Periodic Table of Swearing

[Scented Nectar]

That's a good point, and I thought I should have added something of the sort as a quick disclaimer in my post, because I know that oftentimes, there's either no way of knowing, or people just aren't that introspective.

However, when I mentioned people that know they can't keep it in their pants/keep their legs closed, I meant it. I was speaking about habitual cheaters, the ones that just know that it's going to happen eventually, because it's happened so many times before. With people of this sort, I don't feel like "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" should apply, because they know better. I feel like these people only agree to monogamy to seem compliant and to get whatever it is they want from this person, (a relationship and whatever other perks may come with it) knowing full well they can' hack it. I know a few of these people.

I forgot about those types. Trying to have their cake and eat it too, dishonestly.

[AndrewV69]

I don't know how anyone can promise monogamy. Can one really know in advance that they will always find that person sexually attractive and no one else? People going through the initial infatuation stage that many sexual relationships have, mistakenly think that's how they'll feel forever, and then they regret it later, or they make do and suppress their desires, or they cheat. I'm very sympathetic to people who married because it was expected by society but who are not suited for monogamy.

I never promise monogamy, although some have assumed it when I guess I hadn't been clear enough.

Nothing wrong with being up front with it, and I have known people to do that.

On the other hand, a promise is a promise. In my book, if you make it, I expect you to keep it, no excuses afterwards. I can understand temptation, but breaking a promise is not on the table for me.

[masakari2012]

Honestly, I could not make this crap up if I tried:

Brownian says: September 9, 2012 at 12:58 pm
You are not wrong, Beatrice. It’s time we stop inviting these STEM shitheads to hold forth on culture as if they know a fucking thing beyond coding and chemistry.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-275487

Ahahahah, he's ripping me off in comment 4.

Great! Noelplum99 responds in comment 5. Meaning he's now keeping an eye on FTB.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I will probably opt out of the discussion on this subject. When I have a girlfriend, I have a girlfriend. Sure, the casual erection might come unwanted, but I don't cheat.

As we say here: "c'est pas parce que tu es au régime que tu as pas le droit de regarder le menu".

[James Onen]

for Franc:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Gua ... tu-008.jpg

[cunt]

Honestly, I could not make this crap up if I tried:

Brownian says: September 9, 2012 at 12:58 pm
You are not wrong, Beatrice. It’s time we stop inviting these STEM shitheads to hold forth on culture as if they know a fucking thing beyond coding and chemistry.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-275487

Ahahahah, he's ripping me off in comment 4.

Great! Noelplum99 responds in comment 5. Meaning he's now keeping an eye on FTB.

What the fuck is STEM anyway?

[BarnOwl]

STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics

[KarlVonMox]

Geeze people, you are seeing countless example of these parrots, parroting what they have been told, revealing themselves to be superficially educated, a waste of money, time, space and oxygen for all to see.

Geez yourself. First franc with his parrot demotivational poster and now you. What does a parrot have to do to get respect around here?

Its time for parrots to get the recognition and justice they deserve, especially against the tyranny of dogs and cats. We should start a Parrots Rights Activist (PRA) movement.

[AndrewV69]

for Franc:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Gua ... tu-008.jpg

I can just see all the respect from congress when they see that.

[KarlVonMox]

Honestly, I could not make this crap up if I tried:

Brownian says: September 9, 2012 at 12:58 pm
You are not wrong, Beatrice. It’s time we stop inviting these STEM shitheads to hold forth on culture as if they know a fucking thing beyond coding and chemistry.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-275487

Ahahahah, he's ripping me off in comment 4.

Great! Noelplum99 responds in comment 5. Meaning he's now keeping an eye on FTB.

What the fuck is STEM anyway?

Ah, Brownian is even more incoherent than usual. Hanging out at at Ophelias blog clearly has messed with his brain.

[AndrewV69]

Honestly, I could not make this crap up if I tried:

Brownian says: September 9, 2012 at 12:58 pm
You are not wrong, Beatrice. It’s time we stop inviting these STEM shitheads to hold forth on culture as if they know a fucking thing beyond coding and chemistry.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-275487

Ahahahah, he's ripping me off in comment 4.

Ahahahahahaha. Brownian cracks me up. I doubt he realizes how funny this is.

[James Onen]

Although, it's more taboo for men to abandon women to their fate, because men are regarded as being the protectors. I bet if the genders were reversed at the the Polytechnique massacre, the women survivors would feel less guilt-ridden for not doing anything and letting the male students die. This isn't really a judgment of women, it's just an observation on how society views the merit of males and females. Women's lives are viewed to be more important because of their reproductive functions, while males not so much because it doesn't take a lot of males to impregnate females. Women: limited eggs and they do all the gestation vs. men: almost unlimited sperm and they do nothing in terms of gestation. Ultimately, in a strictly biological sense, men are more disposable.

What the RadFems have succeeded in doing in my opinion is that they have ultimately opened up a can of worms. The MRM is starting to question and reject their own historical and biological roles in society that were formerly unquestioned.

What happens when men start abandoning their traditional roles? There will be some interesting consequences for not only women in general, but society as a whole.

Traditionally, women overall have benefited from the surplus of labour transferred from from men to women and children both directly and indirectly. That edifice has started to crumble, witness the rising number of "house husbands" in places such as New York city.

Forget everything else for the moment. What happens when men in general start rejecting the notion that they are disposable? This is a fundamental pillar to our society that up to now was unquestionable. What will happen when men in general view themselves as just as valuable, or women just as disposable as they are?

No kidding, the way I hear feminists carry on about the male equivalents of dildos and vibrators makes me cringe at how insecure they are.

I sense a definite fear in feminist rhetoric about losing control over men as labour devices. When I hear middle class individuals talking about how strong and independent they are, about how much they dont need men, I can only pity their naivety. When it comes to basics of living they are clueless - they turn on taps and drinkable water comes out, they go to stores where a supply of food is constantly waiting for them, they live in shelter they have no idea how to make. Hell, they even can take a dump without the faeces piling up outside their house, along with all their rubbish.

If anyone made a TV show called Lord of the Flies: Women's Studies Major Field Trip Edition, Id probably start watching TV again.

[youtube]GLPDBGZiT54[/youtube]

[cunt]

Yeah. Thats interesting because Jim (noelplum99) is a fireman.

[windy]

GWW was clearly referring to this theory, which Rad seems unaware of:

Gendered Division Of Labor Gave Modern Humans Advantage Over Neanderthals

Rad tries to refute the comment about Neanderthals by saying that hunter-gatherer societies were "egalitarian" before agriculture. But although hunter-gatherer societies are assumed to be economically and socially more egalitarian, the evidence indicates that they utilized sexual division of labor. Rad has confused different meanings of "egalitarian" and GWW is more up to speed on the research (even if a lot of her argument is conjecture).

Thanks for the information and clarification – I stand corrected, at least on the question of the “sexual division of labour”. Although as you suggested, GWW’s argument seems to be little more than a highly questionable hypothesis, one that one might argue GWW is using for, as Rad suggests, “propaganda” purposes – to advance a “just-so” story.

A reasoned criticism of GWW's argument would be that it extrapolates too far from the available facts, and that's what I was expecting. But the accusation of pulling facts out of her ass, when GWW is talking about a valid scientific hypothesis, make it look more like the Pharyngula commenters' attacks on Don Kane. I am disappoint.

Rad's counter-theory of patriarchy only originating with agriculture is not much better supported, and did you check out her "sources"?

"Despite appearances to the contrary (fostered by anthropocentric nursery stories), a distinct role for male parents does not exist in nature. Fatherhood was invented by humans during the agricultural revolution about six thousand years ago. Symbolized by the new god-king, it incorporated the mother's originally superior role in primate families—the control or ownership of children."

Aargh!

[Steersman]

for Franc:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Gua ... tu-008.jpg

I can just see all the respect from congress when they see that.

What a bunch of cunts! Talk about playing the gender card ...

But reminds me of your post of Pinker’s observations on the FCC rulings on the use of the expletive “fuck” in a TV broadcast:

FCC:
- indecency = “material that describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or activities”;
- fucking in fucking brilliant: “an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation”

Wonder whether that open-air protest meeting was broadcast on TV ….

[James Onen]

Rad's counter-theory of patriarchy only originating with agriculture is not much better supported, and did you check out her "sources"?

"Despite appearances to the contrary (fostered by anthropocentric nursery stories), a distinct role for male parents does not exist in nature. Fatherhood was invented by humans during the agricultural revolution about six thousand years ago. Symbolized by the new god-king, it incorporated the mother's originally superior role in primate families—the control or ownership of children."

Aargh!

Continued, from the same abstract...

The male deity could even make his own offspring without female help. This inflated political figure was designed to compensate for the male's modest role in procreation, once the facts of life were known. Patriarchy was born out of an envious attack on mothers.

:shock:

[Steersman]

I will probably opt out of the discussion on this subject. When I have a girlfriend, I have a girlfriend. Sure, the casual erection might come unwanted, but I don't cheat.

As we say here: "c'est pas parce que tu es au régime que tu as pas le droit de regarder le menu".

My French is a little rusty but I (mis)translate that as “just because you are regimented (married) doesn’t mean that you give up the right to look at the menu”. Or, as we say out here in the colonies ( :-) ), “the eyes never get married” ….

[Steersman]

Rad's counter-theory of patriarchy only originating with agriculture is not much better supported, and did you check out her "sources"?
"Despite appearances to the contrary ..."
Aargh!

Continued, from the same abstract...

The male deity could even make his own offspring without female help. This inflated political figure was designed to compensate for the male's modest role in procreation, once the facts of life were known. Patriarchy was born out of an envious attack on mothers.

:shock:

That emoticon is exactly right: no wonder so many are just a shade skeptical about which brand of feminism Atheism-Plus is peddling, which brand of feminist Kool-Aid/dogma they’re buying into …

But, just out of curiosity, are you associated with Freethought Kampala? Seem to recollect Ophelia mentioning that and that you two, at least her, had come to a “parting of the ways” related to the issue of “bad werdz”, if I’m not mistaken ….

[Guest]

I will probably opt out of the discussion on this subject. When I have a girlfriend, I have a girlfriend. Sure, the casual erection might come unwanted, but I don't cheat.

As we say here: "c'est pas parce que tu es au régime que tu as pas le droit de regarder le menu".

My French is a little rusty but I (mis)translate that as “just because you are regimented (married) doesn’t mean that you give up the right to look at the menu”. Or, as we say out here in the colonies ( :-) ), “the eyes never get married” ….

"It's because you are on a diet that you have a right to look at the menu. "

Hope that this is not too pedantic.

BTW not sure if anyone saw this on Rebecca Watson. Am posting it again

http://www.streetbonersandtvcarnage.com ... ld-divide/

[AKAHorace]

Sorry, the last post was me.

http://www.streetbonersandtvcarnage.com ... ld-divide/

[ERV]

That Melody Hensly creature is a mighty bitch.

She was the one all 'MY HUSBAND TOLD ME NAT GEO IS CENSORING ABBIE SOON!' on twitter like 6 months before I got sick of Laden/Svan sending hysterical emails to the IT guys at NatGeo.

Now after being a Super Bitch going after some woman (Sara Mayhew?) who dared to post some support of Harriet Hall, Hensley deleted the offending posts, then put up these posts:
http://grab.by/fXQg
http://grab.by/fXQi

What a gross piece of shit.

[Steersman]

Re:Greer, I have had my share of run ins with the ghastly female. It was in our Union where I heard her advance the idea that rational and logical thought was an intrinsically male thing, and it was unfair and sexist to expect women, who were so much more emotional, to perform to the same standard.

I promise you that I am not joking. This was her stated view.

Interesting, although “incredible” might be more accurate – maybe in her view all of that “rational and logical thought” is a consequence of testosterone damage. And I wonder whether she would be prepared to give up all of the benefits that such thought has contributed to the advance of civilization.

Though equally interesting, I find anyway, are the various views on the topic, notably and saliently Martin Luther’s “that whore, Reason” – maybe also indicative of some underlying and quite problematic views on sexuality by the religious. But there is also a number of comments by David Hume – significant contributions to empiricism and skepticism – that are apropos:

... [Hume] concluded that desire rather than reason governed human behavior, saying: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."

Given that one cannot be motivated by reason alone, requiring the input of the passions, Hume argued that reason cannot be behind morality:

“Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.”

“It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger” (Pigliucci quoting Hume)

Seems that one might reasonably argue that both reason and “the passions”, the feelings, are necessary: each a leg that is necessary for forward progress, the overdevelopment of either one more likely, as with sidehill gougers, to manifest going in ever-diminishing circles ….

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Re:Greer, I have had my share of run ins with the ghastly female.

Which reminds me, so has Suzanne Moore (feminist Daily Mail and erstwhile Grauniad columnist, who was going on about A-plus the other day).
"Bird's-nest hair and fuck-me shoes" were our Suzie's main faults, according to La Greer :lol:

(IIRC; haven't read the G. since Iraq War v1.0, and the Daily Heil? Not bloody likely.)

Suzanne Moore on Naomi Wolf: "Wolf writes like someone who failed GCSE Chemistry but has a couple of TED talks on their iPhone." :lol:

[lazy dustbubble]

Fatherhood was invented by humans during the agricultural revolution about six thousand years ago."

Late to the party as usual, I see. By at least four thousand of your puny Earth years, in Eurasia (which I asssume she's wittering on about).
I wonder if she'll dig up old Marija Gimbutas for us? A radfem fave, IIRC (from like the seventies, maan .. )

what Gimbutas saw as the differences between the Old European system, which she considered goddess- and woman-centered (gynocentric), and the Bronze Age Indo-European patriarchal ("androcratic") culture which supplanted it. According to her interpretations, gynocentric (or matristic) societies were peaceful, they honored homosexuals, and they espoused economic equality.

Ahh-harharhahrhahr where do you even begin?

[windy]

Yeah. Thats interesting because Jim (noelplum99) is a fireman.

Ha! Awesome.

[James Onen]

But, just out of curiosity, are you associated with Freethought Kampala? Seem to recollect Ophelia mentioning that and that you two, at least her, had come to a “parting of the ways” related to the issue of “bad werdz”, if I’m not mistaken ….

Yep 8-).

http://rationalugandan.files.wordpress. ... =531&h=354

[ERV]

But, just out of curiosity, are you associated with Freethought Kampala? Seem to recollect Ophelia mentioning that and that you two, at least her, had come to a “parting of the ways” related to the issue of “bad werdz”, if I’m not mistaken ….

Yep 8-).

http://rationalugandan.files.wordpress. ... =531&h=354

I love this weird shit from them-- If they do something nice for you, you have to unquestioningly support them forever. Myers linked to Justicars YouTube? PZ MYERS MADE YOU! Cry-Baby-Amy and Watson scam enough people to send a few people to TAM? NO ONE WOULD BE AT TAM IF IT WERENT FOR SKEPCHICKS! Nanny said something to someone about James? JAMES SHOULD BE FACE DOWN IN THE MUD, GROVELING FOR FORGIVENESS FROM NANNY!

Weirdos.

[AndrewV69]

Rad's counter-theory of patriarchy only originating with agriculture is not much better supported, and did you check out her "sources"?

"Despite appearances to the contrary (fostered by anthropocentric nursery stories), a distinct role for male parents does not exist in nature. Fatherhood was invented by humans during the agricultural revolution about six thousand years ago. Symbolized by the new god-king, it incorporated the mother's originally superior role in primate families—the control or ownership of children."

Aargh!

That is actually pretty funny. I can think of a few examples off the top of my head where this is simply not true. Even wikipedia should have a few examples. Oh FFS, her source is listed in wikipedia! The same entry also notes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father

Non-human fatherhood

For some animals, it is the fathers who take care of the young.

Darwin's Frog (Rhinoderma darwini) fathers carry eggs in the vocal pouch.
Most male waterfowls are very protective in raising their offspring, sharing scout duties with the female. Examples are the geese, swans, gulls, loons, and a few species of ducks. When the families of most of these waterfowls travel, they usually travel in a line and the fathers are usually the ones guarding the offspring at the end of the line while the mothers lead the way.
The female seahorse (hippocampus) deposits eggs into the pouch on the male's abdomen. The male releases sperm into the pouch, fertilizing the eggs. The embryos develop within the male's pouch, nourished by their individual yolk sacs.
Male Emperor Penguins alone incubate their eggs; females do no incubation. Rather than building a nest, each male protects his egg by balancing it on the tops of his feet, enclosed in a special brood pouch. Once the eggs are hatched however, the females will rejoin the family.
Male beavers secure their offspring along with the females during their first few hours of their lives. As the young beavers mature, their fathers will teach them how to search for materials to build and repair their own dams, before they disperse to find their own mates.
Wolf fathers help feed, protect, and play with their pups. In some cases, several generations of wolves live in the pack, giving pups the care of grandparents, aunts/uncles, and siblings, in addition to parents. The father wolf is also the one who does most of the hunting when the females are securing their newborn pups.
Dolphin fathers help in the care of the young. Newborns are held on the surface of the water by both parents until they are ready to swim on their own.
A number of bird species have active, caring fathers who assist the mothers, such as the waterfowls mentioned above.
Apart from humans, fathers in few primate species care for their young. Those that do are tamarins and marmosets.[12] Particularly strong care is also shown by siamangs where fathers carry infants after their second year.[12] In titi and owl monkeys fathers carry their infants 90% of the time with "titi monkey infants developing a preference for their fathers over their mothers".[13] Silverback gorillas have less role in the families but most of them serve as an extra protecting the families from harm and sometimes approaching enemies to distract them so that his family can escape unnoticed.

The Origins of Fatherhood: An Ancient Family Process



Continued, from the same abstract...

The male deity could even make his own offspring without female help. This inflated political figure was designed to compensate for the male's modest role in procreation, once the facts of life were known. Patriarchy was born out of an envious attack on mothers.

:shock:

Yes I saw the abstract. Pretty funny. I was going to have a quick look at it but it is behaind a paywall. Also noted the cites. I invite you guys to look at the books that cite it on Google Books. Very clear agenda.

LOL. Pretty funny stuff.

[Steersman]

That Melody Hensly creature is a mighty bitch.

Some of the comments from “du wimmin” are looking mighty catty – accusations about spending excessive amounts of time and money on “fuck me” shoes and the like …

She was the one all 'MY HUSBAND TOLD ME NAT GEO IS CENSORING ABBIE SOON!' on twitter like 6 months before I got sick of Laden/Svan sending hysterical emails to the IT guys at NatGeo.

Now after being a Super Bitch going after some woman (Sara Mayhew?) who dared to post some support of Harriet Hall, Hensley deleted the offending posts, then put up these posts:

Yes, Mayhew; someone else posted this link earlier, a salient point in which is this:

CFI-DC Executive Director, Melody Hensley chimes in to proclaim that I get my speaking gigs by sucking up to “boys” and attacking Skepchicks. This is the kind of attitude I’m tired of seeing. I don’t disagree that harassment happens, I disagree that name-calling, line drawing, and demonizing is a helpful approach to the issue.

Must be a gender traitor ….

What a gross piece of shit.

You obviously have some prior “dealings” with the woman so likely have more reasons for that judgement. But I wonder whether or not there is some justification for her question: is “opposing Mayhew’s defense of sexism and calling her a sister punisher” justification for Mayhew’s counter charge of “sexual harassment”? One might – once again – be tempted to ponder whether there’s some truth to the aphorism – from Hamlet, Ophelia informs me and somewhat testily – that “Methinks the ladies doth protest too much” …

Not that I would – pace Ophelia – ever, ever, ever, leap to the conclusion or argument that the “laydeez” should STFU ….

http://grab.by/fXQi

[idle dustbubble]

I love this weird shit from them-- If they do something nice for you, you have to unquestioningly support them forever.

How very, er, grandiose and narcissistic of them.

[AndrewV69]

That Melody Hensly creature is a mighty bitch.

She was the one all 'MY HUSBAND TOLD ME NAT GEO IS CENSORING ABBIE SOON!' on twitter like 6 months before I got sick of Laden/Svan sending hysterical emails to the IT guys at NatGeo.

Now after being a Super Bitch going after some woman (Sara Mayhew?) who dared to post some support of Harriet Hall, Hensley deleted the offending posts, then put up these posts:
http://grab.by/fXQg
http://grab.by/fXQi

What a gross piece of shit.

Actually it is pretty funny how so many are jumping on the victim bandwagon so why not her?

The other tweet is just as funny. Is it my imagination, but was she not being sexist when she was attacking the chill girl sister-punisher who was "defending sexism" ?

The inherent sexism of these "femtheists" (credit SN) is just wonderful to behold. I just love their sexist attacks on other women who do not toe their line. Simply wonderful. A complete and utter lack of introspection. I love these maroons!

[Guest]

That Melody Hensly creature is a mighty bitch.

She was the one all 'MY HUSBAND TOLD ME NAT GEO IS CENSORING ABBIE SOON!' on twitter like 6 months before I got sick of Laden/Svan sending hysterical emails to the IT guys at NatGeo.

Now after being a Super Bitch going after some woman (Sara Mayhew?) who dared to post some support of Harriet Hall, Hensley deleted the offending posts, then put up these posts:
http://grab.by/fXQg
http://grab.by/fXQi

What a gross piece of shit.

I think of Melody as having started Elevatorgate II-- I believe she was the one who told Jen about your comment about her on Scented Nectar's post... which led to PZ saying he won't speak where you speak-- and Thunderf00t pointing out how FTB folks see misogyny everywhere--.

(I'm referring to Jen's post where she talked about keeping a "secret list" of speakers who hit on "pretty young girls". It implied that if you don't think this is a problem-- you must be too old or too ugly (if female) or one of the guys that might be on the list. It also implied that she had secret information that could help other a "pretty young" women, but she wasn't going to tell what it was.)

I think this whole secret list started because Michael Shermer is known to sleep with his groupies and then move on... and some of his groupies have been skepchicks who thought they shouldn't be treated this way. DJ obliquely commented on this and started the whole scenario where Melody, skepchicks, and FTB demonized him (though his opinion seemed to be right on targe) and later Thunderf00t.

Melody likes to stir things up. She's dragging CFI into the FTB cesspool.

[CommanderTuvok]

That Melody Hensly creature is a mighty bitch.

She was the one all 'MY HUSBAND TOLD ME NAT GEO IS CENSORING ABBIE SOON!' on twitter like 6 months before I got sick of Laden/Svan sending hysterical emails to the IT guys at NatGeo.

Now after being a Super Bitch going after some woman (Sara Mayhew?) who dared to post some support of Harriet Hall, Hensley deleted the offending posts, then put up these posts:
http://grab.by/fXQg
http://grab.by/fXQi

What a gross piece of shit.

The Baboons hate nothing more than the sight of a woman they can't condition.

Melody probably stayed very quiet when Jason Lousy published a lie about her on Ophelia's board, and the subsequent "mansplaining" of Sara when she attempted to respond and correct the reply, only to be told by Ophelia she was "changing the subject" (funny how Lousy Canuck wasn't), and then hilariously, one poster told her to shut up and be quiet because she was young and immature!!! This is from the same bunch of knobheads who have a problem with elderly people!

[CommanderTuvok]

http://rationalugandan.files.wordpress. ... =531&h=354

Opheliar and ANOTHER reference to an ex-friend. It still has not dawned on her why she keeps losing friends and associates. Well, it's obvious for me to see, but not for her and her dissonance-addled followers and lackeys.

Oh, BTW, Ophelia - fuck off.

[Tigzy]

Honestly, I could not make this crap up if I tried:

Brownian says: September 9, 2012 at 12:58 pm
You are not wrong, Beatrice. It’s time we stop inviting these STEM shitheads to hold forth on culture as if they know a fucking thing beyond coding and chemistry.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... ent-275487

Ahahahah, he's ripping me off in comment 4.

Great! Noelplum99 responds in comment 5. Meaning he's now keeping an eye on FTB.

You know, Noelplum99 makes a really interesting point on that thread, in wondering out loud if perhaps sexism is simply too pat an explanation for the subject in hand, and points out that the historical evidence we have suggests that the Greeks and Romans 'objectified' the nude or largely bare male form as our culture today may 'objectify' the female form. He's not suggesting that this is definitely the case, but it does provide good food for thought - and could lead what could potentially be a very interesting discussion.

And yet the commentariat just gave him a load of shit. And this is one of the FfTBs greatest weakness - genuinely interesting, intelligent, free-thinking commentators only have to deviate from the FfTB orthodoxy in the slightest, and BAM! Instant persona non grata. Looking at that thread, it should be obvious that Noelplum wasn't trying to start a fight - only point out a possible counterpoint to the contention at hand. If he'd have been treated just a little bit better, the baboons could have had a good and interesting ally there. It's their loss - and yet somehow, they seem to think it's a gain.

[CommanderTuvok]

I think this whole secret list started because Michael Shermer is known to sleep with his groupies and then move on...

The horror. Consenting adults having sex! AT CONVENTIONS!!!

Rebecca Watson is, of course, excluded from this type of list.

Fucking hypocrites.

[sacha]

And Jack, to answer your question.
Yes, you have a valid Schroedinger false-rape-accuser concern.

Did I say all women should be treated as possible false rape accusers and (Even though this is the reverse of what the rapists version demands. I wouldn't make everyone else responsible for my beliefs , which would be imaginary in this case, and which seems to be the version of me that you are responding to...) that my behavior around all women is adjusted because of this? This is what the Schrodinger's False Rape Accuser [Lite version. Actual would entail all women adjusting their behavior to the irrational belief.] would entail, wouldn't it? Or maybe you can correct my assumptions.

Now, if someone falsely accused you of a heinous crime, I'd strongly sympathise and perhaps help you if I could. However, I suspect that the law - a way more powerful ally - would also be on your side, in most of the civilised world.

You're joking, right? Only a ton of money (which privileged old me must be forgetting to go pick up at the bank since I have a dick and they'd hand it over with a smile) and no national media attention would ensure that I got a fair trial. (Or maybe just a dissolution of "rape shield", or a new version that covers both the accuser and the accused.) Don't know how things work where you might be from, but the courts in my country have very different standards when dealing with rape. How else does a father end up in jail for 9 years on nothing but a fib by his disgruntled daughter? That powerful ally, the law! Okay.... :whistle:

Until that false accusation materialises, couldn't you just put the self-pity on hold? That might help make your life as Your Own Leader a tad easier.

Self-pity? Is that what showing concern about valid, potentially life ruining issues is called now-a-days? I'm not sure exactly where it is that you're seeing this self-pity, but I'm kind of wishing you would have directly quoted what I said, so it would be easier to identify. (As for materializations, I've been treated with it before. Let's not act like women are angels incapable of something so vile.) And on the capitalization of "own leader", it really isn't that difficult. Even you could pull it off, so no need to capitalize it and make it look special. ;)

(Are there many more of these silly slights? Should I read the rest of what's been posted and just answer them all in the same lump?)

I was with a very close friend of mine last night (Englishman). I attempted to get him up to date with PZ, Watson, and the baboons (He's been in Europe for over a month and a half, and too busy to do more than what was necessary online). I told him that at this point it has become bizarre that Steven Novella is continuing to defend her and keep her on the SGU when it seems that the only others defending her are baboons and their sycophants, and those in the sceptic community who are opposed to her have become quite numerous and vocal, especially since A+theism.

I mentioned the A Voice For Men podcast in which they discuss Watson, told him a bit about Girl Writes What and in passing, I said something to the effect of "of course, I'm a MRA" and he replied "A MRA? I thought you were simply for equality"
I assumed that considering myself a MRA was common knowledge to him, as we have spoken about my support for men, and anger at their treatment in many different facets of US* society, at length, he has seen my reaction whenever there is blatant misandry in adverts and the media, and he has been with me numerous times when I have made it extremely clear that I refuse to keep quiet when someone perpetuates the belief that it is perfectly fine to refer to men in ways that would never be tolerated if it were men referring to women the exact same way. He has seen me speak up when women find humour at the expense of men, but would be outraged at the “misogynistic” men who would dare to laugh at a woman's expense, He has heard me ask men why they tolerate this behaviour, and he has heard the stories of why I will not go out with a group of women under any circumstances, as I've never been with a group of women when the topic of discussion did not very quickly turn into a man-bashing party.

Over the years, he has also heard me tell the tales** of either overhearing, being directly told, or having first-hand knowledge of what many women are willing to do to men who simply did not want to continue a relationship with them, or never wanted to start one after having sex with them. A level of vindictiveness only the truly psychotic men even come close to.

So I was surprised that he did not consider me an MRA, and *I realised that the majority of my experiences with misandry were all in the US, and that the vast majority of women baboons are from the US, and although I have always felt more comfortable with men, and have always had a distrust of most women (with very good reason, even if one only looks at how they treat other women) and often found I had very little in common with them, I don’t remember the behaviour by the majority being anywhere close to what it is in the US, and there is a very distinct difference in the women who have moved to the US from other countries.

My response to him was that in Merkinland, I feel the need to counteract what society deems appropriate when it comes to men, by being vocal in my support that men (and boys) have become the oppressed, and that they are the ones in need of vocal advocates, especially those who are women, and although my world view is one of advocating gender equality, in the US, the men need me more.

It’s possible that the disconnect in the perception of why one would consider themselves an MRA on this thread, has everything to do with what part of the world is most familiar to them.

**I've heard everything from cutting up or burning all of his clothing, to extreme stalking and harassment, to reporting false accusations of rape, and not just once or twice. The amount of times I have heard women advise their friends who are hurt by the fact that their boyfriend chose to end the relationship with them to "ruin his life" is far more than I can count. These examples are not even including the women who go to court to take every last cent of their husband's money in a divorce, even when he was very good to her the entire marriage, and was as kind as possible when explaining he wanted to live without her, or those women who go to court and tell lies in order to stop him from seeing his children, when they know, almost always, courts in the US rule in their favour.

In the US, women who become vindictive towards men who want out of a relationship are not the minority, and I could write a tome about most women and their reaction after casual sex, even when they knew ahead of time, that is all it will ever be.
"hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is not an exaggeration.


Just to be clear, of course I have known women who would never even consider behaving that way. I recently spent the evening with a casual friend, and her friend, and had a great time, the times men were mentioned, it was always in a positive light, (of course one of them was raised by parents who are not Merkin, and the other is Brazilian.)

[cunt]

You know, Noelplum99 makes a really interesting point on that thread, in wondering out loud if perhaps sexism is simply too pat an explanation for the subject in hand, and points out that the historical evidence we have suggests that the Greeks and Romans 'objectified' the nude or largely bare male form as our culture today may 'objectify' the female form. He's not suggesting that this is definitely the case, but it does provide good food for thought - and could lead what could potentially be a very interesting discussion.

And yet the commentariat just gave him a load of shit. And this is one of the FfTBs greatest weakness - genuinely interesting, intelligent, free-thinking commentators only have to deviate from the FfTB orthodoxy in the slightest, and BAM! Instant persona non grata. Looking at that thread, it should be obvious that Noelplum wasn't trying to start a fight - only point out a possible counterpoint to the contention at hand. If he'd have been treated just a little bit better, the baboons could have had a good and interesting ally there. It's their loss - and yet somehow, they seem to think it's a gain.

Another thread ruined. Such a shame.

[Steersman]

But, just out of curiosity, are you associated with Freethought Kampala? Seem to recollect Ophelia mentioning that and that you two, at least her, had come to a “parting of the ways” related to the issue of “bad werdz”, if I’m not mistaken ….

Yep 8-).

http://rationalugandan.files.wordpress. ... =531&h=354

Cool – no doubt likely to contribute to your fame if not your fortune. :-)

But I wonder whether Ophelia might think of Wowbagger’s “hope you die in a fire” as “just rhetoric” or whether she might condemn him in as strident, if not as histrionic, terms as she and others dealt with the “kick in the cunt” comments ….

[Michael K Gray]

bird news... my silly bird is right now building a nest on top of my clock to, once again lay unfertilized eggs. She keeps trying.

Cuckoo?

[Steersman]

You know, Noelplum99 makes a really interesting point on that thread, in wondering out loud if perhaps sexism is simply too pat an explanation for the subject in hand, and points out that the historical evidence we have suggests that the Greeks and Romans 'objectified' the nude or largely bare male form as our culture today may 'objectify' the female form. He's not suggesting that this is definitely the case, but it does provide good food for thought - and could lead what could potentially be a very interesting discussion.

And yet the commentariat just gave him a load of shit. And this is one of the FfTBs greatest weakness - genuinely interesting, intelligent, free-thinking commentators only have to deviate from the FfTB orthodoxy in the slightest, and BAM! Instant persona non grata. Looking at that thread, it should be obvious that Noelplum wasn't trying to start a fight - only point out a possible counterpoint to the contention at hand. If he'd have been treated just a little bit better, the baboons could have had a good and interesting ally there. It's their loss - and yet somehow, they seem to think it's a gain.

Another thread ruined. Such a shame.

The attitude behind this post from there seems to be a contributing factor:

September 9, 2012 at 3:37 pm

… in the threads I have become involved in I really don’t know how I could have been more civil.

When the sum total of your “argument” is bitches ain’t shit, no matter how “civil” your wording, you’re an incredible dipshit if you think no one notices.

Rather difficult, at least for me – maybe I don’t have my “feminist/sexist” glasses on or properly adjusted, to see how she managed to infer “bitches ain’t shit” from anything that noelplum wrote. Except maybe “arguing in bad faith” – and that is being charitable – or being in thrall to feminist dogma ….

[rayshul]

That Melody Hensly creature is a mighty bitch.

She's pretty much the worst.

HOW CAN THESE WOMEN BE IN THEIR FORTIES?????

[Tigzy]

Steers, the 'bitchez ain't shit' thing is Illuminata's trademark. It appears to be the only argument she has, and it's not a very good one. It was a run-in I had with her and the 'bitchez ain't shit' thing that got me banned from Myer's blog. Oh well.

[Lost Moose]

You obviously have some prior “dealings” with the woman so likely have more reasons for that judgement. But I wonder whether or not there is some justification for her question: is “opposing Mayhew’s defense of sexism and calling her a sister punisher” justification for Mayhew’s counter charge of “sexual harassment”? One might – once again – be tempted to ponder whether there’s some truth to the aphorism – from Hamlet, Ophelia informs me and somewhat testily – that “Methinks the ladies doth protest too much” …

The justification for Mayhew's charge against Hensley I think stems from the Katie Graham post linked previously by masakari2012 here. Specifically Graham tweeted Hensly

.@MelodyHensley You know what my job calls accusations of using male attn to climb the ladder? Sexual harassment. @saramayew

[Tigzy]

Steers, the 'bitchez ain't shit' thing is Illuminata's trademark. It appears to be the only argument she has, and it's not a very good one. It was a run-in I had with her and the 'bitchez ain't shit' thing that got me banned from Myer's blog. Oh well.

Error: it was a run-in with the Ill Lunatic Farter Genie thing that led to me getting dungeonated. Myers' let his, um, 'mighty' banhammer finally fall over some other shit which I forget about.

[Tigzy]

That Melody Hensly creature is a mighty bitch.

She's pretty much the worst.

HOW CAN THESE WOMEN BE IN THEIR FORTIES?????

What, like Surly 'I cry at harassing t-shirts and fake $urlyramics jewellry' Amy is?

[DownThunder]

Rather difficult, at least for me – maybe I don’t have my “feminist/sexist” glasses on or properly adjusted, to see how she managed to infer “bitches ain’t shit” from anything that noelplum wrote. Except maybe “arguing in bad faith” – and that is being charitable – or being in thrall to feminist dogma ….

http://greylining.com/2011/12/01/myers-law/

Honestly, trying to understand them makes translating the enigma code look like a magazine crossword.

Shorter downthunder: Bitchez aint worth a potato cat.

[masakari2012]

You obviously have some prior “dealings” with the woman so likely have more reasons for that judgement. But I wonder whether or not there is some justification for her question: is “opposing Mayhew’s defense of sexism and calling her a sister punisher” justification for Mayhew’s counter charge of “sexual harassment”? One might – once again – be tempted to ponder whether there’s some truth to the aphorism – from Hamlet, Ophelia informs me and somewhat testily – that “Methinks the ladies doth protest too much” …

The justification for Mayhew's charge against Hensley I think stems from the Katie Graham post linked previously by masakari2012 here. Specifically Graham tweeted Hensly

.@MelodyHensley You know what my job calls accusations of using male attn to climb the ladder? Sexual harassment. @saramayew

Here's the links again, so you don't have to tumble through all of those posts...

“I am not a Skepchick”
http://www.saramayhew.com/blog/index.ph ... skepchick/

"Feminists Attacking Women"
http://athmorality.blogspot.ca/2012/09/ ... women.html

[masakari2012]

Disgregard the links in my last post, they didn't paste properly. Here it is again....

“I am not a Skepchick”
http://www.saramayhew.com/blog/index.ph ... skepchick/

"Feminists Attacking Women"
http://athmorality.blogspot.ca/2012/09/ ... women.html

[Lost Moose]

Bah, got lazy and didn't preview the actual links, sorry folks.

[masakari2012]

After reading those two blogs in my last post, here's a follow up on that situation....

http://athmorality.blogspot.ca/2012/09/ ... ndsay.html

[AKAHorace]

Odd experience on Butterflies and Wheels just now.

There is the thread:http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... /#comments

B and W starts off with

An ad I keep noticing here and there. The copy says

How Cruise Lines Fill All Those Unsold Cabins

And the image is

(woman in bikini that I cannot cut and paste)

It couldn’t get much cruder, could it. (Well it could. It could skip the bikini and aim the camera up between her legs. But other than that…)

Hay! Look! Legs bum sex! Now click on the ad.

(I suppose they fill all those unsold cabins with women’s bums? That must be it?)

There is then about 60 or so comments when someone called Mike Soja (web page http://www.kayak2u.com/blog/?page_id=2)
says (and I am quoting from memory)

The key quotation is An ad I keep noticing here and there

Physician heal thyself. How many times did you click on the ad ?

This comment lasts about five minutes and then disappears. I ask about it and my comment disappears.

Is this normal for B and W ?

[masakari2012]

AKAHorace, it's normal on Ophelia's blog. She removes comments that she doesn't like.

[AKAHorace]

AKAHorace, it's normal on Ophelia's blog. She removes comments that she doesn't like.

I wouldn't mind if the comment was abusive and she said what she had done. Neither was true though, the comment removed was the only one that would make anyone laugh and she removed my comment when I asked about what had happened.

[Steersman]

Odd experience on Butterflies and Wheels just now.
....
This comment lasts about five minutes and then disappears. I ask about it and my comment disappears.

Is this normal for B and W ?

You're probably now banned there for having the temerity to question "conventional wisdom", the reigning dogma in force; for suggesting the Emporeress' clothing is looking a little threadbare ....

[Steersman]

Steers, the 'bitchez ain't shit' thing is Illuminata's trademark. It appears to be the only argument she has, and it's not a very good one. It was a run-in I had with her and the 'bitchez ain't shit' thing that got me banned from Myer's blog. Oh well.

Mon dieu! Tabernac! Sacre bleu! Or words to that effect …

Seems she’s a “one-trick pony” then; as you say, maybe the only argument she has ….

Apropos of which, this comment by noelplum seems to be an accurate summary of many of the commentariat there:

I have to say that I have found some of the posters on FtB to be possibly among the most objectionable individuals I have come across online. Having involved 99% of my efforts with the religious I have to say they haven’t got a patch on some of you. You almost make me feel like I am trolling you without even trying – and I am certainly not trying to. It is like you are oozing anger and resentment out of every pore.

Seems an important question is to maybe ask the reasons for that “anger and resentment” and whether that is a fair assessment ….

[Geoffrey Falk]

[Granny B:]

Hay! Look! Legs bum sex! Now click on the ad.

(I suppose they fill all those unsold cabins with women’s bums? That must be it?)

No, they fill them with "hay."

And horses.

http://i47.tinypic.com/t0loo1.jpg

I'm looking genuinely forward to Noel's next video.

[youtube]KrSu0w-y8aQ[/youtube]

[Steersman]

Rather difficult, at least for me – maybe I don’t have my “feminist/sexist” glasses on or properly adjusted, to see how she managed to infer “bitches ain’t shit” from anything that noelplum wrote. Except maybe “arguing in bad faith” – and that is being charitable – or being in thrall to feminist dogma ….

http://greylining.com/2011/12/01/myers-law/

Honestly, trying to understand them makes translating the enigma code look like a magazine crossword.

Shorter downthunder: Bitchez aint worth a potato cat.

Remember seeing a movie some time ago – can’t remember the title – but some fellow asks a women the apocryphal question, “What do women want?” And she leaned into him in a conspiratorial fashion and whispered, “We haven’t a fucking clue” ….

Far too many of them really don’t seem to know their own minds. Although a moot point is whether the percentage is significantly higher or lower for men ….

[Steersman]

You obviously have some prior “dealings” with the woman so likely have more reasons for that judgement. But I wonder whether or not there is some justification for her question: is “opposing Mayhew’s defense of sexism and calling her a sister punisher” justification for Mayhew’s counter charge of “sexual harassment”? One might – once again – be tempted to ponder whether there’s some truth to the aphorism – from Hamlet, Ophelia informs me and somewhat testily – that “Methinks the ladies doth protest too much” …

The justification for Mayhew's charge against Hensley I think stems from the Katie Graham post linked previously by masakari2012 here. Specifically Graham tweeted Hensly

.@MelodyHensley You know what my job calls accusations of using male attn to climb the ladder? Sexual harassment. @saramayew

Remember seeing that in reading – or skimming – through both posts but really didn’t think her argument held a lot of water. For instance Wikipedia has this:

Sexual harassment is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.

Seems to me that the most Mayhew could justifiably argue was that the accusation was unfounded if not libelous, not that the accusation in itself constitues sexual harassment.

[ERV]

In the last 30 seconds I have become aware of two things--

1-- A terrible TV show hosted by Jeff Foxworthy called 'American Bible Challenge'. It is, apparently, awful, outside of its Bible-ness. But these people are actually raising money for charity.

2-- This supplement company I love (Opticen is so yummy, and it helped bring my partner back to life after two weeks in the ICU), you know, a bunch of stupid meat-heads, are getting the money together to build a school in Kenya. Another reason for me to place another order.

Some obnoxious Christians and a troupe of evil men have done/are doing more for social justice than ANYONE in A†.