I’ve followed up my post in answer to a question you raised. I will say I’m dismayed at the initial reaction to my post as profoundly counter rational. (Some of the reaction to your posts here has been the same; not all). But all of the reaction to mine was non-rational.

Your comments there have caused me to partially reevaluate my impression of your purpose here. I still have serious concerns, but if you’re willing to acknowledge a couple of things I’m willing to talk seriously.

Thanks for the shout-out to my blog. You’re welcome there as a poster, and you and your comments will be honored as long as you don’t trash other posters.

Otherwise, yeah, both of us are wasting time.
-wolfe

Nice post on punkass. . .

agonizing over their weight, their diet, their appearance- unfair — pressures women and girls are constantly bombarded with by media and entertainment and columnists in our society.

I thought it balanced out the rest of your ideas nicely.

Concerned said:
You can believe or not believe my assertion that that was the first time I read the comment you quoted from previous posts, and yet the fact remains that it is the first time. I was referring in my post to posts directly above mine discussing issues of shoe- shopping only. I’m relatively new to the medium, and I’m not sure how likely it is that everyone has read what can be up to 106 posts (!) in any given message board.

Well, this was a post directly responsive to things you and “Concerned Man” have been talking about, in a thread that you were reading, immediately below a post responding to something you’d said (which you did acknowledge reading).

I’m sure you’ve had enough posting experience to grasp the thought of reading posts that are in threads you are actively chatting in, especially ones that occur after your arrival, are in response to your views.

I’m mostly surprised (and maybe disappointed) that you feel I’ve ignored your responses, since I’ve found them at times interesting and often I’ve felt that they made me think outside of “my box,” so to speak. … I wonder what the alternative purpose you think I have for being on this site would be.

I will admit I am a suspicious man at times. I sometimes even assume the worst about some people’s motives. That is not, to be sure, terribly nice of me. I have to admit, I began to suspect you might be a denizen of some other site on the net, and here simply to troll via ostensibly pleasant but ultimately non-responsive and passive-aggressive postings.

Worse yet, I actually began to suspect you of having a rather sinister motive, that of perhaps painting yourself as a noble high-minded “Concerned” person, and every man here as a misogynist bent on committing violence just like, oh, let me pick an example entirely at random… say, a disgusting rampage killer of little girls.

Clearly I am a very unfair person, and I feel terrible for suspecting you of such a vile deed, and of espousing such a repulsive view.

I’m glad you’re not someone like that!
-wolfe

Panties, you are being atrociously hateful and rude. I cordially invite you to join Concerned in vacating the virtual promises.

I find it hurtfully disappointing for you to regress to such inappropriately lewd and bitter remarks after your string of reasonable polite, intelligible and somewhat intelligent comments.

All semblance of common sense and decency, you’ve tossed in the wind.

Good bye.

You can believe or not believe my assertion that that was the first time I read the comment you quoted from previous posts, and yet the fact remains that it is the first time. I was referring in my post to posts directly above mine discussing issues of shoe- shopping only. I’m relatively new to the medium, and I’m not sure how likely it is that everyone has read what can be up to 106 posts (!) in any given message board. If that is the expectation before commenting, I apologize for jumping in without having read every post.

I’m mostly surprised (and maybe disappointed) that you feel I’ve ignored your responses, since I’ve found them at times interesting and often I’ve felt that they made me think outside of “my box,” so to speak. If there is any particular “logical counter” that you think I’ve ignored, feel free to share.

I wonder what the alternative purpose you think I have for being on this site would be. Truly, if you believe that there is no way that I am gaining anything from your comments (and that I am here as a “committed believer”only), how much more so would I have to believe the opposite is true (that those on this site would not gain much from what I believe) on a site called “menarebetterthanwomen.com”

Chris said:

Yes, I try to hit the cashier who is male if I am in a rush. In most cases they get you in and out and can even make small talk while scanning the items – imagine that? when i am stuck with a woman i try t get the older ones, the ones over 50. for some reason they tend to bust it – maybe they remember a world where you could get your ass canned for being shitty at a job – even if you were a woman.
the one’s that are pathetic are the younger ones – anything 25 and below. holy christ! what fucking attitude. you even try to make conversation and they look at you with this vacant “cow-like” stare, because somehow they are beneath the job. you know, with their grade 10 education.

“…beneath the job…”

Dutch269 said:

Man Ive noticed the same damn thing, its sooo fucking nice to see Im not the only one… I was begining to think I just might have an attitude.

I do the same thing, I look for a man cashier, then I look for a line that has mostly men in it. Its always faster and less hassle that way… every time!

At my local Safeway store, there are 2 females who I swear fuck things up every fucking time. I will go to a long line just to avoid these stupid bitches. The few male cashiers that are there have NEVER ONCE fucked up, not that ive seen and I shop there everyday.

Chris, you aint kidding. Its nay impossible to have any conversation at all with bitches 25 or younger. Not only are they fucking dumb as boards, but they always assume your just talking to them to get down thier pants. So fucking egotistical its jaw dropping.

“…jaw dropping…”

Hmmm, I thought that was one of the oh-so-important ‘activities’ that you ‘dicks’ are always complaining you never get enough of…besides which at least that ‘activity’ shuts those young’ins up…

Concerned said:

“The reasons why women are paid less in our society” is not a line of commenting that I’ve been following or involved in on your site.

Then why did you say “We can continue to discuss the many reasons why those incomes are substantially lower than the median male income”. Words have meanings, both denotative and connotative.

I refer you to posts 70 and 71 in this thread,

This is one of those assertions that just doesn’t pass the giggle test. When you normalize to experience, full-time employment, capabilities, employment history, women earn substantially as much as men. Possibly slightly less, possibly slightly more. It’s under 5% either way.

Think about it this way. We have crazy capitalist outsourcers rushing jobs overseas to save ten cents on the dollar. If women earned substantially less than men, there’d be an unemployment rate of 0 amongst women, and a lot of men would be looking for jobs.

I know you were reading that thread; perhaps it was naive of me to assume that when you said “continue to discuss” you meant “start to discuss, and that when you read and comment extensively in a thread you only read posts at random.

Either that or you’re being disingenuous. I don’t know what the reason is, but I see this as a repeated pattern of behavior on your part; you assert ridiculous things; people point out that they are ridiculous and/or offensive, you ignore most or all logical counters and re-assert the same things using slightly different language.

In addition, I’m not looking to be saved or to save anyone else, but thanks for your concern. I’m just interested in learning more about a viewpoint that is different from my own, and seeing to what degree I can relate. I think it is a valuable strategy when one finds themselves in the middle of a battle to step back and see what all the fighting is about from both sides.

Well, it is possible this is the reason you are here. For me to believe that, I’d have to be able to square the behavior I note above with that reason. That’s not impossible; indeed, I very strongly suspect your academic training has lead you down a particularly unfortunate road common to most in what Jerry Pournelle once called the “Voodoo Sciences”.

As for “saved”, yes, I used that language deliberately as a play on the earlier references to religion. I did not make those references out of sarcasm; I see your style of discussion as exactly analogous to a that of a committed believer. You accept a series of truths on faith, and neither words nor logic seem to sway you.

-wolfe

In addition, I’m not looking to be saved or to save anyone else, but thanks for your concern. I’m just interested in learning more about a viewpoint that is different from my own, and seeing to what degree I can relate. I think it is a valuable strategy when one finds themselves in the middle of a battle to step back and see what all the fighting is about from both sides.

Concerned said:
We can continue to discuss the many reasons why those incomes are substantially lower than the median male income).

We’ve discussed them in some detail, and you have proven utterly non-responsive. It’s clear that you don’t think rationally on these issues; facts and logic don’t impress you; you, like many women, believe in some mythical world that will ultimately work the way you think it should, rather than the real world we find ourselves in.

Your beliefs, fundamentally, are as peculiar and irrational as those of a young earth creationist. Given that you refuse to engage on a rational plane, it becomes impossible to prove or disprove anything.

Just as you ignore statistics about which career paths women choose — and which careers — as well as hours worked and lifestyle choices made, so too do you maintain — against all logic — the offensive fraud that most men are assaulters and harassers of women. And then you persist with cute (nothing sexist there; I’d use the same word to characterize a man who made the same arguments) little assertions about ’sugar-tits’ being a form of abuse comparable to any other form of abuse. Your wilful ignorance of what workplaces are really like for both genders is impressive.

The way you molest and pervert the language to achieve your ends leaves me impressed; you’ve been well trained in that art.

I can respect your right to hold those beliefs, and your free speech rights, just as I will respect those of the creationists, but I have no respect for you — or them — trying to impose those beliefs upon others in the public square or in our educational system.

There is a phrase that comes from Roman Catholic theology: “Invincible Ignorance”. Time and space are too short for me to discuss its origins, but suffice to say, you appear to suffer from invincible ignorance of a slightly different secular sort.

I see no point in repeating what’s been said to someone who appears to be entirely closed-minded on the matter.

I do respect gwallan’s willingness to continue to attempt to engage you, and I wish him (and you) well. Invincible ignorance is a tough nut to crack, and I doubt one such as you can be saved.

-wolfe

Frouke said:

100+ pairs of shoes! Is your ex gf Imelda Marcus? I can assure you that the average woman does not have that many, in fact, I shall quickly check my stockpile….and just as I thought. I only have 20 pairs *sniff* woe is me.

I can admit to having nearly that many at one point many years ago. Admittedly about fifteen of them would have been specialist sports numbers(and a lot of them freebies too courtesy of certain under-the-table arrangements. Aint amateur sports great!).

wolfe said:

I wonder if a pat on each cheek would make them do a full-assed job. Guess we’ll never know, thanks to sexual harassment regulations. It might explain why many see women’s work as having declined in quality since the 1960’s.
-wolfe

Women get into trouble for this too.
Woman charged with sexual assault after flight

@Concerned
Try something lateral. Keep an eye on the advertising you see and note what retailers are marketing and to whom.
It’s estimated that women control about 80% of discretional spending.