Re: The vilest human (was the most stupid women)
Paul J. Zanca (pz@imb.imb.uh.edu)
Thu, 17 Aug 1995 19:35:30 -600
In article <40t705$aae@news2.aimnet.com>
dsjogren@haus.efn.org <dsjogren@haus.efn.org> wrote:
> This entire thread is mildly irritating, and I was pretty much
> ignoring it, especially since my ethnic experiences have nothing
> in common with the original poster, but you've pushed me over the
> edge.
>
You seem to have been rather close to it before my arrival.
> In article <40rqto$brb@masala.cc.uh.edu>, pz@imb.imb.uh.edu says...
> >
> >What, I ask you, is at all unnatural about considering a woman a
> >thing to be desired?
> >
> What is unnatural about is, Sir, is that women are not things.
You quibble over semantics, ma'am. I am made of matter; all that which is
made of matter are "things". People are people, and they can also be
"things". Prove your point or concede mine.
> >
> >I hate to tell you, but if it weren't for that good old raunchy
> >human libido, none of us would be here. A sterile interpretation
> >of the human body as an abstract thing, with no sexual allure, is
> >not a survival trait.
> >
> This may be true to some extent, but its a misinterpretation of
> what the original poster was saying.
Which original poster are you referring to? The original poster in this
thread was a completely incoherent German nutcase who seems to no longer be
able to post to Usenet. The loss is tragic.
I shall assume that you mean the poster that I replied to. Here is the text
of her main point, which you deleted, included for reference:
/*
In article <40r468$b8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Alissande <alissande@aol.com> wrote:
> Number 1: I don't really believe I am responding to this posting because
> of the horrible subject line, and Number 2: the degree of insanity that
> it has taken, but here goes...
>
> National Geographic is supposed to be a historical account of people
> everywhere: from differing time periods, different social backgrounds,
> different customs, etc. Forget that they are some sort of African women
> somewhere; this is supposed to be a recording of history. If you can look
> at history or art, and the most prominent thing that you notice about it
> is that the woman is unclothed, then you have nothing wrong with you that
> thousands of brutish men throughout the ages and across the country have
> wrong with them. The perpetuation of Woman As Sex Object is one that will
> continue to be perpetuated by puerile minds, regardless of how "fondly"
> one refers to a woman's swinging breasts.
*/
I stand by my assessment of her point. She states that men who look at a
photograph of a naked woman and notice that she's naked are "brutish". She
states that men who "fondly" remember a pair of swinging breasts are
"puerile". She apparently thinks that men who look at a female body and are
sexually aroused are "bad". I think she, as well as those who really think
the same, is destined to be kicked out of the gene pool.
> She was complaining about
> being viewed as a sexual object instead of a human being.
She may complain all she likes. It will continue to happen, however. Sexual
desire is a natural and GOOD thing. Flail yourself as much as you like, but
if you are female, your body was engineered by natural selection to be a THING
to be desired by males.
> When
> you jump to the conclusion that she is a prude, you have dropped
> to the level of a 5 year old in a pointless name-calling argument.
She bandied about the words "brutish" and "puerile", and you accuse ME of name-
calling. Or is it acceptable for females to insult males? It seems, ma'am,
that you are burdened by a thing we idealistic moderates call a "double
standard". Lose it.
> >
> >Those with attitudes like yours will soon be bred out, unless some
> >"brutish male" comes along and wakes up your gonads.
> >
> And here you lost all chance of being viewed as my equal, Sir.
Did you think that that was my intent? You are a zealot, without the ability
to reason. Learn to THINK, miss. And learn to FEEL, while you're at it.
Lust is healthy.
> Rape does not ever 'wake up a woman's gonads', no matter how often
> some men try to make us believe that it does.
Rape was never mentioned, until you brought it into the discussion. What in
the world does rape have to do with SEX? Abolutely nothing, so the experts
say. Why do you bring it up here?
A good, strong sex drive is good for the species. If it is surpressed, the
species dies out. Gonads are inextricably linked with the sex drive. Hence,
if your gonads are asleep, the species suffers. I will pass on the obvious
personal attack against you that easily follows this simple line of logic,
since you seem to be irrationally offended already.
> Attitudes such as
> yours perpetuate the stereotype that all men are brutish.
And you, ma'am, are a name-calling little bitch. So there.
Attitudes such as mine perpetuate the SPECIES, ma'am.
If a woman had the same attitudes that I do, would she be "brutish" as well?
> With
> this revolting post, you've given the 'radical feminists' more
> ammunition.
If I hadn't happened along, they'd only make up some of their own. Are you a
separate species from the rest of the human race? Why is sexual desire
something you fight so hard against?
> You absolutely disgust me.
Miss, you certainly don't attract me, either. But are you cute?
>
> Dani K.
> Humanist, not feminist.
>
I disagree. Your extremist statements mark you as a feminist of the most
rabid order. If I were in front of you, would you physically assault me, as
the black woman who complained about the National Geographic poem said she
would the man who read it?
--
PZ
"Nope. We're not even at this point."
"The statement disproves itself, dumbass." - Ian Thomas
|