Who needs Plato when we have metro-dailies' 'sages' ...?

[FrankGSterleJr]

December 6 is the Canadian anniversary of the Montreal Massacre, consisting of the slaughter of too many young women taking up the noble profession of engineering.
Thus, it’s bitterly ironic that, from my observation of our environment (TV entertainment and news included) during the 1970s and ’80s, violence against females was considerably less evident than it has been during the last two decades, during which countless campaigns, including by the news-media, firmly denouncing violence against women were prolific.
Thus, perhaps we, society, are going about the above-mentioned campaigns in an apparently futile manner.
Yes, of course our academics and newspaper opinion-makers, for example, have all insisted on perceiving the violence-against-women issue within a two-dimensional confinement—not just ignoring but even silencing any idea that does not follow the conventional (gender) political and ideological perspective on the issue.
Many self-anointed-“geniuses” (yes, especially you, ‘Chaz’) infesting discussion forum sites globally, actually trust metro-dailies’ ‘sage’ opinion-makers to do the former’s thinking for them. Their smug arrogance demands that a person, regardless of how nonetheless observant he/she is in regards to society at large, must hold a bachelor’s/master’s/PhD, etcetera, in advanced sociology and/or psychology to attain the privilege of commenting (publicly or anonymously) on matters of mostly common sense. Well, la-di-dah …
Ironically, I recently heard one cynic on talk-radio state something notable, even if a bit ridiculous: I find that far more often than not, the best I can do when voting in elections, for example, is vote for the exact opposite candidate and/or political ideology officially, editorially endorsed by the collective metro-dailies, especially the two here in Metro Vancouver (B.C., Canada). The Toronto Star is a very notable and very rare exception which comes to mind.
As for ‘violence against women,’ failing as we have (noticeably, for me anyway, for the last 20 years), why not consider an alternative idea and goal: i.e. as long as society tolerates, and even celebrates, female/male violence against males—i.e. a guy ‘hilariously’ being kicked in the groin by, say, his frustrated girlfriend—there will be socially despised and politically undesirable repercussions: i.e. violence against females.
I just may be that it’s all naught but folly for society to insist on the total abolition of violence against girls/women while intently resisting the elimination of all violence, including that in which boys/men are the sole victims.

[chaz wyman]

December 6 is the Canadian anniversary of the Montreal Massacre, consisting of the slaughter of too many young women taking up the noble profession of engineering.
Thus, it’s bitterly ironic that, from my observation of our environment (TV entertainment and news included) during the 1970s and ’80s, violence against females was considerably less evident than it has been during the last two decades, during which countless campaigns, including by the news-media, firmly denouncing violence against women were prolific.
Thus, perhaps we, society, are going about the above-mentioned campaigns in an apparently futile manner.
Yes, of course our academics and newspaper opinion-makers, for example, have all insisted on perceiving the violence-against-women issue within a two-dimensional confinement—not just ignoring but even silencing any idea that does not follow the conventional (gender) political and ideological perspective on the issue.
Many self-anointed-“geniuses” (yes, especially you, ‘Chaz’) infesting discussion forum sites globally, actually trust metro-dailies’ ‘sage’ opinion-makers to do the former’s thinking for them. Their smug arrogance demands that a person, regardless of how nonetheless observant he/she is in regards to society at large, must hold a bachelor’s/master’s/PhD, etcetera, in advanced sociology and/or psychology to attain the privilege of commenting (publicly or anonymously) on matters of mostly common sense. Well, la-di-dah …
Ironically, I recently heard one cynic on talk-radio state something notable, even if a bit ridiculous: I find that far more often than not, the best I can do when voting in elections, for example, is vote for the exact opposite candidate and/or political ideology officially, editorially endorsed by the collective metro-dailies, especially the two here in Metro Vancouver (B.C., Canada). The Toronto Star is a very notable and very rare exception which comes to mind.
As for ‘violence against women,’ failing as we have (noticeably, for me anyway, for the last 20 years), why not consider an alternative idea and goal: i.e. as long as society tolerates, and even celebrates, female/male violence against males—i.e. a guy ‘hilariously’ being kicked in the groin by, say, his frustrated girlfriend—there will be socially despised and politically undesirable repercussions: i.e. violence against females.
I just may be that it’s all naught but folly for society to insist on the total abolition of violence against girls/women while intently resisting the elimination of all violence, including that in which boys/men are the sole victims.

I was going to completely ignore this rambling rant until I saw my name.

I have no idea what is meant by the phrase "metro-dailies’ ‘sage’ opinion-makers".
Nor do I know what you mean by the "Montreal Massacre".

I have an idea that you would be wasting your time explaining. Having started on an adversarial position assuming that I would be at odds with you is likely to result in a self-fulfilling prophesy.