Isn't a nubbin a third nipple?

Gender Equity??

Umm...

How much female you got built up now?

Yes, that's what makes it so horrific, Tinkerbelle.

LHM,

I've always wondered which makes more sense for my situation, the 5 year fixed Gender Equity Loan, or a GELOC that's replenished on payment?

Yeah, you better say "But seriously" buddy.....

Here's a little story the equity firm Toilet and Douche is using to brainwash little Timmy into thinking he's an inferior, muscleheaded scumbag for having a peepee:

Young King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of a neighboring kingdom. The monarch could have killed him but was moved by Arthur's youth and ideals. So, the monarch offered him his freedom, as long as he could answer a very difficult question. Arthur would have a year to figure out the answer and, if after a year, he still had no answer, he would be put to death.

The question?....What do women really want? Such a question would perplex even the most knowledgeable man, and to young Arthur, it seemed an impossible query. But, since it was better than death, he accepted the monarch's proposition to have an answer by year's end.

He returned to his kingdom and began to poll everyone: the princess, the priests, the wise men and even the court jester. He spoke with everyone, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer.

Many people advised him to consult the old witch, for only she would have the answer.

But the price would be high; as the witch was famous throughout the kingdom for the exorbitant prices she charged.

The last day of the year arrived and Arthur had no choice but to talk to the witch. She agreed to answer the question, but he would have to agree to her price first

The old witch wanted to marry Sir Lancelot, the most noble of the Knights of the Round Table and Arthur's closest friend!

Young Arthur was horrified. She was hunchbacked and hideous, had only one tooth, smelled like sewage, made obscene noises, etc. He had never encountered such a repugnant creature in all his life.

He refused to force his friend to marry her and endure such a terrible burden, but Lancelot, learning of the proposal, spoke with Arthur.

He said nothing was too big of a sacrifice compared to Arthur's life and the preservation of the Round Table.

Hence, a wedding was proclaimed and the witch answered Arthur's question thus:

What a woman really wants, she answered....is to be in charge of her own life.

Everyone in the kingdom instantly knew that the witch had uttered a great truth and that Arthur's life would be spared.

And so it was, the neighboring monarch granted Arthur his freedom and Lancelot and the witch had a wonderful wedding.

The honeymoon hour approached and Lancelot, steeling himself for a horrific experience, entered the bedroom But, what a sight awaited him. The most beautiful woman he had ever seen, lay before him on the bed. The astounded Lancelot asked what had happened

The beauty replied that since he had been so kind to her when she appeared as a witch, she would henceforth, be her horrible deformed self only half the time and the beautiful maiden the other half.

Which would he prefer? Beautiful during the day....or night?

Lancelot pondered the predicament. During the day, a beautiful woman to show off to his friends, but at night, in the privacy of his castle, an old witch? Or, would he prefer having a hideous witch during the day, but by night, a beautiful woman for him to enjoy wondrous, intimate moments?

What would YOU do?

What Lancelot chose is below. BUT....make YOUR choice before you see his.

Noble Lancelot, knowing the answer the witch gave Arthur to his question, said that he would allow HER to make the choice herself.

Upon hearing this, she announced that she would be beautiful all the time because he had respected her enough to let her be in charge of her own life.

Now....what is the moral to this story?

The moral is..... If you don't let a woman have her own way.... Things are going to get ugly.

(Okay, I was logging off but I saw this and had to comment...)

Ace, you're exactly right. All the mental castration today's society puts men and boys through has already resulted in a considerable backlash, and it's giong to get worse.

HAS all this touchy-feely stuff "changed" men's attitudes? Well yes, but not the way it was intended. Yeah, women used to be objectified; the difference in the sexes was prized, and women were looked upon as sex objects that men LIKED. And now, the difference in sexes is belittled and berated, and women are looked upon as sex objects that men TOLERATE. And women are still objectified, but it's far far beyond anything it ever used to be.

All this "getting in touch with your feminine side" has resulted in resentment and cultural phenoms like Howard Stern. As Ace indicated, it DOES want to make you pop a feminazi in the chops. Just ONCE.

Well, okay, AT LEAST once.

Viva la revolucion, Mme. Steinem.

Later,
bbeck

raising children in SF should be a crime

I'm still laughing at the story compos posted. lancelot should have his marriage annulled and leave the bitch out on the street.

This reminds me of an incident years ago when my hubby and a bunch of fellow engineers had to take "sensitivity" training at his company. Now anyone familiar with engineers know they are like Vulcans, no emotions. Everything must be LOGICAL. Well the trainer started in on all that sensitivity crap and they were all over it and before the session was up....you guessed it..........they had made her cry.

I kid you not.

insensitve bastards.......;-)

I happen to beleive that many gender "inequalities" are in fact hardwired into the human brain. Like it or not, we (like other hominids) are members of the ape family and consequently tend to suffer from failings common to that family (excitability, gregariousness, xenophobia, even a tendency to sexual promiscuity). There's also a lot of scientific evidence coming in that the brains of males and females are quite different right from the get-go: spatial reasoning, math, language, and other abilities tend to naturally favor one gender over the other. (Men tend to have better math and spatial reasoning skills, whereas women tend to have better language and deduction skills.)

I find a lot of these "social engineering" experiments not only ill-advised, but actually harmful. To be too much of a "girly girl" is considered backsliding, as is being too much of a "man's man". The fact of the matter is that human behavior is a continuum, but there are certain behaviors (especially sexual ones) that are hardwired. To demonize these behaviors as "un-PC" only invites a lot of mental anguish down the road.

This is to to say that sexist or misogynistic behavior is okay (or even tolerable), but it's equally obvious that human beings are sexual creatures, and this sexual nature has both uniquely-male and uniquely-female aspects.

RWS...

To the optimist, the glass is half full.

To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.

To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Later,
bbeck

it really is horribly difficult to take all that senseless yap-yap without grinding one's teeth down into little bloody nubbins.

Mega Dottos - I'm grinding them down as I read this ...

are members of the ape family and consequently tend to suffer from failings common to that family

Failings? What failings? As men we are perfect! Long live the alpha male! May he continue to pull his underwear out of the crack of his ass in public whenever he damned well pleases! And as for his woman . . . her maker gave her smaller feet so she can stand closer to the stove!

It's this sort of ceaseless lecturing and hectoring that is going to make these guys snap and start slapping women around.

This is truer than it sounds. Someone recently wrote that all the "ceaseless lecturing and hectoring" and generally scolding boys for not being girls results in frustration and anger so deep that many of these boys become violent dissaffected, dropouts, instead of the sensitive, little wusses they're intended to become by these Reeducation Camps. I'm still in shock and awe of how Liberal mind manages to get it all completely ass bcakwards no matter what they're talking about.

Can anyone explain why any inferior treatment to females, racial minorities, minority religions is met with disgust and the need for 'programs' to resolve these issues, yet when the inverse occurs (white men (usually christian)) are portrayed badly, there's ne'er a word said?

Let's see, unequal treatment in divorce cases, rape in prison considered an 'additional' punishment (you can imagine the protests if males were committing rape in a womans prison), the typical dumb white male in commercials on tv, the oppresion of the p-day as alluded to earlier. You could make the argument that the police 'profile' males, just look at how many men are in prison compared to women.

Is it a left wing / right wing thing? Is it simply that in general, white male types have it better than most, and shouldn't go complaining about the little things. Are we just lazy?
Are we too beaten down by the PC hammer that thinking that any grievance is justified or would be similar to complaining that you lost a dollar after winning millions on the lottery?

DelphiGuy:

I think it has to do with the "cult of the victim" in the Leftist ideology. In the Leftist canon, you have no identity as an individual, but only as a member of a group: a minority, a gender, a class of victims. Victimhood is all to a Leftist -- sympathy must be accorded to the group of victims in any situation *regardless* of context. White Males are the ultimate group of non-victims in Leftist history; The Man is The White Man and ergo must be the villain in any scenario.

Leftists don't ultimately give a crap about people as individuals. Minorities are only important insofar as the people in that group are downtrodden and poor -- once they achieve success and wealth they cease to be victims and disappear from the Liberal view altogether. Which is one reason with many black and Latin individuals are entering the GOP and Libertarian parties.

DelphiGuy - I feel your pain brother. What say we drive our BMW's down to the local Starbucks for some Mocha and discuss how we're being oppressed.

what do you tell a woman with two black eyes?

nothing. you already told her twice.

Monty - I like that very much. Mind if I plagiarize? Not that, you know, you could stop me. It's just nicer to have permission. Well said sir! Glad I have access to brains like yours so I don't have to think for myself.

compos, there is another moral to that story you know. Even if she is a beautiful woman.....she is still a witch.

Just a thought.

The crazies across the bridge are like those surprising little Russian things where they open up and another smaller one is inside. Except the Russian dealies are charming and clever while the San Francisco dealies are ludicrous and vaguely alarming.

One charm of San Francisco is that a real man, one who hasn't has his nuts cutoff by such nonsense, has a swarm of women at his disposal.

Their lips may say "gender equality" but their legs say give'em the real deal.

Feminism is on the retreat, thankfully, even in San Francisco.

DelphiGuy
An old conservative white professor in the late 1950's said: "it is all a plot to remove the hegemony of the white male and replace it with the hegemony of minorities and women and nothing more."

Truer words were never spoken. After the chin music is over, it's all about power. So far, they're winning handily! And you white men deserve everything that's coming to you for allowing it to happen!

So face up to it you wussified bunch of neutered punks, unless you start to resist (and you won't), for white men: it's all over but the cryin.'

Rightwingsparkle - You are a wise man indeed.

"her maker gave her smaller feet so she can stand closer to the stove!"

Explain all these giant footed women I keep meeting then. "Hey, you want these cute shoes?" they'll ask me. "I bought them and decided I didn't like them."*

"What size are they?"

"14 double E."

"Sigh. Never mind -- they're too big for me."

*Yes, girls will trade shoes.

Anyone feeling faint & nauseous yet?

So face up to it you wussified bunch of neutered punks, unless you start to resist (and you won't), for white men: it's all over but the cryin.'

That's it!! After my manicure, I'm gonna kill me the first furry critter that crosses my path and then gut it with my teeth! Then I'll take it home, smack the missus on the butt and order her to cook it for me post haste! Damned skippy!!

these boys should also get free lifetime sunscriptions to Swank as compensation for being exposed to this BS

You could tell the story was heading into Pussification 101 as soon as it said "Daughters and Sons" instead of what real people say - "sons and daughters".

Andrea "14 double E" comes from spending too much time next to the stove (stuffing the face).

Double E shoes? Good lord, thats a HOOF, not a foot.

Explain all these giant footed women I keep meeting then.

1 word - Transgendered.

brak - Swank

You, sir, are a connoisseur.

(points also awarded for Perfect 10)

compos mentis:

Feel free to take and use as you wish, but this idea is certainly not original to me. Every conservative/libertarian since W.F. Buckley has made basically the same observation.

HA! THE VIRGINS laugh at you, HAH, HAH! You white men are being slowly but surely strangled by your own foolish Liberals from within. The powerful, strong, and uncomprmising men of Islam would never allow such astounding stupidity as you put up with. And this is why we have such appeal to disaffected malcontents like Ward Churchill. You are all destined for extinction.

So face up to it you wussified bunch of neutered punks, unless you start to resist (and you won't), for white men: it's all over but the cryin.'

That's it!! After my manicure, I'm gonna kill me the first furry critter that crosses my path and then gut it with my teeth! Then I'll take it home, smack the missus on the butt and order her to cook it for me post haste! Damned skippy!!

See what I mean? This guys already there!

It's about mirroring "the same sexism that occurs in the classroom daily."

According to a survey called "Status of the American Public School Teacher 2000-2001," the number of male teachers in public elementary and secondary schools has been consistently declining since 1981. As of the time the survey was taken, male teachers compose 21% of public school educators, with 9% male in primary and 35% in secondary.

So are we to believe that these female teachers (trained in our liberal universities) are discriminating against female students? If it is anything like my experience, it is exactly the opposite. Most teachers were fair, but there was a significant element that openly favored the girls. With those teachers, girls received most of the positive attention and little of the negative. They could get away with anything in those classes.

Where do they come up with this crap?

(I found the stats at heyteach.org/ht_teacherstate.cfm)

Dude - I gotta repeat:

"it is all a plot to remove the hegemony of the white male and replace it with the hegemony of minorities and women and nothing more."

And you white men deserve everything that's coming to you for allowing it to happen!

So for you white men out there: it's all over but the cryin.'

Kind of OT to Andrea about women and shoes: what the hell is it with women and shoes?!? I don't understand the evolutionary reason for women going bonkers over foot protectors. Guys often have one and maybe two pairs of shoes: the everyday pair, and a pair of specialty shoes for work or special occasions. That's it.

My ex, on the other hand, had about fifty pairs, only about one-third of which I ever saw her actually wear. And she couldn't just go to Wal Mart or Target for her shoes; oh no. She had to go to those frigging "upscale" mall stores where a dinky set of sandals would set you back a C-note. (Or rather, set me back a C-note since I was often funding these expeditions.)

So you're telling me that if she becomes tired or otherwise unenamored of these hundred-dollar shoes, she can just trade them off from some crappy twenty-buck flats? Or is there some kind of value-exchange rule going on? (Like with baseball cards: you'll need to trade me a Rincon, a Hunter, and a Cuddyer for one Santana).

hell if women weren't buying shoes they'd probably be sporting starfleet uniforms and speaking klingon, you know, like normal people

last comment references a thread from last week, sorry

Compos, I'M A GIRL FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!

What guy would use "sparkle??????????"

Does anybody else here regularly read Phyllis Schlafly? I was raised in a somewhat liberal household -- not too political, but Rush Limbaugh was a "big windbag" who wanted to take away women's rights because he used the term "feminanzi", which, as we all know, is a spot-the-fuck-on description of the group it's used for.

Over at Townhall, Phyllis and Walter Williams really opened my eyes. Here was a *woman* telling other women and a *black man* telling other black people that the ideology of victimhood will get them nowhere. What I'd always thought anyway, but expressed clearly, eloquently, and _by members of the affected class_, not some white guy like me. Phyllis acknowledes the inherent differences in the sexes, and points out that maybe trying to "force little boys to act like little girls" is bad for them. Walter (and Thomas Sowell, and for that matter Bill Cosby) point out that discrimination may still be there, but *their* culture has to change before the situation will improve. It's just so refreshing when somebody points to the two-ton elephant in the room and calls it what it is.

So are we to believe that these female teachers (trained in our liberal universities) are discriminating against female students? If it is anything like my experience, it is exactly the opposite

yep - I serve on a state board that deals with public education along with a female (PhD) who's doing research on this, specifically on the issues of sciences and maths and girls who fall in the 'gifted/talented' range.

I sat in on her presentation and it was decidedly non-wingnutty or otherwise 'poor girls' ... just 'here's how this stuff plays out'. Among other observations she made was that teachers at all levels tend to give the girls the answer if they ask a question rather than make them figure it out for themselves ... there's also the question of whom to call on.

What was particularly interesting was that she's noticed her own performance as a university professor - catching herself doing the exact same behaviors cited (calling on the males in excess of their representation in the class), giving female students with questions the answer rather than making them figure it out, et cetera. In her words ' look, this stuff is pretty deeply ingrained'

She wasn't advocating boys develop vaginas or that girls act like victims - she was reviewing studies that dealt with single-sex educational settings and looking at other issues - but, basically, a lot of things came down to gender issues (girls want to be liked by boys - they think boys don't like the smart girls)

There was also a bit of a double bind for girl's who are smart in science - these girls in school liked hanging out with boys because boys didn't do all the petty backbiting social crap that girls do in high school.

The boys didn't necessarily like the competition from the smart girls, and the other girls didn't like the smart girls hanging out with their boyfriends.

All of which makes me glad I have sons.

Better get used to the idea dude. It won't be long before we're all buying fifty sets of shoes. George Soros and David Geffen have secretly launched the nedia/"think" tank consortium, the "Phoenix Group" and are plotting right now to change us all through vastly increased Extremist Left Wing Propaganda.

It won't be long before TV's male role model will be Allen Cumming. What am I saying? It already is!

rightwingsparkle:

...I would use "sparkle". "Sparkle" has a good poetic vibe to it.

Ezekiel, Book 1 Verse 7:

"And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass."

Tennyson's "The Lady of Shallott":

"A red-cross knight for ever kneeled
To a lady in his shield,
That sparkled on the yellow field,
Beside remote Shalott."

I dig the sparkle.

Rightwingsparkle

What guy would use "sparkle??????????"

What guy? Indeed I know too many of them...

Monty - are you from Minnesota? I'm from Minnesota!

...and very well said above.

RapidTransit:

Yah, you betcha! Rochester, MN -- oop de norden!

St. Paul here

BumperStickerist

I don't know where you went to school but when I was in college it was precisely the opposite. And sooner or later if you're honest with yourself (and that assumes you're not a Liberal) you're going to have to admit that your boys second class citizens.

BumperStickerist

you're going to have to admit that your boys are second class citizens.

Unless of course, they are in the racial catagory known as "Non-White" and can prove it by showing their NON-WHITE-MALE pedigree identy papers.

Monty, I don't know about Andrea, but I have six pairs of shoes; three of the pairs are the direct result of weddings where by God the shoes absolutely HAD to match the dress/match everyone else's shoes/some damn thing. I'll never wear the things again, but you don't throw out hundred dollar shoes.

As for the story, is anyone besides me bothered by the fact that they were letting nine and ten year olds into an NICU, of all places? When my sister was born, I was nine - they wouldn't even let me into the hospital room where my mom and sister were because I was under twelve and thus prone to be carrying all sorts of common childhood illnesses which could wreak havoc on an infant. So what are these girls doing traipsing into neonatal INTENSIVE CARE?

Compos, I'M A GIRL FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!

Either I've had too much coffee or not enough. In any case, I'm not sure what I posted to make you think . . . ohhhhh! *still laughing* I know that. I was alluding to the idea that any woman who wears a 14 triple E was at one time most likely either a linebacker or a yeti. A male yeti. Which would make her a transpecies trangender.

Yep, I've definitely had too much coffee.

Just a guess, compos, but I suspect RWS is cheesed off about the comment well above the shoes thing where you called her "a wise man."

What are you putting in that coffee, anyway? ;-)

RWS,

There's a third moral...no matter how beautiful she is, somewhere there's a man sick and tired of putting up with her shit.

And hey, I knew you were the personification of southern womanhood all along!

WR95

Compos,

what utron said.

WR95, and there is yet a 4th moral!!! One knows this is a FAIRYTALE cuz there is no such thing as NOBLE KNIGHTS!

Maybe if there were, we would have less witches.

Just something to think about.

I did call her a man. That wasn't the coffee talking. That was the bourbon. Maybe I should slow the drip a tad.

I beg your forgiveness my lady. I shall now bang my head upon my desk with extreme force thrice as a display of my sincerity. ONE! TWO! Thr..................................

compos, all is forgiven for the nice comment you left on my post "My Dream."

I don't need to call 9-11, do I?????

Right Wing Sparkle-
There are quite a few 'guys' in SF who would use 'sparkle' in their moniker...
I'm 5th generation native San Franciscan, and this crap didn't start until the hippies moved in. What Whitehall said above re: abundance of females...lots of truth. Even after you shoot holes in their ridiculous PC leftist drivel, let's just say their 'female needs' kick in.
One word summed up this whole discussion- 'indoctrination'. As in the boys "got to undergo gender sensitivity indoctrination". As if it were some kind of favor to them!

Here's one shoe theory: If a girl is fat, she doesn't want to shop for clothing--too depressing. Shoes are a way of buying pretty, fashionable things without going through fitting room agony.

"I did call her a man. That wasn't the coffee talking. That was the bourbon. Maybe I should slow the drip a tad."

Ahhh! A fellow-traveler. Don't slow the drip too much. You're going to need it as the evening wears on.

I can't explain the shoe thing myself. Men obviously don't give a shit about what a woman wears on her feet -- or any other body part. But women are, in general, way into the adornments. (At least in this society; in others, men are as much into fancying it up as women, and in the past men were at least if not more so very concerned with fancy dress. Just look at portraits of European kings of the 17th century, and so on.) Anyway, I personally am not all that into shoes, and since I walk to work comfort outweighs style for me. But occasionally I will get overtaken by that "look! cute shoes!" effect and end up owning a pair I can only wear if someone drives me someplace and we don't walk a lot.

I refuse to go all Imelda, though. I gave away most of my underused shoes, and am going to toss some more that I never wear.

When it comes to the way female university students are treated vs. male ones, I think it does all come down to the girls being less able to dissemble and be serious when it comes to being around boys. I can't speak for higher-end university situations; I've only gone to community colleges and state unis, where there is a higher ratio of students who in an earlier age would have been shunted off to trade schools or (in the case of the girls) marriage than you'd find at Harvard these days -- or so I am guessing. (I hope even the most dazzle-eyed parent wouldn't bank an ivy league college's huge tuition on a daughter who was going for the modern equivalent of a MrS degree.) But I am beginning to think that the great Florence King had it right: we should go back to single-sex education in the higher grades and university, because women will be better able to learn in an environment where they aren't distracted by the presence of men, and vice versa. I think a lot of the problems between men and women today are because we are forced to be together all the goddamn time. The reason women and men didn't seem to complain so much in the past about each other might not be so much due to complacency on the part of the men and being oppressed on the part of the women but more due to the fact that the sexes weren't shoved into an enforced 24/7 cameraderie -- we were allowed to miss each other a little bit.

James, Phyllis Schlafly is da BOMB. She was a strong voice against the Equal Rights Amendment many years ago and played a huge role in getting it defeated. Now THAT is a woman to emulate.

Ah Brak, the Rebel Without A Clue.

And Andrea, when it comes to women's shoes, men only care about one thing; can you carry a case of beer wearing 4" heels?

Later,
bbeck

Sonetka, you make a very good point. I'm 42 and I would NOT want to go into an NICU, it would break my heart. Can you imagine what a child's reaction would be?

Obviously, these CREEPS want to scare the crap out of these little girls and traumatize them into never wanting children. I'd be furious if someone took my daughters into a place like that. Thankfully I don't have to live in SF.

Later,
bbeck

Andrea makes a good point, notwithstanding the fact that it flies in the face of feminist orthodoxy. I have increasingly been running across articles that suggest that same-sex educational institutions may work better for both sexes.

Which leads to a conclusion that many liberals can't stand -- the sexes are not the same. That doesn't mean they are inequal, just not the same.

Which leads to all kinds of possibilities that are anathema to the feminists. For example, maybe the female predilection for footwear is not a consequence of male oppression. Horrors! Maybe women just like shoes.

How come liberals will gladly fork over their cash for the United Negro College Fund, premised on the proposition that same-race education is OK for blacks, but the notion that South Carolina should sponsor an all-male institution like the Citadel is intolerable?

bbeck: my answer would be 1) I don't drink beer you can buy by "the case," and 2) you can carry it yourself, Mr. He-Man.

As you can see, I managed to survive coeducation, but at the price of being regarded a dateless freak. For which I thank the gods.

I have increasingly been running across articles that suggest that same-sex educational institutions may work better for both sexes.

They do work better...unless they're Vikings.

For example, maybe the female predilection for footwear is not a consequence of male oppression. Horrors! Maybe women just like shoes.

Actually, it's more of a stereotype, like men who scratch themselves and belch the alphabet.

But yeah, liberals have a hard time realizing what the rest of us already know; the sexes are different, not just physically but intellectually, socially, mentally, etc. I remember when Gore was running for President, and his dopey wife was talking about children's behavior. She was SHOCKED, I tell you, SHOCKED that little boys didn't act anything like girls. Like Hob said in another thread, Stupid w****.

Later,
bbeck

lol@Andrea.

That line about the case of beer n' heels was from an actual conversation my hubby had with some guy we didn't even know and were just sharing a boat ride with. They agreed that was the only important thing about women's shoes. There was something about wearing a bikini thrown in there, too. :)

And you can buy Guinness and Beck's by the case, so I'm covered. What kind of beer do you like?

Later,
bbeck

Men obviously don't give a shit about what a woman wears on her feet

Totally contrary to my last comment, but this needs to be corrected. Men do notice. Big time. Have you never heard the expression "Fuck-Me Shoes"? We're talking about 4-inch (at least) spike heels (which function to accentuate the curvature of the calf muscle), straps that give off a slave/bondage vibe, open toes and pedicure that say "I want you, play with me", etc.

And then boots are a whole 'nother subject.

Think I'm making this up? Ask any guy you know, that you can trust for an honest answer, to describe a Fuck-Me Shoe.

And when I mention a guy you know that you can trust for an honest answer -- you're husband is not one of them.

> Men do notice. Big time.

The sensitivity varies from man to man, but yeah, most guys will perk up more for saucy pumps than for orthopedic sneakers. Plus, high heels accentuate the buttocks, which are aesthetically pleasing even if they can only produce a poo-baby.

Do sandals count as shoes? Because if I can count sandals I have more than three pairs.

Bbeck - I wasn't thinking so much of the trauma to the girls as the trauma to a immune-systemless preemie should one of the Future Empowered Persons Of America happen to be coming down with chickenpox. But you're right; seeing an NICU when I was that age would have messed me up. Hell, it would mess me up now. Not fun places. Couldn't they have looked through the windows of the regular nursery?

"Rebel without a clue" huh? No, sorry. My opinion is the majority on this one

WRT the original post, take a look at The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers.

Brak, that "opinion" you keep harping on was NEVER STATED OR ENDORSED in that thread. You are MAKING THINGS UP just so you can feel cuddly and secure with the almighty "majority" in making fun of those not like YOU.

Hence you have NO CLUE on at least two subjects...

Actually three. Why don't you stop dredging up ended discussions? You disappeared from that last thread and now you're bringing it up again when you couldn't finish it the last time. Get over it already.

Later,
bbeck

First off, I had said my piece in that thread and left for the weekend. I never checked it again. I have nothing to "finish," I simply have a large disagreement with a statement you made and I see no reason why I am forbidden to ever mention it again. It's not making me feel "cuddly," it's a timewaster.

"Making fun of those not like YOU" is exactly what YOU are doing. To paraphrase you from the old thread: "people with the expensive shoes and stuff are worse than the Trekkies because at least the Trekkies know their world isn't real" I would argue, but I'm sure you would never agree, that material possessions have much more real-world practicality that inserting yourself into a TV show fantasy world.

My response that it all "goes back to high school" was a snarky quip concerning the need for you to put down a very large group of people that are into "material things" as though that somehow made you better than them. You showed just as much elitism that you think I do when I make fun of a Trekkie.

Helllooooo, Brak....

"people with the expensive shoes and stuff are worse than the Trekkies because at least the Trekkies know their world isn't real"

You fall OFF THE BEAM with your paraphrase. That was NOT what I was SAYING. I was saying THIS; people who mindlessly buy designer crap with the warped notion that the label makes them BETTER than other people are complete NUTS.

If that F***s with your grasp of reality, then yeah, we're not going to agree.

And look UP at YOUR statement about Trekkies being NORMAL. I did NOT SAY THAT EITHER.

GET AN EFFING CLUE.

As for THIS...

"My response that it all "goes back to high school" was a snarky quip concerning the need for you to put down a very large group of people that are into "material things" as though that somehow made you better than them."

What I have been saying ALL ALONG is that NEITHER group is BETTER than the other.

"You showed just as much elitism that you think I do when I make fun of a Trekkie."

Yeah, IF I'd been saying what YOU were saying I'd be an elitist like you. I'm NOT nor have I been. You take that one statement I made, place it out of context, twist the meaning out of it, and then spew the nonsense in other threads.

If you want to bring up crap from other threads and be a jackass I can't stop you. It would behoove us both, however, to get your facts right before you open your mouth so I don't feel the need to waste my time correcting you.

Geez, this is Cedarford level comprehension.

Later,
bbeck

Your exact quote:

"Trekkies KNOW that their world is fantasy, whereas snobs don't, so in a sense the Trekkies are healthier and more grounded...which seems pretty darn scary. ;)"

Your further posts in that thread were dripping with the "I don't buy expensive stuff, I spend money on my friends, and that makes me better attitude." Your orginal position seemed to be that someone who buys $100 shoes is equally or more "out-of the-mainstream" than a Trekkie.

Your position, to me, coupled with your earlier threads about "jocks" ans "material junk" like "football and pep rallies" seemed like you are still dividing the world along some sort of high school lines, except now the "jocks" and "popular kids" buy $100 shoes or Gucci purses, while the "nerds" are more "real" and spend money on their friends. Thus, it's all still high school to you. Anyway, Megan summed it up well on that thread.

Jesus Christ. When did Ace's comment threads get this snotty without CF being involved somehow?

And whoa there brak, don't yank me into the middle of this.

I had a disagreement with bbeck in that thread - I left it there. (Which is where, I hope, she also left her disagreement with me.)

Brak, THIS is my EXACT QUOTE...

"It's not that there isn't materialism or snobbery, but people who believe they're better than others because they own certain things are living in a bigger fantasy world than Trekkies could ever imagine. Not only that, Trekkies KNOW that their world is fantasy, whereas snobs don't, so in a sense the Trekkies are healthier and more grounded...which seems pretty darn scary. ;)"

Isn't it interesting that you CHOSE to leave the context of the end statement out?

Why would you possibly do that?

Maybe because it makes you look like an azz and that I'm telling the truth about what I said and what I meant.

And now you have to harp on My Attitude as opposed to what I've been saying, huh? In PREVIOUS threads? Oh, you mean the time YOU posted all that derogatory silliness about DnD players and I RESPONDED with some derogatory silliness about jocks...and now I'M the one with the High School Attitude?

You might want to place THOSE statements in context, too, before you talk about condescending and/or high school attitudes, Sparky.

And now you finish with a reference to Megan's work in the other thread, knowing full well I didn't take the time to read it. She's right on one point; you need to leave her out of this just as I have.

Now, as I've said, as I've BEEN saying -- despite your weak attempt to say my Attitude contradicts my words -- that there are all sorts of "weirdness" in this world. Some, like Trekkies, are more fun to take pictures of and laugh at than others, like those who say, "Yah, it looks like a turd with a heel, but it's a Blahnik!" When it gets to the point of obsession, like "I learn Klingon because I might NEED it someday," or "OMG, what is wrong with you, that is SO not haute couture!" then it's time for the men in white coats.

And you know, there really ARE some people in this world better than others. But that's not part of THIS discussion.

Hopefully, finally, this will help the Clue Fairy find your house.

Later,
bbeck

I don't think my comments ever got "snotty" and I certainly never resorted to any name-calling. And I didn't know you didn't read Meghan comments, and it really doesn't matter to me. I agreed with what she said, that's all. I see no problem with pointing that out.

Sometimes the comments section on here gets rather "message board" like. If bringing up a disagreement from a prior thread violates a rule I'm unaware of, then I apologize.

I wasn't trying to distort your words. But, the example in that thread was changed by the end. You went from someone "who likes $100 dollar shoes" and is brand-conscious to someone who is obsessed with name-brands and looks down on others with less fashionable stuff. My belief is that Trekkies are much stranger than the first group, and as for the second group I wasn't really concerned. You were defending Trekkies in that thread, and brought in the materialism group as something that is worse. But now, the argument seems to have moved to something else. I don't recall saying the "materialism" crowd was beter than anyone else. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Brak, I've BEEN correcting you.

First of all, stop with pointing out the name calling, it just makes you look whiny. If you can't handle Rebel Etc or Sparky then you need to reconsider posting in the Comments section. You also need to stop calling people elitist, too, because that makes you look pretty hypocritical in this context.

Secondly, your first comment in this thread up above was unnecessary and snotty and brought up junk I already TRIED to tell you in another thread was an incorrect categorization.

Next, I said TWICE in that other thread that I didn't read Megan's long posts. If that's the most attention you paid to my words, then no WONDER you didn't know what I was saying.

Furthermore, I didn't "go" from saying one thing to another. The first time I brought up the $100 shoes was in a sentence that referred to a brand name (Gucci) while having brunch. You equated that to just "wanting nice things" which was NOT what I was saying and so I clarfied. It whizzed over your head again and again...

...and it STILL is.

If you want to cling to the belief that Trekkies are weirder than whomever you want to think isn't as weird, then...I ...don't...care.

But don't sit there and distort my words in order to justify your position. If your position has any legs you don't need to do that...which is probably why you ARE doing that.

And your "apology" is not only snotty, it's an apology for something I DID NOT SAY you were doing! (Wow, what a shock.) You weren't violating any rules, but that conversation was OVER and ended on a sour note. Why bring it up again HERE? Why cloud up THIS thread with something unrelated? That's not a RULE, it's sort of common sense.

If you really want to apologize for something substantive, you can do so for continuing to miscategorize and misrepresent what I've been saying. It may have been unintentional initially, but now that I've freakin' painted a picture for you then you should STOP doing it.

Geez, I HATE writing these long posts.

Later,
bbeck

"If you want to cling to the belief that Trekkies are weirder than whomever you want to think isn't as weird, then...I ...don't...care."

seems as though you did

I brought it up just for the hell of it, it was entertaining then, and today.

"seems as though you did"

Welp, Brak, considering you still don't have Clue One about ANYTHING I've said, then let's just KNOCK me over with a feather at THAT!

But then, being obtuse IS easier than having the 'nads to just admit you're wrong, isn't it?

I guess integrity is something only the weirdos have.

Later,
bbeck

Not to mention conscious.

Just noticed this thread was still active (well, as of an hour and a half ago).

Here's my take. I like a good hair-pulling catfight as much as the next guy, but this one has gotten bitter.

You ladies are arguing endlessly about what you said or what you did not say, and not about what you think. Does the weirdness of Trekkies register on the Weird-O-Meter at 4.2 or 6.8 (compared to buying a Prada bag)? Is this an issue that should raise anybody's blood pressure?

C'mon. You're all way too smart for this.

[some look]

I thought brak was a guy.

I was just drawing this out for the hell of it. Slow day at work and all. I have a difference of opinion with you but it's not that big a deal. On to other things...

Um, Michael, it was never about a difference of opinion. It was about claiming someone said something that...was...never...SAID, which has nothing to do with Brak's worthless opinion. You would have done the same, I think, if I went from thread to thread, joyously proclaiming your undying admiration for Cedarford for the sake of my "entertainment." Eventually you might take a few posts to tell me to STFU, too.

The subject itself IS stupid. Who knew a couple of throw away lines would get someone's Calvin Klein's sucked up a sphincter? I had NO idea Ace attracted readers so shallow. But, according to Brak, this was done out of boredom. I can't imagine what Brak will do next to keep from passing out at that desk and ending up face down in a puddle of drool. Pick at a scab, maybe. What fun!

And, if you haven't noticed, it WAS winding down, so the tsk-tsking doesn't help. Batman quotes would have been better. Do you have any handy?

Later,
bbeck

If someone makes one comment, that doesn't consititute going from "thread to thread." The subject was of little consequence to me, but interesting to debate some anonymous person on a slow day. Nothing more, nothing less. Can't see why it bothered you so much. You said I misrepresented you, I asked you to clarify, and when you did I felt like it was different from what you orginally implied on the other thread. Difference of opinion, plain and simple. Nothing to get worked up about.

But, you know, I'm just shallow like that.

Yes, Brak, I've already heard your attempts to justify. And yes, I realize you don't 'get' why someone would not want their words distorted in ANY thread.

I agree with the rest of your post.

Now, let's take your advice and move "on to other things." And let's mean it this time.

Later,
bbeck

Gotta take one more shot, huh? I got it, but I don't think you heard a thing.