"There is no amount of pretty in the world that can cover a venomous heart."

Ah, the irony! Rhonda Huntress said that, and she also said:

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/327/85/252954/3653.html (The quote in Rio's post, sixth post down.)

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/327/85/252954/3828.html (Top post.)

Friday, 21 January 2011

I just wasted 11 minutes . . .

(I wonder if LL are going to ban me again for using *that* word?)

. . . listening to the presentation of Doris Lessing referenced by some mad woman on the forums.

Why was it wasted? Because despite her being a trippy hippy that has suffered from God's sick sense of humour (I love it when feminists are blessed with only male children) she has apparently discovered what I (and most of the intelligent males with whom I am acquainted) have known since we were about six: that there is not one side (and despite what the now enlightened ex-midwife - yes, pathetic isn't it - suggests, not just two sides) to an argument, as our mothers and female teachers have tried (largely unsuccessfully, although they only realise it after the fact) to impose upon us while they are in a temporary position of authority over us. She obviously hasn't realised that the desperate attempts of mothers (and other women in loco parentis) to enhance their own self-esteem by fighting a persistent losing battle with their male progeny by presenting themselves as a member of the "know-it-all" club simply reinforces the male view of female inferiority.

The desperate women who are the majority voice at the moment in the GD forum suffer from the same desperate need for validation of their own viewpoints, that the world should be a less mean place, and *would* be a less mean place if they were in charge. I have news (although it should not be a surprise) for you ladies: men run things, and pay lip service to the attempts of females to arrogate some privileges of power in the same way as I say "Yes, dear" as a matter of routine when my wife talks to me from another room, since it is easier and more efficient than explaining to her why I have no intention of really agreeing with her, even if I could be bothered to find out what drivel she was blithering about.

That fake one-to-one is different from a forum environment, which is one-to-many. My longstanding insight (into something which it is quite apparent comes as something novel to the ladies who lunch in the forums, from their comments therein) into the benefits of explaining an attitude, philosophy or argument in rational and comprehensible terms, rather than simply mystically expounding an unsubstantiable emotional internal belief, is fundamental to my involvement in the GD forum, despite my provocative participation being generally perceived as "mean" (a delightful word which apparently differs considerably in its interpretation depending on which side of the Atlantic you live) by those who are unable to express their opinions coherently in English.

Yes, I am your "other" and have been for some considerable time. Whether you realise it or not, you have been entertaining me to "lunch" (with the emphasis on "entertaining") since I started posting. I doubt that the principal participants in that forum thread would entertain this possibility, so I am quite pleased that I am on a forum break at the moment, and posting here, where they might be prepared to acknowledge their historic ignorance out of the public spotlight.

PS Have you noticed how many of the female forumites appear to be single by choice in real life; not *their* choice of course . . .

PPS My kids have been brought up to understand that people aren't stupid; the things they *do* can be, of course.

PPPS You're not necessarily stupid if you don't understand quantum theory, Sandra; but it *is* stupid to say that you think it is nonsense.

No comments:

Post a Comment