It’s just like a child screaming “I hate you!” to try to shock and force their parents into doing the child’s bidding — and in a similar fashion, that only works on people who are more concerned about being “loved”, i.e. “politically correct”, than they are about the difference between right and wrong.

…[Brendan,] your point here had nothing to do with [combatting] misogyny; as you yourself pointed out, your only reason in coming to this blog is to bash other people…

NDT, I love how you went to the heart of that.

You don’t want to admit that the leftists who were screaming “misogynist” and with whom you’ve allied yourself think it perfectly acceptable to say of Condi Rice, “Oh oh….looks like a pouty Brown Sugar is going to ask Daddy to buy her another pair of Ferragamos”.

You don’t want to admit that your argument that referring to men with feminine terms is misogynist and derogatory of women would neatly paint the overwhelming majority of the gay community as being enthusiastic and regular practitioners of such.

That’s because your point here had nothing to do with misogyny; as you yourself pointed out, your only reason in coming to this blog is to bash other people. “Misogyny” is merely a weapon you use.

And it’s not a theory; it’s simply pointing out that your upset over “misogyny” is only directed against conservatives, and completely ignores far better examples among liberals and other gays.

For a rugged individualist, you sure seem to believe that people who disagree with you should all be treated as part of the same group.

Considering I gave you a reference link that points to it specifically, the theory that you “don’t recall” seems rather suspicious.

But it makes perfect sense in the context of you avoiding calling your own party and your own fellow Democrats and gay leftists “misogynists”.

As if the libtards aren’t any less hysterical.

Try again.

Regards,
Peter H.

Oh cram it in with your tampon, little bitch. Nobody cares.

See how easy it is?

Ah, the cool rational logic of the wingnut. How wonderful it must be for you all to be free of any hysterical emotionalism.

(And Brendan, I’m betting that the answer to your question to ND30 is “both.”)

ND30, are you stupid or just a pathological liar, though I guess they are not mutually exclusive? Once again, point out where I ever “defended or supported” those remarks on Condi Rice. To now claim that because I don’t recall who originally made the remark is proof that I supported or defended is plain asinine.

Sure you did, Brendan. In fact, you were so upset by that statement, you couldn’t even remember that it was made or by who made it. In fact, you didn’t even remember to condemn it — until I brought it up as a demostration of how you and your fellow Democrat Party members treat women and minorities.

And now, I note, it still upsets you so much that you aren’t going after the Democrats like Chase and Ian who supported it….but after the people who pointed out that gay Democrats and the Democrat Party supported it.

Rumor has it that Dennis Kucinich is hoppin’ mad. (Yeah, like he can do anything about this.)

I say just let the Dhimmicrats eat their own. Makes it easier to pick off the front runner come November.

Regards,
Peter H.

NDT please point out where I have ever “defended and supported” that statement about Condi Rice? You are a liar. I don’t especially like Rice’s politics, but I thought that statement when I heard it (I forget who said it) was outrageously offensive and racist and misogynist, but presumably you disagree since these are meaningless terms only intended to upset white men.

If you want to be a misogynistic pig, go for it — say as many misogynistic things as you want. But if you deny that calling men women in an exclusively insulting way is misogyny, I’m going to point out that you’re full of shit.

Only to an overly-emotional liberal such as yourself does pointing out that there are differences between men and women equate to “misogeny”. That men and women are different is a fact of life, and being factual, is therefore terribly upsetting to you. Nonetheless, facts are stubborn things, and they care not whether you accept them or throw hysterical tantrums about them, they remain facts.

And the fact is that men and women are different. They are biologically different, they are physically different, and they are, yes, cognitively different–they think about and react to things diferently. This isnt misogeny, this isnt degrading women, its fact, and for those idiots who couldnt figure it out for themselves, its been established and verified by numerous, highly publicized scientific studies, perhaps the most famous of which was published in a highly derided time magazine cover story entitled Men and Women are Different.

Women overwhelmingly think and react to the world in terms of emotion, while men are overwhelmingly more rational. No one is suggesting there are no exceptions, or that these are absolutes, but it is a demonstrable, verifiable difference in the way men and womens brains work.

Its the same reason that for decades Democrats have been called “the mommy party”, and Republicans “the daddy party”, its why women overwhelmingly vote for Democrats and men vote overwhelmingly for Republicans. Women, whom natural selection has selected to be the caregivers, have thusly developed traits that make them better at it–responding to emotion, and emotionally being chief among them. Men whom natural selection has selected to be the defenders have developed the traits necessary for success in that role, physical strength and a tendency to react to situations rationally and logically. These traits suit each of the sexes in their roles and make them more likely to survive.

It doesnt make one better than the other–it is neither good nor bad, it is simply fact.

When Bruce observed that Lindsay Graham was reacting like a woman when he threw a hissy fit, he was simply pointing out the undeniable fact that Senator Graham was reacting emotionally, and that such emotional reaction is more closely related with females than with males.

Just as your hysterical reaction, and cries of victimhood are likewise emotionally and not rationally driven.

In other words… Why are you being such a woman and why do libtards hate science so much???

Just tell them to shove it sideways and move on. Watch:

And the genders are indeed biologically different.

Oh cram it in with your tampon, little bitch. Nobody cares.

See how easy it is?

Thanks, Ian. I also believe my argument was calm and not hysterical. I’m not sure about reasoned, but I tried. And I agree with most of your points regarding this issue.

Also, thanks NDT and ILC. I appreciate your kind words and support despite the fact we disagree on this issue. You’ve brought up good arguments, and I respect them, and articulated them better than I did my argument. I don’t want to rehash or elaborate more on my reasons in the interest of winding this issue down, at least on my part. I still believe that feminizing one’s name when being critical of that person is inappropriate, but I will agree to disagree on this point. After this post, I do not anticipate commenting further on this issue.

For the record… I wasn’t suggesting Pat leave…. I was suggesting he “move on” from this ridiculous exercise in trying to read my mind and heart.

Bruce, thanks for clarifying what you meant by “move on.” Also, I want to clarify that it was not my intention to try to read your mind or heart. I try my best to not read beyond any one’s words, especially on the Internet, since I find it an exercise of futility.

And the genders are indeed biologically different. But I don’t think that Bruce was suggesting that Senator Graham has breasts or ovaries. As has been stated here, he was asserting that Graham was a coward and lacked honor. And he did so by implying that all women are cowards and lack honor.

But referring to men using feminine terms exclusively to criticize their perceived weakness, cowardice, etc., is misogynistic.

That claim is absurd and obtuse.

First of all, note the word “exclusively” dropped in there to taint the argument, or move the goalposts. Typical. Back in the real world, Bruce has plenty of other ways of criticizing Sen. Graham, and plenty of positive uses for feminine terms.

Second, last time I checked,
(1) we were limited to 2 genders – which were, in fact, different biologically
(2) therefore, to negate or ridicule a person’s membership in 1 gender (because the person isn’t remotely near displaying that gender’s best qualities), you inevitably had to imply the person was really part of the other gender.

Nothing “anti”-the-other-gender about it. Except in the eye of the beholder.

In other words: the misogynists here are the ones CLAIMING that Bruce’s ridicule of Graham’s gender is somehow “anti’-the-other-gender. Y’all know who you are. You’re the ones supplying all the misogynistic interpretation here… then having the nerve to claim it isn’t yours, it’s Bruce’s. (Aka “projection”)