Question for Moderator was Re: Fag hawks / Threats to straight guys

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

LOL! You've just eliminated any possibility of including links to
web sites in smm posts!

I thought that perhaps this was settled back in October. I have the entire
thread (and a complete personal archive), but the post I've attached below
seems to have been the ultimate outcome.

Just for the record, if I were a moderator, I'd have approved Jayne's post,
but in an unmoderated group, I'd have flamed her hairless for making it.

I believe in free speech, but I also believe in self-moderation: some things
should just not be said. And this site, to me, exemplifies the latter.

If one substitutes a derogatory word for an ethnic group in lieu of "bitch,"
the offensiveness of the site becomes crystal clear.

rl

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:26:31 -0700, Mark Borgerson

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 20:00:58 -0700, Mark Borgerson

<<SNIP>>

It exists. If the reference or titles bother you, don't read
the pages.

I didn't see the link so you accusing me of being bothered by

titles

on reference pages is a strawman on your part.

Did the links not show up in your newsreader? I was referring to the
links and titles in the post---not to the pages to which the links
point. I'm not concerned with the content of the pages to which
the links point.
"There is an interesting take on current sexual mores of the
East-coast urban population at
www.justanotherlink-dot-org
would you expect the moderators to track down that page, and
any others to which it links, to make sure that none of
those pages contained objectionable content?
My action, as a moderator, is to judge the content of the post.
As a group reader, I will follow the links if I find the the subject
interesting and I have the time. In this case, I had neither the
time, nor the interest.

The subject line in the post to SMM is what bothered me. It is
counter to what this group was allegedly set up to keep out.

It may bother you and a lot of other people. I feel that it is
within the terms of the charter.

That means
this post stands on it's own merit...of which it has none other

than

to serve as annoying and vulgar troll posting. Supposedly that

was

the purpose of moderation--to make sure troll posts like this

don't

get through on SMM.

Nope. The purpose of moderation is to enforce the charter. I don't
find anything in the post (and the post alone) that violates the
charter.

I believe the charter forbids trolling posts. This one certainly
qualifies as such IMO.

My understanding of 'trolling' is that it must have some element of
deception as well as an intent to provoke controversy. I investigated
the POST to the extent that I found the link to be valid. By that
criterion, the post is truthful, although mildly(IMHO) controversial.

If you would like a greater voice in the interpretation of the

charter,

volunteer to become a moderator!

That would be a conflict of interest for me. I told you before I

want

to see SMM fail, however, I will not do anything to actively sabotage
it. I want to see it fail on its own lack of merit.

In that case, it would seem that discussions like this are in conflict
with your purpose! ;-)

Also, per the charter it takes only ONE moderator to approve a post.
You could have approved this one and there'd be nothing a second,
third, or fourth moderator could do about it. That also makes the
whole "moderation" process a huge joke and it certainly gives me
little reason to want to volunteer for a purposeless job.

Ahh, but once accepted as a moderator, you have the opportunity to
vote on the moderation process---and new moderators!

This is a prime example of why I see the efforts to "moderate" SMM

as

being a huge joke.

Hmmm, so now I have Tom Smith's opinion that the best moderation

policy

is to allow everything, and I have your admonition that I should be
more conservative in the interpretation of the charter. At least
we have people expressing opinions. IIRC, that is one of the

reasons

for having a newsgroup! ;-)

This isn't "a newsgroup." It is a *moderated* newsgroup. That is a
difference with a distinction. If you're not going to bother
moderating for the contents and links in posts then what's the point
of any moderation?

In set theory, I would describe moderated newsgroups as a subset
of all newsgroups. Moderated groups share many of their

characteristics

with unmoderated groups---the primary difference in the case of smm is
that the robomoderator enforces a 'no cross-posting' rule. At this
time my moderation is primarily a matter of rejecting commercial
emails, as there haven't been a significant number of posts violating
the other elements of the charter.
Mark Borgerson
Moderator, soc.men.moderated

"OK, so you have no responsibility in what gets posted. Got it."
That pretty much sums it up.

Yup. If it appears in the newsgroup, it meets my criteria of
acceptability according to the charter. My responsibility ends
there. It's up to the ng members to decide whether the content
contains, or points to, ideas that they find objectionable.
At this point, it seems that some prefer to 'shoot the messenger'
rather than discuss the content pointed to by the post.
Some people always want to take the easy way out---particularly,
I suppose, if their goal it to see the failure of the newsgroup.
Mark Borgerson

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:14:53 -0400, Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:

[...]

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
I believe in free speech, but I also believe in self-moderation: some things
should just not be said. And this site, to me, exemplifies the latter.
If one substitutes a derogatory word for an ethnic group in lieu of "bitch,"
the offensiveness of the site becomes crystal clear.

I do not see the Bitch Management site's use of the word "bitch" as
parallel to a derogatory term for an ethnic group. He is saying that it is
a derogatory term for those who accept an ideology that he finds
unacceptable. I see it as parallel to saying Republicans/Democrats/both
are idiots.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

some things should just not be said. And this site, to me,
exemplifies the latter.
If one substitutes a derogatory word for an ethnic group in lieu of
"bitch," the offensiveness of the site becomes crystal clear.

I do not see the Bitch Management site's use of the word "bitch" as
parallel to a derogatory term for an ethnic group. He is saying that
it is a derogatory term for those who accept an ideology that he finds
unacceptable.

Like the KKK does not accept the ideology that blacks are equal to
whites.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I see it as parallel to saying
Republicans/Democrats/both are idiots.

We seem to have read two entirely different sites.

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

some things should just not be said. And this site, to me,
exemplifies the latter.
If one substitutes a derogatory word for an ethnic group in lieu of
"bitch," the offensiveness of the site becomes crystal clear.

I do not see the Bitch Management site's use of the word "bitch" as
parallel to a derogatory term for an ethnic group. He is saying that
it is a derogatory term for those who accept an ideology that he finds
unacceptable.

Like the KKK does not accept the ideology that blacks are equal to
whites.

The site's author is opposed to feminism, which he believes teaches, in
effect, that women are superior to men. He believes that men and women are
different, have different natural functions, and will be happier when they
fulfill their functions. He believes that feminism promotes a sense of
entitlement in women. One of his major complaints about feminism is that it
gives lip service to equality while actually putting women in the superior
position. (I agree with all of these points.)

I do not see how this is in any way parallel to the position of the KKK.

He further believes that, in a relationship, the man's function includes
bearing more authority and responsibility while the woman's function
involves giving respect and nurturing. He sees the roles as complementary
and, when these roles are properly filled, a man will do everything he can
to make his woman happy. (I tend to agree with this too, since it matches
my personal experience.)

You may disagree with some or all of his points, but surely you could do so
more cogently than an unsupported assertion that his beliefs are analagous
to violent racism. Perhaps your negative impression of the site comes more
from the style than the content. The author does acknowledge that he may
be coming across too strong for some people and has an alternate
introduction in which he states his position. It is at:
http://newschool27.googlepages.com/pussyintro
I wonder if reading this would give you a different impression than your
existing one.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

some things should just not be said. And this site, to me,
exemplifies the latter.
If one substitutes a derogatory word for an ethnic group in lieu of
"bitch," the offensiveness of the site becomes crystal clear.

I do not see the Bitch Management site's use of the word "bitch" as
parallel to a derogatory term for an ethnic group. He is saying
that it is a derogatory term for those who accept an ideology that
he finds unacceptable.

Like the KKK does not accept the ideology that blacks are equal to
whites.

The site's author is opposed to feminism, which he believes teaches,
in effect, that women are superior to men. He believes that men and
women are different, have different natural functions, and will be
happier when they fulfill their functions. He believes that feminism
promotes a sense of entitlement in women. One of his major complaints
about feminism is that it gives lip service to equality while
actually putting women in the superior position. (I agree with all
of these points.)
I do not see how this is in any way parallel to the position of the KKK.

He believes that men are superior to women.

"...men are naturally smarter (we invented everything), more capable,
stronger, etc. we NATURALLY have a certain FUNCTION assigned to us by
our design..."

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
He further believes that, in a relationship, the man's function
includes bearing more authority and responsibility while the woman's
function involves giving respect and nurturing. He sees the roles as
complementary and, when these roles are properly filled, a man will
do everything he can to make his woman happy. (I tend to agree with
this too, since it matches my personal experience.)

Taken out of context, this sounds a whole lot different than it does
within the context from which it came.

But I can read on a racist website about how Affirmative Action is
wrong, and I agree with that too. "A stopped clock...etc."

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
You may disagree with some or all of his points, but surely you could
do so more cogently than an unsupported assertion that his beliefs
are analagous to violent racism. Perhaps your negative impression of
the site comes more from the style than the content. The author does
acknowledge that he may be coming across too strong for some people
and has an alternate introduction in which he states his position.
It is at: http://newschool27.googlepages.com/pussyintro
I wonder if reading this would give you a different impression than
your existing one.

Did you ever find the part about "sex will be a prerequisite to dating
you"? Read the rest of /that/ page:

http://newschool27.googlepages.com/home

Have you seen his BI overage in soc.men? I'm talking about the content
of the posts, not just about the fact that he's a net abuser.

Have you read the rest of his site?

Try this article first:

http://newschool27.googlepages.com/theinfluencesoffeminismandhowithasfucked

Then read some of the rest of them.

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

[re: Bitch Management webiste]

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
The site's author is opposed to feminism, which he believes teaches,
in effect, that women are superior to men. He believes that men and
women are different, have different natural functions, and will be
happier when they fulfill their functions. He believes that feminism
promotes a sense of entitlement in women. One of his major complaints
about feminism is that it gives lip service to equality while
actually putting women in the superior position. (I agree with all
of these points.)
I do not see how this is in any way parallel to the position of the KKK.

He believes that men are superior to women.
"...men are naturally smarter (we invented everything), more capable,
stronger, etc. we NATURALLY have a certain FUNCTION assigned to us by
our design..."

He clearly believes that men are superior to women *in specific areas*. I
agree. Statistically, men are more likely to be geniuses than women, are
more likely to be physically stronger, etc. I'm not sure that he sees men
as superior in general. He makes comments like, "you can have GREAT
character as a female. it's even possible to have BETTER character than
your husband AS A FEMALE" and "it is possible for you to fulfill your
function as a woman better than he fulfills his function as a man." Even
the phrase you quote above is completed by "this is why we men bear the
burden of responsibility if something goes wrong."

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
He further believes that, in a relationship, the man's function
includes bearing more authority and responsibility while the woman's
function involves giving respect and nurturing. He sees the roles as
complementary and, when these roles are properly filled, a man will
do everything he can to make his woman happy. (I tend to agree with
this too, since it matches my personal experience.)

Taken out of context, this sounds a whole lot different than it does
within the context from which it came.

The context of the website includes a lot of emotionally loaded language.
Not surprisingly, people tend to react to this emotionally. I think that
anyone who takes the effort to get past this and logically examines the
ideas on the site will see something more like what I see.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
But I can read on a racist website about how Affirmative Action is
wrong, and I agree with that too. "A stopped clock...etc."

I have been describing what I see as the site's basic ideas. I do not
think that this is a case of a basically flawed ideology happening to get
one or two things right as in your analogy.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
You may disagree with some or all of his points, but surely you could
do so more cogently than an unsupported assertion that his beliefs
are analagous to violent racism. Perhaps your negative impression of
the site comes more from the style than the content. The author does
acknowledge that he may be coming across too strong for some people
and has an alternate introduction in which he states his position.
It is at: http://newschool27.googlepages.com/pussyintro
I wonder if reading this would give you a different impression than
your existing one.

Did you ever find the part about "sex will be a prerequisite to dating
http://newschool27.googlepages.com/home

Personally, I ascribe to the view that ideally sex should only be within
marriage. I am quite used to having people disagree with me. Given that
people are having sex outside of marriage, I can sympathize with men
adopting strategies to see that their sexual needs are met. After all,
there is very little in our current social structures and customs to help
men in this area. It seems to me that men are expected to approach women
in supplication and to feel gratititude for getting sex. I find this
expectation much more shocking than sex outside of marriage.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
Have you seen his BI overage in soc.men? I'm talking about the content
of the posts, not just about the fact that he's a net abuser.
Have you read the rest of his site?

I have read many of the articles on the site, though I tend to avoid the
ones about picking up women, this not being an area of interest of mine.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
http://newschool27.googlepages.com/theinfluencesoffeminismandhowithasfucked

I agree with most of this article. I agree that men are unfairly demonized
for wanting sex. I agree that feminism has damaged male-female
relationships. I agree that there are natural functions associated with
gender and that people are happier when fulfilling their functions. I
agree that TV constantly portrays men in a negative and disrespectful way.
I agree that a man is likely to respond to a woman who meets his emotional
and sexual needs by caring for her and looking out for her interests. I
agree that it is foolish for women to compete with men.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
Then read some of the rest of them.

I have. In general, I have strong reservations about writing that adopts a
polemical style and feel so regarding this site, as well. The author often
makes generalizations where I would prefer to acknowledge the existence of
exceptions. He makes many statements that I think would be improved by
some sort of qualifier. My concerns, however, mainly pertain to stylistic
issues. As far as the basic content goes, I tend to agree, or at least
sympathize, with the vast majority of the ideas expressed.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[re: Bitch Management webiste]

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
The site's author is opposed to feminism, which he believes teaches,
in effect, that women are superior to men. He believes that men and
women are different, have different natural functions, and will be
happier when they fulfill their functions. He believes that feminism
promotes a sense of entitlement in women. One of his major
complaints about feminism is that it gives lip service to equality
while actually putting women in the superior position. (I agree
with all of these points.)
I do not see how this is in any way parallel to the position of the KKK.

He believes that men are superior to women.
"...men are naturally smarter (we invented everything), more capable,
stronger, etc. we NATURALLY have a certain FUNCTION assigned to us by
our design..."

He clearly believes that men are superior to women *in specific
areas*. I agree. Statistically, men are more likely to be geniuses
than women,

This factoid is in dispute.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
are more likely to be physically stronger, etc. I'm not
sure that he sees men as superior in general.

You're not?

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
He makes comments
like, "you can have GREAT character as a female. it's even possible
to have BETTER character than your husband AS A FEMALE" and "it is
possible for you to fulfill your function as a woman better than he
fulfills his function as a man."

When you spot the fallacy, we'll talk more.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Even the phrase you quote above is
completed by "this is why we men bear the burden of responsibility if
something goes wrong."

My personal experience and that of many people I know indicates this is
untrue. And even when it is true, it is also true that women bear the
/consequences/ at least equally.

Language is a funny thing, y'know?

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
He further believes that, in a relationship, the man's function
includes bearing more authority and responsibility while the woman's
function involves giving respect and nurturing. He sees the roles
as complementary and, when these roles are properly filled, a man
will do everything he can to make his woman happy. (I tend to agree
with this too, since it matches my personal experience.)

Taken out of context, this sounds a whole lot different than it does
within the context from which it came.

The context of the website includes a lot of emotionally loaded
language. Not surprisingly, people tend to react to this emotionally.
I think that anyone who takes the effort to get past this and
logically examines the ideas on the site will see something more like
what I see.

See below.

But you're assuming that I'm easily affected by "emotionally loaded
language" and I think that does me a real disservice, because I've
pretty well demonstrated over time that I'm not.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
But I can read on a racist website about how Affirmative Action is
wrong, and I agree with that too. "A stopped clock...etc."

I have been describing what I see as the site's basic ideas. I do not
think that this is a case of a basically flawed ideology happening to
get one or two things right as in your analogy.

I think you don't understand the site's basic ideas.

I think the site has a few ideas you agree with, so you overlook the
site's fundamental philosophy and purpose.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
You may disagree with some or all of his points, but surely you
could do so more cogently than an unsupported assertion that his
beliefs are analagous to violent racism. Perhaps your negative
impression of the site comes more from the style than the content.
The author does acknowledge that he may be coming across too strong
for some people and has an alternate introduction in which he
http://newschool27.googlepages.com/pussyintro
I wonder if reading this would give you a different impression than
your existing one.

Did you ever find the part about "sex will be a prerequisite to
http://newschool27.googlepages.com/home

Personally, I ascribe to the view that ideally sex should only be
within marriage. I am quite used to having people disagree with me.
Given that people are having sex outside of marriage, I can
sympathize with men adopting strategies to see that their sexual
needs are met.

Anyone who adopts a strategy to get their own needs met to the detriment
of another person has tendencies I don't want to deal with.

Sex for two isn't a right, Jayne.

When I was younger, I went out with two different guys who thought
dinner was the price for their use of my body. The first one scared me,
and I think it was only because we were neighbors that I got away with
just a little pawing. My mistake for letting him drive. The second was
also frightening, but he started the scary shit in a public place, so
/I/ grabbed the check, paid it, drove him back to the train station and
went home.

Since then, I nearly always pay for any first date, because that removes
any possibility of the guy assuming I'm for sale for the price of a
meal. That's not to say I haven't had sex on the first date--I have--but
it's because I want it, not because the guy I went to dinner with has
purchased the use of me for the night.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
After all, there is very little in our current social
structures and customs to help men in this area. It seems to me
that men are expected to approach women in supplication and to feel
gratititude for getting sex. I find this expectation much more
shocking than sex outside of marriage.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
Have you seen his BI overage in soc.men? I'm talking about the
content of the posts, not just about the fact that he's a net abuser.
Have you read the rest of his site?

I have read many of the articles on the site, though I tend to avoid
the ones about picking up women, this not being an area of interest
of mine.

But this is why you don't understand the problem I'm having--you're
missing the underlying motivation for and purpose of the site.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
http://newschool27.googlepages.com/theinfluencesoffeminismandhowithasfucked

I agree with most of this article. I agree that men are unfairly
demonized for wanting sex. I agree that feminism has damaged
male-female relationships. I agree that there are natural functions
associated with gender and that people are happier when fulfilling
their functions.

And I agree with you. But that's not the point.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I agree that TV constantly portrays men in a
negative and disrespectful way.

TV portrays everyone in a negative and disrespectful way. I don't watch
it because every time I do happen to catch the beginning or tail end of
just about any program, I'm horrified by the caricatures portrayed.

Have you watched a soap opera lately? Everyone has a personality
disorder.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I agree that a man is likely to
respond to a woman who meets his emotional and sexual needs by caring
for her and looking out for her interests. I agree that it is
foolish for women to compete with men.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
Then read some of the rest of them.

I have. In general, I have strong reservations about writing that
adopts a polemical style and feel so regarding this site, as well.
The author often makes generalizations where I would prefer to
acknowledge the existence of exceptions.

That's because he doesn't acknowledge the existence of exceptions.

And if you disagree with him, you become "another fugly bitch." I
suggest you wander over to soc.men and have a look at his spam.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
He makes many statements
that I think would be improved by some sort of qualifier. My
concerns, however, mainly pertain to stylistic issues.

The failure to qualify is not a stylist issue.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
As far as the
basic content goes, I tend to agree, or at least sympathize, with the
vast majority of the ideas expressed.

Jayne, as much as I can agree with /some/ ideas /you/ have expressed,
we're still back to the analogy of a stopped clock.

If you don't like my comparison to a racist site, ask yourself how you
would feel if this were a feminist site espousing similar ideas with a
prejudice towards female supremacy.

It's just wrong, no matter who's doing it.

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[re: Bitch Management webiste]

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
The site's author is opposed to feminism, which he believes teaches,
in effect, that women are superior to men. He believes that men and
women are different, have different natural functions, and will be
happier when they fulfill their functions. He believes that feminism
promotes a sense of entitlement in women. One of his major
complaints about feminism is that it gives lip service to equality
while actually putting women in the superior position. (I agree
with all of these points.)
I do not see how this is in any way parallel to the position of the KKK.

He believes that men are superior to women.
"...men are naturally smarter (we invented everything), more capable,
stronger, etc. we NATURALLY have a certain FUNCTION assigned to us by
our design..."

He clearly believes that men are superior to women *in specific
areas*. I agree. Statistically, men are more likely to be geniuses
than women,

This factoid is in dispute.

I have never seen any evidence that calls this into question. Could you
please offer some? Anything I have ever read about IQ distribution says
that the curve for men is wider than the curve for women. This means that
more men will be geniuses. Now I have seen arguments made to question the
validity of IQ as an assessment tool, but given the assumption that there
is such a thing as genius IQ, it appears well established that a higher
number of geniuses are men.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
are more likely to be physically stronger, etc. I'm not
sure that he sees men as superior in general.

You're not?

Well, he says that men are superior in function (referring, I think, to men
having authority) not in value. In my own view, my husband has authority
over me in our marriage, but we are equal in our intrinsic worth as human
beings. So it is possible to believe to believe in men having superior
authority in relationships without seeing men as superior in general. It
sounds to me like this is what he says on his site.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
He makes comments
like, "you can have GREAT character as a female. it's even possible
to have BETTER character than your husband AS A FEMALE" and "it is
possible for you to fulfill your function as a woman better than he
fulfills his function as a man."

When you spot the fallacy, we'll talk more.

If you think there is a fallacy, it is more likely to lead to rational
discussion if you say what you think it is.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Even the phrase you quote above is
completed by "this is why we men bear the burden of responsibility if
something goes wrong."

My personal experience and that of many people I know indicates this is
untrue. And even when it is true, it is also true that women bear the
/consequences/ at least equally.
Language is a funny thing, y'know?

Since he is speaking of a man's responsibility in the situation in which
the man's authority is acknowledged, I'm surprised that you know a
significant number of people in that situation. I had the impression that
this was quite rare.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
He further believes that, in a relationship, the man's function
includes bearing more authority and responsibility while the woman's
function involves giving respect and nurturing. He sees the roles
as complementary and, when these roles are properly filled, a man
will do everything he can to make his woman happy. (I tend to agree
with this too, since it matches my personal experience.)

Taken out of context, this sounds a whole lot different than it does
within the context from which it came.

The context of the website includes a lot of emotionally loaded
language. Not surprisingly, people tend to react to this emotionally.
I think that anyone who takes the effort to get past this and
logically examines the ideas on the site will see something more like
what I see.

See below.
But you're assuming that I'm easily affected by "emotionally loaded
language" and I think that does me a real disservice, because I've
pretty well demonstrated over time that I'm not.

I was not assuming it, but it does seem to be a likely explanation for your
reaction to the site. Your reaction seems out of proportion to the ideas
he expresses.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
But I can read on a racist website about how Affirmative Action is
wrong, and I agree with that too. "A stopped clock...etc."

I have been describing what I see as the site's basic ideas. I do not
think that this is a case of a basically flawed ideology happening to
get one or two things right as in your analogy.

I think you don't understand the site's basic ideas.
I think the site has a few ideas you agree with, so you overlook the
site's fundamental philosophy and purpose.

We do seem to have come to different conclusions about what the site's
fundamental philosopy and purpose are.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
You may disagree with some or all of his points, but surely you
could do so more cogently than an unsupported assertion that his
beliefs are analagous to violent racism. Perhaps your negative
impression of the site comes more from the style than the content.
The author does acknowledge that he may be coming across too strong
for some people and has an alternate introduction in which he
http://newschool27.googlepages.com/pussyintro
I wonder if reading this would give you a different impression than
your existing one.

Did you ever find the part about "sex will be a prerequisite to
http://newschool27.googlepages.com/home

Personally, I ascribe to the view that ideally sex should only be
within marriage. I am quite used to having people disagree with me.
Given that people are having sex outside of marriage, I can
sympathize with men adopting strategies to see that their sexual
needs are met.

Anyone who adopts a strategy to get their own needs met to the detriment
of another person has tendencies I don't want to deal with.
Sex for two isn't a right, Jayne.

This is not a site about how to rape women and get away with it. It is a
site that recognizes how much more power women have than men in the area of
sexuality and gives men advice about how to deal with it. Women are
getting their needs met to the detriment of men and this author is
presenting his ideas about how men can look out for themselves. While his
advice is not especially consistent with my ideas of sexual morality,
neither is the social situation he is addressing. As I said, I don't agree
but I sympathize.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
When I was younger, I went out with two different guys who thought
dinner was the price for their use of my body. The first one scared me,
and I think it was only because we were neighbors that I got away with
just a little pawing. My mistake for letting him drive. The second was
also frightening, but he started the scary shit in a public place, so
/I/ grabbed the check, paid it, drove him back to the train station and
went home.
Since then, I nearly always pay for any first date, because that removes
any possibility of the guy assuming I'm for sale for the price of a
meal. That's not to say I haven't had sex on the first date--I have--but
it's because I want it, not because the guy I went to dinner with has
purchased the use of me for the night.

As I understand the site's author, he too opposes men obtaining sex by
paying for dinner. It sounds to me like he is saying that women should
understand that they are getting as much out of sex as men are and not
expect to be rewarded for it. While I differ from him in that I approach
this issue in the context of marriage, I certainly agree on this point.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
After all, there is very little in our current social
structures and customs to help men in this area. It seems to me
that men are expected to approach women in supplication and to feel
gratititude for getting sex. I find this expectation much more
shocking than sex outside of marriage.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
Have you seen his BI overage in soc.men? I'm talking about the
content of the posts, not just about the fact that he's a net abuser.
Have you read the rest of his site?

I have read many of the articles on the site, though I tend to avoid
the ones about picking up women, this not being an area of interest
of mine.

But this is why you don't understand the problem I'm having--you're
missing the underlying motivation for and purpose of the site.

I have not missed that he is talking about sex. I think that I have read
enough to understand his main themes. As far as I can tell, he is somewhat
dismissive of the pick-up artist who is only concerned with a one night
stand. Instead, the author focusses on what he believes is needed for sex
in a long-term healthy relationship. He describes this as the women giving
respect to the man and the man loving and caring for the woman. He
encourages men to not let women manipulate them by sex. It sounds pretty
reasonable to me. What exactly do you think is wrong with what he is saying
about sex?

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
http://newschool27.googlepages.com/theinfluencesoffeminismandhowithasfucked

I agree with most of this article. I agree that men are unfairly
demonized for wanting sex. I agree that feminism has damaged
male-female relationships. I agree that there are natural functions
associated with gender and that people are happier when fulfilling
their functions.

And I agree with you. But that's not the point.

I think that these are the main points of the site and underly his comments
about sex that you apparently find objectionable.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I agree that TV constantly portrays men in a
negative and disrespectful way.

TV portrays everyone in a negative and disrespectful way. I don't watch
it because every time I do happen to catch the beginning or tail end of
just about any program, I'm horrified by the caricatures portrayed.
Have you watched a soap opera lately? Everyone has a personality
disorder.

I watch TV very rarely but I find your assertion easy to believe.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I agree that a man is likely to
respond to a woman who meets his emotional and sexual needs by caring
for her and looking out for her interests. I agree that it is
foolish for women to compete with men.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
Then read some of the rest of them.

I have. In general, I have strong reservations about writing that
adopts a polemical style and feel so regarding this site, as well.
The author often makes generalizations where I would prefer to
acknowledge the existence of exceptions.

That's because he doesn't acknowledge the existence of exceptions.

He acknowledged me as an expception, differing from women's typical
behavior, so he does do this on occasion. I have the impression that he
prefers to avoid doing so and that this is for rhetorical reasons rather
than that he believes there are no exceptions.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk
And if you disagree with him, you become "another fugly bitch." I
suggest you wander over to soc.men and have a look at his spam.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
He makes many statements
that I think would be improved by some sort of qualifier. My
concerns, however, mainly pertain to stylistic issues.

The failure to qualify is not a stylist issue.

I would say it is one of the primary characteristics of polemical style.
Lack of qualifiers is not necessarily a question of style, but it can be
and that is what I think is happeing in this case.

Post by Rhonda Lea Kirk

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
As far as the
basic content goes, I tend to agree, or at least sympathize, with the
vast majority of the ideas expressed.

Jayne, as much as I can agree with /some/ ideas /you/ have expressed,
we're still back to the analogy of a stopped clock.
If you don't like my comparison to a racist site, ask yourself how you
would feel if this were a feminist site espousing similar ideas with a
prejudice towards female supremacy.
It's just wrong, no matter who's doing it.

I am not convinced that he has a prejudice towards male supremacy. He
writes primarily about women who have been influenced by feminism, without
question in a derogatory and negative way. You may be able to make a case
for him being prejudiced regarding feminism. However, from the little he
writes about women who are free from this influence, I have the impression
of a positive view of women. It is understandable that one might miss this
as he gives so little attention to this topic, but he does mention it.
Putting together these few comments, it appears that his ideal is a long
term committed relationship with a woman who acknowledges his authority,
respects him and does not play sexual games with him. In return, he wants
to love and care for her and make her happy. He appears willing to take on
the burdens and responsibilities of the traditional male role of protecting
and providing for one's woman. But he wants the perks that go with the role
too. I just don't see this as parallel to racism. Not only does his view
sound reasonable to me, I find appealing.