And of course, we all know jealousy isn't affecting their stance on this issue at all.

As for the commercial, the point was about a pair of sneakers that improves your butt, calves and thighs...so, wouldn't lingering over these body parts be appropriate? And the target audience for this product are obviously those who want their various parts looked at.

The informercials for ab-products feature guys and girls with great abs. Go figure. Perhaps we should try it with obese slobs in business suits.

And finally, were these women held at gunpoint and forced to do these commercials? If they want to showcase their bodies, even be objectified, that's their prerogative.

If you wish to objectify yourself, then be an objet d'art.

I hate the commercials because they are too easy. Want to sell something? Take a hot chick and put her tits and ass in a commercial and voila! It's boring advertising and it doesn't impress me at all. Nike is usually much more creative with their ads...

Asics shoes are the best for running anyways!!

This video points out why feminists are wrong to object to the objectification of women.

The whole clip is good, but if you just want the rant skip forward to 4:28

Stephen King spells it "tiddies". A Southern pronunciation helps.

Do all 20-ish women strive to have the butts shown on these videos ? The butts are not round, appear small and boy-ish, and are not feminine. Call me old fashioned, but I still like curves on women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKGK2fplV_w

Dont knowwhat happened to the link

Limbaugh's Undeniable Truth of Life #24:

Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.

This is why the shrieking harridans complain. Envy is such an ugly emotion.

Does the picture of Ann Coulter have any significance , other than simple advertising, on your blog? If I may ask do you allign yourself with any/many of her political, and LIFE beliefs (other than self promotion) ?
As I read your column in the Lima News, I often wonder why you try so hard to be clever, witty, or just verbose. (Not sure if one can be verbose in print?)
Your advise has to go over the head of many readers.
I do enjoy your wit though.
Bye,..

@pandaman-

Amy's "advise"(sp) is not aimed at marginal thinkers.

And I'd be willing to bet that everything you know about Ann Coulter is wrong.

Not that it stops you from having an opinion.

OK, I watched the commercials. The first one - WHERE'S THE BEEF (I mean butt..).

The second one, though - HUBBA HUBBA!

Apparently, the only people allowed to belittle and objectify women are feminists.

Feminism (a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women) had some significant role to play in obtaining women equal political rights in the form of the vote, rape shield laws, awareness of more ugly gender bias that existed, etc.

Now ardent, active political feminists (such as those who gripe about ads) are like a bunch of people hanging out at the Jonas Salk institute 20 years after the polio vaccine was introduced: the talent left to do good work elsewhere, leaving hacks who keep talking about a time of crisis over 20 years past.

Men objectify women; women objectify...themselves!
=========================
Thank you. I have told people this before when they get on this soap box of men objectifying women. No one is holding a gun on these women and they are getting paid for it. Why not go after the women. Are these women so stupid they don't know what they are doing? No. And the media alaways portrays woman as smart and man as dumb. Make up your mind!

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head Amy.

I have to admit I was confused by the second commercial... it seems to be wryly pitching the product to men, but the target audience for the product is clearly women. Do women really catch other women staring at them, and do they react to it the same way as when they catch men staring at them? Or did I just miss something?

Spartee, I'm afraid you've hit on the truth of the eventual fate of all civil rights movements. The movement has basically accomplished all of its major goals. That done, the leaders from the movement's heyday, the people who did all of the hard work and heavy lifting, have long since gone off in search of new mountains to climb. What's left is the hangers-on -- the people who can't / won't get a job in the real world, and have a vested interest in seeing that the things they complain about do not get solved.

LOL, that was awesome Amy!

I dunno, I guess I'm a bit of a romantic, but I kind of long for the days when people covered up a bit more. People were so much prettier prior to 1920... the dresses were prettier, the hair was prettier, everything was prettier. I know it's my personal tastes and lots of people disagree, but I feel like today's aesthetic is very "hot" and "sexy"... but it isn't -beautiful-.

Maybe I'm over idealizing the past. But the hard, tough, sexy edges of today don't do it for me as much as the gentle softness of yesteryear.

"Just wondering, but do feminists complain about commercials that show off some guy's toned abs..."

I don't care if they do. I haven't got enough of that new Old Spice commercial yet. "Look at your man. Now look at me." Woo-hoo! No problem. Of course that voice helps, too.

Dang! Ima get me a pair of those there Reeboks!

Seriously? They look like a decent training shoe! If they help hone my thighs and butt, all the better! (The 2nd ad was cute, too, the way the chick talks to the camera man. The first ad? A little stupid, but so what?)
The feminists? Need to knock it off already, their schtick is getting really old.

o.O

I haven't got enough of that new Old Spice commercial yet. "Look at your man. Now look at me."

Right, Ppear? Both of the ones I've seen with "that guy" just crack me up! "Did you know I'm riding this horse backwards?" Giddyap! o.O

I love my firm, round "bedonk".

I work fuckin' hard for it, too. I'm pretty tall so I've never had very strong legs. Then I saw a trainer and told me everything I'd been doing was useless. He had me doing squats - no weight at first, just bring it as low as I could go. It was shocking how much strength I lacked. Now I'm doing legs 2x/week and my ass and legs look great.

So to finally answer your question, Nick, no I do not want my ass to look quite like that. I'm almost 25 and think her ass is boring. But her rack...I'd take that.

I consider myself a feminist and I'm not offended. She looks fantastic. And I also love objectifying hot men. So maybe I'm just a crass, indiscriminate objectifier.

"I have to admit I was confused by the second commercial... it seems to be wryly pitching the product to men, but the target audience for the product is clearly women. Do women really catch other women staring at them, and do they react to it the same way as when they catch men staring at them? Or did I just miss something?"

I hear ya CousinDave!! Both commercials weren't very creative...but that second one was totally over my head. That was for women??? Someone completely missed the mark there!!

>>I don't care if they do. I haven't got enough of that new Old Spice commercial yet. "Look at your man. Now look at me." Woo-hoo! No problem. Of course that voice helps, too.

Pricklypear,
I also love that beyond reason. It's a beaut.

Brian?

Your Rush quotes about feminism?

They make you sound like a polyester-wearing 1970s halfwit. I am very fond of your Amy blog persona for various reasons, but I've not forgotten your habit of claiming chapter & verse accuracy when you bang on about evidence of feminist inanities - then being totally unable to furnish a source.

Karen -

Nobody missed the mark.

(normal) Women want to be noticed.

Jody - you need to get over yourself. Read the source literature. Read some MacKinnon, if you have the stomach. The excerpts alone disgust me. Read some Dworkin.

The ERA pushers have one thing in common - they are all incredibly unhappy with their lot in life. And it has nothing to do with institutional discrimination.

And the reason it's so hard to furnish sources is that they tend to go down the memory hole when too many people start to reference them. And I'm not really in the mood to start checking out books from the library to educate you about the movement you claim to support while knowing fuck-all about the women who started it.

Brian writes: Limbaugh's Undeniable Truth of Life #24:

Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.

This is why the shrieking harridans complain. Envy is such an ugly emotion.

A better motivation to analyze would be why Oxycontin Fatass would make such a statement in the first place. It wouldn't be, by any chance, because he's a sad, fat loser with a history of the opposite sex that no heterosexual male should have to claim...except for him.

According to his mother, Millie Limbaugh, he went through high school without a single date. During a spin the bottle game, the head of the high school cheerleading squad refused to kiss poor "Rusty."

Has he finally had marriage number 4?

Let's see...divorced by wife number one, Roxy Maxine McNeely, and wife number 2, Michelle Sixta, both of whom kicked his lazy, very fat ass to the curb. This is all according to Rush's brother, David Limbaugh: "I don’t think he would have chosen to break up either marriage. I think it was the choice of both of his ex-wives...Women, especially young women, don’t want guys to be sedentary."

Snicker...way to sell out your bro', David.

But, no problem for Limbaugh. Wife number three, Marta Fitzgerald, would come along soon enough. I mean, how could she resist? Let's hear from the pick-up artist himself: "I remain in an interminable funk, no end insight-listless, uninspired, and self-flagellating," he wrote to Hazel Staloff, via the internet.

Ooooh, smooth operator. I so want to borrow that line...maybe if I was suicidal and I needed just a certain degree of mortification to give me the final push I need to pull the trigger.

And I'm sure Hazel melted like butter. "I thought, 'What a sad thing to write, and to write to somebody you didn’t even know.' Later I came to realize that it was probably his way of trying to attract a woman. You know, for a woman to read, 'Rush has no friends' and for her to respond, 'Let me make it better for you.'"

Wife number three, Marta Fitzgerald, he met over CompuServe. So, Limbaugh even cruises while his enormously fat ass is parked in a chair? Quelle surprise.

Another boiling hot shocker is that wife number three, despite Limbaugh's enormous success (to rival his ass), decided to take a hike.

The blonde thing I see him with these days is nice to look at. Smart, too. Doesn't take rocket science to see that she's anticipating the chronically overfeeding, cigar-smoking stroke magnet will assist himself to an early grave, leaving her still young, still beautiful, and filthy rich.

So...regale us again with what Oxycontin Fatass has to say on the subject of feminism, bearing in mind that he has no clue of the nature of intimate relationships, having never had a successful one in his life, and now must content himself with a trophy wife. To say nothing of the fact that he's an utter pussy, who calls Clinton a draft dodger but changed his own tale about how he avoided service in Viet Nam. Once claimed it was "football knee," then changed to pilonidal cyst (a boil on the ass). Never mind that Limbaugh's own father served in World War II with a pilonidal cyst. But, you know, greatest generation and all that.

Let us hear his keen insights into the nature of feminism, bearing in mind that it couldn't possibly have anything to do with a lifelong resentment of women that's been cultivated since his first wet dream.

Hey Karen,

1. If it sells shoes who cares if it is boring.
2. If it sells shoes, who cares if it is "easy"
3. If it sells shoes, who cares if you are impressed (or not)

Some people seem to think advertising is about "feelings"...no, its not, it is about MONEY! And, BTW, the models got paid for it whether you or any feminist likes it or not.

I think the commercials were great, and I went and bought my girlfriend a pair of them (and got myself some shoes too).

By the way, I just got through reading to the end of this thread, once I posted my response the great social commentator of our time's remarks on feminism.

Jody, your assessment of Limbaugh's comment on feminism is likely to be the most spot-on observation I'll read for a while.

@Patrick:

Dude, are you stalking Limbaugh or something?

I've never been in a relationship or married, and I can still observe what's happening before my eyes.

Beautiful young women prefer douchebags, and only start looking for the less attractive and less assertive beta males when they're all used up.

And then they complain that the nice guys aren't interested in them.

And then the truly ugly ones couldn't even hook up with the cads, and are embittered and bitch about it.

Either way, it's always our fault for not being attracted to them for their "inner beauty".

The sexual revolution's over. We lost.

brian: I've never been in a relationship or married

You don't say??? Gee, who'd have thought?

brian: I can still observe what's happening before my eyes.

You really should be in stand-up comedy, dude.

brian: Beautiful young women prefer douchebags

Begging the question as to why you haven't had a relationship yet.

(I appreciate a good set up as much as the next guy, but you don't have to make it quite that easy for me.)

Yes, some women go through a bad boy stage, but the pre-law and business majors at my college seem to do all right.

I'm starting to see why you're so enamored of Rush Limbaugh...you both have had no success with intimate relationships, and you both place the blame entirely upon the opposite sex. The angry white male.

One crucial difference, Brian. Your chances of eventually learning the mechanics of an intimate relationship are astronomically better than Limbaugh's. I suggest you make the most of it.

Another plus: you read Amy's column. Good luck to you. And I mean that.

I've never been in a relationship or married, and I can still observe what's happening before my eyes.

Brian, dude, that's the saddest thing I've ever seen you post. I'm so sorry.

But didja ever think it might be your attitude towards us women that might have prevented you from being in a relationship? Or is it your fear of getting hurt? Because everyone stands a chance of getting hurt in a relationship. That's just life, man. You can't protect yourself from hurt and still be in a relationship. It goes with the territory. "It is better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all" and all that shit. I cannot imagine having never been in a relationship, even the shitty ones I was in still taught me things.

The question, Patrick, is why you are so obsessed with Limbaugh that you know the full names of all three of his past wives. I've been listening to him for 20 years, and I never knew the names of the first two, and knew only the first name of the last.

"It is better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all" and all that shit. I cannot imagine having never been in a relationship, even the shitty ones I was in still taught me things.

Not to make this thread about me, but I've just never been able to figure out what I gain from it.

I guess I just don't have the ability to fake the requisite emotions.

But didja ever think it might be your attitude towards us women that might have prevented you from being in a relationship?

Oh, and just to address this before the meme becomes "brian's a serial failure at dating", I haven't every tried in earnest to get into a relationship or date. What very few attempts I've made were rebuffed, and I just can't figure out how the whole enterprise is supposed to be considered "fun".

It seems that the whole thing works this way: misrepresent yourself to a woman until she's made an emotional investment, and then rely upon the sunk cost fallacy to keep her around.

Seems a bit unfair to do that to another person.

...bearing in mind that he has no clue of the nature of intimate relationships, having never had a successful one in his life....

Failed relationships can give insights as well as successful ones can, sometimes better.

>>Not to make this thread about me, but I've just never been able to figure out what I gain from it.

brian,
Maybe start by showing her what she gains by being with a lovely guy like you?

(And thank you, Patrick:))

It seems that the whole thing works this way: misrepresent yourself to a woman until she's made an emotional investment, and then rely upon the sunk cost fallacy to keep her around.

Um, no. That's NOT the way it works. I know it may seem like it, but that's how shallow people operate. Not the ones who are really decent. The decent ones are the ones you want to get involved with. But as my da used to tell me, "you gotta kiss a lot of frogs before you get the prince." And he's right. Very rarely does anyone get the best one on the first try. But the thing is, you have to try.

Maybe start by showing her what she gains by being with a lovely guy like you?

That's easy. Nothing she can't get elsewhere for a better price.

Brian, I'm gifted with a good memory. Not eidetic, but good. Plus I enjoy games with mnemonics.

Once I lock in a certain mnemonic, the rhythm of the phrase supplies the rest. Once you start incorporating mnemonics, you'll do them out of habit. Just get past the initial hump and like Donny Osmond likes to tell his kids, you'll "make a game out of it."

In the case of Limbaugh's wives, just remember, he likes Xs and Zs in names. In that order.

RoXy MaXine McNeely! (Easy name to remember. Very rhythmic.)

Michelle SiXta.

HaZel Staloff. (The Z, named after an old sitcom maid, played by the late Shirley Booth.)

Marta FitZgerald. (The Fitz names. Usually, one of two: Fitzgerald and Fitzpatrick. And somehow...just somehow...I think I would remember the name Fitzpatrick.)

Which goes a long way toward explaining why the PUA scene is growing the way it is.

The PUAs strut and peacock, and the women swoon because of the perceived value presented.

Somewhere between the late 1960s and now, the future value of nerds was slashed to zero.

Patrick, I've got so much useless fluff floating about in my head that I just don't have room for mnemonic remembering of people's ex-wives' names.

I have enough trouble remembering useful stuff (like the names of people I just met) anyhow.

brian,
Your question (again):
Not to make this thread about me, but I've just never been able to figure out what I gain from it.

I just went off & found the answer for you, quoted below (with Amy's indulgence). It's by P. G. Wodehouse.

This, brian, is WHY you should risk "it"!!

From "Uneasy Money"

'Bill, are you really fond of me?'

'Fond of you!'

She gave a sigh. 'You're so splendid!'

Bill was staggered. These were strange words. He had never thought much of himself. He had always looked on himself as rather a chump--well-meaning, perhaps, but an awful ass. It seemed incredible that any one--and Elizabeth of all people--could look on him as splendid.

And yet the very fact that she had said it gave it a plausible sort of sound. It shook his convictions. Splendid! Was he? By Jove, perhaps he was, what? Rum idea, but it grew on a chap. Filled with a novel feeling of exaltation, he kissed Elizabeth eleven times in rapid succession.

He felt devilish fit. He would have liked to run a mile or two and jump a few gates. He wished five or six starving beggars would come along; it would be pleasant to give the poor blighters money. It was too much to expect at that time of night, of course, but it would be rather jolly if Jess Willard would roll up and try to pick a quarrel. He would show him something. He felt grand and strong and full of beans. What a ripping thing life was when you came to think of it.

'This,' he said, 'is perfectly extraordinary!' And time stood still.

Brian, why not discuss relationships here? I do. Have you forgotten what this blog's owner does for a living?

I could quote Amy columns ad nauseum to address your misconceptions about relationships, but I agree with Flynne: It's very sad, and I wish things were better for you relationship-wise. I freely admit that you don't do a thing for me. I don't say that to be mean (not that you're going to kill yourself because I'm not attracted to you), but at this juncture, it would be silly for me to pretend I think you're "all that." But I can't believe there isn't someone who would appreciate what you have to offer. I'm positive there's some women out there willing to buy what you're selling.

Conan: Failed relationships can give insights as well as successful ones can, sometimes better.

Bearing in mind that I'm not discussing his insights into relationships, which Limbaugh has failed over and over, but his attitude toward feminism and women in general.

Puberty to high school graduation and never a single date? That's apt to make a person really, really resentful. To say nothing of his first two wives being fed up with him sitting around all day, one of them forcing him to file for unemployment (Limbaugh's own admission), then eventually filing for divorce.

I'm sure you see how such experiences might color a person's attitude toward feminism.

Patrick -

Seeing friends run through the wringer by newly "empowered" ex-wives will do far more to color one's attitude.

Seeing men targeted as "evil" by feminist groups on campus will do the same.

What happens is you know you're not evil, but here's these women proclaiming that all men are evil. And even if it's 1% of women who actually believe it, is it worth a 1 in 100 chance that you'll end up with the vindictive bitch?

Except you love your dog right Brian? So you don't even have to "fake the requisite emotions," because it's not like you're unable to form them.

I know people mock the list idea, but it wasn't until I made one that I started dating guys who I was actually compatible with. Before I'd been going on the "vibe" thing, going for guys because they were "cool" and "attractive" based on a first meeting. Turns out, it ain't a good barometer for a relationship.

When I sat down and thought about my life goals and what I wanted in a partner, and what I could offer a partner, and started being honest with myself, then I started attracting a better (for me) type of guy. It meant letting go of some stuff in exchange for other stuff.

My point is, Brian, you have to know what you want before you can get it. You have to visualize it before you can manifest it into being. But if a frumpy dork like me can find true love, anyone can!

Too much liberal sex turns me off. This society is going too far. You think you know why the vast majority of the people around the world hate the Americans? It's not only about the wars. It has also a lot to do with the Hollywood culture: sex, lies, violence, drugs all over TV and the movies. People of other countries see those, and (wrongly) think it's representative of the American society. For Hollywood it's supposed to be cool, right... Is it, really?

"Maybe I'm over idealizing the past." NicoleK

nah, you're not overdoing how it looked... but how it smelled?? People didn't was nearly as often then...

I've been recently very amused how threads have tended to go pear shaped... Spring must be a round the corner, and people are getting cabin fever...

April 3rd - Wickham Park re-opens. Disc Golf can begin again!

I can't see the videos here at work, but I know of the one for the sneakers. And you know what? It worked on me! I mean, I have a little more curve than her, but I could use some toning up. The principle behind the shoes makes sense. In any case, it's a commercial about sneakers that are supposed to help shape your legs and butt.....and they have the NERVE to SHOW legs and a butt?! What's next? Showing beer in beer commercials? What about how we objectify cars in car commercials by showing their shape?

The only thing I don't like is you know the models did not achieve that look by using those shoes, or eating the diet plan, but with a lot more effort. Especially the ones with muscle, having an athletic body takes a lot of work.

Thankfully my girlfriend does squats and deadlifts, instead of endless crunches, and so actually has a butt. I do the same thing when I work out, I don't want to be buttless!

>>Seeing friends run through the wringer by newly "empowered" ex-wives will do far more to color one's attitude.

Brian,
Bitterness that comes from personal experience can at least bring some wisdom.
But bitterness that comes selectively from other people's experience? That's a curse.

(Still, spring..and golf...it's not all bad!)

Ohhh, Brian....

"Beautiful young women prefer douchebags, and only start looking for the less attractive and less assertive beta males when they're all used up."

You're just being silly. I'm sorry for whatever a woman did to you, but this just isn't true. At least, not for all women. I think for most women, it's not a conscious decision to date a douche. It just so happens that these "douches" are the ones who give women attention. They're smooth talkers and younger women fall for it. After a few broken hearts and a little self-reflection, we usually come around. For me, it was around age 22. Are you implying that a 22 year old is "all used up"? Some women never smarten up...and that's fine. Douchebags need love too. Generalizing all of us isn't the way to go here.

And "less attractive and less assertive beta males"? Really? Yeah, I stopped dating douchebags and started asking out ugly dudes who were too chicken shit to ask me out. That's exactly how it happened. How'd you get so smart? (sarcasm)

The fact of the matter is: both sexes adjust what they are looking for in a mate as they get older and build more dating experience. It's part of growing up, not drying up.

Even the douches that I've dated turned out to be pretty good guys once they grew up a little. Ever stop to think that maybe beautiful young women date douchebags because most (NOT all) guys that age are still immature assholes?

I just get so pissed when guys generalize all women and try to make it look like we're the shallow ones. Everyone has their shallow moments. It's part of life. By your own admission, you've never been intimate enough with a woman to know what goes on in a real relationship, so what gives you the right to make all these accusations?

Brian, it just seems like you're looking for the wrong kind of woman. What do you have to gain? Some fun? Maybe a little hide the sausage? Maybe just a nice distraction from the seriousness of life? How about some life experience? You learn a lot about yourself and what you want in your life through dating others. Sometimes, you even find someone with all the qualities you never knew you wanted. You're a great writer. If you're "less assertive", why not try a dating site? I met my fiance online and it was really refreshing to feel like I knew him before we even met in person. I'm not saying you're some poor, desperately lonely soul, here. You're obviously an intelligent person. If you're just not interrested in a relationship, fine. BUT, if you do want to find someone and aren't trying because you think all women are shallow or all relationships suck...well, you're just plain wrong. I am telling you that you are wrong about relationships and I have been in many, so I should know. I am telling you that you are wrong about woman and I have a vagina so, again, I should know.

Bearing in mind that I'm not discussing his insights into relationships...but his attitude toward feminism and women in general.

Bearing in mind that you wrote, "...bearing in mind that he has no clue of the nature of intimate relationships, having never had a successful one in his life...."

You then used the argument that, because he has no insights into the nature of an intimate relationship due to his string of failed relationships, he has no useful insights into women and feminism - because of a lifelong resentment of women fostered and strengthened by his string of failed relationships. As if one could have no useful insights into human nature without a long-term successful intimate relationship with the opposite sex.

Does this mean that gay men have no useful insights into women or feminism?

====================

I haven't listened to him in years, but Limbaugh has in the past had some interesting takes on the issues of the day. I don't always agree with him, but I don't automatically disagree with him either.

His viewpoing is limited by his own nature and experience, which does seem to be more lonely than even he wants to admit. He has been successul as a political commentator and seems to be lost when he strays from politics. You could see it in his stint as a host of Monday Night Football and in his guest spot on Letterman.

I think, on a personal level, he wants to be more social and interesting than he is, but his inability to make small talk leaves him a bit isolated.

There was an interesting and insightful piece on him in the NYT Magazine in 2008:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06Limbaugh-t.html

They're smooth talkers and younger women fall for it.

Not just younger ones. And a lot of them become very bitter and vindictive once they decide they're done with douchebags, and they are so jaded by their (self-inflicted) experience that they assume that all men are douchebags.

Shallow is a two way street. I'd wager that the bulk of humans are shallow. NTTAWWT.

By your own admission, you've never been intimate enough with a woman to know what goes on in a real relationship, so what gives you the right to make all these accusations?

I can see what is happening in the world around me. I think I can derive a good amount of information from that. As Yogi said, you can observe a lot by watching.

Hey Patrick, good insights into Limbaugh; the first time I listened to him was the last.

The way he was screaming about 'feminazis' ruining life for all men made me think it was a late-night comedy routine -- for a few minutes. Then I realized he was just shoveling back to his bitter audience what they wanted to hear and I changed stations.

Hope you're over the pneumonia. I'm in week three. It sucks bad but it's almost over.

Brian
have you ever read "No More Mr. Nice Guy" by Glover? It is about many issues you raise. It changed my life a long time ago.
It is about the different between being "nice" and a "nice guy;" and challenges the idea that nice guys are even nice in the first place.

It challenges you and asks you to look at yourself and question "am I actually nice?" "am I honest?" "do I hold problems inside?"
It also talks about how women may settle for jerks, and often do, but that doesn't mean they prefer jerks. It means there is something they want that "nice guys" don't offer.

There are other similar books, that's just the one I read.

Do y'all feel better after the childish ad hominem attacks on Rush and Brian?

Hey, Pat, ole chap, you need to study slavery in the US. Those plantation owners didn't run around with whips. They sat in the mansion sipping mint juleps and occasionally trying out the pretty mulatto upstairs house maid.

The slaves helped keep each other working. The trusties (sp?) did most of the whip work for extra benefits. You exemplify the cruelty of men to men in the US. Brilliant job, thanks. I could never explain it as well as you demonstrated it.

Oh, wait a minute, you were serious. That's okay; that works, too.

I never cease to be amazed at the ability of US women to assume when some man says they don't interest him that HE is the one with the problem.

One of the men, a 40-ish Marine combat veteran retiree, that I convinced to leave the US for a society with more sane women, said his 20-ish g/f from the Ukraine said what I say, that American women don't even deserve most American men.

Except she added they do deserve Russian husbands.

Brian, work your way down here to Mexico. Nice Guys (which is what your real problem is, most American women don't like nice guys in spite of all their talk) are HOT down here, and American men, much like you who also could not stand American women, have been marrying Mexican women for generations.

And, therefore, your reputation precedes you.

No, don't marry one and take her back. Come down here to live, It might take a lot of courage and time to implement, but when you do, you will wonder what took you so long. There is life outside the feminist nation.

As far as successful men who aren't good at relationships, the two go together. You can be Donald Trump or Rush Limbaugh or Mickey Rooney with multiple divorces, or you can be poor like most people.

And, for the knee jerkers who are going to explode if they don't tell me that not all American women are bad, that is right, and we well know that. The problem is, the few who aren't bad don't do enough to show us so we can tell the difference. (This from Markymark.)

As far as your childish but typical attacks on Brian, I would be much more negative about the sorry men who repeatedly get kicked in the **** and keep going back for more.

>>Brian, work your way down here to Mexico. Nice Guys (which is what your real problem is, most American women don't like nice guys in spite of all their talk) are HOT down here..

Once again with the fruitcake advice, irlandes!

I'd prefer to stay here, thanks.

I'd like to know what it is I'm supposed to want. I can give you a list of things I don't want. That doesn't get me any closer to what I do want. I have no clue.

I know I don't want a liar, a cheat, a psycho, or an abuser. I'm not into head games. And I'm not likely to make dramatic changes to the way I conduct my life. If you try to make me choose between you and my friends, you lose. If you try to make me choose between you and my video games, you lose.

The problem (as irlandes points out) is the insane level of difficulty in spotting the head cases. I've had friends who were with seemingly sane women who just out of the blue went batshit and turned on them. I believe that they were batshit all along, but just very good at hiding it.

Absent such filtering mechanisms, dating's too much like work, and I already have a job.

If you want to see advertising geared towards men, check out this ad from Denmark:

http://www.m2film.dk/fleggaard/trailer2.swf

"Advertising from Denmark! The company specializes in selling televisions and radio sets. Fleggaard Holding is based in Krusaa, Denmark. Just across Germany's northern-most border with Denmark you'll find an incredible superstore called Fleggaard.

There, you can buy everything you need -- tubs of gummi bears, cases of wine, industrial strength dishwashing soap at prices 30% cheaper than you'll find in Denmark. It is Denmark's Costco, packaged as a German loophole.

The 100+ women do stunts in the air -- while free-falling --holding hands to spell out 'Half-off on Dishwasher at Fleggaard'. You'd be hard-pressed to find a man in Denmark who hasn't seen and fallen in love with that commercial. It was geared strictly to men."

My word, these posts are all over the map today.

Because of all these references to bodies and lists and personalities, etc., I present my conclusion: there ain't no right way to find the ideal mate.

I "found" my husband the night I was going off to work out of state for six months. I had known him for a little while, one of the gang, nice shy guy--no fireworks.

There was a party going on and I was saying goodbye to everybody. I'm not a hugger, but we ended up hugging anyway. Nice long hug, perfect fit. It was a real awwwwww, aren't they cute moment. Several people have smugly told me they knew we'd end up together. Yeah, right.

When I came back (only gone for six weeks, as it turned out), a friend nudged him to invite me to a movie, and everything just clicked. That was almost twenty years ago come April, and we're still clicking. Same vices, same virtues, same evil sense of humor. We delight in each other. Sorry to be sickening, but it's true.

For the cynics out there--I'm with ya. I don't know what the hell happened, but I'm enjoying it while it lasts.

If we were each other's physical ideals, I would look like Lucy Liu and he would look like Steve Reeves circa Hercules Unchained. As it is, we're more like Mr. & Mrs. Santa Claus. Go figure.

When I was doing the online dating thing, I realized that it was more efficient just to be direct and basically post my list in my profile. The more I dated, the more my list grew. Eventually, it read something like, "Please don't contact me if you're bi-polar, schizophrenic, sex-addicted, controlling, rude to wait staff, married, or have a substance-abuse problem..." I also stated that I wanted someone physically fit who was around my own age - not more than 10 years older.

Oddly, no mentally ill, addicted men wrote to complain - and many guys found it funny - but the age issue garnered a lot of comments from much older men claiming I was being "too picky".

Yet, my fiance is only two years older than me, a really nice guy, and in great shape. I knew what I wanted and I didn't settle. If you stick with it, you can find what you're looking for.

I always enjoy the line of thought that if you're not an expert in love or "intimate relationships" you can't make a solid argument against feminism and what its done to the dating scene. You're just blaming society for your own failures.

I'd be an ass if I blamed my lack of intimate relationships with women solely on feminism. Its my lack of will to get my act together, get in shape and stop being so shy. That does not however mean I can not say feminism isn't a problem and causing serious rifts between men and women in our society. The princess entitlement syndrome of most western women turns me off. Equality? Hah. Yet, I'm supposed to be like the 40 year old virgin movie guy and hook up with a single mom and re work my life around her to be a grown up? To no longer be one of those hideous man-child types? I'm supposed to be interested in a feminist DA gal fatter than me who at a dinner party spouts the cliche "and some men can't handle a woman with her own opinions!" a mere twenty minutes in?

Here would be the latest shaming article upon men for not doing their duties as dads:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article7044594.ece

But no, I'm bitter soley because I'm not getting laid regularly. Yeah, thats the ticket. The whole point being, regardless of Limbaugh's love history, he might be on to something.

"I never cease to be amazed at the ability of U.S. women to assume when some man says they don't interest him that HE is the one with the problem."

I had to unlearn this. When a boy didn't like me, I was always told that it was HIS loss. This was supposed to make me feel better, but it really made me feel patronized. (Or that the person saying it was criticizing my taste in guys.) I certainly didn't feel like it was his loss - I felt like it was MY loss. If he thought I looked ugly, I wanted to know what to do to look prettier. If he thought I sounded stupid, I wanted to know how to improve my social skills. People never tell you these things as you're growing up, because they want to be reassuring and not hurt your feelings. Yet empty platitudes are never really useful for constructive change. I didn't want to learn how to handle rejection over and over - I wanted to learn how to not be rejected.

Now on the other hand, sometimes you just don't have a chance. If a guy is still hung up on an ex, you might as well forget it. You can do everything right and the timing will still screw things up, so there's no sense beating yourself up about it. But then, of course, THAT takes time to figure out, too.

just to throw this out there...

it's OK to be alone. you may find it more peaceful.

true... experience is a good thing, but sometimes you learn TOO MUCH. you may also learn too much by watching other people. You can make an inference about what happened to a friend, but you CANNOT know the particulars, because you aren't them.

The key is not allowing the truisms about feminisim, or any -ism, to color too much your approach to a particular person. That person is not an -ism, or a simple collection of ideas. They are a person in whole.

I agree that it feels like you know so many women [and/or men] that have certain attributes that are negative "and where are all the good ones?" Heck, after my ex- nuked my life, it's a wonder I am curious about women at all...
But who am I to crucify every woman for who my ex is? That's her problem, not theirs.

Anyone can go looking for someone, and keep an eye out for things that might be bad news. AND IMPORTANTLY, depending on your age, and if you want kids, and such...
you don't gotta marry them.

Interestingly the Rush L. of the world prolly will never want for companionship, because they are powerful and rich. He may have a lot of different companions... but he'll never lack for them. Look at Hugh, still nailing barely legals. Dunno what kind of mojo he has, but I'm thinkin' there in it for the money.

I'm so offended by this, I've had to see it over, and over, and over....

http://www.m2film.dk/fleggaard/trailer2.swf

Damn! I didn't see lovelysoul posted this. Never mind!

Brian writes: "I'd like to know what it is I'm supposed to want. "

Brian, Brian, Brian. I know that thought pattern that's in your head because that used to be me. The point is: screw what you're supposed to want. Make a list of what you do want. That was a realization that hit me after my first (failed) marriage. Put whatever you want in the list. And don't be afraid of putting in things that someone is going to say are shallow. It's not their relationship; it's yours. You have the right to want what you want.

I don't recall that I ever put my list in paper, but I definitely put together a set of things in my head. And once I was really honest with myself about what I wanted, I realized that I had been denying myself some things in my past relationships. For example, my ex and most of my previous girlfriends were thin women, but I finally admitted to myself that I prefer curvier women. Some people can say that's shallow, but they know what they can do with their unasked-for opinions. It was what I wanted, and I decided that it was important enough to me that I wasn't going to settle for another thin woman just because she happened to be available. And I didn't.

"The problem (as irlandes points out) is the insane level of difficulty in spotting the head cases. "

I found that a good technique is to see what kind of people she has for friends. I noticed this with my ex, but at the time I ignored it: most of her friends were immature slackers who were trying to pretend they were still in high school. I had thought she was a mature, self-sufficient person because she told a good story about having had a good-paying job in New York. (I later found out, the hard way, that she had a pathological aversion to regular work, and that most of the time she claimed to be working in New York, she was actually sponging off of her dad.) People tend to choose friends who are temperamentally similar to them. After my first marriage ended, I started paying attention to the friends of my relationships, and I'm pretty sure I dodged a couple of bullets.

The one other thing I wanted to add: you don't have to accept being labeled chauvinist or misogynist just because you're concerned about the direction of male-female relationships in our politics and our society. Patrick, I know I've seen you express concerns in this area. I've noticed some very bad trends myself, and I've commented on them here before. Let's all try to use a bit of common sense when discussing this.

And I love the way they finally used good looking women with large breasts with 'Ride of the Valkaryes'

Usually when you hear that you get a 50yr old 400 pound italian woman with knuckle hair

OK, the naked chicks jumping out of a plane was hilarious. I mean that's creative advertising. The stupid Reebok ad looks terrible compared with that.

Cousin Dave and SwissArmyD, I really enjoyed reading what you just posted. And Sio! This is pure brilliance: " ... you can't make a solid argument against feminism and what its done to the dating scene. You're just blaming society for your own failures." What a great blog this is to visit.

Irlandes, I'm getting past the eyeroll I did when I read your post. America is such a diverse place, full of so many kinds of people from so many walks of life, and they have a lot of different skin colors, too. Americans come from all over! Even when they're FROM America, they still come from all over the place. Half of the people in America are women, so that's about 150 million people, and when you make a statement like "American women don't like nice men," when you don't even fucking live here, (sorry, Amy, I hope the swearing police in CA don't bust you because I said fuck - oops, now I said it twice!), anyway, irlandes, it just doesn't seem like you know what the fuck (damn! I mean, oops!) you're talking about.

However, I'm over that. You do seem to know (or think you know) a thing or two about eastern European and Mexican women. You think they love nice American men, and treat them well, and that they make better partners than American women. Please tell us some stories about specific people you know. I would like to know, why do you think they like American men so much? And what do they do with their lives if they don't marry one? If they married a guy from their own countries, for example, or if they didn't get married at all? Would they have good jobs? Friends, good relationships with their families, financial independence, maybe even a pet?

You see where I'm going with this? I notice you picked two of the poorest regions in the world to hold up your stellar examples of womanhood. If there is something about their upbringing that makes them happier and more successful in relationships, please tell me it's something useful, and not just obedience. I'd really like to know.

Brian, I'd play video games with you any day. If you ride a bike and would like to try Ragbrai, the Road Pirates will haul your stuff on our bus. My word as a Pirate. We need another libertarian around the place anyway, and you would liven up the conversation.

Conan, I do value your insights and do think you're an intelligent, thoughtful person...

...then I actually try to discuss these issues with you myself, and my assessment turns about 180 degrees. I don't believe you're trying to make a troll of yourself, but your capacity to misunderstand -- in fact, your insistence that you know more about my intentions behind my own statements than I do -- leaves me shaking my head in bewilderment sometimes. Sigh. Here we go again.

Let's take this from the top...once more. With feeling.

Conan writes: Bearing in mind that you wrote, "...bearing in mind that he has no clue of the nature of intimate relationships, having never had a successful one in his life...."

Sentence fragment...Okay, I'm "bearing this in mind." Now what?

I know what points I'm trying to make, thank you very much. And I do know my own intent better than you do. Sorry that bothers you.

You then used the argument that, because he has no insights into the nature of an intimate relationship due to his string of failed relationships, he has no useful insights into women and feminism - because of a lifelong resentment of women fostered and strengthened by his string of failed relationships. As if one could have no useful insights into human nature without a long-term successful intimate relationship with the opposite sex.

Record scratch. Woah. Excuse me? I didn't say that. You accused me of saying that.

String of failed relationships. Nope, didn't say he had a string, either. Well, three failed marriages make a short string. Two, at the time he made the statement that Brian quoted. A string of two. That's your definition of a string. Not mine.

I am suggesting that going through high school, never having a single date (Note, this is not failed relationships. This is non-existent relationships.), and some evidence that he was actively snubbed by the women in his high school.

My point, which you would see if you'd try to look at the whole, including the post I responded to, is that Limbaugh's attitudes toward feminism are probably born out of cultivated resentment of women in general. The empirical evidence for this theory is that he never dated in high school, according to his mother. Two failed marriages at a time that he was unsuccessful and probably felt he needed a supportive relationship. We do know that one of these two wives "made me file for unemployment" (his own admission), and that the divorces were both initiated by his wives, and that it was due to his inactivity. This we know from Rush Limbaugh's brother.

The hypothesis is that Limbaugh has a cultivated resentment of women. The instances of failed marriages (including his third marriage, which went on at a time of Limbaugh's greatest success) is forwarded as empirical evidence for my theory?

Capice?

And by the way, suppose you drag your happy little ass right back to my post, and you find where I said he had "no useful insights into feminism"? Gosh, it looks to me like I said it would COLOR his attitude toward feminism! A prejudiced mindset does not, repeat, does not, I say again DOES NOT preclude a single useful insight into the nature of feminism, even if that prejudice is toward women in general.

To illustrate, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, although men of different faiths, both have a cultivated prejudice toward whites. Does this mean they've never had anything useful to about the nature of interracial relations? I would be loathe to insist on such an absolute. They have colored perceptions toward whites, yes. But have they never offered a single insightful comment about white America? I'm sure they have, at some point in their careers. Doesn't mean that their conclusions are right.

On the contrary, their attitudes toward whites most definitely comes from a variety of insights from a variety of sources. At least some of those insights were likely quite valid.

Kindly keep your need to confine everything into absolutes away from me.

Doesn't look like I said RL has "no useful insights into feminism."

But hey, what the fuck do I know? I just wrote the post, that's all. Who the hell am I to speak to the intent and meaning of my own post? Some nerve I've got, huh?

Does this mean that gay men have no useful insights into women or feminism?

Well, gee. Let's just think about that one, shall we? Boy, that's a real stumper, huh?

I'm not the one going through high school wanting intimate relations with women to satisfy sexual longings. I could have gone through high school without dating a single woman, thanks so much. So, it's not like I would form a resentment of women based on the suggestion that women are withholding something from me.

But you know, a straight guy, if he's like most straight guys, has pretty much established a particular appetite for women that a gay man just doesn't have.

So...a gay man goes through high school not wanting to date women, and doesn't date women, as opposed to someone like Rush Limbaugh, who goes through high school and probably does want to date women, but doesn't get a single date.

By the way, who says gays don't have successful relationships with women? I've had (and still have) close, caring relationships with many women, thanks so very much. Platonic ones, in case you didn't pick up on that.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet money that I got a lot closer to women in high school than Rush Limbaugh ever did.

So, I think the buddy-buddy relationship that many gay men enjoy with women could (note: that a "could;" not a "does") afford them the opportunity to hear about women's issues from the very ones who are living those issues. It's quite possible that a gay man could offer keen insights into feminism. And I suspect he's likely to have more and better insights than those offered by Rush Limbaugh, who spent high school being kept at bay from the women he might have desired to become intimate with.

Again, didn't say, at any time or any point, that Rush Limbaugh said that he couldn't possibly offer a single valid insight into the nature of feminism. I said that his perception of feminism was likely colored by his experiences. I do, however, reject the one that Brian offered. This does not mean I reject each and every statement or insight Limbaugh ever offered or could offer about the nature of feminism.

There is a difference between taking a particular commentators words on the nature of feminism with a healthy dose of skepticism than rejecting every single statement from this same commentator out of hand. Forgive me, but I don't think the distinction is hard to understand. AT ALL!

And I will apologize right now, if I'm being unduly harsh, but I have done this dance with you before, and I didn't enjoy it. You take non-committal statements of mine and just need, need, need to infer some weird absolute that was never said. And I rarely resort to absolutes. In fact, I make a point of staying away from them. Usually.

(Watch. The next time I make an absolute on this board, some idiot's going to say, "You said you NEVER EVER EVER make absolutes." No, I didnt.)

And I'm sick of being stuck at home while my work piles up, and I'm sick of missing classes.

I'm so over this fucking pneumonia.

Hi Patrick, my sweety is a full-time student, and I have some idea of how he would be feeling if he was missing classes because of pneumonia. That sucks!

I read your whole post. :-) You're sort of excitable! I haven't really followed your argument with Conan, but the feminism stuff. As far as anyone who has any insights about feminism at all - you, Rush Limbaugh, Brian, anyone. It loses me, because feminism is one of those words like conservative or liberal. I just don't know what people mean when they call themselves one. Why they call themselves that - out of ten different assumptions you might make about the label, which ones you would call your own.

These things change over time. Being a feminist 50 years ago meant something different than it does now. So today, when someone calls him or herself a feminist, does that mean they think someone(?) should pay women to be stay-at-home moms, and that the government should mandate six months of paid maternity leave? Or that you think women should have equal value under the law? The former idea is horrible, the latter is essential. I am sick of hearing about feminism altogether - just hearing the word immediately loses me.

I don't know what the hell Rush Limbaugh is talking about when he says feminazis. What? What is a feminazi? Someone give me the list - I'll bet there are six different things on it. And I'd probably agree with him on some of them, but be really irritated by his views on the others. Of course the listener can hear the word feminazi and write his or her own definition, and then think they are in agreement, even when no such agreement would exist. So Rush is sort of acting like Obama, in that regard. Bullshit detector on red.

Jo - thanks for the invite, but my bicycle days are over. Mario Kart Wii, on the other hand...

Re: feminazi. It has a specific definition. Rush says there are maybe only a dozen of them, and the core of their agenda is ensuring that the maximum number of abortions happen. Feminazis are the ones who view pregnancy as male oppression and abortion as liberation. They are a very sick bunch. They are few, but they are the ones that are driving the agenda that pushes things like VAWA into law.

Brian, about what a feminazi is, I'm so glad you explained that! I will have to read more about the Violence Against Women Act in order to have an opinion about it. I envision widely different things when I imagine what something like that would mean to an Islamic country, as opposed to a Western country. I will check it out. I'd like to know how it plays out in the situations where it's been applied.

And I'm sorry, but I don't believe there is anyone who wants a maximum number of abortions to happen. If there are a dozen of such people on the planet, then they don't deserve Rush's air time. I mean, I'm pro-choice, and I think there are a lot of idiots out there having kids who I wish wouldn't, but I'm pro birth control! I'd rather keep the horse in the barn to begin with. I hear these guys bitch about abortion, but a lot of them are fundies who are also against birth control. This makes no sense to me. Do they hate sex? Or do they just believe in having lots of babies? Yet they also seem anti-welfare, so that seems to contradict with their views about having lots of babies. Again, I'm lost. Not that I'm asking you to explain ALL this to me. I could always listen to Rush some time. It's been quite a while! I don't get to listen to the radio during the day now.

As far as biking, well, have you tried a recumbent? Saying your biking days are over - that's sad. But, if your mind's really made up, we could use a bus driver, and there's free beer.

Pirate Jo: I read your whole post. :-) You're sort of excitable!

I don't consider myself excitable, at all. In fact, my friends consider me laid back.

I do not like being misquoted, however. I do spend a lot of time and effort and I choose my words carefully. And I actively resent people inferring things that I said when I never said them.

Last exchange? Very simple.

Patrick said that Rush Limbaugh's perceptions on feminism and women in general were likely colored by his own bad experiences with women.

Then along comes Conan who starts operating on the premise that I believe Rush Limbaugh could never offer a useful insight on feminism.

Does the expression "straw man" mean anything to some people on this board?

I ask that if you're going to read my posts and respond to them, and try to engage me in discussion, people read what I write, not read INTO what I write.

I don't think that's an unreasonable request. In fact, I think it's so not unreasonable, that I shouldn't have to ask for this in the first place.

"Excuse me, but if you'd like to discuss something with me, would be all right if you just didn't infer things I didn't say? That is, if it's not too much trouble...you would do that for me? Okay, thanks."

When I say that Limbaugh's perceptions on feminism were colored by his own experiences with women, and painstakingly point out what those experiences were, I would prefer that people don't come back at me with the FAAAAABULOUS non-sequitir, "Oh, so you're saying that Limbaugh could never in a duodecillion years every offer a valid insight into feminism?"

Well, no, I'm not saying that. In fact, we could parse those sentences completely defining each and every word, and you'd find that I didn't say anything even closely resembling that.

And I'm sorry, but I don't believe there is anyone who wants a maximum number of abortions to happen.

Remember the people who gave Palin shit for not aborting Trig? Those are the kind of people we're talking about. Saying they want the maximum number of abortions to occur might be a slight exaggeration, but it's close enough to the mark to make them squeal like stuck pigs.

Re: VAWA. The single biggest insult is the presumption in the law that men are never victims of domestic violence. And it always seems to go this way. The "gender feminists" and the feminazis that spawned the ideology that poisons their minds have the simultaneous belief in female superiority and total female victimization at the hands of "the patriarchy". How they get through the day without having a stroke from the cognitive dissonance is beyond my comprehension.

But it is this ideology that ruined a large portion of a generation of girls. Unfortunately, they happened to be in my age cohort, and I'm in a liberal New England state. I suspect that had I been born in Alabama or Texas (all else being equal of course) that things would have gone quite differently.

We are a product of our surroundings and how we choose to react to them. Some of us curl up in a ball and hope that nobody notices us.

As far as biking days - over is a bit final, but I've not been distance riding for many years, and the extra pounds haven't done my hips any favors.

Once I lose the weight, I might be able to get back on the bike without it saying "Hey, one at a time!"

You know, reading through these posts, I realized that alot of guys blame feminism for their fucked up relationships. But, it then occurred to me that alot of those same guys just don't know the difference between a feminist, and a seriously fucked up chick.

Don't blame feminism for relationship issues. Everyone has the option to NOT date someone too...

Brian has often mentioned how different New England is with regards to female perspective, and, never having lived there, I must assume he's right. Maybe the women there are really messed up.

I grew up in rural AL and TN and feminism really didn't catch on there. Wherever you have farming, or hard labor conditions, the difference between male and female strength is still relevant, so the gender roles don't vary as much.

But, in my family, at least, the women had power. They only made the men think they were in control, but I understood, as a child, that my grandmothers and aunts were very strong women, even though they often had to talk sweet and act weak in deference to men. They were masters at getting what they wanted through syrupy manipulations. "Steel magnolias", so to speak.

I've put those lessons to good use in my business and personal life. I often appear to be the least powerful person in the room, even though I may own the room. I've found it an advantage to allow people to understimate me, and it's true, especially romantically, that "you get more flies with honey".

Through the years, I've had female employees and colleagues who talked tough but actually wielded much less power than my grandmothers did. They didn't know how to use leverage or compromise on smaller things to get bigger things. And they certainly didn't understand how men functioned - in business or romantically - so they couldn't successfully close a deal in either area.

I suspect those are the types of women Brian must be dealing with. Perhaps you should consider a move, Brian?

Lovelysoul, I live in the same state as Brian, and while I have encountered a LOT of women who are the type he talks about, I have also encountered a LOT of women who are exactly the opposite. I don't think it's a matter of location, as much as it's a matter of mindset. Some women will always been manipulative psycho-hose-beasts, and some won't. Doesn't matter where they live, really.

So...regale us again with what Oxycontin Fatass has to say on the subject of feminism, bearing in mind that he has no clue of the nature of intimate relationships, having never had a successful one in his life, and now must content himself with a trophy wife.

Let us hear his keen insights into the nature of feminism, bearing in mind that it couldn't possibly have anything to do with a lifelong resentment of women that's been cultivated since his first wet dream.

Interpreting those two sentences to mean that you’ve dismissed as irrelevant anything "Oxycontin Fatass" may have to say on the subject of feminism is not unreasonable, Patrick.

This is a tiresome recurring theme with you, Patrick. You issue a vehement condemnation of something or someone with whom you disagree or for whom you have developed a deep antipathy. You then become upset when if someone fails to worship the epistolary wonder that is Patrick by daring to dispute all or even part of your assertion. You feign indignation that anyone would interpret your words as partisan or mean and cherry-pick from your words to claim that your opponent is using a straw man argument.

That Limbaugh has had a sad love life is not disputed. That it colors his view of women and feminism is not disputed. That he is lonely is not disputed. I agreed that his past is probably much lonelier than he would ever publicly admit.

By labeling him “Oxycontin Fatass,” you’ve fired a pre-emptive ad hominem strike, belittling him and by that, dismissing and all he has to say. You can later claim you didn’t dismiss everything he has to say. But you really did.

It’s kind of like Al Franken titling his book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot and including a graphic of Limbaugh’s weight gains over the years - and then, when Limbaugh fans claim he's being mean, feigning innocence because Limbaugh is fat.

BTW, good luck with the pneumonia. I feel for ya. Hope you get well soon.

Conan: Interpreting those two sentences to mean that you’ve dismissed as irrelevant anything "Oxycontin Fatass" may have to say on the subject of feminism is not unreasonable, Patrick.

I say it is. Unless you hear me specifically say specifically that each and every single solitary thing a particular person might say on a particular subject should be dismissed out of hand, then please don't infer that I did say that.

And as I explained with the examples of Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright, I consider the stance to be foolish. As the saying goes, "even a broken clock is right twice a day."

However, in Limbaugh's case regarding the subject of feminism, as in the case of Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright regarding race relations and whites in general, a generous serving of skepticism - skepticism, not dismissal! - is appropriate!

I am not telling anyone to dismiss every single thing Rush Limbaugh has to say on feminism. I am saying that one should be skeptical of his claims. As opposed to say, Stephen Hawking on the subject of physics. His claims on the subject of physics I would accept with far less reservation.

I am despairing at this point, because I really don't think this is hard.

Conan: This is a tiresome recurring theme with you, Patrick. You issue a vehement condemnation of something or someone with whom you disagree or for whom you have developed a deep antipathy. You then become upset when if someone fails to worship the epistolary wonder that is Patrick by daring to dispute all or even part of your assertion. You feign indignation that anyone would interpret your words as partisan or mean and cherry-pick from your words to claim that your opponent is using a straw man argument.

I don't consider myself an "epistolary wonder," Conan. Which is another inference on your part. Sigh. Yes, I probably hold the record for longest post on this blog, or at least among the top ten, but I don't particularly impress myself with the quality.

And no, I don't object to people disputing my assertions. Just represent them accurately! I don't think that's asking anything excessive. In fact, I don't think anyone should ever have to ask that.

What I consider tiresome is forever having to restate my positions so you can keep right on misstating them.

Conan:That Limbaugh has had a sad love life is not disputed. That it colors his view of women and feminism is not disputed. That he is lonely is not disputed. I agreed that his past is probably much lonelier than he would ever publicly admit.

Good. Something we are in total agreement on.

Conan: By labeling him “Oxycontin Fatass,” you’ve fired a pre-emptive ad hominem strike, belittling him and by that, dismissing and all he has to say. You can later claim you didn’t dismiss everything he has to say. But you really did.

You see what I mean? Here you are, blatantly insisting you know my intention better than I do.

Conan: It’s kind of like Al Franken titling his book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot and including a graphic of Limbaugh’s weight gains over the years - and then, when Limbaugh fans claim he's being mean, feigning innocence because Limbaugh is fat.

You know, it's funny you mention that book. Al Franken, in fact, decries what he calls, "the breakdown in civility in public discourse," in that very book.

He candidly admits that his jokes are mean. He wrote something like, "I'm making fun of meanness by being mean myself. It's called irony. Perhaps you've heard of it."

Al Franken is not "feigning innocence" at all. He candidly admits he's being mean. Perhaps you should read the book?

I have absolutely no reservation about being mean to Limbaugh. Limbaugh has been mean to me.

To quote Oxycontin Fatass himself, "The poor in this country are the biggest piglets at the mother pig at her nipples. The poor feed off the largesse of this government and give nothing back...They're taking out and they put nothing in. I'm sick and tired of having to play the one phony game that I've had to play and that's this so called compassion for the poor. Well, I don't have compassion for the poor."

You know what? I've spent some time in my life living below the poverty line. I was working, and I just didn't have a job that paid too well. I was able to keep a very modest apartment and I didn't take anything from anyone, least of all the government. I scraped, kept an account book of every single penny, and got by. But I'm a piglet, feeding off the largesse of this government and I'm not giving anything back? Hmm...I don't remember getting any government handouts, and not every tax dollar deducted from my check was refunded. And I'm pretty sure I paid tax on things that I purchased, like everyone else.

Just because Oxycontin Fatass spent time on unemployment, too lazy to mow his own lawn, living on junk purchased at convenient stores with credit cards (which he has admitted), doesn't mean everyone below the poverty line lived that way. But that didn't discourage the sanctimonious, hypocritical, drug-addicted obese slob of a loser from insisting that his impoverished lifestyle reflected everyone else at his income level.

Limbaugh is mean. I have no reservations about being mean to a mean person, particularly someone as over-the-top nasty as Limbaugh. In 1993, on his T.V. show, he put up a picture of Socks the Clinton's cat, and asked his audience, "Did you know there's also a White House dog?" and up went a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was then thirteen years old. But, you know, she deserved it.

In response to Brian's post:
“Not just younger ones. And a lot of them become very bitter and vindictive once they decide they're done with douchebags, and they are so jaded by their (self-inflicted) experience that they assume that all men are douchebags."
No, not just the younger ones....the stupid ones and the ones with zero self-esteem, too. You're right there. Still, not all women come out of their "douchebag" stage jaded. I spent a few years a little weary of men. I wouldn't say I was jaded, just cautious..and not because I thought all men were assholes. I was cautious because I knew that I had a habit of choosing losers. It seems like most of the women I know have gone through this. I wouldn't call it being jaded, I'd call it growing up. I can see how men would think I was a bit bitter back then...and maybe I was in some ways, but it wasn't because I thought all men were douchebags...it was because I had dated some douchebags that had obviously fooled me (one of which for years) and I knew I had to be careful not to choose another one.
"Shallow is a two way street. I'd wager that the bulk of humans are shallow. NTTAWWT."
Oh, we absolutely are...but at the same time....didn't the fattest man in the world get married recently? Obviously, looks aren't everything. Some people are shallower than others.
"I can see what is happening in the world around me. I think I can derive a good amount of information from that. As Yogi said, you can observe a lot by watching."
Yes, you can see...not feel what is happening in the world around you. You can derive a good amount of information from that...but not all of it. You can observe a lot by watching, yes...but that doesn't mean that you understand it. I think you’re a smart and insightful guy, but there is still no way you could understand relationships until you are in one.
From another post of yours:
"I'd like to know what it is I'm supposed to want. I can give you a list of things I don't want. That doesn't get me any closer to what I do want. I have no clue."
Yes, Brian, that does get you closer to knowing what you want. Knowing what you don't want is part of the battle. Going into my relationship with my fiance, I knew some things I wanted, but my list of things I didn't want was much longer. I ended up finding a man with tons of qualities I didn't know I wanted until he came along. That's where dating around a bit is key. You may date a girl doesn't have any of the qualities you don't want, but still doesn't float your boat. That's where you start to think about what was missing and put it on your "want" list. It's a process. It doesn't happen overnight.
"I know I don't want a liar, a cheat, a psycho, or an abuser. I'm not into head games. And I'm not likely to make dramatic changes to the way I conduct my life. If you try to make me choose between you and my friends, you lose. If you try to make me choose between you and my video games, you lose."

No woman should ever make you choose between her and your friends. That is a HUGE red flag. I don't know anyone in my group of friends that has asked that of a man. Not all women need 24/7 attention. When you find the right girl, you'll want to put down the controller. ;) In fact, there are lots of girls out there into video games.
"The problem (as irlandes points out) is the insane level of difficulty in spotting the head cases. I've had friends who were with seemingly sane women who just out of the blue went batshit and turned on them. I believe that they were batshit all along, but just very good at hiding it."
Okay, yes...some women are batshit crazy. Though, try to remember that you're only getting your friend's side of the story. My ex used to tell all of his friends about this ONE time I drove by his friends house checking up on him. We dated for 4 years on and off and it was the ONE time anything like this happened. He had cheated, apologized....then cheated...and apologized....then cheated and denied it….and on and on. He would tell me he was at his friend's and I'd hear the next day he was at a party and left with some girl....blah blah blah...the usual. I was young and I loved him. I still believed he loved me and he would change. Stupid, yes. So, one night my friend and I were driving around because she had just gotten a new car. We were in the neighborhood so I said: "hey, let's go see if he’s where he said he'd be." Anywho, he just happened to be outside smoking a cigarette right when we drove by. From then on, I was a "stalker". ONCE! ONE drive by on the ONE night he was actually where he said he'd be and I was labeled a stalker. The point of my way-too-long story is that men tend to pick up on the crazy things we do instead of the things they did to drive us to it. I'm not saying it's all his fault. I should have dumped his ass years before that. However, it still begs the question: why then, was he not crazy for all the times he showed up at my house when I asked him to leave me alone....or showed up to my work unannounced….or saw me driving and followed me to see where I was going?
"Absent such filtering mechanisms, dating's too much like work, and I already have a job."
It's part of life, dude. Sometimes it is work….but sometimes it’s the most perfect escape. I don't mean to get all preachy on you, but something about your posts kind of touches me. I just think your outlook is so sad. I'm not saying you're sad, just that it's sad to see someone so against love. You are not your friends. You will not have the same experiences as them…and like I said, you’re only getting one side of the story anyway. I don't know what the expression is for guys, but girls say: "You have to kiss a few frogs to find a prince!" So what if you start dating a girl and she turns out to be a head case? Break it off, go out and get drunk (or whatever you do to blow off steam) and start a new adventure tomorrow. You said something about not knowing what you have to gain....but what do you really have to lose? Honestly? Like I said, if you really want to be single forever, cool. But I get the impression from the tone of your posts that that's not the case. You just seem a little bitter yourself and you wouldn't be if there wasn't a part of you deep down that really wants to share his life with someone. The things you have to gain can't really be put into words. I'm not saying a person needs a mate to be happy...but how do you know when you've never had one?
Alright, I have GOT to stop. This is way too long. Like I said, something about your posting here really touches me. I’m just a big believer in love. These days everyone is so wrapped up in being independent that it seems like some people look down on those that chose to spend their life with someone. Wanting companionship and loving someone doesn’t make you weak. It makes you human. I just wanna give you a big hug.
Oh, and I have to say I respect how you’re handling this thread. You make ONE comment and the whole things turns into everyone dissecting your life, huh? It’s happened to me before. I know it can unsettling….so I’ll shut up now.

Oh good lord, that last post is just one huge blob....this one may be easier to read.

In response to Brian's post:
“Not just younger ones. And a lot of them become very bitter and vindictive once they decide they're done with douchebags, and they are so jaded by their (self-inflicted) experience that they assume that all men are douchebags."

No, not just the younger ones....the stupid ones and the ones with zero self-esteem, too. You're right there. Still, not all women come out of their "douchebag" stage jaded. I spent a few years a little weary of men. I wouldn't say I was jaded, just cautious..and not because I thought all men were assholes. I was cautious because I knew that I had a habit of choosing losers. It seems like most of the women I know have gone through this. I wouldn't call it being jaded, I'd call it growing up. I can see how men would think I was a bit bitter back then...and maybe I was in some ways, but it wasn't because I thought all men were douchebags...it was because I had dated some douchebags that had obviously fooled me (one of which for years) and I knew I had to be careful not to choose another one.

"Shallow is a two way street. I'd wager that the bulk of humans are shallow. NTTAWWT."

Oh, we absolutely are...but at the same time....didn't the fattest man in the world get married recently? Obviously, looks aren't everything. Some people are shallower than others.

"I can see what is happening in the world around me. I think I can derive a good amount of information from that. As Yogi said, you can observe a lot by watching."

Yes, you can see...not feel what is happening in the world around you. You can derive a good amount of information from that...but not all of it. You can observe a lot by watching, yes...but that doesn't mean that you understand it. I think you’re a smart and insightful guy, but there is still no way you could understand relationships until you are in one.

From another post of yours:
"I'd like to know what it is I'm supposed to want. I can give you a list of things I don't want. That doesn't get me any closer to what I do want. I have no clue."

Yes, Brian, that does get you closer to knowing what you want. Knowing what you don't want is part of the battle. Going into my relationship with my fiance, I knew some things I wanted, but my list of things I didn't want was much longer. I ended up finding a man with tons of qualities I didn't know I wanted until he came along. That's where dating around a bit is key. You may date a girl doesn't have any of the qualities you don't want, but still doesn't float your boat. That's where you start to think about what was missing and put it on your "want" list. It's a process. It doesn't happen overnight.
"I know I don't want a liar, a cheat, a psycho, or an abuser. I'm not into head games. And I'm not likely to make dramatic changes to the way I conduct my life. If you try to make me choose between you and my friends, you lose. If you try to make me choose between you and my video games, you lose."

No woman should ever make you choose between her and your friends. That is a HUGE red flag. I don't know anyone in my group of friends that has asked that of a man. Not all women need 24/7 attention. When you find the right girl, you'll want to put down the controller. ;) In fact, there are lots of girls out there into video games.

"The problem (as irlandes points out) is the insane level of difficulty in spotting the head cases. I've had friends who were with seemingly sane women who just out of the blue went batshit and turned on them. I believe that they were batshit all along, but just very good at hiding it."

Okay, yes...some women are batshit crazy. Though, try to remember that you're only getting your friend's side of the story. My ex used to tell all of his friends about this ONE time I drove by his friends house checking up on him. We dated for 4 years on and off and it was the ONE time anything like this happened. He had cheated, apologized....then cheated...and apologized....then cheated and denied it….and on and on. He would tell me he was at his friend's and I'd hear the next day he was at a party and left with some girl....blah blah blah...the usual. I was young and I loved him. I still believed he loved me and he would change. Stupid, yes. So, one night my friend and I were driving around because she had just gotten a new car. We were in the neighborhood so I said: "hey, let's go see if he’s where he said he'd be." Anywho, he just happened to be outside smoking a cigarette right when we drove by. From then on, I was a "stalker". ONCE! ONE drive by on the ONE night he was actually where he said he'd be and I was labeled a stalker. The point of my way-too-long story is that men tend to pick up on the crazy things we do instead of the things they did to drive us to it. I'm not saying it's all his fault. I should have dumped his ass years before that. However, it still begs the question: why then, was he not crazy for all the times he showed up at my house when I asked him to leave me alone....or showed up to my work unannounced….or saw me driving and followed me to see where I was going?
"Absent such filtering mechanisms, dating's too much like work, and I already have a job."
It's part of life, dude. Sometimes it is work….but sometimes it’s the most perfect escape. I don't mean to get all preachy on you, but something about your posts kind of touches me. I just think your outlook is so sad. I'm not saying you're sad, just that it's sad to see someone so against love. You are not your friends. You will not have the same experiences as them…and like I said, you’re only getting one side of the story anyway. I don't know what the expression is for guys, but girls say: "You have to kiss a few frogs to find a prince!" So what if you start dating a girl and she turns out to be a head case? Break it off, go out and get drunk (or whatever you do to blow off steam) and start a new adventure tomorrow. You said something about not knowing what you have to gain....but what do you really have to lose? Honestly? Like I said, if you really want to be single forever, cool. But I get the impression from the tone of your posts that that's not the case. You just seem a little bitter yourself and you wouldn't be if there wasn't a part of you deep down that really wants to share his life with someone. The things you have to gain can't really be put into words. I'm not saying a person needs a mate to be happy...but how do you know when you've never had one?

Alright, I have GOT to stop. This is way too long. Like I said, something about your posting here really touches me. I’m just a big believer in love. These days everyone is so wrapped up in being independent that it seems like some people look down on those that chose to spend their life with someone. Wanting companionship and loving someone doesn’t make you weak. It makes you human. I just wanna give you a big hug.
Oh, and I have to say I respect how you’re handling this thread. You make ONE comment and the whole things turns into everyone dissecting your life, huh? It’s happened to me before. I know it can unsettling….so I’ll shut up now.

Oh, I was just reading again. Brian, you're in New England? No wonder! We New Englanders are pretty much all assholes. Well, at least Mass, RI and CT. Okay, I see how it can be discouraging for a less-assertive guy around here...but you could still try. I met my fiance on craigslist after drunkenly posting an ad as a joke. He happened to be on the same day looking for used tools (Guess I was too. Zing!) and ended up browsing through the personals and seeing my ad. I only even left it up for about 12 hours until I realized what I had done. Crazy things happen. My fiance is one of the most laid back people I know. He's not what I would call assertive, but he managed to show me enough of his personality that I didn't mind that I had to make the first move towards us meeting.

Gaddamit I'm rambling again!

@Patrick and Brian:

The women want us to bring something to the table (which is the logical thing to want), and yet, some say they simply want to be loved for who they are? Something's not making sense, here.

This conservative actually appreciates Patrick's pointing out of Limbaugh's hypocrisy on the Viet Nam war. There is no shortage of such draft-dodgers on both sides of the aisle (especially glaring hypocrisy with Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney). I'm an avid listener to Rush, but it is best to know just who and what I'm dealing with between 12 and 3.

That being said, I detect an undercurrent of smoking rage and hatred toward this radio host, Patrick. Hopefully, I'm just misinterpreting contempt. Did he say homosexuality was immoral or some such?

Al Franken is not "feigning innocence" at all. He candidly admits he's being mean. Perhaps you should read the book?

Okaaay, he's feigning irony.

And I have read the book. I read it when it first came out.

mpetrie, your question tells me that you haven't read my posts. At least not all the way through.

Not that I blame you.

Brian, I knew there was something I liked about you. I live in Florida now, but I was born and raised in Bennington, Vermont.

Conan: Okaaay, he's feigning irony.

Nice to see I'm not the only person for whom you decide their motivations.

But, perhaps you're right. It's not as if over the top nasticity (which I think sounds better than "nastiness") is a conceit he used only for the book, dropping the pretense and turning into Donny Osmond the day after he submitted to the publisher.

By the way, thanks for you sympathy regarding my illness. At the very least, I'm better than I was several days ago, when I spent the afternoon under a pile of blankets, a portable heater going full blast, and still chilled at the very core. I just could not feel warm.

I'm not deciding his motivations. I'm watching his actions and listening to (or reading) his words and speculating about his motivations.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-Franken. There's a lot to like about him.

He is reportedly a pretty intelligent guy, a very detail-oriented policy wonk in Congress. And he's gone over to Iraq and Afghanistan more than once to entertain and visit with the troops. He's written three or four books. He was the head writer on SNL for years. And, best of all, he was in Trading Places.

He's been married to the same woman for most of his adult life, the longevity of which may be more luck than skill, but still....

On a personal level, I don't like his style and I think he's being disingenuous regarding his "meanness." I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

====================

I remember many years ago watching Phil Donahue's show. Howard Stern was his guest. When Phil asked Stern about Rush Limbaugh, Stern launched into a tirade against Limbaugh in which several words had to be bleeped out.

After Stern was finished, Phil looked over at him and said, "Really. He's always said nice things about you."

Stern looked stunned. He had expected that Limbaugh would, like most other conservatives of that time, hold Stern personally responsible for the decline of Western civilization and so had launched a pre-emptive strike.

The problem with Al Franken is he's not funny, and he's not interesting. I can't stand him. He's almost as unfunny as Adam Sandler or David Letterman.

I notice that Patrick leaves out one of the most famous draft dodgers - Bill Clinton. He actually left the country to avoid it.

Brian: I notice that Patrick leaves out one of the most famous draft dodgers - Bill Clinton. He actually left the country to avoid it.

I didn't leave Bill Clinton out. In fact, I used Bill Clinton to illustrate Limbaugh's disgusting hypocrisy. From my response to your post on Limbaugh's views on feminism:

To say nothing of the fact that he's an utter pussy, who calls Clinton a draft dodger but changed his own tale about how he avoided service in Viet Nam. Once claimed it was "football knee," then changed to pilonidal cyst (a boil on the ass). Never mind that Limbaugh's own father served in World War II with a pilonidal cyst. But, you know, greatest generation and all that.

And you're entitled to your opinion on Al Franken. Considering your admiration for Limbaugh and the fact that Franken has skewered him innumerable times and claimed credit for the failure of Rush Limbaugh's television show, I'd expect no less.

As for not being funny, he's been a successful comedian, so obviously enough people disagree to make him successful. But of course, you wouldn't be alone. I think Ben Stiller isn't the least bit funny. Just crude and repulsive. Some of the things he does in the name of comedy are downright gag-inducing. I see Ben Stiller's movies and despair that repulsiveness has replaced wit as the staple of comedy.

Conan shared his opinions on Franken. So, here's mine. He's a better political prognosticator than those who actually do it for a living. During the G. H. W. Bush campaign, for instance, Comedy Central had their own commentary on Bush's campaign running alongside the more "newsy" networks. Out of all the commentators, Franken was the only one covering the Bush campaign who recognized what the sober networks didn't: that the ugly tone of Pat Buchanan's speech was going to cost Bush the election. While the other networks were pronouncing Buchanan's "fiery" (more appropriate described as "scary") speech was the kind of rhetorical red meat that the Republicans needed to get them up and working for Bush. Franken was listening, as the speech was being made, glibly and accurately pointing out that Buchanan just cost Bush California, the rust belt states, etc.

It would be weeks after the event before the other networks finally acknowledged what Franken glibly and casually observed and said.

Also, in his book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," he wrote a prequel to his story, Operation Chickenhawk. Written and published long before the process of selecting a candidate. Not knowing who the Democratic nominee would be, he guess John Kerry. And as you know, he was right.

And I do find his books informative. And often laugh out loud funny.

And let's not forget, he made a total ass of Bill O'Rielly...er, I mean the entire Fox News Network when they sued him for infringing on their trademark when he subtitled "Lies" as "a fair and balanced look at the right."

Fox was literally, and I do mean literally, laughed right out of court. The judged pronounced their case "wholly without merit" to the laughter and jeers of the onlookers.

He's gutsy, brilliant and yes, he's funny.

It would be weeks after the event before the other networks finally acknowledged what Franken glibly and casually observed and said.

Except that he was wrong. Clinton didn't win in 1992, Bush lost. When he signed that tax increase in 1991, the election was lost to whomever ran against him. The conservatives stayed home or voted for Clinton to punish him for going back on his one campaign promise.

But even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.