Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorrie coey who wrote (45086)	5/3/1999 11:29:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

There is no longer a "feminist agenda"... Tell that to the melon industry. dailynews.yahoo.com

To: lorrie coey who wrote (45086)	5/3/1999 12:20:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Only an insecure egocentric would need to claim that I am "wrong".>> Young males, who are thoroughly committed to a moral code with strong male role modeling and guidance represent an exception to this general truth. Only a neurotic wench would "disagree" with me.

To: lorrie coey who wrote (45086)	5/4/1999 2:55:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Lorrie, Lorrie, Lorrie... I don't know what I should do. In addition to telling me how wrong I am you state that, "Only an insecure egocentric would need to claim that I am "wrong"." So what can I do? I mean, this statement is, at least to some degree, true. It does require a certain degree of egocentricity and insecurity for a person to feel that they must brand another person as "wrong." That is at least a part of why I did it to you. Of course it's also, at least in part, why you did it to me. So that insecure egocentric part of me wants to take your post apart line by line, but there's also a part of me that wants to maintain the high ground and ignore it. And I like the high ground; the view's better. It's just that you are so wrong. I don't have any guilt. As a matter of fact, I strive to live in a state of karmic balance and manage to do a pretty good job of it. I would assume that you can't believe this, as it doesn't fit in with your rigidly sexist and reflexively derogatory conception of male behavior, but so be it. I recognize that there are bad men out there, but your blanket condemnation of the entire gender is obviously flawed. And it leads you to assume that men hold the same disdain for women that you seem to hold for men. In my own insecure egocentric case, you are wrong. I don't believe that women are powerless; I believe that such traditionally (and admittedly stereotypically) feminine traits as, oh say, compassion, acceptance, and mutual support are most common among those who have the least power. Regardless of gender, as the amount of power that one has and wields increases, the amount of compassion that one has and gives declines. That's all. So far you have managed to misinterpret and misrepresent virtually everything that I have said on this subject. I don't think that this is a deliberate thing on your part; I think you just can't help it. Allegorical digression: At one point in my life I owned and ran a picture framing shop. One of my relatively regular visitors and occasional customers was a guy who collected Rembrandts. Sometimes he would buy a Charles Russell or a Renoir, but mostly it was Rembrandts. Understand, what he did was buy original art, much of it painfully cheesy, then find hidden in the design itself the signature of the true artist, who was most often Rembrandt. Then he would bring these horrific amateurish second-hand store paintings in to show them to me and demonstrate why they were really unacknowledged works of great artists. His belief was that the artists would use a fake name in the traditional placement (for some reason I could never quite grasp), then hide their real name in the piece itself, much like the "Nina"s in a Hirschfield caricature. He would diligently show me where each letter was, across the sky or in the trees or what have you-- "See look, R... e... m... b......." Sometimes, if I really worked at it, I could sort of convince myself that this particular shadow under this cloud did look like an "R," but I could never follow it all the way through. But you know, I'm certain that to him, it stood out like a cowboy hat at a Shriner's convention. I'm certain that as soon as he looked at a given painting he didn't see the brushwork, he didn't see the composition, he didn't even see the colors. All he saw was the word "Rembrandt." I honestly think that this is illustrative of how you view the world. I think that everywhere you look you really do see obvious examples of "male Neurosis and Pathology, hatred and abuse...sexual objectification, disrespect and rape." But you haven't grasped that you see these things because you're looking so hard for them. And at least sometimes you see them when they aren't really there. It's a shame too. I think that if you really got to know me you'd find that I'm a fairly decent person. Y chromosome and all. I wish you the best, and I don't want to fight with you. If, however, you still want to label me, "egocentric" is a good one, as are "smug," "self-righteous," "condescending," and "sanctimonious." I'm sure that there are many others. But don't try to hang your sexist stereotypes on me, they just don't fit. Sincerely, Bob Lao-Tse

To: lorrie coey who wrote (45086)	5/4/1999 3:24:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 67261

An aside, on the subject of our generation: For those of you who have come in in the middle of this; I'm 35. So, apparently, is Lorrie. We've always seemed to be, as I've heard it described, the misplaced generation. There were not that many of us, and we grew up in troubled times. We were babies when the Kennedys and King were shot. We were too young to appreciate them, space flight or the Beatles. My first political awareness was Watergate. My only memory of Vietnam is the fall of Saigon. We came of age during the OPEC days, in the midst of recession. There was disco and casual sex, but we were too young for either one, and by the time we were old enough there was herpes and AIDS. Basically, we were too late for the sixties and too early for the eighties. We never really had an identity of our own. Then, in 1991, Douglas Coupland's book "Generation X" came out. Finally we had something that was about us. Granted, it wasn't much (McJobs and veal-fattening pens) but it was ours. Then it became a phenomenon. As always happens at that point, Madison Ave. got ahold of it, but when they tried it as a marketing tool, they found out what we already knew-- as a matter of fact, what the entire point of the book and the name was-- that we are a relatively small and passionless generation. So they aimed the generation X media blitz at the next generation after us, which is a larger and more robust group that came of age during the eighties. So, once again, we are the misplaced generation. But that's okay, I'm fairly passionless about it. -BLT