Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Brent

#911
Father's Issues / RE: Lest we forget.....
Dec 04, 2003, 01:26:33 PM
> if the SPARC admin is going to delete posts that aren't relevant
>to what SPARC is all about, then perhaps they should take a
>look at this particular thread as well....

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of relevance. I think that the admin is willing to let people vent, bicker, and even fight, but within limits. I think once it gets out of hand, then posts will be removed.

Personally I'd rather see people vent their 'stuff' here than go home and vent it on their kids or significant others.

This is just my guess, I don't pretend to have any inside track to his thoughts. You're welcome to email him and ask, which is what I'd suggest, rather than discussing it here.
#912
One-Sided Chivalry

December 1, 2003
by Pete Jensen

It's very fashionable of late to attack Men's Rights Activists as holding a contempt for chivalry, and this is used as grounds for further canards such as being anti-family, anti-woman, hopeless misogynists, whiners, and so on and so forth. The whole litany of ad hominem attacks follows. Okay. To give a shallow answer to a shallow observation: "Damn straight! We do hold chivalry in contempt. Bailiff! Haul us away in irons! Guilty as charged!"

The disconnect here, is that people who blithely drop the word "chivalry" have little understanding of what it actually means in a historical sense. It has been prostituted and devolved into a one way street in modern thinking and usage, which is why we speak of it in such mocking and derisive terms. Pull up a seat, one and all, and let your Uncle Pete enlighten you.

Chivalry originated among the noble classes, and as such was inapplicable to commoners, in the first place. A peasant, serf, yeoman farmer, and such could be chivalrous no more than a fish could be ridden into battle. It is like the term "vassal." If I claimed someone as my vassal, the modern reader would assume I meant an inferior, my lackey; in actuality I could not have a vassal/leige agreement with anyone who was NOT my equal. Chivalry similarly was practiced strictly among the noble classes.

The concept of "chivalry" from a noble to a commoner would be met with blank and uncomprehending stares by someone of the age. Exhibiting courtesy towards an inferior? Whatever for? While true, peasants were the work force and by and large you didn't gratuitously mistreat them any more than you would mistreat your draft horse, honorable behavior was not exhibited towards them because they were not honorable people.

If you were my peasant, I could have you hung if you displeased me sufficiently. Speak out of turn? The back of my hand. Maybe twice, just for forcing me to the effort of keeping you in line. You are then expected to lower your eyes and murmer your apologies in a low enough tone of voice that you did not further disrupt the conversation of your betters.

Man or woman, it doesn't matter. As one who is not of the aristocracy, you come near to meriting the term of "Non-Person." Do I rape your daughter? No. Not out of any respect, though, for her as a woman, but for the same reason I don't copulate with the goats. One does not buggar animals. One does not defile the noble schlong by placing it inside the common trollop - and if I do, you consider yourself honored that I deigned to consider you worthy. Forget about marriage. If I'm in a good mood it might merit a chickle before I pimp-slap you for the termity of suggesting such a thing.

A generous person might move you and your child to easy duty, or drop some silver here and there. Most the time? The peasant bastard of the highborn rising to his father's court, I am afraid, is strictly an invention of sword-and-sorcery novelists. My noble blood is hopelessly diluted by your serf blood. I did improve the stock though. Consider yourself privileged, and shut up, slut.

There's a word guaranteed to rouse the ire of feminists and their allies. "Slut" To spare a whole tangent, do a search sometime on the entymological origins of the term "slut." You'll find it most enlightening. A peasant woman, for instance, was not expected to be a virgin on her wedding night, as such aspirations were considered far above their station - as peasants they oviously lacked the moral fiber to do so. Had they the moral fiber for this, they would be nobles. Q.E.D.

Now, back to business. As I sit here at my computer desk my feet are stretched out. All who walk in are going to see the soles of my size 18's. Why do I mention this? Well, were you an Arab, and I did that, I have insulted you beyond tolerance. We must fight - because if we do not, your brother Arabs will consider you to have backed down from being "dissed." You have your honor to maintain, after all. And it matters not a bit that I didn't intend such an insult to your pride.

Now this speaks to the rise of Heralds and Diplomats - such people practiced certain protocols, free from societal restraints, between each other, to keep rulers from meeting face to face in a fashion which would FORCE a showdown of sorts. The heralds, the diplomats meet, all speaking on a neutral ground in relation to the customs of their own culture.

Chivalry is one of those protocols. Originally it was strictly rules of war and engagement. It evolved to incoporate a code duello, and finally as a code of interaction that enabled it, among other things, to be clear whether one was insulted or not. Originally, I treated your wives and daughters in a chivalrous manner so as not to give offense to YOU. There were rules on the kissing of hands, for instance - to an intimate, it might be a lingering kiss, to the queen I would place my forehead on her hand. Either way, so long as I abided by the code of Chivalry, I was considered courteous, and you had no grounds to take offense.

Our forebears well understood that men and women not only spoke differently, but thought differently, so chivalry came to include rules for interaction between the sexes. It was dishonorable to fight a woman - they had no hope of winning. Thus, madam, you are obliged to not take advantage of this and behave in a manner that challenges me. Since I speak gently to you, you do so with me. I marry you and provide you with security. I don't diddle other women, because such might result in you having to share the maintainance which is yours - you bear my children and mine alone so I'm not footing the bill for another man's issue. The little dance of "courtly love" were means of men and women communicating intents and interest to each other both discretely and in no uncertain terms. The list goes on.

Nowadays chivalry has become one sided. Not only do women feel free challenge me, I'm expected to give them a five step head start and carry a seventy-five pound pack to "make it fair." I speak gently to them, and they get to berate me like a fishwife. I hold the door, and it's their due. I merit no thanks - why? Because I'm a peasant, as a male. I'm obligated to them, but they are under no obligation in returne. So, speaking in modern terms, we can only arrive at one conclusion - chivalry has been perverted into becoming strictly a regulation of male behavior, of obligating men to behave towards women in a certain fashion, with no commeasurate obligation of a woman to courtesy beyond what she deigns to give.

Such attitudes as this is why we Eeeeeeeeeevil Men's Rights Activists so rightly reject it, and treat it with dripping scorn and contempt; and it is why we refuse to extend it to anyone by sheer dint of their gender, reserving it for those women who show themselves worthy of it. And worthy requires more than a set of jugs and the love muffin.

Pete Jensen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Jensen is a Computer Engineer and Curmudgeon who lives in the wilds of Southern Indiana. He enjoys satirizing political correctness, and mocking its advocates. If you'd care to write him and talk reasonably he welcomes it. If you'd care to write him and froth at the mouth ideologically, he welcomes that too. You'll be grist for the mill, and know in advance he doesn't regard any such diatribes as privileged communication. That's right, you too can wind up lampooned by his searing wit and insightful barbs in front of millions on the internet."
#913
> oooook she's wierd ^

Gee, ya think? lololol  :)
#914
Stop whining. But rest secure in the knowledge that your inferiority complex is fully justified.
#915
> but what on earth would you call the death penalty?

I'm totally in favor of the death penalty. The difference is that it's administered by the State, not on a person-to-person basis.

I only wish the death penalty could be applied in lots more situations, like crappy drivers, people that park like idiots, and the ones that come to my door at 8:00 Saturday morning trying to sell me their religion. I mean, if a particular religion was really that good, would they have to go door-to-door selling it like magazine subscriptions? I always refuse them very politely. Speaking in a calm, well-modulated voice, I say "Get the *&$% off of my porch before I blow your &^%@ing heads off, you stupid &$%ing  %@*holes!!!"
#916
> Haha! I don't know what else to say except..."he had that coming"...

Well, you could say, "I lost my pacifier, please find it for me!".

Or you could say "I'm such a shallow and vindictive little whiner that I actually typed the words 'haha!' into a post".

Or you could say "My ass still hurts from the spanking Brent rightfully gave me earlier".

Or you could say "I'm such a hopeless weenie that I waited for a chance to say something bad about Brent, but he didn't even seem to care".

You could say any of those things. :)   lololol
#917
> WTF? DUDE! You're complaining that I'd love to bop monster
> upside the head and you're here talking about blowing
> someone away because you don't like their pop ups?

Lol, yes, because my violence wouldn't be court-sanctioned. I'd go to jail for it (as I should). But it would be worth it.....  lol


> That's some seriously farked up intense weirdness ya got
> goin on in that skull of yours.

Well, duh. Haven't you been paying attention?


> Bop on head for beating me up, shooting in the head for a pop up.

Sounds fair to me. Let's sign it into law as soon as possible.


> um...care to explain why my bopping is worse????

I don't recall saying it was worse.

Finally, I don't think anyone here but that whiny-weenie "sweetnsad" could possibly take me seriously. I doubt you actually did, or am I wrong?
#918
An interesting comment from "The Backlash" (http://backlash.com/content/gender/)


Murder, rape and a hero - In New York three stories provide contrasting views of masculinity. In the first, Warren Farrier murdered his wife, pumping five bullets into her brain.

"A Brooklyn woman's husband yesterday slashed her tires, forcing her to go to a bus stop - where he pumped at least five bullets into her head as she pleaded for her life, police said." - Heather Gilmore, Larry Celona and Theresa Kiley, Hubby's Slay Trap (http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/12477.htm), New York Post, December 3, 2003

About a year ago, after 13 years of marriage during which she filed complaints against him for domestic violence and infidelity, Mrs. Farrier separated from her husband and got a restraining order against him.

          In the second case, Luis Carmona retracted his guilty plea in last year's Flushing Meadow Park gang rape case.

"One of five Mexican immigrants charged with brutally raping a woman in Flushing Meadow Park last year agreed to plead guilty yesterday - then scrapped the deal at the last minute, saying "I didn't rape anyone."" - Eric Lenkowitz, Queens 'Rapist' Flip-Flops on Plea Deal (http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/12466.htm), New York Post, December 3, 2003

          There is no deep meaning to be discovered by dissecting the lives of these people, no hidden truths, and somewhere feminists are taking note, shaking their heads while muttering about the foul nature of men as they add these cases to the long list of crimes committed by men against womanity.

          The only insight to be gleaned is from how they will react, in contrast, to the following story of a father's heroism:

"A toddler died when flames engulfed her Queens home early yesterday, and her father was clinging to life after trying to save her. Sam Solise, 69 - who had already rescued his 6-year- old daughter and the girls' mother - was in "extremely critical" condition at the Staten Island University Hospital burn center." - Ikimulisa Livingston, Alisha Berger and Philip Messing, Dad's Vain Bid to Save Tot in Fire (http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/12431.htm), New York Post, December 3, 2003

If feminists take note of Solise's efforts at all, it will be to brush it aside, cast it as a patriarchal oppressor protecting his property, or to look for sordid details with which to diminish his character. That's because the essential nature of feminism has long turned to bigotry, and herein lies the illiberal truth we must tell.

          Where conservatism accepts and builds on the nature of things as they are, liberalism posits a perfectibility to which all may aspire. The liberal goal of feminism was to overcome the limits imposed by anatomy to achieve perfect equality. During the past few decades, however, an illiberal lot cast the feminist idealists from their ivory towers, then converted the once-interesting structure of ideas into drab and unimaginative tenements housing squalid anti-intellects mounting monuments to masturbatory fantasies in which women, unencumbered by all things masculine, are magical, and men, the invisible magic by which work gets done.

          But if there is magic in the world, it's not to be found in separating the sexes or mounting one over the other, but in the ways which our differences fit. For that is the nature of which our magic is made.


#919
Father's Issues / RE: I withdraw my
Dec 03, 2003, 08:44:27 AM
> As I'm calling a truce.
>
> I just don't know how to delete my "bite me".

As near as I can tell, we can't delete our posts. We ca,edit them, so if you want you can remove all the text and just leave a period or two behind as a place holder (it won't let you make a completely blank post).
#920
Father's Issues / RE: Intimate Abuse Circles?
Dec 03, 2003, 08:41:12 AM
> I see the results of being soft on crime in every victims
> eyes, provided they survive, and in the eyes of their
> families. You keep right on posting about boppin bein
> court sanctioned folks.

Actually, I'm a big fan of the death penalty. I just wish it was applied more often, and without the 20 years of appeals that always occur. But having a court give one party permission to "bop" another party is a slipperly slope.