Vox Day, another insecure sexist
In my previous post, I discussed how men like Don Fender, who still demand traditional gender roles, are really inscure men trying to hide how soft and weak they are!
There's another editorialist who fits that description - Vox Day who writes for World Net Daily
here's his archives
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=175
Vox Day title's his editorial page as Vox populi. So the Latin phrase "Vox populi, vox Dei" means "The Voice of thePopulace = the Voice of God."
So we know how delusional Vox Day just judging by his pen name and his editorial page name.
But it gets worse, as you can see from his following words
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47735
To put it more clearly, if a woman consents to extramarital sex, she is committing a moral offense which is equal to that committed by the man who engages in consensual sex with her, or by the man who, in the absence of such consent, rapes her. Christianity knows no hierarchy of sins. Since only the woman who is not entertaining the possibility of sex with a man and is subsequently raped can truly be considered a wholly innocent victim under this ethic, it is no wonder that women who insist that internal consent is the sole determining factor of a woman's victimization find traditional Western morality to be inherently distasteful.
What an a-hole!
A person owns his/her body. A rape violates the victim's ownership rights. What's so hard to understand about that?
Vox Day is the same guy who publicly threatened Al Franken and called him out to a fight. By doing that, Vox Day is already violating a law. So does that mean that Vox Day ought to be raped while doing prison time?
It's one thing to ask that woman take precautions to avoid date rape. However, we need to make sure we enough outrage against the rapist. After all, when a bank gets robbed, we have outrage towards the robber, not the bank.
Vox Day also said in many previous articles that women shouldn't work, they should stay home and make babies.
In reality, when that happens, it makes the woman vulnerable to more abuse because she knows that without her abusive husband, she can't survive on her own.
This is why pimps treat their sex slaves like shit! Rip them girls off their money and abuse them, so they got nowhere to turn!
Vox Day calls himself a "Christian". I call him an insecure asshole, who's trying to hide his softness and vulnerabilities by writing stupid junk like that!
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
King Kong, Gender Roles, Insecurity
Extreme Right Wing Conservative Don Feder applauds the new King Kong movie for portraying stereotypical gender roles.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20675
Here's my response to Don Feder's words
------------------------------------------------
Feder:Feminism supposedly having liberated us from gender stereotypes, today’s heroines are emotionally androgynous. They compete with men, pursue them sexually – essentially, they are men (and not the better sort) with breasts and vaginas.
Pablo:This is so idiotic! So, a woman refusing to be excessively vulnerable is "man with breasts and vagina"? So women ought to be excessively vulnerable to the point where she's an easy target for abuse? If not, she's a "man with breast and vagina"? That's stupid!
Or is Feder such a weak man that he's intimidated by women who show signs of strength? Maybe he's a "woman with a penis and testicles" or as Arnold would say "a girlie man"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feder:In a way, all men are King Kong: powerful, brooding, potentially destructive creatures waiting for a woman to touch our hearts and tame us.
Pablo:Bullcrap!
There's a lot of men who are so passive, that it takes a stripper to even bring his wild side out! Otherwise, they're passive all day! And even in bed with a a woman, some men are passive!
And then there's men who have no internal interest in being tamed! The only thing they want from a woman is to conquer and rape her! No amount of tender-hearted-ness from a woman will ever tame them. Otherwise, there would be no domestic violence
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feder:And all women are Ann Darrow, simultaneously fragile and compelling, possessor of the magic to transform primitive males (monsters-in-waiting) into protectors and the builders of families and civilizations.
Pablo:Some women don't want to be around "primitive males" because they'd always be monsters, regardless!
Women as fragile? A large percentage of middle school girls dont even show a fragile side at all! They're gossipy and loud, ready to visciously put down anyone who don't meet their standards! I was once in middle school as a student and I work at middle schools now! So don't tell me otherwise!
In some cases, some wild, rowdy women are the ones get tamed by a man who is strong, suave and sensitive!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Feder is a weak, insecure man who is scared of women with any sense of inner strength. Feder is scared of women who are loud and expressive! Feder is not a real man! He hides that he's demanding traditional gender roles to mask his softness!
By the way, Feder reminds me of this one roommate I once had! And I told that room-mate his mind is in the 12th century. Then he stopping talking like Don Feder!
Extreme Right Wing Conservative Don Feder applauds the new King Kong movie for portraying stereotypical gender roles.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20675
Here's my response to Don Feder's words
------------------------------------------------
Feder:Feminism supposedly having liberated us from gender stereotypes, today’s heroines are emotionally androgynous. They compete with men, pursue them sexually – essentially, they are men (and not the better sort) with breasts and vaginas.
Pablo:This is so idiotic! So, a woman refusing to be excessively vulnerable is "man with breasts and vagina"? So women ought to be excessively vulnerable to the point where she's an easy target for abuse? If not, she's a "man with breast and vagina"? That's stupid!
Or is Feder such a weak man that he's intimidated by women who show signs of strength? Maybe he's a "woman with a penis and testicles" or as Arnold would say "a girlie man"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feder:In a way, all men are King Kong: powerful, brooding, potentially destructive creatures waiting for a woman to touch our hearts and tame us.
Pablo:Bullcrap!
There's a lot of men who are so passive, that it takes a stripper to even bring his wild side out! Otherwise, they're passive all day! And even in bed with a a woman, some men are passive!
And then there's men who have no internal interest in being tamed! The only thing they want from a woman is to conquer and rape her! No amount of tender-hearted-ness from a woman will ever tame them. Otherwise, there would be no domestic violence
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feder:And all women are Ann Darrow, simultaneously fragile and compelling, possessor of the magic to transform primitive males (monsters-in-waiting) into protectors and the builders of families and civilizations.
Pablo:Some women don't want to be around "primitive males" because they'd always be monsters, regardless!
Women as fragile? A large percentage of middle school girls dont even show a fragile side at all! They're gossipy and loud, ready to visciously put down anyone who don't meet their standards! I was once in middle school as a student and I work at middle schools now! So don't tell me otherwise!
In some cases, some wild, rowdy women are the ones get tamed by a man who is strong, suave and sensitive!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Feder is a weak, insecure man who is scared of women with any sense of inner strength. Feder is scared of women who are loud and expressive! Feder is not a real man! He hides that he's demanding traditional gender roles to mask his softness!
By the way, Feder reminds me of this one roommate I once had! And I told that room-mate his mind is in the 12th century. Then he stopping talking like Don Feder!
Monday, December 26, 2005
Response to Geography Lesson
In my previous post, I mentioned about this Chinese male who said that he "didn't consider Filipinos to be Asians".
My friend Stuart Hayashi (who is Japanese American) has this to say
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not see any problem with Filipinos being considered "Asians,"regardless of whether or not they are generally darker than East Asians like the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans.
In fact, the very point that Filipinos are necessarily darker --for genetic reasons -- is subject to debate. In the nineteenth century and early twentieth centuries, a number of prominent whites (such as many of President Theodore Roosevelt's favorite nonfiction authors) described East Asian Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Tibetans, etc., as "brown-skinned." This was not without reason.
It can be argued that Japanese nationals are often light-skinned due to environmental factors rather than genetic, given that people of Japanese ancestry who have lived in Hawaii for many years often become quite brown. This may not be surprising to scientists who have found that the skin color of the first humans was brownish/bronze instead of black (they say that the first humans probably looked more like bushmen than like West Africans).
Indeed, reflecting upon his stay in Hawaii during the Massie Case, attorney Clarence Darrow made a comment in his memoirs that was along the lines of, *Honolulu looks just like any other American town,except that everybody is brown*. He said this upon observing, not only Native Hawaiians, but East Asian immigrant laborers as well.
By what standard are we to judge what makes someone "Asian"? When we consider their continent of residence, the indigenous peoples of India are "Asian," are they not?
I also find it weird when Russians are called European, since they too live in Asia and are always referred to as "The East." And it is true that, for some years, Russia was actually a political territory ruled by that famous Mongoloid conqueror, Genghis Khan.
And, if only East Asians like the Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese are to regarded as "the only real Asians," then how are weto classify the people of Kyrgyzstan? A lot of them are Muslims with Sinic-(i.e., Chinese)-looking facial features. But a number of Kyrgyzs are Caucasoid-looking, too.
It may be true that the Philippines is not located on the Asian continent. But, then again, neither is Japan or Hong Kong. Technically, the Japanese don't live in Asia; they are on an island chain.
And the English aren't on any continent either. So maybe we shouldn't use the word "European" on them?
What term are we to use for South Asians like Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, and Kashmiris? Dravidians were the indigenous peoples they descended from, but the South Asians have ancestors of various other ethnicities, too. Since they actually dwell on the Asian continent, perhaps they and the Russians are "more Asian" than the Japanese? And, as you pointed out, what are we to say of the Indonesians and Malaysians?
If Fiipinos are not "true Asians" for some racial reason, then what about Pacific Islanders who have both Negroid and Mongoloid ancestors?
Your points about the classifications of "Asian races" are very much on the mark. It is not as if ethnic researchers' modern classifications of "races" are as scientifically exact as "2 + 2 = 4."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo's comments: Stuart made interesting good points up there.
The Chinese American male I mentioned earlier was a total ignoramus who went to the same high school as myself. He flunked a social studies class as well as a few math classes (proving that not all Asians are good math).
That ignoramus was ignorant of geography, even the geography of the continent his ancestors came from
.All that ignoramus knew about Asians was what he saw in person in Hawaii. Meaning, most of the Asians he seen were Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Vietnamese and Laotian. He's most likely was not familiar with Indonesians, Mongolians, Burmese, Malaysians, Cambodians, Tibetans, Kahzaks, Uzbeks or Krygyzs. He just noticed that Filipinos are darker than the other Asian groups common in Hawaii, so he placed them in the same category as other brown skinned people common in Hawaii (ie Polynesians) which is totally ridiculous.
Just go to any myspace profiles of Filipinos, under race, they'll put Asian, NOT Pacific Islanders.
Asians tend to go in the following categories : Northeast Asians (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Mongolian, and the ethnic groups in Siberia), Southeast Asians (Filipinos, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Thais, Burmese, Indonesians, Malaysians), South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangledeshis, Sri Lankans), Central Asians (Kahzaks, Uzbeks, Krygyzs, Tibetans)
West Asia is more commonly knowns as the Middle East, so the people there are placed in a different ethnic categories.
Russia covers parts of Europe and Asia. Those who are ethnically Russians are white Europeans. They were able to conquer mass amounts of territory in Europe and Asia and have mixed with other ethnic groups. So in Russia, we have white Europeans, Middle Eastern people, and Asians)
As for Pacific Islanders, we got Melanesians (New Guinea, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia), Micronesians (Marshallese, Chuukese, Chamorros, Palauans, Pohnpei) and Polynesians (Hawaiians, Samoans, Tongans, Tahitians, Maoris)
Native Fijians have been considered Polynesians by some, Melanesians by others. Fiji also has a large population of South Asians, imported to work on plantations, just like how Japanese and Filipinos were brought to work in Hawaii plantations.
Australian Aborigines look similar to Melanesians, though some scientist have placed them in separate categories.
So Stuart Hayashi was right when he said "It is not as if ethnic researchers' modern classifications of "races" are as scientifically exact as "2 + 2 = 4."
In my previous post, I mentioned about this Chinese male who said that he "didn't consider Filipinos to be Asians".
My friend Stuart Hayashi (who is Japanese American) has this to say
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not see any problem with Filipinos being considered "Asians,"regardless of whether or not they are generally darker than East Asians like the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans.
In fact, the very point that Filipinos are necessarily darker --for genetic reasons -- is subject to debate. In the nineteenth century and early twentieth centuries, a number of prominent whites (such as many of President Theodore Roosevelt's favorite nonfiction authors) described East Asian Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Tibetans, etc., as "brown-skinned." This was not without reason.
It can be argued that Japanese nationals are often light-skinned due to environmental factors rather than genetic, given that people of Japanese ancestry who have lived in Hawaii for many years often become quite brown. This may not be surprising to scientists who have found that the skin color of the first humans was brownish/bronze instead of black (they say that the first humans probably looked more like bushmen than like West Africans).
Indeed, reflecting upon his stay in Hawaii during the Massie Case, attorney Clarence Darrow made a comment in his memoirs that was along the lines of, *Honolulu looks just like any other American town,except that everybody is brown*. He said this upon observing, not only Native Hawaiians, but East Asian immigrant laborers as well.
By what standard are we to judge what makes someone "Asian"? When we consider their continent of residence, the indigenous peoples of India are "Asian," are they not?
I also find it weird when Russians are called European, since they too live in Asia and are always referred to as "The East." And it is true that, for some years, Russia was actually a political territory ruled by that famous Mongoloid conqueror, Genghis Khan.
And, if only East Asians like the Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese are to regarded as "the only real Asians," then how are weto classify the people of Kyrgyzstan? A lot of them are Muslims with Sinic-(i.e., Chinese)-looking facial features. But a number of Kyrgyzs are Caucasoid-looking, too.
It may be true that the Philippines is not located on the Asian continent. But, then again, neither is Japan or Hong Kong. Technically, the Japanese don't live in Asia; they are on an island chain.
And the English aren't on any continent either. So maybe we shouldn't use the word "European" on them?
What term are we to use for South Asians like Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, and Kashmiris? Dravidians were the indigenous peoples they descended from, but the South Asians have ancestors of various other ethnicities, too. Since they actually dwell on the Asian continent, perhaps they and the Russians are "more Asian" than the Japanese? And, as you pointed out, what are we to say of the Indonesians and Malaysians?
If Fiipinos are not "true Asians" for some racial reason, then what about Pacific Islanders who have both Negroid and Mongoloid ancestors?
Your points about the classifications of "Asian races" are very much on the mark. It is not as if ethnic researchers' modern classifications of "races" are as scientifically exact as "2 + 2 = 4."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo's comments: Stuart made interesting good points up there.
The Chinese American male I mentioned earlier was a total ignoramus who went to the same high school as myself. He flunked a social studies class as well as a few math classes (proving that not all Asians are good math).
That ignoramus was ignorant of geography, even the geography of the continent his ancestors came from
.All that ignoramus knew about Asians was what he saw in person in Hawaii. Meaning, most of the Asians he seen were Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Vietnamese and Laotian. He's most likely was not familiar with Indonesians, Mongolians, Burmese, Malaysians, Cambodians, Tibetans, Kahzaks, Uzbeks or Krygyzs. He just noticed that Filipinos are darker than the other Asian groups common in Hawaii, so he placed them in the same category as other brown skinned people common in Hawaii (ie Polynesians) which is totally ridiculous.
Just go to any myspace profiles of Filipinos, under race, they'll put Asian, NOT Pacific Islanders.
Asians tend to go in the following categories : Northeast Asians (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Mongolian, and the ethnic groups in Siberia), Southeast Asians (Filipinos, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Thais, Burmese, Indonesians, Malaysians), South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangledeshis, Sri Lankans), Central Asians (Kahzaks, Uzbeks, Krygyzs, Tibetans)
West Asia is more commonly knowns as the Middle East, so the people there are placed in a different ethnic categories.
Russia covers parts of Europe and Asia. Those who are ethnically Russians are white Europeans. They were able to conquer mass amounts of territory in Europe and Asia and have mixed with other ethnic groups. So in Russia, we have white Europeans, Middle Eastern people, and Asians)
As for Pacific Islanders, we got Melanesians (New Guinea, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia), Micronesians (Marshallese, Chuukese, Chamorros, Palauans, Pohnpei) and Polynesians (Hawaiians, Samoans, Tongans, Tahitians, Maoris)
Native Fijians have been considered Polynesians by some, Melanesians by others. Fiji also has a large population of South Asians, imported to work on plantations, just like how Japanese and Filipinos were brought to work in Hawaii plantations.
Australian Aborigines look similar to Melanesians, though some scientist have placed them in separate categories.
So Stuart Hayashi was right when he said "It is not as if ethnic researchers' modern classifications of "races" are as scientifically exact as "2 + 2 = 4."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)