Well Sal, you said you like the train wrecks. You must be in hog heaven right now. Judy is completely hysterical.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > <snip> > > > It brought me to tears to know that you > > > understand completely how painful it was to have > > > witnessed such shameful, sexist, unrelenting, > > > abuse of the first American woman ever to make > > > such a powerful and historic bid for the > > > presidency. > > > > And these are the women who claim not to > > be "running on emotion." > > Raunchy, from another post: > > "I'll own that sexism is an emotional hot button > for me but it doesn't preclude my rational > abilities to recognize it, speak out against it > and defend Hillary or any woman against it." > > What we claim is that our intellects aren't > "fundamentally governed," as Rick put it, by > our emotions, not that we don't *have* strong > emotions. (Note once again Barry's deceptive > use of quote marks; "running on emotion" is > *his* phrase, designed to create a straw man). > > It occurs to me that men think emotions always > block rational thought because it's true of > *them*, so they assume it's true of women as > well. Not really their fault; the culture > tells them "real men" don't indulge in > emotion, so when they experience emotion, it > scares the pants off them. That crippling > fear of not appearing manly is what prevents > them from being able to think rationally *as > well as* having emotions. > > In contrast, the culture tells women that it's > OK for them to have emotions, so they don't > fear them. They're perfectly capable of having > both emotions *and* rational thought and of > distinguishing between them. > > > It's A YEAR LATER. And neither of them sees > > anything the *least* bit odd about still > > breaking into tears or into uncontrollable > > bouts of anger about something that happened > > to SOMEONE THEY NEVER MET. > > Barry has again failed to pay attention to > the very posts he's criticizing. Raunchy *has* > met Hillary. > > And Raunchy didn't weep because of what > happened to Hillary, she wept because she > felt I had understood her anger. > > Nor was either of us having "uncontrollable > bouts" of anger. Again, men are so terrified > of emotions that they perceive them to be > inherently uncontrollable. What you were seeing > from both Raunchy and me was *controlled > anger*. > > > But it's not the weepiness or the anger that > > astounding me...it's the HOLDING ON TO IT. > > > > I honestly don't understand how anyone who > > has been meditating for 30+ years can do that. > > It just doesn't compute. Did these women never > > heard Maharishi's "line through water" analogy? > > Have they never *experienced* it? I suspect > > that almost everyone else here has. We GET > > OVER THINGS. Why don't you? > > See, here's the tendency of the TM critics to > view everything in black and white. It doesn't > occur to Barry that it depends on the situation. > He assumes that if we haven't "gotten over" one > particularly strong emotion, it means we haven't > *ever* gotten over *any* emotions. > > But that, of course, isn't the case, and it's > regularly demonstrated in our posts as well as > in our personal lives. > > > As for "What was done to Hillary," welcome to > > politics. Stop being such a wuss. She isn't. > > IMO *most* of what was said about Hillary > > Clinton wasn't aimed at her at all. She's > > a strong old bat; it wouldn't have affected > > her. And unlike you two, she doesn't appear > > to hold grudges; she's beyond it. > > She's a politician; unlike us, she *can't* > appear to hold grudges. > > We don't see her in private, however. We don't > know what kind of effort she has to exert to > put on and maintain that grudge-free public face. > > (Note that Barry uses the term "grudge" as a > weasel word to suggest that whatever the > complaint is has no basis.) > > > The sexist taunts at Hillary were designed > > to make her *followers* crazy. And they worked > > like a charm. Nothing loses a female politician > > more votes than a bunch of women running around > > screaming hysterically, "They're playing dirty > > with my candidate," in a national election. > > Are you DERANGED? Playing dirty is a *synonym* > > for "national election." > > So Barry admits that sexism is "playing dirty." > Let's remember that. > > But the sexist attacks weren't just aimed at > her supporters. They were designed to upset her > and throw her off her game. They were also > designed to make her appear ridiculous in the > eyes of those who were on the fence about whom > to support (particularly men; the attacks were > intended to reinforce their own stereotypes of > women as incapable of being presidential). > > And of course, the sexism of Obama's supporters > and the right wing actually resulted in Hillary > *gaining* votes, not losing them. Many women > took a second look at Hillary *because* she was > being so viciously attacked. Like Raunchy, they > saw the sexism as an attack on women in general, > which inspired them to stand in solidarity with > her, to see her as their champion. > > Another point Barry misses is that this was the > first time a woman has ever actually had a chance > in a presidential election--indeed, was initially > favored to win both the nomination and the > election. This particular *kind* of "playing > dirty" was entirely new in a national election, > so it came as a very unpleasant surprise. It's > not that we didn't expect dirty tricks, it's that > we didn't expect *this* dirty trick. Progressives > *claim* to support equal rights for women, but > they showed they're all too ready to drop that > noble posture if they perceive it's to their > advantage to do so. > > <snip> > > It's the same thing here at FFL. Judy postures > > as a rational person, and yet LIVES for her > > grudges and acting out on them. John Knapp > > shows up here and posts and she loses it and > > starts trashing him as if their history were > > NOT history, and was yesterday. Same with > > Andrew Skolnick. Mention his name here, or the > > website (http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/) > > he created for Judy, and she goes ballistic, > > *while* claiming that she sees the site as some > > kind of "badge of honor." > > No, she doesn't "go ballistic," not by any > stretch of the imagination (except for Barry's, > of course, which is infinitely flexible). He > brings up Skolnick, in fact, more often than Judy > does. Nor does she "lose it" when Knapp shows up. > > Barry apparently doesn't feel that a person's > history should ever be taken into account, at > least not where TM critics are concerned. But > of course he's the first to cite history-- > including Andrew's old Web site--when he wants > to bash TMers. > > With both Knapp and Skolnick, it isn't *my* > history with them that's at issue; it's their > own history as dishonorable TM-bashers. Trancenet > is still up and running, of course, and Andrew > not long ago participated in attempting to get > as much TM-bashing as he possibly could into > Wikipedia's pages on TM and Maharishi. So it's > not as if either of them has turned the page. > Their history is as relevant now as it's ever > been. > > Do we see Barry dumping on Knapp and Skolnick > for *their* longstanding grudges against TM? Of > course not. Do we see Barry acting out his own > longstanding grudges against TM/MMY/TMers/the TMO > virtually every day? Of course we do. > > It's the hypocrisy, stupid. > > > And you, Raunch? You're going along fine, being > > funny and writing your poetry, and someone men- > > tions Hillary Clinton and you drop back into > > "rant mode" and start acting out ALL of the > > negative stereotypes any man ever had about any > > woman. > > Mentioning Hillary wasn't what triggered it. It > was Rick's "Boo Hoo, Hillary lost," when Raunchy > hadn't mentioned Hillary at all; she was criticizing > Obama. Barry and others have done the same thing > to me when *I've* criticized Obama. > > Isn't it interesting that these purportedly > rational men (and one would-be rational woman, > i.e., Sal), when confronted with criticism of > their idol, immediately go into vicious ad > hominem mode rather than actually addressing the > criticisms? > > Human beings have emotions, thank goodness. Women > experience them fully and acknowledge them, own > them; men deny them so as not to appear unmanly. > But their emotions come out anyway. They just come > out sideways. > > > Here's a hint: If you really do care about ending > > the negative things that men say about women, as > > Willytex says, "DON'T FEED IT." How can you expect > > men to "take you seriously" when you don't act in > > a way that CAN be taken seriously? > > It's long past time for men to recognize that > women's emotions are valid and valuable, that > they don't preclude rational thought. It's long > past time for men to realize that having emotions > and expressing them is not a basis for not taking > a woman seriously. That's part of the stereotype > they need to discard, just as they need to > discard the stereotype that manly men don't have > emotions. > > It's also long past time for men to stop pointing > fingers at a woman's emotions as a way to dismiss > her rational arguments that they're unable to > address. > > How can you > > expect us to understand your anger at portrayals > > of women as overly emotional and tending to hold > > onto grudges for years when you act overly emotional > > and hang onto grudges for years? It's like a child > > saying, "I am NOT 'throwing a tantrum.' And I'm > > going to sit here and pout and hold my breath until > > my face turns purple and until you stop saying that > > about me." > > Actually it's like saying, "You punished me for > something I didn't do, and I'm going to object > until you realize you were wrong, because if I > don't, you're going to *keep on doing it*. You > don't get to sweep your injustice under the rug." > > To quote Raunchy one more time: > > "I'll own that sexism is an emotional hot button > for me but it doesn't preclude my rational > abilities to recognize it, speak out against it > and defend Hillary or any woman against it." > > > What I don't think you understand is that a number > > of us here LIKE you when you drop all this emotional > > and samskaric attachment to things in the past and > > just live in the present. The woman who does that > > and is able to be funny is a delight. It's the one > > who keeps throwing tantrums and claiming she isn't > > doing it we laugh at, rather than with. > > See, Raunchy, as long as you just keep being cute > and sweet and funny and don't bring up anything that > makes the men uncomfortable, they'll tolerate you and > even give you a pat on the head once in a while. > > I mean, you're likable enough. >
