Tootsie, don't worry about me--I am not sitting and drinking on Friday nights!

I do, however, tend to express myself forcefully. It comes from many years of getting my point across in writing.

In full knowledge that I am going to be called "elitist" and reprimanded for saying what I am going to say, I am going to say it anyway.

iam4u, I have an extremely difficult time understanding just about anything you write. I am not attacking your character, but your style of writing makes deciphering what you write a daunting task. I didn't even attempt to wade through all of the post that the above quote included.

I could give you some tips on how to improve the readability of your posts, but I will desist because I understand you are not here for lessons in composition, but with all due respect, I won't be attempting to translate your posts in the future.




Brava!

I stayed at home until my sons started school, and then I only worked part-time. A lot of people do not understand the essence of feminism: it is the knowledge that the sexes are different but equal.

Women who hate men are not, by definition, feminists: they are misandrists..

OK . . . I checked out the "bitterly unsurprised" quote and I almost understand now. The OP was referring to me because I was the only woman who made a comment between her first statement and the "bitterly unsurprised" comment

I was not giving a "direct, descriptive reply" in an effort to make myself feel superior: the OP made a sweeping condemnation of feminists. She said that they (which includes me) are raising sons to be weak-willed and ineffective.

She also made a statement about "we" having promiscuous sex. I KNOW that I was not included in that statement, but by the use of the word "we," she included ALL women, including herself.

She then went on to blame all women for "emasculating" men.

I won't offer apologies for refuting those statements!

And I find "smashing little boy's bananas" or whichever phrase she used to be extremely crass and in bad taste.



Hands kc0003 a barf bag.

Oh, no, no . . . I didn't mean YOU were saying my comments were belittling!

I knew what you meant!

I meant that the person who brought up the statements about the OP being belittled was most likely referring to me.

I am blunt and honest. Like everyone else, all I have are opinions (unless I quote empirical facts and stats).

Truthfully, though, I don't see my responses as "rough"--not unless I am giving back what I receive!

Many people express themselves online as they would never do in person; anonymity gives them a false boldness, but I am the same woman offline and online.

But there is a huge difference between the twain, and that is in "real" life, people usually understand that my bluntness is tempered with kindness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pvGh5R0KbE

If you need to ask, you aren't ready for the answers.

Ya know, women have received too much of the blame since Eve and Pandora! I don't blame the entire male sex for the way my ex behaved, nor do I blame all men for the injustices done to women for centuries. Things are rarely, if ever, so black and white.




Ditto.



I really didn't see any belittling of the OP, although I have a suspicion that my posts were probably suspect by the person who spoke of belittling.

The OP stated her point; some of us rebutted. Mine was based on what the OP said--one can only go by the evidence in what is written, eh?

What was I supposed to think? You used the word "we," which is inconclusive or YOU and ME and ALL the women in this forum, but I know what you said didn't apply to me. If you are willing to include yourself in a statement by using "we," then I will assume you are speaking of yourself.



This is your problem! You are taking what is going on in your area and applying it unilaterally across the board.

In addition, I seriously doubt whether the women whom you are castigating are in spirit or deed "feminists."




Thanks!




She "sees" a problem that is limited to her limited sphere of experience. Because the OP THINKS that men have been emasculated by strong mothers doesn't mean that it is so!



Bingo! It is a logical fallacy, but still a fallacy. The OP speaks of people whom she knows and the people in her neighborhood, but those people are not representative of the state, the US, or the world!



I can only speak for myself, and it is because I am a feminist. My sons were raised to understand that females are their equals. You said feminists raised horrible, dependent sons.



UGH! This type of statement is what annoyed me in the first place. I am a female: I have not emasculated any man. I have seen women who are NOT feminists emasculate men. Leave me out of your blanket statement condemning women!

In addition, no emotionally mature man can be emasculated unless he allows it to happen. Even is mothers of boys taught them a certain actions or beliefs, those boys need to grow up and realize that NO ONE is responsible for their "emasculation" but them.

As for the emotionally immature men, if a woman hooks up with one of them, she is responsible for her choice, eh?

I am here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way.

Hail, Eris!

I must admit: I am a bit confused here. OP, I looked at your profile and it says, "32 year old man," yet you really look and sound like a woman!

I don't know which men you have been consorting with, but I have the feeling that you have met "mamas' boys" rather than men raised by women who believe in equality. These type of men have always existed, and it has nothing to do with women's liberation but rather, controlling women who cannot let go of their sons--or daughters.

I am a feminist, and my sons are NOTHING like the ones whom you describe. They do, however, respect their wives and acknowledge that they are equal but not superior.

If YOU are giving out blow-jobs like candy, I seriously suggest that it is YOUR problem! If a woman--or man--is so desperate that she/he will engage in sex before finding out the character of her/his partner, who is to blame?

If men aren't sticking to women who give out blow jobs and quickies to apparently just about anyone, I can't really blame them.

In addition, I have taught college classes for the last nine years: I don't often meet scared, *****-whipped young men in my classes.

And don't worry about your daughter: let HER be free to make her decisions. After all, it isn't your place to worry about whom she marries, eh? Not after tongue-lashing other women for the way you perceive that they raised their children.

My water tank defrosted as soon as I cranked up the heater in the well-house and my septic was pumped today.

Now, if I hadn't put off grading papers in the two days I regularly have off during the week and the two snow days, I would be perfectly happy!

But I am now "good." (Grin.)

I am not here form social networks! In fact, if it weren't for the forums, I wouldn't be here at all.

I am aware that I sound condescending to some people, but I find that my posts tend more to that level when I answer someone's post and he (as I said before, almost always a "he") takes offense at my refutation.

I know all about courtesy and decorum, and I give such when it is due.




Most IQ tests measure what you have learned, not raw intelligence. There are nine types of intelligences; a person can score high in one and go bust in another.

If it were simply a growing cult of ignorance, I would express some hope, but it the cult seems to be of self-indulgent ignorance wherein people don't seem to want to educate themselves.

I also think that sexism still has to do with how people are perceived. For instance, I take my laptop to McD's or Starbucks to grade when I am not getting anything done at home. Last week I was in McD's when a very casual acquaintance asked me a question about grammar. When I told him, he asked what qualified me to give an answer. I told him three degrees in English qualified me. He said that I shouldn't "brag" about my degrees.

At that point, a man sitting at another table said he had two degrees in languages. The first man complimented him on his degrees!

Go figure!

And what's worse, the first man is willing to put up with my lofty attitude (as he sees it) because he finds me attractive. I have seen this time and again: men will put up with a lot more from a woman whom they perceive as good-looking than they will a woman whom they see as fat and/or ugly.

I know--I have lived both sides.

Thank you for pointing that out before I saw the accusation!

I use Firefox and it has a built-in spell-check; if I have a typo, it would not be for a word such as "because," but a homophone or a legitimate word that spell-check would not catch, i.e. typing "it" instead of "is."

Anyone can make typos, but a post that is filled with them rather than having one or two indicates poor editing skills--especially for "because."

But more to the point is words used out of context or which are obviously misspelled because the writer did not realize that they were misspelled: these items are usually very easy to spot.

And even more to the point, words used out of context.

Some people have learning handicaps that affect their writing skills: dyslexia is one. However, people can use available tools to help lessen the problem: spell-check is one. I used to date a man who is dyslexic; he would type everything to be posted online in Word first, edit with spell and grammar-check, and then post.

Lazy people don't bother.

I classify myself as an agnostic neo-pagan: when I question the existence of the divine, I doubt the existence of many deities.

There are many paths; since I admitted to myself that I am pagan, I have seen Wicca begin to go mainstream. Originally, Wicca was highly codified, now, it is lapsing into dogma.

I would be happy to discuss anything with you, but keep in mind, all anyone can offer is opinion.

Except historicity.

With all due respect, if you are called a "know-it-all," it isn't because of what you say, but how you say it.

Delivery is everything.

Having said that, I know how I often "come across" in these forums, but that is my choice to deliver "my" information in the manner than I choose.

I find it interesting that I am rarely attacked or harshly refuted by women on any forum, but certain men often take great offense at what and how I write. Believe it or not, I have been called a know-it-all in these very forums! I suppose I should not have an opinion or use my expertise to prove my points.

Whoops! There I go again, being a know-it-all by even suggesting that I am an expert in any area.

Mea Culpa.

By the way, most people know enough to "get by"--it is why so many humans are alive on the face of the earth.

What part of:



. . . did I misunderstand? The part where you will be laughing?

My lovey pie, you might think that you speak English well, but you are not adept at writing it. Your posts are full of typos and just plain misspellings. You use words out of context which makes your intent impossible to understand. The fact that you use words such as "aesthetic" out of context makes me believe that you don't speak English nearly as well as you think you do.



I would never insult a person whose language skills are poor but who are not trying to impress me with their knowledge. You have touted your intelligence and your ability to excel in all areas EXCEPT math--I am merely pointing out that there is at least one other area in which you don't excel and in which you barely get by: expressing yourself in the written word.




Honey chile, let me explain the difference between the spoken and the written word, then perhaps you will understand. When you directly address someone in the written word (and in the spoken word, but then, you can cover your *** by immediately protesting otherwise), then what you say is directed at THAT person. When you wrote that "the difference" is that you can "except" people as equals, that was directed at me because you were responding to me. You did not qualify by mentioning the difference between you and most/other people.

Do you understand now? I often run into this problem with my first year college composition students, and they usually get it after I explain, so perhaps you will, too.

If you were nearly as smart as you think you are, you would realize that it is useless and pointless to try to prove your intelligence in a forum on a dating site.

Your are as defensive as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs (yes, a cliche, but they illustrate points well for those who have a reading comprehension problem). If you were truly secure in your intelligence, you wouldn't have to tell everyone how smart you are, eh?

And you would stop trying to drive the point home with me in particular. I am not impressed nor am I convinced--and I won't be.

There is no crime rate in my neighborhood.

My pipes and/or water tank is frozen, despite the fact that I left a faucet on and there is a heater in the well-house.

My septic also need immediate work but no one can come because of the weather.

Peace? Nope!

You "except" those who have lesser education at equals?

How do you "except" them? Do you give them waivers saying, "You are excepted"?

Will you "pit" yourself against using words in the correct context with an English teacher?

You also seem not to understand what I say. I don't know if you are deliberately misreading my posts or you do not comprehend. I never stated that I do not ACCEPT people with lesser education as equals.

Please, quote line and verse where I said that--in context.

Heck, my boyfriend "only" has a BA. (The "only" is sarcasm, in case you didn't get it.) He is one of the smartest men whom I know.

I have never met anyone who has that many cats, but the people whom I have seen on Hoarders or heard about have not been highly educated. To use one example is not proof of anything!



As a person, no, but in that field, yes. I can't fix my car; the person who can has superior knowledge and ability to mine. By the same token, I very likely know more about writing and myth than most people.

There are nine types of intelligences. We need all nine.



I assume that you are being rhetorical or sarcastic when you say that you have been smarter than anyone else you have met.

It isn't about being "dumb" when relegating one's self to a field. I specialize in that which interests me the most, but that doesn't mean that I am not knowledgeable in other fields. Some people have a burning passion that eclipses even a modicum of knowledge in their fields. They have limited themselves because they WANT to do so.

I have a passing but negligible interest in quantum physics, but I am glad that for some, it is their passion and they devote their lives to study and theorizing.



I have NO desire to be status quo, but I exist in this world quite nicely--which you term "relating to the mass population."



I suppose you mean "guttural," but I don't know in which context you use the word. "Guttural" means speaking in a particular tone of voice--from the back of the throat. I don't know how that relates to how or why people can relate to your vernacular.



You mean that they wasted the time on the study of beauty or emotion? Again, I don't understand the context.

Who decides what is the "right thing"? Is the researcher who spent 5o years studying the works of an obscure Renaissance writer wasting his/her time if it has made him/her happy?

I can say that education gave me the ability to do what I love to do: teach on a college level. It broadened the horizons of this little Okie born to parents who barely finished 8th grade. The fact that my parents had 8th grade educations in NO way diminishes their worth as people, but had I chosen not to get three university diplomas, I would have missed out on so much that I don't even like to contemplate the loss.

Would I have known the difference if I had not gotten my degrees? Yes, I would--just like the people with whom I worked at Walmart.