It's a time of reflectance.
I would say the largest event in my existence is the election of Barack Obama. All things put aside, it's a huge symbolic leap in this country's perception of who's a leader to have a black "face" at the lead of the country. Imagine this picture:
http://www.macalester.edu/~fines/presidents.jpg
Now with Barack's picture tagged at the end. Seriously, wow.
Now we need 43 more, then maybe we can talk about some degree of equality.
People say I talk about race too much, yet it's the single most salient feature that determines who and what we are in a larger societal sense. If people don't realize that, they have their head in the sand.
Barack's election is a huge step in altering that, no doubt.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Saturday, December 20, 2008
2008. A year of changes.
While we're not at the new year yet, this was a year of changes.
Female hypocrisy reared its ugly head in its largest way to me this year. Yet, America showed that it had moved somewhat forward through the election of Barack Obama.
I invite you all to speak of your changes.
Female hypocrisy reared its ugly head in its largest way to me this year. Yet, America showed that it had moved somewhat forward through the election of Barack Obama.
I invite you all to speak of your changes.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Movies.
One of the best scenes in cinema
And one of the best lines in the best scenes:
"Like all yankee women, all you can do is order in restaurants and spend a man's money"
And one of the best lines in the best scenes:
"Like all yankee women, all you can do is order in restaurants and spend a man's money"
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
a FANTASTIC post.
Click dear friends:
here
One of the best comments I've read until date:
"When women stated they were equals of men and wanted to be treated in such a way, you killed chivalry. Chivalry is a code of conduct that explains how men and women used to act toward one another. It involves women doing certain things for men that they have historically done, but would now be considered oppressive if a man asked a woman for them. Would you do those sorts of things for us? Part of chivalry is the part of the helpless maiden. Is that you? Because in every other area of your life it certainly isnt. Its just another area where you want the best of both worlds, the advantages of equality, but without any of the extra work or responsibilities."
here
One of the best comments I've read until date:
"When women stated they were equals of men and wanted to be treated in such a way, you killed chivalry. Chivalry is a code of conduct that explains how men and women used to act toward one another. It involves women doing certain things for men that they have historically done, but would now be considered oppressive if a man asked a woman for them. Would you do those sorts of things for us? Part of chivalry is the part of the helpless maiden. Is that you? Because in every other area of your life it certainly isnt. Its just another area where you want the best of both worlds, the advantages of equality, but without any of the extra work or responsibilities."
Monday, December 8, 2008
Answer this... dear reader(s)
Woman says.... "Being a man is so easy, if I could come back, I'd come back as a man" ... and society's knees buckle and we all reflect on how true it is.
Man says.... "Being a woman is so easy" and it's sexist, misogynistic, bitter, angry, etc...
Given this framework, who really has it easier, if the whole world thinks they have it unequivocally harder?
Man says.... "Being a woman is so easy" and it's sexist, misogynistic, bitter, angry, etc...
Given this framework, who really has it easier, if the whole world thinks they have it unequivocally harder?
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Yet, Another interesting article
http://dating.personals.yahoo.com/singles/datingtips/87063/fascinating-facts-about-successful-single-men
Finally, someone honest enough to admit what women really want in their men.
Finally, someone honest enough to admit what women really want in their men.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Now. don't read this the wrong way
Ok, I want to talk a little bit about balance.
"http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_re_us/tv_anchor_attacked"
Let's look at this story.
Now, of course, this is absolutely abhorrent, and HORRIBLE. that a defenseless woman was treated this way.
But I do want to look at this from another angle. look at her face, and looks. at least the people who knew her can say she was able to live a good life based on her looks, and was able to enjoy many things.
How many women have sufferd her fate without having her looks to gain things from?
I dont condone the actions against her, whoever did it should be caught, and strung up from a cactus. But as always. I offer something else to think about.
"http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_re_us/tv_anchor_attacked"
Let's look at this story.
Now, of course, this is absolutely abhorrent, and HORRIBLE. that a defenseless woman was treated this way.
But I do want to look at this from another angle. look at her face, and looks. at least the people who knew her can say she was able to live a good life based on her looks, and was able to enjoy many things.
How many women have sufferd her fate without having her looks to gain things from?
I dont condone the actions against her, whoever did it should be caught, and strung up from a cactus. But as always. I offer something else to think about.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The dark dirty secret
Women that get by mostly on their looks, and KNOW that they get by mostly on their looks are usually the most insecure people in the world.
Especially since they know no matter what, that gift is the one that gets steadily taken away. As Johnny Cash says,
Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.
Especially since they know no matter what, that gift is the one that gets steadily taken away. As Johnny Cash says,
Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.
The Mumbai Tragedy
There's not really much to say about this.
Of course it's ridiculously horrible.
A couple positive "silver linings"
1. White people now know the town's name is "Mumbai"
2. White Americans see good "brown" people on the TV.
Also, watching Fareed Zakaria interview Ratan Tata on CNN is an exceptionally proud moment, letting the people who are most directly affected by this event discuss it, rather than having fat old white men talk about something they know next to nothing about.
Of course it's ridiculously horrible.
A couple positive "silver linings"
1. White people now know the town's name is "Mumbai"
2. White Americans see good "brown" people on the TV.
Also, watching Fareed Zakaria interview Ratan Tata on CNN is an exceptionally proud moment, letting the people who are most directly affected by this event discuss it, rather than having fat old white men talk about something they know next to nothing about.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
The real thanksgiving
I know its early.
But I always like to use this time to remind people, of the true meaning of thanksgiving, and the true history behind it. Not the whitewashed version we see on TV and in elementary schools on a yearly basis.
http://www.alternet.org/story/4391/
But I always like to use this time to remind people, of the true meaning of thanksgiving, and the true history behind it. Not the whitewashed version we see on TV and in elementary schools on a yearly basis.
http://www.alternet.org/story/4391/
Monday, November 17, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
To the dumb idiots that think Obama's victory is an end to racism
Read
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081116/ap_on_re_us/obama_racial
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081116/ap_on_re_us/obama_racial
Let's put everything aside
Close your eyes.
Imagine a desi girl, her arms wrapped around some white guy.
Now imagine these two laughing at how socially inept desi guys are, how they're chicken, how they're coddled, how they cant approach.
Now imagine the girl asking the guy to do an impression of how "an indian guy approaches" and then laugh at this mockery.
Now ask yourself. is this not the behavior of a girl so smitten with self-hatred? someone who hates her background and culture so much she has to run to what she's been pummelled with as "superior" ?
You know. in the old days, white men raped and pillaged and instituted programs to force minority men into thinking less of themselves and forced minority women into hating themselves and likewise, the men of their culture.
Now it seems desi women are just all the more likely to follow that path willingly.
Imagine a desi girl, her arms wrapped around some white guy.
Now imagine these two laughing at how socially inept desi guys are, how they're chicken, how they're coddled, how they cant approach.
Now imagine the girl asking the guy to do an impression of how "an indian guy approaches" and then laugh at this mockery.
Now ask yourself. is this not the behavior of a girl so smitten with self-hatred? someone who hates her background and culture so much she has to run to what she's been pummelled with as "superior" ?
You know. in the old days, white men raped and pillaged and instituted programs to force minority men into thinking less of themselves and forced minority women into hating themselves and likewise, the men of their culture.
Now it seems desi women are just all the more likely to follow that path willingly.
Rule 8. If this is your first time on this blog. you have to post.
One of my favorite movies is Fight Club.
Watching it again, it got me to thinking about male aggressive behavior, a topic that I've debated
for a small amount on SM. But now I think it's time to extend the debate here.
Of course, let's add a bit of context to the discussion. It's an often quoted joke that women would
be "fat, happy, and hairy" without men. That is to say, their desire to lose weight, and remove their hair, and generally
"beautify" themselves stems from a socialized, learned behavior, to attract, appeal to and please men.
Let's just keep that in mind. Back to male aggression.
Now, let's think back to the playground, I'm talking ages 5-12 years old, How do certain guys get attention
of the women? by doing math problems? in India maybe, but not in western society. In fact, I lost a
student council election on that very platform. But thats another point.
When I did martial arts, a girl was very transparent about why she was dating a certain guy
"I'm glad Lou is my boyfriend, he doesn't lose. [his martial arts tournaments]"
"What if Mike beat him next week."
"Mike won't beat him."
But early on, we as boys, learn that girls like the boys that can physically dominate their opponents, and do so. Basically those that show the aggression early on. So couldn't we conclude that the aggressive behavior is a socialized, learned characteristic, that's reinforced by positive feedback from women? Of course we can, because that is most definitely the case. Which is why when a woman laughs or mocks a man publicly, it provokes an aggressive impulse - an impulse that has been wedged into his brain as the "go to" method to earn female approval - be aggressive (maybe even violent) and defeat opponents.
It's internalized from an early age, and progresses its way to later on in life, where physical dominance isn't as important, but dominance and "owning others" still is. So the lawyer who out argues, the chef who out cooks, the crack dealer who out-deals all win women in their respective spheres.
Yet women are given the privilege of having their behavior explained away as socialized, trying to please men, etc... where as we are usually slapped with "boys will be boys" or "boys are naturally aggressive" which if it's true, and it's such a bad thing...
why do women engage in relationships with a naturally corrosive and inherently aggressive group of individuals?
Of course, the dirty little secret is, women *WANT* boys to be boys, because it provides them a simple mechanism to target when attracting them.
Watching it again, it got me to thinking about male aggressive behavior, a topic that I've debated
for a small amount on SM. But now I think it's time to extend the debate here.
Of course, let's add a bit of context to the discussion. It's an often quoted joke that women would
be "fat, happy, and hairy" without men. That is to say, their desire to lose weight, and remove their hair, and generally
"beautify" themselves stems from a socialized, learned behavior, to attract, appeal to and please men.
Let's just keep that in mind. Back to male aggression.
Now, let's think back to the playground, I'm talking ages 5-12 years old, How do certain guys get attention
of the women? by doing math problems? in India maybe, but not in western society. In fact, I lost a
student council election on that very platform. But thats another point.
When I did martial arts, a girl was very transparent about why she was dating a certain guy
"I'm glad Lou is my boyfriend, he doesn't lose. [his martial arts tournaments]"
"What if Mike beat him next week."
"Mike won't beat him."
But early on, we as boys, learn that girls like the boys that can physically dominate their opponents, and do so. Basically those that show the aggression early on. So couldn't we conclude that the aggressive behavior is a socialized, learned characteristic, that's reinforced by positive feedback from women? Of course we can, because that is most definitely the case. Which is why when a woman laughs or mocks a man publicly, it provokes an aggressive impulse - an impulse that has been wedged into his brain as the "go to" method to earn female approval - be aggressive (maybe even violent) and defeat opponents.
It's internalized from an early age, and progresses its way to later on in life, where physical dominance isn't as important, but dominance and "owning others" still is. So the lawyer who out argues, the chef who out cooks, the crack dealer who out-deals all win women in their respective spheres.
Yet women are given the privilege of having their behavior explained away as socialized, trying to please men, etc... where as we are usually slapped with "boys will be boys" or "boys are naturally aggressive" which if it's true, and it's such a bad thing...
why do women engage in relationships with a naturally corrosive and inherently aggressive group of individuals?
Of course, the dirty little secret is, women *WANT* boys to be boys, because it provides them a simple mechanism to target when attracting them.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
An amazing post
An excerpt from a great post:
"It is strange, too, because women are by no means the second sex. As Camille Paglia conclusively demonstrates, women are without question the dominant sex in our society. No one who has ever seen the desperate attention-seeking of teenage boys or intricately-shaped lavender soap in the private bathroom of a rich and powerful CEO can doubt it. It is usually not much more than a decade, somewhere in the years from 15 to 30, that a man is not under the strong influence of a woman.
There is a saying, that a woman is, and a man must become. Perhaps it is this need on the part of males to become, this sense of a battle fought and won, that separates the sexes more than any other.
Or perhaps it is that women simply do not understand that male respect is never given freely, it must always be earned. And the only way it is earned is by taking complete responsibility for one's words, one's actions and one's decisions."
Full post available here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37018
"It is strange, too, because women are by no means the second sex. As Camille Paglia conclusively demonstrates, women are without question the dominant sex in our society. No one who has ever seen the desperate attention-seeking of teenage boys or intricately-shaped lavender soap in the private bathroom of a rich and powerful CEO can doubt it. It is usually not much more than a decade, somewhere in the years from 15 to 30, that a man is not under the strong influence of a woman.
There is a saying, that a woman is, and a man must become. Perhaps it is this need on the part of males to become, this sense of a battle fought and won, that separates the sexes more than any other.
Or perhaps it is that women simply do not understand that male respect is never given freely, it must always be earned. And the only way it is earned is by taking complete responsibility for one's words, one's actions and one's decisions."
Full post available here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37018
Friday, November 7, 2008
A quick recap
This blog, over the past few weeks has seen some increased traffic, a surprise to me, no doubt. I don't know whether it's some
collective joke against me, or a serious inquiry and engagement on the issues I have brought up over my time on SM and
subsequently here, since my removal from there.
It appears that a few unanswered questions and uncontestable points have been uncovered, let's run them down. By the way, I appreciate the effort made by the people who have attempted to combat me on these issues. However, it's clear they have yet again proved to be unsuccessful.
-Women are granted a right to be emotional and those emotions are treated as more valuable and protectable.
Reasons: Men showing emotion are often regarded as being weak, as a man who does show emotion is told
by society to "be a man" with the implication being, don't let these emotions get to you. Men have a higher demand
on them to be in control of their emotions.
-Women can minimize emotional risk in relationships, by taking refuge in adopting a "I only want to be approached" strategy and hence keep their emotional connection to relationships and sex.
Reasons: Because we live in a society that grants women the privilege to sit back and wait for approaches and "select" , they do not have to endure difficulties that men have to endure. In order for a man to succeed he has to harden his skin to multiple rejections, women on the other hand do not. A woman can meter the amount of emotional investment she makes by simply rejecting or not rejecting the man. Society privileges her absolutely, in this regard. All the difficulty lies with the male, because the male must basically hoodwink the woman into believing he is emotionally connected, all the while maintaining a strict policy of emotional distance- otherwise he risks another rejection tarnishing his self worth - and further corrupting his chances for future relationships
For example, lets say a woman approaches, and gets rejected. She feels bad and adopts a policy of "I will only be approached and chased."
Now, lets say a man appraoches and gets rejected, he too feels bad, but cannot adopt the same policy, as society deems it "unmanly" and "against the nature of manhood" so he has to go back and get repeatedly rejected again and again. And moreover, has to hear about how hard women have it in life being treated as unequals, yet this glaring inequality is so often glossed over.
And to the b*tches that say "If she's not interested, then just shake it off and move on" How about taking some of your own advice? but no, you don't take that advice, you just fall back onto the privilege you take for granted when dispensing this advice.
Now I understand that a woman can undergo the pain of investing emotions and having them not returned, and can also feel "burned." But it's a different animal when society questions your very existence and very place on earth for not approaching, and taking all the steps to escalation. In a sense, we are always risking ourselves, women have the chance to assess interest then make the decision. Men do not have that luxury.
If women truly want to be equal partners in a relationship, they should be willing to shoulder half the load.
collective joke against me, or a serious inquiry and engagement on the issues I have brought up over my time on SM and
subsequently here, since my removal from there.
It appears that a few unanswered questions and uncontestable points have been uncovered, let's run them down. By the way, I appreciate the effort made by the people who have attempted to combat me on these issues. However, it's clear they have yet again proved to be unsuccessful.
-Women are granted a right to be emotional and those emotions are treated as more valuable and protectable.
Reasons: Men showing emotion are often regarded as being weak, as a man who does show emotion is told
by society to "be a man" with the implication being, don't let these emotions get to you. Men have a higher demand
on them to be in control of their emotions.
-Women can minimize emotional risk in relationships, by taking refuge in adopting a "I only want to be approached" strategy and hence keep their emotional connection to relationships and sex.
Reasons: Because we live in a society that grants women the privilege to sit back and wait for approaches and "select" , they do not have to endure difficulties that men have to endure. In order for a man to succeed he has to harden his skin to multiple rejections, women on the other hand do not. A woman can meter the amount of emotional investment she makes by simply rejecting or not rejecting the man. Society privileges her absolutely, in this regard. All the difficulty lies with the male, because the male must basically hoodwink the woman into believing he is emotionally connected, all the while maintaining a strict policy of emotional distance- otherwise he risks another rejection tarnishing his self worth - and further corrupting his chances for future relationships
For example, lets say a woman approaches, and gets rejected. She feels bad and adopts a policy of "I will only be approached and chased."
Now, lets say a man appraoches and gets rejected, he too feels bad, but cannot adopt the same policy, as society deems it "unmanly" and "against the nature of manhood" so he has to go back and get repeatedly rejected again and again. And moreover, has to hear about how hard women have it in life being treated as unequals, yet this glaring inequality is so often glossed over.
And to the b*tches that say "If she's not interested, then just shake it off and move on" How about taking some of your own advice? but no, you don't take that advice, you just fall back onto the privilege you take for granted when dispensing this advice.
Now I understand that a woman can undergo the pain of investing emotions and having them not returned, and can also feel "burned." But it's a different animal when society questions your very existence and very place on earth for not approaching, and taking all the steps to escalation. In a sense, we are always risking ourselves, women have the chance to assess interest then make the decision. Men do not have that luxury.
If women truly want to be equal partners in a relationship, they should be willing to shoulder half the load.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
HELLS MOTHA FUCKIN YEA BITCH
That's all I gotta say.
a non uncle tom person of color got elected to the highest position in US government.
I think it'll take at least a week for the truth to actually set in and become believable.
Manju. if you're reading. I might start that investment bank.
a non uncle tom person of color got elected to the highest position in US government.
I think it'll take at least a week for the truth to actually set in and become believable.
Manju. if you're reading. I might start that investment bank.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
A moment of clarity.
I figured it out.
And I've been correct all along. Men and women are human beings, and both people want the same thing. Validation and attention. Both people want to know... they are important to someone.
And for a coupling to work. Both people need to have someone to be stupid with. Someone to be completely illogical with.
And both people need to have a feeling of over compensating for the other, just at different times.
So if a girls sucking a guys dick, she needs to feel like she's doing it selflessly. to please him. and he needs to pick up on that selflessness.
if a guy's spending $200 on dinner, for a girl, he needs to feel like he's doing it for no reward, and she needs to pick up on that feeling.
I believe thats the secret to a successful pairing. Now of course, there are still larger issues of desi women, from a certain generation who've been whitewashed to hate their own kind, and basically think all desi men are like their fathers (who they no doubt have negative opinions of) that need to be addressed, indian women definitely need an education in confronting pro-white biases that YES, WE ALL HAVE.
However here's the difference, because I want this to be clear to people
Indian men, yes have a pro white bias.. that ENDS IN BEAUTY. so I may think Jessica Alba or Pamela Anderson is hotter, but it ends there, I dont think shes a better woman, more capable of being a nurturing woman, and a a better human being
yet how many times have desi women been hoodwinked with flowers and romance and all that bullshit.? hmm? all in favor of reinforcing an opinion that white men are betteR MEN., not just better looking.
And so here is the difference.
And I've been correct all along. Men and women are human beings, and both people want the same thing. Validation and attention. Both people want to know... they are important to someone.
And for a coupling to work. Both people need to have someone to be stupid with. Someone to be completely illogical with.
And both people need to have a feeling of over compensating for the other, just at different times.
So if a girls sucking a guys dick, she needs to feel like she's doing it selflessly. to please him. and he needs to pick up on that selflessness.
if a guy's spending $200 on dinner, for a girl, he needs to feel like he's doing it for no reward, and she needs to pick up on that feeling.
I believe thats the secret to a successful pairing. Now of course, there are still larger issues of desi women, from a certain generation who've been whitewashed to hate their own kind, and basically think all desi men are like their fathers (who they no doubt have negative opinions of) that need to be addressed, indian women definitely need an education in confronting pro-white biases that YES, WE ALL HAVE.
However here's the difference, because I want this to be clear to people
Indian men, yes have a pro white bias.. that ENDS IN BEAUTY. so I may think Jessica Alba or Pamela Anderson is hotter, but it ends there, I dont think shes a better woman, more capable of being a nurturing woman, and a a better human being
yet how many times have desi women been hoodwinked with flowers and romance and all that bullshit.? hmm? all in favor of reinforcing an opinion that white men are betteR MEN., not just better looking.
And so here is the difference.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
What makes a female emotion more protectable, guardable, or valuable to its owner than a male one?
Answer that question. Because insisting that men always approach or put themselves on the line, is basically believing that female emotions are more valuable to their owner than male ones.
Keeping with the discussion.
Keeping with the discussion of inequality.
Here's my theory. Men and women are human beings. And we all need attention and validation. No matter how much "self confidence" or "self-awareness"
all of us need to be validated and made felt relevant by someone else.
If this point is agreed. then why do so many women feel they deserve more attention and validation, in particular in the beginning of a relationship?
Is this not a dereliction of a core belief of equality, now if a woman doesnt believe in equality and is willing to do her part, then there's no hypocrisy at all.
But having as a core belief of male-female equality (which by my understanding, is the underlying tenet of the entire feminist movement) how can one maintain that such unequal behavior must take place?
it's just a bum deal for guys (and yes I know by stating that I alienate any women who are reading this, but truth is truth)
For the women actually reading this, I've looked through the "rules" book. you must be aware of that bullsh*t. How can women subscribe to such nonsense like "you should be able to come 15 minutes late and the guy shouldnt complain" I mean seriously?
What if some guy wrote a book that said, "you should be able to grab her ass 3 times without her getting mad at you" Wouldnt that be labelled sexist, this-ist and that-ist?
Yet no, a book published by a mainstream US publisher can advocate such sexist behavior out of women, behavior that encourages women to devalue a man's time (and god knows what else)
Here's my theory. Men and women are human beings. And we all need attention and validation. No matter how much "self confidence" or "self-awareness"
all of us need to be validated and made felt relevant by someone else.
If this point is agreed. then why do so many women feel they deserve more attention and validation, in particular in the beginning of a relationship?
Is this not a dereliction of a core belief of equality, now if a woman doesnt believe in equality and is willing to do her part, then there's no hypocrisy at all.
But having as a core belief of male-female equality (which by my understanding, is the underlying tenet of the entire feminist movement) how can one maintain that such unequal behavior must take place?
it's just a bum deal for guys (and yes I know by stating that I alienate any women who are reading this, but truth is truth)
For the women actually reading this, I've looked through the "rules" book. you must be aware of that bullsh*t. How can women subscribe to such nonsense like "you should be able to come 15 minutes late and the guy shouldnt complain" I mean seriously?
What if some guy wrote a book that said, "you should be able to grab her ass 3 times without her getting mad at you" Wouldnt that be labelled sexist, this-ist and that-ist?
Yet no, a book published by a mainstream US publisher can advocate such sexist behavior out of women, behavior that encourages women to devalue a man's time (and god knows what else)
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Being a nice guy
Can someone explain why nice guys are repeatedly shafted, when women regularly say they want someone respectful?
I had a debate with a woman, and she stated that female privilege wouldn't exist if men were smart (and didnt do stupid shit to try and impress them)
Couldn't I say, on the flip side, that male privilege wouldnt exist if women didn't repeatedly turn towards men that treated them poorly?
Think about it.
I had a debate with a woman, and she stated that female privilege wouldn't exist if men were smart (and didnt do stupid shit to try and impress them)
Couldn't I say, on the flip side, that male privilege wouldnt exist if women didn't repeatedly turn towards men that treated them poorly?
Think about it.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Dagnabbit. Banned again
"You are not allowed to post comments"
is the message I got again. After changing my pseudonym to "hero many faces", it looks like I got the official banning treatment once again. Now this is getting silly. It appears there are some in SM that tolerate my presence, and some in SM that completely want me blown off the face of the earth. (I wont go so far to say that there's anyone there that 'likes' me there)
I won't even bother asking for an explanation this time.
is the message I got again. After changing my pseudonym to "hero many faces", it looks like I got the official banning treatment once again. Now this is getting silly. It appears there are some in SM that tolerate my presence, and some in SM that completely want me blown off the face of the earth. (I wont go so far to say that there's anyone there that 'likes' me there)
I won't even bother asking for an explanation this time.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
I hate reality TV.
I hate reality television.
But I saw recently, what's possibly the best segment of reality television I've seen my entire life.
It was an episode of beauty and the geek. and the task for the girls was to go into a club wearing "normal" or "bad" clothing, no makeup, and ACTIVELY approach men and get their numbers.
Now some of these pampered b*tches were shocked to learn that men carried phones and those phones were assigned a 10 digit number. But I digress.
Finally, these dumb bimbos got a taste of what normal guys like myself and a host of others have to experience on a daily basis. having to actually put their egos on the line, not just sit back and wait for someone else to roll up on them. This is what our realities are like, the struggles we have to endure.
And it brought them (rightfully) to tears, when they realized they could be rejected. and a single rejection cut into their little weak minded psychii's over and over, while guys like us have to experience that 100+ times per week.
It's sort of like the great masterpiece written by John Howard Griffin, "Black like me" where he took psorlen, to make his skin darker (as he didnt believe the absolute 2nd class citizen ship that these "uppity" negroes were claiming) So he finally underwent the hardships that black folks were going through on a daily basis. And then commented, "I can stop being black any time" likewise these women can stop being "unattractive" any time, and immediate take refuge in their cosmetics, fashion and low cut tops.
So in this episode, I truly have no sympathy for these women, coasting through this part of life with so much ease. finally they got their comeuppance in a small way. Of course it could never be equal to them living an entire life that way, they could never comprehend that, however, now they know at a small level what it feels like, hopefully that lesson sticks with them.
But I saw recently, what's possibly the best segment of reality television I've seen my entire life.
It was an episode of beauty and the geek. and the task for the girls was to go into a club wearing "normal" or "bad" clothing, no makeup, and ACTIVELY approach men and get their numbers.
Now some of these pampered b*tches were shocked to learn that men carried phones and those phones were assigned a 10 digit number. But I digress.
Finally, these dumb bimbos got a taste of what normal guys like myself and a host of others have to experience on a daily basis. having to actually put their egos on the line, not just sit back and wait for someone else to roll up on them. This is what our realities are like, the struggles we have to endure.
And it brought them (rightfully) to tears, when they realized they could be rejected. and a single rejection cut into their little weak minded psychii's over and over, while guys like us have to experience that 100+ times per week.
It's sort of like the great masterpiece written by John Howard Griffin, "Black like me" where he took psorlen, to make his skin darker (as he didnt believe the absolute 2nd class citizen ship that these "uppity" negroes were claiming) So he finally underwent the hardships that black folks were going through on a daily basis. And then commented, "I can stop being black any time" likewise these women can stop being "unattractive" any time, and immediate take refuge in their cosmetics, fashion and low cut tops.
So in this episode, I truly have no sympathy for these women, coasting through this part of life with so much ease. finally they got their comeuppance in a small way. Of course it could never be equal to them living an entire life that way, they could never comprehend that, however, now they know at a small level what it feels like, hopefully that lesson sticks with them.
Speaking about gender...
So women like to tout the fact that they are more likely to be abused in relationships. And while this is true, and horrible, and should be corrected. Let's not forget that men are 4 times are more likely to be murdered, according to the DOJ statistics:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm
Yet this rarely gets any media or blog coverage. To the point where female behavior is excused (ie running away, infidelity, etc..) is somehow engineered to be rooted in their higher likelihood to be abused.
When does male behavior ever get excused in this way? How many times do men get a free pass to their behavior because of their hightened risk to be victims of murder, and indeed all violent crime of any kind? Couple that with the intense pressure to take soul-less, meaningless jobs for the purpose of earning money? Yet this doesn't fit into the narrative, because we live in a world where women are perpetual victims, passive recipients of the evil male exploiting them and controlling them.
How about some true equality?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm
Yet this rarely gets any media or blog coverage. To the point where female behavior is excused (ie running away, infidelity, etc..) is somehow engineered to be rooted in their higher likelihood to be abused.
When does male behavior ever get excused in this way? How many times do men get a free pass to their behavior because of their hightened risk to be victims of murder, and indeed all violent crime of any kind? Couple that with the intense pressure to take soul-less, meaningless jobs for the purpose of earning money? Yet this doesn't fit into the narrative, because we live in a world where women are perpetual victims, passive recipients of the evil male exploiting them and controlling them.
How about some true equality?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The San Fernando Valley Tragedy
I'd like to comment with respect to this post:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-porterranch7-2008oct07,0,7425239.story
Now. there's no doubt that this is horrible and tragic. For these kids especially, not even allowed a chance to move forward
in life and fight for what they see is justice and truth.
I wonder how much pressure was on him to make money, pressure so high, that when it was taken from him, he saw his only option to end his life and those that depended on him.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-porterranch7-2008oct07,0,7425239.story
Now. there's no doubt that this is horrible and tragic. For these kids especially, not even allowed a chance to move forward
in life and fight for what they see is justice and truth.
I wonder how much pressure was on him to make money, pressure so high, that when it was taken from him, he saw his only option to end his life and those that depended on him.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Alea iacta est.
Since it's clear my presence at SM is to be eliminated permanently, and any attempt of mine to rejoin the discussion will be deemed as "trollish" behavior, I've decided to post a little epilogue here.
This is not meant to be a complete list, nor is it meant to be a "bash" list (or Korn shell list either, oh I kill me.), rather an account, mostly by memory, of some of the more striking interactions and people with whom I've interacted, both past and present.
There is a caveat however, these summaries are purely my opinion, and drawn from memory, if I had more time I'd be able to ferret out the actual SM discussions I've referred to in the following descriptions.
ANNA
I'd say the biggest issue with ANNA is having to recognize her AS an issue. I had no issues with her, in fact no opinions at all. If anything, I'd say my opinion of her is mostly positive. However, I liken ANNA's presence on SM, to the Jewish communities presence in America. Now, before you start going all "poo poo anti-Semite! (1) " hear me out, then chose either to process the context, or ignore it and dismiss me as an anti-Semite(1).
When someone joins SM, (assuming they come in with a "clean slate") invariably you will see ANNA write a post where she's defending herself and taking some kind of statement very personally. When questioned, others will come to her defense, with statements like, "she's been attacked before, just for being a woman, etc.." After many iterations of this, a new person is eventually forced to take an opinion, even if they do not want to. In a way, she's a perpetual victim. The same way some (not all) Jews call upon the Holocaust (2) to reclaim their victimhood, you basically force anyone who's emigrated to the United States well after Jews in America have rebounded to keep thinking about them. (by the way, before you start flogging the anti-semitic flag at me again, this is the exact same logic used to tell blacks to 'shutup' when they bring up issues such as slavery, reparations, etc..) Yet white people can use it all the time, and not be "racist" yet when spoken towards the Jewish community, amounts to discriminatory, horrible, horrendous, illegitamite thinking.
Anyway, the upshot here is, I do think Anna is a tremendous addition to SM, and a diligent, smart, blogger. But you're forced to have an opinion about HER. even if you don't want to. I can't tell you how many times, I myself have been accused of "disrespecting her" when my response was, "I dont have the time to point you out specifically and disrespect you! don't flatter yourself!"
I dont know how instrumental she was in my banning, but I do believe she has been very fair, and respecte the right to free expression of opinion, and namely "keeping it real."
Oh. and one thread some time back, she posted a picture of a girl in jeans (with her head cropped off), and asked guys to comment whether she was "hot" or something like that. My guess is it was her (either from before hand or now).
Dilettante
Not sure which component of my posts she took towards, but apparently had a "crush" on me or something of that nature. I'm assuming she's reading this, maybe she can comment on what specifically she took towards?
Razib
I think he called me a bot once, and after that really not much interaction ensued thereafter. He's definitely a little darling over at SM, and that's just an artifact of human nature. Objectivity and lack of bias can never truly be achieved.
I had no real issue with him, but found most of his posts cumbersome and circumambulous, they circled around and around, and relied on concepts that your average person wouldn't know. For example, conditional probability and complex statistical analysis (I having done some probability in a different arena, could pick up on those, but not having studied say, genetics to that depth, would not be able to pick up on a central thesis) In a general interest board, every post need not be a masters thesis. or require one to determine the central point and argument.
MD
One of the largest misrepresenters of my posts, but has toned down of late. In my view, someone who believes we should all just pretend to be white, forget who we are, where we came from, and live happily ever after. I'd imagine if there was a painless way to have our skin bleached, she'd be first in line. Sorry, but that just doesn't fly with me. Otherwise, most of the time I believe her arguments amounted to "yeah but the left-wing does the same thing" or something to that effect. So, in many cases would completely ignore the point being made, and just assume everything's a "wash."
Nala
I believe our discussions mostly surrounded male-female relationships, and social dynamics. Our largest differing point has to do with certain privileges afforded to the female in the formation of male-female relationships.
Camille & AK
I'll group these two together because they are two of the more sensible women on SM (in addition to ANNA, although I've never really discussed any of the issues with her). One's who've actually taken the time to dissect my argument and provide at least a somewhat reasonable, well constructed response. They've been unable to address the fundamental points I've brought up, but
at least they didn't lash out like others have done. Ak, in particular, for her call to other women, that indeed if they are to be treated as equals, they should act as equals. (I'm not sure if Camille has said this before explicitly, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt)
Muralimannered
This was one of the people that attacked, yet shrieked in horror, and cried foul when attacked back. The only discussion that comes to mind is regarding a commonly done practice at elementary schools regarding Thanksgiving, where kids dress up as "pilgrims" and "indians" (guess which one I [and most probably, the majority of readers of SM] always was?) I believe he countered with some kind of point that when he grew up they dressed up in pink leotards or some sh*t. To which I answered, "yes but the majority is..." and his response was something to the effect of, "yeah well you didnt mean it when you said majority, you meant all"
DQ
She once complemented me on my sense of humor. Of couse, this was until she became a target of that very same sense of humor, then I conveniently turned from "cracking her up" to being "bitter." Now, her calling me bitter is somewhat like Sarah Palin calling someone "simple minded" but the speed of her knee-jerk "woman is always right and always a victim" response to everything would put an epilepsy patient to shame. Any male-female dispute was always rooted in the woman being abused or victimized, or something of that nature. Even if the woman set off a thermo nuclear bomb that blew up planet earth, some guy abusing her was the root cause.
I believe one time she likened a man paying for a woman on various preliminary social interactions, to a man 'leading' in ballroom dance, or some ridiculous statement like that. (I assume this was done to trivialize the act of paying from a male's point of view) I dont know where she lives, but I can't pay rent, buy food, pay ma bell and the power company with pictures of me waltzing and doing the tango, however, these service and product providers generally do accept money.
She's the person who would most definitely benefit from the statement, "if women want to start being treated as equals, they better start acting as equals."
Nayagan
He's pretty new to the "I hate HMF" front, but his biggest problem is the constant inability to actually address the point, which many of my other detractors have done. Rather he provides a stream of poorly constructed insults, and requests if "I'm going to whine about that desi girl that left me for a white guy" or something to that effect. Gee. never heard that one before.
My answer is what it's always been... no... because I've known many desi women that have gotten proverbially 'slapped in the face' because they chose to underestimate the innate racialism and negative assumptions dormant in even the most "liberal" of white people out there. And i'm just not the "I told you so" type of guy. But I did... tell them so.
Manju
Not much to say here. Never really discussed anything with this guy. (3)
The end. there may be more to come in the future.
End notes:
(1) Anti-Semite (used to mean attitudes against the Jewish religion and people) in and of itself is a pro-Jewish word, as Semitic people include Arabs, among others, so technically speaking, an anti-semite is someone against this entire group of people, not just the most powerful subset, but this is a digression.
(2) Again, a pro-Jewish term, the word holocaust etymologically breaks down into "complete burning", and is used to describe a large scale extermination of a group of people, the largest example (on American soil anyway) being the Native American extermination and genocide. Yet in America, the proper-noun-ified version of the word refers to a genocide (which was horrible no doubt) that occured on an entirely different continent, of a lower amount (accounts have the Native American extermination at 10 million or so)
(3) Funny thing, the word Manju means sweet.
This is not meant to be a complete list, nor is it meant to be a "bash" list (or Korn shell list either, oh I kill me.), rather an account, mostly by memory, of some of the more striking interactions and people with whom I've interacted, both past and present.
There is a caveat however, these summaries are purely my opinion, and drawn from memory, if I had more time I'd be able to ferret out the actual SM discussions I've referred to in the following descriptions.
ANNA
I'd say the biggest issue with ANNA is having to recognize her AS an issue. I had no issues with her, in fact no opinions at all. If anything, I'd say my opinion of her is mostly positive. However, I liken ANNA's presence on SM, to the Jewish communities presence in America. Now, before you start going all "poo poo anti-Semite! (1) " hear me out, then chose either to process the context, or ignore it and dismiss me as an anti-Semite(1).
When someone joins SM, (assuming they come in with a "clean slate") invariably you will see ANNA write a post where she's defending herself and taking some kind of statement very personally. When questioned, others will come to her defense, with statements like, "she's been attacked before, just for being a woman, etc.." After many iterations of this, a new person is eventually forced to take an opinion, even if they do not want to. In a way, she's a perpetual victim. The same way some (not all) Jews call upon the Holocaust (2) to reclaim their victimhood, you basically force anyone who's emigrated to the United States well after Jews in America have rebounded to keep thinking about them. (by the way, before you start flogging the anti-semitic flag at me again, this is the exact same logic used to tell blacks to 'shutup' when they bring up issues such as slavery, reparations, etc..) Yet white people can use it all the time, and not be "racist" yet when spoken towards the Jewish community, amounts to discriminatory, horrible, horrendous, illegitamite thinking.
Anyway, the upshot here is, I do think Anna is a tremendous addition to SM, and a diligent, smart, blogger. But you're forced to have an opinion about HER. even if you don't want to. I can't tell you how many times, I myself have been accused of "disrespecting her" when my response was, "I dont have the time to point you out specifically and disrespect you! don't flatter yourself!"
I dont know how instrumental she was in my banning, but I do believe she has been very fair, and respecte the right to free expression of opinion, and namely "keeping it real."
Oh. and one thread some time back, she posted a picture of a girl in jeans (with her head cropped off), and asked guys to comment whether she was "hot" or something like that. My guess is it was her (either from before hand or now).
Dilettante
Not sure which component of my posts she took towards, but apparently had a "crush" on me or something of that nature. I'm assuming she's reading this, maybe she can comment on what specifically she took towards?
Razib
I think he called me a bot once, and after that really not much interaction ensued thereafter. He's definitely a little darling over at SM, and that's just an artifact of human nature. Objectivity and lack of bias can never truly be achieved.
I had no real issue with him, but found most of his posts cumbersome and circumambulous, they circled around and around, and relied on concepts that your average person wouldn't know. For example, conditional probability and complex statistical analysis (I having done some probability in a different arena, could pick up on those, but not having studied say, genetics to that depth, would not be able to pick up on a central thesis) In a general interest board, every post need not be a masters thesis. or require one to determine the central point and argument.
MD
One of the largest misrepresenters of my posts, but has toned down of late. In my view, someone who believes we should all just pretend to be white, forget who we are, where we came from, and live happily ever after. I'd imagine if there was a painless way to have our skin bleached, she'd be first in line. Sorry, but that just doesn't fly with me. Otherwise, most of the time I believe her arguments amounted to "yeah but the left-wing does the same thing" or something to that effect. So, in many cases would completely ignore the point being made, and just assume everything's a "wash."
Nala
I believe our discussions mostly surrounded male-female relationships, and social dynamics. Our largest differing point has to do with certain privileges afforded to the female in the formation of male-female relationships.
Camille & AK
I'll group these two together because they are two of the more sensible women on SM (in addition to ANNA, although I've never really discussed any of the issues with her). One's who've actually taken the time to dissect my argument and provide at least a somewhat reasonable, well constructed response. They've been unable to address the fundamental points I've brought up, but
at least they didn't lash out like others have done. Ak, in particular, for her call to other women, that indeed if they are to be treated as equals, they should act as equals. (I'm not sure if Camille has said this before explicitly, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt)
Muralimannered
This was one of the people that attacked, yet shrieked in horror, and cried foul when attacked back. The only discussion that comes to mind is regarding a commonly done practice at elementary schools regarding Thanksgiving, where kids dress up as "pilgrims" and "indians" (guess which one I [and most probably, the majority of readers of SM] always was?) I believe he countered with some kind of point that when he grew up they dressed up in pink leotards or some sh*t. To which I answered, "yes but the majority is..." and his response was something to the effect of, "yeah well you didnt mean it when you said majority, you meant all"
DQ
She once complemented me on my sense of humor. Of couse, this was until she became a target of that very same sense of humor, then I conveniently turned from "cracking her up" to being "bitter." Now, her calling me bitter is somewhat like Sarah Palin calling someone "simple minded" but the speed of her knee-jerk "woman is always right and always a victim" response to everything would put an epilepsy patient to shame. Any male-female dispute was always rooted in the woman being abused or victimized, or something of that nature. Even if the woman set off a thermo nuclear bomb that blew up planet earth, some guy abusing her was the root cause.
I believe one time she likened a man paying for a woman on various preliminary social interactions, to a man 'leading' in ballroom dance, or some ridiculous statement like that. (I assume this was done to trivialize the act of paying from a male's point of view) I dont know where she lives, but I can't pay rent, buy food, pay ma bell and the power company with pictures of me waltzing and doing the tango, however, these service and product providers generally do accept money.
She's the person who would most definitely benefit from the statement, "if women want to start being treated as equals, they better start acting as equals."
Nayagan
He's pretty new to the "I hate HMF" front, but his biggest problem is the constant inability to actually address the point, which many of my other detractors have done. Rather he provides a stream of poorly constructed insults, and requests if "I'm going to whine about that desi girl that left me for a white guy" or something to that effect. Gee. never heard that one before.
My answer is what it's always been... no... because I've known many desi women that have gotten proverbially 'slapped in the face' because they chose to underestimate the innate racialism and negative assumptions dormant in even the most "liberal" of white people out there. And i'm just not the "I told you so" type of guy. But I did... tell them so.
Manju
Not much to say here. Never really discussed anything with this guy. (3)
The end. there may be more to come in the future.
End notes:
(1) Anti-Semite (used to mean attitudes against the Jewish religion and people) in and of itself is a pro-Jewish word, as Semitic people include Arabs, among others, so technically speaking, an anti-semite is someone against this entire group of people, not just the most powerful subset, but this is a digression.
(2) Again, a pro-Jewish term, the word holocaust etymologically breaks down into "complete burning", and is used to describe a large scale extermination of a group of people, the largest example (on American soil anyway) being the Native American extermination and genocide. Yet in America, the proper-noun-ified version of the word refers to a genocide (which was horrible no doubt) that occured on an entirely different continent, of a lower amount (accounts have the Native American extermination at 10 million or so)
(3) Funny thing, the word Manju means sweet.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Bitterness?
What's it mean to be bitter?
Was MLK bitter? Was Gandhi Bitter? No, I don't liken myself to either of these great men, because I'm not brave enough. (who, in our current society are 'hero-ified' as their negative traits are downplayed in the history books) but I ask, if they saw injustices in front of their eyes, and that motivated them to act.. couldn't they be considered bitter?
Isn't it bitterness to say the way things work do not reflect genuine equality? and then act on it?
But, to change societies thinking by such long strides, you need to be willing to sacrifice a lot. A whole lot.
Was MLK bitter? Was Gandhi Bitter? No, I don't liken myself to either of these great men, because I'm not brave enough. (who, in our current society are 'hero-ified' as their negative traits are downplayed in the history books) but I ask, if they saw injustices in front of their eyes, and that motivated them to act.. couldn't they be considered bitter?
Isn't it bitterness to say the way things work do not reflect genuine equality? and then act on it?
But, to change societies thinking by such long strides, you need to be willing to sacrifice a lot. A whole lot.
We return like Jesus. where the whole world need us.
The Phoenix has risen from the ashes.
So the folks at SM have decided to let me back on. For what reason I don't know. I still intend on stating my opinion like the rest of the users of that site, I'll even not respond to the repetitive snide jabs coming from these unknown assailants. The SM people have remained true to their commitment to free speech, and in doing so, have kept it real.
And for that I thank them. But the truisms of what I've stated time and time again on that site, and this one, still stand. No one has been able to even come close to disproving my central claim, namely those describing female hypocrisy in dating (as defined in US/western dating paradigms)
So. Get ready for round 2. It seems SM is ready.
So the folks at SM have decided to let me back on. For what reason I don't know. I still intend on stating my opinion like the rest of the users of that site, I'll even not respond to the repetitive snide jabs coming from these unknown assailants. The SM people have remained true to their commitment to free speech, and in doing so, have kept it real.
And for that I thank them. But the truisms of what I've stated time and time again on that site, and this one, still stand. No one has been able to even come close to disproving my central claim, namely those describing female hypocrisy in dating (as defined in US/western dating paradigms)
So. Get ready for round 2. It seems SM is ready.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Boobies into hibernation.
Boobies into hibernation.
Summer is almost over. and what this means in most cities of the world, is that boobies will go into hibernation. It's no mystery that women will expose these assets of theirs in socially acceptable ways in order to gain various privileges and favors, not to mention, use them to attract men (and then yet still complain all men care about is looks.)
But it's now time for another one of my infamous theories.
Enter the winter boyfriend vs the summer boyfriend. Seasons have been known to effect people's states of mind, I think women become more "boyfriend prone" during the winter, and the guys they choose during the winter have "Beta" characteristics. That is, comforting, nurturing, supportive types. Summer is time for casting caution to the wind, going wild, crazy, trying strange things, and dating the guy your parents would hate the most. So women do either one of two things,
1. Don't date anyone, and just f*ck a lot of guys.
2. Date someone that transmits alpha characteristics : unpredictability, instant likability (good looking), generally uncaring about
others (including the very woman that's dating him for inexplicable reasons)
Again, to reiterate, summer is almost over, which means the boobies are about to go into hibernation, and good guys that actually treat women with respect might have a chance.
Signing off, HMF.
Summer is almost over. and what this means in most cities of the world, is that boobies will go into hibernation. It's no mystery that women will expose these assets of theirs in socially acceptable ways in order to gain various privileges and favors, not to mention, use them to attract men (and then yet still complain all men care about is looks.)
But it's now time for another one of my infamous theories.
Enter the winter boyfriend vs the summer boyfriend. Seasons have been known to effect people's states of mind, I think women become more "boyfriend prone" during the winter, and the guys they choose during the winter have "Beta" characteristics. That is, comforting, nurturing, supportive types. Summer is time for casting caution to the wind, going wild, crazy, trying strange things, and dating the guy your parents would hate the most. So women do either one of two things,
1. Don't date anyone, and just f*ck a lot of guys.
2. Date someone that transmits alpha characteristics : unpredictability, instant likability (good looking), generally uncaring about
others (including the very woman that's dating him for inexplicable reasons)
Again, to reiterate, summer is almost over, which means the boobies are about to go into hibernation, and good guys that actually treat women with respect might have a chance.
Signing off, HMF.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The saga continues.
So I posted a message on SM after my banning, which they kept but switched the handle around to shroud its true source:
link
I responded to the SM staffer personally, but I wanted to put it up here for those few lost souls who continue to meander to this corner from time to time.
*note this is not a verbatim response, it's a paraphrase, with some more added.
HMF.
Thats my name. dont wear it out.
Let's leave aside the fact that I haven't even had the opportunity to respond to your email...
this wasn't made known to me until now.
Let's leave aside the fact that you circumvented being banned, which was a total middle-finger at all of us and what we are trying to do (we didn't ban you impulsively, or without discussing it)...
if you mean by posting from a different machine, you wouldn't even have known had I not used my true handle. Secondly, the banning was impulsive, as the "explanation" given came later. And what exactly are you trying to do? stifle opinions that deviate from your own?
And finally, let's leave aside the vitriol-laced tirade of comments on your personal blog about us, regarding how we like to give Razib rim-jobs, where Manju patiently, repeatedly articulated our (and many of our readers') concerns better than even we could...
My blog is my space. I know some of you like to think you're all powerful, but the line must be drawn when you start to govern what other people say on their blogs. Also, if comments where I state my great respect for the work you and your crew have done constitutes "vitriol" I shudder to think what constitutes praise.
I'm sorry if my opinions of Razibs post makes you quiver. i find them cumbersome and preachy.
...your second comment after the helpful, on-topic one about Selvam was obnoxious. A massive "fuck you" to all of us. "Guess I'm back and better than before" or some such sentiment.
thats a misunderstanding then, it was my acknowledging that you had chosen to make the ban less than permanent.
THAT is why I deleted it. If you notice, the comment where you didn't congratulate yourself for breaking rules, the comment which wasn't rude or hostile or combative is still up.
After you turned me into a soft-core porn magazine.
And please don't print this email. Not cool,
Well, I believe banning someone unjustly is equally uncool. besides who even reads my blog anyway?
but you have no respect for us (and especially me), so I don't have high hopes.
well, again, I must say your respect for my point of view has deteriorated of late as well
I have always defended our decision to allow you to stay when others have been banned for far less. I have always tried to be fair.
The only problem is, I do actually provide engaging commentary and discussion, if I was a common troll, as you would like to believe, I would have been banned much earlier.
As for topics I repeatedly bring up, I think they are important. I'm sorry you don't. but these are two I've studied and pondered for years.
So, with certain topics in hand, I will say I am energetic about my opinions, but again, I've never directly attacked someone until provoked. Then the gloves come off. Isn't that fair in your book?
I am not posting on SM regularly or writing you back immediately for a reason: my health.
I hope you feel better.
Instead of giving me the courtesy of hearing me out and working with me, you switched IPs like a common troll and came back anyway (and then left a bad comment after a good one).
The good comment is effectively deleted, as it's not ascribed to me. Im not sure what "hearing you out" and "working with you" means, but I still maintain I did nothing other than state my own opinions (and if people deem it off topic they can choose not to respond)
Resignedly,
XXXXX :(
link
I responded to the SM staffer personally, but I wanted to put it up here for those few lost souls who continue to meander to this corner from time to time.
*note this is not a verbatim response, it's a paraphrase, with some more added.
HMF.
Thats my name. dont wear it out.
Let's leave aside the fact that I haven't even had the opportunity to respond to your email...
this wasn't made known to me until now.
Let's leave aside the fact that you circumvented being banned, which was a total middle-finger at all of us and what we are trying to do (we didn't ban you impulsively, or without discussing it)...
if you mean by posting from a different machine, you wouldn't even have known had I not used my true handle. Secondly, the banning was impulsive, as the "explanation" given came later. And what exactly are you trying to do? stifle opinions that deviate from your own?
And finally, let's leave aside the vitriol-laced tirade of comments on your personal blog about us, regarding how we like to give Razib rim-jobs, where Manju patiently, repeatedly articulated our (and many of our readers') concerns better than even we could...
My blog is my space. I know some of you like to think you're all powerful, but the line must be drawn when you start to govern what other people say on their blogs. Also, if comments where I state my great respect for the work you and your crew have done constitutes "vitriol" I shudder to think what constitutes praise.
I'm sorry if my opinions of Razibs post makes you quiver. i find them cumbersome and preachy.
...your second comment after the helpful, on-topic one about Selvam was obnoxious. A massive "fuck you" to all of us. "Guess I'm back and better than before" or some such sentiment.
thats a misunderstanding then, it was my acknowledging that you had chosen to make the ban less than permanent.
THAT is why I deleted it. If you notice, the comment where you didn't congratulate yourself for breaking rules, the comment which wasn't rude or hostile or combative is still up.
After you turned me into a soft-core porn magazine.
And please don't print this email. Not cool,
Well, I believe banning someone unjustly is equally uncool. besides who even reads my blog anyway?
but you have no respect for us (and especially me), so I don't have high hopes.
well, again, I must say your respect for my point of view has deteriorated of late as well
I have always defended our decision to allow you to stay when others have been banned for far less. I have always tried to be fair.
The only problem is, I do actually provide engaging commentary and discussion, if I was a common troll, as you would like to believe, I would have been banned much earlier.
As for topics I repeatedly bring up, I think they are important. I'm sorry you don't. but these are two I've studied and pondered for years.
So, with certain topics in hand, I will say I am energetic about my opinions, but again, I've never directly attacked someone until provoked. Then the gloves come off. Isn't that fair in your book?
I am not posting on SM regularly or writing you back immediately for a reason: my health.
I hope you feel better.
Instead of giving me the courtesy of hearing me out and working with me, you switched IPs like a common troll and came back anyway (and then left a bad comment after a good one).
The good comment is effectively deleted, as it's not ascribed to me. Im not sure what "hearing you out" and "working with you" means, but I still maintain I did nothing other than state my own opinions (and if people deem it off topic they can choose not to respond)
Resignedly,
XXXXX :(
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Response given
So, The folks at SM have provided me with a response, here it is:
sorry that you feel you were banned without cause. You know that I have always tried to be fair to you.
It was not one comment but rather the progressive trend of increasing hostility and lack of consideration for others that we have seen in your comments. Put simply, your confrontational nature and tendency to hijack posts turns people off and discourages them from commenting on our site. We reserve the right to maintain an atmosphere that is inclusive where people can feel comfortable exchanging ideas. I hope you find another forum where you can engage in the types of discussions you seem to be seeking.
Best,
XXXXX
Now, lets just have a look at the last thread which apparently was "the straw that broke the camels back" in this situation.
link here
My first post, said I had no interesting stories, and I stated an opinion that inter-religious weddings where each side is deep into their religions would probably not work out, that if anything would require one side to not so connected to the ritualistic side of their religion.
I had a few energetic posts.. but no vitriol directed against any one person.
The first time I directed any insults at ANY ONE PERSON was here
but lo and behold, it was in direct response to this statement.
Namely, this excerpt: "i can't believe what a penny pinching scrooge that hmf fellow is. i feel sorry for his partner and children."
Not only is this person a gold-digger, they have the gall to insult my family.
Now, in my response, I called this person for the gold-digging b*tch she is, basically assessing a man's value by his wallet, which is the clear implication in her statement.
I invite any of you readers to go back to ANY thread, and locate a direct attack I've made that wasn't provoked in this way. You'd be hard pressed to find any examples.
And yet the usually fair folks at SM, have now renegged on their own claim to create an environment with a willfull exchange of ideas.
Apparently they are happy only when you agree to spending money on big weddings.
sorry that you feel you were banned without cause. You know that I have always tried to be fair to you.
It was not one comment but rather the progressive trend of increasing hostility and lack of consideration for others that we have seen in your comments. Put simply, your confrontational nature and tendency to hijack posts turns people off and discourages them from commenting on our site. We reserve the right to maintain an atmosphere that is inclusive where people can feel comfortable exchanging ideas. I hope you find another forum where you can engage in the types of discussions you seem to be seeking.
Best,
XXXXX
Now, lets just have a look at the last thread which apparently was "the straw that broke the camels back" in this situation.
link here
My first post, said I had no interesting stories, and I stated an opinion that inter-religious weddings where each side is deep into their religions would probably not work out, that if anything would require one side to not so connected to the ritualistic side of their religion.
I had a few energetic posts.. but no vitriol directed against any one person.
The first time I directed any insults at ANY ONE PERSON was here
but lo and behold, it was in direct response to this statement.
Namely, this excerpt: "i can't believe what a penny pinching scrooge that hmf fellow is. i feel sorry for his partner and children."
Not only is this person a gold-digger, they have the gall to insult my family.
Now, in my response, I called this person for the gold-digging b*tch she is, basically assessing a man's value by his wallet, which is the clear implication in her statement.
I invite any of you readers to go back to ANY thread, and locate a direct attack I've made that wasn't provoked in this way. You'd be hard pressed to find any examples.
And yet the usually fair folks at SM, have now renegged on their own claim to create an environment with a willfull exchange of ideas.
Apparently they are happy only when you agree to spending money on big weddings.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Banned from SM. With no response.
Banned from SM.
Well, it finally happened. Those at SM, who I've immensely respected for the last year or so for their commitment to people
voicing their opinions and defending themselves when attacked, have blocked me with no information as to why.
I have requested information from various SM parties as to the rationale for the banning, and have received no such response, again very unbecoming behavior for people I generally hold in high regard. Even the ones whose only response to me is unhinged vitriol, without provocation.
My last thread was an inter-religious wedding topic, where I stated my opinion that if either partner heavily practices their religion then a marital union would be quite difficult. And the case where one party doesn't practice their religion overtly (of course saying nothing about their beliefs in underlying principles) would facilitate an inter-religious marriage to much more substantially.
Now, another discussion ensued where I stated an opinion I have that large expenditures on wedding festivities is a complete
waste of money, even for those who have it. A flurry of messages came in response of the sort, "well certain expectations must be met"
to which I responded, in essence, screw the expectations and opinions of others, and do what you feel is right.
Ak, again, one of the more sane commenters on SM, attempted to "catch me in my own words" by implying that if the disregard of others opinions should be accepted broadly, then my own opinion on large spending for weddings should be equally disregarded by the spenders.
However, I explained that if doing so, trangresses the very "law" that she's invoked, it's a logically unsound argument.
To which she responded, she didn't imply they should disregard my opinion out of following my advice to categorically reject all persons expectations, rather they can selectively reject my expectation (to spend thriflly on a wedding) but engage in large spending to meet others expectations (ie prove to the patels and shahs across the street they're rich)
To which I responded, "no duh, thats a backtrack" because you're essentially saying everyone has the right to do what they want, which is fine, there's no reason to bring up my statement of "disregard expecations" if you're not implying their following of my "rule", however it was clear in her statement , she was attempting to "use my words against" me, and I spent a great deal of time pointing this out, as I felt it was important.
Now if the SM moderators felt it was too far off-topic (which I agree it was), and not constructive in any way, a simple closing of the thread would have sufficed. So if any of the SM brigade can offer a reason why I was banned, without violating any of their rules (or at least point out in what way I did violate their rules) it would be much appreciated.
Well, it finally happened. Those at SM, who I've immensely respected for the last year or so for their commitment to people
voicing their opinions and defending themselves when attacked, have blocked me with no information as to why.
I have requested information from various SM parties as to the rationale for the banning, and have received no such response, again very unbecoming behavior for people I generally hold in high regard. Even the ones whose only response to me is unhinged vitriol, without provocation.
My last thread was an inter-religious wedding topic, where I stated my opinion that if either partner heavily practices their religion then a marital union would be quite difficult. And the case where one party doesn't practice their religion overtly (of course saying nothing about their beliefs in underlying principles) would facilitate an inter-religious marriage to much more substantially.
Now, another discussion ensued where I stated an opinion I have that large expenditures on wedding festivities is a complete
waste of money, even for those who have it. A flurry of messages came in response of the sort, "well certain expectations must be met"
to which I responded, in essence, screw the expectations and opinions of others, and do what you feel is right.
Ak, again, one of the more sane commenters on SM, attempted to "catch me in my own words" by implying that if the disregard of others opinions should be accepted broadly, then my own opinion on large spending for weddings should be equally disregarded by the spenders.
However, I explained that if doing so, trangresses the very "law" that she's invoked, it's a logically unsound argument.
To which she responded, she didn't imply they should disregard my opinion out of following my advice to categorically reject all persons expectations, rather they can selectively reject my expectation (to spend thriflly on a wedding) but engage in large spending to meet others expectations (ie prove to the patels and shahs across the street they're rich)
To which I responded, "no duh, thats a backtrack" because you're essentially saying everyone has the right to do what they want, which is fine, there's no reason to bring up my statement of "disregard expecations" if you're not implying their following of my "rule", however it was clear in her statement , she was attempting to "use my words against" me, and I spent a great deal of time pointing this out, as I felt it was important.
Now if the SM moderators felt it was too far off-topic (which I agree it was), and not constructive in any way, a simple closing of the thread would have sufficed. So if any of the SM brigade can offer a reason why I was banned, without violating any of their rules (or at least point out in what way I did violate their rules) it would be much appreciated.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
My first sexual experience.
Are you f'n kidding me?... do you expect me to actually blog about this?
Saturday, July 26, 2008
The shapeless assailant
Now, let's bring it back.
This blog grew out of my voice on SM, the trouble (or humor) it caused, and in general most people's inability to actually confront and engage the point I was making.
At most, there were recharacterizations of the argument, or outlandish comparisons that were made.
And I'm no stranger to posts of the sort : "I've lurked and followed your posts for some time...." which to me is a completely idiotic way to start a dialogue, because it's usually a need to decry me as "self pitying' or "misogynistic" that brings these folks out of the woodwork.
Lately a new front has begun, an attacker that doesn't even have the courage to keep the same name:
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005304.html#comment210068
here's an example. So I invite you. show yourself, or at least make a halfway decent attempt to disprove anything I've said?
This blog grew out of my voice on SM, the trouble (or humor) it caused, and in general most people's inability to actually confront and engage the point I was making.
At most, there were recharacterizations of the argument, or outlandish comparisons that were made.
And I'm no stranger to posts of the sort : "I've lurked and followed your posts for some time...." which to me is a completely idiotic way to start a dialogue, because it's usually a need to decry me as "self pitying' or "misogynistic" that brings these folks out of the woodwork.
Lately a new front has begun, an attacker that doesn't even have the courage to keep the same name:
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005304.html#comment210068
here's an example. So I invite you. show yourself, or at least make a halfway decent attempt to disprove anything I've said?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Feminist Response to PUA stuff
The feminist response to Neil Strauss's "The Game," is captured as an excerpt from this article:
"http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/passing-on-foolproof-pickup-tips-is-this-grooming-for-adults-504589.html"
"Feminists are aghast at the book, pointing out that it fails to describe how to maintain relationships and likening the techniques used to those employed by paedophiles to groom their victims. There is also concern that women are "programmed" to be attracted to certain characteristics in men which predatory males can identify and exploit."
Now let's just step back for a moment. maintaining of relationships is useless information if a guy is completely clueless as to how to get into one. An attractive woman gets many offers, she's developed a system of screening candidates out, PUA knowledge is sort of like the Princeton Review, it's a shortcut to understanding that system.
Let's take another step back. The feminist complains that the PUA philosophy presupposes some kind of generic characteristic set list that women use to screen out candidates, (and by definition a generic list that women use to let certain candidates in)
And furthermore, addresses this as a problem. Yet, females have been identifying and exploiting the male attraction mechanism for as long as history as existed.
Women are the biggest PUAs ever. They just don't call themselves that.
Fashion, lip stick, eye shadow, mascara, nail polish , high heels, push up bras, hell even corsets, skin care treatments, botox, are all designed to create an illusion... a woman is more sexually fit than she *actually* is.
Ladies and gents, women have been exploiting the male attraction mechanism for centuries. Not only that, they are skilled in verbal manipulation and misdirection as well. In fact that's their entire MO!
The pedophile comparison is ludicrous, pedophiles victimize their targets, PUAs never lie, or force anything upon the women, they just use certain internal techniques to be the best they can be.
Now, as far as woman wishing to be treated like human beings. I believe in the 10-80-10 rule. That is, 10% of women out there, are not feminists, nor do they claim to be, they want their men tall, handsome, and rich (and usually white, especially if the race of the woman is Asian, Indian, etc..) They believe it's the man's job to care for, and provide for the woman. PUA techniques don't work on them, because they want a stable provider, and they're willing to take a back seat.
The other 10% are true non-hypocrites, they believe in equality, they believe it's neither the mans "job" nor the woman's "job" to care for the other. They recognize a relationship as 50-50, an agreement, they don't get razzled when Valentine's Day doesn't yield them a a rose. PUA techniques might work on them, but aren't necessary, a man (that believes in 50-50 model for relationships) can be honest about that and not look any less "manly" because in this woman's mind , no definition of "manly" exists. we're all just human looking for the same things, trying to find happiness.
The meat of the bell curve, the 80%, are your hypocrites, those that clamor for equality in certain areas (jobs, housing, etc...) yet completely reject it when it comes to relationships. They wait for men to approach, they wait for men to escalate the relationship, put pressure on men to do all the "work" as it were, yet still harangue about lack of equality. PUA techniques are perfect for this bunch, because demonstrations of high value, social proof, qualification is exactly what this woman is looking for. (as she's unable to envision a truly 50-50 equality based relationship) And the PUA stuff provides just that, a systematic way to deal with this hypocrisy.
"http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/passing-on-foolproof-pickup-tips-is-this-grooming-for-adults-504589.html"
"Feminists are aghast at the book, pointing out that it fails to describe how to maintain relationships and likening the techniques used to those employed by paedophiles to groom their victims. There is also concern that women are "programmed" to be attracted to certain characteristics in men which predatory males can identify and exploit."
Now let's just step back for a moment. maintaining of relationships is useless information if a guy is completely clueless as to how to get into one. An attractive woman gets many offers, she's developed a system of screening candidates out, PUA knowledge is sort of like the Princeton Review, it's a shortcut to understanding that system.
Let's take another step back. The feminist complains that the PUA philosophy presupposes some kind of generic characteristic set list that women use to screen out candidates, (and by definition a generic list that women use to let certain candidates in)
And furthermore, addresses this as a problem. Yet, females have been identifying and exploiting the male attraction mechanism for as long as history as existed.
Women are the biggest PUAs ever. They just don't call themselves that.
Fashion, lip stick, eye shadow, mascara, nail polish , high heels, push up bras, hell even corsets, skin care treatments, botox, are all designed to create an illusion... a woman is more sexually fit than she *actually* is.
Ladies and gents, women have been exploiting the male attraction mechanism for centuries. Not only that, they are skilled in verbal manipulation and misdirection as well. In fact that's their entire MO!
The pedophile comparison is ludicrous, pedophiles victimize their targets, PUAs never lie, or force anything upon the women, they just use certain internal techniques to be the best they can be.
Now, as far as woman wishing to be treated like human beings. I believe in the 10-80-10 rule. That is, 10% of women out there, are not feminists, nor do they claim to be, they want their men tall, handsome, and rich (and usually white, especially if the race of the woman is Asian, Indian, etc..) They believe it's the man's job to care for, and provide for the woman. PUA techniques don't work on them, because they want a stable provider, and they're willing to take a back seat.
The other 10% are true non-hypocrites, they believe in equality, they believe it's neither the mans "job" nor the woman's "job" to care for the other. They recognize a relationship as 50-50, an agreement, they don't get razzled when Valentine's Day doesn't yield them a a rose. PUA techniques might work on them, but aren't necessary, a man (that believes in 50-50 model for relationships) can be honest about that and not look any less "manly" because in this woman's mind , no definition of "manly" exists. we're all just human looking for the same things, trying to find happiness.
The meat of the bell curve, the 80%, are your hypocrites, those that clamor for equality in certain areas (jobs, housing, etc...) yet completely reject it when it comes to relationships. They wait for men to approach, they wait for men to escalate the relationship, put pressure on men to do all the "work" as it were, yet still harangue about lack of equality. PUA techniques are perfect for this bunch, because demonstrations of high value, social proof, qualification is exactly what this woman is looking for. (as she's unable to envision a truly 50-50 equality based relationship) And the PUA stuff provides just that, a systematic way to deal with this hypocrisy.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Is anyone else reading?
If Manju's the only one reading, that's some sad muthafuckin shit.
So if you're reading speak up.
So if you're reading speak up.
A great line
"Never try and argue with a woman, because we as men are handicapped. We have that need to make sense"
-Chris Rock.
-Chris Rock.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
More movie lines.
Line from Under Siege
Jordan Tate - "I'm the girl, why do I have to carry all the stuff?"
Ryback - "I support women's lib, don't you"
Jordan Tate - "When it works in my favor"
Yeah, but this attitude doesn't exist in real life right, anyone who points it out is just a misogynist, right?
Jordan Tate - "I'm the girl, why do I have to carry all the stuff?"
Ryback - "I support women's lib, don't you"
Jordan Tate - "When it works in my favor"
Yeah, but this attitude doesn't exist in real life right, anyone who points it out is just a misogynist, right?
Friday, May 30, 2008
Male Female dynamics revisited.
Aright, it's happened again, another SM thread got closed too early.
This one is on the often discussed phenom of interracial relationships, and yes once again, it's the desi woman attempting to defend their actions,
when really a defense is not required. Rather just an honest look and admission
Now, the person with whom this exchange was carried out with, Ak, is actually a very honest and forthright person, she's willing to actually challenge most gender norms and has hinted at real belief in equality between the genders, this already puts her in the top 1%. So just wanted to make that clear, but her last contribution in this exchange had really exposed her lack of understanding on certain basic issues. Let's go over them:
link
my statement:
"It's not towards them, it's toward their inability to realize how they've been socially manipulated and disneyfied, and more so than that, how most of them get burned in the long run (many data points to prove this). but in the end, maybe they deserve it."
her response:
please. maybe if there is a racist attitude involved, they 'deserve' it. but when many guys say this, it is sour grapes - at their core, many of these men who comment about such inter-racial couples are not upset over the racist element, if any - they are upset because they feel they are directly affected by it b/c they lost out on yet another potential desi girl. i don't see (as many) desi men lamenting when black or latina women date outside their respective races. "
Of course, here is where she tries to compartmentalize things in an impractical way. Of course there will be an element of racialized thinking. the entire white race is *defined* by racialized thinking. The white race wouldn't exist as a group, if not for superiority and racial heirarchies. Her point of the guys major complaint being "losing out a potential desi girl" is not supported, by her OWN STATEMENTS!
her statement: "have many a desi guy friend who have felt desi women being 'stolen' from them by white guys, but no such sentiment when the women they desired (or didn't desire, as the case may be) were dating somebody else who happened to be desi.."
link here
you can't have it both ways. first you say desi men only get pissed off when whiteboys take our 'sisters', then you go on to say desi guys are only pissed because they lose a potential option. So which is it? are us desi guys pissed that we are getting once again shafted for not being white? or are we just pissed we can't fuck a potential "one of our own"
Now, I wont discount your point entirely, there is an element of a 'lost shot' but the reason it irks us when you go white instead of to another desi guy, is precisely because you must acknowledge the nature of what it means to BE white, ie, a notion of superiority to other races.
her statement continued:
"so, what is this - revenge via marriage? just because you have some grudge against white people and history doesn't mean that everybody else has to. and have we learned nothing that we should continue such practises in our generation and time? it's a very slippery slope to continue attributing to individuals the actions and crimes of their race and ancestors. if i want to marry a white guy, i really don't give a toss what anybody else thinks - don't try to second-guess the thinking - consciously or sub-consciously - of everybody that doesn't conform to your approved practises. "
Ah, now here's some real errant thinking. the ol' "grudge against white people" argument. Of course, anyone who points out historical fact, all of a sudden has a 'grudge'. Secondly, by pointing out that history and suggesting action or at least acknowledgement of that history, we are "continuing such practices in our generation and time"? Was MLK "continuing such practices" when he demanded rights for black people, and demanded SPECIAL TREATMENT to help the 'shackled runner'? To neglect a power hierarchy and its translation into the sphere of relationships is, to put it plain, naive. Seriously this is like 2nd grade stuff here.
As for you marrying a white guy, go right ahead, and don't give a toss what anyone thinks, just don't delude yourself into thinking you arrived at that choice in a complete vacuum - and were able to 'think beyond race'
"and of propensities towards white people - this may be so, but i don't know what says that we shouldn't have a propensity towards white people, or "
nothing, yearn for that white, circumsized dick as much as you want, just acknowledge the reasons why such a propensity would exist, and realize that it's not some coincidence pieced together independent of the racial history and the images of who and what we define as attractive. it's the same reason I shriek when I hear desi guys say, " I just dont find black girls attractive" and don't have the guts to understand why such a preference would come to fruition in the first place.
"that we should have a propensity towards desi people. each person is a result of their circumstances, be they geographical, socio-economic, ethnic, religious, academic or otherwise. and these may very well make them have more in common with somebody who is of a differet race or ethnicity, but nonetheless they have - not just think they have - more in common with such people, whether or not other desis think that is 'right.'""
Sorry, but I dont care if you're a desi living in the biggest podunk redneck town in the world, if you think you have "more in common" with someone outside of your race, that's simply ridiculous on a large scale level. No white person has ever been mistaken carte blanche for a terrorist. No white person has been denied anything for that matter, or been made to feel like a complete outsider simply because their skin is the wrong tone.
Say you don't like your culture, or your history, or you think all Indian guys have small dicks, or whatever, but quit trying to sugar coat what's going on behind the curtain here.
Especially for us as 1st generation immigrants. for most of us, our parents are all from India, (or south asia), we are at a unique point in time where our experiences easily translate. Its the reason why a blog such as SM gets so much readership in the first place! Is this really so difficult to process?
This one is on the often discussed phenom of interracial relationships, and yes once again, it's the desi woman attempting to defend their actions,
when really a defense is not required. Rather just an honest look and admission
Now, the person with whom this exchange was carried out with, Ak, is actually a very honest and forthright person, she's willing to actually challenge most gender norms and has hinted at real belief in equality between the genders, this already puts her in the top 1%. So just wanted to make that clear, but her last contribution in this exchange had really exposed her lack of understanding on certain basic issues. Let's go over them:
link
my statement:
"It's not towards them, it's toward their inability to realize how they've been socially manipulated and disneyfied, and more so than that, how most of them get burned in the long run (many data points to prove this). but in the end, maybe they deserve it."
her response:
please. maybe if there is a racist attitude involved, they 'deserve' it. but when many guys say this, it is sour grapes - at their core, many of these men who comment about such inter-racial couples are not upset over the racist element, if any - they are upset because they feel they are directly affected by it b/c they lost out on yet another potential desi girl. i don't see (as many) desi men lamenting when black or latina women date outside their respective races. "
Of course, here is where she tries to compartmentalize things in an impractical way. Of course there will be an element of racialized thinking. the entire white race is *defined* by racialized thinking. The white race wouldn't exist as a group, if not for superiority and racial heirarchies. Her point of the guys major complaint being "losing out a potential desi girl" is not supported, by her OWN STATEMENTS!
her statement: "have many a desi guy friend who have felt desi women being 'stolen' from them by white guys, but no such sentiment when the women they desired (or didn't desire, as the case may be) were dating somebody else who happened to be desi.."
link here
you can't have it both ways. first you say desi men only get pissed off when whiteboys take our 'sisters', then you go on to say desi guys are only pissed because they lose a potential option. So which is it? are us desi guys pissed that we are getting once again shafted for not being white? or are we just pissed we can't fuck a potential "one of our own"
Now, I wont discount your point entirely, there is an element of a 'lost shot' but the reason it irks us when you go white instead of to another desi guy, is precisely because you must acknowledge the nature of what it means to BE white, ie, a notion of superiority to other races.
her statement continued:
"so, what is this - revenge via marriage? just because you have some grudge against white people and history doesn't mean that everybody else has to. and have we learned nothing that we should continue such practises in our generation and time? it's a very slippery slope to continue attributing to individuals the actions and crimes of their race and ancestors. if i want to marry a white guy, i really don't give a toss what anybody else thinks - don't try to second-guess the thinking - consciously or sub-consciously - of everybody that doesn't conform to your approved practises. "
Ah, now here's some real errant thinking. the ol' "grudge against white people" argument. Of course, anyone who points out historical fact, all of a sudden has a 'grudge'. Secondly, by pointing out that history and suggesting action or at least acknowledgement of that history, we are "continuing such practices in our generation and time"? Was MLK "continuing such practices" when he demanded rights for black people, and demanded SPECIAL TREATMENT to help the 'shackled runner'? To neglect a power hierarchy and its translation into the sphere of relationships is, to put it plain, naive. Seriously this is like 2nd grade stuff here.
As for you marrying a white guy, go right ahead, and don't give a toss what anyone thinks, just don't delude yourself into thinking you arrived at that choice in a complete vacuum - and were able to 'think beyond race'
"and of propensities towards white people - this may be so, but i don't know what says that we shouldn't have a propensity towards white people, or "
nothing, yearn for that white, circumsized dick as much as you want, just acknowledge the reasons why such a propensity would exist, and realize that it's not some coincidence pieced together independent of the racial history and the images of who and what we define as attractive. it's the same reason I shriek when I hear desi guys say, " I just dont find black girls attractive" and don't have the guts to understand why such a preference would come to fruition in the first place.
"that we should have a propensity towards desi people. each person is a result of their circumstances, be they geographical, socio-economic, ethnic, religious, academic or otherwise. and these may very well make them have more in common with somebody who is of a differet race or ethnicity, but nonetheless they have - not just think they have - more in common with such people, whether or not other desis think that is 'right.'""
Sorry, but I dont care if you're a desi living in the biggest podunk redneck town in the world, if you think you have "more in common" with someone outside of your race, that's simply ridiculous on a large scale level. No white person has ever been mistaken carte blanche for a terrorist. No white person has been denied anything for that matter, or been made to feel like a complete outsider simply because their skin is the wrong tone.
Say you don't like your culture, or your history, or you think all Indian guys have small dicks, or whatever, but quit trying to sugar coat what's going on behind the curtain here.
Especially for us as 1st generation immigrants. for most of us, our parents are all from India, (or south asia), we are at a unique point in time where our experiences easily translate. Its the reason why a blog such as SM gets so much readership in the first place! Is this really so difficult to process?
Saturday, March 8, 2008
I'm going to give it a try.
Don't ask me why.
My goals might be high
A new blog, it might fly,
Just wait for more to go awry.
The new blog:
link here
My goals might be high
A new blog, it might fly,
Just wait for more to go awry.
The new blog:
link here
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Constitute This.
From a discussion that ensued on SM:
"i going to bow out of this debate with you b/c either you're completely ignorant about const law and you're just trying to fake it, or you're not ignorant and just weird. i mean, "congress" does not apply to the states, the first ammedment says nothing about free expression on govt property? this is just basic stuff which i'd be happy to elaborate on but you don't seem to really want to learn, as your weird exchange with rob demonstrates. "
Constitute this.
Alright. So let me be upfront, I have no formalized law credentials, most of my legal insight has come from watching movies and self-study, and discussion with law professionals.
Part of my "keep it real" persona is to state what I do not know.
I asked for an example of a state government enacted-law being overturned or challenged within a state court system because they infringed on freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution. What I got in return was a Supreme Court document, which by my understanding, is a federal court.
On this I may be "dead wrong" however, it wasn't clearly explained in the example presented.
But even if the state takes the place of "Congress" as stated in the 1st amendment, barring someone from saying "Merry Christmas" or making any references to religion in a gov't/public workplace is not infringing on free speech or curtailing "free expression" because it's speech that if allowed could lead to preferential treatment and understanding of one religion over the other. US history is replete with examples where 'harmful' speech has been disallowed.
It all depends on context. if a person says "Merry Christmas" to a co-worker he knows is Christian, in passing through the hallway, it's probably not a big deal, in the sense of, it doesn't constitute "establishment of a religion."
If one of the groups has a meeting, let's say, and the boss says to his team, "Have a Merry Christmas everyone!" while he didn't mean anything negative by it, it could distance those people who do not celebrate Christmas, and, at its root, is a religious holiday. Anecdotally, I remember while growing up, wanting a tree, presents, etc... Why? Not because of some deep seated desire to celebrate the religious holiday of Christmas, or to be Christian, rather just to "fit in" We should be living in a society where no one feels they have to partake in someone else religion in order to feel comfortable. It's the bedrock principle of a gov't not establishing one religion as superior to the other.
This is similar to the case of an RA in a state school running Bible classes from the dorm. The RA is in a position of authority, and generally a point of contact for incoming freshman to a new school. Given the nature of what a religion is, and its purpose and usage in society, someone in a position of authority, using state resources to show preference to one religion over another is ultimately not what the constitutional architects wanted.
Now while separation of church and state is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is a statement made by Thomas Jefferson, one of the constitution's architects in reference to the 1st amendment clause barring Congress from establishing a religion.
So, as I see it, clamping down on behaviors which could be interpreted as preference for one religion over another in a gov't work place is completely in line with the 1st amendment's call for "no establishment of religion." Separation of church and state is something they obviously believed in, and intended on being upheld.
Secondly, calling it "a war on Christmas" is just plain stupid, and also clear evidence of a Christian-centric mindset. For, if it is indeed a "War" on anything, it's a war on all religions, not just Christmas.
And using free speech to defend it, is again a huge stretch, as the free speech clause at its root exists to make sure minority voices in a debate or exchange of ideas, are not suppressed. From a practical point of view, Christmas will not be "forgotten" or "mistreated" because gov't employees are unable to say it while in the workplace.
"i going to bow out of this debate with you b/c either you're completely ignorant about const law and you're just trying to fake it, or you're not ignorant and just weird. i mean, "congress" does not apply to the states, the first ammedment says nothing about free expression on govt property? this is just basic stuff which i'd be happy to elaborate on but you don't seem to really want to learn, as your weird exchange with rob demonstrates. "
Constitute this.
Alright. So let me be upfront, I have no formalized law credentials, most of my legal insight has come from watching movies and self-study, and discussion with law professionals.
Part of my "keep it real" persona is to state what I do not know.
I asked for an example of a state government enacted-law being overturned or challenged within a state court system because they infringed on freedom of speech as defined in the Constitution. What I got in return was a Supreme Court document, which by my understanding, is a federal court.
On this I may be "dead wrong" however, it wasn't clearly explained in the example presented.
But even if the state takes the place of "Congress" as stated in the 1st amendment, barring someone from saying "Merry Christmas" or making any references to religion in a gov't/public workplace is not infringing on free speech or curtailing "free expression" because it's speech that if allowed could lead to preferential treatment and understanding of one religion over the other. US history is replete with examples where 'harmful' speech has been disallowed.
It all depends on context. if a person says "Merry Christmas" to a co-worker he knows is Christian, in passing through the hallway, it's probably not a big deal, in the sense of, it doesn't constitute "establishment of a religion."
If one of the groups has a meeting, let's say, and the boss says to his team, "Have a Merry Christmas everyone!" while he didn't mean anything negative by it, it could distance those people who do not celebrate Christmas, and, at its root, is a religious holiday. Anecdotally, I remember while growing up, wanting a tree, presents, etc... Why? Not because of some deep seated desire to celebrate the religious holiday of Christmas, or to be Christian, rather just to "fit in" We should be living in a society where no one feels they have to partake in someone else religion in order to feel comfortable. It's the bedrock principle of a gov't not establishing one religion as superior to the other.
This is similar to the case of an RA in a state school running Bible classes from the dorm. The RA is in a position of authority, and generally a point of contact for incoming freshman to a new school. Given the nature of what a religion is, and its purpose and usage in society, someone in a position of authority, using state resources to show preference to one religion over another is ultimately not what the constitutional architects wanted.
Now while separation of church and state is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is a statement made by Thomas Jefferson, one of the constitution's architects in reference to the 1st amendment clause barring Congress from establishing a religion.
So, as I see it, clamping down on behaviors which could be interpreted as preference for one religion over another in a gov't work place is completely in line with the 1st amendment's call for "no establishment of religion." Separation of church and state is something they obviously believed in, and intended on being upheld.
Secondly, calling it "a war on Christmas" is just plain stupid, and also clear evidence of a Christian-centric mindset. For, if it is indeed a "War" on anything, it's a war on all religions, not just Christmas.
And using free speech to defend it, is again a huge stretch, as the free speech clause at its root exists to make sure minority voices in a debate or exchange of ideas, are not suppressed. From a practical point of view, Christmas will not be "forgotten" or "mistreated" because gov't employees are unable to say it while in the workplace.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
O, Bama, why are thou?
I feel it absolutely necessary to comment on the Obama factor.
A lot of what I'm hearing in the media is of the variety, "This is already a historic election, because the two democratic front runners are a woman and a person of color." Now, there's no reason to further delve into the the United State's record on racism and it's intrinsic nature to the very foundation of this nation.
There's no reason to once again quote MLK's statement (this one rarely makes the elementary school textbooks):
"Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shores, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society..... We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its indigenous population."
Link
But I'll do it anyway.
But the nay sayers will ask, how do you explain Hillary? How do you explain Obama?
Here's what I say. George Bush has just f)(#$)@(#cked up that bad. He's screwed up SO bad, that it's fueled the popularity of both these candidates. No matter how hard the republicans try, any person they put up will be seen as a Bush surrogate. Even the hated by right-wing McCain will at some level be seen as a Bush surrogate. Hell, even a "Clinton Surrogate" aka Hillary, is losing ground to the "vote for change" campaign.
Speaking of Hillary, she's obviously trading on her last name. So in some sense, she cannot be part of any signal that America's perception of it's national leaders are changing. In fact, on SM, it's been guessed that many elderly Desi democrats will vote her way as they remembered the "good times" of Bill's presidency. So obviously, she's being carried quite a bit by it. Does this mean she's not a candidate or person of merit, worthy of a presidential campaign? No, but you cannot make the argument that she's just some Jo Blo (Josephine Blo?) woman proving that electoral politics are changing. She's not just "a really smart woman" with a vision and a this or a that.
Obama, on the other hand, gained his popularity by his distance from the current administration (both in physical appearance and in verbal description) Obama is riding the "hope" and "change" wave so cleanly now, because now is when it will be strongest. Mark my words, if Obama doesn't secure the nomination this year, popularity for him will most likely decline for future election years (2012, 2016, what have you) Why? Because it's Bush's gigantic screwup of a presidency that has fueled all this Obama energy in the first place. Eight, or even four years from now, the anti bush energy that fuels Obama, will have all but completely dissipated.
However, I will say this. In the event that Obama secures the nomination and the presidency. I, HMF, will say the US collective consciousness has made some strides in changing its old ways of thinking.
A lot of what I'm hearing in the media is of the variety, "This is already a historic election, because the two democratic front runners are a woman and a person of color." Now, there's no reason to further delve into the the United State's record on racism and it's intrinsic nature to the very foundation of this nation.
There's no reason to once again quote MLK's statement (this one rarely makes the elementary school textbooks):
"Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. Even before there were large numbers of Negroes on our shores, the scar of racial hatred had already disfigured colonial society..... We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its indigenous population."
Link
But I'll do it anyway.
But the nay sayers will ask, how do you explain Hillary? How do you explain Obama?
Here's what I say. George Bush has just f)(#$)@(#cked up that bad. He's screwed up SO bad, that it's fueled the popularity of both these candidates. No matter how hard the republicans try, any person they put up will be seen as a Bush surrogate. Even the hated by right-wing McCain will at some level be seen as a Bush surrogate. Hell, even a "Clinton Surrogate" aka Hillary, is losing ground to the "vote for change" campaign.
Speaking of Hillary, she's obviously trading on her last name. So in some sense, she cannot be part of any signal that America's perception of it's national leaders are changing. In fact, on SM, it's been guessed that many elderly Desi democrats will vote her way as they remembered the "good times" of Bill's presidency. So obviously, she's being carried quite a bit by it. Does this mean she's not a candidate or person of merit, worthy of a presidential campaign? No, but you cannot make the argument that she's just some Jo Blo (Josephine Blo?) woman proving that electoral politics are changing. She's not just "a really smart woman" with a vision and a this or a that.
Obama, on the other hand, gained his popularity by his distance from the current administration (both in physical appearance and in verbal description) Obama is riding the "hope" and "change" wave so cleanly now, because now is when it will be strongest. Mark my words, if Obama doesn't secure the nomination this year, popularity for him will most likely decline for future election years (2012, 2016, what have you) Why? Because it's Bush's gigantic screwup of a presidency that has fueled all this Obama energy in the first place. Eight, or even four years from now, the anti bush energy that fuels Obama, will have all but completely dissipated.
However, I will say this. In the event that Obama secures the nomination and the presidency. I, HMF, will say the US collective consciousness has made some strides in changing its old ways of thinking.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Half Breeds will take over the world
My prediction for 2008. Half Breeds will take over the world. 'Half Breeds' will always have the 'I'm so confused, I'm stuck between two cultures' thing going for them, but (especially for women) their 'exotic' look will be the new kryptonite to white racist hollywood producers in particular.
Here's the logic. They're confusing. People look them and think, "oh is she A or B? I don't know what to think?" Uhh. she's not white, but she's not asian either. So the standard stereotypes won't immediately kick in, but the thought process of "oh ho hum, just another boring fake plastic britney spears white chick" thinking doesn't kick in either.
In confusion, the brain will lose all its logical capacity, and simply emotion will kick in, emotion being, the evolutionary brain sensors (symmetry, youth, etc..)
Watch out for these cats, they're primed to take over the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)