The principal disadvantage of an ideologically close-knit community like this one is that it's very hard to find something to talk about. We can play games of "Ain't It Awful", but they're sterile and after about the third repetition, boring. And we can preach to the choir, but we're already of like mind about all the important parts. So what's left?

What's left? What's our goal? What do we want to take away as a benefit of belonging?

Or is our only goal just to have a place where we can come and speak our minds without being torn apart and fed to the pigs for our heresy? Is that the limit of our ambition--not to be anathemised?

I don't find this community to be insular or limiting, nor headed in the direction of being closely knit and only of interest to the very few, and I am not having difficulty finding things to talk about.

I don't see a lot of "ain't it awful" going on either.

What's left? We have barely started and the whole world of possibilities is open to us.

My ambition is to reach millions of people with the message that is just starting to form here, just starting to coalesce and be tentatively expressed.

I am not looking to take away personal benefit from being here. I am looking for how we can give benefits to others. The ambition is to save the human race, or at least to perform a small but critical role in that. Here at least we have one place where that ambition will not be ridiculed. That represents a very important and valuable start.

...to see what (or even whether) I get back. But also I did actually expect the pot to be positively boiling by now, given the group already here. I mean, these are not dull thinkers, or bashful. So I'm wondering whether it's like school dances where everyone sits agin the wall waiting for someone else to start the knees-up.

...to see what (or even whether) I get back. But also I did actually expect the pot to be positively boiling by now, given the group already here. I mean, these are not dull thinkers, or bashful. So I'm wondering whether it's like school dances where everyone sits agin the wall waiting for someone else to start the knees-up.
I am inspired by you and Raph and Kid and PPLE. Can't you guys just keep going the direction you are going? Seems to me it is going into new and uncharted and very fruitful territory. The mechanics, field hands, farmers, truck drivers, and shop rats with whom I share everything we write here all think that we are (finally!) on the right track here at Pop Indy. They have been beating on me for two years - "hey Mike have you and your brainiac friends got that new party rolling yet?"

Other boards need 1000 members or more to get the quantity of posts we have here over the same time, not to mention the quality.

The principal disadvantage of an ideologically close-knit community like this one is that it's very hard to find something to talk about. We can play games of "Ain't It Awful", but they're sterile and after about the third repetition, boring. And we can preach to the choir, but we're already of like mind about all the important parts. So what's left?

What's left? What's our goal? What do we want to take away as a benefit of belonging?

Or is our only goal just to have a place where we can come and speak our minds without being torn apart and fed to the pigs for our heresy? Is that the limit of our ambition--not to be anathemised?

Well, I've kinda been off drifting in the clouds mulling over metaphysics and how it plays into all of this. It may all end up being wind-bag bullshit though, so its not anything worth throwing out here half-baked.

I think I've been reading too much Rigorous Intuition lol

The other thing I've realized is, people don't need my 'guidance'. Thats kind of pompous and self-important on my part. Somewhere along the line I realized my talking was just bouncing off when all people really needed was someone willing to give them a chance to speak (think about how harangued they might feel by the small minority of zealous vocal partisans - FOX News, Olberman, etc). They also need a little help articulating it because it tends to be something they just 'know' as opposed to having overanalyzed it like us (root word - anal). And finally they need need someone to provide them encouragement/reinforcement for what they are saying.

Its kind of a means, motive, opportunity rubric

The other thing I've realized is, people don't need my 'guidance'. Thats kind of pompous and self-important on my part. Somewhere along the line I realized my talking was just bouncing off when all people really needed was someone willing to give them a chance to speak (think about how harangued they might feel by the small minority of zealous vocal partisans - FOX News, Olberman, etc). They also need a little help articulating it because it tends to be something they just 'know' as opposed to having overanalyzed it like us (root word - anal). And finally they need need someone to provide them encouragement/reinforcement for what they are saying.

Its kind of a means, motive, opportunity rubric
Okay, so where does that position us? Mike keeps down-thumbing the idea of 'doing', but that's (I hope that's!) because he and I mean 2 different things by the term.

For me, 'doing' is where it's at. That might be my shrink training, because in shrinkage someone can 'make progress' forever while never actually getting anywhere. So the goal is not to make progress toward some goal, but to actually arrive. The same thing is true in engineering. We can analyze forever (your point, above), but nothing happens until we build.

Again, it might be my personal background getting in the way, but to me politics is the same: it's all just hot air until we change the law, change the economy, jail the crooked cops, et lengthy cetera. So my question--my constant question--is how do we get there from here? How do we get to the point where changes have been made? Preferably before Earth passes the point of no return for us. What's the next step? How do we take it?

The other thing I've realized is, people don't need my 'guidance'. Thats kind of pompous and self-important on my part. Somewhere along the line I realized my talking was just bouncing off when all people really needed was someone willing to give them a chance to speak (think about how harangued they might feel by the small minority of zealous vocal partisans - FOX News, Olberman, etc). They also need a little help articulating it because it tends to be something they just 'know' as opposed to having overanalyzed it like us (root word - anal). And finally they need need someone to provide them encouragement/reinforcement for what they are saying.

Its kind of a means, motive, opportunity rubric
Okay, so where does that position us? Mike keeps down-thumbing the idea of 'doing', but that's (I hope that's!) because he and I mean 2 different things by the term.

For me, 'doing' is where it's at. That might be my shrink training, because in shrinkage someone can 'make progress' forever while never actually getting anywhere. So the goal is not to make progress toward some goal, but to actually arrive. The same thing is true in engineering. We can analyze forever (your point, above), but nothing happens until we build.

Again, it might be my personal background getting in the way, but to me politics is the same: it's all just hot air until we change the law, change the economy, jail the crooked cops, et lengthy cetera. So my question--my constant question--is how do we get there from here? How do we get to the point where changes have been made? Preferably before Earth passes the point of no return for us. What's the next step? How do we take it?

OK, I don't know the answer to that one, and at first blush I'm pretty cynical about it. I think the idea is 'a million people can't be wrong'. That may needed to revised considering the Million Man March but you get the idea. Enough people speaking in concert can change the law, the economy, everything overnite.

Unfortunately my vision of that happenng involves a Great Depression style collapse in this country which is actually seeming more and more inevitable anyway. The conservatives have a way better handle on how deep sixed we are financially and economically it seems like. We're probably fucked.

Mike keeps down-thumbing the idea of 'doing', but that's (I hope that's!) because he and I mean 2 different things by the term.
Not in the least. We meet here all of the time, and take all sorts of action. We talk directly to the politicians. We see everything we do as political.

Action as some superficial and predicatable hobby activity organized for the true believer insiders and working within the system is what I am down-thumbing.

Over at PI Tlcandie kept calling for "doing something." I got inspired, took her at her word, and started outlining an organizational structure, how to do it, how to organize it, etc. with dozens of ideas for what we could then do. 5 or 6 long detailed posts. I kicked it and kicked it but I never got a response.

Politics is 99% so-called “hot air.” That is all it is and all it will ever be. The only "to dos" are setting up and organizing meetings and communication channels for more hot air. The only barriers to that are clarity and courage - for us, not for the people.

We are experimenting here - we believe we had a huge effect on the recent election, all done with hot air. The right ratio seems to be about 2 intellectuals and theorists to 20-30 everyday people. The challenge is to keep enough hot air going and not suppress it. That is a lot of work. Listening to people at our meetings, then taking that message to the politicians, then reporting back, then spreading the message to the other farm communities around the country. The message? - stop corruption, restore the Constitution, break up the big money predators, throw them all out. Short and sweet. No ideology, no partisanship - Hell most people don't even realize we are talking politics. They think we are talking about real life and real problems. They think we are talking about the things we are angry about. The only time we talk about the two parties is when we talk about how useless they both are.

We got that under the radar non-partisan message to millions in farming country, and thousands of counties that have been locked up for the right wingers for decades were in play. Not because people were converted to be Democrats, not because of anything done by the party activists – they wrote farm country off, and the only time they came around they talked about gun control and organic and other liberal social causes and did more harm than good.

Mike keeps down-thumbing the idea of 'doing', but that's (I hope that's!) because he and I mean 2 different things by the term.
Not in the least. We meet here all of the time, and take all sorts of action. We talk directly to the politicians. We see everything we do as political.

Action as some superficial and predicatable hobby activity organized for the true believer insiders and working within the system is what I am down-thumbing.

Over at PI Tlcandie kept calling for "doing something." I got inspired, took her at her word, and started outlining an organizational structure, how to do it, how to organize it, etc. with dozens of ideas for what we could then do. 5 or 6 long detailed posts. I kicked it and kicked it but I never got a response.

Okay, good, I was hoping that we were only using the term at crossed purposes---wotta relief!

I must have been taking a break from PI when you did the outlining, cos I don't recall seeing it. But the (non-)reaction you got doesn't surprise me in the least since it's exactly what I got from some of the same "activists" when I tried to kickstart the program to build a machine for DK. People are willing to endlessly moan, but not willing to turn their lives upside down and bang on the sides.

You made a comment once about people sitting around waiting for orders, and I could only think that you had illuminated the problem with a gigawatt flood. Anyone who couldn't see it after that was being willfully obtuse.

I am going to say something very controversial.

One big change I have seen in the activist community over 40 years is that there are as many or maybe more women involved today as men. I remember when it was over 90% men. This has been very good, I think.

But one thing I notice - many of them talk to their fellow activists as though they were scolding or lecturing grade school children, and they tailor their ideas for activism around unworkable models as though a social event were being organized rather than a mass political mobilization. I also see a strong streak of authoritarianism there - a willingness to embrace any means to achieve ends that are mostly about being safe. The presumed but unstated goal is to have everyone be happy, adjusted, socialized, safe and healthy little beings, all getting along and sharing their toys with one another, under the watchful eyes of a strict but fair and compassionate and nurturing nanny.

Those are all wonderful things for raising children in a harmonious and safe and protected environment, but suck for doing things like smashing tyranny or as a model for a government.

(He ducks and runs for cover :) )

I am going to say something very controversial.

One big change I have seen in the activist community over 40 years is that there are as many or maybe more women involved today as men. I remember when it was over 90% men. This has been very good, I think.

But one thing I notice - many of them talk to their fellow activists as though they were scolding or lecturing grade school children, and they tailor their ideas for activism around unworkable models as though a social event were being organized rather than a mass political mobilization. I also see a strong streak of authoritarianism there - a willingness to embrace any means to achieve ends that are mostly about being safe. The presumed but unstated goal is to have everyone be happy, adjusted, socialized, safe and healthy little beings, all getting along and sharing their toys with one another, under the watchful eyes of a strict but fair and compassionate and nurturing nanny.

Those are all wonderful things for raising children in a harmonious and safe and protected environment, but suck for doing things like smashing tyranny or as a model for a government.

(He ducks and runs for cover :) )
Okay, so what do you reckon the solution is? :twisted:

Okay, so what do you reckon the solution is? :twisted:
Hot air? :)

I think it needs to be discussed, that's all.

I don't think we are of like mind. I think if we were, the frustration over what to do would evaporate.

I am going to say something very controversial.

One big change I have seen in the activist community over 40 years is that there are as many or maybe more women involved today as men. I remember when it was over 90% men. This has been very good, I think.

But one thing I notice - many of them talk to their fellow activists as though they were scolding or lecturing grade school children, and they tailor their ideas for activism around unworkable models as though a social event were being organized rather than a mass political mobilization. I also see a strong streak of authoritarianism there - a willingness to embrace any means to achieve ends that are mostly about being safe. The presumed but unstated goal is to have everyone be happy, adjusted, socialized, safe and healthy little beings, all getting along and sharing their toys with one another, under the watchful eyes of a strict but fair and compassionate and nurturing nanny.

Those are all wonderful things for raising children in a harmonious and safe and protected environment, but suck for doing things like smashing tyranny or as a model for a government.

(He ducks and runs for cover :) )

Marty-ball is making me fucking ill so I figured I'd come back and say something about this. You've touched on the same topic on PI, and I've found it to be true. Not 'universal law' true but 'Eddie Murphy movies won't be screened for critics' true.

Girls in general are alot more content with a sedentary, tranquil, sheltered environment. And to a real degree they don't even perceive the depradations they are immune to. They would never fear the police..why would they? The cops are by and large not going to harass them. They are not afraid to piss a man off, scream obscenities, physically assault him. Why would they be? If a man looks at them funny, they can have him thrown in jail.

I'm not saying its entirely a one-sided problem or 100% across the board, but chicks say they crave *exciting* but what they mean is conformity and safety packaged as excitement.

I don't think we are of like mind. I think if we were, the frustration over what to do would evaporate.
Who you talkin to?

Mike said: But one thing I notice - many [women] talk to their fellow activists as though they were scolding or lecturing grade school children, and they tailor their ideas for activism around unworkable models as though a social event were being organized rather than a mass political mobilization. I also see a strong streak of authoritarianism there - a willingness to embrace any means to achieve ends that are mostly about being safe. The presumed but unstated goal is to have everyone be happy, adjusted, socialized, safe and healthy little beings, all getting along and sharing their toys with one another, under the watchful eyes of a strict but fair and compassionate and nurturing nanny.

And Kid agrees: Girls in general are alot more content with a sedentary, tranquil, sheltered environment. And to a real degree they don't even perceive the depradations they are immune to. They would never fear the police..why would they? The cops are by and large not going to harass them. They are not afraid to piss a man off, scream obscenities, physically assault him. Why would they be? If a man looks at them funny, they can have him thrown in jail.

I think that if you guys want to give your residual sexist classism a little trot around the track, I should probably sit and wait for you to finish and sober up again. :twisted:

As far as I can tell, the evidence only supports the idea that working class women and men are both socialised to be stupid (i.e. reactive rather than thoughtful), but stupid in different ways.

Mike said: But one thing I notice - many [women] talk to their fellow activists as though they were scolding or lecturing grade school children, and they tailor their ideas for activism around unworkable models as though a social event were being organized rather than a mass political mobilization. I also see a strong streak of authoritarianism there - a willingness to embrace any means to achieve ends that are mostly about being safe. The presumed but unstated goal is to have everyone be happy, adjusted, socialized, safe and healthy little beings, all getting along and sharing their toys with one another, under the watchful eyes of a strict but fair and compassionate and nurturing nanny.

And Kid agrees: Girls in general are alot more content with a sedentary, tranquil, sheltered environment. And to a real degree they don't even perceive the depradations they are immune to. They would never fear the police..why would they? The cops are by and large not going to harass them. They are not afraid to piss a man off, scream obscenities, physically assault him. Why would they be? If a man looks at them funny, they can have him thrown in jail.

I think that if you guys want to give your residual sexist classism a little trot around the track, I should probably sit and wait for you to finish and sober up again. :twisted:

As far as I can tell, the evidence only supports the idea that working class women and men are both socialised to be stupid (i.e. reactive rather than thoughtful), but stupid in different ways.

You obviously haven't dated any girls in a long while :shock:

And the fact that the legal system is rigged against men right now is, well, a fact.

I think that if you guys want to give your residual sexist classism a little trot around the track, I should probably sit and wait for you to finish and sober up again. :twisted:
I don't how much overlap there is between what I said and what Kid said.

As far as I can tell, the evidence only supports the idea that working class women and men are both socialised to be stupid (i.e. reactive rather than thoughtful), but stupid in different ways.
Agreed there. I don't really care that it is mostly women that are playing lemonade stand patty cake fund-raiser, and don't believe that it is in anyway sexist to point that out. My concern is the destructive effect it has on the movement.

Agreed there. I don't really care that it is mostly women that are playing lemonade stand patty cake fund-raiser, and don't believe that it is in anyway sexist to point that out. My concern is the destructive effect it has on the movement.
Okay, gotcha and thanks for the clarification. So how do we get around that? Given that most women are straight, most straight women are socialised to behave that way vis a vis men and, while not as terrified as men are to be thought queer, are terrified to be thought queer.

Agreed there. I don't really care that it is mostly women that are playing lemonade stand patty cake fund-raiser, and don't believe that it is in anyway sexist to point that out. My concern is the destructive effect it has on the movement.
Okay, gotcha and thanks for the clarification. So how do we get around that? Given that most women are straight, most straight women are socialised to behave that way vis a vis men and, while not as terrified as men are to be thought queer, are terrified to be thought queer.

Wait, I am confused here, how does being queer factor in?

I mean, I can see why you might take offense at my point, but all I am talking about is experiential observations. If you are contending that there aren't many women who intentionally provoke men looking to cause a physical altercation they can be the 'victim' of, that's crazy.

Sure we can argue the root causes, and why those things are, but I don't think it means imposing restraints on stating the obvious either. I also don't think it amounts to blaming women, and I don't think its sexist to say women may be predisposed to a different lifestyle than men. Of course they are, they bear the children!

If you are saying there isn't an underlying imperative for girls to feel 'secure' then I have like 8 schizo girls to introduce you to as evidence to the contrary (some of them are so schizo, two introductions will be in order :) )

That doesn't mean its across the board, but I can't recall the last time I heard a girl go ROAD TRIP! I can recall questions like "will we be stopping every two hours so I can go pee?"

Agreed there. I don't really care that it is mostly women that are playing lemonade stand patty cake fund-raiser, and don't believe that it is in anyway sexist to point that out. My concern is the destructive effect it has on the movement.
Okay, gotcha and thanks for the clarification. So how do we get around that? Given that most women are straight, most straight women are socialised to behave that way vis a vis men and, while not as terrified as men are to be thought queer, are terrified to be thought queer.

Wait, I am confused here, how does being queer factor in?

I mean, I can see why you might take offense at my point, but all I am talking about is experiential observations. If you are contending that there aren't many women who intentionally provoke men looking to cause a physical altercation they can be the 'victim' of, that's crazy.

Sure we can argue the root causes, and why those things are, but I don't think it means imposing restraints on stating the obvious either. I also don't think it amounts to blaming women, and I don't think its sexist to say women may be predisposed to a different lifestyle than men. Of course they are, they bear the children!
The connection is that dykes generally don't behave in relationships (work or romantic) the same way straight women do. So that's excellent evidence that it's learned, not inbuilt, behavior since, as has been accepted since the '70s at least, there are no significant behavioral differences between people that are (a) inbuilt and (b) correlate with sexuality.


If you are saying there isn't an underlying imperative for girls to feel 'secure' then I have like 8 schizo girls to introduce you to as evidence to the contrary (some of them are so schizo, two introductions will be in order :) )
"Schizo" usually means schizophrenic, and that has nothing to do with multiple personalities. :) (seriously, it doesn't. the 'schism' in schizophrenia is between what's going on in the world and the person's reaction to it. People with multiple personalities are rarely psychotic, whereas those who get a schizophrenia diagnosis definitely are.)

As far as security goes, women and men feel the same need. They simply express it differently, per the difference in who is assigned social responsibility for child-rearing x the total lack of social support under Capitalism. The "imperative for girls to feel secure" is a very realistic economic one. Compare, for example, the behavior of many Black women to that of Whites: Black women often have a support network of other women, and feel little need to seek security from men. They realistically assess the pervasive racism in the US and understand that men are unlikely to provide anywhere near the level of economic and social security that their mother, sisters, and friends provide.



That doesn't mean its across the board, but I can't recall the last time I heard a girl go ROAD TRIP! I can recall questions like "will we be stopping every two hours so I can go pee?"
That's physiological: women have smaller bladders. And it doesn't take most straight women long to figure out that, like asking for directions, stopping to pee is Not Done unless positively demanded. :twisted:

That doesn't mean its across the board, but I can't recall the last time I heard a girl go
ROAD TRIP! I can recall questions like "will we be stopping every two hours so I can go pee?"
That's physiological: women have smaller bladders. And it doesn't take most straight women long to figure out that, like asking for directions, stopping to pee is Not Done unless positively demanded. :twisted:

No one is against stopping to pee..just step 5 feet clear of the vehicle and let loose.. :!:

Hmmm I guess I have some girls to apologize to for misdiagnosing their psychosis. The etymology of the word really sucks though bc it means something like 'of two minds', doesn't it? I am going to make a phone call or two saying "sorry you are might not be schizophrenic like I said you are just psychotic and bi-polar..my bad"

Also, I'd just like to point that Mike is being more underhandedly snarky than me here hahaha.."patty cake fruitstand" indeed!

How did I miss this? Must be all the work piling up around me on assorted surfaces blocking my view. Better clear some crap out of the way in case I have to jump in!

For me, 'doing' is where it's at. That might be my shrink training, because in shrinkage someone can 'make progress' forever while never actually getting anywhere. So the goal is not to make progress toward some goal, but to actually arrive. The same thing is true in engineering. We can analyze forever (your point, above), but nothing happens until we build.

Again, it might be my personal background getting in the way, but to me politics is the same: it's all just hot air until we change the law, change the economy, jail the crooked cops, et lengthy cetera. So my question--my constant question--is how do we get there from here? How do we get to the point where changes have been made? Preferably before Earth passes the point of no return for us. What's the next step? How do we take it?


My father was a shrink and it sure as hell seemed like a mighty lot of talking before it got to the doing. First you need to work up to the problem until you can see it and then you need to formulate a plan , a goal, a strategy, an approach, to confront it--and then the doing starts---sometimes structured baby steps. Why rush in and make the same mistakes again and again? Can't tell you how many marches I traveled far to be in, along with millions of others standing in sub-zero temps for hours--just to be continually ignored by our elected officials. Here, we have reached the next step--the realization that the old avenue of action is a closed door in these times under these circumstances. In these times, it is not enough for the ruling class to set the terms as a fashion statement, a new age self-centeredness as a politically correct social event for those who can barely mask the elitist partisan scorn of the neoLiberal activist. These are not my father's liberals and doing something for Kucinich while sneering at those not in the in crowd who "VOTED FOR REAGAN", instead of seeing solidarity with all isn't doing a damn thing. In fact, it is undoing.

My father was a shrink and it sure as hell seemed like a mighty lot of talking before it got to the doing. First you need to work up to the problem until you can see it and then you need to formulate a plan , a goal, a strategy, an approach, to confront it--and then the doing starts---sometimes structured baby steps. Why rush in and make the same mistakes again and again? Can't tell you how many marches I traveled far to be in, along with millions of others standing in sub-zero temps for hours--just to be continually ignored by our elected officials. Here, we have reached the next step--the realization that the old avenue of action is a closed door in these times under these circumstances. In these times, it is not enough for the ruling class to set the terms as a fashion statement, a new age self-centeredness as a politically correct social event for those who can barely mask the elitist partisan scorn of the neoLiberal activist. These are not my father's liberals and doing something for Kucinich while sneering at those not in the in crowd who "VOTED FOR REAGAN", instead of seeing solidarity with all isn't doing a damn thing. In fact, it is undoing.
I couldn't agree more, Raph. My main goal at this point is to keep it real by holding up the placard that says 'talking, by itself, is not a solution'. I'm sure your dad had clients in his practice who were positively stiff with insight...but nevertheless got no closer to having a more-authentic and rewarding everyday life. That's a conflict of interest for the therapist, but most manage to resolve it in a way that keeps the money coming in. Do we have a similar conflict?

can't say much for your taste in women.

Seems to me you are operating on some stereotypes there, Mike.

http://fempages.org/images/italien.JPG

http://athena.english.vt.edu/~appalach/ ... songs.html (http://athena.english.vt.edu/~appalach/writersM/protestsongs.html)

http://fempages.org/images/postk.jpg

http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/F2005WS ... 201945.jpg (http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/F2005WS267/RimmaTsvasman/femaleitalianpartisanspatrollingMilan%201945.jpg)

Well, it is a start. And it certainly part of a process.

Here is what I said:


But one thing I notice - many [women] talk to their fellow activists as though they were scolding or lecturing grade school children, and they tailor their ideas for activism around unworkable models as though a social event were being organized rather than a mass political mobilization. I also see a strong streak of authoritarianism there - a willingness to embrace any means to achieve ends that are mostly about being safe. The presumed but unstated goal is to have everyone be happy, adjusted, socialized, safe and healthy little beings, all getting along and sharing their toys with one another, under the watchful eyes of a strict but fair and compassionate and nurturing nanny.
I didn't say that this tells us anything about women in general, and it most assuredly does not in any way apply to you.

A vocal minority within the activist community is what I am talking about, and I think it has more to do with class than gender.

Here is what I said:


But one thing I notice - many [women] talk to their fellow activists as though they were scolding or lecturing grade school children, and they tailor their ideas for activism around unworkable models as though a social event were being organized rather than a mass political mobilization. I also see a strong streak of authoritarianism there - a willingness to embrace any means to achieve ends that are mostly about being safe. The presumed but unstated goal is to have everyone be happy, adjusted, socialized, safe and healthy little beings, all getting along and sharing their toys with one another, under the watchful eyes of a strict but fair and compassionate and nurturing nanny.
I didn't say that this tells us anything about women in general, and it most assuredly does not in any way apply to you.

A vocal minority within the activist community is what I am talking about, and I think it has more to do with class than gender.

When i read your subject line I snorted soup up my nose, laughing.

When i read your subject line I snorted soup up my nose, laughing.
heh heh :twisted:

I haven't mentioned any names, but you know the goody two shoes den-mother from hell folks I am talking about from over at other sites.