How many women here will admit they are a misandrist?

[meerkat stew]

That's obvious the negativity is the commodity of lesser value.

 

But at the end of the day a dollar made of silver and a dollar made out of sheet metal is still worth a dollar so Gresham's law seems pointless. Like opinions on an internet forum, at the end of the day they are just people's $0.02 regardless how "intrinsically precious" they may be.

 

Oh go away spoilsport, let me stroke my EPEEN in peace!! unless you want to compete for the patronage of the lovely geisha? or are you a girl and want to compete for the meerkat patron?

[tami-chan]

By commodity value of each side and credentials, do you mean who determines the inherent value of the specie involved in the Gresham's Law application? or the commodity values and credentials of your many adoring prospective patrons here on LS?

 

aiyoh, stew...you know how to make a girl feel better (virtually,,,how sad lol)...btw, I meant the latter

 

You know, my posts would be ever so much more funny and entertaining under the influence of some fentanyl, can you fax me a scrip? There's a 24 hour pharmacy down the road... :bunny: I need some oral type though, scared of needles! Maybe I should just go chug some more Nyquil?

Oh really? why don't we just hook you up with a pain pump? LOL...nyquil...would that help you sleep or have you developed a rebound effect to it?

[meerkat stew]

Liven up I didnt' realize the discussion was just between the two of you. I'm female by the way. My observation is she's hook line and sinker anyway so you don't need to trying so hard. Female observation...

 

Misandry/mysogyny are terms that are overused and often misused when referring to people online. No one posts about how great things are they only post to debate negative aspects of society, so of course things are going to look skewed.

 

Hahaha! You are welcome here in our derailing banter. I can't help but try hard as it is my duty to amuse and annoy the human race that I so vehemently abhor, lovely geishas and poker players (or those whose face looks like a poker... hopefully poker players is the correct assumption ) included!

 

Agree, most extreme, polarizing terms are overused, but somehow that doesn't prevent us from slinging them about with abandon. In our overstimulated culture we feel the need to shout out to be heard, wish for subtler days.

[meerkat stew]

aiyoh, stew...you know how to make a girl feel better (virtually,,,how sad lol)...btw, I meant the latter

 

Hey, virtual is kinda -real- too these days, hoping your avvy is not reflective of your mood, much prefer the smiling mouth on tamiavvy.

 

As far as credentials go, unfortunately I'm a lowly ant farmer, and no one is buying my prize ants these days, far beneath the level of status required to patronize a cunning geisha with a speculum.

 

Oh really? why don't we just hook you up with a pain pump? LOL...nyquil...would that help you sleep or have you developed a rebound effect to it?

 

No, no rebound effect, you know I'm teasing about all the drugs after the injury has gotten better. Tylenol PM is a "buzz" for me these days.

 

Have to go to bed now actually, hopefully grogster will rise to my bait later and we can entertain you with further babbling derails.

[tami-chan]

That's obvious the negativity is the commodity of lesser value.

 

says who? based on what?

 

But at the end of the day a dollar made of silver and a dollar made out of sheet metal is still worth a dollar so Gresham's law seems pointless. Like opinions on an internet forum, at the end of the day they are just people's $0.02 regardless how "intrinsically precious" they may be.

 

lol...Gresham's law IS pointless on LS or like forums!

[tami-chan]

Liven up I didnt' realize the discussion was just between the two of you.

 

Now you do

 

My observation is she's hook line and sinker anyway so you don't need to trying so hard. Female observation...

 

I am sure there must be some scientific backing to this...

[Trimmer]

This above kind of trash post is exactly what I'm talking about...

 

"Trash post" is too kind. It's an unprovoked attack, which adds nothing of value.

 

Note to Trimmer: meerkat and I will write the way we choose and if that offends your Highness put us on your Ignore List.

 

Oh, my goodness, I seem to have hit two nerves with one stone! I'll be sure to include lots of smilies next time I make a joke.

 

I can't help but try hard as it is my duty to amuse and annoy the human race

It certainly seems I one-upped you this time!

 

Oh... :laugh: :laugh:

[tami-chan]

Says the content within the post which Gresham' law was introduced. If you read what Grogster wrote, it's pretty clear that the analogy was -

 

the inferior commodity is equal to negative or flavor du jour type posts.

 

That is if I agreed with Grogster, which I don't ...so now what?

[tami-chan]

Hey listen I was just explaining to you what he meant, take it up with him if you disagree. My hand holding is done, you're on your own now sorry.

 

What makes you think I needed you to explain it to me? You assumed that, silly....my questions to meerkat stew (er...TO MEERKAT STEW-it was a conversation between the two of us, as you have been informed, you know...)....were rhetorical, as I agreed with the points he raised....applying Gresham's law on LS is er...stretching it...to put it lightly...

 

Hand-holding? hehe...delusion of grandeur much?

[tami-chan]

It looks like you needed the explanation given the question you posed, and it appears you still do.

 

uh-oh...you are the one who missed the point....but whatever

 

Gresham's law is the notion that bad or fake money ends up forcing out good currency made from real materials. The same concept can most definitely be applied to an online forum, meaning the polluting posts and comments can drive out the more intrinsically worthy one.

 

ahm...I read the same wikipedia explanation you read-you even used the same verbiage ..anyway, who decides which ones are worthy or helpful? a popular thread is a popular thread and negative or positive if it makes one think, ponder, laugh, cry etc.etc, the forum would have had done its "job" or purpose.

 

Now you are more than welcome to disagree with that statement, that is your prerogative, but to say "applying Gresham's law on LS is er...stretching it" says to me you simply don't get the concept.

 

Maybe ....as I am not an Economics major and has little interest on that. So tell me, how do you apply this statement to LS:

 

"Gresham's law states that any circulating currency consisting of both "good" and "bad" money (both forms required to be accepted at equal value under legal tender law) quickly becomes dominated by the "bad" money. This is because people spending money will hand over the "bad" coins rather than the "good" ones, keeping the "good" ones for themselves. Legal tender laws act as a form of price control. In such a case, the artificially overvalued money is preferred in exchange, because people prefer to save rather than exchange the artificially demoted one (which they actually value higher).

 

Ok...so we have established that the currencies are the posters, right? so what are the "laws"? who imposes these laws? if the LS laws are imposed, is it really possible for the bad currency to drive out the good?

 

This is a public forum if you want to have a one on one uninterrupted conversation with a person feel free to take it to email, otherwise anyone is allowed to contribute opinions and comments here regardless of who you direct your words at. OK?

 

I was not the one who said it was a conversation between just two people...YOU SAID THAT, remember? a totally uncalled for, ridiculous thing to say and I think laced with jealousy Obviously, you missed the sarcasm...just like everything else I have said because you chose/choose to. You remind of those nasty girls in high school who said nasty things to girls they perceived are threats to them...Listen, I am not a threat to your LS existence...I am but a bot...

[tami-chan]

Instead of posting childish comments to attack me personally....

 

YOU are the one who got personal with me. You included me in YOUR post and it had nothing to do with what was being discussed.

 

why don't you go back and re-read my posts. I've already explained the concept, it's actually quite simple. What it boils down to is bad will eventually force out the good, that is what he was trying to say.

I do not care for your explanation as it is a simplistic way of looking at Gresham's law-his theory is more than just bad money driving out the good-but you know that, don't you? you actually have to have legal tender laws that would allow it to do that. That is why I said it is a stretch to apply it here on LS or any other opinion-based forums.

[meerkat stew]

Gresham's Law is completely inapplicable to posts on an internet forum because the value of different specie in circulation is objective, set by definition according to some central government's standards, whereas the value of posts on the internet is purely subjective.

 

In a currency system, the value of the raw materials used to make the specie is also objective, less objective admittedly, as such value fluctuates regularly, but still set by market forces. Secondary forces (inflation, information) do affect the market value of the different specie, but those secondary forces can in no way be extrapolated to an internet analogy.

 

OTOH, the value of different posts in "circulation" on the internet is purely subjective, and highly dependent on audience. A post on cold fusion experiments might be extremely valuable to a scientist, but worthless to a child looking for a funny dancing monkey on Youtube. There is no objective standard for assigning value to one post or another on the internet, one person's feast is another's famine. There is no governing, standard-setting body on the net, so any attempted analogy between circulating currencies and posts on an internet forum is inapt.

 

If there was a user post-rating mechanism on LS, as on other forums such as IMDB, the analogy is still unworkable, because the composition of the members rating the posts fluctuates rapidly and unpredictably. In order for the analogy to work, there has to be some objective, post-valuing mechanism, that is itself composed according to standards (a government).

 

Generally, without a governing body somewhere in the mix, Gresham's Law can't be applied.

[Joe Normal]

Real men don't worry about whether a woman is "misandrist" or not.

[meerkat stew]

I counter your argument with have you read a forum's guidelines? Furthermore the moderator or owner of a forum acts as the governing body or the equivalent of "legal tender legislation" and therefore any opinion comment or post that is deemed acceptable for that forum whether valid or not (real currency or lesser valued one) will stay up and be considered acceptable currency. Those that are not are completely removed from the system.

 

Sorry, I am having trouble following the above, but will give a try.

 

The forum's guidelines, as opposed to being analogous of a governing body, are more properly analogous of an enforcement branch that investigates and prosecutes counterfeiting. The admin removes posts that were never proper "currency" on the forum to begin with. The removed posts never met the forum's definition of currency, so are in essence counterfeits, not alternate specie, taking us outside Gresham's Law. Moderator deleted posts can not represent the alternative specie required for GL, only posts that are allowed to remain can. And we are back into the land of the subjective value of the posts that remain.

 

Moreover, even if we can get to GL via a strained "moderator as central governing body" analogy, the fact remains that posts on a forum do not cause other posts to be hoarded, or rather paid less attention to. Instead, ALL posts on the forum bolster the visibility of ALL other posts by way of increasing content subject to search engine queries. Higher ranking equals more traffic, which in turn equals higher visibility for all the posts on the forum. Further, post volume leads to greater advertising revenue for the site, which in turn allows updating the site and even more optimization. Only pure, unadulterated spam would have the counter effect of reducing the visibility of the presumed "substantive" posts.

 

While yes, it is subjective and solely upon the discretion of said governing body to determine what is acceptable free speech and what is not, ultimately they will decide if the comment or currency stays in the system giving all opinion equivalent value.

 

Well we need two specie of differing intrinsic value, where are they in your analogy? I don't see two, only one.

 

As I mentioned earlier, not everything that you will read in terms of opinions online is a worthy comment but if it stays in circulation then it is still considered by its governing body of the same "monetary value" as those that are not, ie $0.02.

 

Yes, but in addition to the extrinsic value (the post's status as a valid post) determined by the "board" being objective, the differing intrinsic values of the two specie must also be objective, and that's my main point. Of what remains in circulation, there is no objective arbiter of value, only subjective opinion. Or maybe I am missing your point?

 

SO, if a forum acts as a microcosm of circulating currency, and its owners act as the legal tender legislators you could technically compare the two.

It's all in how you choose to look at the analogy.

 

Sorry I still don't see it.

[Taramere]

Shouting online is so easy there are no real consequences to people's lives if they shout incongruities, it's just a mind dump. I have seen a significant increase of aggression on virtually any news piece, video or article that I read online that allows for people's comments. It's a purge of all things people want to say or wish they could shout face to face but can't. For some the internet is a virtual stream of consciousness toilet.

 

When someone posts a thread asking women to step up and admit they are man haters it's just an invitation to get people to "relieve themselves", the problem is that if your mind is not polluted with misandristic (or whatever the topic might be) thoughts, you won't have much to offer.

 

When men are obsessed by women, and feel frustrated by their inability to get laid, I think the notion of women not feeling any kind of emotion for them is like rough seasalt being scrubbed into an open wound. A man starts a "women, you make me sick...do you hate me too?" type thread, and I think only two responses are acceptable to him. One is the warm, maternal, touchy feely one. The other is the angry, emotional one.

 

Scornful indifference is reviled...but the reality is that scornful indifference is often the most genuine response. Must we pretend to hate a person in order to make them feel more noteworthy? Or put on a fake show of caring, for someone who is nothing more than an invisible and antagonistic stranger on the Internet?

 

Sometimes I've read "angry with women" threads where something about the way the guy is expressing himself has touched something in me...and I've felt moved to respond in an empathic way. More often, it's just this hostile ranting that gives you a creeped out response. George Sodini, the guy who shot up a gym full of women because he couldn't get laid, was a regular on various Internet forums. For all we know, he could have frequented this one at some point - and probably did.

 

We're asked, by the champions of these crestfallen furies, to respond empathically to their fury. I'm not sure what that achieves. Some men will regard any demonstration of friendliness and empathy by a woman as a sign that she's sexually available to him. Get angered when it turns out not to be the case. "She friend-zoned me" or "she's a prick tease." Guys like that - the George Sodini "college aged, beautiful girls should be sexually available to me. They're not. I've been cheated by life.." ones, ....they truly are misogynists in the worst possible way. They're not interested in women in any capacity beyond sexual. They're not capable of relating to women in a friendly way, without wanting or expecting something more.

 

They rant and rail about "jerks" who manage to attract women, without realising that often these alleged jerks genuinely like women as people. Often have a lot of female friends. Don't want or need something from every woman they meet. Women can relax around men like that. The pressure to feel something for them isn't on, and sometimes it develops naturally precisely because there isn't that pressure and neediness emanating from them that tells you "feel something for me. Anything....just feel something."

[grogster]

Notice also how "women" are emptied of all individuality, personality and differences. Almost all sexually mature females of child bearing years, regardless of individual differences involving temperament, personality, class, etc., are lumped together as "Women."

 

In place of concrete individuals these Net Misogynists substitute every negative gender stereotype they can find to demean, insult and dehumanize women--especially, strong, independent, professional women.

 

As a result, individual women cease to exist replaced by the worst, most bizarre and negative stereotypes. What the Nazis first did to the Jews--classify them as outside of humanity, some Other--these Net Misogynists are doing to strong women who won't fu#k them and who talk back.

 

This is the New Sexism-- replete with anger, scorn,self-righteous rage and resentment, and enabled by Net anonymity and fueled by sexual grievance.

 

How many potential Sodinis are on these Boards?

Edited January 10, 2010 by grogster

[Taramere]

Notice also how "women" are emptied of all individuality, personality and differences. Almost all sexually mature females of child bearing years, regardless of individual differences involving temperament, personality, class, etc., are lumped together as "Women."

 

In place of concrete individuals these Net Misogynists substitute every negative gender stereotype they can find to demean, insult and dehumanize women--especially, strong, independent, professional women.

 

As a result, individual women cease to exist replaced by the worst, most bizarre and negative stereotypes. What the Nazis first did to the Jews--classify them as outside of humanity, some Other--these Net Misogynists are doing to strong women who won't fu#k them and who talk back.

 

This is the New Sexism-- replete with anger, scorn,self-righteous rage and resentment, and enabled by Net anonymity and fueled by sexual grievance.

 

How many potential Sodinis are on these Boards?

 

I dread to think. I was just PMing somebody about this. The Internet can be a great tool - for discussion, learning and entertainment. But it can also be a gathering place for some pretty disturbed individuals, who feed and enable eachother's skewed outlook.

 

Whether it's people wanting to normalise rape, child abuse or racial hatred....they're all out there, congregating in their little corners of the Internet and reassuring eachother that they're normal and healthy people who are simply oppressed, unfairly judged and victimised by social constructs. At the same time as they're railing against the rest of society as sluts, "AFCs", jerks etc.

[grogster]

I dread to think. I was just PMing somebody about this. The Internet can be a great tool - for discussion, learning and entertainment. But it can also be a gathering place for some pretty disturbed individuals, who feed and enable eachother's skewed outlook.

 

Whether it's people wanting to normalise rape, child abuse or racial hatred....they're all out there, congregating in their little corners of the Internet and reassuring eachother that they're normal and healthy people who are simply oppressed, unfairly judged and victimised by social constructs. At the same time as they're railing against the rest of society as sluts, "AFCs", jerks etc.

 

Musn't leave out sycophants.

[Sam Spade]

When men are obsessed by women, and feel frustrated by their inability to get laid, I think the notion of women not feeling any kind of emotion for them is like rough seasalt being scrubbed into an open wound. A man starts a "women, you make me sick...do you hate me too?" type thread, and I think only two responses are acceptable to him. One is the warm, maternal, touchy feely one. The other is the angry, emotional one.

 

Scornful indifference is reviled...but the reality is that scornful indifference is often the most genuine response. Must we pretend to hate a person in order to make them feel more noteworthy? Or put on a fake show of caring, for someone who is nothing more than an invisible and antagonistic stranger on the Internet?

 

Sometimes I've read "angry with women" threads where something about the way the guy is expressing himself has touched something in me...and I've felt moved to respond in an empathic way. More often, it's just this hostile ranting that gives you a creeped out response. George Sodini, the guy who shot up a gym full of women because he couldn't get laid, was a regular on various Internet forums. For all we know, he could have frequented this one at some point - and probably did.

 

We're asked, by the champions of these crestfallen furies, to respond empathically to their fury. I'm not sure what that achieves. Some men will regard any demonstration of friendliness and empathy by a woman as a sign that she's sexually available to him. Get angered when it turns out not to be the case. "She friend-zoned me" or "she's a prick tease." Guys like that - the George Sodini "college aged, beautiful girls should be sexually available to me. They're not. I've been cheated by life.." ones, ....they truly are misogynists in the worst possible way. They're not interested in women in any capacity beyond sexual. They're not capable of relating to women in a friendly way, without wanting or expecting something more.

 

They rant and rail about "jerks" who manage to attract women, without realising that often these alleged jerks genuinely like women as people. Often have a lot of female friends. Don't want or need something from every woman they meet. Women can relax around men like that. The pressure to feel something for them isn't on, and sometimes it develops naturally precisely because there isn't that pressure and neediness emanating from them that tells you "feel something for me. Anything....just feel something."

 

 

I agree with the above, but will point out that it under-emphasises the simple fact that the primary impetus for ment to seek women is sexual attraction. That's the premise, not the pathology. So, that is the problem - most men will be attracted to most women, even in the absence of any other type of connection. That's where the process/the problem begins, not before. Some men manage it better than others for sure and/or a just nicer people in general. But I will say this, and bash at will - it is extremely hards, of not close to impossible, for a man to project this nice, relaxed, and friendly attitude around women unless he's getting laid on a regular basis . And so a viscious circle begins...

[and.then.some]

I can spot a misandrist from a mile away yet most of them will deny it all day. They usually give the response that they love men or adore men which to me is like when racists say they have black friends. They claim not to hate men but when push comes to shove they show their true colors. What women here have the guts to be honest enough and tell us how they really feel?

 

I am wondering about this perceived hatred... Racist usually feel that the other groups are less than their own group. Of all people, their race is the best and the most important one. Similarly, men who hate women view them as things which are less important than men. This ranges from "they're not as smart and not as capable, but I sympathize" to "they're not as smart, not as capable, and they're usually a burden".

 

I haven't met a woman with this perspective.

 

I have met women who became somewhat embittered, for varying lengths of time, after having bad relationship/dating experiences. Women who become defensive, pessimistic, and overly protective of their own hearts and feelings are not the same as those who literally hate some other group of people.

[Taramere]

I agree with the above, but will point out that it under-emphasises the simple fact that the primary impetus for ment to seek women is sexual attraction. That's the premise, not the pathology. So, that is the problem - most men will be attracted to most women, even in the absence of any other type of connection. That's where the process/the problem begins, not before. Some men manage it better than others for sure and/or a just nicer people in general. But I will say this, and bash at will - it is extremely hards, of not close to impossible, for a man to project this nice, relaxed, and friendly attitude around women unless he's getting laid on a regular basis . And so a viscious circle begins...

 

I can appreciate that a man of a more shy temperament might be less relaxed around women. What isn't helpful is when entire threads (and message boards even) devote themselves to encouraging those men in the belief that their shyness is the fault of a feminised society, and that women are to blame for all their ills. Shy, socially awkward/awkward around women men existed long before feminism came along.

 

The philosophy that becoming an ********* is the way to be appealing to more women is a peculiar way for these men to go about the business of trying to improve their lives....but I think I see where it comes from. Confident, robust children will often bully their more withdrawn peers at school...so it's understandable that the connection between confidence and *********ry is made early on.

 

However, it's not the more *********ish aspect of those men that tends to be attractive to women. It's the confidence and the ability to be relaxed, that creates a fun environment. A shy ********* antagonising women in a bar, in the hope that they'll perceive him as a confident *********, will most probably get shredded by them - and any other men they know who are hanging around. Shyness is a very deeply rooted personality trait that isn't going to vanish by being rude to a bunch of strange women in a bar - or, for that matter, on a message board (I'm thinking of the "women you make me sick" thread).

 

I've no doubt that men often regard women primarily as potential sexual opportunities. A shy man who has had it drummed into him by his pet PUA site that he should hold on to that attitude and avoid being friends with women....but go out and have sex with a great slew of them, is being set up for further unhappiness. For a woman, when you're faced with a shy man who regards you in a sexually objectifying manner, it's a turn off on all levels. Sexual advances from a man who's socially awkward and giving off somewhat hostile vibes constitutes grade A creepiness.

 

I know the usual response to that is that it's "shaming", but that doesn't alter the negative impact a man like that makes on women. And I would add that the men who fall into this category (that I've met) are in a minority rather than being the average guy. But I do think this is the source for some of these really vitriolic threads. I'm not buying that it's the way the average guy thinks. I think that's a case of creepiness trying to normalise itself.

 

Lots of people are, of course, shy. A shy man who seems to genuinely like you, and who you click with (whether emotionally or intellectually or both) is a whole different ball game, but that's not what we tend to see on these threads. What we see is vitriol from men who are shy around women, obsessed by women - but only in terms of getting sexual and emotional needs fulfilled by women. We hear ourselves getting blamed for the shyness, the unhappiness and the frustration. Nagged by champions for the unlaid that we should be more empathic and understanding towards people who have zero empathy for us, and have no interest in understanding us beyond what it takes to get into our pants.

 

There's no reason for a woman to like and be drawn to a man like that, unless something about him appeals to her sexually, or she's entrenched in a mindset whereby she thinks all men are like that, and that it's better to be in a relationship with an angry drone than with nobody at all. Or if she's a sex industry worker, and he's got the cash to spend. Beyond that, where is the potential for any connection?

Edited January 10, 2010 by Taramere

[grogster]

I think that's a case of creepiness trying to normalise itself.

 

Beyond that, where is the potential for any connection?

 

If the Shack is any example, perhaps Grade A "creepiness" is the new norm, and we average folk are the outliers.

 

Perhaps this relentlessly creepy women bashing is simply "Revenge of the Creeps," playing at one's local public message board. And what we're all seeing is the dark side of frustrated males and their self-perceived powerlessness.

 

"If I can't fu#k you, I'll bash you online."

 

Whether done ironically or as a plea for female attention, it's toxic and detracts substantially from quality time spent online.

 

The bad can drive out the good over time.

 

As for "connection," that's not what these Net Misogynists are seeking. For them, it's all about belittling women and their male friends for their very own self-aggrandizement.

 

Sum zero, baby.

Edited January 10, 2010 by grogster

[Woggle]

If you ask me the way feminists talk about men is similiar to how Nazis talked about jews. A book like The Scum Manifesto is pretty much the Mein Kampf of the feminist movement. This is a boolk that is considered a classic amongst mainstream feminists.

 

Misandry is not in your face and upfront like much misogny is. Very often a woman can appear nice and friendly to a man's face and when he least expects the misandry comes out.

[Mary3]

I want a life sized Woggle Doll so I can throw darts in his eyes...

[Mary3]

I don't feel I am grumpy. I just tell it like it is and some people don't like it. The true irony is that I have what many men want yet I am told I am wrong for how I feel.

 

Woggle , how is your marriage doing ?