Not Exactly My Point of View

PointInstead of a rant, I'm gonna just link to this, and say that, no matter what you think, you're wrong. Everybody. Everything. All wrong.
CounterPointWrong as Wrain. Anybody?
PointlessOK, how 'bout this: I'm gonna re-read this, and you read as much as you can read. Then, I'll post something offensive and you comment on it. It'll be great, I promise.

Edit: added, 3:15pm
Here's where I'm sittin' on this, having read the first 3 and being a chunk of the way into 4:
First, I disagree with him that women are incapable of thought. Granted, he's right that women are guided by emotions to a far, far greater degree than most men. It's also creepy how right he was about the Viktor Travis/Rick anecdote. Just be happy every waking minute. That works and it's awful that it does, and its awful that I knew that before I read it from him and it's really too bad that I've used it ever.
Y'see, I suppose I'm one of those whipped husbands he talks about. Granted, I'm not married, but I've chosen to live my life with a woman and it's not possible to be sensible all the time. It is possible to affect happiness all the time, and in that way create the absolutely wonderful illusion of satisfaction. I'm afraid it's a trick we all know.
A complaint I've had for a long time: the appropriateness of crying. Personaly, I don't know how to deal with it. If, in the middle of a public appearance, President Bush chose to burst into tears instead of answering criticisms of his choices in Iraq, he would be ridiculed and his mental abilities called into question even before he'd left the room. Everyone would decide that he was doing this either because he was unfit for office or because he was ducking the question. If, in the course of a discussion, a woman bursts into tears, that's probably my fault or perhaps to be expected. If there's any kind of emotional content to the discussion, my natural tendancy to examine my situation and react, attempting to be calm, is hard and callous.
I was schooled in the 80s and 90s, and was told over and over again that women and men were absolutely and inarguably equal in all things. I honestly believed it for a long time, too. Hell, I still believe it about many and several things, with the following two exceptions: a)any given two people are not equal; b)many, many women are sore, mean and/or irrational for one week in a month, or five days in 28, or whatever their natural cycle is (vs. the regulatory nature of birth control. Your results my vary), and I'm not.
All men are created equal in the eyes of the law. This means that my status as a healthy landowner, from a family of landowners, does not entitle me to extra votes or representation in Congress. I get one vote. A blind woman with no arms or legs also gets one vote. In the eyes of the law, as regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers, we are the same because in a democratic Republic, the worth of a man is very directly equated to his ability to participate in the public discourse that is voting. However, and this may seem callous or cruel, in a foot-race, the odds will probably be on me.
As to the other thing: I don't know exactly how to elaborate. I don't menstruate: I don't have painful cramps with regularity; I don't have hormonal emotional embalances every month; I don't lose blood unless a hole is put in me. That's the truth. Does it mean women are inferior? No. Does it mean that women and men are not equal? Yes.
Women and men aren't the same. "Homosexualists," and "Heterosexualists" are not the same. It's the truth.
So, he's got a point there.
I actually took offense to his implication that women and children should be treated the same; that it is the job of a man to hand down physical and verbal reprimands to women as he would children. I think that's a load of crap, and is actually Sim using the arguement he attacks in pointing out that children are not adults and cannot be treated as such. The same goes for adults. If a man treats a woman like a child, he is not showing her the respect she deserves as a grown adult. I think this goes with my disagreement on the subject of thought. I know women can think. This fact alone is enough to require their treatment as equals.
Now, going back, I agree with him that it is the job of adults to rear children. I know my biggest regret as I grow older will be my handling of my child. I can justify it by saying that I was very young when she was born, and that this entitles me to errors in judgement regarding her upbringing, but I also thought and still think that she has received the best treatment given her options.
My parents, who are rearing her, are very good at it. They do a service that cannot be overstated with regard to their four direct children and also to Ruth. Any twisted ideas I've picked up I can, with confidence, say I picked up from the world at large and not from them. They are decent people who are, infuriatingly at times, very good parents. I'm proud, though, that neither parent claimed exclusive pervue of discipline. Neither of my parents was the "soft" one, and neither was the ogre. They are humans, guided by human moods and emotions, which is what growing children need to have exposure to.
So, that's my take right now on parts 1-3(ish). I've read the Cerebus issues these came from, but I'm a modern child and I have trouble reading from newsprint. I'm sure I absorbed more of this with this reading than from the issues. How 'bout that.