Gentlemen, It Must Be Told! - RETRY
Anonymous
The largest demographic group doing the most damage to
American society and its economy is comprised of the white
females.
Two of the most glaring problems with females in positions
of power and responsibility are:
1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
basis.) With this being the case, it does not take long for
performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
2.) They form very unhealthy and highly suspect sociological
relationships (i.e. alliances) with minority males and Jewish
males. Females are the operatives of the Jews. Believe it
or not, females have become the eyes, ears, and arms of Jews
even where Jews are nowhere near present. It is the abysmally
poor management on the part of females that leaves a company
wide open to acquisition by Jewish raiders. The bottom line is
that the females' mindset is such that they are more susceptible
to the Jew influence; this is why you have the Biblical fable
of Eve in the Garden being tempted by the snake in the grass.
The Jew domination of the fashion industry gives the whole swarm
a "legitimized" and reinforced "in" with the minds of white
females.
Female Management, a Case Study:
Roughly 20 years ago I was at a meeting where my group was
collaborating with a group of managers and systems analysts
from the data processing department on the development of
a new system, a very major one at that with many millions of
dollars at stake.
It was widely known BACK THEN that there was an issue with the
turn of the century and with the prevalent use of two digits for
the year in dates. So I offered a very simple suggestion for the
new system which would eliminate the turn-of-the-century problem
and all necessity for any conversion headaches down the road.
All that had to be done was to record dates in what I call
"absolute julian format." That is, take a past date and make it
the start date; count the number of days from that start date to
the date at hand; and assign that count to the date at hand as
its absolute julian date. The conversion from the absolute julian
date to a meaningful, readable gregorian date would be accomp-
lished by fairly simple arithmetic calculations. This scheme is as
simple as counting 1,2,3,... but these professional data process-
ing whiz kids had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.
Rather than admit their ignorance, those people slammed me saying
that they had other priorities, that two digit years did not
present a pressing concern, and on and on, and that they would
stick with the current convention for the new system. I had no
choice but to silence myself, as I had found myself doing on many
similar occasions.
I have since learned that certain airline reservation systems
use the date scheme which I suggested, as does the spreadsheet which
runs in my computer. Today's date, 12/25/96 A.D., is held as 33,962
which is simply the 33,962nd day relative to January 1, 1904 A.D.,
which is the start date and which is held as zero.
Anyway, the lead person of the data processing group was a female,
and her attitude was stereotypical of that gender. I have yet to
see the realm of a female executive or manager that can be termed
a "class act." This particular female manager had herself sur-
rounded with third-rate and lesser subordinates. This being
typically the case for female managers and executives, it is only
natural that approaches to problems will ALWAYS be far less than
optimal when females are in charge! (Look to Janet Reno, Christie
Whitman, and Hillary Clinton.)
The worst thing about all of this is that there are males, both
white and third worlders, who are feminists and who will not have
things any other way. These males will go right down to the
mat fighting to keep the current vile scheme of things in place.
These males are holding jobs and earning money which they never
could command in the absence of females' keeping them on as cronies.
BTW, the new computer system to which I alluded was a dismal
failure for many reasons not having to do with the date format
being used. Many millions of dollars were wasted, this by a
company which would not give a ten cent raise to a deserving
white male worker! Do not kid yourself; the cost of this type
of waste and inefficiency together with settlements such as the
$175,000,000 Texaco discrimination settlement is passed on to
society at large - that is, to YOU in the form of higher selling
prices!
Gentlemen, be assured that I would not be reporting on such senarios
unless I have witnessed such things with my very own eyes over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over again!
Larry Robison
Uh:
What has any of this got to do with computer consultants? Is there a
couple of more appropriate groups, like: rec.female.boss.haters or
rec.insecure.female.bosses ?
Bob Whitaker
Like every other Poltically Correct clone, Sandi knows damned well why
people who disagree with her had BETTER be anonymous. Nikor and all
the rest are essentially rats who report all heresy.
In Nazi Germany, Hitlerites could denounce any critic who was anonymous
as "cowards", just as Stalinists could denounce all ananymous criticism
of Communism as "cowardly". In the same tradition, these Politically
Correct clones denounce anybody who criticizes their beloved System as
"cowards" today.
There is nothing cheaper than denouncing critics as "cowards' when one
is safely with the establishment. It's a habit of those on the side of
the authorities that is as old as it is sickening.
Sandi wrote:
> Could it be that you have a bitter taste in your mouth or is it jealousy?
> Me thinks that you have a very very biased opinion. You must be a coward
> if you cannot even put you name to your post.
>
> sandi
>
> Anonymous <abc-...@mailmasher.com> wrote in article
> <1996122516...@mailmasher.com>...
Bill Silverthorn
Anonymous <abc-...@mailmasher.com> wrote:
>The largest demographic group doing the most damage to
>American society and its economy is comprised of the white
>females.
>
>Two of the most glaring problems with females in positions
>of power and responsibility are:
>
>1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
>working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
>basis.) With this being the case, it does not take long for
>performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
>female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
Uh, this sort of reckless acusations with no basis in any statistical facts
shows that the author pretty much has some sort of "ax to grind" ... I have
worked for men and women, and I can honestly say that they are pretty
evenly split in capabilities and my like or dislike of the "experience "
..... hmmm, evenly divided? Wow! That is pretty coincidental to the way
divided the genders on earth! What a coincidence ... the only dif' in my
stats and yours seems to be that you may have an "axe to grind" and I do
not ...
Your whole paragraph above reminds me the lies used to hold down Jews by
Nazi Germany, or slaves in the last century .... it is a shame that some
people will actually listen to this garbage ...
>2.) They form very unhealthy and highly suspect sociological
>relationships (i.e. alliances) with minority males and Jewish
>males. Females are the operatives of the Jews. Believe it
>or not, females have become the eyes, ears, and arms of Jews
>even where Jews are nowhere near present. It is the abysmally
>poor management on the part of females that leaves a company
>wide open to acquisition by Jewish raiders. The bottom line is
>that the females' mindset is such that they are more susceptible
>to the Jew influence; this is why you have the Biblical fable
>of Eve in the Garden being tempted by the snake in the grass.
>The Jew domination of the fashion industry gives the whole swarm
>a "legitimized" and reinforced "in" with the minds of white
>females.
Well, looks like your "true colors" are starting to show .... so those
dastardly "females" are in "cohoots" with the Jews .... please tell me more
.... I bet they also meet late at night with black people and every Thursday
with hispanics ... .... do you think they might be under the influence of
the Catholics as well? Tell me more ..... <sheesh ...>
I think I will just quit reading the rest of this .... perhaps there are
some good reruns on TV of I love Lucy instead .....
Merry Christmas to all ... and to all I wish you a discerning spirit so
that we can know "spam" when we see it ....
God loves you all,
Peace,
Bill
RainDanzer
<all garbage snipped for posterity from this anonymous troll>
Obviously, since it took two trys to get your message on the board, your
ineptitude must follow you in the workplace. You're right about one
thing, no female manager worth her salt would tolerate such poor
performance.
The last time I looked, the glass ceiling was still there. I thought it
was still a man's world, and I'd become comfortable and secure in it. I'm
so glad to hear it's not there anymore and what power it gives me to keep
my foot on people like you. (All other wonderful men in this newsgroup
graciously excepted).
Judy
"Trudge onward Mildred...we're getting somewhere!"
Richard Latker
Some frustrated idiot wrote:
>
> The largest demographic group doing the most damage to
> American society and its economy is comprised of the white
> females.
An excellent article in the Economist in October 1996 comes to the exact
opposite conclusion--ie, that it is men that are less flexible, less
trainable and even slightly less intelligent than women--and does so
through an exhaustive analysis of fact (rather than your petty sour
grapes). Women, on average, work harder, learn more quickly and tolerate
change more effectively than men do.
Managers of high-tech manufacturing operations often prefer women
labourers, if they are asked, because they are perceived to be more
meticulous than men. Women are thought to be better personnel managers,
teachers, doctors and researchers. It's only at the very top that women
are considered less desirable, because they have this habit of getting
pregnant and taking maternity leave.
> 1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
> working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
> basis.) With this being the case, it does not take long for
> performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
> female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
What you mean is this: "My boss pissed me off. She was a women. Women
should be subordinate to men, damnit, not the other way around. The
whole fucking thing makes me feel inadequate, especially since I realise
my skills base isn't worth what it used to be."
> 2.) Females are the operatives of the Jews.
Translation: "The hottest babe in the office started started sleeping
with this *fucking* jewish guy. Damn, this pisses me off."
> Female Management, a Case Study:
<Long tirade about how unfair the world is to men of marginal talent
snipped>
Any successful, accomplished person does not blame others for their
failures -- this is a basic rule of life to which even some of your
white power buddies agree (not many, it's true. Most of them blame Jews
for their own inability to adapt and thrive in a changing world). The
most successful western institutions, corporate or otherwise, have both
men and women in positions of power throughout the management hierarchy.
> Many millions of dollars were wasted, this by a
> company which would not give a ten cent raise to a deserving
> white male worker!
Yep, you hold on to that resentment, buddy. While the rest of us white
male workers -- who a) work hard and smart with men and women of all
types b) have learned how to learn, and c) still manage to get laid now
and then -- prosper and enjoy ourselves, you can find yourself a
submissive little housewife to smack around. She'll wash your clothes
while you down Budweisers in front of the TV, and you can live out your
male-supremacist fantasies in blissful sloth.
RL
Sandi
Could it be that you have a bitter taste in your mouth or is it jealousy?
Me thinks that you have a very very biased opinion. You must be a coward
if you cannot even put you name to your post.
sandi
Anonymous <abc-...@mailmasher.com> wrote in article
<1996122516...@mailmasher.com>...
> The largest demographic group doing the most damage to
> American society and its economy is comprised of the white
> females.
>
> Two of the most glaring problems with females in positions
> of power and responsibility are:
>
> 1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
> working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
> basis.) With this being the case, it does not take long for
> performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
> female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
>
> 2.) They form very unhealthy and highly suspect sociological
> relationships (i.e. alliances) with minority males and Jewish
> males. Females are the operatives of the Jews. Believe it
> or not, females have become the eyes, ears, and arms of Jews
> even where Jews are nowhere near present. It is the abysmally
> poor management on the part of females that leaves a company
> wide open to acquisition by Jewish raiders. The bottom line is
> that the females' mindset is such that they are more susceptible
> to the Jew influence; this is why you have the Biblical fable
> of Eve in the Garden being tempted by the snake in the grass.
> The Jew domination of the fashion industry gives the whole swarm
> a "legitimized" and reinforced "in" with the minds of white
> females.
>
> Female Management, a Case Study:
>
> being used. Many millions of dollars were wasted, this by a
> company which would not give a ten cent raise to a deserving
John Turco
Richard Latker wrote:
>
> Some frustrated idiot wrote:
> >
> > The largest demographic group doing the most damage to
> > American society and its economy is comprised of the white
> > females.
Some even MORE frustrated imbecile wrote:
> An excellent article in the Economist in October 1996 comes to the exact
> opposite conclusion--ie, that it is men that are less flexible, less
> trainable and even slightly less intelligent than women--and does so
> through an exhaustive analysis of fact (rather than your petty sour
> grapes). Women, on average, work harder, learn more quickly and tolerate
> change more effectively than men do.
Oh, so some magazine had an "excellent" article, and that article came to the
same sexist conclusion as the troll did...except that it was anti-male,
instead of anti-female. It's okay to say THAT, though, isn't it?
WHY?
Because the "Economist" said so, that's why! They made an "exhaustive
analysis of the fact", which is virtually impossible where such highly
subjective things like "flexible", "trainable", and even "intelligence" are
concerned. It's also interesting that their "exact opposite conclusion" just
happens to be politically correct, isn't it? It's ALWAYS safe to say women
are better at something than men are, but when you merely imply anything
different, you're immediately labeled a "Nazi".
This troll has succeeded in exposing the inferiority complexes and biases of
others, but I don't really believe he did it for noble reasons. I simply
think he has a malicious sense of humor, in true troll tradition.
> Managers of high-tech manufacturing operations often prefer women
> labourers, if they are asked, because they are perceived to be more
> meticulous than men. Women are thought to be better personnel managers,
> teachers, doctors and researchers. It's only at the very top that women
> are considered less desirable, because they have this habit of getting
> pregnant and taking maternity leave.
Alright, women are perfect, except for the fact that they get pregnant
sometimes- at least, according to YOUR asinine reasoning. Furthermore, you
said they are "perceived" to be more "meticulous", and "thought" to be
"better". As far as I know, "perceived", "thought", and "documented evidence"
aren't the same things. After all, the troll himself "perceived" females to
be inferior to males, didn't he?
Of course, I'm not at all surprised that "managers of high-tech manufacturing
operations" SAY they "prefer women labourers, if they are asked", since
that's the politically correct thing TO say, today. Whether their answers are
actually sincere is another matter altogether. (You have heard of "public
relations", haven't you)?
Personally, I doubt their honesty as much as I do that of the troll's.
> > 1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
> > working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
> > basis.) With this being the case, it does not take long for
> > performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
> > female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
>
> What you mean is this: "My boss pissed me off. She was a women. Women
> should be subordinate to men, damnit, not the other way around. The
> whole fucking thing makes me feel inadequate, especially since I realise
> my skills base isn't worth what it used to be."
What YOU mean is this: "I'll engage in an obscenity-laced, personal attack
against the troll. I'll also resort to knee-jerk emotionalism, because that
way people will be impressed with what a liberal, open-minded person I am".
> > 2.) Females are the operatives of the Jews.
>
> Translation: "The hottest babe in the office started started sleeping
> with this *fucking* jewish guy. Damn, this pisses me off."
Translation: "I'll stoop to another emotional, obscenity-laced personal
attack against the troll. Dang, ain't I an intelligent debater"?
> > Female Management, a Case Study:
>
> <Long tirade about how unfair the world is to men of marginal talent
> snipped>
<if you say so, but I haven't cut any of YOUR own ridiculous, ad hominem
tirades against white, Christian men>
> Any successful, accomplished person does not blame others for their
> failures -- this is a basic rule of life to which even some of your
> white power buddies agree (not many, it's true. Most of them blame Jews
> for their own inability to adapt and thrive in a changing world). The
> most successful western institutions, corporate or otherwise, have both
> men and women in positions of power throughout the management hierarchy.
No, according to that magazine article you cited, women are clearly superior.
Now, would the "Economist" lie?
And you, yourself, certainly don't sound like you're blaming white, Christian
men for everything, do you?
> > Many millions of dollars were wasted, this by a
> > company which would not give a ten cent raise to a deserving
> > white male worker!
>
> Yep, you hold on to that resentment, buddy. While the rest of us white
> male workers -- who a) work hard and smart with men and women of all
> types b) have learned how to learn, and c) still manage to get laid now
> and then -- prosper and enjoy ourselves, you can find yourself a
> submissive little housewife to smack around. She'll wash your clothes
> while you down Budweisers in front of the TV, and you can live out your
> male-supremacist fantasies in blissful sloth.
>
> RL
Yeah, and you keep making the troll sound like a Rhodes Scholar in comparison
to yourself, buddy. Your statements (your final ones, especially) show
YOURSELF to be GENUINELY prejudiced in a non-troll-like manner.
The troll went fishin' with an OBVIOUS article he cross-posted to 10
newsgroups, and he landed a whopper when you took the bait. If it were April
Fools Day instead of the Christmas holidays, you might not of walked into it
so blindly.
Then again, it might not have mattered. Whatever the case, please try to
THINK before you reply to trolls in the future; otherwise, ignore them
entirely.
Happy holidays,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Anonymous
Anonymous would like to make two points at this time:
1. The males who defend female management and equality are the
ones who are the third, fourth and fifth-rate males who will go
right down to the mat fighting to keep the current vile scheme
of things in place and who are holding jobs and earning money
which they never could command in the absence of females' keeping
them on as cronies.
2. If females are such wonderful workers and if female
management is such a wonderful thing, then how come females
couldn't make it on their own merit in the absence of equal
employment opportunity laws? It's been said that smart
employers don't discriminate and that smart employers hire
the best qualified. Why aren't smart employers smart in the
absence of equal employment opportunity laws? Why is it
that countries that have lagged behind us in passing such
laws are also lagging behind us with the sagging of their
economies and societies (most notably, Japan)?
John Turco
Anonymous wrote:
>
> Anonymous would like to make two points at this time:
I would like to counter the two "points" of this troll at this time:
> 1. The males who defend female management and equality are the
> ones who are the third, fourth and fifth-rate males who will go
> right down to the mat fighting to keep the current vile scheme
> of things in place and who are holding jobs and earning money
> which they never could command in the absence of females' keeping
> them on as cronies.
This is merely an unprovable assertion on your part.
> 2. If females are such wonderful workers and if female
> management is such a wonderful thing, then how come females
> couldn't make it on their own merit in the absence of equal
> employment opportunity laws? It's been said that smart
> employers don't discriminate and that smart employers hire
> the best qualified. Why aren't smart employers smart in the
> absence of equal employment opportunity laws? Why is it
> that countries that have lagged behind us in passing such
> laws are also lagging behind us with the sagging of their
> economies and societies (most notably, Japan)?
It's a fact that the biggest beneficiaries of the equal employment
opportunity laws have been white females (most notably Jewish ones). However,
that's primarily because they tend to be, on average, more qualified than
minority people of either sex. (Not for racial reasons, but rather, for
economic ones).
So, I don't agree that companies automatically hire the least qualified
persons simply in order to comply with affirmative action programs. They seem
to go after the best talent available, and the current laws force them to
favor white females over white males, in my opinion.
Conspiracy theories need not apply.
Bill Silverthorn
Bob Whitaker <bw...@conterra.com> wrote:
>Like every other Poltically Correct clone, Sandi knows damned well why
>people who disagree with her had BETTER be anonymous. Nikor and all
>the rest are essentially rats who report all heresy.
> In Nazi Germany, Hitlerites could denounce any critic who was anonymous
>as "cowards", just as Stalinists could denounce all ananymous criticism
>of Communism as "cowardly". In the same tradition, these Politically
>Correct clones denounce anybody who criticizes their beloved System as
>"cowards" today.
> There is nothing cheaper than denouncing critics as "cowards' when one
>is safely with the establishment. It's a habit of those on the side of
>the authorities that is as old as it is sickening.
OK, Bob, so knocking someone on the basis of being anomymous alone is not
enough ... but you actually agreeing with this female bashing "schtuff"????
Bill
Dan Nelson
Richard Latker wrote:
>
> Some frustrated idiot wrote:
> >
> > American society and its economy is comprised of the white
> > females.
>
> opposite conclusion--ie, that it is men that are less flexible, less
> trainable and even slightly less intelligent than women--and does so
> through an exhaustive analysis of fact (rather than your petty sour
> grapes). Women, on average, work harder, learn more quickly and tolerate
> change more effectively than men do.
And, in the U.S. at least, do it all for significantly less money than
men do (I make more than twice as much money as my wife for a job
comparable in frustration, etc.). Curious.
> Managers of high-tech manufacturing operations often prefer women
> labourers, if they are asked, because they are perceived to be more
> meticulous than men. Women are thought to be better personnel managers,
> teachers, doctors and researchers. It's only at the very top that women
> are considered less desirable, because they have this habit of getting
> pregnant and taking maternity leave.
True, all of it. Women, in my experience, are (generally) better
teachers and personnel managers. I can't speak to the others, but don't
doubt its truth.
> > 1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
> > working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
> > basis.)
Complete bull****. I have worked for several women, and they ALL
WITHOUT EXCEPTION recognized my strengths, were more honest than the men
I have worked for in recognizing my weaknesses, and helped me work on
them better.
> > With this being the case, it does not take long for
> > performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
> > female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
>
> What you mean is this: "My boss pissed me off. She was a woman. Women
> should be subordinate to men, damnit, not the other way around. The
> whole fucking thing makes me feel inadequate, especially since I realise
> my skills base isn't worth what it used to be."
Exactly.
> > 2.) Females are the operatives of the Jews.
>
> Translation: "The hottest babe in the office started started sleeping
> with this *fucking* jewish guy. Damn, this pisses me off."
Hee hee! Another would-be office Romeo shot down. I **love** it!
> > Female Management, a Case Study:
>
> <Long tirade about how unfair the world is to men of marginal talent
> snipped>
<And a worthy snip, at that>
> Any successful, accomplished person does not blame others for their
> failures -- this is a basic rule of life to which even some of your
> white power buddies agree (not many, it's true. Most of them blame Jews
> for their own inability to adapt and thrive in a changing world). The
> most successful western institutions, corporate or otherwise, have both
> men and women in positions of power throughout the management hierarchy.
>
> > Many millions of dollars were wasted, this by a
> > company which would not give a ten cent raise to a deserving
> > white male worker!
>
> Yep, you hold on to that resentment, buddy. While the rest of us white
> male workers -- who a) work hard and smart with men and women of all
> types b) have learned how to learn, and c) still manage to get laid now
> and then -- prosper and enjoy ourselves, you can find yourself a
> submissive little housewife to smack around. She'll wash your clothes
> while you down Budweisers in front of the TV, and you can live out your
> male-supremacist fantasies in blissful sloth.
MY wife is not submissive. Right now she's pissed off about much of
what the original poster's buddies have done to her. She's thinking
about leaving her company for one who will pay her in a manner more
commensurate with the MILLIONS she saves her company yearly. In a fair
society, she'd easily be making IN THE RANGE of what I'm making, if not
much more. I'd prefer more, because I'd likely be able to retire soon,
cleaning the house and weeding the garden. More likely it'll be the
other way around, more's the pity for a thinking manager.
> RL
Dan
Me
What's going on here!! Is the American male waking up??
An accurate assessment of the women in American society--and the
pusillanimous men who worship at their feet.
The women in America elected Bill Clinton, and we shall suffer for this.
It is only when the American male, in toto, realizes they have given up
their birthright, and reassert themselves to make this country strong
and great.
The founding fathers knew the capabilities and inability's of women,
that's why they did not get the right to vote. We, enlightened ones,
gave it to them, and we have been on a downhill spiral ever since.
By and large, woman belong at home; taking care of her family and her
man. She cannot handle academic things, i.e., logic, and the basic
reasoning powers that brings men to a natural conclusion of right and
wrong. Men will vote for a President, not because he is cute, but
rather whether the candidate is right in his judgments, places the
country above self and in fact, will do those things for which this
nation once stood. Women vote with their hearts and emotions--men vote
with intelligence and logic.
It is good to hear one speak truth and reality, thank you.
Mr. Insight
Anonymous wrote:
>
> Anonymous would like to make two points at this time:
>
> right down to the mat fighting to keep the current vile scheme
> which they never could command in the absence of females' keeping
> them on as cronies.
>
> management is such a wonderful thing, then how come females
> couldn't make it on their own merit in the absence of equal
> employment opportunity laws? It's been said that smart
> employers don't discriminate and that smart employers hire
> the best qualified. Why aren't smart employers smart in the
> absence of equal employment opportunity laws? Why is it
> that countries that have lagged behind us in passing such
> laws are also lagging behind us with the sagging of their
> economies and societies (most notably, Japan)?
I regard the use of anonymous posts, such as this, as an act of
incredible cowardice. If one surveys the most venomous messages, they
seem to come primarily from unidentified contributors.
Dr. Martine RoBards
Bill Silverthorn
Anonymous <no-...@mailmasher.com> wrote:
>Anonymous would like to make two points at this time:
>
>1. The males who defend female management and equality are the
>ones who are the third, fourth and fifth-rate males who will go
>right down to the mat fighting to keep the current vile scheme
>of things in place and who are holding jobs and earning money
>which they never could command in the absence of females' keeping
>them on as cronies.
But of course! They must be "in cohoots" with the 'fems! Why else would
they preach equal pay for equal work and all that male threatening tripe!
Absolutely agree with you !!!! .................. NOT!!!
>2. If females are such wonderful workers and if female
>management is such a wonderful thing, then how come females
>couldn't make it on their own merit in the absence of equal
>employment opportunity laws?
Maybe because men have the "employment" and have had it since the beginning
of time? Are you perhaps suggesting that since women can't leave this
planet and start a society on their own on another planet they are
obviously inferior to men? Another sensical suggestion .... now I see why
you use the unique name of anonymous!!
>It's been said that smart
>employers don't discriminate and that smart employers hire
>the best qualified. Why aren't smart employers smart in the
>absence of equal employment opportunity laws?
Many are ... but many are not .. or were not ... the same can be said for
why we needed a civil rights movement to stop discrimination among races
.... but I will NOT dare ask YOUR position on that topic .... trust me!!!
;-)
> Why is it
>that countries that have lagged behind us in passing such
>laws are also lagging behind us with the sagging of their
>economies and societies (most notably, Japan)?
So the success of Japan is based on the male domination of the society? It
couldn't be work ethic? the Marshall plan? morals? etc.? It is
strictly "testosterone"? You really have got to expand your reading
material a bit, brother. But I will support any vote that gives men like
you your own planet or island to make a go of it .... without women.
God bless you and don't quit your day job!!! ;-)
In His Name,
Bill
Druid+
OK Mr. Pusillanimous.
bob jackson
Me wrote:
>
> What's going on here!! Is the American male waking up??
>
> An accurate assessment of the women in American society--and the
> pusillanimous men who worship at their feet.
>
> The women in America elected Bill Clinton, and we shall suffer for this.
Here's a clue for you, doorknob. With the political situation in this
country we shall suffer if the cats get together and elect a dog. I'm
not sure which iss dumber, Democrats, Republicans, or those who think
that there's a difference.
>
> It is only when the American male, in toto, realizes they have given up
> their birthright, and reassert themselves to make this country strong
> and great.
>
> The founding fathers knew the capabilities and inability's of women,
> that's why they did not get the right to vote. We, enlightened ones,
Smirk. Snicker. Giggle. Roar. Roll on the floor! You? Enlightened?
Muhahahahahahahaha.....
Sorry 'bout the delay, had to get control of my breathing. The only
way you'll _ever_ be enlightened is with a gallon of gas and a match.
> gave it to them, and we have been on a downhill spiral ever since.
>
> By and large, woman belong at home; taking care of her family and her
> man. She cannot handle academic things, i.e., logic, and the basic
> reasoning powers that brings men to a natural conclusion of right and
> wrong. Men will vote for a President, not because he is cute, but
If you had basic reasoning powers you wholdn't have posted this whiny
drivel. Run along nitwit and ask your mommy to show you how to tie
your shoes. (if you wear shoes)
> rather whether the candidate is right in his judgments, places the
> country above self and in fact, will do those things for which this
> nation once stood. Women vote with their hearts and emotions--men
> vote with intelligence and logic.
Oh yeah, and don't we have a _great_ record to proove it. Tricky Dick,
good ol' Spiro, Boss Daly, Ted the drunk, some real dandies.
>
> It is good to hear one speak truth and reality, thank you.
In your dreams.
--
Bob Jackson be...@No.Spam.juno.com rlj...@No.Spam.sierratel.com
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain
bob jackson
Bob Whitaker wrote:
>
> Like every other Poltically Correct clone, Sandi knows damned well why
> people who disagree with her had BETTER be anonymous. Nikor and all
> the rest are essentially rats who report all heresy.
>
Then you are a politicly correct clone? You have a name and an address
on your post. You don't side with Sandi, aren't the rats going to
report you as well? If you cant be coherent at least try to be
consistant.
John Turco
Dan Nelson wrote:
>
> Richard Latker wrote:
> >
> > Some frustrated idiot wrote:
> > >
> > > The largest demographic group doing the most damage to
> > > American society and its economy is comprised of the white
> > > females.
> >
> > An excellent article in the Economist in October 1996 comes to the exact
> > opposite conclusion--ie, that it is men that are less flexible, less
> > trainable and even slightly less intelligent than women--and does so
> > through an exhaustive analysis of fact (rather than your petty sour
> > grapes). Women, on average, work harder, learn more quickly and tolerate
> > change more effectively than men do.
>
> And, in the U.S. at least, do it all for significantly less money than
> men do (I make more than twice as much money as my wife for a job
> comparable in frustration, etc.). Curious.
Yes, it's curious that virtually all the respondents to this unimaginative
troll engage in white man-bashing. They all seem to subscribe to the feminist
tripe that only women work hard, and that only women have feelings, and that
only women have a raw deal in life.
They forget certain facts, such as: Females don't have to worry about being
drafted. [The familiar retort from the feminists and their supporters is
usually something to the effect that, "since men are the ones who cause wars,
they're the ones who should fight them". They simply ignore the obvious
reality that the AVERAGE man (i.e., the likely draftee) is no more
responsible for war than the typical woman is. Even more hypocritically, the
feminists are the group most vehemently aggressive in seeking combat roles
for female soldiers]. It's also socially acceptable for them to whine
excessively and to blame men for ALL their problems and their own
inadequacies.
You see, according to feminist myth, when women are under-represented in a
particular profession, it's ONLY because they're (reputedly) discriminated
against by men. However, when women dominate a specific area, it's SOLELY due
to their (alleged) "natural superiority".
In other words, women can do no wrong, and men can do no right. When a man is
successful, it's because everything is handed to him on a silver platter. But
when a woman is successful, it's because she's such a hard worker AND a
perfect human being.
At least, that's the way it is in the feminists' never-never land.
> > Managers of high-tech manufacturing operations often prefer women
> > labourers, if they are asked, because they are perceived to be more
> > meticulous than men. Women are thought to be better personnel managers,
> > teachers, doctors and researchers. It's only at the very top that women
> > are considered less desirable, because they have this habit of getting
> > pregnant and taking maternity leave.
>
> True, all of it. Women, in my experience, are (generally) better
> teachers and personnel managers. I can't speak to the others, but don't
> doubt its truth.
True, only in YOUR inevitably narrow experience. One person's anecdotal
"evidence" is of very limited scientific value.
> > > 1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
> > > working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
> > > basis.)
>
> Complete bull****. I have worked for several women, and they ALL
> WITHOUT EXCEPTION recognized my strengths, were more honest than the men
> I have worked for in recognizing my weaknesses, and helped me work on
> them better.
On the other hand, if someone else said (from his own experiences) that men
"ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION" were better than women at ANYTHING, everyone would
jump down his throat.
I guarantee it.
> > > With this being the case, it does not take long for
> > > performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
> > > female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
> >
> > What you mean is this: "My boss pissed me off. She was a woman. Women
> > should be subordinate to men, damnit, not the other way around. The
> > whole fucking thing makes me feel inadequate, especially since I realise
> > my skills base isn't worth what it used to be."
>
> Exactly.
Exactly NOT. The poster is arguing by assertion, just as the troll did.
> > > 2.) Females are the operatives of the Jews.
> >
> > Translation: "The hottest babe in the office started started sleeping
> > with this *fucking* jewish guy. Damn, this pisses me off."
>
> Hee hee! Another would-be office Romeo shot down. I **love** it!
You love WHAT? It's merely a fictional story made up by the poster!
> > > Female Management, a Case Study:
> >
> > <Long tirade about how unfair the world is to men of marginal talent
> > snipped>
>
> <And a worthy snip, at that>
>
> > Any successful, accomplished person does not blame others for their
> > failures -- this is a basic rule of life to which even some of your
> > white power buddies agree (not many, it's true. Most of them blame Jews
> > for their own inability to adapt and thrive in a changing world). The
> > most successful western institutions, corporate or otherwise, have both
> > men and women in positions of power throughout the management hierarchy.
> >
> > > Many millions of dollars were wasted, this by a
> > > company which would not give a ten cent raise to a deserving
> > > white male worker!
> >
> > Yep, you hold on to that resentment, buddy. While the rest of us white
> > male workers -- who a) work hard and smart with men and women of all
> > types b) have learned how to learn, and c) still manage to get laid now
> > and then -- prosper and enjoy ourselves, you can find yourself a
> > submissive little housewife to smack around. She'll wash your clothes
> > while you down Budweisers in front of the TV, and you can live out your
> > male-supremacist fantasies in blissful sloth.
>
> MY wife is not submissive. Right now she's pissed off about much of
> what the original poster's buddies have done to her. She's thinking
> about leaving her company for one who will pay her in a manner more
> commensurate with the MILLIONS she saves her company yearly.
Of course, you can PROVE (unlike the troll in his fantasy) that she's saved
her company "MILLIONS" of dollars a year, can't you?
In a fair
> society, she'd easily be making IN THE RANGE of what I'm making, if not
> much more. I'd prefer more, because I'd likely be able to retire soon,
> cleaning the house and weeding the garden. More likely it'll be the
> other way around, more's the pity for a thinking manager.
>
> > RL
>
> Dan
In a "fair society", ALL people would be treated justly and with respect,
regardless of sex, race, religion, creed, or whatever. White, Christian men
("WCM", how do you like like that acronym I just coined? <g>) have problems
(and good and bad points) as everyone else does. I'm a member of that group
and MY conscience is clear. Go ahead and blame them for everything if it
frees YOU from some sort of "collective, WCM retroactive guilt trip".
(And don't worry, you're probably gonna "get some" tonight, after your wife
reads your boot-licking post. (Or, should I say, "high heel-licking post")?
:)
Anonymous
In article <32C30B...@mailmasher.com>, Me
<dr...@mailmasher.com> wrote:
> What's going on here!! Is the American male waking up??
>
> An accurate assessment of the women in American society--and the
> pusillanimous men who worship at their feet.
>
> The women in America elected Bill Clinton, and we shall suffer for this.
> It is good to hear one speak truth and reality, thank you.
Anonymous responds:
Thank you, Me, for your vote of confidence.
What you wrote about the election lends support for my premise
that white females have become the eyes, ears, and arms of Jews
even where no Jews are present.
White females voted for Clinton who has been characterized as
the best president Israel ever had!
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Re: Gentlemen, It Must Be Told! - RETRY
In article <32C30B...@mailmasher.com>, Me
<dr...@mailmasher.com> wrote:
> What's going on here!! Is the American male waking up??
>
> An accurate assessment of the women in American society--and the
> pusillanimous men who worship at their feet.
>
> The women in America elected Bill Clinton, and we shall suffer for this.
> It is good to hear one speak truth and reality, thank you.
Anonymous responds:
Thank you, Me, for your vote of confidence.
What you wrote about the election lends supports for my premise
Anonymous
Apocalyptic Aardvark
Me wrote:
>
> What's going on here!! Is the American male waking up??
>
> An accurate assessment of the women in American society--and the
> pusillanimous men who worship at their feet.
>
> The women in America elected Bill Clinton, and we shall suffer for this.
>
> their birthright, and reassert themselves to make this country strong
> and great.
>
> The founding fathers knew the capabilities and inability's of women,
> that's why they did not get the right to vote. We, enlightened ones,
>
> By and large, woman belong at home; taking care of her family and her
> man. She cannot handle academic things, i.e., logic, and the basic
> reasoning powers that brings men to a natural conclusion of right and
> wrong. Men will vote for a President, not because he is cute, but
> country above self and in fact, will do those things for which this
> nation once stood. Women vote with their hearts and emotions--men vote
> with intelligence and logic.
>
Thank God someone finally spoke out! It's about time someone finally
put those awful, nasty, dirty women in their place and told those men
who voted for Clinton where to go!
But you forgot the most important part: all black people, Jewish
people, and anyone else who is not white, protestant, and American will
be sentenced to eternal hell and damnation. Good work! I only hope
someone strangles or shoots you before you cause any more damage, you
dumb moron.
Dan
Bob Whitaker
No, I don't agree in general, with the following caveats:
He may have a point here. But white sellouts certainly include both
sexes.
There is a tendency for "movement women" to be part of the minority
coalition, and I think white men are all feeling a bit betrayed right
now, so I can see where he's coming from.
Anonymous
Re: Gentlemen, It Must Be Told! - RETRY
In article <32C30B...@mailmasher.com>, Me
<dr...@mailmasher.com> wrote:
> What's going on here!! Is the American male waking up??
>
> An accurate assessment of the women in American society--and the
> pusillanimous men who worship at their feet.
>
> The women in America elected Bill Clinton, and we shall suffer for this.
> It is good to hear one speak truth and reality, thank you.
LilChica
Mr. Insight wrote:
>
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > Anonymous would like to make two points at this time:
> >
> > 1. The males who defend female management and equality are the
> > right down to the mat fighting to keep the current vile scheme
> > which they never could command in the absence of females' keeping
> > them on as cronies.
> >
> > management is such a wonderful thing, then how come females
> > couldn't make it on their own merit in the absence of equal
> > employers don't discriminate and that smart employers hire
> > the best qualified. Why aren't smart employers smart in the
> > that countries that have lagged behind us in passing such
> > laws are also lagging behind us with the sagging of their
> > economies and societies (most notably, Japan)?
>
> incredible cowardice. If one surveys the most venomous messages, they
> seem to come primarily from unidentified contributors.
>
> Dr. Martine RoBards
And the stupidist ones! I know I would be embarassed if I was a man
with self-esteem was so low as to blame all my failures on women!
dckom
On Fri, 27 Dec 1996 14:43:22 -0800 c.e., Anonymous
<mailm...@mailmasher.com> wrote :
Yo Boyz,
Characterized by who? and why should women or anyone else care? Most
American voters are not anti-Semitic so why should they care what some
rabid Clinton/Israel hater says? Oh thats right, I forgot. Your the guy
with all the answers, so its because you say so isn't it. Gee, I guess if
we don't accept your whining as gospel we'll be just as stupid as that,
that... WOMAN, who had the job YOU shoulda had. Tsk, tsk, whats the world
coming to?
Weisse Rosen
Did you ever consider that a man would have to be a pretty miserable
specimen to want to set up housekeeping with the sort of dimwitted drudge
you describe? The fact that this is the only sort woman you find acceptable
tells us all we need know about the value of your judgements.
Weisse Rosen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Free thought, neccessarily involving freedom of
speech and press, I may tersely define thus:no
opinion a law-no opinion a crime.
Alexander Berkman
Sandi
I think some men are jealous of a woman's success and try to blame them for
their own failures.
Some people just have to find a scape goat wherever they can.
John Knight
Mark W. Keller wrote:
> I personally have had the opportunity to work for several different
> superiors of both genders. Some were good and some were bad, but there
> seemed to be no gender correlation between competance and incompetance.
> My own management style draws heavily from a manager I respected very
> much and sought to emulate. That manager happened to be a woman. She
> was competant, level headed, open minded, very understanding but with
> high standards and strict expectations of performance. Her industry
> knowledge and experience was extensive and only surpassed by her "people
> skills".
>
> Another thing I've learned over the years is that if I have a problem
> with my boss, he or she probably has a problem with me. The best
> approach is to find out what that problem is, clear up any
> mis-understandings, and adjust my behavior to conform to or exceed the
> expected standards. Yet another thing I've observed is that an attitude
> begets an attitude. If this "gentleman" conveys a poor attitude about
> women, and especially female superiors, he will very likely get a
> negative reaction in return, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
> So gentlemen, it must be told: leave your chauvenism at... well, you
> better burn it 'cause if you leave it at home your wife will have a bone
> to pick with you as well.
>
> Mark
Only problem, Mark, is that as long as affirmative action is around, we
know that an awfully lot of unqualified employees took the places of an
awfully lot of qualified employees, and we just don't know how
inefficient that made your company. All the kudos in the world won't
make up for the market share we have lost to Japan just because of this
(like the decrease in the world auto market served by the US from 60% to
20% in just 2 decades).
Sincerely,
John Knight
Mark W. Keller
PS - That you attacked Jews in the same post only shows your basic
bigotry. And Mr. Anonymous, please don't reply to this post unless you
come up with the intestinal fortitude to post it under your real name!
Mark W. Keller
Could it be that this man has no backbone, and no person female or male
will respect a subordinate who is a passive-agressive backbiter. I
infer this by the fact that this person chooses to remain anonymous -
won't even put his name on his own opinion.
Bill Silverthorn
I have never in the past posted anyone's private email publicly, but when
you get "garbage" in the mail, why not. Never been referred to before as a
"Jewboy" .... interesting "mind" that would come up with that today ...
anyway, just in case anyone "else" wants to know what to expect from this
"person" so they too can add his name to their own kill-file, here's the
lovely unsolicited email I received:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
from "Rad" <gco...@sprynet.com>
<quote>
Bill Silverthorn <w...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>Why else would they preach equal pay for equal work and all that male
>threatening tripe! Absolutely agree with you !!!! .................. NOT!!!
Who decides what's "equal"? That is what the MARKET is for, jewboy.
>Maybe because men have the "employment" and have had it since
>the beginning
Then why don't women and blacks start their own companies and put all these
evil white males out of business by out-competing them? And why don't YOU
go live in Israel?
>now I see why you use the unique name of anonymous!!
Honest people have to be anonymous in this fucking jew-controlled country
or they get fired.
--
Rad
Without the 2nd Amendment, the other amendments are just suggestions.
<end quote>
=-=-=-==-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bill
Tim Hanson
w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Silverthorn) wrote:
Ah. Must be one of them there "nurturing feminizts," eh?
Tim Hanson
"Sandi" <murr...@mnsinc.com> wrote:
On what do you base this speculation, or you relying on mere
prejudice?
Anonymous
In article <01bbf509$4c940360$136f...@murrissl.mnsinc.com>,
"Sandi" <murr...@mnsinc.com> wrote:
> I think some men are jealous of a woman's success and try
> to blame them for their own failures.
Jealous?? JEALOUS?? Jealous of what? Females need laws to
get them jobs. Females need those same laws in order to keep
those jobs. Females get away with things for years that would
get white males fired in ten minutes. Take my word for it,
jealousy is the most minor of my emotions!
> Some people just have to find a scape goat wherever they can.
And some people have a compelling need to disown blame when it
is placed right where it belongs.
Dearie, boy, oh boy, do you have a distorted perception of things!
(It seems that females have distorted perceptions and expectations
regarding just about everything!)
Karen Luckenbaugh
In article <1996122516...@mailmasher.com>, Anonymous
<abc-...@mailmasher.com> wrote:
> The largest demographic group doing the most damage to
> American society and its economy is comprised of the white
> females.
>
> Two of the most glaring problems with females in positions
> of power and responsibility are:
>
> 1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
> working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
> basis.) With this being the case, it does not take long for
> performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
> female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
(The garbage continues)
Fine. It's obvious that this guy is an idiot. But is this still a computer
folklore newsgroup or what? Besides, we all know that it's the PDP-11
that's keeping the man down.
Micah Mabelitini
--
Karen Luckenbaugh
klu...@ix.netcom.com
John Knight
Sandi wrote:
>
> I think some men are jealous of a woman's success and try to blame them for
> their own failures.
Sandi,
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "woman's success"? I
just couldn't help but notice that since the percent of women in the US
in management tripled:
1) the rate of fatherlessness quadrupled, the divorce rate more than
doubled, and the
illegitimacy rate quadrupled
2) the murder rate doubled while the "clearance rate" for murders
declined from 90% to 60%
3) the value of the dollar declined almost to a quarter of its previous
value by the Consumer Price Index and by 11 times by the "gold standard"
(from $38/oz to $420/oz)
4) more was spent on welfare than the entire asset value of every
Fortune 500 corporation and every acre of farm land combined
5) the percent of the world's autos supplied by the U.S. declined from
60% to 20%
6) the prison population increased four fold to a rate 4 times that of
China and 8 to 10 times that of many European nations
7) the average weight of an American increased 25 pounds
Since the 1970s:
1) GDP per worker declined 70% by the gold standard
2) the "Personal Savings" rate declined to less than 2%, versus 25% in
Japan
3) the public debt increased 8 fold AND the U.S. is the largest debtor
nation in world history
4) abortions more than doubled
5) cocaine use rose 45% in spite of the world's harshest "drug war" and
a 10 fold increase in criminal justice system expenditures -- which now
exceed the budget for national defense
6) the trade deficit increased from "in the black" to $123 Billion "in
the red"
7) government spending as a percent of the average American's income
exceeded 42%, and is rising, compared to 27% in Japan and 32% in the
U.S. 3 decades ago
8) drunk driving arrests increased 5 fold while the motor vehicle
fatality rate increased from 30% lower than Germany's to 45% higher
9) health services costs increased 8 fold and the paperwork required to
meet government
regulations costs 3% of GDP
10) SAT scores declined 75 points, putting the US in almost last place
in both math and
language in international comparisons
11) the percent of children living with married parents declined from
39% to 26%
12) the amount of time PER DAY that children watch TV increased from 5
hours to 7 hours
13) the number of the world's Top 40 Banks which were U.S. declined from
22 to only one
(with assets of $120 Billion while 24 were Japanese with assets of
$5,000 Billion)
14) we have 50 times more lawyers than Japan while Japan has 4 times as
many engineers
15) the ratio of manufacturing employees to government employees
declined from 2.5:1 to less than 1:1
16) total US "Personal Savings" are $212 Billion while Japan has $12,000
Billion (that is $12 Trillion) just in their "Postal Savings Accounts"
17) "a 560% increase in violent crime, a 419% increase in illegitimate
births, a 3000% increase in single-parent households, and a drop of
almost 80 points in SAT scores." (source: The Guardian)
18) unsubstantiated child abuse reports increased 8 fold and
unsubstantiated sexual abuse reports increased 28 fold
Which part of this do you give credit to women for?
Regards,
John Knight
dckom
>
>Jealous?? JEALOUS?? Jealous of what? Females need laws to
>get them jobs. Females need those same laws in order to keep
>those jobs. Females get away with things for years that would
>get white males fired in ten minutes. Take my word for it,
>jealousy is the most minor of my emotions!
>
>
>> Some people just have to find a scape goat wherever they can.
>
>And some people have a compelling need to disown blame when it
>is placed right where it belongs.
>
>Dearie, boy, oh boy, do you have a distorted perception of things!
>(It seems that females have distorted perceptions and expectations
>regarding just about everything!)
Yo big tough guy who won't sign his name,
Gee, how come so many guys think you're full of shit too? Maybe you just
mentally factor them out of the equation. That way you don't disturb your
male supremacist wet dream with any inconvenient facts. Or maybe you are
only interested in the thrill of telling the "bitches" off to their faces,
err, make that screens. Whats the matter? Did your girlfriend/wife get a
restraining order on you? Or did the girls just push you around on the
playground?
Even the Klan would'nt put up with your kind.
Yours in the cause of social hygene,
RainDanzer
Guys and Gals,
I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but arguing with this
anti-female, anti-semetic creep is useless. He's a totally brainwashed
white supremist who can type. I know...I'm tempted to take him a round or
two myself...but what good would it do? None. Nothing any of us can say
to him will change his attitude.
It's HIS problem, and he does have one. It's just not mine or yours, but
he's trying to make it so by goading you.
What we can do is rejoice in the fact that in the nineties, his twisted
thinking is a minority. (Thank God!) He's beaten by the changes that have
taken place in this country in the past 25 years and really, all he can do
is whine about it, spout bigotry and insults, and disrupt a newsgroup when
people take the bait. Yes, he's despicable. Maybe he's one of those
having to work a McDonald's today asking, "do you want fries with that?"
If he is, we can all get a giggle out of it. If not, we can think that's
where he should be, and where he would be if he could come out of his
closet from behind that anonymous mailer. No, he and people like him meet
in the dark, in secret. They probably wear sheets to hide their identity
and do their dirt...or he's part of a Neo-Nazi/Aryan front type operation.
It really doesn't matter what group he's with..."bigot" is spelled the
same and smells just as bad under any banner.
His purpose here is not to debate. You can't debate with the sicko. His
purpose is to inflict anger and disruption and to get us arguing amongst
ourselves. Without an audience he'll dry up and blow away. He feeds on
this dialog like the scavenger he is.
I won't allow him to denigrate me, even though his comments about females
are insidious. I know who I am, where I came from, and who I am today. I
know I can roll up my sleeves and work shoulder to shoulder with my male
counterparts in situations of mutual respect. I don't have to defend my
position to the likes of him, nor do I to my male co-workers. We work
together for the good of the client who pays us all. We work for female
owned companies as well as male owned. It makes NO difference. Sometimes
I get the contract and they work for me. Others, they get the contract
and I work for them. We've had few problems no matter who is the "boss"
today or tomorrow.
This guy can't function in a world like this. Let's all be happy WE can.
If this guy had his way he would take this country back to pre 1929.
Let's all be happy HE can't. I love my work, and I repect and really like
the men I work with, no matter who is in charge. The door swings both
ways, and none of them tell me I should be home barefoot and pregnant.
They're some of the brightest men I've ever worked with. I am the
minority, as I am the only woman in our consulting group.
They need me and I need them. Gender bias is a non-issue with us.
I like this newsgroup. There are some really smart individuals here who
know their stuff...of BOTH sexes. I think I'm good at what I do, but I
don't know everything. I have learned a lot from you, and I carry it with
me in my work. I think that's one of the purposes of this newsgroup. In
the days of specialization and a dynamicly changing (daily) computer
industry, I find the info here most helpful.
"Anonymous" used to be my favorite author. <G> I'm having to recant that
with the advent of anonymous mailers. But from "Desiderata" I'll share an
anonymous quote with you. It begins, "Go placidly amongst the noise and
haste...." and further admonishes, "Avoid loud and boisterous persons for
they are a vexation to the spirit."
Wonderous men of the nineties...do not allow this troll to vex your
spirit. That's what he came to do. Know that he's the fifth rate
human...not you. He does not deserve your responses, or your anger.
Ignore his feeble off-the-wall whines. That's truly what he deserves.
Judy
RainDanzer
John Knight wrote:
>>>Which part of this do you give credit to women for?>>>>>
Oh...so now we have another one. But at least he signs his name. Well,
John, who do you blame the Civil War on when women had no right to vote?
Or the Great Depression when men controlled all the money, very few women
worked, and none voted before 1929?
We've not had a woman president yet, women have yet to control the house
and the senate, or the supreme court. Men still control most of the money
in this country as well as most of the high management positions and
earnings. It's still a man's world. Most working women in this country
still hold low level, low wage jobs, despite the fact that most single
parent families are headed by women.
Women in management may have trippled, but by and large they are still a
huge minority. The problems of a society as a whole are the
RESPONSIBILITY of a whole society. Based upon what power I had to control
it, I'll take my percentage of the credit. Can you take yours?
Judy
RainDanzer
John, still at it...writes:
>>>>Only problem, Mark, is that as long as affirmative action is around,
we
know that an awfully lot of unqualified employees took the places of an
awfully lot of qualified employees, and we just don't know how
inefficient that made your company. All the kudos in the world won't
make up for the market share we have lost to Japan just because of this
(like the decrease in the world auto market served by the US from 60% to
20% in just 2 decades).>>>>>
You're blaming affirmative action for the auto market going to Japan? Get
REAL!
Blame it on poor engineering, higher prices, and the fact that the
Japanese engineered a *better* more reliable product that cost less,
travelled further on a gallon of GAS, and consumers who clearly SAW the
better deal!!! That's what happened! I seriously doubt (to the point of
laughing) that the FEW affirmative action jobs given to women and
minorities have taken over auto engineering in Detroit! You ARE looking
for a scapegoat if you're trying to sell that bill of goods.
Further, every employee who obtained a job through affirmative action is
not a total incompetent as you imply. AA is an anti-descrimination act
based on sex, race or creed. Employers may be required to hire a cross
section of minorities, but there is nothing in AA that says they can't
hire competence within that group. It counts for a small percentage of
jobs and not NEARLY enough to tip the world market even if they were ALL
incompetent.
Judy
Mark W. Keller
John,
I'm no big fan of affirmative action myself. I believe it does an
injustice to all parties. Nevertheless, we still have it for the most
part. You may have to hire underqualified people to meet some quota,
but you can terminate them if they do not perform up to standard. (Just
make sure those standards are articulated and common knowledge, and
document everything.)
In this day and age there are more and more qualified people of both
genders and every race. So the arguement about the lack of qualified
minority recruits is less of an issue than it once was.
Mark
John Turco
RainDanzer wrote:
>
> Guys and Gals,
>
> I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but arguing with this
> anti-female, anti-semetic creep is useless. He's a totally brainwashed
> white supremist who can type. I know...I'm tempted to take him a round or
> two myself...but what good would it do? None. Nothing any of us can say
> to him will change his attitude.
> It's HIS problem, and he does have one. It's just not mine or yours, but
> he's trying to make it so by goading you.
I see that people have failed to heed my earlier warning that "trolls aren't
worth the aggravation they cause". This person is having a lot of fun with
various respondents among several newsgroups, and the joke is entirely on
THEM.
You see, unlike everyone else, I'm not at all convinced that he's an
"anti-female, anti-semitic, white supremacist creep". I believe he's only
someone who's gone fishing for as many knee-jerk, emotional reactions as he
can land.
In other words, he's a classic troll!
> What we can do is rejoice in the fact that in the nineties, his twisted
> thinking is a minority. (Thank God!) He's beaten by the changes that have
> taken place in this country in the past 25 years and really, all he can do
> is whine about it, spout bigotry and insults, and disrupt a newsgroup when
> people take the bait. Yes, he's despicable. Maybe he's one of those
> having to work a McDonald's today asking, "do you want fries with that?"
> If he is, we can all get a giggle out of it. If not, we can think that's
> where he should be, and where he would be if he could come out of his
> closet from behind that anonymous mailer. No, he and people like him meet
> in the dark, in secret. They probably wear sheets to hide their identity
> and do their dirt...or he's part of a Neo-Nazi/Aryan front type operation.
> It really doesn't matter what group he's with..."bigot" is spelled the
> same and smells just as bad under any banner.
However, the REAL problem occurs when people show their own genuine
prejudices by taking the bait in the first place. They counter the troll's
"evil white female" straw-man argument (or should I say, "straw-woman" <g>)
with an even uglier "evil white male" straw-man assertion.
They simply assume, without any basis in reality, that bigotry works in only
ONE direction. Females, blacks, Jews, etc., are ALL equally capable of giving
as good as they get. I see no reason why they shouldn't be subjected to
rational criticism just like anyone else, without charges of "racism" and
"chauvinism" being thrown around carelessly.
As for this transparent troll's use of an anonymous remailer, I resent the
fact that some posters are allowing this to give the very concept of
anonymous remailers themselves a bad name. I use one myself on another
(non-computer) newsgroup, but certainly not to troll or to abuse others. No,
my motives are much more innocent. I merely fear the remote possibilty that
one of my online relatives may see my real name posted in a frivolous group.
On the other hand, some anonymous remailer users have far more serious
concerns. They may want to (or NEED to) hide their true identities
exclusively for their own protection...perhaps, ironically enough, to prevent
being preyed upon by the very type of predator you think this particular
troll is!
> His purpose here is not to debate. You can't debate with the sicko. His
> purpose is to inflict anger and disruption and to get us arguing amongst
> ourselves. Without an audience he'll dry up and blow away. He feeds on
> this dialog like the scavenger he is.
His attackers aren't interested in logical debate, either. They constantly
resort to personal (and sometimes even vulgar) onslaughts against his
character, while ignoring his guileless declarations almost completely.
The troll has to laughing his frigging head off, right now!
> I won't allow him to denigrate me, even though his comments about females
> are insidious. I know who I am, where I came from, and who I am today. I
> know I can roll up my sleeves and work shoulder to shoulder with my male
> counterparts in situations of mutual respect. I don't have to defend my
> position to the likes of him, nor do I to my male co-workers. We work
> together for the good of the client who pays us all. We work for female
> owned companies as well as male owned. It makes NO difference. Sometimes
> I get the contract and they work for me. Others, they get the contract
> and I work for them. We've had few problems no matter who is the "boss"
> today or tomorrow.
But you have allowed him to rankle you, and I've let the many moronic replies
to him irritate me, too. Why? Why can't we follow our own advice about
trolls? Because we're only human, and that makes us vulnerable to the ad
hominem pitches of trolls and the vicious threads they create.
> This guy can't function in a world like this. Let's all be happy WE can.
> If this guy had his way he would take this country back to pre 1929.
> Let's all be happy HE can't. I love my work, and I repect and really like
> the men I work with, no matter who is in charge. The door swings both
> ways, and none of them tell me I should be home barefoot and pregnant.
> They're some of the brightest men I've ever worked with. I am the
> minority, as I am the only woman in our consulting group.
> They need me and I need them. Gender bias is a non-issue with us.
"Gender bias" works both ways, as the troll himself has helped to expose in
starting this thread. For example, the popular nonsense that men shouldn't be
teachers reared its hackneyed head again. It's okay to say women are just
naturally better teachers, but it's wrong to even imply that men are better
computer consultants, for some unfathomable reason.
So, it's stupid to think that women haven't been guilty of their own
prejudices over the years, or that such a thing as "female chauvinism"
doesn't exist.
It exists, and we didn't need this troll to prove it.
> I like this newsgroup. There are some really smart individuals here who
> know their stuff...of BOTH sexes. I think I'm good at what I do, but I
> don't know everything. I have learned a lot from you, and I carry it with
> me in my work. I think that's one of the purposes of this newsgroup. In
> the days of specialization and a dynamicly changing (daily) computer
> industry, I find the info here most helpful.
There's no law that says only computer consultants can post in this group.
I'm not one myself, but I come here to learn more about computers, and
occasionally, to ask questions.
> "Anonymous" used to be my favorite author. <G> I'm having to recant that
> with the advent of anonymous mailers. But from "Desiderata" I'll share an
> anonymous quote with you. It begins, "Go placidly amongst the noise and
> haste...." and further admonishes, "Avoid loud and boisterous persons for
> they are a vexation to the spirit."
I've seen far bigger jerks who DIDN'T use anonymous remailers. Believe me,
this troll is just a pussycat by comparison! <g>
> Wonderous men of the nineties...do not allow this troll to vex your
> spirit. That's what he came to do. Know that he's the fifth rate
> human...not you. He does not deserve your responses, or your anger.
> Ignore his feeble off-the-wall whines. That's truly what he deserves.
>
> Judy
Human nature being what it is, that's truly what he WON'T get. From my
observations, one doesn't seem to draw a lot of attention in Usenet by being
nice and polite. Trolling's where the real action is, unfortunately.
Happy holidays,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
a...@creative.net
In <32ca9e8f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Silverthorn) writes:
>I have never in the past posted anyone's private email publicly, but when
>you get "garbage" in the mail, why not. Never been referred to before as a
>"Jewboy" .... interesting "mind" that would come up with that today ...
>anyway, just in case anyone "else" wants to know what to expect from this
>"person" so they too can add his name to their own kill-file, here's the
>lovely unsolicited email I received:
>
Don't feel to bad about being called a "Jewboy", in the following email
that our "naziating" mr.rad sent to me, I am referred to as a "camel jockey" directly,
and a "towel head" indirectly. Some of the communications I have received from
others of this ilk have referred to me as a "kike", and "dirty jew-pig"...hmm seems
that they have a bit of trouble making up their minds...btw, the subject that
precipitated the exchange between mr.rad and myself was his bemoaning the
fate that the evil jews had cut off the tip of his penis...is this just to Freudian, or
what??
Regards,
Ali
a...@creative.net wrote
> Ahh, Mr. Rad, now we come to the "nub" of the problem, and perhaps the
> "root" of your anti-Semitism. Just how long have you had a fixation on
Jews
> as related to your penis?
Umm, since I learned that they mutilated it?
> Do you actually think that the >1 billion Muslims
> in the world are circumsized to accommodate the "Jewish Agenda" ?
No, they're just stupid towel-heads. And you camel jockeys don't run the
AMA yet, the Jews do. Frankly, since white people invented medicine, I
don't know why we need so many foreign malpracticers.
Rad
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>from "Rad" <gco...@sprynet.com>
><quote>
>Bill Silverthorn <w...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>>Why else would they preach equal pay for equal work and all that male
>>threatening tripe! Absolutely agree with you !!!! .................. NOT!!!
>
>Who decides what's "equal"? That is what the MARKET is for, jewboy.
>
>>Maybe because men have the "employment" and have had it since
>>the beginning
>
>Then why don't women and blacks start their own companies and put all these
>evil white males out of business by out-competing them? And why don't YOU
>go live in Israel?
>
>>now I see why you use the unique name of anonymous!!
>
>Honest people have to be anonymous in this fucking jew-controlled country
>or they get fired.
>--
>Rad
>Without the 2nd Amendment, the other amendments are just suggestions.
><end quote>
>=-=-=-==-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Bill
>
>
Sandi
And you attribute all this to women? Shame on you. Where are your facts
to corroborate where the breakdown occurred?
My point was that most men do not like it when women succeed (in any form).
They don't like it when they (men) have to work for a women. A lot of men
feel that women have taken jobs from them. When in fact it is far from the
truth.
>
> 1) the rate of fatherlessness quadrupled, the divorce rate more than
> doubled, and the
> illegitimacy rate quadrupled
You blame this on women? Where is the father's responsibility? It does
take two ya know.
>
> 2) the murder rate doubled while the "clearance rate" for murders
> declined from 90% to 60%
Don't understand this one.
> 3) the value of the dollar declined almost to a quarter of its previous
> value by the Consumer Price Index and by 11 times by the "gold standard"
> (from $38/oz to $420/oz)
Look to your president and congress. The last time I looked the males were
in majority, especially the Commander-in-Chief.
> 4) more was spent on welfare than the entire asset value of every
> Fortune 500 corporation and every acre of farm land combined
I repeat on # 3.
> 5) the percent of the world's autos supplied by the U.S. declined from
> 60% to 20%
again # 3. Congress allows more import than export.
> 6) the prison population increased four fold to a rate 4 times that of
> China and 8 to 10 times that of many European nations
What is your point? They all were not women.
> 7) the average weight of an American increased 25 pounds
Society in general.
> Since the 1970s:
> 1) GDP per worker declined 70% by the gold standard
Don't understand this one either.
> 2) the "Personal Savings" rate declined to less than 2%, versus 25% in
> Japan
Society.
> 3) the public debt increased 8 fold AND the U.S. is the largest debtor
> nation in world history
Congress and pres again.
> 4) abortions more than doubled
Takes two. If men were there to support, alot of them would not occur.
> 5) cocaine use rose 45% in spite of the world's harshest "drug war" and
> a 10 fold increase in criminal justice system expenditures -- which now
> exceed the budget for national defense
Most dealers are men.
> 6) the trade deficit increased from "in the black" to $123 Billion "in
> the red"
Congress
> 7) government spending as a percent of the average American's income
> exceeded 42%, and is rising, compared to 27% in Japan and 32% in the
> U.S. 3 decades ago
Congress
> 8) drunk driving arrests increased 5 fold while the motor vehicle
> fatality rate increased from 30% lower than Germany's to 45% higher
Most offenders are male.
> 9) health services costs increased 8 fold and the paperwork required to
> meet government
> regulations costs 3% of GDP
Congress.
> 10) SAT scores declined 75 points, putting the US in almost last place
> in both math and
> language in international comparisons
Have we fallen behind? Or did the other nations just surpass to catch up to
us?
> 11) the percent of children living with married parents declined from
> 39% to 26%
Takes two people equally.
> 12) the amount of time PER DAY that children watch TV increased from 5
> hours to 7 hours
Where is the father's influence?
> 13) the number of the world's Top 40 Banks which were U.S. declined from
> 22 to only one
> (with assets of $120 Billion while 24 were Japanese with assets of
> $5,000 Billion)
Most are managed by men. Look at the stock exchange. Only (1/one) women
sets the board. Gee does she really have that much influence?
> 14) we have 50 times more lawyers than Japan while Japan has 4 times as
> many engineers
?????
> 15) the ratio of manufacturing employees to government employees
> declined from 2.5:1 to less than 1:1
Where are your facts coming from?
> 16) total US "Personal Savings" are $212 Billion while Japan has $12,000
> Billion (that is $12 Trillion) just in their "Postal Savings Accounts"
Less income and more expense.
> 17) "a 560% increase in violent crime, a 419% increase in illegitimate
> births, a 3000% increase in single-parent households, and a drop of
> almost 80 points in SAT scores." (source: The Guardian)
Again, takes two people and more to manage a family. And where is the man
when the woman is left to care for the children????
> 18) unsubstantiated child abuse reports increased 8 fold and
> unsubstantiated sexual abuse reports increased 28 fold
By whom?
> Which part of this do you give credit to women for?
You propose to blame this on women without having any demographics to prove
your point.
Most of what you talk about is coming from decisions made by congress and
the president which is very male dominated. It always takes two people
(Male and Female) to make a nuclear family. If the family fails it is the
blame of both parties.
Boy you really give a lot of power to women. Didn't realize that I got
equal pay, equal votes and equal say.
Would be glad to debate if you had the supporting demographics and data to
prove your point.
If there are so many problems as this, why not run for office and try to
change it. Never bring up a problem without having a solution
Regards,
Sandi
John Bayko
In article <32C607...@idt.net>,
John Knight <fath...@idt.net> wrote:
>Sandi wrote:
>>
>> I think some men are jealous of a woman's success and try to blame them for
>> their own failures.
>
>
>Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "woman's success"? I
>just couldn't help but notice that since the percent of women in the US
>in management tripled:
>
>doubled, and the
>illegitimacy rate quadrupled
[...similar bellyaching deleted...]
>Which part of this do you give credit to women for?
You really think that women singlehandedly as a group have caused
the systematic social destruction of the United States, and
furthermore men were both completely innocent of any part of this as
well as being absolutely impotent to stop it?
A guy named Marc Lepine in Montreal had a similar view. To help
solve this 'problem', he took an assault rifle to l'Ecole
Polytechniqe, an engineering school which he lacked the mental
capability to succeed in, and shot as many women as he could see (he
was very kind and directed the men to leave the classroom for their own
safety before slaughtering the remaining students).
It's a rather brutal way of keeping women in their place, but
compared to the immense crimes against humanity which you imply are
the responsibility of working women, it's a very small price for those
with any sort of 'aspirations' to pay, I'm sure you would agree.
--
John Bayko (Tau).
ba...@cs.uregina.ca
http://www.cs.uregina.ca/~bayko
John Turco
BubbaBob wrote:
>
> Sandi wrote:
>
>
> > A lot of men feel that women have taken jobs from them. When in fact it is
> > far from the truth.
>
> discriminatory affirmative action policies. Women now possess the
> majority of the labor market.
>
> > > 1) the rate of fatherlessness quadrupled, the divorce rate more than
> > > doubled, and the
> > > illegitimacy rate quadrupled
> >
> > You blame this on women? Where is the father's responsibility? It does
> > take two ya know.
>
> allowed birth. The majority of divorces are initiated and granted
> to women.
>
> It takes a man and woman to conceive. After that the father is
> given no consideration until the woman's choice allows or forces
> him to get involved.
This is one of the few intelligent messages in this whole brain-dead thread.
I admire the guts of the poster, but watch him get roasted alive for daring
to speak the politically incorrect truth!
Anonymous
In article <32C607...@idt.net>, <fath...@idt.net>
John Knight wrote:
a note to Sandi which proves a prior assertion of mine - "Horror
Bitches Lead US to Last Place." (If your news server no longer
carries that posting, it should be available in Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/forms/dnq.html). Thanks, John!
I might add that Japan has NO internal j*wish influence on its
economy and society while the United States has had many decades
of heavy j*wish influence, not the least of which is their
dominance of U.S. news and entertainment media.
John, I don't know what your level of familiarity with
newsgroups on the subject is, but the j*wish participants are
undoubtedly enamored with the current scheme of things in the
U.S., they would not have it any other way, and they are
fighting rabidly - ferociously even - right down to the mat to
keep the vile, corrupt system of government enforced equality
in place no matter how detrimental to society it may be.
I'd like to add my own note to Sandi here. Sandi, every single
female corporate manager whom I've encountered ended up getting
herself fired. The problem with this is that due to the
protections afforded by law, these firings always came long
after the need for termination became painfully obvious. Is this
something about which males should be jealous?
John's "delightful" note to Sandi follows:
> Sandi,
>
> Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "woman's success"? I
> just couldn't help but notice that since the percent of women in the US
> in management tripled:
>
>
>
> 1) the rate of fatherlessness quadrupled, the divorce rate more than
> doubled, and the
> illegitimacy rate quadrupled
>
>
>
> 2) the murder rate doubled while the "clearance rate" for murders
> declined from 90% to 60%
>
>
>
> 3) the value of the dollar declined almost to a quarter of its previous
> value by the Consumer Price Index and by 11 times by the "gold standard"
> (from $38/oz to $420/oz)
>
>
>
> 4) more was spent on welfare than the entire asset value of every
> Fortune 500 corporation and every acre of farm land combined
>
>
>
> 5) the percent of the world's autos supplied by the U.S. declined from
> 60% to 20%
>
>
>
> 6) the prison population increased four fold to a rate 4 times that of
> China and 8 to 10 times that of many European nations
>
>
>
> 7) the average weight of an American increased 25 pounds
>
>
>
>
>
> Since the 1970s:
>
>
>
> 1) GDP per worker declined 70% by the gold standard
>
>
>
> 2) the "Personal Savings" rate declined to less than 2%, versus 25% in
> Japan
>
>
>
> 3) the public debt increased 8 fold AND the U.S. is the largest debtor
> nation in world history
>
>
>
> 4) abortions more than doubled
>
>
>
> 5) cocaine use rose 45% in spite of the world's harshest "drug war" and
> a 10 fold increase in criminal justice system expenditures -- which now
> exceed the budget for national defense
>
>
>
> 6) the trade deficit increased from "in the black" to $123 Billion "in
> the red"
>
>
>
> 7) government spending as a percent of the average American's income
> exceeded 42%, and is rising, compared to 27% in Japan and 32% in the
> U.S. 3 decades ago
>
>
>
> 8) drunk driving arrests increased 5 fold while the motor vehicle
> fatality rate increased from 30% lower than Germany's to 45% higher
>
>
>
> 9) health services costs increased 8 fold and the paperwork required to
> meet government
> regulations costs 3% of GDP
>
>
>
> 10) SAT scores declined 75 points, putting the US in almost last place
> in both math and
> language in international comparisons
>
>
>
> 11) the percent of children living with married parents declined from
> 39% to 26%
>
>
>
> 12) the amount of time PER DAY that children watch TV increased from 5
> hours to 7 hours
>
>
>
> 13) the number of the world's Top 40 Banks which were U.S. declined from
> 22 to only one
> (with assets of $120 Billion while 24 were Japanese with assets of
> $5,000 Billion)
>
>
>
> 14) we have 50 times more lawyers than Japan while Japan has 4 times as
> many engineers
>
>
>
> 15) the ratio of manufacturing employees to government employees
> declined from 2.5:1 to less than 1:1
>
>
>
> 16) total US "Personal Savings" are $212 Billion while Japan has $12,000
> Billion (that is $12 Trillion) just in their "Postal Savings Accounts"
>
>
>
> 17) "a 560% increase in violent crime, a 419% increase in illegitimate
> births, a 3000% increase in single-parent households, and a drop of
> almost 80 points in SAT scores." (source: The Guardian)
>
>
>
> 18) unsubstantiated child abuse reports increased 8 fold and
> unsubstantiated sexual abuse reports increased 28 fold
>
>
>
> Which part of this do you give credit to women for?
>
> Regards,
>
>
> John Knight
Anonymous
In article <5a6nrv$d...@sue.cc.uregina.ca>,
ba...@borealis.cs.uregina.ca (John Bayko) wrote:
> A guy named Marc Lepine in Montreal had a similar view. To help
> solve this 'problem', he took an assault rifle to l'Ecole
> Polytechniqe, an engineering school which he lacked the mental
> capability to succeed in, and shot as many women as he could see (he
> was very kind and directed the men to leave the classroom for their own
> safety before slaughtering the remaining students).
> It's a rather brutal way of keeping women in their place...
>
> John Bayko (Tau).
Real gentlemen know how to keep their women in line without
inflicting any visible or permanent harm.
If you want to know more about the dynamics of females and
the decline of society, please refer to a prior posting -
Horror Bitches Lead US to Last Place
- which should be available in the Deja News archives,
http://www.dejanews.com/forms/dnq.html
BubbaBob
Sandi wrote:
> A lot of men feel that women have taken jobs from them. When in fact it is
> far from the truth.
A lot of women have taken jobs from men; especially as a result of
discriminatory affirmative action policies. Women now possess the
majority of the labor market.
> > 1) the rate of fatherlessness quadrupled, the divorce rate more than
> > doubled, and the
> > illegitimacy rate quadrupled
>
> You blame this on women? Where is the father's responsibility? It does
> take two ya know.
Women are allowed the only choice in whether or not a child is
John Turco
Sandi wrote:
>
> And you attribute all this to women? Shame on you. Where are your facts
> to corroborate where the breakdown occurred?
>
> My point was that most men do not like it when women succeed (in any form).
> They don't like it when they (men) have to work for a women. A lot of men
> feel that women have taken jobs from them. When in fact it is far from the
> truth.
> > 1) the rate of fatherlessness quadrupled, the divorce rate more than
> > doubled, and the
> > illegitimacy rate quadrupled
>
> You blame this on women? Where is the father's responsibility? It does
> take two ya know.
credit for anything that goes right. With mothers, the reverse is the case.
"Motherhood" is sacred, you know. HA!!!!!!!!!!
> > 2) the murder rate doubled while the "clearance rate" for murders
> > declined from 90% to 60%
>
> Don't understand this one.
>
> > 3) the value of the dollar declined almost to a quarter of its previous
> > value by the Consumer Price Index and by 11 times by the "gold standard"
> > (from $38/oz to $420/oz)
>
> Look to your president and congress. The last time I looked the males were
> in majority, especially the Commander-in-Chief.
> > 4) more was spent on welfare than the entire asset value of every
> > Fortune 500 corporation and every acre of farm land combined
>
> I repeat on # 3.
>
> > 5) the percent of the world's autos supplied by the U.S. declined from
> > 60% to 20%
>
> again # 3. Congress allows more import than export.
>
> > 6) the prison population increased four fold to a rate 4 times that of
> > China and 8 to 10 times that of many European nations
>
> What is your point? They all were not women.
> > 7) the average weight of an American increased 25 pounds
>
> Society in general.
>
> > Since the 1970s:
> > 1) GDP per worker declined 70% by the gold standard
>
> Don't understand this one either.
>
> > 2) the "Personal Savings" rate declined to less than 2%, versus 25% in
> > Japan
>
> Society.
>
> > 3) the public debt increased 8 fold AND the U.S. is the largest debtor
> > nation in world history
>
> Congress and pres again.
>
> > 4) abortions more than doubled
>
> Takes two. If men were there to support, alot of them would not occur.
> > 5) cocaine use rose 45% in spite of the world's harshest "drug war" and
> > a 10 fold increase in criminal justice system expenditures -- which now
> > exceed the budget for national defense
>
> Most dealers are men.
> > 6) the trade deficit increased from "in the black" to $123 Billion "in
> > the red"
>
> Congress
>
> > 7) government spending as a percent of the average American's income
> > exceeded 42%, and is rising, compared to 27% in Japan and 32% in the
> > U.S. 3 decades ago
>
> Congress
>
> > 8) drunk driving arrests increased 5 fold while the motor vehicle
> > fatality rate increased from 30% lower than Germany's to 45% higher
>
> Most offenders are male.
> > 9) health services costs increased 8 fold and the paperwork required to
> > meet government
> > regulations costs 3% of GDP
>
> Congress.
>
> > 10) SAT scores declined 75 points, putting the US in almost last place
> > in both math and
> > language in international comparisons
>
> Have we fallen behind? Or did the other nations just surpass to catch up to
> us?
>
> > 11) the percent of children living with married parents declined from
> > 39% to 26%
>
> Takes two people equally.
>
> > 12) the amount of time PER DAY that children watch TV increased from 5
> > hours to 7 hours
>
> Where is the father's influence?
> > 13) the number of the world's Top 40 Banks which were U.S. declined from
> > 22 to only one
> > (with assets of $120 Billion while 24 were Japanese with assets of
> > $5,000 Billion)
>
> Most are managed by men. Look at the stock exchange. Only (1/one) women
> sets the board. Gee does she really have that much influence?
>
> > 14) we have 50 times more lawyers than Japan while Japan has 4 times as
> > many engineers
>
> ?????
>
> > 15) the ratio of manufacturing employees to government employees
> > declined from 2.5:1 to less than 1:1
>
> Where are your facts coming from?
>
> > 16) total US "Personal Savings" are $212 Billion while Japan has $12,000
> > Billion (that is $12 Trillion) just in their "Postal Savings Accounts"
>
> Less income and more expense.
>
> > 17) "a 560% increase in violent crime, a 419% increase in illegitimate
> > births, a 3000% increase in single-parent households, and a drop of
> > almost 80 points in SAT scores." (source: The Guardian)
>
> Again, takes two people and more to manage a family. And where is the man
> when the woman is left to care for the children????
simply BECAUSE she is a woman. Stop being such a hypocrite, will you?
> > 18) unsubstantiated child abuse reports increased 8 fold and
> > unsubstantiated sexual abuse reports increased 28 fold
>
> By whom?
>
> > Which part of this do you give credit to women for?
>
> You propose to blame this on women without having any demographics to prove
> your point.
> Most of what you talk about is coming from decisions made by congress and
> the president which is very male dominated. It always takes two people
> (Male and Female) to make a nuclear family. If the family fails it is the
> blame of both parties.
blamed for everything, while the woman is given all the credit.
> Boy you really give a lot of power to women. Didn't realize that I got
> equal pay, equal votes and equal say.
special privileges just because they're females. That's even true in the
military, where they aren't required to (literally) pull as much weight as
men.
> Would be glad to debate if you had the supporting demographics and data to
> prove your point.
>
> If there are so many problems as this, why not run for office and try to
> change it. Never bring up a problem without having a solution
>
> Regards,
> Sandi
John Turco
John Bayko wrote:
>
> In article <32C607...@idt.net>,
> John Knight <fath...@idt.net> wrote:
> >Sandi wrote:
> >>
> >> I think some men are jealous of a woman's success and try to blame them for
> >> their own failures.
> >> Some people just have to find a scape goat wherever they can.
> >
> >
> >Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "woman's success"? I
> >just couldn't help but notice that since the percent of women in the US
> >in management tripled:
> >
> >doubled, and the
> >illegitimacy rate quadrupled
>
>
> >Which part of this do you give credit to women for?
>
> the systematic social destruction of the United States, and
> furthermore men were both completely innocent of any part of this as
> well as being absolutely impotent to stop it?
> solve this 'problem', he took an assault rifle to l'Ecole
> Polytechniqe, an engineering school which he lacked the mental
> capability to succeed in, and shot as many women as he could see (he
> was very kind and directed the men to leave the classroom for their own
> safety before slaughtering the remaining students).
> compared to the immense crimes against humanity which you imply are
> the responsibility of working women, it's a very small price for those
> with any sort of 'aspirations' to pay, I'm sure you would agree.
>
> --
> John Bayko (Tau).
> ba...@cs.uregina.ca
> http://www.cs.uregina.ca/~bayko
Congratulations, pal! You just won the solid gold "Knee-jerk Reply of the
Year Award" with your absolutely MORONIC response to an idiotic troll.
Please tell me something, you're not serious...are you? You're not actually
comparing something that an obvious nut-case like this Marc Lepine character
of yours did with rational criticism of affirmative action, are you?
If so, I think you should check yourself into the same booby hatch as Mr.
Lepine, and as soon as possible.
John Turco
Robert Ford wrote:
>
> Snip! as erveryone must by now be aware of its basic contents.
>
> What a discussion! Sure shows there are some strange people out there.
Yeah, and you're one of them!
> 1) Equal opportunity laws were passed because there was blatant and
> overt discrimination in the workplace, both racial and sexual.
> Although most employers are not stupid and will put a smart person in
> a job where they can use their abilities, they are not noted for
> philanthropy and don't pay out unless they have to. Up until recently,
> (say about thirty to forty years or so) most jobs were simply not open
> to women. If a woman wanted to work, the only jobs she could do were
> either as a subordinate to a man, eg secretary, simple repetitive jobs
> such as factory work, or those jobs that women traditionally occupied,
> such as teaching, nursing, etc. It took a lot of effort by a few
> determined women to break down the barriers which stood in their path
> to equal employment opportunities. Sadly, these barriers are
> continually being rebuilt by 'gentlemen' such as the original poster.
Sure, women are TOTALLY blameless, aren't they? It's only the "'gentlemen'
such as the original poster" who are responsible for all the evil in the
world today.
Gee, I can barely keep my eyes dry as think of all the nasty schemes I've
thought of in the past to keep women in their place. How can I live with
myself?
> 2) There's still a long way to go - it's still rare for women to get
> to the top of the tree, although, happily, things are getting better.
> But what can you expect when those with the power to appoint are
> prejudiced bigots? Witness the fuss we've just had here about women
> priests. Never did see why not.
Anybody who doesn't agree with your way of thinking qualifies instantly as a
"prejudiced bigot", right?
> 3) Of course, there are cases in which a bad or incompetent female is
> boss of a competent male. So what? That's the fault of whoever did the
> appointing, not either of the ones involved.Because true equalitry is
> a novelty, I suppose it's only natural that some, perhaps of lesser of
> mediocre talent, will resent working for a woman boss -simply because
> she's a woman. They wouldn't resent working for a man, but that's
> different! HE must be better, SHE can't be, after all, she's a woman,
> isn't she? Way to go yet . . .
How do you KNOW this? You DON'T, you're just making the same kinds of
groundless charges as the troll himself did!
> 3) Where do some get the idea that women, by their nature, think
> differently or can't think logically? Same way, I suppose, that white
> bigots think that blacks are inferior, as Burt tried to argue many
> years ago. His premise was as worthless just as much as his test
> results were faked.
Probably the same place you got YOUR OWN prejudicial thinking that a man
automatically resents working for a woman.
> 4) Try telling any of this 'women are inferior' stuff to Margaret
> Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, the current Speaker of our
> House of Commons, Anita Roddick - and too many others to mention.
Wow, I'm all impressed. (NOT). Why should I be in awe of sleazy politicians,
whether they're male OR female?
> 5) I am very glad we don't have the inbuilt 'Jewish' problem you have
> in the US. Nor, on the whole, do we have the black problem, either. In
> any case, all you need to avoid prejudice is an open mind.
The Jews are the most powerful ethnic group in the United States. That is a
documented FACT, not an anti-semitic assertion on anybody's part. Don't give
me this utter idiocy that the Jews are an underprivileged, persecuted
minority in the U.S., or I may just laugh my keyboard off.
Furthermore, your own country has always had a "problem" with minority groups
in its less-than-story book past. It's not an exclusively American
phenomenon, for your information.
In fact, the U.S. inherited a lot of things from Britain, both good AND bad,
and racism is one of them.
a_schaefer
let him rest in an anonymous grave - do not comment
He will never learn.
maybe if we ignore him he will choke on his own poison.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the beginning GOD made Heaven and earth;
unfortunately SHE was using MS-Create (TM).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
unsolicided e-mail is regarded ashaded in for
analysys. A fee of not less than 50$/h is my
standard rate. junk mail me and expect to pay
my bill.
andsc...@metronet.de
programmer, mailanalyst, translations
Anonymous <abc-...@mailmasher.com> wrote in article
<1996122516...@mailmasher.com>...
>sniped a lot of nonsense
RainDanzer
Anon wrote:
>>>>Real gentlemen know how to keep their women in line without
inflicting any visible or permanent harm>>>
Well, there you have it in one sentence...the very reason the women's
movement began in the first place. Real women don't have to put up with
you anymore, or any man like you. We shall *not* ever again...and all
*you* can do is whine about it. "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God
Almighty, I'm free at last!" ~MLK
Robert Ford
Snip! as erveryone must by now be aware of its basic contents.
What a discussion! Sure shows there are some strange people out there.
1) Equal opportunity laws were passed because there was blatant and
overt discrimination in the workplace, both racial and sexual.
Although most employers are not stupid and will put a smart person in
a job where they can use their abilities, they are not noted for
philanthropy and don't pay out unless they have to. Up until recently,
(say about thirty to forty years or so) most jobs were simply not open
to women. If a woman wanted to work, the only jobs she could do were
either as a subordinate to a man, eg secretary, simple repetitive jobs
such as factory work, or those jobs that women traditionally occupied,
such as teaching, nursing, etc. It took a lot of effort by a few
determined women to break down the barriers which stood in their path
to equal employment opportunities. Sadly, these barriers are
continually being rebuilt by 'gentlemen' such as the original poster.
2) There's still a long way to go - it's still rare for women to get
to the top of the tree, although, happily, things are getting better.
But what can you expect when those with the power to appoint are
prejudiced bigots? Witness the fuss we've just had here about women
priests. Never did see why not.
3) Of course, there are cases in which a bad or incompetent female is
boss of a competent male. So what? That's the fault of whoever did the
appointing, not either of the ones involved.Because true equalitry is
a novelty, I suppose it's only natural that some, perhaps of lesser of
mediocre talent, will resent working for a woman boss -simply because
she's a woman. They wouldn't resent working for a man, but that's
different! HE must be better, SHE can't be, after all, she's a woman,
isn't she? Way to go yet . . .
3) Where do some get the idea that women, by their nature, think
differently or can't think logically? Same way, I suppose, that white
bigots think that blacks are inferior, as Burt tried to argue many
years ago. His premise was as worthless just as much as his test
results were faked.
4) Try telling any of this 'women are inferior' stuff to Margaret
Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, the current Speaker of our
House of Commons, Anita Roddick - and too many others to mention.
5) I am very glad we don't have the inbuilt 'Jewish' problem you have
Paul N. Johnson
LilChica <yc...@itol.com> wrote:
>Mr. Insight wrote:
>>
>> Anonymous wrote:
>> >
>> > Anonymous would like to make two points at this time:
>> >
>> > 1. The males who defend female management and equality are the
>> > ones who are the third, fourth and fifth-rate males who will go
>> > right down to the mat fighting to keep the current vile scheme
>> > of things in place and who are holding jobs and earning money
>> > which they never could command in the absence of females' keeping
>> > them on as cronies.
>> >
>> > 2. If females are such wonderful workers and if female
>> > management is such a wonderful thing, then how come females
>> > couldn't make it on their own merit in the absence of equal
>> > employment opportunity laws? It's been said that smart
>> > employers don't discriminate and that smart employers hire
>> > the best qualified. Why aren't smart employers smart in the
>> > absence of equal employment opportunity laws? Why is it
>> > that countries that have lagged behind us in passing such
>> > laws are also lagging behind us with the sagging of their
>> > economies and societies (most notably, Japan)?
>>
>> I regard the use of anonymous posts, such as this, as an act of
>> incredible cowardice. If one surveys the most venomous messages,
they
>> seem to come primarily from unidentified contributors.
>>
>> Dr. Martine RoBards
>And the stupidist ones! I know I would be embarassed if I was a man
>with self-esteem was so low as to blame all my failures on women!
I didn't see that guy blame any of his falures on anyone.
Paul N. Johnson, Mpls, Mn.
pjoh...@onrampinc.net
Tim Hanson
"Sandi" <murr...@mnsinc.com> wrote:
>My point was that most men do not like it when women succeed (in any form).
> They don't like it when they (men) have to work for a women. A lot of men
>feel that women have taken jobs from them. When in fact it is far from the
>truth.
What's your basis for this, besides wild speculation?
>>
>> 1) the rate of fatherlessness quadrupled, the divorce rate more than
>> doubled, and the
>> illegitimacy rate quadrupled
>
>You blame this on women? Where is the father's responsibility? It does
>take two ya know.
The above statement is somewhat misleading, and does not seem to
be born out by the research, which Kenneth S. has summarized before in
alt.child support. What it amounts to is that approximately 75
percent of divorces are initiated by wives -- and by "initiated" is
meant more than just filing the divorce papers.
It may be useful to summarize the information again. Here are
the sources we know of:
(1) Wolfgang Hirczy, in an April 5, 1996, posting in the Family Law
list, summarized the data as indicating that in two thirds of cases
wives dump husbands. The main source he cites is a 1993 study by
Braver, Whitely and Ng, which asked 378 families "Which one of you was
the first to want out of the marriage, you or your ex?"
(2) A 1991 book, "Divided Families," by Furstenberg and Cherlin, which
says that "four out of five marriages ended unilaterally, usually at
the wife's insistence."
(3) According to Kimbrell, "The Masculine Mystique," (1995) mothers
initiate divorce actions at "over twice the rate of men." (Comment:
For some reason, the only specific figure in the relevant footnote is
to Texas statistics indicating that 75 percent, not 66 percent, of
divorces are initiated by mothers.)
(4) Susan Faludi, in "Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American
Women" (1991) says: "From the start, men are less anxious to untie the
knot than women: in national surveys, less than a third of divorced
men say they were the spouse who wanted the divorce, while women
report they were the ones actively seeking divorce 55 to 66 percent of
the time." Faludi cites a Gallup poll survey in support of this.
(5) Wallerstein and Kelly said in "Surviving the Breakup" (1980) that
"unlike the decision to marry, the decision to divorce rarely occurs
by mutual consent in families with children. Customarily, one partner
wants to get out of the marriage with a great deal more passion than
the other. Many times, only one partner wants to get out at all. For
instance, in our study women took the final step to terminate the
marriage in three-fourths of the cases, while nearly half the husbands
strongly opposed their decision." The follow-up book, "Second
Chances" (1989), by Wallerstein and Blakeslee, talks about the serious
problems divorce creates for men, and comments that "it is no
coincidence that every man who sought a divorce in this study had
another woman waiting in the wings."
(6) On the anecdotal level, Anne P. Mitchell, a California attorney
and the director of the Fathers Rights and Equality Exchange (FREE),
said in a March 29, 1995, posting: "First, in both my experience as a
family law attorney, and as the director of FREE, I can say
categorically that yes, women DO file for divorce far more frequently
than men. It is also true, particularly given the advent of `no
fault' divorce, that the reason they give is often `I'm just not
happy' or `I need to find myself and grow.' I can also honestly say
that in eight years of being in the field, I can count on ONE HAND the
number of men who have initiated divorce for a reason such as `I just
need to find myself' or `I am not happy.'" (Comment: Lest I be
accused of distorting her views, I should say that Ms. Mitchell went
on to say that she opposed the idea that the predominance of
mother-initiated divorce was a reason for a presumption of paternal
custody.)
(7) There seems little doubt that wives file divorce papers in the
great majority of cases. I see little point in assembling detailed
data about this, since the simple issue of who files the papers seems
to have little relevance to who is the dumper and who the dumpee.
However, Anne Mitchell on June 12, 1996, filed information about this,
dating from a 1986 study by the National Center for Health Statistics
which she said was the most recent source. This study showed that
women file for divorce nearly twice as often as do men, when comparing
individual, versus joint, requests for dissolution of marriage. NCHS
Statistician Barbara Foley Wilson commented that "women traditionally
have predominated in filing divorce petitions," adding that various
studies of divorcing partners "have showed that the woman is more
often dissatisfied with the marriage than the man."
When I have referred to some of these figures before, some have
said that the figures mean nothing, sometimes referring to cases where
wives filed for divorce after their husbands had left. However, as
indicated in (7) above, that is not what this is about.
Another reply has been that, if wives are seeking divorces, then
they must have reasons for doing so. But the implication of THAT
reply is that, whatever the evidence, wives are always entitled to
innocent victim status. In addition, if husbands were typically the
spouses seeking divorces, would anyone try to argue that they must
have had a reason for doing so (i.e. that they were justified in
breaking up their families)?
There is room for dispute about what the exact percentage is.
What cannot be disputed, I think, is that the typical picture of
husbands ditching their wives is clearly wrong. This has implications
for all kinds of things. For example, it raises the question of
whether the approximately 10 percent glass ceiling on paternal
custody, plus high levels of child support, are not an incentive for
mother-initiated divorces.
There's a comment in a book by Jack Kammer, "Good Will Toward
Men" (1994), that seems very relevant to me: "When I was a little boy
and I heard that my parents' friends were getting divorced, I had the
very clear impression that divorce was always the man's fault. That
made me feel bad about men. Only later did I realize that the reason
I thought that divorce was always the man's fault was because it was
only the women who were talking about it."
It seems to me that it's about time that men spoke up on the subject
of the circumstances of divorce.
Mike Czaplinski
>
> > A guy named Marc Lepine in Montreal had a similar view. To help
> > solve this 'problem', he took an assault rifle to l'Ecole
> > Polytechniqe, an engineering school which he lacked the mental
> > capability to succeed in, and shot as many women as he could see (he
> > was very kind and directed the men to leave the classroom for their own
> > safety before slaughtering the remaining students).
> >
> > John Bayko (Tau).
>
>
> Real gentlemen know how to keep their women in line without
Real gentleman don't worry about keeping women in line.
John Turco
Sandi wrote:
>
> Ok, but your facts do not really talk about the underlining reasons why a
> woman would actually want a divorce. I'm not going to get into those whys.
> However, As I stated. It takes two.
>
> If the man didn't want a divorce, well... there are things he could have
> done.
A typical female chauvinist answer! Yeah, "there are things he could have
done", but I doubt if any of them would satisfy you or your rabid feminist
sisters.
You're just determined to blame men for everything, so you can can continue
to wallow in your beloved "victimhood" status.
Sandi
John Bayko
In article <1996122923280...@nym.alias.net>,
Anonymous <nob...@educated.guess.org> wrote:
>In article <5a6nrv$d...@sue.cc.uregina.ca>,
>ba...@borealis.cs.uregina.ca (John Bayko) wrote:
>
I hate newsreaders that don't know what a Followup-to: line is. It
used to be a really good way of cleaning irrelevant discussions oout
of a newsgroup.
RainDanzer
John Turco wrote:
>>You're just determined to blame men for everything, so you can can
continue
to wallow in your beloved "victimhood" status.>>>
Well John, I don't think she was blaming men for everything. She said,
"it takes two." The reasons for divorce are as dynamic as the people
getting them. There are "victims" on both sides. I doubt there has even
been a "no fault" divorce. As human beings we are full of them (faults).
Blaming "all women" doesn't cut it anymore than blaming "all men."
Divorce is the end of the relationship of two people. It really doesn't
matter who "instigated" the proceedings. Something happened within the
relationship to make that person take the step. It takes two to make
it...it takes two to break it. So let's put the blame where it *really*
is.
Judy
Bill Marcum
In article <32cae732...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Tim Hanson wrote:
>decision to divorce?
I don't know, maybe he could give her some reason to prefer being married?
If you don't know why the wife wants a divorce, how can you assume the
husband is the victim?
--
Bill Marcum bma...@iglou.com
If you crossed Tickle Me Elmo with that Cabbage Patch doll, would you get
a Bite Me Elmo?
Tim Hanson
Robert Ford
On Sat, 28 Dec 1996 18:27:19 -0500, anon...@one-maybe2.org
(Anonymous) wrote:
>In article <01bbf509$4c940360$136f...@murrissl.mnsinc.com>,
>"Sandi" <murr...@mnsinc.com> wrote:
>
>> I think some men are jealous of a woman's success and try
>> to blame them for their own failures.
>
>Jealous?? JEALOUS?? Jealous of what? Females need laws to
>get them jobs. Females need those same laws in order to keep
>those jobs. Females get away with things for years that would
>get white males fired in ten minutes. Take my word for it,
>jealousy is the most minor of my emotions!
>
Yes - isn't it a sad reflection on most men that there have to be laws
to enforce equality of opportunity, and more laws to prevent
harrassment -both sexual and racial. Ever wondered why we need such
laws, or how they got through predominantly male Congress - and
Parliament over here? As for getting away with things, there are still
serious cases of harrasment reported regularly, even in large
organisations, with males geting away with conduct and misbehaviour
that is unjust, unfair and immoral. Don't really see how any
reasonable fair person could argue against such laws. Of course, there
are some strange cases where they are applied inappropriately, but not
many.
>
>> Some people just have to find a scape goat wherever they can.
>
>And some people have a compelling need to disown blame when it
>is placed right where it belongs.
>
>Dearie, boy, oh boy, do you have a distorted perception of things!
>(It seems that females have distorted perceptions and expectations
>regarding just about everything!)
How strange women must be, to expect that a man would take the blame
for his own shortcomings and incompetence. Obviously any mistake or
bad decision made by a man *must* be the fault of a woman, Jew, black
or other inferior somewhere along the line. Course, blond-haired
blue-eyed men are the most superior, aren't they?
Happy New Year!
Anonymous
In article <32c99885...@news.demon.co.uk>,
rob...@fordrjk.demon.co.uk (Robert Ford) wrote:
> Yes - isn't it a sad reflection on most men that there have to be laws
> to enforce equality of opportunity, and more laws to prevent
> harrassment -both sexual and racial. Ever wondered why we need such
> laws, or how they got through predominantly male Congress - and
> Parliament over here? As for getting away with things, there are still
> serious cases of harrasment reported regularly, even in large
> organisations, with males geting away with conduct and misbehaviour
> that is unjust, unfair and immoral.
Anonymous responds:
Soooo, you think that because there are incidents of sexual
harassment against women there is a need for laws to
discourage this sort of thing.
Well in case you lack the powers of perception and discernment,
ever since the sexual equality laws were passed, incidents of
sexual hostility, harassment, and forcible rape have increased
with no end in sight. A strong correlation, indeed!
You intimate that we need more laws to stem the rising tide
of such incidents. This is a typical liberal response - that
is, "Liberalism isn't working because we need more of it."
Sorry, such laws are not the answer. This is already plainly
obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt. A simpler, more effective
solution would be to revert to the legal system which was in
effect in the late '50's or so.
Robert Ford wrote:
> Don't really see how any reasonable fair person could argue
> against such laws.
Anonymous responds:
I just did.
ANDREW GRYGUS
In <1997010114...@mailmasher.com> Anonymous
<whos...@mailmasher.com> writes:
>> serious cases of harrasment reported regularly, even in large
>> organisations, with males geting away with conduct and misbehaviour
>> that is unjust, unfair and immoral.
>
>Anonymous responds:
>
>Well in case you lack the powers of perception and discernment,
>ever since the sexual equality laws were passed, incidents of
>sexual hostility, harassment, and forcible rape have increased
>with no end in sight. A strong correlation, indeed!
Bullpucky! What has increased is >>reporting<< of incidents. Having a
legal standing encourages victims to report incidents. Is >>that<<
what you are so afraid of, "Anonymous".
(It works both ways, of course. One town decreased its crime rate
drastically by simply stopping counting thefts of gasoline by people
who drove away without paying).
Andrew Grygus - California Republic
-------------------------------------
Resist Microsoft!
Robert Ford
>In article <32c99885...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>rob...@fordrjk.demon.co.uk (Robert Ford) wrote:
>
>> that is unjust, unfair and immoral.
>
>Anonymous responds:
>
>Soooo, you think that because there are incidents of sexual
>harassment against women there is a need for laws to
>discourage this sort of thing.
>
>Well in case you lack the powers of perception and discernment,
>ever since the sexual equality laws were passed, incidents of
>sexual hostility, harassment, and forcible rape have increased
>with no end in sight. A strong correlation, indeed!
>
>You intimate that we need more laws to stem the rising tide
>of such incidents. This is a typical liberal response - that
>is, "Liberalism isn't working because we need more of it."
>
>Sorry, such laws are not the answer. This is already plainly
>obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt. A simpler, more effective
>solution would be to revert to the legal system which was in
>effect in the late '50's or so.
>
Might it not possibly be that the increase in reporting of such
incidents is due to the fact that there's now some point in reporting
them and that something can be done about them? Before these laws came
into being, there was little that could be done about them, so most
people who were subjected to discriminatory behaviour had no redress.
I would suggest that the increase is in the reporting, not in the
behaviour, and that rather than there being no end in sight, the
number of such cases (over here, anyway) is falling, now that those
who practice discrimination are realising they can't get away with it.
Also, I would not class forcible rape in with discrimination.
>
>Robert Ford wrote:
>
>> Don't really see how any reasonable fair person could argue
>> against such laws.
>
>Anonymous responds:
>
>I just did.
>
With respect, you did not. You just said that you think they're a bad
thing, without saying why. Are you saying that you're in favour of
legal discrimination, eg apartheid? If so, who is to decide which
sections of the population are to be discriminated against, or shall
we just use the list that Adolf drew up? Even he didn't include women!
RainDanzer
Well Jocko-Loco, just how *do* you keep "your" woman in line...er,
"without inflicting any visible or permanent harm?"
And that's not an "objectionable" comment, eh? Do you romance them with
wine and roses, or do you take a shortcut and just gut-punch them?
There's no reason for me to feel embarassed. I'm not the sociopath who
can't deal with the fact that there are women in the world he can't
control.
>From: nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
>Date: 3 Jan 1997 01:39:50 +0100
>Message-ID: <5ahkgm$c...@basement.replay.com>
Anon wrote:
>> Real gentlemen know how to keep their women in line without
>> inflicting any visible or permanent harm
>In article <19961230005...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>raind...@aol.com (RainDanzer) wrote:
> Well, there you have it in one sentence...the very reason the women's
> movement began in the first place. Real women don't have to put up with
> you anymore, or any man like you. We shall *not* ever again...and all
> *you* can do is whine about it. "Free at last! Free at last! Thank
God
> Almighty, I'm free at last!" ~MLK
>What's wrong, Rain Dancer? There's nothing objectionable in anon's
>quote above. Don't tell me that you're, you're... prejudiced??
>And don't tell me you're a computer professional because when a
>logical person reads: "You can accomplish A without doing B,"
>that logical person does not interpret the statement as
>saying, "Do B in order to accomplish A."
>I hope that I have not caused you too much embarrassment.
Anonymous
Steve Cross
anon...@one-maybe2.org (Anonymous) wrote:
>Jealous?? JEALOUS?? Jealous of what? Females need laws to
>get them jobs. Females need those same laws in order to keep
>those jobs.
No, women need laws to defend themselves from employment
discrimination. These laws wouldn't be necessary if such
discrimination didn't exist.
IMO, some men are afraid to compete with women in the work force.
These are the same men, in many cases, who accuse blacks & other
minorities of not being willing to compete.
>Females get away with things for years that would
>get white males fired in ten minutes.
Depends on which woman you mean.
>It seems that females have distorted perceptions and expectations
>regarding just about everything!
It seems Anonymous isn't willing to consider anyone else's point of
view.
Steve
Anonymous
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970103...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>,
"S.C. Riesen" <scpa...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
> Dear Anonymous,
>
[a lot snipped]
S.C. Riesen, it's interesting that your choice of quotation
below is NOT a quoting of the original posting. You quoted
the bastardized/impostor version, but due to the ambiguity
inherent when an impostor uses a duplicate I.D., you may
have really intended your letter to him, did you?
> On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote:
>
> > In article <5ah77o$i...@sue.cc.uregina.ca>,
> > ba...@borealis.cs.uregina.ca (John Bayko) wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Are you implying that sexual harassment should be encouraged
> > > instead?
> >
> >
> > I don't even know how you could have come up with such an
> > intimation - derived, no less, from taking my quote out of
> > context. Sophistry!
> >
> > Anyway, perhaps a clarification is in order.
> >
> > The passage of equality laws for women have worked to incite
> > men to harass women in the workplace more, because there are
> > more women in the workplace. There was far less resentment
> > and harassment when there were fewer laws, because then women
> > could only be harassed at home, where they belong. That's
> > just the way it is. And no one need attempt to convince me
> > otherwise - I already anticipate the kind of responses to
> > this. I am all-knowing.
> >
> > If women would just stay at home and satisfy their men the
> > way God intended, we wouldn't have any harassment in the
> > workplace.
Not mine!! Nor are several other USENET impostor postings.
Isn't this a lovely reflection upon the mentality of the
liberal establishment?
Jason Hoffman
Just what the hell does any of this have to do with alt.computer ?????
Steve Cross <stev...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<5ajl82$2...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
C Sanjayan Rosenmund
original@named_not.org (Anonymous) wrote:
>In article <Pine.A32.3.93.970103...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>,
>"S.C. Riesen" <scpa...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> Dear Anonymous,
>>
> [a lot snipped]
>
>S.C. Riesen, it's interesting that your choice of quotation
>below is NOT a quoting of the original posting. You quoted
>the bastardized/impostor version, but due to the ambiguity
>inherent when an impostor uses a duplicate I.D., you may
>have really intended your letter to him, did you?
>
Err, How does someone _posting_anonymously_ get *impersonated*!?!?!
If you wish to diferenciate yourself from the *millions* of "other"
anonymous's on the 'net, USE A REAL NAME! If you will not _sign_ your
posts, you have *no* right to whine about misattribution!
--
These opinions are mine, but you can share them for a price.
RAM DISK is not an installation procedure.
#define QUESTION ((bb) || !(bb)) - Shakespeare
Sanjay
sa...@sinewave.com
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
>S.C. Riesen, it's interesting that your choice of quotation
>below is NOT a quoting of the original posting. You quoted
>the bastardized/impostor version, but due to the ambiguity
>inherent when an impostor uses a duplicate I.D., you may
>have really intended your letter to him, did you?
Jeremy Miller Reponds:
Well, who the fuck are you, and why are you spamming so many
newsgroups where racist trolling has never been on-topic?
Let me get this straight. "Anonymous" is complaining that
"Anonymous" is impersonating him?
Perhaps "Anonymous" should complain to "Anonymous's" ISP.
What drugs are you on, exactly?
>> > The passage of equality laws for women have worked to incite
>> > men to harass women in the workplace more, because there are
>> > more women in the workplace. There was far less resentment
>> > and harassment when there were fewer laws, because then women
>> > could only be harassed at home, where they belong. That's
>> > just the way it is. And no one need attempt to convince me
>> > otherwise - I already anticipate the kind of responses to
>> > this. I am all-knowing.
>> >
>> > If women would just stay at home and satisfy their men the
>> > way God intended, we wouldn't have any harassment in the
>> > workplace.
>
>Not mine!! Nor are several other USENET impostor postings.
>Isn't this a lovely reflection upon the mentality of the
>liberal establishment?
Jeremy Miller Responds:
I'm just helping you express yourself.
Jeremy Miller
For a good laugh, see:
Just Another Bigot
S.C. Riesen wrote:
>Dear Anonymous,
>
>I am glad that you have taken the time to clarify your position.
Jeremy Miller Responds:
<CURTSEY>
Thank you. I aim to please.
</CURTSEY>
>We humbly apologize to you for our non-accepting behavior towards your
>ideology that women should be kept in the house "barefoot and pregnant",
>preferably, of course. We had NO IDEA that you were a Disciple of God and
>were speaking on His behalf of how things should be.
Jeremy Miller Responds:
WELL, now that you know, I expect to see some changes around here. For
example, from now on, I want everyone to call me "Beverly." Thou shall
know my posts by the presence of the string "qm...@nym.alias.net" in
the Message-ID header, and thou shall fear them. Look on my anonymous
posts, ye mighty, and despair.
Either that, or killfile them. Your choice.
/basement.replay.com/Hmessage-id=k
/qm...@nym.alias.net/Hmessage-id=k
/,.*,.*,.*,.*,.*/Hnewsgroups=k
Or if "Anonymous" starts messing with the Message-ID header, you can
fix that, too. But by that time, the people who run the remailer
network will have nuked the idiot from orbit, just to be sure.
Cypherpunks are not the wisest choice, if you must choose enemies. You
may consider this a final warning.
Drop.
Your.
Sword.
>Our sincerest apology, O Great One With No Name. Shall you become our
>next Holy leader like Jim Jones of Jonestown and David Koresh of Waco?!
Jeremy Miller Responds:
Actually, I was thinking Tammy Faye.
>Your rhetoric sounds quite familiar. These men took advantage of the women
>and children through their rhetoric with no mercy on their purity or
>innocence as they satisfied their "hunger" for their bodies and souls, of
>which they felt they had rights to them. Such holy men?!! May God show
>mercy on their souls, Anonymous One. It is those marked with the number
>of 666 that "hungers" for bodies and souls....
Jeremy Miller Responds:
Either "bodies and souls" or a good MLT. Mutton, lettuce, and tomato. When
the mutton is fresh it's oh so perky.
>Remember, according to the Bible, God gave man choice as to how he is
>going to live his life. Choose your path well and help ALL of God's
>creatures -- not just yourself. And, do not blame others for YOUR failed
>choosings. Maybe, it is time for you to LEARN from your mistakes and
>learn HOW TO GET ALONG WITH OTHERS (including those who are different from
>you of which, there are many), so you can finally lead a happy and
>fulfilled life. Again, it is your CHOICE if you want to lead a happy and
>fulfilled life, or an angry and chaotic existence.
Jeremy Miller Responds:
Is this a trick question?
>Think carefully through what has been said here: your quality of life
>depends on it. It would be ashame if you just became a bitter, resentful
>old man in the future with no loved ones gathered around you because of
>your past behavior towards them and others, of which THEY will NEVER
>FORGET.
Jeremy Miller Responds:
Oops, too late. Jeremy Miller is a mean old crank whose only joy in life
comes from kicking stray dogs. But since you seem a decent sort, I won't
be bothering you again.
Or my name ain't "Anonymous."
>I wish you all the best in your future endeavors.
Jeremy Miller Responds:
Thanks, old chum. May the hare on your toad grow laundry.
Anonymous Spammer
"Jason Hoffman" <jhof...@community.net> wrote:
>Just what the hell does any of this have to do with alt.computer ?????
Jeremy Miller Responds:
Get a computer consultant to teach you about:
1. Killfiles
2. Remailers
3. Followup-To
4. More Speech!
5.
Well, I'm not going to tell you about #5. But "Jeremy Miller"
will find out soon enough. Or my name ain't "Anonymous."
/basement.replay.com/Hmessage-id=k
/qm...@nym.alias.net/Hmessage-id=k
/,.*,.*,.*,.*,.*/Hnewsgroups=k
Jeremy Miller
Anonymous Spammer
Please report abuse of this automated service to
mix-...@nym.alias.net. Crosspost to alt.privacy.anon-server, too,
why not.
>>> Dear Anonymous,
>>>
>> [a lot snipped]
>>
>>S.C. Riesen, it's interesting that your choice of quotation
>>below is NOT a quoting of the original posting. You quoted
>>the bastardized/impostor version, but due to the ambiguity
>>inherent when an impostor uses a duplicate I.D., you may
>>have really intended your letter to him, did you?
>>
>
>Err, How does someone _posting_anonymously_ get *impersonated*!?!?!
Jeremy Miller Responds:
How indeed.
>If you wish to diferenciate yourself from the *millions* of "other"
>anonymous's on the 'net, USE A REAL NAME! If you will not _sign_ your
>posts, you have *no* right to whine about misattribution!
Jeremy Miller Responds:
Sophistry! Pure Sophistry!
>These opinions are mine, but you can share them for a price.
Jeremy Miller Responds:
I'll give you a fiver.
Jeremy Miller
/basement.replay.com/Hmessage-id=k
/qm...@nym.alias.net/Hmessage-id=k
/,.*,.*,.*,.*,.*/Hnewsgroups=k
Anonymous White-Power Spammer
Please report blatant abuse of this automated service to
mix-...@nym.alias.net. Crosspost to alt.privacy.anon-server and
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, too, why not.
In article <5akd50$m...@basement.replay.com>, Jeremy Miller
writes:
>Anonymous responds to Robert Ford:
>
>If it weren't for detractors and instigators like you, this
>thread would have reached its logical retirement days ago.
Jeremy Miller responds to Jeremy Miller:
Yes. It's your own spamn fault for not agreeing with me.
Let's do the time warp again!
>You and the others must be adherents to the "Protocols of
>the Elders of Zion" what with all the attempted "wearing out"
>you are trying to impose upon me.
Yes! It's the Jews! Rotting my brain!
Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of
elderberries!
Sophistry! Pure Sophistry!
Jeremy Miller
/basement.replay.com/Hmessage-id=k
/qm...@nym.alias.net/Hmessage-id=k
/,.*,.*,.*,.*,.*/Hnewsgroups=k
Jeremy Miller
Anonymous
In article <5akd50$m...@basement.replay.com>, some spammer fouling
the good name of nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>You missed the point of my example. I WAS NOT TRYING TO SAY
>THAT MEN MAKE BETTER BOXERS!
Some of us do look better in them, though.
"I'm a lover, not a spammer."
>Of course, more can be said about competitiveness, but
>posting volumes to USENET is not my objective.
Posting volume, though. That *is* my objective. I get double
brownie points for every response I troll up from a
promisekeeper.
>Robert Ford, I have my doubts that you are sincerely interested
>in discussing or learning anything. I feel that you are just
>baiting me and attempting to wear me down. Gee, and people call
>me a troll!
Who is "me"? I'm Jeremy Miller.
Everybody Must Listen To Me
For your killfile:
/basement.replay.com/Hmessage-id=k
/qm...@nym.alias.net/Hmessage-id=k
/,.*,.*,.*,.*,.*/Hnewsgroups=k
In article <5akd50$m...@basement.replay.com>, some spammer fouling
the good name of nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>The point of my boxing example was to very narrowly demonstrate
"I am leaving, I am leaving, but the boxer still remains."
"Hello darkness, my old friend."
"Richard Cory went home last night."
"He was a most peculiar man."
Sophistry! Pure Sophistry!
"Always do the right thing."
MRX
>anon...@one-maybe2.org (Anonymous) wrote:
>
>>Jealous?? JEALOUS?? Jealous of what? Females need laws to
>>get them jobs. Females need those same laws in order to keep
>>those jobs.
>
>No, women need laws to defend themselves from employment
>discrimination. These laws wouldn't be necessary if such
>discrimination didn't exist.
>
>IMO, some men are afraid to compete with women in the work force.
>These are the same men, in many cases, who accuse blacks & other
>minorities of not being willing to compete.
>
>>Females get away with things for years that would
>>get white males fired in ten minutes.
>
>Depends on which woman you mean.
you hypocrite...why should it matter which woman did what? then it
should matter which man did what....for example...any Kennedy should
get away with dirt. Come to think of it, they have, but I guess that's
ok with you?
Angilion
In article <5a7hs4$q...@news.onrampinc.net>, pjoh...@onramp.net (Paul N. Johnson) writes:
> LilChica <yc...@itol.com> wrote:
>
>>Mr. Insight wrote:
[Cuts of some drivel about women in business from an anonymous poster]
::: I regard the use of anonymous posts, such as this, as an act of
::: incredible cowardice. If one surveys the most venomous messages,
: they
::: seem to come primarily from unidentified contributors.
:::
::: Dr. Martine RoBards
And?
I have been accused of the same thing frequently because I don't
use my RL name online. It gets a little irritating after a
while because all it shows is a lack of thought on the part of
the person insulting me.
::And the stupidist ones! I know I would be embarassed if I was a man
::with self-esteem was so low as to blame all my failures on women!
Yadda yadda. Who says it's a man anyway? It could just as likely
be a sexist woman posting as a sexist man to "proove" how bad men
are.
: I didn't see that guy blame any of his falures on anyone.
Nor did I. I saw a whole lot of crap, but not that.
: Paul N. Johnson, Mpls, Mn.
: pjoh...@onrampinc.net
:
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A WAR, | Prejudice can play no part in equality |
| IT'S NOT A CASE OF EITHER/OR! | |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Angilion (The Metaphorical Aardvark) email: ua...@cr47c.staffs.ac.uk |
| |
| I protest against the attempts to excessively censor the net |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------