On relationships, the Soviet Union – and Russia before and after – were schizophrenic. There was a traditional Russian influence that was very brutal and misogynistic. There were also many writers, poets and intellectuals who fought that influence and spoke in favor of love.

In real life this played out in a terrible manner. A man would fall in love with a woman and treat her like gold. Then his work mates, his drinking mates or his sports mates would stuff his head with Iago-type nonsense, leading him to be paranoid of his wife or to think that she was a bad person. Many would say such things as that women do nothing but screw men over or that he owed it to his gender to keep women down or that his feelings were unmanly. The result was even the best marital situations becoming abusive.

Of course I took objection to that state of affairs. For a while I had the irrational view that women were better than men. My experiences with American feminists cured me of that error. I did not replace my stance with that of Eminem or Osama Bin Laden. I replaced it with a rational stance – that anything human, male or female, was capable of choice, and anything capable of choice could be good or bad.

From this came the conclusion that the gender was was not the solution; the gender war was the problem. The gender war has been teaching everyone involved the worst possible behavior. Both men and women are being encouraged to be horrible people. The perpetrators on both sides have neither the power nor the guts to reach one another. Instead they take it out on the people who have done the least to cause either problem – the feminists on men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are for the most part the least misogynistic men out there; and the real misogynists on women in the inner city, Muslim communities and right-wing communities who have done the least to cause Third Wave feminism. This results in horrible attitudes and behavior being encouraged and rewarded, and better behavior and better attitudes getting people abused.

The gender war being the problem, the solution is the opposite. The solution is men being good to women and women being good to men. Good behavior and good attitudes should be rewarded, and genuinely bad behavior and bad attitudes should be punished. Let men from the first side of town get together with women from the second side of town. That way men who are willing to be good to women will be with women who are willing to be good to men, creating much better relationships than they stand to have at home. And the offending gender on either side will have a real-world reason to improve their treatment of the other gender, or else see the other gender leave in large numbers to be with people who are willing to be good to them.

From My Autobiography
https://olympiapublishers.com/books/my-autobiography

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:37:21 PM UTC-4, ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On relationships, the Soviet Union – and Russia before and after – were schizophrenic. There was a traditional Russian influence that was very brutal and misogynistic. There were also many writers, poets and intellectuals who fought that influence and spoke in favor of love.
>

Multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia are two very different things. You appear to mean the former.

"Schizophrenic" was once incorrectly used to refer to MPD, but this usage has since fallen out of favor.

> In real life this played out in a terrible manner. A man would fall in love with a woman and treat her like gold. Then his work mates, his drinking mates or his sports mates would stuff his head with Iago-type nonsense, leading him to be paranoid of his wife or to think that she was a bad person. Many would say such things as that women do nothing but screw men over or that he owed it to his gender to keep women down or that his feelings were unmanly. The result was even the best marital situations becoming abusive.
>

Do you have any statistics to back this up?

Your scenario sounds more than a bit suspect. I don't believe that very many men would become paranoid and abusive at the urging of their misogynistic drinking buddies.

> Of course I took objection to that state of affairs.

Did you object to the actual "state of affairs" (assuming that such a state existed)? And, if so, did you object to the abusiveness of the formerly non-violent husbands, or to the sexist, patriarchal attitudes of the influential drinking buddies? Perhaps both?

I think you mean that you objected to the irrational ideology that all women are "bad," and that it is unmanly to treat or regard them as equals. If so, your use of "state of affairs" is incorrect.

> For a while I had the irrational view that women were better than men.

Reverse sexism.

Your problem was that you insisted on maintaining a false perception of inequality -- incorrectly believing that one sex must be superior to the other..

> My experiences with American feminists cured me of that error.

Your obligatory attacks on feminists are always amusing.

> I did not replace my stance with that of Eminem or Osama Bin Laden.

Your frequent references to 90s pop stars are amusing as well.

> I replaced it with a rational stance – that anything human, male or female, was capable of choice, and anything capable of choice could be good or bad.

As previously noted, your "rational stance" is both naive and incorrect. Had you any familiarity with philosophy (d'Holbach, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche), or quantum physics ("For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” -- Albert Einstein), you would know that "freedom of choice" is an illusion.

> From this came the conclusion that the gender was was not the solution; the gender war was the problem.

You are using "solution" incorrectly. I believe you mean that gender was not the issue.

> The gender war has been teaching everyone involved the worst possible behavior. Both men and women are being encouraged to be horrible people.

There is no "gender war" in America.

America is a sex-obsessed society. When both partners have compatible sex drives, they have a harmonious relationship. When their sex drives are incompatible, there is discord.

> The perpetrators on both sides have neither the power nor the guts to reach one another. Instead they take it out on the people who have done the least to cause either problem –

Either problem denotes two previously listed problems. The only problem you have listed is in this paragraph is the gender war.

> the feminists on men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are for the most part the least misogynistic men out there; and the real misogynists on women in the inner city, Muslim communities and right-wing communities who have done the least to cause Third Wave feminism. This results in horrible attitudes and behavior being encouraged and rewarded, and better behavior and better attitudes getting people abused.
>

WTF???

Liberal intellectual men are not being persecuted by radical Third Wave feminists; and neither inner city conservative women, nor Muslim women are being attacked by misogynists.

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Do you have *any* sources for these bizarre claims?

Do you have *any* sociological evidence to support them?

> The gender war being the problem, the solution is the opposite.

What would the opposite of a gender war be? A non-gender war?

Aristotle would have cautioned against switching from one extreme position to its opposite, in favor of seeking out a "Golden Mean." But then your grounding in philosophy is obviously... weak.

> The solution is men being good to women and women being good to men. Good behavior and good attitudes should be rewarded, and genuinely bad behavior and bad attitudes should be punished. Let men from the first side of town get together with women from the second side of town. That way men who are willing to be good to women will be with women who are willing to be good to men, creating much better relationships than they stand to have at home. And the offending gender on either side will have a real-world reason to improve their treatment of the other gender, or else see the other gender leave in large numbers to be with people who are willing to be good to them.
>

Pavlovian conditioning?

How Russian of you.

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:27:02 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:37:21 PM UTC-4, ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On relationships, the Soviet Union – and Russia before and after – were schizophrenic. There was a traditional Russian influence that was very brutal and misogynistic. There were also many writers, poets and intellectuals who fought that influence and spoke in favor of love.
> >
> Multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia are two very different things. You appear to mean the former.
>
> "Schizophrenic" was once incorrectly used to refer to MPD, but this usage has since fallen out of favor.
> > In real life this played out in a terrible manner. A man would fall in love with a woman and treat her like gold. Then his work mates, his drinking mates or his sports mates would stuff his head with Iago-type nonsense, leading him to be paranoid of his wife or to think that she was a bad person.. Many would say such things as that women do nothing but screw men over or that he owed it to his gender to keep women down or that his feelings were unmanly. The result was even the best marital situations becoming abusive.
> >
> Do you have any statistics to back this up?
>
> Your scenario sounds more than a bit suspect. I don't believe that very many men would become paranoid and abusive at the urging of their misogynistic drinking buddies.
> > Of course I took objection to that state of affairs.
> Did you object to the actual "state of affairs" (assuming that such a state existed)? And, if so, did you object to the abusiveness of the formerly non-violent husbands, or to the sexist, patriarchal attitudes of the influential drinking buddies? Perhaps both?
>
> I think you mean that you objected to the irrational ideology that all women are "bad," and that it is unmanly to treat or regard them as equals. If so, your use of "state of affairs" is incorrect.
> > For a while I had the irrational view that women were better than men.
> Reverse sexism.
>
> Your problem was that you insisted on maintaining a false perception of inequality -- incorrectly believing that one sex must be superior to the other.
> > My experiences with American feminists cured me of that error.
> Your obligatory attacks on feminists are always amusing.
> > I did not replace my stance with that of Eminem or Osama Bin Laden.
> Your frequent references to 90s pop stars are amusing as well.
> > I replaced it with a rational stance – that anything human, male or female, was capable of choice, and anything capable of choice could be good or bad.
> As previously noted, your "rational stance" is both naive and incorrect. Had you any familiarity with philosophy (d'Holbach, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche), or quantum physics ("For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” -- Albert Einstein), you would know that "freedom of choice" is an illusion.
> > From this came the conclusion that the gender was was not the solution; the gender war was the problem.
> You are using "solution" incorrectly. I believe you mean that gender was not the issue.
> > The gender war has been teaching everyone involved the worst possible behavior. Both men and women are being encouraged to be horrible people.
> There is no "gender war" in America.
>
> America is a sex-obsessed society. When both partners have compatible sex drives, they have a harmonious relationship. When their sex drives are incompatible, there is discord.
> > The perpetrators on both sides have neither the power nor the guts to reach one another. Instead they take it out on the people who have done the least to cause either problem –
> Either problem denotes two previously listed problems. The only problem you have listed is in this paragraph is the gender war.
> > the feminists on men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are for the most part the least misogynistic men out there; and the real misogynists on women in the inner city, Muslim communities and right-wing communities who have done the least to cause Third Wave feminism. This results in horrible attitudes and behavior being encouraged and rewarded, and better behavior and better attitudes getting people abused.
> >
> WTF???
>
> Liberal intellectual men are not being persecuted by radical Third Wave feminists; and neither inner city conservative women, nor Muslim women are being attacked by misogynists.
>
> Where do you come up with this nonsense?
>
> Do you have *any* sources for these bizarre claims?
>
> Do you have *any* sociological evidence to support them?
> > The gender war being the problem, the solution is the opposite.
> What would the opposite of a gender war be? A non-gender war?
>
> Aristotle would have cautioned against switching from one extreme position to its opposite, in favor of seeking out a "Golden Mean." But then your grounding in philosophy is obviously... weak.
> > The solution is men being good to women and women being good to men. Good behavior and good attitudes should be rewarded, and genuinely bad behavior and bad attitudes should be punished. Let men from the first side of town get together with women from the second side of town. That way men who are willing to be good to women will be with women who are willing to be good to men, creating much better relationships than they stand to have at home.. And the offending gender on either side will have a real-world reason to improve their treatment of the other gender, or else see the other gender leave in large numbers to be with people who are willing to be good to them.
> >
> Pavlovian conditioning?
>
> How Russian of you.

Brevity is the soul of wit.
“WTF???” was sufficient.

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:44:58 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:27:02 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:37:21 PM UTC-4, ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On relationships, the Soviet Union – and Russia before and after – were schizophrenic. There was a traditional Russian influence that was very brutal and misogynistic. There were also many writers, poets and intellectuals who fought that influence and spoke in favor of love.
> > >
> > Multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia are two very different things. You appear to mean the former.
> >
> > "Schizophrenic" was once incorrectly used to refer to MPD, but this usage has since fallen out of favor.
> > > In real life this played out in a terrible manner. A man would fall in love with a woman and treat her like gold. Then his work mates, his drinking mates or his sports mates would stuff his head with Iago-type nonsense, leading him to be paranoid of his wife or to think that she was a bad person. Many would say such things as that women do nothing but screw men over or that he owed it to his gender to keep women down or that his feelings were unmanly. The result was even the best marital situations becoming abusive.
> > >
> > Do you have any statistics to back this up?
> >
> > Your scenario sounds more than a bit suspect. I don't believe that very many men would become paranoid and abusive at the urging of their misogynistic drinking buddies.
> > > Of course I took objection to that state of affairs.
> > Did you object to the actual "state of affairs" (assuming that such a state existed)? And, if so, did you object to the abusiveness of the formerly non-violent husbands, or to the sexist, patriarchal attitudes of the influential drinking buddies? Perhaps both?
> >
> > I think you mean that you objected to the irrational ideology that all women are "bad," and that it is unmanly to treat or regard them as equals. If so, your use of "state of affairs" is incorrect.
> > > For a while I had the irrational view that women were better than men..
> > Reverse sexism.
> >
> > Your problem was that you insisted on maintaining a false perception of inequality -- incorrectly believing that one sex must be superior to the other.
> > > My experiences with American feminists cured me of that error.
> > Your obligatory attacks on feminists are always amusing.
> > > I did not replace my stance with that of Eminem or Osama Bin Laden.
> > Your frequent references to 90s pop stars are amusing as well.
> > > I replaced it with a rational stance – that anything human, male or female, was capable of choice, and anything capable of choice could be good or bad.
> > As previously noted, your "rational stance" is both naive and incorrect.. Had you any familiarity with philosophy (d'Holbach, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche), or quantum physics ("For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” -- Albert Einstein), you would know that "freedom of choice" is an illusion.
> > > From this came the conclusion that the gender was was not the solution; the gender war was the problem.
> > You are using "solution" incorrectly. I believe you mean that gender was not the issue.
> > > The gender war has been teaching everyone involved the worst possible behavior. Both men and women are being encouraged to be horrible people.
> > There is no "gender war" in America.
> >
> > America is a sex-obsessed society. When both partners have compatible sex drives, they have a harmonious relationship. When their sex drives are incompatible, there is discord.
> > > The perpetrators on both sides have neither the power nor the guts to reach one another. Instead they take it out on the people who have done the least to cause either problem –
> > Either problem denotes two previously listed problems. The only problem you have listed is in this paragraph is the gender war.
> > > the feminists on men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are for the most part the least misogynistic men out there; and the real misogynists on women in the inner city, Muslim communities and right-wing communities who have done the least to cause Third Wave feminism. This results in horrible attitudes and behavior being encouraged and rewarded, and better behavior and better attitudes getting people abused.
> > >
> > WTF???
> >
> > Liberal intellectual men are not being persecuted by radical Third Wave feminists; and neither inner city conservative women, nor Muslim women are being attacked by misogynists.
> >
> > Where do you come up with this nonsense?
> >
> > Do you have *any* sources for these bizarre claims?
> >
> > Do you have *any* sociological evidence to support them?
> > > The gender war being the problem, the solution is the opposite.
> > What would the opposite of a gender war be? A non-gender war?
> >
> > Aristotle would have cautioned against switching from one extreme position to its opposite, in favor of seeking out a "Golden Mean." But then your grounding in philosophy is obviously... weak.
> > > The solution is men being good to women and women being good to men. Good behavior and good attitudes should be rewarded, and genuinely bad behavior and bad attitudes should be punished. Let men from the first side of town get together with women from the second side of town. That way men who are willing to be good to women will be with women who are willing to be good to men, creating much better relationships than they stand to have at home. And the offending gender on either side will have a real-world reason to improve their treatment of the other gender, or else see the other gender leave in large numbers to be with people who are willing to be good to them.
> > >
> > Pavlovian conditioning?
> >
> > How Russian of you.
> Brevity is the soul of wit.
> “WTF???” was sufficient.

That's true -- if my intention were merely to ridicule Ilya.

Had I left it at WTF???, Ilya wouldn't know what I was questioning. You see, I'm trying to get through to him.

Unlike our resident Donkey, I haven't written him off as a potato... yet.

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 10:30:41 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:44:58 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:27:02 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:37:21 PM UTC-4, ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On relationships, the Soviet Union – and Russia before and after – were schizophrenic. There was a traditional Russian influence that was very brutal and misogynistic. There were also many writers, poets and intellectuals who fought that influence and spoke in favor of love.
> > > >
> > > Multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia are two very different things. You appear to mean the former.
> > >
> > > "Schizophrenic" was once incorrectly used to refer to MPD, but this usage has since fallen out of favor.
> > > > In real life this played out in a terrible manner. A man would fall in love with a woman and treat her like gold. Then his work mates, his drinking mates or his sports mates would stuff his head with Iago-type nonsense, leading him to be paranoid of his wife or to think that she was a bad person. Many would say such things as that women do nothing but screw men over or that he owed it to his gender to keep women down or that his feelings were unmanly. The result was even the best marital situations becoming abusive.
> > > >
> > > Do you have any statistics to back this up?
> > >
> > > Your scenario sounds more than a bit suspect. I don't believe that very many men would become paranoid and abusive at the urging of their misogynistic drinking buddies.
> > > > Of course I took objection to that state of affairs.
> > > Did you object to the actual "state of affairs" (assuming that such a state existed)? And, if so, did you object to the abusiveness of the formerly non-violent husbands, or to the sexist, patriarchal attitudes of the influential drinking buddies? Perhaps both?
> > >
> > > I think you mean that you objected to the irrational ideology that all women are "bad," and that it is unmanly to treat or regard them as equals.. If so, your use of "state of affairs" is incorrect.
> > > > For a while I had the irrational view that women were better than men.
> > > Reverse sexism.
> > >
> > > Your problem was that you insisted on maintaining a false perception of inequality -- incorrectly believing that one sex must be superior to the other.
> > > > My experiences with American feminists cured me of that error.
> > > Your obligatory attacks on feminists are always amusing.
> > > > I did not replace my stance with that of Eminem or Osama Bin Laden.
> > > Your frequent references to 90s pop stars are amusing as well.
> > > > I replaced it with a rational stance – that anything human, male or female, was capable of choice, and anything capable of choice could be good or bad.
> > > As previously noted, your "rational stance" is both naive and incorrect. Had you any familiarity with philosophy (d'Holbach, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche), or quantum physics ("For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” -- Albert Einstein), you would know that "freedom of choice" is an illusion.
> > > > From this came the conclusion that the gender was was not the solution; the gender war was the problem.
> > > You are using "solution" incorrectly. I believe you mean that gender was not the issue.
> > > > The gender war has been teaching everyone involved the worst possible behavior. Both men and women are being encouraged to be horrible people.
> > > There is no "gender war" in America.
> > >
> > > America is a sex-obsessed society. When both partners have compatible sex drives, they have a harmonious relationship. When their sex drives are incompatible, there is discord.
> > > > The perpetrators on both sides have neither the power nor the guts to reach one another. Instead they take it out on the people who have done the least to cause either problem –
> > > Either problem denotes two previously listed problems. The only problem you have listed is in this paragraph is the gender war.
> > > > the feminists on men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are for the most part the least misogynistic men out there; and the real misogynists on women in the inner city, Muslim communities and right-wing communities who have done the least to cause Third Wave feminism. This results in horrible attitudes and behavior being encouraged and rewarded, and better behavior and better attitudes getting people abused.
> > > >
> > > WTF???
> > >
> > > Liberal intellectual men are not being persecuted by radical Third Wave feminists; and neither inner city conservative women, nor Muslim women are being attacked by misogynists.
> > >
> > > Where do you come up with this nonsense?
> > >
> > > Do you have *any* sources for these bizarre claims?
> > >
> > > Do you have *any* sociological evidence to support them?
> > > > The gender war being the problem, the solution is the opposite.
> > > What would the opposite of a gender war be? A non-gender war?
> > >
> > > Aristotle would have cautioned against switching from one extreme position to its opposite, in favor of seeking out a "Golden Mean." But then your grounding in philosophy is obviously... weak.
> > > > The solution is men being good to women and women being good to men.. Good behavior and good attitudes should be rewarded, and genuinely bad behavior and bad attitudes should be punished. Let men from the first side of town get together with women from the second side of town. That way men who are willing to be good to women will be with women who are willing to be good to men, creating much better relationships than they stand to have at home. And the offending gender on either side will have a real-world reason to improve their treatment of the other gender, or else see the other gender leave in large numbers to be with people who are willing to be good to them.
> > > >
> > > Pavlovian conditioning?
> > >
> > > How Russian of you.
> > Brevity is the soul of wit.
> > “WTF???” was sufficient.
> That's true -- if my intention were merely to ridicule Ilya.
>
> Had I left it at WTF???, Ilya wouldn't know what I was questioning. You see, I'm trying to get through to him.
>
> Unlike our resident Donkey, I haven't written him off as a potato... yet.

Oh, okay. Something got lost in translation. In my world, “WTF???” doesn’t indicate ridicule
so much as it does exasperation at not understanding what he’s attempting to communicate.
Personally, I didn’t get the sense that you were trying to get through to him so much as you
we’re playing to the peanut gallery, which is why I responded as I did. I’m one of the peanuts.

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 10:58:34 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 10:30:41 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:44:58 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:27:02 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:37:21 PM UTC-4, ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On relationships, the Soviet Union – and Russia before and after – were schizophrenic. There was a traditional Russian influence that was very brutal and misogynistic. There were also many writers, poets and intellectuals who fought that influence and spoke in favor of love..
> > > > >
> > > > Multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia are two very different things. You appear to mean the former.
> > > >
> > > > "Schizophrenic" was once incorrectly used to refer to MPD, but this usage has since fallen out of favor.
> > > > > In real life this played out in a terrible manner. A man would fall in love with a woman and treat her like gold. Then his work mates, his drinking mates or his sports mates would stuff his head with Iago-type nonsense, leading him to be paranoid of his wife or to think that she was a bad person. Many would say such things as that women do nothing but screw men over or that he owed it to his gender to keep women down or that his feelings were unmanly. The result was even the best marital situations becoming abusive.
> > > > >
> > > > Do you have any statistics to back this up?
> > > >
> > > > Your scenario sounds more than a bit suspect. I don't believe that very many men would become paranoid and abusive at the urging of their misogynistic drinking buddies.
> > > > > Of course I took objection to that state of affairs.
> > > > Did you object to the actual "state of affairs" (assuming that such a state existed)? And, if so, did you object to the abusiveness of the formerly non-violent husbands, or to the sexist, patriarchal attitudes of the influential drinking buddies? Perhaps both?
> > > >
> > > > I think you mean that you objected to the irrational ideology that all women are "bad," and that it is unmanly to treat or regard them as equals. If so, your use of "state of affairs" is incorrect.
> > > > > For a while I had the irrational view that women were better than men.
> > > > Reverse sexism.
> > > >
> > > > Your problem was that you insisted on maintaining a false perception of inequality -- incorrectly believing that one sex must be superior to the other.
> > > > > My experiences with American feminists cured me of that error.
> > > > Your obligatory attacks on feminists are always amusing.
> > > > > I did not replace my stance with that of Eminem or Osama Bin Laden.
> > > > Your frequent references to 90s pop stars are amusing as well.
> > > > > I replaced it with a rational stance – that anything human, male or female, was capable of choice, and anything capable of choice could be good or bad.
> > > > As previously noted, your "rational stance" is both naive and incorrect. Had you any familiarity with philosophy (d'Holbach, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche), or quantum physics ("For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” -- Albert Einstein), you would know that "freedom of choice" is an illusion.
> > > > > From this came the conclusion that the gender was was not the solution; the gender war was the problem.
> > > > You are using "solution" incorrectly. I believe you mean that gender was not the issue.
> > > > > The gender war has been teaching everyone involved the worst possible behavior. Both men and women are being encouraged to be horrible people.
> > > > There is no "gender war" in America.
> > > >
> > > > America is a sex-obsessed society. When both partners have compatible sex drives, they have a harmonious relationship. When their sex drives are incompatible, there is discord.
> > > > > The perpetrators on both sides have neither the power nor the guts to reach one another. Instead they take it out on the people who have done the least to cause either problem –
> > > > Either problem denotes two previously listed problems. The only problem you have listed is in this paragraph is the gender war.
> > > > > the feminists on men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are for the most part the least misogynistic men out there; and the real misogynists on women in the inner city, Muslim communities and right-wing communities who have done the least to cause Third Wave feminism. This results in horrible attitudes and behavior being encouraged and rewarded, and better behavior and better attitudes getting people abused.
> > > > >
> > > > WTF???
> > > >
> > > > Liberal intellectual men are not being persecuted by radical Third Wave feminists; and neither inner city conservative women, nor Muslim women are being attacked by misogynists.
> > > >
> > > > Where do you come up with this nonsense?
> > > >
> > > > Do you have *any* sources for these bizarre claims?
> > > >
> > > > Do you have *any* sociological evidence to support them?
> > > > > The gender war being the problem, the solution is the opposite.
> > > > What would the opposite of a gender war be? A non-gender war?
> > > >
> > > > Aristotle would have cautioned against switching from one extreme position to its opposite, in favor of seeking out a "Golden Mean." But then your grounding in philosophy is obviously... weak.
> > > > > The solution is men being good to women and women being good to men. Good behavior and good attitudes should be rewarded, and genuinely bad behavior and bad attitudes should be punished. Let men from the first side of town get together with women from the second side of town. That way men who are willing to be good to women will be with women who are willing to be good to men, creating much better relationships than they stand to have at home. And the offending gender on either side will have a real-world reason to improve their treatment of the other gender, or else see the other gender leave in large numbers to be with people who are willing to be good to them.
> > > > >
> > > > Pavlovian conditioning?
> > > >
> > > > How Russian of you.
> > > Brevity is the soul of wit.
> > > “WTF???” was sufficient.
> > That's true -- if my intention were merely to ridicule Ilya.
> >
> > Had I left it at WTF???, Ilya wouldn't know what I was questioning. You see, I'm trying to get through to him.
> >
> > Unlike our resident Donkey, I haven't written him off as a potato... yet.
> Oh, okay. Something got lost in translation. In my world, “WTF???” doesn’t indicate ridicule
> so much as it does exasperation at not understanding what he’s attempting to communicate.
> Personally, I didn’t get the sense that you were trying to get through to him so much as you
> we’re playing to the peanut gallery, which is why I responded as I did. I’m one of the peanuts.

No, WTELF would be more like ridicule...

Didn't write him off as potato yet? Pendragon, I didn't know you were a charity worker for St Jude : P
Now that's ridicule for you!1!

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 1:19:49 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 10:58:34 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 10:30:41 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:44:58 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:27:02 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:37:21 PM UTC-4, ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On relationships, the Soviet Union – and Russia before and after – were schizophrenic. There was a traditional Russian influence that was very brutal and misogynistic. There were also many writers, poets and intellectuals who fought that influence and spoke in favor of love.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia are two very different things. You appear to mean the former.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Schizophrenic" was once incorrectly used to refer to MPD, but this usage has since fallen out of favor.
> > > > > > In real life this played out in a terrible manner. A man would fall in love with a woman and treat her like gold. Then his work mates, his drinking mates or his sports mates would stuff his head with Iago-type nonsense, leading him to be paranoid of his wife or to think that she was a bad person. Many would say such things as that women do nothing but screw men over or that he owed it to his gender to keep women down or that his feelings were unmanly. The result was even the best marital situations becoming abusive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Do you have any statistics to back this up?
> > > > >
> > > > > Your scenario sounds more than a bit suspect. I don't believe that very many men would become paranoid and abusive at the urging of their misogynistic drinking buddies.
> > > > > > Of course I took objection to that state of affairs.
> > > > > Did you object to the actual "state of affairs" (assuming that such a state existed)? And, if so, did you object to the abusiveness of the formerly non-violent husbands, or to the sexist, patriarchal attitudes of the influential drinking buddies? Perhaps both?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you mean that you objected to the irrational ideology that all women are "bad," and that it is unmanly to treat or regard them as equals. If so, your use of "state of affairs" is incorrect.
> > > > > > For a while I had the irrational view that women were better than men.
> > > > > Reverse sexism.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your problem was that you insisted on maintaining a false perception of inequality -- incorrectly believing that one sex must be superior to the other.
> > > > > > My experiences with American feminists cured me of that error.
> > > > > Your obligatory attacks on feminists are always amusing.
> > > > > > I did not replace my stance with that of Eminem or Osama Bin Laden.
> > > > > Your frequent references to 90s pop stars are amusing as well.
> > > > > > I replaced it with a rational stance – that anything human, male or female, was capable of choice, and anything capable of choice could be good or bad.
> > > > > As previously noted, your "rational stance" is both naive and incorrect. Had you any familiarity with philosophy (d'Holbach, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche), or quantum physics ("For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion..” -- Albert Einstein), you would know that "freedom of choice" is an illusion.
> > > > > > From this came the conclusion that the gender was was not the solution; the gender war was the problem.
> > > > > You are using "solution" incorrectly. I believe you mean that gender was not the issue.
> > > > > > The gender war has been teaching everyone involved the worst possible behavior. Both men and women are being encouraged to be horrible people.
> > > > > There is no "gender war" in America.
> > > > >
> > > > > America is a sex-obsessed society. When both partners have compatible sex drives, they have a harmonious relationship. When their sex drives are incompatible, there is discord.
> > > > > > The perpetrators on both sides have neither the power nor the guts to reach one another. Instead they take it out on the people who have done the least to cause either problem –
> > > > > Either problem denotes two previously listed problems. The only problem you have listed is in this paragraph is the gender war.
> > > > > > the feminists on men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are for the most part the least misogynistic men out there; and the real misogynists on women in the inner city, Muslim communities and right-wing communities who have done the least to cause Third Wave feminism.. This results in horrible attitudes and behavior being encouraged and rewarded, and better behavior and better attitudes getting people abused.
> > > > > >
> > > > > WTF???
> > > > >
> > > > > Liberal intellectual men are not being persecuted by radical Third Wave feminists; and neither inner city conservative women, nor Muslim women are being attacked by misogynists.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where do you come up with this nonsense?
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have *any* sources for these bizarre claims?
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have *any* sociological evidence to support them?
> > > > > > The gender war being the problem, the solution is the opposite.
> > > > > What would the opposite of a gender war be? A non-gender war?
> > > > >
> > > > > Aristotle would have cautioned against switching from one extreme position to its opposite, in favor of seeking out a "Golden Mean." But then your grounding in philosophy is obviously... weak.
> > > > > > The solution is men being good to women and women being good to men. Good behavior and good attitudes should be rewarded, and genuinely bad behavior and bad attitudes should be punished. Let men from the first side of town get together with women from the second side of town. That way men who are willing to be good to women will be with women who are willing to be good to men, creating much better relationships than they stand to have at home. And the offending gender on either side will have a real-world reason to improve their treatment of the other gender, or else see the other gender leave in large numbers to be with people who are willing to be good to them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Pavlovian conditioning?
> > > > >
> > > > > How Russian of you.
> > > > Brevity is the soul of wit.
> > > > “WTF???” was sufficient.
> > > That's true -- if my intention were merely to ridicule Ilya.
> > >
> > > Had I left it at WTF???, Ilya wouldn't know what I was questioning. You see, I'm trying to get through to him.
> > >
> > > Unlike our resident Donkey, I haven't written him off as a potato... yet.
> > Oh, okay. Something got lost in translation. In my world, “WTF???” doesn’t indicate ridicule
> > so much as it does exasperation at not understanding what he’s attempting to communicate.
> > Personally, I didn’t get the sense that you were trying to get through to him so much as you
> > we’re playing to the peanut gallery, which is why I responded as I did. I’m one of the peanuts.
> No, WTELF would be more like ridicule...
>
> Didn't write him off as potato yet? Pendragon, I didn't know you were a charity worker for St Jude : P
> Now that's ridicule for you!1!

No worries. I’m marking this thread as spam anyway.
If Ilya doesn’t care to discuss his pontifications,
then I certainly can’t be bothered to read them.

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 1:39:18 PM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 1:19:49 PM UTC-4, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 10:58:34 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 10:30:41 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:44:58 AM UTC-4, HC wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 9:27:02 AM UTC-4, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 11:37:21 PM UTC-4, ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On relationships, the Soviet Union – and Russia before and after – were schizophrenic. There was a traditional Russian influence that was very brutal and misogynistic. There were also many writers, poets and intellectuals who fought that influence and spoke in favor of love.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia are two very different things. You appear to mean the former.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Schizophrenic" was once incorrectly used to refer to MPD, but this usage has since fallen out of favor.
> > > > > > > In real life this played out in a terrible manner. A man would fall in love with a woman and treat her like gold. Then his work mates, his drinking mates or his sports mates would stuff his head with Iago-type nonsense, leading him to be paranoid of his wife or to think that she was a bad person. Many would say such things as that women do nothing but screw men over or that he owed it to his gender to keep women down or that his feelings were unmanly. The result was even the best marital situations becoming abusive.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have any statistics to back this up?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your scenario sounds more than a bit suspect. I don't believe that very many men would become paranoid and abusive at the urging of their misogynistic drinking buddies.
> > > > > > > Of course I took objection to that state of affairs.
> > > > > > Did you object to the actual "state of affairs" (assuming that such a state existed)? And, if so, did you object to the abusiveness of the formerly non-violent husbands, or to the sexist, patriarchal attitudes of the influential drinking buddies? Perhaps both?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think you mean that you objected to the irrational ideology that all women are "bad," and that it is unmanly to treat or regard them as equals. If so, your use of "state of affairs" is incorrect.
> > > > > > > For a while I had the irrational view that women were better than men.
> > > > > > Reverse sexism.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your problem was that you insisted on maintaining a false perception of inequality -- incorrectly believing that one sex must be superior to the other.
> > > > > > > My experiences with American feminists cured me of that error..
> > > > > > Your obligatory attacks on feminists are always amusing.
> > > > > > > I did not replace my stance with that of Eminem or Osama Bin Laden.
> > > > > > Your frequent references to 90s pop stars are amusing as well.
> > > > > > > I replaced it with a rational stance – that anything human, male or female, was capable of choice, and anything capable of choice could be good or bad.
> > > > > > As previously noted, your "rational stance" is both naive and incorrect. Had you any familiarity with philosophy (d'Holbach, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche), or quantum physics ("For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” -- Albert Einstein), you would know that "freedom of choice" is an illusion.
> > > > > > > From this came the conclusion that the gender was was not the solution; the gender war was the problem.
> > > > > > You are using "solution" incorrectly. I believe you mean that gender was not the issue.
> > > > > > > The gender war has been teaching everyone involved the worst possible behavior. Both men and women are being encouraged to be horrible people.
> > > > > > There is no "gender war" in America.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > America is a sex-obsessed society. When both partners have compatible sex drives, they have a harmonious relationship. When their sex drives are incompatible, there is discord.
> > > > > > > The perpetrators on both sides have neither the power nor the guts to reach one another. Instead they take it out on the people who have done the least to cause either problem –
> > > > > > Either problem denotes two previously listed problems. The only problem you have listed is in this paragraph is the gender war.
> > > > > > > the feminists on men nearest the liberal centers of learning and culture who are for the most part the least misogynistic men out there; and the real misogynists on women in the inner city, Muslim communities and right-wing communities who have done the least to cause Third Wave feminism. This results in horrible attitudes and behavior being encouraged and rewarded, and better behavior and better attitudes getting people abused.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > WTF???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Liberal intellectual men are not being persecuted by radical Third Wave feminists; and neither inner city conservative women, nor Muslim women are being attacked by misogynists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where do you come up with this nonsense?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have *any* sources for these bizarre claims?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you have *any* sociological evidence to support them?
> > > > > > > The gender war being the problem, the solution is the opposite.
> > > > > > What would the opposite of a gender war be? A non-gender war?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aristotle would have cautioned against switching from one extreme position to its opposite, in favor of seeking out a "Golden Mean." But then your grounding in philosophy is obviously... weak.
> > > > > > > The solution is men being good to women and women being good to men. Good behavior and good attitudes should be rewarded, and genuinely bad behavior and bad attitudes should be punished. Let men from the first side of town get together with women from the second side of town. That way men who are willing to be good to women will be with women who are willing to be good to men, creating much better relationships than they stand to have at home. And the offending gender on either side will have a real-world reason to improve their treatment of the other gender, or else see the other gender leave in large numbers to be with people who are willing to be good to them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Pavlovian conditioning?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How Russian of you.
> > > > > Brevity is the soul of wit.
> > > > > “WTF???” was sufficient.
> > > > That's true -- if my intention were merely to ridicule Ilya.
> > > >
> > > > Had I left it at WTF???, Ilya wouldn't know what I was questioning. You see, I'm trying to get through to him.
> > > >
> > > > Unlike our resident Donkey, I haven't written him off as a potato.... yet.
> > > Oh, okay. Something got lost in translation. In my world, “WTF???” doesn’t indicate ridicule
> > > so much as it does exasperation at not understanding what he’s attempting to communicate.
> > > Personally, I didn’t get the sense that you were trying to get through to him so much as you
> > > we’re playing to the peanut gallery, which is why I responded as I did. I’m one of the peanuts.
> > No, WTELF would be more like ridicule...
> >
> > Didn't write him off as potato yet? Pendragon, I didn't know you were a charity worker for St Jude : P
> > Now that's ridicule for you!1!
> No worries. I’m marking this thread as spam anyway.
> If Ilya doesn’t care to discuss his pontifications,
> then I certainly can’t be bothered to read them.

And the donkey clown squad accuses you of pontificating, while they do the double standard like true Losenet gurus applauding their talking head who insults women and minorities with insensitive ignorant essays. I wonder if Ilya would like some white supremacist propaganda about those criminal immigrants, which include Russians who are in brutally violent organized crime. All Russian immigrants must be in organized crime, according to his essay's logic.