Hey, hostile visitors! Do you have an opinion about, for example, Mary Koss’ rape research? Do you want to discuss it even though the topic has not actually come up by itself in any of the threads and none of my recent posts really have much to do with the specifics of anyone’s rape research? Well, from now on you can discuss it here with anyone who wishes to follow you to this thread.
Added bonus: If you continue to try to discuss it in other threads you’ll be banned!
This also applies to future derailers riding hobbyhorses of their own having nothing to do with Koss.
Happy discussing!
Note: If you wish to discuss the topics at hand, you know, topics directly related to my posts and/or to what other people are discussing and that aren’t, you know, personal hobbyhorses of yours that involve long screeds and various things that you’ve probably already cut and pasted into the comments sections of various other websites until you were banned from them for endless derailing and general asswipery, feel free to remain in the original threads.
Although it’s that’s actually pretty consistent if their goal is being able to control women’s bodies.
I wonder if they include all the men who don’t even contest for custody as abandoning parents. Or the ones who do actually leave their families, the ones who disappear, or just take up with someone else. Or the men who walk out when they learn the woman’s pregnant, or after she gives birth and it’s all too much, dude, with dirty nappies and crying baby and she wouldn’t let me fuck her when she got home from hospital, you know? Miserable bi*ch.
Bet they don’t.
gnl, do you even know what quote mining means? right now, it seems to be pointing out that you said nonsensical misogynistic things
@Fade, LBT:
So, I guess there’s a club for people who were all depressed and had suicidal ideation? And, um, hi?
I was super-depressed in college. My best friend died, and I probably would have killed myself if I could have figured out how to make it look like an accident. But it would have devestated my family, and so I didn’t.
And I’m really glad now that I didn’t.
Turns out the low points only last for so long, and there are an awful lot of high points.
@Fade: I have Opinions about the bible, myself. Colored by a long time of utter belief. Colored by a complete 180 in my life, turning my back on it, spitting on it. So I’d totally enjoy talking about that a little bit, but I’d also totally understand if that would make you uncomfortable and you’d prefer to do that on your own or talk to somebody who’s able to stay respectful while talking about the bible.
GNL: Equality in family courts.
Men have it. All in all, they have it better. In contested cases they custody about half the time. This means men are actually treated better, since the general idea is the primary caregiver is probably the better candidate for custodial parent; and men are rarely the primary caregiver. (this is one of those “privilege” things you deny).
Equality in prison sentences.
So you favor no leeway on the part of sentencing? But go ahead, so me equivalent cases, in the same jurisdiction, before the same judge; and then show me the sentences. Because unless you can do that, you don’t have a case for the idea that women get off easier; too many confounding variables.
Equality in education.
What do you mean by this? Are their schools which prevent men from attending? Refuse to graduate them? Have a different grading scale for men?
This seems to be an, “equality of opportunity” issue, and I agree, women need to have the same equality of opportunity men to do get the education they desire.
Equality in parental rights and responsibilities.
They have the first. I’d love to see the second. I’d love it if men were expected to spend time, and effort, and money, on their kids (I say money, because child support in the case of unmarried/divorced parents is pathetically small).
The concept of “Privilege” translates to men are better off in all things in all ways at all times without exception, it is always better to be male. This is just bull shit. There are disadvantages to being male.
You don’t understand privilege. No, actually, that’s not true. You obviously do; your list above is all about privilege; you think that being female tilts the field, and women (as a class) have it easier.
It’s not true. But that’s what privilege means; men (a a class) have it easier. Looking at the disparate ways men and women are treated (Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama… the idea that 12 percent of the Senate being female is a HUGE influx of women to politics; when women make up half the population, the promotion rates in the workplace [women make up half the workforce, the are less than half the supervisors, and as the pay grade increases, the number of women continues to go down. They need to have a bachelor’s to a man’s HS Diploma to get the same pay {which relates to the issue of why women tend to be better educated; it’s not because men are, “oppressed” it’s because they can get by without it; privilege. Women have learned they need to get a degree, or they starve}]).
So those are the things you claim to want. What are you DOING about it?
Ah, right, prancing about the internet lying about how the world is; so people will decide to make it the way you want it.. with undefined changes to bring about things which already exist.
That’s why I think the MRM, which includes you, are full of shit. What they say they want can’t be what they honestly want, because what they have now is what they say they want.
So they are lying/hiding something.
MMM quote mine fun. Yes, I did say this. It was followed by it would be much better to take other actions.
So… you do think it’s a tolerable idea. You would like to see “better” alternatives, but barring that, this is the way to go. Where is the “cherry picking”?
Sort of sucks to have the level of nasty your “movement” is actually about laid bare. That’s probably why the MRM backpedals and scuttles like roaches in the light when people quote them.
a. Balancing power though LPS or some other right for men would be much better than taking rights away from women.
How does LPS (whatever that is) “balance things”? What “right for men” are you planning to create; and how will it not take away a woman’s rights?
You need to learn how to listen better, not get shouted down.
We are listening just fine. That’s the problem (for you). What you are saying is shitty, and wrong (both morally and factually). What you don’ t like (see above, where you complain that direct quotes, with context; of comments in a single thread, so that anyone can look at the original is, “quote mining) is people who read what you say, see what it means, and then say why they don’t agree.
Include the rights of men in the conversation and there are many more options for achieving equality between men and women. How is this concept so hard that 12 hours worth of comments and people still don’t get it.
We get it. You are just unhappy with equality. You deny that equality exists where it does, and insist that things like “rebalancing” by stripping women of agency = equality. The problem (for you) is we do listen. We do get it, and we refuse to let you get away with pretending you are for equality when you aren’t.
GNL: Surgical Sterilization- either
Sex – consetual
condom – consentual
Birth control -women only
Plan B -women only
Abortion – women only
Parental abandonment – Women only
Adoption – consentual, but only if the woman tells the father about the child.
that list… you don’t understand it.
Birth control: Both. Condoms and vasectomies are BC.
Lets talk about surgical sterilisation. Many surgeons won’t perform it unless 1: a woman is married. 2: has children. 3: Has her husband’s agreement/permission.
The is not the case with vasectomy. Chalk it up to privilege.
Plan B/Abortion. Yep, those are limited to people with a uterus. The day someone who has no uterus gets pregnant, they can use Plan B/get an abortion.
Unless you are complaining the sperm donor can’t force the pregnant person to use Plan B/get an abortion. Is that what you mean by “limited to women”?
Parental abandonment: Men do it all the time. Mostly they get away with it. As to women being “able” to do it. Sure, if they find an adoption agency willing to take the child. There are places that have laws allowing parents to take their unwanted children to hospitals; where they will be given to an adoption agency. But a woman (being the one who actually bears/delivers the child) has a harder time of “walking away” (see also the relative rates of pay; where men can more easily afford to up stakes and go someplace else to live/work).
Unless what you mean is, “paper abortion”, which isn’t equal at all. I’m going to let you in on a little secret. Being pregnant is a big deal. Men (as a general rule, can’t get pregnant). The child which results from pregnancy has needs. Anyone who decides to fuck runs the risk of becoming a parent. If someone doesn’t want to deal with that (should there be a pregnancy) they can avoid fucking. There are also ways to have sex with no real risk of pregnancy.
sorry, but I don’t see equality here.
That’s because what you want isn’t equality.
I’ve been following this thread the past couple days, and I’m super impressed at those of you who took the time to read and dissect gnl’s bullshit. You’ve all done a really great job, and the fact that the only defense he has against it is to accuse you all of “not listening” (maybe he means uncritically accepting his words as truth?) is a testament to how bankrupt the MRM is.
Argenti Aertheri:
You can have more than just one cookie for this entire thread.
You can have all the cookies.
All of them.
Forever.
And my platinum covered internet (sparkly diamonds, gold) curtesy of Kittehserf.
Everyone else has made constant, marvelous points. I have nothing constructive to add but my appreciation of the effort and time it took to do so.
—
I guess I can add one thing? About suicide? I remember an old tale about gas operated ovens being used for self termination, because it was a fairly easy way to do so. Easy and quick, in fact.
Once the gas being piped into ovens (Well, houses) was replaced by a different mix (a mix of ethane and methane replacing a mix of carbon monoxide, methane and hydrogen), suicides spiked downwards.
You can still kill yourself with gas ovens these days, but it takes longer and smells much, much worse. So the removal of a quick, irreversible decision caused a significant downward spiral in suicides per year. Pretty obvious so far, really, but still interesting in that it hasn’t gone up again through some secondary means.
( here’s a quick io9 article summing it up, although I got my memories from a book and some unrelated articles )
That’s interesting to me, and hints at something quite peculiar at about disparities in suicide rates.
So I’m not saying anything, necessarily, with the following – I’m just musing out loud:
People saying that they’re just musing out loud are saying things, but they don’t want to face down their statements or be willing to take up on them. Because, if I write anything particularly snappy, you can just say “Hey Fibi, why you so upset? Relax, I was just philosophizing. Now about that time I was friendzoned by this chick”… “Hey Fibi, why you so upset about the word friendzone? I was just musing… Now about that time I figured women were out to get power over men…..” … “Hey Fibi, why you so upset? I was just thinking out loud!” and we’ll never get to *leave*. So:
I think every attempt at suicide is a pretty significant step, because the emotional involvement and ideation required to do is immense. Anyone who calls suicides “Cowards” or claims they’re taking the easy route has clearly never had a gun shoved into their mouths and had to pull the trigger themselves or had to kick away the stool underneath a foot.
That’s not me speaking from experience, by the way.
Active suicidal efforts require a certain emotional input. If you really, truely didn’t care at all, there’d be no point in even considering the idea.
But think about other factors – men tend to favour effective, quick solutions. Guns, hangings, falls. Fires, sometimes. Those are irreversible.
musing: The reason more women survive their attempted suicide, and that enough survive so people like you, and others, can muse out loud that they were probably just doing it for the attention is most likely that the methods they choose have a lower treshold of lethality. BONUS MUSING: The reason their methods have a lower treshold of lethality is because many women would not be in a position to acquire lethal means quickly, or they would attempt to minimize collateral impact on others (slit wrists, bathroom, gas). Since the answer cannot be: “Hardware stores are anathema to anyone female, and rope itself was made from the silken chesthairs of Hercules and thus repels weak, feminine creatures”, you’re left with “Traditional roles and upbringing tends to instill a sense of others needs being important too, and even when actively thinking about ending their own life, some people are just inclined to be nice about. Not make too much of a fuss, you know, for others to clean up”. Once you have gotten past this, the saddest thought ever, you can continue reading:
And, having survived the emotional lead up, every input towards it and come out the other side, most people don’t try suicide again, because it taking the active step at any one time requires a tremendous effort.
And if they try again, despite some warnings from the national health service or their peers, they’re no longer “attempting suicide”, they’re “Suicides”. Suddenly, they weren’t doing it for the attention – they DIED. And you, you who shook your head and went “Ah, well, you know, it’s just a cry for help!” get to choke on your own words. Don’t actually joke on them, though, because then you’d die. That’d suck. Live your life happily, gloriously and well. But try to be less of a dick.
Now is that saying people don’t sometimes say a phrase like “IF you leave me, I’ll kill myself?”? No.
But there’s an interesting popquiz, sir:
What kind of abuser is morely to abuse the notion of suicide when manipulating others? Someone sincerely wishing to kill oneself, or someone trying to manipulate someone?
That’s a trick question. I included “sincerely”, so the only option you can pick is that someone using a drastic method for manipulation (tangent: like this silly, sad story is, well, an abusive manipulator, that suicide wasn’t ever the most important thing about the act, but the power that finality gives you in interactions and that’s why someone would call someone else up at four in the morning and talk about killing themselves.
You’re welcome. 🙂
Privilege implies a general bias in favor of one’s group. One doesn’t have to be better off in every single respect in order to be privileged.
It’s no surprise that you have a shitty understanding of such a simple concept, though.
“and the fact that the only defense he has against it is to accuse you all of “not listening” (maybe he means uncritically accepting his words as truth?) is a testament to how bankrupt the MRM is.”
Read “7 habits for highly effective people”
There are three kinds of listening. There is waiting for your turn to talk. I see lots of this here. You aren’t really talking about my points but some other point that someone else made that’s sorta similar. You don’t care what I’ve really said, only that you get a chance to talk back.
There is “active” listening. You do process the words I say, but you have no intent to understand them. You are picking them apart so that you can “debunk” me. The intent of listening is not to understand, but to prove me wrong. This is what most of you have done. Intentional misunderstanding so that you can attack me.
Then there is empathetic listening. Listening with the intent to understand. No one has done this. Not one of you can actually reframe my points in your own words from my point of view. You know I’m evil therefor wrong, and made no attempt to actually understand what I’m saying.
If you want to have a real conversation “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”. None of you are seeking to understand.
“Privilege implies a general bias in favor of one’s group. One doesn’t have to be better off in every single respect in order to be privileged.”
Ok. so, name me one way that males are not better off. Name me one way that whites are not better off. What are some of the ways that men are worse off than women to support your claim that “One doesn’t have to be better off in every single respect in order to be privileged”
@Genderneutrallanguage:
Habit 4.
Think win-win.
You want:
“Parity in…. workplace deaths”
I want:
Zero workplace deaths.
Our current communal relationship:
Win-lose.
My prognosis for our future calibration:
Unlikely to shift to win-win, some inconsolable differences in opinion.
My suggestion:
Let’s stop, and take a few days apart, then come back with our higher selves fully engaged and passionate.
I am open to your in put 🙂
The hegemonic, anti-feminine nature of patriarchal masculinity marginalizes some men. But it’s a side-effect of the patriarchy, which is still inherently biased against women and femininity, not men and masculinity. It’s not a lack of privilege so much as an unavoidable consequence of male privilege (which of course is problematic).
Wheee, cookies!!!!
“Unless you are complaining the sperm donor can’t force the pregnant person to use Plan B/get an abortion. Is that what you mean by “limited to women”?”
Idk about sperm donors, I imagine not since that’s anonymous and cannot result in child support. So I assume you meant surrogates, and that’s state by state…which I know because there was a CT woman who refused to abort a fetus with serious congenital abnormalities, and went to a state where she couldn’t be forced to do so. Except she didn’t want the kid, she wasn’t saying “I won’t abort, but I will raise the resulting child”. The severely disabled child was adopted by a third couple. The whole mess is all kinds of fucked up, and I really don’t want to go down that rabbit hole, but yeah, surrogates can be forced to abort in some states (but not others).
And abusive partners have forced women to abort. Plenty of fathers have left the abortion or raising the resulting child entirely up to the mother (spoiler alert, this includes one of EA’s ex’s and is part of how her book ever came to be — ending up pregnant while on the pill and being told “that’s your problem”, ’tis not good for one’s mental state)
So yes, you can just up and leave, in a way that the person carrying the results of your sexytimes cannot.
…and pecunium meant sperm donor as an insult to the guys who aren’t fathers because they’re only involved long enough to deposit their sperm…point stands.
lightcastle — that being the annual rate could explain it. The gap between the result of that math, and my extrapolation could be an artifact of the extrapolation, annual differences in suicide rates, and the age adjustment. So it appears that those rates were already out of the racial categories, not the general population.
Note genderneutrallanguage, it still isn’t some downside to being white.
And PEMRA, kindly fuck off. Even if it is a “cry for help” you want to write that off instead of providing help?!
And no, attempting isn’t easy. Swallowing a whole bottle of pills takes effort (particularly once your stomach catches on to the plan and tries vomiting them back up)…TMI? Sorry.
…and now I need to call the state and figure out wtf review I missed that they never told me about. I love idiocy.
OOps, I forgot to respond to this earlier. I hate it when I accidently ignore people. XD
The thing is, what I typed out in this thread pretty much sums up my opinions; I don’t have much more to say. I’m still in the process of figuring out what I think, atm.
I didn’t get exactly what the “stay respectful” means… Stay respectful towards people who are religious, or the bible. B/c I care about respect towards (non misogynistic) people; I don’t really care if people don’t respect a piece of paper.
Um, they have to sign that piece of paper for selective service?
And I guess feelings are evil. (Crying: boys don’t cry, rub some dirt in it. Need comfort from a male friend: gay [in a deeply homophobic society]) Though feelings can also be seen as evil for women (care about looks: shallow. Petty. Care about personal space: bitch. Frigid. Too emotional: hysterical. Not very emotional: cold)
So I guess some feelings are okay for women, some are okay for men, and both genders get the short stick sometimes.
Also, gnl, how about responding to how pointing out something misogynistic you said is quote mining. Because it’s not our fault if you can’t communicate clearly.
@Aaliyah: I love that paragraph. So much truth in that one bomb.
@Fibi:
When I see you posting, that’s a win for me. I hope it is for you too! Win-win!
…so now you agreee with the idea that men are better off in every way? You’re a confused troll.
@Genderneutrallanguage:
Haven’t you already mentioned a few?
But sure, I guess, I can Be Proactive
(Habit 1)
When you cross complile research data across nations and adjust for the usual bits of extremis, what you find is that women tend to, on average, live longer.
There is an approximate 5 year total difference in the statistical average here.
How much of this is down to the Total Genetic Superiority Of The Female Chromosonal Pair (you know the bit, about structural stability and influx in genetic mutations over time and RNA, DNA, take a shot for genetic barble warble) and how much of it is down to the way averages are computated, with every factor under the sun messing it all up? I don’t know, but it’s a significant disadvantage, sure. 5 years is a hell of a long time (but it can be a byproduct of priviledge, actually – being expected and honored to perform ardeous tasks will kill you quick)
Violence statistics tend to mark men down as suffering, on average, more violence related crimes. But since some of that crime is man-on-man, you can also call it an advantage of the aggressor (if he gets away with the wallet / goods / what he wanted), so the strict nature of priviledge there is… foggy.
It’s the same for a lot of examples. For instance, the 150.000 men on average that sleeps on the streets tonight (from your blog), where I had a quick read. I don’t disagree with your overall statement there – although the notion of raising people up doesn’t minimize the effectiveness of the phrase priviledge, since you acknowledge there’s a level to be raised to – but those homeless people aren’t really at a disadvantage because of male priviledge or lack thereof, that would be economic woes.
Men can, as a general rule, not bear children.
That’s sort of a bummer if that’s the kind of thing you might like to do.
In a very specific interpretation of personal opinions, subjective tunnel vision and reality, having a known proclivity for average violence could be flipped to not be a priviledge? If people know more men, on average, commit acts of battering, people might be less inclined to talk to men in environments where they don’t feel safe.
But I’m not entirely too keen on that idea, since it carries some unwholsome implications of “Get over it” (for everyone else) and has a certain air of “My comfort trumps your safety!”.
—
Oh well.
—
In wet t-shirt contests for women, men have a distinct disadvantage.
If you’re a man, applying for a womans study grant can be difficult.
Yeah, you can tell I’m out of examples. My problem arises not because men cannot be at a disadvantage, but because I have a hard time thinking of any specific examples that can not just be treated as an inversion of something else or as consequence of a certain social priviledge.
For instance, you’ll find most direct army casulties in direct warfare to be men, because men make up most of the armies… so logically, more of them die under live fire. But that’s not really men being at a disadvantage, because they’re generally the only ones allowed in the armed forces, live firefights, and so, in the first place. It sucks that they die (… duh?), but it’s because of choices already made, so… Nieah.
Other people smarter than me: GO!
Yes, I got that; I’m just jumping and doing the pushy evangelizing atheist thing. “Oooh, oooh, let me tell you what’s wrong with it! Me! Me! Me!” 😛
This is a very deep rabbit hole. I know that we’ve have some… not terribly productive discussions about religion here on the blog before. I try to be sensitive towards that, because, yanno, some religious people are emphatically anti-oppression and allies, and some of the
folks I respect are religious.
Even though I don’t respect religion as a thing, per se.
Ah, well I’m not an atheist. I don’t know what I am. Agnostic? Semi-Christian. I’m probably gonna do a big sporking of the bible or w/e over the summer so I can see how much christianity is for me and how much I am not welcome at all based on gender, sexual orientation, and political beliefs.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with not respecting religion, as long as you know, it doesn’t transfer over to people. Which I think I said in my last comment. XD
GNL: I understand you, I think you’re wrong, and a misogynistic puke.
GNL:
To which he says:
“As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool to his folly.”
You are so right. That’s why we quote you, and make substantive replies to what we’ve said (to which you pick and choose some parts/persons to which/whom you make reply).
There is “active” listening. You do process the words I say, but you have no intent to understand them. You are picking them apart so that you can “debunk” me. The intent of listening is not to understand, but to prove me wrong. This is what most of you have done. Intentional misunderstanding so that you can attack me.
Again, go back and read the replies. It’s not as if you seem to have much interest in what we are saying since you lie about what we said, in the threads we say it.
Then there is empathetic listening. Listening with the intent to understand. No one has done this. Not one of you can actually reframe my points in your own words from my point of view. You know I’m evil therefor wrong, and made no attempt to actually understand what I’m saying.
The fuck is this? That’s a brilliant gaslighting tool is what it is. None of you can say what I said in your words the way I meant it. Right.
The thing is, we do see your point of view. The part you don’t like is this one (pay attention, it’s a subtle, but important, thing).
WE REJECT IT!
That’s what chaps your hide. You use the word, “Listen to what I am saying” the way other people say, “agree with me, or else.”.
And you mean, “or else”. Look at the way you phrased, “restrict access to birth control”. Since you can’t get what you want (which seems to be the ability to abandon children and make women rear them; why you think this is a good idea I don’t know. The only one that makes sense is as a way to control how/when/with whom women have sex; but that’s stupid. Are you that stupid? Well, yes, you are. I’ve read your blog), you will make it impossible for women to have agency over their bodies.
This is what you call “equality”.
Which means you are playing Humpty Dumpty with us.
Too bad, words have meanings; and we are going to hold you to what you say. That what you say is foul, and disgusting, and you are dishonest about it, isn’t our problem. If you want people to accept what you say, at face value, start being honest.
That, of course, is painful: because what you want isn’t equality, it’s for men to be in charge.
Man, you guys go fast.
I refer to my peers, who are all radically awesome. Special mention: Howard Bann1ster, because compliments will get you special mentions to go with your radical awesomeness.
( Habit 6: Synergize )
Imagine that people wrote the Bible.
Now, if you’re still thinking in terms of god, and christianity, imagine the bible, from one book to the next, moving forward, is about trying to get to him, not trying to get to us.
Because the fundamentalist bit about ‘the bible is all God’s message to us,’ then there’s no place in there for women. They can’t be priests at the beginning, and later on Paul says ‘women will be saved through child-bearing,’ when he reiterates the ban on women serving in the religious elite. (yeah, he does)
So if it’s God sending a message down, it’s a pretty damning message with second-class citizenship for women.
On the other hand, the more progressive view is that the bible is a record of man trying to reach god, trying to understand him. And if you read the bible through that lens, then things like the book of job are better. (the opening chapters ask the question, hey, if evil exists in this world, then how can god be good? And then five different answers are offered up, one after the other. The fourth one was added years and years after the first three, and the fifth one is offered in the voice of god, but is no less convincing than the first four, and I don’t like ANY of the answers offered)
But that’s just one possible way to read the bible and try to make sense of it in a way that doesn’t say ‘there are no errors! Now please excuse the obvious answers, they’re just there to test your faith.’
No, seriously, that’s the answer given by literalists as to why recountings of the same events have different numbers attached in different places. It’s a test.
Did that make any sense?
GNL: For those who might be deceived by GNL’s pretense of being honest in his presentation, that he is sincerely trying to have an open dialogue, and discuss facts, let’s look at some of the writing he’s done when not compelled to reply to people. (I am about to play with blockquotes, pray for me)
He lies. Starting with the title here and moving on with gems like this Well the SPLC wrote a piece about the MRM that didn’t label it as a hate group and was later retracted.
Nice bit of misdirectional conflation there. No, they didn’t say the MRM is hate group. They did say, and still do, say the “manosphere is full of misogyny”
Right there, online, not retracted at all. They talked about the reaction too. They didn’t say they were wrong.
But lets do some side by side on this piece about Earl Silverman:
He said
Here is what the first paragraph actually says:
They don’t dispute the data. They are correct. Women are abused more often than men. The do say the, “so-called MRM”, but that; you know, is journalism. The KKK is a “so called White Advocacy Group,” (yes, I went there; you don’t want equality; and neither do they. I’ll elborate, if you will engage in some, “empathetic listening,” you might be able to explain what I mean, in your own words).
They go on to explain why they say it’s “so called”.
He then go on a long rant about not liking the refutational sources (about the MRM, not so much about Silverman), and closes with,
He leaves out passages, like this, from the piece:
So… The Atlantic includes an economium to him, from a feminist even. It’s qualified, because that is the problem with Silverman. He hitched his wagon to a group of hateful douchecanoes (Elam, Berge, Farell).
What does the writer say about Silverman?
.
This is the “hit piece” he said was all about hating on Silverman, and men. (BTW, GNL here you said that Elam might have, “walked a bit close to the line”, in this blog post you said, “You don’t quote AVFM if you want to talk to people not already convinced of the correctness of your position. Ok. You don’t think Elam is all that good a representative. Who is? Whom should the writer have contacted instead?)
Did his despair over closing the shelter drive him to suicide? I don’t know. It was certainly a part. But I’ve not read the note, and I don’t know the man. His testament was 4 pages long. I’ll bet there was more in it than, “The Feminists did this to me”. It seems he blamed the Gov’t.
Is he going to argue the Harper Gov’t is feminist? Really? Go on, pull the other one; it’s got bells on it.
OMG… the Sacrifices worked. I managed (this time) to appease the Blockquote Monster.