PatrickC

Its always complex for the left... Pity they never make sense of those complexities and learn from their mistakes.

One of the overall things that struck me, was her noble attempt at bridging the gaps between men and women. However, I did find her positions to be rather muddling. Perhaps that was her ad libbing her thoughts, rather than having made considered points before hand. I have to say though, I applaud her for rejecting the term feminist. Having said that, there is a lot to criticise. I think you touched on some of them already, so I'll try not to repeat them too much. One of her claims (I think), was that beauty was a pressure that men put on women, hence her large cock analogy. Quite a spin I thought on what is really a female privilege or at least a pretty woman. Whilst it's true that beauty shouldn't be the main decider within a healthy relationship, it clearly remains one of a few factors that men consider. To suggest otherwise is a silly form of denial I normally reserve for feminists. Objectification is a well-oiled feminist axe they've been grinding with men for decades. I liken it to the priest that admonishes the masturbator. The reason they admonish this behaviour is because it's both inevitable and a useful way of shaming the perpetrator. Beautiful women are most likely to acquire the most resources from men, for which they would have barely worked for themselves. They get a step up through marriage that men (even good looking men) never get and would spend a considerable time acquiring themselves. I've yet to see women marrying beneath themselves. This kind of takes me onto white female privilege, which statistically puts white women into the highest privileged category than any other class of people. Ignoring these factors can only come from listening to the feminist perspective and indeed accepting some or most of their conclusions. I thought where Abi touched on areas; she didn't really go far enough. Certainly judging a woman 'only' by her looks is a poor way to judge women by men. But ignoring the way that a women judge men based only on their resources must be explored in a similar manner. Perhaps there is a part to these gender desires that are something to be negotiated between a potential couple. But that these desires should not be exclusive in their eventual decision to marry. As an aside to Abi's thoughts and not necessarily something I'm accusing her of directly. I do feel that a lot of women (less so on this board), as well meaning as they often are, have a completely skewed view about their entitlements. They often consider them as a right or self-evident and forget that they are actually often making unreasonable demands of men. If I were to be fair with women, this has mostly been because of feminists holding court ideologically about how men’s resources should be managed. Since men haven't really challenged these notions much, these ideas have been able to get significant traction and promulgate into the cultural conscience. That said, I do think it's time to wake up ladies.

I think the title alone gives away the irritation... "If prostitution isn’t about lonely, undersexed men, what is it about?". It's just an attempt to shame men once again. Either the shame is shared between prostitute and John or there is no shame in it at all. I enjoyed FP and Mishelle's take on it too.

Interesting lady LP. I did find her very thoughtful and it was a take I haven't entirely heard before. I have some criticisms, but I think I'll have to mull over that on tomorrow mornings journal and cast my thoughts after. Thanks.

No, it's publicly available, thanks.

Interesting thoughts about male vulnerability there LP.. I would be curious to hear how she might respond to that. Actually, could you post the initial video or article you were responding too please.

The trouble with you leftists types, is that you obsess about academic institutions and qualifications like Imelda Marcus did with shoes.. Get out and have some fresh air and start thinking for yourself.

Can never get enough of this man thoughts.. It would be great if Stefan could interview him perhaps.

Yes, a rather powerful and succinct caveat, compared to all the usual, 'not all women are like this'.protocols everyone else feels compelled to jump through. Somewhat provocative perhaps, but compared to the many scribblings of feminists, postively genteel..

Yes, you make some fair points Jason. Of course the economic situation doesn't help, wherein people are often hemmed into a particular place geographically. London I feel is no place to bring up a child, but it is where I'm stuck, for now at least. Attempting to loosen those economic ties can be a slow and methodical process. It's not impossible of course, but when I take in all the valuable things that I have done in the past 5-6 years, my economic situation has been the last thing on that list. Not to mention the relationship hunt, which is altogether quite a different challenge the older you get.I think if you look after your health and fitness I'm not sure it would be impossible to have children post 45. 65 these days is a very different prospect than it was for our grandparents I think. However, I agree that it's not ideal and have had to accept that fatherhood may never come my way. Having said that, I do strive forward with that goal in mind, as one distinct possibility amongst many more that I hope to achieve.

I'm glad you pointed this out TT, as I have strongly suspected this. But wow, I know school for me was a slightly different affair, being that little bit older of course (canings, molesting and humiliations). But your experience sounds like things have barely moved on as I'm always told these days that they have. Except they seem to use cultural marxism as their tool (or weapon) of choice these days.

Ok, I'm not going to say you're wrong here.. It was just my opinion of course.

Ok, since you're new. Just go back and read my posts throughout this thread and then hit a link I made at the beginning. That will give you a more thorough understanding of my position, without having to trawl through my entire postings.

You clearly haven't been reading my posts have you.

Until we can communicate with them Sean and we can share a reciprocal relationship, I'm not taking your suggestion at all seriously.

I've just really glanced over this, but it doesn't entirely surprise me. I think I've accepted that we live in a hyper feminised culture. That it's unsurprising to me that men and boys are picking up some of the habits and concerns that women have.

This is where this debate always ends up and deteriorates into a game of 'gotcha's'. The above one, is one of the silliest I've heard frankly. Anyway, I know it feels like a hard pill to swallow for many an ethical vegan, but you really can only apply APA (aesthetically preffered actions) to animal welfare. Attempts at ignoring UPB with the less definitive axiom of the NAP doesn't serve philosophy at all well.APA is quite sufficient, as it still comes with responsibilities and consequencies, not entirely unlike UPB. For instance, you can ostracise those that eat meat and refuse to do business with them. If there were enough people that felt this way about animal welfare, you would see a significant re-thinking about current animal welfare practices.Of course my argument only makes sense if you understand UPB and accept it as a valid method for testing moral theories. If you don't, then I encourage you to investigate UPB and in turn APA for yourself.

Not exactly a great debate. What on earth was Ian claiming about inner peace or something. Anyway, I find it interesting that Chris wants Stef to help him understand the error of his thinking. Since I'm sure Stef would agree with him mostly, that you can defend yourself with overwhelming force, if you so desire. It's just highly unadvisable, which even Chris agrees with. This whole episode just seems like an internal FSP political wrangle that wants to keep peace with the New Hampshire authorities. I can't blame them really, since they're such a public group, they don't want to give those authorities any more reasons to persecute them.

Yes. I've heard this argument before. I recall Thatcher deregulating the bus service and within a day you had almost 10 different companies providing similar services in my local area. One bigger corporate company did some crazy price cutting over the months and years that proceeded this deregulation. All this whilst they lobbied govt for re-regulation, which they finally got some several years later. The thing is a company with corporate or PLC status has so many advantages over a smaller medium sized company. They have more access to loans and liquidity, as banks look on these companies more favorably. As you know banking and statism go hand in hand these days. So this is an important state privilege handed out to corporations. Without these privileges they would only last so long price cutting so exuberantly. They can defer profits with clever (legal) accounting and future promises to share holders as they then embark on getting the industry re-regulated.It's not the easiest explanation to give your friends, but it is the most pertinent one.

I think if you truly believed that, then perhaps you should be taking your own advice.I think it's very much an individuals choice and experience of their childhood, as to the degree of responsibility they might place on their parents. In reality it's much less about blame (your choice of word), than it is about a better understanding of oneself.

I didn't want children for a long time and it's only been through therapy that I managed to work out why. My brother became a father 3 days after his 16th birthday. He then proceeded to have two more within the next 3 years. Basically I saw him struggling to put food on the table. Not surprising really at 16 years old, it's hardly like you can command a reasonable income. This left me with the impression that child rearing was just a drudgery I would never want to endure. Of course there was my own childhood to consider in all this, which certainly took a part in my thinking. But overwhelmingly watching my brother just go from struggle to struggle throughout his childrens lives, left me quite cold about becoming a parent. I now feel differently of course and welcome the day they when they finally come into my life.

The Harry Browne method has worked out well for most people who've followed his methods. Although they will almost all say that it generally just keeps their principle safe from the ravages of inflation. Personally, I've never seen much success from the stock market. It's always seemed like it's been rigged in favour of those in the know, depite laws against insider trading.My biggest success has been investing in small businesses. It's always been the most profitable for me. But I haven't done this in quite a while since 2008, except with a friend. Bitcoin has been very profitable for me, since I bought mine at around $31. That said it's way to erratic I feel to start buying large quantities. Although I may end up eating my hat on that one perhaps, if the most bullish predictions of $1,000 bitcoins are ever reached. I am seriously considering the Harry Browne method, because just holding onto the value of my savings is hard enough these days, let alone making a profit. I think generally speaking it's the worst time I've ever known for investment opportunities. Pretty much everything is like playing poker for sensible investors and blackjack for those that enjoy more risk.

I'm not sure the state does make this claim exactly. The only time it does promote a similar idea is with an expression UK politicians have picked up on with, 'hard working families'. It's meant to instill a sense of pride for hard working (tax paying) families. Getting people to feel proud about their mundanity is an important piece of propaganda of course.As far as great success goes. Children are constantly told they need to go to the right schools, colleges amd get the right grades and qualifications. This is what the state considers as hard work and for most people they know they failed that hurdle by the time they are 18. Of course, success has nothing to do with all that in reality. But for many it can be difficult to shake that assumption for a while, if ever at all. I'm tending to like failure these days, as it's a fairly good empirical guide to dropping a particular pursuit.

Indeed Wesley.. I stand a little in the wild west, here with my opinions of course.

To be honest this question has been dealt with more than enough times.. search the forum dude..