Shwa

You are making the fundamental - and common - mistake of assuming that female feminism is the opposite, or corollary of, male chauvenism. It isn't by definition.

You're right, that is all, and not much else. The problem is - using your magical "western oriented standards" - you have this amazing ability to take an attribute of a few and generalize it into the whole. It is truly an astounding ability. I bet you do it with more than just Chinese people don't you? But the onus is on you to somehow justify your assertion upon a rational basis that is convincing enough to refer to a little more than a half-billion people. You haven't done that, not even close. All you have done is applied a little bit of local knowledge and called it a 'worldview.' At any rate, anyone who blindly asserts that China is a "failed culture" when they can prove cultural continuity over thousands of years, can claim a dominant position in the world economy and whose billion person population is still growing is, in my 'worlview', an idiot.

As I was driving home last night, in my brand new Buick Enclave, with a box of Kotex on the seat beside me, I couldn't help but reflect appreciatively on my recent visit with the shrink. You know, because it all makes sense now.

I take it living in Northern Ontario wasn't a pleasant experience for you? Did it require therapy to get over? However, I think you missed the mark a little when you say there is nothing in northern Ontario to interest anyone economically or socially.

Well seeing that white people account for some 85% of the Canadian population and 75% of the US population, are you now calling Canada and the US racist countries? It seems to me that this so-called white "ethnic" group is in a firm majority, along with the Christian religions and I don't hear too many people complaining about how "white" these countries are or saying there is something "wrong with" this whiteness. Well that is not true because you are complaining and constantly saying something is wrong with it. So maybe the reading of your posts have been wrong all along and what you are actually advocating is a deliberate destruction of the white majorities in Canada and the US. You know, genocide. After all you did post that white countries should be for everyone didn't you? I think you are an anti-white racist.

What kinds of trappings? I am trying to get a sense of where you are going this...

Let's just see: Of the 1062 words in the article, 173 words are devoted to this sentiment: The remaining 889 words are devoted to a different sentiment, as expressed by these next lines: This sentiment was summed up neatly in the final paragraph: What you seemed to have missed is this line, which acts as a transitional literary device moving from uncritical sentimentality to thoughtful introspection: It is a device often employed by good writers to illustrate the private from the public and Mallick hints at this by writing, A very typical modern feminist thing to write, but hardly anti-men. However, if you missed the transitional effect in the article that is not Mallick's fault, but yours for juxtaposing one passage upon the whole article. If you can't stomach realism like this, then don't read her articles. But it doesn't do you any favours ranting away at Heather Mallick when clearly you have - intentionally or not - completely misunderstood what was written.

Pretty much the same.

Such as...?

Is that all you have in defence of your inability to string more than one thought together?

Those are your standards son, informed by your upbringing in your culture which you are subordinating them to. Which is ironic since you are continually whining about immigrants not adhering to our standards - heck, they don't even adhere to our standards when they live in their own damned countries.

I agree with you, sort of. What I find to be the large leap is going from "sick and tired" to "unpleasant" for "most" of the people of a very large population. I am sure that we could both come up with plenty of examples of such unrest, but could we come up with enough examples that would put "most" (of a billion people no less) at risk for this unpleasantness? It is a leap to think that a country - a leading world economic power - would have so much unpleasantness just under their skin. Is life for "most" Americans "unpleasant" too? (well, depends on who you talk to right?)

So you are perfectly OK with the way the genders are arranged insofar as personal, political, sexual and financial power is concerned? And you accuse Mallick of stereotyping men? There is juxtapositioning going on and it ain't all Mallick that's for sure.

Very good question of course, which I would follow with '...and is it unpleasant for them to do so?"

As they say, it' lonely at the top - of the food chain. Although I could do with a few billion less fruit flies.

Sure, this stuff is fairly well known. What I take issue with is Argus' view that "life in China is not pleasant for most." I don't equate 'not pleasant' with agrarian/non-urban do you? But, more importantly, do they? And what measures would they use - Western lifestyle, culture and technology? I mean, is that the inevitable base standard of happiness for the world? It's possible there are measures, polls, studies and I say bring them on, let's have a look. However it is equally possible that we sometimes tend to view other cultures through a single lense based upon our own 'standards' and deriving conclusions that actually exclude a good portion of their reality as well as some of our own. How could their life be pleasant, they don't have big screen TV's let alone a second light bulb? I guess what I am saying is that it might be a serious mistake to underestimate the Chinese ablity to find pleasantness in what we see as 'less.'

Time leaping forward is a right-leaning exercise. You know, clockwise. The future media is rightist, by definition. (yes, even afer 6 o'clock) If it was the leftist media, then it would be counterclockwise, going backward into time, into the past. Which begs the question as to whether leftist prefer historical novels and righties go for sci-fi. I mean even Gene Rodenberry described life in the 20th century as "nasty, brutish and short."

And your sources are...

Is that what I said or do you have a problem with reading comprehension too?

Because I was expecting meat and gravy? I mean, is that so difficult to understand? The problem here Pliny that your "hypothesis for discussion" is over-simplified and obfuscated. And is too bad since you entitled the thread "new political discovery" only to admit that it's the same old bullshit. I think you were actually on to something, but perhaps not after all...

Then explain the 75% who weren't "driven out." Umm. What a dumb thing to say. Oh well, they flew airplanes into the World Trade Centre, but is was a "past wrong" the next day, so why all the fuss? Perhaps not, but ya can't blame 'em can ya? So on they go completely aware that they proceed un-excused.

I did state my own, requesting Pliny to supply some meat to go with the gravy. I am not sure why you have a problem with substantiating something accorded as a "New political discovery." Otherwise it's the same old bullshit wouldn't you agree?

Oh, I get what you are saying. Your analogy with the Christian makes it perfectly clear. Because "these people" will forever be able to fit your view and when they no longer suit your utility, you will move on to other "these people." Even though your view might be complete bullshit or a profound universal truth, all you got is a group of strawmen on a shifting ground. A creek and no paddle as it were. I am saying that if Pliny provides some real, contemporary examples with a little background he is at least making an attempt to provide some real insight into political language and meaning. He seems to take himself seriously enough, why shouldn't I return the courtesy? Is that what you are really saying though, in response to the OP? Because if I read things right and waves are particles and particle are waves, then it would appear that both your opinion and it's counterpoint should be regarded as true. That was we can all get along just fine. Right?

My mistake, I thought you were using your anecdotal impressionism to make the point that " ...both views need to be considered as correct." I see you are just guessing too and your guess is as good as any... I guess. "...actual quotes from real contemporary "left wing leaders" that can be shown in an event-chain as revealing motive to particular acts." Do I need to be more clear about this? Even a meagre attempt at something kinda-like evidence to some sort of coherent historical process is better than saying, well, It's "in their heart" we'll never know what they mean, let's just forget about it and make shit up. To hell with Brainy Quote! More personal anecdote Michael, will you ever learn? According to who - you?

Right. Of course that includes all the North American and European markets too. Where did you learn English? Specifically the phrase "independent information." That doesn't mean I wanted to know about your spouse...