Every now and again, someone takes exception to something we say on this site. Sometimes it's a reasoned analysis, sometimes it brings up something we hadn't considered before. We welcome these messages.
And then . . . and then . . .
Someone will send us something that goes straight to the Idiots' Gallery. Wherein you will find our replies to any of a variety of nonsense spouted in the name of . . . well, usually in the name of something that the Idiot in question can't articulate very well.
No, don't worry. We absolutely swear it that, if you just write innocently asking a question, you won't find yourself filleted on this webpage. While all e-mail sent to us becomes the property of 3rd WWWave, we have absolutely no intention of making anyone feel like a jerk just for asking a question. It takes something especially. . . malicious, clueless, and just plain stupid to wind up here. So go ahead and e-mail us. We're nice, really. And we're equal opportunity flamers as well. We don't single out men; if a woman sends us something particularly stupid, we're not likely to hold back.
Here's the latest installment, written in reply to our page on Real Men, in which we systematically knock down the macho stereotype.
> Subject: "kneel to me gracefully" -- the domesticated male > At 06:35 PM 1999/06/07 -0700, The Magic Nose Goblin wrote: > > > >feminists haven't figured out that domesticated men create an unhappy, > >dysfunctional & dangerous social subgroup -- one prone to a remarkable > >amount of violence and civil disruption. everyone should fear the 30 year > >old heterosexual male nagged until he actually clean toilets. he is a > >ticking time bomb on the edge of insanity. men cannot burn enuf fossil > >fuels to compensate for cleaning duty.
Geez. A little housework makes men schizophrenic psychopaths? And to think we've let such mentally unstable creatures govern our society for so long! Or that we pay so much for military training. Heck, from the sound of it, all we have to do is put a weapon in a man's one hand, a toilet bowl brush in the other, and pout at him pleadingly to help out with the housework.
Voilą! A blood-thirsty ticking time-bomb of destruction worthy of making any enemy country shake in its boots. Our military training budget obliterated!
Please. If you're so sensitive to housework, don't do any. Just don't expect to get laid or pass on your rather dysfunctional genetics either. Only the mentally stable men out there need apply for partnership with us.
> Magic Nose Goblin's cohort "InterSpace" adds:(Yes, more than one e-mailed us at the same time on a CC list. They travel in packs and never use their real name. No, *we* didn't make up the names "Magic Nose Goblin" and "InterSpace". They did.)
> I don't think 'helping in the house' is what your typical hard-core > feminist is looking for. Try a male that is completely under control of his > female 'partner' and does EVERYTHING around the house. > > Feminism went from attempting to abolish repression of women in society to attempting to > repress males. > > They [non-feminists] didn't have you washing floors, dusting, vacuuming, scrubbing toilets, > washing dishes, cleaning curtains, planting the garden, making meals and just about every > other vital function that has traditionally been the domain of women in the home. > > Why do you think so many men look with derision at marriage?
Ah yes, the tired old comment that men who don't want to take equal responsibility for household chores (instead of just "helping" and taking out the garbage every once in a while) all look at marriage (especially to a feminist) with derision.
*blink* And your point is? What? That he's saving me the trouble of telling him to get lost? If he wants something I don't, then I don't want him. He doesn't want me, I don't want him. We're both happy! If he doesn't want to marry me, then that saves me the trouble of having to fend him off, now DOESN'T IT?)
> >feminists need to re-visit their fairy tale 'true love' fantasies and > >re-interpret them properly. the evolutionary predisposition is to mate ONLY > >with the dominant male. that is, marrying a male and turning him into a > >woman is wholly unnatural proposition.
Actually, mating ONLY with the dominant male means that ONLY ONE lucky schmuck gets all the chicks and you (and the rest of the males in the troop) get nothing.
So if you REEEEAAAALLLY want us feminists to re-interpret our "true-love fantasies" "properly", we'd be happy to oblige! I vote for Liam Neeson as the one dominant male. Ladies? Are we in agreement? Wrapped in a cloak and delivered to a roomful of Jello?
Well, shucks, Magic Nose. I just realized.... It's looks like, even with the dominant male scenario, you still don't get laid. What a shame.
> >sadly, feminism has not progressed to the point where women can express what > >they truly want from men. for all the protesting and talk of assertiveness, > >women still seem preoccupied with 'fairness.' women should continue to seek > >peace via negotiation among themselves yet continue to demand highly > >irrationaly concessions from men.
"Fairness" is a "highly irrational concession" for men to make. Well, that explains a lot.
> >in my judgement, then, women require infrequent (possibly supervised) 'stud > >services' from men and not live-in weenies. friendship with an acceptable > >level of intimacy can only be provide from other women. and finally, rather
> >than being financially dependent on a one unstable non-dominant male, women > >should seek the implementation of a national 'male only tax' as u suggested > >L. that is, a tax system that provides a 'living wage' to all women (and > >especially to women of child-bearing age).
Why would we be financially dependent on any particular man? We're just using them for sex and as domestic houseservants in your view of things, right?
In a highly scientific poll conducted by our crack research staff, we determined that, when asked to choose between:
|Magic Nose Goblin||VS.||Liam Neeson|