Posted on 12/08/2008 12:29:06 PM PST by Jim Robinson
The Miami Herald and Chicago Tribune have practically announced bankruptcy and are both now valued at less than the value of the real estate they own (prime bay-front property in Miami and a skyscraper in Chicago).
Even better, McClatchy Newspapers itself, a newspaper chain with a documented anti-male bias, is saddled with so much debt that it will probably not last through 2009...
~~snip~~
A vestige of Andrew Marton’s article can be found at FreeRepublic.com where you can see that this once-conservative forum is now dominated by man-hating old women and FReepers discussing the story were no allowed to mention the word feminism in regard to the FReeper nmh’s hate-filled diatribes against men who would date foreign women (I know first-hand that any such comments mentioning feminism were deleted).
Exhibit C: The forum FreeRepublic.com was once a place for conservative men to bash feminism freely and often. It was the favorite topic for years. But, since early 2006, most anti-feminist FReepers have had their accounts deleted so as not to antagonize the aging baby boomer females the crippled owner, Jim Robinson, wants to keep in the Republican Party. Jim Robinson’s attitude seems to be just like that of Rupert Murdoch of Fox News…he seems to think that “strong feminist women” should be the backbone of the Republican Party. This is insane. I do NOT think these men are motivated by the concept that 80% of corporate purchase decisions are made by women.
It is easy to logon as a member of the once-mighty conservative FreeRepublic.com. Try doing so and mentioning feminism in a comment somewhere. See how quickly you can be deleted.
Then watch how the readership of the blog has fallen considerably since they turned feminist.
Where was the monetary advantage for this conservative forum to go feminist?
(Excerpt) Read more at mensnewsdaily.com ...
Your words are perfect example of why women baffle me and sometimes make me want to divorce myself from even being associated with them in any way other than chromosomes. Your perspective and perception of reality is severely maimed by your sex.
Huh? Did I miss something? Sometimes I think I'm the most clueless one around here...
What?
I am repeating some of the comments that are spewed on every divorce thread on this site.
Whoa. Back up. Surely you don't think that all divorces are the fault of one sex only? I mean, it's sometimes the guy's fault and sometimes the girl's fault and sometimes both, right?
More precisely, you have allowed your perspective and perception of reality to be severely maimed by the weaknesses inherent in being female. Men rightly and nobly resist many urges in order to do right by women and girls; women have to do the same to do right by men and boys. When they don't -- when they give in to the over-protective, over-mothering, over-emotional instincts that serve the human race well in some applications but not in others, they are no better than men who can't control their own impuses to dominance, force, brute strength, and desire to spread their seed as far and wide as possible.
Men and women can both be very childlike, but in women, it's more destructive, I think.
I’ve seen the comments about how women shouldn’t have gotten the vote on other threads, and it really chaffs me.
No, I think it is a ridiculous silly woman who, in childlike defensiveness, perceives that FReepers are saying that it is.
I least I am not so stupid as not to recognize hyperbole.
I do not want to purge anyone. I just want to know who I’m dealing with. It shouldn’t take 700 posts of back & forth to figure out that someone’s a RINO.
RINOs would still be welcome on FR, but they wouldn’t be able to hide the way they have been. Their effectiveness comes from their hiding.
Burden of proof is on you to defend that one because from where I'm sitting the impulse "to dominance, force, brute strength, and desire to spread their seed as far and wide as possible" has been much more destructive in human history. Wars, concentration camps, gulags, anyone? Not to mention gang rape, sex trafficking, and honor killings.
I hardly think being "over-protective" and "over-mothering" is quite in the same category.
Besides, I don't ascribe to theories that generalize like this. I think women can be as ruthless as men. (Anyone ever read "I, Claudius"?)
There - said 10 times . . . waiting for my expulsion . . .
Sarah Palin is a real live original feminist. I want women like her around me all day long! A manager or supervisor even. Better yet, an engineer or three of them! That like to hunt and fish and cook with you!
That's the kind of feminist those other women are scared of. Women are cut-throats if you pay attention and listen when they are together. Men just get together and figure out how to get organized to do any particular thing. That's not going to change in any civilization. Or people from different civilizations. Men will always figure out how to do things. Except figure out women:)
Of course you can't, because there's probably not a single FReeper who has ever written, let alone though, such was true. There are many, myself included, whose life experiences confirm that societal opinion and family law courts are shamelessly biased in favor of women and against men. We make our arguments in various ways that this is so, and YOU interpret that as our saying that it's ALL the fault of women. I think you sound like an idiot, and I think you make women in general sound like idiots.
You need to understand the difference in how you interpret what people are saying, and what they actually say. That is what disgusts me, and it is a weakness I see indulged more often by women than by men. Being a woman myself, I catch myself tending toward the shrill hysteria, the pure-emotion-based reaction that goes along with being female. I grew up in a large family among virtually all boys, and had the advantage of learning first-hand the intrinsic, non-socialized differences between men and women. Men have as many weaknesses and strengths as women, and they are intrinsic, there by sole virtue of being male or female. Women, like men, have a duty to identify them and control them for the good of all concerned.
You speak as if the Republican party is one giant monolithic belief system. No agrees with anyone about all things here. It’s a big tent and there’s a whole lot of hollerin’ going on inside. You ought to join up and get in the debate. The more the merrier I say.
I really wish everyone in this country could understand that tolerance and approbation are different things. The vast majority of Americans are very tolerant, as we must be if we wish to live together in peace. We don’t have to approve of each other, and any effort to force us to do so is wrong.
But seriously, how can you possibly align everyone and fit them nicely in a box. We will never all be able to agree on everything. You can't even do that within your own extended family. At least, I can't.
Cuz you ain't a man hating old lady?
Irony of ironies, as I happened to take a break and read this post of yours, I was working on a brief for a case on the rights of the handicapped under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In fact it concerns the rights of alcoholics and in particular, members of an AA group, a largely black one, that meets here at a Catholic Church in North East D.C. One of their members was going through an intersection on a green light after an AA meeting and a man ran the red and hit him very hard. While he was dazed and on the way to the hospital a D. C. police officer came to report and when two fellow AA members who saw the whole thing wanted to bear witness the officer told them: “Shut up, I don’t want to hear from you AA’s.” They were excluded from the traffic adjudication and the driver who ran the red light not only got away with the lie, he collected from the client’s insurance coverage based on the lie and has enormously impeded the actual victim’s ability to collect for his painful injuries. And he, the innocent victim, is a Navy vet from the coastal forces that fought in Nam and a very decent guy.
Alcoholics under the ADA and similar statutes are defined as handicapped so this is now a civil rights matter.
Thus I was struck by this author’s mean reference to you as “crippled.” He is quite clearly the type of bigot the ADA and similar laws are designed to thwart and do something about. He decries what he sees as bigotry while engaging in it. Given what you have achieved with FR all that he does is expose his own irrational and bigoted smallness. I love the humor in your posting notice.
What's been more destructive or constructive to human history is entirely irrelevant, in my opinion. It's like asking, has drought or flood been more destructive to earth geology?
Over-protective, over-mothering instincts can hurt as much as they can help. Men have done a pretty good job in Western Civilization of containing "dominance, force, brute strength, and desire to spread their seed as far and wide as possible" to minimize "gang rape, sex trafficking, and honor killings." I give them -- and Judeo-Christianity -- credit for that. When women in America start understanding the negative consequences of over-protectiveness and over-mothering, I will give them credit for that, too.
But seriously, how can you possibly align everyone and fit them nicely in a box.
***Here’s where I got a start. It took me ten minutes.
Vanities Arent The Problem (Time For An FR Cleansing)
The Awesome Mind of VaBthang4 ^ | 11/06/08 | VaBthang4
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2126945/posts?page=119#119
We will never all be able to agree on everything.
***That’s not the intent. The intent is to see who we’re debating with.
It’s okay to have big-tent conservatism, but we need the lights to be on. When the lights come on, cockroaches scurry to the corners. I’m a big tent republican.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts?page=6245#6245
Here’s an analogy to work with. Take a small box and fill it with some rocks. Then add some rice, filling it to the top. Now take all the same stuff, but in a different order. Put in the rice first, then add the rocks. What you’ll find is that if you put in the big stuff first, the small stuff will fit around it. But if you put in the small stuff first, the big stuff won’t have room. The republican tent is the box. The Big issues are the socon issues, to be put in first. The little issues are things that can be accommodated around the bigger stuff. A candidate who tries to focus on the smaller issues first and leave out the bigger issues has no way of getting all of us into the tent. He splits the party. The candidate who gets the big stuff right and as much of the little stuff that will fit, he can fit more into the tent. We’re often amazed at how much rice can keep fitting in. Rudy Giuliani flunks some of the big issues, and on some of the little issues it looks to me like anyone else’s rice would do just as well. All that remains for us to agree on is which are the bedrock principles and which are not. Why would there be so much invective aimed at rudy from the right? Because there are some bedrock principles that he is leaving out. Bad move. I see rudybot postings all the time saying that they would vote for Hunter, and I see socon postings that say they would not vote for rudy. That’s a BIG indicator of a few bedrock principles that are being left outside the tent in order to let in some rice.
Mine’s thicker than yours!
I'm also opposed to anti-women masculinism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.