by which, I’m sure, he means the second-wave type.
I don’t think that we’ll have to try very hard, as Jeff’s very existence is offensive to them.
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
Yum!
[…] not forget that nutritious breakfast […]
Being a conservative male, I find that I sufficiently offend feminists merely by existing. And by having a proud, educated, confident wife who adores me. BECAUSE OF TEH PATRI-etc.
Or go out on a date like Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome, liebot.
Of course, they don’t count, do they, liebot?
*sigh*
I’m a first-waver, but I would still smack any guy who called me “sugar tits” that wasn’t my dh. However, I do fully get behind the effort to offend the second wave. Here we go:
• Children do better when raised by their heterosexual, married parents.
• Mothers teach children empathy whereas fathers teach self-restraint, and both are necessary to turn out a moral child.
• The maternal bond between mothers and their newborns arises from the production of oxycontin in the brain, not from societal expectations.
• A woman needs a man like a fish needs an aerator, gravel, water conditioner, and protection from curious kittehs.
• Men can be pigs, but women can just as easily be harpies.
• Title IX is moronic
• I’m glad the ERA was defeated
• Professional pursuits are not as fulfilling to women as raising a family is. I say this as someone who has the former but not the latter and would gladly switch.
• Single women should not deliberately become single mothers. (One exception: single women who rescue third-world or unplaceable children from a life of certain misery.)
• A woman who makes a happy home for her children — especially adopted children with special needs — has accomplished more of importance than the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
Enough? There’s more where that came from.
oxycontin = oxytocin
I always confuse the two.
C’mon, where are they!
“Or go out on a date like Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome, liebot.”
That’s an interesting website. I guess the American Renaissance is coming after the “dark” ages?
I guess the American Renaissance is coming after the “dark†ages?
I guess you are a lying crapweasel who is desperately trying to avoid the point.
If you don’t like that site, liebot, here are quite a few others.
Was Andy Devine really?
“I guess the American Renaissance is coming after the “dark†ages?”
Yeah, America will turn on the reactionary leftists for their feckless treatment of our security, their insane overreach for government control of, well, everything, and a spending spree that will make George Bush look like fucking Ebenezar Scrooge.
awesome, dicentra, you hit a lot of the same points I would make.
Of course, as first-wavers (aka classical liberals) we are gender-traitors and nothing hates us as much as the gender-feminists … apostasy and all that.
Of course, as first-wavers (aka classical liberals) we are gender-traitors
Having seen their idea of what a woman should be, I’m glad to be a traitor. I’ll be a traitor to any Leftist as enthusiastically and as often as possible.
Show me more ways to betray the Left! Hurry! I need the fix!
• Mothers teach children empathy whereas fathers teach self-restraint, and both are necessary to turn out a moral child.
Really? I mean the men and self-restraint thingie. I didn’t know guys were good at that. I mean, my brother is. So is my husband. But I hadn’t necessarily thought of it as a male trait; I guess I had the notion that testosterone undercuts that particular virtue.
nothing says real woman like a peter lorre[in hitchcocks first the man who knew too much] skunk dye job…
and the ability to fill up my tv screen with a large/and wide
head
Permanent Wave Feminist.
Miss Atilla, testosterone is allowed to undercut that particular trait. It shouldn’t be. It didn’t used to be the problem it is now; if Daniel Boone wanted more elbow room at 60, he could head West and find some. Now, there isn’t really anyplace to go; Alaska possibly excepted.
Empathy and restraint are both learned. I submit that men are better(*) at teaching restraint because they need to learn it, and that women are better(*) at teaching empathy because they need to learn it. The stereotypical misbehavior of both comes from the failure to apply those lessons — bullying, violent boys or bullying, catty girls.
(*) For values of “better” that are likely to appear in the aggregate, but can obviously be violated in individual cases.
and I pity any girl who isn’t me today
The fool, too.
Other what?
Why do women need to learn empathy or men need to learn restraint?
I think it has something to do with “secretly tweaking the sacred output knobs of public opinion.”
Go ask Cynn, she’ll know.
OK, Dan, I’ve learned a couple new tricks since that old pshop hit the shelves. For one, real sugar tits would be nice… )
Um, shouldn’t that be “Bitch Tits?”
You’re not really all that smart, are you? Did you read everything I wrote?
The stereotypical misbehavior of both comes from the failure to apply those lessons — bullying, violent boys or bullying, catty girls.
I just don’t see why we’re gendering the need to learn empathy and restraint.
Hint: that would be because you’re stupid.
Hint #2: Words have gender. People have sexes.
Oh, and hint #3: “Gendering” is not a word.
Comment by SBP on 5/3 @ 9:36 am
Oh, SBP, that’s just your cisgender privilege talking.
31 — well, there’s genderification, where gays crowd poor people of color out of suddenly stylish neighborhoods…
meya
It is interesting to note that “gendered” as an adjective didn’t exist prior to 1972.
Geez, wonder what was going on at that time?
In watching the 2nd wave feminists being accused of transphobia and all the apologies or defensiveness from cisFeminists (or attacks on transFeminists as perpetuators of teh Patriarchy), I just keep wondering when the Grievance Train completely breaks down under its own illogic.
Ginsberg’s prudishness invented it. She didn’t like saying sex out loud.
I’m sure you don’t, because you’re either incapable or unwilling to understand my point.
“I’m sure you don’t, because you’re either incapable or unwilling to understand my point.”
That’s exactly it. I’m not understanding your point.
Most words aren’t until you learn them.
Nice spin, lying crapweasel.
Even if some PC academic managed to force it into the dictionary, that wouldn’t make it any less of an ugly and meaningless neologism, but that’s not what happened, lying crapweasel.
Your dictionary link doesn’t use “gendering” in anything like the sense that you used it. The only thing listed under “gendering” is “engender”.
The definitions given for “engender” are:
transitive verb 1 : beget, procreate 2 : to cause to exist or to develop : produce
intransitive verb : to assume form : originate
None of which make sense in the context of your sentence, lying crapweasel.
But you knew that, too, lying crapweasel, which is why you tried to sidestep with with a red herring about the “inflected form”. The analogous “inflected form” of gabbagabagar is gabbagabagaring. Doesn’t make gabbagabagar a word.
But you knew that too, didn’t you, lying crapweasel?
“Gendering”, as you used it, liebot, is NOT in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. That, in itself wouldn’t be all that surprising, since it’s easily the shittiest of all the major dictionaries, but it’s not in the OED either (at least not in that sense). The way you used “gendering” in that sentence does not conform to its definition in any major dictionary. It’s a bit of idiotic PC babble that you’ve picked up somewhere. Which you knew perfectly well, lying crapweasel, hence your lame attempt at spinning and prevarication.
BTW, SFAG: people still do not have “genders”. They have sexes.
Also: boys and girls are still different. Sorry to break the news to you, lying crapweasel.
“red herring about the “inflected form—
I was wondering how you would go from ““Gendering†is not a word” to it being in the dictionary and you getting my meaning.
Did we ever figure out how old you are?
“BTW, SFAG: people still do not have “gendersâ€. They have sexes.”
when you look here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gender
you see:
5. The condition of being female or male; sex.
6. Females or males considered as a group: expressions used by one gender.
# Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.
1. The condition of being female or male; sex.
2. Females or males considered as a group: expressions used by one gender.
I never imagined this sort of thing something which someone would rebel about. There’s also this handy note:
“Usage Note: Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neuter,” but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.”
“Also: boys and girls are still different.”
Believe me, I know. I’m asking why they need to learn different levels of empathy or self-restraint. Do you want to talk about that or make arguments about which dictionary is the ‘shittiest’?
I was wondering how you would go from ““Gendering†is not a word†to it being in the dictionary and you getting my meaning.
Not going to argue with a liar, lying crapweasel. You used a meaningless pseudo-word. You got called on it. And now you’re trying an increasingly futile diversion attempt.
Not going to work, SFAG. Sorry.
I never imagined this sort of thing something which someone would rebel about.
Hint: that’s because you’ve never been outside your little PC echo chamber, SFAG.
Also, you might try reading your “useful little note” a little more closely, especially the part that says:
This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed.
Next time, lying crapweasel, you might try reading what you’re copying and pasting lest you further beclown yourself.
Do you want to talk about that or make arguments about which dictionary is the ’shittiest’?
That wasn’t the crux of my statement, lying spinbot. Which, again, you knew perfectly well. And I’m not making an “argument”, having a “debate”, or engaging in any kind of discussion with you, lying liebot. I’m pointing out your lies, and making note of the fact that you are a liar. That is all.
For anyone who wants to know what SFAG and her fellow travelers are up to with their ongoing bastardization of the English language, allow me to direct your attention here.
That’s the purpose of all this cant.
I was wondering how you would go from ““Gendering†is not a word†to it being in the dictionary
“Writing” is in the dictionary, lying liebot. That doesn’t mean that “writing” is a word when you use it to mean “dehydrating human feces, grinding it to a fine powder, and using it as a de-icing agent on roads”.
The definition given in your own source does not conform to your usage. That is a fact. And you are a liar for claiming otherwise.
Deal with it, liebot.
Wait, now you think it doesn’t have a meaning?
Not engaging with you, liebot. You just can’t seem to get it, can you?
You are a liar. That is all.
Sorry.
I mean, people ARE using this word and they DO have a definite meaning when they use it.
uh huh… just like people use the word “gay” and have a definite meaning …
which will vary so completely there are political arguments over it.
“Gender” as used by Leftists is just another slippery term used, not as a descriptive to engender (heh.) greater clarity, but as a password where the “in” group all nod their heads, fingers to lips, agreement and sneer at the “out” group for their ignorance (said ignorance as proof of their [fill-in-blank]-phobia.
Precisely so, Darleen.
“Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behavior, activities and attributes that a particular society considers appropriate for men and women.â€
Okay, so now apply the socially constructed roles, behavior, activities and attributes that western society has considered appropriate for men and women over the past few millennia and see if you can’t figure out why men might need more restraint and women empathy.
So for example, looking here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendering
Which redirects to another page, as Wikipedia generally does when you’ve typed in something that does not exist, but it can make a good guess at what you really meant.
You are a liar, SFAG.
An incompetent one.
so now that we’ve educated SBP
I’d lay long odds that I have at least 40 IQ points on you, SFAG.
BTW, SFAG, even if “gendering” did exist as a page in Wikipedia (which, of course, it does not), it wouldn’t prove anything.
All of us know very well that Wikipedia is useless as a source any politically loaded topic, and it’s not a citable source on any topic.
Where did you go to school, SFAG? Did your “instructors” actually let you get away with this sort of crap?
I was hoping you might be bright enough to figure it out if I phrased your question more clearly. Women have been the primary nurturers and caregivers for thousands of years, and are fueled by estrogen. Empathy is a natural strong point. Men have traditionally been the primary defenders and providers and fueled by testosterone. The required aggression needs to be tempered with self restraint.
The roles may not be so clearly defined in today’s world, but thousands of years of evolution can’t be erased with a new dictionary definition.
You’re talking to a robot, B Moe.
A poorly-programmed one.
Female and male, huh? My, that Wikipedia sure is confuzzling.
Man….
Oh no, B Moe. Hormones are a patriarchal social construct. Or, so I’ve heard.
All we have to do is educate people, Pablo, and soon we’ll have the New Soviet Man…er…Person…err…PerOffspring…err….PerAdultToBe.
And if it takes gulags, by golly, we’ll build ’em!
But the redirect exists
George Bushe redirects to George Bush.
Doesn’t alter the fact that “George Bushe” does not exist, liebot.
people use that word on that page. How could that be?
Easy. They’re stupid. Next!
oh,I’m sure it’s a perfectly cromulent word.
I posit the opposite — women aren’t naturally empathetic, at least not beyond a constrained circle (primarily, their children). The stereotypical “bad girl” behavior is fueled by the lack of empathy in the pursuit of status/a fit mate/favorable circumstances for their children, much as the stereotypical “bad boy” behavior is fueled by the lack of self-restraint in the pursuit of status/mates/etc.
But isn’t the reason they are considered bad girls or bad boys is because they aren’t behaving typically?
Acting in a selfish, destructive, anti-social manner is typical. It’s the civilized behavior that’s atypical.
Sometimes, it does. Other times, not. For instance:
“Hey! You! Chickita! Your breasts are hairy and you smell like lima beans!”
what do I win?