"_TR_"  wrote in message
news:c1lpprbzpl9o.nw6of76odft4$.dlg{at}40tude.net...
> Doug Laidlaw wrote:
>> Aggy wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> Aggy wrote:
>>>>> Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>>> Doug dear. There are a few on here who would love to
have a civil
>>>>> discourse with you but there is a bad element on this
group and it
>>>>> isn't me. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Aggy
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, it's getting too damn depressing in here.
>>> Yes dear. This should be a group where men should feel free to discuss
>>> male issues without feeling pressured by those misogynist trolls that
>>> throw their bile and women hatred to the masses.
>>>
>>
>> There is a group for them, Aggy and Bill.  It is called soc.men
>
> ... and alt.support.marriage, alt.support.divorce, soc.women,
> alt.feminism,
> misc.writing and just about any other unmoderated newsgroup that a man or
> woman wants to use for any reason at all.  Not much you can do about that
> but whine.
>
>> It is for all male issues.
>
> Incorrect.  It is for just about any issue that can be discussed.  You're
> just confused, and you let the name of the newsgroup intimidate you.
>
>> The official group description is: "Issues related to men,
>> their problems & relationships."
>
> Yes.  So what?  That covers a huge territory.
>
>> I subscribed to it a while back, but gave up.
>
> Of course you did.  The folks who post there regularly didn't let you win
> arguments and failed to protect your delicate little feelings.  Well,
> don't
> worry.  That happens to lots of feminists.  You're in sorry company.
>
>> I see that you posted to the thread about International Women's Day,
>> Aggy, so you have experience of it.
>
> The scope of Saggy's experience is limitted to membership in substance
> abuse and recovery programmes.  Just read a few of her posts.  She's sure
> to parrot something from one of the twelve-step mantras she was taught.
> But she serves her purpose.  She shows that such programmes produce more
> failures than otherwise.
>
>> The fact that these guys won't stay there makes me suspect that their
>> intention is to hurt women rather than to support each other.
>
> 1)  Your suspicions merely reflect nothing but your own timidity.
>
> 2)  "These guys" may post wherever they want and for
whatever reason, as I
> mentioned before.
>
> 3)  "These guys" have NO common intention to hurt women in
any way, for
> unlike you and your little PC playpals, most of them are able to
> distinguish between self-respecting, intelligent, self-motivated women and
> the other lot, your friends the overindulged, underachieving,
> entitlement-besotted festering feminist flock.  Now, here's your
> opportunity.  You'll try to say something about non-feminist women being
> nothing but kowtowing, domesticated pets.  In doing so, you'll prove that
> anti-feminists men AND women have much more respect and tolerance for
> women
> than your feminist flock could ever have.
>
> 4) This may hurt your little feelings even more severely, but here goes:
> not all of Usenet serves as a "support" forum.  Soc.men, in
particular, is
> NOT a "support" group.  You see, little fella, lots of
people don't have
> the delicate, dependent personalities that lead them to expect
"support"
> from anyone they encounter.
>
>> That I won't tolerate in any forum I set up,
>
> You didn't "set up" soc.men.  You didn't set up any of the
fora that this
> thread weaves through.  And based on what you've written, I'd guess that
> any forum you "set up" will produce nothing but more dependency.
>
>> although if I make it too mild I will be accused of censorship.
>
> Oh, what a dilemma!  Can't have any *accusations* coming your way, can we?
> Might hurt your little feelings.  No, sirreee.  Accusations from the likes
> of you may flow only ONE way -- outward.
>
>> Or perhaps they want to educate American women (and perhaps their
>> husbands)
>> to accept their views.
>
> Oh, you do indulge in wild assumptions, don't you, little fella.  For
> example, now your assuming that "their views" is an
enshrined, coherent
> creed that could be taught to American (you jingoistic fool - the internet
> is international) men or women.  Ain't gonna happen.  Soc.men is nothing
> but a Usenet newsgroup.  It just happens to be one of the newsgroups where
> more feckless fools, feminist in particular, get their little feelings
> hurt
> than in any other Usenet forum.
>
> Some of the posters to soc.men are wild-eyed radical assholes who claim to
> hate women.  Probably they do, the pathetic bastards.  Some claim to hate
> women, but they really don't; they're just reacting poorly after a bad
> experience.  Some are pro-feminist wankers who like soc.men because they
> can practice their PC prattle without risking anything other than a sharp
> retort.  Others are moderate, thoughtful people who want to see fairness
> and trust amongst men and women, and they're annoyed by the inevitably
> false, frequently unchallenged, eternally victimist propaganda that spews
> forth from either the feminist or the "masuclinist" (whatever that is)
> camp.  Some of the posters to soc.men are women who have enough control
> over their lives to have no need for feminism or any of its common
> manipulative tactics, and they hold little respect for the herd-minded
> fools who do.
>
>> If so, they are going to the wrong place.
>
> They may go anywhere they please and still be in the "right
place".  You
> aren't smart enough to determine which is the wrong place or the right
> place, not even for yourself, it seems.
>
>> Their audience is too small and select.
>
> Their audience is whoever reads them.  "They" demand nothing
more.  You
> don't get to make demands for them.
>
>> They need to hold public meetings, or go on TV, or something.
>
> Or post to Usenet.  Seems like that's exactly what "they"
are doing, even
> if you don't like it.
>
>> The fact that the Internet is free to everyone encourages
>> people to say things that they wouldn't say elsewhere.
>
> Indeed.  Hence, your hearty diatribe.
>>
>> My provisional view, as I have said before, is that these men have to
>> keep
>> repeating themselves to keep convincing themselves.
>
> That would be your *provincial* view, laddie.  For example, some of "these
> men" repeat themselves because they're sure to be offended by the same
> malodourous feminist
>
>> You don't see people getting so worked up in favour of marriage because
>> they don't have to.
>
> .  Yeah.  Sell that one on "alt.support.marriage".
>
>> But I am not pre-judging anything or anyone.
>
> Ohhh, nooo!  You wouldn't do that, especially when you can do it anyway
> and
> then use a canned disclaimer to give yourself plausible deniability.
>
>> What I want them to do is to define what they are opposed to.
>
> What you want "them" to do is irrelevant.  You want to play, join the
> game.
> You want to whine and spit from the back row of the bleachers, then
> that'll
> do just fine, also.
>
>> Prejudice doesn't look at the issues so closely.
>
> Indeed.  Thanks for the demo.
>
>> Doug L.
>
Thank You...well stated
I concur




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/6/05 8:04:39 PM ---