ChicagoMan: Men's Options vs. Women's Options

Article and comments

ChicagoMan wrote:

I heard a statement on TV the other day, not exactly sure who said it since the TV was on in the other room, but the statement had profound meaning.

"Men have it harder than women because men only have one option in life, work, whereas women have two, they can either work or find someone to support them."

...

SO HOW CAN THEIR LIVES BE MORE DIFFICULT?

This fundamental point is lost on many people.

Down in the comments section, Arden wrote:

being a woman is a hell i wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy. unless he was a man.

I do not understand how anyone could sincerely believe this. Frankly, I just laughed. Perhaps that was her intention.

In response, ChicagoMan wrote this gem:

I don't uderstand how it could be hell. You are given preferential treatment in school, preferential hiring, workplaces are made to suit your needs. Work schedules, time off, all things are put into more consideration because you don't have a penis. Rape shield laws taking away a man's fundamental right to face his accuser.

The courts are in your favor, huge divorce settlements, child custody even though in many cases you couldn't even support the child without the massive child support payments (which are a testament to why the man should get custody).

Heck even the dating world is in your favor, access to sex is in your favor. If you get pregnant you have many options, you don't even have to raise the child, you could just leave it at a hospital or fire station.

Federal funding for women's health concerns like breast cancer far outnumber federal funding for something like prostate cancer which incidentally KILLS MORE MEN A YEAR THAN BREAST CANCER KILLS WOMEN. Don't believe me, i have an earlier post direct from the American Cancer Society.

Way more options as far as public help.

More scholarships are available to women than to men.

More lenient prison sentences for felonies, heck if you even go to jail.

So many options you have to completely opt out of any responsibility and accountability yet you complain that you have it bad?

How and where can this be?

The only way I could see being a woman as hell is the fact that you have to deal with other women, well we do that too.

It seems the "hell" of being a woman is greatly exagerrated.

Ladies, life as a man is not the paradise of freedom, leisure and privilege you seem to think it is. The feminists lied to you. Working, which is essentially every man's destiny, is something I personally find grossly overrated and quite loathsome the preponderance of the time. Do I have a realistic opportunity to have a woman support me? No.

Even with the numerous disadvantages men face in these braindead Western societies, life as a man is not "hell" just because one was born male. The same concept applies even more to women.

On Bachelorhood

Here are two articles taking a stand against the "disease" of bachelorhood:

• Bachelorism Runs Rampant in Men Across the Country


• What is Bachelorism

I think this campaign is meant to be at least somewhat "tongue-in-cheek;" nevertheless, I find it symptomatic of how radically different single men are typically regarded than single women.

Generally, I have found a significant majority of people view single men as "losers" in need of a woman. If a man is single in his 20's like I am, people wonder what is "wrong" with him.

Is this same assessment applied to single women? No. As a matter of fact, they are viewed as being "empowered, liberated juggernauts" who live life on their own terms without the irrelevant input of some "brainless, icky man." No man is good enough for these princesses.

See the difference?

I am not ashamed to be a bachelor; there is nothing "wrong" about this.

I can just hear it now.

• "You must be a loser."


• "Time for you start dating."


• "You are in desperate need of a woman to make you complete."


• "So you are a bachelor? Good. The dating pool is better for your absence, evil white male oppressor."

Such bile has no sway over me.

Be a part of the cure, because, well, you are the cure.
To learn more about how you can join the fight to end bachelorism, go to bachelorism.org.

Let us assume bachelorhood is a disease. Let us assume women are the cure. Has anyone ever heard of situations where the cure is worse than the disease?

Am I open to someday dating and then marrying a woman? Yes, but I am shy and am therefore disinclined to pursue, which the preponderance of women require of men. Besides, I know all too well the risky proposition a relationship with a woman can be.

Pasternaks Fail To Make The Cut

My first article on this drama

Twins off the team

In the end, they didn't make the cut.

After a very public battle for the right to play on a boys' hockey team, identical twins Amy and Jesse Pasternak privately mourned their loss yesterday.

I do not care what anyone else says; girls playing on boys teams is not a right.

If they had made the team, I am certain they would not be celebrating privately.

Their father Wally spoke for them.

"I applaud their courage for even going and trying out," he said from the doorstep of his family's home last night.

They were not shy about speaking publicly before. Not so surprisingly, this changed.

Courage? They really had nothing to lose. If they make the cut, I am sure they would have been gloating about it. If they did not make the cut, they have a ready excuse-"We are just girls."

"West Kildonan Collegiate and Seven Oaks School Division salute Amy and Jesse Pasternak for the strength and courage they displayed in asserting their right to try out for the team," said the written statement.

"They should not have been denied that opportunity on the basis of their gender."

There was no further comment from the division.

Now they have the division lauding their "courage" for "asserting" a non-existent right. I am sure they would not wax lyrical about any boy who fails to make the cut.

Wally Pasternak said his daughters figured they basically had "no hope in hell" of making the team, but were still upset they didn't make it.

If they did not have any real hope of making the team, one might wonder why they would cause such a fuss about being denied the opportunity.

The controversial ruling captured the attention of a hockey-loving nation.

No need to wonder. They wanted attention.

The twins did not play hockey in the two years since the MHSAA first rejected their attempt to join the boys' school team in Grade 10.

If they were at all serious about playing for the boys team, they would have been playing hockey the past two years. Of course, it would not have been on the boys team, but they had opportunities elsewhere. The only thing they were serious about was being considered "trailblazers" and "inspirations for girls everywhere." What does this have to do with the sport? Nothing at all.

Pasternaks' saga comes to abrupt end

Wake, who coaches St. James Collegiate's girls hockey team, said he's never seen the Pasternak sisters skate but their time away from hockey couldn't have helped their chances of making the team.

"It's too bad they hadn't played hockey while awaiting this decision because it probably would have helped them in the long run," he said.

"I don't care whether you're Wayne Gretzky or these girls, you're going to be one or two steps behind."

Exactly. Surely they would not be dumb enough to think being out of practice for a couple of years would not torpedo their chances.

Manitoba Human Rights Commission lawyer Sarah Lugtig said the ruling only affects girls who want to play boys' hockey.

It doesn't allow boys to try out for girls' teams and won't necessarily have an impact on other high school sports, like volleyball and basketball, she said.

"Female hockey is a very different sport than boys' hockey and very few women are able to play on men's teams," said Lugtig.

Based on those two reasons, the adjudicator ordered the rules be changed for boys' hockey only and simply advised the Manitoba High School Athletics Association (MHSAA) to examine their gender rules for other sports.

She said the adjudicator was very clear about protecting girls-only teams.

"You need girls-only teams to ensure girls have equal access to sport."

[sarcasm]Of course, the double standard must be maintained. Girls will not have equal access otherwise.[/sarcasm] If girls and boys are supposedly equals, why the double standard?

If girls want to play sports, let them play with other girls. If boys want to play sports, let them play with other boys. Giving girls the opportunity to play with the boys is a recipe for a nauseating amount of drama and litigation much like this case.

Someone might ask me, "Lord Feverstone, what if there is no girls team in a sport a girl wants to play?" If she wants to play it badly enough, she should try to form a girls team. It would be about an actual love of the game, not about trying to "show up" the boys for instant fame.

The angry father then took a swipe at the media for incessantly covering the case and not always favourably towards his daughters.

"They bashed the shit out of two little 17-year-old girls without knowing all the facts," he said.

Are they entitled to favourable coverage, especially when they choose to insult the girls team they refused to play for? Besides, from the sources I have read, the media seems to be on their side.

Do not want unfavourable media coverage? Keep out of the public eye. Problem solved.

Discrimination Against White Men

Force admits rejecting white men

Gloucestershire police force has admitted illegally rejecting 108 job applicants because they were white men.

The Police Federation said the force has been trying to recruit more female officers and more people from ethnic minorities to meet a government target.

What amazes me is they actually admitted discriminating against white men. There are people out there who say such discrimination cannot possibly happen because "white men have it all." Reality checks like this are, of course, wasted on such people.

But one of the unsuccessful applicants, Matt Powell took legal action and has been awarded £2,500 by a tribunal.

Mr Powell, 30, said he became suspicious when he was told he had been "randomly deselected".

A tribunal actually awarded money to a white man alleging discrimination. With as politically correct as this world is becoming, this blows me away. Cases like this do not fit the accepted "wisdom" that "white men are evil oppressors with the world at their feet" and "everyone else is a sweet, innocent victim of white male oppression." Newsflash: white men can be wronged too.

By the way, has anyone ever heard of "random deselection" before? I would think if a police force was looking for the most qualified applicants, they would not choose to randomly disregard applications. Of course, we know the deselection in this case was hardly random.

The case comes six months after Avon and Somerset Police admitted it had illegally rejected almost 200 applications from white men for the same reason.

Apparently, such discrimination has happened elsewhere.

Police are under pressure to meet the government target, set in 1999, that by 2009, 7% of police officers in England and Wales should be from ethnic minority groups.

In September 2005, only 1.6% of Gloucestershire Police officers were black or Asian.

...

Earlier this year, Gloucestershire's Assistant Chief Constable Michael Matthews admitted 'positive action' had been taken to recruit more women and from ethnic minorities.

"It is essential in a democratic policing environment to ensure that under-represented groups are prioritised in our recruitment drives," he said.

I have never heard a compelling reason for why the presence of minorities is so important there ought to be goals (read: quotas) for their recruitment. Just because some Assistant Chief Constable says it is does not mean I believe it. I do not see so-called underrepresentation as a "problem," but then again, I think outside of the politically correct prison so many others have incarcerated themselves in.

Mr Powell's solicitor, Nigel Tillott, said: "The impact of this is that it is now clear how far public authorities can go in positive action.

"What they cannot do is discriminate against white males when it comes to job applications."

What makes preferring minorities in recruitment inherently positive? Oops! I have forgotten I am to accept this without question. The politically correct gods have spoken.

"Human Rights" Ruling on High School Hockey

Girls get shot at boys' hockey

Hockey-playing sisters Amy and Jesse Pasternak are savouring their victory at the Manitoba Human Rights Commission that will allow them to play for their high school boys team.

What does allowing two clearly attention-seeking girls the opportunity to play on a boys hockey team have to do with "human rights?"

It gets better.

The Grade 12 students took their complaint to the commission this spring to protest a Manitoba High Schools Athletic Association policy forbidding girls from playing on a boys team when a school has a girls squad.

The association argued the policy was an integral part of a participation-based approach to sports that isn’t based on merit.

But the girls, who had played on community boys teams for years, called their school’s girls team a joke and said some students had trouble simply skating.

There already was a girls team for them, but they just have to play with the boys. In the midst of their "brave battle against the patriarchy," they proceed to insult the girls team. These girls ooze class. They could have simply said, "We just want a chance to play on a better hockey team."

“The commission has said if you have the ability to make a team, you should make the team. But what about boys? If the boys have the ability to make a girls team, should they be allowed?

“If it’s strictly merit-based or ability-based it opens up a whole ball of wax.”

I would be flabbergasted if the reverse-allowing boys to play on girls teams-was allowed as a logical result of this decision. According to this article, at least one boy is prepared to put this to the test. We all know the classic double-standard: girls should be allowed the opportunity to play on both girls and boys teams, but boys should only be allowed to play on boys teams. What amazes me is there are some people who consider this arrangement to be "fair."

Dianna Scarth, executive director of the commission, hailed the decision as a great lesson for all young girls.

“We hope this will send a message that where they see discrimination happening in their workplaces, or in their schools, there are ways of addressing that,” said Scarth.

And now we see what this ruling is really all about-feminism.

The girls were each awarded $3,500 in general damages as well as special individual coaching to account for the fact they were not able to play for the past few years.

Not only do these classless attention-seekers win their coveted opportunity, but they are also awarded thousands in "damages" and one-on-one coaching. Unbelievable!

According to this article, which is an interesting follow-up, this ruling will prove costly to the MHSAA.

The MHSAA is considering appealing the ruling and will make a decision within the next two weeks.

"Money is a factor," Glimcher said.

The not-for-profit association was dealt a financial blow when Harrison ordered it to pay each Pasternak twin $3,500 in compensation for loss of dignity and cover the cost of special one-on-one hockey coaching. The MHSAA has hefty legal bills resulting from the challenge.

"We don't receive any government funding," Glimcher said. "The (Manitoba) Human Rights Commission has deep pockets, and it's not costing the Pasternaks any money."

The association may have to raise its membership fees to make ends meet, he added.

So the damages are for "loss of dignity." What rubbish! The MHSAA has to pay them directly in addition to considerable legal bills, which will be undoubtedly exacerbated if they decide to appeal. They lose either way. What is even worse about this is these girls apparently can litigate for free.

Whatever happened to sports being an entertaining diversion?

Matt LeBlanc's "Child" Support

Article

Calling LeBlanc a "high-wage earner," however, the court ordered the actor to fork over $15,000 a month in child support for the couple's two-year-old daughter, Marina, and ruled that Dad was 100 percent responsible for any future private school tuition, uninsured medical expenses, nanny services and Marina's college fund.

Melissa LeBlanc (née McKnight) also has two children from a previous marriage. She and her almost-ex will share joint physical and legal custody of Marina.

What toddler requires all of this money? Is a toddler really that expensive to care for? This sounds more like alimony to me, especially given the fact Matt LeBlanc also has joint physical and legal custody. Is this justice or just another shakedown because a guy "can afford it?"

Methinks Matt LeBlanc's career is on a downward slope; if he has not managed his finances well, all of this money he will have to cough up could really prove to be a burden over the years. Will this amount ever be re-evaluated? Of course not. [sarcasm]Because he is wealthy now, he always will be.[/sarcasm]

Is it any wonder more and more men are hesitant to "tie the knot" these days?

Family Violence In America

I came across Family Violence in America after spending some time browsing Stephen Baskerville's web site. I first read some of Baskerville's material a few years ago, and it has helped shape my views on family and fatherhood. The Family Violence in America report is a lengthy read, but it is quite an informative resource; I suggest everyone who wishes to research this issue to read it in its entirety. At the end of the report, there are quite a few endnotes to facilitate further investigation.

In order to properly address this issue, it is time to abandon feminist ideology, which seeks to blame fathers exclusively. I agree with Baskerville that the "accepted wisdom" on family violence is helping to undermine, not strengthen, the family.

Phyllis Schlafly provides a similar, yet shorter, article, which I would also encourage everyone to read.

The Emperor's New Clones

There is a feature-length Star Wars fanfilm I recently discovered, The Emperor's New Clones. It is a lengthy download, but it proves worthwhile.

I rather enjoyed Backyard Productions earlier effort, The Empire Strikes Backyard, but I found this to be an even more enjoyable watch. In my opinion, the effects were superb and the story was rather entertaining. This spoof is loosely based off of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.

The Essence of Christianity

There seems to be much ignorance on the subject of Christianity. The following is what I posted to a forum I no longer contribute to. I thought it prudent to immortalise it here.

In order to understand Christianity, one must first understand who Christ is.

Note: The quotations I give are from the King James Version of the Bible. I have taken the liberty of bolding some verses for special emphasis.

From John 1:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
...
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

From Hebrews 1:

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

Why was the Word sent to dwell among us?

From John 3:

14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

From Romans 5:

1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

2By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

3And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

4And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

5And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

From Romans 6:

23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

From John 8:

31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

33They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

34Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

35And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.

36If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

From Isaiah 53:

1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

What does He require of us?

From Matthew 16:

24Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

25For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

From Matthew 22:

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

From Matthew 28:

16Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

17And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

What must one do in response to His sacrifice?

From Acts 2:

16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:

27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

42And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

What hope does He bring?

From John 14:

1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

From 1 Corinthians 15:

19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
...
42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

These are several key excerpts from the Scriptures. I encourage everyone who wishes to understand what Christianity is to read the entire Bible, especially the New Testament.

In summary, this is the essence of Christianity:

• Jesus, the Word of God, became flesh.


• He was sent to die on our behalf and then to rise in order that we might be saved from the wrath of God.


• We are to love God, love our neighbor as ourself, and spread the Good News that Christ is not dead but alive.


• Jesus will return one day to claim those who have accepted His sacrifice as atonement for their sins.

On Working

A reader requested I address this subject and so I shall.

Here is what Genesis 3:17-19 has to say:

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

In brief, Adam's curse promises work will be a bloody hassle. Lest there be any doubt, personal experience assures me the curse is still in full force.

Why do I work? Is it because I find it to be enjoyable? Do I wake up in the mornings and commence dancing about and bursting into song at the prospect? Certainly not! Be assured there is a reason workers have to be enticed by compensation, whether it is a grade, certificate, degree or, most commonly, money. If I am to spend time working, I wish to be compensated adequately for it. After all, there are opportunity costs I pay by showing up to work. This is simple economics.

Even among the people who say they "love" their jobs still seem to have no shortage of negative experiences to share. Is this at all surprising?

Can one's experiences "on the job" be occasionally positive? Yes, but I would argue it is despite the nature of the work, not a result. Although I generally find my retail employment to be very frustrating, I can still find some ways to amuse myself. Having agreeable, especially amusing, coworkers can help make a job bearable, but that is only one part of the equation. The other part is the clientele, who are more often than not disagreeable. Of course, one's superiors can provide consternation, but I have been fortunate in that regard. I only recall one job where I had a superior I was on less than friendly terms with.

My philosophy is to work to live, not live to work. The pursuit of riches and prestige is not on my agenda. In an upcoming article, I will address the subject of money.

Weight Loss Update

My Weight Loss Program

This morning, I checked my weight and found I had reached the milestone of 170 pounds. Granted, my progress has not been as rapid as I would prefer, which is probably due to not being as strict as I should have been. At one point, I was afraid I had gained weight and was reluctant to get on the scale, but I was relieved when I saw I had still made progress.

I have more I want to lose, since I still think I look too big. I may not endeavour to lose as much as I had originally planned, because there are some who would needlessly worry about it.

Cyst Update

I found out I do not have skin cancer. The cyst was red, because it had ruptured at one point. The stitches come out today.

Now, I will no longer have to bother with the daily changing of the gauze and the tape; taking that tape off is quite a disagreeable experience.

SYG and I part ways

Here is the offending thread.

"Dr Evil," the owner of Stand Your Ground, made some arguments I disagreed with about a crass "joke" about feminists. The thread, if it remains unaltered, should give you an understanding of what happened. I disagreed with him because I found his arguments to be illogical. When I called him on it, he decided to become hostile as you will see.

This is the "joke" that started it all:

How many feminists does it take to put in a light bulb? A: Two. One to put in the lightbulb and one to suck my cock.

Here was my first answer to Dr Evil:

Dr Evil wrote:
I didn't laugh when I saw it. I think it is tastless and also lacking in any semblance of humor.

True.

Dr Evil wrote:
Maybe women don't laugh at it because it is hateful towards them. Duh.

How does a joke about feminists screwing in a lightbulb become hatred towards women? Not all feminists are even women. Even if they were, all feminists are women, but not all women are feminists. This is a matter of simple set theory. Feminists comprise a subset. Criticism of a subset does not imply criticism of the superset. Your line of reasoning here is not logical; as a matter of fact, it is the same sort of reasoning feminists use when people attack feminism. When they hear someone say, "I oppose feminism," in their mind they hear, "I oppose women." Then they start screaming and carrying on about how much the person must hate women. The problem is not with the anti-feminist, it is with the feminist.

If I were to make a similar joke about blondes, does that mean I hate blondes? Hate is a very strong word that has been cheapened over the years into hardly anything more than a weapon for one's ad hominem and shaming arsenal. His joke does not come anything close to constituting genuine hatred, and I am sure you know it.

Dr Evil wrote:
It's the very sort of thing that gets us put into the misogynist camp by those seeking to cut and paste and prove we are a bunch of cro-magnons.

No, it "proves" nothing of the sort. Surely you realise a feminist, if one was so inclined, could easily register on this board and pretend to be a raving misogynist. This feminist could then copy-and-paste her material and use it as "evidence" of SYG's "misogyny." She would be full of it, but that would be enough to convince the prejudiced sisterhood. The fact of the matter is these people do not have an open mind; they are just looking for excuses (ones which they can create as aforementioned) to think the way they do or to slander the posters here.

Feminists and their sympathisers see what they want to see and they hear what they want to hear. Real evidence not required.

Instead of considering what I had to say, Dr Evil proceeds to give me an insulting "thin ice" lecture:

This "joke" carried the message that this woman was there to service his sexual needs and had no other purpose. This is the sort of message that we might expect from a truly abusive male. He orders her around and demands his sexual needs be met. When I see someone with that sort of attitude I hope that I will help stop that sort of behavior. Whether it is acted out upon men or women it does't matter. It demeans and a hundred other things that are highly disrespectful. When I see that sort of thing on my board I will call their shit. Don't like it? Go some place else.

It is interesting that the two who have a hard time understanding this are two who have caused me a good deal of trouble in the past. I won't have one shred of patience for either of you from this point forward. You best be on your best behavior. I am very busy with things other than this board. Use caution.

It is almost as if he did not read my post. Here is my final counterargument:

Dr Evil wrote:
This "joke" carried the message that this woman was there to service his sexual needs and had no other purpose. This is the sort of message that we might expect from a truly abusive male. He orders her around and demands his sexual needs be met. When I see someone with that sort of attitude I hope that I will help stop that sort of behavior. Whether it is acted out upon men or women it does't matter. It demeans and a hundred other things that are highly disrespectful. When I see that sort of thing on my board I will call their shit.

You read all of that from this:

Quote:
How many feminists does it take to put in a light bulb? A: Two. One to put in the lightbulb and one to suck my cock.

An amazing leap there, Evil! A leap, I might add, I would expect from a feminist, not an anti-feminist. I thought you were the latter, but apparently I was gravely mistaken.

I already agreed with you the "joke" is crass and unfunny, but I am not going to agree with you on this preposterous argument of yours-a house of cards you have erected upon a foundation of shifting sand.

Dr Evil wrote:
It is interesting that the two who have a hard time understanding this are two who have caused me a good deal of trouble in the past.

Nice way of attacking the messenger instead of the message, Evil; this does a world of good for your cause. "Good deal of trouble," my foot. Have anything more than a vague reference? Are we to take your word for it?

The one who is having a hard time understanding is you. You are angry because I exposed just how irrational your arguments are. You presented no rebuttal, only more of the same unfounded rubbish.

Dr Evil wrote:
I won't have one shred of patience for either of you from this point forward. You best be on your best behavior. I am very busy with things other than this board. Use caution.

Apparently you must be too "busy with things" to consider this matter objectively. Your condescending attitude and threats are insulting.

Dr Evil wrote:
Don't like it? Go some place else.

I intend to. You have an awfully hostile, disagreeable attitude for one who supposedly has the moral highground here. I intend to immortalise our little discussion to my blog, since you are determined to burn bridges with your rhetoric.

I have not one shred of patience for your hostility anymore. Consider me gone.

I refuse to post there ever again. I had been a member there for a while and had contributed 573 posts. There are some excellent contributors there, so I am not happy about leaving. He can run his site as he chooses and I can voice my displeasure as I choose.

UPDATE: Evil has the nerve to demand an apology from me and then lock the thread, presumably to insulate himself from public criticism from other members. Here is his ridiculous demand:

Personally attacking the admin is not your best choice. Have a nice break. I may reactivate your account when you send an email to me taking responsibility for your actions and apologizing.

He apparently has some difficulty comprehending my posts; I made it very clear I was not going to post there again.