Women are the new men on TV

[Jude]

"Viking" <noway@goodgoodbye.com> wrote in message
news:vnule39kaiupmeiialss8jvgck41gnalcl@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:21:41 -0500, "Jude" <Cajun@thebayou.wet> wrote:
>
>>Is the lowlife upset. You're stretching to make a point out of movies
>>(which, dumbo, are on TV) and advertisement. The ultimate issue is who
>>controls Hollywood/Advertisement Agencies and who their targets are. DUH
>>Why can't YOU understand the implications of the issue at hand?
>
> You moron, the point is that TV and TV ads are anti-male.
>
> You're obviously a troll and a time waste.

Then go away.

 

[Jude]

"Viking" <noway@goodgoodbye.com> wrote in message
news:9qule3pjoul7u3coe04vadfsg5tpvi6dco@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:44:25 -0500, "Jude" <Cajun@thebayou.wet> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Andre Lieven" <andrelieven@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>>news:1189794905.547137.36360@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Sep 14, 12:32 pm, Viking <no...@goodgoodbye.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:25:02 -0500, "Jude" <Ca...@thebayou.wet> wrote:
>>>> >> If you stopped watching TV, how do you know what's broadcast?
>>>>
>>>> >He's "all knowing," or didn't you realize that?
>>>>
>>>> Glad you finally realized it.
>>>>
>>>> >I guess Spike TV is for women.
>>>
>>> How " girly " for Jude to point to the ONE men's network, while there
>>> are Oxygen, Lifetime, H&GTV, and many, many more that are 100% aimed
>>> at women, and while pretty much every major cable and broadcast
>>> channel
>>> during " working hours "is nothing but programming aimed at women .
>>>
>>> But, its not like Feminists have a record for accuracy, or anything...
>>>
>>>> It's not for men of any intelligence.
>>>>
>>>> >Men are STILL the overwhelming controllers of Hollywood and
>>>> >Advertisement.
>>>>
>>>> AND THEY'RE ALL ****ING AIMED AT FEMALES.
>>>
>>> Sure. Jude falls, once again, into the " Frontman Fallacy "
>>> Its Googlable.
>>>
>>>> >I think that just because a some advertisements and movies
>>>> >are made specifically for women audience, these guys have (perhaps for
>>>> >the
>>>> >first time in their self centered existence) have realized that it
>>>> >isn't
>>>> >all
>>>> >about them.
>>>>
>>>> YOU TOTAL MORON. Read the article linked to by the OP. Watch some TV
>>>> and LOOK AT THE ****ING ADS.
>>>>
>>>> TRY USING ONE OF YOUR TWO NEURONS YOU ****ING FREAK.
>>>
>>> Jude has neurons ? Thats not provable by anything it has ever posted
>>> here.
>>>
>>> And, the fact remains that, when one observes the mass media,
>>> especially
>>> during the weekday, one finds pretty much NOTHING for men. From Oprah,
>>> to Ellen, The View, et al, its all about the chyks.
>>>
>>> One would have to be a massive retard to have MS-ed that...
>>
>>You guys are the RETARDED one! lol. What about all the fishing, hunting
>>and
>>sports channels? Men STILL own Hollywood AND the vast majority of Ad
>>agencies. DUH Chick shows ARE the new thing. Because there was once
>>such
>>a lacking, there'll be a lot of shows to meet a need out there. It'll
>>level
>>out eventually.
>>
>> Oh, the poor whining tittie babies! Mommy, mommy, my wifey doesn't obey
>>me!
>
> You're a troll. And as such, I'm done with you.
>
> PLONK.

Geez, another compliment. Thanks!

 

[Day Brown]

I didnt say that devotion does not exist. Its just not the majority
opinion. "The Forest People", an anthro classic on the Mbuti pygmi of
the Congo, people who, at the time, in the late 40's were still living
pretty much as they had for 100,000 years, shows that 1/3 of the tribe
found a mate at puberty and stayed with that person. 1/3 went thru
what we now call serial monogamy, and 1/3 ****ed around.

Given that there's only 75 people, a monogamous standard would cause
too much inbreeding. DNA shows that Native Europeans evolved in
villages of 150-300 over the course of the last 10,000 years, with
other gene pools in this range between 75-300. But even at 300,
there's only 75 possible mates for any given generation. They werent
looking for "Mr. Wright". And in "Life in a Medieval Village" taken
from the court records of an obscure English Midlands 13th century
village, we see that most people were not married to the same person
all their lives.

Altho the village was owned by an abby, they still practiced "jumping
the broom", with year and a day contracts. All the abbot cared about
was the taxes. Otherwise, they were defacto pagan, as they had been
for millennia. It was no biggie if the parents split up; they still
lived in the village, and the kids could walk over to see whoever,
whenever. In a small gene pool like this, women dont want to use the
same sperm donor for every kid.

Mallory, "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" reports that there is no
word for "marriage" in Proto-Indo-European, and that "grandfather"
turns out to be the mother's brother. They lived polyamorously in
communal houses, not that unlike the Vikings were still doing before
they converted to Christianity.

And now, since the birth contol pill, monogamy has proved to be a
disaster. While honorable men like Jude, stayed faithful, quite often
the wife bore only girls, and he's out of the gene pool. However, the
charming philanderers have sired bastards to be raised on welfare all
over the county. Whose sons are just as charming as the fathers.

So- when Dr. Laura says "Well, you picked him honey." I ask, what did
she have to pick from ? No, I dont have a problem with a woman
keeping an honorable husband all to herself. Good luck. There's a
whole new women's genre now of novels about being dumped in their 40s
because the supply of suitable young men for young women is so short.

I see that smart career women are now going to the fertility clinic to
donate eggs soon as they get out of school. Then coming back after
their careers are online and they can afford the nanny, to select
among thousands of Y chromosome lines that are more promising than the
local stud muffins. Oh, they will **** with them all right, but this
is the age of specialization, and they want only the very best when it
comes time to make a baby. The kid, at least, will be there when they
get on in years. These kids will also be very stiff competition for
yours.

 

[Stinky]

On Sep 14, 10:33 am, Viking <no...@goodgoodbye.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:37:01 -0700, Stinky <awlecl...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What a waste of space this "article" is. I don't understand why
> >"journalists" use the crap that passes for sitcoms to analyze the
> >human condition.
>
> The relevant point is that men have been totally eclipsed on TV.

Big deal. Prime-time TV is nothing but junk, anyway. Who pays
attention to it?

 

[Masculist]

On Sep 14, 3:03 pm, "Jude" <Ca...@thebayou.wet> wrote:
> "Viking" <no...@goodgoodbye.com> wrote in message
>
> > If you're the best we have to face, we've got it made.
>
> You don't have anything made. You're a bitter broken man angry against
> women and all men who get along with most of them.

Sorry Charlie, don't be looking to men to buy into that chivalrous
line of bullshit. Your feminist days are at an end. Deal.

Smitty

> I get along with most
> women. I'm sure that isn't true about you. You probably glare at them and
> keep your distance setting up a self-fullfilling fear.

 

[pandora]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:37:07 -0700, Stinky wrote:

> On Sep 14, 10:33 am, Viking <no...@goodgoodbye.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:37:01 -0700, Stinky <awlecl...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >What a waste of space this "article" is. I don't understand why
>> >"journalists" use the crap that passes for sitcoms to analyze the human
>> >condition.
>>
>> The relevant point is that men have been totally eclipsed on TV.
>
> Big deal. Prime-time TV is nothing but junk, anyway. Who pays attention
> to it?

Tv is for entertainment. Has everyone forgotten that? It isn't a
reflection of anything but merely some screwed up ideas of writers looking
for a buck or two. However, there are some here (socmeners) who claim
that tv reflects real life. They use comedy sitcoms as examples of how
abused men are in real life. It wouldn't BE comedy if it were true. It
would be a documentary and no one would watch it.

 

[Ranting]

"pandora" <pandora@peak.org> wrote in message
newsan.2007.09.16.02.09.42.958017@peak.org...
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:37:07 -0700, Stinky wrote:
>
>> On Sep 14, 10:33 am, Viking <no...@goodgoodbye.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:37:01 -0700, Stinky <awlecl...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >What a waste of space this "article" is. I don't understand why
>>> >"journalists" use the crap that passes for sitcoms to analyze the human
>>> >condition.
>>>
>>> The relevant point is that men have been totally eclipsed on TV.
>>
>> Big deal. Prime-time TV is nothing but junk, anyway. Who pays attention
>> to it?
>
> Tv is for entertainment. Has everyone forgotten that? It isn't a
> reflection of anything but merely some screwed up ideas of writers looking
> for a buck or two. However, there are some here (socmeners) who claim
> that tv reflects real life. They use comedy sitcoms as examples of how
> abused men are in real life. It wouldn't BE comedy if it were true. It
> would be a documentary and no one would watch it.
>

It isn't just the shows though, it is the ads as well, they are insulting
and in some cases downright sexist.

 

[pandora]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:14:05 -0700, Masculist wrote:

> On Sep 14, 3:03 pm, "Jude" <Ca...@thebayou.wet> wrote:
>> "Viking" <no...@goodgoodbye.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > If you're the best we have to face, we've got it made.
>>
>> You don't have anything made. You're a bitter broken man angry against
>> women and all men who get along with most of them.
>
> Sorry Charlie, don't be looking to men to buy into that chivalrous line of
> bullshit. Your feminist days are at an end. Deal.

How so, puddin? What secret revolution are you planning? Get back on
your meds, soon, 'kay? You're delusional again.


> Smitty
>
>> I get along with most
>> women. I'm sure that isn't true about you. You probably glare at them
>> and keep your distance setting up a self-fullfilling fear.

 

[pandora]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:15:41 -0400, Ranting wrote:

>
> "pandora" <pandora@peak.org> wrote in message
> newsan.2007.09.16.02.09.42.958017@peak.org...
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:37:07 -0700, Stinky wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 14, 10:33 am, Viking <no...@goodgoodbye.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:37:01 -0700, Stinky <awlecl...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >What a waste of space this "article" is. I don't understand why
>>>> >"journalists" use the crap that passes for sitcoms to analyze the
>>>> >human condition.
>>>>
>>>> The relevant point is that men have been totally eclipsed on TV.
>>>
>>> Big deal. Prime-time TV is nothing but junk, anyway. Who pays
>>> attention to it?
>>
>> Tv is for entertainment. Has everyone forgotten that? It isn't a
>> reflection of anything but merely some screwed up ideas of writers
>> looking for a buck or two. However, there are some here (socmeners) who
>> claim that tv reflects real life. They use comedy sitcoms as examples
>> of how abused men are in real life. It wouldn't BE comedy if it were
>> true. It would be a documentary and no one would watch it.
>>
>>
> It isn't just the shows though, it is the ads as well, they are insulting
> and in some cases downright sexist.

And if you believe that to be true, what are you going to do about it?
Other than whine, that is. I mean, if it SO bothers you, you DO have
options. It's not like anyone has a gun to your head. Don't watch the
ads (I don't). Don't buy the products you feel have sexist ads. (I
don't). Or better yet, don't watch tv. If you act like an idiot and do
nothing but whine, you will get NO attention from the makers of the
products.

Sheesh.

A woman has to tell him this.

Sigh.

 

[Ranting]

"pandora" <pandora@peak.org> wrote in message
newsan.2007.09.16.03.37.08.114004@peak.org...
>
> And if you believe that to be true, what are you going to do about it?
> Other than whine, that is. I mean, if it SO bothers you, you DO have
> options. It's not like anyone has a gun to your head. Don't watch the
> ads (I don't). Don't buy the products you feel have sexist ads. (I
> don't). Or better yet, don't watch tv. If you act like an idiot and do
> nothing but whine, you will get NO attention from the makers of the
> products.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> A woman has to tell him this.
>
> Sigh.
>
>

So, you suggestions are to stick my head in the sand pretend it doesn't
exist.

BTW, why do you feel the compulsion to call people names in your posts,
can't you express yourself in a polite and decent manner.

You have my pity, I really feel sorry for you that you have this problem.

 

[Day Brown]

Outside of the men in the erectile function ads, the overwhelming
majority are depicted as clueless loosers.
>From what I saw at a rave last summer, I have to say that's an
accurate representation. I was just amazed at all the time young women
spent talking to me while I awaited the arrival of a business
associate. I'm 68. I didnt approach them, they approached me.

There's a neurological reason for this. Nature clipped the ends of the
bell curve for females to ensure that they had the mental
functionality to nurture young, and experimented more with men, which
is why so many are geniuses, but also why so many in the residential
care facilities are male as well.

Dietary contamination and deficit have had a far more devastating
effect on the mental development of boys. Hominid evolution included a
wide variety of wild plants and animals that provided trace minerals
like zinc, copper, iron, manganese, and also micro-nutrients absorbed
by plants from the natural bioto in the soil. Those critical nutrients
have been identified as essential to the 150+ neuro transmitters
laying new neural pathways down during learning.

Food grown agribusiness dont have it. Much less sugar cereals,
junkfood, and soda. The TV says the autism rate is 1:166. But Amish
boys, who still grow up on the farm eating a much more traditional
diet, have an autism rate of 1:15,000 with similarly low rates of ADD,
ADHD, ICD, etc. Amish men may not be geniuses, but they are not
clueless fools either.

And unlike other small farmers, they are buying up agribusiness land
in IA & MO for their sons whose management skills are good enough to
keep expanding their ownership and culture.

This month's Playboy Advisor has letters from women about mates who
cant, or dont want to, get it up. Well, if power is an aphrodisiac,
then disempowerment- job loss and the lack of future opportunity as
women move in to take over careers- is a turn off. And likewise, there
is now an increasing cadre of successful women with very active
libidos. (I wish I knew some. )

 

[Jude]

"Masculist" <MASCULIST@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189883645.638572.140190@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 14, 3:03 pm, "Jude" <Ca...@thebayou.wet> wrote:
>> "Viking" <no...@goodgoodbye.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > If you're the best we have to face, we've got it made.
>>
>> You don't have anything made. You're a bitter broken man angry against
>> women and all men who get along with most of them.
>
> Sorry Charlie, don't be looking to men to buy into that chivalrous
> line of bullshit. Your feminist days are at an end. Deal.

I wasn't talking about chivalry.

Your wishful thinking will be shown to be just that.

>
> Smitty
>
>> I get along with most
>> women. I'm sure that isn't true about you. You probably glare at them
>> and
>> keep your distance setting up a self-fullfilling fear.
>
>