Graham wrote:
> 
> TXZZ wrote:
> >
> > Greetings, I would like you to all take the preconceived societal
> > notions in your head about what you think the world is and ponder if
> > the ter "geek" is merely a disparaging term invented by
feminists.
> >

Who cares who invented it?


> > Firstly, a geek would more or less be defined as an intellectual person
> > who enjoys neither fighting nor fucking.  

Wrong.  

If you go to shyness newsgroups post after post are guys saying they
can't 
get positive attention of women.  They only get weird expressions and
weird looks from 
women and for the most part other men don't even notice they exist.

Homosexual geeks on the other hand don't lack for sex or company period.

> Unfortunately, men by their biological definition enjoy at least 2 of three, 
> therefore it is a logical contradiction for there be a male geek,
although there might be
> > some extremely rare exceptions.  

Two down.  One to go.  Intellectuals enjoy fighting but they realize
that physical fighting
ends in injuries and intellectual fighting are expressed in the form of
politics and other forms
of leadership.  

Two down. 

And there are lots of intelligent guys but geeks could be defined as men
who don't deliberately go
out of their way to dress to attract women, they simply dress
conservatively because clothes are a cover.
A basic cover does just that and camouflage is deception.  Men often
complain they are being deceived by women.  Well, their first deception
is a woman's appearance.   A woman has to trick her men of choice into
being interested in her and she uses sex appeal to do it.  Once he bites
he is poisoned or bitten for life!

Three down. 

Also, intelligence is actually a virtue, and the only people who would
deny that are feminists.


Wrong again.

Women more than anyone appreciate intelligence as a virtue.  However,
being brighter than most men, they have a choice of the kind of guy(s)
they can have.  Women marry dumb guys so they can remove his assets when
they are ready for divorce.  Women marry bright guys to do the same or
to remain a lifetime and keep the guy as her provider.  Women make the
most of every opportunity and every man they meet.  They especially keep
friends
with men who can do what their mates cannot.  Do men do that?  Apart
from extramarital sex, I would say no.
  
>  Secondly, there is the standpoint that societal introversion is the
> > lowest and more pathetic form of weakness.  ACtually, back in the days
> > of american prosperity things like hunger disease irresponsibility were
> > considered bigger threats. In short, in a world that is not always
> > kind these supposed "vices" are practically trivial. 
Only the feminine
> > mind could not comprehed this, and probably why the term
"geek" is the
> > quint-essential post 50's epithet.
> >

Hunger, disease and irresponsibility were a concern for women because
they had to marry a guy
to be able to leave home and they couldn't leave the husband for the
most part.   Today as
never before women have a choice of whether or not to pursue an
education, a marriage, a career
or to sit back and relax.  It to some extend depends on the guy they
marry, too, how they live 
their life.   But for women, freedom is the operative word. 

> > Last, and not least is the fact that intelligence is not a feminine
> > strong point

Wrong again.  Women make few mistakes and their recovery is 100
percent.  Women for the most part
don't lose when they make a mistake.  Men always lose.  So how stupid is
that?


> and this is shown easily by the lack of female success as
> > inventors/scientists artists businessmen etc. 

Women invent the rules that men live by.  What more do they need to
invent? 

Go to any art school.  It is full of women for the most part now that
they can get in? 

Daily women are becoming financial leaders and they have one edge over
men, they hire the best of
the homosexual and heterosexual world whereas if a woman is slightly
overweight, dresses slightly 
masculine and might be a lesbian, heterosexual men won't hire her nor
will heterosexual men hire 
homosexual men for the most part.  So how stupid are women again?
 

>  this cannot be
> > attributed to discrimation for even jewish and mexican americans, and
> > even african americans  (the males naturally) have shown far more
> > aptitude in these areas.

Oh, really.  Apart from computer science where it appears to be mostly
men for the most part, all other aspects of employment seem to be full
of women and that was not the case prior to the 1970s.  And looking at
computer science, it has more out sourcing than perhaps any other
profession on the planet and the our sourcing has gone to the poorest
countries on the planet.  How smart is that of men to have rushed to
that new form of employment?


>   FEminists out of jealous appear to contrive
> > the propaganda that "intelligence" or its code-epithet
"geekiness" is
> > somehow a weakness.
> >

Women and those women who are feminists find it embarrassing how men
think apart from their ability to produce offspring on demand, but they
deal with it successfully and it is probably women's biggest problem.
And for the most part they win at it, too. 




> > In short america has now seen a vast decline in education due to the
> > juvenile jealousies of feminists and their of-repeated epithets.  I
> > hope this answers your questions
> 

This last sentence doesn't make sense to me.

> There may be some truth to this. But...
> 
> IMO a geek is just someone who doesn't subscribe to the lemming-like
> definition of popular entertainment and what is "cool". 


I agree. 

> They're people who have their own interests.  In being uninterested in
popular culture
> they are seen as "uncool". But they're actually more
interesting people
> who are more capable of just being themselves.
> 
Take any woman or man to a popular bar where both the men and women, of
course, are dressed for each other.
The whole scene is so artificial, it is embarrassing.   But it works. 
Some 55 percent of them are able to
find a spouse this way that they keep for life while the other 45
percent of them divorce at least once.



> Btw, I think males are more likely to be geeks than females. This is
> simply because males are more individualistic than females by nature.
> Which agrees with what I'm saying as well as what you're saying.

Well, a percentage of women dress their sons in geek clothes as children
I think subconsciously to keep preying young women away from their sons
and
for the most part it works because geeky guys have a tough time
attracting womens'
attention.  This is particularly true in family situations where the
male spouse is 
weak or absent.  In those houses where the male spouse is strong, they
take over how their
son(s) are dressed and it is usually just like daddy, which may or may
not be a positive image
depending on who daddy is but dressed for attracting females is all the
talk about and dress for 
their entire lives.  Little else matters it seems.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/15/05 8:57:06 AM ---