You don't deserve the title "Parson."

You posts reek of the sullen anger of frustrated entitlement -- and it's an entitlement that you have never deserved.

You are making assumptions about me that you have no right to make except the right you have arrogated to yourself. People like you should not be allowed even a bully pulpit because you are a bully.

Do you really think I am stupid enough not to know that the majority of the servicepeople are men? If you get off on that assumption, that's really dumb, as well as arrogant. Assuming you have a congregation, save it for them. I'm not interested.

What about the civilians? Are they mostly men, too? What about the Chil-Dren? Let's get the parson's voice on family values Iraqi style, not to mention the consequences to American families. Some of those Chil-Dren may even be boys.

IF you had bothered to think beyond your own tantrums, you would make the connection that knowing that other women are participants in and injured in armed fights brings them even closer to our own reality. That brings us closer to the men who are suffering. Or were we not supposed to do that so you could thunder some more and get off on feeling as if the world is prejudiced about you?

You're -hoping- for bigots. Talk about disgusting.

Okay, Jim, which MRA board did you pull off your canned statistics?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you've done it again. There you go.

You don't want women to relate, however they can. You want obedient listening.

Not a chance. That's why you're so angry.

Angry white males are so last election or so. And look what THAT got us.

I do hope you realize that you haven't bought into the "one feminist says" = "all feminists say."

We differ.

One of the areas on which we differ greatly is our various approaches to combat and the military.

Men certainly have died in active combat in greater number than women. At least, they have been able to defend themselves, which is not always the case for civilians, including both men and women.

Would you care to elaborate? I assure you I understood Jim's point -and- his subtext. It was the subtext I chose to address.

If you would like to ask -this- feminist about -her- position on the military, the war in Iraq, etc., I will reply because, even though you express it somewhat awkwardly, -you- raise a good point.

Were you talking to me or just looking for a likely wall on which to sling mud?

You need a better thesaurus. One that defines "whited sepulchre." Unless, of course, you prefer to use a mirror.

No, Jim, I didn't "bother" to go to the study you instructed me to go to.

Here's why. I am not going to pretend that you are observing any sort of rules of debate. You come in here with canned references and cliched adjectives to denounce: Jimmy-one-note.

I don't know if that works where you live real-time, or whether you're simply hoping it will online, but the fact that you're not looking for debate but obedience frees me from any obligation to do anything but call you on your behavior.

The colloquialism "you're not the boss of me" -- or any other women -- applies. So, you bring out the Rebukes.

If this stuff hasn't worked on me real-time my whole life, why would it work on me now? Do, please, manage your expectations.

You agree that you're a troll, a bully, who came into this area to denounce people and make stupid accusations?

How easy. Don't try to play games like that. It probably doesn't work on you in real life, and it doesn't work here.

I'm in finance, which is hardly divorced from statistics. That was another stupid assumption on your part.

I simply do not recognize your right to direct me to anything. If you want to pretend that this is civilized discourse, you may have any illusion you like, including your latest clumsy attempt at The Cute.

You came here with an agenda. It's impossible to enter into a reasonable dialogue with you -or- the agenda, and that needs pointing out.

It is poor strategy -or- tactics to fight on the grounds of someone else's choosing or to underestimate an enemy. When you're not preparing canned statistics in your latest clumsy attempt to bludgeon people into listening to you, why don't you go review Sun Tzu?

I seem to have made a transition from physical to verbal war.

What I'm realizing is just how presumptuous the anti-feminists and misogynists around here are. They come into areas specifically intended to discuss -- that's discuss, not denounce -- women's issues with the same old adjectives and some astonishingly antiquated and vituperative generalizations. They demand ANSWERS. They demand ATTENTION. They respond to any of it with more verbal violence.

It has been demanded of me that I consider evidence someone else considers relevant as if the speaker has a right to demand and I an obligation to comply. This is not, however, reciprocal, and that is as unacceptable as the denunciations and the truly awful rhetoric.

Defensive battles are not fought for the purpose of gaining ground. I'd like to gain some ground, rather than answer questions (or not) and risk the "why are you being angry of defensive" ploy. I would like my questions answered.

Where -do- they get this notion that they are entitled to a bully pulpit?

Does this work elsewhere?

If it does, who are they talking to, and how can we get Oxfam to them?

If it does not, why would they assume/hope it would work here?

You're projecting. Why do you come here and say your theories are what women are considering at the top of their minds?

And "must agree" -- Why must I, when I don't? Why must anyone?

You can neither assume nor coopt a consensus.

To think that your opinion constitutes reality is presumptuous and solipsistic.