NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/flame/18957

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 12.6 KB | 311 lines

Newsgroups: alt.flame
Path: sparky!uunet!srvr1.engin.umich.edu!uvaarpa!murdoch!faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU!jbl3g
From: [e-mail] (Jason Basinger Linkins)
Subject: Re: Intellectuals & women
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Virginia
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:35:07 GMT
Lines: 299

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Ok, SHIT, now I have to be *really* serious.
I doubt it.

>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jason Basinger Linkins) writes:
>> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>> Your definition though, of a "wonderful" woman, however, is one that falls
>> exclusively into your backward, throwback scheme.
>
>Everybody has a scheme.
What kind of retort is that??  Ducking the obvious?
>
>>That is: a woman for you is
>> one who cooks for you, cleans for you, fucks you and does not have any
>> aspirations of doing anything more than having babies.  You wrongly believe
>> that the purpose of women is to reproduce.
>
>That's a point moron. I don't belive that the *ONLY* purpose
>of women is to reproduce, but I *do* belive that one of the
>*first* purpose of women is to reproduce.

Who are you to say that it is their first purpose??  Do you honestly expect
all women to go along with that?  Can't you admit that this logic may
be right for some but not for all?
 That's the *only*
>difference between men and women. Or you don't want to agree
>with that?!?

If you think that is the only difference, then it is clear you do not have
a clue.  There are societal differences, physical differences, psychological
differences...if you maybe read a book once in your life you would know that.
]

>
>So, do you want to be real or you want to flame? Answer to
>what I wrote, if you are deep enough to understand it.
I have answered you, nearly point for point.  A salamander is deep enough
to understand the mindless one-dimensional drivel you spout.

>> That's irrelevant.
>
>Another fucking lame, eh? Be real, idiot.
If you would truly like to know what is wonderful for me, there are better
places than this to discuss it.  If you are just being an idiot, then it
is irrelevant!

>> I see.  You truly are illiterate.
>
>Maybe. It does not mean to be stupid or cold as you are.
Considering I have never come across as stupid or cold, you have no ground
to stand on.

>I suggest to you to live on real world, with real *people*.
>The books are as false as alt.flame.

Oh, to find the REAL WORLD of michele, where women only want to have children
and blissful ignorance is cherished.
>
>I wasn't hearing, moron, I was *listening* at them! And there is a *big*
>difference, false intellectual boy.

You have yet to listen, or comprehend, one thing anyone on this channel
has ever posted.
>
>> Yes, women will tell you that they would like to have children.  That's
>> fine.
>Yes, that's what *they* told me.
>> But there is much more to a woman's life than having children.
>Nope, that's what *you* say, and you are not a woman.

To use a Liz, this is the pot calling the kettle black.  You are not a woman
and yet YOU KNOW that having children is the most wonderful experience they
can have!  Wake up!  You contradict yourself at every turn!

>
>> They
>> should be allowed to find for themselves wht fulfills them.  Many women are
>> fulfilled in their careers, or creatively, etc. and if they put reproduction
>> on hold for these things, how is it wrong?
>
>Ok, that's the macho point. I like women for what they are.
>And, as I said, the *first* difference between men and women
>is that they can reproduce (as you say. I instead prefer to say
>"create new lifes").
Well if it's a question of semantics I would be happy to say "create new life."
You say, "I like women for what they are."  But you would have all women fall
into a category!  You don't like women for what they are, you like women for
what you think they should be in your eyes!


If they don't give a fuck about that, I don't
>give a fuck about them.
And that is your biggest problem.  Michele, this is cold, this is heartless,
this is uncaring.

That's it. And, SINCE WOMEN ARE NOT
>AS TOUGH AS MEN ARE (I am not saying "good" now, notice it),
>they will loose. Because we are a lot stronger than them.
Yes, but most are _smarter_ than you.  Most marsupials are smarter than you,
though...

>>You do not have the right to dictate what is or isn't "the most wonderful
>>experience in life."  You haven't a clue.
>
>I don't dictate anything. You can be half right on this point.
Ahhh, the ground is beginning to shake beneath you!

>But, I *do* belive, that to create a new life can be
>something *wonderful*, probably the *most* wonderful thing
>on the universe. For sure better than make *big money*...

I'll completely agree, that as far as I know, having children is probably
for many, very wonderful.  And if someone finds this to be true, then bravo!
BUT, it is not the be all-end all for everybody.
>
>> And yet you would define their role in existence.  You would force them to live
>> up to your expectation,
>*MY* expectation?!? HEY! THAT'S BULLSHIT! My bet is that you
>*never* spoke about children with women. That's it.
>Or, worse, you DID NOT HAVE A MOTHER THAT LOVED YOU.

No, you don't understand.  You would have all women be creators of new life,
and nothing else.  That is your expectation.  You have bitterly complained
about women who wont create new life, and refuse to see any alternatives.
Thus, these are your expectations.  As for my mother, you are wrong.
>
>> and you would have no tolerance for a woman not doing
>> what you feel they should be doing.
>
>I have tolerance for such a women. But I do not have respect
>for a woman that do not *want* to have children. For sure.
>She is not a woman. She is a stupid *thing*, I can fuck her
>only for her body.

Exhibit A:  You claim to have respect for, but no tolerance of a woman who
does not have children?  How does that work?
Exhibit B:  Your definition, written right above states:  A woman who does
not have children is not a woman.  She is a stupid thing.
Exhibit C:  You are a blatant misogynist in your statement "I can fuck her
only for her body."  Must women be fucked?  Haven't they anything else to
offer?

These exhibits show an overwhelming hatred of women.  Case Closed.
>
>But I don't have bad feeling against women, generally
>speaking.
Please see above, you have contradicted yourself again.

>>>Without to moan about as bad men are...
>> Well, men can be bad.  Live with it.
>I do. I do not have problem about them. It seems to me that
>you have such a problem...
What problem?  You see, I suggested you live with it because I live with it
too.  Thus, no problem here.

>> Hate to say it, but it is you who are confused about life.  I never said
>> making a baby was intrinsically subjugating.
>
>I hate to say it, but that's what you said and what you are
>saying.

WRONG.  Allow me to quote my post again.



" It is not.  The subjugation
 occurs when man like you say, "The purpose of a woman is to have children
 and there is nothing more important than that."  You are forcing a woman
 into a mold.  You are enslaving them.  That is subjugation."



>Look. I am enslaving them, just because I give value to the
>*only* difference that there is between men and women.
Where you are fundamentally and idiotically wrong is that it is the only
difference!

>> Well good for Italy!  Face it.  Life can be depressing and repetitive.  It
>> is not what I want, but it is out there.  As for routine, I find your view
>> of women a reproducers to be depressing and routine.
>
>YOU ARE OUT OF MIND. OK, lets' stop the routine. Starting
>from tomorrow, no women have to make children anymore. Just
>do it. For you it is not natural, it is *routine*. Puah, I
>thought you had a mind, but now...

YOU MISS THE POINT AGAIN!!!!  COMPLETELY!!!  YOU ARE A MARVELOUS EXAMPLE OF
DENSITY!!  What if you were a woman, and you grew up in a world where the
only thing that you were really given credit for was having children.  It
would become routine.  In your world, you would devalue children.  It would
become an endless cycle of reproduction that the woman could not identify with,
because she has been forced into doing it.  You are the one who would
render children worthless.  I'm sorry, I am an actor and I love the profession
dearly, but if someone forced me to do it, it would become routine and it
would lose all of its lustre.  This is how you would render childbirth.

>> Not all have to have children.
>
>That's your point. If *I* was a woman, I wanted to have
>children (you now, like your mother did). But I can't speak
>for women.
But you have done nothing but try to speak for all women!  You assume that
having children is IT.  The BIG ONE!!  NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT!  I'm not
saying childbirth isn't wonderful, I'm just saying that it might not be
wonderful for everyone!

>NO! That's bullshit. They are human beings like me and you
>and the other women. For their career they are lucky (you
>know, they do not have to care anyomore about children) but
>for their private life they are unlucky (just think about
>that, moron). That's it.
Maybe it's bad luck, but I'm sure most would be able to find something to
make up for childbirth.

>> Then get a transsex operation, and shut the fuck up.  What you would rather
>> do is irrelevant!  It is what the woman wants that counts.
>
>F-U-C-K  Y-O-U. You are speaking for women. Many of them
>think like me, many others think in a different way. But I
>still have the right to *think*, poor mindless boy.

YOU ARE SPEAKING FOR WOMEN. YOU HAVE BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING.  You have the
right to think, not to dictate.
>>>
>Pessimist?!? No, just a scientist. This wprld will stop its
>sinning one day. That's reality, poor boy. That you belive
>it or not.

Someday, I would like to welcome back into reality.  You have been away far
too long, my child.

>What do you care about? Career? Is it the way to care about
>people?!?
What do you think I care about?  Have you ever asked me?

>> But when someone is as wrong as you, then
>> I will get nasty.  You are the cold one.
>
>Who, *moi*? No way. I know it. I can be averything but *cold*.

I agree, you have been stupid, childish, primitive, dark, ignorant, lifeless,
and incompetent!

>Bullshit. You seems to hate women that have children.
NEVER HAVE I SAID THAT. NEVER.  Sorry...thanks for playing.
You seem to hate women who don't have children!

>> Yes, and maybe, just maybe, the woman finds her work so fulfilling tahat she
>> would rather continue working than have children.  This is not wrong.
>
>Is it right? Is it natural? Ok, get such a woman, but don't
>ask me to do the same.

Who is to say what is right or natural?  Not you!  I have never claim to know
what is right or natural...but I keep an OPEN mind.  You don't seem to have one.

>> but when you said that for a
>>>woman to have a child is not a wonderful experience,
>>
>> I NEVER said this.  Never.  No.  You are wrong, wrong, WRONG!
>
>You did. In a different way.
BBZZZZZZZZZZTT!  Wrong again!  Thanks for playing.  In no way have I ever,
EVER said this.  You cannot make this claim, because at no time have I ever
said this.

>> I have no idea what is a wonderful experience for anyone but me.
>That's *your* problem.

That's everybody's problem.  That is what life is, a search for the experience
that really fulfills us, that really makes us feel good, feel human.  When
you claim to know it for everyone, I get offended, because you haven't a clue.
>
>> Perhaps some women do not find childbirth to be the most wonderful experience
>> in life.
>
>So they are as wrong as the real machos.
WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THIS?  GOD?
>>
>> Interesting.  You just likened romanticism to stupidity.  Why do you continue
>> to contradict yourself?
>
>What? You mean that to have a child is *stupid* ?!?!?
No, you likened romanticism to stupidity, now you are claiming to be a romantic.  IT is a contradiction.

>> Actually, many of my female friends think that you are an idiotic, sexist
>> boor with a primitive viewpoint on life.
>
>So I think that they are just rural girls. My friend was
>right.
Rural girls.  I'm sorry...perhaps I didn't explain.  In Charlottesville is
the University of Virginia.  At that University are people from all over
the country, Hell, all over the world.  Places like New York City, San
Francisco, Washington D.C., Atlanta...etc.  These places are NOT rural!