Now we know the bitches are the guilty ones...

[Dustbin]

Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005

D.

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

It seemed to me this article was saying that if it turns out, as some
recent research suggests, that old women are grumpier than old men
(contrary to the stereotype) that it is because women have good reasons to
be angry. The position seemed to be that being grumpy and angry is bad when
men do it, but is justified if women do.

[Aratzio]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:28:28 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

It seemed to me this article was saying that if it turns out, as some
recent research suggests, that old women are grumpier than old men
(contrary to the stereotype) that it is because women have good reasons to
be angry. The position seemed to be that being grumpy and angry is bad when
men do it, but is justified if women do.

And the Subject is a violation of your charter. Funny you missed that,
Jayne.

[Kathy Morgan]

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:28:28 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005

It seemed to me this article was saying that if it turns out, as some
recent research suggests, that old women are grumpier than old men
(contrary to the stereotype) that it is because women have good reasons to
be angry.

I suspect the reason men mellow with age is that they are less driven by
testosterone as the get older and levels drop. Women don't experience
that drop in testosterone with age and stay grumpy.

Post by Aratzio
And the Subject is a violation of your charter.

I approved the original article because I perceived the Subject to be an
amusing tongue-in-cheek commentary on the study cited. I'm sorry that
you disagree, but I didn't take this to be gender-bashing. Marginal,
yes, but not to the extent of rejecting the article.

As a moderator, I'm somewhat inclined in a marginal case toward erring
on the side of approval rather than rejection. I am new to the culture
here, so if the majority of users feel this entire thread should have
been rejected due to the Subject line, obviously I would need to adjust
my threshold. I think it's obvious that the body of the post was
acceptable, so the question is does the Subject take the post over the
top?

[Aratzio]

Post by Kathy Morgan

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:28:28 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005

It seemed to me this article was saying that if it turns out, as some
recent research suggests, that old women are grumpier than old men
(contrary to the stereotype) that it is because women have good reasons to
be angry.

I suspect the reason men mellow with age is that they are less driven by
testosterone as the get older and levels drop. Women don't experience
that drop in testosterone with age and stay grumpy.

Post by Aratzio
And the Subject is a violation of your charter.

I approved the original article because I perceived the Subject to be an
amusing tongue-in-cheek commentary on the study cited.

Since you are unfamiliar with the person who posted the article your
confusion is understandable. But if you plan to moderate this group
you need to be familiar with all the players. I would suggest you
actually read some of the comments by Dustbin and a few of the other
"more colorful" anti-female posters.

Post by Kathy Morgan
I'm sorry that
you disagree, but I didn't take this to be gender-bashing. Marginal,
yes, but not to the extent of rejecting the article.

So, I can call you one of "the bitches" just as long as I put a smiley
at the end or say something I can later claim was "tongue and cheek"?

I doubt that would be approved.

Post by Kathy Morgan
As a moderator, I'm somewhat inclined in a marginal case toward erring
on the side of approval rather than rejection.

Unless he was speaking of female dogs, that was a derogatory term used
intentionally to denigrate women. As he does on a regular basis. I
would advise you actually tromp through the sewer of soc.men and "get
to know your clientele"

Post by Kathy Morgan
I am new to the culture
here,

I think I spotted that part fairly quickly.

Post by Kathy Morgan
so if the majority of users feel this entire thread should have
been rejected due to the Subject line, obviously I would need to adjust
my threshold.

The users have no say. The charter holds sway and it is very clear.
Unless you are planning on polling the users as to how you will
interpret the charter I doubt what you wrote carries much weight.

Post by Kathy Morgan
I think it's obvious that the body of the post was
acceptable, so the question is does the Subject take the post over the
top?

Ummm:
"And the Subject is a violation of your charter."

Don't think I mentioned anything about the body.

[Kathy Morgan]

Post by Aratzio

Post by Kathy Morgan
I approved the original article because I perceived the Subject to be an
amusing tongue-in-cheek commentary on the study cited.

Since you are unfamiliar with the person who posted the article your
confusion is understandable. But if you plan to moderate this group
you need to be familiar with all the players. I would suggest you
actually read some of the comments by Dustbin and a few of the other
"more colorful" anti-female posters.

No. I will not judge a post based on who made the post, but rather on
the individual post itself.

Post by Aratzio

Post by Kathy Morgan
As a moderator, I'm somewhat inclined in a marginal case toward erring
on the side of approval rather than rejection.

Unless he was speaking of female dogs, that was a derogatory term used
intentionally to denigrate women. As he does on a regular basis. I
would advise you actually tromp through the sewer of soc.men and "get
to know your clientele"

I respectfully disagree, both about the use of the term and the
suggestion that posters should be blacklisted based on their behavior
elsewhere. Now that smm has been created, it does not matter *to smm*
what anyone posts or doesn't post in soc.men. Each post to smm should
be judged on its own merits, not based on what has or hasn't been posted
elsewhere.

[Aratzio]

Post by Kathy Morgan

Post by Aratzio

Post by Kathy Morgan
I approved the original article because I perceived the Subject to be an
amusing tongue-in-cheek commentary on the study cited.

Since you are unfamiliar with the person who posted the article your
confusion is understandable. But if you plan to moderate this group
you need to be familiar with all the players. I would suggest you
actually read some of the comments by Dustbin and a few of the other
"more colorful" anti-female posters.

No. I will not judge a post based on who made the post, but rather on
the individual post itself.

That the post was a violation of the charter and that you erroneously
ascribed intentions that did not exist to a poster as your rationale
for approval.

You do understand that your job is to moderate based upon the charter
and not upon your wishing that a poster made a post "tongue and
cheek".

Post by Kathy Morgan

Post by Aratzio

Post by Kathy Morgan
As a moderator, I'm somewhat inclined in a marginal case toward erring
on the side of approval rather than rejection.

Unless he was speaking of female dogs, that was a derogatory term used
intentionally to denigrate women. As he does on a regular basis. I
would advise you actually tromp through the sewer of soc.men and "get
to know your clientele"

I respectfully disagree, both about the use of the term and the
suggestion that posters should be blacklisted based on their behavior
elsewhere.

You can respectfully disagree all you wish.

No one said "the poster should be blacklisted" (except you). I said
the SUBJECT was in violation of the charter. So please stop putting
words in my mouth. Disapproval of a single post is not blacklisting.

You responded that you "thought" the poster was being
"tongue-and-cheek". You are wrong about that and here you can see for
yourself, he is NOT using it tongue-and-cheek but purely as a
derogatory term for women:

:Results 1 - 10 of 127 for (bitch OR bitches) group:soc.men author:dustbin (0.17 seconds)
"We get fucked over in the courts and the bitches walk free"
"Dads love their kids, most of the time, more than the conniving
bitches do"
"Men aren't born with the attitude that women are bitches"

You have any more commentary about how it was made "tongue-and-cheek"
or are you willing to agree that just maybe Dustbins SUBJECT was not
appropriate and does violate the charter you are tasked to enforce.

Post by Kathy Morgan
Now that smm has been created, it does not matter *to smm*
what anyone posts or doesn't post in soc.men. Each post to smm should
be judged on its own merits, not based on what has or hasn't been posted
elsewhere.

So past usage of a term on a REGULAR basis to gender bash means that
the current usage was "tongue-and-cheek". That is a wonderful world
where past usage suddenly changes because you want to believe
something different. Regardless of obvious proof you are wrong.

[Dustbin]

Post by Kathy Morgan

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:28:28 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005

It seemed to me this article was saying that if it turns out, as some
recent research suggests, that old women are grumpier than old men
(contrary to the stereotype) that it is because women have good reasons to
be angry.

I suspect the reason men mellow with age is that they are less driven by
testosterone as the get older and levels drop. Women don't experience
that drop in testosterone with age and stay grumpy.

Post by Aratzio
And the Subject is a violation of your charter.

I approved the original article because I perceived the Subject to be an
amusing tongue-in-cheek commentary on the study cited. I'm sorry that
you disagree, but I didn't take this to be gender-bashing. Marginal,
yes, but not to the extent of rejecting the article.
As a moderator, I'm somewhat inclined in a marginal case toward erring
on the side of approval rather than rejection. I am new to the culture
here, so if the majority of users feel this entire thread should have
been rejected due to the Subject line, obviously I would need to adjust
my threshold. I think it's obvious that the body of the post was
acceptable, so the question is does the Subject take the post over the
top?

And what happens when something really critical
of women comes along?

Can we have man-bashing on radio; television;
newspapers, and magazines but we must not have
the means to reply.

I thought the idea of soc.men.moderated was to
get rid of the AUKers; not to get rid of much of
the critical anti-feminist comment.

Maybe what is being said on soc.men will turn
out to be true.

D.

[Mark Borgerson]

Post by Dustbin

Post by Kathy Morgan

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:28:28 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005

It seemed to me this article was saying that if it turns out, as some
recent research suggests, that old women are grumpier than old men
(contrary to the stereotype) that it is because women have good reasons to
be angry.

I suspect the reason men mellow with age is that they are less driven by
testosterone as the get older and levels drop. Women don't experience
that drop in testosterone with age and stay grumpy.

Post by Aratzio
And the Subject is a violation of your charter.

I approved the original article because I perceived the Subject to be an
amusing tongue-in-cheek commentary on the study cited. I'm sorry that
you disagree, but I didn't take this to be gender-bashing. Marginal,
yes, but not to the extent of rejecting the article.
As a moderator, I'm somewhat inclined in a marginal case toward erring
on the side of approval rather than rejection. I am new to the culture
here, so if the majority of users feel this entire thread should have
been rejected due to the Subject line, obviously I would need to adjust
my threshold. I think it's obvious that the body of the post was
acceptable, so the question is does the Subject take the post over the
top?

And what happens when something really critical
of women comes along?
Can we have man-bashing on radio; television;
newspapers, and magazines but we must not have
the means to reply.
I thought the idea of soc.men.moderated was to
get rid of the AUKers; not to get rid of much of
the critical anti-feminist comment.

That is one of the goals---by eliminating the cross posting
that the AUKers seem to relish.

Another goal is to reduce the number and intensity of the
flame wars seen so often on soc.men. One way to do that
is by placing limits on posts attacking persons and groups.

You can be as critical as you like---you will just have to
do it with language that would pass muster with your local
newspaper editor or TV commentator.

I found no problems with the original article about grumpy
people---and it, after all, used language suitable for
your newspaper! When you start adding commentary that
uses language unsuitable for that newspaper, my cursor
starts to drift to the 'reject' button!

Post by Dustbin
Maybe what is being said on soc.men will turn
out to be true.

Having a couple of teenagers in the house, I realize that
the word 'bitches' is part of the social vernacular
and may have different impacts on different groups.
Heck, they even make fun of it on TV shows like
Two-and-a-Half Men. (Although they distort it to
"Bee-Otch").


Had I posted the article, I probably would have
gone for a bit more alliteration:

"Now we know---Grumpy Grannies are the Guilty Group..."

Mark Borgerson

[Dustbin]

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Kathy Morgan

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:28:28 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005

It seemed to me this article was saying that if it turns out, as some
recent research suggests, that old women are grumpier than old men
(contrary to the stereotype) that it is because women have good reasons to
be angry.

I suspect the reason men mellow with age is that they are less driven by
testosterone as the get older and levels drop. Women don't experience
that drop in testosterone with age and stay grumpy.

Post by Aratzio
And the Subject is a violation of your charter.

I approved the original article because I perceived the Subject to be an
amusing tongue-in-cheek commentary on the study cited. I'm sorry that
you disagree, but I didn't take this to be gender-bashing. Marginal,
yes, but not to the extent of rejecting the article.
As a moderator, I'm somewhat inclined in a marginal case toward erring
on the side of approval rather than rejection. I am new to the culture
here, so if the majority of users feel this entire thread should have
been rejected due to the Subject line, obviously I would need to adjust
my threshold. I think it's obvious that the body of the post was
acceptable, so the question is does the Subject take the post over the
top?

And what happens when something really critical
of women comes along?
Can we have man-bashing on radio; television;
newspapers, and magazines but we must not have
the means to reply.
I thought the idea of soc.men.moderated was to
get rid of the AUKers; not to get rid of much of
the critical anti-feminist comment.

That is one of the goals---by eliminating the cross posting
that the AUKers seem to relish.
Another goal is to reduce the number and intensity of the
flame wars seen so often on soc.men. One way to do that
is by placing limits on posts attacking persons and groups.
You can be as critical as you like---you will just have to
do it with language that would pass muster with your local
newspaper editor or TV commentator.

The prblem with that is that it comes down to
censorship.

I have written numerous letters in a basically
civilised language making statements that are
either critical of feminists or showing the
inconsistency in their assertions; or
contradicting their statements, and often
supported by reasonable quality references but I
am hardly ever published. Once in 1988 I was
published and, instead of being met with
challenging counter argument I was effectively
flamed by female writers. Interestingly - what
we would call flaming was allowed when females
did it but I was/am fairly sure that I would not
have been allowed to use basically insulting
language about females.

In this regard you may recall what happened to
Neil Lyndon after the publication of his two
piece article in the Times back in December 1990.

So I take it that it will be okay to point out
that most child abuse is physical not sexual
(though you might not believe it if you listened
to the ranting feminists); Most child abuse is
committed by females not males (though you might
not believe it if you listened to the ranting
feminists); most of their victims are male not
female (though you might not believe it if you
listened to the ranting feminists); and,
finally, on the order of 50% of rape allegations
may well be false.

These statements are true and can be supported
by reasonable evidences. But will we be allowed
to say these things; and will we be allowed to
get pissed off with all the LIES to the contrary
from the feminazis?

Feminists have used plenty of strong and abusive
language toward men in the last thirty years.
Large quantities of this was unjustified. Also,
much of it was printed in newspapers or
announced on radio or television. Will that
standard apply here?

D.

Post by Mark Borgerson
I found no problems with the original article about grumpy
people---and it, after all, used language suitable for
your newspaper! When you start adding commentary that
uses language unsuitable for that newspaper, my cursor
starts to drift to the 'reject' button!

Post by Dustbin
Maybe what is being said on soc.men will turn
out to be true.

Having a couple of teenagers in the house, I realize that
the word 'bitches' is part of the social vernacular
and may have different impacts on different groups.
Heck, they even make fun of it on TV shows like
Two-and-a-Half Men. (Although they distort it to
"Bee-Otch").
Had I posted the article, I probably would have
"Now we know---Grumpy Grannies are the Guilty Group..."
Mark Borgerson

[Mark Borgerson]

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Kathy Morgan

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:28:28 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005

It seemed to me this article was saying that if it turns out, as some
recent research suggests, that old women are grumpier than old men
(contrary to the stereotype) that it is because women have good reasons to
be angry.

I suspect the reason men mellow with age is that they are less driven by
testosterone as the get older and levels drop. Women don't experience
that drop in testosterone with age and stay grumpy.

Post by Aratzio
And the Subject is a violation of your charter.

I approved the original article because I perceived the Subject to be an
amusing tongue-in-cheek commentary on the study cited. I'm sorry that
you disagree, but I didn't take this to be gender-bashing. Marginal,
yes, but not to the extent of rejecting the article.
As a moderator, I'm somewhat inclined in a marginal case toward erring
on the side of approval rather than rejection. I am new to the culture
here, so if the majority of users feel this entire thread should have
been rejected due to the Subject line, obviously I would need to adjust
my threshold. I think it's obvious that the body of the post was
acceptable, so the question is does the Subject take the post over the
top?

And what happens when something really critical
of women comes along?
Can we have man-bashing on radio; television;
newspapers, and magazines but we must not have
the means to reply.
I thought the idea of soc.men.moderated was to
get rid of the AUKers; not to get rid of much of
the critical anti-feminist comment.

That is one of the goals---by eliminating the cross posting
that the AUKers seem to relish.
Another goal is to reduce the number and intensity of the
flame wars seen so often on soc.men. One way to do that
is by placing limits on posts attacking persons and groups.
You can be as critical as you like---you will just have to
do it with language that would pass muster with your local
newspaper editor or TV commentator.

The prblem with that is that it comes down to
censorship.

Not exactly. Look up the difference between censorship
and prior restraint. Even prior restraint doesn't exactly
apply hear, at it is aimed at supression of ideas, not
at control of they way in which they are expressed.

Post by Dustbin
I have written numerous letters in a basically
civilised language making statements that are
either critical of feminists or showing the
inconsistency in their assertions; or
contradicting their statements, and often
supported by reasonable quality references but I
am hardly ever published. Once in 1988 I was
published and, instead of being met with
challenging counter argument I was effectively
flamed by female writers. Interestingly - what
we would call flaming was allowed when females
did it but I was/am fairly sure that I would not
have been allowed to use basically insulting
language about females.

Do you believe that you can make a point more
effectively by insulting people?

Post by Dustbin
In this regard you may recall what happened to
Neil Lyndon after the publication of his two
piece article in the Times back in December 1990.
So I take it that it will be okay to point out
that most child abuse is physical not sexual
(though you might not believe it if you listened
to the ranting feminists); Most child abuse is
committed by females not males (though you might
not believe it if you listened to the ranting
feminists); most of their victims are male not
female (though you might not believe it if you
listened to the ranting feminists); and,
finally, on the order of 50% of rape allegations
may well be false.
These statements are true and can be supported
by reasonable evidences. But will we be allowed
to say these things; and will we be allowed to
get pissed off with all the LIES to the contrary
from the feminazis?

You can say these things---in fact you just did.
You can get as angry as you like---as long as
you control the manner in which you express that
anger. The law doesn't allow you to go out and
hit the first person you meet because you are
angry. Here, we don't allow you to bash people
just because you are angry.

Post by Dustbin
Feminists have used plenty of strong and abusive
language toward men in the last thirty years.
Large quantities of this was unjustified. Also,
much of it was printed in newspapers or
announced on radio or television. Will that
standard apply here?

They won't get to bash men on smm. So far, it hasn't
been a problem.
<<SNIP>>

Mark Borgerson
Moderator, soc.men.moderated

[Doug Freyburger]

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
I thought the idea of soc.men.moderated was to
get rid of the AUKers; not to get rid of much of
the critical anti-feminist comment.

That is one of the goals---by eliminating the cross posting
that the AUKers seem to relish.
Another goal is to reduce the number and intensity of the
flame wars seen so often on soc.men. One way to do that
is by placing limits on posts attacking persons and groups.

Eliminating the flame-war feature of crossposting tends to
work better than banning AUKers just for being AUKers. If
required to stay somewhat on topic and somewhat civil, even
AUKers can contribute to the discussion. It takes some
getting used to to see the existing restraints actually
*work* for their designed purpose.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
did it but I was/am fairly sure that I would not
have been allowed to use basically insulting
language about females.

Do you believe that you can make a point more
effectively by insulting people?

It's part of "being a man" to be able to keep your cool
and channel anger or hostility into productive response.
Defintely a men's issue when handled with care.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
Feminists have used plenty of strong and abusive
language toward men in the last thirty years.

...
They won't get to bash men on smm. So far, it hasn't
been a problem.

Still working on the boundaries of how much women bashing
will be tolerated, though. Okay.

[Meat Plow]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:32:06 -0600, Doug Freyburger Has Frothed:

<SNIP>

Still working on the boundaries of how much women bashing will be
tolerated, though. Okay.

Is women/woman bashing ever tolerable?

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:39:41 -0500, Meat Plow

Post by Mark Borgerson
<SNIP>

Still working on the boundaries of how much women bashing will be
tolerated, though. Okay.

Is women/woman bashing ever tolerable?

It seems so, even though it is precluded by the charter and was
discussed ad nauseum in news.groups.

[Mark Borgerson]

Post by Doug Freyburger

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
I thought the idea of soc.men.moderated was to
get rid of the AUKers; not to get rid of much of
the critical anti-feminist comment.

That is one of the goals---by eliminating the cross posting
that the AUKers seem to relish.
Another goal is to reduce the number and intensity of the
flame wars seen so often on soc.men. One way to do that
is by placing limits on posts attacking persons and groups.

Eliminating the flame-war feature of crossposting tends to
work better than banning AUKers just for being AUKers. If
required to stay somewhat on topic and somewhat civil, even
AUKers can contribute to the discussion. It takes some
getting used to to see the existing restraints actually
*work* for their designed purpose.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
did it but I was/am fairly sure that I would not
have been allowed to use basically insulting
language about females.

Do you believe that you can make a point more
effectively by insulting people?

It's part of "being a man" to be able to keep your cool
and channel anger or hostility into productive response.
Defintely a men's issue when handled with care.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
Feminists have used plenty of strong and abusive
language toward men in the last thirty years.

...
They won't get to bash men on smm. So far, it hasn't
been a problem.

Still working on the boundaries of how much women bashing
will be tolerated, though. Okay.

I've been researching the term 'bashing'. One of the common
characteristics of bashing seems to be an implied or overt
threat. For instance, Answers.com defines bashing thusly:

"Informal. To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and
threateningly: “He bashed the . . . government unmercifully over the . .
. spy affair” (Lally Weymouth)."


So it would seem that harsh and accusatorial criticism is not,
in itself, bashing. You need the additional component of
a threat to the target.

"Those feminist bitches are ruining our lives" is not bashing--
more like complaining to me and apparently an obvious fact of
life to some soc.men regulars.



However, "Those feminist bitches are ruining our lives and
need a swift kick in the ass" adds the threat component
and would qualify as bashing

Mark Borgerson

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:17:11 -0800, Mark Borgerson

Post by Mark Borgerson
"Those feminist bitches are ruining our lives" is not bashing--
more like complaining to me and apparently an obvious fact of
life to some soc.men regulars.

Wow and I do mean WOW. The word bitches in that sentence, regardless
of how you wish to parse the sentence, is meant as a purely derogatory
term.

"Those feminists are ruining our lives" would not be derogatory nor
gender bashing.

[Mark Borgerson]

In article <***@4ax.com>, a6ahlyv02
@sneakemail.com says...

Post by Aratzio
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:17:11 -0800, Mark Borgerson

Post by Mark Borgerson
"Those feminist bitches are ruining our lives" is not bashing--
more like complaining to me and apparently an obvious fact of
life to some soc.men regulars.

Wow and I do mean WOW. The word bitches in that sentence, regardless
of how you wish to parse the sentence, is meant as a purely derogatory
term.
"Those feminists are ruining our lives" would not be derogatory nor
gender bashing.

As I explained---the difference between derogatory and bashing is
an element of threat. There are posts languishing in the queue
because the element of threat has been added to the hyperbolic
and derogatory.

IMO, you can be as derogatory as you like---as long as their
is no implied or actual threat.

In addition, I tend to base my judgements on a post on the
content of the post---and not on either the subject line
or the poster's signature.

Mark Borgerson
Moderator, soc.men.moderated.

[Aratzio]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:42:10 -0800, Mark Borgerson

Post by Mark Borgerson
@sneakemail.com says...

Post by Aratzio
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:17:11 -0800, Mark Borgerson

Post by Mark Borgerson
"Those feminist bitches are ruining our lives" is not bashing--
more like complaining to me and apparently an obvious fact of
life to some soc.men regulars.

Wow and I do mean WOW. The word bitches in that sentence, regardless
of how you wish to parse the sentence, is meant as a purely derogatory
term.
"Those feminists are ruining our lives" would not be derogatory nor
gender bashing.

As I explained---the difference between derogatory and bashing is
an element of threat. There are posts languishing in the queue
because the element of threat has been added to the hyperbolic
and derogatory.

From the Cambridge Dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=93718&dict=CALD
bash (CRITICIZE) verb [T]
to criticize someone severely:
He kept bashing local government officials.

From American Heritage:
v. bashed, bash·ing, bash·es
v. tr.
1. To strike with a heavy, crushing blow: The thug bashed the hood of
the car with a sledgehammer.
2. To beat or assault severely: The police arrested the men who bashed
an immigrant in the park.
3. Informal. To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and
threateningly: “He bashed the... government unmercifully over the...
spy affair” (Lally Weymouth).

So no Mark, you are not allowed to use a single definition of a word
in hopes of allowing terms and phrases that are proscribed by the
charter.

Dustbin used it to demonize women and feminist specifically. Does
removing the word in any way alter the sentiment of what he wrote? The
answer is no, to the term is purley there as a derogatory term to
bash.

Post by Mark Borgerson
IMO, you can be as derogatory as you like---as long as their
is no implied or actual threat.

No, Mark, the charter is quite clear on the subject. I was there, I
read and participated in the discussion and the term "gender bashing"
would include using such phrases as "feminist bitches" or
"misogynistic cocks" or even "faggot asspackers". Derogatory terms
used as such are bashing. As the full definition of the dictionary
shows.

Post by Mark Borgerson
In addition, I tend to base my judgements on a post on the
content of the post---and not on either the subject line
or the poster's signature.

How is the subject line not part of the post? If I put some misandrist
commentary in the subject and some other differing commentary in the
body, does that in some way alter what I wrote in the subject and make
the misandry in the subject allowable?

Post by Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson
Moderator, soc.men.moderated.

[Kathy Morgan]

Post by Mark Borgerson
I've been researching the term 'bashing'. One of the common
characteristics of bashing seems to be an implied or overt
"Informal. To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and
threateningly: "He bashed the . . . government unmercifully over the . .
. spy affair (Lally Weymouth)."

That's a nonstandard usage/definition for _instransitive_ verb use. The
first three dictionary websites I checked provided these definitions,
which agree with my understanding of the meaning of the term:

Miriam-Webster Online:
2 : to attack physically or verbally <media bashing> <celebrity
bashing>

Dictionary.com:
2. Chiefly British, Canadian. to hurl harsh verbal abuse at.

Bartleby.com (American Heritage dictionary)
2. To beat or assault severely: The police arrested the men who
bashed an immigrant in the park. 3. Informal To criticize
(another) harshly, accusatorially, and threateningly: "He bashed
the . . . government unmercifully over the . . . spy affair"
(Lally Weymouth)

In each of these dictionaries, the first definition was to strike or
crush. The example used in the American Heritage dictionary for
definition 3 does not include a threat, and the 2nd definition does not
mention threats. When referring to a non-physical usage, "to beat or
assault severely" would be the equivalent of "harsh verbal abuse."

I sampled another three online dictionaries and again found "transitive
verb: criticize somebody or something harshly: to criticize somebody or
something harshly and usually publicly," "to criticize harshly. He
bashed my ideas," and "To attack something or someone harshly or
maliciously with words."

I agree with posters who object to posts that characterize all women as
liars, cheats, thieves, psychopaths, etc. Characterizing either men or
women in that fashion is unquestionably gender bashing, and those posts
are prohibited by the charter.

[Mark Borgerson]

Post by Kathy Morgan

Post by Mark Borgerson
I've been researching the term 'bashing'. One of the common
characteristics of bashing seems to be an implied or overt
"Informal. To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and
threateningly: "He bashed the . . . government unmercifully over the . .
. spy affair (Lally Weymouth)."

That's a nonstandard usage/definition for _instransitive_ verb use. The
first three dictionary websites I checked provided these definitions,

Yes, but it's that non-standard usage (bashing) that is in the charter.
That's why I searched for the term 'bashing', and not for the term
'bash'. When I Googled for "bashing definition" the Answers.com
definition was at the top of the list.

Post by Kathy Morgan
2 : to attack physically or verbally <media bashing> <celebrity
bashing>
2. Chiefly British, Canadian. to hurl harsh verbal abuse at.
Bartleby.com (American Heritage dictionary)
2. To beat or assault severely: The police arrested the men who
bashed an immigrant in the park. 3. Informal To criticize
(another) harshly, accusatorially, and threateningly: "He bashed
the . . . government unmercifully over the . . . spy affair"
(Lally Weymouth)
In each of these dictionaries, the first definition was to strike or
crush. The example used in the American Heritage dictionary for
definition 3 does not include a threat, and the 2nd definition does not
mention threats. When referring to a non-physical usage, "to beat or
assault severely" would be the equivalent of "harsh verbal abuse."

I don't see it that way. I think that to match the physical definition
there has to be a threat of violence.

Post by Kathy Morgan
I sampled another three online dictionaries and again found "transitive
verb: criticize somebody or something harshly: to criticize somebody or
something harshly and usually publicly," "to criticize harshly. He
bashed my ideas," and "To attack something or someone harshly or
maliciously with words."
I agree with posters who object to posts that characterize all women as
liars, cheats, thieves, psychopaths, etc. Characterizing either men or
women in that fashion is unquestionably gender bashing, and those posts
are prohibited by the charter.

If it is unquestionable, how can I be questioning it? ;-)

I see a significant difference between characterizing a group and
threatening a group. I guess we'll have to leave it at that.


Mark Borgerson
Moderator, soc.men.moderated

[Aratzio]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:47:03 -0800, Mark Borgerson

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Kathy Morgan

Post by Mark Borgerson
I've been researching the term 'bashing'. One of the common
characteristics of bashing seems to be an implied or overt
"Informal. To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and
threateningly: "He bashed the . . . government unmercifully over the . .
. spy affair (Lally Weymouth)."

That's a nonstandard usage/definition for _instransitive_ verb use. The
first three dictionary websites I checked provided these definitions,

Yes, but it's that non-standard usage (bashing) that is in the charter.
That's why I searched for the term 'bashing', and not for the term
'bash'. When I Googled for "bashing definition" the Answers.com
definition was at the top of the list.

Post by Kathy Morgan
2 : to attack physically or verbally <media bashing> <celebrity
bashing>
2. Chiefly British, Canadian. to hurl harsh verbal abuse at.
Bartleby.com (American Heritage dictionary)
2. To beat or assault severely: The police arrested the men who
bashed an immigrant in the park. 3. Informal To criticize
(another) harshly, accusatorially, and threateningly: "He bashed
the . . . government unmercifully over the . . . spy affair"
(Lally Weymouth)
In each of these dictionaries, the first definition was to strike or
crush. The example used in the American Heritage dictionary for
definition 3 does not include a threat, and the 2nd definition does not
mention threats. When referring to a non-physical usage, "to beat or
assault severely" would be the equivalent of "harsh verbal abuse."

I don't see it that way. I think that to match the physical definition
there has to be a threat of violence.

Post by Kathy Morgan
I sampled another three online dictionaries and again found "transitive
verb: criticize somebody or something harshly: to criticize somebody or
something harshly and usually publicly," "to criticize harshly. He
bashed my ideas," and "To attack something or someone harshly or
maliciously with words."
I agree with posters who object to posts that characterize all women as
liars, cheats, thieves, psychopaths, etc. Characterizing either men or
women in that fashion is unquestionably gender bashing, and those posts
are prohibited by the charter.

If it is unquestionable, how can I be questioning it? ;-)
I see a significant difference between characterizing a group and
threatening a group. I guess we'll have to leave it at that.
Mark Borgerson
Moderator, soc.men.moderated

It is much simpler Mark. There is a line in the charter about advocacy
of violence. The nit pickers of news.groups would have called it
redundant if the term bashing had meant advocacy of violence.

[Dustbin]

Post by Kathy Morgan

Post by Mark Borgerson
I've been researching the term 'bashing'. One of the common
characteristics of bashing seems to be an implied or overt
"Informal. To criticize (another) harshly, accusatorially, and
threateningly: "He bashed the . . . government unmercifully over the . .
. spy affair (Lally Weymouth)."

That's a nonstandard usage/definition for _instransitive_ verb use. The
first three dictionary websites I checked provided these definitions,
2 : to attack physically or verbally <media bashing> <celebrity
bashing>
2. Chiefly British, Canadian. to hurl harsh verbal abuse at.
Bartleby.com (American Heritage dictionary)
2. To beat or assault severely: The police arrested the men who
bashed an immigrant in the park. 3. Informal To criticize
(another) harshly, accusatorially, and threateningly: "He bashed
the . . . government unmercifully over the . . . spy affair"
(Lally Weymouth)
In each of these dictionaries, the first definition was to strike or
crush. The example used in the American Heritage dictionary for
definition 3 does not include a threat, and the 2nd definition does not
mention threats. When referring to a non-physical usage, "to beat or
assault severely" would be the equivalent of "harsh verbal abuse."
I sampled another three online dictionaries and again found "transitive
verb: criticize somebody or something harshly: to criticize somebody or
something harshly and usually publicly," "to criticize harshly. He
bashed my ideas," and "To attack something or someone harshly or
maliciously with words."
I agree with posters who object to posts that characterize all women as
liars, cheats, thieves, psychopaths, etc. Characterizing either men or
women in that fashion is unquestionably gender bashing, and those posts
are prohibited by the charter.

But they should not be if the statement made is
truthful.

For example - would it be contrary to charter to
say: "All females are female."

Also, I would point out that many most learned
people have said similar things.

<quote>
There must be some women who are not liars.
</quote>
[W. Somerset Maugham. Time Magazine 1960.]

<quote>
Women, I warn you, are no longer to be trusted.
</quote>
[Homer c. 850-800 B.C. 'The Odyssey.']

<quote>
A Famished Wolf was prowling about in the
morning in search of food. As he passed the door
of a cottage built in the forest, he heard a
Mother say to her child, "Be quiet, or I will
throw you out of the window, and the Wolf shall
eat you."

The Wolf sat all day waiting at the door. In the
evening he heard the same woman fondling her
child and saying: "You are quiet now, and if the
Wolf should come, we will kill him."

The Wolf, hearing these words, went home,
gasping with cold and hunger. When he reached
his den, Mistress Wolf inquired of him why he
returned wearied and supperless, so contrary to
his wont. He replied: "Why, forsooth! use I gave
credence to the words of a woman!"
</quote>
Aesop. (c. 600 B.C.)

I got plenty more where they came from.

D.

[Kathy Morgan]

Post by Dustbin

Post by Kathy Morgan
I agree with posters who object to posts that characterize all women as
liars, cheats, thieves, psychopaths, etc. Characterizing either men or
women in that fashion is unquestionably gender bashing, and those posts
are prohibited by the charter.

But they should not be if the statement made is
truthful.
For example - would it be contrary to charter to
say: "All females are female."

A simple statement of fact with neutral wording is acceptable. A
biased, slanted and harshly critical wording of the same fact is not.
"All people sometimes lie" is okay. "All people are sometimes vulgar"
is okay. "All men are vulgar" is not.

Post by Dustbin
Also, I would point out that many most learned
people have said similar things.

Everyone has at some time done or said something they shouldn't have.
That doesn't make it right the next time someone does the same thing.

[Dustbin]

Post by Kathy Morgan

Post by Dustbin

Post by Kathy Morgan
I agree with posters who object to posts that characterize all women as
liars, cheats, thieves, psychopaths, etc. Characterizing either men or
women in that fashion is unquestionably gender bashing, and those posts
are prohibited by the charter.

But they should not be if the statement made is
truthful.
For example - would it be contrary to charter to
say: "All females are female."

A simple statement of fact with neutral wording is acceptable. A
biased, slanted and harshly critical wording of the same fact is not.
"All people sometimes lie" is okay. "All people are sometimes vulgar"
is okay. "All men are vulgar" is not.

So if the statement "Women are more inclined to
LIE than men," is true that is acceptable then.
Which is what I am saying. This then, because it
is based on scientific data indicating the
origins are in the genetic make-up of the
females makes it acceptable to say that women
are born LIARS.

Post by Kathy Morgan

Post by Dustbin
Also, I would point out that many most learned
people have said similar things.

Everyone has at some time done or said something they shouldn't have.
That doesn't make it right the next time someone does the same thing.

So are you condemning my sources and then saying
that I should not follow suit.

Can you show the sources to be wrong?

I really don't know what anyone would have a
problem with the statement that women are LIARS
given all the LIES we have had from them in the
last thirty-five years.

The only hope that you have is to say that not
every single human female on the planet has been
proved a LIAR and therefore I must be wrong.
Even if 500 women get on television in one year
and they all LIE that will not be enough for
you. Even if year after year after year for
decades (let us say 15,000 women in 30 years)
get on television and they all LIE that is still
not good enough. Even if time after time after
time after time without exception women get on
television. radio, newspapers and magazines
LYING LYING LYING and LYING that will still not
be good enough for you.

Well, for your information, I got so sick of it
by the late nineteen-eighties that I stopped
keeping notes on all their LIES.

Even to this day, day after day after day I can
switch on television radio etc., and find
females LYING, LYING, LYING and LYING. They are
either misrepresenting information for which
there is well established discreditation which
is not being mentioned; or they are simply
contradicting what they have said before. In the
late nineteen-eighties, a great deal of feminist
research had to be scrapped because it was shown
to be inadequate. The LYING psychopaths who have
far too much control over our media, and were
all too quick to make sure we all heard the
original inaccurate information, do not mention
the fact that the information has been
discredited; and will often keep on churning out
the same erroneous data.

Typical among these are rape statistics which
are at best unsupported and at worst
discredited. Like wise domestic violence
statistics: similarly exaggerated at best and
discredited at worst. Likewise, child abuse
figures. For one try this:

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm

Between 40% and 60% of rape allegations may be
false. But the femboids in the mass media will
not be found admitting this. And that is 12 year
old information.

The women's refuges are highly questionable. A
recent piece by Glenn Sacks raises doubts about
the whole way in which dv is processed. You
might take a look at this:

http://www.glennsacks.com/octobers_domestic_violence.htm

I am already often aware of the materials that
Glenn Sacks depends upon.

Don't you think it is LYING when they allow
people to carry on believing what has long been
discredited? Don't you think it is LYING when
they fail to report the contrary information and
give it equal publicity to that original
erroneous research? And don't you think it is
LYING when they persist in iterating the faulty
data as if it were credible?

In the West Midland area of the UK recently we
have had a fine example of the feminist
mythology. The SuperBull Myth came to town. Of
course, many of us on soc.men and other men's
groups around the net are well aware that the
SuperBull Myth is just that; a long discredited
nonsense of the feminists. But, shortly before
this summer's Football World Cup we were told
that the cops were visiting men known to them
for domestic violence, and warning that they
would be ready if there was trouble during the
World Cup.

I wrote a scathing email to the feminazi media
condemning this and offering references casting
doubt of the claim that men are more violent
during major sporting fixtures. I was ignored.
The femboid media only take one side of the
story and that is the feminist side.

After the world cup was over I asked the local
cops if there was any significant increase in
complaints during the World Cup as opposed to
the preceding non-World Cup year. There was not.

I again wrote to the femboid media; again I was
ignored.

Similarly we see that the whole dv industry only
deals with life the universe and everything from
the point of view of the
feminist/patriarchal/Duluth-model position. No
therapeutic approach; no analysis; no
explanation; no research that is not consistent
with the feminazi position is allowed or to be
funded.

Meanwhile back in the land of feminazi LIES;
females claim that they are the human half of
the human race while we mere men are the rat
half of the rat race. But they are repeatedly
shown to be violent;and abusive; corrupt and
destructive toward anything that does not
conform to their view. There are issues going
back to the late sixties/early seventies with
the refuge movement and Erin Pizzey in
particular. There are serious difficulties
arising about the way in which dv is handled.

I could go on but this is perhaps enough for now.

D.

[Dustbin]

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Kathy Morgan

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:28:28 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005

It seemed to me this article was saying that if it turns out, as some
recent research suggests, that old women are grumpier than old men
(contrary to the stereotype) that it is because women have good reasons to
be angry.

I suspect the reason men mellow with age is that they are less driven by
testosterone as the get older and levels drop. Women don't experience
that drop in testosterone with age and stay grumpy.

Post by Aratzio
And the Subject is a violation of your charter.

I approved the original article because I perceived the Subject to be an
amusing tongue-in-cheek commentary on the study cited. I'm sorry that
you disagree, but I didn't take this to be gender-bashing. Marginal,
yes, but not to the extent of rejecting the article.
As a moderator, I'm somewhat inclined in a marginal case toward erring
on the side of approval rather than rejection. I am new to the culture
here, so if the majority of users feel this entire thread should have
been rejected due to the Subject line, obviously I would need to adjust
my threshold. I think it's obvious that the body of the post was
acceptable, so the question is does the Subject take the post over the
top?

And what happens when something really critical
of women comes along?
Can we have man-bashing on radio; television;
newspapers, and magazines but we must not have
the means to reply.
I thought the idea of soc.men.moderated was to
get rid of the AUKers; not to get rid of much of
the critical anti-feminist comment.

That is one of the goals---by eliminating the cross posting
that the AUKers seem to relish.
Another goal is to reduce the number and intensity of the
flame wars seen so often on soc.men. One way to do that
is by placing limits on posts attacking persons and groups.
You can be as critical as you like---you will just have to
do it with language that would pass muster with your local
newspaper editor or TV commentator.

The prblem with that is that it comes down to
censorship.

Not exactly. Look up the difference between censorship
and prior restraint. Even prior restraint doesn't exactly
apply hear, at it is aimed at supression of ideas, not
at control of they way in which they are expressed.

I've just taken a look at the first couple of
paras of Wiki's definition on these and I regard
that a technical difference. Suppression of
honest and truthful criticism is suppression
whatever you call it.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
I have written numerous letters in a basically
civilised language making statements that are
either critical of feminists or showing the
inconsistency in their assertions; or
contradicting their statements, and often
supported by reasonable quality references but I
am hardly ever published. Once in 1988 I was
published and, instead of being met with
challenging counter argument I was effectively
flamed by female writers. Interestingly - what
we would call flaming was allowed when females
did it but I was/am fairly sure that I would not
have been allowed to use basically insulting
language about females.

Do you believe that you can make a point more
effectively by insulting people?

I said I have written letters in basically
civilised language and still not received
attention. When the language gets stronger it is
usually to refer to people as psychopaths when
they suppress legitimate information. That is
not unreasonable since deliberate corruption of
a debate; suppression of information, is LYING
and that can certainly be regarded as
psychopathic. Some people then like to consider
that being called a psychopath is insulting. Of
course, in the context it is not insulting it is
merely the truth. It is only that the media like
to portray psychopaths as wide-eyed killers
haring down the street with a Sabatier knife in
one hand and a chain saw in the other followed
by first violins. In fact, most psychopaths are
devious deceitful tricksters; not murderers. So
the use of the word is quite legitimate.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
In this regard you may recall what happened to
Neil Lyndon after the publication of his two
piece article in the Times back in December 1990.
So I take it that it will be okay to point out
that most child abuse is physical not sexual
(though you might not believe it if you listened
to the ranting feminists); Most child abuse is
committed by females not males (though you might
not believe it if you listened to the ranting
feminists); most of their victims are male not
female (though you might not believe it if you
listened to the ranting feminists); and,
finally, on the order of 50% of rape allegations
may well be false.
These statements are true and can be supported
by reasonable evidences. But will we be allowed
to say these things; and will we be allowed to
get pissed off with all the LIES to the contrary
from the feminazis?

You can say these things---in fact you just did.
You can get as angry as you like---as long as
you control the manner in which you express that
anger. The law doesn't allow you to go out and
hit the first person you meet because you are
angry. Here, we don't allow you to bash people
just because you are angry.

This is very much to the point.

I am accused of bashing simply because the piece
was critical of females.

I am very critical of female. Particularly their
readiness with which they will exaggerate,
distort and even spew out falsities. Also, add
to this double standards (which, after all just
another form of LYING). So far as I am concerned
it is fine to identify LIES to expose them and
to call those people who perpetrate them LIARS;
hypocrites and psychopaths. Since all three
words would be legitimate.

If that kind of /name calling/ is illegitimate
then we have a problem. Though I don't mind
calling them slags and sluts now and then. But,
in general, the worst is reserved for my ex-wife ;-)

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
Feminists have used plenty of strong and abusive
language toward men in the last thirty years.
Large quantities of this was unjustified. Also,
much of it was printed in newspapers or
announced on radio or television. Will that
standard apply here?

They won't get to bash men on smm. So far, it hasn't
been a problem.
<<SNIP>>
Mark Borgerson
Moderator, soc.men.moderated

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:20:23 +0000, Dustbin wrote:

[...]

Post by Dustbin
I am accused of bashing simply because the piece
was critical of females.

The person who accused you of bashing was claiming that use of the term
"bitches" to refer to women was bashing. As far as I can tell, the content
of your post was not in question, only the terminology of the subject line.

Post by Dustbin
I am very critical of female. Particularly their
readiness with which they will exaggerate,
distort and even spew out falsities.

Do you have any evidence that the majority of women behave this way? Do you
have any evidence that women are more likely to lie than men?

Post by Dustbin
Also, add
to this double standards (which, after all just
another form of LYING).

Do you have any evidence that women are more likely to have double
standards than men or that this is a characteristic of all or even most
women?

Post by Dustbin
So far as I am concerned
it is fine to identify LIES to expose them and
to call those people who perpetrate them LIARS;
hypocrites and psychopaths. Since all three
words would be legitimate.

Identifying specific lies by specific people is legitimate. Concluding
that everyone who is the same sex as the liar is also a liar is highly
illogical. I could come up with examples of men who had lied. This would
not justify me making statements claiming that "males spew out falsities."

Post by Dustbin
If that kind of /name calling/ is illegitimate
then we have a problem.

Would you think that name-calling were illegitimate if people made the
statements about males that you have made about females?
Name-calling of an entire group based on their sex, race or sexual
orientation is precisely what the charter was intended to prevent. I did
not want it to be legitimate on smm.

Post by Dustbin
Though I don't mind
calling them slags and sluts now and then. But,
in general, the worst is reserved for my ex-wife ;-)

It is understandable that your perception of women would be coloured by
your experiences of your ex-wife. It is a logical fallacy, however, to
make generalizations based on too small a sample.

[Dustbin]

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by Dustbin
I am accused of bashing simply because the piece
was critical of females.

The person who accused you of bashing was claiming that use of the term
"bitches" to refer to women was bashing. As far as I can tell, the content
of your post was not in question, only the terminology of the subject line.

Yes. It is still going on in other branches of
this thread.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
I am very critical of female. Particularly their
readiness with which they will exaggerate,
distort and even spew out falsities.

Do you have any evidence that the majority of women behave this way? Do you
have any evidence that women are more likely to lie than men?

YES! I have been trying to get people to
understand this for over fifteen years.

It is a matter of brain structure.

The female has a thicker Corpus Collosum with
more neural threads connecting the left and
right halves of the cerebrum. It is held that
this results in the female being more inclined
to connect her emotions to her output circuits
than a man.

<quote>
And the latest research has shown that the more
connections that people have between the left
and right hemispheres [of the cerebrum the top
part of the brain], the more articulate and
fluent they are. This finding proves another
explanation for women’s verbal dexterity. But
could the corpus callosum [a large band of nerve
fibres connecting the two halves of the
cerebrum] provide the answer to another mystery;
could it provide a somewhat prosaic solution to
the secret of female intuition? Is the physical
capacity of a woman to connect and relate more
pieces of information than a man explained not
by witchcraft, after all, but merely by superior
switchgear. Since women are better at
recognising the emotional nuances in voice,
gesture, and facial expression, a whole range of
sensory information. They can deduce more from
such information because they have a greater
capacity than men to integrate and cross-relate
verbal and visual information.
</quote>
[Moir, A., & Jessel, D. (1989). Brainsex.
London. Michael Joseph [p. 48.]]

And:

<quote>
Man keeps his emotions in their place; and that
place is on the right side of his brain, while
the power to express his feelings in speech lies
over on the other side. Because the two halves
of the brain are connected by a smaller number
of fibres than a woman’s, the flow of
information between one side of the brain and
the other is more restricted. It is then often
more difficult for a man to express his emotions
because the information is flowing less easily
to the verbal, left side of his brain.
</quote>
[Moir, A., & Jessel, D. (1989). Brainsex.
London. Michael Joseph [p. 48.]]

And:

<quote>
If a man does cry, something is deeply and badly
wrong, while there is a degree of hyperbole in
much female expression, whether physical or
verbal. Women choose and stress words exaggeratedly.
</quote>
[Moir, A., & Jessel, D. (1989). Brainsex.
London. Michael Joseph [p. 138.]]

These are all from on source since I just
grabbed a few for this post, but there are now a
plethora of books out there that are based on
the same information. Anne Cambell's The
Opposite sex (1989) and the now infamous Men are
from Mars and Women are from Venus. These books
do not directly accuse women of prolific LYING
as I do, but what they say leads to that conclusion.

I have posted a separate piece on this (under
the title 'Women "lie, cheat and steal"')
concerning a survey carried out in the UK a few
years ago.

More recent evidence has indicated that men have
a higher quantities of Gamma-Amino Butyric Acid
(GABA) in their brains which tends to discharge
or inhibit neurones. Again this can limit the
connection of emotion to output.

It is interesting that on a discussion programme
this morning in UK one female panelist was
caught out twice excusing LIES.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Also, add
to this double standards (which, after all just
another form of LYING).

Do you have any evidence that women are more likely to have double
standards than men or that this is a characteristic of all or even most
women?

Yes. There is substantial scientific evidence to
support this point but it is politically
incorrect so it is not picked up by the main
stream media. See above.

In fact, for over fifteen years I have been
saying that women are born LIARS. That may seem
shocking but, because the underlying qualities
are undeniably genetic, it remains the case.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
So far as I am concerned
it is fine to identify LIES to expose them and
to call those people who perpetrate them LIARS;
hypocrites and psychopaths. Since all three
words would be legitimate.

Identifying specific lies by specific people is legitimate. Concluding
that everyone who is the same sex as the liar is also a liar is highly
illogical.

Not if there is a sound scientific reason for
saying that women are more likely to LIE on the
basis of a characteristic that is specific to
femaleness. In the same way that it has been
widely held that males are more inclined to
violence because they have higher testosterone
levels and certain neurones (that are associated
with violence) in the hypothalamus are more
responsive to testosterone.

I had a slightly interesting and pertinent
experience in 1989. I found this is a book:

<quote>
Eight months ago Carabinieri patrolling the
streets near Rome’s famous and beautiful Piazza
Navona found a mass rape in progress: its victim
was 30-year-old Maria Camminara... In court,
accusations, interrogations, squalid details,
insinuations, insults flew: ‘All women are
liars, its a known scientific fact,’ said the
defence at one point.

(Evening Standard 1988.)
</quote>
[ Morgan, F., (1989) The Misogynist’s Source
Book. London. Jonathan Cape Ltd. [p. 205.]]

When I first read this I simply chuckled and
thought: 'You'll never prove that
scientifically.' The important word being
scientifically: that there be scientific
scholarship of at least reasonable quality that
leads to the conclusion that women are in some
way by virtue only of their femaleness, LIARS.

I read Morgan around about September that year.
I picked up the Moir and Jessel book in
December. There in the second book was the
evidence that women are more inclined to LIE
than men.

It is quite legitimate no matter how
unacceptable it may be to say it.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
I could come up with examples of men who had lied.

I didn't say men don't LIE. Take a look at our
politicians: mostly men and everyone one a LYING
bastard. (oh sorry - is that male bashing ;-) )

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
This would
not justify me making statements claiming that "males spew out falsities."

There is now a very long history of falsity
particular from so-called feminist researchers.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
If that kind of /name calling/ is illegitimate
then we have a problem.

Would you think that name-calling were illegitimate if people made the
statements about males that you have made about females?

I take no notice of feminist name-calling. After
nearly fifty years of feminist abuse I have
grown accustomed to it. Or have you forgotten:
"All men are Idi Amin." Or perhaps "All men are
rapists."

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
Name-calling of an entire group based on their sex, race or sexual
orientation is precisely what the charter was intended to prevent. I did
not want it to be legitimate on smm.

What is it is true.

All females have XX sex chromasomes.

Oh dear I can't say that because I can't say
something about the whole sex. That would make
it illegitimate to say that "All females are
female."

And I have not said all females are LIARS only
that females are far more likely to LIE than
males - which is true on the evidence.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Though I don't mind
calling them slags and sluts now and then. But,
in general, the worst is reserved for my ex-wife ;-)

It is understandable that your perception of women would be coloured by
your experiences of your ex-wife. It is a logical fallacy, however, to
make generalizations based on too small a sample.

I don't. One of the problems, in that specific
area, is that other women got around and covered
up for her and even threatened to LIE in court
for her. Eventually, I found that these other
women also knew that my wife was a right little
story teller. In spite of the fact that they
knew my wife was a LIAR they were still prepared
to LIE for her to get her what she wanted.

Even that lot: about 20 females, would be too
small a sample. I have watched hypocrisy, double
standards and rule switching on the part of
females day after day after day for thirty years.

It is interesting that when the brain data says
some negative about females they insist that the
brains are the same; but if the very same
science says something negative about men it can
be given the full glories of mass media
treatment. Hence we are readily told that men
are insensitive bastards; (based on brain
differences) but must never suggest that women
are more given to LYING (based on - the very
same - brain differences).

D.

[Mark Borgerson]

=20
[...]=20

I am accused of bashing simply because the piece=20
was critical of females.

=20
The person who accused you of bashing was claiming that use of the term
"bitches" to refer to women was bashing. As far as I can tell, the con=

tent

of your post was not in question, only the terminology of the subject l=

ine.
Yes. It is still going on in other branches of=20
this thread.

=20

I am very critical of female. Particularly their=20
readiness with which they will exaggerate,=20
distort and even spew out falsities.

=20
Do you have any evidence that the majority of women behave this way? Do=

you

have any evidence that women are more likely to lie than men? =20

YES! I have been trying to get people to=20
understand this for over fifteen years.
It is a matter of brain structure.
The female has a thicker Corpus Collosum with=20
more neural threads connecting the left and=20
right halves of the cerebrum. It is held that=20
this results in the female being more inclined=20
to connect her emotions to her output circuits=20
than a man.
<<SNIP several quotations about brain function-----

none which actually say anything about lying>>

It is interesting that on a discussion programme=20
this morning in UK one female panelist was=20
caught out twice excusing LIES.

=20

Also, add=20
to this double standards (which, after all just=20
another form of LYING).

If double standards are just a form of lying, why don't
you feel that other forms of dishonesty, such as theft,
are just another form of lying?

=20
Do you have any evidence that women are more likely to have double
standards than men or that this is a characteristic of all or even most
women?

Yes. There is substantial scientific evidence to=20
support this point but it is politically=20
incorrect so it is not picked up by the main=20
stream media. See above.

None of the quotes above discuss lying! They discuss
differences in emotional behaviour. I would hypothesize
that many lies are made on the basis of logical
unemotional decisions. Might not a strong
emotional connection between the brain and speech
just as well lead to a person blurting out the
truth??

In fact, for over fifteen years I have been=20
saying that women are born LIARS. That may seem=20
shocking but, because the underlying qualities=20
are undeniably genetic, it remains the case.

You haven't given any evidence of this yet.

=20

So far as I am concerned=20
it is fine to identify LIES to expose them and=20
to call those people who perpetrate them LIARS;=20
hypocrites and psychopaths. Since all three=20
words would be legitimate.

=20
Identifying specific lies by specific people is legitimate. Concluding
that everyone who is the same sex as the liar is also a liar is highly
illogical.

Not if there is a sound scientific reason for=20
saying that women are more likely to LIE on the=20
basis of a characteristic that is specific to=20
femaleness. In the same way that it has been=20
widely held that males are more inclined to=20
violence because they have higher testosterone=20
levels and certain neurones (that are associated=20
with violence) in the hypothalamus are more=20
responsive to testosterone.

Yes, but you have failed to give any evidence about
lying!

I had a slightly interesting and pertinent=20
<quote>
Eight months ago Carabinieri patrolling the=20
streets near Rome=92s famous and beautiful Piazza=20
Navona found a mass rape in progress: its victim=20
was 30-year-old Maria Camminara... In court,=20
accusations, interrogations, squalid details,=20
insinuations, insults flew: =91All women are=20
liars, its a known scientific fact,=92 said the=20
defence at one point.
(Evening Standard 1988.)
</quote>
[ Morgan, F., (1989) The Misogynist=92s Source=20
Book. London. Jonathan Cape Ltd. [p. 205.]]
When I first read this I simply chuckled and=20
thought: 'You'll never prove that=20
scientifically.' The important word being=20
scientifically: that there be scientific=20
scholarship of at least reasonable quality that=20
leads to the conclusion that women are in some=20
way by virtue only of their femaleness, LIARS.
I read Morgan around about September that year.=20
I picked up the Moir and Jessel book in=20
December. There in the second book was the=20
evidence that women are more inclined to LIE=20
than men.

What evidence? Can you please provide us with a
quote that uses the word "lie" or "lying"

It is quite legitimate no matter how=20
unacceptable it may be to say it.

Yes, but it isn't quite so legitimate to jump to
conclusions not supported by the evidence you have
provided.

I could come up with examples of men who had lied.

I didn't say men don't LIE. Take a look at our=20
politicians: mostly men and everyone one a LYING=20
bastard. (oh sorry - is that male bashing ;-) )

This would
not justify me making statements claiming that "males spew out falsitie=

s."
There is now a very long history of falsity=20
particular from so-called feminist researchers.

Cite? So-called feminist researchers, or real feminist
researchers? Which ones have that history?

=20

If that kind of /name calling/ is illegitimate=20
then we have a problem.=20

=20
Would you think that name-calling were illegitimate if people made the
statements about males that you have made about females?

I take no notice of feminist name-calling. After=20
nearly fifty years of feminist abuse I have=20
grown accustomed to it. Or have you forgotten:=20
"All men are Idi Amin." Or perhaps "All men are=20
rapists."

But in another post, you justify your own name-calling
("bitches") based on the behaviour of women!

Name-calling of an entire group based on their sex, race or sexual
orientation is precisely what the charter was intended to prevent. I di=

d

not want it to be legitimate on smm.

What is it is true.
All females have XX sex chromasomes.
Oh dear I can't say that because I can't say=20
something about the whole sex. That would make=20
it illegitimate to say that "All females are=20
female."
And I have not said all females are LIARS only=20
that females are far more likely to LIE than=20
males - which is true on the evidence.

What evidence is that?

=20

Though I don't mind=20
calling them slags and sluts now and then. But,=20
in general, the worst is reserved for my ex-wife ;-)

=20
It is understandable that your perception of women would be coloured by
your experiences of your ex-wife. It is a logical fallacy, however, to
make generalizations based on too small a sample.

I don't. One of the problems, in that specific=20
area, is that other women got around and covered=20
up for her and even threatened to LIE in court=20
for her. Eventually, I found that these other=20
women also knew that my wife was a right little=20
story teller. In spite of the fact that they=20
knew my wife was a LIAR they were still prepared=20
to LIE for her to get her what she wanted.

The plural of anecdote is not citation! (thanks, Andre)

Even that lot: about 20 females, would be too=20
small a sample. I have watched hypocrisy, double=20
standards and rule switching on the part of=20
females day after day after day for thirty years.

Seek, and ye shall find!

It is interesting that when the brain data says=20
some negative about females they insist that the=20
brains are the same; but if the very same=20
science says something negative about men it can=20
be given the full glories of mass media=20
treatment. Hence we are readily told that men=20
are insensitive bastards; (based on brain=20
differences) but must never suggest that women=20
are more given to LYING (based on - the very=20
same - brain differences).

You haven't yet shown any evidence of the connection
between brain differences and lying, though. It's
an interesting hypothesis, but still needs some
supporting experimental evidence.

Mark Borgerson

[Dustbin]

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20
[...]=20

I am accused of bashing simply because the piece=20
was critical of females.

=20
The person who accused you of bashing was claiming that use of the term
"bitches" to refer to women was bashing. As far as I can tell, the con=

tent

of your post was not in question, only the terminology of the subject l=

ine.
Yes. It is still going on in other branches of=20
this thread.

=20

I am very critical of female. Particularly their=20
readiness with which they will exaggerate,=20
distort and even spew out falsities.

=20
Do you have any evidence that the majority of women behave this way? Do=

you

have any evidence that women are more likely to lie than men? =20

YES! I have been trying to get people to=20
understand this for over fifteen years.
It is a matter of brain structure.
The female has a thicker Corpus Collosum with=20
more neural threads connecting the left and=20
right halves of the cerebrum. It is held that=20
this results in the female being more inclined=20
to connect her emotions to her output circuits=20
than a man.
<<SNIP several quotations about brain function-----

none which actually say anything about lying>>

So if the writers do not actually use the
word(s) LIE or LYING you don't accept it. Try
reasoning it out. And looking at the behaviour
of females.

If emotions swing and sway (which they do in all
of us) and females connect their emotions to
their output circuits more readily than men it
follows that females are more likely than men to
change what they are saying when their emotions
change.

See, for example, that when a man hits a woman
the feminists will say: 'There is no excuse'.
But when a female hits a male, suddenly it's her
hormones, or it was a bad day at work, or she
had an evil childhood, or he provoked her.... etc.

When I speak of the torrent of LIES we have got
from females in the last thirty years, this is
very much the kind of thing I am talking about.
With one breath they lay claim to equality and
almost in the next breath they want different
treatment for females as opposed to males.

One can hardly read a newspaper or switch on the
television without seeing this double standard.
As I have said elsewhere, by the late
nineteen-eighties I gave up making notes of all
the LIES of females.

Post by Mark Borgerson

It is interesting that on a discussion programme=20
this morning in UK one female panelist was=20
caught out twice excusing LIES.

=20

Also, add=20
to this double standards (which, after all just=20
another form of LYING).

If double standards are just a form of lying, why don't
you feel that other forms of dishonesty, such as theft,
are just another form of lying?

Double standards are a clear form of LYING. If
you maintain that the proper course of action is
so-and-so for one person and you do not maintain
the same for another person under the
essentially same circumstances you are being
inconsistent: LYING.

The theft is not of itself a LIE. Tough some
might consider that there is a LIE there in that
it will be assumed that the person presents
themselves as honest and, if they steal, they
are not honest and therefore that presentation
is a LIE.

For example. I used to be a television engineer
going from house to house repairing sets. We
were allowed to use the company car for private
purposes so long as we put our own petrol in.
But for pottering around town I didn't. I used
the company petrol and, so far a I am aware, so
did everyone else. This could be called theft
but I thought of it as a perk. The bosses knew
what went on and could have said something if
they wanted.

I gather from your point that you would say
someone was LYING if they did not own up
voluntarily to the theft (in which case it would
be pointless in the first place).

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20
Do you have any evidence that women are more likely to have double
standards than men or that this is a characteristic of all or even most
women?

Yes. There is substantial scientific evidence to=20
support this point but it is politically=20
incorrect so it is not picked up by the main=20
stream media. See above.

None of the quotes above discuss lying!

Deduce from the evidence. The writers cannot say
it outright because, if they did they would not
get published. And one of the writers (Moir) is
female so she might well not have agreed to
putting that in herself.
They discuss

Post by Mark Borgerson
differences in emotional behaviour. I would hypothesize
that many lies are made on the basis of logical
unemotional decisions.

Many LIES are quite cold and calculated. That
does change what I said. Because some LIES are
deliberate and calculated does not mean that
other LIES are not.

Post by Mark Borgerson
Might not a strong
emotional connection between the brain and speech
just as well lead to a person blurting out the
truth??

It does sometimes. Try getting angry and see
what happens ;-)

Post by Mark Borgerson

In fact, for over fifteen years I have been=20
saying that women are born LIARS. That may seem=20
shocking but, because the underlying qualities=20
are undeniably genetic, it remains the case.

You haven't given any evidence of this yet.

You are refusing to see it.

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20

So far as I am concerned=20
it is fine to identify LIES to expose them and=20
to call those people who perpetrate them LIARS;=20
hypocrites and psychopaths. Since all three=20
words would be legitimate.

=20
Identifying specific lies by specific people is legitimate. Concluding
that everyone who is the same sex as the liar is also a liar is highly
illogical.

Not if there is a sound scientific reason for=20
saying that women are more likely to LIE on the=20
basis of a characteristic that is specific to=20
femaleness. In the same way that it has been=20
widely held that males are more inclined to=20
violence because they have higher testosterone=20
levels and certain neurones (that are associated=20
with violence) in the hypothalamus are more=20
responsive to testosterone.

Yes, but you have failed to give any evidence about
lying!

You are refusing to see it.

Post by Mark Borgerson

I had a slightly interesting and pertinent=20
<quote>
Eight months ago Carabinieri patrolling the=20
streets near Rome=92s famous and beautiful Piazza=20
Navona found a mass rape in progress: its victim=20
was 30-year-old Maria Camminara... In court,=20
accusations, interrogations, squalid details,=20
insinuations, insults flew: =91All women are=20
liars, its a known scientific fact,=92 said the=20
defence at one point.
(Evening Standard 1988.)
</quote>
[ Morgan, F., (1989) The Misogynist=92s Source=20
Book. London. Jonathan Cape Ltd. [p. 205.]]
When I first read this I simply chuckled and=20
thought: 'You'll never prove that=20
scientifically.' The important word being=20
scientifically: that there be scientific=20
scholarship of at least reasonable quality that=20
leads to the conclusion that women are in some=20
way by virtue only of their femaleness, LIARS.
I read Morgan around about September that year.=20
I picked up the Moir and Jessel book in=20
December. There in the second book was the=20
evidence that women are more inclined to LIE=20
than men.

What evidence? Can you please provide us with a
quote that uses the word "lie" or "lying"

No. Because they would never have got published
if they had said that.

This is one of the problems; if you say straight
out that females are... something anti-social,
there is massive resistance to it getting
published. It follows from what they say in the
book that females are likely to persistently LIE.

Post by Mark Borgerson

It is quite legitimate no matter how=20
unacceptable it may be to say it.

Yes, but it isn't quite so legitimate to jump to
conclusions not supported by the evidence you have
provided.

It is supported. The evidence is there both in
the physiology; the chemistry and by social
observation.

Post by Mark Borgerson

I could come up with examples of men who had lied.

I didn't say men don't LIE. Take a look at our=20
politicians: mostly men and everyone one a LYING=20
bastard. (oh sorry - is that male bashing ;-) )

This would
not justify me making statements claiming that "males spew out falsitie=

s."
There is now a very long history of falsity=20
particular from so-called feminist researchers.

Cite? So-called feminist researchers, or real feminist
researchers? Which ones have that history?

If I did this my writings will become even
longer and to be honest I am sick of writing out
time after time. I have gone through all this so
many times. If the media had picked up on this
sixteen years ago - as I did - then we would not
even have to have this conversation now; it
would be accepted fact. Instead the media choose
to suppress this information - in spite of the
fact that they have had plenty of opportunity to
publicise it. On the other hand, they repeatedly
give air to dubious and shabby feminist
so-called science.

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20

If that kind of /name calling/ is illegitimate=20
then we have a problem.=20

=20
Would you think that name-calling were illegitimate if people made the
statements about males that you have made about females?

I take no notice of feminist name-calling. After=20
nearly fifty years of feminist abuse I have=20
grown accustomed to it. Or have you forgotten:=20
"All men are Idi Amin." Or perhaps "All men are=20
rapists."

But in another post, you justify your own name-calling
("bitches") based on the behaviour of women!

Yup! And I would justify a lot more after the
crap we have had to put up with for the last
thirty years.

How about, giving women the vote is the biggest
mistake of the twentieth century?

Post by Mark Borgerson

Name-calling of an entire group based on their sex, race or sexual
orientation is precisely what the charter was intended to prevent. I di=

d

not want it to be legitimate on smm.

What is it is true.
All females have XX sex chromasomes.
Oh dear I can't say that because I can't say=20
something about the whole sex. That would make=20
it illegitimate to say that "All females are=20
female."
And I have not said all females are LIARS only=20
that females are far more likely to LIE than=20
males - which is true on the evidence.

What evidence is that?

I have already offered the evidence if you just
don't want to accept it then that is that.

Men go to prison for rape on less evidence.

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20

Though I don't mind=20
calling them slags and sluts now and then. But,=20
in general, the worst is reserved for my ex-wife ;-)

=20
It is understandable that your perception of women would be coloured by
your experiences of your ex-wife. It is a logical fallacy, however, to
make generalizations based on too small a sample.

I don't. One of the problems, in that specific=20
area, is that other women got around and covered=20
up for her and even threatened to LIE in court=20
for her. Eventually, I found that these other=20
women also knew that my wife was a right little=20
story teller. In spite of the fact that they=20
knew my wife was a LIAR they were still prepared=20
to LIE for her to get her what she wanted.

The plural of anecdote is not citation! (thanks, Andre)

So for you it does not matter how many time
women blatantly LIE you will just cling to the
possibility that there might be one female out
there somewhere who isn't a LIAR.

You know what mate ;-)

With three billion females to choose from you
might be right.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Even that lot: about 20 females, would be too=20
small a sample. I have watched hypocrisy, double=20
standards and rule switching on the part of=20
females day after day after day for thirty years.

Seek, and ye shall find!

Well, that is little more than sarcasm.

Post by Mark Borgerson

It is interesting that when the brain data says=20
some negative about females they insist that the=20
brains are the same; but if the very same=20
science says something negative about men it can=20
be given the full glories of mass media=20
treatment. Hence we are readily told that men=20
are insensitive bastards; (based on brain=20
differences) but must never suggest that women=20
are more given to LYING (based on - the very=20
same - brain differences).

You haven't yet shown any evidence of the connection
between brain differences and lying, though.

I have and it is clear. You simply refuse to
accept it.

You are also applying different standards of
evidence to me than are applied to feminists who
are allowed to make clearly false statements and
get away with it. And they get to say it in the
mass media.

Post by Mark Borgerson
It's
an interesting hypothesis, but still needs some
supporting experimental evidence.

Open your eyes and ears.

Why is it that I can hear LIES at every turn and
you can't - or is it that you just don't want to.

D.

Post by Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson

[Mark Borgerson]

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20
[...]=20

I am accused of bashing simply because the piece=20
was critical of females.

=20
The person who accused you of bashing was claiming that use of the term
"bitches" to refer to women was bashing. As far as I can tell, the con=

tent

of your post was not in question, only the terminology of the subject l=

ine.
Yes. It is still going on in other branches of=20
this thread.

=20

I am very critical of female. Particularly their=20
readiness with which they will exaggerate,=20
distort and even spew out falsities.

=20
Do you have any evidence that the majority of women behave this way? Do=

you

have any evidence that women are more likely to lie than men? =20

YES! I have been trying to get people to=20
understand this for over fifteen years.
It is a matter of brain structure.
The female has a thicker Corpus Collosum with=20
more neural threads connecting the left and=20
right halves of the cerebrum. It is held that=20
this results in the female being more inclined=20
to connect her emotions to her output circuits=20
than a man.
<<SNIP several quotations about brain function-----

none which actually say anything about lying>>

So if the writers do not actually use the
word(s) LIE or LYING you don't accept it. Try
reasoning it out. And looking at the behaviour
of females.

Got it in one! I assume that the writers were intelligent
people choosing their words carefully. If they had meant
their studies to address the issue of lying I would expect
to find the words 'lying', 'prevarication', 'dishonesty'
and 'falsehood'. Those words seem to be missing in the
material you quoted, so I assume that you are drawing your
own conclusions from facts not in evidence.

Post by Dustbin
If emotions swing and sway (which they do in all
of us) and females connect their emotions to
their output circuits more readily than men it
follows that females are more likely than men to
change what they are saying when their emotions
change.

Changing what you say is not the same as lying.
If I say that the sky is gray today, while I said
the sky was blue yesterday, that doesn't mean
that I'm lying.

Post by Dustbin
See, for example, that when a man hits a woman
the feminists will say: 'There is no excuse'.
But when a female hits a male, suddenly it's her
hormones, or it was a bad day at work, or she
had an evil childhood, or he provoked her.... etc.

There's no lying there---just a matter of different
definitions. Nobody said one thing at one time
and a different thing at another time. Not a good
argument about lying.

Post by Dustbin
When I speak of the torrent of LIES we have got
from females in the last thirty years, this is
very much the kind of thing I am talking about.
With one breath they lay claim to equality and
almost in the next breath they want different
treatment for females as opposed to males.

I think you need to separate out your arguments--there are
falsehoods on a systematic scale perpetrated by individuals
and allowed by society. Then there are individual
lies told by one person to another. Your arguments
about emotions and brain structure differences apply only
second set. You are spending a lot of paragraphs
mixing up apples and oranges!

Post by Dustbin
One can hardly read a newspaper or switch on the
television without seeing this double standard.
As I have said elsewhere, by the late
nineteen-eighties I gave up making notes of all
the LIES of females.

I never wasted any time taking such notes. Perhaps
Ronald Reagan's approach is best: Trust, but verify.

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

It is interesting that on a discussion programme=20
this morning in UK one female panelist was=20
caught out twice excusing LIES.

=20

Also, add=20
to this double standards (which, after all just=20
another form of LYING).

If double standards are just a form of lying, why don't
you feel that other forms of dishonesty, such as theft,
are just another form of lying?

Double standards are a clear form of LYING. If
you maintain that the proper course of action is
so-and-so for one person and you do not maintain
the same for another person under the
essentially same circumstances you are being
inconsistent: LYING.

Bullshit! We have lots of different standards for
people based on age, citizenship, place of residence,
etc. etc. None of those different standards are
the same as lying. Is it a lie because my son
cannot get a driver's licence because he is only 15-3/4
while another young man can get one at age 16?


I will grant you that HIDDEN differing standards are
not a good thing. We generally call that predjudice
or bigotry---rather than lying.

Post by Dustbin
The theft is not of itself a LIE. Tough some
might consider that there is a LIE there in that
it will be assumed that the person presents
themselves as honest and, if they steal, they
are not honest and therefore that presentation
is a LIE.
For example. I used to be a television engineer
going from house to house repairing sets. We
were allowed to use the company car for private
purposes so long as we put our own petrol in.
But for pottering around town I didn't. I used
the company petrol and, so far a I am aware, so
did everyone else. This could be called theft
but I thought of it as a perk. The bosses knew
what went on and could have said something if
they wanted.
I gather from your point that you would say
someone was LYING if they did not own up
voluntarily to the theft (in which case it would
be pointless in the first place).

No, I would be more specific on my definition of
LYING. A lie is a false statement presented as
being true. If you don't make a statement about
your petrol use, you're dishonest, but not lying.
If someone asks you about it, you get to decide
whether to lie or tell the truth. If you give
different answers to two people, that's a double
standard. You might say "I sometimes use company petrol
for my own travel" to your boss, while saying
"I often use company petrol for my own travels"
That's an example of a double standard and different
statements. Whether one is a lie depends on the
definitions of 'sometimes' and 'often'. Thus,
not all double standards constitute lies.

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20
Do you have any evidence that women are more likely to have double
standards than men or that this is a characteristic of all or even most
women?

Yes. There is substantial scientific evidence to=20
support this point but it is politically=20
incorrect so it is not picked up by the main=20
stream media. See above.

There was no evidence given above.

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson
None of the quotes above discuss lying!

Deduce from the evidence. The writers cannot say
it outright because, if they did they would not
get published. And one of the writers (Moir) is
female so she might well not have agreed to
putting that in herself.

Now you're sounding like a conspiracy theorist! You
KNOW what they meant to say, but publishers' conspiracy
would not allow them to tell the truth. Statements
like that often get people labeled as "Extremist
Conspiracy Nuts". If you want your arguments to get
attention from reasonable people, you ought to watch
out for statements like that.

Post by Dustbin
They discuss

Post by Mark Borgerson
differences in emotional behaviour. I would hypothesize
that many lies are made on the basis of logical
unemotional decisions.

Many LIES are quite cold and calculated. That
does change what I said. Because some LIES are
deliberate and calculated does not mean that
other LIES are not.

The definition of lie requires a deliberate presentation
of a false statement of the truth. IMO, you are extending your
definition of lying past the point most people would consider
reasonable

From the Online Dictionary:

lie <n>
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

By this definition a lie can only be deliberate. An unconsciously false
statement might simply be the result of sloppy thinking or ignorance.

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson
Might not a strong
emotional connection between the brain and speech
just as well lead to a person blurting out the
truth??

It does sometimes. Try getting angry and see
what happens ;-)

Post by Mark Borgerson

In fact, for over fifteen years I have been=20
saying that women are born LIARS. That may seem=20
shocking but, because the underlying qualities=20
are undeniably genetic, it remains the case.

You haven't given any evidence of this yet.

You are refusing to see it.

I can't see evidence you haven't presented. I have only
your word that you have been saying women are born liars
for over fifteen years. I've certainly known women that
told lies in the last 15 years. I have no evidence that
all the women I've known in the last 15 years are liars.

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20

So far as I am concerned=20
it is fine to identify LIES to expose them and=20
to call those people who perpetrate them LIARS;=20
hypocrites and psychopaths. Since all three=20
words would be legitimate.

=20
Identifying specific lies by specific people is legitimate. Concluding
that everyone who is the same sex as the liar is also a liar is highly
illogical.

Not if there is a sound scientific reason for=20
saying that women are more likely to LIE on the=20
basis of a characteristic that is specific to=20
femaleness. In the same way that it has been=20
widely held that males are more inclined to=20
violence because they have higher testosterone=20
levels and certain neurones (that are associated=20
with violence) in the hypothalamus are more=20
responsive to testosterone.

Yes, but you have failed to give any evidence about
lying!

You are refusing to see it.

I can't see what you haven't presented. This could go
on forever--- ;-)

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

I had a slightly interesting and pertinent=20
<quote>
Eight months ago Carabinieri patrolling the=20
streets near Rome=92s famous and beautiful Piazza=20
Navona found a mass rape in progress: its victim=20
was 30-year-old Maria Camminara... In court,=20
accusations, interrogations, squalid details,=20
insinuations, insults flew: =91All women are=20
liars, its a known scientific fact,=92 said the=20
defence at one point.
(Evening Standard 1988.)
</quote>
[ Morgan, F., (1989) The Misogynist=92s Source=20
Book. London. Jonathan Cape Ltd. [p. 205.]]
When I first read this I simply chuckled and=20
thought: 'You'll never prove that=20
scientifically.' The important word being=20
scientifically: that there be scientific=20
scholarship of at least reasonable quality that=20
leads to the conclusion that women are in some=20
way by virtue only of their femaleness, LIARS.
I read Morgan around about September that year.=20
I picked up the Moir and Jessel book in=20
December. There in the second book was the=20
evidence that women are more inclined to LIE=20
than men.

What evidence? Can you please provide us with a
quote that uses the word "lie" or "lying"

No. Because they would never have got published
if they had said that.

Ah, the conspiracy to prevent publication once again!

Post by Dustbin
This is one of the problems; if you say straight
out that females are... something anti-social,
there is massive resistance to it getting
published. It follows from what they say in the
book that females are likely to persistently LIE.

It is apparent to you, perhaps. But it is not so
apparent to me.

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

It is quite legitimate no matter how=20
unacceptable it may be to say it.

Yes, but it isn't quite so legitimate to jump to
conclusions not supported by the evidence you have
provided.

It is supported. The evidence is there both in
the physiology; the chemistry and by social
observation.

Ah, it's present, but the authors couldn't say so----
OK, gotcha!

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

I could come up with examples of men who had lied.

I didn't say men don't LIE. Take a look at our=20
politicians: mostly men and everyone one a LYING=20
bastard. (oh sorry - is that male bashing ;-) )

This would
not justify me making statements claiming that "males spew out falsitie=

s."
There is now a very long history of falsity=20
particular from so-called feminist researchers.

Cite? So-called feminist researchers, or real feminist
researchers? Which ones have that history?

If I did this my writings will become even
longer and to be honest I am sick of writing out
time after time. I have gone through all this so
many times. If the media had picked up on this
sixteen years ago - as I did - then we would not
even have to have this conversation now; it
would be accepted fact. Instead the media choose
to suppress this information - in spite of the
fact that they have had plenty of opportunity to
publicise it. On the other hand, they repeatedly
give air to dubious and shabby feminist
so-called science.

Perhaps you ought to spend less time with the media and
more time reading real scientific reports. Oh, that's
right, the scientists aren't allowed to tell the truth!

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20

If that kind of /name calling/ is illegitimate=20
then we have a problem.=20

=20
Would you think that name-calling were illegitimate if people made the
statements about males that you have made about females?

I take no notice of feminist name-calling. After=20
nearly fifty years of feminist abuse I have=20
grown accustomed to it. Or have you forgotten:=20
"All men are Idi Amin." Or perhaps "All men are=20
rapists."

But in another post, you justify your own name-calling
("bitches") based on the behaviour of women!

Yup! And I would justify a lot more after the
crap we have had to put up with for the last
thirty years.

Hey, if you're willing to concede the moral high ground, don't
expect all men to follow you down that slippery slope!

Post by Dustbin
How about, giving women the vote is the biggest
mistake of the twentieth century?

Post by Mark Borgerson

Name-calling of an entire group based on their sex, race or sexual
orientation is precisely what the charter was intended to prevent. I di=

d

not want it to be legitimate on smm.

What is it is true.
All females have XX sex chromasomes.
Oh dear I can't say that because I can't say=20
something about the whole sex. That would make=20
it illegitimate to say that "All females are=20
female."
And I have not said all females are LIARS only=20
that females are far more likely to LIE than=20
males - which is true on the evidence.

What evidence is that?

I have already offered the evidence if you just
don't want to accept it then that is that.

Your "evidence" is anecdotal, an unjustified extension
of the statements of the sources you quote and reliance
on a conspiracy theory. Pardon me if my scientific training
leads me to find your arguments less than convincing.

Post by Dustbin
Men go to prison for rape on less evidence.

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20

Though I don't mind=20
calling them slags and sluts now and then. But,=20
in general, the worst is reserved for my ex-wife ;-)

=20
It is understandable that your perception of women would be coloured by
your experiences of your ex-wife. It is a logical fallacy, however, to
make generalizations based on too small a sample.

I don't. One of the problems, in that specific=20
area, is that other women got around and covered=20
up for her and even threatened to LIE in court=20
for her. Eventually, I found that these other=20
women also knew that my wife was a right little=20
story teller. In spite of the fact that they=20
knew my wife was a LIAR they were still prepared=20
to LIE for her to get her what she wanted.

The plural of anecdote is not citation! (thanks, Andre)

So for you it does not matter how many time
women blatantly LIE you will just cling to the
possibility that there might be one female out
there somewhere who isn't a LIAR.

You're basing your statement on your direct experience with
ALL women! LOL!

Post by Dustbin
You know what mate ;-)
With three billion females to choose from you
might be right.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Even that lot: about 20 females, would be too=20
small a sample. I have watched hypocrisy, double=20
standards and rule switching on the part of=20
females day after day after day for thirty years.

Seek, and ye shall find!

Well, that is little more than sarcasm.

Post by Mark Borgerson

It is interesting that when the brain data says=20
some negative about females they insist that the=20
brains are the same; but if the very same=20
science says something negative about men it can=20
be given the full glories of mass media=20
treatment. Hence we are readily told that men=20
are insensitive bastards; (based on brain=20
differences) but must never suggest that women=20
are more given to LYING (based on - the very=20
same - brain differences).

You haven't yet shown any evidence of the connection
between brain differences and lying, though.

I have and it is clear. You simply refuse to
accept it.
You are also applying different standards of
evidence to me than are applied to feminists who
are allowed to make clearly false statements and
get away with it. And they get to say it in the
mass media.

None of those statements are being made in smm. I
simply choose my forums more carefully that
some other people.

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson
It's
an interesting hypothesis, but still needs some
supporting experimental evidence.

Open your eyes and ears.
Why is it that I can hear LIES at every turn and
you can't - or is it that you just don't want to.

I can hear the lies---they're all over the media here---
after all we have a national election coming up
next week! I just don't have any evidence that
women are lying any more than men.


Mark Borgerson

[Dustbin]

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20
[...]=20

I am accused of bashing simply because the piece=20
was critical of females.

=20
The person who accused you of bashing was claiming that use of the term
"bitches" to refer to women was bashing. As far as I can tell, the con=

tent

of your post was not in question, only the terminology of the subject l=

ine.
Yes. It is still going on in other branches of=20
this thread.

=20

I am very critical of female. Particularly their=20
readiness with which they will exaggerate,=20
distort and even spew out falsities.

=20
Do you have any evidence that the majority of women behave this way? Do=

you

have any evidence that women are more likely to lie than men? =20

YES! I have been trying to get people to=20
understand this for over fifteen years.
It is a matter of brain structure.
The female has a thicker Corpus Collosum with=20
more neural threads connecting the left and=20
right halves of the cerebrum. It is held that=20
this results in the female being more inclined=20
to connect her emotions to her output circuits=20
than a man.
<<SNIP several quotations about brain function-----

none which actually say anything about lying>>

So if the writers do not actually use the
word(s) LIE or LYING you don't accept it. Try
reasoning it out. And looking at the behaviour
of females.

Got it in one! I assume that the writers were intelligent
people choosing their words carefully. If they had meant
their studies to address the issue of lying I would expect
to find the words 'lying', 'prevarication', 'dishonesty'
and 'falsehood'. Those words seem to be missing in the
material you quoted, so I assume that you are drawing your
own conclusions from facts not in evidence.

A) the book was not primarily about LYING it was
about brain differences; and
B) the book was published at a time when it
would have been dangerous and might even have
resulted in the book not being published to have
said it outright.

Are you unaware of the heated atmosphere of the
late nineteen-eighties.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
If emotions swing and sway (which they do in all
of us) and females connect their emotions to
their output circuits more readily than men it
follows that females are more likely than men to
change what they are saying when their emotions
change.

Changing what you say is not the same as lying.
If I say that the sky is gray today, while I said
the sky was blue yesterday, that doesn't mean
that I'm lying.

If the conditions change of course it is not
LYING. And I do not insist that all
inconsistency is LYING:

A) it is not LYING if the person has been given
faulty information and lasses it on in good faith.
B) it is not LYING if the person makes and
promise and circumstances make it impossible to
fulfil the promise.
C) it is not LYING if the person says something
believing it to be true while subconsciously
repressing the truth.

In other words, I apply something like the
Anglo-Amerikan legal tradition: A person is not
guilty unless they did the action deliberately.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
See, for example, that when a man hits a woman
the feminists will say: 'There is no excuse'.
But when a female hits a male, suddenly it's her
hormones, or it was a bad day at work, or she
had an evil childhood, or he provoked her.... etc.

There's no lying there---just a matter of different
definitions.

So what happened to equality?

Post by Mark Borgerson
Nobody said one thing at one time
and a different thing at another time.

The girls insist upon equality then want one
rules for men and another rule for women.

Post by Mark Borgerson
Not a good
argument about lying.

Very good argument and one that is well
recognised by plenty of other men.

I see that kind of inconsistency on a daily
basis on television in this country. If you
don't that is perhaps why you think I am so
extreme and you don't see all the LIES of women.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
When I speak of the torrent of LIES we have got
from females in the last thirty years, this is
very much the kind of thing I am talking about.
With one breath they lay claim to equality and
almost in the next breath they want different
treatment for females as opposed to males.

I think you need to separate out your arguments--there are
falsehoods on a systematic scale perpetrated by individuals
and allowed by society.

These are still LIES. I am not distinguishing
between the societal game and the LIES of
individuals in personal situations. LYING is LYING.

Post by Mark Borgerson
Then there are individual
lies told by one person to another. Your arguments
about emotions and brain structure differences apply only
second set.

Agreed. That does mean it is not LYING.

Post by Mark Borgerson
You are spending a lot of paragraphs
mixing up apples and oranges!

Only you are seeing LIES as not the same as LIES.

I am seeing apples and apples.

Where I see a difference is in the
responsibility of the LIAR: was it a deliberate
act? If it was not deliberate then it can be
understood and overlooked.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
One can hardly read a newspaper or switch on the
television without seeing this double standard.
As I have said elsewhere, by the late
nineteen-eighties I gave up making notes of all
the LIES of females.

I never wasted any time taking such notes. Perhaps
Ronald Reagan's approach is best: Trust, but verify.

Perhaps. You try verifying everything everyone
says to you. Good luck.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

It is interesting that on a discussion programme=20
this morning in UK one female panelist was=20
caught out twice excusing LIES.

=20

Also, add=20
to this double standards (which, after all just=20
another form of LYING).

If double standards are just a form of lying, why don't
you feel that other forms of dishonesty, such as theft,
are just another form of lying?

Double standards are a clear form of LYING. If
you maintain that the proper course of action is
so-and-so for one person and you do not maintain
the same for another person under the
essentially same circumstances you are being
inconsistent: LYING.

Bullshit! We have lots of different standards for
people based on age, citizenship, place of residence,
etc. etc.

That is dubious. We may apply different
standards as we obviously do to naughty children
and anti-social adults. But we do it for good
reason; not simply to excuse double standards.
In general the rules must be the same for all of
us. Even if, in fact, they rarely are. It is a
basic principle in a fair and decent society.

Post by Mark Borgerson
None of those different standards are
the same as lying. Is it a lie because my son
cannot get a driver's licence because he is only 15-3/4
while another young man can get one at age 16?

That is not a LIE: the rules are stated clearly
up front that not changed for one person or
another. You can have a driver's licence because
you are over 16; your son cannot because he is
under 16. If that is the law in your State that
is the rule. No one is changing it.

It would be a LIE to say the law is equal for
all of us and then apply it one way for one
person and another way for another person.

Post by Mark Borgerson
I will grant you that HIDDEN differing standards are
not a good thing. We generally call that predjudice
or bigotry---rather than lying.

Yes. The English language has more words for
LYING that Inuit has for snow ;-)

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
The theft is not of itself a LIE. Tough some
might consider that there is a LIE there in that
it will be assumed that the person presents
themselves as honest and, if they steal, they
are not honest and therefore that presentation
is a LIE.
For example. I used to be a television engineer
going from house to house repairing sets. We
were allowed to use the company car for private
purposes so long as we put our own petrol in.
But for pottering around town I didn't. I used
the company petrol and, so far a I am aware, so
did everyone else. This could be called theft
but I thought of it as a perk. The bosses knew
what went on and could have said something if
they wanted.
I gather from your point that you would say
someone was LYING if they did not own up
voluntarily to the theft (in which case it would
be pointless in the first place).

No, I would be more specific on my definition of
LYING. A lie is a false statement presented as
being true.

I am much more broad about it.

Anything that is misleading.

Your definition allows politicians for example
to make statements which are in fact true but
lead the listener to a false conclusion.

The English legal system even provides that
actions (without words) can be misleading - and
are considered wrong or grounds for action or
grounds for defence depending upon the
circumstances.

Post by Mark Borgerson
If you don't make a statement about
your petrol use, you're dishonest, but not lying.
If someone asks you about it, you get to decide
whether to lie or tell the truth. If you give
different answers to two people, that's a double
standard. You might say "I sometimes use company petrol
for my own travel" to your boss, while saying
"I often use company petrol for my own travels"
That's an example of a double standard and different
statements. Whether one is a lie depends on the
definitions of 'sometimes' and 'often'. Thus,
not all double standards constitute lies.

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20
Do you have any evidence that women are more likely to have double
standards than men or that this is a characteristic of all or even most
women?

Yes. There is substantial scientific evidence to=20
support this point but it is politically=20
incorrect so it is not picked up by the main=20
stream media. See above.

There was no evidence given above.

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson
None of the quotes above discuss lying!

Deduce from the evidence. The writers cannot say
it outright because, if they did they would not
get published. And one of the writers (Moir) is
female so she might well not have agreed to
putting that in herself.

Now you're sounding like a conspiracy theorist!

Wake up man. I don't need to conspiracy theory
this: look at the things that have been going on
for the last thirty years. A soon as anyone says
something feminazis don't like they are out of
the trap like greyhounds and hunting down the
offender with fangs at the ready. Many people
have been scared to say thing that will upset
the feminsists because reputations and lives
have been destroyed when some dared to say
entirely legitimate things that the feminists
did not like. Elsewhere I have described how
Erin Pizzey waas treated for daring to say that
women could be violent. Look at what happened to
Larry Summers for daring to suggest that boys
might be innately better at science and
engineering than girls. Have you been living on
another planet for the last three decades?

Post by Mark Borgerson
You
KNOW what they meant to say, but publishers' conspiracy
would not allow them to tell the truth. Statements
like that often get people labeled as "Extremist
Conspiracy Nuts". If you want your arguments to get
attention from reasonable people, you ought to watch
out for statements like that.

I have explained my reasons above.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
They discuss

Post by Mark Borgerson
differences in emotional behaviour. I would hypothesize
that many lies are made on the basis of logical
unemotional decisions.

Many LIES are quite cold and calculated. That
does change what I said. Because some LIES are
deliberate and calculated does not mean that
other LIES are not.

The definition of lie requires a deliberate presentation
of a false statement of the truth. IMO, you are extending your
definition of lying past the point most people would consider
reasonable

I don't think my definition is unreasonable and
socio-morally I think my definition is crucial.
If we say that a LIE is strictly limited to a
deliberate false statement then the many other
ways of deceiving someone into error can be
considered legitimate and not actionable as
wrong. But they have the same serious
consequences. Therefore, I think it is entirely
reasonable from a social-moral point of view to
regard all forms of deception as LYING - and I do.

Post by Mark Borgerson
lie <n>
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
By this definition a lie can only be deliberate. An unconsciously false
statement might simply be the result of sloppy thinking or ignorance.

Or psychological problem. But I have already
said that I accept the basic principle that it
should be deliberate in order to cast some one
as guilty.

But I would press you to look at the second
definition: "Something meant to deceive or give
a wrong impression." That conforms entirely to
my definition. So do you still have a problem
with it?

My Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th ed) says:

*lying* // pres.part. of lie.
adj. deceitful, false.

Dictionary.com at:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lying

says:

lie1 /la?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly?ing.
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent
to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a
false impression; imposture: His flashy car was
a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung
the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly,
as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false
impression.
–verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used
reflexively): to lie oneself out of a
difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of
difficulties.
—Idioms
8. give the lie to,
a. to accuse of lying; contradict.
b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His
poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.
9. lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly
or maliciously: If she told you exactly the
opposite of what she told me, she must be lying
in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.
[Origin: bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE lyge; c. G Lüge,
ON lygi; akin to Goth liugn; (v.) ME lien, OE
le-ogan (intransit.); c. G lügen, ON lju-ga, Goth
liugan]

—Synonyms 1. prevarication, falsification. See
falsehood. 5. prevaricate, fib.
—Antonyms 1. truth.

Note definition 2 again. Deliberately deceiving
is generally agreed to be within the definition
of LYING. I don't think I am stretching to point
unreasonably.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson
Might not a strong
emotional connection between the brain and speech
just as well lead to a person blurting out the
truth??

It does sometimes. Try getting angry and see
what happens ;-)

Post by Mark Borgerson

In fact, for over fifteen years I have been=20
saying that women are born LIARS. That may seem=20
shocking but, because the underlying qualities=20
are undeniably genetic, it remains the case.

You haven't given any evidence of this yet.

You are refusing to see it.

I can't see evidence you haven't presented.

You deny that it is there.

I have offered reference and brief citation. You
quibble with it.

Post by Mark Borgerson
I have only
your word that you have been saying women are born liars
for over fifteen years.

I thought you wanted evidence to support the
primary assertion not that I had been saying it
15 years. It doesn't matter whether you believe
that I have been saying for 15 years. You can
check the publication dates for the books I have
referred to and the possibility that - if I
arrived at the conclusion from those sources -
that I arrived at this position 15 years ago is
plausible. I don't really care whether you have
believe that I have been saying for 15 years
because that - of itself - is not the issue.

Post by Mark Borgerson
I've certainly known women that
told lies in the last 15 years. I have no evidence that
all the women I've known in the last 15 years are liars.

I have been saying that women are more likely to
LIE than men. I have also suggested that women
tend to have different motives. I have not said
that all women are LYING all the time. Maybe the
ones that you don't think were LYING were not
LYING at the time they were with you ;-)

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20

So far as I am concerned=20
it is fine to identify LIES to expose them and=20
to call those people who perpetrate them LIARS;=20
hypocrites and psychopaths. Since all three=20
words would be legitimate.

=20
Identifying specific lies by specific people is legitimate. Concluding
that everyone who is the same sex as the liar is also a liar is highly
illogical.

Not if there is a sound scientific reason for=20
saying that women are more likely to LIE on the=20
basis of a characteristic that is specific to=20
femaleness. In the same way that it has been=20
widely held that males are more inclined to=20
violence because they have higher testosterone=20
levels and certain neurones (that are associated=20
with violence) in the hypothalamus are more=20
responsive to testosterone.

Yes, but you have failed to give any evidence about
lying!

You are refusing to see it.

I can't see what you haven't presented. This could go
on forever--- ;-)

I have offered reference: Moir & Jessel (1989)
and Campbell (1989). The second reference does
not say anything directly related to LYING but
discusses brain differences. The Moir & Jessel
was cited in this regard.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

I had a slightly interesting and pertinent=20
<quote>
Eight months ago Carabinieri patrolling the=20
streets near Rome=92s famous and beautiful Piazza=20
Navona found a mass rape in progress: its victim=20
was 30-year-old Maria Camminara... In court,=20
accusations, interrogations, squalid details,=20
insinuations, insults flew: =91All women are=20
liars, its a known scientific fact,=92 said the=20
defence at one point.
(Evening Standard 1988.)
</quote>
[ Morgan, F., (1989) The Misogynist=92s Source=20
Book. London. Jonathan Cape Ltd. [p. 205.]]
When I first read this I simply chuckled and=20
thought: 'You'll never prove that=20
scientifically.' The important word being=20
scientifically: that there be scientific=20
scholarship of at least reasonable quality that=20
leads to the conclusion that women are in some=20
way by virtue only of their femaleness, LIARS.
I read Morgan around about September that year.=20
I picked up the Moir and Jessel book in=20
December. There in the second book was the=20
evidence that women are more inclined to LIE=20
than men.

What evidence? Can you please provide us with a
quote that uses the word "lie" or "lying"

No. Because they would never have got published
if they had said that.

Ah, the conspiracy to prevent publication once again!

Publishers know full well that they can be badly
damaged by the destructive tactics of feminists.
People who say uncomfortable things are
constantly confronted with resistance. Lenny
Lapon had trouble getting published; Barry
Worrall had trouble getting his book into print;
even Kate Millett (an established writer) had
trouble getting Loony Bin Trip published in the US.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
This is one of the problems; if you say straight
out that females are... something anti-social,
there is massive resistance to it getting
published. It follows from what they say in the
book that females are likely to persistently LIE.

It is apparent to you, perhaps. But it is not so
apparent to me.

Fine.


+++++++++

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

It is quite legitimate no matter how=20
unacceptable it may be to say it.

Yes, but it isn't quite so legitimate to jump to
conclusions not supported by the evidence you have
provided.

It is supported. The evidence is there both in
the physiology; the chemistry and by social
observation.

Ah, it's present, but the authors couldn't say so----
OK, gotcha!

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

I could come up with examples of men who had lied.

I didn't say men don't LIE. Take a look at our=20
politicians: mostly men and everyone one a LYING=20
bastard. (oh sorry - is that male bashing ;-) )

This would
not justify me making statements claiming that "males spew out falsitie=

s."
There is now a very long history of falsity=20
particular from so-called feminist researchers.

Cite? So-called feminist researchers, or real feminist
researchers? Which ones have that history?

If I did this my writings will become even
longer and to be honest I am sick of writing out
time after time. I have gone through all this so
many times. If the media had picked up on this
sixteen years ago - as I did - then we would not
even have to have this conversation now; it
would be accepted fact. Instead the media choose
to suppress this information - in spite of the
fact that they have had plenty of opportunity to
publicise it. On the other hand, they repeatedly
give air to dubious and shabby feminist
so-called science.

Perhaps you ought to spend less time with the media and
more time reading real scientific reports. Oh, that's
right, the scientists aren't allowed to tell the truth!

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20

If that kind of /name calling/ is illegitimate=20
then we have a problem.=20

=20
Would you think that name-calling were illegitimate if people made the
statements about males that you have made about females?

I take no notice of feminist name-calling. After=20
nearly fifty years of feminist abuse I have=20
grown accustomed to it. Or have you forgotten:=20
"All men are Idi Amin." Or perhaps "All men are=20
rapists."

But in another post, you justify your own name-calling
("bitches") based on the behaviour of women!

Yup! And I would justify a lot more after the
crap we have had to put up with for the last
thirty years.

Hey, if you're willing to concede the moral high ground, don't
expect all men to follow you down that slippery slope!

Post by Dustbin
How about, giving women the vote is the biggest
mistake of the twentieth century?

Post by Mark Borgerson

Name-calling of an entire group based on their sex, race or sexual
orientation is precisely what the charter was intended to prevent. I di=

d

not want it to be legitimate on smm.

What is it is true.
All females have XX sex chromasomes.
Oh dear I can't say that because I can't say=20
something about the whole sex. That would make=20
it illegitimate to say that "All females are=20
female."
And I have not said all females are LIARS only=20
that females are far more likely to LIE than=20
males - which is true on the evidence.

What evidence is that?

I have already offered the evidence if you just
don't want to accept it then that is that.

Your "evidence" is anecdotal, an unjustified extension
of the statements of the sources you quote and reliance
on a conspiracy theory. Pardon me if my scientific training
leads me to find your arguments less than convincing.

Post by Dustbin
Men go to prison for rape on less evidence.

Post by Mark Borgerson

=20

Though I don't mind=20
calling them slags and sluts now and then. But,=20
in general, the worst is reserved for my ex-wife ;-)

=20
It is understandable that your perception of women would be coloured by
your experiences of your ex-wife. It is a logical fallacy, however, to
make generalizations based on too small a sample.

I don't. One of the problems, in that specific=20
area, is that other women got around and covered=20
up for her and even threatened to LIE in court=20
for her. Eventually, I found that these other=20
women also knew that my wife was a right little=20
story teller. In spite of the fact that they=20
knew my wife was a LIAR they were still prepared=20
to LIE for her to get her what she wanted.

The plural of anecdote is not citation! (thanks, Andre)

So for you it does not matter how many time
women blatantly LIE you will just cling to the
possibility that there might be one female out
there somewhere who isn't a LIAR.

You're basing your statement on your direct experience with
ALL women! LOL!

Post by Dustbin
You know what mate ;-)
With three billion females to choose from you
might be right.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Even that lot: about 20 females, would be too=20
small a sample. I have watched hypocrisy, double=20
standards and rule switching on the part of=20
females day after day after day for thirty years.

Seek, and ye shall find!

Well, that is little more than sarcasm.

Post by Mark Borgerson

It is interesting that when the brain data says=20
some negative about females they insist that the=20
brains are the same; but if the very same=20
science says something negative about men it can=20
be given the full glories of mass media=20
treatment. Hence we are readily told that men=20
are insensitive bastards; (based on brain=20
differences) but must never suggest that women=20
are more given to LYING (based on - the very=20
same - brain differences).

You haven't yet shown any evidence of the connection
between brain differences and lying, though.

I have and it is clear. You simply refuse to
accept it.
You are also applying different standards of
evidence to me than are applied to feminists who
are allowed to make clearly false statements and
get away with it. And they get to say it in the
mass media.

None of those statements are being made in smm. I
simply choose my forums more carefully that
some other people.

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson
It's
an interesting hypothesis, but still needs some
supporting experimental evidence.

Open your eyes and ears.
Why is it that I can hear LIES at every turn and
you can't - or is it that you just don't want to.

I can hear the lies---they're all over the media here---
after all we have a national election coming up
next week! I just don't have any evidence that
women are lying any more than men.
Mark Borgerson

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

[...]

Post by Dustbin

Post by Kathy Morgan
As a moderator, I'm somewhat inclined in a marginal case toward erring
on the side of approval rather than rejection. I am new to the culture
here, so if the majority of users feel this entire thread should have
been rejected due to the Subject line, obviously I would need to adjust
my threshold. I think it's obvious that the body of the post was
acceptable, so the question is does the Subject take the post over the
top?

And what happens when something really critical
of women comes along?
Can we have man-bashing on radio; television;
newspapers, and magazines but we must not have
the means to reply.

The intent of the charter was that neither man-bashing nor woman-bashing
would be allowed on smm. It did not and does not seem to me to be just to
forbid one and not the other.

Post by Dustbin
I thought the idea of soc.men.moderated was to
get rid of the AUKers; not to get rid of much of
the critical anti-feminist comment.

In your earlier paragraph you wrote about being "critical of women". In
this one you have switched to discussing "critical anti-feminist comment".
The charter was written from the assumption that these are two distinct
things that cannot be used interchangeably as you appear to do in your
post.

Post by Dustbin
Maybe what is being said on soc.men will turn
out to be true.

I have not read all of what is being said on soc.men about smm, but what I
have seen has not impressed me as insightful.

[Dustbin]

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by Dustbin

Post by Kathy Morgan
As a moderator, I'm somewhat inclined in a marginal case toward erring
on the side of approval rather than rejection. I am new to the culture
here, so if the majority of users feel this entire thread should have
been rejected due to the Subject line, obviously I would need to adjust
my threshold. I think it's obvious that the body of the post was
acceptable, so the question is does the Subject take the post over the
top?

And what happens when something really critical
of women comes along?
Can we have man-bashing on radio; television;
newspapers, and magazines but we must not have
the means to reply.

The intent of the charter was that neither man-bashing nor woman-bashing
would be allowed on smm. It did not and does not seem to me to be just to
forbid one and not the other.

This is the problem.

Men are confronted with a lot of misandryst
attacks in the main stream media where we are
simply not allowed. In general the attitude of
the main stream media seems to be that anything
women want to say is legitimate criticism while
anything men say is dismissed misogyny. soc.men
offers men a forum where they are not muzzled
and can be equally (shall we say) forthright as
females are allowed to be in the main stream.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
I thought the idea of soc.men.moderated was to
get rid of the AUKers; not to get rid of much of
the critical anti-feminist comment.

In your earlier paragraph you wrote about being "critical of women". In
this one you have switched to discussing "critical anti-feminist comment".
The charter was written from the assumption that these are two distinct
things that cannot be used interchangeably as you appear to do in your
post.

So there is a slight distinction if you insist
that not all females are feminist. But the
feminist, in fact, claim the opposite: that all
women are feminists. If all women are feminists
there is no meaningful difference between
"critical of women" and "critical anti-feminist
comment".

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Maybe what is being said on soc.men will turn
out to be true.

I have not read all of what is being said on soc.men about smm, but what I
have seen has not impressed me as insightful.

It does seem some are condemning the book by its
cover.

D.

[Marcel Beaudoin]

Post by Dustbin
soc.men
offers men a forum where they are not muzzled
and can be equally (shall we say) forthright as
females are allowed to be in the main stream.

No. soc.men allows men to say what they want, as long as they follow the
party line. There is very little debate or discussion in soc.men, mostly
people agreeing with each other.

[Dustbin]

Post by Marcel Beaudoin

Post by Dustbin
soc.men
offers men a forum where they are not muzzled
and can be equally (shall we say) forthright as
females are allowed to be in the main stream.

No. soc.men allows men to say what they want, as long as they follow the
party line. There is very little debate or discussion in soc.men, mostly
people agreeing with each other.

So birds of a feather flock together. That tends
to happen in any free association situation.

Those on soc.men are on soc.men because they
have similar bitter experiences of dealing with
females.

But people in all walks of life tend to
congratulate with those of their own ilk.
Musicians with musicians; thespians with
thespians, peadophiles with peadophiles, etc.
People who think in a similar manner feel
comfortable with other who hold similar views
and uncomfortable with those who challenge or
question those views. It is a quite natural and
normal psycho-social phenomenon.

D.

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

[...]

Post by Dustbin

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
And what happens when something really critical
of women comes along?
Can we have man-bashing on radio; television;
newspapers, and magazines but we must not have
the means to reply.

The intent of the charter was that neither man-bashing nor woman-bashing
would be allowed on smm. It did not and does not seem to me to be just to
forbid one and not the other.

This is the problem.
Men are confronted with a lot of misandryst
attacks in the main stream media where we are
simply not allowed. In general the attitude of
the main stream media seems to be that anything
women want to say is legitimate criticism while
anything men say is dismissed misogyny. soc.men
offers men a forum where they are not muzzled
and can be equally (shall we say) forthright as
females are allowed to be in the main stream.

I agree with you about the presence of misandry in the media. I personally
have seen many examples of negative portrayals of men and read about more.
I have become convinced that this is an ongoing trend and I think this
attitude toward men very wrong and harmful to society. I think that you and
I could also agree on the importance of making people aware of this
problem.

I disagree, however, with your apparent reasoning above. You seem to be
saying that since women have unjustly attacked men that men now ought to
attack women. I object to this line of reasoning. I see it as very
similar to reasoning that I believe is characteristic of feminism. I
frequently encounter the idea among feminists that things like reverse
discrimination against men are justified because men have treated women
unfairly in the past.

Basically the position is that of "s/he started it; therefore I am
justified in whatever I do in retaliation". When there are two sides who
both feel that way, the likely result is escalation of hostilities.
Vendettas fueled by such thinking exist at personal, family and national
levels. In the latter case, they have gone on for centuries.

If people want to pursue that approach in soc.men, they can do so since it
is an unmoderated newsgroup. Soc.men.moderated was designed as a neutral
zone. Regardless of who started it, this is supposed to be a place where
nobody (male or female) attacks anybody else (male or female).

Post by Dustbin

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
I thought the idea of soc.men.moderated was to
get rid of the AUKers; not to get rid of much of
the critical anti-feminist comment.

In your earlier paragraph you wrote about being "critical of women". In
this one you have switched to discussing "critical anti-feminist comment".
The charter was written from the assumption that these are two distinct
things that cannot be used interchangeably as you appear to do in your
post.

So there is a slight distinction if you insist
that not all females are feminist. But the
feminist, in fact, claim the opposite: that all
women are feminists. If all women are feminists
there is no meaningful difference between
"critical of women" and "critical anti-feminist
comment".

I believe that feminists are wrong about many things, including any beliefs
they may hold that all women are feminists.

I personally do not call myself a feminist and have made a point of
distancing myself from feminism. Nobody has a right to put that label on
me. How can you include me in your criticisms of feminism merely because I
am a woman?

Post by Dustbin

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Maybe what is being said on soc.men will turn
out to be true.

I have not read all of what is being said on soc.men about smm, but what I
have seen has not impressed me as insightful.

It does seem some are condemning the book by its
cover.

Some people seem to be objecting to Kathy being a moderator simply because
she is a woman. She is extremely qualified for this position and I have
little sympathy with objections that are based on an argument that a woman
should not have the authority to reject a post by a man.

Other objections to smm seem rooted in my failings and mistakes as a
proponent. I have more sympathy with those objections. However, my time
as proponent is in the past. It would be nice if people would just move on.

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:28:28 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas

[...]

Post by Aratzio
And the Subject is a violation of your charter. Funny you missed that,
Jayne.

The moderators are doing a difficult and usually thankless job. I am
grateful to them and am not going to make their job harder by constantly
criticizing their decisions.

My role as proponent is over. The moderators are in charge. They have my
appreciation and support.

[Dustbin]

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

It seemed to me this article was saying that if it turns out, as some
recent research suggests, that old women are grumpier than old men
(contrary to the stereotype) that it is because women have good reasons to
be angry. The position seemed to be that being grumpy and angry is bad when
men do it, but is justified if women do.

Anything else new.

D.

[Viking]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:28:28 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

It seemed to me this article was saying that if it turns out, as some
recent research suggests, that old women are grumpier than old men
(contrary to the stereotype) that it is because women have good reasons to
be angry. The position seemed to be that being grumpy and angry is bad when
men do it, but is justified if women do.

From the article:

Jess Barrow, the head of policy at Age Concern Scotland, said: "Older
women have an awful lot to be grumpy about.

"Many are facing a retirement of poverty, pensions for women are
utterly inadequate and some women have no pension provision at all.

"It really doesn’t surprise me that old women may be grumpier than old
men."


Well, cripes, if their pension is so low, they should have thought of
that years ago.

[Dustbin]

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:28:28 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

It seemed to me this article was saying that if it turns out, as some
recent research suggests, that old women are grumpier than old men
(contrary to the stereotype) that it is because women have good reasons to
be angry. The position seemed to be that being grumpy and angry is bad when
men do it, but is justified if women do.

Jess Barrow, the head of policy at Age Concern Scotland, said: "Older
women have an awful lot to be grumpy about.
"Many are facing a retirement of poverty, pensions for women are
utterly inadequate and some women have no pension provision at all.
"It really doesn’t surprise me that old women may be grumpier than old
men."
Well, cripes, if their pension is so low, they should have thought of
that years ago.

Before they tossed their husbands down the dunny ;-)

D.

[Aratzio]

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:20:37 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

* Gender-based, race-based, or sexual-orientation-based bashing of
groups and/or individuals.

[Dustbin]

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:20:37 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

* Gender-based, race-based, or sexual-orientation-based bashing of
groups and/or individuals.

This is soc.men ... moderated.

If we can't talk gender based then it cannot be
soc.*men*.moderated can it?

D.

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:24:44 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:20:37 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

* Gender-based, race-based, or sexual-orientation-based bashing of
groups and/or individuals.

This is soc.men ... moderated.
If we can't talk gender based then it cannot be
soc.*men*.moderated can it?
D.

Your subject line? You consider that to be "gender based" talk or just
commentary on "the bitches"?

[Dustbin]

Post by Aratzio
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:24:44 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:20:37 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

* Gender-based, race-based, or sexual-orientation-based bashing of
groups and/or individuals.

This is soc.men ... moderated.
If we can't talk gender based then it cannot be
soc.*men*.moderated can it?
D.

Your subject line? You consider that to be "gender based" talk or just
commentary on "the bitches"?

I really find nothing seriously wrong with the
use of the word "bitches". When I consider the
things that men have been called in the last
thirty-five years calling the women "bitches" is
mild.

I have discussed the issue of men being nice
guys elsewhere in this thread so I don't see
much point in repeating it here.

D.

[Mark Borgerson]

Post by Dustbin

Post by Aratzio
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:24:44 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:20:37 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

* Gender-based, race-based, or sexual-orientation-based bashing of
groups and/or individuals.

This is soc.men ... moderated.
If we can't talk gender based then it cannot be
soc.*men*.moderated can it?
D.

Your subject line? You consider that to be "gender based" talk or just
commentary on "the bitches"?

I really find nothing seriously wrong with the
use of the word "bitches". When I consider the
things that men have been called in the last
thirty-five years calling the women "bitches" is
mild.

So you believe that improper behavior by some or all women
justifies improper behavior on your part.

I'm of the opinion that two wrongs don't make a right.

Post by Dustbin
I have discussed the issue of men being nice
guys elsewhere in this thread so I don't see
much point in repeating it here.

When has that ever stopped anyone on usenet! ;-)

(But I do appreciate posts which are concise and to the point.)


Mark Borgerson

[Dustbin]

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Aratzio
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:24:44 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:20:37 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

* Gender-based, race-based, or sexual-orientation-based bashing of
groups and/or individuals.

This is soc.men ... moderated.
If we can't talk gender based then it cannot be
soc.*men*.moderated can it?
D.

Your subject line? You consider that to be "gender based" talk or just
commentary on "the bitches"?

I really find nothing seriously wrong with the
use of the word "bitches". When I consider the
things that men have been called in the last
thirty-five years calling the women "bitches" is
mild.

So you believe that improper behavior by some or all women
justifies improper behavior on your part.

It is called equality. If they dish it out they
should expect the same in reply. Why should I be
the nice guy while they abuse and insult and
play their sick games. I was the nice guy back
in the later seventies and got my life mangled
by bitches who, in spite of claiming to be equal
to men, would not play fair.

Post by Mark Borgerson
I'm of the opinion that two wrongs don't make a right.

Nice if something is done about their wrongs
rather than simply expecting me to lie down and
be rolled over again and again by these psychopaths.

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
I have discussed the issue of men being nice
guys elsewhere in this thread so I don't see
much point in repeating it here.

When has that ever stopped anyone on usenet! ;-)

I could copy/paste it. What is the point?

D.

Post by Mark Borgerson
(But I do appreciate posts which are concise and to the point.)
Mark Borgerson

[Mark Borgerson]

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Aratzio
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:24:44 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:20:37 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

* Gender-based, race-based, or sexual-orientation-based bashing of
groups and/or individuals.

This is soc.men ... moderated.
If we can't talk gender based then it cannot be
soc.*men*.moderated can it?
D.

Your subject line? You consider that to be "gender based" talk or just
commentary on "the bitches"?

I really find nothing seriously wrong with the
use of the word "bitches". When I consider the
things that men have been called in the last
thirty-five years calling the women "bitches" is
mild.

So you believe that improper behavior by some or all women
justifies improper behavior on your part.

It is called equality. If they dish it out they
should expect the same in reply. Why should I be
the nice guy while they abuse and insult and
play their sick games. I was the nice guy back
in the later seventies and got my life mangled
by bitches who, in spite of claiming to be equal
to men, would not play fair.

OTOH, refusing to play their games would be called
moral superiority.

Since at least the time of the greek poets, everyone
has known that relationships between the sexes were
never 'fair'----or perhaps they were since all's fair
in love and war!

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson
I'm of the opinion that two wrongs don't make a right.

Nice if something is done about their wrongs
rather than simply expecting me to lie down and
be rolled over again and again by these psychopaths.

Like many other men, have been screwed over
by some women. Shit happens. But remember, you're
not all men and they weren't all women. Many men,
perhaps even the majority, have had quite different
experiences.

Why reduce yourself to their level? Does it make you feel better or
improve your life. Quiet avoidance of the situations that
caused your problems might be a better alternative.

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin
I have discussed the issue of men being nice
guys elsewhere in this thread so I don't see
much point in repeating it here.

When has that ever stopped anyone on usenet! ;-)

I could copy/paste it. What is the point?

Mark Borgerson

[Dustbin]

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Dustbin

Post by Aratzio
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:24:44 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:20:37 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

* Gender-based, race-based, or sexual-orientation-based bashing of
groups and/or individuals.

This is soc.men ... moderated.
If we can't talk gender based then it cannot be
soc.*men*.moderated can it?
D.

Your subject line? You consider that to be "gender based" talk or just
commentary on "the bitches"?

I really find nothing seriously wrong with the
use of the word "bitches". When I consider the
things that men have been called in the last
thirty-five years calling the women "bitches" is
mild.

So you believe that improper behavior by some or all women
justifies improper behavior on your part.

It is called equality. If they dish it out they
should expect the same in reply. Why should I be
the nice guy while they abuse and insult and
play their sick games. I was the nice guy back
in the later seventies and got my life mangled
by bitches who, in spite of claiming to be equal
to men, would not play fair.

OTOH, refusing to play their games would be called
moral superiority.

When they make allegations a man needs to defend
himself. There is no way to simply walk away and
pretend to the moral high ground.

Post by Mark Borgerson
Since at least the time of the greek poets, everyone
has known that relationships between the sexes were
never 'fair'----or perhaps they were since all's fair
in love and war!

Post by Dustbin

Post by Mark Borgerson
I'm of the opinion that two wrongs don't make a right.

Nice if something is done about their wrongs
rather than simply expecting me to lie down and
be rolled over again and again by these psychopaths.

Like many other men, have been screwed over
by some women. Shit happens. But remember, you're
not all men and they weren't all women. Many men,
perhaps even the majority, have had quite different
experiences.

That would be an entirely valid sentiment if
there was some evidence for it. Unfortunately,
if it was just one bad female then it would just
be a part of life; we don't blame everyone for
what one does. But she was surrounded by a gang
of females who were quite prepared to threaten
to LIE in court to fix things for her. Whether
they would or not was never put to the test;
partly because the legal system will not even
look at the issue and partly because there is no
point in going to court if the witnesses
threaten to fix it against you - no matter how
right you may be in fact.

D.

[Meat Plow]

Nice if something is done about their wrongs rather than simply
expecting me to lie down and be rolled over again and again by these
psychopaths.

Like many other men, have been screwed over by some women. Shit happens.
But remember, you're not all men and they weren't all women. Many men,
perhaps even the majority, have had quite different experiences.

It's sad to see one man so full of hate for women. His posts would be
better served in a news group dedicated to hate spew occupied by other
women haters IMO. I know several men who have split up, divorced etc.. and
none are enraged liked Dustbin.

[Dustbin]

Post by Meat Plow

Nice if something is done about their wrongs rather than simply
expecting me to lie down and be rolled over again and again by these
psychopaths.

Like many other men, have been screwed over by some women. Shit happens.
But remember, you're not all men and they weren't all women. Many men,
perhaps even the majority, have had quite different experiences.

It's sad to see one man so full of hate for women. His posts would be
better served in a news group dedicated to hate spew occupied by other
women haters IMO. I know several men who have split up, divorced etc.. and
none are enraged liked Dustbin.

You don't know the circumstances.

D.

[pandora]

Post by Meat Plow

Nice if something is done about their wrongs rather than simply
expecting me to lie down and be rolled over again and again by these
psychopaths.

Like many other men, have been screwed over by some women. Shit happens.
But remember, you're not all men and they weren't all women. Many men,
perhaps even the majority, have had quite different experiences.

It's sad to see one man so full of hate for women. His posts would be
better served in a news group dedicated to hate spew occupied by other
women haters IMO. I know several men who have split up, divorced etc.. and
none are enraged liked Dustbin.

Well, that IS what smm is all about, isn't it?

CWQ

[We'll see if THIS post gets through. My comments regarding the subject
line of this post didn't make it but the original (and succeeding), posts by
Dustbin have. What's up with that?]

Post by Meat Plow
--
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004
COOSN-266-06-25794

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

[...]

Post by pandora

Post by Meat Plow
It's sad to see one man so full of hate for women. His posts would be
better served in a news group dedicated to hate spew occupied by other
women haters IMO. I know several men who have split up, divorced etc.. and
none are enraged liked Dustbin.

Well, that IS what smm is all about, isn't it?

According to some people smm is about misogyny. According to others it is
a feminist conspiracy. These mutually incompatable views indicate that at
least one of these positions is incorrect. Personally, I think that both
are nonsense.

[pandora]

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by pandora

Post by Meat Plow
It's sad to see one man so full of hate for women. His posts would be
better served in a news group dedicated to hate spew occupied by other
women haters IMO. I know several men who have split up, divorced etc.. and
none are enraged liked Dustbin.

Well, that IS what smm is all about, isn't it?

According to some people smm is about misogyny. According to others it is
a feminist conspiracy. These mutually incompatable views indicate that at
least one of these positions is incorrect. Personally, I think that both
are nonsense.

As do I. However, as long as posts with the subject line as above are
allowed, then it looks like misogyny to me. I certainly wouldn't expect a
post to be accepted if it did the reverse; called men a derogatory term and
that would be quite correct under the charter. ANd yet, this original post
with the subject line above was approved.

CWQ

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
--
Jayne

[Meat Plow]

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by pandora

Post by Meat Plow
It's sad to see one man so full of hate for women. His posts would be
better served in a news group dedicated to hate spew occupied by other
women haters IMO. I know several men who have split up, divorced etc..
and none are enraged liked Dustbin.

Well, that IS what smm is all about, isn't it?

According to some people smm is about misogyny. According to others it is
a feminist conspiracy. These mutually incompatable views indicate that at
least one of these positions is incorrect. Personally, I think that both
are nonsense.

Absolutely nonsense Jayne. My social life with other men has never
included misogyny for former or current love interests or spouses. Maybe
I'm unique but I don't think so. I've been hurt horribly, to the point of
depression by my deceased wife but if you could ask my friends, you'd
never hear a bad word about her come from my mouth.

[Dustbin]

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by pandora

Post by Meat Plow
It's sad to see one man so full of hate for women. His posts would be
better served in a news group dedicated to hate spew occupied by other
women haters IMO. I know several men who have split up, divorced etc.. and
none are enraged liked Dustbin.

Well, that IS what smm is all about, isn't it?

According to some people smm is about misogyny. According to others it is
a feminist conspiracy. These mutually incompatable views indicate that at
least one of these positions is incorrect. Personally, I think that both
are nonsense.

To call it misogyny to criticise women is
absurd. It is just an attempt to silence the
criticism they (the feminists) don't want.

In this part of the world we can criticise cops;
lawyers; judges teachers politicians the media
etc., etc., - but not females.

A few years ago you could not criticise the
church; it was called heresy or blasphemy. A few
years ago you could not criticise kings and
Queens; it was called treason.

But now, no matter how absurd the carry on of
females, to criticise is called misogyny.

Well, I'm not fooled.

[pandora]

Post by Dustbin

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by pandora

Post by Meat Plow
It's sad to see one man so full of hate for women. His posts would be
better served in a news group dedicated to hate spew occupied by other
women haters IMO. I know several men who have split up, divorced etc.. and
none are enraged liked Dustbin.

Well, that IS what smm is all about, isn't it?

According to some people smm is about misogyny. According to others it is
a feminist conspiracy. These mutually incompatable views indicate that at
least one of these positions is incorrect. Personally, I think that both
are nonsense.

To call it misogyny to criticise women is
absurd. It is just an attempt to silence the
criticism they (the feminists) don't want.

There is nothing wrong, IMO, with criticism, just as long as it is valid and
specifi. To castigate ALL women and ALL feminists for the harm you feel you
suffered from one female, is hardly valid and smacks of misogyny.

Post by Dustbin
In this part of the world we can criticise cops;
lawyers; judges teachers politicians the media
etc., etc., - but not females.

Just as long as the criticism is specific and valid, no problem. It is
when, IMO, you generalize one individual's behavior and equate it to ALL in
a group, that you run afoul.

Post by Dustbin
A few years ago you could not criticise the
church; it was called heresy or blasphemy. A few
years ago you could not criticise kings and
Queens; it was called treason.
But now, no matter how absurd the carry on of
females, to criticise is called misogyny.

It depends on how you do it. Obviously, you prefer, it would seem, to
castiage general groups based on your treatement by one. That is tantamount
o hating all men because Sadaam is evil.

Post by Dustbin
Well, I'm not fooled.

Perhaps not, but you do seem to over generalize and to castigate entire
groups based on the behavior of one or a few.

CWQ

[Dustbin]

Post by pandora

Post by Dustbin

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by pandora

Post by Meat Plow
It's sad to see one man so full of hate for women. His posts would be
better served in a news group dedicated to hate spew occupied by other
women haters IMO. I know several men who have split up, divorced etc..

and

Post by Dustbin

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas

Post by pandora

Post by Meat Plow
none are enraged liked Dustbin.

Well, that IS what smm is all about, isn't it?

According to some people smm is about misogyny. According to others it

is

Post by Dustbin

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
a feminist conspiracy. These mutually incompatable views indicate that

at

Post by Dustbin

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
least one of these positions is incorrect. Personally, I think that

both

Post by Dustbin

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
are nonsense.

To call it misogyny to criticise women is
absurd. It is just an attempt to silence the
criticism they (the feminists) don't want.

There is nothing wrong, IMO, with criticism, just as long as it is valid and
specifi. To castigate ALL women and ALL feminists for the harm you feel you
suffered from one female, is hardly valid and smacks of misogyny.

Two points: firstly it was not one female; she
was supported and protected by a gang of
feminazis. Had this not been the case I should
have been able to defend myself.

Secondly, I see the same inconsistent illogic
from females on a very widespread - almost
universal - scale. And I have seen very few
females prepared to criticise plainly anti-male
attitudes among feminists.

If females other than the evil ones exist then
where are they when the evil ones are visible?

Post by pandora

Post by Dustbin
In this part of the world we can criticise cops;
lawyers; judges teachers politicians the media
etc., etc., - but not females.

Just as long as the criticism is specific and valid, no problem. It is
when, IMO, you generalize one individual's behavior and equate it to ALL in
a group, that you run afoul.

I have just explained why the generalisation is
justified.

Moreover, it seems that feminists can go around
saying ALL MEN ARE... but we should not. Perhaps
this is what you call equality. It is just
typical of two-faced females to go around saying
all men are this that or something else; then
when a man does it you are very quick to jump on
him. I didn';t notice any of you jumping on the
feminists back in the seventies; eighties or
nineties.

Post by pandora

Post by Dustbin
A few years ago you could not criticise the
church; it was called heresy or blasphemy. A few
years ago you could not criticise kings and
Queens; it was called treason.
But now, no matter how absurd the carry on of
females, to criticise is called misogyny.

It depends on how you do it. Obviously, you prefer, it would seem, to
castiage general groups based on your treatement by one.

It is not one it is many and the lack of
criticism from others.

Post by pandora
That is tantamount
o hating all men because Sadaam is evil.

But that is exactly what teh feminazis have been
doing to us for thirty years. Have you never
heard that ALL MEN ARE IDI AMIN?

Post by pandora

Post by Dustbin
Well, I'm not fooled.

Perhaps not, but you do seem to over generalize and to castigate entire
groups based on the behavior of one or a few.

I have defended the allegation of generalisation
several times above.

D.

Post by pandora
CWQ

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 21:11:19 +0000, Dustbin wrote:

[...]

Post by Dustbin
Moreover, it seems that feminists can go around
saying ALL MEN ARE... but we should not. Perhaps
this is what you call equality. It is just
typical of two-faced females to go around saying
all men are this that or something else; then
when a man does it you are very quick to jump on
him. I didn';t notice any of you jumping on the
feminists back in the seventies; eighties or
nineties.

[...]

I am a female and I have been vocally critical of feminism in the last few
years as I have become aware with problems with it. When you make comments
about females having a double standard, being liars, etc. you are including
me. You are including Erin Pizzey. You are including the woman featured in
the recent Glen Sacks newsletter who spoke out against the travesty created
by the domestic abuse industry.

You do not seem to have any recognition of women as individuals. No matter
how many women say "all men are ...", there are some women like me who do
not. I am no more responsible for the actions of all women than you are
responsible for the actions of all men. I do not have a double standard
about this.

[Dustbin]

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by Dustbin
Moreover, it seems that feminists can go around
saying ALL MEN ARE... but we should not. Perhaps
this is what you call equality. It is just
typical of two-faced females to go around saying
all men are this that or something else; then
when a man does it you are very quick to jump on
him. I didn';t notice any of you jumping on the
feminists back in the seventies; eighties or
nineties.

[...]
I am a female and I have been vocally critical of feminism in the last few
years as I have become aware with problems with it. When you make comments
about females having a double standard, being liars, etc. you are including
me. You are including Erin Pizzey. You are including the woman featured in
the recent Glen Sacks newsletter who spoke out against the travesty created
by the domestic abuse industry.

This change of heart has largely only happened
in the last few years when it has become
increasingly difficult to deny the absurd
extremism of the feminazis.

It does appear that Erin Pizzey was speaking out
against one-sidedness in the gender war from the
outset: the early seventies. Likewise Esther
Vilar who published her book: The Manipulated
Man, in 1971.

For a long time I regarded Erin Pizzey with same
venom that is usually reserved for the rest of
womanhood. But, when I found that Pizzey had
been campaigning in a very much more even handed
manner for many years and had suffered the
consequences (not least the suppression of any
of Pizzey's work that was not consistent with
feminazi doctrine) I adopted a very much more
amiable view of her.

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
You do not seem to have any recognition of women as individuals. No matter
how many women say "all men are ...", there are some women like me who do
not. I am no more responsible for the actions of all women than you are
responsible for the actions of all men. I do not have a double standard
about this.

You adopt the same extremist line that Mark
does: if 3,999,999,999 females are all
vociferously anti-male; and Jayne the Divine is
not, that is enough to bring down what I say.

The attitude that some of us maintain toward
females is wholly and totally justified. I am
currently reading Barry Worral's book: Without
Authority. In it I find something that still
strikes me as astonishing. In a programme that
invites people to explain what they would do if
they were Prime Minister (this was in the UK):
Germaine Greer was one of the *guests*. This is
what ensued:

<quote>
…she calmly explained that:

"I promulgate that we will take a copious sample
of male seminal material at maturity at 16

…

"and it will go straight into liquid nitrogen
and then we will vasectomise all our male
citizens – which would be appropriate if they
continue to be irresponsible about what they do
with this protein – and that in future … if they
find a willing partner who wishes to bear their
child – and they have a certain number of points
for being a useful rather than a noxious human
being – they have access to their seminal
material … and the privilege of paternity is this."


With her at the time was Professor Stephen Smith
of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Cambridge
University who explained that her proposals were

"technically … do-able."


That someone is prepared to say this sort of
thing on a major terrestrial television channel,
and that this is allowed to broadcast, says
volumes about attitudes towards men.
<quote>

Apparently males are a form or bacterium that,
by Greer's standards we should be grateful that
we are allowed to continue on this earth.

D.

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

Post by Dustbin

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by Dustbin
Moreover, it seems that feminists can go around
saying ALL MEN ARE... but we should not. Perhaps
this is what you call equality. It is just
typical of two-faced females to go around saying
all men are this that or something else; then
when a man does it you are very quick to jump on
him. I didn';t notice any of you jumping on the
feminists back in the seventies; eighties or
nineties.

[...]
I am a female and I have been vocally critical of feminism in the last few
years as I have become aware with problems with it. When you make comments
about females having a double standard, being liars, etc. you are including
me. You are including Erin Pizzey. You are including the woman featured in
the recent Glen Sacks newsletter who spoke out against the travesty created
by the domestic abuse industry.

This change of heart has largely only happened
in the last few years when it has become
increasingly difficult to deny the absurd
extremism of the feminazis.

So why shouldn't women speaking out against feminism count if it has been
done recently?

Post by Dustbin
It does appear that Erin Pizzey was speaking out
against one-sidedness in the gender war from the
outset: the early seventies. Likewise Esther
Vilar who published her book: The Manipulated
Man, in 1971.
For a long time I regarded Erin Pizzey with same
venom that is usually reserved for the rest of
womanhood. But, when I found that Pizzey had
been campaigning in a very much more even handed
manner for many years and had suffered the
consequences (not least the suppression of any
of Pizzey's work that was not consistent with
feminazi doctrine) I adopted a very much more
amiable view of her.

Perhaps, if you investigated the positions of more women, you would
discover that far more are worthy of an amiable view than you are
realizing.

Post by Dustbin

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
You do not seem to have any recognition of women as individuals. No matter
how many women say "all men are ...", there are some women like me who do
not. I am no more responsible for the actions of all women than you are
responsible for the actions of all men. I do not have a double standard
about this.

You adopt the same extremist line that Mark
does: if 3,999,999,999 females are all
vociferously anti-male; and Jayne the Divine is
not, that is enough to bring down what I say.

I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that 3,999,999,999 women are
anti-male. However, even if they were, I would not be and you would be
incorrect to claim that I am.

Post by Dustbin
The attitude that some of us maintain toward
females is wholly and totally justified. I am
currently reading Barry Worral's book: Without
Authority. In it I find something that still
strikes me as astonishing. In a programme that
invites people to explain what they would do if
Germaine Greer was one of the *guests*. This is

She is just one women as I am. So why do you choose to believe that Greer's
beliefs are representative of all women and mine are not?

[the Curmudgeon]

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by Dustbin
Moreover, it seems that feminists can go around
saying ALL MEN ARE... but we should not. Perhaps
this is what you call equality. It is just
typical of two-faced females to go around saying
all men are this that or something else; then
when a man does it you are very quick to jump on
him. I didn';t notice any of you jumping on the
feminists back in the seventies; eighties or
nineties.

[...]
I am a female and I have been vocally critical of feminism in the last
few years as I have become aware with problems with it. When you make
comments about females having a double standard, being liars, etc. you
are including me. You are including Erin Pizzey. You are including
the woman featured in the recent Glen Sacks newsletter who spoke out
against the travesty created by the domestic abuse industry.
You do not seem to have any recognition of women as individuals. No
matter how many women say "all men are ...", there are some women like
me who do not. I am no more responsible for the actions of all women
than you are responsible for the actions of all men. I do not have a
double standard about this.

Sometimes they seem hard to find in modern day America, but they are out
there - women who don't buy into the party line of feminism. I'm running
into more women nowdays personally who will tell you that they don't go
along with it. My own opinion is that you are beginning to see small
signs of a quiet backlash against it by women, and that is heartening
news for men. Men alone aren't going to be able to overcome this, it's
going to take the help of men-loving women who step up and say "Enough
of this"


the Curmudgeon

[Crossbow]

it was too much 30 years ago. The responses you as a reasonable woman are
hearing is born from feminist overkill for years, longer than half the
world population has been alive. feminists drop an A bomb to get rid of an
ant hill and men have historically been victims. Anyone who watches daytime
shows like jerry springer must realize that women are not immune from lying,
as sexual harassment laws presume, no less likely to lye than any man. Why
is it assumed the man is not only guilty but not allowed to know he's even
been accused. He looses his job, his family, his reputation simply because
it is assumed the woman would not lye and he would. When is a man's word and
truthfulness going to be considered of equal value to a woman's? men can't
even approach equality until this socual handicap is addressed.

Post by the Curmudgeon

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by Dustbin
Moreover, it seems that feminists can go around
saying ALL MEN ARE... but we should not. Perhaps
this is what you call equality. It is just
typical of two-faced females to go around saying
all men are this that or something else; then
when a man does it you are very quick to jump on
him. I didn';t notice any of you jumping on the
feminists back in the seventies; eighties or
nineties.

[...]
I am a female and I have been vocally critical of feminism in the last
few years as I have become aware with problems with it. When you make
comments about females having a double standard, being liars, etc. you
are including me. You are including Erin Pizzey. You are including
the woman featured in the recent Glen Sacks newsletter who spoke out
against the travesty created by the domestic abuse industry.
You do not seem to have any recognition of women as individuals. No
matter how many women say "all men are ...", there are some women like
me who do not. I am no more responsible for the actions of all women
than you are responsible for the actions of all men. I do not have a
double standard about this.

Sometimes they seem hard to find in modern day America, but they are out
there - women who don't buy into the party line of feminism. I'm running
into more women nowdays personally who will tell you that they don't go
along with it. My own opinion is that you are beginning to see small
signs of a quiet backlash against it by women, and that is heartening
news for men. Men alone aren't going to be able to overcome this, it's
going to take the help of men-loving women who step up and say "Enough
of this"
the Curmudgeon

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

Post by Crossbow
it was too much 30 years ago. The responses you as a reasonable woman are
hearing is born from feminist overkill for years, longer than half the
world population has been alive. feminists drop an A bomb to get rid of an
ant hill and men have historically been victims. Anyone who watches daytime
shows like jerry springer must realize that women are not immune from lying,
as sexual harassment laws presume, no less likely to lye than any man. Why
is it assumed the man is not only guilty but not allowed to know he's even
been accused. He looses his job, his family, his reputation simply because
it is assumed the woman would not lye and he would. When is a man's word and
truthfulness going to be considered of equal value to a woman's? men can't
even approach equality until this socual handicap is addressed.

I think you are right. One of the biggest obstacles facing men is social
attitudes. I constantly encounter people who do not even acknowledge that
there are many areas in which men are at a disadvantage.

[Meat Plow]

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Meat Plow

Nice if something is done about their wrongs rather than simply
expecting me to lie down and be rolled over again and again by these
psychopaths.

Like many other men, have been screwed over by some women. Shit

happens.

Post by Meat Plow

But remember, you're not all men and they weren't all women. Many

men,

Post by Meat Plow

perhaps even the majority, have had quite different experiences.

It's sad to see one man so full of hate for women. His posts would be
better served in a news group dedicated to hate spew occupied by other
women haters IMO. I know several men who have split up, divorced etc..
and none are enraged liked Dustbin.

Well, that IS what smm is all about, isn't it?

Is it? What part of men socializing involves the absolute hate that gets
posted here by certain people? I've been hurt horribly by my deceased wife.
I was left to raise a 3 year old on my own who is now 14. I spent a decade
by myself. But I found someone special in the spring of 2005 who I love
like no other before. I just don't understand what a woman could do to a
man short of cutting off his penis to make him spend the rest of his life
filled with such hate. Isn't it better to split before such hate developes?

Post by Mark Borgerson
CWQ
[We'll see if THIS post gets through. My comments regarding the subject
line of this post didn't make it but the original (and succeeding),
posts by Dustbin have. What's up with that?]

Who knows??? I hope the moderation continues to be impartial and applied
to everyone as prescribed by the charter.

[pandora]

Post by Meat Plow

Post by Mark Borgerson

Post by Meat Plow

Nice if something is done about their wrongs rather than simply
expecting me to lie down and be rolled over again and again by these
psychopaths.

Like many other men, have been screwed over by some women. Shit

happens.

Post by Meat Plow

But remember, you're not all men and they weren't all women. Many

men,

Post by Meat Plow

perhaps even the majority, have had quite different experiences.

It's sad to see one man so full of hate for women. His posts would be
better served in a news group dedicated to hate spew occupied by other
women haters IMO. I know several men who have split up, divorced etc..
and none are enraged liked Dustbin.

Well, that IS what smm is all about, isn't it?

Is it? What part of men socializing involves the absolute hate that gets
posted here by certain people?

What hate and by whom?

I've been hurt horribly by my deceased wife.

Post by Meat Plow
I was left to raise a 3 year old on my own who is now 14. I spent a decade
by myself. But I found someone special in the spring of 2005 who I love
like no other before. I just don't understand what a woman could do to a
man short of cutting off his penis to make him spend the rest of his life
filled with such hate. Isn't it better to split before such hate developes?

I would certainly agree with that. So just who do you believe is spewing
such hate?

Post by Meat Plow

Post by Mark Borgerson
CWQ
[We'll see if THIS post gets through. My comments regarding the subject
line of this post didn't make it but the original (and succeeding),
posts by Dustbin have. What's up with that?]

Who knows??? I hope the moderation continues to be impartial and applied
to everyone as prescribed by the charter.

Obviously, you know, now, as you saw my post.

CWQ

Post by Meat Plow
--
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004
COOSN-266-06-25794

[r***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Mark Borgerson

Nice if something is done about their wrongs rather than simply
expecting me to lie down and be rolled over again and again by these
psychopaths.

Like many other men, have been screwed over by some women. Shit

happens.

But remember, you're not all men and they weren't all women. Many men,
perhaps even the majority, have had quite different experiences.

It's sad to see one man so full of hate for women. His posts would be
better served in a news group dedicated to hate spew occupied by other
women haters IMO. I know several men who have split up, divorced etc.. and
none are enraged liked Dustbin.

If he has been the subject of injustice, as many men have at the hands of
the secret family courts, reasonable people should listen and not try to
demonise his feelings or banish him.

[Aratzio]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:45:46 +0000, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin

Post by Aratzio
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:24:44 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:20:37 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

* Gender-based, race-based, or sexual-orientation-based bashing of
groups and/or individuals.

This is soc.men ... moderated.
If we can't talk gender based then it cannot be
soc.*men*.moderated can it?
D.

Your subject line? You consider that to be "gender based" talk or just
commentary on "the bitches"?

I really find nothing seriously wrong with the
use of the word "bitches".

Of course you do not. I'd be surprised if you did. Having read your
posts in the past you seem unable to consider that women are even
human. Hence calling them female canines.

Post by Dustbin
When I consider the
things that men have been called in the last
thirty-five years calling the women "bitches" is
mild.

So someone calls men names and you feel justified in calling women
names. Well, there is a fine method of discourse.

Post by Dustbin
I have discussed the issue of men being nice
guys elsewhere in this thread so I don't see
much point in repeating it here.

You do not have to blithering inconsequential personal data does not
justify your using terms like "bitches" when discusing fellow humans.

[Dustbin]

Post by Aratzio
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:45:46 +0000, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin

Post by Aratzio
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:24:44 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin

Post by Aratzio
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:20:37 +0100, Dustbin

Post by Dustbin
Grumpy girls are grumpier than men and stay
grumpy longer.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=343462005
D.

* Gender-based, race-based, or sexual-orientation-based bashing of
groups and/or individuals.

This is soc.men ... moderated.
If we can't talk gender based then it cannot be
soc.*men*.moderated can it?
D.

Your subject line? You consider that to be "gender based" talk or just
commentary on "the bitches"?

I really find nothing seriously wrong with the
use of the word "bitches".

Of course you do not. I'd be surprised if you did. Having read your
posts in the past you seem unable to consider that women are even
human. Hence calling them female canines.

I tried that back in the late seventies and got
rolled over.

If they want to be respected they have to earn
it. It is not theirs by right.

Post by Aratzio

Post by Dustbin
When I consider the
things that men have been called in the last
thirty-five years calling the women "bitches" is
mild.

So someone calls men names and you feel justified in calling women
names. Well, there is a fine method of discourse.

I out up with it for a very long time (is twenty
years enough). No one would curb the silliness
of feminist argument whether it was simple
insult or illogical and insubstantial argument.
Why is it that feminists can go around year
after year after year behaving in a very poor
manner but immediately I reply in kind I am told
that I must be a nice guy.

That is something I have detested all my life:
one rule for them and another for me.

I have also pointed out that nice guys come
last. If we keep on being nice guys while they
keep on using abusive methods they will win.

Post by Aratzio

Post by Dustbin
I have discussed the issue of men being nice
guys elsewhere in this thread so I don't see
much point in repeating it here.

You do not have to blithering inconsequential personal data does not
justify your using terms like "bitches" when discusing fellow humans.

Typical. So every damned experience by a female
has to be taken seriously but what person
experience a man has is dismissed as
inconsequential.

You seem to start from the already discredited
premise that females can be taken seriously. If
that were the case then we could have had a
sensible discussion thirty years ago. Instead we
got nonsense from the females; and a corrupt
media and political system that responds
positively to them while ignoring and dismissing us.

This is an all too common problem; the females
behave in an abhorrent manner while nothing is
done about it; as soon as the man gets up and
smacks the bitch suddenly everyone is up in arms
ranting about *his* behaviour.

An excellent example of what has happened to
people who dared to try and discuss with the
feminazis:

http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/suppression/nl.htm

I hope you will note that much of the response
to Lyndon is little more than abuse. And this
was allowed in the newspapers of the UK. I quote
a little here in teh hope that it will not go
beyond Mark's definition of fair use:

<quote>
George Orwell once wrote that "the Catholic and
the Communist are alike in assuming that an
opponent cannot be both honest and intelligent".
Feminists, being the disciples of a creed,
adherents of a faith, share the same attitude
and assumptions. Because I had attacked their
holiest of holies, because I was a barbarian who
had broken into their temple and turned over the
altar, I had let myself in for the contemporary
equivalent of a tarring and feathering.

Even before my article was published, it had
caused unprecedented trouble. A group of women
who worked for The Sunday Times Magazine wrote a
round-robin to the magazine's then editor,
Philip Clarke, asking him not publish my essay
and warning that it would leave "an indelible
stain" on the magazine's reputation. Some of
those women had not, in fact, read my article
but that did not hold them back in their
condemnation and censoriousness - a pattern to
be repeated constantly in the years ahead.
Clarke stoutly told them to mind their own business.

The public reaction began the week after my
essay appeared, with an article by Kate Saunders
in this newspaper. She had asked some women what
they thought of my article. All of them guessed,
she reported, that my wife must have left me.
Clare Short, who had less personal knowledge
about me than she had, at that time, about the
son she had given into adoption, opined that I
must be unhappy about being a man. The publisher
Carmen Callil laughed, Saunders said, at my
findings on the neglect of men's illnesses and
wondered if the trouble with me might be in my
trousers. "Could it be the size?" she asked.
</quote>

(Mark: I think you will find it is permissible
to use modest parts of copyright work for
educational/academic/non-profit purposes.)

Remarks about Lyndon's genitalia are only a
small part of what has happened to him for
daring to contradict doctrine.

(Mark has indicated that what goes here is what
I might expect to get published in the main
stream media. These remarks about Neil Lyndon
were originally published a supposedly
respectable british newspaper. On which ground
it would be perfectly acceptable for me to bang
on about women being hung up about the size of
their bums or tits or jowls or cellulite.)

Being reasonable is unlikely to work with people
who are not themselves reasonable.

Feminists are like Al-Qaeda: you can't talk to
people overwhelmed by doctrine, simply have to
be smashed. If we could talk in a reasonable and
sensible manner this would not be going on now
because the last thirty years would not have
unfolded as they have.

That feminism became doctrinal, and with that:
socially and politically violent, has become
increasingly apparent in the last few years.
Many people in the last few years have reported
horrifying circumstances in relation to feminist
run shelters, the attitudes of feminist social
workers, etc.

Perhaps the most valuable among these is Erin
Pizzey, widely regarded the founder of the
shelter movement. She has reported these
aggressive and socially/politically violent
attitudes going back to the early days of the
shelter movement. Importantly Pizzey has also,
several times, reported on the manner in which
the feminazis 'moved the goal posts' by shifting
their focus from capitalism as the driving force
that pressed women into their gender role
assignment (and likewise men) to patriarchy
(men) as the oppressive abusive force.

Politically this was a very astute move because
they would have had a very much more difficult
time trying to overthrow capitalism. But by
attack men generically, rather than capitalism,
they have achieved far far more. Unfortunately
it is a fundamental intellectual error and, as a
consequence, leaves much of their position on
poor ground.

Pizzey has also reported that when she has
sought to raise the issue of female perpetrated
domestic violence in the home she has been
suppressed by the most extreme methods. This has
even reached the point where she and her
children have been threatened with serious
violence. To such a degree that the bomb squad
in UK once advised her to have her mail sent to
their vetting centre to be checked before being
delivered to her. She eventually left the
country for the safety of her children; and when
she returned to promote a book, she was met with
mob of protesters at the airport and she was
advised to have a police escort wherever she
went in the UK during her book tour!

All this is because Pizzey, almost from the
outset, has persisted in saying that women can
be as violent (if not more violent) than their
male partners. This is contrary to feminazi
doctrine.

In recent times we have heard about the insides
of the refuges being more like cults which
condition people into the doctrine of
man-hatred; or simply harass the person into
submission. We hear of women who have given into
the pressure and in consequence have destroyed
their own family which they never intended, or
wished, to do. Glenn Sacks recent piece offers
another example of something similar:

http://www.glennsacks.com/octobers_domestic_violence.htm

The media, largely controlled by females now,
completely ignore all this. On the other hand,
they will soon enough make a programme about the
extreme attitudes of men. Attitudes that have
been provoked by their own feminist extremism.
But, like amerikans who cannot see that their
behaviour in the last 50 years might have
something to do with what happened on 11th
September 2001, feminists will not see that they
have brought about the anger of men.

Anyway - enough for now ;-)

D.

[Jayne Kulikauskas]

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:14:13 +0000, Dustbin wrote:

[...]

Post by Dustbin
Perhaps the most valuable among these is Erin
Pizzey, widely regarded the founder of the
shelter movement. She has reported these
aggressive and socially/politically violent
attitudes going back to the early days of the
shelter movement. Importantly Pizzey has also,
several times, reported on the manner in which
the feminazis 'moved the goal posts' by shifting
their focus from capitalism as the driving force
that pressed women into their gender role
assignment (and likewise men) to patriarchy
(men) as the oppressive abusive force.

[...]

Erin Pizzey is female. You seem to have been making a case that all
females, due to our brain structure, are liars and not to be trusted.
Therefore you ought not to accept these reports from her.

[Dustbin]

Post by Jayne Kulikauskas
[...]

Post by Dustbin
Perhaps the most valuable among these is Erin
Pizzey, widely regarded the founder of the
shelter movement. She has reported these
aggressive and socially/politically violent
attitudes going back to the early days of the
shelter movement. Importantly Pizzey has also,
several times, reported on the manner in which
the feminazis 'moved the goal posts' by shifting
their focus from capitalism as the driving force
that pressed women into their gender role
assignment (and likewise men) to patriarchy
(men) as the oppressive abusive force.

[...]
Erin Pizzey is female. You seem to have been making a case that all
females, due to our brain structure, are liars and not to be trusted.
Therefore you ought not to accept these reports from her.

I've been making teh case that females are more
likely to LIE than men.

In fact Mark pointed me at a piece which I
posted under "Do men lie differently?" In there
is suggests that men and women have different
reasons for LYING. I think men lie to gain power
and wealth while women lie over relationship things.

I also think that this might be why for a long
time men saw females as LYING while not
regarding themselves as LIARS. I think perhaps
the boys see their own LIES as part and parcel
of life but the girls LIES as outrageous and out
of bounds.

The tendency to LIE more is in the brain
structure. Men may also LIE less because their
LIES have a logic to them; e.g. they are
designed to achieve some material or political
gain. Whereas the women's LIES are the swing and
sway of their emotions.

D.

[Amper Sand]

[...]

Post by Aratzio

Post by Kathy Morgan
As a moderator, I'm somewhat inclined in a marginal case toward erring
on the side of approval rather than rejection.

As a reader and poster, I support Kathy's position.

Post by Aratzio
Unless he was speaking of female dogs, that was a derogatory term used
intentionally to denigrate women. As he does on a regular basis. I
would advise you actually tromp through the sewer of soc.men and "get
to know your clientele"

In my experience, the term "bitch" has become much less pejorative
over the years, with significant numbers of people (both male and
female) using it simply to describe someone who is grumpy and/or
easily annoyed and/or short tempered. A few years ago, my teenage
son informed me that bitch is actually now being used to describe this
behaviour from either sex.

Post by Aratzio

Post by Kathy Morgan
I am new to the culture
here,

I think I spotted that part fairly quickly.

Post by Kathy Morgan
so if the majority of users feel this entire thread should have
been rejected due to the Subject line, obviously I would need to adjust
my threshold.

The users have no say. The charter holds sway and it is very clear.
Unless you are planning on polling the users as to how you will
interpret the charter I doubt what you wrote carries much weight.

OK, so I went and re-read the charter - it bans "Gender-based,
race-based, or sexual-orientation-based bashing of groups and/or
individuals." The statement is clear, but the term "bashing" is not
always easy to pin down. Especially as this is still a young
newsgroup, I think it is quite reasonable for moderators to ask users'
opinions as to what constitutes "bashing".