claim is suspect. Prove that disagreement equates supidity and it follows from an a-b-c causal chain.).

So, yes, Thomas, showing up out of the gate calling people stupid is defacto an ad hominem. Where's your proof of initial claim, Herr Flamemeister?

And, honestly, it was crap. Look at the bible itself and you see polygamy being rampant, but then around 200AD you see that the religion is no longer polygamous. It's when you get to I believe Constantine that you have Rome adopting Christianity and imposing Roman legal norms on property and marriage on the instituion of marriage within Christianity. This is verifiable. The Futurist claims it's the opposite, that it is religion imposing this upon society instead of secularist legal doctrine, and proceeds from there. I'm not pulling the 'one bad brick ruins the whole structure' thing, but it falls apart in many places under scrutiny. His use of historical Hinduist marriage practices falls apart as well. Why? Caste society with arranged marriage. It was about money and kids to continue bloodlines; not about did the wifey stay hot. Much like arranged marraige was in Feudal Japan and Feudal Europe(where the power aspect was the major driver).

It shows a superficial understanding of the subject and a cherry picking of what elements are within an example.

Sorry you had to put up with this, SWWBO.

In closing, God is Great, beer is good, and people are m'f'ing crazy. ;)