🚀 go-pugleaf

EllenSmith wrote:
> 
> klaatu <root@earthops.org> wrote:
> 
> >>>> excuse me? what does "men being men" mean?

> Just so everyone knows, i wrote this line above. All your things were
> sort of confusing.

If you bothered to put a blank line between your remarks and quoted text
like most other poeple do, it would be a little less confusing. Also
many people have no problem  telling whose words are whose, so long as
you leave source headers intact, they can count the little hashmarks
before the quoted text.

> 
> >>>We men have our own little gender-culture psychological hangups. Men are
> >>>much less likely to see a doctor, unless there is an injury or illness
> >>>that is perceived as immediately life-threatening. That's a stats-fact.
> >>>2/3rds of ofice visits to doctors are by women. Unless of course you
> >>>want to follow the line of argument that women are just so much weaker
> >>>than men? Didn't think you would.
> 
> well here's a stat Matt. Women's lives are more stressful.

So you say. Still I doubt they're exactly twice as stressful. My point
was that most men in American culture (and it's often worse elsewhere)
are reluctant to admit that their wife beats (or browbeats) them.
doesn't conform to the "manly" image.

> 
> <snipped again>
> 
> >>>Far from it. but I long ago stopped counting the number of women I had
> >>>known who were in destructive relationships, who would come crying to
> >>>their peers about how jonny done beat 'em something awful (black eyes
> >>>and all) and then by the time midnight rolled around, they were in about
> >>>8 out of ten cases knocking the bed against the walls to the generic
> >>>disgust of their neighbors and friends, who like as not would themselves
> >>>play out the same stupid scene sometime in the near future.
> 
> What does rearranging furniture have to do with this topic?
> personally i resent your tangenential straying.

Personally I think you have troubles recognizing a polite way of saying
that "subsequent to the fight, they make up, and have wild, crazy, and
memorable sex". The sort that makes the beds go bump bump bump against
eh walls, all night long.


> 
> >>>And oddly enough, most of the guys I ever knew who were abused
> >>>themselves were basically the guys who evidently learned form this that
> >>>the way to get a night of the best sex in months was to beat the wife.
> >>>Evidently the wife finally realized that she was sending the wrong
> >>>message and gave them the midnight frying pan treatment.
> 
> oh right.

No seriously. If a woman gets in a fight with a man, and he's enough of
a brute that he beats her, and she decides that she really doesn't want
to lose him, and he's willing to apologize and say (maybe he means it
more likely he doesn't) he'll never beat her again, they often kiss and
make up. Wild and crazy sex, etc. And the cycle goes around another
time. It only ends when the woman either busts his head wide open after
he's been foolish enough to fall asleep next to someone he's beaten, or
she leaves, or he finally goes too far and kills her. Or maybe the law
gets involved somewhere in the middle of the process.

> >>>> >>>But I must say that devoting an entire office of the Department of
> >>>> >>>Justice exclusively to violence against women, it's absurd. It'll stop
> >>>> >>>being absurd, if only by comparison, when they also have an office for
> >>>> >>>henpecked men.
> >>>>
> >>>> uh huh. You don't like women very much do ya?
> 
> >>>My like or dislike of women has nothing to do with the sexism and
> >>>absurdity of having a Federal office which only prosecutes violence
> >>>against women.
> 
> >>>I don't suggest that this office nor the underlying laws be abolished,
> >>>but instead of Violence Against Women, it shold more likely be Violence
> >>>Against Spouses or Violence Against Significant Others.
> 
> >>>what's good for the goose is good for the gander you know, they're both
> >>>fowl.

> Look. why don't you get a coalition of men who are henpecked and
> battered with frying pans and go march on Washington and get an office
> then? But you're not..and you wanna know why? I'll tell ya why...there
> would probably be only about 10 people in the whole country who would
> show up that's why!!! 

because if they're henpecked or battered husbands, they mostly won't
show up because their wives won't let them go. Most men would probably
simply just leave their wives and write it all off as lost time badly
spent. It would take a very weird bunch of males to get together and
decide that they're such pathetic little creatures that they have to go
in a group to agitate for protection from those big bad women. Totally
goes against the male ego you know. Men being men, if it bothered them
enough to do that, it would probably be a lot easier to just face the
fact of the inevitability of alimony, and wash their hands of the whole
thing.



No offense but your reasoning is just a tad
> weird.
> >>>> >>>>
> >>>> >>>> --
> >>>> >>>> Rex
> >>>> >>>> rex@intr.net
> 
> >>><snips>
> 
-- 
Be kind to your       | When the going gets weird the weird turn pro.
neighbors even though | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
they be transgenic    | Now. chock full of uninteresting links.
chimerae.             |-- Genesis 19:1-13 - Hebrews 13:2 -- 
---- INCOMING! http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/incoming.html ---------
"Sarah Connor?" All UseNet and BitNet postings are copyrighted.