Getting back to Heinlein, I guess he was one of my favorite authors because of exactly what is described here. His characters were always strong manly men. In his early years females didn't show up much in Sci-Fi. In his later writigns, all the females were all randy women who enjoyed a man between their legs, and welcomed her husband's support and protection.

His worst novel, in my opinion, was "Stranger" about a Martian immigrant. A lot of hippies loved it and it spawned a religon called "Church of All Worlds." His later novels eschewed organized religion, advocated lots of recreational sex, but still supported strong marriages and families.

I can see where the modern PC/gay/feminsit wouldn't "grock" Heinlein. He could be read and enjoyed by men of all walks of life. His leading men had valor and courage, and kicked ass when needed. His vision of the future was optimistic, but based more on manly values than Star Trek.

I have no use for "balanced" media. By "balanced" they usually mean allowing the idiots to have at least equal time with good sense. If they don't like Heinlein that is their problem. Those idiots can pound sand.

blessings

Bob

One thing that I did find to be weird about Starship Troopers is that only women were allowed to be pilots. For some reason in the story, they were considered to be the only ones suitable for the job. Then again, it's only fiction!

Right. It's a strange book really. The women aren't troopers as I remember, they're just alot of the pilots. Were all the pilots women? That IS weird.

The film (hated by fans of the book quite often I know) depicts a PC socialist nightmare future quite well lol


I guess Paul Verhoeven knows what that looks like having lived under Nazi rule. The equal locker room/showering scenario is actually kinda possible when we consider women journalists interviewing male athletes in the showers.

Aren't all his sci-fi satires basically about how he sees america?

He says this about Robocop "I don't condemn it and I don't condone it, it's more that I see it and I'm going to portray it"

Manliness suggests strength of character. It is perhaps the central defining feature. Heinlein portrayed many of his protagonists as having such character strength but was not shy of showing their lesser bretheren either. He used examples of both in a clearly drawn fashion and was not beyond portraying women who exhibited a similarly broad range of attributes. The women pilots are an example, taken up by 'Ripley' in 'Aliens'.

It is the character, not simply the demeanour that counts. Which brings us to how MRAs see strength of character.

Strong women attract me. I like strong, independant, intelligent women of character especially when they are sexy too.

So just why Bob snipes at Kelly I don't know. Kelly - I don't know what she looks like or if she wiggles her bum the way I like - appears in her blog work and on this board, as being a woman with strength of character, strong, independant and intelligent. There doesn't appear to be a word in the lexicon that gives a female equivalent to 'manliness' as I have defined it above. Perhaps Bob can turn his talent to finding it. Meanwhile, bagging a proven MRA who does all of us proud, is no way for a manly man to behave.

That makes sense. I always have liked the way Ripley is portrayed in the frist two Alien movies. Competent yet not bitchy. Vulnerable yet not helpless.

Well, Percy, I'll side with the men every day of the week.

The classic feminist shaming tactics that Kelly used are no better for a female who is "strong, independent, and intelligent." If she really is so, she should not need to call for someone's banishment for disagreeing with feminsist principles and then lapse into common shaming tactics. I'm not picking on Kelly, she started the shaming tactics with me. As long as she keeps at it she will get it refuted. None of that feminsist crap should be acceptable, even for a "strong, independent,intelligent" female.

I understand that she does oppose a lot of the current feminist dogma, but that's no excuse for attacking men like a common feminist.



Blessings

Bob

[quote=knight-errant;60671The film (hated by fans of the book quite often I know) depicts a PC socialist nightmare future quite well lol
[/quote]

LOL. The film and film book were such a joke. They supposedly lived in the 23rd century and flew spaceships, but their infantry weapons were right out of WW II. And they had no guns. Even a battery of Civil War field pieces would have greatly improved their effectiveness against the bugs. The horrible inconsistency of technology, and the huge death toll that it caused was offensive to anyone with half a brain. It was way beyond willing suspension of disbelief.

Heinlein's Troopers had to walk 5 miles apart to keep from killing each other. No antique pop guns for them. They did some serious hurt, closer to what one might expect from men riding space ships.

Blessings

Bob

No disagreement here with any of that.

No one can doubt my MRA credentials. Yet I have fought too many men - manginas and others - to pay too much positive attention simply to genitals. I stand for Truth, even when uncomfortable. And the Truth is that there are some women who are damned fine MRAs.

I don't seek perfection in fellow MRAs, Bob. We all have our disagreeable parts. I don't seek 100% adherence by anyone to every declared aspect of the MRM. Some repulse me. We do our best to support one another nevertheless and need to look to our own behaviours vis a vis one another.

I don't like wasting my sword on whacking farm-boys with the flat side. But I especially don't like seeing a staunch MRA get the pointy bit shoved in by a fellow MRA just because she wears a skirt. Kelly is my sister, in spirit.

Kelly is on our side. You - or I - do not have to agree with every aspect of her persona and declared interests to respect her for her achievements. She is in our foxhole. She points her gunself at the enemy. If you want to jump in too, be careful where your boots land. She is a better and more disciplined shooter than you are and she is of effective calibre.

You are mistaken about me, Bob. I do oppose real, actual rape, as I have to assume you do, as well. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't oppose brutal physical assault.

However, I have written extensively against so-called "gray rape", against morning after regrets, against teasing and changing her mind at the last possible second. I don't consider any of that rape, as much as poor choices. I've also written quite a bit about the effects of false accusations on the accused, the accused getting his name and picture in the paper before conviction, kangaroo courts, and the punishment those who falsely accuse should get.

I haven't been raped since way before puberty, but I can tell you for a fact that it is nothing like "getting laid". You saying that it is is what I object to. If you want to say I used shaming tactics on you, that's your privilege. But I call em like I see em.

Act unstable, I'll call you on it. I don't care if you have a penis or not.

We're on the side of men, at least I think we are, and manginas are not men.


Blessings

Bob