Feminism (was Re: The National Organization for Women Declares War on Fathers (CORRECT URL)
Amazon
Paul Laird posts:
<major snippage at a disappointing statement from NOW>
> According to A 1994 Census Report, 14% of men who by agreement
> > with their xwife, went to court expecting custody, had that custody
> > given to the mother. This why I say: Truth is always truer than
> > feminism. Paul L
You know what Paul, anything for you to denigrate women makes
you happy. I have been reading your posts for a few months now
and you make me ill.
You hide behind your self-righteousness and act as if you care
but the reality is that anytime you can tear down a woman and
women's causes you are in the middle of the fray.
No, this was not a great thing put forth by NOW BUT they are
not ALL FEMINISTS, and as much as you hate feminists because
many want equality for women in all parts of society you act
as if all you want is to protect women.
Feminism is Truth that you refuse to accept. Feminism, and tho
you won't research it - it comes in many forms, is here to stay.
On this group and on the abortion groups you are the first
to declare feminism evil - You are ignorant. NOW is but one
organization among many pushing, at times the wrong methods, for
women - that obviously makes you uncomfortable. Take your
knickers out of a twist and wake up to the future. DO some
homework on feminism and get back to the rest of us when
you've educated yourself.
Amazon
Larry Rogers
> Feminism is Truth that you refuse to accept. Feminism,
Feminism is an excuse for giving a minority to status to the voting majority.
Feminism is an outdated cause being altered to address useless causes.
Feminism hurts our children and our families.
> and tho
> you won't research it - it comes in many forms, is here to stay.
But you have lost what you wish to fight for. You have it all. What else is
there other than to tear down men and try to destroy fathers and families.
You are a sick group that needs to realize that People-ism is vastly more
important than vagina-ism.
> On this group and on the abortion groups you are the first
> to declare feminism evil - You are ignorant.
Actually, I find his posts quite accurate and with vastly more content than
any of the tripe you post Amazon. How about trying to post contrary reports?
The NOW statement has to be completely out of context. It is COMPLETE
NONSENSE to think that most men get custody when they want it. What a load
of crap!!
> NOW is but one
> organization among many pushing, at times the wrong methods, for
> women - that obviously makes you uncomfortable.
NOW is a sexist organization. Doesn't that make you uncomfortable? You jump
on a man for being sexist, but it is perfectly fine for women like you to be
sexist. Typical hypocritical mantra of the so-called feminist agenda.
> Take your
> knickers out of a twist and wake up to the future.
Feminism is the past. Children and the family are our future.
> DO some
> homework on feminism and get back to the rest of us when
> you've educated yourself.
When you post something intelligent Amadumb, maybe we would give a rat's
patuti what you think and maybe consider you qualified to give such advice.
In the meantime, get a brain, knowledge is power.
Larry
Amazon
Gee, Larry, a little angry are you?
Pushed a few buttons did I?
Awwww too bad. If you had really read instead of
ranted you would have noticed that I do not agree
with the statements made by NOW.
If you would have asked instead of insulted then
maybe you would have found out that there are
many types of feminists, and those, like myself,
are looking for a change in the social climate so
that both genders are considered equal.
Since you are not a woman, there are some things
you will never understand. Yes, just as there are
pressures of being male in our society that I will
never understand.
It appears that you would rather rant and scream
and be victim than try to make changes. Women are
trying to make changes and that is what is upsetting
the equalibrium between the genders.
I do not agree with the constant awarding of children
to mothers just because they are women and are supposed
to be "nurturing", I do not agree that men should be
forced to pay for children they asked to not be a part of
BUT if you walk away from your family then you better
be prepared to pay - both men and women.
Your angry diatribe was childish and sad. Your hate.
is obvious. Sorry if you have had a bad history in
your relations with women but you have no right to
take it out on me. Those who choose to personally
attack only show their lack of knowledge on a subject
and resort to name-calling.
Amazon
pete in chicago
amazon...you make good points however "ad hominem" attacks have little
utility here...............just my humble (emphasis added) opinion
pete in chicago
_*The Navigator*_
Larry Rodgers wrote:
> Snipity,, Sniparooney,,<
>
> When you post something intelligent Amadumb, maybe we would give a rat's
> patuti what you think and maybe consider you qualified to give such advice.
> In the meantime, get a brain, knowledge is power.
>
> Larry
**************************************************
Lasting Diatribe..
Power is all Fleeting.
[Hovering over a Keyboard, under assumption.]
john.
*************************************************
Aneon-6.
Navigator.
Amazon
Lenny "The Webster Dictionary" Schafer posts:
>
> Feminism is the belief that there is a conspiracy for men to dominate
> women for purposes of exploitation, thus creating great grievances and/or
> victims and a class of the male privileged.
>
> The goal is to eliminate perceived grievances by any means necessary,
> which may or may not include calls for "equality," "individualism,"
> "redefined roles," "reproduction rights," "reparations," or
> "empowerment".
>
> Calls for "equality" are usually tactical devices often promoted as goals,
> but not in any consistent manner. Equality is usually sought when it is
> perceived to be beneficial to women and resisted when thought it might
> benefit men at the expense of women.
>
> Thus, the ideology behind feminism is adaptive, situational or
> opportunistic and can range from egalitarianism to libertarianism to
> beliefs in female supremacy and matriarchy.
>
> "Feminism," as it is practiced, is whatever works for mostly liberal
> white women, for the issue and moment at hand.
>
> There is no one overall definition of feminism more specific than the
> above.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, right.
I have not laughed that hard in a loooooooooooooong time.
(I think the last time was one of Gordy's responses to bad hiaku)
You are a real piece of work, Almighty Lenny the One Who Speaks
Mightily and Says Nothing.
You have studied feminism? Bullshit.
What you have studied is propaganda and dogma. Have you ever
spoken to an active feminist? One that is currently working
politically on the ERA and similar bills to help women and
men in equality?
I doubt it.
It is VERY apparent that you have not even bothered to stand
(in order to take the pressure off your brain) and put yourself
on "the other side" as it were.
You probably also believe that the majority of feminists wear
combat boots, army clothes, get crew cuts and go by the name
of Butch.
I do not need to discuss AGAIN the various forms of feminism.
YOur narrow little mind would explode with the reality that
your anger-based, sexist-focused, one-sided look at women and
society is WRONG.
But you can stay in your little bubble, Lenny. We are all
safer for you being there.
Amazon
Amazon
Dear Lenny,
It is apparent that you are the one who is nervous and antsy.
For the majority of history men have had the upper hand in
the workforce, ownership of property and politics.(These are
the general, most talked about topics.)
Equality is something that for the last 30 years, women have
strived for due to the obvious gender discrimmination. In
promoting equality in the work place, in politics and in the
military it allows for people to be judged on merit not on
gender.
Scares you now doesn't it? That your advantage in these areas
is being neutralized. Nothing needs to be changed for men in those
areas other then they need to be educated about women's abilities.
There is no disadvantage to men if women are given equal pay,
a place in congress, ownership of their own homes and a place
on the front line of defense. The ONLY downside is competition.
Regarding your little statement about equality in parenting:
No matter what the laws say regarding custody - in the end
it is the decision of a JUDGE as to who gets the kids. If the
JUDGE decides the mother is better fit, she will get the kids
if the JUDGE decides that the father is better fit, he will
get the kids. This is why we have JUDGES. In the past there
were judges that would only give the kids to the mother but
in the last decade that has changed considerably. I will find
stats if necessary.
Child support - I, personally, think that if a woman has a child
after the bio father has expressed that he doesn't want to
be a father he should be allowed to sign a waiver that legally
breaks all ties to the child and responsibilities thereof.
If a father has children and leaves them he should pay.
If a woman decides to abort a pregnancy that the father wanted
her to keep then he should have discussed this topic with the woman
before he slept with her. If a man thinks that most women would
continue a pregnancy just to give it to the father then I would
have to say he is living in a dream world.
Your obviously angry at the changes taking place but that is
too bad. They will take place. Slowly but surely women will
be seen as equals in both the home and on the construction site.
Amazon
Gerry Harbison
Amazon wrote:
> What you have studied is propaganda and dogma. Have you ever
> spoken to an active feminist? One that is currently working
> politically on the ERA and similar bills to help women and
> men in equality?
Why would he have to speak to an active feminist? The NOW and FMF web
pages have the political positions and attitudes of organized feminism on
view for us all to see, without risking picking up fleas from real live
feminists?
Both organizations campaigned actively against a California Amendment to
make discrimination on the basis of sex and race illegal. So much for equal
rights.
Laura Akers
B89F7...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu>:
Distribution:
Gerry Harbison (ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu) wrote:
Proposition 209 was not about equal rights. It was about reimposing the
the advantages of certain groups over another. Virtually *all* minority
and disenfranchised groups protested against 209. In addition to removing
encouragement to hiring minorities and women, Proposition 209 outlawed
programs in the inner cities that would have helped underprivileged youth
to see college as a possibility in their future. It makes it illegal for
universities to fund any extracurricular club which is based on color,
race, ethnicity, biological sex, sexual orientation, etc. (In other
words, the clubs which are predominantly white and/or male can get funded
but the Native American club, or the Women Resource group can't.) Prop
209 has made it illegal for any program which is meant to service a
particular group of people (black kids living in western Sacramento--a
dangerous area) to receive any assistance from the government.
It's pretty obvious. Theose who are white, male, and middle class will
benefit. Those who are not will suffer. What equal about that?
Laura
Amazon
In cased you missed Laura's response:
> Proposition 209 was not about equal rights. It was about reimposing the
> the advantages of certain groups over another. Virtually *all* minority
> and disenfranchised groups protested against 209. In addition to removing
> encouragement to hiring minorities and women, Proposition 209 outlawed
> programs in the inner cities that would have helped underprivileged youth
> to see college as a possibility in their future. It makes it illegal for
> universities to fund any extracurricular club which is based on color,
> race, ethnicity, biological sex, sexual orientation, etc. (In other
> words, the clubs which are predominantly white and/or male can get funded
> but the Native American club, or the Women Resource group can't.) Prop
> 209 has made it illegal for any program which is meant to service a
> particular group of people (black kids living in western Sacramento--a
> dangerous area) to receive any assistance from the government.
>
> It's pretty obvious. Theose who are white, male, and middle class will
> benefit. Those who are not will suffer. What equal about that?
>
> Laura
And to add a little bit of enlightenment to your obviously deprived life
-
Not all Feminists are represented by NOW and FMF. You really would
love to make that generalization but I hate to tell you this, many
feminists do their own thing without the need of having to belong
to a group.
Amazon
Laura Akers
B89F7...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu> <335BB8...@mindspring.com>
<paynerE9...@netcom.com>:
Distribution:
Rich Payne (pay...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Amazon (ama...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: : In cased you missed Laura's response:
:
: : > Proposition 209 was not about equal rights. It was about reimposing the
: : > the advantages of certain groups over another. Virtually *all* minority
: : > and disenfranchised groups protested against 209. In addition to removing
: : > encouragement to hiring minorities and women, Proposition 209 outlawed
: : > programs in the inner cities that would have helped underprivileged youth
: : > to see college as a possibility in their future. It makes it illegal for
: : > universities to fund any extracurricular club which is based on color,
: : > race, ethnicity, biological sex, sexual orientation, etc. (In other
: : > words, the clubs which are predominantly white and/or male can get funded
: : > but the Native American club, or the Women Resource group can't.) Prop
: : > 209 has made it illegal for any program which is meant to service a
: : > particular group of people (black kids living in western Sacramento--a
: : > dangerous area) to receive any assistance from the government.
: : >
: : > It's pretty obvious. Theose who are white, male, and middle class will
: : > benefit. Those who are not will suffer. What equal about that?
: : >
: : > Laura
:
: : And to add a little bit of enlightenment to your obviously deprived life
: : -
:
: : Not all Feminists are represented by NOW and FMF.
:
: Realistically, they represent all women before congress.
:
: : You really would
: : love to make that generalization but I hate to tell you this, many
: : feminists do their own thing without the need of having to belong
: : to a group.
:
: And what do these -other- feminists think about Prop 209?
:
: What do you think about Prop 209? We already know what sexist hate-mongers
: like Laura and NOW think, they are violently opposed to equal rights
: under the law, they demand preferences.
Sexist hatemongers? What did I say that fit into that category? My post
was mild compared to yours--whose is more hateful?
Laura
Bentz Puryear
Laura Akers wrote:
>
> B89F7...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu> <335BB8...@mindspring.com>
> <paynerE9...@netcom.com>:
> Distribution:
>
> Rich Payne (pay...@netcom.com) wrote:
> : Amazon (ama...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : : In cased you missed Laura's response:
> :
> : : > Proposition 209 was not about equal rights. It was about reimposing the
> : : > the advantages of certain groups over another. Virtually *all* minority
> : : > and disenfranchised groups protested against 209. In addition to removing
> : : > encouragement to hiring minorities and women, Proposition 209 outlawed
> : : > programs in the inner cities that would have helped underprivileged youth
> : : > to see college as a possibility in their future. It makes it illegal for
> : : > universities to fund any extracurricular club which is based on color,
> : : > race, ethnicity, biological sex, sexual orientation, etc. (In other
> : : > words, the clubs which are predominantly white and/or male can get funded
> : : > but the Native American club, or the Women Resource group can't.) Prop
Please explane why a predominantly white/male club would get funding and a black/female
one would not. If there are both equal before the law and no one gets special treatment
then why would the white one ?? As it is now the black one would and the white one would
not even be allowed to exist much less get funding for it.
> : : > 209 has made it illegal for any program which is meant to service a
> : : > particular group of people (black kids living in western Sacramento--a
> : : > dangerous area) to receive any assistance from the government.
> : : >
> : : > It's pretty obvious. Theose who are white, male, and middle class will
> : : > benefit. Those who are not will suffer. What equal about that?
> : : >
> : : > Laura
> :
> : : And to add a little bit of enlightenment to your obviously deprived life
> : : -
> :
> : : Not all Feminists are represented by NOW and FMF.
> :
> : Realistically, they represent all women before congress.
> :
> : : You really would
> : : love to make that generalization but I hate to tell you this, many
> : : feminists do their own thing without the need of having to belong
> : : to a group.
> :
> : And what do these -other- feminists think about Prop 209?
> :
> : What do you think about Prop 209? We already know what sexist hate-mongers
> : like Laura and NOW think, they are violently opposed to equal rights
> : under the law, they demand preferences.
>
> Sexist hatemongers? What did I say that fit into that category? My post
> was mild compared to yours--whose is more hateful?
I agree there was no hateful words in your post although I do disgree with your
feelings on the subject.
>
> Laura
Rich Payne
Laura Akers (ez07...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: B89F7...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu>:
: Distribution:
: Gerry Harbison (ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu) wrote:
: : Amazon wrote:
: :
: : > What you have studied is propaganda and dogma. Have you ever
: : > spoken to an active feminist? One that is currently working
: : > politically on the ERA and similar bills to help women and
: : > men in equality?
: :
: : Why would he have to speak to an active feminist? The NOW and FMF web
: : pages have the political positions and attitudes of organized feminism on
: : view for us all to see, without risking picking up fleas from real live
: : feminists?
: :
: : Both organizations campaigned actively against a California Amendment to
: : make discrimination on the basis of sex and race illegal. So much for equal
: : rights.
: Proposition 209 was not about equal rights.
No, -feminism- is not about equal rights, which seems to be the basis
for your objection BTW.
| AUTHORS AND PRINCIPALS Glynn Custred Thomas Wood
|
| THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVE
|
| A proposed statewide constitutional amendment by initiative
|
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|(a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential
|treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex,
|color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public
|employment, public education, or public contracting.
|
|(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the sections
|effective date.
|
|(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona
|fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to
|the normal operation of public employment, public education, or
|public contracting.
|
|(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any
|court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective
|date of this section.
|
|(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting
|action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for
|any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of
|federal funds to the state.
|
|(f) For the purposes of this section, state shall include, but not
|necessarily be limited to, the state itself, any city, county, city
|and county, public university system, including the University of
|California, community college district, school district, special
|district, or any other political subdivision or governmental
|instrumentality of or within the state.
|
|(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be
|the same, regardless of the injured partys race, sex, color,
|ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for
|violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
|
|(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of
|this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the
|United State Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the
|maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution
|permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the
|remaining portions of this section.
: It was about reimposing the
: the advantages of certain groups over another.
Which part of "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential
treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex,
color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public
employment, public education, or public contracting" says this?
: Virtually *all* minority
: and disenfranchised groups protested against 209.
And illegal aliens too. Is it odd to you that groups that benefit from
massive preferences want to keep them? They demand sexism that they
profit from. Gee, feminist hypocrites claim that this white men doing
such were the greatest evil in the world. Feminism is not only just
as evil, but hypocritical to boot, they -demand- what they themselves
claim is wrong. But being a feminist, I understant that you do not
understand the difference between right and wrong.
: In addition to removing
: encouragement to hiring minorities and women, Proposition 209 outlawed
: programs in the inner cities that would have helped underprivileged youth
: to see college as a possibility in their future.
I realize that you will defend your goddess-given right to discriminate
against white men to your dying bigoted breath. But let me ask you this,
since you can see nothing wrong with discriminating against me (both on
the basis of race and sex) what exactly do you claim is wrong with
discriminating against you on the basis of sex again?
: It makes it illegal for
: universities to fund any extracurricular club which is based on color,
: race, ethnicity, biological sex, sexual orientation, etc.
And the State should not be funding sexist or racist activities anyway.
: (In other
: words, the clubs which are predominantly white and/or male can get funded
: but the Native American club, or the Women Resource group can't.)
I cannot tell if your problem is stupidity, dishonesty, bigotry, or the
simple inability to read, but I tend to think stupidity and bigotry are
sufficient. (typical feminist)
: Prop
: 209 has made it illegal for any program which is meant to service a
: particular group of people (black kids living in western Sacramento--a
: dangerous area) to receive any assistance from the government.
No, it makes it illegal to make aid available only by race.
: It's pretty obvious.
It is perfectly obvious, and you have not the faintest hint of a clue.
: Theose who are white, male, and middle class will
: benefit.
I realize that by the feminist definition, white men have no right to
equal protection under the law, as stated in the 14th Amendment, and
all I have to say to you is fuck you you racist saxist bitch.
: Those who are not will suffer. What equal about that?
Preferences -are- discrimination, and they -hurt- everybody in the
long run. I do not expect you to undertand this, nor do I expect you
to see how government mandated discrimination will guarentee discrimination
forever, you want to discriminate against white men, you do not see this
as a problem.
: Laura
Rich
--
Amazon
See my response to your post answering Laura Akers.
Amazon
Steven Cavanaugh
Amazon wrote:
> This is why we have JUDGES. In the past there
> were judges that would only give the kids to the mother but
> in the last decade that has changed considerably. I will find
> stats if necessary.
I would very much like to see these stats if you can obtain them please.
>
> Child support - I, personally, think that if a woman has a child
> after the bio father has expressed that he doesn't want to
> be a father he should be allowed to sign a waiver that legally
> breaks all ties to the child and responsibilities thereof.
Now this sounds interesting, currently the man has no say if the child
is born or not, but he can currently be held for support for the next
18 years.
If I may take this one step further, if the mother does not want the
father to
have any access, ever to see their child and even refuses to allow the
fathers
name on the birth certificate, then maybe the father should have the
right sign off
all responsibalities.
>
> If a father has children and leaves them he should pay.
Agreed 100 percent.
--
Steven Cavanaugh E-mail s...@rideau.net
Infinity is one lawyer waiting for another.
Rich Payne
: > Proposition 209 was not about equal rights. It was about reimposing the
: > the advantages of certain groups over another. Virtually *all* minority
: > and disenfranchised groups protested against 209. In addition to removing
: > encouragement to hiring minorities and women, Proposition 209 outlawed
: > programs in the inner cities that would have helped underprivileged youth
: > to see college as a possibility in their future. It makes it illegal for
: > universities to fund any extracurricular club which is based on color,
: > race, ethnicity, biological sex, sexual orientation, etc. (In other
: > words, the clubs which are predominantly white and/or male can get funded
: > but the Native American club, or the Women Resource group can't.) Prop
: > 209 has made it illegal for any program which is meant to service a
: > particular group of people (black kids living in western Sacramento--a
: > dangerous area) to receive any assistance from the government.
: >
: > It's pretty obvious. Theose who are white, male, and middle class will
: > benefit. Those who are not will suffer. What equal about that?
: >
: > Laura
: And to add a little bit of enlightenment to your obviously deprived life
: -
: Not all Feminists are represented by NOW and FMF.
Realistically, they represent all women before congress.
: You really would
: love to make that generalization but I hate to tell you this, many
: feminists do their own thing without the need of having to belong
: to a group.
And what do these -other- feminists think about Prop 209?
What do you think about Prop 209? We already know what sexist hate-mongers
like Laura and NOW think, they are violently opposed to equal rights
under the law, they demand preferences.
: Amazon
Rich
--
Amazon
Rich Payne posts:
>
> Laura Akers (ez07...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
>
> : B89F7...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu>:
> : Distribution:
>
> : Gerry Harbison (ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu) wrote:
> : : Amazon wrote:
> : :
> : : > What you have studied is propaganda and dogma. Have you ever
> : : > spoken to an active feminist? One that is currently working
> : : > politically on the ERA and similar bills to help women and
> : : > men in equality?
> : :
> : : Why would he have to speak to an active feminist? The NOW and FMF web
> : : pages have the political positions and attitudes of organized feminism on
> : : view for us all to see, without risking picking up fleas from real live
> : : feminists?
> : :
> : : Both organizations campaigned actively against a California Amendment to
> : : make discrimination on the basis of sex and race illegal. So much for equal
> : : rights.
>
> : Proposition 209 was not about equal rights.
>
> No, -feminism- is not about equal rights, which seems to be the basis
> for your objection BTW.
Feminism is much MORE than equal rights. Those who are not truly
educated about what it is to be a FEMINIST, and BTW, there are many
types of feminists with many different views, ALWAYS jump on the
"YOU ALL ARE ABOUT EQUALITY" - what the majority of feminists that
*I* spend time with are about is RESPECT. It is something that is
automatically given to men and women have to work for. THAT is the
reality. With RESPECT comes EQUALITY BUT it is something each
individual woman has to work on to change. THere are some TYPES of
feminists who want society to take the "blame" for female disrespect
and inequality in the workplace, at home, in politics and in the
military BUT *I* believe it takes one woman at a time to correct the
mistakes of society.
>
> | AUTHORS AND PRINCIPALS Glynn Custred Thomas Wood
> |
> | THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVE
> |
> | A proposed statewide constitutional amendment by initiative
> |
> |-----------------------------------------------------------------
> |
> |(a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential
> |treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex,
> |color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public
> |employment, public education, or public contracting.
In other words, all are welcome to partake in what this society openly
to offer to anyone who wants to look for it -
> |
> |(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the sections
> |effective date.
> |
> |(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona
> |fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to
> |the normal operation of public employment, public education, or
> |public contracting.
In a PUBLIC forum no one shall be turned away based on gender. But will
that stop anyone from discrimmination? I doubt it.
And uneducated generalists don't know what they are talking about.
claim that this white men doing
> such were the greatest evil in the world.
Grow up.
Feminism is not only just
> as evil, but hypocritical to boot, they -demand- what they themselves
> claim is wrong. But being a feminist, I understant that you do not
> understand the difference between right and wrong.
Because your are being ignorant, I MAY forgive your ridiculous response.
>
> : In addition to removing
> : encouragement to hiring minorities and women, Proposition 209 outlawed
> : programs in the inner cities that would have helped underprivileged youth
> : to see college as a possibility in their future.
>
> I realize that you will defend your goddess-given right to discriminate
> against white men to your dying bigoted breath.
I realize that you would rather have women and minorities serving you
your food, breeding your babies and speaking only when they are spoken
to -
There is inequality in Life that need not be there BUT Prop 209 is not
the
way to go. Those less fortunate need a helping hand but you would not
see that through your hateful eyes.
But let me ask you this,
> since you can see nothing wrong with discriminating against me (both on
> the basis of race and sex) what exactly do you claim is wrong with
> discriminating against you on the basis of sex again?
Define what you see as discrimmination? Have you ever been denied a
promotion because you are too goodlooking and people assume you are
stupid since you are blonde? Or maybe because you have an accent or are
of
culture of poverty? Have you ever looked at the paycheck of
a person who is next to you in the same job with the same education
only to realize that that person was making 15% more money than you
because that person was male and for no other discernible reason even
after confronting the person who did the hiring? Did you ever want to
fight for your country but was denied the right to the front lines even
after you'd made it through West Point with flying colors?
White men have the priviledge in this country - history has shown
this to be true - it is sad to see your fear at this advantage being
neutralized but it is understandable that the competition makes you
angry.
>
> : It makes it illegal for
> : universities to fund any extracurricular club which is based on color,
> : race, ethnicity, biological sex, sexual orientation, etc.
>
> And the State should not be funding sexist or racist activities anyway.
Really? And how are they supposed to fund the "International Groups" and
various interest clubs on a campus when private funding is at an all
time
low?
>
> : (In other
> : words, the clubs which are predominantly white and/or male can get funded
> : but the Native American club, or the Women Resource group can't.)
>
> I cannot tell if your problem is stupidity, dishonesty, bigotry, or the
> simple inability to read, but I tend to think stupidity and bigotry are
> sufficient. (typical feminist)
ANd what would you call yourself? So far you have proved yourself to be
a hateful, self-centered, asshole - typical male. (this statement was
made
for effect only)
Didn't like that? Educate yourself, fool.
>
> : Prop
> : 209 has made it illegal for any program which is meant to service a
> : particular group of people (black kids living in western Sacramento--a
> : dangerous area) to receive any assistance from the government.
>
> No, it makes it illegal to make aid available only by race.
And what happens when it is discovered that the aid provided is to only
those of one race? The funding will be pulled and a group will go
without
the necessary funding to move ahead.
>
> : It's pretty obvious.
>
> It is perfectly obvious, and you have not the faintest hint of a clue.
>
> : Theose who are white, male, and middle class will
> : benefit.
>
> I realize that by the feminist definition,
SO YOU KNOW ALL FEMINISTS? Moron, the true sense of the word, you know
NOTHING of what you speak.
white men have no right to
> equal protection under the law, as stated in the 14th Amendment, and
> all I have to say to you is fuck you you racist saxist bitch.
BUT THE REALITY IS that WHITE people, gender specific - men, DO have
much
of the priviledge in this nation. Go outside and experience the reality
of what is out there.
> : Those who are not will suffer. What equal about that?
>
> Preferences -are- discrimination, and they -hurt- everybody in the
> long run. I do not expect you to undertand this, nor do I expect you
> to see how government mandated discrimination will guarentee discrimination
> forever, you want to discriminate against white men, you do not see this
> as a problem.
No, you want to keep your advantage over others. I do not expect you to
understand.
Amazon
Laura Akers
Rich said:
<I went over my disk quota and lost the first part of this. Basically it
was the text of Prop 209>
:
: : It(Prop 209) was about
reimposing the
: : the advantages of certain groups over another.
:
: Which part of "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential
: treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex,
: color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public
: employment, public education, or public contracting" says this?
It doesn't. There is a huge difference between what this law states and
what it will actually accomplish. Proposition 209 was phrased
specifically to hoodwink the voters in my opinion. It sounds wonderful,
but when you explain what it will in fact *do*, people tend to get angry
that they were deceived.
:
: : Virtually *all*
minority
: : and disenfranchised groups protested against 209.
:
: And illegal aliens too. Is it odd to you that groups that benefit from
: massive preferences want to keep them?
Not at all. It's why I understand that white, middle calss when wish to
retain the privileges they've had from years.
And since when is adequate health care a "Massive preference"?
They demand sexism that they
: profit from. Gee, feminist hypocrites claim that this white men doing
: such were the greatest evil in the world.
Nope. We just state that they benefitting from it. Boy, who did you
learn feminism from? Rush Limbaugh?
Feminism is not only just
: as evil, but hypocritical to boot, they -demand- what they themselves
: claim is wrong. But being a feminist, I understant that you do not
: understand the difference between right and wrong.
Do you always insult those whom you cannot refute?
:
: : In addition to
removing
: : encouragement to hiring minorities and women, Proposition 209 outlawed
: : programs in the inner cities that would have helped underprivileged
youth
: : to see college as a possibility in their future.
:
: I realize that you will defend your goddess-given right to discriminate
: against white men to your dying bigoted breath. But let me ask you this,
: since you can see nothing wrong with discriminating against me (both on
: the basis of race and sex) what exactly do you claim is wrong with
: discriminating against you on the basis of sex again?
How were you being discriminated against? Were you an underprivileged
youth who needed help to even think of aspiring to college but were
denied entrance to one of these programs (which, BTW, don't actually
discriminate against white males)? If not, then I don't see how you can
claim that such a program is discriminatory.
:
: : It makes it illegal
for
: : universities to fund any extracurricular club which is based on color,
: : race, ethnicity, biological sex, sexual orientation, etc.
:
: And the State should not be funding sexist or racist activities anyway.
The Greek societies on campus are among the most sexist and racist
anywhere in this country. Why should they be funded while those who lack
the money and access into such organizations are denied the same thing?
:
: : (In
other
: : words, the clubs which are predominantly white and/or male can get
funded
: : but the Native American club, or the Women Resource group can't.)
:
: I cannot tell if your problem is stupidity, dishonesty, bigotry, or the
: simple inability to read, but I tend to think stupidity and bigotry are
: sufficient. (typical feminist)
Insult, but no actual argument in that statement. It's not enough to say
that I am any of these things if you cannot prove it.
:
: : Prop
: : 209 has made it illegal for any program which is meant to service a
: : particular group of people (black kids living in western Sacramento--a
: : dangerous area) to receive any assistance from the government.
:
: No, it makes it illegal to make aid available only by race.
Since those programs were set up to benefit a group which was orginally
defined by race but which does not exclude based on race, the new law will
yank funding, leaving both the white and minority children who benefitted
from this program without the help they needed.
:
: : It's pretty obvious.
:
: It is perfectly obvious, and you have not the faintest hint of a clue.
And you offer no sound argument for your stance.
:
: : Theose who are white, male, and middle class will
: : benefit.
:
: I realize that by the feminist definition, white men have no right to
: equal protection under the law, as stated in the 14th Amendment, and
: all I have to say to you is fuck you you racist saxist bitch.
Wow! Your privilege must really be threatened, huh?
:
: : Those who are not will suffer. What equal's about
that?
:
: Preferences -are- discrimination, and they -hurt- everybody in the
: long run.
Please attempt to prove this. White men are preferred as management
applicants in most of the companies in America. I don't hear you
complaing about that form of discrimination...
I do not expect you to undertand this, nor do I expect you
: to see how government mandated discrimination will guarentee
discrimination
: forever, you want to discriminate against white men, you do not see this
: as a problem.
I don't want to discriminate against anyone. But I do believe that since
our society has not managed to level the playing field, we must do so
artificially until such a state can be reached.
I find it amusing that you scream so loudly in defense of your privileges
while denying others even a modicum of equal opportunity.
I think you need to calm down.
Laura
Laura Akers
Bentz Puryear (b...@dr.lucent.com) wrote:
: Laura Akers wrote:
: >
: > B89F7...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu> <335BB8...@mindspring.com>
: > <paynerE9...@netcom.com>:
: > Distribution:
: > :
: > : : > Proposition 209 was not about equal rights. It was about reimposing the
: > : : > the advantages of certain groups over another. Virtually *all* minority
: > : : > and disenfranchised groups protested against 209. In addition to removing
: > : : > encouragement to hiring minorities and women, Proposition 209 outlawed
: > : : > programs in the inner cities that would have helped underprivileged youth
: > : : > universities to fund any extracurricular club which is based on color,
: > : : > words, the clubs which are predominantly white and/or male can get funded
:
: Please explane why a predominantly white/male club would get funding and a black/female
: one would not.
Because a Black Student Coalition or a Rainbow club will no longer be
recognized as official clubs on campuses in the UC system.
If you are not an official club, you cannot receive funding.
If there are both equal before the law and no one gets special treatment
: then why would the white one ?? As it is now the black one would and the white one would
: not even be allowed to exist much less get funding for it.
What are you talking about? I could provide you with the names of several
all-white clubs on my own campus. They get funded just like the the BSA
used to, but no longer will under this law.
: > :
: > : : You really would
: > : : love to make that generalization but I hate to tell you this, many
: > : : feminists do their own thing without the need of having to belong
: > : : to a group.
: > :
: > : And what do these -other- feminists think about Prop 209?
: > :
: > : What do you think about Prop 209? We already know what sexist hate-mongers
: > : like Laura and NOW think, they are violently opposed to equal rights
: > : under the law, they demand preferences.
: >
: > Sexist hatemongers? What did I say that fit into that category? My post
: > was mild compared to yours--whose is more hateful?
:
: I agree there was no hateful words in your post although I do disgree with your
: feelings on the subject.
What about the facts?
Laura
Steven Cavanaugh
Amazon wrote:
> This is why we have JUDGES. In the past there
> were judges that would only give the kids to the mother but
> in the last decade that has changed considerably. I will find
> stats if necessary.
I would very much like to see these stats if you can obtain them please.
>
> Child support - I, personally, think that if a woman has a child
> after the bio father has expressed that he doesn't want to
> be a father he should be allowed to sign a waiver that legally
> breaks all ties to the child and responsibilities thereof.
Now this sound interesting, currently the man has no say if the child
Laura Akers
aferE8z...@netcom.com> <335B8D...@mindspring.com>
<5jgt3a$4...@nr1.toronto.istar.net>:
Distribution:
Steven Cavanaugh (s...@rideau.net) wrote:
:
: Amazon wrote:
:
: > This is why we have JUDGES. In the past there
: > were judges that would only give the kids to the mother but
: > in the last decade that has changed considerably. I will find
: > stats if necessary.
:
: I would very much like to see these stats if you can obtain them please.
:
: >
: > Child support - I, personally, think that if a woman has a child
: > after the bio father has expressed that he doesn't want to
: > be a father he should be allowed to sign a waiver that legally
: > breaks all ties to the child and responsibilities thereof.
:
: Now this sounds interesting, currently the man has no say if the child
: is born or not, but he can currently be held for support for the next
: 18 years.
:
: If I may take this one step further, if the mother does not want the
: father to
: have any access, ever to see their child and even refuses to allow the
: fathers
: name on the birth certificate, then maybe the father should have the
: right sign off
: all responsibalities.
Short of cases involving proven child or spousal abuse, I think you would
find few people disagreeing with you.
Laura
Ray Fischer
Rich Payne <pay...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Laura Akers (ez07...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
>: It was about reimposing the
>: the advantages of certain groups over another.
>
>Which part of "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential
>treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex,
>color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public
>employment, public education, or public contracting" says this?
The part that allows discrimination based upon economic status and
education and where one lives.
For example, blacks, immigrants, and hispanics are consistently
discriminated against. How? Because, in part, of past and present
discrimination such groups are forced into lower-income neighborhoods.
The schools in such neighborhoods receive less money from the state,
providing poorer education. Poorer education for the children
perpetuates the discrimination.
And you demand that it be allowed and continued. Instead of allow the
universities to allow for poorer schools, you want to make sure that
blacks and hispanics don't get to uppity by using your universities.
[...]
>I cannot tell if your problem is stupidity, dishonesty, bigotry, or the
>simple inability to read, but I tend to think stupidity and bigotry are
>sufficient. (typical feminist)
Ya know, you'd be a lot more credible of you didn't follow "bigotry"
with "typical feminist". As it is, you merely come off as another
dumbshit bigot yourself.
--
Ray Fischer "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding." Louis Brandeis
Amazon
Well, Vera, even though those points are valid why don't you
get specific in your little sign off and say -
"Lies & Deceptions of NOW members" since you are no better
then those who condemn all feminists by saying "neofeminists"
Which, BTW, there really is no such thing.
Amazon
Bentz Puryear
I find it hard to believe that you have white clubs that exclude blacks or male
clubs that exclude women at any school today. But I do not know this as a fact.
Just hard to believe. I do know that as a male I am not welcomed in a womens
club and as a white I would not be welcomed at a black club. But that is not
condsidered discriminatory today. Under 209 these clubs as well as any
club that did not allow members solely because of there race/gender would
not get funding. I do not have a problem with that do you ? Or are you
advocating black only, white only, male only and women only clubs/schools ?
> : > :
> : > : : You really would
> : > : : love to make that generalization but I hate to tell you this, many
> : > : : feminists do their own thing without the need of having to belong
> : > : : to a group.
> : > :
> : > : And what do these -other- feminists think about Prop 209?
> : > :
> : > : What do you think about Prop 209? We already know what sexist hate-mongers
> : > : like Laura and NOW think, they are violently opposed to equal rights
> : > : under the law, they demand preferences.
> : >
> : > Sexist hatemongers? What did I say that fit into that category? My post
> : > was mild compared to yours--whose is more hateful?
> :
> : I agree there was no hateful words in your post although I do disgree with your
> : feelings on the subject.
>
> What about the facts?
The fact is that 209 says every one is equal before the law. I can not be discriminated
against and you can not be discriminated against. That is what I belive in, we are
all equal and deserve equal opportunity, not necessarily equal outcome though.
>
> Laura
Bentz Puryear
Laura Akers
Distribution:
Bentz Puryear (b...@dr.lucent.com) wrote:
:
: Laura Akers wrote:
: >
: > Bentz Puryear (b...@dr.lucent.com) wrote:
: > : Laura Akers wrote:
: > : >
: > : not even be allowed to exist much less get funding for it.
: >
: > What are you talking about? I could provide you with the names of several
: > all-white clubs on my own campus. They get funded just like the the BSA
: > used to, but no longer will under this law.
:
: I find it hard to believe that you have white clubs that exclude blacks or male
: clubs that exclude women at any school today. But I do not know this as a fact.
: Just hard to believe. I do know that as a male I am not welcomed in a womens
: club and as a white I would not be welcomed at a black club.
How do you know you're not welcome. I'm a *straight* member of the
LGBT Rainbow Student Union, as is my husband. All club flyers encourage
straight people to join. And there are several men
associated with the women's groups on campus. But the fact that these
clubs support equal rights for particular group, they will be denied
official status under UC regulations.
But that is not
: condsidered discriminatory today.
I disagree. Being denied access to any group based solely on one's
biology is discrimination.
Under 209 these clubs as well as any
: club that did not allow members solely because of there race/gender would
: not get funding. I do not have a problem with that do you ? Or are you
: advocating black only, white only, male only and women only clubs/schools ?
Absolutely not. I merely think that clubs which represent minority
interests should receive the same funding extended to those that represent
the dominant culture's racial/sexual makeup.
: : > : > :
: > : > : What do you think about Prop 209? We already know what sexist hate-mongers
: > : > : like Laura and NOW think, they are violently opposed to equal rights
: > : > : under the law, they demand preferences.
: > : >
: > : > Sexist hatemongers? What did I say that fit into that category? My post
: > : > was mild compared to yours--whose is more hateful?
: > :
: > : I agree there was no hateful words in your post although I do disgree with your
: > : feelings on the subject.
: >
: > What about the facts?
:
: The fact is that 209 says every one is equal before the law. I can not be discriminated
: against and you can not be discriminated against. That is what I belive in, we are
: all equal and deserve equal opportunity, not necessarily equal outcome though.
But 209 will not insure equal opportunity. It will attempt to maintain
the racist/sexist staus quo.
Let's put it this way. The laws in the South during the first half of
this century requiring people to pass reading/writing tests (unless they
were grandfathered into the system) in order to be allowed to vote
*sounds* like a good law on the books. But in fact, it was an attempt to
systemize racism and denied blacks the vote--virtually all whites were
convered by the grandfather clause, while almost no blacks were). What it
said and what it accomplished were two entirely different things.
209 is cut from exactly the same cloth.
Laura
Rich Payne
Laura Akers (ez07...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: Distribution:
: Bentz Puryear (b...@dr.lucent.com) wrote:
: :
: : Laura Akers wrote:
: : >
: : > Bentz Puryear (b...@dr.lucent.com) wrote:
: : > : Laura Akers wrote:
: : > : >
: : > : not even be allowed to exist much less get funding for it.
: : >
: : > What are you talking about? I could provide you with the names of several
: : > all-white clubs on my own campus. They get funded just like the the BSA
: : > used to, but no longer will under this law.
: :
::I find it hard to believe that you have white clubs that exclude blacks
::or male clubs that exclude women at any school today. But I do not know
::this as a fact. Just hard to believe. I do know that as a male I am not
::welcomed in a womens club and as a white I would not be welcomed at a
::black club.
: How do you know you're not welcome. I'm a *straight* member of the
: LGBT Rainbow Student Union, as is my husband. All club flyers encourage
: straight people to join. And there are several men
: associated with the women's groups on campus. But the fact that these
: clubs support equal rights for particular group, they will be denied
: official status under UC regulations.
: But that is not
: : condsidered discriminatory today.
: I disagree. Being denied access to any group based solely on one's
: biology is discrimination.
But such discrimination is the heart and core of feminism.
| Subject: Transsexuals at 'women-only' events?
| From: eng...@aol.com (ENGORON)
| Date: 1997/04/08
| Message-Id: <19970407223...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
| Newsgroups: soc.feminism
| [More Headers]
|
| I just spent the weekend with some friends, a lesbian couple, and we were
| talking about women-only events. I mentioned one I attended recently
| where one woman was a transsexual and how I was surprised to find that I
| felt uncomfortable with that -- I didn't feel that anyone who wasn't born
| a woman should be there and resented 'her' presence.
|
| I'm heterosexual, extremely progressive & openminded and am generally not
| separatist. But when I'm in a space created specifically for women only,
| I want that boundary preserved to the nth degree. And while I respect
| people who have changed gender, I don't feel their experience is the same
| as mine. There's part of me that feels that if we were to talk in a
| group about 'being women," they wouldn't be able to really know what it
| means in the way that I do.
|
| My friends agreed. They said they'd even been to a number of feminist
| events that specifically said "woman-born" people only could attend.
|
| I'm curious what others here think about this. Part of me feels terribly
| intolerant for feeling this way and part of me feels that this sense of
| 'boundary' is appropriate. Thoughts, anyone?
Nobody blinked an eye at the "'women-only' events", excluding men is so
natural to feminists that they cannot even identify it as the exact same
discrimination that they claim is wrong if done to women. Do not worry
if you do not understand, it's not like feminism is not a large,
well-organized sexist racist orginization. Few feminist orginizations
grant men entrance or allow them at meetings, and since feminism is
about women and women only, why should they? It seems that many
orginizations, proving yet again that feminist rhetoric is a violent
abuse of the truth, find it necessary to specify "woman born" to keep
them pesky Y chromosomes out of their meetings. Can't discuss open
misandry and how to discriminate against men with Y chromosomes
around, those patriarchial genes get in the way of true woman-think.
: : Under 209 these clubs as well as any
: : club that did not allow members solely because of there race/gender would
: : not get funding. I do not have a problem with that do you ? Or are you
: : advocating black only, white only, male only and women only clubs/schools ?
: Absolutely not.
BZZZZ, false, feminists -do- advocate womans-only events, and virtually
all feminist orginizations exclude men in some fashion, usually quite
blatantly. I pointed out the sexism of the FRE charter and they removed
it from their web-page (I do not know if the two events were causally
connected, but this has happened several times).
: I merely think that clubs which represent minority
: interests should receive the same funding extended to those that represent
: the dominant culture's racial/sexual makeup.
But the state has been actively discriminating -against- the dominate
culture for decades, and funding foreign interests, this is not only
stupid, it is suicidal. Be honest, as a feminist, you could give a flying
fuck about fairness, you are just violently opposed to white men and
the American culture, and the though of dicriminating against men gives
you multiple orgasms.
And lets be clear that virtually -all- "minority" interests are foreign
imports.
:::>:>:
::>:>: What do you think about Prop 209? We already know what sexist hate-mongers
::>:>:like Laura and NOW think, they are violently opposed to equal rights
::>:>: under the law, they demand preferences.
::>:>
::>:> Sexist hatemongers? What did I say that fit into that category? My post
::>:> was mild compared to yours--whose is more hateful?
::>:
::>:I agree there was no hateful words in your post although I do disgree with your
::>: feelings on the subject.
::>
::> What about the facts?
: :
::The fact is that 209 says every one is equal before the law. I can not
::be discriminated against and you can not be discriminated against. That
::is what I belive in, we are all equal and deserve equal opportunity,
::not necessarily equal outcome though.
: But 209 will not insure equal opportunity.
Wrong, it will guarentee equal -opportunity-, it will not guarentee
equal -results-, which are always obtained by direct, explicit sexism.
(a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential
treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex,
color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public
employment, public education, or public contracting.
I understand that bigots like you see freedom from the racism and sexism
you pander as a threat, and it is a threat to the groups that have been
feeding at the public till for decades.
Feminism is the largest best orginized enemy of equal opportunity in the
US today, and they will fight all attemts for equal opportunity to their
dying sexist breath.
: It will attempt to maintain
: the racist/sexist staus quo.
No stupid, fedarally mandated racism and sexism (AA, the EEOC, at least
5 Executive orders) are what maintain the racist/sexist status quo.
Why do women demand sexism that favors women at the expense of men?
Misandry... greed...
: Let's put it this way. The laws in the South during the first half of
: this century requiring people to pass reading/writing tests (unless they
: were grandfathered into the system) in order to be allowed to vote
: *sounds* like a good law on the books.
And AA and other mandated sexism against men -sounds- like a good idea,
to sexist hypocritical bigots like yourself, but they are not only
unconstitutional (14th Amendment), but they are in direct opposition
to the wording of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which specifically forbids
them. The CCRI is almost a carbon copy of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
: But in fact, it was an attempt to
: systemize racism and denied blacks the vote--virtually all whites were
: convered by the grandfather clause, while almost no blacks were). What it
: said and what it accomplished were two entirely different things.
: 209 is cut from exactly the same cloth.
Then so is the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which is identical to the CCRI
except for the preferences.
Be honest Laura, you are a hateful sexist racist bigot who feels
threatened when her goddess-given right to discriminate against those
nasty white men is made illegal, in state matters.
As Carolyn Fairmans sig says.
==If equality is viewed
==as a loss, what does
==that tell you about the
==previous situation?
Feminists see legal equality as a loss, they demand preferences and
all manner of subsidies. Is it any wonder that all they an do in response
to the legal equality they have been lying about seeking for 3 decades
is to lie?
: Laura
Rich
--
Amazon
Here we go:
Let's start with your habit of THINKING you know everything
when it is obvious that you continuously generalize your hate
for feminists (the majority of which are women) when the
truth is you know not one iota about what is to be a feminist.
> I wonder what would outrage feminists more:
>
> Hundreds of female soldier combatants coming home in body bags. or
> Hundreds of them coming home as raped, but released POWs?
>
> The later would guarantee the end of women combatants in the military,
> I'd bet. Let's see if the fine Liberal Senators from Mass. or Missouri are
> willing to send their daughters off to be raped in Bosnia, or some such.
> Yeah, right.
>
> At least the feminists would finally get the Federal government to pay
> for abortions. The real agenda, perhaps?
More to come......
Amazon
Amazon
Ignorance abounds:
> Compensations for biological inequities to reach equality are only
> implemented when it favors women, not men. (The "what's-your's-is-ours,
> what's-mine-is-mine" strategy of feminism is also behind their defense of
> Affirmative Action quota systems: here laws demanding the equal treatment
> of women are opposed, when it's perceived to "hurt women.")
>
> When the drive for equality is relegated to a tactic, instead of a goal,
> the real goal becomes privileges, justified as retribution. The problem
> with blackmail is that the blackmailers are never satisfied, the victims,
> never off the hook.
>
> And that's why feminism requires its relentless promotion of women as
> victims, damsels in distress. No victims, no compensations.
>
> The real reason feminists will not agree to the sharing of reproductive
> control is that they perceive that men are not nearly done compensating
> women for all of life's pains and frustrations. Why should women be
> expected to hand some power over to men, given such existing inequity?
>
> Ironically, feminists end up reinforcing women's dependency and thus
> subordinate status in the long run. Even the cleverest of thieves must
> whisper to his soul: I can't make it legit. Ultimately, feminists steal
> from themselves. Successful con-artistry is almost impossible to pierce
> with even the sharpest weapons of logic and reason when the artist has
> also conned herself. As such, the feminists will not be convinced.
>
OOOOOOOh, reality is rough to handle when you are scared of
women.
More to come.....
Amazon
Amazon
Lenny "I'm an asshole" Shafer posts:
> And you haven't answered my request that you give me examples of some
> serious charges you make:
>
> : Your narrow little mind would explode with the reality that
> : your anger-based, sexist-focused, one-sided look at women and
> : society is WRONG.
>
> Put up or shut up.
> (If you haven't figured out my point yet)
>
> Love, lenny
> --
Didn't see the request - must of been blinded by your
shining lack of knowledge.
When I have a moment to sift thru the crap you post
I will post examples.
Amazon
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <paynerE9...@netcom.com> pay...@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>(edit)
>
>Preferences -are- discrimination, and they -hurt- everybody in the
>long run. I do not expect you to undertand this, nor do I expect you
>to see how government mandated discrimination will guarentee
discrimination>forever, you want to discriminate against white men, you
do not see this>as a problem.
>
>
>Rich
>
--------
As long as people fail to understand that humans are biased
(all of us), bias will continue to be a problem. Programs
based in merit plus diversity allow all of us representation
in a healthy society.
Lefty
>
>--
Amazon
Lenny "The Profound" Schafer posts:
> Amazon (ama...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : Well, Vera, even though those points are valid why don't you
> Ah, were this to be true! And starting with you.
And your point being?
Amazon
Amazon
Seems like Lenny finally decided he hates both genders:
> Male feminists are immature men who wish they were lesbians. Some are
> deep seated women haters looking for the perfect disguise. Others are
> just too unimaginative to come up with a less pathetic strategy for
> getting a girl friend than to suck-up to feminist dogma.
>
> Some scientist think that male feminism is a genetic disorder. They
> think they've identified a cluster of genes which not only may regulate
> self-esteem, death-wish behavior, but also contains the blueprints for
> anus related characteristics.
>
> Male feminists are also responsible for inspiring the current debate over
> assisted suicide, which is often confused with male feminism.
>
Wouldn't want men to see the truth now would you Len?
More to come....
Amazon
Amazon
How about this little gem of so-called humor:
> La Gaia Loves You. Kill Yourself. Join Your Sisters
> Valetines Day at the Golden Gate Bridge
> in San Francisco Midnite
>
> Sisters Scream for Suicide!
>
> Join the only true female supremacists in a selfless act of proof.
> This is the ultimate cleansing of patriarchal putrid poisoning. We will
> making a statement that cannot be denied. Only the morally superior have
> the courage to stand up for what we are. Only women truely sacrifice!
>
> LEAP FOR THE LADY GODDESS
>
> First 500 sisters will be forever memorialized with a plaque placed in
> the G-Spot room of the Womyns Resource Center in San Francisco.
> Empower the Bay water. Give Emily's List a whole new meaning.
>
> RECAPTURE ONCE AND FOR ALL THE POWER OF DEATH
>
> Finally, it's time for us to take back our gifts of the power of
> sisterly death. Meet us in the Battered Women's Shelter in the Sky!
>
> Remember midnite sharp Valentines Day at the San Francisco Golden Gate
> Bridge--late comers may not be allowed to participate. Sensible shoes
> optional. Pusher assistants will be provided (conservative volunteers).
>
> "After you,
> no after you,
> no no I insist - after you..."
>
>
More to come......
Amazon
Lenny Schafer
Lenny Schafer
Amazon (ama...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Ignorance abounds:
: > Compensations for biological inequities to reach equality are only
: > implemented when it favors women, not men. (The "what's-your's-is-ours,
: > what's-mine-is-mine" strategy of feminism is also behind their defense of
: > Affirmative Action quota systems: here laws demanding the equal treatment
: > of women are opposed, when it's perceived to "hurt women.")
-snip-
You are still trying to weasle out of things. Nothing I write is either
sexist nor one-sided. I give specific examples to back up my opinions. Get
specific, mere assertions are not enough. Knee jerk labelling people
"sexist" is not good enough. Equality cannot be advocated for one group
only, by definition. Show me where feminism has worked to eliminate
discrimination against men. Or are you arguing that only women are victims?
-lenny
--
Lenny Schafer
Amazon (ama...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Seems like Lenny finally decided he hates both genders:
BUZZAR! Wrong again. I oppose feminism no matter the gender of the
idiot embracing it. Quite egalitarian of myself, I must confess.
: > Some scientist think that male feminism is a genetic disorder. They
: > think they've identified a cluster of genes which not only may regulate
: > self-esteem, death-wish behavior, but also contains the blueprints for
: > anus related characteristics.
: >
This satire goes over your head, too. It seems.
: Wouldn't want men to see the truth now would you Len?
On the contrary. Let feminism have its stage to try to propagate their
views. Only leave the spot lights on so we can see where the odor of
cowpies are coming from.
Tell me how that's sexist and one-sided?
Love, lenny
--
Laura Akers
Rich Payne (pay...@netcom.com) wrote:
You provide one questionable example and claim that all feminists are
racist?
Do you *want* no one to take you seriously?
:
: Nobody blinked an eye at the "'women-only' events", excluding men is so
: natural to feminists that they cannot even identify it as the exact same
: discrimination that they claim is wrong if done to women.
I'd say that it clearly was discrimination and I find it unconscionable.
Not all feminists are the same. To say that the entire movement is
defined by the actions or beliefs of one person is very flawed logic.
Do not worry
: if you do not understand, it's not like feminism is not a large,
: well-organized sexist racist orginization. Few feminist orginizations
: grant men entrance or allow them at meetings, and since feminism is
: about women and women only, why should they?
Most women's groups I've attended have been only too happy to accept men
(because we assume that any man who attends has at least a somewhat
partially open mind). And it is the *women's studies department* on my
campus that offers classes in constructions of masculinity--which are male
majority classes. Not every man is close-minded and hostile.
It seems that many
: orginizations, proving yet again that feminist rhetoric is a violent
: abuse of the truth, find it necessary to specify "woman born" to keep
: them pesky Y chromosomes out of their meetings.
Please provide proof that most groups which cater to women actively
exclude men.
Can't discuss open
: misandry and how to discriminate against men with Y chromosomes
: around, those patriarchial genes get in the way of true woman-think.
If you think we sit around talking about we hate men, you couldn't be more
wrong. Maybe you should actually *attend* some of these meetings, instead
of *assuming* you know what goes on at them.
:
: : : Under 209 these clubs as well as any
: : : club that did not allow members solely because of there race/gender would
: : : not get funding. I do not have a problem with that do you ? Or are you
: : : advocating black only, white only, male only and women only clubs/schools ?
:
: : Absolutely not.
:
: BZZZZ, false, feminists -do- advocate womans-only events, and virtually
: all feminist orginizations exclude men in some fashion, usually quite
: blatantly.
I am a feminst and I do not advocate such events. Therefore, you are
wrong.
I pointed out the sexism of the FRE charter and they removed
: it from their web-page (I do not know if the two events were causally
: connected, but this has happened several times).
The fact that they eliminated it seems to indicate that they are dedicated
to avoiding sexism--which undercuts what you are saying.
:
: : I merely think that clubs which represent minority
: : interests should receive the same funding extended to those that represent
: : the dominant culture's racial/sexual makeup.
:
: But the state has been actively discriminating -against- the dominate
: culture for decades, and funding foreign interests,
Foreign interests? The Native Americans are *foreigners*?
this is not only
: stupid, it is suicidal. Be honest, as a feminist, you could give a flying
: fuck about fairness, you are just violently opposed to white men and
: the American culture, and the though of dicriminating against men gives
: you multiple orgasms.
Most of my best friends are men. Why on Earth would I want to
discriminate against them. I like working with them, going to school with
them, and haging out with them.
:
: And lets be clear that virtually -all- "minority" interests are foreign
: imports.
Uh-huh... Especially those pesky Native Americans...
: :
: : But 209 will not insure equal opportunity.
:
: Wrong, it will guarentee equal -opportunity-, it will not guarentee
: equal -results-, which are always obtained by direct, explicit sexism.
Why? Are you saying that women and minorities, given equal opportunities,
will not reach the heights that white men will? Why? Are they defective
in some way?
I think we're closing in on your problem.
:
: (a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential
: treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex,
: color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public
: employment, public education, or public contracting.
:
: I understand that bigots like you see freedom from the racism and sexism
: you pander as a threat
One cannot pander something. The verb pander takes the dative case, not
the accusative.
, and it is a threat to the groups that have been
: feeding at the public till for decades.
You mean like the majority of welfare recipients, who happen to be white?
:
: Feminism is the largest best orginized enemy of equal opportunity in the
: US today, and they will fight all attemts for equal opportunity to their
: dying sexist breath.
Wow! You really do have a lot of hate, don't you?
:
: : It will attempt to maintain
: : the racist/sexist staus quo.
:
: No stupid, fedarally mandated racism and sexism (AA, the EEOC, at least
: 5 Executive orders) are what maintain the racist/sexist status quo.
:
: Why do women demand sexism that favors women at the expense of men?
: Misandry... greed...
"Women" don't demand this. You have been asked to prove that all
women--or even a majority of them--support taking rights from men. You
have yet to prove anything.
:
: : Let's put it this way. The laws in the South during the first half of
: : this century requiring people to pass reading/writing tests (unless they
: : were grandfathered into the system) in order to be allowed to vote
: : *sounds* like a good law on the books.
:
: And AA and other mandated sexism against men -sounds- like a good idea,
: to sexist hypocritical bigots like yourself, but they are not only
: unconstitutional (14th Amendment), but they are in direct opposition
: to the wording of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which specifically forbids
: them. The CCRI is almost a carbon copy of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
With *none* of the same intent.
:
: : But in fact, it was an attempt to
: : systemize racism and denied blacks the vote--virtually all whites were
: : convered by the grandfather clause, while almost no blacks were). What it
: : said and what it accomplished were two entirely different things.
:
: : 209 is cut from exactly the same cloth.
:
: Then so is the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which is identical to the CCRI
: except for the preferences.
:
: Be honest Laura, you are a hateful sexist racist bigot who feels
: threatened when her goddess-given right to discriminate against those
: nasty white men is made illegal, in state matters.
Amazing. You can't even come up with a new insult.
Laura
Melanie
Laura Akers wrote:
>
> Distribution:
>
> Bentz Puryear (b...@dr.lucent.com) wrote:
> :
> : Laura Akers wrote:
> : >
> : > Bentz Puryear (b...@dr.lucent.com) wrote:
> : > : Laura Akers wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : not even be allowed to exist much less get funding for it.
> : >
> : > What are you talking about? I could provide you with the names of several
> : > all-white clubs on my own campus. They get funded just like the the BSA
> : > used to, but no longer will under this law.
> :
> : I find it hard to believe that you have white clubs that exclude blacks or male
> : clubs that exclude women at any school today. But I do not know this as a fact.
> : Just hard to believe. I do know that as a male I am not welcomed in a womens
> : club and as a white I would not be welcomed at a black club.
>
> How do you know you're not welcome. I'm a *straight* member of the
> LGBT Rainbow Student Union, as is my husband. All club flyers encourage
> straight people to join. And there are several men
> associated with the women's groups on campus. But the fact that these
> clubs support equal rights for particular group, they will be denied
> official status under UC regulations.
>
> But that is not
> : condsidered discriminatory today.
>
> I disagree. Being denied access to any group based solely on one's
> biology is discrimination.
>
> : club that did not allow members solely because of there race/gender would
> : not get funding. I do not have a problem with that do you ? Or are you
> : advocating black only, white only, male only and women only clubs/schools ?
>
> interests should receive the same funding extended to those that represent
> the dominant culture's racial/sexual makeup.
>
> : > : > : What do you think about Prop 209? We already know what sexist hate-mongers
> : > : > : like Laura and NOW think, they are violently opposed to equal rights
> : > : > : under the law, they demand preferences.
> : > : >
> : > : > Sexist hatemongers? What did I say that fit into that category? My post
> : > : > was mild compared to yours--whose is more hateful?
> : > :
> : > : I agree there was no hateful words in your post although I do disgree with your
> : > : feelings on the subject.
> : >
> : > What about the facts?
> :
> : The fact is that 209 says every one is equal before the law. I can not be discriminated
> : against and you can not be discriminated against. That is what I belive in, we are
> : all equal and deserve equal opportunity, not necessarily equal outcome though.
>
> the racist/sexist staus quo.
>
> this century requiring people to pass reading/writing tests (unless they
> were grandfathered into the system) in order to be allowed to vote
> systemize racism and denied blacks the vote--virtually all whites were
> convered by the grandfather clause, while almost no blacks were). What it
> said and what it accomplished were two entirely different things.
>
> 209 is cut from exactly the same cloth.
>
Laura, 209 is not cut from the same cloth at all. It specifically says
that discrimination is against the law of any form. There is nothing in
it that prevents someone from filing lawsuits violating civil rights if
one is discriminated against, which is still one of the most used tools
in such cases. It just prevents preferential hiring, etc.
No law is going to rid us of discrimination, any more than making
abortion illegal will get rid of all abortions. However, it making
things truly equal under the law may take away some of the animosity
currently developing from preferential hiring practices.
--Melanie
Melanie
Amazon wrote:
>
> Dear Lenny,
>
> It is apparent that you are the one who is nervous and antsy.
>
> For the majority of history men have had the upper hand in
> the workforce, ownership of property and politics.(These are
> the general, most talked about topics.)
>
> Equality is something that for the last 30 years, women have
> strived for due to the obvious gender discrimmination. In
> promoting equality in the work place, in politics and in the
> military it allows for people to be judged on merit not on
> gender.
>
> Scares you now doesn't it? That your advantage in these areas
> is being neutralized. Nothing needs to be changed for men in those
> areas other then they need to be educated about women's abilities.
>
> There is no disadvantage to men if women are given equal pay,
> a place in congress, ownership of their own homes and a place
> on the front line of defense. The ONLY downside is competition.
>
> Regarding your little statement about equality in parenting:
>
> No matter what the laws say regarding custody - in the end
> it is the decision of a JUDGE as to who gets the kids. If the
> JUDGE decides the mother is better fit, she will get the kids
> if the JUDGE decides that the father is better fit, he will
> get the kids. This is why we have JUDGES. In the past there
> were judges that would only give the kids to the mother but
> in the last decade that has changed considerably. I will find
> stats if necessary.
>
> after the bio father has expressed that he doesn't want to
> be a father he should be allowed to sign a waiver that legally
> breaks all ties to the child and responsibilities thereof.
>
>
> her to keep then he should have discussed this topic with the woman
> before he slept with her. If a man thinks that most women would
> continue a pregnancy just to give it to the father then I would
> have to say he is living in a dream world.
>
> Your obviously angry at the changes taking place but that is
> too bad. They will take place. Slowly but surely women will
> be seen as equals in both the home and on the construction site.
>
> Amazon
Amazon, Perhaps you are seeing changes in the custody situation. I'm
still waiting. Most assume that a child is better off with the mother.
The mother generally has a better chance of getting and maintaining
custody. I do know someone who fought hard for custody against a mother
who abused drugs. She won, even though the actual codes supported his
position. So...I can understand why some are not as enthusiastic as you
are.
You also assume that a man may have discussed this issue with a woman
and she then does a turn about. There was a guy on one of the online
services who said his girlfriend wanted a baby with him, and then
changed her mind and had an abortion, which really upset him. Just
because one has discussed something with someone ahead of time, does not
mean they will not do an about face once pregnancy takes place.
--Melanie
Amazon
Oh Lenny, I let your words speak for themselves.
You make generalizations about feminists but you
don't even know the difference between the many
ideologies of feminism.
> Exposing bigotry, even with humor, is not sexist nor one-sided.
> Why are you defending female supremacy?
You are the prime example of blind and ignorant.
You call your little diatribe "humor" but it is
stupid, hateful and, yes, sexist. If a woman
had said this about men you would have yelled
"FEMINIST"-
I have read many of your posts and you choose
to use what you call humor to get your hate
across, frankly, you are offensive.
You ARE sexist - everything you seem to THINK
of feminists is anti-woman - you belittle and
degrade.
Your ARE one-sided in that you imply that
in keeping things status quo women will be just
fine and that it is the FEMINISTS that are at
fault - NEWSFLASH - WOMEN want changes made
and no, you DO NOT know how feminists think.
Everything you post has a hateful, angry
side to it.
I will not deal with you further.
Oh, BTW, I noticed many women on alt.feminism
feel the same way about your numerous
diatribes.
Amazon
P.S. I defend women - Respected and Equal - I know
that's a difficult concept for your narrow mind.
Amazon
Oh, come on Laura, you know that if you look in this
guys closet it has a few white robes, a few white hoods,
shackles for the wife, a big belt for the kids....
Amazon
Amazon
> You also assume that a man may have discussed this issue with a woman
> and she then does a turn about. There was a guy on one of the online
> services who said his girlfriend wanted a baby with him, and then
> changed her mind and had an abortion, which really upset him. Just
> because one has discussed something with someone ahead of time, does not
> mean they will not do an about face once pregnancy takes place.
Melanie,
I don't assume anything. It is not my business to intrude
on anyone who is discussing their personal lives.
I would HOPE that he would have known her well enough
to see the change coming - OR she should have discussed
her worries with him.
She should have known herself well enough not to make
a promise she wasn't able to keep. But that is life -
that is THEIR lives.
One would hope that a couple would know each other
well enough BEFORE something like this happens.
Amazon
Oze McCallum
You mean you've been in his closet?
Oze
Laura Akers
Melanie (wmn...@ns.net) wrote:
: Laura Akers wrote:
: >
: > Distribution:
: >
: >
: > But 209 will not insure equal opportunity. It will attempt to maintain
: > the racist/sexist staus quo.
: >
: > Let's put it this way. The laws in the South during the first half of
: > this century requiring people to pass reading/writing tests (unless they
: > were grandfathered into the system) in order to be allowed to vote
: > *sounds* like a good law on the books. But in fact, it was an attempt to
: > systemize racism and denied blacks the vote--virtually all whites were
: > convered by the grandfather clause, while almost no blacks were). What it
: > said and what it accomplished were two entirely different things.
: >
: > 209 is cut from exactly the same cloth.
: >
: > Laura
:
: Laura, 209 is not cut from the same cloth at all. It specifically says
: that discrimination is against the law of any form.
Please pay attention, Melanie. What it says is vastly different from
*what it will do*.
There is nothing in
: it that prevents someone from filing lawsuits violating civil rights if
: one is discriminated against, which is still one of the most used tools
: in such cases.
Used by who? How many inner city youth can file a lawsuit because the
program that was training them how to fill out college applications has
been axed as being "discriminatory"?
:It just prevents preferential hiring, etc.
Nope. It authorizes racist and sexist employers to go back to hiring the
people they want to.
:
: No law is going to rid us of discrimination, any more than making
: abortion illegal will get rid of all abortions. However, it making
: things truly equal under the law may take away some of the animosity
: currently developing from preferential hiring practices.
Only the animosity of the white male. How many many people of color and
women do you think will be enraged by this law? Don't you have enough of
a grasp on history to see where such a thing is leading?
Laura
Jodi S. Graham
In article <5jlaqb$l5i$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
Laura Akers <ez07...@rocky.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>Melanie (wmn...@ns.net) wrote:
> There is nothing in
>: it that prevents someone from filing lawsuits violating civil rights if
>: one is discriminated against, which is still one of the most used tools
>: in such cases.
>
>Used by who? How many inner city youth can file a lawsuit because the
>program that was training them how to fill out college applications has
>been axed as being "discriminatory"?
But if the program is aimed at "inner city youth" how can it be
discriminatory? The law doesn't make it illegal to have programs for the
underpriviledged does it? Wasn't there a case in California where a poor
Asian kid was held to a much higher college entrance standard (and
therefore wasn't accepted) than a wealthy African-American? What message
does that send to BOTH those kids?
>
>
>:It just prevents preferential hiring, etc.
>
>Nope. It authorizes racist and sexist employers to go back to hiring the
>people they want to.
When I was a kid, one of my parents had a button that I really liked that
said, "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is
wrong?"
Why do we discriminate on the basis of gender and race against those who
discriminate on the basis of gender and race to show that discriminating on
the basis of gender and race is wrong?
I wouldn't want to feel as though I got a job because I am a woman.
Jodi
Amazon
Larry Rogers posts:
> And Amazon and Carol are prime examples.
>
> Amazon <ama...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
> <335D57...@mindspring.com>...
> > Ignorance abounds:
Well, this is another fine example of Larry Rogers
distinct intelligence and its application to the
topic at hand, WHICH mind you, he has no clue about
therefore he resorts to ad hominem attacks.
Amazon
Gerry Harbison
Amazon wrote:
>
> Oh, come on Laura, you know that if you look in this
> guys closet it has a few white robes, a few white hoods,
> shackles for the wife, a big belt for the kids....
Like I said, these fanatics can't argue without getting personal.
Gerry Harbison
Amazon wrote:
>
> In cased you missed Laura's response:
>
> > Proposition 209 was not about equal rights. It was about reimposing the
> > the advantages of certain groups over another. Virtually *all* minority
> > and disenfranchised groups protested against 209.
A bunch of organizations *claiming* to represent minority groups
opposed 209. A large fraction of hispanics supported it, along with a
clear majority of Asian-Americans.
In addition to removing
> > encouragement to hiring minorities and women, Proposition 209 outlawed
> > programs in the inner cities that would have helped underprivileged youth
> > to see college as a possibility in their future. It makes it illegal for
> > universities to fund any extracurricular club which is based on color,
> > race, ethnicity, biological sex, sexual orientation, etc.
Whereas now, they only ban clubs based on certain races, ethnicities,
sexes and sexual orientations,
Yeah, equality sucks, doesn't it?
(In other
> > words, the clubs which are predominantly white and/or male can get funded
> > but the Native American club, or the Women Resource group can't.)
A club which is predominantly female or native American can get
funded. It just can't get funded simply for being *for* Native
Americans or women. Just as it can't be funded if it only caters to
white people.
Prop
> > 209 has made it illegal for any program which is meant to service a
> > particular group of people (black kids living in western Sacramento--a
> > dangerous area) to receive any assistance from the government.
Good.
If the poor need help, help the poor. Don't help the black poor or the
white poor. Poverty and race are separate issues.
> >
> > It's pretty obvious. Theose who are white, male, and middle class will
> > benefit. Those who are not will suffer. What equal about that?
This issimply an unjustified assertion.Do people really benefit by
given unearned rewards? I suspect not.
In ten years, an African-American, hispanic or woman in California
won't need to deal with the perception that he or she got where they
are on account of their race, rather than on their merits.
> And to add a little bit of enlightenment to your obviously deprived life
Good old feminist ad hominem again. Funny how they're incapable of
arguing without getting personal. Just as they're all for equality
until you start making it the law.
> -
>
> Not all Feminists are represented by NOW and FMF. You really would
> love to make that generalization but I hate to tell you this, many
> feminists do their own thing without the need of having to belong
> to a group.
You asked whether we knew any active feminists. NOW and FMF aren't
active feminists?
>
> Amazon
Larry Rogers
Laura Akers
Jodi S. Graham (jsgr...@cs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: In article <5jlaqb$l5i$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
: Laura Akers <ez07...@rocky.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
: >Melanie (wmn...@ns.net) wrote:
: > There is nothing in
: >: it that prevents someone from filing lawsuits violating civil rights if
: >: one is discriminated against, which is still one of the most used tools
: >: in such cases.
: >
: >Used by who? How many inner city youth can file a lawsuit because the
: >program that was training them how to fill out college applications has
: >been axed as being "discriminatory"?
:
: But if the program is aimed at "inner city youth" how can it be
: discriminatory?
Because the program grants were written to address the needs of black or
hispanic kids specifically, but the program actually ends up serving all
the kids who live within a certain geographic area. Successful programs
which have been running for years will suddenly be closed due to lack of
funding.
The law doesn't make it illegal to have programs for the
: underpriviledged does it? Wasn't there a case in California where a poor
: Asian kid was held to a much higher college entrance standard (and
: therefore wasn't accepted) than a wealthy African-American? What message
: does that send to BOTH those kids?
Probably a similar message to the one sent to a black kid who works his
butt off trying to get a decent enough education to do well on his SATs at
his underfunded school in order to get a scholarship (which is the only
way he'll be able to afford *any* college) but ends up not doing well
because the test is geared toward a different socio/ecomonic/enthic group
and to a white kid whose parents can afford to send him, who doesn't need
the scholarship except as an entry on his curriculum vitae, and who does
well because of the test is biased in his favor.
"Some people are always getting screwed."
The problem is: if the circumstances are biased in favor of the black kid,
both kids will probably end up going to school. If it's biased in favor
of the white kid, only one of them does. Which situation is preferable?
:
: >
: >
: >:It just prevents preferential hiring, etc.
: >
: >Nope. It authorizes racist and sexist employers to go back to hiring the
: >people they want to.
:
: When I was a kid, one of my parents had a button that I really liked that
: said, "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is
: wrong?"
:
: Why do we discriminate on the basis of gender and race against those who
: discriminate on the basis of gender and race to show that discriminating on
: the basis of gender and race is wrong?
Because racial discrimination is so powerful in our society that the only
way to dislodge it is to replace some of those in power with exactly those
groups that they choose to discriminate against. When our management
staffs and our Boards of directors start to look like the communities they
actually serve, then AA has done it's job and should be repealed. Until
then, since no one has a better idea, its the best option.
:
: I wouldn't want to feel as though I got a job because I am a woman.
Then work your butt off. But let me point out to you--you may have
actually been denied a job in the past because you were a woman, without
ever knowing it. Is that okay with you?
Laura
Laura Akers
<Some groups clipped>
B89F7...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu> <335BB8...@mindspring.com>
<335ED4...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu>:
Distribution:
Gerry Harbison (ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu) wrote:
:
: Amazon wrote:
: >
: > In cased you missed Laura's response:
: >
: > > Proposition 209 was not about equal rights. It was about reimposing the
: > > the advantages of certain groups over another. Virtually *all* minority
: > > and disenfranchised groups protested against 209.
:
: A bunch of organizations *claiming* to represent minority groups
: opposed 209. A large fraction of hispanics supported it, along with a
: clear majority of Asian-Americans.
Define "large fraction of hispanics." My husband's family is hispanics
and have many ties to the community. The overwhelming majority of them
were against 209.
:
: In addition to removing
: > > encouragement to hiring minorities and women, Proposition 209 outlawed
: > > programs in the inner cities that would have helped underprivileged youth
: > > to see college as a possibility in their future. It makes it illegal for
: > > universities to fund any extracurricular club which is based on color,
: > > race, ethnicity, biological sex, sexual orientation, etc.
:
: Whereas now, they only ban clubs based on certain races, ethnicities,
: sexes and sexual orientations,
Such as?
:
: Yeah, equality sucks, doesn't it?
Equality doesn't. That's the point. Discrimination masquerading as
"civil rights" does however.
:
:
:
: (In other
: > > words, the clubs which are predominantly white and/or male can get funded
: > > but the Native American club, or the Women Resource group can't.)
:
: A club which is predominantly female or native American can get
: funded. It just can't get funded simply for being *for* Native
: Americans or women. Just as it can't be funded if it only caters to
: white people.
The Native American club does not cater solely to Native Americans,
neither does the LGBT club cater solely to the LGBT community. Why should
they have their funding pulled?
:
: Prop
: > > 209 has made it illegal for any program which is meant to service a
: > > particular group of people (black kids living in western Sacramento--a
: > > dangerous area) to receive any assistance from the government.
:
: Good.
:
: If the poor need help, help the poor. Don't help the black poor or the
: white poor. Poverty and race are separate issues.
Have you noticed that all the "poverty-based" programs which the
proponents of Prop 209 said would replace the racially based ones have
*failed to materialize*? There claim that we fund poverty was a
smokescreen. White youth are currently suffering alongside their black
counterparts--the programs that used to help both are being dismantled.
:
: > >
: > > It's pretty obvious. Theose who are white, male, and middle class will
: > > benefit. Those who are not will suffer. What equal about that?
:
: This issimply an unjustified assertion.Do people really benefit by
: given unearned rewards? I suspect not.
How is an entitlement program in the poor section of Sacramento an
"unearned reward"?
:
: In ten years, an African-American, hispanic or woman in California
: won't need to deal with the perception that he or she got where they
: are on account of their race, rather than on their merits.
Of course not. They won't have been given the chance to show their merits
in alot of cases. Their race and sex will still have much to do with
where they are, but they won't have much to be thankful about.
:
:
:
: > And to add a little bit of enlightenment to your obviously deprived life
:
:
: Good old feminist ad hominem again. Funny how they're incapable of
: arguing without getting personal. Just as they're all for equality
: until you start making it the law.
I didn't get personal. Your statement is patently false\.
:
:
: > -
: >
: > Not all Feminists are represented by NOW and FMF. You really would
: > love to make that generalization but I hate to tell you this, many
: > feminists do their own thing without the need of having to belong
: > to a group.
:
: You asked whether we knew any active feminists. NOW and FMF aren't
: active feminists?
Being vaguely familiar with the institutional platform of two national
organization does not really qualify as "knowing any active feminists." I
am familiar with Ronald Reagan's administration. Doesn't mean I know the
man or what he stands for as an individual.
Laura
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <5jlaqb$l5i$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu> ez07...@rocky.ucdavis.edu (Laura
Akers) writes:
>
>Melanie (wmn...@ns.net) wrote:
>: Laura Akers wrote:
>: >
>: > Distribution:
>: >
>: >
>: > But 209 will not insure equal opportunity. It will attempt to
maintain>: > the racist/sexist staus quo.
>: >
>: > Let's put it this way. The laws in the South during the first
half of > this century requiring people to pass reading/writing tests
(unless they > were grandfathered into the system) in order to be
allowed to vote> *sounds* like a good law on the books. But in fact,
it was an attempt to > systemize racism and denied blacks the
vote--virtually all whites were > convered by the grandfather clause,
while almost no blacks were). What it> said and what it accomplished
were two entirely different things.
>: >
>: > 209 is cut from exactly the same cloth.
>: >
>: > Laura
>:
>: Laura, 209 is not cut from the same cloth at all. It specifically
says: that discrimination is against the law of any form.
--------
Laura is right. 209 "says" that discrimination is against
the law, but it cannot assure that without taking away the
ability of employers to select an employee by SEEING THE
COLOR OF THE SKIN or BY SEEING THE GENDER of the applicant.
Unless 209 had language that defeated the ability of employers
to BE biased it cannot eliminate that bias because people are
ALL biased. If I were an employer, I would tend to hire
white females like myslef; that's not a flaw; it is only
human. The language of 209 might as well say "being human
is now against the law" (sniker, sniker)
--------------
>
>
>Please pay attention, Melanie. What it says is vastly different from
>*what it will do*.
---------
Yes, what it will do is to allow continued discrimination to
continue without the ability for redress.
----------
>
> There is nothing in>: it that prevents someone from filing lawsuits
violating civil rights if>: one is discriminated against, which is
still one of the most used tools>: in such cases.
--------
It places the burden on the harmed party for the behavior of
others who have only acted human in selecting or promoting
those most like themselves. What jury is going to convict for
that? Bias needs to be countered in a different way. 209
fails to address that.
----------
>
>Used by who? How many inner city youth can file a lawsuit because the
>program that was training them how to fill out college applications
has>been axed as being "discriminatory"?
----------
.....and how many of them can prove discrimination?
-----------
>
>
>:It just prevents preferential hiring, etc.
>
>Nope. It authorizes racist and sexist employers to go back to hiring
the>people they want to.
-----------
It prevents society from the ability to address social harms
caused by bias.
-----------
>
>
>:
>: No law is going to rid us of discrimination, any more than making
>: abortion illegal will get rid of all abortions. However, it making
>: things truly equal under the law may take away some of the animosity
>: currently developing from preferential hiring practices.
----------
The "animosity" involved in AA is from those who have retained
privilege because they were white. They need to learn how to
handle their anger and learn about bias and privilege, and
learn to share.
>
>Only the animosity of the white male. How many many people of color
and>women do you think will be enraged by this law? Don't you have
enough of>a grasp on history to see where such a thing is leading?
>
>
>Laura
=-----------
Agreed. The animosity of the white male goes deeper than this.
Because they have to share the pot and now allow black men to
play golf, those who don't want to share their privilege will
continue to make racist statements against the Tiger Woods fo
the world, and will also continue to use prejudice in hiring.
Lefty
GJP
Ellen W. wrote:
>
> Laura Akers wrote:
> > Let's put it this way. The laws in the South during the first half
> > of this century requiring people to pass reading/writing tests
> > (unless they were grandfathered into the system) in order to be
> > allowed to vote *sounds* like a good law on the books. But in fact,
> > it was an attempt to systemize racism and denied blacks the vote--
> > virtually all whites were convered by the grandfather clause, while
> > almost no blacks were). What it said and what it accomplished were
> > two entirely different things.
> >
> > 209 is cut from exactly the same cloth.
> > Laura
>
> the sex which is under-represented in our state colleges
> from trying to get affirmative action consideration.
>
> The (ostensibly non-partison) CALIFORNIA SENATE OFFICE OF RESEARCH
> wrote all about the impact of 209 on women and minorities.
> I pointed out that it is men who are the underrepresented
> sex in college. And 209 denies men the opportunity for redress.
> But read any anti-209 statement and all you see are the
> effects on women and minorities.
Socialism at its best.
Greg Palumbo
>
> -Ted
Ellen W.
-Ted
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <5jlr99$b...@gummy.cs.indiana.edu> jsgr...@cs.indiana.edu (Jodi S.
Graham) writes:
(edit)
>I wouldn't want to feel as though I got a job because I am a woman.
>Jodi
------
No? How would you feel if you discovered you DIDN'T get
it because you were a woman?
Lefty
Mark Evans
Amazon (ama...@mindspring.com) wrote:
:
Well certaing bigots like you can't see the truth
when it's in front of you.
What scares you most the truth or your own sexism?
Mark Evans
Laura Akers (ez07...@rocky.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: Melanie (wmn...@ns.net) wrote:
: : Laura Akers wrote:
: : >
: : > Distribution:
: : >
: : >
: : > But 209 will not insure equal opportunity. It will attempt to maintain
: : > the racist/sexist staus quo.
: : >
: : > this century requiring people to pass reading/writing tests (unless they
: : > were grandfathered into the system) in order to be allowed to vote
: : > *sounds* like a good law on the books. But in fact, it was an attempt to
: : > convered by the grandfather clause, while almost no blacks were). What it
: : > said and what it accomplished were two entirely different things.
: : >
: : > 209 is cut from exactly the same cloth.
: : >
: : > Laura
: : that discrimination is against the law of any form.
:
: Please pay attention, Melanie. What it says is vastly different from
: *what it will do*.
Please pay attention dear, it has a better chance of actually promoting
equality than anything which has been seen in the western world in recorded
history.
Laura (and others) oppose this becuase they don't want equality. They
don't want to loose their special protected status, they don't want to
have RESPONSIBILITY for their actions, they benefit from the status
quo discrimination...
: There is nothing in
: : it that prevents someone from filing lawsuits violating civil rights if
: : one is discriminated against, which is still one of the most used tools
: : in such cases.
:
: Used by who? How many inner city youth can file a lawsuit because the
: program that was training them how to fill out college applications has
: been axed as being "discriminatory"?
:
: :It just prevents preferential hiring, etc.
:
: Nope. It authorizes racist and sexist employers to go back to hiring the
: people they want to.
Wrong it prevents racist and sexist employers hiding behind nice sounding
terms like "positive discrimination", "affirmative action", etc.
It means they WILL have to avoid discrimination, they will have to
actually determin employment on merit, they won't be pushed arround
by bigoted outside organisations.
:
: :
: : No law is going to rid us of discrimination, any more than making
: : abortion illegal will get rid of all abortions. However, it making
: : things truly equal under the law may take away some of the animosity
: : currently developing from preferential hiring practices.
:
: Only the animosity of the white male. How many many people of color and
: women do you think will be enraged by this law? Don't you have enough of
: a grasp on history to see where such a thing is leading?
Child, what has happened in the past has been partisan legislation
(claiming to be in the name of equality) in reality promoting
bigotry. Here we have genuine equality legislation, history tells us
nothing about where it will lead, we know where the sort of "equality"
promoted by the likes of feminists leads though, history does tell
us that. i.e. passing this is a rare example of history being learned
from.
Mark Evans
Jodi S. Graham (jsgr...@cs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: In article <5jlaqb$l5i$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>,
: Laura Akers <ez07...@rocky.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
: >Melanie (wmn...@ns.net) wrote:
: >: it that prevents someone from filing lawsuits violating civil rights if
: >: one is discriminated against, which is still one of the most used tools
: >: in such cases.
: >
: >Used by who? How many inner city youth can file a lawsuit because the
: >program that was training them how to fill out college applications has
: >been axed as being "discriminatory"?
:
: underpriviledged does it? Wasn't there a case in California where a poor
: Asian kid was held to a much higher college entrance standard (and
: therefore wasn't accepted) than a wealthy African-American? What message
: does that send to BOTH those kids?
Is it not exactly this sort of situation that the proposed law is addressing
head on... That discrimination is wrong, however it is dressed up and
whatever spin doctoring is used to excuse it.
The people who are of course frightened by it are those who benefit from
the status quo, they would loose their privileged status.
Mark Evans
Laura Akers (ez07...@boris.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
:
: Because racial discrimination is so powerful in our society that the only
: way to dislodge it is to replace some of those in power with exactly those
: groups that they choose to discriminate against. When our management
Your logic is flawed. Just becuase someone is of group X does not imply
that they are not bigoted. And indeed history provides plenty of examples
of individuals and groups discriminating against their "own" people.
: staffs and our Boards of directors start to look like the communities they
: actually serve, then AA has done it's job and should be repealed. Until
Which in practice means never, since the goal posts can always be moved.
The criteria by which a match is judged are subjective and even if you
can get a match it proves nothing at all anyway.
: then, since no one has a better idea, its the best option.
Nope you (and others) oppose the better idea. Which is a quite
simple one, oppose discrimination universally.
Larry Rogers
Why thank you. I knew you respected my intelligence.
I do not respect yours. Post what you consider fair CS guidelines and/or
policies or shadap.
Larry
Amazon <ama...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<335EE...@mindspring.com>...
> Larry Rogers posts:
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <335EE...@mindspring.com> Amazon <ama...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>Larry Rogers posts:
>
>> And Amazon and Carol are prime examples.
>>
>> Amazon <ama...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
>> <335D57...@mindspring.com>...
>> > Ignorance abounds:
>
>Well, this is another fine example of Larry Rogers
>topic at hand, WHICH mind you, he has no clue about
>therefore he resorts to ad hominem attacks.
>
>Amazon
------
Come on, Amazon; Sometimes being an asshole is all a jerk
has left to hold onto.
Lefty
Mark Evans
Amazon (ama...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Well, Vera, even though those points are valid why don't you
: get specific in your little sign off and say -
: "Lies & Deceptions of NOW members" since you are no better
: then those who condemn all feminists by saying "neofeminists"
: Which, BTW, there really is no such thing.
What term would you prefer "sexist pig" since that just
as accuratly defines the current mainstream feminist...
Mark Evans
Laura Akers (ez07...@rocky.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
:
: Rich said:
:
: <I went over my disk quota and lost the first part of this. Basically it
: was the text of Prop 209>
:
: :
: : : It(Prop 209) was about
: reimposing the
: : : the advantages of certain groups over another.
: : Which part of "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant
: preferential
: : treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex,
: : color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public
: : employment, public education, or public contracting" says this?
:
: It doesn't. There is a huge difference between what this law states and
: what it will actually accomplish. Proposition 209 was phrased
: specifically to hoodwink the voters in my opinion. It sounds wonderful,
: but when you explain what it will in fact *do*, people tend to get angry
: that they were deceived.
What's the problem, bigot, it threatens your favoured groups status??
Mark Evans
Amazon (ama...@mindspring.com) wrote:
:
: Feminism is much MORE than equal rights. Those who are not truly
This is the Orwellien definition of "more", contempoary feminism
has nothing to to with equal rights.
: educated about what it is to be a FEMINIST, and BTW, there are many
: types of feminists with many different views, ALWAYS jump on the
Child this simply isn't true.
: "YOU ALL ARE ABOUT EQUALITY" - what the majority of feminists that
You carp on about equality, to draw attention away from the
fact that you OPPOSE it. The last thing feminists want is gender
equality.
: *I* spend time with are about is RESPECT. It is something that is
: automatically given to men and women have to work for. THAT is the
Utter crap.
It is MEN in western society who have to earn respect, only
a fool or a bigot would thing otherwise.
Mark Jebens
In article <5jgt29$3...@nr1.toronto.istar.net>, s...@rideau.net wrote:
> Amazon wrote:
>
> > This is why we have JUDGES. In the past there
> > were judges that would only give the kids to the mother but
> > in the last decade that has changed considerably. I will find
> > stats if necessary.
>
> I would very much like to see these stats if you can obtain them please.
The pattern of custody that has changed is that joint custody is awarded
more often than it used to be. Radical feminist progagandists base
their numbers using the theory that if the mother doesn't get sole
custody, then she has lost.
The interesting thing here is that mothers are still often given
preferential treatment even when both parents want joint custody. In
Anne Mitchell recently posted the Stanford study (which is the only
reliable study to date on the subject) on custody. When both parents
wanted joint custody, joint custody was awarded only half the time and
sole maternal custody was awarded four times as often as sole paternal
custody. (Note: joint physical custody in Calif is a legal issue and
does not impact the time the kids spend with each parent.)
The level of paternal sole custody has stayed constant. Since paternal
sole custody was typically only awarded in very bizarre circumstances
(i.e, the mother not being fit or a father using his vast wealth and
influence - which only applies to a very small number of dads), it seems
logical that this pattern has not changed. That is to say, fathers are
still not being considered as viable candidates for sole custody unless
maternal custody is not an option.
One other possibility is that sometimes the numbers that radical feminist
propagandists use in this area are for cases that are appealled. Due to
the way the process works, the person appealling a custody ruling has a
better than average chance of getting custody (hint: you cannot appeal
based on the baises of the judge that often favors mothers over fathers;
you can only appeal based on a legal error).
--
Mark Jebens
Xmje...@primenet.com - to reply, remove the X from the user name
"This shows how much easier it is to be critical than to be
correct." Benjamin Disraeli
Laura Akers
Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Laura Akers (ez07...@rocky.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: : Melanie (wmn...@ns.net) wrote:
: : : Laura Akers wrote:
: : :
: : : that discrimination is against the law of any form.
: :
: :
: : Please pay attention, Melanie. What it says is vastly different from
: : *what it will do*.
:
: Please pay attention dear, it has a better chance of actually promoting
: equality than anything which has been seen in the western world in recorded
: history.
:
: Laura (and others) oppose this becuase they don't want equality. They
: don't want to loose their special protected status, they don't want to
: have RESPONSIBILITY for their actions, they benefit from the status
: quo discrimination...
Please provide proof of all of these assertions.
:
: : There is nothing in
: : : it that prevents someone from filing lawsuits violating civil rights if
: : : one is discriminated against, which is still one of the most used tools
: : : in such cases.
: :
: : Used by who? How many inner city youth can file a lawsuit because the
: : program that was training them how to fill out college applications has
: : been axed as being "discriminatory"?
: :
: : :It just prevents preferential hiring, etc.
: :
: : Nope. It authorizes racist and sexist employers to go back to hiring the
: : people they want to.
:
: Wrong it prevents racist and sexist employers hiding behind nice sounding
: terms like "positive discrimination", "affirmative action", etc.
: It means they WILL have to avoid discrimination, they will have to
: actually determin employment on merit, they won't be pushed arround
: by bigoted outside organisations.
Just like they did in the good old days when blacks couldn't ride buses
except in the back and women knew their place, right?
:
: :
: : :
: : : No law is going to rid us of discrimination, any more than making
: : : abortion illegal will get rid of all abortions. However, it making
: : : things truly equal under the law may take away some of the animosity
: : : currently developing from preferential hiring practices.
: :
: : Only the animosity of the white male. How many many people of color and
: : women do you think will be enraged by this law? Don't you have enough of
: : a grasp on history to see where such a thing is leading?
:
: Child,
Your lack of respect shows exactly why discrimination must be overturned
artificially. Left to your own devices, your sexism shows.
what has happened in the past has been partisan legislation
: (claiming to be in the name of equality) in reality promoting
: bigotry. Here we have genuine equality legislation, history tells us
: nothing about where it will lead, we know where the sort of "equality"
: promoted by the likes of feminists leads though, history does tell
: us that. i.e. passing this is a rare example of history being learned
: from.
I'm going to suppress my desire to correct your English. However, please
prove that AA is promoting bigotry, that Prop 209 will bring about true
equality, and that feminist equality is some alternate unreasonable form.
Better yet, take your unfounded hatred somewhere else.
Laura
Laura Akers
Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Laura Akers (ez07...@boris.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: :
: : Because racial discrimination is so powerful in our society that the only
: : way to dislodge it is to replace some of those in power with exactly those
: : groups that they choose to discriminate against. When our management
:
: Your logic is flawed. Just becuase someone is of group X does not imply
: that they are not bigoted.
I didn't argue that it did. But if all we can hope for is that everyone
will be a bigot, then we need to get all kinds of bigots so they will
balance each other out.
But then, I don't believe that all of us are bigots. I'm not.
And indeed history provides plenty of examples
: of individuals and groups discriminating against their "own" people.
This is sadly true. However, I have a feeling that those people would be
weeded out under just such a system. And since you seem to see neig\ther
a problem nor its solution, I'm wondering why you are even taking part in
this discussion.
:
: : staffs and our Boards of directors start to look like the communities they
: : actually serve, then AA has done it's job and should be repealed. Until
:
: Which in practice means never, since the goal posts can always be moved.
: The criteria by which a match is judged are subjective and even if you
: can get a match it proves nothing at all anyway.
aActually its very easy. A demographic survey of a community will show
its racial and sexual makeup. A demographic survey of a company will do
the same thing. All that we need do is compare the two to see if the goal
is reached. Highly objective measurement.
:
: : then, since no one has a better idea, its the best option.
:
: Nope you (and others) oppose the better idea. Which is a quite
: simple one, oppose discrimination universally.
I do. But I know that that's not what 209 will do. Present me with a law
that *will* and I'll vote for it. Maybe even twice. :)
Laura
Ray Fischer
Mark Evans <ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>What term would you prefer "sexist pig" since that just
>as accuratly defines the current mainstream feminist...
It seem to me that you've constructed an evil anti-male strawman and
are refusing to listen to anyone telling you that it doesn't represent
the majority of "feminists".
Not an impressive way of making a point.
--
Ray Fischer "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding." Louis Brandeis
Kim
has left to hold onto. :)
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <335ED5...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu> Gerry Harbison
-------
Gerry, does that mean you forgot to hide the shackles? :]
Lefty
Laura H
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <335EE...@mindspring.com> Amazon <ama...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >
> >Larry Rogers posts:
> >
> >> And Amazon and Carol are prime examples.
> >>
> >> Amazon <ama...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
> >> <335D57...@mindspring.com>...
> >> > Ignorance abounds:
> >
> >Well, this is another fine example of Larry Rogers
> >distinct intelligence and its application to the
> >topic at hand, WHICH mind you, he has no clue about
> >therefore he resorts to ad hominem attacks.
> >
> >Amazon
>
> ------
> Come on, Amazon; Sometimes being an asshole is all a jerk
> has left to hold onto.
>
> Lefty
ROFLMAO Lefty!!! Excellent...I think of Stephen King's phrase every
time I have to be a "witch" to my kids. *LOL*
Laura H
Mark Jebens
In article <3354E3...@mindspring.com>, ama...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Paul Laird posts:
>
> <major snippage at a disappointing statement from NOW>
>
> > According to A 1994 Census Report, 14% of men who by agreement
> > > with their xwife, went to court expecting custody, had that custody
> > > given to the mother. This why I say: Truth is always truer than
> > > feminism. Paul L
>
> You know what Paul, anything for you to denigrate women makes
> you happy. I have been reading your posts for a few months now
> and you make me ill.
I don't see anything above that denigrates women. Paul just pointed out
that NOW is not being truthful in their effort to ensure that women keep
their current advantage in the Family Law arena.
By thinking he was denigrating women says more about you than about Paul.
Mark Jebens
In article <5jg3tv$quj$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, ez07...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu
(Laura Akers) wrote:
> Proposition 209 was not about equal rights. It was about reimposing the
> the advantages of certain groups over another.
More correctly, it was about not using discriminiation to fight previous
discrimination. In other words, all sex or race based discrimination is
equally condemned.
>Virtually *all* minority
> and disenfranchised groups protested against 209.
No doubt they were afraid of losing their advantages over certain groups.
>In addition to removing
> encouragement to hiring minorities and women, Proposition 209 outlawed
> programs in the inner cities that would have helped underprivileged youth
> to see college as a possibility in their future.
This is not true at all. Proposition 209 did not cover discrimination
based on geography.
>It makes it illegal for
> universities to fund any extracurricular club which is based on color,
> race, ethnicity, biological sex, sexual orientation, etc.
Sexual orientation also was not covered by Proposition 209.
>(In other
> words, the clubs which are predominantly white and/or male can get funded
> but the Native American club, or the Women Resource group can't.)
You are wrong. The White Supremist club and the He-Man Woman Haters
club also won't be funded.
My question is why do these people need to have clubs based on their
ethniticity or sex rather than associate with those who share similar
interests?
>Prop
> 209 has made it illegal for any program which is meant to service a
> particular group of people (black kids living in western Sacramento--a
> dangerous area) to receive any assistance from the government.
As above, Prop. 209 does not cover geography.
> It's pretty obvious. Theose who are white, male, and middle class will
> benefit. Those who are not will suffer. What equal about that?
White, middle-class males will also no longer be discriminated against.
You can call this a benefit if you will.
Mark Jebens
In article <rayE90...@netcom.com>, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Rich Payne <pay...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >Which part of "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential
> >treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex,
> >color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public
> >employment, public education, or public contracting" says this?
>
> The part that allows discrimination based upon economic status and
> education and where one lives.
As you can clearly see (or should be able to), there is no reference
to discrimination based on economic or geographic considerations in the
wording of the Proposition.
> For example, blacks, immigrants, and hispanics are consistently
> discriminated against. How? Because, in part, of past and present
> discrimination such groups are forced into lower-income neighborhoods.
>
> The schools in such neighborhoods receive less money from the state,
> providing poorer education. Poorer education for the children
> perpetuates the discrimination.
>
> And you demand that it be allowed and continued. Instead of allow the
> universities to allow for poorer schools, you want to make sure that
> blacks and hispanics don't get to uppity by using your universities.
Based on what you said above, you do not believe that a person living
in Beverly Hills should have an advantage over someone living in South
Central LA. However, that is exactly the situation if the person living
in B.H. 90210 is a rich Nigerian immigrant and the SC LA person is
poor and Chinese.
Kep Brown
Oze McCallum wrote:
>
> Amazon wrote:
> >
> > Oh, come on Laura, you know that if you look in this
> > guys closet it has a few white robes, a few white hoods,
> > shackles for the wife, a big belt for the kids....
> >
>
> You mean you've been in his closet?
>
> Oze
She just got through saying she left all her stuff behind didn't she.
--
The Brown Family Home Page
http://www.utech.net/users/40301/brhomen.htm
Laura Akers
Mark Jebens (Xmje...@primenet.com) wrote:
:
: In article <5jg3tv$quj$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, ez07...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu
: (Laura Akers) wrote:
:
: > Proposition 209 was not about equal rights. It was about reimposing the
: > the advantages of certain groups over another.
:
: More correctly, it was about not using discriminiation to fight previous
: discrimination. In other words, all sex or race based discrimination is
: equally condemned.
Nope, just what might have seemed obvious. The less obvious forms were
given free reign.
:
: >Virtually *all* minority
: > and disenfranchised groups protested against 209.
:
: No doubt they were afraid of losing their advantages over certain groups.
Uh, huh...
:
: >In addition to removing
: > encouragement to hiring minorities and women, Proposition 209 outlawed
: > programs in the inner cities that would have helped underprivileged youth
: > to see college as a possibility in their future.
:
: This is not true at all. Proposition 209 did not cover discrimination
: based on geography.
You miss the point. Many of the programs which will be defunded will be
those which served area but got funded based on racial criteria.
:
: >It makes it illegal for
: > universities to fund any extracurricular club which is based on color,
: > race, ethnicity, biological sex, sexual orientation, etc.
:
: Sexual orientation also was not covered by Proposition 209.
I stand corrected. Pete Wilson's hatred on that issue is not camoflaged
by 209.
:
: >(In other
: > words, the clubs which are predominantly white and/or male can get funded
: > but the Native American club, or the Women Resource group can't.)
:
: You are wrong. The White Supremist club and the He-Man Woman Haters
: club also won't be funded.
Are you actually comparing a club that combats rape, assault, and
discrimination with clubs which practice them?
:
: My question is why do these people need to have clubs based on their
: ethniticity or sex rather than associate with those who share similar
: interests?
Because they are advocacy groups which seek to celebrate their
ethnicity--that *is* their "similiar interest." And they share their
interests with those of other groups. I doubt that the White Supremicists
Club will similiarly overlook the ethnicity of new members.
:
: >Prop
: > 209 has made it illegal for any program which is meant to service a
: > particular group of people (black kids living in western Sacramento--a
: > dangerous area) to receive any assistance from the government.
:
: As above, Prop. 209 does not cover geography.
"Black kids." Please reread the sentence above.
:
: > It's pretty obvious. Theose who are white, male, and middle class will
: > benefit. Those who are not will suffer. What equal about that?
:
: White, middle-class males will also no longer be discriminated against.
: You can call this a benefit if you will.
Being forced to take a smaller piece of the pie than you are
traditionally used to so that others may have
*exactly the same piece* (which has systematically been denied them) is
not "being discriminated against."
Laura
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <schaferE...@netcom.com> sch...@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer)
writes:
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <5jlr99$b...@gummy.cs.indiana.edu> jsgr...@cs.indiana.edu (Jodi
S.
>: Graham) writes:
>
>: >I wouldn't want to feel as though I got a job because I am a woman.
>: >Jodi
>
>: ------
>: No? How would you feel if you discovered you DIDN'T get
>: it because you were a woman?
>
>responsibility for my career to Bill Clinton and the Democrats so they
>can pretend to fix it for me? When I finished having a good cry, of
course.
>
>-lenny
----------
Well, good! It's better than cursing the darkness.
Lefty :]
>
>--
>"They say I'm a bitter, angry man. So filled with hate to
characterize
>feminist excesses in such dark and depressing tones. A lonely man.
>Certainly a weak man with small genitals, just like women.
>
>Meanwhile, the sweat beads tense from my brow. My hands tremble as
they slap
>out my response on the sore heads of innocent keycaps. Biting my lip
to the
>point of barely drawing blood - blood that wants to spurt free from
the
>pressure of my racing heart, I gasp and wince hard...for it is all I
can
>do to keep from bursting out laughing and waking my kid in the next
room."
> -ls
>--
Oze McCallum
Laura Akers wrote:
>
> Mark Jebens (Xmje...@primenet.com) wrote:
> : My question is why do these people need to have clubs based on their
> : ethniticity or sex rather than associate with those who share similar
> : interests?
>
> Because they are advocacy groups which seek to celebrate their
> ethnicity--that *is* their "similiar interest." And they share their
> interests with those of other groups. I doubt that the White Supremicists
> Club will similiarly overlook the ethnicity of new members.
But wait a minute. You just said that advocacy groups celebrate their ethnicity because
that is their common ground. Sure, white supremecists would deny others, but what about
african-american supremicists, like the followers of Louis Farrahkan (sp?)? Why should a
group like that receive any funds?
Oze
regard
Mark Jebens wrote:
> In article <3354E3...@mindspring.com>, ama...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > Paul Laird posts:
> > > > with their xwife, went to court expecting custody, had that custody
> > > > given to the mother. This why I say: Truth is always truer than
> > > > feminism. Paul L
> > You know what Paul, anything for you to denigrate women makes
> > you happy. I have been reading your posts for a few months now
> > and you make me ill.
> I don't see anything above that denigrates women. Paul just pointed out
> that NOW is not being truthful in their effort to ensure that women keep
> their current advantage in the Family Law arena.
Scuse, please, but are you under the misperception that NOW and
family law court judges are one in the same thing?
Are you under the misperception that family law court judges pay a
whole lot of attention to NOW? From the report above, it seems that
they pay scant attention to the agreements of the two parties *in-
volved* so one has to wonder why anybody would figure NOW has some
leverage on these outcomes...
--
Adrienne Regard
#standard disclaimers, and I probably chopped out a bunch
of extra stuff.
Ray Fischer
Mark Jebens <Xmje...@primenet.com> wrote:
> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> For example, blacks, immigrants, and hispanics are consistently
>> discriminated against. How? Because, in part, of past and present
>> discrimination such groups are forced into lower-income neighborhoods.
>>
>> The schools in such neighborhoods receive less money from the state,
>> providing poorer education. Poorer education for the children
>> perpetuates the discrimination.
>>
>> And you demand that it be allowed and continued. Instead of allow the
>> universities to allow for poorer schools, you want to make sure that
>> blacks and hispanics don't get to uppity by using your universities.
>
>Based on what you said above, you do not believe that a person living
>in Beverly Hills should have an advantage over someone living in South
>Central LA. However, that is exactly the situation if the person living
>in B.H. 90210 is a rich Nigerian immigrant and the SC LA person is
>poor and Chinese.
Citing one or two improbable cases is hardly any justification for the
systematic discrimination against tens of thousands.
Do you _really_ want to be fair? Then require that ALL kids get equal
educations, and not just the rich and white.
GJP
Mark Jebens wrote:
>
> In article <5jgt29$3...@nr1.toronto.istar.net>, s...@rideau.net wrote:
>
> > Amazon wrote:
> >
> > > This is why we have JUDGES. In the past there
> > > were judges that would only give the kids to the mother but
> > > in the last decade that has changed considerably. I will find
> > > stats if necessary.
> >
> > I would very much like to see these stats if you can obtain them please.
>
> The pattern of custody that has changed is that joint custody is awarded
> more often than it used to be. Radical feminist progagandists base
> their numbers using the theory that if the mother doesn't get sole
> custody, then she has lost.
>
> The interesting thing here is that mothers are still often given
> preferential treatment even when both parents want joint custody. In
> Anne Mitchell recently posted the Stanford study (which is the only
> reliable study to date on the subject) on custody. When both parents
> wanted joint custody, joint custody was awarded only half the time and
> sole maternal custody was awarded four times as often as sole paternal
> custody. (Note: joint physical custody in Calif is a legal issue and
> does not impact the time the kids spend with each parent.)
From a recent post by R. Kuhn....there are several other studies.
From: Ku...@aol.com
To: a...@capaccess.org
Subject: Anti-father bias - 3 studies
Recently I was asked to help with a little background research for a
class action suit. I thought others might be interested in the
following three studies.
These excerpts are all from extended abstracts of doctoral
dissertations. (I don't have the full dissertations since they can be
expensive to obtain, and I don't know if the people doing the suit have
obtained them yet.)
Rick Kuhn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges' decision-making in child custody: an analogue study Goldstein,
M.A. Arizona State University, 1983.
"Ratings from 48 judges in an analogue decision-making task were
examined for the effects of sex of the parent, sex of the child and age
of the child on (a) the judges' evaluations of the parents and (b) their
custody decisions. Four equivalent parent descriptions were presented to
the judges, in two hypothetical cases, with mother, father and child
counterbalanced in all possible combinations. "
"Analyses of variance for the judges' ratings of the parents' parenting
skills, personality and health showed a significant bias favoring the
mothers as did the judges' aggregate evaluations of each parent.
Further, mothers were rated as more likely than fathers to receive sole
custody awards by a ratio of three to two. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial child custody decisions as a function of social and emotional
deviation of the mother, Kehl, G.E., Hofstra Univ., 1983.
"The first phase of this study was designed to determine whether
there are predictable determinants of court decisions. A national sample
of 62 judges was presented with vignettes manipulating mother, father,
and child variables. Some results were: (a) assignment of custody to
the mother 77% of the time, whether or not the father was an active or a
distant parent; (b) assignment of custody to the father 76% of the time
when the mother was defined as "weak."
The latter result was studied more specifically with 162 judges
participating from various parts of the nation. The mother, only, was
described as either fit or deviant ("weak") in her emotional health,
social role, and morality. It was hypothesized that when both parents
were emotionally, socially, and morally fit, the mother would be the
preferred custodian, as has been the custom in this century. As
predicted, under these conditions, the mother received custody 100% of
the time. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mental health professional's decision making in child custody evaluation
related to divorce: an analogue study, McCoy, S.,
U. of Southern California, 1992.
"Mental health professionals experienced in the field of child custody
related to divorce were asked to allocate the percentage of time that
children should spend with each parent, mother vs. father, in
hypothetical case vignettes under four conditions related to the
parents' willingness to try joint custody: (1) both parents unwilling to
try joint-custody; (2) father willing and the mother not; (3) mother
willing and the father not; and (4) both willing to try joint custody."
"There was a significant association of the gender of the parent with
the amount of time children were recommended to be with the mother vs.
father, in favor of the mother, regardless of the parents' willingness
to try joint custody. The gender of the evaluator was also significantly
associated with the amount of time that children were recommended to be
with the mother vs. father, in favor of the mother, under each of the
conditions related to the parents' willingness to try joint custody,
with the exception of when both parents are willing to try joint
custody. The results were supportive of there being a difference on the
basis of gender of the parent, in the favor of mothers over fathers,
amongst mental health professionals in respect to the amount of time
children were recommended to be with mothers vs. fathers, particularly
amongst female evaluators."
Greg Palumbo
>
> The level of paternal sole custody has stayed constant. Since paternal
> sole custody was typically only awarded in very bizarre circumstances
> (i.e, the mother not being fit or a father using his vast wealth and
> influence - which only applies to a very small number of dads), it seems
> logical that this pattern has not changed. That is to say, fathers are
> still not being considered as viable candidates for sole custody unless
> maternal custody is not an option.
>
> One other possibility is that sometimes the numbers that radical feminist
> propagandists use in this area are for cases that are appealled. Due to
> the way the process works, the person appealling a custody ruling has a
> better than average chance of getting custody (hint: you cannot appeal
> based on the baises of the judge that often favors mothers over fathers;
> you can only appeal based on a legal error).
>
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <335FCE...@ix.netcom.com> Kim <k*gr...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>>
>> In <335EE...@mindspring.com> Amazon <ama...@mindspring.com>
writes:
>> >
>> >Larry Rogers posts:
>> >
>> >> And Amazon and Carol are prime examples.
>> >>
>> >> Amazon <ama...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
>> >> <335D57...@mindspring.com>...
>> >> > Ignorance abounds:
>> >
>> >Well, this is another fine example of Larry Rogers
>> >distinct intelligence and its application to the
>> >topic at hand, WHICH mind you, he has no clue about
>> >therefore he resorts to ad hominem attacks.
>> >
>> >Amazon
>>
>> ------
>> Come on, Amazon; Sometimes being an asshole is all a jerk
>> has left to hold onto.
>>
>> Lefty
>has left to hold onto. :)
--------
Oh my! :]
Lefty
Laura Akers
Distribution:
Oze McCallum (NoSpam...@ever.com) wrote:
We are not talking about supremecist groups, we are talking about heritage
groups mostly. My whole point was that a group that throws a yearly
cultural pow-wow which is open to everybody and is meant to share their
culture on a volunteer basis is *not* in the same category as a white
supremecist group which advocates violence and forced segregation.
Don't you see the difference between the two?
Laura
Kilroy
>
>>I wouldn't want to feel as though I got a job because I am a woman.
>>Jodi
>
> ------
> No? How would you feel if you discovered you DIDN'T get
> it because you were a woman?
>
> Lefty
>
How would you feel if you just got the job because you were
the best qualified human being for it?
Kilroy
Mark Evans
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Mark Evans <ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >What term would you prefer "sexist pig" since that just
: >as accuratly defines the current mainstream feminist...
:
: It seem to me that you've constructed an evil anti-male strawman and
: are refusing to listen to anyone telling you that it doesn't represent
: the majority of "feminists".
Interestingly most of those who try and say that mainstream feminism
isn't sexist prove by their own actions that it is.
If many people told you that the sky was red would that mean that
it must be so.
The claim that contempoary mainstream feminism is not sexist
(even that it is promoting gender equality) is often made.
But the vast majority of visible actions (self) identified
as feminist follow this pattern.
If you are going to try and argue that mainstream feminism
is something other than what people can see with their own
eyes then what is needed is something called *proof*.
Which is sadly lacking.
Mark Evans
Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) wrote:
:
: > r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
:
: >> For example, blacks, immigrants, and hispanics are consistently
: >> discriminated against. How? Because, in part, of past and present
: >> discrimination such groups are forced into lower-income neighborhoods.
: >>
: >> The schools in such neighborhoods receive less money from the state,
: >> providing poorer education. Poorer education for the children
: >> perpetuates the discrimination.
: >>
: >> And you demand that it be allowed and continued. Instead of allow the
: >> universities to allow for poorer schools, you want to make sure that
: >> blacks and hispanics don't get to uppity by using your universities.
: >
: >Based on what you said above, you do not believe that a person living
: >in Beverly Hills should have an advantage over someone living in South
: >Central LA. However, that is exactly the situation if the person living
: >in B.H. 90210 is a rich Nigerian immigrant and the SC LA person is
: >poor and Chinese.
:
: Citing one or two improbable cases is hardly any justification for the
: systematic discrimination against tens of thousands.
Then why are you not opposing legaly mandated systematic discrimination,
are you fooled by the marketing using such terms as "positive discrimination"
"Affirmative action", etc? Such state supported discrimination is about
as systematic as it gets... However you might be wrong about the figure,
try adding at least one other zero to the RHS.
: Do you _really_ want to be fair? Then require that ALL kids get equal
: educations, and not just the rich and white.
The issue here has more to do with money and social class, the "white"
bit isn't here or there. Having light skin dosn't automatically provide
somone with a good education in the relevent part of the world.
Mark Evans
Laura Akers (ez07...@rocky.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
:
: I'm going to suppress my desire to correct your English. However, please
: prove that AA is promoting bigotry, that Prop 209 will bring about true
AA is by DEFINITION, legaly OBLIGATED bigotry. Where it exists equality
is against the law. Eliminating such things is a precondition of equality.
: equality, and that feminist equality is some alternate unreasonable form.
The simple point is that feminism and equality are NOT the same thing,
in a great many cases feminism and equality are mutually exclusive.
: Better yet, take your unfounded hatred somewhere else.
Only a bigot would see opposing of bigotry to be unfounded, ergo
you must be a bigot.
Mark Evans
Laura Akers (ez07...@rocky.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
:
: Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: : Laura Akers (ez07...@boris.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: : :
: : : Because racial discrimination is so powerful in our society that the only
: : : way to dislodge it is to replace some of those in power with exactly those
: : : groups that they choose to discriminate against. When our management
: :
: : Your logic is flawed. Just becuase someone is of group X does not imply
: : that they are not bigoted.
:
: I didn't argue that it did. But if all we can hope for is that everyone
: will be a bigot, then we need to get all kinds of bigots so they will
Child what it means that any organisation who's selection criteria
are based on bigotry (whatever the nature of that bigotry) will tend
to promote bigotry.
: balance each other out.
:
: But then, I don't believe that all of us are bigots. I'm not.
You prove yourself by your own actions to be. If you were not you
would support attempts to outlaw discrimination.
:
: And indeed history provides plenty of examples
: : of individuals and groups discriminating against their "own" people.
:
: This is sadly true. However, I have a feeling that those people would be
: weeded out under just such a system. And since you seem to see neig\ther
: a problem nor its solution, I'm wondering why you are even taking part in
: this discussion.
Wrong, wrong. Looks like I'll have to spell it out, the problem is
discrimination, whatever form it takes and whatever terms can be dreamt
up to market it as a good concept. The solution is to oppose ALL discrimination.
:
: :
: : : staffs and our Boards of directors start to look like the communities they
: : : actually serve, then AA has done it's job and should be repealed. Until
: :
: : Which in practice means never, since the goal posts can always be moved.
: : The criteria by which a match is judged are subjective and even if you
: : can get a match it proves nothing at all anyway.
:
: aActually its very easy. A demographic survey of a community will show
: its racial and sexual makeup. A demographic survey of a company will do
: the same thing. All that we need do is compare the two to see if the goal
: is reached. Highly objective measurement.
Where do you draw the boundry to define the "community"?
(Should 25% of employees be Chinese, real Chinese that is, rather than
people who's recent ancestors are Chinese?)
What do you do about the fact that racial classifications are so arbitary as
to be meaningless? (Also for what reason is it assumed that the two criteria
chosen are more meaningful than others that could be chosen.)
Do you or don't you include retired people/children/etc in the community?
Do you take account of the fact that a certain job might require a
certain skill/qualification/level of training?
What about quantum effects? e.g. there are 5 directors but the community
demographic study dosn't give results in multiples of 20%..
And the real biggie. Even if having done all this and you get a match
what does it actually prove?
Your "objective" measurement needs so many subjective questions answering
to even perform the test that it's hardly objective in the first place.
Even if you do perform it then it's a subjective choice that it means
anything.
Though you can conclude that if an employer discriminates using a
certain criteria their employment pattern will reflect that
discrimination. (Though note that in any real case such discrimination
is likely to involve many factors and many weights applied to them.)
Should an organisation NOT discriminate using a certain criteria
you cannot draw any conclusions about what their makeup judged
by that criteria will be. The reason that the employer is not
using that criteria as a selection.
In simpler terms if you insist that a company must have X% people
with atribute Y (and 100-X% without) then they ONLY way they can
ensure that this happens is to discriminate on the basis of attribute
Y. (except in the highly unlikely case that their pool of applicants
has that specific makeup).
So far the case of "company X must reflect some target population
using some arbitary criteria to classify the people" has not
been made.
The following would be needed to even form the basis
for a case
a) That the criteria for classifying the people has any relevence
what so ever.
b) That such groupings are intrinsically more valid in some way
than any other groupings which could be made of the same target
population.
c) That a match (and specifically an engineered match) has
any meaning, and that it makes sense to the people directly
involved.
Mark Evans
Mark Jebens (Xmje...@primenet.com) wrote:
:
: In article <rayE90...@netcom.com>, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
:
: >
: > And you demand that it be allowed and continued. Instead of allow the
: > universities to allow for poorer schools, you want to make sure that
: > blacks and hispanics don't get to uppity by using your universities.
:
: Based on what you said above, you do not believe that a person living
: in Beverly Hills should have an advantage over someone living in South
: Central LA. However, that is exactly the situation if the person living
: in B.H. 90210 is a rich Nigerian immigrant and the SC LA person is
: poor and Chinese.
It would be quite possible for the rich Nigerians wealth to have been
earned by an ancestor selling slaves and for the poor Chinese person to
be a political refugee who's government want dead.
Laura Akers
Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Laura Akers (ez07...@rocky.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: :
: : I'm going to suppress my desire to correct your English. However, please
: : prove that AA is promoting bigotry, that Prop 209 will bring about true
:
: AA is by DEFINITION, legaly OBLIGATED bigotry. Where it exists equality
: is against the law. Eliminating such things is a precondition of equality.
That's not proof, that's your opinion. Please provide proof that AA is
discriminatory and that 209 is will bring about true equality.
:
: : equality, and that feminist equality is some alternate unreasonable form.
:
: The simple point is that feminism and equality are NOT the same thing,
: in a great many cases feminism and equality are mutually exclusive.
Please provide proof of this. Your opinion, unsupported by facts, is
worthless.
:
: : Better yet, take your unfounded hatred somewhere else.
:
: Only a bigot would see opposing of bigotry to be unfounded, ergo
: you must be a bigot.
You have not proved that it is bigotry, ergo, I am not necessarily
*anything*.
Try again.
Laura
Laura Akers
Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Ray Fischer (r...@netcom.com) wrote:
In your own arguments. You keep repeating the feminism is sexist but you
have not provided any *proof* to back up those assertions.
Laura
Laura Akers
du> <5jsqgf$b...@leasion.demon.co.uk>:
Distribution:
Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: Laura Akers (ez07...@rocky.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: :
: : Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: : : Laura Akers (ez07...@boris.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: : : :
: : : : Because racial discrimination is so powerful in our society that the only
: : : : way to dislodge it is to replace some of those in power with exactly those
: : : : groups that they choose to discriminate against. When our management
: : :
: : : Your logic is flawed. Just becuase someone is of group X does not imply
: : : that they are not bigoted.
: :
: : I didn't argue that it did. But if all we can hope for is that everyone
: : will be a bigot, then we need to get all kinds of bigots so they will
:
: Child what it means that any organisation who's selection criteria
: are based on bigotry (whatever the nature of that bigotry) will tend
: to promote bigotry.
I agree. So why are you arguing for a return to bigotry?
:
: : balance each other out.
: :
: : But then, I don't believe that all of us are bigots. I'm not.
:
: You prove yourself by your own actions to be. If you were not you
: would support attempts to outlaw discrimination.
Your opinion does not constitute fact. Please provide factual proof of
your assertion.
:
: :
: : And indeed history provides plenty of examples
: : : of individuals and groups discriminating against their "own" people.
: :
: : This is sadly true. However, I have a feeling that those people would be
: : weeded out under just such a system. And since you seem to see neig\ther
: : a problem nor its solution, I'm wondering why you are even taking part in
: : this discussion.
:
: Wrong, wrong. Looks like I'll have to spell it out, the problem is
: discrimination, whatever form it takes and whatever terms can be dreamt
: up to market it as a good concept. The solution is to oppose ALL discrimination.
Let me know when you start.
:
: :
: : :
: : : : staffs and our Boards of directors start to look like the communities they
: : : : actually serve, then AA has done it's job and should be repealed. Until
: : :
: : : Which in practice means never, since the goal posts can always be moved.
: : : The criteria by which a match is judged are subjective and even if you
: : : can get a match it proves nothing at all anyway.
: :
: : aActually its very easy. A demographic survey of a community will show
: : its racial and sexual makeup. A demographic survey of a company will do
: : the same thing. All that we need do is compare the two to see if the goal
: : is reached. Highly objective measurement.
:
: Where do you draw the boundry to define the "community"?
: (Should 25% of employees be Chinese, real Chinese that is, rather than
: people who's recent ancestors are Chinese?)
"Real" Chinese? Who's the bigot again?
: What do you do about the fact that racial classifications are so arbitary as
: to be meaningless? (Also for what reason is it assumed that the two criteria
: chosen are more meaningful than others that could be chosen.)
They may be meaningless to you (unless you choose to discriminate on the
basis of them, but racial categories tend to be of some importance to
those labeled and colonized by the dominant culture.
: Do you or don't you include retired people/children/etc in the community?
Because retired people and children are not members of the workforce, nor
do they seek to be--therefore, there is no need to adress their needs.
: Do you take account of the fact that a certain job might require a
: certain skill/qualification/level of training?
Always. We are not talking about hiring the incompetent. But if there
are no minorities who possess the proper education, experience, or
training, that suggests that they have no access to the education,
experience and training which would qualify them for the job--in other
words, they've already been the victims of discrimination.
: What about quantum effects? e.g. there are 5 directors but the community
: demographic study dosn't give results in multiples of 20%..
Then you approximate. Obviously.
:
: And the real biggie. Even if having done all this and you get a match
: what does it actually prove?
That the community being served by the company is one in which
discrimination has been effectively handled.
:
: Your "objective" measurement needs so many subjective questions answering
: to even perform the test that it's hardly objective in the first place.
: Even if you do perform it then it's a subjective choice that it means
: anything.
What do you think the prescence of a 80% white company in an 80% minority
community means?
:
: Though you can conclude that if an employer discriminates using a
: certain criteria their employment pattern will reflect that
: discrimination. (Though note that in any real case such discrimination
: is likely to involve many factors and many weights applied to them.)
: Should an organisation NOT discriminate using a certain criteria
: you cannot draw any conclusions about what their makeup judged
: by that criteria will be.
Why not? If, to the employer, all things/people are equal, then we
wouldn't the company makeup reflect that of the community rather closely?
The reason that the employer is not
: using that criteria as a selection.
:
: In simpler terms if you insist that a company must have X% people
: with atribute Y (and 100-X% without) then they ONLY way they can
: ensure that this happens is to discriminate on the basis of attribute
: Y. (except in the highly unlikely case that their pool of applicants
: has that specific makeup).
Or to work to train those in the community with attribute X to be able to
legitimately compete with those from category Y.
:
: So far the case of "company X must reflect some target population
: using some arbitary criteria to classify the people" has not
: been made.
: The following would be needed to even form the basis
: for a case
: a) That the criteria for classifying the people has any relevence
: what so ever.
So you think racial and sexual discrimination against minorities is
non-existent? Because that's the only reason why those categories would
be irrelevant.
: b) That such groupings are intrinsically more valid in some way
: than any other groupings which could be made of the same target
: population.
Are you going to try to argue that brunette men are discriminated against
more than hispanics?
: c) That a match (and specifically an engineered match) has
: any meaning, and that it makes sense to the people directly
: involved.
Try asking the members of a community how they would feel about a company
which made it a goal to reflect the community's racial/sexual makeup in
its workforce.
How many people do you think who live in that community are going to think
that's a bad idea?
Laura
Cici Clovis
On 24 Apr 1997 13:17:44 GMT, Mark Evans wrote:
>Laura (and others) oppose this becuase they don't want equality. They
>don't want to loose their special protected status, they don't want to
>have RESPONSIBILITY for their actions, they benefit from the status
>quo discrimination...
They want this, do they? Ah, Usenet telepathy strikes again!
Cici in Texas
(Remove * from email address to reply.)
Pat Winstanley
In article <5jsojg$b...@leasion.demon.co.uk>, Mark Evans
<ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk> writes
>The simple point is that feminism and equality are NOT the same thing,
>in a great many cases feminism and equality are mutually exclusive.
Such as?...
Pat Winstanley
zoe wilfong
ez07...@boris.ucdavis.edu (Laura Akers) wrote:
>Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: The claim that contempoary mainstream feminism is not sexist
>: (even that it is promoting gender equality) is often made.
>: But the vast majority of visible actions (self) identified
>: as feminist follow this pattern.
>In your own arguments. You keep repeating the feminism is sexist but you
>have not provided any *proof* to back up those assertions.
>
>
>Laura
>
Right on. Where are mainstream feminists seeking anything more than
equality? Show us the evidence. I think some men perceive equality as a
threat, and that's part of the problem.
zoe
Kenneth S.
Here are a few pieces of evidence:
(1) The National Organization for Women is adamantly opposed to any
measures to deal with the glass ceiling on paternal custody.
(2) At the level of my own state, the NOW representative opposed
legislation that would enable the ending of alimony in situations where
there was cohabitation. Her argument? The state has no palimony
provisions, so someone could lose her alimony because she was
cohabiting, and then not get paid alimony when her cohabiting
relationship broke up. In fact, of course, she wanted to protect a
payment that women receive from men, but almost never the other way
around.
(3) Feminist organizations continue to talk as if women were
discriminated against in health matters, and demand additional spending
for this. However, all the objective evidence is that it is MEN who are
discriminated against in health. Men live seven years less than women,
on average -- a disparity that did not exist at the beginning of the
century. Prostate cancer is almost as much of a killer as breast cancer,
but receives only a fraction of the health care spending that breast
cancer receives.
(4) Feminist organizations vigorously supported the Violence Against
Women Act. This Act introduces more severe penalties for an act of
violence against a woman than for the same act of violence against a man.
In fact, men are FAR more likely to be the victims of violence than
women.
(5) Check out the American Association of University Women, with all
their phony propaganda about discrimination against girls in the
educational system, and demands for more favors for girls. In fact, well
over half the college population in the U.S. are women, not
men. The employment and educational problems are predominantly with
young men, not young women.
(6) There's more evidence along these lines. Mainstream feminism in the
U.S. is concerned with achieving advantages for women -- if necessary at
the expense of men AND children.
John L. Crane
On Tue, 22 Apr 1997 00:54:04 GMT, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>And you demand that it be allowed and continued. Instead of allow the
>universities to allow for poorer schools, you want to make sure that
>blacks and hispanics don't get to uppity by using your universities.
Intresting... In the 60s, 70s and even perhaps most of the 80s I would
have to agree that society had a reason to create programs and
policies to help classes and groups of ppeople raise themselves as a
group. However just how long do you think these programs are justified
or will be needed? 2010, 2025, further out?
This is 1997, and it's a far diffrent world than just 15 years ago.
Mark Evans
: : : Mark Evans <ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: : : >What term would you prefer "sexist pig" since that just
: : : >as accuratly defines the current mainstream feminist...
: : :
: : : It seem to me that you've constructed an evil anti-male strawman and
: : : are refusing to listen to anyone telling you that it doesn't represent
: : : the majority of "feminists".
: :
: : Interestingly most of those who try and say that mainstream feminism
: : isn't sexist prove by their own actions that it is.
: : If many people told you that the sky was red would that mean that
: : it must be so.
: : (even that it is promoting gender equality) is often made.
: : But the vast majority of visible actions (self) identified
: : as feminist follow this pattern.
: : is something other than what people can see with their own
: : eyes then what is needed is something called *proof*.
: : Which is sadly lacking.
: In your own arguments. You keep repeating the feminism is sexist but you
: have not provided any *proof* to back up those assertions.
One the term itself, two the history of the movement.
Mark Evans
Laura Akers (ez07...@boris.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
:
: du> <5jsqgf$b...@leasion.demon.co.uk>:
: Distribution:
:
: Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: :
: : Laura Akers (ez07...@rocky.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: : :
: : : Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: : : : Laura Akers (ez07...@boris.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: : : : :
: : : : : Because racial discrimination is so powerful in our society that the only
: : : : : way to dislodge it is to replace some of those in power with exactly those
: : : : : groups that they choose to discriminate against. When our management
: : : :
: : : : Your logic is flawed. Just becuase someone is of group X does not imply
: : : : that they are not bigoted.
: : :
: : : I didn't argue that it did. But if all we can hope for is that everyone
: : : will be a bigot, then we need to get all kinds of bigots so they will
: :
: : Child what it means that any organisation who's selection criteria
: : are based on bigotry (whatever the nature of that bigotry) will tend
: : to promote bigotry.
:
: I agree. So why are you arguing for a return to bigotry?
I am arguing for removement of ALL bigotry, btw you cannot return to
something without ending it first.
Please provide proof that I have advocates a "return" to anything,
you can't do that becuase it isn't the case.
But it's worthless attempting to argue with someone like you
who advocates mandated discrimination.
The last thing you would want is equality.
Mark Evans
zoe wilfong (zcw...@silver.sdsmt.edu) wrote:
:
: >: (even that it is promoting gender equality) is often made.
: >: But the vast majority of visible actions (self) identified
: >: as feminist follow this pattern.
:
: >have not provided any *proof* to back up those assertions.
: >
: >Laura
: >
:
: Right on. Where are mainstream feminists seeking anything more than
: equality? Show us the evidence. I think some men perceive equality as a
Show ANY evidence that mainstream feminsts are promoting equality.
e.g. on issues such as child custody, domestic violence, relationship
initiation.
Show that none of the people supporting the sexist status quo on these
issues are mainstream feminists.
: threat, and that's part of the problem.
The only people threatened by equality are those with something
to loose, the majority of these people are women...
The fact is that the majority of feminists wouldn't know equality
if they saw it.
Equality is treating people without reference to their gender
(or "race", whatever that is in the first place). It's about
allowing a person to have the same oppertnities as any other.
It's about having a LEVEL playing field wrt to job and
education access. (Not about making it easier for someone
becuase of who their ancestors were or what they have
between their legs). It's about giving someone the same
legal protections (Not telling someone they can't possibly
have been beaten by their SO becuase they have a cock).
It's about giving people the oppertunity to be themselves.
(Not telling them they can't wear this or that garment,
That they *must* aproach/sit and wait for someone they
might be interested in as a partner, and if that dosn't
fit their personality then it is they, not the "rules"
which are unreasonable). It's about allowing people to
find their own abilities. (Not claiming that someone
can't add up cos the have a fanny or someone can't
look after a child cos they have a dick).