> >>>
> >>>> not only do men get depressed. It is fundamentally
more serious than
the
> >>>> depression than women experience. I'm not negating
female depression.
> >>>> simply stating that male depression is worse.
> >>>
> >>> ?
> >>>
> >>> I keep looking for the "smiley."  You _must_ be
parodying yourself.
> >>>
> >>> Why would depression in one gender be more or less serious than
> >>> depression in the other?
> >>
> >> Because of the fact that 4 times as many men commit suicide due to
> >> depression than do women?
> >
> > I see.  I know that men are more likely to kill themselves (and
> > others, for that matter) than women.  But interestingly, more women
> > _try_ to kill themselves than men.
>
> That leads to the simple conculsion that women are more interested an
> garnishing the sympathy and attention of a suicide attempt rather than
> actually applying the final solution to their personal suffering.
>
> Somehow, I doubt that such as simple conclusion is adequate for something
> so complex as suicide.  But who know?  Sure as hell not you, Doogie.

I know that taking a few birth control pills won't kill you  haha Or will 5
laxative pills  lol



>
> >
> > So it isn't necessarily the case that men's depression is worse - we
> > just seem to be better at killing things (including ourselves).  (Guns
> > are a particularly _good_ way to kill yourself.  Men are far more
> > likely to use them for suicide attempts.)
> >
> > In any case, the vast majority of depressed people (men _or_ women)
> > don't kill themselves at all.  So it probably isn't reasonable to
> > categorize men's depression based on the behavior of a small fringe.
> >
> > Do you think since suicide kills men far more than women,  TR thinks
> > that mental health research is a men's issue,
>
> Really?  Can you direct me to any remark I made even suggesting that
mental
> health, or ANY level of healthcare, is more of a men's issue than a
woman's
> issue?  Of course you can't.  You're just doing what comes natural to a
> feminist:  lying.

What makes you think it's a feminist? Females who post on here are just fat
ugly bitches looking for attention. They can't get it in real life so they
try on here.


>
> > and that there should be proportionate funding for some disease which
> > kills more women than men?
>
> Do they "think" they know what I think?  That's a
fascinating question.
> Surely the more accurate way to put it would be for Doogie to write "TR
> hurt my little feelings too many times.  I really wish that my newsgroup
> mates would join me in accusing him if *something*, so I can feel better
> about myself."
>
> How's that?  Is that what *you* "think", laddie?
>
> Well, let's take the issue beyond your hurt feelings.  I do not view
> suicide as a male vs. female issue, regardless of which sex suffers the
> greater number of casualties.

That's because you're too stupid.



  Anyone can do it.  Doesn't take a genital
> configuration to make it easier or harder to carry out.

Females and negroes hardly ever kill themselves.


  I *believe* that
> this particular issue, like many other, could be better addressed if it
> were approaced as a *human* issue unworthy of the divisiveness and
> selfishness that drives the likes of you, Doogie, and your feminist
> herdmistresses.
>
> > He's into keeping track of that stuff.
>
> Incorrect, no matter how much it would make you feel better if it were so.
> Instead, I'm satisfied just by being amused at your fretfulness.
>
> > [For those whose loved ones have tried to or succeeded in suicide, and
> > I know that is true for some here - I don't mean to be making light of
> > it, just of the idea that every health problem needs to be divided up
> > into "men's" or "women's."]
>
> Then refrain from doing it, whether the issue is suicide, cancer or
> hangnails.
>
> But you can't.  You wouldn't get to wallow in feminist victimism-by-proxy
> if you had to take both sexes into account, would you, lad.
>
>=- The Hyerdahl FAQ
                                    Version 1.2

You may have noted a poster named Hyerdahl.
Who is Hyerdahl?
How does Hyerdahl work?
How do you deal with Hyerdahl?
Read on.

-----------------------------
Who is Hyerdahl?

Hyderdahl is a long-time contrarian poster on soc.men. However, her
agenda is not, as it might first appear, either feminism or a rational
discussion of issues. Her agenda, as most posters have realized over
years of dealing with her, involves assuming the mantle of feminism in
order to empower herself. To understand Hyerdahl, you need to
understand that although she uses feminism as a cover, her purpose
here is purely personal.

She may strike you as one of those mumbling street people who grab you
by the arm and talk in endless streams without making any sense, lost
in their own world of disturbed need. Unfortunately, the analogy is
apt.

One of the most insecure people you'll probably ever meet, she is not
open to rational discourse, because the truth is not paramount for
her, as it is with innocent posters who reply to her. Only her own
empowerment is important, something that's quickly identifiable as the
common thread behind her rapidly shifting positions. As you'll find if
you reply to her, she'll change her point of view dozens of times or
more in a single discussion in order to assure herself she's the
winner.

She's gone by various pseudonyms over the years, including Carol Ann
Hemmingway, Parg2000, Pargeon, Hyerdahl, Hyerdahl1, Hyerdahl3, etc.


-----------------------------
How does Hyerdahl work?

Hyerdahl is intelligent, but her unrelenting sense of insecurity
drives her posts. She operates in four specific ways to reassure
herself that she's "winning":

1.) Uses formulaic answers that don't address the issue (e.g., Man:
"Fathers should have more visitation rights." H: "Men are no longer
allowed to shirk their child support responsibilities.") This allows
her to reply rapid-fire to many posts in an attempt to dominate
discussion without investing much real effort.

2.) Wants to speak for all "women," in a classic attempt at
self-empowerment (e.g., Man: "Fathers should have more visitation
rights." H: "Women no longer have to listen to what you say.")

3.) Uses outright lies to try to make a point, as in, "There is no
message of gender supremacy [from feminists]; there is only legal
equality."

4.) Says that women now have guns to control men; the power need here
is obvious.

5.) Posts many anti-male news items to the group in an attempt to bait
other posters and dominate and/or steer discussion. This is a standard
troll tactic. Flooding news groups is against the usenet charter.

Keep in mind that she'll quickly get abusive and personalize the
discussion if things don't appear to go her way. She has also
frequently accused women who argue with her of being men.


-----------------------------
How do you deal with Hyerdahl?

Do not take her at face value. When you realize that she's not arguing
the facts, but interested only in advantage over others and self
empowerment, you'll understand why she shifts ground so rapidly and
will ignore rather than concede a point. You'll also understand why,
when you corner her, she becomes abusive rather than give ground that
should be given.

Do not believe you can discuss issues with her rationally, arriving at
some sort of conclusion. Hers is a megalomaniac neurosis and if you
play into it without thinking, you'll find that her world has only one
paradigm: she must always win.

Most posters here have learned to ignore her. She's been here for many
years, and she's not about to change. That's a practical treatment,
but if you want a more humane solution, bear in mind as you reply to
her that you're dealing with a mentally disturbed person who has
become very needy. With that understanding, she won't get under your
skin and you can deal with her humanely. Don't drain a lot of energy
with her; we're here to discuss men's issues, not get sidetracked into
endless ad hominem attacks.

---




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/13/05 4:56:55 AM ---