RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000 Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:29 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Rick, Rattle on about anything you like. It doesn't mean you're a misogynist. I'm just making an observation that given the opportunity to weigh in on the topic you punt. Can you provide an actual example of this? She's saying that this was an example. That I had an opportunity to weigh in on the topic of misogyny, and instead I shifted the discussion to gun control. In this example, I didn't feel inclined to write anything about misogyny, so I wrote about what came to mind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000 Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:29 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Rick, Rattle on about anything you like. It doesn't mean you're a misogynist. I'm just making an observation that given the opportunity to weigh in on the topic you punt. Can you provide an actual example of this? She's saying that this was an example. That I had an opportunity to weigh in on the topic of misogyny, and instead I shifted the discussion to gun control. In this example, I didn't feel inclined to write anything about misogyny, so I wrote about what came to mind. Actually, Rick, you punted twice. Now this is your third. LOL
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:13 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000 Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:29 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Rick, Rattle on about anything you like. It doesn't mean you're a misogynist. I'm just making an observation that given the opportunity to weigh in on the topic you punt. Can you provide an actual example of this? She's saying that this was an example. That I had an opportunity to weigh in on the topic of misogyny, and instead I shifted the discussion to gun control. In this example, I didn't feel inclined to write anything about misogyny, so I wrote about what came to mind. Actually, Rick, you punted twice. Now this is your third. LOL What are you, the topic police? I'll write about what I'm inclined to write about. If I don't have add to a discussion, I'm not going to dredge up a comment just to appear politically correct.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick Archer Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:32 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk Actually, Rick, you punted twice. Now this is your third. LOL What are you, the topic police? I'll write about what I'm inclined to write about. If I don't have add to a discussion, I'm not going to dredge up a comment just to appear politically correct. Meant to say, If I don't have anything to add to a discussion...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:13 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer rick@ wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000 Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:29 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Rick, Rattle on about anything you like. It doesn't mean you're a misogynist. I'm just making an observation that given the opportunity to weigh in on the topic you punt. Can you provide an actual example of this? She's saying that this was an example. That I had an opportunity to weigh in on the topic of misogyny, and instead I shifted the discussion to gun control. In this example, I didn't feel inclined to write anything about misogyny, so I wrote about what came to mind. Actually, Rick, you punted twice. Now this is your third. LOL What are you, the topic police? I'll write about what I'm inclined to write about. If I don't have add to a discussion, I'm not going to dredge up a comment just to appear politically correct. Four and counting. LOL
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rick Archer Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:32 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk Actually, Rick, you punted twice. Now this is your third. LOL What are you, the topic police? I'll write about what I'm inclined to write about. If I don't have add to a discussion, I'm not going to dredge up a comment just to appear politically correct. Meant to say, If I don't have anything to add to a discussion... Five.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nelson Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 6:37 PM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of shempmcgurk Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 11:34 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk Herbert obviously has a gun-control agenda and that's all very well and good. But, hey, Timothy McVeigh had a great hatred for the U.S. Government and he didn't use ANY guns in expressing that hatredall he needed was some fertilizer...and hundreds died. Guns are really beside the point. Where do you draw the line, Shemp? Automatic weapons? Assault rifles? Bazookas? Suitcase nukes? The more powerful the weapon, the easier it is to kill lots of people with it. Laws are meant to restrict individual liberties to the extent necessary to prevent harm to other individuals. By that definition, gun laws are too lax. +++ To the criminal element, laws are meaningless and only create more burden for good citizens. I assume it's illegal to buy all the components McVeigh used to build his bomb, or at least it's necessary to show proof of why you need to buy them, such as blasting caps. Would you agree that certain weapons should be unobtainable, and/or that ownership of any weapon should require registration at least as onerous as a driver's license? Some very serious stuff can be made out of supplies found at the local supermarket and hardware store. You can kill someone with a hammer, or a pencil for that matter. But it's easier and more impersonal with a gun. And the more powerful the weapon, the easier it is to kill more people. But hey, since the constitutional justification for owning guns is to maintain a standing militia, presumably to repel British invasion or Indian attacks in the absence of a professional military, and since these days foreign invasion could come in the form of nuclear missiles, to be true to the Constitution everyone should be able to own a nuclear missile.
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 12:53 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Hi Judy, You beat me to it. I was going to post Violet Sock's blog about this story which she says the media pretty much buried. Her take on it is that the dudes don't see it as a hate crime. I'm glad to see Bob Herbert write about it. That's the main reason I posted it. Some of the men on this forum seem to think the misogyny in this country and the resulting violence against women is just a feminist victim fantasy. Judy, the dudes on FFLife are a riot. Shemp shifts the conversation from Women at Risk to gun control. Then, without any irony he says, Guns are really beside the point. I'm still laughing. Rick gets into it with Shemp about lax gun control laws. He hits all the leftwing talking points denouncing: automatic weapons, assault rifles, bazookas, suitcase nukes and blasting caps. Does he denounce misogyny if given the opportunity? Of course he doesn't. An argument about gun control with Shemp is more important to him. Do we all have to chime in every time the misogyny topic comes up? Does my addressing the gun law issue instead of the topic of the thread mean I'm a misogynist? Have I said anything else to indicate that I am? I concur with your concerns, but I feel that you address them far more eloquently than I would be able to. I don't have as much time to post as some people here do, and I could never write posts as long as some do, so I don't comment on every post that shows up.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: From the New York Times: August 8, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist Women at Risk By BOB HERBERT I actually look good. I dress good, am clean- shaven, bathe, touch of cologne yet 30 million women rejected me, wrote George Sodini in a blog that he kept while preparing for this week's shooting in a Pennsylvania gym in which he killed three women, wounded nine others and then killed himself. We've seen this tragic ritual so often that it has the feel of a formula. A guy is filled with a seething rage toward women and has easy access to guns. The result: mass slaughter We profess to being shocked at one or another of these outlandish crimes, but the shock wears off quickly in an environment in which the rape, murder and humiliation of females is not only a staple of the news, but an important cornerstone of the nation's entertainment. The mainstream culture is filled with the most gruesome forms of misogyny, and pornography is now a multibillion-dollar industry much of it controlled by mainstream U.S. corporations. One of the striking things about mass killings in the U.S. is how consistently we find that the killers were riddled with shame and sexual humiliation, which they inevitably blamed on women and girls. The answer to their feelings of inadequacy was to get their hands on a gun (or guns) and begin blowing people away Life in the United States is mind-bogglingly violent. But we should take particular notice of the staggering amounts of violence brought down on the nation's women and girls each and every day for no other reason than who they are. They are attacked because they are female We would become much more sane, much healthier, as a society if we could bring ourselves to acknowledge that misogyny is a serious and pervasive problem, and that the twisted way so many men feel about women, combined with the absurdly easy availability of guns, is a toxic mix of the most tragic proportions. Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/opinion/08herbert.html?_r=1 http://tinyurl.com/nazqyf Well, seems in all fairness I should mention that the the rape, murder and humiliation of EVERYONE is just great entertainment in the media. We kill millions of more men in movies then women, not only that, but we kill them en mass in the movies, and war? DAYAM, we have to FIGHT for the RIGHT to go be killed in war, as a woman,LOL. When we do kill a woman in the movies it's all special and slow like it is a grand event. Just like this poor mentally Ill guy, made a HUGE deal out of it, poor bastard, killed himself too, he didn't die without the female sex however, men, its no big deal to kill in the movies we apparently feel, or anywhere else. Women and children, thats who we shouldn't kill. C'mon, talk about sexism, we can just pop men off like scattering seeds in a field. No wonder poor guys feel a little pissed off. Having said that, What about the true humiliation we do to women? I am a woman.Have you driven by the square? I just feel like running something over every time I see those stupid dolls. Not that I dislike dolls, not that they aren't pretty, but has any one THOUGHT about what they represent? And in a nice way on top of it all? Let's examine this, it is a symbol of a woman, boobs, fashion clothes, and any old dayam thing you can find to stick out of its head, a shoe, a stick, it doesn't matter. Cuz the important parts are there, she is skewered on a stick so she can't leave, she has no power (legs) and she is dressed to be pretty for us,nice boobs very visible, with a hat with no head for it, do we REALLY REALLY REALLY get what is humiliating about what society tells us we are as women? Fawk, its a miracle we aren't mowing MEN down in the gyms. But I'll bet 3 ass hairs it's a woman who created those 'pwetty wittle dolls' up there. It's the woman who says who REALLY lives and dies. Untill maybe 150 yrs ago if a mother of an infant died,that baby died too, unless ANOTHER nursing mother could be found or by a small chance some goat or cow milk would help that baby. The ONLY way a man CAN dominate us is by making us think GOD made it that way, cuz the truth is, we can go amazon anytime. You take control and tell your baby boys how to treat you as a mother and viola, problem solved for all society. It is the hurt from the IMBALANCE of this unnatural skewering of both men AND women. It doesn't matter who is off in the ying and yang,they will both be out of their true inner power if the whole gets imbalanced. I don't want my baby boy to die any more then I want my baby girl to die, call it his honor or his JOB to DIE or call it what you will, I WILL THROW MYSELF IN FRONT OF A BULLET FOR MY BABY BOY ANY DAY ! ! ! And that is my honor. Put that up on the fucking square. Give
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mirza mirzamayl...@... wrote: snip I tell ya, its all sick. WE are SICK. ME and YOU, and we gotta know it to stop it and do something better. clapclapclapclapclap Brava, mirza, great rant.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mirza mirzamaylord@ wrote: snip I tell ya, its all sick. WE are SICK. ME and YOU, and we gotta know it to stop it and do something better. clapclapclapclapclap Brava, mirza, great rant. Big smile. Thanks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mirza mirzamayl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: From the New York Times: August 8, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist Women at Risk By BOB HERBERT I actually look good. I dress good, am clean- shaven, bathe, touch of cologne yet 30 million women rejected me, wrote George Sodini in a blog that he kept while preparing for this week's shooting in a Pennsylvania gym in which he killed three women, wounded nine others and then killed himself. We've seen this tragic ritual so often that it has the feel of a formula. A guy is filled with a seething rage toward women and has easy access to guns. The result: mass slaughter We profess to being shocked at one or another of these outlandish crimes, but the shock wears off quickly in an environment in which the rape, murder and humiliation of females is not only a staple of the news, but an important cornerstone of the nation's entertainment. The mainstream culture is filled with the most gruesome forms of misogyny, and pornography is now a multibillion-dollar industry much of it controlled by mainstream U.S. corporations. One of the striking things about mass killings in the U.S. is how consistently we find that the killers were riddled with shame and sexual humiliation, which they inevitably blamed on women and girls. The answer to their feelings of inadequacy was to get their hands on a gun (or guns) and begin blowing people away Life in the United States is mind-bogglingly violent. But we should take particular notice of the staggering amounts of violence brought down on the nation's women and girls each and every day for no other reason than who they are. They are attacked because they are female We would become much more sane, much healthier, as a society if we could bring ourselves to acknowledge that misogyny is a serious and pervasive problem, and that the twisted way so many men feel about women, combined with the absurdly easy availability of guns, is a toxic mix of the most tragic proportions. Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/opinion/08herbert.html?_r=1 http://tinyurl.com/nazqyf Well, seems in all fairness I should mention that the the rape, murder and humiliation of EVERYONE is just great entertainment in the media. We kill millions of more men in movies then women, not only that, but we kill them en mass in the movies, and war? DAYAM, we have to FIGHT for the RIGHT to go be killed in war, as a woman,LOL. When we do kill a woman in the movies it's all special and slow like it is a grand event. Just like this poor mentally Ill guy, made a HUGE deal out of it, poor bastard, killed himself too, he didn't die without the female sex however, men, its no big deal to kill in the movies we apparently feel, or anywhere else. Women and children, thats who we shouldn't kill. C'mon, talk about sexism, we can just pop men off like scattering seeds in a field. No wonder poor guys feel a little pissed off. Having said that, What about the true humiliation we do to women? I am a woman.Have you driven by the square? I just feel like running something over every time I see those stupid dolls. Not that I dislike dolls, not that they aren't pretty, but has any one THOUGHT about what they represent? And in a nice way on top of it all? Let's examine this, it is a symbol of a woman, boobs, fashion clothes, and any old dayam thing you can find to stick out of its head, a shoe, a stick, it doesn't matter. Cuz the important parts are there, she is skewered on a stick so she can't leave, she has no power (legs) and she is dressed to be pretty for us,nice boobs very visible, with a hat with no head for it, do we REALLY REALLY REALLY get what is humiliating about what society tells us we are as women? Fawk, its a miracle we aren't mowing MEN down in the gyms. But I'll bet 3 ass hairs it's a woman who created those 'pwetty wittle dolls' up there. It's the woman who says who REALLY lives and dies. Untill maybe 150 yrs ago if a mother of an infant died,that baby died too, unless ANOTHER nursing mother could be found or by a small chance some goat or cow milk would help that baby. The ONLY way a man CAN dominate us is by making us think GOD made it that way, cuz the truth is, we can go amazon anytime. You take control and tell your baby boys how to treat you as a mother and viola, problem solved for all society. It is the hurt from the IMBALANCE of this unnatural skewering of both men AND women. It doesn't matter who is off in the ying and yang,they will both be out of their true inner power if the whole gets imbalanced. I don't want my baby boy to die any more then I want my baby girl to die, call it his honor or his
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
Mirza, I feel you. Thank you for such a fabulous rant. I have to fess up. I consider myself a feminist but just to show you how much I've been conditioned to accepting the portrayal of women as objects, it never occurred to me just how offensive the mannequins on the square really can be to an open and aware woman like yourself. I just thought of it as art. They are decorated beautifully, but looking at the deeper significance of what they represent as you have so eloquently written, all I can say is, I would love to throw rocks with you. Write to me privately on yahoo email. I have some real trust issues with the some of the dudes on this forum. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mirza mirzamayl...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: From the New York Times: August 8, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist Women at Risk By BOB HERBERT I actually look good. I dress good, am clean- shaven, bathe, touch of cologne yet 30 million women rejected me, wrote George Sodini in a blog that he kept while preparing for this week's shooting in a Pennsylvania gym in which he killed three women, wounded nine others and then killed himself. We've seen this tragic ritual so often that it has the feel of a formula. A guy is filled with a seething rage toward women and has easy access to guns. The result: mass slaughter We profess to being shocked at one or another of these outlandish crimes, but the shock wears off quickly in an environment in which the rape, murder and humiliation of females is not only a staple of the news, but an important cornerstone of the nation's entertainment. The mainstream culture is filled with the most gruesome forms of misogyny, and pornography is now a multibillion-dollar industry much of it controlled by mainstream U.S. corporations. One of the striking things about mass killings in the U.S. is how consistently we find that the killers were riddled with shame and sexual humiliation, which they inevitably blamed on women and girls. The answer to their feelings of inadequacy was to get their hands on a gun (or guns) and begin blowing people away Life in the United States is mind-bogglingly violent. But we should take particular notice of the staggering amounts of violence brought down on the nation's women and girls each and every day for no other reason than who they are. They are attacked because they are female We would become much more sane, much healthier, as a society if we could bring ourselves to acknowledge that misogyny is a serious and pervasive problem, and that the twisted way so many men feel about women, combined with the absurdly easy availability of guns, is a toxic mix of the most tragic proportions. Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/opinion/08herbert.html?_r=1 http://tinyurl.com/nazqyf Well, seems in all fairness I should mention that the the rape, murder and humiliation of EVERYONE is just great entertainment in the media. We kill millions of more men in movies then women, not only that, but we kill them en mass in the movies, and war? DAYAM, we have to FIGHT for the RIGHT to go be killed in war, as a woman,LOL. When we do kill a woman in the movies it's all special and slow like it is a grand event. Just like this poor mentally Ill guy, made a HUGE deal out of it, poor bastard, killed himself too, he didn't die without the female sex however, men, its no big deal to kill in the movies we apparently feel, or anywhere else. Women and children, thats who we shouldn't kill. C'mon, talk about sexism, we can just pop men off like scattering seeds in a field. No wonder poor guys feel a little pissed off. Having said that, What about the true humiliation we do to women? I am a woman.Have you driven by the square? I just feel like running something over every time I see those stupid dolls. Not that I dislike dolls, not that they aren't pretty, but has any one THOUGHT about what they represent? And in a nice way on top of it all? Let's examine this, it is a symbol of a woman, boobs, fashion clothes, and any old dayam thing you can find to stick out of its head, a shoe, a stick, it doesn't matter. Cuz the important parts are there, she is skewered on a stick so she can't leave, she has no power (legs) and she is dressed to be pretty for us,nice boobs very visible, with a hat with no head for it, do we REALLY REALLY REALLY get what is humiliating about what society tells us we are as women? Fawk, its a miracle we aren't mowing MEN down in the gyms. But I'll bet 3 ass hairs it's a woman who created those 'pwetty wittle dolls' up there. It's the woman who says who REALLY lives and dies. Untill maybe 150 yrs ago if a mother of an infant died,that baby died too, unless ANOTHER
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of raunchydog Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 12:53 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com , raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Hi Judy, You beat me to it. I was going to post Violet Sock's blog about this story which she says the media pretty much buried. Her take on it is that the dudes don't see it as a hate crime. I'm glad to see Bob Herbert write about it. That's the main reason I posted it. Some of the men on this forum seem to think the misogyny in this country and the resulting violence against women is just a feminist victim fantasy. Judy, the dudes on FFLife are a riot. Shemp shifts the conversation from Women at Risk to gun control. Then, without any irony he says, Guns are really beside the point. I'm still laughing. Rick gets into it with Shemp about lax gun control laws. He hits all the leftwing talking points denouncing: automatic weapons, assault rifles, bazookas, suitcase nukes and blasting caps. Does he denounce misogyny if given the opportunity? Of course he doesn't. An argument about gun control with Shemp is more important to him. Do we all have to chime in every time the misogyny topic comes up? Does my addressing the gun law issue instead of the topic of the thread mean I'm a misogynist? Have I said anything else to indicate that I am? I concur with your concerns, but I feel that you address them far more eloquently than I would be able to. I don't have as much time to post as some people here do, and I could never write posts as long as some do, so I don't comment on every post that shows up. Rick, Rattle on about anything you like. It doesn't mean you're a misogynist. I'm just making an observation that given the opportunity to weigh in on the topic you punt.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Rick, Rattle on about anything you like. It doesn't mean you're a misogynist. I'm just making an observation that given the opportunity to weigh in on the topic you punt. Can you provide an actual example of this?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sun...@... wrote: raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Rick, Rattle on about anything you like. It doesn't mean you're a misogynist. I'm just making an observation that given the opportunity to weigh in on the topic you punt. Can you provide an actual example of this? Rick wrote: Do we all have to chime in every time the misogyny topic comes up? Does my addressing the gun law issue instead of the topic of the thread mean I'm a misogynist? Have I said anything else to indicate that I am? I concur with your concerns, but I feel that you address them far more eloquently than I would be able to. I don't have as much time to post as some people here do, and I could never write posts as long as some do, so I don't comment on every post that shows up. I call that a punt.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
Hi Judy, You beat me to it. I was going to post Violet Sock's blog about this story which she says the media pretty much buried. Her take on it is that the dudes don't see it as a hate crime. I'm glad to see Bob Herbert write about it. http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/08/07/dudes-search-for-something-important-in-hate-crime-to-be-upset-about/ http://tinyurl.com/lcdlo2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: From the New York Times: August 8, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist Women at Risk By BOB HERBERT I actually look good. I dress good, am clean- shaven, bathe, touch of cologne yet 30 million women rejected me, wrote George Sodini in a blog that he kept while preparing for this week's shooting in a Pennsylvania gym in which he killed three women, wounded nine others and then killed himself. We've seen this tragic ritual so often that it has the feel of a formula. A guy is filled with a seething rage toward women and has easy access to guns. The result: mass slaughter We profess to being shocked at one or another of these outlandish crimes, but the shock wears off quickly in an environment in which the rape, murder and humiliation of females is not only a staple of the news, but an important cornerstone of the nation's entertainment. The mainstream culture is filled with the most gruesome forms of misogyny, and pornography is now a multibillion-dollar industry much of it controlled by mainstream U.S. corporations. One of the striking things about mass killings in the U.S. is how consistently we find that the killers were riddled with shame and sexual humiliation, which they inevitably blamed on women and girls. The answer to their feelings of inadequacy was to get their hands on a gun (or guns) and begin blowing people away Life in the United States is mind-bogglingly violent. But we should take particular notice of the staggering amounts of violence brought down on the nation's women and girls each and every day for no other reason than who they are. They are attacked because they are female We would become much more sane, much healthier, as a society if we could bring ourselves to acknowledge that misogyny is a serious and pervasive problem, and that the twisted way so many men feel about women, combined with the absurdly easy availability of guns, is a toxic mix of the most tragic proportions. Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/opinion/08herbert.html?_r=1 http://tinyurl.com/nazqyf
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Hi Judy, You beat me to it. I was going to post Violet Sock's blog about this story which she says the media pretty much buried. Her take on it is that the dudes don't see it as a hate crime. I'm glad to see Bob Herbert write about it. http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/08/07/dudes-search-for-something-important-in-hate-crime-to-be-upset-about/ http://tinyurl.com/lcdlo2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: From the New York Times: August 8, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist Women at Risk By BOB HERBERT I actually look good. I dress good, am clean- shaven, bathe, touch of cologne yet 30 million women rejected me, wrote George Sodini in a blog that he kept while preparing for this week's shooting in a Pennsylvania gym in which he killed three women, wounded nine others and then killed himself. We've seen this tragic ritual so often that it has the feel of a formula. A guy is filled with a seething rage toward women and has easy access to guns. The result: mass slaughter We profess to being shocked at one or another of these outlandish crimes, but the shock wears off quickly in an environment in which the rape, murder and humiliation of females is not only a staple of the news, but an important cornerstone of the nation's entertainment. The mainstream culture is filled with the most gruesome forms of misogyny, and pornography is now a multibillion-dollar industry much of it controlled by mainstream U.S. corporations. One of the striking things about mass killings in the U.S. is how consistently we find that the killers were riddled with shame and sexual humiliation, which they inevitably blamed on women and girls. The answer to their feelings of inadequacy was to get their hands on a gun (or guns) and begin blowing people away Life in the United States is mind-bogglingly violent. But we should take particular notice of the staggering amounts of violence brought down on the nation's women and girls each and every day for no other reason than who they are. They are attacked because they are female We would become much more sane, much healthier, as a society if we could bring ourselves to acknowledge that misogyny is a serious and pervasive problem, and that the twisted way so many men feel about women, combined with the absurdly easy availability of guns, is a toxic mix of the most tragic proportions. Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/opinion/08herbert.html?_r=1 http://tinyurl.com/nazqyf Herbert obviously has a gun-control agenda and that's all very well and good. But, hey, Timothy McVeigh had a great hatred for the U.S. Government and he didn't use ANY guns in expressing that hatredall he needed was some fertilizer...and hundreds died. Guns are really beside the point.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
The media buried this story? It's been given loads of time on repeat days on ABC's Good Morning America. Herbert's discussion of misogyny stops at our shores, but as I read his piece I couldn't help but think, The Taliban feel the way Sodini felt, too. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Hi Judy, You beat me to it. I was going to post Violet Sock's blog about this story which she says the media pretty much buried. Her take on it is that the dudes don't see it as a hate crime. I'm glad to see Bob Herbert write about it. http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/08/07/dudes-search-for-something-important-in-hate-crime-to-be-upset-about/ http://tinyurl.com/lcdlo2 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: From the New York Times: August 8, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist Women at Risk By BOB HERBERT I actually look good. I dress good, am clean- shaven, bathe, touch of cologne yet 30 million women rejected me, wrote George Sodini in a blog that he kept while preparing for this week's shooting in a Pennsylvania gym in which he killed three women, wounded nine others and then killed himself. We've seen this tragic ritual so often that it has the feel of a formula. A guy is filled with a seething rage toward women and has easy access to guns. The result: mass slaughter We profess to being shocked at one or another of these outlandish crimes, but the shock wears off quickly in an environment in which the rape, murder and humiliation of females is not only a staple of the news, but an important cornerstone of the nation's entertainment. The mainstream culture is filled with the most gruesome forms of misogyny, and pornography is now a multibillion-dollar industry much of it controlled by mainstream U.S. corporations. One of the striking things about mass killings in the U.S. is how consistently we find that the killers were riddled with shame and sexual humiliation, which they inevitably blamed on women and girls. The answer to their feelings of inadequacy was to get their hands on a gun (or guns) and begin blowing people away Life in the United States is mind-bogglingly violent. But we should take particular notice of the staggering amounts of violence brought down on the nation's women and girls each and every day for no other reason than who they are. They are attacked because they are female We would become much more sane, much healthier, as a society if we could bring ourselves to acknowledge that misogyny is a serious and pervasive problem, and that the twisted way so many men feel about women, combined with the absurdly easy availability of guns, is a toxic mix of the most tragic proportions. Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/opinion/08herbert.html?_r=1 http://tinyurl.com/nazqyf
RE: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of shempmcgurk Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 11:34 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk Herbert obviously has a gun-control agenda and that's all very well and good. But, hey, Timothy McVeigh had a great hatred for the U.S. Government and he didn't use ANY guns in expressing that hatredall he needed was some fertilizer...and hundreds died. Guns are really beside the point. Where do you draw the line, Shemp? Automatic weapons? Assault rifles? Bazookas? Suitcase nukes? The more powerful the weapon, the easier it is to kill lots of people with it. Laws are meant to restrict individual liberties to the extent necessary to prevent harm to other individuals. By that definition, gun laws are too lax. I assume it's illegal to buy all the components McVeigh used to build his bomb, or at least it's necessary to show proof of why you need to buy them, such as blasting caps. Would you agree that certain weapons should be unobtainable, and/or that ownership of any weapon should require registration at least as onerous as a driver's license?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchy...@... wrote: Hi Judy, You beat me to it. I was going to post Violet Sock's blog about this story which she says the media pretty much buried. Her take on it is that the dudes don't see it as a hate crime. I'm glad to see Bob Herbert write about it. That's the main reason I posted it. Some of the men on this forum seem to think the misogyny in this country and the resulting violence against women is just a feminist victim fantasy.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer r...@... wrote: From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of shempmcgurk Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 11:34 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk Herbert obviously has a gun-control agenda and that's all very well and good. But, hey, Timothy McVeigh had a great hatred for the U.S. Government and he didn't use ANY guns in expressing that hatredall he needed was some fertilizer...and hundreds died. Guns are really beside the point. Where do you draw the line, Shemp? Automatic weapons? Assault rifles? Bazookas? Suitcase nukes? The more powerful the weapon, the easier it is to kill lots of people with it. Laws are meant to restrict individual liberties to the extent necessary to prevent harm to other individuals. By that definition, gun laws are too lax. +++ To the criminal element, laws are meaningless and only create more burden for good citizens. I assume it's illegal to buy all the components McVeigh used to build his bomb, or at least it's necessary to show proof of why you need to buy them, such as blasting caps. Would you agree that certain weapons should be unobtainable, and/or that ownership of any weapon should require registration at least as onerous as a driver's license? Some very serious stuff can be made out of supplies found at the local supermarket and hardware store.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Women at Risk
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: Hi Judy, You beat me to it. I was going to post Violet Sock's blog about this story which she says the media pretty much buried. Her take on it is that the dudes don't see it as a hate crime. I'm glad to see Bob Herbert write about it. That's the main reason I posted it. Some of the men on this forum seem to think the misogyny in this country and the resulting violence against women is just a feminist victim fantasy. Judy, the dudes on FFLife are a riot. Shemp shifts the conversation from Women at Risk to gun control. Then, without any irony he says, Guns are really beside the point. I'm still laughing. Rick gets into it with Shemp about lax gun control laws. He hits all the leftwing talking points denouncing: automatic weapons, assault rifles, bazookas, suitcase nukes and blasting caps. Does he denounce misogyny if given the opportunity? Of course he doesn't. An argument about gun control with Shemp is more important to him. Nelson chimes in about making bombs from supermarket supplies. Patrick was on topic. Nice. Thanks, Patrick.
