12.18.06

A comment from the gallery: female supremacy

Posted in Female superiority, Female supremacy, Utopia at 8:24 pm by angela

You will find my original entry to which Publus responded here.

Publus wrote:

“Principal Quattrano,

I’ve read your critique of the corrupt politicians in Washington, and although I agree that our country is currently being run by a bunch of dishonest dunces (though perhaps less so since the last election), there is an even more evil conspiracy that I find substantially more alarming than the one that has Duhbya as its public face. I refer, Principal, to the conspiracy for which you appear to be one of the more articulate spokespeople.

One only needs to look at national trends to see what’s really going on. Thirty years ago, when men were the undisputed heads of the household, “female domination” was an almost unheard of fetish. It has grown in popularity over the years, and now “professional dominatrixes” can be found in every major city — commanding fees of hundreds or thousands of dollars per session. Meanwhile, females are attaining more and more power in the home, in the workplace, and in government. This last election, we saw the high office of Speaker of the House being assumed by a woman, and in the next election a woman could easily become President. It is not hard to see where this is all headed:

A FemDom revolution.

Slowly but surely, every major position of power in America will come to be occupied by a woman, and the view that men are inept in such roles will become more and more well accepted. Soon, positions of authority generally will be reserved for women alone. Police officers, managers, judges, newspaper editors, schoolteachers, and anyone else whose job involves any kind of authority will invariably be women. Men will be relegated to those tasks that involve heavy physical labor or to domestic or clerical tasks.

Even in the family, it will eventually come to be understood that the husband lives under the care and guardianship of his wife, who makes all of the major (and most of the minor) decisions for the family. The female-dominated state legislatures will put laws into effect to enforce this arraignment: A man will not be able to travel, access his bank account, drink alcoholic beverages, or do any number of other things without his wife’s written permission. If he is absent from his home from too long, a mere phone call will cause the police to locate him and return him to the custody of his wife. Corporal punishment will come to be an acceptable manner of resolving marital disputes.

And, of course, since the woman will be regarded as the head of the household, boys will be taught from an early age that they are inferior to girls and that they exist only to serve them. That message will be reinforced in schools, run by the likes of Principal Quattrano herself. As the saying goes, “the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.”

It’s happening all around us, so subtly that we can barely detect it. The men of America must take cover, for the revolution is coming!”

Actually, I don’t have the strong feeling that it’s going to continue to progress until female supremacy becomes the dominant paradigm. I was in a yahoo group a while back that started to move in that direction – the group owner was convinced that all males are vastly inferior to all females, thus making it legitimate (in her mind, anyway) to legalize discrimination in education, job opportunity, etc, against males. As far as she was concerned, it was not her problem if an being kept uneducated kept men from being able to earn a living – it was their problem, and they deserved it to make up for many generations of previous discrimination against females. If men were unemployable and unable to support themselves, she figured that women would just have to support them. Now wait a minute…?!? How does women supporting men so they don’t have to work mean that women are dominant?

Truly I am being kind toward her. In fact, she just hated men, and the more she typed, the angrier and more bitter and vitriolic she became.

Besides, the differences between individuals are often greater than any differences between averages of groups. Everybody in our society needs the best education and training they can get in order to make everybody self-supporting taxpaying citizens.

In this group they foresaw that we had turned the corner, momentum was building, and this soon would occur. Thankfully (in my opinion) they based their determination of how the “movement” was snowballing on the number of cross-posts they had on yahoo groups. Whew! Still safe here.

And one last note from Publus:

“I’m pretty sure it’s spelled with a ‘w’”.

In response to my question, “Can you spell ‘lame duck’?

12.17.06

Response to a Limbaugh fan, I presume

Posted in Bad boys, Female superiority, neocon crackpots, News at 12:42 pm by angela

Cleaning out the comment box…(from Craig)

Reading Tamim Ansary’s recent article in Encarta “The Rise of the College Woman” would initially strike fear into the hearts of many a Male Chauvinist…

I read the article earlier, but it doesn’t seem to be available online anymore. I recall at the time that it was rather cursory and missed some important points.

…but you know something? Reading the Holy Bible for many years, I have yet to read anything depicting or predicting the overtaking of Western civilized males, i.e. men becoming the new INFERIOR SEX (or as more politically correct, the SECOND SEX)!

I am missing your point. Are you saying that if something was not predicted by the bible, it will not happen? I am presuming that the bible failed to predict with certainty both your birth and mine.

Why is the phrase “SECOND SEX” a ‘politically correct’ way to describe men in your mind?

It’s really weird to even perceive such a thing in our American culture, given the objective of achieving egalitarianism and not out and out role reversal. I personally believe that, for the moment, men are “letting” women win, or the situation makes it appear to be so.

There’s certainly plenty of that. Men do still have almost all the power, inferior education or not.

Let me argue my point:
a) HELLO —

Now there’s an effective way to start a discussion and let the other party realize you think they’re an idiiot.

THERE IS WAR GOING ON IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN! After “911″, many young men opted to serve their country in the war on terror. The bombings of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon inspired many men (more men than women) to put college on the back burner, seeing they could go back to school funded by taxpayer dollars, after their tour of duty had ended. In World War II, women outnumbered men on campuses all across the country, but that ended when the war ended, as the GI Bill helped many men to enter campuses to better themselves.

This is a trend that has been snowballing since long before the World Trade Center bombing. Young men who chose to join the military are those who were not planning on going to college the first time around anyway. Keep in mind that the “GI Bill” has been gutted, and the only way to get a good education from being in the service is to stay in the service as your career.

b) The pressure put on men to be the primary breadwinners in a family will always cause most men to GET THE JOB FIRST — GET THE EDUCATION LATER!

Ah, you’re stuck in the 40’s. Absolutely nobody gets married right out of high school nowadays. A guy who decides not to attend college and work instead is not doing it because he has a stay-at-home wife and little mouths to feed.

It is, and probably always will be, easier for men to exercise the option of learning a high paying trade outside of college, like plumbing, construction, electrical, interstate tractor-trailer driving, auto mechanics, than it will be for women. Most of the occupations that pay comparable to (or less than comparable to) the above mentioned positions, say, elementary school teaching, nursing, bank customer service, retail business management, child development, etc. will require further formal education in college. See a pattern here?

I absolutely see a pattern here. Men can get still a decent job right out of high school with no experience or skill. Traditional “Women’s” work requires an advanced education for the same pay level – an education that she probably must acquire at her own expense, meaning she starts her working life four years later and with a heavy debt load…

c) I argue that the surplus of women on campus these days are:
1. Married, widowed, or divorced women living in “empty nest” situations. Many of these women grew up believing that they had to give up college in order to marry and raise families. Nothing wrong with this, but you can see the growing number of women in this category flocking back to finish their education nowadays (My sister received her bachelors degree at age 51!) I say good for them! They should!

Most of the older women I know going back to school are there because they are unable to find employment any longer. They have been laid off, while their male co-workers continue to be employed. They look for a change in career that may be less unstable, which often means they are back to school getting a second degree. But regarding your previous comment about men planning on getting their degree later…there are very few men doing this in colleges, compared with the number of women doing so.

2. Part-time enrollees (note the Encarta article)

I really can’t comment on this in the sense that the article is unavailable. But working people must attend school part-time, unless they are so wealthy that they don’t need to work. The reality of student aid is that a self-supporting full-time student is expected to work a full-time job in order to qualify for aid, which means they don’t have the time to take a full course load. Student aid is intended for new high school graduates with parents who contribute to their support.

3. Online enrollees

This section doesn’t say anything about online education. Did you forget your point?

I think that when the going gets rough, the natural fragility of the male ego (trust me, the female ego is not exactly a stone wall either) will be motivation enough to get men going in the direction of further formal classroom education.

Fragility of the ego is not usually a motivating force for enrolling in college or registering for classes. In fact, probably the opposite is true: fear of failure may keep away potential students who worry also about losing money for classes they may not be able to pass.

No way the normal male is going to let women take over, especially when we have the potential to go further, if we want to.

In what way do males have the potential to go further than females? Because they’ve decided in advance not to let females succeed?

It’s clearly a myth that a higher level of education is the only indicator of intelligence.

So who said it was? It’s also clearly a myth that monetary success is the only indicator of intelligence.

You only need a GPA of 2.0 to get anything from an Associates to a Master’s Degree…

Actually, you probably are not going to be able to graduate from any but a community college with a GPA of 2.0. Most colleges will allow such a low grade for elective courses, but you would be on academic probation if you got such a low grade in your major required courses. Advanced degree students with such low grades don’t graduate. They are dropped from the program.

…and who in their right mind is going to show their GPA on a resume’??? Isn’t the degree listed on the resume’ more than enough?

In fact, there are plenty of jobs that require you to submit your college transcripts as part of the application process. All education jobs require this.

Anyone with an average intelligence and the drive to succeed, even with the desire to go frequently to the teachers for extra help, can and WILL get a degree.

Few students are able to go to their professors for help, thanks to a variety of issues. Scheduling means that the teachers have infrequent office hours that only day students can access. The majority of undergraduate courses nowadays are taught by “adjunct faculty” – part-timers who are not even given access to an office, should the student wish to go for assistance.

The controlling factor in whether an adult student completes a degree is generally money.

However, a degree doesn’t necessarily mean you are automatically an “Einstein”!

That’s pretty clear.

Naturally, you need high school to get ahead in life, but many people, men especially, became successful financially, and have even proven themselves giants in the “mental Olympics”, without finishing college. Take for example Bill Gates, a billionaire, and Rush Limbaugh, a millionaire.

What has being wealthy got to do with being a “giant in the ‘mental Olympics’”. whatever that is supposed to mean? And how can you compare Bill Gates, a genius at computers and business (though clearly with Asperger’s) with Rush Limbaugh, a class A hypocrite who buys his way out of repeated convictions thanks to his money and his influential friends, while still claiming moral superiority?

Rush admits on the air that he never set foot in college.There are perhaps more male MENSA members than there are female members (geniuses). My guess is that some of these men probably didn’t go to college either.

You utterly made that up from the whole cloth. You speculated that there might be more male than female Mensa members, and then you made comments about this as though it were true. Mensa is a social organization. Membership is based not only on the level at which you score on an IQ test, but also on whether you feel like spending your time in a group that likes to talk about how smart they are.

Perhaps Rush Limbaugh should set foot on a college campus once in his life. He seems to talk an awful lot about something he has no personal experience with or knowledge about.

Personally, I am getting sick and tired of all the male bashing, especially on the college campuses (women’s studies and everyday interpersonal dynamics). I experienced some of that when I attended college in Central New York way back in 1975. I was constantly debating in the cafeteria with the “feminazis”…

Now there’s a word that didn’t exist back when you were in college in 1975. Did you get it from Rush Limbaugh? When was the last time you set foot on a college campus and visited the Women’s Studies Department?

…and I think it’s only gotten worse.

Based on…? In fact, nowadays there are few women who consider themselves to be “feminists”. The neocon backlash against this has reached the point where people have forgotten that the purpose of the movement was to encourage women to reach their potential, and stop social institutions from actively preventing that from happening.

I have one thing to say to young men who are considering going to college: GET TOUGH, AND GET SOME INITIATIVE! Men may have to swim against the current nowadays, and yes, nowadays IT MAY TAKE SOME MEN TWICE AS MUCH WORK TO GET HALF AS MUCH CREDIT AND RECOGNITION. This was not unlike the motto of many women in earlier days (substitute the word “women” for men above), and guess what guys — FORTUNATELY IT’S NOT THAT DIFFICULT!!!!! TOUCHE’ !

Unfortunately much of your “get tough” advice would need to be taken when these “young men” were in middle and high school. Thanks to the fact that they aren’t cracking the books in preparation for college, it really may be twice as hard to get the same degree as for a girl who worked hard in high school and is well prepared.

With all the talk about “affirmative action for men” (see Encarta article), one area that college promoters can start improving on is the billboard ads and ads on the internet. I made an informal study as I drove down many a highway and surfed many times on the web and found something really startling, and this could affect young children’s minds: NOT ONCE DID I SEE MALES IN THE COLLEGE ADS — ALWAYS A FEMALE — ALWAYS A FEMALE!!!!!! What’s a little boy going to think? (Mommy, do boys count anymore?) SUNY (State University of New York) is a real sexist pig in their billboard advertising.

You’re looking for colleges to use their marketing departments for affirmative action, to attract boys who aren’t otherwise qualified to attend by making the college environment appear predominantly male? That would be a bad business practice. Like any business, colleges target potential customers. Boys don’t choose to go to college like girls do. They are pushed by their families or they don’t go.

Not to mention the fact that colleges are predominantly female. That’s the reality nowadays.

Boys and girls have different educational needs. Boys often need help with language and writing skills, but rarely do they seek this out. Girls often are allowed to fall by the wayside in math and math-based subjects. Read Failing at Fairness by Sadker and Sadker.

But really, I do love and appreciate women. I’ve been married to one for almost twenty years now. Would you stay married to someone you hate for twenty years???

But do you respect women you have never met as individuals? Would you ask them about their lives, or do you prefer the information you get from Rush Limbaugh, lumping them together into an anonymous homogenous group, unrelated to reality?

Would you stay married to a woman for 20 years although you think they only achieve anything because men “let” them and allow them unfair advantages? Clearly you have.

Please don’t misunderstand. My aim is not misogyny — just simple fairness and justice, that’s all.

Ok, “fairness” and “justice”. Please define what you mean by these, it’s not clear from reading what you’ve written.

Is that asking too much? Or should we “new men” just tend to baking cookies and attempt to get in touch with our “feelings” (the new buzz word for “FEMININE SIDE” — AARRGGHHHH!)

Cookies are good. Making homemade cookies is not a sign of emasculation or feminization. Does thinking about making cookies make you go “argh” because you consider baking cookies to be “women’s work”? Lots of guys bake them, some even for a living. Try it, you may like it.

12.01.06

That spam thing

Posted in Miscellaneous at 2:40 pm by angela

I admit it. I haven’t updated much lately. I’ve been working on other projects, learning new software which will put lots of bells and whistles on this site…and I’ve been swamped with spam. Every day I get half a dozen new spambot “comments” on this blog. I open a Word file entitled BlogSpamBlacklist.doc to add new keywords from the links the spambots are promoting, then save, copy, and paste into the blacklist for this blog. The file is also used for my other blogs, so when I update one, it is completely updated, not just with the terms that it has been hit with.

Clearly this is of limited effectiveness, since I keep having new spam show up in spite of my efforts, though I couldn’t imagine how much spam I’d be getting if I didn’t have hundreds of common spam terms and all of Russia and AOL blacklisted.

I am sorely tempted to eliminate WordPress entirely, and switch to something lower tech that can’t be manipulated by bot writers – or at least to totally disable comments on my blogs. It sounds severe, but the function is not working, and there certainly are other options I could use to receive comments totally outside of the WordPress comment function.

This isn’t counting the spam I receive in my email accounts, either. I recently read that a study commissioned in the European Union determined that 70% of email is spam. The number seems low to me. I’ve got yahoo accounts that get hundreds of spam a day, although they have hardly ever been used. My favorite is the one where yahoo sold my home email address to a spam clearinghouse the very first day my account was opened. They brag about the “bulk” folder, like it’s some kind of innovative method of handling the spam that they are responsible for me getting!

I’m not normally a person that gets into conspiracies, at least not the “conspiracies” that are often tossed around, and especially not the “meta-conspiracy” that ties everything together in a giant package and blames it all on somebody else – alien invaders, a secret cabal, the “liberal” media…

OK, I do believe in conspiracies, and this is one of them. I believe that the people in Washington are writing laws intended to allow big corporate donors to rip us off – personally and as a country – while lining the pockets of the neoconservative elitists. I believe that they are stripping us of our rights in order to make this easier. Soon they are planning on revisiting the First Amendment, and I’m sure they’re going to add provisions to make criticizing the government a risky thing.

What’s this all got to do with spam? I have this little theory. It’s called The Law of the Intended Effect. What it means is that it doesn’t matter what you say at all. It doesn’t matter what you say the effect of your actions ought to be. What matters is the effect of your actions. Not only that, it says that the effect of your actions is what you intended to happen in the first place, and all the bloviation you did was a smokescreen for your real motives.

My spam hypothesis is that there are lots of entities that could do something about spam. For instance, free bloghosts and webhosts could delete accounts that are used strictly for spamming and forwarding to spam websites.

There are lots of changes that could be made in the email system, too. It should a crime to forge email headers and use fake return email addresses. Email with fake return email addresses should go “poof”, it should not be delivered. They should track down these people and throw them in prison. They are a major drain on the economy and have effectively eliminated the effectiveness of electronic communication in this country and the world, costing untold gazillions to companies trying to maintain the integrity of their mail systems.

But they’re not doing these things. Why not? I suspect it’s because they all have their fingers in the pie, and in our wallets. That’s right. The people who are in charge of making laws could be doing something about this idiocy, and they’re not, so that means that Dubya and Cheney and every other corrupt politician are making big bucks from the spam deluge. We can’t see it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. Their actions speak louder than their words.