Discussion:
How the homeless became "the homeless"
(too old to reply)
d***@bellsouth.net
2006-09-09 10:55:28 UTC
Permalink
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe

Think of a bum and what comes to mind? Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.

In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.

Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."

Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.

Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would society as
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
gingerbeer25
2006-09-09 12:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind? Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would society as
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
Regardless of which gender is declared underclass ( which is the new
term for homeless) I don't think that society would be willing to solve
the problem. It would take a dramtic change in how governement is run
to eliminate the homeless problem. We currently live in a capitalist
money market economy, thus those that do not own the mode of
production, or are unable to sell their time to produce a product for
the market are without value. This problem comes down to value. If we
truly valued people everyone would have good health care, free
education throughout university, food and a place to live. Society
values money and that is the bottom line.
c***@hotmail.com
2006-09-09 12:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by gingerbeer25
d
Regardless of which gender is declared underclass ( which is the new
term for homeless) I don't think that society would be willing to solve
the problem. It would take a dramtic change in how governement is run
to eliminate the homeless problem. We currently live in a capitalist
money market economy, thus those that do not own the mode of
production, or are unable to sell their time to produce a product for
the market are without value. This problem comes down to value. If we
truly valued people everyone would have good health care, free
education throughout university, food and a place to live. Society
values money and that is the bottom line.
No, society VALUES womens lives more so than mens LIVES. That is a fact
gingergirl, since when women come onto a worksite, you bet that
worksite's safety practices improve. po-)
gingerbeer25
2006-09-09 17:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@hotmail.com
Post by gingerbeer25
d
Regardless of which gender is declared underclass ( which is the new
term for homeless) I don't think that society would be willing to solve
the problem. It would take a dramtic change in how governement is run
to eliminate the homeless problem. We currently live in a capitalist
money market economy, thus those that do not own the mode of
production, or are unable to sell their time to produce a product for
the market are without value. This problem comes down to value. If we
truly valued people everyone would have good health care, free
education throughout university, food and a place to live. Society
values money and that is the bottom line.
No, society VALUES womens lives more so than mens LIVES. That is a fact
gingergirl, since when women come onto a worksite, you bet that
worksite's safety practices improve. po-)
In this issue all that you can see is gender division. Your limited
scope of analysis blinds you to the larger issues. The problem is that
western society does not value the underclass. Instead of worrying who
is the most poor you should be concerned with the issue of poverty
itself.
r***@pdq.net
2006-09-09 18:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by gingerbeer25
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind? Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would society as
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
Regardless of which gender is declared underclass ( which is the new
term for homeless) I don't think that society would be willing to solve
the problem. It would take a dramtic change in how governement is run
to eliminate the homeless problem. We currently live in a capitalist
money market economy, thus those that do not own the mode of
production, or are unable to sell their time to produce a product for
the market are without value. This problem comes down to value. If we
truly valued people everyone would have good health care, free
education throughout university, food and a place to live. Society
values money and that is the bottom line.
Our societiy values personal freedom. Money is just a means to that
end. Since human nature does not favor the habit of working really hard
and then cheerfully giving it to strangers the elimination of all
poverty in a diverse, multi-ethnic society can only be accomplished by
a harsh dictatoship.
So, is it worth it?
gingerbeer25
2006-09-09 19:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by gingerbeer25
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind? Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would society as
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
Regardless of which gender is declared underclass ( which is the new
term for homeless) I don't think that society would be willing to solve
the problem. It would take a dramtic change in how governement is run
to eliminate the homeless problem. We currently live in a capitalist
money market economy, thus those that do not own the mode of
production, or are unable to sell their time to produce a product for
the market are without value. This problem comes down to value. If we
truly valued people everyone would have good health care, free
education throughout university, food and a place to live. Society
values money and that is the bottom line.
Our societiy values personal freedom. Money is just a means to that
end. Since human nature does not favor the habit of working really hard
and then cheerfully giving it to strangers the elimination of all
poverty in a diverse, multi-ethnic society can only be accomplished by
a harsh dictatoship.
So, is it worth it?
Western society does not value personal freedom. If it did do you
think that people would be detained without charge, or access to a
lawyer? That is freedom baby. Humanity has always worked for its
subsistence. The elimination opf poverty and access to health care and
education do not necessarily mean a dictatorship. The Us is already
run by a totalierian ( who called the constitution just a piece of
paper) so I don't know how you would tell the difference anyway. The
true vision of marx called for a sharing of all commodities, democracy,
and small government. There are options to the current system. People
are just simply to indoctrinated by false consciousness to see that
there are options.
Deborah Terreson
2006-09-10 15:59:26 UTC
Permalink
----------
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by gingerbeer25
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind? Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would society as
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
Regardless of which gender is declared underclass ( which is the new
term for homeless) I don't think that society would be willing to solve
the problem. It would take a dramtic change in how governement is run
to eliminate the homeless problem. We currently live in a capitalist
money market economy, thus those that do not own the mode of
production, or are unable to sell their time to produce a product for
the market are without value. This problem comes down to value. If we
truly valued people everyone would have good health care, free
education throughout university, food and a place to live. Society
values money and that is the bottom line.
Our societiy values personal freedom. Money is just a means to that
end. Since human nature does not favor the habit of working really hard
and then cheerfully giving it to strangers the elimination of all
poverty in a diverse, multi-ethnic society can only be accomplished by
a harsh dictatoship.
So, is it worth it?
Well, when you consider that 56 cents out of every tax dollar go to keep the
foreign elements - those who would destroy our 'way of life' away from our
shores, an argument about redistribution of wealth really is quite
meaningless. We're already redistributing vast cash sums to fuel the
interests of the affluent elites and their corporate henchmen to fund
interventions and occupations of foreign lands. Frankly, I'd rather have
that money go to helping my neighbor, and strengthening the weak links
within our society, so if the aforementioned outside elements DO stir up
shit, it is less of a burden on everyone. Straight up, do you think that the
homeless are paying any taxes and funding Rumsfeld's overseas expeditions?

Deb.
gingerbeer25
2006-09-10 18:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turin
----------
Post by r***@pdq.net
Post by gingerbeer25
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind? Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would society as
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
Regardless of which gender is declared underclass ( which is the new
term for homeless) I don't think that society would be willing to solve
the problem. It would take a dramtic change in how governement is run
to eliminate the homeless problem. We currently live in a capitalist
money market economy, thus those that do not own the mode of
production, or are unable to sell their time to produce a product for
the market are without value. This problem comes down to value. If we
truly valued people everyone would have good health care, free
education throughout university, food and a place to live. Society
values money and that is the bottom line.
Our societiy values personal freedom. Money is just a means to that
end. Since human nature does not favor the habit of working really hard
and then cheerfully giving it to strangers the elimination of all
poverty in a diverse, multi-ethnic society can only be accomplished by
a harsh dictatoship.
So, is it worth it?
Well, when you consider that 56 cents out of every tax dollar go to keep the
foreign elements - those who would destroy our 'way of life' away from our
shores, an argument about redistribution of wealth really is quite
meaningless. We're already redistributing vast cash sums to fuel the
interests of the affluent elites and their corporate henchmen to fund
interventions and occupations of foreign lands. Frankly, I'd rather have
that money go to helping my neighbor, and strengthening the weak links
within our society, so if the aforementioned outside elements DO stir up
shit, it is less of a burden on everyone. Straight up, do you think that the
homeless are paying any taxes and funding Rumsfeld's overseas expeditions?
Deb.
The current mission in Iraq is about securing oil, not borders. The
war has everything to do that the american economy runs on oil and war.
Your argument about the homeless paying taxes proves my point about
value. You only value people is they are able to sell their time or
produce a product that can be sold on the market. These underclass
people are deserving of the same amount of humanity and respect that
you have.
Hyerdahl
2006-09-10 18:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turin
----------
(edit)
Well, when you consider that 56 cents out of every tax dollar go to keep the
foreign elements - those who would destroy our 'way of life' away from our
shores, an argument about redistribution of wealth really is quite
meaningless.
Those who would "destroy our way of life" certainly SEE, not only the
homeless but also how the wealthy in our nation are trying to eliminate
our own middle class. There is not much left in the US since Bush took
over, to raise issues of jealousy. :-) America is no longer the
beakon on the hill. Americans are tarnished beyond all recognition
with the Bush admission of foreign prisons where prisoners are
tortured, and beating other prisoners.

We're already redistributing vast cash sums to fuel the
Post by Turin
interests of the affluent elites and their corporate henchmen to fund
interventions and occupations of foreign lands.
Yes, we are....but I didn't vote for Bush. Did you?

Frankly, I'd rather have> that money go to helping my neighbor, and
strengthening the weak links> within our society, so if the
aforementioned outside elements DO stir up
Post by Turin
shit, it is less of a burden on everyone.
Indeed. We can't stand as a beakon to those in need of light if we can
no longer produce our own light. (and that goes for our own energy as
well).

Straight up, do you think that the homeless are paying any taxes and
funding Rumsfeld's overseas expeditions?

In some ways, the homeless are perhaps less culpable than the rest of
us as they don't have tax dollars to contribute to the Bush war effort.
Post by Turin
Deb.
Deborah Terreson
2006-09-10 19:13:25 UTC
Permalink
----------
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
----------
(edit)
Well, when you consider that 56 cents out of every tax dollar go to keep the
foreign elements - those who would destroy our 'way of life' away from our
shores, an argument about redistribution of wealth really is quite
meaningless.
Those who would "destroy our way of life" certainly SEE, not only the
homeless but also how the wealthy in our nation are trying to eliminate
our own middle class. There is not much left in the US since Bush took
over, to raise issues of jealousy. :-) America is no longer the
beakon on the hill. Americans are tarnished beyond all recognition
with the Bush admission of foreign prisons where prisoners are
tortured, and beating other prisoners.
Post by Turin
We're already redistributing vast cash sums to fuel the
interests of the affluent elites and their corporate henchmen to fund
interventions and occupations of foreign lands.
Yes, we are....but I didn't vote for Bush. Did you?
Of course I did. Only way to break an immoral system held up by the
unwitting middle class is to create such hardship for them they abandon all
support for it. You have to break eggs to make omelets.

In a hard economic time, people will blame those in power and not their own
poor choices. Those hard economic times are coming and for sure, I want the
most pro-business administration and the evil men affiliated with it to be
sitting in power when the shit *really* hits it.

You have to be the most vicious and think who you want to see stuck firmly
on the tracks when the economic train runs them flat. Oh sure, the remains
aren't going to be pretty, but it's not like the homeless and the downwardly
pushed former middle-class are going to have it much worse than they already
do now, are they?

That's the magic (or the danger, depending on where you stand) of not having
much left to lose.
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
Frankly, I'd rather have that money go to helping my neighbor, and
strengthening the weak links within our society, so if the
aforementioned outside elements DO stir up
shit, it is less of a burden on everyone.
Indeed. We can't stand as a beakon to those in need of light if we can
no longer produce our own light. (and that goes for our own energy as
well).
Post by Turin
Straight up, do you think that the homeless are paying any taxes and
funding Rumsfeld's overseas expeditions?
In some ways, the homeless are perhaps less culpable than the rest of
us as they don't have tax dollars to contribute to the Bush war effort.
Bingo.

Now you know why I have been advocating the economic positions I have for as
long as I have. And for those who may have a subversive Christian bent to
this (it's not all bullshit you know) you can take to heart the passages in
Matthew to 'consider the lilies of the fields, who toil not..' and that it
makes a lot of sense if you want to '..give unto Caesar all that is his..',
hello!
Deb.
Hyerdahl
2006-09-10 19:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turin
----------
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
----------
(edit)
Well, when you consider that 56 cents out of every tax dollar go to keep the
foreign elements - those who would destroy our 'way of life' away from our
shores, an argument about redistribution of wealth really is quite
meaningless.
Those who would "destroy our way of life" certainly SEE, not only the
homeless but also how the wealthy in our nation are trying to eliminate
our own middle class. There is not much left in the US since Bush took
over, to raise issues of jealousy. :-) America is no longer the
beakon on the hill. Americans are tarnished beyond all recognition
with the Bush admission of foreign prisons where prisoners are
tortured, and beating other prisoners.
Post by Turin
We're already redistributing vast cash sums to fuel the
interests of the affluent elites and their corporate henchmen to fund
interventions and occupations of foreign lands.
Yes, we are....but I didn't vote for Bush. Did you?
Of course I did. Only way to break an immoral system held up by the
unwitting middle class is to create such hardship for them they abandon all
support for it. You have to break eggs to make omelets.
So, you voted for Bush because you KNEW he'd ruin our country;
gee...you have a lot in common with Ralph Nadar. :-) What is your
aim, anarchy?
Post by Turin
In a hard economic time, people will blame those in power and not their own
poor choices. Those hard economic times are coming and for sure, I want the
most pro-business administration and the evil men affiliated with it to be
sitting in power when the shit *really* hits it.
I'm not much of a believer in the 'trickle down' theory whether you
propose it or Regan does. :-) It seems to me that if the American
people need all that to raise their level of awareness, that they have
lost their moment of greatness.
Post by Turin
You have to be the most vicious and think who you want to see stuck firmly
on the tracks when the economic train runs them flat. Oh sure, the remains
aren't going to be pretty, but it's not like the homeless and the downwardly
pushed former middle-class are going to have it much worse than they already
do now, are they?
I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose that there are people out there who
view this situation as the end justifies the means, but I'm not a
believer. To me, fighting the good fight is just as important as
winning by hurting others.
Post by Turin
That's the magic (or the danger, depending on where you stand) of not having
much left to lose.
Most people have something to lose, 'Deb'. Consider those poor people
in the eye of the hurricane.
Post by Turin
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
Frankly, I'd rather have that money go to helping my neighbor, and
strengthening the weak links within our society, so if the
aforementioned outside elements DO stir up
shit, it is less of a burden on everyone.
Indeed. We can't stand as a beakon to those in need of light if we can
no longer produce our own light. (and that goes for our own energy as
well).
Post by Turin
Straight up, do you think that the homeless are paying any taxes and
funding Rumsfeld's overseas expeditions?
In some ways, the homeless are perhaps less culpable than the rest of
us as they don't have tax dollars to contribute to the Bush war effort.
Bingo.
Now you know why I have been advocating the economic positions I have for as
long as I have. And for those who may have a subversive Christian bent to
this (it's not all bullshit you know) you can take to heart the passages in
Matthew to 'consider the lilies of the fields, who toil not..' and that it
makes a lot of sense if you want to '..give unto Caesar all that is his..',
hello!
I'm understanding what you have to say, but I'm not standing on your
side. You see, people are important to me, and I don't want to see
folks suffering. I'm not a Christian.
So, I don't even want to see folks suffer in the name of heaven.
BTW, have you seen the film, "V for Vendetta". I think you might like
it.
Post by Turin
Deb.
Deborah Terreson
2006-09-10 22:03:41 UTC
Permalink
----------
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
----------
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
----------
(edit)
Well, when you consider that 56 cents out of every tax dollar go to keep the
foreign elements - those who would destroy our 'way of life' away from our
shores, an argument about redistribution of wealth really is quite
meaningless.
Those who would "destroy our way of life" certainly SEE, not only the
homeless but also how the wealthy in our nation are trying to eliminate
our own middle class. There is not much left in the US since Bush took
over, to raise issues of jealousy. :-) America is no longer the
beakon on the hill. Americans are tarnished beyond all recognition
with the Bush admission of foreign prisons where prisoners are
tortured, and beating other prisoners.
Post by Turin
We're already redistributing vast cash sums to fuel the
interests of the affluent elites and their corporate henchmen to fund
interventions and occupations of foreign lands.
Yes, we are....but I didn't vote for Bush. Did you?
Of course I did. Only way to break an immoral system held up by the
unwitting middle class is to create such hardship for them they abandon all
support for it. You have to break eggs to make omelets.
So, you voted for Bush because you KNEW he'd ruin our country;
gee...you have a lot in common with Ralph Nadar. :-) What is your
aim, anarchy?
If that's what a real democracy would be called nowadays, yes. Absolutely.
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
In a hard economic time, people will blame those in power and not their own
poor choices. Those hard economic times are coming and for sure, I want the
most pro-business administration and the evil men affiliated with it to be
sitting in power when the shit *really* hits it.
I'm not much of a believer in the 'trickle down' theory whether you
propose it or Regan does. :-) It seems to me that if the American
people need all that to raise their level of awareness, that they have
lost their moment of greatness.
We lost it a long time ago. Now, do you propose to do nothing and let the
running dogs continue to feed? I say it's time to give them everything they
want and watch them eat until they choke on their gluttony.
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
You have to be the most vicious and think who you want to see stuck firmly
on the tracks when the economic train runs them flat. Oh sure, the remains
aren't going to be pretty, but it's not like the homeless and the downwardly
pushed former middle-class are going to have it much worse than they already
do now, are they?
I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose that there are people out there who
view this situation as the end justifies the means, but I'm not a
believer. To me, fighting the good fight is just as important as
winning by hurting others.
Post by Turin
That's the magic (or the danger, depending on where you stand) of not having
much left to lose.
Most people have something to lose, 'Deb'. Consider those poor people
in the eye of the hurricane.
The eye of a hurricane is the calm and peaceful place. HELLO!

I grew up in that eye, in the back of a VW bus. It's not at all scary. It's
difficult to be sure, but in all the years I've been in the homes of Mr. and
Mrs. Middle Class America and seen how they live and the ways they jump and
hop to maintain their lifestyles, I've not seen anything there that is
*less* difficult.
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
Frankly, I'd rather have that money go to helping my neighbor, and
strengthening the weak links within our society, so if the
aforementioned outside elements DO stir up
shit, it is less of a burden on everyone.
Indeed. We can't stand as a beakon to those in need of light if we can
no longer produce our own light. (and that goes for our own energy as
well).
Post by Turin
Straight up, do you think that the homeless are paying any taxes and
funding Rumsfeld's overseas expeditions?
In some ways, the homeless are perhaps less culpable than the rest of
us as they don't have tax dollars to contribute to the Bush war effort.
Bingo.
Now you know why I have been advocating the economic positions I have for as
long as I have. And for those who may have a subversive Christian bent to
this (it's not all bullshit you know) you can take to heart the passages in
Matthew to 'consider the lilies of the fields, who toil not..' and that it
makes a lot of sense if you want to '..give unto Caesar all that is his..',
hello!
I'm understanding what you have to say, but I'm not standing on your
side. You see, people are important to me, and I don't want to see
folks suffering. I'm not a Christian.
So, I don't even want to see folks suffer in the name of heaven.
BTW, have you seen the film, "V for Vendetta". I think you might like
it.
People are already suffering in the name of money, is that any better?
Trying to be nice and fight the 'good fight' is admirable, but those in
power aren't going to come down without some hard sacrifices. I stand full
well dead front and center myself to get caught in any economic collapse
when it happens - I know this. Unlike everyone else though, I'm not afraid
of it one jot. I don't rate myself a worthy human based on what I materially
*have* since I grew up without having anything at all. I learned early on
that possessions and wealth come and go and true power is in learning to let
them go without losing ones self-worth.

At least when the system falls to shit, the whole social structure stands a
chance of being rebuilt into something that does meet everyone's needs. As
it stands right now, it's nothing but a feeding frenzy for the power hungry.
Deb.
Jill
2006-09-10 20:01:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:13:25 -0400, "Deborah Terreson"
Post by Turin
----------
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
----------
(edit)
Well, when you consider that 56 cents out of every tax dollar go to keep the
foreign elements - those who would destroy our 'way of life' away from our
shores, an argument about redistribution of wealth really is quite
meaningless.
Those who would "destroy our way of life" certainly SEE, not only the
homeless but also how the wealthy in our nation are trying to eliminate
our own middle class. There is not much left in the US since Bush took
over, to raise issues of jealousy. :-) America is no longer the
beakon on the hill. Americans are tarnished beyond all recognition
with the Bush admission of foreign prisons where prisoners are
tortured, and beating other prisoners.
Post by Turin
We're already redistributing vast cash sums to fuel the
interests of the affluent elites and their corporate henchmen to fund
interventions and occupations of foreign lands.
Yes, we are....but I didn't vote for Bush. Did you?
Of course I did. Only way to break an immoral system held up by the
unwitting middle class is to create such hardship for them they abandon all
support for it. You have to break eggs to make omelets.
But look at the alternative--John Kerry of Heinz Ketchup fame.
Financially speaking his background and perspective weren't much
different than GWB in the final analysis. Ditto for the time before
with Al Gore who's flush and rich with big Occidental Oil money his
old man "earned" when he was in politics.

So if both sides are essentially the same in the final analysis then
why vote at all?
Post by Turin
In a hard economic time, people will blame those in power and not their own
poor choices. Those hard economic times are coming and for sure, I want the
most pro-business administration and the evil men affiliated with it to be
sitting in power when the shit *really* hits it.
Again, looking at the realities of all of the above, it is very
difficult to say who is "the most pro-business." Do you really think
Kerry would willingly turn his back on the interests of a huge
conglomerate (Heinz) who makes it possible for him to live in several
mansions around the country, have a yacht, servants, trips abroad,
etc? He would no more do so than GWB would.

You mentioned in an earlier post that you liked the SS drug benefit
thing Bush signed into law. I find that one of the most reprehensible
things he's done to date. Do you know that that program is almost
impossible for lay people to decipher. I tried to help my mother with
signing up for it. In the end she'd be out money because currently
the state pays for all of her diabetic supplies (because she's low
income) and she would have to pay for them herself (before meeting
some deductible) in the SS drug plan. It was also a big contest
between various pharmacies and health care insurance companies to see
who could hook up the most "clients." You have to go thru these
organizations in order to get the SS drug benefit. In the end my
mother said to hell with it...the insurance companies and drug
companies were already rich enough and the plan did little to help
her. She's right. The drug and health insurance companies are the
ones who are making out like bandits from this plan and it is again
the taxpayer who is footing the bill.
Post by Turin
You have to be the most vicious and think who you want to see stuck firmly
on the tracks when the economic train runs them flat. Oh sure, the remains
aren't going to be pretty, but it's not like the homeless and the downwardly
pushed former middle-class are going to have it much worse than they already
do now, are they?
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.

Deb, I'm wondering if you ever saw that commercial for some lending
company--the one featuring a man standing infront of his huge, huge
house, then he's shown barbecuing on his patio for family and guests
who are enjoying his huge inground pool. The man explains all the
things he's got like a brand new SUV and a big riding lawn mower. He
then says something like "I bet you wonder how I do it all." He leans
closer to the camera and whispers, "I'm up to my ears in debt.
Somebody help me, please!"

I love that commercial. It is representative of so many people I know
and so many homes in my area. The irony of the commercial is that it
is for a company that is offering the guy more loans...sort of like
offering a pathetic junkie more heroin.
Post by Turin
That's the magic (or the danger, depending on where you stand) of not having
much left to lose.
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
Frankly, I'd rather have that money go to helping my neighbor, and
strengthening the weak links within our society, so if the
aforementioned outside elements DO stir up
shit, it is less of a burden on everyone.
Indeed. We can't stand as a beakon to those in need of light if we can
no longer produce our own light. (and that goes for our own energy as
well).
The trick is being able to tell the difference between those truly in
need of help and those that are just posing.
Post by Turin
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
Straight up, do you think that the homeless are paying any taxes and
funding Rumsfeld's overseas expeditions?
The homeless aren't paying taxes. As a rule, the homeless are also
jobless.
Post by Turin
Post by Hyerdahl
In some ways, the homeless are perhaps less culpable than the rest of
us as they don't have tax dollars to contribute to the Bush war effort.
Bingo.
More like BS. I don't believe in a "collective conscience" or in
"collective guilt." That's a New Age piece of nonsense picked up
from Jung who was something of a flake in his own right.
Post by Turin
Now you know why I have been advocating the economic positions I have for as
long as I have. And for those who may have a subversive Christian bent
Please define "subversive Christian bent." I really don't know where
you're coming from with that phrase.
Post by Turin
to
this (it's not all bullshit you know)?
I know it isn't bullshit--not at all. It works.
Post by Turin
you can take to heart the passages in
Matthew to 'consider the lilies of the fields, who toil not..' and that it
makes a lot of sense if you want to '..give unto Caesar all that is his..',
hello!
Exactly.
Deborah Terreson
2006-09-10 22:40:12 UTC
Permalink
----------
Post by Jill
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:13:25 -0400, "Deborah Terreson"
Post by Turin
----------
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
----------
(edit)
Well, when you consider that 56 cents out of every tax dollar go to keep the
foreign elements - those who would destroy our 'way of life' away from our
shores, an argument about redistribution of wealth really is quite
meaningless.
Those who would "destroy our way of life" certainly SEE, not only the
homeless but also how the wealthy in our nation are trying to eliminate
our own middle class. There is not much left in the US since Bush took
over, to raise issues of jealousy. :-) America is no longer the
beakon on the hill. Americans are tarnished beyond all recognition
with the Bush admission of foreign prisons where prisoners are
tortured, and beating other prisoners.
Post by Turin
We're already redistributing vast cash sums to fuel the
interests of the affluent elites and their corporate henchmen to fund
interventions and occupations of foreign lands.
Yes, we are....but I didn't vote for Bush. Did you?
Of course I did. Only way to break an immoral system held up by the
unwitting middle class is to create such hardship for them they abandon all
support for it. You have to break eggs to make omelets.
But look at the alternative--John Kerry of Heinz Ketchup fame.
Financially speaking his background and perspective weren't much
different than GWB in the final analysis. Ditto for the time before
with Al Gore who's flush and rich with big Occidental Oil money his
old man "earned" when he was in politics.
So if both sides are essentially the same in the final analysis then
why vote at all?
Post by Turin
In a hard economic time, people will blame those in power and not their own
poor choices. Those hard economic times are coming and for sure, I want the
most pro-business administration and the evil men affiliated with it to be
sitting in power when the shit *really* hits it.
Again, looking at the realities of all of the above, it is very
difficult to say who is "the most pro-business." Do you really think
Kerry would willingly turn his back on the interests of a huge
conglomerate (Heinz) who makes it possible for him to live in several
mansions around the country, have a yacht, servants, trips abroad,
etc? He would no more do so than GWB would.
You mentioned in an earlier post that you liked the SS drug benefit
thing Bush signed into law.
I like the Health Savings Account plan because it won't work. The Drug
benefit thing is a boondoggle for Big Pharma and the insurers and I am
absolutely NOT going to ever become drug dependent in my old age. I'll eat
seaweed and learn to like freaky Japanese food first.
Post by Jill
I find that one of the most reprehensible
things he's done to date. Do you know that that program is almost
impossible for lay people to decipher.
Oh believe me I do. Had a job last year working for an older couple who have
a home here and one down in Florida. She was trying to figure out what state
she wanted to declare residency in, and was going to go for Florida, until
she found out that the syringes and the stuff labeled as 'injectables'
weren't covered. Eventually she settled on taking the coverage offered to
residents here even though it was going to cost more for the premium. Took
her the better part of two weeks and a whole bunch of phone calling for drug
prices and what everything cost to do the math and figure it out, but she
was not happy.
Post by Jill
I tried to help my mother with
signing up for it. In the end she'd be out money because currently
the state pays for all of her diabetic supplies (because she's low
income) and she would have to pay for them herself (before meeting
some deductible) in the SS drug plan. It was also a big contest
between various pharmacies and health care insurance companies to see
who could hook up the most "clients." You have to go thru these
organizations in order to get the SS drug benefit. In the end my
mother said to hell with it...the insurance companies and drug
companies were already rich enough and the plan did little to help
her. She's right. The drug and health insurance companies are the
ones who are making out like bandits from this plan and it is again
the taxpayer who is footing the bill.
My grandparents are in the same boat. Grandma's a child of the depression
and can pinch a dollar until it bleeds. She ran all the numbers and decided
to avoid it. They both were world-class savers and they have managed to stay
one hop ahead of the wolves.
Post by Jill
Post by Turin
You have to be the most vicious and think who you want to see stuck firmly
on the tracks when the economic train runs them flat. Oh sure, the remains
aren't going to be pretty, but it's not like the homeless and the downwardly
pushed former middle-class are going to have it much worse than they already
do now, are they?
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.
Deb, I'm wondering if you ever saw that commercial for some lending
company--the one featuring a man standing infront of his huge, huge
house, then he's shown barbecuing on his patio for family and guests
who are enjoying his huge inground pool. The man explains all the
things he's got like a brand new SUV and a big riding lawn mower. He
then says something like "I bet you wonder how I do it all." He leans
closer to the camera and whispers, "I'm up to my ears in debt.
Somebody help me, please!"
I love that commercial. It is representative of so many people I know
and so many homes in my area. The irony of the commercial is that it
is for a company that is offering the guy more loans...sort of like
offering a pathetic junkie more heroin.
*LOL* That's about it, isn't it?
Post by Jill
Post by Turin
That's the magic (or the danger, depending on where you stand) of not having
much left to lose.
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
Frankly, I'd rather have that money go to helping my neighbor, and
strengthening the weak links within our society, so if the
aforementioned outside elements DO stir up
shit, it is less of a burden on everyone.
Indeed. We can't stand as a beakon to those in need of light if we can
no longer produce our own light. (and that goes for our own energy as
well).
The trick is being able to tell the difference between those truly in
need of help and those that are just posing.
Post by Turin
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
Straight up, do you think that the homeless are paying any taxes and
funding Rumsfeld's overseas expeditions?
The homeless aren't paying taxes. As a rule, the homeless are also
jobless.
Post by Turin
Post by Hyerdahl
In some ways, the homeless are perhaps less culpable than the rest of
us as they don't have tax dollars to contribute to the Bush war effort.
Bingo.
More like BS. I don't believe in a "collective conscience" or in
"collective guilt." That's a New Age piece of nonsense picked up
from Jung who was something of a flake in his own right.
Post by Turin
Now you know why I have been advocating the economic positions I have for as
long as I have. And for those who may have a subversive Christian bent
Please define "subversive Christian bent." I really don't know where
you're coming from with that phrase.
Matthew 6:24 and on.. read it and ask yourself if what is written there is
the kind of message that supports or opposes this materialist society we
live in.
Post by Jill
Post by Turin
to
this (it's not all bullshit you know)?
I know it isn't bullshit--not at all. It works.
Post by Turin
you can take to heart the passages in
Matthew to 'consider the lilies of the fields, who toil not..' and that it
makes a lot of sense if you want to '..give unto Caesar all that is his..',
hello!
Exactly.
Uh-huh.

Deb.
knoxy
2006-09-11 17:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jill
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:13:25 -0400, "Deborah Terreson"
Post by Turin
----------
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
----------
(edit)
Well, when you consider that 56 cents out of every tax dollar go to keep the
foreign elements - those who would destroy our 'way of life' away from our
shores, an argument about redistribution of wealth really is quite
meaningless.
Those who would "destroy our way of life" certainly SEE, not only the
homeless but also how the wealthy in our nation are trying to eliminate
our own middle class. There is not much left in the US since Bush took
over, to raise issues of jealousy. :-) America is no longer the
beakon on the hill. Americans are tarnished beyond all recognition
with the Bush admission of foreign prisons where prisoners are
tortured, and beating other prisoners.
Post by Turin
We're already redistributing vast cash sums to fuel the
interests of the affluent elites and their corporate henchmen to fund
interventions and occupations of foreign lands.
Yes, we are....but I didn't vote for Bush. Did you?
Of course I did. Only way to break an immoral system held up by the
unwitting middle class is to create such hardship for them they abandon all
support for it. You have to break eggs to make omelets.
But look at the alternative--John Kerry of Heinz Ketchup fame.
Financially speaking his background and perspective weren't much
different than GWB in the final analysis. Ditto for the time before
with Al Gore who's flush and rich with big Occidental Oil money his
old man "earned" when he was in politics.
So if both sides are essentially the same in the final analysis then
why vote at all?
Post by Turin
In a hard economic time, people will blame those in power and not their own
poor choices. Those hard economic times are coming and for sure, I want the
most pro-business administration and the evil men affiliated with it to be
sitting in power when the shit *really* hits it.
Again, looking at the realities of all of the above, it is very
difficult to say who is "the most pro-business." Do you really think
Kerry would willingly turn his back on the interests of a huge
conglomerate (Heinz) who makes it possible for him to live in several
mansions around the country, have a yacht, servants, trips abroad,
etc? He would no more do so than GWB would.
You mentioned in an earlier post that you liked the SS drug benefit
thing Bush signed into law. I find that one of the most reprehensible
things he's done to date. Do you know that that program is almost
impossible for lay people to decipher. I tried to help my mother with
signing up for it. In the end she'd be out money because currently
the state pays for all of her diabetic supplies (because she's low
income) and she would have to pay for them herself (before meeting
some deductible) in the SS drug plan. It was also a big contest
between various pharmacies and health care insurance companies to see
who could hook up the most "clients." You have to go thru these
organizations in order to get the SS drug benefit. In the end my
mother said to hell with it...the insurance companies and drug
companies were already rich enough and the plan did little to help
her. She's right. The drug and health insurance companies are the
ones who are making out like bandits from this plan and it is again
the taxpayer who is footing the bill.
Post by Turin
You have to be the most vicious and think who you want to see stuck firmly
on the tracks when the economic train runs them flat. Oh sure, the remains
aren't going to be pretty, but it's not like the homeless and the downwardly
pushed former middle-class are going to have it much worse than they already
do now, are they?
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.
Deb, I'm wondering if you ever saw that commercial for some lending
company--the one featuring a man standing infront of his huge, huge
house, then he's shown barbecuing on his patio for family and guests
who are enjoying his huge inground pool. The man explains all the
things he's got like a brand new SUV and a big riding lawn mower. He
then says something like "I bet you wonder how I do it all." He leans
closer to the camera and whispers, "I'm up to my ears in debt.
Somebody help me, please!"
I love that commercial. It is representative of so many people I know
and so many homes in my area. The irony of the commercial is that it
is for a company that is offering the guy more loans...sort of like
offering a pathetic junkie more heroin.
Post by Turin
That's the magic (or the danger, depending on where you stand) of not having
much left to lose.
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
Frankly, I'd rather have that money go to helping my neighbor, and
strengthening the weak links within our society, so if the
aforementioned outside elements DO stir up
shit, it is less of a burden on everyone.
Indeed. We can't stand as a beakon to those in need of light if we can
no longer produce our own light. (and that goes for our own energy as
well).
The trick is being able to tell the difference between those truly in
need of help and those that are just posing.
Post by Turin
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by Turin
Straight up, do you think that the homeless are paying any taxes and
funding Rumsfeld's overseas expeditions?
The homeless aren't paying taxes. As a rule, the homeless are also
jobless.
Post by Turin
Post by Hyerdahl
In some ways, the homeless are perhaps less culpable than the rest of
us as they don't have tax dollars to contribute to the Bush war effort.
Bingo.
More like BS. I don't believe in a "collective conscience" or in
"collective guilt." That's a New Age piece of nonsense picked up
from Jung who was something of a flake in his own right.
I thought that was Jesus message, not Jungs.
Maybe I've read the bible a little bit more than you, despite your claim
to be a good catholic.
Post by Jill
Post by Turin
Now you know why I have been advocating the economic positions I have for as
long as I have. And for those who may have a subversive Christian bent
Please define "subversive Christian bent." I really don't know where
you're coming from with that phrase.
Post by Turin
to
this (it's not all bullshit you know)?
I know it isn't bullshit--not at all. It works.
Post by Turin
you can take to heart the passages in
Matthew to 'consider the lilies of the fields, who toil not..' and that it
makes a lot of sense if you want to '..give unto Caesar all that is his..',
hello!
Exactly.
--
knoxy
mhm34x10
smeeter #6
#6 on mimus wanted poster list
Best Newbie in alt.flame 2005


"The Internet is a gateway to get on the net."
Bob Dole
Hyerdahl
2006-09-10 18:03:23 UTC
Permalink
(edit)
Our societiy values personal freedom. Money is just a means to that
end.
Nonsense! American society values money and celebrity OVER their
personal freedoms which is evidenced by the continued support of George
Bush. If they really valued personal freedom, they would not be so
easily lead to give it up. In fact, I'd like to recommend a good film
to that end, called "V for Vendetta".

Since human nature does not favor the habit of working really hard
and then cheerfully giving it to strangers the elimination of all
poverty in a diverse, multi-ethnic society can only be accomplished by
a harsh dictatoship. So, is it worth it?
Since most of western society includes social programs that do address
the idea of having those who glean more from society also having to
share their gleanings , I suggest you're full of s_____!
pandora
2006-09-10 22:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyerdahl
(edit)
Our societiy values personal freedom. Money is just a means to that
end.
Nonsense! American society values money and celebrity OVER their
personal freedoms which is evidenced by the continued support of George
Bush. If they really valued personal freedom, they would not be so
easily lead to give it up. In fact, I'd like to recommend a good film
to that end, called "V for Vendetta".
Indeed. My 11 year old granddaughter made us watch that film. I don't
expect that she is going to be a subservient wench. :-)
Post by Hyerdahl
Since human nature does not favor the habit of working really hard
and then cheerfully giving it to strangers the elimination of all
poverty in a diverse, multi-ethnic society can only be accomplished by
a harsh dictatoship. So, is it worth it?
Since most of western society includes social programs that do address
the idea of having those who glean more from society also having to
share their gleanings , I suggest you're full of s_____!
As do I. My husband and I were speaking of this the other day and he, even
more than I, is absolutely adamant that it is reasonable for those who have,
to share with those who haven't. Perhaps it's his Danish ancestry and
socialistic view on life but I agree with him.

Marg
Turin
2006-09-09 12:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind?
Grizzlie Adjective or Tom Smith.
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Then, you never saw the made-for-TV portrayal, by Lucille Ball.
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would society as
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
I think we all know the answer to this.

Let's try striving for some originality, by applying some to the
question, for a change. Instead of always inserting women into the
equation, as a form of seeking permission, let's start talking instead
directly about MEN.

"HEY: Eighty-fucking-five percent of homeless are MEN. Are you
listening?"


We can then add something about women, thusly:

"Meanwhile, you worry about the mere 15%, simply because they're the
bitches. That, after giving them every other free consideration in the
name of redressing so-called inequalities. Yeah. I'm seeing some
inequalities, alright."


It's especially ridiculous when males, who insist on playing the
stubborn sexists, do this. Ain't too much stubborn or sexist about
always hiding behind the woman.

Yeah, they're sexist alright. Just not in the same direction they want
you to believe. They've totally caved. Playing "reverse the issue"
gets very old and very phony, after a while.




- - -

This has been another enlightening moment, with:

Turin


I have such sites to show you...
------------------------

http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First
http://mail2world.com/Blog/***@mail2zeus.com

------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----
Masculist
2006-09-11 02:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind?
Grizzlie Adjective or Tom Smith.
Aren't you being kind of tough on GA? He's a high powered professional
and very accomplished. Nice guy too. You on the other hand are a bum
and a scondrel.

Thanks for advocating for us (you and I) Turin. I didn't know you
cared.

Half of the mentally ill homeless are employable but have trouble
getting work. There's alot of non mentally ill homeless but they are
low profile and short term. Maybe 30% of them are seriously mentally
ill and unemployable.

Smitty
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Then, you never saw the made-for-TV portrayal, by Lucille Ball.
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would society as
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
I think we all know the answer to this.
Let's try striving for some originality, by applying some to the
question, for a change. Instead of always inserting women into the
equation, as a form of seeking permission, let's start talking instead
directly about MEN.
"HEY: Eighty-fucking-five percent of homeless are MEN. Are you
listening?"
"Meanwhile, you worry about the mere 15%, simply because they're the
bitches. That, after giving them every other free consideration in the
name of redressing so-called inequalities. Yeah. I'm seeing some
inequalities, alright."
It's especially ridiculous when males, who insist on playing the
stubborn sexists, do this. Ain't too much stubborn or sexist about
always hiding behind the woman.
Yeah, they're sexist alright. Just not in the same direction they want
you to believe. They've totally caved. Playing "reverse the issue"
gets very old and very phony, after a while.
- - -
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
Turin
2006-09-11 08:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind?
Grizzlie Adjective or Tom Smith.
Aren't you being kind of tough on GA? He's a high powered professional
and very accomplished. Nice guy too. You on the other hand are a bum
and a scondrel.
Thanks for advocating for us (you and I) Turin. I didn't know you
cared.
Half of the mentally ill homeless are employable but have trouble
getting work. There's alot of non mentally ill homeless but they are
low profile and short term. Maybe 30% of them are seriously mentally
ill and unemployable.
For those who aren't familiar with "Tom Smith", "Smitty", "Qim",
"Masculist", etc., Thomas is a mentally ill, homeless liberal who is
addicted to street drugs, sleeps in a park and typically logs onto the
Internet from UCSB.

Tom is known mainly as a schizophrenic who takes wildly contradictory
positions on "leftism" (and just about anything else), as well as making
even more wild accusations against people online.

He's a deadbeat dad, an ex "punk" prison con, and a lifelong substance
abuser. Most of his personal problems (both, on and offline) stem from
his abuse of drugs and alcohol.


Tom doesn't have any real understanding of leftism, or politics in
general. Least of all, of Men's Rights. (He's a lifelong feminist).
He isn't genuinely hostile toward women's issues, or even toward gays as
he pretends to be.

It's tempting at first to put him into the quaint category of the
"little man with a pet theory, minus any actual knowledge". However,
the truth is a little more complex. Essentially, Tom has a
deteriorating condition and simply isn't responsible for a lot of the
things that he says.

Tom did use to be involved in what passes for left-wing politics in the
U.S. He was employed in some social make-work programs, designed to
help work-release patients, like himself. When the funding for such
jobs fizzled out, Tom found himself unemployed and his marriage, to his
fellow drug addicted wife, on the rocks. As is typical in U.S. society,
while Tom did 2-3 years for dealing drugs, his wife did none at all.
Their two kids have suffered the psychological damage of having such
parents. From there, Tom's whole life fell apart. That might be said
to have been the start of Tom's "involvement" in Men's Issues.


Further information on Tom's alleged relationship to the Men's movement
can be found in the amusing-but-true FAQ below, along with a more
detailed profile on his disruption tactics and his dissociative identity
disorder. Special thanks to all those who contributed to this project.






TOM SMITH
---------
Dipylidium Caninum

by Yuno Hu



Intro:


Who or "what" is Tom Smith?

Tom smith is a psychiatrically disturbed troll who engages in false
accusations against people he doesn't know, group disruptions and
communication jamming in general. His closest ideology is that of
women's rights; though, his trolling activities are generally done out
of a need for personal attention.

However, in an effort to establish some credibility for his disruptions
in Men's Groups - where he tries to peddle most of his phony tales of
woe - he casts himself as something which he calls a "Masculist", with
himself as the president of it's beer-muddled ideology and the wearer of
it's largest paper hat. As his victim, it inevitably falls to you to
make sense out of his confused and contradictory statements, and thereby
to supply therapy and meaning to his ruined life.


What Thomas's brand of "masculism" actually is, is merely the usual
reactionaryism of male feminists that was written by go-with-the-flow
corporate-liberal types. It's known as gender role playing and is
highly adaptable to every bourgeois political fad that comes along.
Most utilize the technique as their core ideology and embellish it with
their own personal group's identity and style, in the same way that MP3
players utilize "skins". Tom's added twist to the idea is a bit of
band-aid liberalism (that is, when he's not back-pedaling from his
positions), and a whole lot of folksy personality.

That's it. You now have a Ph.D. in "masculism".


Of course, the Men's Movement has long been plagued by half-way
liberalisms, such as masculism, that are (still being) constantly
repackaged to address a Man's heartburn, but not His RIGHTS. They are
counter-insurgencies which seek to redirect the Men's Movement into
serving the woman's agenda. Tom Smith, himself, is basically just
another loud-mouthed servant who enjoys the taste of (a woman's) shit
but goes running to the Men's Movement for protection whenever she
starts becoming too abusive to him.

Those of us who are veterans in the Movement, who are carrying too many
battle scars but not enough victories under our belts (or, laurels in
our crowns ...as case may be), just don't have the luxury anymore of
promoting the self-aggrandizing spoiled little boy types, like Warren
Farrell and Glenn Sacks. Or, the loudmouthed little assholes like Ken
Pangborn. Then, there's the Tom Smith category.


In Tom's case, his made up masculism is also a crutch for someone who's
been left out of the left wing movement - where he found acceptance at
an earlier point in his life. It was a time when the white-trash
demographic, frankly, had a more prominent role in the U.S. Democratic
party, before being abandoned in favor of women and blacks.

Most of Tom's few, laughable allies are from overseas, where there is
still a relatively meaningful labor party. Unfortunately, they tend to
be the lowest of the lot: crude, ignorant, and sanctimoniously
hypocritical as well as obtuse on the father's issue. A political
orphan (if not an abandoned schizophrenic), Tom just doesn't know who he
is anymore.


The problem is that Tom doesn't think that anyone else knows who he is,
either. That being so, his primary tactic is changing positions. His
methods are lying, making up facts, pet theorizing, soundbiting, and
waffling as a supposed moderate - your basic baiting-switching,
passive-aggressive behavior. You can't get a dime's worth of
intelligent conversation out of the old asshole.

In fact, while all of the information contained in this profile on him
is based on claims of his own about himself, it's an additional
obstruction of his to claim that the facts have been made up; thereby,
constantly refueling pointless debates. This amounts to simply one more
ruse for keeping the real debates clogged up with personality wars, and
so in keeping Tom's personal disease well fed and thriving.


Until the University of California, Santa Barbara either pulls the plug
on poor Tom, or stops offering public Internet access, it's going to be
up to the Men's Advocate to either ignore Thomas's trolling or to
prepare himself to debate nonsense by understanding who Tom is and his
own stated background. In either case, a portrait of an asshole helps
to make an informed decision.



----------------------------------------------------------------



The Story:


Careerwise, when Tom was young, he did two to three traumatic years in
prison for selling drugs. Later, he reformed himself by becoming some
low grade "facilitator" for autistics. From that, he pretends to have
been a pioneer in the field. (Autistics who are familiar with him have
laughed at this.)

Today, he lives on the street as a deadbeat dad. Using public
computers, he attempts to take over discussion groups in little coups,
using calculated disruptions which he believes can be leveraged into
media attention as the magic cure for getting justice. This
self-centered little fantasy is actually a common technique employed by
the deadbeats. Most online groups are aware of some of these characters
and have had enough of them, along with their little Yahoo empires. (1)

Where Tom's great, half-assed awakening to Men's Issues is concerned, he
claims to have always been an activist. No doubt this was true in the
under-my-breath, grumbling sort of way in which most men also are
"activists". But, piecing together his various bullshit stories, it's
obvious that he never was a Men's Advocate at all until his divorce
happened to him. And, he still isn't.

Tom ran to Men's Advocacy as a last recourse after him and his wife,
together, fucked up his life and he found himself having to pay her
"child" support, with no job. Tom, however, is a typical coward who is
too conveniently cynical to support Men's Rights (he doesn't need that
"faggy" shit, he's a MAN), too feminist to put his "sexism" where his
mouth is, and too "moral" to admit that it's not for his kids' sake that
he wants his life back.

To be fair, the father's movement as a whole has never been able to work
with the Men's Movement. It's not just assholes, like Tom. The
father's movement is just too isolationist, too pompous, too castrated,
too stupid and too easily taken advantage of by exploiters (like Ken
Pangborn) to accomplish anything, even on a good day.


What plainly happened with Tom was that (at a time when he was busy
playing the typical hypocritical liberal, with the money, the house, and
the career - for whatever brief period that he had it) he was stupid
enough to ignore the plain realities of today and entered into a
pseudo-traditional marriage, despite the fact that he's always been a
liberal. He wanted to play a redundant male to a redundant, worthless
bitch with no job. For these guys, playing a hollow role is easier than
playing a real one, and more satisfying.

What predictably happened to our pseudo-patriarch of the easy chair was
that the bitch ended up throwing him into the garbage bin of divorce.
Their marriage wasn't based on anything real - only, role playing.
Sooo...

Since, in the 20th century, there was no butter for her to churn, no
clothes for her to make, no nearby stream for her to wash them in, no
meals for her to make from scratch, and - in a word - no WORK for her to
do, which otherwise would have resulted in poverty, disease and
mortality if it hadn't gotten done, then there were also none of those
effective counterbalances (that Tom's type likes to talk about) in place
to stop her from choosing the otherwise option. (2)

...She then proceeded to enjoy the kind of life that a piece of shit
like her can have today by fucking other men in his house and partying
on while he was enjoying the outdoors.


In Tom's anger, he discovered the Men's Movement. But, because he
discovered it only to the extent that the issues affected him in his own
little world - and refused to acknowledge any issue which didn't affect
him personally and directly - he's had about as much success as most of
the so-called fathers' rights groups and clowns who he's gravitated
toward. Therefore, refusing to be ideological has not only cost him his
integrity, it's made him into a bum as well.


Any basic Men's Advocate would have known that this was a formula for
disaster. However, Tom is one of these Joe Average fuckers of
mediocrity who are losing their power in today's world - except, Tom's
also worked for the feminists and has learned to pimp for them.

These simpletons don't think from day to day, and don't care. They're
more arrogant than the rich and more demanding than the poor. They
coast through life by becoming characters who blend into whatever
situation they come across. They have total confidence in their
abilities to play situational politics over the rules, and that nothing
bad can happen to them. They write off principle as being something not
"worth" fighting about. The parts of their brains that handle
principle, as well as ethics and honesty, are so unused, that once it
becomes possible to interface grey matter with computers - lying sacks
of shit that they are - they're going to be able to utilize those parts
as external hard drives with no other adverse effect. Most Men's
Activists have utter contempt for them.


Naturally, hen-pecked assholes, like Tom, still don't want to accept the
fact that half-way measures are actually the whole problem. They prefer
the chivalrously popular cop-out of blaming women's behavior on
government, and according them rights without responsibilities. There's
a nice way to play safe politics. Instead of holding these women to
equality, they shortchange themselves as Men wherever possible. Then,
when the women become unaccountable monsters, and the extortion of
divorce hits, the jellyspines feign shock and blame communism. Bravo.


Essentially, these hicks can't cope in today's world because they don't
understand it anymore. So, they fall back onto a half-assed, nostalgic
definition of a nuclear family: a wife stays home to raise kids, yet
has equal rights and answers only to herself. Huh? Those are the old
days? Meanwhile, "man" strategically learns to duck the head. He is
allowed either to watch TV or to fix a car in a garage.

This version of patriarchy is always highly sketchy in details, but
whenever you're given any it's evident that the men in it are the ones
who are accountable (to women). It's a successful revision job,
compliments of the women's movement. Such is the source and font of all
that Tom thinketh. Woe is we.



----------------------------------------------------------------


Conclusion:

Tom is your basic conforming/collaborating male feminist, who not only
still hasn't learned that it's over for him and his type, but has paid
the price for it mentally and physically. While "pussy" or
"pussywhipped" may or may not be the closest label to slap onto crazy
old Tom, in explaining his fucked up, dishonest life ...they certainly
do qualify as a couple of clear choices.


The best thing that you, as a Men's Activist, can do about the whole lot
is to expose them (which, will usually end their games fast, as well).
Do this by fighting for Equality for Men, and to bring female abusers of
equality to justice, for a change. Refute their phony Darwinian "good
old days" nostalgia.

True equality is as anathema to a male feminist as a cross is to a
vampire. His safety is in niches and in defending the women's cause
from "militants" in the Men's Movement. The scumbag will then always
either divert the issue back into the woman's agenda, or run like the
coward he is.


Tom should be an object lesson - to all of us - as to the limited power
of playing moderate politics

...and of BULLSHIT.




Footnotes:
---------

(1) Those who are familiar with another sleazy character, by the name of
Ken Pangborn, can remember some of his own famous flame wars, which he
has waged over every Internet protocol that he has ever become familiar
with. The difference between someone like Ken and others like Tom is
that Ken is one of the rich little daddy's boys who never had to suffer
the raw end of divorce discrimination. It's well not to confuse the two
types because they behave differently, and with somewhat different
motives.


(2) There's a point worth noting here. Most bourgeois Men's Forums love
to cast this type of scenario as a struggle between capitalism
(patriarchy) and communism ("wymmin's movement"). They believe that, in
identifying anyone that they don't like with commies (in this case, the
women's movement), they're making a brilliant strategic move and putting
the opposition's back up against the wall. Problem is, this was
obviously capitalism feeding on itself. Strawman argument. Strawman
solution.

Of course, when the actual FACTS are shoved into their STUPID faces and
they can't PRETEND that this happens outside of a CAPITALIST system,
they quickly get into hairsplitting by turning the focus of their pet
theory against mere cultural influences. (I.e. attitudes and
education). But, the source is still always revealed to be capitalism,
including "da market". It's still a strawman argument.

The point here isn't simply that if Tom's ex-wife had been a
full-fledged Marxist of the mouth, then she would still have been living
a capitalist life, and still a feminist, and therefore it should behoove
us to note the correlation. It's also to note the cause and effect.

It was CAPITALISM that removed all of those quaint little mechanisms
from the picture of Tom's marriage. You know: The ones that supposedly
are so integral to the structure of the "nuclear" family ...whenever you
read a little history of the world from one of these
Morons-with-a-capital-M. She no longer NEEDED him for actual
tooth-and-nail, law-of-the-jungle "SURVIVAL". He was redundant to her
in that respect. So was she to him, as far as ironing his loincloth.

Nor, can one say that candy-ass American "socialism" was the temptation
that lured Mrs. Smith to destroy the marriage with welfare as a safety
net, because materialism had to break down the necessity of their
old-world roles to each other, FIRST, before the temptation could have
effect. Especially, if idiots want to argue that socialism parasites
off of capitalism.

THAT'S why it's a strawman to recommend survivalism as the glue that
binds families together and then in the next breath to recommend the
1950's. Sure, life at that time may still have been somewhat tough
following the Great Depression (for all you dorky Joe and Sue
Middle-class Republicans out there, that would be when free market
capitalism FAILED ...until the welfare state bailed out the country -God
Bless FDR), but the U.S. was pretty much past those decades by then -
which is a given reason by it's retarded advocates for recommending it.
It's especially fallacious to claim all of that and then chant the
mantra that the problem with feminism is that it wants to return us to
primitive living conditions. Well, Which is it? Is the physical
struggle for survival good or bad for marriage?

Capitalism vs. Marxism is a separate issue, and the integrity of "da
family" is a red herring. If anything, Men are returned to their old
roles in a Marxist system, while the women WORK for their equality -
instead of lazing around, insulting Men and using their own resources
against them. Meanwhile, males under capitalist regimes take out the
garbage, are abused by all females, use self-deprecating humor, and are
arrested and imprisoned for the slightest physical or verbal "abuses" of
females - including their wives and including the marital right. It is
the men under the capitalist regime who don't measure up to the survival
standard, and it is the weak capitalist male who protests the loudest
about "men being men and women being women".

-- T.T.
Post by Masculist
Smitty
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Then, you never saw the made-for-TV portrayal, by Lucille Ball.
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would society as
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
I think we all know the answer to this.
Let's try striving for some originality, by applying some to the
question, for a change. Instead of always inserting women into the
equation, as a form of seeking permission, let's start talking instead
directly about MEN.
"HEY: Eighty-fucking-five percent of homeless are MEN. Are you
listening?"
"Meanwhile, you worry about the mere 15%, simply because they're the
bitches. That, after giving them every other free consideration in the
name of redressing so-called inequalities. Yeah. I'm seeing some
inequalities, alright."
It's especially ridiculous when males, who insist on playing the
stubborn sexists, do this. Ain't too much stubborn or sexist about
always hiding behind the woman.
Yeah, they're sexist alright. Just not in the same direction they want
you to believe. They've totally caved. Playing "reverse the issue"
gets very old and very phony, after a while.
- - -
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
Masculist
2006-09-11 20:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Turin
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind?
Grizzlie Adjective or Tom Smith.
Aren't you being kind of tough on GA? He's a high powered professional
and very accomplished. Nice guy too. You on the other hand are a bum
and a scondrel.
Thanks for advocating for us (you and I) Turin. I didn't know you
cared.
Half of the mentally ill homeless are employable but have trouble
getting work. There's alot of non mentally ill homeless but they are
low profile and short term. Maybe 30% of them are seriously mentally
ill and unemployable.
Excuse me Turin, the below response are your cut and paste lies and
half truths about moi and not a response to my enlightened views.

Smitty
Post by Turin
For those who aren't familiar with "Tom Smith", "Smitty", "Qim",
"Masculist", etc., Thomas is a mentally ill, homeless liberal who is
addicted to street drugs, sleeps in a park and typically logs onto the
Internet from UCSB.
Tom is known mainly as a schizophrenic who takes wildly contradictory
positions on "leftism" (and just about anything else), as well as making
even more wild accusations against people online.
He's a deadbeat dad, an ex "punk" prison con, and a lifelong substance
abuser. Most of his personal problems (both, on and offline) stem from
his abuse of drugs and alcohol.
Tom doesn't have any real understanding of leftism, or politics in
general. Least of all, of Men's Rights. (He's a lifelong feminist).
He isn't genuinely hostile toward women's issues, or even toward gays as
he pretends to be.
It's tempting at first to put him into the quaint category of the
"little man with a pet theory, minus any actual knowledge". However,
the truth is a little more complex. Essentially, Tom has a
deteriorating condition and simply isn't responsible for a lot of the
things that he says.
Tom did use to be involved in what passes for left-wing politics in the
U.S. He was employed in some social make-work programs, designed to
help work-release patients, like himself. When the funding for such
jobs fizzled out, Tom found himself unemployed and his marriage, to his
fellow drug addicted wife, on the rocks. As is typical in U.S. society,
while Tom did 2-3 years for dealing drugs, his wife did none at all.
Their two kids have suffered the psychological damage of having such
parents. From there, Tom's whole life fell apart. That might be said
to have been the start of Tom's "involvement" in Men's Issues.
Further information on Tom's alleged relationship to the Men's movement
can be found in the amusing-but-true FAQ below, along with a more
detailed profile on his disruption tactics and his dissociative identity
disorder. Special thanks to all those who contributed to this project.
TOM SMITH
---------
Dipylidium Caninum
by Yuno Hu
Who or "what" is Tom Smith?
Tom smith is a psychiatrically disturbed troll who engages in false
accusations against people he doesn't know, group disruptions and
communication jamming in general. His closest ideology is that of
women's rights; though, his trolling activities are generally done out
of a need for personal attention.
However, in an effort to establish some credibility for his disruptions
in Men's Groups - where he tries to peddle most of his phony tales of
woe - he casts himself as something which he calls a "Masculist", with
himself as the president of it's beer-muddled ideology and the wearer of
it's largest paper hat. As his victim, it inevitably falls to you to
make sense out of his confused and contradictory statements, and thereby
to supply therapy and meaning to his ruined life.
What Thomas's brand of "masculism" actually is, is merely the usual
reactionaryism of male feminists that was written by go-with-the-flow
corporate-liberal types. It's known as gender role playing and is
highly adaptable to every bourgeois political fad that comes along.
Most utilize the technique as their core ideology and embellish it with
their own personal group's identity and style, in the same way that MP3
players utilize "skins". Tom's added twist to the idea is a bit of
band-aid liberalism (that is, when he's not back-pedaling from his
positions), and a whole lot of folksy personality.
That's it. You now have a Ph.D. in "masculism".
Of course, the Men's Movement has long been plagued by half-way
liberalisms, such as masculism, that are (still being) constantly
repackaged to address a Man's heartburn, but not His RIGHTS. They are
counter-insurgencies which seek to redirect the Men's Movement into
serving the woman's agenda. Tom Smith, himself, is basically just
another loud-mouthed servant who enjoys the taste of (a woman's) shit
but goes running to the Men's Movement for protection whenever she
starts becoming too abusive to him.
Those of us who are veterans in the Movement, who are carrying too many
battle scars but not enough victories under our belts (or, laurels in
our crowns ...as case may be), just don't have the luxury anymore of
promoting the self-aggrandizing spoiled little boy types, like Warren
Farrell and Glenn Sacks. Or, the loudmouthed little assholes like Ken
Pangborn. Then, there's the Tom Smith category.
In Tom's case, his made up masculism is also a crutch for someone who's
been left out of the left wing movement - where he found acceptance at
an earlier point in his life. It was a time when the white-trash
demographic, frankly, had a more prominent role in the U.S. Democratic
party, before being abandoned in favor of women and blacks.
Most of Tom's few, laughable allies are from overseas, where there is
still a relatively meaningful labor party. Unfortunately, they tend to
be the lowest of the lot: crude, ignorant, and sanctimoniously
hypocritical as well as obtuse on the father's issue. A political
orphan (if not an abandoned schizophrenic), Tom just doesn't know who he
is anymore.
The problem is that Tom doesn't think that anyone else knows who he is,
either. That being so, his primary tactic is changing positions. His
methods are lying, making up facts, pet theorizing, soundbiting, and
waffling as a supposed moderate - your basic baiting-switching,
passive-aggressive behavior. You can't get a dime's worth of
intelligent conversation out of the old asshole.
In fact, while all of the information contained in this profile on him
is based on claims of his own about himself, it's an additional
obstruction of his to claim that the facts have been made up; thereby,
constantly refueling pointless debates. This amounts to simply one more
ruse for keeping the real debates clogged up with personality wars, and
so in keeping Tom's personal disease well fed and thriving.
Until the University of California, Santa Barbara either pulls the plug
on poor Tom, or stops offering public Internet access, it's going to be
up to the Men's Advocate to either ignore Thomas's trolling or to
prepare himself to debate nonsense by understanding who Tom is and his
own stated background. In either case, a portrait of an asshole helps
to make an informed decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Careerwise, when Tom was young, he did two to three traumatic years in
prison for selling drugs. Later, he reformed himself by becoming some
low grade "facilitator" for autistics. From that, he pretends to have
been a pioneer in the field. (Autistics who are familiar with him have
laughed at this.)
Today, he lives on the street as a deadbeat dad. Using public
computers, he attempts to take over discussion groups in little coups,
using calculated disruptions which he believes can be leveraged into
media attention as the magic cure for getting justice. This
self-centered little fantasy is actually a common technique employed by
the deadbeats. Most online groups are aware of some of these characters
and have had enough of them, along with their little Yahoo empires. (1)
Where Tom's great, half-assed awakening to Men's Issues is concerned, he
claims to have always been an activist. No doubt this was true in the
under-my-breath, grumbling sort of way in which most men also are
"activists". But, piecing together his various bullshit stories, it's
obvious that he never was a Men's Advocate at all until his divorce
happened to him. And, he still isn't.
Tom ran to Men's Advocacy as a last recourse after him and his wife,
together, fucked up his life and he found himself having to pay her
"child" support, with no job. Tom, however, is a typical coward who is
too conveniently cynical to support Men's Rights (he doesn't need that
"faggy" shit, he's a MAN), too feminist to put his "sexism" where his
mouth is, and too "moral" to admit that it's not for his kids' sake that
he wants his life back.
To be fair, the father's movement as a whole has never been able to work
with the Men's Movement. It's not just assholes, like Tom. The
father's movement is just too isolationist, too pompous, too castrated,
too stupid and too easily taken advantage of by exploiters (like Ken
Pangborn) to accomplish anything, even on a good day.
What plainly happened with Tom was that (at a time when he was busy
playing the typical hypocritical liberal, with the money, the house, and
the career - for whatever brief period that he had it) he was stupid
enough to ignore the plain realities of today and entered into a
pseudo-traditional marriage, despite the fact that he's always been a
liberal. He wanted to play a redundant male to a redundant, worthless
bitch with no job. For these guys, playing a hollow role is easier than
playing a real one, and more satisfying.
What predictably happened to our pseudo-patriarch of the easy chair was
that the bitch ended up throwing him into the garbage bin of divorce.
Their marriage wasn't based on anything real - only, role playing.
Sooo...
Since, in the 20th century, there was no butter for her to churn, no
clothes for her to make, no nearby stream for her to wash them in, no
meals for her to make from scratch, and - in a word - no WORK for her to
do, which otherwise would have resulted in poverty, disease and
mortality if it hadn't gotten done, then there were also none of those
effective counterbalances (that Tom's type likes to talk about) in place
to stop her from choosing the otherwise option. (2)
...She then proceeded to enjoy the kind of life that a piece of shit
like her can have today by fucking other men in his house and partying
on while he was enjoying the outdoors.
In Tom's anger, he discovered the Men's Movement. But, because he
discovered it only to the extent that the issues affected him in his own
little world - and refused to acknowledge any issue which didn't affect
him personally and directly - he's had about as much success as most of
the so-called fathers' rights groups and clowns who he's gravitated
toward. Therefore, refusing to be ideological has not only cost him his
integrity, it's made him into a bum as well.
Any basic Men's Advocate would have known that this was a formula for
disaster. However, Tom is one of these Joe Average fuckers of
mediocrity who are losing their power in today's world - except, Tom's
also worked for the feminists and has learned to pimp for them.
These simpletons don't think from day to day, and don't care. They're
more arrogant than the rich and more demanding than the poor. They
coast through life by becoming characters who blend into whatever
situation they come across. They have total confidence in their
abilities to play situational politics over the rules, and that nothing
bad can happen to them. They write off principle as being something not
"worth" fighting about. The parts of their brains that handle
principle, as well as ethics and honesty, are so unused, that once it
becomes possible to interface grey matter with computers - lying sacks
of shit that they are - they're going to be able to utilize those parts
as external hard drives with no other adverse effect. Most Men's
Activists have utter contempt for them.
Naturally, hen-pecked assholes, like Tom, still don't want to accept the
fact that half-way measures are actually the whole problem. They prefer
the chivalrously popular cop-out of blaming women's behavior on
government, and according them rights without responsibilities. There's
a nice way to play safe politics. Instead of holding these women to
equality, they shortchange themselves as Men wherever possible. Then,
when the women become unaccountable monsters, and the extortion of
divorce hits, the jellyspines feign shock and blame communism. Bravo.
Essentially, these hicks can't cope in today's world because they don't
understand it anymore. So, they fall back onto a half-assed, nostalgic
definition of a nuclear family: a wife stays home to raise kids, yet
has equal rights and answers only to herself. Huh? Those are the old
days? Meanwhile, "man" strategically learns to duck the head. He is
allowed either to watch TV or to fix a car in a garage.
This version of patriarchy is always highly sketchy in details, but
whenever you're given any it's evident that the men in it are the ones
who are accountable (to women). It's a successful revision job,
compliments of the women's movement. Such is the source and font of all
that Tom thinketh. Woe is we.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom is your basic conforming/collaborating male feminist, who not only
still hasn't learned that it's over for him and his type, but has paid
the price for it mentally and physically. While "pussy" or
"pussywhipped" may or may not be the closest label to slap onto crazy
old Tom, in explaining his fucked up, dishonest life ...they certainly
do qualify as a couple of clear choices.
The best thing that you, as a Men's Activist, can do about the whole lot
is to expose them (which, will usually end their games fast, as well).
Do this by fighting for Equality for Men, and to bring female abusers of
equality to justice, for a change. Refute their phony Darwinian "good
old days" nostalgia.
True equality is as anathema to a male feminist as a cross is to a
vampire. His safety is in niches and in defending the women's cause
from "militants" in the Men's Movement. The scumbag will then always
either divert the issue back into the woman's agenda, or run like the
coward he is.
Tom should be an object lesson - to all of us - as to the limited power
of playing moderate politics
...and of BULLSHIT.
---------
(1) Those who are familiar with another sleazy character, by the name of
Ken Pangborn, can remember some of his own famous flame wars, which he
has waged over every Internet protocol that he has ever become familiar
with. The difference between someone like Ken and others like Tom is
that Ken is one of the rich little daddy's boys who never had to suffer
the raw end of divorce discrimination. It's well not to confuse the two
types because they behave differently, and with somewhat different
motives.
(2) There's a point worth noting here. Most bourgeois Men's Forums love
to cast this type of scenario as a struggle between capitalism
(patriarchy) and communism ("wymmin's movement"). They believe that, in
identifying anyone that they don't like with commies (in this case, the
women's movement), they're making a brilliant strategic move and putting
the opposition's back up against the wall. Problem is, this was
obviously capitalism feeding on itself. Strawman argument. Strawman
solution.
Of course, when the actual FACTS are shoved into their STUPID faces and
they can't PRETEND that this happens outside of a CAPITALIST system,
they quickly get into hairsplitting by turning the focus of their pet
theory against mere cultural influences. (I.e. attitudes and
education). But, the source is still always revealed to be capitalism,
including "da market". It's still a strawman argument.
The point here isn't simply that if Tom's ex-wife had been a
full-fledged Marxist of the mouth, then she would still have been living
a capitalist life, and still a feminist, and therefore it should behoove
us to note the correlation. It's also to note the cause and effect.
It was CAPITALISM that removed all of those quaint little mechanisms
from the picture of Tom's marriage. You know: The ones that supposedly
are so integral to the structure of the "nuclear" family ...whenever you
read a little history of the world from one of these
Morons-with-a-capital-M. She no longer NEEDED him for actual
tooth-and-nail, law-of-the-jungle "SURVIVAL". He was redundant to her
in that respect. So was she to him, as far as ironing his loincloth.
Nor, can one say that candy-ass American "socialism" was the temptation
that lured Mrs. Smith to destroy the marriage with welfare as a safety
net, because materialism had to break down the necessity of their
old-world roles to each other, FIRST, before the temptation could have
effect. Especially, if idiots want to argue that socialism parasites
off of capitalism.
THAT'S why it's a strawman to recommend survivalism as the glue that
binds families together and then in the next breath to recommend the
1950's. Sure, life at that time may still have been somewhat tough
following the Great Depression (for all you dorky Joe and Sue
Middle-class Republicans out there, that would be when free market
capitalism FAILED ...until the welfare state bailed out the country -God
Bless FDR), but the U.S. was pretty much past those decades by then -
which is a given reason by it's retarded advocates for recommending it.
It's especially fallacious to claim all of that and then chant the
mantra that the problem with feminism is that it wants to return us to
primitive living conditions. Well, Which is it? Is the physical
struggle for survival good or bad for marriage?
Capitalism vs. Marxism is a separate issue, and the integrity of "da
family" is a red herring. If anything, Men are returned to their old
roles in a Marxist system, while the women WORK for their equality -
instead of lazing around, insulting Men and using their own resources
against them. Meanwhile, males under capitalist regimes take out the
garbage, are abused by all females, use self-deprecating humor, and are
arrested and imprisoned for the slightest physical or verbal "abuses" of
females - including their wives and including the marital right. It is
the men under the capitalist regime who don't measure up to the survival
standard, and it is the weak capitalist male who protests the loudest
about "men being men and women being women".
-- T.T.
Post by Masculist
Smitty
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes
to mind
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were
joined by
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by
giving
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Then, you never saw the made-for-TV portrayal, by Lucille Ball.
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this
category
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would
society as
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
I think we all know the answer to this.
Let's try striving for some originality, by applying some to the
question, for a change. Instead of always inserting women into the
equation, as a form of seeking permission, let's start talking instead
directly about MEN.
"HEY: Eighty-fucking-five percent of homeless are MEN. Are you
listening?"
"Meanwhile, you worry about the mere 15%, simply because they're the
bitches. That, after giving them every other free consideration in the
name of redressing so-called inequalities. Yeah. I'm seeing some
inequalities, alright."
It's especially ridiculous when males, who insist on playing the
stubborn sexists, do this. Ain't too much stubborn or sexist about
always hiding behind the woman.
Yeah, they're sexist alright. Just not in the same direction they want
you to believe. They've totally caved. Playing "reverse the issue"
gets very old and very phony, after a while.
- - -
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
Stormy
2006-09-11 22:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind?
Grizzlie Adjective or Tom Smith.
Aren't you being kind of tough on GA? He's a high powered professional
and very accomplished. Nice guy too. You on the other hand are a bum
and a scondrel.
Thanks for advocating for us (you and I) Turin. I didn't know you
cared.
Half of the mentally ill homeless are employable but have trouble
getting work. There's alot of non mentally ill homeless but they are
low profile and short term. Maybe 30% of them are seriously mentally
ill and unemployable.
Excuse me Turin, the below response are your cut and paste lies and
half truths about moi and not a response to my enlightened views.
Smitty
Post by Turin
For those who aren't familiar with "Tom Smith", "Smitty", "Qim",
"Masculist", etc., Thomas is a mentally ill, homeless liberal who is
addicted to street drugs, sleeps in a park and typically logs onto the
Internet from UCSB.
Turin maybe you should update this to include something about shunned
Tom's YouTube videos an' the expensive new laptop system and Tmobile
account that he bought with the settlement for his 'back' problem LOL.
Poor lil' Tom seems to try to mislead people who don't know him into
thinking that he posts from a house an' that you made all of this up
about him instead of collecting his tales of woe. Everyone knows he
just keeps changing stories an' lying so that he can annoy people but
those videos are both embarrasing and damning evidence. He even shows
everyone the tent he sleeps in an' then goes back to calling people
liar! I'll bet he would even be smartass enough to make a video with
him waving from his old computer at UCSB LOL

Stormy
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Tom is known mainly as a schizophrenic who takes wildly contradictory
positions on "leftism" (and just about anything else), as well as making
even more wild accusations against people online.
He's a deadbeat dad, an ex "punk" prison con, and a lifelong substance
abuser. Most of his personal problems (both, on and offline) stem from
his abuse of drugs and alcohol.
Tom doesn't have any real understanding of leftism, or politics in
general. Least of all, of Men's Rights. (He's a lifelong feminist).
He isn't genuinely hostile toward women's issues, or even toward gays as
he pretends to be.
It's tempting at first to put him into the quaint category of the
"little man with a pet theory, minus any actual knowledge". However,
the truth is a little more complex. Essentially, Tom has a
deteriorating condition and simply isn't responsible for a lot of the
things that he says.
Tom did use to be involved in what passes for left-wing politics in the
U.S. He was employed in some social make-work programs, designed to
help work-release patients, like himself. When the funding for such
jobs fizzled out, Tom found himself unemployed and his marriage, to his
fellow drug addicted wife, on the rocks. As is typical in U.S. society,
while Tom did 2-3 years for dealing drugs, his wife did none at all.
Their two kids have suffered the psychological damage of having such
parents. From there, Tom's whole life fell apart. That might be said
to have been the start of Tom's "involvement" in Men's Issues.
Further information on Tom's alleged relationship to the Men's movement
can be found in the amusing-but-true FAQ below, along with a more
detailed profile on his disruption tactics and his dissociative identity
disorder. Special thanks to all those who contributed to this project.
TOM SMITH
---------
Dipylidium Caninum
by Yuno Hu
Who or "what" is Tom Smith?
Tom smith is a psychiatrically disturbed troll who engages in false
accusations against people he doesn't know, group disruptions and
communication jamming in general. His closest ideology is that of
women's rights; though, his trolling activities are generally done out
of a need for personal attention.
However, in an effort to establish some credibility for his disruptions
in Men's Groups - where he tries to peddle most of his phony tales of
woe - he casts himself as something which he calls a "Masculist", with
himself as the president of it's beer-muddled ideology and the wearer of
it's largest paper hat. As his victim, it inevitably falls to you to
make sense out of his confused and contradictory statements, and thereby
to supply therapy and meaning to his ruined life.
What Thomas's brand of "masculism" actually is, is merely the usual
reactionaryism of male feminists that was written by go-with-the-flow
corporate-liberal types. It's known as gender role playing and is
highly adaptable to every bourgeois political fad that comes along.
Most utilize the technique as their core ideology and embellish it with
their own personal group's identity and style, in the same way that MP3
players utilize "skins". Tom's added twist to the idea is a bit of
band-aid liberalism (that is, when he's not back-pedaling from his
positions), and a whole lot of folksy personality.
That's it. You now have a Ph.D. in "masculism".
Of course, the Men's Movement has long been plagued by half-way
liberalisms, such as masculism, that are (still being) constantly
repackaged to address a Man's heartburn, but not His RIGHTS. They are
counter-insurgencies which seek to redirect the Men's Movement into
serving the woman's agenda. Tom Smith, himself, is basically just
another loud-mouthed servant who enjoys the taste of (a woman's) shit
but goes running to the Men's Movement for protection whenever she
starts becoming too abusive to him.
Those of us who are veterans in the Movement, who are carrying too many
battle scars but not enough victories under our belts (or, laurels in
our crowns ...as case may be), just don't have the luxury anymore of
promoting the self-aggrandizing spoiled little boy types, like Warren
Farrell and Glenn Sacks. Or, the loudmouthed little assholes like Ken
Pangborn. Then, there's the Tom Smith category.
In Tom's case, his made up masculism is also a crutch for someone who's
been left out of the left wing movement - where he found acceptance at
an earlier point in his life. It was a time when the white-trash
demographic, frankly, had a more prominent role in the U.S. Democratic
party, before being abandoned in favor of women and blacks.
Most of Tom's few, laughable allies are from overseas, where there is
still a relatively meaningful labor party. Unfortunately, they tend to
be the lowest of the lot: crude, ignorant, and sanctimoniously
hypocritical as well as obtuse on the father's issue. A political
orphan (if not an abandoned schizophrenic), Tom just doesn't know who he
is anymore.
The problem is that Tom doesn't think that anyone else knows who he is,
either. That being so, his primary tactic is changing positions. His
methods are lying, making up facts, pet theorizing, soundbiting, and
waffling as a supposed moderate - your basic baiting-switching,
passive-aggressive behavior. You can't get a dime's worth of
intelligent conversation out of the old asshole.
In fact, while all of the information contained in this profile on him
is based on claims of his own about himself, it's an additional
obstruction of his to claim that the facts have been made up; thereby,
constantly refueling pointless debates. This amounts to simply one more
ruse for keeping the real debates clogged up with personality wars, and
so in keeping Tom's personal disease well fed and thriving.
Until the University of California, Santa Barbara either pulls the plug
on poor Tom, or stops offering public Internet access, it's going to be
up to the Men's Advocate to either ignore Thomas's trolling or to
prepare himself to debate nonsense by understanding who Tom is and his
own stated background. In either case, a portrait of an asshole helps
to make an informed decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Careerwise, when Tom was young, he did two to three traumatic years in
prison for selling drugs. Later, he reformed himself by becoming some
low grade "facilitator" for autistics. From that, he pretends to have
been a pioneer in the field. (Autistics who are familiar with him have
laughed at this.)
Today, he lives on the street as a deadbeat dad. Using public
computers, he attempts to take over discussion groups in little coups,
using calculated disruptions which he believes can be leveraged into
media attention as the magic cure for getting justice. This
self-centered little fantasy is actually a common technique employed by
the deadbeats. Most online groups are aware of some of these characters
and have had enough of them, along with their little Yahoo empires. (1)
Where Tom's great, half-assed awakening to Men's Issues is concerned, he
claims to have always been an activist. No doubt this was true in the
under-my-breath, grumbling sort of way in which most men also are
"activists". But, piecing together his various bullshit stories, it's
obvious that he never was a Men's Advocate at all until his divorce
happened to him. And, he still isn't.
Tom ran to Men's Advocacy as a last recourse after him and his wife,
together, fucked up his life and he found himself having to pay her
"child" support, with no job. Tom, however, is a typical coward who is
too conveniently cynical to support Men's Rights (he doesn't need that
"faggy" shit, he's a MAN), too feminist to put his "sexism" where his
mouth is, and too "moral" to admit that it's not for his kids' sake that
he wants his life back.
To be fair, the father's movement as a whole has never been able to work
with the Men's Movement. It's not just assholes, like Tom. The
father's movement is just too isolationist, too pompous, too castrated,
too stupid and too easily taken advantage of by exploiters (like Ken
Pangborn) to accomplish anything, even on a good day.
What plainly happened with Tom was that (at a time when he was busy
playing the typical hypocritical liberal, with the money, the house, and
the career - for whatever brief period that he had it) he was stupid
enough to ignore the plain realities of today and entered into a
pseudo-traditional marriage, despite the fact that he's always been a
liberal. He wanted to play a redundant male to a redundant, worthless
bitch with no job. For these guys, playing a hollow role is easier than
playing a real one, and more satisfying.
What predictably happened to our pseudo-patriarch of the easy chair was
that the bitch ended up throwing him into the garbage bin of divorce.
Their marriage wasn't based on anything real - only, role playing.
Sooo...
Since, in the 20th century, there was no butter for her to churn, no
clothes for her to make, no nearby stream for her to wash them in, no
meals for her to make from scratch, and - in a word - no WORK for her to
do, which otherwise would have resulted in poverty, disease and
mortality if it hadn't gotten done, then there were also none of those
effective counterbalances (that Tom's type likes to talk about) in place
to stop her from choosing the otherwise option. (2)
...She then proceeded to enjoy the kind of life that a piece of shit
like her can have today by fucking other men in his house and partying
on while he was enjoying the outdoors.
In Tom's anger, he discovered the Men's Movement. But, because he
discovered it only to the extent that the issues affected him in his own
little world - and refused to acknowledge any issue which didn't affect
him personally and directly - he's had about as much success as most of
the so-called fathers' rights groups and clowns who he's gravitated
toward. Therefore, refusing to be ideological has not only cost him his
integrity, it's made him into a bum as well.
Any basic Men's Advocate would have known that this was a formula for
disaster. However, Tom is one of these Joe Average fuckers of
mediocrity who are losing their power in today's world - except, Tom's
also worked for the feminists and has learned to pimp for them.
These simpletons don't think from day to day, and don't care. They're
more arrogant than the rich and more demanding than the poor. They
coast through life by becoming characters who blend into whatever
situation they come across. They have total confidence in their
abilities to play situational politics over the rules, and that nothing
bad can happen to them. They write off principle as being something not
"worth" fighting about. The parts of their brains that handle
principle, as well as ethics and honesty, are so unused, that once it
becomes possible to interface grey matter with computers - lying sacks
of shit that they are - they're going to be able to utilize those parts
as external hard drives with no other adverse effect. Most Men's
Activists have utter contempt for them.
Naturally, hen-pecked assholes, like Tom, still don't want to accept the
fact that half-way measures are actually the whole problem. They prefer
the chivalrously popular cop-out of blaming women's behavior on
government, and according them rights without responsibilities. There's
a nice way to play safe politics. Instead of holding these women to
equality, they shortchange themselves as Men wherever possible. Then,
when the women become unaccountable monsters, and the extortion of
divorce hits, the jellyspines feign shock and blame communism. Bravo.
Essentially, these hicks can't cope in today's world because they don't
understand it anymore. So, they fall back onto a half-assed, nostalgic
definition of a nuclear family: a wife stays home to raise kids, yet
has equal rights and answers only to herself. Huh? Those are the old
days? Meanwhile, "man" strategically learns to duck the head. He is
allowed either to watch TV or to fix a car in a garage.
This version of patriarchy is always highly sketchy in details, but
whenever you're given any it's evident that the men in it are the ones
who are accountable (to women). It's a successful revision job,
compliments of the women's movement. Such is the source and font of all
that Tom thinketh. Woe is we.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom is your basic conforming/collaborating male feminist, who not only
still hasn't learned that it's over for him and his type, but has paid
the price for it mentally and physically. While "pussy" or
"pussywhipped" may or may not be the closest label to slap onto crazy
old Tom, in explaining his fucked up, dishonest life ...they certainly
do qualify as a couple of clear choices.
The best thing that you, as a Men's Activist, can do about the whole lot
is to expose them (which, will usually end their games fast, as well).
Do this by fighting for Equality for Men, and to bring female abusers of
equality to justice, for a change. Refute their phony Darwinian "good
old days" nostalgia.
True equality is as anathema to a male feminist as a cross is to a
vampire. His safety is in niches and in defending the women's cause
from "militants" in the Men's Movement. The scumbag will then always
either divert the issue back into the woman's agenda, or run like the
coward he is.
Tom should be an object lesson - to all of us - as to the limited power
of playing moderate politics
...and of BULLSHIT.
---------
(1) Those who are familiar with another sleazy character, by the name of
Ken Pangborn, can remember some of his own famous flame wars, which he
has waged over every Internet protocol that he has ever become familiar
with. The difference between someone like Ken and others like Tom is
that Ken is one of the rich little daddy's boys who never had to suffer
the raw end of divorce discrimination. It's well not to confuse the two
types because they behave differently, and with somewhat different
motives.
(2) There's a point worth noting here. Most bourgeois Men's Forums love
to cast this type of scenario as a struggle between capitalism
(patriarchy) and communism ("wymmin's movement"). They believe that, in
identifying anyone that they don't like with commies (in this case, the
women's movement), they're making a brilliant strategic move and putting
the opposition's back up against the wall. Problem is, this was
obviously capitalism feeding on itself. Strawman argument. Strawman
solution.
Of course, when the actual FACTS are shoved into their STUPID faces and
they can't PRETEND that this happens outside of a CAPITALIST system,
they quickly get into hairsplitting by turning the focus of their pet
theory against mere cultural influences. (I.e. attitudes and
education). But, the source is still always revealed to be capitalism,
including "da market". It's still a strawman argument.
The point here isn't simply that if Tom's ex-wife had been a
full-fledged Marxist of the mouth, then she would still have been living
a capitalist life, and still a feminist, and therefore it should behoove
us to note the correlation. It's also to note the cause and effect.
It was CAPITALISM that removed all of those quaint little mechanisms
from the picture of Tom's marriage. You know: The ones that supposedly
are so integral to the structure of the "nuclear" family ...whenever you
read a little history of the world from one of these
Morons-with-a-capital-M. She no longer NEEDED him for actual
tooth-and-nail, law-of-the-jungle "SURVIVAL". He was redundant to her
in that respect. So was she to him, as far as ironing his loincloth.
Nor, can one say that candy-ass American "socialism" was the temptation
that lured Mrs. Smith to destroy the marriage with welfare as a safety
net, because materialism had to break down the necessity of their
old-world roles to each other, FIRST, before the temptation could have
effect. Especially, if idiots want to argue that socialism parasites
off of capitalism.
THAT'S why it's a strawman to recommend survivalism as the glue that
binds families together and then in the next breath to recommend the
1950's. Sure, life at that time may still have been somewhat tough
following the Great Depression (for all you dorky Joe and Sue
Middle-class Republicans out there, that would be when free market
capitalism FAILED ...until the welfare state bailed out the country -God
Bless FDR), but the U.S. was pretty much past those decades by then -
which is a given reason by it's retarded advocates for recommending it.
It's especially fallacious to claim all of that and then chant the
mantra that the problem with feminism is that it wants to return us to
primitive living conditions. Well, Which is it? Is the physical
struggle for survival good or bad for marriage?
Capitalism vs. Marxism is a separate issue, and the integrity of "da
family" is a red herring. If anything, Men are returned to their old
roles in a Marxist system, while the women WORK for their equality -
instead of lazing around, insulting Men and using their own resources
against them. Meanwhile, males under capitalist regimes take out the
garbage, are abused by all females, use self-deprecating humor, and are
arrested and imprisoned for the slightest physical or verbal "abuses" of
females - including their wives and including the marital right. It is
the men under the capitalist regime who don't measure up to the survival
standard, and it is the weak capitalist male who protests the loudest
about "men being men and women being women".
-- T.T.
Post by Masculist
Smitty
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes
to mind
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were
joined by
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by
giving
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Then, you never saw the made-for-TV portrayal, by Lucille Ball.
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this
category
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would
society as
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
I think we all know the answer to this.
Let's try striving for some originality, by applying some to the
question, for a change. Instead of always inserting women into the
equation, as a form of seeking permission, let's start talking instead
directly about MEN.
"HEY: Eighty-fucking-five percent of homeless are MEN. Are you
listening?"
"Meanwhile, you worry about the mere 15%, simply because they're the
bitches. That, after giving them every other free consideration in the
name of redressing so-called inequalities. Yeah. I'm seeing some
inequalities, alright."
It's especially ridiculous when males, who insist on playing the
stubborn sexists, do this. Ain't too much stubborn or sexist about
always hiding behind the woman.
Yeah, they're sexist alright. Just not in the same direction they want
you to believe. They've totally caved. Playing "reverse the issue"
gets very old and very phony, after a while.
- - -
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
Masculist
2006-09-12 02:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormy
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind?
Grizzlie Adjective or Tom Smith.
Aren't you being kind of tough on GA? He's a high powered professional
and very accomplished. Nice guy too. You on the other hand are a bum
and a scondrel.
Thanks for advocating for us (you and I) Turin. I didn't know you
cared.
Half of the mentally ill homeless are employable but have trouble
getting work. There's alot of non mentally ill homeless but they are
low profile and short term. Maybe 30% of them are seriously mentally
ill and unemployable.
Excuse me Turin, the below response are your cut and paste lies and
half truths about moi and not a response to my enlightened views.
Smitty
Post by Turin
For those who aren't familiar with "Tom Smith", "Smitty", "Qim",
"Masculist", etc., Thomas is a mentally ill, homeless liberal who is
addicted to street drugs, sleeps in a park and typically logs onto the
Internet from UCSB.
Turin maybe you should update this to include something about shunned
Tom's YouTube videos an' the expensive new laptop system
$500 for the laptop...An Acer made in China. Works great though. The
camera is a $175 Nikon. State of the art too with "muvee" software
that is critically acclaimed.
Post by Stormy
and Tmobile
account
That is expensive at $30/month. I'm dropping it soon because there are
plenty of cheaper or no cost alternatives. I heard McDonalds charges
$3/mo. I admit that Starbucks has some great looking babes circulating
through. Babes love speed! Keeps 'em slim.
Post by Stormy
that he bought with the settlement for his 'back' problem LOL.
I had an operation on it last year asshole.
Post by Stormy
Poor lil' Tom seems to try to mislead people who don't know him into
thinking that he posts from a house an' that you made all of this up
about him instead of collecting his tales of woe.
I never mislead anyone about that but you and asshole Turin
continuously misrepresent or make up lies about me. Tisk, tisk
asshole.
Post by Stormy
Everyone knows he
just keeps changing stories an' lying so that he can annoy people but
those videos are both embarrasing and damning evidence.
They are actually pretty good (search "masculist" at youtube) and get
lots of hits at both youtube and google video. They are primarily an
attempt to document life in Isla Vista starting out with it's more
committed residents the homeless. To see how the students live i n
town there's excellent video's made by UCSB graduates five years ago
called "IVTV". They have one up on google video here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5998216072146283640&q=ivtv

And their page to buy others is here:

http://www.islavistatv.com/

They are entertaining just as a way to see inside college life today.
Post by Stormy
He even shows
everyone the tent he sleeps in an' then goes back to calling people
liar!
Now Stormy there you go again lying. I said Turin " misrepresented"
AND "lied". You just lie. The video that had a picture of my tent I
took down. It was too long and didn't have music. The music ones are
much better. So now what I do is put a collection of interviews
together first as a music video and then I put the whole interviews up
separately.
Post by Stormy
I'll bet he would even be smartass enough to make a video with
him waving from his old computer at UCSB LOL
Good idea, I'll do that! Then I'll do a before and after where I'm at
Starbucks on my new computer! See, life for homeless me is getting
better! Aren't you happy for me?

In my new video there's a short scene where I aim the camera at me as
I'm interviewing a homeless friend. Now run over there to youtube and
see the handsome me for the first time! I know how interested you are
and follow my every homeless move.

Thanks for your concern Stormy.

Smitty
Post by Stormy
Stormy
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Tom is known mainly as a schizophrenic who takes wildly contradictory
positions on "leftism" (and just about anything else), as well as making
even more wild accusations against people online.
He's a deadbeat dad, an ex "punk" prison con, and a lifelong substance
abuser. Most of his personal problems (both, on and offline) stem from
his abuse of drugs and alcohol.
Tom doesn't have any real understanding of leftism, or politics in
general. Least of all, of Men's Rights. (He's a lifelong feminist).
He isn't genuinely hostile toward women's issues, or even toward gays as
he pretends to be.
It's tempting at first to put him into the quaint category of the
"little man with a pet theory, minus any actual knowledge". However,
the truth is a little more complex. Essentially, Tom has a
deteriorating condition and simply isn't responsible for a lot of the
things that he says.
Tom did use to be involved in what passes for left-wing politics in the
U.S. He was employed in some social make-work programs, designed to
help work-release patients, like himself. When the funding for such
jobs fizzled out, Tom found himself unemployed and his marriage, to his
fellow drug addicted wife, on the rocks. As is typical in U.S. society,
while Tom did 2-3 years for dealing drugs, his wife did none at all.
Their two kids have suffered the psychological damage of having such
parents. From there, Tom's whole life fell apart. That might be said
to have been the start of Tom's "involvement" in Men's Issues.
Further information on Tom's alleged relationship to the Men's movement
can be found in the amusing-but-true FAQ below, along with a more
detailed profile on his disruption tactics and his dissociative identity
disorder. Special thanks to all those who contributed to this project.
TOM SMITH
---------
Dipylidium Caninum
by Yuno Hu
Who or "what" is Tom Smith?
Tom smith is a psychiatrically disturbed troll who engages in false
accusations against people he doesn't know, group disruptions and
communication jamming in general. His closest ideology is that of
women's rights; though, his trolling activities are generally done out
of a need for personal attention.
However, in an effort to establish some credibility for his disruptions
in Men's Groups - where he tries to peddle most of his phony tales of
woe - he casts himself as something which he calls a "Masculist", with
himself as the president of it's beer-muddled ideology and the wearer of
it's largest paper hat. As his victim, it inevitably falls to you to
make sense out of his confused and contradictory statements, and thereby
to supply therapy and meaning to his ruined life.
What Thomas's brand of "masculism" actually is, is merely the usual
reactionaryism of male feminists that was written by go-with-the-flow
corporate-liberal types. It's known as gender role playing and is
highly adaptable to every bourgeois political fad that comes along.
Most utilize the technique as their core ideology and embellish it with
their own personal group's identity and style, in the same way that MP3
players utilize "skins". Tom's added twist to the idea is a bit of
band-aid liberalism (that is, when he's not back-pedaling from his
positions), and a whole lot of folksy personality.
That's it. You now have a Ph.D. in "masculism".
Of course, the Men's Movement has long been plagued by half-way
liberalisms, such as masculism, that are (still being) constantly
repackaged to address a Man's heartburn, but not His RIGHTS. They are
counter-insurgencies which seek to redirect the Men's Movement into
serving the woman's agenda. Tom Smith, himself, is basically just
another loud-mouthed servant who enjoys the taste of (a woman's) shit
but goes running to the Men's Movement for protection whenever she
starts becoming too abusive to him.
Those of us who are veterans in the Movement, who are carrying too many
battle scars but not enough victories under our belts (or, laurels in
our crowns ...as case may be), just don't have the luxury anymore of
promoting the self-aggrandizing spoiled little boy types, like Warren
Farrell and Glenn Sacks. Or, the loudmouthed little assholes like Ken
Pangborn. Then, there's the Tom Smith category.
In Tom's case, his made up masculism is also a crutch for someone who's
been left out of the left wing movement - where he found acceptance at
an earlier point in his life. It was a time when the white-trash
demographic, frankly, had a more prominent role in the U.S. Democratic
party, before being abandoned in favor of women and blacks.
Most of Tom's few, laughable allies are from overseas, where there is
still a relatively meaningful labor party. Unfortunately, they tend to
be the lowest of the lot: crude, ignorant, and sanctimoniously
hypocritical as well as obtuse on the father's issue. A political
orphan (if not an abandoned schizophrenic), Tom just doesn't know who he
is anymore.
The problem is that Tom doesn't think that anyone else knows who he is,
either. That being so, his primary tactic is changing positions. His
methods are lying, making up facts, pet theorizing, soundbiting, and
waffling as a supposed moderate - your basic baiting-switching,
passive-aggressive behavior. You can't get a dime's worth of
intelligent conversation out of the old asshole.
In fact, while all of the information contained in this profile on him
is based on claims of his own about himself, it's an additional
obstruction of his to claim that the facts have been made up; thereby,
constantly refueling pointless debates. This amounts to simply one more
ruse for keeping the real debates clogged up with personality wars, and
so in keeping Tom's personal disease well fed and thriving.
Until the University of California, Santa Barbara either pulls the plug
on poor Tom, or stops offering public Internet access, it's going to be
up to the Men's Advocate to either ignore Thomas's trolling or to
prepare himself to debate nonsense by understanding who Tom is and his
own stated background. In either case, a portrait of an asshole helps
to make an informed decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Careerwise, when Tom was young, he did two to three traumatic years in
prison for selling drugs. Later, he reformed himself by becoming some
low grade "facilitator" for autistics. From that, he pretends to have
been a pioneer in the field. (Autistics who are familiar with him have
laughed at this.)
Today, he lives on the street as a deadbeat dad. Using public
computers, he attempts to take over discussion groups in little coups,
using calculated disruptions which he believes can be leveraged into
media attention as the magic cure for getting justice. This
self-centered little fantasy is actually a common technique employed by
the deadbeats. Most online groups are aware of some of these characters
and have had enough of them, along with their little Yahoo empires. (1)
Where Tom's great, half-assed awakening to Men's Issues is concerned, he
claims to have always been an activist. No doubt this was true in the
under-my-breath, grumbling sort of way in which most men also are
"activists". But, piecing together his various bullshit stories, it's
obvious that he never was a Men's Advocate at all until his divorce
happened to him. And, he still isn't.
Tom ran to Men's Advocacy as a last recourse after him and his wife,
together, fucked up his life and he found himself having to pay her
"child" support, with no job. Tom, however, is a typical coward who is
too conveniently cynical to support Men's Rights (he doesn't need that
"faggy" shit, he's a MAN), too feminist to put his "sexism" where his
mouth is, and too "moral" to admit that it's not for his kids' sake that
he wants his life back.
To be fair, the father's movement as a whole has never been able to work
with the Men's Movement. It's not just assholes, like Tom. The
father's movement is just too isolationist, too pompous, too castrated,
too stupid and too easily taken advantage of by exploiters (like Ken
Pangborn) to accomplish anything, even on a good day.
What plainly happened with Tom was that (at a time when he was busy
playing the typical hypocritical liberal, with the money, the house, and
the career - for whatever brief period that he had it) he was stupid
enough to ignore the plain realities of today and entered into a
pseudo-traditional marriage, despite the fact that he's always been a
liberal. He wanted to play a redundant male to a redundant, worthless
bitch with no job. For these guys, playing a hollow role is easier than
playing a real one, and more satisfying.
What predictably happened to our pseudo-patriarch of the easy chair was
that the bitch ended up throwing him into the garbage bin of divorce.
Their marriage wasn't based on anything real - only, role playing.
Sooo...
Since, in the 20th century, there was no butter for her to churn, no
clothes for her to make, no nearby stream for her to wash them in, no
meals for her to make from scratch, and - in a word - no WORK for her to
do, which otherwise would have resulted in poverty, disease and
mortality if it hadn't gotten done, then there were also none of those
effective counterbalances (that Tom's type likes to talk about) in place
to stop her from choosing the otherwise option. (2)
...She then proceeded to enjoy the kind of life that a piece of shit
like her can have today by fucking other men in his house and partying
on while he was enjoying the outdoors.
In Tom's anger, he discovered the Men's Movement. But, because he
discovered it only to the extent that the issues affected him in his own
little world - and refused to acknowledge any issue which didn't affect
him personally and directly - he's had about as much success as most of
the so-called fathers' rights groups and clowns who he's gravitated
toward. Therefore, refusing to be ideological has not only cost him his
integrity, it's made him into a bum as well.
Any basic Men's Advocate would have known that this was a formula for
disaster. However, Tom is one of these Joe Average fuckers of
mediocrity who are losing their power in today's world - except, Tom's
also worked for the feminists and has learned to pimp for them.
These simpletons don't think from day to day, and don't care. They're
more arrogant than the rich and more demanding than the poor. They
coast through life by becoming characters who blend into whatever
situation they come across. They have total confidence in their
abilities to play situational politics over the rules, and that nothing
bad can happen to them. They write off principle as being something not
"worth" fighting about. The parts of their brains that handle
principle, as well as ethics and honesty, are so unused, that once it
becomes possible to interface grey matter with computers - lying sacks
of shit that they are - they're going to be able to utilize those parts
as external hard drives with no other adverse effect. Most Men's
Activists have utter contempt for them.
Naturally, hen-pecked assholes, like Tom, still don't want to accept the
fact that half-way measures are actually the whole problem. They prefer
the chivalrously popular cop-out of blaming women's behavior on
government, and according them rights without responsibilities. There's
a nice way to play safe politics. Instead of holding these women to
equality, they shortchange themselves as Men wherever possible. Then,
when the women become unaccountable monsters, and the extortion of
divorce hits, the jellyspines feign shock and blame communism. Bravo.
Essentially, these hicks can't cope in today's world because they don't
understand it anymore. So, they fall back onto a half-assed, nostalgic
definition of a nuclear family: a wife stays home to raise kids, yet
has equal rights and answers only to herself. Huh? Those are the old
days? Meanwhile, "man" strategically learns to duck the head. He is
allowed either to watch TV or to fix a car in a garage.
This version of patriarchy is always highly sketchy in details, but
whenever you're given any it's evident that the men in it are the ones
who are accountable (to women). It's a successful revision job,
compliments of the women's movement. Such is the source and font of all
that Tom thinketh. Woe is we.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom is your basic conforming/collaborating male feminist, who not only
still hasn't learned that it's over for him and his type, but has paid
the price for it mentally and physically. While "pussy" or
"pussywhipped" may or may not be the closest label to slap onto crazy
old Tom, in explaining his fucked up, dishonest life ...they certainly
do qualify as a couple of clear choices.
The best thing that you, as a Men's Activist, can do about the whole lot
is to expose them (which, will usually end their games fast, as well).
Do this by fighting for Equality for Men, and to bring female abusers of
equality to justice, for a change. Refute their phony Darwinian "good
old days" nostalgia.
True equality is as anathema to a male feminist as a cross is to a
vampire. His safety is in niches and in defending the women's cause
from "militants" in the Men's Movement. The scumbag will then always
either divert the issue back into the woman's agenda, or run like the
coward he is.
Tom should be an object lesson - to all of us - as to the limited power
of playing moderate politics
...and of BULLSHIT.
---------
(1) Those who are familiar with another sleazy character, by the name of
Ken Pangborn, can remember some of his own famous flame wars, which he
has waged over every Internet protocol that he has ever become familiar
with. The difference between someone like Ken and others like Tom is
that Ken is one of the rich little daddy's boys who never had to suffer
the raw end of divorce discrimination. It's well not to confuse the two
types because they behave differently, and with somewhat different
motives.
(2) There's a point worth noting here. Most bourgeois Men's Forums love
to cast this type of scenario as a struggle between capitalism
(patriarchy) and communism ("wymmin's movement"). They believe that, in
identifying anyone that they don't like with commies (in this case, the
women's movement), they're making a brilliant strategic move and putting
the opposition's back up against the wall. Problem is, this was
obviously capitalism feeding on itself. Strawman argument. Strawman
solution.
Of course, when the actual FACTS are shoved into their STUPID faces and
they can't PRETEND that this happens outside of a CAPITALIST system,
they quickly get into hairsplitting by turning the focus of their pet
theory against mere cultural influences. (I.e. attitudes and
education). But, the source is still always revealed to be capitalism,
including "da market". It's still a strawman argument.
The point here isn't simply that if Tom's ex-wife had been a
full-fledged Marxist of the mouth, then she would still have been living
a capitalist life, and still a feminist, and therefore it should behoove
us to note the correlation. It's also to note the cause and effect.
It was CAPITALISM that removed all of those quaint little mechanisms
from the picture of Tom's marriage. You know: The ones that supposedly
are so integral to the structure of the "nuclear" family ...whenever you
read a little history of the world from one of these
Morons-with-a-capital-M. She no longer NEEDED him for actual
tooth-and-nail, law-of-the-jungle "SURVIVAL". He was redundant to her
in that respect. So was she to him, as far as ironing his loincloth.
Nor, can one say that candy-ass American "socialism" was the temptation
that lured Mrs. Smith to destroy the marriage with welfare as a safety
net, because materialism had to break down the necessity of their
old-world roles to each other, FIRST, before the temptation could have
effect. Especially, if idiots want to argue that socialism parasites
off of capitalism.
THAT'S why it's a strawman to recommend survivalism as the glue that
binds families together and then in the next breath to recommend the
1950's. Sure, life at that time may still have been somewhat tough
following the Great Depression (for all you dorky Joe and Sue
Middle-class Republicans out there, that would be when free market
capitalism FAILED ...until the welfare state bailed out the country -God
Bless FDR), but the U.S. was pretty much past those decades by then -
which is a given reason by it's retarded advocates for recommending it.
It's especially fallacious to claim all of that and then chant the
mantra that the problem with feminism is that it wants to return us to
primitive living conditions. Well, Which is it? Is the physical
struggle for survival good or bad for marriage?
Capitalism vs. Marxism is a separate issue, and the integrity of "da
family" is a red herring. If anything, Men are returned to their old
roles in a Marxist system, while the women WORK for their equality -
instead of lazing around, insulting Men and using their own resources
against them. Meanwhile, males under capitalist regimes take out the
garbage, are abused by all females, use self-deprecating humor, and are
arrested and imprisoned for the slightest physical or verbal "abuses" of
females - including their wives and including the marital right. It is
the men under the capitalist regime who don't measure up to the survival
standard, and it is the weak capitalist male who protests the loudest
about "men being men and women being women".
-- T.T.
Post by Masculist
Smitty
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes
to mind
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were
joined by
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by
giving
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Then, you never saw the made-for-TV portrayal, by Lucille Ball.
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this
category
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would
society as
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
I think we all know the answer to this.
Let's try striving for some originality, by applying some to the
question, for a change. Instead of always inserting women into the
equation, as a form of seeking permission, let's start talking instead
directly about MEN.
"HEY: Eighty-fucking-five percent of homeless are MEN. Are you
listening?"
"Meanwhile, you worry about the mere 15%, simply because they're the
bitches. That, after giving them every other free consideration in the
name of redressing so-called inequalities. Yeah. I'm seeing some
inequalities, alright."
It's especially ridiculous when males, who insist on playing the
stubborn sexists, do this. Ain't too much stubborn or sexist about
always hiding behind the woman.
Yeah, they're sexist alright. Just not in the same direction they want
you to believe. They've totally caved. Playing "reverse the issue"
gets very old and very phony, after a while.
- - -
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
Turin
2006-09-12 09:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormy
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind?
Grizzlie Adjective or Tom Smith.
Aren't you being kind of tough on GA? He's a high powered professional
and very accomplished. Nice guy too. You on the other hand are a bum
and a scondrel.
Thanks for advocating for us (you and I) Turin. I didn't know you
cared.
Half of the mentally ill homeless are employable but have trouble
getting work. There's alot of non mentally ill homeless but they are
low profile and short term. Maybe 30% of them are seriously mentally
ill and unemployable.
Excuse me Turin, the below response are your cut and paste lies and
half truths about moi and not a response to my enlightened views.
Smitty
Post by Turin
For those who aren't familiar with "Tom Smith", "Smitty", "Qim",
"Masculist", etc., Thomas is a mentally ill, homeless liberal who is
addicted to street drugs, sleeps in a park and typically logs onto the
Internet from UCSB.
Turin maybe you should update this to include something about shunned
Tom's YouTube videos an' the expensive new laptop system and Tmobile
account that he bought with the settlement for his 'back' problem
LOL.


Hey, Storm. What's up?

Yeah, Tom would probably like that, but I write up the suggestions that
people send me in such a way that he is judged based more on his overall
character flaws, rather than specifics which have more to do with his
current situation and are more the outcome of his bad character. His
penchant for lying, alone, has put him into the same category as Ken
Pangborn.

It's also a good way to make sure it stays current without too much
revision. Tom could simply delete his videos and then imply that I made
up the facts - as he often does. Or, he could simply call me a liar.
He thrives off of playing the martyr.
Post by Stormy
Poor lil' Tom seems to try to mislead people who don't know him into
thinking that he posts from a house an' that you made all of this up
about him instead of collecting his tales of woe. Everyone knows he
just keeps changing stories an' lying so that he can annoy people
Tom doesn't fool too many people. The only way he can get people to
talk to him is by kissing up. His breath must be highly flammable.
Post by Stormy
but
those videos are both embarrasing and damning evidence.
When I heard some of them for the first time, and could tell that he
really was somewhat slow and stupid sounding, I felt sorry for him and
decided to try to go softer on him.

But, sure enough, as soon as he knew it, he came out swinging again -
like he did when I returned to soc.men after politely leaving his forum.
One thing I've learned about people who have special conditions is
that they often know they can get away with murder.
Post by Stormy
He even shows
everyone the tent he sleeps in an' then goes back to calling people
liar! I'll bet he would even be smartass enough to make a video with
him waving from his old computer at UCSB
No doubt. Again, his modus operandi is playing the martyr. Whatever
gets him attention.
Post by Stormy
LOL
hahaha





- - -

This has been another enlightening moment, with:

Turin


I have such sites to show you...
------------------------

http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First
http://mail2world.com/Blog/***@mail2zeus.com

------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----
Post by Stormy
Stormy
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Tom is known mainly as a schizophrenic who takes wildly contradictory
positions on "leftism" (and just about anything else), as well as making
even more wild accusations against people online.
He's a deadbeat dad, an ex "punk" prison con, and a lifelong substance
abuser. Most of his personal problems (both, on and offline) stem from
his abuse of drugs and alcohol.
Tom doesn't have any real understanding of leftism, or politics in
general. Least of all, of Men's Rights. (He's a lifelong feminist).
He isn't genuinely hostile toward women's issues, or even toward gays as
he pretends to be.
It's tempting at first to put him into the quaint category of the
"little man with a pet theory, minus any actual knowledge". However,
the truth is a little more complex. Essentially, Tom has a
deteriorating condition and simply isn't responsible for a lot of the
things that he says.
Tom did use to be involved in what passes for left-wing politics in the
U.S. He was employed in some social make-work programs, designed to
help work-release patients, like himself. When the funding for such
jobs fizzled out, Tom found himself unemployed and his marriage, to his
fellow drug addicted wife, on the rocks. As is typical in U.S. society,
while Tom did 2-3 years for dealing drugs, his wife did none at all.
Their two kids have suffered the psychological damage of having such
parents. From there, Tom's whole life fell apart. That might be said
to have been the start of Tom's "involvement" in Men's Issues.
Further information on Tom's alleged relationship to the Men's movement
can be found in the amusing-but-true FAQ below, along with a more
detailed profile on his disruption tactics and his dissociative identity
disorder. Special thanks to all those who contributed to this project.
TOM SMITH
---------
Dipylidium Caninum
by Yuno Hu
Who or "what" is Tom Smith?
Tom smith is a psychiatrically disturbed troll who engages in false
accusations against people he doesn't know, group disruptions and
communication jamming in general. His closest ideology is that of
women's rights; though, his trolling activities are generally done out
of a need for personal attention.
However, in an effort to establish some credibility for his disruptions
in Men's Groups - where he tries to peddle most of his phony tales of
woe - he casts himself as something which he calls a "Masculist", with
himself as the president of it's beer-muddled ideology and the wearer of
it's largest paper hat. As his victim, it inevitably falls to you to
make sense out of his confused and contradictory statements, and thereby
to supply therapy and meaning to his ruined life.
What Thomas's brand of "masculism" actually is, is merely the usual
reactionaryism of male feminists that was written by go-with-the-flow
corporate-liberal types. It's known as gender role playing and is
highly adaptable to every bourgeois political fad that comes along.
Most utilize the technique as their core ideology and embellish it with
their own personal group's identity and style, in the same way that MP3
players utilize "skins". Tom's added twist to the idea is a bit of
band-aid liberalism (that is, when he's not back-pedaling from his
positions), and a whole lot of folksy personality.
That's it. You now have a Ph.D. in "masculism".
Of course, the Men's Movement has long been plagued by half-way
liberalisms, such as masculism, that are (still being) constantly
repackaged to address a Man's heartburn, but not His RIGHTS. They are
counter-insurgencies which seek to redirect the Men's Movement into
serving the woman's agenda. Tom Smith, himself, is basically just
another loud-mouthed servant who enjoys the taste of (a woman's) shit
but goes running to the Men's Movement for protection whenever she
starts becoming too abusive to him.
Those of us who are veterans in the Movement, who are carrying too many
battle scars but not enough victories under our belts (or, laurels in
our crowns ...as case may be), just don't have the luxury anymore of
promoting the self-aggrandizing spoiled little boy types, like Warren
Farrell and Glenn Sacks. Or, the loudmouthed little assholes like Ken
Pangborn. Then, there's the Tom Smith category.
In Tom's case, his made up masculism is also a crutch for someone who's
been left out of the left wing movement - where he found acceptance at
an earlier point in his life. It was a time when the white-trash
demographic, frankly, had a more prominent role in the U.S. Democratic
party, before being abandoned in favor of women and blacks.
Most of Tom's few, laughable allies are from overseas, where there is
still a relatively meaningful labor party. Unfortunately, they tend to
be the lowest of the lot: crude, ignorant, and sanctimoniously
hypocritical as well as obtuse on the father's issue. A political
orphan (if not an abandoned schizophrenic), Tom just doesn't know who he
is anymore.
The problem is that Tom doesn't think that anyone else knows who he is,
either. That being so, his primary tactic is changing positions. His
methods are lying, making up facts, pet theorizing, soundbiting, and
waffling as a supposed moderate - your basic baiting-switching,
passive-aggressive behavior. You can't get a dime's worth of
intelligent conversation out of the old asshole.
In fact, while all of the information contained in this profile on him
is based on claims of his own about himself, it's an additional
obstruction of his to claim that the facts have been made up; thereby,
constantly refueling pointless debates. This amounts to simply one more
ruse for keeping the real debates clogged up with personality wars, and
so in keeping Tom's personal disease well fed and thriving.
Until the University of California, Santa Barbara either pulls the plug
on poor Tom, or stops offering public Internet access, it's going to be
up to the Men's Advocate to either ignore Thomas's trolling or to
prepare himself to debate nonsense by understanding who Tom is and his
own stated background. In either case, a portrait of an asshole helps
to make an informed decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Careerwise, when Tom was young, he did two to three traumatic years in
prison for selling drugs. Later, he reformed himself by becoming some
low grade "facilitator" for autistics. From that, he pretends to have
been a pioneer in the field. (Autistics who are familiar with him have
laughed at this.)
Today, he lives on the street as a deadbeat dad. Using public
computers, he attempts to take over discussion groups in little coups,
using calculated disruptions which he believes can be leveraged into
media attention as the magic cure for getting justice. This
self-centered little fantasy is actually a common technique employed by
the deadbeats. Most online groups are aware of some of these characters
and have had enough of them, along with their little Yahoo empires. (1)
Where Tom's great, half-assed awakening to Men's Issues is concerned, he
claims to have always been an activist. No doubt this was true in the
under-my-breath, grumbling sort of way in which most men also are
"activists". But, piecing together his various bullshit stories, it's
obvious that he never was a Men's Advocate at all until his divorce
happened to him. And, he still isn't.
Tom ran to Men's Advocacy as a last recourse after him and his wife,
together, fucked up his life and he found himself having to pay her
"child" support, with no job. Tom, however, is a typical coward who is
too conveniently cynical to support Men's Rights (he doesn't need that
"faggy" shit, he's a MAN), too feminist to put his "sexism" where his
mouth is, and too "moral" to admit that it's not for his kids' sake that
he wants his life back.
To be fair, the father's movement as a whole has never been able to work
with the Men's Movement. It's not just assholes, like Tom. The
father's movement is just too isolationist, too pompous, too castrated,
too stupid and too easily taken advantage of by exploiters (like Ken
Pangborn) to accomplish anything, even on a good day.
What plainly happened with Tom was that (at a time when he was busy
playing the typical hypocritical liberal, with the money, the house, and
the career - for whatever brief period that he had it) he was stupid
enough to ignore the plain realities of today and entered into a
pseudo-traditional marriage, despite the fact that he's always been a
liberal. He wanted to play a redundant male to a redundant, worthless
bitch with no job. For these guys, playing a hollow role is easier than
playing a real one, and more satisfying.
What predictably happened to our pseudo-patriarch of the easy chair was
that the bitch ended up throwing him into the garbage bin of divorce.
Their marriage wasn't based on anything real - only, role playing.
Sooo...
Since, in the 20th century, there was no butter for her to churn, no
clothes for her to make, no nearby stream for her to wash them in, no
meals for her to make from scratch, and - in a word - no WORK for her to
do, which otherwise would have resulted in poverty, disease and
mortality if it hadn't gotten done, then there were also none of those
effective counterbalances (that Tom's type likes to talk about) in place
to stop her from choosing the otherwise option. (2)
...She then proceeded to enjoy the kind of life that a piece of shit
like her can have today by fucking other men in his house and partying
on while he was enjoying the outdoors.
In Tom's anger, he discovered the Men's Movement. But, because he
discovered it only to the extent that the issues affected him in his own
little world - and refused to acknowledge any issue which didn't affect
him personally and directly - he's had about as much success as most of
the so-called fathers' rights groups and clowns who he's gravitated
toward. Therefore, refusing to be ideological has not only cost him his
integrity, it's made him into a bum as well.
Any basic Men's Advocate would have known that this was a formula for
disaster. However, Tom is one of these Joe Average fuckers of
mediocrity who are losing their power in today's world - except, Tom's
also worked for the feminists and has learned to pimp for them.
These simpletons don't think from day to day, and don't care. They're
more arrogant than the rich and more demanding than the poor. They
coast through life by becoming characters who blend into whatever
situation they come across. They have total confidence in their
abilities to play situational politics over the rules, and that nothing
bad can happen to them. They write off principle as being something not
"worth" fighting about. The parts of their brains that handle
principle, as well as ethics and honesty, are so unused, that once it
becomes possible to interface grey matter with computers - lying sacks
of shit that they are - they're going to be able to utilize those parts
as external hard drives with no other adverse effect. Most Men's
Activists have utter contempt for them.
Naturally, hen-pecked assholes, like Tom, still don't want to accept the
fact that half-way measures are actually the whole problem. They prefer
the chivalrously popular cop-out of blaming women's behavior on
government, and according them rights without responsibilities. There's
a nice way to play safe politics. Instead of holding these women to
equality, they shortchange themselves as Men wherever possible. Then,
when the women become unaccountable monsters, and the extortion of
divorce hits, the jellyspines feign shock and blame communism. Bravo.
Essentially, these hicks can't cope in today's world because they don't
understand it anymore. So, they fall back onto a half-assed, nostalgic
definition of a nuclear family: a wife stays home to raise kids, yet
has equal rights and answers only to herself. Huh? Those are the old
days? Meanwhile, "man" strategically learns to duck the head. He is
allowed either to watch TV or to fix a car in a garage.
This version of patriarchy is always highly sketchy in details, but
whenever you're given any it's evident that the men in it are the ones
who are accountable (to women). It's a successful revision job,
compliments of the women's movement. Such is the source and font of all
that Tom thinketh. Woe is we.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom is your basic conforming/collaborating male feminist, who not only
still hasn't learned that it's over for him and his type, but has paid
the price for it mentally and physically. While "pussy" or
"pussywhipped" may or may not be the closest label to slap onto crazy
old Tom, in explaining his fucked up, dishonest life ...they certainly
do qualify as a couple of clear choices.
The best thing that you, as a Men's Activist, can do about the whole lot
is to expose them (which, will usually end their games fast, as well).
Do this by fighting for Equality for Men, and to bring female abusers of
equality to justice, for a change. Refute their phony Darwinian "good
old days" nostalgia.
True equality is as anathema to a male feminist as a cross is to a
vampire. His safety is in niches and in defending the women's cause
from "militants" in the Men's Movement. The scumbag will then always
either divert the issue back into the woman's agenda, or run like the
coward he is.
Tom should be an object lesson - to all of us - as to the limited power
of playing moderate politics
...and of BULLSHIT.
---------
(1) Those who are familiar with another sleazy character, by the name of
Ken Pangborn, can remember some of his own famous flame wars, which he
has waged over every Internet protocol that he has ever become familiar
with. The difference between someone like Ken and others like Tom is
that Ken is one of the rich little daddy's boys who never had to suffer
the raw end of divorce discrimination. It's well not to confuse the two
types because they behave differently, and with somewhat different
motives.
(2) There's a point worth noting here. Most bourgeois Men's Forums love
to cast this type of scenario as a struggle between capitalism
(patriarchy) and communism ("wymmin's movement"). They believe that, in
identifying anyone that they don't like with commies (in this case, the
women's movement), they're making a brilliant strategic move and putting
the opposition's back up against the wall. Problem is, this was
obviously capitalism feeding on itself. Strawman argument. Strawman
solution.
Of course, when the actual FACTS are shoved into their STUPID faces and
they can't PRETEND that this happens outside of a CAPITALIST system,
they quickly get into hairsplitting by turning the focus of their pet
theory against mere cultural influences. (I.e. attitudes and
education). But, the source is still always revealed to be capitalism,
including "da market". It's still a strawman argument.
The point here isn't simply that if Tom's ex-wife had been a
full-fledged Marxist of the mouth, then she would still have been living
a capitalist life, and still a feminist, and therefore it should behoove
us to note the correlation. It's also to note the cause and effect.
It was CAPITALISM that removed all of those quaint little mechanisms
from the picture of Tom's marriage. You know: The ones that supposedly
are so integral to the structure of the "nuclear" family ...whenever you
read a little history of the world from one of these
Morons-with-a-capital-M. She no longer NEEDED him for actual
tooth-and-nail, law-of-the-jungle "SURVIVAL". He was redundant to her
in that respect. So was she to him, as far as ironing his loincloth.
Nor, can one say that candy-ass American "socialism" was the temptation
that lured Mrs. Smith to destroy the marriage with welfare as a safety
net, because materialism had to break down the necessity of their
old-world roles to each other, FIRST, before the temptation could have
effect. Especially, if idiots want to argue that socialism parasites
off of capitalism.
THAT'S why it's a strawman to recommend survivalism as the glue that
binds families together and then in the next breath to recommend the
1950's. Sure, life at that time may still have been somewhat tough
following the Great Depression (for all you dorky Joe and Sue
Middle-class Republicans out there, that would be when free market
capitalism FAILED ...until the welfare state bailed out the country -God
Bless FDR), but the U.S. was pretty much past those decades by then -
which is a given reason by it's retarded advocates for recommending it.
It's especially fallacious to claim all of that and then chant the
mantra that the problem with feminism is that it wants to return us to
primitive living conditions. Well, Which is it? Is the physical
struggle for survival good or bad for marriage?
Capitalism vs. Marxism is a separate issue, and the integrity of "da
family" is a red herring. If anything, Men are returned to their old
roles in a Marxist system, while the women WORK for their equality -
instead of lazing around, insulting Men and using their own resources
against them. Meanwhile, males under capitalist regimes take out the
garbage, are abused by all females, use self-deprecating humor, and are
arrested and imprisoned for the slightest physical or verbal "abuses" of
females - including their wives and including the marital right. It is
the men under the capitalist regime who don't measure up to the survival
standard, and it is the weak capitalist male who protests the loudest
about "men being men and women being women".
-- T.T.
Post by Masculist
Smitty
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes
to mind
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were
joined by
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by
giving
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Then, you never saw the made-for-TV portrayal, by Lucille Ball.
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this
category
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would
society as
Post by Masculist
Post by Turin
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
I think we all know the answer to this.
Let's try striving for some originality, by applying some to the
question, for a change. Instead of always inserting women into the
equation, as a form of seeking permission, let's start talking instead
directly about MEN.
"HEY: Eighty-fucking-five percent of homeless are MEN. Are you
listening?"
"Meanwhile, you worry about the mere 15%, simply because they're the
bitches. That, after giving them every other free consideration in the
name of redressing so-called inequalities. Yeah. I'm seeing some
inequalities, alright."
It's especially ridiculous when males, who insist on playing the
stubborn sexists, do this. Ain't too much stubborn or sexist about
always hiding behind the woman.
Yeah, they're sexist alright. Just not in the same direction they want
you to believe. They've totally caved. Playing "reverse the issue"
gets very old and very phony, after a while.
- - -
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
Hyerdahl
2006-09-10 17:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind? Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
[Denice, it seems to me that few people choose homelessness, even when
they have problems with drugs or alcohol or some sort of disability
preventing them from moving forward. In a society as wealthy as ours,
there should indeed be answers for this problem.]
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
[Not so much these days as more and more families....some with mothers
and some with fathers and some with neither ...are homeless. But we do
have more programs for people who have children with them, and those
are mostly women.]
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
[We can actually thank the establishment in the late fifties and early
sixties for getting rid of programs for the mentally ill. The sex of
the person didn't really matter; the programs were simply no longer
available. Blaming women here, seems worthless....but Farrell seems to
like to do that from time to time. In fact, isn't Farrell the dude who
expressed an interest the "positive effects of incest" on
daughters....or some such?]
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
[ I think society has a certain degree of understanding of poverty and
abandonment than they have for drunkeness and drug use tho. A woman
who has needle marks up and down her arms is more likely to be called a
'crack ho' or some other terrible name than a "bag lady". When you
think about bag ladies, you think about women who have no place else to
go....so they cram all of their belongings in a bag, i.e. the same way
folks used to think about 'hobos'. ]
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men.
[Sure. Most women, it seems, tend to establish some kinds of
connections in life that keeps them from falling thru the cracks. For
a personal example, my neice has a friend who was kicked out of her
home by her strict Asian parents. This woman had many friends, and
could have stayed with any of them. She ended up spending about 5 mos.
with my neice until she was able to get a place for herself.]

If those figures were reversed and the majority of those sleeping on
the streets or on park benches were women, would society as a whole be
more determined to address this problem?

[It is my opinion that society has little regard for those who cause
their own derailment. However, society seems to have more empathy for
people who simply fall thru the cracks. Such should be the case for
people who need help back up, but not so much for people who cause
their own problems. We should, obviously, help those with mental
disabilities. Their sex/gender should be irrelevant to that. ]
Avenger
2006-09-11 11:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind? Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
[Denice, it seems to me that few people choose homelessness,
In point of fact there are VERY few homeless. Last winter NYC sent out
social workers to try to locate homeless people and to count how many there
were. They looked in every conceivable place where homeless people would
normally be found. They looked day and night in all the usual places and
only managed to come up with what amounts to a handful of people. The people
you used to see on the street begging (cleaned up thanks to Guiliani) were
professional beggars and hustlers who lived on benefits they really weren't
entitled to and then to make extra money for drugs and other junk would beg
where they could easily pick up an extra $100 a day. They were not really
homeless but just liked to hang out on the streets. A normal person who
through a series of misfortunes became homeless would not know how to beg
and in fact would probably be afraid to do so. Besides, some of the people
referred to as homeless and classified as such do have places to stay, they
just don't have a permanent home.





even when
Post by Hyerdahl
they have problems with drugs or alcohol or some sort of disability
preventing them from moving forward. In a society as wealthy as ours,
there should indeed be answers for this problem.]
There are plenty of programs to assist these people and in places like NY
people with a drug or alcohol problem can get disability. They can also
check into a hospital where they'll get free room and board plus treatment.
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
[Not so much these days as more and more families....some with mothers
and some with fathers and some with neither ...are homeless. But we do
have more programs for people who have children with them, and those
are mostly women.]
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
[We can actually thank the establishment in the late fifties and early
sixties for getting rid of programs for the mentally ill.
You mean the liberals and ACLU of the late '80's. In the 50's and 60's the
mentally ill were still involuntarily committted to hospitals.


The sex of
Post by Hyerdahl
the person didn't really matter; the programs were simply no longer
available. Blaming women here, seems worthless....but Farrell seems to
like to do that from time to time. In fact, isn't Farrell the dude who
expressed an interest the "positive effects of incest" on
daughters....or some such?]
No poofy, that lie was invented by feminists. Apparently these girls loved
Farrell when he towed the feminist line of bullshit and it was only when he
started to think and analyse on his own (at great monetary loss I might add)
that these girls turned on him and began inventing these vile lies.
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies."
We actually call them "bag hags"


The first part of the term refers to
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
the places where these homeless keep their belongings.
No. The term comes from shopping bags. Even when these dirty hags are living
on the street they still think of shopping like all females lol


Taken as a
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
[ I think society has a certain degree of understanding of poverty and
abandonment than they have for drunkeness and drug use tho. A woman
who has needle marks up and down her arms is more likely to be called a
'crack ho' or some other terrible name than a "bag lady". When you
think about bag ladies, you think about women who have no place else to
go....so they cram all of their belongings in a bag, i.e. the same way
folks used to think about 'hobos'. ]
Erm hobos just liked the lifestyle as many "homeless" people do. Look up the
story of "Billy Boggs" It's quite amusing and just shows how misguided and
out of touch liberals are.
Post by Hyerdahl
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men.
[Sure. Most women, it seems, tend to establish some kinds of
connections in life that keeps them from falling thru the cracks. For
a personal example, my neice has a friend who was kicked out of her
home by her strict Asian parents. This woman had many friends, and
could have stayed with any of them. She ended up spending about 5 mos.
with my neice until she was able to get a place for herself.]
That's unusual because most females would grab the nearest man and shack up
with him. Was she ugly?
Post by Hyerdahl
If those figures were reversed and the majority of those sleeping on
the streets or on park benches were women, would society as a whole be
more determined to address this problem?
[It is my opinion that society has little regard for those who cause
their own derailment. However, society seems to have more empathy for
people who simply fall thru the cracks.
That would be men then since females can always make money whoring
themselves whether to many men or just one.

Such should be the case for
Post by Hyerdahl
people who need help back up, but not so much for people who cause
their own problems
Like getting knocked up when you have no means of support and no prospects.



. We should, obviously, help those with mental
Post by Hyerdahl
disabilities. Their sex/gender should be irrelevant to that. ]
Hey poofy those people like yourself collect disability and many other
benefits so there's no reason for them to be homeless.
W3bfly
2006-09-11 17:04:43 UTC
Permalink
After working in a Mental Clinic for almost 3 years I have to disagree
with what you said, most men that came in there due to mental reason
actually did not mind being "homeless". The subgroups i think of
homeless people are the ones that were in "the war" and are mentally
screwed by drug abuse. Others are the drug abusers. Try talking to some
of these people on the street, they would like to do better however
they have no motivation to do no better.

Most of the people in this clinic however were women that wanted to
better. Just an interesting note for you of what I have seen in real
life.
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind? Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would society as
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
MCP
2006-09-11 17:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by W3bfly
After working in a Mental Clinic for almost 3 years I have to disagree
with what you said, most men that came in there due to mental reason
actually did not mind being "homeless". The subgroups i think of
homeless people are the ones that were in "the war" and are mentally
screwed by drug abuse. Others are the drug abusers. Try talking to some
of these people on the street, they would like to do better however
they have no motivation to do no better.
Most of the people in this clinic however were women that wanted to
better. Just an interesting note for you of what I have seen in real
life.
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind? Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would society as
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
What's with the top posting, W3bfly?
GL Fowler
2006-09-11 17:52:00 UTC
Permalink
On 11 Sep 2006 10:04:43 -0700, "W3bfly" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

They were there whining while looking for sympathy..
Post by W3bfly
After working in a Mental Clinic for almost 3 years I have to disagree
with what you said, most men that came in there due to mental reason
actually did not mind being "homeless". The subgroups i think of
homeless people are the ones that were in "the war" and are mentally
screwed by drug abuse. Others are the drug abusers. Try talking to some
of these people on the street, they would like to do better however
they have no motivation to do no better.
Most of the people in this clinic however were women that wanted to
better. Just an interesting note for you of what I have seen in real
life.
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind? Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would society as
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
A jury is 12 individuals who decides who has the best lawyer.
- Mark Twain
Turin
2006-09-12 09:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by W3bfly
After working in a Mental Clinic for almost 3 years I have to disagree
with what you said, most men that came in there due to mental reason
actually did not mind being "homeless".
That sure sounds like Thomas.
Post by W3bfly
The subgroups i think of
homeless people are the ones that were in "the war" and are mentally
screwed by drug abuse.
Tom wasn't in the war, but he got mentally screwed from drug abuse.
Post by W3bfly
Others are the drug abusers. Try talking to some
of these people on the street, they would like to do better however
they have no motivation to do no better.
Ok, I think we have a match now.






- - -

This has been another enlightening moment, with:

Turin


I have such sites to show you...
------------------------

http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First
http://mail2world.com/Blog/***@mail2zeus.com

------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----
Post by W3bfly
Most of the people in this clinic however were women that wanted to
better. Just an interesting note for you of what I have seen in real
life.
Post by d***@bellsouth.net
How the homeless became "the homeless"
September 08, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Think of a bum and what comes to mind? Someone in ragged clothes,
shuffling around. Someone who doesn't work and probably for reasons
that are blameworthy. Think of a wino and a similar image comes to mind
only with a bottle these time and perhaps reeling around.
In both cases, the image these pejorative terms conjure up is
inevitably male.
Sometime in the 1970s and 1980s, the bums and winos of our society
became known as "the homeless." Why? Warren Farrell in The Myth of
Male Power pointed out the probable reason: because they were joined by
an appreciable number of women when the mental hospitals went through
"deinstitutionalization."
Interestingly, female homeless are called "bag ladies." The last
word of the two-part term seems like an attempt to soften it by giving
them the status of "ladies." The first part of the term refers to
the places where these homeless keep their belongings. Taken as a
whole, "bag lady" has none of the disgust attached to the words
traditionally associated with men who sink to the economic bottom.
Even with the growth of female homeless, 85% of those in this category
are men. If those figures were reversed and the majority of those
sleeping on the streets or on park benches were women, would society as
a whole be more determined to address this problem?
Loading...