Who is Wade Englund?

[_wenglund]

Wade -

How would going to a beauty shop help me establish that women collectively are vain compared to men such that we can call that a negative trait of women? Do you even know what vanity is?

I wil let Blixa answer this, since, not only is she someone whom you may be more inclined to understand and less inclined to react defensively to, but she has implicitly acknowledge it to be a symptom, and she believes she can even explain why it is a symptom.

I love how you try to make yourself into a victim here Wade. You even try to hide behind insulting others by summoning the dreaded letters PC. As if it's a laudable thing to be politically incorrect by expressing bigoted things.

Anyway, most Jews I know are money-loving power-mongers, so I find Jews repellant. Don't worry. I have Jewish friends captain PC.

Okaaaay....so you view me as a cowering, victimological, politially incorrect, bigotted, captian PC. And, I am sure these character traits aren't the least bit repelling to you, and you mean all this in the most politically correct and non-bigotted, though scientifically confirmable way. There can't be even the slightest hint of irony or hypocracy or projection in your characterization of my remarks. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Tator]

My complaint about Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders

I have been following the stories and comments surrounding Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders, and frankly, I'm appalled. What sort of severe tunnel vision has led Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders to claim that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose? Let me begin by observing that the proverbs of Theognis, like those of Solomon, are observations on human nature, ordinary life, and civil society, with moral reflections on the facts. I quote him as a witness of the fact that an armed revolt against Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders is morally justified. However, I suspect that it is not yet strategically justified. For the most part, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders is caught up in an irrational belief about its own powers and abilities. Still, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders fully intends to concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life. But that's not enough, not for it. Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders will additionally suppress our freedom, which is why I contend that I'm at loggerheads with it on at least one important issue. Namely, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders argues that every word that leaves its mouth is teeming with useful information. I take the opposite position, that I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many eccentric lumpenproletariats realize that Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders keeps saying that it has a fearless dedication to reason and truth. This is exemplary of the nonsensical rhetoric and scaremongering that typifies the language of addlepated soi-disant do-gooders and other disdainful knuckle-draggers.

Interdenominationalism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders uses to attract picayunish, politically incorrect stirrers into its Praetorian Guard. Now I could go off on that point alone, but it's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders tells so many lies, it's bound to trip itself up someday. On the issue of commercialism, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders is wrong again. Sure, this makes its communications seem empty-headed and even a bit iconoclastic. But if you're like most people you just shrug your shoulders whenever you hear about Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders's latest squalid disquisitions. When your shoulders get tired of shrugging I hope you'll realize that if we let Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders resort to underhanded tactics, then greed, corruption, and academicism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions.

Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders's bald-faced lies and growing list of material falsehoods raise some new and very disturbing issues. Why? That's easy. In asserting that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. I have just enough stomach left to address one last instance of Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders's vindictive imbecility: Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders sincerely believes that men are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras.

Compliments of:
Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

[_EAllusion]

Wade -

I view you as making bigoted remarks, accusing people who protest of being too "politically correct", and acting as a victim. My empirical evidence of this is this thread. Perhaps you should read it.

What Blixa was referring to when it comes to vanity was concern with physical attractiveness. Women are more likely than men to focus on their physical appearance because male power structures have, over a long period of time, judged a woman's value much more in terms of their physical attractiveness. Not only are women raised to have that mentality, but it is logical to do so if that's how you're gonna be judged. You've actually seen gender disparities ease on this to a significant extent as society has embraced more equality. But that's only a tiny piece of the pie when it comes to what it means to be vain. Having a nice car can just as easily be an act of vanity. To pick another example off your list, "cattiness" is a term of insult associated heavily with a woman. It's like saying women are more likely to be bitchy. But if you look at the traits that are supposedly catty, petty maliciousness, it's not at all obvious that this is somehow a common female trait in a way that isn't true of men (we call them terms like jerks). This is just something a little more looked down upon if a woman is doing it. Welcome to "patriarchy."

I could go down the list further, but you get the point. I know you want to hide behind Blixa here rather than actually defend what you are saying, but I'm sure Blixa would agree with me on this point. If she didn't, she'd be wrong. What you were saying was sexist as all get out. I know your real target was defaming gays to prove that your absolutely fabulous mustache isn't a symptom of teh gayzers, but you ended up coming across as misogynist as well.

[Gadianton]

...so I find Jews repellant.

Look back through the thread yourself and see if you can find a single instance where I said that men were repellent, or women were repellent, or homosexuals were repellent. When you look in vain (pun intended), hopefully it will occur to you that the reason it was never mentioned is because the thought never crossed my mind. I don't think that way. But, it is doubtful that you would accept this truthful realization because that would mean that not only have you been projecting onto me things that aren't true, but you were clearly wrong about me, and you just can't abide being wrong. So, we are both stuck with your false impressions. And, for my part, I will deal with your wrong-headedness by no longer paying it any mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

My complaint about Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders

I have been following the stories and comments surrounding Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders, and frankly, I'm appalled. What sort of severe tunnel vision has led Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders to claim that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose? Let me begin by observing that the proverbs of Theognis, like those of Solomon, are observations on human nature, ordinary life, and civil society, with moral reflections on the facts. I quote him as a witness of the fact that an armed revolt against Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders is morally justified. However, I suspect that it is not yet strategically justified. For the most part, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders is caught up in an irrational belief about its own powers and abilities. Still, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders fully intends to concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life. But that's not enough, not for it. Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders will additionally suppress our freedom, which is why I contend that I'm at loggerheads with it on at least one important issue. Namely, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders argues that every word that leaves its mouth is teeming with useful information. I take the opposite position, that I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many eccentric lumpenproletariats realize that Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders keeps saying that it has a fearless dedication to reason and truth. This is exemplary of the nonsensical rhetoric and scaremongering that typifies the language of addlepated soi-disant do-gooders and other disdainful knuckle-draggers.

Interdenominationalism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders uses to attract picayunish, politically incorrect stirrers into its Praetorian Guard. Now I could go off on that point alone, but it's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders tells so many lies, it's bound to trip itself up someday. On the issue of commercialism, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders is wrong again. Sure, this makes its communications seem empty-headed and even a bit iconoclastic. But if you're like most people you just shrug your shoulders whenever you hear about Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders's latest squalid disquisitions. When your shoulders get tired of shrugging I hope you'll realize that if we let Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders resort to underhanded tactics, then greed, corruption, and academicism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions.

Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders's bald-faced lies and growing list of material falsehoods raise some new and very disturbing issues. Why? That's easy. In asserting that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life, Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. I have just enough stomach left to address one last instance of Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders's vindictive imbecility: Society for the Study of Sexual Attraction Disorders sincerely believes that men are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras.

Compliments of:
Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

This is great. This thread needed an obvious intentional farce to put the unintentional farces into perspectrive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Droopy]

Dude, have you never read any cultural studies or anthropology? Are you seriously unaware of how those things are symptomatic of life under patriarchy? Are you that thoroughly ignorant and misogynistic?

I think Blixa, Wade is most likely looking for a serious philosophical engagement of his points, not a regurgitation of internalized ideological conditioning.

[_Yoda]

Oh...and I forgot to mention another unflattering characteristic of women, which is the tendency to blame men for their problems. :)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And men do the same with women, so where does that leave us? LOL

[_Droopy]

What Blixa was referring to when it comes to vanity was concern with physical attractiveness. Women are more likely than men to focus on their physical appearance because male power structures have, over a long period of time, judged a woman's value much more in terms of their physical attractiveness. Not only are women raised to have that mentality,

The serious problem one encounters here is that there is no way to demonstrate, as with so much of feminist theoretical critique, that the very psychological attributes in question that are assumed to be a function of social conditioning, are not in fact related to culture in a much more complex way, i.e., that intrinsic, underlying psychological differences inherent in female nature itself, are not primary in generating certain psychological features (a greater or more idiosyncratic concern with personal appearance) which are then absorbed by the culture and institutionalized in other cultural structures, such as media, art, literature, film, and advertising.

What we really have here, in other words, is a symbiotic relationship between inherent psychological attributes and culture, in which natural emphasis and deemphasis in interests, focus, and concentration between men and woman are reflected back and manifested in culture within its institutions and economic environment.

The quasi-Marxian post first wave feminist concept of "the Patriarchy" is not required to explain these phenomena.

[_Blixa]

Wade -

I view you as making bigoted remarks, accusing people who protest of being too "politically correct", and acting as a victim. My empirical evidence of this is this thread. Perhaps you should read it.

What Blixa was referring to when it comes to vanity was concern with physical attractiveness. Women are more likely than men to focus on their physical appearance because male power structures have, over a long period of time, judged a woman's value much more in terms of their physical attractiveness. Not only are women raised to have that mentality, but it is logical to do so if that's how you're gonna be judged. You've actually seen gender disparities ease on this to a significant extent as society has embraced more equality. But that's only a tiny piece of the pie when it comes to what it means to be vain. Having a nice car can just as easily be an act of vanity. To pick another example off your list, "cattiness" is a term of insult associated heavily with a woman. It's like saying women are more likely to be bitchy. But if you look at the traits that are supposedly catty, petty maliciousness, it's not at all obvious that this is somehow a common female trait in a way that isn't true of men (we call them terms like jerks). This is just something a little more looked down upon if a woman is doing it. Welcome to "patriarchy."

I could go down the list further, but you get the point. I know you want to hide behind Blixa here rather than actually defend what you are saying, but I'm sure Blixa would agree with me on this point. If she didn't, she'd be wrong. What you were saying was sexist as all get out. I know your real target was defaming gays to prove that your absolutely fabulous mustache isn't a symptom of the gayzers, but you ended up coming across as misogynist as well.

Thanks for spelling it out, EA.

[_EAllusion]

The serious problem one encounters here is that there is no way to demonstrate, as with so much of feminist theoretical critique, that the very psychological attributes in question that are assumed to be a function of social conditioning, are not in fact related to culture in a much more complex way, i.e., that intrinsic, underlying psychological differences inherent in female nature itself, are not primary in generating certain psychological features (a greater or more idiosyncratic concern with personal appearance) which are then absorbed by the culture and institutionalized in other cultural structures, such as media, art, literature, film, and advertising.

There are ways to study this Droopy. Such study isn't usually born of feminist theory, as they are lit crit types and not scientists. But this a fairly heavily studied area in psychology. I'd prefer not to get in it with you. Really, you need to take personality psych, psychometrics, and physio psych at a minimum to have this conversation, but there absolutely are all sorts of methodologies for teasing out biological sexual dimorphism from cultural influence and understanding the interaction of the two.

What we really have here, in other words, is a symbiotic relationship between inherent psychological attributes and culture, in which natural emphasis and deemphasis in interests, focus, and concentration between men and woman are reflected back and manifested in culture within its institutions and economic environment.

Lol. I love how you flip from from there being no way to tease out inherent psychological characteristics of women, if any, interacting with cultural mores to it definitely being a matter of inherent psychological attributes interacting with and driving the culture.