Less Stephanie, Please

[alaric89]

Speaking of saying stupid things, why are you so against closed neighborhoods and clubs in a free society? You realize the fact that they voluntarily exist now indicates strongly that they would likely turn up in a free society don't you?
 I like the idea anyway, because it lets commies and racist have a chance to live their dream on its merits.
 I can say to a anarcho socialist or a separatist "So, your afraid of living in a free society? You and a group of like minded people are free to acquire territory and live like you want." The person I am arguing with gets a little spark of clarity that liberty and respecting the NAP is the key for the most happiness for everyone.
 Every now and then one might get some silly mass suicide like Jonestown or one might get some repugnant lifestyle choices like the Branch Davidians or even disgusting racist towns but at least they would be voluntary and their own goddamn problem.
 And for everyone else it gives a simple practical answer to "who builds the roads" and other hogwash.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Either I missed something or that was intended for another thread.

[alaric89]

That post was addressed at Dale, but any twit who believes that voluntary clubs and closed neighborhoods wouldn't exist in a free society is welcome to weigh in.

[FTL_Mark]

As an amplifier, I was shocked and disappointed to hear that Stephanie is paid to be on the air.

She is paid completely by me. No AMP money goes to her pay. She drives an hour both ways to do the show. Gas costs money. I want a commitment from her that she will be there. Money gets commitment. I know you don't like her as a co-host, but the downloads on the Sunday Show tend to be better than average for FTL. Her work is worth money. It isn't like Ian brings in any money either. I pay everybody. I am the sales dept.

[Cognitive Dissident]

As an amplifier, I was shocked and disappointed to hear that Stephanie is paid to be on the air.

She is paid completely by me. No AMP money goes to her pay. She drives an hour both ways to do the show. Gas costs money. I want a commitment from her that she will be there. Money gets commitment. I know you don't like her as a co-host, but the downloads on the Sunday Show tend to be better than average for FTL. Her work is worth money. It isn't like Ian brings in any money either. I pay everybody. I am the sales dept.

As you are quite fond of saying, money is fungible.  I stopped listening to the Sunday show.  FWIW, my iTunes downloads every show.  Everyone else's probably does too.  I just have to delete it.

[FTL_Mark]

As an amplifier, I was shocked and disappointed to hear that Stephanie is paid to be on the air.

She is paid completely by me. No AMP money goes to her pay. She drives an hour both ways to do the show. Gas costs money. I want a commitment from her that she will be there. Money gets commitment. I know you don't like her as a co-host, but the downloads on the Sunday Show tend to be better than average for FTL. Her work is worth money. It isn't like Ian brings in any money either. I pay everybody. I am the sales dept.

As you are quite fond of saying, money is fungible.  I stopped listening to the Sunday show.  FWIW, my iTunes downloads every show.  Everyone else's probably does too.  I just have to delete it.

The money isn't fungible because it isn't my money. I don't control it. Ian does. We make decisions on where to spend ad money because we have money that most be spent on ads. I can assure you I wouldn't agree to our ad budget if it was coming out of my money. This money is a little fungible, but mostly not.

Most people don't automatically download the program. We know this because of the large disparity in downloads on different shows. I wish they did but they don't. between 1,500 and 2,000 people do. We get up to 10,000 downloads a show.

You don't like her. Many people do. I hear from them often. To me, metrics are the most objective measurement of performance and the downloads are the most actuate metrics I can get. What do you think I should do? Tell her that What's the Frequency Kenneth thinks you are annoying, straighten up?

[freeAgent]

There used to be no Sunday show at all and I believe you AMPed then.  The Sunday show, even if it is completely worthless to you, has not diminished the return you're getting for AMP money.  I think the Sunday show has probably done a lot more than a few Google Adword results FTL could buy with Stephanie's gas money.

I guess you could argue that the Sunday show has negative value for you, but I think that's a stretch.

[Cognitive Dissident]

There used to be no Sunday show at all and I believe you AMPed then.  The Sunday show, even if it is completely worthless to you, has not diminished the return you're getting for AMP money.  I think the Sunday show has probably done a lot more than a few Google Adword results FTL could buy with Stephanie's gas money.

I guess you could argue that the Sunday show has negative value for you, but I think that's a stretch.

It wasn't costing any money, either.  I doubt the Sunday show has any google adwords specifically earning it money.  In fact, I think it's using up some of that too.  People are acting like I'm the only one who's put off by her act.  Plenty have spoken up.  There were two or three other threads, not started by me.  For each of those people, there are probably countless others who just decided it's not worth discussing.

What's more, as the title indicates, it's not about getting rid of her.  It's about reducing her status to something more like it deserves.

[freeAgent]

She gets on my nerves too, sometimes.  However, I think that she may actually be better than Mark at things like wrapping up at the end of a segment (as opposed to talking right into it and getting cut off).  She seems to handle it better.

[Dalebert]

[ElGuapo]

I've decided to stop complaining about Stephanie because it is a waste of energy and there is too much negativity in my life as it is.

Mark feels like she makes a desirable impact on the show...he is wrong, but it's his show to do with as he pleases, so as long as nobody is forcing me to listen to it; why bother complaining? My future silence on the topic of Stephanie Murphy should not be interpreted as a tacit endorsement - I turn off the podcast when hear her voice, even when it's just a commercial - I've heard enough of her idiotic dribble to last 6 lifetimes and I will not willingly subject myself to her ever again.

[xelent]

I'm sorry I've come rather late to this debate, and apologies for the rather long post. Also I was only able to read the comments up to page 20, so someone may have already covered this perhaps. However, I think (hope maybe) it might help put peoples frustrations about Stephanie and feminism into perspective perhaps. I want to caveat firstly that I was naturally drawn to liking Stephanie from the get-go, but that it has been her particular take on this topic that has caused me some frustration with her. However, I do not consider her a man hater at all. With that in mind, I hope she looks at my criticism as constructive.

I've taken some great strides personally with many of the claims of feminism. Much of which has led me into criticising myself as a man as well. I believe what rankles many men about Stephanie's commentry around feminism. Although it eludes to equality, it mostly ignores much of men's experiences of dealing with women. At its extreme if a woman cries rape and it's false, there is little to no sympathy for such a man. Indeed the expression 'mud always sticks', is all too often the saying. In western culture very often the female who lied is still given protection, whilst the guys reputation is torn to shreds. As for all the statistics that have been banded around about female rape, much of which is questionable. With all this it's often very frustrating for men to be tarred by the same brush, as creeps, aggressive, violent, deadbeat dads, potential rapists etc etc. This is not to ignore all the issues that women suffer from. But women have a very big and very loud voice in our culture. I would go as far as to say that politically they are a protected class even. This goes against everything that mainstream feminism proclaims of course, because it suggests that men rather than women are the real victims. Of course it is the state primarily that underwrites this culture, by teaming up with feminists to use law, welfare and education to the detriment of men and more importantly fathers. I say all this knowing full well that Stephanie doesn't support much, if any of the above.

To take this to an everyday level, rather than the extremes above, Why is it that when a guy shows an interest in a women she doesn't feel attracted too, she will claim being creeped out. But as a man who on occasions of being approached by women for actual sex and just politely declined, carried on with my day unabashed. Essentially, the guy having been already rejected is now publically scolded for being a sex pest. Yet if a guy was to make the same claim about a women that he rejected, his claim would be considered as weird or odd. The ability to humiliate a man in an instance is quite a powerful weapon women have. It's a weapon that all men know only too well of course. Which is a reason why some guys are crushingly shy when approaching women. Their shyness underlying their abject terror of being humiliated publically. As men we must discover ways to attract women. These all too often involve modifying our behaviour to match the perceived needs and desires of women. So women have grown to expect this special treatment as normal. Thankfully a lot of women choose not to always wield the humiliation card. However, an equally interesting question to ask in this scenario, why do men take a woman's approach to them often as a compliment, whilst women very often view a mans approach as harassment? Notwithstanding that both men and women can 'act out' with either gender which can be considered as real 'harassment'. Anyway regardless of whether this power disparity is normal or right even. It is never discussed by so called feminists or gender egalitarians even. But it's one of a few areas in which women hold all the cards.

If Stephanie approached the topic in this balanced way, I do think she would garner a lot more support from her male audience. It's deeply demotivating for men to hear what they have been hearing all their lives from the culture they live in. Men are bad, sex fiends, dysfunctional and violent. The constant referencing to these accusations even subtly, belies the very real effort most men have gone too, in trying to understand a women's needs and desires. Since men have been taught that exposing their feelings can be very dangerous for them. Not to mention men's needs and desires very often taking second place to that of a woman's, without a blink or complaint by the man. These I consider as some of the more useful topics to engage men in the topic of 'equality', but I rarely if ever hear them being discussed. So I've said enough for now I think. I hope I made some sense. 

[Dalebert]

Tom Brady on SNL skit (Smigel): "Sexual Harassment and You"

[Dalebert]

With that in mind, I hope she looks at my criticism as constructive.

Stephanie doesn't read this bbs.

[xelent]

With that in mind, I hope she looks at my criticism as constructive.

Stephanie doesn't read this bbs.

Thanks Dale for the info, I'll have to take a look at that video when I get home. Smartfone incapable of much beyond board postings and FB.