November 12, 2007

"Why is it that a thing like that — watching a bottle melt in a fire — is such a guy thing — so fascinating for us, so incomprehensible to women?"

John Derbyshire wonders. But let me offer him another way to ask the question: "Why is it that a thing like that — watching a bottle melt in a fire — is such a guy thing — so fascinating for us, so incomprehensible to women who are married to guys like us?"

I got to that blog post through Andrew Sullivan, who doesn't comment but seems to male-bond with Derbyshire, who finds a mental resting point at: women are unknowable.

93 comments:

former law student said...

Having studied women all my life, I'd say because they have stuff that needs to get done, and that only guys have enough free time to spend staring at a bottle melting.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trooper York said...

Yes woman are unknowable, simply to be cherished and adored. The same species but a whole different animal. Don't try to understand, because you never will. Just know that a kind word and an unexpected gesture of love can bring contentment and joy to your relationship. Embrace the differences and enjoy the areas of confluence. Know that it takes two parts of a circle to make a whole, the man and the woman. It is joy when the two pieces fit and you roll along through life, content and fulfilled.

Gahrie said...

I hate to break it to you folks...despite the fforts of many over the last 40 years, the truth has become more and more obvious.....men and women are fundamentally different.

Simon said...

"Sullivan ... seems to male-bond with Derbyshire, who finds a mental resting point at: women are unknowable."

Well, how would Sullivan know? If he ever tried, he clearly gave it up as a bad job some time ago!

Simon said...

Gahrie said...
"the truth has become more and more obvious ... [that] men and women are fundamentally different."

Well, different, certainly. I don't think one has to be TC to agree with that, and there's a wonderful book by Barbara and Allen Pease that talks about some of the physiological roots of those differences. But different by no means detracts from equal, as the TCs of the world would have us regress to.

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

The first thing is the action, from the post, was not watching a bottle melt, but testing scientifically, if it WOULD melt- two completely different things.

If these guys get together every weekend to watch a bottle melt, then that's just weird; but once, to test a new urban myth...

Which of course brings up the show Mythbusters- which my sons and I watch religiously, and my wife avoids like mortal sin. One conversation went like this:

"Why do you like this show" she ask "All they do is blow things up and destroy stuff."

My response: "Well, duh; that is exactly why we like it."

The other end of the spectrum is How Its Made, which spends a half hour (or more if I'm lucky) putting things together; another show my wife avoids.

To me, this is a basic difference between men and women; men love to know how and why things work, and women are more concerned with how and why people work, relationship wise.

Which is why Soap Operas are still, for the most part, a female addiction.

ricpic said...

Maybe woman's unknowability is a myth, a male ploy to keep the ball in play, so to speak. For without illusion.....

rhhardin said...

Derrida's _Spurs_ is a good read through Nietzsche (skip the preface) on women. He was of the ``they're different'' school.

James Thurber ``The Feminine Types'' in _Is Sex Necessary?_ :

``Indeed, it is one of the unfortunate handicaps to psychological experimentation that many types of women do not lend themselves readily to purposeful study. As one woman said to me, `It all seems so mapped out, sort of.' ''

George said...

"The answer may be in this new book I've just started: Bernard Chapin's Women: Theory and Practice."

One look at the mug on the broad on the dust jacket and you know John Derbyshire ain't finishing that book.

Ann Althouse said...

former law student said..."Having studied women all my life, I'd say because they have stuff that needs to get done, and that only guys have enough free time to spend staring at a bottle melting."

I have to repeat myself. Those are the women who are hanging around with a guy like you. Sounds like you're not doing your share of the housework.

Simon said..."'Sullivan ... seems to male-bond with Derbyshire, who finds a mental resting point at: women are unknowable.' Well, how would Sullivan know? If he ever tried, he clearly gave it up as a bad job some time ago!"

Look closely at my quote. Sullivan male-bonds with Derbyshire. My theory is that AS is attracted to JD precisely because JD confirms his preconception that women ought to be kept at a distance. (And I by no means am ascribing that mindset to gay men in general.)

I want people to face my point, which is that men are observing the women who are adapting themselves to the ways of men. JB describes the women congregating in the house, puttering around, while the men watch TV. Not all women accept that sort of life, so he's only observing the ones who do.

rhhardin said...

Emma Goldman : If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

rhhardin said...

Vicki Hearne on women and math (how come no women in the math department?)

Maxine Weiss said...

musn't criticize someone who's just making an innocent observation.....

No agenda whatsoever.....

christopher said...

I find it more than a little bit interesting that Ann seems totally unaware of the fact that Derbyshire is a notorious misogyist and all around bigot whose opinions are often so trologdytic that the rest of the knuckledraggers at NRO have to disavow them publically.

Sadly, No! Research Labs said...

Because you get 14 comments for a stupid-ass boilerplate post, while we get 150.

Because our commenters are fascinating in themselves as well as in what they say.

Whereas, yours are warm oatmeal to make you feel good.

Sorry; I'm just making stuff up here.

Freeman Hunt said...

Ann is right. I'm sure I'm not the only woman who read that and thought, "Hmmm, have to throw a plastic bottle on the next campfire to watch it melt..."

christopher said...

Sadly, No! Research Labs said...

Because you get 14 comments for a stupid-ass boilerplate post, while we get 150.

Because our commenters are fascinating in themselves as well as in what they say.

Whereas, yours are warm oatmeal to make you feel good.

Sorry; I'm just making stuff up here.


Well, that made me laugh.
:-)

Chip Ahoy said...

Disagree with the premise, don't accept the conclusion. Sorry.

The women I know do like watching bottles melt, at least I suppose so, never asked. They would also not mind watching the clothes tumble, or watch a pizza bake or burn plastic army men from a second story window. I was delighted to learn Georgia Okeefe liked to observe fruit rot, which involved having rotting fruit around, a thing that really annoyed a friend of mine. The women I know also jump in with examining why a vacuum cleaner stopped working, realign their own headlights, and change a tire or put chains on. The tires, not themselves.

I do believe Ann is right, he's making observations about the kind of women who hang around men like the observer long enough to have conclusions drawn about them, like unwillingness to watch glass melt. It's a mistake to ascribe that trait to the entire female persuasion, whatever, and unusual for someone generally narcissistic to leave himself out.

former law student said...

Ann, no, I am clearing the table, scraping plates, and loading the dishwasher. But, I have been to gatherings where the women have it all under control, and the men are simply underfoot, as well as to gatherings where the guys are killing time while the hostessing is going on.

former law student said...

I want people to face my point, which is that men are observing the women who are adapting themselves to the ways of men.

I had to laugh at that one. Husbands have to adapt to their wives' expectations of them -- that way no one gets hurt.

zzRon said...

Althouse said..."JB describes the women congregating in the house, puttering around, while the men watch TV. Not all women accept that sort of life, so he's only observing the ones who do."


Agreed. I was married to a gal who had little if anything in commom with most of the women who were in our lives (or our life together). Of course though, she never knew her mother and was raised totally by her dad. I can foundly recall many a night when we sat by a campfire throwing in all kinds of odds and ends...just to see what would happen. She enjoyed it more than I did.

Also, maybe if the gals JD spoke of were outside downing a few (or more) beers, they would have a better understanding of the fun they were obviously missing :-).

Daniel said...

Ann is on the right track, Derbyshire's observation has more to do with the kind of women hanging around guys like him. When we are camping, my wife is the one to toss an empty wine bottle into the fire. And its my daughter that will be making sure the coals are well banked around the bottle so as to speed up the process.

Revenant said...

I'd say because they have stuff that needs to get done, and that only guys have enough free time to spend staring at a bottle melting.

In my experience, the stuff that "needs to get done" that women spend their time doing and men don't is usually stuff that the men in question don't care about. For example, my shelves are dusty. The reason my shelves are dusty is that I do not care if there is dust on my shelves. My mother's shelves are shiny and clean, because dusty shelves give her fits. My coffee table has a small pile of books on it, plus three Matchbox cars of unknown origin that have been there since I had a party five months ago. I am fully confident that, had I a wife or a live-in girlfriend, those books would have been spirited away to some bookshelf somewhere and I'd be wandering the house asking "where the H E double hockey sticks is my copy of 'The Selfish Gene'?". And who knows what would have become of the Matchbox cars. But my attitude is that I'll move the stuff when I need space on the coffee table.

So it isn't a matter of having stuff that needs to get done. Its a matter of not having the time to do all the stuff you feel you need to do.

christopher said...

So nobody, let alone Ann, cares that Derbyshire is a notorious misognynist and all around bigot whose views are so repugnant that his colleagues at NRO frequently disavow them?

I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you.

jeff said...

She mentions that AS has found common ground with John Derbshire. What makes that odd? After all they are so much alike and have so much in common. WAIT! Thanks to christopher we know now they don't. Well. That changes the entire tone of the piece. Also, did you know Hitler was a vegetarian? Anyone know if christopher is a vegetarian? Cause if he is, that makes him Hitler and we can then disregard every single thing he says. Hey, no one wants to agree with Hitler.

Ann Althouse said...

former law student said..."'I want people to face my point, which is that men are observing the women who are adapting themselves to the ways of men.' I had to laugh at that one. Husbands have to adapt to their wives' expectations of them -- that way no one gets hurt."

Well, clearly, I think there are men -- notaby, Andrew Sullivan -- who don't try to adapt to women. My post is mostly about how Sullivan snapped up the confirmation. But sure, there are men who stay out of relationships with women, and the commentary we have about men and women mostly comes from the men and women who get into relationships with the opposite sex. But what of those who don't? Some, like AS, are homosexual, so it's good news to hear that men and women are incompatible. Others are not, however, and it's much more of a problem.

Gahrie said...

Derbyshire is such a bigot that he married a Chinese woman.

christopher said...

Jeff said...

Hey, no one wants to agree with Hitler.


You might want to run that one by Cedarford....

Bruce Hayden said...

Interesting that I stumbled into this reading The Corner about the time that Ann was linking her way there.

In any case, it was one of those observations that are priceless. I think that a poster above had it right, that men (in general) like to see how things work and women (in general) prefer seeing how people work.

I didn't read it as misogynist, male superiority, etc., but rather as a comment on the basic differences between the two sexes.

And, maybe it works the other way too - the women in the piece seemed at least as mystified by the men and their bottle melting as the men did about the women.

Revenant said...

Derbyshire is a notorious misognynist and all around bigot whose views are so repugnant that his colleagues at NRO frequently disavow them

Its Notorious Misogynist Theme Week here at Althouse -- Derbyshire, Mailer, Vonnegut, she's covering all the classics.

ricpic said...

Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized.
--Adolph Hitler.

Makes sense to me.

TitusRK said...

I don't know any men that like to watch a bottle melt and I don't know any women who congregate in the kitchen. I am including my family which includes 3 sisters and many wonderful male girlfriends and real girl girlfriends.

JD is a bigot. A good word to describe him would be curmudgeon (sp?). He is not very pretty either. Not really doughy but more on the "invisible" end of the attractive spectrum.

Oh and he is a sexist and homophobe so it is interesting that AS seems to have a soft heart for him. Maybe it's the British equation.

I happen to like AS. He is very much a drama queen but think he is a decent person. I used to see him quite a bit in Ptown many years ago and he was very hot at that time. Now, he has become a bear and bears scare me a little.

I like the fact that he is not an idealogue-which are the most boring people in the world.

In his 20's though wow, he was very cute.

rhhardin said...

Stanley Cavell puts the difference in what lunacy each sex is susceptible to.

Guys fall prey to skepticism, driven by an interest in knowing beyond the human conditions of knowledge ; which turns up all over in Shakespeare.

Women fall prey to fanaticism, driven by an interest in love beyond the human conditions of loving. I guess it shows up in soap operas, and in what happens in you miss a valantine's day or an anniversary.

The chief thing to take away, I think, is that their interests differ ; what holds their interest differs.

That shows up in occupations.

The guys have to know whether a bottle will melt or not ; it's a natural interest if the question is posed. Here's something we can resolve! Let's do it!

Just as, in math and science, guys come in and work weekends and holidays, because they like it, they prefer it to a social life ; and women do not.

What a disappointment! The guys heard there would be women to talk to about math, ``would that be great or what?'' and all they got in the end was qualified women who wound up in charge of the women's issues committee at work.

So now it comes around that maybe there's a reason for this. The guys went back to the math problems and more or less forgot about it, except for the mandatory consciousness raising meeting that comes up every year, a continuing relic of headier social engineering times.

Beth said...

Don't go to Nietzsche and Thurber for anything other than the "Women! I don't get 'em and often I don't like 'em!" analysis. That being said, Thurber is one of my favorite storytellers.

Ann's right. The women these guys know are the ones that they're convinced don't get their "guy" things are the ones they know and marry.

Mythbusters is a great example. What explains the women in that studio who so enjoy their work? It's been my experience that women like to know how things work, too. We take stuff apart, put it back together, fix stuff, mod stuff, craft stuff.

XWL said...

I'm amazed Mr. Sullivan didn't turn Mr. Derbyshire's observations into an excuse to rant about torture.

What Sullivan really wanted to say:

"Derbyshire, just like all neocons, and theocons, have a need to destroy, to defile, to disfigure anything that which is different from themselves. In taking their cues from the Bush Administration, they not only take delight in despoiling the already degraded environment by using logs to heat their home like some primitives, but rather than be embarrassed by the act they revel in it. Furthermore, it doesn't take a great leap to get from melting beer bottles, just to see what would happen to waterboarding captured terrorists, just to hear them scream. . ."

Personally, I've never understood the "women in this room, men in the other room" mode of gatherings. The first I experienced was when I dated a Russian girl in my late teens/early twenties. I prefer mixing it up, personally.

And as far as melting beer bottles, good times, good times, I've done that more than a few times on holiday camping trips to a state park.

amba said...

Well, here's another woman voting for watching the bottle.

Have you ever tried melting a plastic fork?? It's so cool -- it writhes and curls up like a live hand in agony!

amba said...

Here's another question: are the women who like watching the bottle melt the same ones blogging?

jeff said...

"Jeff said...

Hey, no one wants to agree with Hitler.

You might want to run that one by Cedarford...."

Dammit christopher. I was all ready to lob back whatever your response was and you give me a that. Something that not only do I agree with, but is actually pretty clever.

christopher said...

jeff said...

Dammit christopher. I was all ready to lob back whatever your response was and you give me a that. Something that not only do I agree with, but is actually pretty clever.
<

That's gracious of you to say so.

TitusRK said...

Wow, some of you have gone camping at a state park. That is so foreign to me.

What is that like? Where do you shower? Are their communal showers-that could be kind of hot.

What about outfits, what do you wear? Where do you eat? What about (real) bears not (gay) bears? What if you have to go poopie? So many questions. The thought of it is appealing but if I saw one mosquito or tick or bear or skunk I would be out of the woods and on my way to the nearest fabulous little B&B, with complimentary breakfast, fabulous 400 count egyptian sheets and fierce nightlife nearby.

Liam said...

Man, you need to look back a bit.

Sullivan used to hate Derbyshire. This was due to the fact that Derbyshire is an unalloyed paleo-con, and writes to that effect all the time.

Sullivan used to spar with Derbyshire regularly due to Derbyshire's distaste for the war in Iraq back when Sullivan was infatuated with Bush.

Now that the blush is off the rose so to speak between Sullivan and Bush, Derbyshire has seemingly found parole with Sullivan.

If you want to see some fun feudin', find the blog threads between Andy and John regarding "spotted dick".

jeff said...

"That's gracious of you to say so."

Hey, maybe opposite sides on everything, but I try to give credit.

amba said...

The generalizations flying around here are really suffocating.

The people I know don't fit these neat dichotomies. There's no question there's a difference, but every attempt to define it winds up sounding trite, smug, and normative, like it's meant to shut us up in neat little boxes again.

B said...

And Lawrence Summers lost his job as President of Harvard for what exactly . . . . ?

jeff said...

"Where do you eat? What about (real) bears not (gay) bears? What if you have to go poopie? So many questions. The thought of it is appealing but if I saw one mosquito or tick or bear or skunk I would be out of the woods and on my way to the nearest fabulous little B&B, with complimentary breakfast, fabulous 400 count egyptian sheets and fierce nightlife nearby."

Jesus Titus. Are you sure your not a female living in Dallas that I used to be engaged to?
I have heard all this before.
Some people can camp, so can't.
I tell you there's nothing like waking up in the morning and seeing the Warning sign about the bears right next to where you pitched the tent in the dark the night before. The bathroom in this particular case is behind any tree. No showers. However, I have camped where the showers don't have a roof and you can watch planes fly over.

TitusRK said...

Speaking of being out of my element. One time I went to Lewiston Maine and was giving a presentation at Bates or is it Bowdoin? I think it is Bates.

Lewiston Maine is in the middle of nowhere and is one of the most disgusting places I had ever been to.

I think it used to be an old manufacturing city and of course all of that has since closed. The city had a long main street and everything on the street was closed and boarded up with the exception of an adult bookstore and a headshop. There were two bars in the city and one was a gay bar. It was called "The Sportsmen". I thought to myself maybe I will meet some hot Bates student.

Wrong, the bar was next to a house that some people at the bar said once the bar closes the people in the upstairs bar shoot beebees at while you are leaving the bar-fun. And sure if enough when we left the guys were on the front porch of the second floor house next door shooting beebees at us while all the queens were screaming. I couldn't stop laughing.

In most larger cities each type of gays have their own bars (leather, old, muscle, bear, twinks, hos, ethnic, drag etc.). Not in Lewiston, it had one of each kind of gay. It was kind of weird. The leather talked to the drag which talked to the twink which talked to the bear which talked to the old which spoke with the ethnic).

I met the "mayor" of the gay life in Lewiston. Her name was "Montmarte". I kind of get into the underbelly of the gay world so this all fascinated me. "Montmarte" had an after hours party at her amazing home. It will this really old victorian house with big ugly oil paints and from what I remember a lot of vases, hummels, and sadly a ruby red slipper telephone-talk about cliche. Of course, I was there in a heartbeat. Montmarte lived with Jennifer who was a transexual and had huge tits. When we walked in the home it was like a scene out of Blue Velvet when Frank walked into the queens house and she sang Candy something or another. Sitting in the living room was Jennifer, who was probably 6 foot, blonde, with enormous tits, next to her was an african american mechanic who wanted to look inside the hood of my car, two illegal immigrants who didn't speak english but made motions with their hand and mouth like they wanted to give me a bj. Montmarte had all these little dogs running around the house that he told me dropped "presents" all around so I should watch my step. Montmarte played the piano and Jennifer sang Mr. Sandman, Send In the Clowns and Annie Get you gun while the illegal immigrants did backup dancing and the african american sucked on a bong the entire night.
At the end of the Annie Get Your Gun Jennifer took off her top and stuck her boobies into the african american's face.
Oh and Montmarte wore a wig, had white makeup on with bright red lipstick and was probably about 80 years old.

All and all it was a blast. I then went out to Denny's of Lewiston with this group. Talking about taking your life in your hands. Needless to say the only college students I seen were on the beautiful campus of Bates or Bowdoin-can't remember which one.

jeff said...

Hey Titus, it's like a David Allen Coe song.

"The leather talked to the drag which talked to the twink which talked to the bear which talked to the old which spoke with the ethnic)."

rhhardin said...

amba The generalizations flying around here are really suffocating.

The people I know don't fit these neat dichotomies. There's no question there's a difference, but every attempt to define it winds up sounding trite, smug, and normative, like it's meant to shut us up in neat little boxes again.


And why are guys shutting you up in neat little boxes, and why do you object?

If not exactly those differences in interests that the little boxes describe.

TitusRK said...

I don't know who David Coe is but I was in absolute heaven that night. Loving every minute although I was a little nervous going to the Denny's.

Whenever I now think of Lewiston I think of it fondly.

Revenant said...

It's been my experience that women like to know how things work, too. We take stuff apart, put it back together, fix stuff, mod stuff, craft stuff.

Nobody is saying women don't care about that stuff. Just that the average woman isn't nearly as interested in it as the average man. Your experience may differ, but that just means your experience is unusual.

tc said...

Funny thing Annie, you remove my posts AND the posts of people commenting on my posts. Sooo vain
-as if I have any need to compete with you. But occasionally I find a few before you remove tham.

Tsk,tsk, Annie,
Wake up and smell the coffee, my dear. And you and Maxine Weiss hurry up and send those vblogs of you both nude so I can write suitable poems about you.
Tom

jewsyonkersislam #438 Vibrators: women's pleasure...words too

You see, this woman (Bonnie, below) has posted her objections to what and how I write. But she, being a woman, is deluded. Someone also stole her dildo and she is pissed. Her wrist is sore from the workout she just put it through and she really NEEDS her dildo.

In addition, we have this boyo (Jeff, below) who says that "absolutely no one reads (my) stull" But check below to see some who do. And realize that what I write gives all these sexless old-maid law school graduates quite pleasurable wet dreams every night - as well as driving up the "hits" on Annie's blog.
A lot of my boys in the U.S. Intelligence, military (CIA,FBI,DIA... clerical... business... communities also approve of what I do, say, write... (although the clergy reads what I write while taking a cold shower).

A 1) Bonnie said..." Ann: I know this is your blog, but couldn't you start moderating comments and delete some of the above idiots? Truly, they are a waste of type." Maybe my work is doing some good. For it seems that "Bonnie" -a woman,fag or other degenerate- is pissed off at some of the verbal squabling it seems that some boys were doing ( and her ire came after my postings -which, of course, were designed to stir up these alleged "men" against feminism and feminists).

# 2) jeff said... " tc-really. What the hell? You know absolutely no one reads that stuff, right? I mean, dude. I have nothing against crazy people, but come on."
# 3) I say, " hey, dude, more than a few people read my "stuff" (see below). So wise up and read it yourself, for I pretty much guarantee that it will soon become "must" reading. Is you one a dem rump-riders, boy ? Cause I might be able to find a few dogs, pigs, hosses ... to ride yo ass."
4) peter hoh said... "tc, any thoughts about Lyndon LaRouche? " I dont know much about him, but what I do know long ago turned me against him. However, I do know an awful lot about China, Japan, Taiwan, India...as well as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Islam, the Mongols......
5) ZPS said... "TC, Send me a fully nude photo of yourself and I might pleasure myself while looking at it. You like gay guys, right? Love,ZPS" Hey boy, I dont deliberately dislike anyone -even dem dere faggots. But I be a fat old man. And you really want a dog or a pig or a hoss...to ride yo fat ass.
6) John Stodder said... " TC and LOS (Ann Althouse is LOS ?), sitting in a tree.." Annie has her vibrator, so what need has she for a man ?

B) jewsyonkersislam # 437 Revised and Amended Poetry in motion...in life ( see my blog: jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com)

To Ann Althouse: as Maxine Weiss has noted, " cognitive dissonance "
is mine. And it is a curse, a real physical pain in my head and another one of my numerous disabilities -courtesy of my Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) at the age
of 13 (followed by a 40 coma and then complete paralysis).
But I am a published poet. And I paint pictures with words...including of beautiful naked women (somehow the words just appear in my mind, especially when the women are sitting in front of me). And I'd particularly like to paint pictures of Ann Althouse and Maxine Weiss with words.
However, I also do other kinds of word-pictures. By staying back, words appear before me. See below how it works, for I am using comments from your blog to create actual pictures in the mind of the reader.

Discussion of Hillary and Bill Clinton on Ann Althouse's blog on 11-11-07

1) Bob said... " former law student said...Let's face it, if she were any good even as a fellatrix Bill would never have strayed off the reservation ". As I see it, gettin' a blowjob aint nuttin' to stickin' it in and ridin' dat horse.
" Poonhounds like Bill don't stray because of the skill of their wives (or lack thereof), they stray because they crave novelty. They want some strange, as Bill himself might vulgarly put it. " "strange" ? Shee-it man, dat be a new word, maybe one a dem used by dem sex-starved mid-western lassies who can only dream wet-dreams.
2) Simon said..." former law student said...'Let's face it, if she were any good even as a fellatrix Bill would never have strayed off the reservation.' Oh, that really is grotesque 'blame the victim' crap. Of course, Bill strayed because Hillary was in some way (specifically sexually) inadequate. Had nothing to do with him - if only she hadn't been inadequate, he wouldn't have needed to cheat." Now "Simon", he might be one a' dem mid-western lassies who aint got nuttin to live with but her wet dreams... and her despised but necessary dildo.
3) Ralph said..." She either isn't as smart as she would like us to believe, or wasn't as well prepared as everyone else was Or worse, she panicked. More likely, she called Bill the night before, and a woman answered." That's what ya gits with these stupid wimmen...they hate it but they love it. Dey aint no answer why.
4) tc said....." simon, is you a fudge-packer, a hump-thumper...? Because you sure sound like one of those tiny shrinking prick boys (unless it is "former law student")".... Blame the 'victim' say you" ? I say to blame feminism, for feminism has made all women into far greater "victims" than they've ever been. And if you be one of these rump-riders, I'd advise you to keep that conclusion to yourself -and whack-off in private. And dont disturb any other male party. 5) Clang!Honk!Tweet! -said she was getting married ,but not whether it was to a man or a woman OR what sex she (something makes me think that she IS a she, no matter how deluded she is because of feminist rot) was - said.... "Apropos of what john Stodder said..." You know we in NYC once had a fudge-packer named Stoddard; hope this boy Stodder aint one a dem hump-thumpers
6) Simon said... " Tom, that's simply adorable. No, I'm not a "fudge-packer" (I have no idea what a "hump-thumper" is, but I suspect it's a synonym for the former, in which case the answer's naturally no)." This boy Simon says he not be one a dem dere fudge-packers... but who can tell. I know the insides and outsides of women better than the back of my hand -but I have no desire to know the insides or outsides of another man (I've got enough problems trying to live with my own problems). Of course, as my wife once told me after sex, "women are sooo devious", so "Simon" could be one a dem dere mid-western dildo-users.
7) Simon said... " TC said...'This boy Simon says he not a be one a dem dere fudge-packers... but who can tell.' I suppose it's reassuring to discover that I've apparently been subtle enough about my opinion of our hostess' charms that there are at least some denizens of the Althouse blog who remain oblivious to
it."

C) tc said...Annie, ( Jerry Seinfeld,11-9-07) You can remove my posts all you want (see below). But it wont help, for you are only fighting/hurting yourself. Believe me, for I know...I have been "dead" and I carry that "death" with me always. Wise up beautiful, eh ?
Philosophically, Ann, as I see it, there are 4 ingredients to life and they fluctuate back and forth over time ( just as my father, a lawyer and a police lieutenant in NYPD intelligence [a US Marine who landed -first wave- with the 2nd Division at Iwo Jima in WW II, was shot to hell but went back with the first wave on Tarawa] told me, all of life is a pendulum, swinging from one extreme to another. And it is my belief that we are swinging away from feminism today):
1) survival (if we're dead, nothing else can matter to us as human beings)
2) contentment/comparison (basis of all human life)
3) motion/change/'eternal' present (life itself)
4) polygamy (something to fruitfully occupy women's lives)
Furthermore, we have gone too far towards the female direction (on the pendulum that swings between male and female) and correction is in order. With this in mind, I post the below...which, in time, will destroy the thought behind feminism, homosexuality, lesbianism...:

tc said... And, with some help..., I will use the "gender card" (11-9-07) to destroy not only Hillary, but feminism as well. See below:

tom said... Below you'll find what I posted above at about #40. The reason I post it again (about #60) is to illustrate how bad off we as a country -a world- are. Feminism has destroyed any backbone in men whatsoever. No one has commented on the fact that I have posited the near complete revision of civil rights in the USA -and the world. Because feminism has made pansies, wimps, faggots and worse out of all men in our once great country. Yesterday I met a Sunni iman from Lahore,Pakistan in Yonkers who could probably beat any one of you supposed American men either intellectually or physically because of his determination. As I see it -because of feminism- no man in America today has any idea what being a man means. And I call all you "men" perverts, faggots, queers, ass- wipers and worse. America's men today are worse than cursed women/ feminists because they are too lazy even to wipe their own asses.

POSTED EARLIER:
More to the point, do we (including women) want women anywhere other than at home with -and raising- their own children whom they have borne in their own wombs ? Who is going to pay for the retirement pensions of all the baby- boomers ? Young workers -far less numerous than in 1960s- are already highly taxed. Our politicians are afraid to touch Social Security because they'll not be re-elected. Public pension plans nation-wide are near bankrupt -and private pensions may be worse off. The die has been cast and the fight is upon us : Inter-generational warfare between all the aging baby-boomers who supported feminist nonsense and young -already excessively taxed- workers. Who do you think will win ? I very much doubt we old-timers will. And why has this occured/is this occuring ? It is one of the innumerable horrors wrought by feminism, a feminism which said that men and women are equal (such a dastardly lie), that women should work instead of having children, that abortion was a woman's "right" and so much other contemptible nonsense that I couldn't even list here; because life itself has been attacked by a feminism that only embraces death. And that is what Hillary Clinton and her equally foolish husband (whose cockmanship I highly esteem; as Hillary couldn't satisfy him, he found it necessary to get tit elsewhere -so even Hillary has been victimised by feminism) will bring to America and the world if she gets elected. As to Maxine Weiss, thank-you. You approve/ "like" my "cognitive dissonance"/poetry. And I note that the female genius, once a woman agrees with a man, is to do him better.Tom

a) Maxine Weiss said... http://www.last.fm/listen/user/YuleMaxine/playlist (I like your playlist, Maxine. And I hope to be singing in my church choir (tenor/ baritone) for midnight mass on Christmas Eve.
b) Ann Althouse said... Oh good lord.
c) Trooper York said..." When Federico Fellini was directing... in the bizarre world of freaks and demons" I say to my dear NYC tax attorney in NYC (a gayboy ? who knows), you really should re-assess your "freaks and demons" for you may be missing the ones who work with you...or the fellow you see in the mirror every morning -for such a status can come about without one being aware of it.
d) tc said(in reply to b), above)... "Oh yes, dear Ann, I am a Roman Catholic and I go to mass every Sunday/Saturday night. But I was also trained by the Jesuits, the Jews, U.S. Intelligence agencies... And I revere all of the above. You, Ann and your fellow feminists are going down, all the way down." Tom
Posted just after the above:
a) Pastafarian said... Man. They really are out there aren't they? Holy smoke.
b) EnigmatiCore said.. Why do I have "Psycho Killer" and "They're Coming To Take Me Away" alternating on my mental jukebox?

It just makes me laugh, these two posts above -in response to my post above
it. And it could and, perhaps, should, make me -and everyone else,as well - cry .
These two guys -girls who think they are guys or guys who think they are girls..- really date themselves; to the times of the Twilight Zone or the 70s-80s-90s. And thats whats wrong with our country/world. Everybody is stuck in the past, a past that never really was -because we never really understood the whole of the past. But which is affecting the present and the future disastrously.

8:51 PM
Delete

bill said...

plastic or glass? Of course plastic will melt, but for glass tto start slumping requires a temp of around 1200 F. Seems a bit high for a normal fire.

reader_iam said...

a woman,fag or other degenerate

Not sure why this one made me laugh so hard (normally, I wouldn't), except that I think it would be a great blog name and potentially a great blog in the hands of the right person or persons (no, not mine; don't have that type of satirical/whatever skill set etc.).

But can't you imagine?

downtownlad said...

In my experience, the stuff that "needs to get done" that women spend their time doing and men don't is usually stuff that the men in question don't care about. For example, my shelves are dusty. The reason my shelves are dusty is that I do not care if there is dust on my shelves. My mother's shelves are shiny and clean, because dusty shelves give her fits. - Revenant

So of course all women must be like that. Not. My fag hag is the biggest slob around. And she's mighty fine looking and has no problem getting laid. But she has zero interest in getting married and cleaning up after slobs like you, let alone clean up after herself.

Which proves Ann's point I believe. Just because you're mysogonist and choose to marry subservient women, doesn't mean that all women are subservient.

jeff said...

"Just because you're mysogonist and choose to marry subservient women, doesn't mean that all women are subservient."

That's what you think her point was, huh. Amazing.

knoxwhirled said...

Some random reactions:

Personally--though I'm a woman!--I would be interested enough to watch a beer bottle melt in a fire, 'cause it's cool. But I will admit that there's "guy stuff" that leaves me saying the hell?? Like when a friend of mine has his annual 4th of July pool party and all the guys want to shoot off bottle rockets... like, ad nauseum. Not so cool.

women are more concerned with how and why people work, relationship wise.

This is generally true, and often annoys me. Yet I am often guilty of it myself. What's more fascinating than people and what makes them tick? A vaccuum cleaner?? nope

But, I have been to gatherings where the women have it all under control, and the men are simply underfoot,

In my experience, women almost always take ownership of the domestic responsibilities, being much more particular about how the cleaning, etc. is done. But if it's a party and the guests aren't even offering to help clean up, that's a manners issue.

Revenant said...

So of course all women must be like that.

Please learn to read. Thank you.

Beth said...

Not sure why this one made me laugh so hard

reader, I'm laughing, too.

downtownlad said...

Revenant = Sexist, bigoted, pig.

No wonder he can't get laid.

downtownlad said...

Revenant = Sexist, bigoted, pig.

No wonder he can't get laid.

downtownlad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
former law student said...

In my experience, women almost always take ownership of the domestic responsibilities, being much more particular about how the cleaning, etc. is done. But if it's a party and the guests aren't even offering to help clean up, that's a manners issue.

Actually, some kinds of 'help' are not helpful. If I am doing the cleaning up w/o benefit of a dishwasher, people who are 'helping' me by stacking the plates are in fact doubling my work, by smearing the relatively clean plate bottoms with food residue. But how do I say "Stop! Don't do that!" without sounding horribly rude?

But now that I've had a couple glasses of wine, and before I do the dishes, I'm going to say the unthinkable about women. From time to time, discussing married life and the quirks of our beloved wives with other long-time husbands, sometimes I will think or even say out loud, "Are we married to the same woman?"

tc said...

Dont any of you fuckin' "men" realize that the male half of your brain has been co-opted by feminism and women. You all sound like fuckin prima-donnas.
Whew, you really stink !!!
Tom

former law student said...

tc: feminism gives women options. Before feminism women stayed with men often because they had no other choices: they had no marketable skills, they could not support both themselves and their children, their confidence was shot after a decade of submission to their men. Women often put up with being battered and with their children being abused because they relied on the breadwinner for survival. Nowadays, with the options provided by feminism, women stay with men of their own free wills, not because circumstances force them to.

Ralph said...

Nowadays, with the options provided by feminism
You mean, more options for middle class and educated women. Poor women have long worked outside their homes, with or without husbands to support.

Women who put up with abuse were almost always abused as children, or watched their mother be abused.
Women who weren't, don't usually put up with it, such as Gerald Ford's mother.

reader_iam said...

This one's for you, TC.

(Couldn't find a video of the actual group doing it, so opted to go with just the song uploaded over the albums cover; but I must say that there's some fun, related stuff at both YouTube and Google video.)

Take good care of what you've got
My father said to me
As he puffed his pipe and baby B
He dandled on his knee
Don't fool with fools who'll turn away
Keep all good company oohoo oohoo
Take care of those you call your own and keep good
company

Soon I grew and happy too
My very good friends and me
We'd play all day with Sally J
The girl from number four
And very soon I begged her
Won't you keep me company?
Oohoo oohoo oohoo oohoo
Come marry me for evermore
We'll be good company

Now marriage is an institution sure
My wife and I our needs and nothing more
All my friends by a year by and by disappeared
But we're safe enough behind our door

I flourished in my humble trade my reputation grew
The work devoured my waking hours but when my time
was through
Reward of all my efforts
My own Limited Company
I hardly noticed Sally as we parted company
All through the years in the end it appears
There was never really anyone but me
Now I'm old I puff my pipe but no one's there to see
I ponder on the lesson of my life's insanity
Take care of those you call your own
And keep good company


****

For the rest of you (Beth included), what can I say? This the first of the number of songs which popped into my head at the time of my first comment (9:13 p.m.), and which I dialed up accordingly.

former law student said...

Ralph, what are you saying?
"Poor women have fewer options after feminism than before"?
Or "Poor women have no more options after feminism than they had before"?

Do you have support for either of those two remarkable assertions? I would submit that after feminism, for example, poor women could enter the building trades, which pay wages far higher than serving breakfast at a diner.

reader_iam said...

Clicking over to hear the song (the instrumentals and arrangement in particular) sorta matters, by the way, if you're not familiar with the reference.

reader_iam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
reader_iam said...

Former law student:

I daresay he's referring to the idea that poor women have always had to work harder, and that a choice of even relative leisure was more elusive. (Think farmers' wives/daughters [for example, a grandmother of mine], for one instance; or pioneer women, or even women, born of immigrants living in New York slums, who dropped out of school before, for example, 8th grade to get work in factories to support their younger siblings and worn-out or alcoholic parents [for example, my other grandmother]. And there are a whole host of others.).

Don't make the mistake of thinking I don't appreciate feminism. Don't make the mistake that I haven't read the literature. Etc. Etc. Etc.

But ALSO, please, don't make the mistake of thinking that there wasn't a real complexity about the course of feminism over the course of the last century, and even that Most Notable Time Of Feminism (as we, culturally, now tend to think of it) between 50-ish and 30-ish years ago, and thereafter.

And yeah, babe, the culturally un- and in-elite sorta got left out of that paradigm in at least some significant ways--the opportunities to go into some so-called hard-hat professions, in some places, for some women, assuming that suited their skill sets, abilities, circumstances, & etc., notwithstanding.

(Feel free to shoot me for my inconvenient observations and notions, btw: np. You're years too late, to have much purchase, though.)

reader_iam said...

Before feminism women stayed with men often because they had no other choices: they had no marketable skills, they could not support both themselves and their children, their confidence was shot

This has been eliminated?

Women often put up with being battered and with their children being abused

You think this isn't still happening?

Nowadays, with the options provided by feminism, women stay with men of their own free wills, not because circumstances force them to.

What utter and complete bullshit, as a sweeping statement.

Excuse me, how old are you? Sorry--wrong question. Ageist.

Let me rephrase: What real life experience do you have? I'm not asking a personal question here (your business is your business). I'm asking you how much diverse experience do you have with women across the (various) spectrum(s), and across age cohorts

Shorter, and ruder: Are you just about the theoretical shit, or what?

reader_iam said...

What's with the pin-drop, folks?

Figures.

former law student said...

let's see what just happened here:

tc says that feminism has emasculated men (more or less).
I say that feminism is good because women stay with men out of their own free will and not from bare necessity.
ralph says feminism is inadequate because poor women never stayed with their men, or something -- I don't see how his point takes away from my assertion.
reader iam agrees, saying hah -- feminism is inadequate because some women still stay with their men out of bare necessity. Basically, "I got your feminism right here, baby" (crotch grab optional).

I still think feminism was good for women as well as men, by providing women the means of earning a good living. As an example: Pre-feminism: Sandra Day O'Connor offered a job as a legal secretary. Post-feminism: Sandra Day O'Connor offered a job as Supreme Court Justice.

reader_iam said...

reader iam agrees, saying hah -- feminism is inadequate because some women still stay with their men out of bare necessity.

No, that's NOT what I said.

Basically, "I got your feminism right here, baby" (crotch grab optional).

Bullshit. And what's with crotch-grab thing? Explain that, in detail, as to the symbolism and reference, in terms of what it means to you, and what you're imputing to me, and what specifically it is that you think I believe that would make you comfortable in saying such a thing.

I'm a little sensitive about crotch-grabbing metaphors. 'Cause, well, I know something 'bout that. And I ain't no Stockholm Syndrome survivor.

Speak up with confidence. State your accusations plainly.

reader_iam said...

I'm thinking you have no idea what just happened here.

Joan said...

Sorry, Reader -- very late to this party.

Here's another question: are the women who like watching the bottle melt the same ones blogging?

In my case: yes.

former law student said...

reader: I have no idea what you're talking about, other than you seem dismissive, nay contemptuous of the economic power that feminism gave women. And a well-known way to display contempt for something is to say, "I've got your Jacques Derrida right here," while grabbing your crotch.

reader_iam said...

, other than you seem dismissive, nay contemptuous of the economic power that feminism gave women.

Nope. I'm not. Not by a long shot. In fact, I think it birthed tremendous economic power to women. I celebrate that. I just don't think it was across-the-aboard, as revisionist history would have it.

And a well-known way to display contempt for something is to say, "I've got your Jacques Derrida right here," while grabbing your crotch.

Well-known among whom? (Speaking of feminism without borders. Ahem. Ahem!) That's not what I was talking about, nor did I bring it up. You did. How very exclusive.

Why is doing this in the fashion you've chosen so important to you?

reader_iam said...

I have no idea what you're talking about

And what does that inspire in you?

I don't know you, so I don't what "I have no idea" means for you.

I know what "I have no idea.. " does, and has, from earliest childhood, inspired in me, no matter what anybody else said, no matter who they were, no matter what.

Let me repeat: No matter what. No matter who(m).

Find out for yourself. Do the work. Try not to assume. In fact:

Assume less. Analyze more. Question your assumptions even more!

reader_iam said...

I do realize that's not how it works, for the record, generally speaking.

So. It. Goes.

Cedarford said...

I hardly agree with Hitler, Christopher.

You make the mistake of anyone criticizing influential Jews on the Left or Right doing things harmful to America deserve some immunity amulet from any criticism and anyone who crosses that line - like Casper Weinberger, Israeli historian Benny Morris, Christopher Hitchens, Noam Chomsky, George Orwell, Churchill - is per se - Hitlerite.

IMO, the immunity amulet is beyond it's past due date. If not, then other people who are powerful and who have "suffered" in the past as a function of their group identity - may not be criticized in the present.

Like the Muslims.
Like the Chinese.
Like the Irish.
Like the African Americans.

And anyone with a harsh word for say, the Chinese, like the Israelis, must be presumed to be bigoted/racist/oppressors..

Just as Russia is now celebrating the latest American traitor to be revealed - who was the source of massive amounts of classified info who gave away more than the Rosenbergs, GRU mole George Koval:

George Koval was born in 1913 to Abraham and Ethel Koval in Sioux City, Iowa, which had a large Jewish community and a half-dozen synagogues. In 1932, during the Great Depression, his family emigrated to Birobidzhan, a Siberian city that Stalin promoted as a secular Jewish homeland.

He was selected to become a spy based on his strong commitment that the Soviet version of communism was the best hope for his Jewish people. He was then returned to America and used his citizenship and American college training to plunder nuclear secrets from Oak Ridge, Dayton complex.

******************
On the subject of women being different, duh! Merchants and marketers focus their whole business since the dawn of time around that fact. The hawkers of fabrics in ancient Ur probably had different dies and cuts of fabric for sale to men and women based on what each sex wanted.
While it is true that some things are equally attractive (buttery soft Italian leather seats) and there is crossover and cultural differences that modify what the sexes want and individual exceptions to the "needs of the market" rules....merchants and marketers don't fail going for what the average man or women wants.
Women want to watch fireworks.
Men want to make them and set them off.
Women want clothes that set them off. They obsess about shoes.
Men want cloths that are comfortable and that "fit in" with their peer group, that do not set them above or below peers...and with can get a little dirty but not show it. Torture to a man is going with a woman who looks at 100 shoes and tries 20 on when he could be using the time better with a Nintendo Wii game.

George said...

Those guys watching that bottle melt?

At the time, they were cranking some Stones....

"Gold coast slave ship bound for cot-ton feels!!"

I was there.

We were drinking some Bud (long necks), eating some pepperoni pizza. It was alright.

(Everybody thinks the word is "fields," but it's not. It's "feels.") We all know what Mick's talking about. Ladies, too, that's why Mick is the total scamp.

Anyway, gotta go. Off to catch the 6:11. Honey, wash those dishes. Love you, miss you, kiss you...

rcocean said...

Cedarford, Read the NYT comments. Someone makes the excellent point that the USA government is still withholding information on Koval and even more spies. Here's a portion:

"We are asked to believe that George Koval, one of over ten million World War II draftees, "by chance found himself moving toward the bomb project." Then, despite being "a decade older than his peers, making everybody wonder why he was in the program,” Koval somehow received top secret security clearance. How could the background check have failed to reveal the eight-year gap in his resume while he was studying in the Soviet Union, and the fact that his parents were living in Siberia?"

The US Government knew about Koval after WW II; why are we just hearing about it now? The evidence points to someone else higher up in the Manhattan project who gave him access and turned a blind to security breaches. Who are they protecting?

Cedarford said...

rcocean -

There were 130,000 employed on the Manhattan project. Including some 40,000 troops. Being selected is still not high in probability - but the military did take intelligence and certain skills into account in likelihood that someone could be quickly trained for specialized tasks. Some college helped augment the odds further of being placed in a high priority program that needed people with the ability to go to a short school or training program and come out ready to be useful.

My grandfather was a German immigrant who was a 1st year dental student in the Naval Reserves after WWII started. He was activated - and based on test scores and his university studies of flouroscopy and knowledge of EMF devices "given" to the Army to work at MIT on the weapon that really won the war - radar.

Like Koval, he was older. 28-29 - but people forget in WWII they were drafting up to 35 year olds, and volunteers into their late 40s.

I don't know about the screening criteria. At the time, Russia was an ally. Being a Jew might have been a help, as it is unlikely that any security clearance screener would suspect a Jew of working with the Nazis..Many refugees from Europe worked in the Manhattan project.

A few of the refugees who were Jewish in the Manhattan Project DID have higher loyalty to the Soviets, communism, and later the State of Israel than the USA. Jewish refugee Klaus Fuchs was a collaborator with the Rosenbergs. Other Jews assisted the Soviets in different ways as moles inside the US government or media.
Ex-American Jews involved in classified work in WWII for America were later helpful to Israel's nuclear weapons and aerospace programs.

Why the US didn't disclose the traitor's name is perhaps more interesting. Perhaps FOIA requests will force disclosure why Koval's spying was kept concealed, and any others that have been swept under the rug. NO doubt there are others. Perhaps the reason for the silence is that there WERE people far higher up than Koval known to be connected to Koval that were too famous and too celebrated to impugne their good names.

Or maybe after the Rosenbergs, they wanted a lower profile about other Jews that betrayed the country AND escaped the consequences.

There was a whole movement for a while vehemently insisting the Rosenbergs and other Jewish communists were "victims" of intolerance and anti-semitism, and later a more successful one that sought to redeem their character and other "blacklisted" Jews - as victims of bigoted McCarthyites. Same argument was later used in the Jonathan Pollard movement - that he was a simple victim of anti-semites. Not so successfully.

Revenant said...

The evidence points to someone else higher up in the Manhattan project who gave him access and turned a blind to security breaches. Who are they protecting?

I don't think it is reasonable to rule out the possibility that the people doing the background checks were simply incompetent.

Ralph said...

fls, my point, besides stirring up trouble, was that feminism had less economic impact on poor or less educated/intelligent women--they were already in the work force, and law professorships weren't on their radar, anyway. The sexual revolution was often a disaster for them, however.

My great-grandmother ran a small town hotel/restaurant, and after her lazy husband died and it burned in 1904, she had her own hotel built and running in six months. She looks scary in photos from her old age. Growing up there, my grandmother learned very well both how to be nice to strangers and how to size them up.

former law student said...

feminism had less economic impact on poor or less educated/intelligent women--they were already in the work force

Yes, women were already in the work force -- the jobs they held were listed under Help Wanted - Female, not Help Wanted - Male. Guess which jobs paid more, for comparably skilled people (college grads vs. college grads; hs grads vs hs grads, etc.)?

The Exalted said...

john derbyshire...sounds familiar...oh right, he's the guy who called the victims at WVU cowards for not bumrushing a guy armed to the teeth.

nutters say the darndest things!

Methadras said...

Ann said...

women are unknowable.


No truer words have been spoken on this blog.

Methadras said...

Trooper York said...

Yes woman are unknowable, simply to be cherished and adored. The same species but a whole different animal. Don't try to understand, because you never will. Just know that a kind word and an unexpected gesture of love can bring contentment and joy to your relationship. Embrace the differences and enjoy the areas of confluence. Know that it takes two parts of a circle to make a whole, the man and the woman. It is joy when the two pieces fit and you roll along through life, content and fulfilled.


God, you are such a suckup... :wink:

The Exalted said...

cedarford,

you have a sickness

Trooper York said...

Methadras, don't be a playa hater baby. We all have our ways.