 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / January 2007FeministFilth.com -- 2007 Award Winner
* * 2007 Feminist Filth Award Winner - Aidan Salakhova, Moscow Art Dealer * * Soviet men are weak? Aidan Salakhova, Moscow Art Dealer, FORTUNE Magazine, 16Oct2006 pg76 says, "The Soviet system made men passive. After perestroika, it became clear that women are quicker, more flexible, and more capable than men, and they stopped putting up with their husbands. A lot of couples got divorced, myself included." A Question For Aidan: Feminists have short memories. What did Soviet Russian women say about Russian men in 1942 when the Red Army defended Stalingrad? > * * 2007 Feminist Filth Award Winner - Aidan Salakhova, Moscow Art > Dealer * * [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Russian women say about Russian men in 1942 when the Red Army defended > Stalingrad? What _did_ they say? Wasn't there an experiment after 1917 with consent divorce, just by filing a document with the Registrar of Marriages? I had to study the question whether such a marriage was even a marriage under English law (it was.) The people wanted something more binding. Communism does seem to stop any economic development. A calendar here had a photo of Havana, Cuba, and says that "time has stood still there" for 40 years. The same thing happened in Russia. Everybody had cars that were no longer produced outside the country. That must sap initiative, and cultivate a "why bother?" attitude. But what has perestroika done for men? If the men haven't been freed by it, they have only themselves to blame, for either ostrichism or habitual outlook. Blaming the women only frees the men from responsibility to change. Someone said that the Jews spent 40 years in the wilderness until the slave generation died off and a new, young generation, hardened by the conditions and more suited to colonizing a new land, took its place. By the rule of thumb (20 years per generation,) they were the grandchildren. (In any community, Communist or capitalist, it is the leaders and thinkers who progress. Many of the ordinary people just don't care, or they will take any leader who promises stability. Think of how many Americans don't bother to vote. In Australia, voting is compulsory, so some vote informal, and the "donkey voters", the ones who just put 1,2.3... down the ballot-paper, are a force to be reckoned with. That is what is really wrong with Communist political theory. America was fed the same image of humanity by Rousseau.) At the bottom line, if women were better afterwards, they were better under Communism as well. It sounds more like women getting the right to divorce. (One of my suggestions was renewable marriage licences, say every ten years. As with aircraft pilots. make couples prove their marriage skills to get a renewal. Or, as with the professions, make them prove that they have updated their skills recently. Utopia, I suppose.) Doug L.  SignatureA Lifetime of happiness! No man alive could bear it; it would be hell on earth. - G.B. Shaw. Dear Doug, > > * * 2007 Feminist Filth Award Winner - Aidan Salakhova, Moscow Art > > Dealer * * > > > > Soviet men are weak? Aidan Salakhova, Moscow Art Dealer, FORTUNE > > Magazine says, "The Soviet system made men passive, etc. You replied: > Someone said that the Jews spent 40 years in the wilderness until > the slave generation died off and a new, young generation, hardened by the > conditions and more suited to colonizing a new land, took its place. By > the rule of thumb (20 years per generation) they were the grandchildren. This is completely off-topic, of course, but it is interesting that you mention the word "slavery" in connection with the plight of men in Russia today. Many historians believe that the Russians have had so many problems because they have for millenia been dominated by a slave mentality, regardless of gender. The theory is that repeated incursions and conquest by foreigners, first the Vikings and later the Mongols, left the majority of Russians feeling helpless and demoralized. Some speculate that this eventually led to a passivity and fatalism that many associate with the "dark" Russian "soul". So I suspect the slave mentality goes way back and maybe it just can't be cured in one generation . . Furthermore, Richard Pipes, a professor of Russian/Soviet history at Harvard who was also an advisor to Pres. Reagan advanced a theory along these lines: He proposed that the Russian system of property ownership (going back centuries) in which only the Tsar and the nobility were allowed to own land and the rest of the people were serfs (slaves, basically), further nurtured a "slave mentality" and a self-destructiveness that seems more prevalent in Russia than in other lands. That's why people sometimes say Russians can't function without a strongman (master) to tell them what to do. Maybe it's inbred? > (One of my suggestions was renewable marriage licences, say every ten years. > As with aircraft pilots. make couples prove their marriage skills to get a > renewal. Or, as with the professions, make them prove that they have > updated their skills recently. Utopia, I suppose.) I don't know of any country that makes granting marriage license contingent upon passing a skills test. But it's a great idea. I know in order to get a professional license I had to not only pass a test but be approved by a committee on "character and fitness". I mean, that was just in order to get a job. Don't you think it's even more important to evaluate couples for their "fitness" to be married? (And even more so potential parents!) I know I have to take continuing ed courses in order to maintain my prof'l license. It would be great if married couples had to take CME (continuing marital education?) in order to stay married but of course it will never happen. Utopia it is. Anyway, you make some interesting conversation and thanks for standing up to that woman-hater. Leah Leah: Not only off topic, but Doug will not likely see it. He cross posted. Chief: Please note the full redaction. > Dear Doug, Chief Dear Steve and All, > Leah: Not only off topic, but Doug will not likely see it. He cross > posted. I really do apologize. It was in the wee hrs. of the night and I was lonely and bored and the subject happened to interest me. Too bad. You see, I am taking a lot of caffeine as a treatment for migraines (with the doc's approval) and if you do that you'll not only be all wired up but if you take it at night you will end up with insomnia. Always used to dose off when I hit the pillow. Anyway, mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. About the cross posting I have a couple of things to say: First, I don't really understand the concept but I think I am starting to get the idea. I have really made an effort to learn the etiquette of online conversation (like joining alt.newusers and reading a number of articles about ng's) but I find that the only thing that helps is experience. I have a real problem with some of my MLs because if I post something there I end up getting email from everybody else who posts on the thread...or something like that. Haven't figured it out yet. I also got a nice letter from the moderator of the yahoo newsgroup telling me that in order to post in the right place all I should do is hit the "reply" button. Well, what does he think I'd been doing? Worst of all, I can't manage my mail without a secretary. I don't think you old-timers realize how confounding all this can be. You know I stopped reading the msgs from alt.newusers because they were so technical I couldn't understand any of it. BTW, I have NEVER added another addressee when posting or responding to any msg in this group. I looked at some of the archives here and someone had said the way to tell if someone is c-p is to click on "reply" and see who the addressees are. You know I don't do this habitually and i'm actually wondering if it would even work if I clicked the delete button. You vets can probably sense when somebody is crossposting but I don't possess that instinct. Sometimes I will click on "profile" and see what other msgs the author is posting. But that doesn't tell me if he's cross-posting in this case. You know I think what happened here is what netlingo calls "cross-roasting". I thought it was an interesting word so i snipped it: (BTW, net lingo has NO entry for cross-posting??) Anyway, crossroasting is: "The act of following up a message posted to a Usenet newsgroup by adding one or more additional newsgroups to the response in an effort to bring the original post to the attention of those likely to flame it. For example, in a follow-up to a particularly over-the-top feminist rant, a cross-roaster might add the post to alt.mens-rights and soc.men." Touche. Do you have any idea how long It took for me to figure out the above definition?? I certainly don't want to encourage the women-haters. You know there are a lot of of misogynists who also happen to have pc (I think there's a link) so they also post here. Does that mean they're cross-posting? I don't know why c-p is always a bad thing. Consider this real-life situation: I belong to this group and also to alt.impotence. So let's say I post something about ED to both groups and somebody from the impotency group responds with a topical answer. Is that bad? It would really be a service if you would "define" certain things for newbies like what's off-topic. And also apply the rules to everybody. There's somebody here who regularly talks about politics, the Iraq war, the bad behavior of the underprivileged and so forth and I don't see him being called on it. Also, on the topic of what's appropriate I realize I have posted some really long messages. Some of them include reprints of articles. Is this okay? You know people refer you to great places but if I just get a URL I'm not going to go there and I might be missing out... The other day I gave my husband something I was going to post and asked him to edit it and I told him to show no mercy, to slash away, and he did. So maybe I'll get a second opinion more often. There is one important thing about my posting that I have to set straight: The worst thing is that I gave JJ a post to read and he said I sounded like an EVANGELIST because I had quoted something from the bible! I was horrified bec. I'm no bible thumper and i hope people don't think I'm preaching to them! That's not my intent. It happens to be that the biggest struggle of my life involved extricating myself from a fundamentalist religious sect, so I don't take dogma from anybody. I make my own decisions. So, if you got the wrong impression, please understand that I am not a religious fanatic nor a superstitious person. I have spoken up for religious groups like Evangelicals here only because I was sticking up for the underdog and also for the right of people to express relig. beliefs in these groups and not be ridiculed for it. I assure you that like AM, I believe in the God of Science and that's how I run my life but unlike AM, I think He is not infallible! Please understand that I have quoted the Good Book only because it has a lot of beauty and poetry in it. Look at any quotations website and you will see will tons of entries under "Bible." I read the bible as lit -- but maybe I hope it will turn into something more. I think religion is an appropriate topic here, to a LIMITED degree, because a lot of sick and dying people look to religion for comfort Some of the acronyms and abbreviations mentioned in this group are not listed on pca glossaries or even the prostatepointers site that Tom recommended. It's nice to have a "secret" language and it does help to have shortcuts for commonly used words but sometimes not understanding an acronym could have real consequences. Frex: I may be slow but for the longest time I couldn't figure out what SE meant. For some reason I thought what it meant was the ultimate side-effect: death. Of course this affected the way I perceived whatever I was reading. Also looked up PPOR the other day and couldn't find it anywhere but I think I have an idea. It would really be a service to newbies to post a list of the most commonly used terms as an FAQ. I would be willing to compile it. Having said that, why is there no shortcut for words we use ALL the time, say Incontinence?? Why not just call it I? Or Erection? How about just E? Best to you all and Happy New Year. Leah I am submitting this under another heading because otherwise no one will read it!! > Dear Steve and All, > [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > > Leah > Dear Steve and All, > >> Leah: Not only off topic, but Doug will not likely see it. He cross >> posted. > > I really do apologize. I really didn't need an apology, Leah. Let alone 14 paragraphs of apology. I'd say, "take it easy", but if you're hyped up on cafeine..... Dear Steve-- >>Leah: Not only off topic, but Doug will not likely see it. He cross > >> posted. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I really didn't need an apology, Leah. Let alone 14 paragraphs of apology. > I'd say, "take it easy", but if you're hyped up on cafeine..... First of all, there's no need to be snide...I'm in full control of my faculties, thank you. I said that the caffeine causes insomnia, not dementia. Also, apparently I had violated some rules of this NG and so I apologized. What's wrong with that. 1. Basically, the purpose of my response to you, the de facto moderator of this group, was to ask you (and others) to try to explain what some of the rules, customs and boundaries of this group were. Of course, this issue has come up many times before. Look in the archives under "Rules" (12/9/04) and you will find a pretty heated discussion about this subject and I'm sure there were many others. 2. You had raised the issue of cross-posting, so I just asked you to clarify exactly what cross-posting meant. That's what most of my msg was about. Look at the archives under "Ping" (8/12/06), and you will find that virtually ALL of the same questions I asked were raised by a long-time veteran of this group. The only difference is that that person got some answers. (Thank you, Joe.) You know, most people want to be law abiding. In real life, if somebody breaks a law, they can potentially defend themselves by saying the law was invalid because it was "void for vagueness". That's what comes to my mind when people here criticize one another for doing something they don't approve of. 3. I also discussed the difficulties newcomers have in deciphering some of the acronyms and abbreviations frequently used here, many of which are not in any pca "glossaries". Personally, I feel like what I've gone through here is a "hazing" trying to learn this "secret language". And I don't think I'm stupider than the average person. Plus, you know that this issue has been brought up many, many times before. If this were a kid's secret society or something, not knowing the meaning of words (or abbreviations or symbols) might not matter, but here it does. We are discussing life and death issues. And BTW, I also offered to go through the archives and compile a list of all the "jargon" used here, but you did not even bother to respond. 4. I raised the question of what exactly is "off-topic?" Heck, I (and many others) couldn't even figure out what OT meant! I found 135 entries on this subject alone in the archives. It would be nice if somebody explained to the newbies what the boundaries are, if any, of what is considered acceptable conversation. And BTW, I also mentioned that from what I've seen in some cases, one post may be labeled OT for one person and not for the other. 5. I also brought up some personal issues of my own that resulted from having my husband give me some feedback about my posts. My point was that, sometimes when you are new to online conversation, you can't "hear yourself talk" and you may say things or come across in ways that you didn't intend. I believe you get the hang of this with time. It wouldn't surprise me if some other newbies have struggled with this same problem. The reason I find this the best group is that it's packed with old-timers and in this case, older is wiser. I'm looking for the benefit of experience, not just info. But I think some veterans here are bored by posts addressed to newbies: they're just not interested in knowing the ABC's of something or another, but they need to keep in mind that a lot of other folks are. Also, a lot of the old-timers here are in more advanced stages of the disease, so they may be focused on other isses. For example, they may think Dr. Strum is a household name to every newly dx pca patient. We should all keep in mind that this is a very diverse group of people, and that we need to remember to be respectful of and sensitive to each other's needs. I WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT IF I HAD BEEN READING THIS NG A YEAR AGO, OR LOOKING AT CERTAIN WEBSITES, I MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF MY HUSBAND'S LIFE. Unfortunately, as it turned out, we did everything wrong and I mean EVERYTHING, from choosing the wrong doctor, to neglecting to get second opinions on biopsies and omitting critical diagnostic tests . We also had no idea of what the "gold standard" of follow-up care after RP was, and so we did not insist on getting it. For example, my husband got no information about "sexual rehab" and that might have cost him.That's why I have addressed a lot of my msgs to the newly dx and those who are in the early stages of this journey. I have spent a lot of time researching and writing msgs on "beginners" subjects like how to find and evaluate a doctor, how to find a good hospital, how to judge whether you're getting good care and how to insist that you get the best follow-up, including sexual rehabilitation. The other thing I talked about a lot was injection therapy for ED because like my husband and I, most patients face that problem to some degree or another after treatment. And there's some evidence that the earlier you treat it the better. Wish you all the best. LFC > Dear Steve-- > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > faculties, thank you. I said that the caffeine causes insomnia, not > dementia. Sorry. My humor sometimes falls flat. Usually when I foget the smiley. I was not trying to be snide. I was just letting you know that your instance of crossposting was not offensive to me. Dear Steve, Callalily wrote: > > First of all, there's no need to be snide...I'm in full control of my > > faculties, thank you. I said that the caffeine causes insomnia, not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was not trying to be snide. I was just letting you know that your instance > of crossposting was not offensive to me. Thanks for your note. I have never seen you to be mean, so why would you start now? When you told me I had written-something O-T and crossposted, the apology was for having taken the bait from a cross-poster (although I hadn't realized it at the time) and written a bunch of paragraphs about the "dark" Russian "soul", something completely extraneous to this group. I didn't take your comment about cross-posting as criticism, I just found it hard to know a cross-post when I saw one, so I was hoping to get a better explanation. I am not as "breakable" as people think; far from it, I'm one tough old bird. It's natural for new people to want to be accepted by the group, and breaking the rules is not a good way to start out . . .so it helps to have a clearer understanding of what the rules, customs and boundaries are. Thanks for your service to the group and best to you. Leah > 4. I raised the question of what exactly is "off-topic?" Heck, I > (and many others) couldn't even figure out what OT meant! I found 135 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that from what I've seen in some cases, one post may be labeled OT for > one person and not for the other. Leah, I havent been following this discussion too closely, so if I've jumped in here without sufficient background, forgive me and disregard what I say (Of course, you may do that in any case! :-) ) This issue has, of course, recently been argued about, sometimes with very strong feelings, by IP and me. I think common sense and broad-minded sensitivity should be the guide. This is a prostate cancer forum, and as far as I'm concerned it should deal with information about the disease and support for those suffering from it. Tangential topics, such as health care systems are appropriate. But here one must be careful, because we have people from different countries with different systems with which they are happy. And when we get into an "Ours is better than yours." debate it can get pretty chauvinistic. Also---and I feel very strongly about this---political positions and catchwords about political leaders, positions on societal issues and world affairs about which there is much and passionate disagreement have no place here. (Sometimes this has been done as a brief but no less inflamatory comment in the midst of a specific PCa discussion.) If the writer perceives the issue as really important to PCa, he/she must be very careful to present it in a non-advocatory or inflamatory way. If they simply cannot do this, they can go "OT" (Off-topic) with a word or two "humor", "politics", "religious position" describing the nature of the post. Sensitivity to others is the key here. We are united in, using Steve Kramer's words, "fighting the bastard" of prostate cancer and side-effects of its treatment. We should do everything we can not to alienate ourselves or others in a group the purpose of which is mutual support. It *can* be done. I rode for 20 years to work with a woman who was at opposite poles from me in religion and politics. We recognzed this about each other and still respected each other. We had a mutual agreement not to discuss politics or religion in an advocatory way, and we were very sensitive about when our comments might be treading on deeply held beliefs of the other. When we sensed that, we backed off. We are still firm friends. If it can be done between two people with very strong beliefs, riding together in the same car an hour a day, 5 days a week for 20 years, it can certainly be done on this forum. Well, that's my opinion. Claude Dear All, > * * 2007 Feminist Filth Award Winner - Aidan Salakhova, Moscow Art > Dealer * * > > A Question For Aidan: Feminists have short memories. What did Soviet > Russian women say about Russian men in 1942 when the Red Army defended > Stalingrad? They were probably too exhausted to say anything. The fact is that women (and children) were put to work building trenchworks and protective fortifications during the Battle of Stalingrad. And apparently you didn't know this: "The country that saw the most women involved in combat during World War II was the Soviet Union. Women played a large part in most of the armed forces of the Second World War, more than any other country. The Soviet Union saw large numbers of women fighting in the front lines. Over 800,000 women served their Motherland in World War II, nearly 200,000 of them decorated and 89 of those women eventually received the Soviet Union's highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. They served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans, as well as in auxiliary roles" Maybe you should invest in a history book, bro. I recommend anything my Richard Pipes. lfc > * * 2007 Feminist Filth Award Winner - Aidan Salakhova, Moscow Art > Dealer * * [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Russian women say about Russian men in 1942 when the Red Army defended > Stalingrad? Not the same women, I think, Doug. A woman old enough to be an adult and have an adult female response to the Battle of Stalingrad would be about...80. At least. It was, after all, more than *sixty* years ago. Did they divorce their husbands, those women? No, because most of them had dead husbands. In my own family tree, not *one* of our grandfathers/great grandfathers survived The Great War of Patriotism from 1941-45 or however they call it now in Russia. One great uncle - that's all. Out of something like 20 men whose names are known to us as cousins, uncles, etc. On the other hand, the skills Russian women have (of obtaining goods when none seem available, of sensing what things to stock up on, of figuring out how to transfer residence from an infested apartment to a Park Avenue style one) - are indeed impressive. It's probably due to women's ways of building networks in that region - and the huge number of widowed babushkas who spy on and attend to every detail of local life, giving info to the women they respect and admire (and sometimes control) and sharing very little with men - especially young men. I wonder if Russian men are going to slowly have lowered testosterone levels, like American men, over the past 20 years. The author of your cited article makes it sound as if Russian women might like to have an active, quick, assertive male at their side - but that Russian men (like many American men) have reacted to the quickness and competence of women by rolling up the sidewalks. A. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.