A philosophy for arguing with wives

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"face-to-face interaction in public with strangers...I believe it is the pinnacle of human achievement"

No. Duct tape is the king...seriously.

#

"you yourself are seeking attention to some degree"

Mebbe so.
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Duncan Butlin »

henry quirk --- You'll have to explain 'duct tape' being the pinnacle of human achievement. Is it because of its silencing feature?

Website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

duct tape is great stuff

Post by henry quirk »

Cuz you can fix, repair, makeshift, anything with duct tape (including, I guess, silencing folks [not what I was thinkin' of]).
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Dalek Prime »

Duct tape was considered the best thing on 'The Red Green Show'. (Canadian show, so you may not have seen it.)
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Duncan Butlin »

henry quirk and Arising_uk --- I’d like to put a vote in for WD40 -- that will fix almost everything also.

I am founding a new society, The Suffrageur Society, only to exist on the internet. Does that name suggest anything to you? If it existed, which it doesn’t, it would be the opposite of ‘suffragette’ in French -- a society for married men against women (logo below). The idea is that a belief in sexism can replace belief in a religion or atheism. Any comments would be much appreciated.

Suffrageur Society logo.png
Suffrageur Society logo.png (46.38 KiB) Viewed 1668 times

website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Lacewing »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:00 am Any comments would be much appreciated.
You're an idiot. That's why you have trouble with women.

You aren't intelligent (or mentally balanced) enough to dominate anyone.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by -1- »

Dalek Prime wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 4:50 pm Duct tape was considered the best thing on 'The Red Green Show'. (Canadian show, so you may not have seen it.)
I loved that show!! It was not sexist, like this thread, but I laughed my head off at every imaginable episode.

Probably that's why it was discontinued. When people are happy, the western culture comes to a grinding halt. It is conducive to our culture to seek happiness and to have the right to seek happiness, (i.e. to seek and find work and fear being fired and work our butts to the butt), but once you found happiness, that becomes detrimental to our culture.

I am neither the first, nor the last who advocate this insight.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by -1- »

Lacewing wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:11 am
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:00 am Any comments would be much appreciated.
You're an idiot. That's why you have trouble with women.

You aren't intelligent (or mentally balanced) enough to dominate anyone.
Come now. Maybe the OP is an exterminator. Or maybe he has a past in the military. Both would explain his attitude perfectly. Or maybe he is German.
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Dalek Prime »

-1- wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:02 am
Dalek Prime wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 4:50 pm Duct tape was considered the best thing on 'The Red Green Show'. (Canadian show, so you may not have seen it.)
I loved that show!! It was not sexist, like this thread, but I laughed my head off at every imaginable episode.

Probably that's why it was discontinued. When people are happy, the western culture comes to a grinding halt. It is conducive to our culture to seek happiness and to have the right to seek happiness, (i.e. to seek and find work and fear being fired and work our butts to the butt), but once you found happiness, that becomes detrimental to our culture.

I am neither the first, nor the last who advocate this insight.
God, that's a brilliant insight! So obvious, yet I'd not thought of it in that light.

Isn't it amazing how an idea can sit around in ones mind, almost formless, until it coalesces in words. It's like when, for me, Fihige came up with antifrustrationism, and I first heard the term antinatalism. Only then did I know what I was, philosophically. Before that, I only thought it.
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Duncan Butlin »

Lacewing --- I don’t have trouble with women -- even when wearing my male champion sweatshirt -- I just had difficulties with my wife. Our marriage lasted 22 years (she only divorced me when I went to jail) so it cannot have been that bad a relationship. But you are right, I am absolutely hopeless at confronting and dominating people. I’ve only done it four or five times in my life, in public, and only a handful of times to my wife. She only yielded twice, for about 30 seconds each time.

I don’t think this makes me stupid, though -- just a wimp. I have to think up all sorts of excuses for not being brave. And my solutions to the sex war problems are not necessarily vindictive -- I still love my ex-wife, and I still find other women attractive, though I have no intimate relationship at the moment (at 71 it is not very urgent).

If you can bear to, please have a look at my Suffrageur pledge of allegiance thread that I am going start (see my post to Mr. -1- below). I would very much appreciate your opinion.

Mr. -1- --- Your analysis of society showing happiness is dysfunctional made me sad. I fear, however, that you are right. There is something wrong with having to progress all the time, rather than being reasonably contented. Thank you.

No, not a trace of military background (I was brought up a pacifist by my Quaker mother). You have to remember for most of my life I’ve been a male feminist -- going around the world liberating as many women as I could. I had a special licence from my wife to do so (and she from me) -- hedonists to the nth degree. In 1993 I changed sides, and in 1996 I started publicly declaring myself an anti-feminist. It worked wonders! I met so many ladies who agreed. The point is you can love women as well as fight them. The hate from feminists like Suzanna Danuta Walters (page 13 on my thread, ‘A knot of sexist logic in the Western mind’), is only so vitriolic because no-one is taking her seriously. Once properly confronted I am sure she will calm down, like the lady I am sure she is.

I am British, and my whole CV/resume is on my website (https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/) -- even my old business cards are there. There is nothing mysterious about my background. I am trying to make my crusade as transparent as possible. If I could have my way, it would be impossible for anyone to operate anonymously on the internet -- even on a forum such as this -- your email address would tie back to your home address, local community and police station. This way the public can inspect or complain about you -- a bit like ‘report this post’ -- only it’s all out in the public sphere, with all actors identified, so everyone, mindful of their reputation, has to act responsibly. I know it is against the whole ethos of the internet, but I believe that whole ethos is wrong.

I am going to start a new thread for the pledge of allegiance for the Suffrageur Society. I know you cannot read it, but this is what it looks like:

pledge black and white.jpeg
pledge black and white.jpeg (57.39 KiB) Viewed 1648 times

I will type out all the verbiage on the new thread, so you can inspect the details.

The new thread will be called, “Sex war warriors and the Suffrageur Society Pledge of Allegiance”. A website developer is constructing a society website for me as we speak, whose sole purpose will be to issue the pledges to any married man who wants to sign up. The idea is to bring the sex war into as many men’s conscious minds as possible, instead of leaving it festering in their subconscious.

We are also constructing a website for women called “The Suffrageur Supporters Society” -- in fact I have a horrible suspicion that this will be the more popular site, to start with. Women supporting the men’s rights activists are far more outspoken and eloquent than the men themselves!


My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by -1- »

Dalek Prime wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:33 pm antifrustrationism, and antinatalism. Only then did I know what I was, philosophically. Before that, I only thought it.
Anti-dadaism, anti-post-modernism, anti-anarchism, anti-antiism, antinihilism, antihistamines. Auntie hysterics. (Big in my family.)
Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Dalek Prime »

-1- wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 2:04 pm
Dalek Prime wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:33 pm antifrustrationism, and antinatalism. Only then did I know what I was, philosophically. Before that, I only thought it.
Anti-dadaism, anti-post-modernism, anti-anarchism, anti-antiism, antinihilism, antihistamines. Auntie hysterics. (Big in my family.)
I know. I don't get to choose the name, nor the societal norm. But what they leave me with always makes me sound so negative. :?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Lacewing »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:53 pm If you can bear to, please have a look at my Suffrageur pledge of allegiance thread that I am going start.../... I would very much appreciate your opinion.
I've read enough of your nonsense to know that it's too delusional and off-balance to offer any value. And your "logo" is pathetic. There was a poster on this site for years -- Bob -- who went overboard with his obsessive delusional ideas too. He even had a flag designed. Do you have a flag? I offered to help him design it, even though I thought him mad. I do try to be helpful.

For example... regarding your logo... no man in a business suit is going to dominate me, and I will never allow him to stand on my head. But if he were wearing a warlord outfit, I might let him dominate me for a little bit. :) Then he would need to be willing to switch roles, wear a scanty loincloth, and serve the goddess. That's fair play, and it's the only intelligent way to do it. Because the feminine is a powerful, creative force, which men should be honoring naturally (rather than constantly trying to dominate)... just as women should honor the unique wizardry energy of males. Unfortunately, it seems that way too many males are still so busy trying to dominate everything, they are completely out of touch with their spiritual natures, and that makes them pretty much apes. Imagine what it's like to be a woman surrounded by apes.. when all you want is a wizardly warlord to stand equally and respectfully beside you.

Your ideas/conclusions about the necessity of domination are ridiculously extreme Duncan. Even worse, you're pushing the idea of continued and devolving ape behavior in men -- when it seems that we are actually starting to evolve beyond that. (Seriously, men over 65 should not be setting and monopolizing policy for a younger world; they should focus on basking in whatever heightened awareness and pleasure they've successfully attained for themselves, and if they haven't, then that's their own failure.) Based on your extreme and limited one-sided delusional view, you propose "solutions" that are in response to your own madness, and that are meant to serve/protect your ego and what you think you "know", and likely your need to feel important -- which pretty much assures your addiction and inability to see/move more broadly than that.
User avatar
Duncan Butlin
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:33 am
Location: Chichester, West Sussex, UK
Contact:

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Duncan Butlin »

Lacewing --- Thank you for commenting so fully. No, I don’t have a flag. I fear men are never going to march together on this issue -- each individual has to act on his own -- so a flag would be superfluous. Even for an individual, flying one outside his house would be over-doing it: mounting his ‘suffrageur’ pledge on the wall inside is about as far as he should go. It was very generous of you to offer to assist ‘Bob’ with his flag, by the way -- I also could do with some help?

The key issue between us is the dominant-submissive, leader-follower relationship I recommend for man and woman. As the very concept is being withdrawn from the lexicon, equality is assuming control; but many people remain ambivalent. Even you admit that you, “might let [a man wearing a warlord outfit] dominate [you] for a little bit”. For equality’s sake you want to do it in reverse too, but I don’t think that works very well. I have met two dominatrices (both delightful people), but I think it should be a fringe activity (particularly popular amongst male lawyers, it seems).

You and practically everyone else believes that a lot of the troubles of the world, and the troubles of women in particular, were caused in the past by men’s over-dominant behaviour. Okay, I believe there have been periods in the past when men had too much power (especially in times of war, when men’s propensity for violence is a virtue); but there have also been periods when women have bullied men (especially in times of peace, when men’s propensity for violence is despised). I believe this oscillation of power goes back at least to hunter-gatherer times.

Since world war two, as peace has progressed, man’s dominant image has become more and more debased. The Vietnam veterans were being shamed for fighting, even before they got back home. Today’s problem is too little male dominance, not too much. Because of the 50% women quota campaigns in government, business and academia, men the world over are being called sexist swines and builders of sexist glass ceilings. This outrageous treatment is being meted out by the whole of society, on women’s behalf, and the men are too terrified to respond with anything other than bemused remorse. The male and female brains are built very differently, and the perfect male-female relationship is a complementary one, not an equal one. Women are far better a doing some things, men far better at others. If men were properly in charge, like never before, I believe many of the world’s problems are solvable.

I’ve gone on for far too long -- sorry. As far as adopting ape characteristics for humans is concerned, I think in some ways they are superior to us, and so copying some aspects of their behaviour would improve us. The female chimpanzee's ability to reconcile two warring males in the evening, before they go to sleep, seems very well worth pursuing.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: A philosophy for arguing with wives

Post by Lacewing »

Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:51 pm Thank you for commenting so fully.
You're welcome. I try to invest myself fully in everything I do. :)
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:51 pm The key issue between us is the dominant-submissive, leader-follower relationship I recommend for man and woman.../... Even you admit that you, “might let [a man wearing a warlord outfit] dominate [you] for a little bit”.
Because it's for fun. If he, for one second, thought he was ACTUALLY a supreme being as a male, I would be done with him and his ignorance.
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:51 pmAs the very concept is being withdrawn from the lexicon, equality is assuming control; but many people remain ambivalent.
I think it's truthful to say that MORE people are NOT ambivalent -- and there are VERY GOOD REASONS that the concept you subscribe to is being withdrawn and evolved. Why do you not respect/recognize evolution as weeding out antiquated models? Why are you so arrogant as to think that your "preferred model" sees more than everyone else does... and why do you think it is superior to evolution?
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:51 pmFor equality’s sake you want to do it in reverse too, but I don’t think that works very well. I have met two dominatrices (both delightful people)...
I'm on a very different channel, Duncan. I do not want to dominate anyone. The roles of men and women are made-up. I'm more about playing together as humans in a BALANCED way. Anyone who claims to be above another, should be brought down. If they cannot understand that they are simply playing a role (that so many can choose to play or not) -- then they are likely going to be toxic.

Your ideas sound toxic. And you appear to have an addiction and inability to see/move more broadly than that. You are hell-bent on a certain madness. You can tell all the stories you want to support it -- but if you're not seeing in a balanced way, then you're convoluting reality.

Why don't you just admit that you want to feel clever and important and provocative by spearheading a movement that no one else has thought of or taken on (for good reasons not to) -- while providing yourself an ultimate platform to proclaim your superiority to women?
Write that into your Mission Statement, and offer the disclosure that you are just one more raving lunatic like all the others who claim to have THE DEFINITIVE TRUTH about one thing or another. Then dress up like a warlord for your logo -- and you MIGHT develop some fun followers and a movement you hadn't expected. :D
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:51 pmOkay, I believe there have been periods in the past when men had too much power
They still do, the world over -- and you're being dishonest (or stupid) to ignore that.
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:51 pm man’s dominant image has become more and more debased
Because nature evolves toxins out of the system -- and ANY group being overly dominant to another is toxic.
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:51 pmThe Vietnam veterans were being shamed for fighting, even before they got back home.
It's a sad side-effect of the natural cleansing process of attitudes and awareness. There are always some who will suffer in the fallout of healing ignorance and destructiveness. Just as SO MANY innocents have suffered AT THE HANDS of such ignorance and destructiveness!!!
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:51 pmToday’s problem is too little male dominance, not too much.
Your view is too small. There are so many factors involved on so many levels. Why don't you have trust in a larger system working out the kinks? Why must you think that MAN must FIX what is UNFAIR to MAN??? Look at the mentality that is. It's such a small, self-absorbed focus that RECOGNIZES NOTHING ELSE on this beautiful planet. It's ALL ABOUT MEN! MEN! MEN! SUPREME RULERS! GENDER OF GODS! DOMINION OVER WOMEN AND ALL ELSE. What an idiotic mindset. It's potentially a pivotal time for self-absorbed people to recognize how much MORE there is beyond their limited models. We are more than the actors in a few contrived roles on a stage. Many, many, many men and women are recognizing this... and the resulting potential that can come from that is awe-inspiring.
Duncan Butlin wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:51 pmIf men were properly in charge, like never before, I believe many of the world’s problems are solvable.
That's because you're delusional. There is NO WAY for men to be "PROPERLY" IN CHARGE because NO ONE GROUP (especially just because they have a penis hanging between their legs) should be in charge! Rather, we should be looking to PEOPLE who demonstrate BALANCE AND CLARITY, and who are capable of seeing and honoring MUCH MORE BROADLY than any particular group.
Post Reply