Should Women Have the Right to Vote?
OperationUSA.com
Greek city-states; women were never allowed to vote. Women, it
was felt, were not to engage in civil life. In Sparta and Athens,
women were not even allowed to be citizens. During the Middle
Ages, chivalry, not equality, guided the social relations between
men and women, generally speaking.
By 1920 in America many states had already established
woman suffrage, but the federal government adopted the 19th
Amendment in that year anyway. Just a year before, America had
adopted the other female-supported amendment, the 18th,
which banned alcohol. The American people soon opened their
eyes, saw the lunacy of that measure, and repealed it. The 19th
amendment, however, is still with us.
The Nineteenth Amendment, with the help of other feminist
legislation, is directly and solely responsible for: 29 major
federal social experiments which have proven to be abject
failures; wasting more money on welfare than the total stock
value of each Fortune 500 Corporation and each acre of US farm
land combined at the same time the poverty rate in the US
increased from 11.6% to 15.4%; implementing failed
experiments with women in the military and in once fine military
academies.
Also, since the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, the number
of divorces in the US increased seven (7) fold, from 171,000 to
1,200,000 per year, while the population increased only 2.5 fold.
Additionally, the Nineteenth Amendment helped to undermine
family stability; it placed 40% of our nation's children in
fatherless households; removed the majority vote from men who
pay the majority of taxes; and caused national issues of serious
concern to be decided by female emotionalism and
compassion.
REPEAL THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT...BEFORE THEY
TAKE OUR BEER!
Napoleon the Great
Editor of http://operationusa.com/suffrage.html
---
"It will need more than the Nineteenth Amendment to convince
me that there are no differences between men and women, or
that legislation should not be allowed to take those differences
into account." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Supreme Court
Justice, 1902-1930
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pop Kulcher
Thanks for posting it here!
--
Pop Kulcher
http://www.fagel.com
Home of The 50 Greatest Rock & Roll Albums of All Time (+ CD-R Trading)
Yahoo Pick of the Week 8/9/99 (http://www.yahoo.com/picks/19990809.html)
chic...@my-deja.com
this country and affected by the decisions of lawmakers - they surely
deserve the right to help choose those same lawmakers. Man - its
frightening to believe men like you still exist out there.
4 Al
"OperationUSA.com" <napo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8n1qcb$7nj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Napoleon the Great
> Editor of http://operationusa.com/suffrage.html
> ---
> "It will need more than the Nineteenth Amendment to convince
> me that there are no differences between men and women, or
> that legislation should not be allowed to take those differences
> into account." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Supreme Court
> Justice, 1902-1930
>
>
>
msm...@my-deja.com
Mike Smith
--
Email: maxomenos@SPAM=DEATH.mindspring.com
Member, National Rifle Association
Member, American Civil Liberties Union
Member, The Witches' Voice (http://www.witchvox.com)
Petition against gun control measures: http://www.d2a.org/petition.htm
lupe
not open to debate...at least in the opinion of The Most Ethical
Administration In History,and that is:women should have the right
to "pleasure" Billy Bob,his lovely bride,Attorney Corporal Reno
and anyone else who might have a "yen" from time to time.
In fact,given that it takes a village,it should be declared a civic
duty.
"OperationUSA.com" wrote:
OperationUSA.com
> >
> > REPEAL THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT...BEFORE THEY
> > TAKE OUR BEER!
> >
> Oh, damn... did I miss Pat Buchanan's Reform Party acceptance speech?
> Thanks for posting it here!
>
Yea, considering that he nominated (gasp!) a woman as his vp, I'm sure
the feminist Buchanan would just love to see the 19th amendment
repealed.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Napoleon the Great
Editor of http://OperationUSA.com
---
"Were our State a pure democracy . . . there would yet be
excluded from their deliberations . . . women, who, to prevent
depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, should not mix
promiscuously in the public meetings of men." - Thomas Jefferson, U.S.
founding father, author of the Declaration of Independence, and
militant liberal
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Anonymous
stake in what's happening you shouldn't be able to sway things your way!
Democratic republic was only good until people started voting themselves
money from the treasury!
"OperationUSA.com" <napo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8n4bq7$te4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
Lan
> It's called "progress" buddy. Besides, as long as women are living in
> this country and affected by the decisions of lawmakers - they surely
> deserve the right to help choose those same lawmakers. Man - its
> frightening to believe men like you still exist out there.
Thats frightening? He is a puppy compared to feminists. If he REALLY
hated females like feminist hated males, he would create some total
destruction and humiliation of all things female movement just like
every single feminist (and half of all non feminist females anyway)
does to males.
So what if he says that? Its not a problem is it?
--
That Feminism could mean equality is a lie. The support of feminism
is about the destruction of comprehension of reality itself. An
insult to reason and to stamp out all that is good. Its path will not
stop until it has destroyed itself and anything else around it. Luckily
for most people feminists are also stupid and uncreative. ICQ: 26027485
Kavking
>The Nineteenth Amendment, with the help of other feminist
>legislation, is directly and solely responsible for: 29 major
>federal social experiments which have proven to be abject
>failures; wasting more money on welfare than the total stock
>value of each Fortune 500 Corporation and each acre of US farm
>land combined at the same time the poverty rate in the US
>increased from 11.6% to 15.4%; implementing failed
>experiments with women in the military and in once fine military
>academies.
Which legislation?
Prove it.
>
>Also, since the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, the number
>of divorces in the US increased seven (7) fold, from 171,000 to
>1,200,000 per year, while the population increased only 2.5 fold.
So? Prove the correlation.
>
>Additionally, the Nineteenth Amendment helped to undermine
>family stability; it placed 40% of our nation's children in
>fatherless households; removed the majority vote from men who
>pay the majority of taxes; and caused national issues of serious
>concern to be decided by female emotionalism and
>compassion.
Men have no compassion?
Women didn't remove the majority vote from men--men did. When men don't vote,
and they don't vote a lot (and frankly, neither do women), they leave the
decision making to anybody who does. If individual men really thought that
individual women were a threat with their vote, then these men would get off
their butts and vote.
>Napoleon the Great
Great at spreading rumor, gossip, and hysteria.
K
.........we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of
smart..............
(remove Q's, before replying)
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not even sure about the universe."
--Albert Einstein
Deborah Terreson
Hey Kav, I have been thinking about this. If the right for women to vote is
removed (like there's really anyone worth voting for in the first place),
doesn't that mean that I wouldn't have to ever pay any federal, state and
local taxes ever again? (This could be real advantageous financially for
ALOT of women....)
Hmmmmm.....
Deb.
Michael Snyder
Deborah Terreson wrote in message ...
Actually a fairly interesting question -- at the time when women were
enfranchised, there WERE no federal, state or local INCOME taxes.
No sales taxes either. I'm not sure what taxes there actually were;
maybe property taxes.
So it's not clear exactly what the relationship was between the
right to vote and the obligation to pay taxes. Certainly pre-suffrage
women owned property -- did they pay taxes on it?
Angilion
>>napo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>The Nineteenth Amendment, with the help of other feminist
>>legislation, is directly and solely responsible for: 29 major
>>federal social experiments which have proven to be abject
>>failures; wasting more money on welfare than the total stock
>>value of each Fortune 500 Corporation and each acre of US farm
>>land combined at the same time the poverty rate in the US
>>increased from 11.6% to 15.4%; implementing failed
>>experiments with women in the military and in once fine military
>>academies.
>
>Which legislation?
>Prove it.
Indeed, "directly and solely responsible"? I don't think so.
>>Also, since the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, the number
>>of divorces in the US increased seven (7) fold, from 171,000 to
>>1,200,000 per year, while the population increased only 2.5 fold.
>
>So? Prove the correlation.
The correlation is there, given the dates they are using. It's the
causation that they need to prove.
Also, has there been a steady increase in the divorce rate since the
19th Amendment was ratified? In fact, if that was the cause of the
increase, you would expect a dramatic rise in the divorce rate
within a short period of time after the amendment. I don't think that
was the case. Didn't the bulk of the increase happen *much* later? What
was the divorce rate in 1930? 1950? 1970? 1990?
I doubt if there is even a correlation without carefully selecting which
years to look at in order to create an apparent correlation.
I suspect there's a stronger correlation between the number of
televisons and the number of divorces.
>>Additionally, the Nineteenth Amendment helped to undermine
>>family stability; it placed 40% of our nation's children in
>>fatherless households; removed the majority vote from men who
>>pay the majority of taxes; and caused national issues of serious
>>concern to be decided by female emotionalism and
>>compassion.
>
>Men have no compassion?
>Women didn't remove the majority vote from men--men did. When men don't vote,
>and they don't vote a lot (and frankly, neither do women), they leave the
>decision making to anybody who does. If individual men really thought that
>individual women were a threat with their vote, then these men would get off
>their butts and vote.
Which goes to show that the number of men who think that way is
negligable.
Apathy wins mosts elections by a landslide, probably because most people
think (with good reason) that it doesn't matter much which party wins
because the end result will be much the same.
"Don't bother voting, the government always wins" as one piece of
graffitti put it.
--
Modesty is my only imperfection.
OhSojourner
>>>napo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>Which legislation?
>>Prove it.
>>So? Prove the correlation.
Interesting you should bring this up, because I was poised to do an
armchair-sociology post about the Influence of Television after reading this
and the threads on abortion.
Now here's the way I see it happened (clearing throat) :
In the late 50s and early 60s, television was beginning to be a standard
fixture in many American households. The Baby Boomer kiddies warmed up to it
immediately, and it soon became their best buddy -- the flashing images and
iconography diverting their attentions away from real-life interaction. There
is some evidence that television-watching can damage young minds:
http://sooth.com/a/johnson.html
Then the Viet Nam War happened. For the first time, millions of American
households got to see the horrors of war right in their living rooms. The Baby
Boomers, who were quickly becoming of draftable age, got to see what happened
to their peers who were shipped overseas. They didn't like what they saw, and
furthermore, didn't understand the reason why. Meanwhile on the homefront,
civil rights protests were escalating into violence, and that, too, was
broadcast for all the nation to see.
This sense of imminent danger felt by the younger generation created an en
masse version of a human phenomenon I'll simply refer to as, "We're in Imminent
Danger, so let's fuck and have fun while we can". Thus, the youth culture of
the 60's was born. When your life is on the line, suddenly life becomes more
precious, right? And when the older generation decides to send you to war,
you're gonna start questioning and rejecting its values, right? Pop music took
on a new urgency and significance, becoming a voice for a generation.
It wasn't long before a culture of powerful sound and imagery totally embraced
America, and the broadcast media was instrumental in making it a nationwide
phenomenon. Meanwhile, the youth adopted the tactics of the civil rights
protesters, demonstrating against the war -- that, too was broadcast on
television for all to see.
So with the Boomers screaming and protesting and singing and having sex like it
was no tomorrow, and the hip du jour thing was to reject the values of their
parents' generation, everyone wanted to get in on the act.
After all, sex, drugs, and rock and roll were turning out to be a pretty fun
gig, ya know. ...Women figured they wanted some freedom and fun, too -- and so
Women's Lib was soon in the spotlight as well. TeeVee embraced that idea as
well, and soon the bland housewives of older sitcoms were replaced with career
gals who could "make it on their own"...
Then, when the Baby Boomers got a little older and became Yuppies, the TeeVee
adapted right along with them. ...With more liberated women in the
entertainment industry, and more female wage earners/consumers, more shows and
images were broadcast that catered to their interests. This, combined with the
constant consumeristic/materialistic message that one needs to have a power
career, look sexy, and buy lots of things and stuff in order to be happy and
successful in the world today, and to live up to/ have a partner that looks
just like the "perfect" images we see broadcast every day, is one of the things
that helped set us up for the climate we live in now...
Lan
> http://sooth.com/a/johnson.html
" It is important to realize that a six-year-old's brain is 2/3 the
size of an adult's though it has 5 - 7 times more connections between
neurons than does the brain of an 18-month-old or an adult (Pearce
1992). The brain of a 6 - 7 year old child appears to have a
tremendous capacity for making thousands and thousands of dendrite
connections among neurons. This potential for development ends around
age 10 - 11 when the child loses 80% of these neural connections
(Pearce 1992, Buzzell 1998). It appears that what we don't develop or
use, we lose as a capacity. An enzyme is released within the brain
and literally dissolves all poorly myelinated pathways (Pearce 1992,
Buzzell 1998). "
Ha, I knew it was better to be a child. That can't happen for no
reason you know, its got to be conditioning.
Society
news:20000813150853...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
>
>Angilion wrote...
> >
> >I suspect there's a stronger correlation between
> >the number of televisons and the number of divorces.
>
> Interesting you should bring this up, because I was poised
> to do an armchair-sociology post about the Influence of
> Television after reading this and the threads on abortion.
>
> Now here's the way I see it happened (clearing throat) :
>
> In the late 50s and early 60s, television was beginning
> to be a standard fixture in many American households.
> millions of American households got to see the horrors
> of war right in their living rooms. The Baby Boomers,
> who were quickly becoming of draftable age, got to see
> what happened to their peers who were shipped overseas.
> and singing and having sex like it was no tomorrow,
> and the hip du jour thing was to reject the values of their
> parents' generation
Interesting arm-chair speculation, OhSojourner. Now all
you need to do is get rid of the anachronistic bits -- like
having the stuff about rejecting parent's values, beatniks
and the Summer of Love supposedly come after all those
"images of war" were broadcast into American homes --
and see if there's anything left to support your speculation.
Any 'explanation' you invent should also be applicable
to the flappers of the 1920s -- an era of rising sexual
promiscuity by unmarrieds yet no television.
---
Trivia question:
What was the maiden name of the flapper
who married Dagwood Bumstead in the
cartoon strip later named "Blondie"?
OhSojourner
But television *was* and *is* a powerful medium to broadcast messages and
imagery, is it not? I was a kid back in the 60s and 70s, raised in a
traditional household yet witness to the way mass media had an impact on my
peers. If you don't doubt its power, look now at how all the white kids are
trying to imitate black ghetto youth. Where do you think they got that from?
How did the feminists broadcast their messages far and wide?
>Any 'explanation' you invent should also be applicable
>to the flappers of the 1920s -- an era of rising sexual
>promiscuity by unmarrieds yet no television.
That isn't to suggest that television is the sole cause of the "decline of
America" since promiscuous periods in other cultures and civilizations have
happened since time immemorial. (Tho' right now we're talking about a
population of millions vs. hundreds or thousands). Perhaps one could argue
that the policies of post-19th presidents like FDR set the stage with the
safety nets of welfare and other social programs. Who's to say, though, if
they would have been voted in anyways by an all-male electorate, considering
the times.
In the earlier part of the century, there were also fewer enablers for breaking
away from family and community. James Howard Kunstler has argued in his book,
"The Geography of Nowhere", that the invention of the automobile, creation of
automobile-centric neighborhoods and destruction of the close-knit community
played a major part in the fragmentation and isolation we are seeing now.
http://www.kunstler.com/books.htm Moreover, there were fewer
career-occupations one could make a living at (especially women), less
technology to distract people from one another, less gadgets one felt compelled
to buy, etc. etc. etc. ... IOW, our world is a bit different than it was 100
years ago, and there is actually a combination of factors at work -- not just
the fault of one. Though if I had my pick of one I would say it's just humans
in general, and their tendency to be selfish and greedy creatures.
>---
> Trivia question:
> What was the maiden name of the flapper
> who married Dagwood Bumstead in the
> cartoon strip later named "Blondie"?
...Boopadoop!
Netscape Capitan
If we value democracy, then yes.
Can we have both masculism, and democracy? I guess not.
Kavking
>
>Hey Kav, I have been thinking about this. If the right for women to vote is
>removed (like there's really anyone worth voting for in the first place),
>doesn't that mean that I wouldn't have to ever pay any federal, state and
>local taxes ever again? (This could be real advantageous financially for
>ALOT of women....)
Oh, no. Even if women lost the right to vote, they would still pay taxes. We
have this ever burgeoning government, (at least here in the 'States), our
government could no longer afford not to tax women.
We'd still be liable for taxes, just as minors who have fairly high incomes are
liable for taxes. There probably aren't many of them, but there are kids who
are actors, or musicians, ect... They can't vote, but they can work, and they
sure can pay taxes.
>Hmmmmm.....
Sorry.
Kavking
>Deborah Terreson wrote in message ...
>>
>>Hey Kav, I have been thinking about this. If the right for women to vote is
>>removed (like there's really anyone worth voting for in the first place),
>>doesn't that mean that I wouldn't have to ever pay any federal, state and
>>local taxes ever again? (This could be real advantageous financially for
>>ALOT of women....)
>>Hmmmmm.....
>
>Actually a fairly interesting question
yeah, it is a good one, isn't it?
-- at the time when women were
>enfranchised, there WERE no federal, state or local INCOME taxes.
>No sales taxes either. I'm not sure what taxes there actually were;
>maybe property taxes.
>
>So it's not clear exactly what the relationship was between the
>right to vote and the obligation to pay taxes. Certainly pre-suffrage
>women owned property -- did they pay taxes on it?
I don't know, but I'll check. I don't think that the government, at least in
the 'States would even consider the past when it comes to finances. It might
be ok to say that women can't be drafted because traditonally they can't be in
combat, but that won't work when it comes to the almighty dollar.
We support too much of our own population, and send too much aid to other
countries, to shoot ourselves in the foot by excusing half the population from
paying taxes.
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <05zl5.6898$gc2.3...@news1.onlynews.com>, "Michael Snyder"
<msn...@ispchannel.com> wrote:
>
> Deborah Terreson wrote in message ...
>>
>>Hey Kav, I have been thinking about this. If the right for women to vote is
>>removed (like there's really anyone worth voting for in the first place),
>>doesn't that mean that I wouldn't have to ever pay any federal, state and
>>local taxes ever again? (This could be real advantageous financially for
>>ALOT of women....)
>>Hmmmmm.....
>
> Actually a fairly interesting question -- at the time when women were
> enfranchised, there WERE no federal, state or local INCOME taxes.
> No sales taxes either. I'm not sure what taxes there actually were;
> maybe property taxes.
>
> So it's not clear exactly what the relationship was between the
> right to vote and the obligation to pay taxes. Certainly pre-suffrage
> women owned property -- did they pay taxes on it?
>
>
I'm not certain but it's worth looking into.
>
>
Deb.
Yury Donskoy
<8n7chp$rs0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> that:
> Should Women Have the Right to Vote?
>
> If we value democracy, then yes.
>
> Can we have both masculism, and democracy? I guess not.
In the immortal words of a Toronto radio ad, "Shut up, fool!"
Netscape Capitan
> > Should Women Have the Right to Vote?
> >
> > If we value democracy, then yes.
> >
> > Can we have both masculism, and democracy? I guess not.
>
> In the immortal words of a Toronto radio ad, "Shut up, fool!"
My concerns sound strange indeed, but does the thread not prove,
that democracy can not coexist with antifeminism?
Yury Donskoy
>
>> > Should Women Have the Right to Vote?
>> >
>> > If we value democracy, then yes.
>> >
>> > Can we have both masculism, and democracy? I guess not.
>>
>> In the immortal words of a Toronto radio ad, "Shut up, fool!"
>
> My concerns sound strange indeed, but does the thread not prove,
>that democracy can not coexist with antifeminism?
No, it simply proves that you're a fool.
Angilion
<fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Hey Kav, I have been thinking about this. If the right for women to vote is
>removed (like there's really anyone worth voting for in the first place),
>doesn't that mean that I wouldn't have to ever pay any federal, state and
>local taxes ever again? (This could be real advantageous financially for
>ALOT of women....)
>Hmmmmm.....
Makes sense. No taxation without representation is a good idea.
However, the idea becomes nasty because it would mean
stripping anyone who didn't pay taxes of the right to vote.
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <M5Fl5.10210$T73.5...@nntp1.onemain.com>, "Society"
<soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> "OhSojourner" <ohsoj...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
> news:20000813150853...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
>>
>>Angilion wrote...
>> >
>> >I suspect there's a stronger correlation between
>> >the number of televisons and the number of divorces.
>>
>> Interesting you should bring this up, because I was poised
>> to do an armchair-sociology post about the Influence of
>> Television after reading this and the threads on abortion.
>>
>> Now here's the way I see it happened (clearing throat) :
>>
>> In the late 50s and early 60s, television was beginning
>> to be a standard fixture in many American households.
>> [...] Then the Viet Nam War happened. For the first time,
>> millions of American households got to see the horrors
>> of war right in their living rooms. The Baby Boomers,
>> who were quickly becoming of draftable age, got to see
>> what happened to their peers who were shipped overseas.
>> [...] So with the Boomers screaming and protesting
>> and singing and having sex like it was no tomorrow,
>> and the hip du jour thing was to reject the values of their
>> parents' generation
>
> Interesting arm-chair speculation, OhSojourner. Now all
> you need to do is get rid of the anachronistic bits -- like
> having the stuff about rejecting parent's values, beatniks
> and the Summer of Love supposedly come after all those
> "images of war" were broadcast into American homes --
> and see if there's anything left to support your speculation.
>
> Any 'explanation' you invent should also be applicable
> to the flappers of the 1920s -- an era of rising sexual
> promiscuity by unmarrieds yet no television.
Ahh, but there was radio...
Have you ever heard the song "Revolving Jones" by Willard Robeson?
(he was a radio personality of the late teens - early twenties, he had one
of the largest radio audiences of his time in America, in that earliest of
'wireless' times..
>
> ---
> Trivia question:
>
> What was the maiden name of the flapper
> who married Dagwood Bumstead in the
> cartoon strip later named "Blondie"?
>
Ooh, I haven't a clue! Good One!
Deb.
abcd...@my-deja.com
Yes, Women have the same right of man to vote!!!
Do you have mother and sisters??? Why should we treat with them?
Please, look at the home page: http://www.angelfire.com/ga/chaok , you
would find the reason and more.
Reading without thinking is nonsense!!!
Man said there are many mafia misuse internet, how could we fight
against such pigs???
--------------
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <39989f8...@news.enterprise.net>,
angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com (Angilion) wrote:
I'm watching with one eye the Democratic National Convention tonight, and
I'm wondering if there's really any reason to bother in the first place.
I've thought about what it might mean if I had no right to vote and unless
there's a BIG change in the way politics moves (in America, anyways) I don't
think it'd matter.
If I didn't have that right, I'd at least be able to keep all of my income.
My husband would benefit, our household tax burden would drop to 14%! Local
businesses would benefit. Oh of course the federal government would lose
nearly 50% of the income tax base in America, but think of what a boon to
the private sector it would be.
Deb.
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <3999e...@anonymous.newsfeeds.com>, Anonymous
<nob...@newsfeeds.com> wrote:
> In article <G5mm5.28545$NH2.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> fooda...@mediaone.net says...
>>
>> If I didn't have that right, I'd at least be able to keep all of my income.
>> My husband would benefit, our household tax burden would drop to 14%! Local
>> businesses would benefit. Oh of course the federal government would lose
>> nearly 50% of the income tax base in America, but think of what a boon to
>> the private sector it would be.
>>
>>
>>
> So is that good or bad?
Well it would depend on whether you see the federal government, or any
government as a menace. At the very least, the government should enforce the
constitution and if it had less money rolling into it's coffers, the
legislature might have to reconsider what is of major, and minor importance
to governing a nation. Too much money makes for sloppy habits.
Deb.
fathersm...@usa.net
Agreed, there is a correlation between increased TV watching and
increased divorce, but only in the US. This didn't happen in Japan or
England, for example. Japanese kids watch more TV than American kids,
but still score 105 TIMSS points higher at the 8th grade level.
The quality of TV programming in the US is the problem. Japanese,
Korean, English TV programming is educational, and it is intended to be
educational. Ours is almost pure garbage now. There is no "Dr.
Science" any more, like there still is in the rest of the world.
Why is out TV programming so bad? The breakdown of the family,
perhaps? All kinds of social pathologies are bred in single-mother
households, so it's not unlikely that SMHs also create a demand for the
wrong type of TV programming.
From that perspective, widespread interest in bad TV programming is an
effect rather than a cause of divorce.
So what was the cause of the breakdown of the family? It is undisputed
that giving women political power separate from their husbands weakens
family unity. The only question is: by how much? Is this enough by
itself to explain the ten fold increase in the divorce rate since the
19th was passed?
Other factors which are suspected of causing divorce might actually
result from divorce, just as bad TV programming did. The high violent
crime rate is pointed to as a factor in the increased divorce rate, but
the international data suggests that high violent crime rates are a
RESULT rather than a CAUSE of divorce. Same with our high
incarceration rate, huge debts, low savings rate, low personal savings
level (which is negative), low education scores, and high murder rate.
John Knight
fathersm...@usa.net
ohsoj...@aol.comedy (OhSojourner) wrote:
> "Society" wrote:
>
> >"OhSojourner" <ohsoj...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
> >news:20000813150853...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
> >>
> >>Angilion wrote...
> >> >
> >Any 'explanation' you invent should also be applicable
> >to the flappers of the 1920s -- an era of rising sexual
> >promiscuity by unmarrieds yet no television.
>
Actually, it is undisputable that the Nineteenth Amendment is the SOLE
reason that government spending skyrocketed AFTER the first World War.
Professor John Lott proves this statistically with an excellent
analysis:
http://members.xoom.com/fmanifesto/lottonsuffrage.pdf
Rampant government spending demanded by female voters is what led to
the totalitarian government programs which destroyed our original free
enterprise system.
In other words, while we blame politicians for all of these
totalitarian and unconstitutional laws, it is female voters (who are
11% more of the voters than men) who are demanding these "government
services".
fathersm...@usa.net
We are supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. And as a republic,
we did far better in the century and a half before the Nineteenth
Amendment than we have done since it was passed, in every way it can be
measured.
The divorce rate is up 50 fold, the murder and incarceration rates are
up 10 fold, "Personal Savings" are nonexistent, personal bankruptcies
are higher today than ever before. Where is even ONE stat which shows
an improvement since the 19th was passed? There isn't one.
John Knight
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <8nen3r$da4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> In article <8F90D3748yury...@24.2.9.59>,
> yu...@spamwazat.com (Yury Donskoy) wrote:
> We are supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. And as a republic,
> we did far better in the century and a half before the Nineteenth
> Amendment than we have done since it was passed, in every way it can be
> measured.
>
> The divorce rate is up 50 fold, the murder and incarceration rates are
> up 10 fold, "Personal Savings" are nonexistent, personal bankruptcies
> are higher today than ever before. Where is even ONE stat which shows
> an improvement since the 19th was passed? There isn't one.
John! You have hit it on the head! Look at everything you listed: Personal
Savings, Bankruptcies, incarceration rates.... They are ALL linked to the
cluster of bills and amendments passed in 1920. The Controlled Substances
Act was passed in 1920. How many kids are in jail right now for pot? The
creation of the National Income Tax was in 1920. How do you think the
federal government got the ability to subsidize big industry, and thus
create the goods-laden society we now live in? - It's all linked, the Soviet
Revolution scared the pants off the American Industrialists and they needed
a way to increase productivity and steel themselves against the onslaught of
communism. Suffrage was just an excuse to levy income taxes on all. There
was constitutionally no other way to do it. Step back and follow the money
trail. Read of the politics of the Wilson Administration, and the practices
of the industrialist-robber barons of that era.
>
> John Knight
Deb.
fathersm...@usa.net
"Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
> ----------
> In article <8nen3r$da4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fathersm...@usa.net
wrote:
>
> > In article <8F90D3748yury...@24.2.9.59>,
> > yu...@spamwazat.com (Yury Donskoy) wrote:
Dear Deb,
You've sure added a fresh perspective to this, which is much
appreciated.
That point about the Controlled Substances Act has never been made
before. It's amazing that it goes back to 1920.
Prof. John Lott does a great job of statistically analyzing the
relationship between government spending and women getting the vote,
because different states had implemented the women's vote before the
19th was passed. This gave him the chance to notice that government
spending in states which gave women the vote prior to the 19th began to
rise before it did in other states which hadn't.
http://members.xoom.com/fmanifesto/lottonsuffrage.pdf
This explains much of the growth of government since then, although the
Controlled Substances Act seems to have preceded the 19th );
hmmm, could there have been some other underlying factor which was
responsible for both (as well as the other points you made above)?
John
fathersm...@usa.net
abcd...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8na2kv$r5d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Netscape Capitan <daria...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
--
>
> Yes, Women have the same right of man to vote!!!
>
> Do you have mother and sisters??? Why should we treat with them?
>
It's not clear what you mean by "treat with them", but assuming you
meant "mistreat them", there isn't a shred of evidence that the 19th
Amendment improved the lives of women one bit.
Certainly you don't considern the fifty fold increase in the divorce
rate as a benefit to women, do you? Or the almost complete collapse in
that thing that used to be called "Personal Savings"? Or the fact that
American men [read: husbands, fathers, and brothers of women] are a
third of the men in the world who are behind bars, even though the US
is only 4.5% of the world's population?
The best way to stop mistreating women would be to reverse this trend,
and it seems that the only way to do that is to repeal the 19th.
John Knight
kav...@my-deja.com
(SNIPPED EXCELLENT DISERTATION ON TV INFLUENCES ONLY BECAUSE OF LENGTH)
> >
> Agreed, there is a correlation between increased TV watching and
> increased divorce, but only in the US. This didn't happen in Japan or
> England, for example. Japanese kids watch more TV than American kids,
> but still score 105 TIMSS points higher at the 8th grade level.
>
> The quality of TV programming in the US is the problem. Japanese,
> Korean, English TV programming is educational, and it is intended to
be
> educational. Ours is almost pure garbage now. There is no "Dr.
> Science" any more, like there still is in the rest of the world.
Oh? We have whole channels devoted to science and education now, they
even promote educational programming to supplement teaching in schools.
maybe there is no Dr. Science anymore, because we do it better now.
>
> Why is out TV programming so bad? The breakdown of the family,
> perhaps? All kinds of social pathologies are bred in single-mother
> households, so it's not unlikely that SMHs also create a demand for
the
> wrong type of TV programming.
proof?
>
> From that perspective, widespread interest in bad TV programming is an
> effect rather than a cause of divorce.
There is no connection between bad tv and divorce or single parent
households. It is shown by TV surveys, that traditional families are
just as prone to watch bad tv as anyone else is.
>
> So what was the cause of the breakdown of the family? It is
undisputed
> that giving women political power separate from their husbands weakens
> family unity. The only question is: by how much? Is this enough by
> itself to explain the ten fold increase in the divorce rate since the
> 19th was passed?
Undisputed? This is even in contention here. How can you claim
undisputed? do you know what the word means?
Angilion has the only undisputed point here--that divorce did not
sharply rise right after women got the vote, and had women's vote been
a cause of divorce this is exactly what would have happened.
>
> Other factors which are suspected of causing divorce might actually
> result from divorce, just as bad TV programming did. The high violent
> crime rate is pointed to as a factor in the increased divorce rate,
but
> the international data suggests that high violent crime rates are a
> RESULT rather than a CAUSE of divorce.
No, high violent crime is a result of stupidity and poor moral choices.
People aren't forced into violent crime, they choose violent crime. Are
you really saying that criminals should blame their mothers when they
commit a crime?
Same with our high
> incarceration rate, huge debts, low savings rate, low personal savings
> level (which is negative), low education scores, and high murder rate.
All which come from poor personal choices.
Women's right to vote doesn't cause debt. I doubt Joe or Jane Blow
think for a moment about female voting when they whip out the old
credit card.
--
K.
....we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of smart.....
kav...@my-deja.com
Your link leads to a blank page. I'm certainly not surprised.
Once again, indisputable?
Also, where is real proof?
>
> Rampant government spending demanded by female voters is what led to
> the totalitarian government programs which destroyed our original free
> enterprise system.
Oh, bullshit. Voting is one small part of a large economic picture.
Factors like fuel, like world trade, like unions and wages, like
accident costs, like permit costs, and rising costs of raw materials
have more effect on free enterprise than the female vote.
>
> In other words, while we blame politicians for all of these
> totalitarian and unconstitutional laws, it is female voters (who are
> 11% more of the voters than men) who are demanding these "government
> services".
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about. Once again,
a large percentage of the eligible population in the United States does
not vote. This is the only Indisputable fact in this whole post. If
men were really concerned that the female vote was damaging, you bet
there would be more of them voting.
kav...@my-deja.com
fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> In article <8nat90$dt3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> abcd...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8na2kv$r5d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Netscape Capitan <daria...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
--
> --
> >
> > Yes, Women have the same right of man to vote!!!
> >
> > Do you have mother and sisters??? Why should we treat with them?
> >
>
> It's not clear what you mean by "treat with them", but assuming you
> meant "mistreat them", there isn't a shred of evidence that the 19th
> Amendment improved the lives of women one bit.
>
> Certainly you don't considern the fifty fold increase in the divorce
> rate as a benefit to women, do you? Or the almost complete collapse
in
> that thing that used to be called "Personal Savings"? Or the fact
that
> American men [read: husbands, fathers, and brothers of women] are a
> third of the men in the world who are behind bars, even though the US
> is only 4.5% of the world's population?
Well, maybe these men should stop committing crimes! duh.
>
> The best way to stop mistreating women would be to reverse this trend,
> and it seems that the only way to do that is to repeal the 19th.
No, the only way to stop this trend is to teach personal
responsibility, and stop blaming other people, things, or ideologies
for your own actions.
Or maybe you prefer to blame your mommy?
--
K.
....we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of smart.....
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <8nf480$tai$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> In article <1KDm5.29471$NH2.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> "Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ----------
>> In article <8nen3r$da4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fathersm...@usa.net
> wrote:
<snip>
Cocaine, Heroin and many early amphetamines and barbituates were made
illegal then. Marijuana was known primarily for it's industrial uses (as
hemp for high strength rope, cloth, paper and fine oil) and wasn't
criminalized until 1934, (but that's a whole different story in itself.)
>
> Prof. John Lott does a great job of statistically analyzing the
> relationship between government spending and women getting the vote,
> because different states had implemented the women's vote before the
> 19th was passed. This gave him the chance to notice that government
> spending in states which gave women the vote prior to the 19th began to
> rise before it did in other states which hadn't.
> http://members.xoom.com/fmanifesto/lottonsuffrage.pdf
I'll check this out. Thanks, John.
>
> This explains much of the growth of government since then, although the
> Controlled Substances Act seems to have preceded the 19th );
>
> hmmm, could there have been some other underlying factor which was
> responsible for both (as well as the other points you made above)?
The beginning of the 'heavy' industrialisation which followed the absolute
domination and subjugation of the frontier and it's peoples (the indians),
meant that America began to shift its resources back into the cities in the
east. Think of how many people were coming into Staten Island as immigrants
in the years preceeding 1920. The industrialists had set up their cartels in
the twenty years prior to the turning of the century and as manufacturing
became more assembly-oriented, there was less of a demand to push people
into the west. The system to make money became the first priority and the
Carnegies, the Rockefellers and others earned phenomenal wealth all tax free
- of course the government couldn't let that go untapped...No, I honestly
see no factor involved other than good old-fashioned greed. $$$$$$$$
Deb.
fathersm...@usa.net
kav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8nemga$cin$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
It's a pdf file so it might take a while to download. It looks like a
blank page until Adobe opens up. If you can't access it, let me know
and I will email you the file.
That said, it does require some meager math skills which you have
proven time and time again that you don't have. So when you get it,
print it out, show it to someone you know who can read such reports,
and get them to explain it to you. It is undisputable. This IS the
real proof.
> >
> > Rampant government spending demanded by female voters is what led to
> > the totalitarian government programs which destroyed our original
free
> > enterprise system.
>
> Oh, bullshit. Voting is one small part of a large economic picture.
> Factors like fuel, like world trade, like unions and wages, like
> accident costs, like permit costs, and rising costs of raw materials
> have more effect on free enterprise than the female vote.
The major factor in the increased costs of EACH of those items you
detail is the increase in taxes. We spent 2% of GDP for government
before the 19th, and now by some accounts we spend 42%. That increase
in government "services" didn't increase the productivity of the
economy, it decreased it. If 42% is correct, this adds at least an
average of 40 cents to each $1 cost of all products. Fuel would cost
$1.20 per gallon rather than $2.00 per gallon without this excessive
government spending. We could COMPETE in world trade if we didn't have
to tack 40 cents to each $1 in exports. The $200 billion which the
National Safety Council estimates that auto accidents cost each year
would be $120 billion instead. IF cost/benefit analyses were done on
government permits, we could probably eliminate 100% of that cost.
> >
> > In other words, while we blame politicians for all of these
> > totalitarian and unconstitutional laws, it is female voters (who are
> > 11% more of the voters than men) who are demanding these "government
> > services".
>
> In other words, you don't know what you are talking about. Once
again,
> a large percentage of the eligible population in the United States
does
> not vote. This is the only Indisputable fact in this whole post. If
> men were really concerned that the female vote was damaging, you bet
> there would be more of them voting.
This is a completely nonsensical statement. It is a fact of life that
women can always outnumber men at the polls, if for no other reason
than there are 8% more women than men of voting age. No country has
ever achieved a 100% voting record, so your suggestion that a higher
percentage of men than women could vote is a red herring--it has never
worked that way because it can't.
Should we sue women voters for "discrimination" against women?
American women voters have been the majority voter for 3-4 decades now,
which means that, if they REALLY trusted women, they could have
installed 100% women politicians by now. Why are less than 10% of
elective offices held by women? Why is such a high percentage of the
few women who have been elected quietly removed from office and
replaced by men--BY WOMEN VOTERS?
John Knight
fathersm...@usa.net
Having seen both, I can assure you that we do NOT "do it better now".
It has gotten so trivial that it almost looks like it's intentionally
dumbed down. And having seen Japanese, Korean, and British education
programming, I can assure you that their approach is more effective
than "Dr. Science" was 3-4 decades ago.
This is just ONE reason that our 8th graders score more than 100 TIMSS
points lower than Japanese or Korean 8th graders, though.
> >
> > Why is out TV programming so bad? The breakdown of the family,
> > perhaps? All kinds of social pathologies are bred in single-mother
> > households, so it's not unlikely that SMHs also create a demand for
> the
> > wrong type of TV programming.
>
> proof?
Children from single-mother households (SMHs), compared to children of
two-parent families where the father is present, are more likely to go
to prison by twenty times, to commit suicide by five times, to commit
murder by eight times, to have behavioral problems by twenty times, to
become rapists by fourteen times, to run away by thirtytwo times, to
abuse chemical substances by ten times, to drop out of high school by
nine times, to be seriously abused by thirtythree times, to be fatally
abused by seventythree times, to be one tenth as likely to get A's in
school, and to have a seventytwo percent lower standard of living [per
Lenore Weitzman].
With such a miserable track record, it's obvious that the increase in
the percent of SMHs contributed to a demand for bad TV programming.
> >
> > From that perspective, widespread interest in bad TV programming is
an
> > effect rather than a cause of divorce.
>
> There is no connection between bad tv and divorce or single parent
> households. It is shown by TV surveys, that traditional families are
> just as prone to watch bad tv as anyone else is.
Sheesh. It takes "traditional families" to have divorces. You can't
have a divorce in an SMH. Bad TV programming certainly can contribute
to the breakdown of "traditional families", which makes them divorced
parents and children living in SMHs.
If these surveys are correct, this is proof that "traditional families"
are watching this garbage too, which doesn't do them any good, at the
least.
> >
> > So what was the cause of the breakdown of the family? It is
> undisputed
> > that giving women political power separate from their husbands
weakens
> > family unity. The only question is: by how much? Is this enough by
> > itself to explain the ten fold increase in the divorce rate since
the
> > 19th was passed?
>
> Undisputed? This is even in contention here. How can you claim
> undisputed? do you know what the word means?
> Angilion has the only undisputed point here--that divorce did not
> sharply rise right after women got the vote, and had women's vote been
> a cause of divorce this is exactly what would have happened.
Not true. It IS undisputed that sharing political power within the
family weakens family unity. You can claim that it's not true, but you
can't find a single study, survey, or data correlation to support your
claim. On the other hand, every shred of data demonstrates this
correlation, and there are more than 2,000 easily available studies on
the internet alone which dispute your claim.
His assertion that this would have happened immediately fails to
consider the dynamics of such a change in intact families. Many
families didn't even know the 19th was passed for years afterwards.
The media and the churches hadn't begun their rant about "domestic
violence", "child abuse", and "women's rights" until the mid-1960s,
four decades later.
Even though the 19th gave women the vote, "equal protection" [which was
intended SOLELY to free ALL slaves and give MEN slaves the vote] was
not applied to women until 1971, half a century later.
"Conservatives" predicted that EACH one of these steps would weaken
family unity. Do you really disagree with them? Can you point to the
OTHER factors which caused our divorce rate to increase fifty fold?
> >
> > Other factors which are suspected of causing divorce might actually
> > result from divorce, just as bad TV programming did. The high
violent
> > crime rate is pointed to as a factor in the increased divorce rate,
> but
> > the international data suggests that high violent crime rates are a
> > RESULT rather than a CAUSE of divorce.
>
> No, high violent crime is a result of stupidity and poor moral
choices.
> People aren't forced into violent crime, they choose violent crime.
Are
> you really saying that criminals should blame their mothers when they
> commit a crime?
No, criminals shouldn't blame SMHs. SOCIETY should, because SMHs are
as guilty as the criminals they breed:
Children from single-mother households (SMHs), compared to children of
two-parent families where the father is present, are more likely to go
to prison by twenty times, to commit suicide by five times, to commit
murder by eight times, to have behavioral problems by twenty times, to
become rapists by fourteen times, to run away by thirtytwo times, to
abuse chemical substances by ten times, to drop out of high school by
nine times, to be seriously abused by thirtythree times, to be fatally
abused by seventythree times, to be one tenth as likely to get A's in
school, and to have a seventytwo percent lower standard of living [per
Lenore Weitzman]
>
> Same with our high
> > incarceration rate, huge debts, low savings rate, low personal
savings
> > level (which is negative), low education scores, and high murder
rate.
>
> All which come from poor personal choices.
> Women's right to vote doesn't cause debt. I doubt Joe or Jane Blow
> think for a moment about female voting when they whip out the old
> credit card.
> --
> K.
Children raised in father-headed households don't make "poor personal
choices", for the most part. The vast majority of "poor personal
choices" are made by children who were raised in SMHs, as the above
summary of more than 20,000 studies on the subject proves.
By denying 28 million American children the opportunity to be raised by
their fathers [by placing them in SMHs], we are GUARANTEEING that "poor
personal choices" will get so much worse that this culture cannot
survive.
But--you could care less about this, because this is nothing
but "misogyny" in your feminist lexicon, right?
John Knight
kav...@my-deja.com
fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> In article <8nf7fe$1d7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> kav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8nelug$bqj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> > > In article <20000813150853...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
> > > ohsoj...@aol.comedy (OhSojourner) wrote:
(more dialog snipped for length--however, nobody has responded to my
questions as to what particular legislation has proven to have been
passed due to the female vote)
Of course we do it better now. Our educational tv covers more subject
matter, in greater detail, and uses newer technology to present the
material.
>
> This is just ONE reason that our 8th graders score more than 100 TIMSS
> points lower than Japanese or Korean 8th graders, though.
Prove it.
>
> > >
> > > Why is out TV programming so bad? The breakdown of the family,
> > > perhaps? All kinds of social pathologies are bred in single-
mother
> > > households, so it's not unlikely that SMHs also create a demand
for
> > the
> > > wrong type of TV programming.
> >
> > proof?
where's the proof?
>
> Children from single-mother households (SMHs), compared to children of
> two-parent families where the father is present, are more likely to go
> to prison by twenty times, to commit suicide by five times, to commit
> murder by eight times, to have behavioral problems by twenty times, to
> become rapists by fourteen times, to run away by thirtytwo times, to
> abuse chemical substances by ten times, to drop out of high school by
> nine times, to be seriously abused by thirtythree times, to be fatally
> abused by seventythree times, to be one tenth as likely to get A's in
> school, and to have a seventytwo percent lower standard of living
[per
> Lenore Weitzman].
Sure, and I can write pigs can fly by Kavking, and it would mean just
as much. Have you even bothered to see what statistics were like in
single father families? Have you bothered to check any other
commonality these families have, besides being single mother families?
Are these all poor families, for instance? Please don't even tell me
that all single mom families are poor.
I would bet that in tradional families, poor families have higher
statistics for crime than wealthy ones do.
>
> With such a miserable track record, it's obvious that the increase in
> the percent of SMHs contributed to a demand for bad TV programming.
Oh, bullshit. With such a miserable track record, it means that people
are making miserable choices--why do you deny personal responsiblity?
You know, you might even have an argument, if you could prove that
there aren't lots of successful single mothers, who have successful
children. I suppose you would credit their success to something else,
and their failures to mom. Grow up.
>
> > >
> > > From that perspective, widespread interest in bad TV programming
is
> an
> > > effect rather than a cause of divorce.
> >
> > There is no connection between bad tv and divorce or single parent
> > households. It is shown by TV surveys, that traditional families
are
> > just as prone to watch bad tv as anyone else is.
>
> Sheesh. It takes "traditional families" to have divorces. You can't
> have a divorce in an SMH. Bad TV programming certainly can contribute
> to the breakdown of "traditional families", which makes them divorced
> parents and children living in SMHs.
Geez, are you slow. If you have successful traditional families, where
children are grown up, and mom and dad retired, and they watched
popular sitcoms all their lives, then you have families who have
watched junk tv all their lives. Got it?
This certainly suggests that mom isn't waking up one day and saying,
I'm divorcing you so I can watch bad tv.
Blaming bad tv for all the worlds ills is hiding from the real problems.
>
> If these surveys are correct, this is proof that "traditional
families"
> are watching this garbage too, which doesn't do them any good, at the
> least.
It doesn't do any ill, or they wouldn't be successful traditional
familes, now would they? Sheesh.
>
> > >
> > > So what was the cause of the breakdown of the family? It is
> > undisputed
> > > that giving women political power separate from their husbands
> weakens
> > > family unity. The only question is: by how much? Is this enough
by
> > > itself to explain the ten fold increase in the divorce rate since
> the
> > > 19th was passed?
> >
> > Undisputed? This is even in contention here. How can you claim
> > undisputed? do you know what the word means?
> > Angilion has the only undisputed point here--that divorce did not
> > sharply rise right after women got the vote, and had women's vote
been
> > a cause of divorce this is exactly what would have happened.
>
> Not true. It IS undisputed that sharing political power within the
> family weakens family unity. You can claim that it's not true, but
you
> can't find a single study, survey, or data correlation to support your
> claim. On the other hand, every shred of data demonstrates this
> correlation, and there are more than 2,000 easily available studies on
> the internet alone which dispute your claim.
Since you have people disputing what you are saying, then obviously it
is not indisputed. There is no such word as undispute, btw.
I can't find a single study, because nobody is foolish enough to study
something like that. We all know that families who that share
important decisions, but allow some freedom of individuality, are those
that work best.
Please, cite me one unbiased study that says that women voting is
breaking up families. Show me one divorce where a man ever said he was
divorcing his wife because she votes.
>
> His assertion that this would have happened immediately fails to
> consider the dynamics of such a change in intact families. Many
> families didn't even know the 19th was passed for years afterwards.
> The media and the churches hadn't begun their rant about "domestic
> violence", "child abuse", and "women's rights" until the mid-1960s,
> four decades later.
Oh, this is silly. People may not have coined the words we use today,
but they certainly know when they are being beaten.
>
> Even though the 19th gave women the vote, "equal protection" [which
was
> intended SOLELY to free ALL slaves and give MEN slaves the vote] was
> not applied to women until 1971, half a century later.
No, you're wrong. Again. It was formed to protect all people, and not
enforced until the sixties. We weren't even allowing black men to vote
without forcing them to pass tests that some white voting men couldn't
pass.
>
> "Conservatives" predicted that EACH one of these steps would weaken
> family unity. Do you really disagree with them? Can you point to the
> OTHER factors which caused our divorce rate to increase fifty fold?
Sure I can. The fact is that we don't know, even though you seem to
enjoy spouting statistics, who really is initaiting divorce. We do
know that divorce is easier to obtain now than it ever was before.
This makes it more widespread. We know that people are longer lived
then they ever used to be, we know that people aren't as easily
satisfied by staying with one person as they used to be. We know that
youth is more valued than it ever was, and more people, usually men,
want younger wives. We know that some men are so entrenced in what
used to be that they have a hard time adjusting to a wife who wants a
career. We know that some women just don't want to be dependant upon a
man after she learns that she can take care of herself.
We know the world is changing, everyone's standards are changing, and
unfortunately, marriage is changing as well.
Those who are sensible know that there is not one gender, or one reason
for marriages falling apart, they fall apart for as many reasons as
there are divorces.
>
> > >
> > > Other factors which are suspected of causing divorce might
actually
> > > result from divorce, just as bad TV programming did. The high
> violent
> > > crime rate is pointed to as a factor in the increased divorce
rate,
> > but
> > > the international data suggests that high violent crime rates are
a
> > > RESULT rather than a CAUSE of divorce.
> >
> > No, high violent crime is a result of stupidity and poor moral
> choices.
> > People aren't forced into violent crime, they choose violent crime.
> Are
> > you really saying that criminals should blame their mothers when
they
> > commit a crime?
>
> No, criminals shouldn't blame SMHs. SOCIETY should, because SMHs are
> as guilty as the criminals they breed:
No, society shouldn't either. Society should blame the people who
choose to commit crimes. Most criminals are adults. They make
choices, and have to bear the responsibility of those choices. We have
too many poor, black kids who are doing well now, to blame single
mothers, or society for the kids who are not.
(cut Lenore wietzman as you quote this above)
> >
> > Same with our high
> > > incarceration rate, huge debts, low savings rate, low personal
> savings
> > > level (which is negative), low education scores, and high murder
> rate.
> >
> > All which come from poor personal choices.
> > Women's right to vote doesn't cause debt. I doubt Joe or Jane Blow
> > think for a moment about female voting when they whip out the old
> > credit card.
> > --
> > K.
>
> Children raised in father-headed households don't make "poor personal
> choices", for the most part. The vast majority of "poor personal
> choices" are made by children who were raised in SMHs, as the above
> summary of more than 20,000 studies on the subject proves.
prove it. Show me the study of single father households.
This seems to be pure speculation on your part.
>
> By denying 28 million American children the opportunity to be raised
by
> their fathers [by placing them in SMHs], we are GUARANTEEING
that "poor
> personal choices" will get so much worse that this culture cannot
> survive.
As long as we are guarenteeing that some of those children will be
beaten or molested, I'm not in favor of returning them to all fathers.
The one guarentee that we do have here is that putting a child in an
abusive home, no matter what the gender of the abusive parent, is that
we will have an abused child.
>
> But--you could care less about this, because this is nothing
> but "misogyny" in your feminist lexicon, right?
No, I do care about this, even though my husband thinks you are just a
crackpot. You want to deny the vote to women, just because you have
some crazy idea that treating women like children will save the world.
If you think that a segment of the population is voting badly, don't
try to take away their vote, teach them how to choose valid reasons for
the vote they cast. Teach them what the real issues are, and what the
ramifications of the choice they make will be. Teach those who don't
vote, and there are thousands of them, including men, that not voting
is as bad as voting badly, because you are voting against that which
you should support.
When you start limiting the rights of one segment of the population,
you eventually limit rights for others, how can you not see this?
Grow up. Search out the real causes for the problems we have.
Not only are you proving that you're a crackpot, but by denying real
solutions, you are adding to the problems we have now. We don't have
only them to deal with anymore, we have to fight with you, too.
--
K.
....we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of smart.....
Deborah Terreson
both of you should go and read the short essay titled "Cordelia's Dilemma",
written by Stephen Jay Gould. It can be found easiest in the Best American
Essays of 1994 by Robert Atwan/Tracy Kidder. Kav, you really want to read
this.
Deb.
----------
fathersm...@usa.net
We have to be careful about the definition of "greed". In one sense,
it is "greed" which fuels the free enterprise system which gave us the
once highest standard of living the world had ever known, in 1965.
That was good.
It is "greed" also which fuels government expansion, which increased
government spending from 2 cents to 42 cents of each wage dollar, which
destroyed our standard of living and put us in 17th place in the world
in GDP per capita, and dropping fast. This is bad.
We couldn't have a successful economy without greed [read: acquisitive
desire beyond reason] in the free enterprise system. Without that, our
economy doesn't exist.
And we also can't have a successful economy when government employees,
public servants, and even lawyers believe that the principles of free
enterprise apply to them. They are a SERVICE, not a means to an end as
they now assert.
To understand just how out of balance it now is, private enterprise and
corporations create wealth which enables families to have "Personal
Savings". But we are unique in the world as being the only
industrialized nation with a *negative* "Personal Savings".
At the same time, government still spends 42 cents of each wage
dollar. If we spent only 22 cents, as Japanese workers spend for
government, we would have 20 cents for "Personal Savings". Depending
on which level of income you compare, this 20 cents represents $400 to
$1,600 billion PER YEAR in "Personal Savings" which Americans never
even see.
The Japanese, whose women don't vote independently of men, actually
save 33% of GDP each year. Add that up over the last 50 years, and you
have a huge savings account which by most definitions was fueled
by "greed". That was good. For the Japanese.
John Knight
fathersm...@usa.net
More than two thousand studies and surveys all point to the exact same
thing--children who grow up in single mother households are at a severe
disadvantage compared to children who grow up in families, and children
who grow up in single-father households. And, yes, we do have plenty
of data to analyze single-father households, and compared even to
children who grow up in families, they are less likely to go to prison,
more likely to excel in school, higher earners, less likely to divorce,
etc.
The problem is not single parenthood. The problem is single-motherhood.
And, yes, children who live with single mothers are more likely ALSO to
live in poverty, because women just don't earn as much as men. By the
Census Bureau survey of families, fathers earn 82% of family incomes
and women earn only 18%. IOW, if you subtracted the fathers' incomes,
children living in SMHs would be living in caves--as they do in some
parts of the world where single-mother households are the norm.
Read the studies. http://fathers.ourfamily.com/cfc.htm Don't just
think you can keep on getting away with trivializing this problem by
saying things like I "can write pigs can fly by Kavking".
> >>
> >> With such a miserable track record, it's obvious that the increase
in
> >> the percent of SMHs contributed to a demand for bad TV programming.
> >
> > Oh, bullshit. With such a miserable track record, it means that
people
> > are making miserable choices--why do you deny personal
responsiblity?
> > You know, you might even have an argument, if you could prove that
> > there aren't lots of successful single mothers, who have successful
> > children. I suppose you would credit their success to something
else,
> > and their failures to mom. Grow up.
If you want a list of "successful" children of SMHs, see
http://fathersmanifesto.org/smh.htm
That's about as close as you will get to successful children of SMHs.
Otherwise, there is no such thing.
You have a comprehension problem. Nobody ever even hinted that "bad tv
[is responsible] for all the worlds ills". The point was made that IF
it is a part of the problem, that it is a MINOR part.
In other words, SMHs are 50-90% of the cause of our current social
pathologies. IF TV plays a role, it is only because children in SMHs
aren't being properly disciplined, are watching the wrong type of TV
programming, and are thus the reason our TV programming is so poor in
the first place. Even in that event, you should note that eliminating
SMHs in the first place would completely eliminate TV as a factor, even
if it is one.
How do these studies exist if "nobody is foolish enough to study
something like that"?
You haven't even read them, yet you are an expert on their non-
existence and irrelevance?
We all know that families who that share
> > important decisions, but allow some freedom of individuality, are
those
> > that work best.
> > Please, cite me one unbiased study that says that women voting is
> > breaking up families. Show me one divorce where a man ever said he
was
> > divorcing his wife because she votes.
WOMEN file for 85% of divorces. How do you explain that? What do YOU
think the problem is if you do not "think" that the 19th Amendment is
the problem?
Dr. Lott's simple study, all by itself, explains it all. You are
evidently incapable of comprehending that this study does exist, that
people HAVE studied this no matter how "foolish" you think it is.
You know what the results would be, don't you? Isn't that exactly why
you "think" it's "foolish" to study it?
> >
> >>
> >> His assertion that this would have happened immediately fails to
> >> consider the dynamics of such a change in intact families. Many
> >> families didn't even know the 19th was passed for years afterwards.
> >> The media and the churches hadn't begun their rant about "domestic
> >> violence", "child abuse", and "women's rights" until the mid-1960s,
> >> four decades later.
> >
> > Oh, this is silly. People may not have coined the words we use
today,
> > but they certainly know when they are being beaten.
> >>
> >> Even though the 19th gave women the vote, "equal protection" [which
> > was
> >> intended SOLELY to free ALL slaves and give MEN slaves the vote]
was
> >> not applied to women until 1971, half a century later.
> >
> > No, you're wrong. Again. It was formed to protect all people, and
not
> > enforced until the sixties. We weren't even allowing black men to
vote
> > without forcing them to pass tests that some white voting men
couldn't
> > pass.
And you can't find a single statistic or study which shows that this
increased protection of any people, much less "all people", can you?
Yet there are 33 social and economic indicators which PROVE that
exactly the opposite occurred.
Why do you think that is?
> >>
> >> "Conservatives" predicted that EACH one of these steps would weaken
> >> family unity. Do you really disagree with them? Can you point to
the
> >> OTHER factors which caused our divorce rate to increase fifty fold?
> >
> > Sure I can. The fact is that we don't know, even though you seem to
> > enjoy spouting statistics, who really is initaiting divorce. We do
> > know that divorce is easier to obtain now than it ever was before.
> > This makes it more widespread. We know that people are longer lived
> > then they ever used to be, we know that people aren't as easily
> > satisfied by staying with one person as they used to be. We know
that
> > youth is more valued than it ever was, and more people, usually men,
> > want younger wives. We know that some men are so entrenced in what
> > used to be that they have a hard time adjusting to a wife who wants
a
> > career. We know that some women just don't want to be dependant
upon a
> > man after she learns that she can take care of herself.
Yes, we do know who is initiating the divorces--WOMEN. Women who
want "to find themselves", who believe as feminist claim that "adultery
is a woman's right", who file for 85% of the divorces.
And, yes, we know why they do it, because just as you "think",
women "think" they can be "independent" of men?
*INDEPENDENT* to a feminist means getting "child support" from the
man. Getting welfare from the taxes paid by men. Getting AFDC and
food stamps from the taxes paid by men. Getting medicare from the
taxes paid by men. Getting social security from the "retirement
payments" paid by men. Living in houses built by men. Driving cars
designed and built by men. Driving on roads designed and built by men.
Living in a country defended by military might conceived, designed,
built and operated by men. Using dishwashers and light bulbs and can
openers and refrigerators invented and designed and built by men.
http://www.crosswinds.net/~christianparty/menare.htm
If women were "independent" of men, they would be living in caves with
doilies on the rocks and no running water or telephones. You don't
mean "independence"--you mean "license".
And, no, Marie Curie did not "win" a Nobel Prize. Her husband gave her
HALF of his HALF because he thought a joint award is "more satisfying
from the artistic point of view".
http://fathersmanifesto.org/curie.htm
> > We know the world is changing, everyone's standards are changing,
and
> > unfortunately, marriage is changing as well.
> > Those who are sensible know that there is not one gender, or one
reason
> > for marriages falling apart, they fall apart for as many reasons as
> > there are divorces.
No, the "world is [not] changing", because the "world" didn't give
women the vote. 95% of the countries of the world didn't give women
the vote, and to a tee, their divorce rates are less than a tenth of
ours, just as our divorce rate was one fiftieth of what it is now,
BEFORE the 19th was passed.
Of course you don't know why you think "the world is changing", and of
course you don't know why it is the US which is changing, and of course
you won't ever admit why, even after someone TELLS you why.
This is because you are demonstrating exactly why American women
shouldn't vote.
This is brain dead. Do you realize that, by ignoring the root problem,
which is single mother households, "liberals" like you used exactly the
same "logic" 3-4 decades ago, completely missed the point, and made
things WORSE? LOOK AT THE RESULTS:
1) The number of American men in prison increased ten fold.
2) The RATE of murders almost tripled.
3) The PERCENT of murders which are resolved plunged from 92% to 63%.
Is this how you define "success". Do you comprehend how much of a
failure this "logic" has been?
Does this make any sense to you at all?
Or is this just "silly numbers" to you?
This is where the female mind breaks down. First, you assume that
government can do something positive about this. This federal
government has proven by example that it can't. Second, you assume
that somehow government will be a better family to children than their
biological fathers. This makes ZERO sense, and there isn't a shred of
statistical evidence to support this notion. As expected, the exact
opposite has occurred--child abuse INCREASED as government has gotten
more and more control of children. More than HALF of existing child
abuse occurs in the custody of CPS. Third, you don't even realize that
the original "problem" was virtually a non-problem relative to the
problems caused by the "solution". And now you demand even more of
the "solution".
Your rationale is that "if only one life is saved, it's worth spending
$285 billion to make it happen". THIS is why women shouldn't vote.
It was women who conducted the NIS-3 study, and they didn't seem to
comprehend the significance of their own results. This showed that a
grand total of 1,111 children were murdered by in 1996. 867 of them
were murdered by mothers or foster mothers, most of them AFTER they had
been removed from their fathers. A grand total of 29 of them were
murdered by their fathers. 578 of them were murdered while in the
custody of CPS or foster homes, OUT of the custody of their fathers.
This study PROVED that children were 20 times more likely to be
murdered in single-mother households than in families. Sixty children
per million were murdered in single-mother households in 1996. But
only 3 per million were murdered in intact families.
CAPTA, or the Mondale Act, actually contributed to the breakdown of
families, which increased the number of children in single-mother
households, which increased their probability of being murdered TWENTY
FOLD.
http://fathersmanifesto.org/nis3.htm
In other words, your statement supports a "solution" which is much
worse than the original "problem".
> >>
> >> But--you could care less about this, because this is nothing
> >> but "misogyny" in your feminist lexicon, right?
> >
> > No, I do care about this, even though my husband thinks you are
just a
> > crackpot. You want to deny the vote to women, just because you have
> > some crazy idea that treating women like children will save the
world.
> > If you think that a segment of the population is voting badly, don't
> > try to take away their vote, teach them how to choose valid reasons
for
> > the vote they cast. Teach them what the real issues are, and what
the
> > ramifications of the choice they make will be.
You want us to try to teach a pig to fly. This was the argument
feminists used 4 decades ago, when we spent "only" 4.9% of GDP
for "education". In order to teach the pigs, we increased this to 7.9%
of GDP. Just last year we spent an EXTRA $240 billion just to try to
educate the pigs.
Did it work? Do you think this was a success?
If so, you haven't seen the results, or YOU DO NOW WANT TO KNOW.
For your information, SAT scores during this time PLUNGED 98 points.
This left the US DEAD LAST in more subjects on the international TIMSS
study than any of the other 28 countries which participated in it.
THAT is bad enough. THAT is a proven disaster, all by itself.
But, as you suspect, it gets worse. Much worse.
Our 12th grade boys did poorly. They did worse than the girls in some
countries. BUT OUR GIRLS DID EVEN WORSE THAN OUR BOYS.
And if you think you can solve this problem by screeching "misogyny",
or by ignoring it, or by slinging insults, then you will just prove,
one more time, that it's time to quit trying to teach this pig to fly.
Do you want to know the bottom line? Do you want to know what we the
taxpayer got for this EXTRA $7.7 trillion that we spent for education?
Do you want to know how BAD American 12th grade girls did?
Do you REALLY want to know?
ZERO PERCENT OF AMERICAN 12TH GRADE GIRLS WERE ABLE TO RESOLVE
MATH AND PHYSICS QUESTIONS which up to 80% of the girls in countries
like Switzerland WERE able to resolve.
http://fathersmanifesto.org/timss.htm
And you want us to keep on trying to "Teach them what the real issues
are".
YOU can't even comprehend the real issue, and you have been struggling
with it for at least 4 years, haven't you?
You STILL aren't even close, are you?
No, thanks,
John Knight
Teach those who don't
> > vote, and there are thousands of them, including men, that not
voting
> > is as bad as voting badly, because you are voting against that which
> > you should support.
> > When you start limiting the rights of one segment of the population,
> > you eventually limit rights for others, how can you not see this?
> > Grow up. Search out the real causes for the problems we have.
> > Not only are you proving that you're a crackpot, but by denying real
> > solutions, you are adding to the problems we have now. We don't
have
> > only them to deal with anymore, we have to fight with you, too.
> >
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <8nk2he$irt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> In article <DjJm5.29733$NH2.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> "Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
<snipping down for sanity's sake>
Yeah, it's called 'credit shopping'. Americans also are the most
plastic-money laden people in the world. Why save your income in a bank,
collecting interest when you can have (puerile) instant gratification and
own that useless bangle or bauble with only the swipe of a card. What's the
average interest rate on a credit card? I honestly do not know. How many are
in the wallet of the average American? I'd sooner go without (I do) than
have one. Let me tell you what I think of the credit industry: Can you say
"Usurious Cocksuckers?"
>
> At the same time, government still spends 42 cents of each wage
> dollar. If we spent only 22 cents, as Japanese workers spend for
> government, we would have 20 cents for "Personal Savings".
Are you so certain of that? I bet the credit companies would push even
harder to get their product into American's wallets and purses, no I don't
see anything happening other than folks going out and spending that extra
'20 cents' on buying more junk they really don't need.
> Depending
> on which level of income you compare, this 20 cents represents $400 to
> $1,600 billion PER YEAR in "Personal Savings" which Americans never
> even see.
And it's unlikely that we're going to anyhow. Look at the advertising and
commercialism that's run rampant across this country, hell even schools are
not free of cheap commercialism. Ever heard of "Channel One"? You should
look it up sometimes. Makes me think seriously about home schooling if we
ever have a family.
>
> The Japanese, whose women don't vote independently of men, actually
> save 33% of GDP each year. Add that up over the last 50 years, and you
> have a huge savings account which by most definitions was fueled
> by "greed". That was good. For the Japanese.
The Japanese are also a single race with a rich and ancient culture that
carries strong traditions. America was started as a commercial oriented
republic and of course our social customs will reflect the one commonality
to all the people who have come here: The desire to make money, to grab on
to the "American Dream", to live the good life with the house, TV and
three-car garage, y'know, 'Keeping up with the Joneses'.
John, please don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you about the
government's hand in all this. I do disagree that keeping more money will
mean folks will save it. It's not going to happen unless there's a major
philosophical shift away from worldliness, until people realise that
'things' aren't the permanent answer to their unhappiness, and they learn to
look inside themselves and let go.
>
Deb.
Deborah Terreson
----------
John. I grew up in a SMH. I had one thing different from my peers that also
grew up in SMH's: No TV. Zip. Nada. I got to read books.
I did not get poor grades in school. (honor student) In fact I graduated a
year early.
I did not dabble with drugs.
I did not get myself knocked up, like so many other girls I knew did.
I have a fufilling marriage.
I have a good career.
I hope I'm well balanced (although I AM a bit cynical at times).
Perhaps the problem isn't with SMH's but the "Idiot box".
kav...@my-deja.com
Do you seee this John Knight? What legislation has been proven to have
been passed by the female vote?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The quality of TV programming in the US is the problem.
> Japanese,
> > >> > > Korean, English TV programming is educational, and it is
> intended
> > > to
> > >> > be
> > >> > > educational. Ours is almost pure garbage now. There is
> no "Dr.
> > >> > > Science" any more, like there still is in the rest of the
> world.
> > >> >
> > >> > Oh? We have whole channels devoted to science and education
now,
> > > they
> > >> > even promote educational programming to supplement teaching in
> > >> schools.
> > >> > maybe there is no Dr. Science anymore, because we do it better
> now.
> > >>
> > >> Having seen both, I can assure you that we do NOT "do it better
> now".
Unless you prove with unbiased evidence, any of your contentions, you
can't prove anything.
> > >> It has gotten so trivial that it almost looks like it's
> intentionally
> > >> dumbed down. And having seen Japanese, Korean, and British
> education
> > >> programming, I can assure you that their approach is more
effective
> > >> than "Dr. Science" was 3-4 decades ago.
> > >
> > > Of course we do it better now. Our educational tv covers more
> subject
> > > matter, in greater detail, and uses newer technology to present
the
> > > material.
> > >>
> > >> This is just ONE reason that our 8th graders score more than 100
> TIMSS
> > >> points lower than Japanese or Korean 8th graders, though.
> > >
> > > Prove it.
> > >
Prove it. I'm still waiting for one shred of unbiased proof.
Your own website is so biased it is camp.
> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Why is our TV programming so bad? The breakdown of the
family,
> > >> > > perhaps? All kinds of social pathologies are bred in single-
> > > mother
> > >> > > households, so it's not unlikely that SMHs also create a
demand
> > > for
> > >> > the
> > >> > > wrong type of TV programming.
> > >> >
> > >> > proof?
> > >
> > > where's the proof?
Again, where's the proof?
> > >>
> > >> Children from single-mother households (SMHs), compared to
> children of
> > >> two-parent families where the father is present, are more likely
> to go
> > >> to prison by twenty times, to commit suicide by five times, to
> commit
> > >> murder by eight times, to have behavioral problems by twenty
> times, to
> > >> become rapists by fourteen times, to run away by thirtytwo times,
> to
> > >> abuse chemical substances by ten times, to drop out of high
school
> by
> > >> nine times, to be seriously abused by thirtythree times, to be
> fatally
> > >> abused by seventythree times, to be one tenth as likely to get
A's
> in
> > >> school, and to have a seventytwo percent lower standard of
living
> > > [per
> > >> Lenore Weitzman].
This does nothing to prove that there is any connection between tv or
single mothers and adult decisions to commit crime or suicide.
> > >
> > > Sure, and I can write pigs can fly by Kavking, and it would mean
> just
> > > as much. Have you even bothered to see what statistics were like
in
> > > single father families? Have you bothered to check any other
> > > commonality these families have, besides being single mother
> families?
> > > Are these all poor families, for instance? Please don't even tell
> me
> > > that all single mom families are poor.
> > > I would bet that in tradional families, poor families have higher
> > > statistics for crime than wealthy ones do.
>
> More than two thousand studies and surveys all point to the exact same
> thing--children who grow up in single mother households are at a
severe
> disadvantage compared to children who grow up in families, and
children
> who grow up in single-father households. And, yes, we do have plenty
> of data to analyze single-father households, and compared even to
> children who grow up in families, they are less likely to go to
prison,
> more likely to excel in school, higher earners, less likely to
divorce,
> etc.
Then where is the study about single father families?
Once again, my point goes right over your head. I can say anything,
but that doesn't make it truth. Somebody could tell you anything, and
your repeating it does not make it true. Get it this time?
You believe the world is flat, too, don't you?
>
> The problem is not single parenthood. The problem is single-
motherhood.
>
> And, yes, children who live with single mothers are more likely ALSO
to
> live in poverty, because women just don't earn as much as men.
And why not? Especially when you have women doing the same job, working
the same hours, and having the same seniority. Why don't they?
By the
> Census Bureau survey of families, fathers earn 82% of family incomes
> and women earn only 18%. IOW, if you subtracted the fathers' incomes,
> children living in SMHs would be living in caves--as they do in some
> parts of the world where single-mother households are the norm.
Right. That's why we have mothers who are not getting child support at
all, who's exhusbands are so far in arrearage that children are being
brought up on single mother's income alone. That's why these wonderful
men who are so concerned about their children do not send the payments,
they don't even send partial payments.
These men are supposed to be better parents than the ones who really
work for a better life for their children?
>
> Read the studies. http://fathers.ourfamily.com/cfc.htm Don't just
> think you can keep on getting away with trivializing this problem by
> saying things like I "can write pigs can fly by Kavking".
And don't think that you can make believeable statements without
unbiased proof. I want to see the unbiased statistics about single
father families. Until I see them, you have no case.
>
> > >>
> > >> With such a miserable track record, it's obvious that the
increase
> in
> > >> the percent of SMHs contributed to a demand for bad TV
programming.
> > >
> > > Oh, bullshit. With such a miserable track record, it means that
> people
> > > are making miserable choices--why do you deny personal
> responsiblity?
> > > You know, you might even have an argument, if you could prove that
> > > there aren't lots of successful single mothers, who have
successful
> > > children. I suppose you would credit their success to something
> else,
> > > and their failures to mom. Grow up.
>
> If you want a list of "successful" children of SMHs, see
> http://fathersmanifesto.org/smh.htm
If I want a list of successful children of single mothers, all I have
to do is go outdoors, and speak with my friends and neighbors. You
spout all the paper facts of dubious quality you want to, but when I go
see my banker, whose mother raised him alone, when I go into the local
retail store and see functioning people who are doing well, when I go
to church, and look at the congregation, I see lots of people who were
raised in single mother homes.
You forget one very obvious fact here. Most people function well
enough to be comfortable in this country, and a good percentage of them
came from single mother homes. This is an indisputable fact.
>
> That's about as close as you will get to successful children of SMHs.
> Otherwise, there is no such thing.
Oh, bullshit. Get off the computer and get a life.
>
> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> Sheesh. It takes "traditional families" to have divorces. You
> can't
> > >> have a divorce in an SMH. Bad TV programming certainly can
> contribute
> > >> to the breakdown of "traditional families", which makes them
> divorced
> > >> parents and children living in SMHs.
> > >
> > > Geez, are you slow. If you have successful traditional families,
> where
> > > children are grown up, and mom and dad retired, and they watched
> > > popular sitcoms all their lives, then you have families who have
> > > watched junk tv all their lives. Got it?
> > > This certainly suggests that mom isn't waking up one day and
saying,
> > > I'm divorcing you so I can watch bad tv.
> > > Blaming bad tv for all the worlds ills is hiding from the real
> problems.
>
> You have a comprehension problem. Nobody ever even hinted that "bad
tv
> [is responsible] for all the worlds ills". The point was made that IF
> it is a part of the problem, that it is a MINOR part.
Where? Please show me where you ever used the words "MINOR PART".
>
> In other words, SMHs are 50-90% of the cause of our current social
> pathologies. IF TV plays a role, it is only because children in SMHs
> aren't being properly disciplined, are watching the wrong type of TV
> programming, and are thus the reason our TV programming is so poor in
> the first place. Even in that event, you should note that eliminating
> SMHs in the first place would completely eliminate TV as a factor,
even
> if it is one.
Children in lots of families aren't being properly disciplined. They
still manage to be functional adults.
The reason that tv is so poor is that that is what we seem to want.
That is what puts dollars in the pockets of advertisers. TV writers
aren't sitting down and wondering how to make a child a deliquent, they
are wondering what is going to make somebody watch their show. They
want high ratings so they can make big money. Period.
No reply either. I still wonder how you can claim indisuputed when you
are even having this argument.
There is no such word as undispute, btw.
> > > I can't find a single study, because nobody is foolish enough to
> study
> > > something like that.
>
> How do these studies exist if "nobody is foolish enough to study
> something like that"?
Then where are the unbiased ones. where are the studies that claim
that women voting cause divorce? Where are the studies that show when
a woman submits to her husband the marriage works and she is happier
than when she is responsible for herself?
>
> You haven't even read them, yet you are an expert on their non-
> existence and irrelevance?
You haven't presented anything that comes close to either fact, or
rationality. Sure, I've looked at the studies you present here. They
make a list of disfunctionalities, and then right out of the blue,
decide that single motherhood has to be blamed. There is no comparison
of statistics in traditional families, and no comparison of single
father families.
Boys raised in single mother families are more likely to commit
siucide. More like than whom to commit suicide? Your studies don't
even tell me that.
>
> We all know that families who that share
> > > important decisions, but allow some freedom of individuality, are
> those
> > > that work best.
> > > Please, cite me one unbiased study that says that women voting is
> > > breaking up families. Show me one divorce where a man ever said
he
> was
> > > divorcing his wife because she votes.
>
> WOMEN file for 85% of divorces. How do you explain that? What do YOU
> think the problem is if you do not "think" that the 19th Amendment is
> the problem?
Women file because they want to file. Or they file because they have
been abandoned. Or they file because husband has made their lives so
miserable they have no chioce. He uses his married status as a
convenience without putting any effort into the marriage. (the "well,
I can have affairs without commitment, because I am married" routine.)
Women file so that men don't have to pay for the filing. (And if you
think that men automatically pay lawyer's fees any more, you're crazy.
I've seen women bankrupted trying to gain joint custody of their
children.) Women file for as many reasons as their are divorce, and
they are not always because she initiated the actions that lead to the
divorce.
>
> Dr. Lott's simple study, all by itself, explains it all. You are
> evidently incapable of comprehending that this study does exist, that
> people HAVE studied this no matter how "foolish" you think it is.
Dr. Lott's study is simple alright. Simple in the matter of not smart
and not proving anything.
>
> You know what the results would be, don't you? Isn't that exactly why
> you "think" it's "foolish" to study it?
I would love to know what the results of an unbiased study of single
father families would be. Are you so concerned about reigning in women
that you can't see that if we could prove that single fathers are
better then we would have a way to help children? I'm for what is best
for kids. If single fathers are better for kids, then let's do it.
But you can't present one unbiased study that says that they are.
And I will tell you why. You're trying to rate parents by gender,
rather than rate parents by parenting skills, and devotion to
children. There are no always, there are no nevers. Some mothers are
better parents. Some fathers are better parents.
All parents are human beings. That's the way it is.
>
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Even though the 19th gave women the vote, "equal protection"
[which
> > > was
> > >> intended SOLELY to free ALL slaves and give MEN slaves the vote]
> was
> > >> not applied to women until 1971, half a century later.
> > >
> > > No, you're wrong. Again. It was formed to protect all people,
and
> not
> > > enforced until the sixties. We weren't even allowing black men to
> vote
> > > without forcing them to pass tests that some white voting men
> couldn't
> > > pass.
>
> And you can't find a single statistic or study which shows that this
> increased protection of any people, much less "all people", can you?
> Yet there are 33 social and economic indicators which PROVE that
> exactly the opposite occurred.
It's your contention, prove it.
>
> Why do you think that is?
Because you are wrong. If you told me that water was solid and not
liquid, I wouldn't try to prove you wrong, either. You just live in a
world where you don't see reality. The rest of us can manager without
you just fine.
No, we know who is filing for divorce, we don't know who is intiating
divorce. Don't you understand the difference?
This is where your "sheesh" fits beautifully.
>
> And, yes, we know why they do it, because just as you "think",
> women "think" they can be "independent" of men?
Oh, so you have interviewed every woman who has filed for divorce? If
you haven't, then you don't know.
>
> *INDEPENDENT* to a feminist means getting "child support" from the
> man.
And child support to a man means, "I can force her to accept less if I
threaten to take the kids. Not neccessarily because I want them, but
she'll settle for an unequal division of other assetts if I have a club
to threaten her with.
Getting welfare from the taxes paid by men.
Tell it to single mothers who have NEVER collected welfare.
And tell it to women who work. What, do you think I have some immunity
from taxes because I am female? I probably pay at least as much in
taxes as you do.
Getting AFDC and
> food stamps from the taxes paid by men.
DITTO
Getting medicare from the
> taxes paid by men. Getting social security from the "retirement
> payments" paid by men.
DITTO
Living in houses built by men. Driving cars
> designed and built by men.
SO WOMEN DON'T DESIGN CARS AND WORK IN FACTORIES WHERE THEY ARE BUILT?
Who are those strange looking men in Detroit?
Driving on roads designed and built by men.
Oh, bullshit. Your sexism is unbounded by mere fact, isn't it?
> Living in a country defended by military might conceived, designed,
> built and operated by men.
Right. With enlisted people and officers who are women.
Using dishwashers and light bulbs and can
> openers and refrigerators invented and designed and built by men.
And women.
> http://www.crosswinds.net/~christianparty/menare.htm
>
> If women were "independent" of men, they would be living in caves with
> doilies on the rocks and no running water or telephones. You don't
> mean "independence"--you mean "license".
You are crazy.
>
> And, no, Marie Curie did not "win" a Nobel Prize. Her husband gave
her
> HALF of his HALF because he thought a joint award is "more satisfying
> from the artistic point of view".
> http://fathersmanifesto.org/curie.htm
Oh, you're spouting your old fathersmanifesto junk again. I rate your
credibility right up there with NOW.
It is fact that Pierre Curie died in 1906, and that Marie won a Nobel
Prize in 1911. Now, how do you give him credit for something that
happened five years after his death?
It certainly gives credence to the fact that her quarter of the first
award in 1903 was based on her merit.
>
> > > We know the world is changing, everyone's standards are changing,
> and
> > > unfortunately, marriage is changing as well.
> > > Those who are sensible know that there is not one gender, or one
> reason
> > > for marriages falling apart, they fall apart for as many reasons
as
> > > there are divorces.
>
> No, the "world is [not] changing", because the "world" didn't give
> women the vote. 95% of the countries of the world didn't give women
> the vote, and to a tee, their divorce rates are less than a tenth of
> ours, just as our divorce rate was one fiftieth of what it is now,
> BEFORE the 19th was passed.
Oh, so the world is exactly the same as it was in 1920?
sheesh. Even in other countries the world is not the same. Even in
other countries, standards are not what they once were.
Grow up!!!
>
> Of course you don't know why you think "the world is changing", and of
> course you don't know why it is the US which is changing, and of
course
> you won't ever admit why, even after someone TELLS you why.
You can't patronize me, no matter how hard you try, dear.
>
> This is because you are demonstrating exactly why American women
> shouldn't vote.
And you are demonstrating exactly why you shouldn't vote. You have no
common sense.
where is the connection?
Is everyone of these men the child of a single mother household. LOL
>
> 2) The RATE of murders almost tripled.
where is the connection? Prove there is a connection!
>
> 3) The PERCENT of murders which are resolved plunged from 92% to 63%.
Are you saying that the police are being raised in single mother
families, too? what is the connection?
>
> Is this how you define "success". Do you comprehend how much of a
> failure this "logic" has been?
yeah, totally yours! LOL
>
> Does this make any sense to you at all?
I'm amazed that this makes sense to you. To blame single mothers for
that which they have no control over is stupid. You are giving her all
the responsiblity, when she did not make the initial choice to kill.
Or to commit crime. Or to fail to solve it.
This is stupid. And over. I don't mind debating with someone who can
present valid points. But your reach has far exceeded your grasp.
Of the obvious.
>
> Or is this just "silly numbers" to you?
Untill you can show me that that no other factors but single motherhood
induces people to commit crime, your argument is without merit.
Sure, the number are scarey. Sure we have problems. But laying the
responsibility in the wrong place will not solve them.
Make it tougher for people who commit crime. Don't let anyone plea
bargain, and all the rest of it. Don't be so lax about enforcing the
more minor laws, and people will realize we take the major ones
seriously. Enforce the damn law.
>
> > >> >
> > >> > All which come from poor personal choices.
> > >> > Women's right to vote doesn't cause debt. I doubt Joe or Jane
> Blow
> > >> > think for a moment about female voting when they whip out the
> old
> > >> > credit card.
> > >> > --
> > >> > K.
> > >>
> > >> Children raised in father-headed households don't make "poor
> personal
> > >> choices", for the most part. The vast majority of "poor personal
> > >> choices" are made by children who were raised in SMHs, as the
above
> > >> summary of more than 20,000 studies on the subject proves.
> > >
> > > prove it. Show me the study of single father households.
> > > This seems to be pure speculation on your part.
WHERE IS THE PROOF FOR YOUR SPECULATION?
> > >>
> > >> By denying 28 million American children the opportunity to be
> raised
> > > by
> > >> their fathers [by placing them in SMHs], we are GUARANTEEING
> > > that "poor
> > >> personal choices" will get so much worse that this culture cannot
> > >> survive.
> > >
> > > As long as we are guarenteeing that some of those children will
be
> > > beaten or molested, I'm not in favor of returning them to all
> fathers.
> > > The one guarentee that we do have here is that putting a child in
an
> > > abusive home, no matter what the gender of the abusive parent, is
> that
> > > we will have an abused child.
>
> This is where the female mind breaks down. First, you assume that
> government can do something positive about this.
No, you assume I assume the government will do something about this.
Where did I ever say the government should get into the act when it
comes to families. You can't even twist what I have said to make this
work.
Sheesh.
> Your rationale is that "if only one life is saved, it's worth spending
> $285 billion to make it happen". THIS is why women shouldn't vote.
You're assuming again. Naughty, naughty, John.
where did I ever say that?
.>
> In other words, your statement supports a "solution" which is much
> worse than the original "problem".
In other words, you can't read. I never stated or suggested any such
thing.
>
> > >>
> > >> But--you could care less about this, because this is nothing
> > >> but "misogyny" in your feminist lexicon, right?
> > >
> > > No, I do care about this, even though my husband thinks you are
> just a
> > > crackpot. You want to deny the vote to women, just because you
have
> > > some crazy idea that treating women like children will save the
> world.
> > > If you think that a segment of the population is voting badly,
don't
> > > try to take away their vote, teach them how to choose valid
reasons
> for
> > > the vote they cast. Teach them what the real issues are, and what
> the
> > > ramifications of the choice they make will be.
>
> You want us to try to teach a pig to fly.
Oh, thanks. all us pigs really appreciate that.
> And you want us to keep on trying to "Teach them what the real issues
> are".
No, I want someone to teach you how to read. I never said that
either. I said, teach them how to choose valid reasons for their
choices, not teach what to vote for.
Good thing nobody takes you seriously. Except for me, you can't even
find anybody who takes you seriously enough to make a point by point
response.
And you never address the issue below.
> Teach those who don't
> > > vote, and there are thousands of them, including men, that not
> voting
> > > is as bad as voting badly, because you are voting against that
which
> > > you should support.
> > > When you start limiting the rights of one segment of the
population,
> > > you eventually limit rights for others, how can you not see this?
> > > Grow up. Search out the real causes for the problems we have.
> > > Not only are you proving that you're a crackpot, but by denying
real
> > > solutions, you are adding to the problems we have now. We don't
> have
> > > only them to deal with anymore, we have to fight with you, too.
> > >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
K.
....we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of smart.....
ad...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
<amonst other things "fathersmanifesto" wrote>
> The Japanese, whose women don't vote independently of men
I would love to see your justification for this silly claim.
tim gueguen 101867
fathersm...@usa.net
Unfortunately, Deb, you just demonstrated one of the major failings of
children who grow up in SMHs--poor educations.
What you demonstrated is that you don't understand the relatively
simple concept of "average". The quoted studies refer to
the "average", and one or a thousand or even a million (depending on
the sample size) exceptions like you wouldn't even begin to distort the
average at all.
The studies don't say ALL children go to prison. They just say that
children from SMHs are 8 times more likely than children from families
to go to prison.
By some accounts, children of SMHs are 80% of the prison population
even though at the time these inmates were growing up only 20% of all
households were SMHs. Conversely, children from single-father
households are only 1/2% of prison inmates, even though when they grew
up single-father households were 2% of the population. This means that
children of SMHs are over-represented by four fold, children of SFHs
are under-represented by four fold, and children from SMHs are 16 times
more likely than children from SFHs to go to prison.
Again, that does not affect EVERY child from an SMH. MOST children of
SMHs are not in prison, so there are plenty of children of SMHs who
aren't affected by this particular factor. It is just that this over-
representation in prisons is part of the reason we now have a third of
the men in the world who are behind bars, even though the US is only
4.5% of the world's population. In other words, American men are over-
represented in prisons by more than 7 times, mostly if not solely
because of SMHs.
If the entire US population were equally likely to be in prison as
children of SFHs, rather than 2 million men in prison right now, there
would be only 125,000, which is 1,875,000 fewer, which is an
incarceration rate similar to the rest of the world. Thanks primarily
to prohibitions against SMHs, Japan, Italy, Greece, and Spain have
incarceration rates in the range of the rate of our SFH rate.
That's not to say that TV is not a factor. Don't forget, though, that
children of SMHs also watch much more TV than children in families,
which suggests that SMHs rather than TV are the underlying factor.
John Knight
fathersm...@usa.net
Obviously you didn't read, or didn't understand, or didn't even bother
to see, John Lott's study. Tell us which part of that didn't answer
this question. Should we paste the whole study here?
>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The quality of TV programming in the US is the problem.
> > Japanese,
> > > >> > > Korean, English TV programming is educational, and it is
> > intended
> > > > to
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > educational. Ours is almost pure garbage now. There is
> > no "Dr.
> > > >> > > Science" any more, like there still is in the rest of the
> > world.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Oh? We have whole channels devoted to science and education
> now,
> > > > they
> > > >> > even promote educational programming to supplement teaching
in
> > > >> schools.
> > > >> > maybe there is no Dr. Science anymore, because we do it
better
> > now.
> > > >>
> > > >> Having seen both, I can assure you that we do NOT "do it better
> > now".
>
> Unless you prove with unbiased evidence, any of your contentions, you
> can't prove anything.
Isn't the 98 point drop in SAT scores unbiased enough for you? Thanks
to "liberal/feminist/jews", none of these educational schemes have
improved anything. Are you suggesting that, had it not been for
our "educational" TV that SAT scores would have gone down 120 points
instead?
John Knight
fathersm...@usa.net
kav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8nf4ku$ttr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> > In article <8nat90$dt3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > abcd...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <8na2kv$r5d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > Netscape Capitan <daria...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Should Women Have the Right to Vote?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we value democracy, then yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we have both masculism, and democracy? I guess not.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the immortal words of a Toronto radio ad, "Shut up, fool!"
> > > >
> > > > My concerns sound strange indeed, but does the thread not
> > prove,
> > > > that democracy can not coexist with antifeminism?
> > > >
--
> --
> > --
> > >
> > > Yes, Women have the same right of man to vote!!!
> > >
> > > Do you have mother and sisters??? Why should we treat with them?
> > >
> >
> > It's not clear what you mean by "treat with them", but assuming you
> > meant "mistreat them", there isn't a shred of evidence that the 19th
> > Amendment improved the lives of women one bit.
> >
> > Certainly you don't considern the fifty fold increase in the divorce
> > rate as a benefit to women, do you? Or the almost complete collapse
> in
> > that thing that used to be called "Personal Savings"? Or the fact
> that
> > third of the men in the world who are behind bars, even though the
US
>
> Well, maybe these men should stop committing crimes! duh.
> >
> > The best way to stop mistreating women would be to reverse this
trend,
> > and it seems that the only way to do that is to repeal the 19th.
>
> No, the only way to stop this trend is to teach personal
> responsibility, and stop blaming other people, things, or ideologies
> for your own actions.
> Or maybe you prefer to blame your mommy?
> --
> K.
It is women voters who blame others for the social pathology we are
currently facing. Unfortunately, they blame everybody but the SMHs
which are mainly responsible. They blame school boys, unrelated men,
lack of money, violent men, fathers, schools, politicians, police,
firemen, the military--everybody but the SMHs which are the root cause
of the problem.
Men who are the majority voters in other countries don't do that
because they understand the problem with SMHs and don't let them get
out of hand.
You can't teach personal responsibility to moral minors who think
everybody on the planet is the problem but themselves.
fathersm...@usa.net
kav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8nka75$s3h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> > In article <Uhcn5.31241$NH2.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> > "Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > John. You've certainly made some interesting points, as well as
Kav.
> > Dr. Lott's simple study, all by itself, explains it all. You are
> > evidently incapable of comprehending that this study does exist,
that
> > people HAVE studied this no matter how "foolish" you think it is.
>
> Dr. Lott's study is simple alright. Simple in the matter of not smart
> and not proving anything.
Meaning that you couldn't understand it.
If you understood it, you wouldn't be making the same silly failed
feminist arguments which feminists have been making for the last 3
decades.
PROVE that you even read it. Dispute just ONE of the many excellent
points he made in this study. PROVE that you even know how to read,
rather than just dismissing it as "not proving anything".
He proved many things, but you just can't comprehend it, can you?
John Knight
fathersm...@usa.net
Your standard for "success" is about as low as a standard can go. You
have no objective way to measure their "success", do you? Therefore,
your standard is nothing but your "opinion", which is meaningless.
It is also your "opinion" that Dr. John Lott's study is "simple", that
women file for 85% of divorces because "they want to", that the 2,000
studies which demonstrate that children from SMHs are at a severe
disadvantage, financially, educationally, emotionally, spiritually,
morally, and intellectually are meaningless, that the FM site
is "biased", that half the things you read on this forum
are "misogyny", etc.
Why do you continue to ignore the data which has been presented here--
the data which shows that family incomes in the US are down by two
thirds, that "Personal Savings" are NEGATIVE, that SAT scores are down
98 points, that government now spends 42 cents of each wage dollar, up
from 2 cents before the 19th, that the murder rate almost tripled, that
the number of men behind bars increased ten fold, etc.? Is it because
your friends and neighbors either don't know this, don't tell you this,
or can't tell you in objective terms that their financial and social
condition is much worse than their parents' or grandparents' was?
fathersm...@usa.net
kav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8nka75$s3h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> > In article <Uhcn5.31241$NH2.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> > "Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > John. You've certainly made some interesting points, as well as
How many do you need? The data at http://fathersmanifesto.org/sfh.htm
is simple to understand and doesn't take much time to read.
If you want to read more in depth, read The Case For Father Custody,
which is incredibly well documented, at
http://fathers.ourfamily.com/cfc.htm
If you want to read just the references, you can see just the Annex at
http://fathersmanifesto.org/annex.htm
Here is an excerpt:
Ramsey Clark, Crime in America (New York: Pocket Books, 1970), p.
39: "In federal youth centers nearly all prisoners were convicted of
crimes that occurred after the offender dropped out of high school.
Three-fourths came from broken homes."
Ibid. p. 123: "Seventy-five per cent of all federal juvenile offenders
come from broken homes."
Margaret Wynn, Fatherless Families: A Study of Families Deprived of a
Father by Death, Divorce, Separation or Desertion Before or After
Marriage (New York: London and Maxwell, 1964), p. 147: "The loss of a
father increases the risk that a child, and particularly a boy, will
become a delinquent by a factor of approximately two."
Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: W. W. Norton, 1963), p.
196: "A famous study in Chicago which had seemed to show more mothers
of delinquents were working outside the home, turned out to show only
that more delinquents come from broken homes."
Education Reporter, December, l986: "A study by Stanford University's
Center for the Study of Youth Development in l985 indicated that
children in single-parent families headed by a mother have higher
arrest rates, more disciplinary problems in school, and a greater
tendency to smoke and run away from home than do their peers who live
with both natural parents--no matter what their income, race, or
ethnicity."
Starke Hathaway and Elio Monachesi, Adolescent Personality and Behavior
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1963), p. 81: "Broken
homes do relate to the frequency of delinquency. Further, if a home is
broken, a child living with the mother is more likely to be delinquent
than one for whom other arrangements are made. In the case of girls,
even living with neither parent is less related to higher delinquency
than is living with the mother."
Henry B. Biller, Father, Child and Sex Role (Lexington, Massachusetts:
D. C. Heath and Company, 1971), p. 49: "It is interesting to note that
the Gluecks found that both father-absence and mesomorphic physiques
were more frequent among delinquents than among nondelinquents [Glueck.
S. and Glueck, E., Unravelling Juvenile Delinquency. New York:
Commonwealth Fund, l950; Physique and Delinquency, New York: Harper and
Row, l956].
Dewey G. Cornell, et al., "Characteristics of Adolescents Charged With
Homicide: Review of 72 Cases," Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, No.
1 [l987], 11-23; epitomized in The Family in America: New Research,
March, l988: "In a new study of 72 adolescent murderers and 35
adolescent thieves, researchers from Michigan State University
demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of teenage criminals live
with only one parent. Fully 75 percent of those charged with homicide
had parents who were either divorced or had never been married at all;
that number rises to 82 percent of those charged with nonviolent
larceny offenses."
Los Angeles Times, l9 September, l988: "In a grim portrait of youthful
offenders, a federal study released Sunday indicated that nearly 39% of
the l8,226 juveniles in long-term youth correctional institutions were
jailed for violent crimes, and that nearly three out of five used drugs
regularly....[According to Steven R. Schlesinger, director of the
Bureau of Justice Statistics] 'Almost 43% of the juveniles had been
arrested more than five times.'...Researchers found that many of the
young adult offenders had criminal histories that were just as
extensive as those of adults in state prisons. For example, more than
half of the young adults surveyed--as well as a comparable sample of
state prisoners--were found to be incarcerated for violent
offenses....The report also painted a picture of broken homes and poor
education: Nearly 72% of the juveniles interviewed said that they had
not grown up with both parents, and more than half said that one of
their family members had been imprisoned at least once."
Richard M. Smith and James Walters, "Delinquent and Non-Delinquent
Males' Perceptions of Their Fathers." Adolescence, 13, 1978, 21-
28: "The factors which do distinguish between delinquents and non-
delinquents indicate that delinquency is associated with: (a) lack of a
warm, loving, supportive relationship with the father; (b) minimal
paternal involvement with children; (c) high maternal involvement in
the lives of youth; and (d) broken homes. The factors which may serve
to insulate youth from delinquency are: (a) a stable, unbroken home,
characterized by loving, supportive, parent-child relationships; (b) a
father who has a high degree of positive involvement with his son; and
(c) a father who provides a stable model for emulation by his male
offspring. The evidence reported herein supports that of earlier
investigations that fathers appear to be significant contributors to
the development of offspring who are capable of adapting and adjusting
to society, and that fathers who are involved with their offspring in a
warm, friendly, cordial relationship are important in the child's life
for the prevention of delinquent behavior."
Los Angeles Times, 3 November, 1985 [Ronald Ward, 15, murderer of two
elderly women and a 12 year old child. According to Joseph B. Brown,
Jr., Ward's attorney]: "'The hardest thing in this case was that my
client's a child and really had no controlling parents. The grandmother
who raised him is senile, bless her soul. People oppose abortion and
sex education, make no provision to deal with the resulting parentless
children, then when these children go ahead and do what can be
expected, people want to kill them.'...David Burnett, the circuit judge
who presided at the trial, said: 'The tragedy in the Ronald Ward story
is he's a victim of a society that allowed him to live in a situation
where he had no guidance or control....
fathersm...@usa.net
kav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8nka75$s3h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> > In article <Uhcn5.31241$NH2.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> > "Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > The problem is not single parenthood. The problem is single-
> motherhood.
> >
> > And, yes, children who live with single mothers are more likely ALSO
> to
> > live in poverty, because women just don't earn as much as men.
>
> And why not? Especially when you have women doing the same job,
working
> the same hours, and having the same seniority. Why don't they?
>
It's truly an insult to men that you "think" that women do the "same
job" as men. They don't, they can't, and they never will.
For one thing, a statistical zero percent of American 12th grade girls
were able to resolve some simple math and physics problems which up to
80% of the 12th grade girls in Switzerland WERE able to answer.
This serious and credible study by itself demonstrates what women are
patently incompetent to be in many industries as anything but
secretaries, and even that is now questionable. With the PC and word
processing, men can do most of these functions on their own without
having to put up with secretaries who won't even make the coffee.
Of course not all American 12th grade boys resolved these problems
either, but then not all men are competent to hold every position in
the country either. Maybe half of men have this level of problem
solving ability, but NONE of women do.
Thankfully, affirmative action is DEAD, illegal, and unconstitutional,
which means that companies no longer have to hire incompetent women
who, when they fail, sue their own employers for "sexual harassment"
and "sexual discrimination". The high cost of litigation from hiring
women employees alone makes women undesirable employees. The courts
have already held that it is justifiable not to hire employees who
represent such a high risk of litigating.
In other words, even if a woman WERE able to do the "same job" as a man
[a statistical impossibility], companies can now refuse to hire them
just because of their poor track record with litigation.
John Knight
Deborah Terreson
----------
Did you read the essay I asked you to?
>
Deb.
Deborah Terreson
----------
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! :)
>
Deb.
Jen Larson
John Knight. What a _loser_. I can't believe anyone would even
talk to you. You are a sickness of the most vile and disgusting
kind.
Rebbletoon
rated "Crankiest".
Oh, BTW, check out my site:
http://www.remove_voting_rights_for_everyone_except_for_physicists_mathema
ticians_mensamembers_and_logicians.com
Jen
><amonst other things "fathersmanifesto" wrote>
>
>> The Japanese, whose women don't vote independently of men
>
>I would love to see your justification for this silly claim.
So you're saying, when women write in Japanese (since last time I checked
Japanese was not a country), they somehow can't spell so they don't vote??
And what does "indpendently of men" mean?
jenr...@whale-mail.com
women's studies 101 site for girls and women of all ages and backgrounds:
http://womensstudies.homestead.com
click once a day and you can help starving people:
http://www.thehungersite.com
fathersm...@usa.net
It's been a long time since this government didn't spend more than
Americans make, so it's not easy to remember that we DID have Personal
Savings up until just recently, 1970, just 3 decades ago. In fact, we
had the equivalent of $12 trillion in the bank and relatively little
debt. So we can't say that, given the opportunity to save and the
education to understand why saving is important, that Personal Savings
can't be restored.
Of course it can't happen as long as government costs 42 cents of each
wage dollar, because there is nothing left over to save after all the
taxes and expenses and interest on the debt are paid.
John Knight
Deborah Terreson
----------
I seem to remember that was about when MasterCharge, Bank AmeriCard and
American Express really started to advertise and push their product on
consumers. It got worse, I recall, after the end of the Vietnam war, when
all the soldiers came home.
> In fact, we
> had the equivalent of $12 trillion in the bank and relatively little
> debt. So we can't say that, given the opportunity to save and the
> education to understand why saving is important, that Personal Savings
> can't be restored.
I'd be the last person to state such a thing myself, but let me reiterate
there needs to be a MAJOR shift in how Americans consume goods and services,
as it doesn't matter HOW much money is made, the social thrust right now is
on spending it.
>
> Of course it can't happen as long as government costs 42 cents of each
> wage dollar, because there is nothing left over to save after all the
> taxes and expenses and interest on the debt are paid.
It's all about choices, John. Look at the tax bracket most Americans CHOOSE
to put themselves into. Do you want to be middle-class and have the house
with three car garage and the summer-camp in Vermont? Guess what? Most
people do and they've bought into the lie that more is better and so the
government doesn't have to control itself. Didn't Reagan propose to grow the
economy and thus we would grow ourselves out of debt? Seems to me the
increased income became an excuse for increased consumption for goods, hell
better get it now, you don't know when this feeding trough will be so full
again!
Anecdotally, I have a best friend that was recently out of work due to the
Verizon strike. After ten working days he quite literally was beginning to
panic. He makes more in one year than both my husband and I do combined in
two and he was broke. He's got thousands in credit card debt. He has a new
Pontiac and his wife has a beautiful van with a leather interior but they've
got no savings. How is that the government's fault?
>
Deb.
fathersm...@usa.net
jdai...@aol.comnojunk (Jen) wrote:
> >In article <8nk2he$irt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ><amonst other things "fathersmanifesto" wrote>
> >
> >> The Japanese, whose women don't vote independently of men
> >
> >I would love to see your justification for this silly claim.
>
> So you're saying, when women write in Japanese (since last time I
checked
> Japanese was not a country), they somehow can't spell so they don't
vote??
>
> And what does "indpendently of men" mean?
> jenr...@whale-mail.com
The reference wasn't to a country. It was to the Japanese, whose women
don't vote independently of men.
Who said anything about them not being able to spell. Japanese women
score higher than American men in all the international tests I've ever
seen, so they can probably spell better than American men.
The point is that Japanese families vote as a unit, and the father
determines how that family votes--kinda like it was in the US before
the 19th Amendment was passed.
fathersm...@usa.net
We aren't the only consumers in the world. We represent less than a
third of Japan's exports, which means that the majority of those who
consume Japanese products aren't Americans. Also, Japanese households
now spend more in absolute dollars than American households do for
consumer products.
The difference here, the reason that the Japanese family can save 33
cents of each "dollar" [read: yen] they earn, whereas we have a
*negative* savings rate, is government spending. Japan's government
takes only 22 cents of each dollar, whereas our government "officially"
takes 42 cents. That's 20 cents right off the bat which the Japanese
can save, but which American families are prevented from saving because
government takes it first.
Our official gross savings rate is 15%, compared to Japan's at 33%.
But our debts are now so huge that 100% of that "savings" [plus some]
is used just to pay the interest on the debts. Japan's debts are
almost zero, so almost all of the 33% gross savings goes into Personal
Savings (less a little that goes into Government Savings--a completely
foreign term to the US Congress).
If we didn't spend 15 cents of each wage dollar for interest payments
on the debts, and if we spent 22 cents rather than 42 cents for
government, with the same "high" level of consumer spending, we would
technically be able to save 35 cents of each wage dollar.
With government spending and interest payments on debts so high, it's
technically impossible to have any Personal Savings at all. It's
impossible (practically) to reduce consumer spending enough to increase
Personal Savings by any significant amount. The only way to make it
technically possible for Americans to save is to reduce government
spending and all debts (and most of the debts are government debts
which were caused by this out of control government spending).
It's possible that you are correct that Americans would also increase
consumer spending. But it's also possible (and more likely) that we
would return to a financial profile similar to 1900--when we had a
higher Personal Savings rate than the Japanese--prior to the 19th
Amendment );
John Knight
ps--the credit card explosion at the end of the Vietnam War was caused
by Americans not having enough income left over after paying 42 cents
of each dollar for government, to even pay their bills. This isn't a
personal phenomena--this is a national crisis. Why Congress let this
happen, why they became the biggest deadbeats in the land (giving us a
Public Debt which amounts to $57 billion per Senator, or $11 billion
per Congressman) is anyone's guess. But there are plenty of theories
to go around.
fathersm...@usa.net
stra...@udel.edu wrote:
> talk to you. You are a sickness of the most vile and disgusting
> kind.
>
Did you have a close encounter with the truth, Jen? Does the truth
hurt that much? Was this your first brush with these verifiable
FACTS? Does it really hurt so much to finally realize that the
Japanese KICKED YOUR BUTT, and to confront the truth that you blind
dumb feminists don't have a CLUE!?
It's so nice to envision the big purple blood veins pounding on your
forehead, knowing that such a statement is proof that you have NO
argument left.
fathersm...@usa.net
100% agreed.
Plus, women shouldn't be allowed to own property, just as they weren't
before we created these monstrous debts which not even our great great
grandchildren will ever be able to pay off.
John Knight
In article <3995c...@anonymous.newsfeeds.com>,
Anonymous <nob...@newsfeeds.com> wrote:
> Only property owners should have the right to vote. If you don't have
a
> stake in what's happening you shouldn't be able to sway things your
way!
> Democratic republic was only good until people started voting
themselves
> money from the treasury!
>
> "OperationUSA.com" <napo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8n4bq7$te4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > > >
> > > > REPEAL THE NINETEENTH AMENDMENT...BEFORE THEY
> > > > TAKE OUR BEER!
> > > >
> >
> > > Oh, damn... did I miss Pat Buchanan's Reform Party acceptance
speech?
> > > Thanks for posting it here!
> > >
> >
> > Yea, considering that he nominated (gasp!) a woman as his vp, I'm
sure
> > the feminist Buchanan would just love to see the 19th amendment
> > repealed.
> >
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > Napoleon the Great
> > Editor of http://OperationUSA.com
> > ---
> > "Were our State a pure democracy . . . there would yet be
> > excluded from their deliberations . . . women, who, to prevent
> > depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, should not mix
> > promiscuously in the public meetings of men." - Thomas Jefferson,
U.S.
> > founding father, author of the Declaration of Independence, and
> > militant liberal
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> --------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
> Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
> -----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
fathersm...@usa.net
kav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8nf4ku$ttr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> > In article <8nat90$dt3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > abcd...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <8na2kv$r5d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > Netscape Capitan <daria...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Should Women Have the Right to Vote?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we value democracy, then yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we have both masculism, and democracy? I guess not.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the immortal words of a Toronto radio ad, "Shut up, fool!"
> > > >
> > > > My concerns sound strange indeed, but does the thread not
> > prove,
> > > > that democracy can not coexist with antifeminism?
> > > >
--
> --
> > --
> > >
> > > Yes, Women have the same right of man to vote!!!
> > >
> > > Do you have mother and sisters??? Why should we treat with them?
> > >
> >
> > It's not clear what you mean by "treat with them", but assuming you
> > meant "mistreat them", there isn't a shred of evidence that the 19th
> > Amendment improved the lives of women one bit.
> >
> > Certainly you don't considern the fifty fold increase in the divorce
> > rate as a benefit to women, do you? Or the almost complete collapse
> in
> > that thing that used to be called "Personal Savings"? Or the fact
> that
> > third of the men in the world who are behind bars, even though the
US
>
> Well, maybe these men should stop committing crimes! duh.
> >
> > The best way to stop mistreating women would be to reverse this
trend,
> > and it seems that the only way to do that is to repeal the 19th.
>
> No, the only way to stop this trend is to teach personal
> responsibility, and stop blaming other people, things, or ideologies
> for your own actions.
> Or maybe you prefer to blame your mommy?
> --
> K.
It's abundantly clear from all of your posts that women can do no
wrong. But since women demanded, and GOT, the vote, and since they now
constitute 11% more of the vote than men, it IS time to hold women
accountable.
WHAT did the female vote do for women, or for the country, or for the
family? If it just did nothing, we would be a thousand years ahead of
where we are.
Every single miserable failed totalitarian law in this land, including
the 22,000 worthless and unconstitutional "gun control" laws, has been
a collossal failure.
You CANNOT blame this on men because the majority of men want the
Second Amendment AS IS. If only men voted there wouldn't be a
single "gun control" law.
THIS IS THE FAULT OF THE AMERICAN WOMAN VOTER, PERIOD. Not men
politicians, not even women politicians, not gun manufacturers, not
presidents or governors or cops--ONLY WOMEN VOTERS are to blame.
Of course you don't want to "stop blaming other people"--because the
fault is WOMEN. Your posts have made it abuntantly clear that if it
was the fault of men, you would be swinging from the rafters BLAMING
men.
The other shoe hasn't even dropped on you feminists yet. Wait until
you see what happens next.
John Knight
fathersm...@usa.net
angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com (Angilion) wrote:
> On 13 Aug 2000 03:12:59 GMT, kav...@aol.comQQQQQQQQ (Kavking) wrote:
>
> >>napo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >>The Nineteenth Amendment, with the help of other feminist
> >>legislation, is directly and solely responsible for: 29 major
> >>federal social experiments which have proven to be abject
> >>failures; wasting more money on welfare than the total stock
> >>value of each Fortune 500 Corporation and each acre of US farm
> >>land combined at the same time the poverty rate in the US
> >>increased from 11.6% to 15.4%; implementing failed
> >>experiments with women in the military and in once fine military
> >>academies.
> >
> >Which legislation?
> >Prove it.
>
> Indeed, "directly and solely responsible"? I don't think so.
>
> >>Also, since the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, the number
> >>of divorces in the US increased seven (7) fold, from 171,000 to
> >>1,200,000 per year, while the population increased only 2.5 fold.
> >
> >So? Prove the correlation.
>
> The correlation is there, given the dates they are using. It's the
> causation that they need to prove.
>
> Also, has there been a steady increase in the divorce rate since the
> 19th Amendment was ratified? In fact, if that was the cause of the
> increase, you would expect a dramatic rise in the divorce rate
> within a short period of time after the amendment. I don't think that
> was the case. Didn't the bulk of the increase happen *much* later?
What
> was the divorce rate in 1930? 1950? 1970? 1990?
>
> I doubt if there is even a correlation without carefully selecting
which
> years to look at in order to create an apparent correlation.
>
> I suspect there's a stronger correlation between the number of
> televisons and the number of divorces.
>
> >>Additionally, the Nineteenth Amendment helped to undermine
> >>family stability; it placed 40% of our nation's children in
> >>fatherless households; removed the majority vote from men who
> >>pay the majority of taxes; and caused national issues of serious
> >>concern to be decided by female emotionalism and
> >>compassion.
> >
> >Men have no compassion?
> >Women didn't remove the majority vote from men--men did. When men
don't vote,
> >and they don't vote a lot (and frankly, neither do women), they
leave the
> >decision making to anybody who does. If individual men really
thought that
> >individual women were a threat with their vote, then these men would
get off
> >their butts and vote.
>
> Which goes to show that the number of men who think that way is
> negligable.
>
> Apathy wins mosts elections by a landslide, probably because most
people
> think (with good reason) that it doesn't matter much which party wins
> because the end result will be much the same.
>
> "Don't bother voting, the government always wins" as one piece of
> graffitti put it.
THE BIBLE AND THE FEMINIST
Since a Christian must look in the Bible to find what Christ taught,
one, to be intellectually consistent and honest must accept the Bible
as accurate in order to be a Christian. If the Bible is not accurate,
and just a book written by a bunch of men who made it up to satisfy
themselves, then Christianity is a fraud and you must reject it. There
is no other honest alternative.
With that as our starting point, let us see what the Bible says about
women, men and the church. We start with instructions written to the
church in Corinth, and what the role of women was to be in church
services:
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as
also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask
their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the
church. 1 Corinthians 14:34,35.
Here we see that men were to be the only instructors in church, and
that even if a woman had a question about what was discussed, she was
to hold her question until she got home and get the answer from her
husband. Her role in church was to be one of sitting quietly during the
service. Does this sound like there is room for women pastors, teachers
or deacons?
Continuing on in the instructions to the Corinthian church, we see that
the Bible states that men and women have different roles and status in
relationship to the church and even the “chain of command” leading to
God:
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and
the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1
Corinthians 11:3
Here is clearly stated the chain of status all the way to God. God is
the head of Christ. Christ is the head of the man and the man is the
head of the woman. Herein is the explanation of why women do not have a
role teaching in church. The body does not teach the head. The subject
does not lecture the king.
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the
image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For the man
is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man
created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 1 Corinthians 11:7-9
These statements strike right at the heart of feminist thought. Man is
the glory of God, as the woman is the glory of man. The chain of status
or command is consistent. Where is there room for a female pastor, when
the woman is in subjection to the man and is to keep silent in church?
It goes on to say that woman was specifically made for man. Man was not
made for woman. Since this hearkens back to the very beginning, there
is no room for change, modern thinking or enlightenment to modify it.
Eve transgressed, and women are in subjection to their husbands. The
Bible commands it, unequivocally. In Colossians it continues the same
theme:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the
Lord. Colossians 3:18
This is not a union of two equals. Men are not the same as women, nor
do they have the same role as women. Women are to submit themselves to
their husbands in the same manner as men are to submit to God. This
should give the “Christian Feminist” pause. There is no room here for
their philosophy.
Moving on to Titus we find additional instructions on the role of
women:
That they [aged women] may teach the young women to be sober, to love
their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers
at home, good obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be
not blasphemed. Titus 2:4,5
Note the last phrase. If a woman does not follow the role spelled out
here, she is blaspheming the word of God. Blasphemy! What is the role
for older women? To teach the younger women their proper role. What is
the role of the younger women? To keep house! To be obedient to their
own husbands and to be chaste. A female pastor is blaspheming as soon
as she takes the job! Any women who leaves her house-keeping,
homemaking role to go into the workplace, and fails to be with her
children and submit to her husband is committing blasphemy! According
to the Bible, feminism is blasphemy.
Once again the hierarchy, or chain of status and command is spelled out
in the letter to the church at Ephesus:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For
the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the
church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is
subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every
thing. Ephesians 5:22-24
Here once again women are told that they are subject to their husbands.
And it is compared to the status of the church to Christ. This is not
some minor difference that is subject to change with popularity of a
political movement. It is set in concrete and clear. In “everything”
woman are subject to their own husbands. There is no room for
interpretation here. There is no matter spoken to here that would be
subject to change with societal fluctuations. Modern thought cannot
alter the clear unchanging principles here. Modern woman and ancient
woman are locked together with Eve in a permanent relationship. As it
states in 1 Timothy:
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a
woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in
silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not
deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in
faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. 1 Timothy 2:11-15
There it is again. The reason that feminism is blasphemous, counter to
the Bible and therefore incompatible with Christianity, is because it
refuses to accept the biblical statement that Eve sinned and therefore
all women, for all time, are in subjection to their own husbands.
Whether it is the 190’s or the 1990’s makes absolutely no difference.
BC or AD are just the same on this issue. If you accept the Bible,
which you must to be an intellectually honest Christian, you must
reject feminism.
Peter sums it up rather nicely:
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted
in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own
husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose
daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any
amazement. 1 Peter 3:5, 6
Holy women, Christian women, did and will, subject themselves to their
own husbands, by definition. A feminist, by definition, will never do
that. A feminist can never qualify as a holy woman, a Christian in good
standing. By proudly rejecting that role, she just as surely rejects
Christianity, even if she won’t admit it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
http://fathersmanifesto.org/bible.htm
Bobbie Dean
wrote:
:THE BIBLE AND THE FEMINIST
:Since a Christian must look in the Bible to find what Christ taught,
:one, to be intellectually consistent and honest must accept the Bible
:as accurate in order to be a Christian. If the Bible is not accurate,
:and just a book written by a bunch of men who made it up to satisfy
:themselves, then Christianity is a fraud and you must reject it. There
:is no other honest alternative.
:
Ok - no problem. I agree with you there.
:With that as our starting point, let us see what the Bible says about
:women, men and the church. We start with instructions written to the
:church in Corinth, and what the role of women was to be in church
:services:
:
:Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
:unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as
:also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask
:their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the
:church. 1 Corinthians 14:34,35.
So - we already established that this was a bunch of men writting
things to satisfy themselves. Oh - you really believe this stuff?
the rest snipped - nausea would set in if someone had to read it again.
B
Remember - Usenet isn't like life - it is often worse! ;-)
OhSojourner
<snip argument over the right of women to vote in America>
>With that as our starting point, let us see what the Bible says about
>women, men and the church. We start with instructions written to the
>church in Corinth, and what the role of women was to be in church
>services:
Separation of church and state, John.
kav...@my-deja.com
If you were really looking to honesty, you would answer the points made
above.
What specific legislation has been proven to be voted "specifically and
solely by women?
If the 19th amendment was the cause of the rise in divorce, why didn't
we see it happen until well after the 19th amendment was passed?
If men are so threatened by the female vote, then why don't more of
them vote? It bears repeating that men removed themselves willingly as
having the majority vote by simply not voting. Neither men nor women
have a good track record at voting, or even registering to vote,
shouldn't your first concern be getting men to vote?
And you fail to understand that voting is a responsibility as well as a
civil right in our country. Once you start undermining civil rights in
this country for one group of people, it makes it much easier to keep
undermining civil rights for other groups of people in our country.
As to ending the right of women to vote in this country--bah! never
happen.
Oh, as to the Bible, which has no bearing on this issue at all--
intelligent people understand that the Bible was written millenia ago,
that whether John Knight believes it or not, the world certainly has
changed, and the Bible contains parables and scripture that was written
for a world that no longer exists. We can take comfort from the Bible,
and learn from the Bible, and remember that there is no commandment in
the Bible that says that humanity has to stagnate, and certainly no
commandment that says that we have to keep practises which are outdated
and show no respect for half the human race.
--
K.
....we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of smart.....
kav...@my-deja.com
rebbl...@aol.com (Rebbletoon) wrote:
> I see http://fathersmanifesto.org/19th.htm is up on
http://www.crank.net --
> rated "Crankiest".
And in two catagories!
Hate mongering and bizarre. I guess they really have John Knight
pegged, don't they?
>
--
K.
....we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of smart.....
kav...@my-deja.com
"Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
> ----------
> In article <8nvq6v$i1e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fathersm...@usa.net
wrote:
>
> > In article <Bwln5.31871$NH2.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> > "Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> In article <8nk2he$irt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fathersm...@usa.net
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <DjJm5.29733$NH2.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> >> > "Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snipping down for sanity's sake>
> >> >>
> > sense,
> >> > it is "greed" which fuels the free enterprise system which gave
us
> > the
> >> > once highest standard of living the world had ever known, in
1965.
> >> > That was good.
> >> >
> >> > It is "greed" also which fuels government expansion, which
increased
> >> > government spending from 2 cents to 42 cents of each wage dollar,
> > which
> >> > destroyed our standard of living and put us in 17th place in the
> > world
> >> > in GDP per capita, and dropping fast. This is bad.
> >> >
> >> > We couldn't have a successful economy without greed [read:
> > acquisitive
> >> > desire beyond reason] in the free enterprise system. Without
that,
> > our
> >> > economy doesn't exist.
> >> >
enterprise
> > and
> >> > corporations create wealth which enables families to
have "Personal
> >> > Savings". But we are unique in the world as being the only
> >> > industrialized nation with a *negative* "Personal Savings".
> >>
> >> Yeah, it's called 'credit shopping'. Americans also are the most
> >> plastic-money laden people in the world. Why save your income in a
> > bank,
> >> collecting interest when you can have (puerile) instant
gratification
> > and
> >> own that useless bangle or bauble with only the swipe of a card.
> > What's the
> >> average interest rate on a credit card? I honestly do not know. How
> > many are
> >> in the wallet of the average American? I'd sooner go without (I do)
> > than
> >> have one. Let me tell you what I think of the credit industry: Can
> > you say
> >> "Usurious Cocksuckers?"
Can anyone say "stock"
Can anyone say "401K"
Can anyone really deny that our middle class really does have money set
aside in savings, that more people have money invested in stock, in
cd's (the investment kind, too) in bonds and in retirement funds than
we have ever had before?
Sure we do have credit card debt, yep it's too easy to get credit card
debt, but we shouldn't forget the fact that more baby boomers now have
more investments and retirement funds than their parents ever had
before them. And their children are starting to follow in their
footsteps.
--
K.
....we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of smart.....
kav...@my-deja.com
fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> In article <20000822023614...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
> jdai...@aol.comnojunk (Jen) wrote:
> > ><amonst other things "fathersmanifesto" wrote>
> > >
> > >> The Japanese, whose women don't vote independently of men
> > >
> > >I would love to see your justification for this silly claim.
> >
> > So you're saying, when women write in Japanese (since last time I
> checked
> > Japanese was not a country), they somehow can't spell so they don't
> vote??
> >
> > And what does "indpendently of men" mean?
> > jenr...@whale-mail.com
>
women
> don't vote independently of men.
>
> Who said anything about them not being able to spell. Japanese women
> score higher than American men in all the international tests I've
ever
> seen, so they can probably spell better than American men.
>
> The point is that Japanese families vote as a unit, and the father
> determines how that family votes--kinda like it was in the US before
> the 19th Amendment was passed.
Kind like it never was in the US.
And to repeat--- "where is your justification for this claim?
>
> John Knight
kav...@my-deja.com
fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> In article <8nf8oa$2o6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> kav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > No, the only way to stop this trend is to teach personal
> > responsibility, and stop blaming other people, things, or ideologies
> > for your own actions.
> > Or maybe you prefer to blame your mommy?
> > --
> > K.
>
> It is women voters who blame others for the social pathology we are
> currently facing.
Isn't this the ultimate irony? In blaming women who vote for blaming
others for the problems we face, you are blaming women who vote for the
actions of others. I don't blame other people for the problems we face
with crime, I do something novel--I blame the criminals.
>Unfortunately, they blame everybody but the SMHs
> which are mainly responsible.
Nope. These women do not tell Joey to go commit a crime, Joey tells
Joey to commit a crime. You see, you miss the basic fact that even if
Joey has two parents at home, one of each gender, Joey still commits
crimes. Having one parent of the female gender at home does not
guarentee he will commit a crime, any more than having one parent of
each gender at home will prevent him from committing a crime. If Joey
commits a crime, it is Joey's fault, not Mommy's (or Daddy's) fault.
They blame school boys, unrelated men,
> lack of money, violent men, fathers, schools, politicians, police,
> firemen, the military--everybody but the SMHs which are the root cause
> of the problem.
Again, the root of the problem is not Mommy. When are you going to
start growing up, and stop blaming Mommy for your problems?
Even if you grow up with a mommy who is the worst mommy, the fact of
the matter is that everyone knows right from wrong, and when you commit
a crime it is totally and completely your decision, and your fault.
Not your mommy's, not your daddy's, not your government's, not your
poverty, not your policemen, who by your strange standards must all
come from single mommy homes too, or the military's, but your own
fault.
Only yours.
>
> Men who are the majority voters in other countries don't do that
> because they understand the problem with SMHs and don't let them get
> out of hand.
Men are the people who are blaming mommy. Do you consider yourself a
man? Exactly who are you blaming here for society's ills?
And again you fail to address the issue of men not voting even though
they are eligble to vote.
> You can't teach personal responsibility to moral minors who think
> everybody on the planet is the problem but themselves.
Take your own advice. Oh, sorry, I guess you can't, being that you are
the moral minor who blames every single mommy on the planet.
Too bad.
You need it more than anybody else I've ever met.
Blaming mommy. Grow up.
--
K.
....we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of smart.....
kav...@my-deja.com
> >
> > No, the only way to stop this trend is to teach personal
> > responsibility, and stop blaming other people, things, or ideologies
> > for your own actions.
> > Or maybe you prefer to blame your mommy?
> > --
> > K.
>
> wrong.
The only thing abundantly clear here is the depth of your delusion. I
have never said that women can do no wrong. I have only said that
criminals choose to be criminals, and that blaming mommy for their
actions is wrong.
I have said that when men won't vote, the answer is not taking the vote
away from anybody who takes their responsibility seriously enough to
vote. I have said that denying civil rights to anyone undermines the
civil rights of every one.
All this is true.
But since women demanded, and GOT, the vote, and since they now
> constitute 11% more of the vote than men, it IS time to hold women
> accountable.
Only when 11% more of women do vote. Can't you read? Women,
unfortunately, aren't any better at voting than men are.
>
> WHAT did the female vote do for women, or for the country, or for the
> family? If it just did nothing, we would be a thousand years ahead of
> where we are.
Oh, bullshit. I asked you first, several times, what specific
legislation was passed solely by the female vote. I'm still waiting
for an answer to that one.
>
> Every single miserable failed totalitarian law in this land, including
> the 22,000 worthless and unconstitutional "gun control" laws, has been
> a collossal failure.
Then prove that women were responsible for passing the legislation.
With real, unbiased cites.
>
> You CANNOT blame this on men because the majority of men want the
> Second Amendment AS IS. If only men voted there wouldn't be a
> single "gun control" law.
You don't know this either. I have met and talked with men. Obviously
you have not. Not all men are against gun control. Not all women are
for it.
I have two guns of my own, a model 66 smith, and a nifty little 380,
that packs a punch for a small automatic.
>
> THIS IS THE FAULT OF THE AMERICAN WOMAN VOTER, PERIOD.
PROVE IT.
Not men
> politicians, not even women politicians, not gun manufacturers, not
> presidents or governors or cops--ONLY WOMEN VOTERS are to blame.
PROVE IT.
>
> Of course you don't want to "stop blaming other people"--because the
> fault is WOMEN. Your posts have made it abuntantly clear that if it
> was the fault of men, you would be swinging from the rafters BLAMING
> men.
I don't blame men as a gender, because that would be stupid. I blame
individuals, because only individuals are responsible for their
actions. Can't you read?
Is that why you blame women as a gender--because you are stupid?
>
> The other shoe hasn't even dropped on you feminists yet. Wait until
> you see what happens next.
Yeah, right.
LOL
>
> John Knight
Deborah Terreson
----------
Yeah, but it is interest income, not earned by anything other than the
strength of the market. What happens in twenty years or so when the profit
taking begins, as the boomers move into retirement?
> Sure we do have credit card debt, yep it's too easy to get credit card
> debt, but we shouldn't forget the fact that more baby boomers now have
> more investments and retirement funds than their parents ever had
> before them. And their children are starting to follow in their
> footsteps.
*LOL* Hey, they can use the 401's to pay off their credit cards! <g>
Deb.
kav...@my-deja.com
fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> > > Professor John Lott proves this statistically with an excellent
> > > analysis:
> > > http://members.xoom.com/fmanifesto/lottonsuffrage.pdf
> >
> > Your link leads to a blank page. I'm certainly not surprised.
> > Once again, indisputable?
> > Also, where is real proof?
>
> It's a pdf file so it might take a while to download. It looks like a
> blank page until Adobe opens up. If you can't access it, let me know
> and I will email you the file.
>
> That said, it does require some meager math skills which you have
> proven time and time again that you don't have. So when you get it,
> print it out, show it to someone you know who can read such reports,
> and get them to explain it to you. It is undisputable. This IS the
> real proof.
Your pfd file is not conclusive. Even Prof. Lott states that all he
does is record trends and conclusions, that due to the secret ballot
there is not way to prove conclusively what women and men are voting
for.
You still have not told me specifically what legislation that women are
solely repsonsible for voting into law.
>
> > >
> > > Rampant government spending demanded by female voters is what led
to
> > > the totalitarian government programs which destroyed our original
> free
> > > enterprise system.
> >
> > Oh, bullshit. Voting is one small part of a large economic picture.
> > Factors like fuel, like world trade, like unions and wages, like
> > accident costs, like permit costs, and rising costs of raw materials
> > have more effect on free enterprise than the female vote.
>
> The major factor in the increased costs of EACH of those items you
> detail is the increase in taxes.
No, there is no major increase in taxes on union dues. There is no
major increase in taxes on accident costs. There are no major increases
in taxes on raw materials, and you have yet to prove that only the
female vote is responsible for the rise in taxes. No men have ever
voted for an increase in any taxes in the 20th century?
>
> > >
> > > In other words, while we blame politicians for all of these
> > > totalitarian and unconstitutional laws, it is female voters (who
are
> > > 11% more of the voters than men) who are demanding
these "government
> > > services".
> >
> > In other words, you don't know what you are talking about. Once
> again,
> > a large percentage of the eligible population in the United States
> does
> > not vote. This is the only Indisputable fact in this whole post.
If
> > men were really concerned that the female vote was damaging, you bet
> > there would be more of them voting.
>
> This is a completely nonsensical statement. It is a fact of life that
> women can always outnumber men at the polls, if for no other reason
> than there are 8% more women than men of voting age.
Oh, even you can't be this obtuse. It is not a fact of life that women
outnumber men at the polls simply because there are more women than
men. It is a fact of life that only those adults who have registered
to vote can vote. You don't just walk in the door and vote. It IS a
fact of life that neither men nor women register or vote in the numbers
that the population suggests that they should be voting in, simply
because both men and women are too apathetic to vote.
You're arguement is silly at best.
No country has
> ever achieved a 100% voting record, so your suggestion that a higher
> percentage of men than women could vote is a red herring--it has never
> worked that way because it can't.
Sure it can. All you have to do is motivate men in greater numbers to
vote. Motivate men, and leave women to be apathetic, and you have more
men voting than women.
Helloooo!
>
> Should we sue women voters for "discrimination" against women?
> American women voters have been the majority voter for 3-4 decades
now,
PROVE IT. Show me the numbers of voters, from a voter registration
this time, that show that women vote more than men do.
> which means that, if they REALLY trusted women, they could have
> installed 100% women politicians by now. Why are less than 10% of
> elective offices held by women? Why is such a high percentage of the
> few women who have been elected quietly removed from office and
> replaced by men--BY WOMEN VOTERS?
By voters. Period. You don't know any more than anybody else, what
people are voting for in a secret ballot. Which is exactly the way it
should be.
kav...@my-deja.com
> kav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8nemga$cin$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> > This is a completely nonsensical statement. It is a fact of life
that
> women can always outnumber men at the polls, if for no other reason
> ever achieved a 100% voting record, so your suggestion that a higher
> percentage of men than women could vote is a red herring--it has never
> worked that way because it can't.
I went and did your homework for you. Try this:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm
Once again, of course it can. Check the statistic for 1996, only 49%
of the eligible poplutation voted. If we have a popluation of 100, (to
use math that even you can understand) and 60 of those people are
women, why, that means 40 of those people are men.
We have 49 people who actually voted, but we have no idea if 20 of
those voting people were women, and 29 were men, but this certainly is
a resonable possibility. If this is true, then your statement above,
(that just because we have more women means we have more women voters)
must be false. Do you finally get it?
Check out the statistics--they are dismal for the voting population of
this country. In some national elections we only had one third of the
adult population who voted.
'Course it is a relief to know that we'd probably have to vote to take
the vote away from women, and you can't get anybody to vote now, so
women are probably pretty safe.
It's not like you're going to stop acting like a proctologist's dream,
and start convincing more men to vote. It's easier to be the crackpot,
and actually achieve nothing, isn't it John?
Angilion
>In article <20000821230212...@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
> rebbl...@aol.com (Rebbletoon) wrote:
>
>> I see http://fathersmanifesto.org/19th.htm is up on
>http://www.crank.net --
>> rated "Crankiest".
>
>And in two catagories!
>Hate mongering and bizarre. I guess they really have John Knight
>pegged, don't they?
It won the hate-mongering category against such things as
the All Men Must Die website and the SCUM Manifesto?
A clear sign of popular sexism, IMO.
--
Modesty is my only imperfection.
Bobbie Dean
wrote:
:In article <_z1q5.44139$NH2.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
: "Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
:>
:>
:> ----------
:>
:>
:
:According to the Census Bureau, there were a total of 23,100,000
:households which held 401Ks, with an average value of $12,985, which is
:a TOTAL of less than $300 billion, which is a pittance compared to the
:$1,300 billion in consumer debt alone.
:
:If everyone sold their 401Ks to pay of their debts, they would still
:have $1,000 billion [read: one trillion dollars] in consumer debt,
:$4,206 billion in mortgage debt, and $5,700 billion in public debt.
:
Mortgage debt is clearly different than consumer debt. And why are
you comparing mortgage and consumer debt with public debt?
Seems to me I remember a president who thought 'trickle down' was
going to cure our problems and then proceeded to run up the public
debt to the stratosphere.
:This is the short list. All of the other debts could double those
:figures.
:http://fathersmanifesto.org/debt.htm
:
:
:Before women became the majority voter, Americans had ASSETS [read:
:more money in the bank than they had debts]
And a lot of them LOST all of that money in the bank!
:
:Now that there are 11% more women voters than men, Americans have DEBTS
:too huge to even imagine that their grandchildren could ever survive,
:much less pay them off.
:
:John Knight
:
And who are the CEOs of Madison Avenue firms that are bent are getting
people to spend more and more money? And who runs the Big Three auto
firms? Who runs most of the corporations that SELL the products?
Lets see - companies make more and more products for people to consume
and advertisers spend all day thinking of ways to entice people to buy
and you decide its because women can vote?
Bobbie Dean
Unfortuantely, not only has the 19th century passed you by, but so has
the 20th. Live with it - - we aren't going back.
In article <8ohn6d$p9m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fathersm...@usa.net
wrote:
:In article <8F905B946yury...@24.2.9.59>,
: yu...@spamwazat.com (Yury Donskoy) wrote:
:> daria...@my-deja.com (Netscape Capitan) delighted us by writing in
:> <8n7chp$rs0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> that:
:>
:> > Should Women Have the Right to Vote?
:> >
:> > If we value democracy, then yes.
:> >
:> > Can we have both masculism, and democracy? I guess not.
:>
:> In the immortal words of a Toronto radio ad, "Shut up, fool!"
:>
:
:
:This is from Alia Darrow:
:
:Permit me to please offer some thoughts in return. Prior to passage of
:the
:19th, families voted as one unit. Issues were vetted and discussed,
:usually, over the supper table, ergo, children - then, knew more about
:our
:country's activities than the children in today's culture.
:
:Women who, then, were explicitly denied the right to vote had every
:opportunity and right under the 9th Amendment as laid out in the BofR to
:rectify and remedy that situation WITHOUT adding (read: revising) our
:constitution.
:
:Instead, they enacted a Constutitional Revision. They created a gender
:gap. And as we have witnessed since, our country has gone to hell in a
:handbasket due this SEPARATION -- women in universities demanding a
:separate "language" for females. Gender "inclusive" language. We don't
:have "men" anymore, we have a battle over whether to use "he" or "she" -
:-
:when in fact, the generic term "man" has been watered down to
:mean "it" --
:as though men and women are digits, or mere, interchangeable blobs of
:tissues. And wonder how this country ever rolled over for aborting the
:most innocent of all.
:
:Another issue. Abolishment of slavery. Some have widely interpreted
:this
:to mean (read: e.g., Lani Guinier) to read that Blacks should have a
:separate vote, even a separate language. Since our "leaders" noted and
:made much of separating the sexes (with respect, so-called) every single
:birth difference has been turned into a political leviathan, to the
:point
:that we can no longer speak to one another without offending some
:ridiculous absurd "sensibility" brought about by some group seeking
:special
:rights and preferences -- to be above the law.
:
:Now there is absolutely infantile and disgusting talk about creating a
:newer classification for the "species" in terms of a box -- multi-
:ethnic.
:This is a placebo to patch up the problems created through the granting
:of
:special rights, and the destruction of a common language as a standard
:between all citizens in the US. In fact, we are going the way of other
:much older countries through such piling on of bs. This country is in
:need
:of a hair-cut and serious branch pruning.
:
:People who yet demand special rights have yet to join the greater
:calling
:of humanity: That each of us is unique and not above the laws of the
:land.
:
:The lies that have been spun since passage of the 19th are an
:abomination
:to any common-sensical Patriot, IMHO. And these lies have sprouted
:more,
:akin to the worms on Medusa's head.
:
:We need less government, not more. If there exist women who are going
:to
:be upset that they aren't specifically mentioned in our Constitution and
:BofR, perhaps they should just join in the Monica Gang and seek
:celebrity
:status in order to obtain their own measure of self-worth. Better yet?
:They should move to a country that enjoys such hidious and unclear
:communications. I know many Europeans are proud that they speak
:multi-languages. Big deal. Anyone who studies languages knows that
:there
:is a culture/history behind each word. Study Chinese, for example.
:There
:are zillions of dialects; and a word used in one precinct is considered
:a
:crime in another. We all know that Europe represents the bastion of
:peaceful existence, right? <wink>
:
:Were I queen for a day, yep. I would knock off all Amendments after the
:10th. Take the 13th amendment, abolishing slavery, for example. We are
:slaves to the IRS and courts NOW and the toadies of those legislators
:who
:are busy removing all realities granted by the first 10; while ensuring
:that the latter 16 remain the tour de-force.
:
:It's Newer Nazis at play in our lives. And some women are going to
:have a
:hissy-fit over the repeal of the 19th? When in fact, should what may
:come
:to us here in the US, come -- they won't even have the ability to
:personally defend themselves, their loved ones?
:
:Who cares what these idiots rail about. I don't. They are hysterics,
:rooted more in unreality. They are mentally and emotionally unsound.
:
:I've never made it a point to allow insane people as my mentors or as my
:prison guards, which they are. And all they've got now is their stupid
:rantings, their personal assaults, and their crew in the Whitehouse.
:
:But I do make it a point to protect even the insane from themselves.
:
:Repeal the 19th. It's not needed. It has never been needed. No
:academic
:in any journal, magazine, documentary has ever been able to prove
:this.
:
:And why? Because there's big bucks at stake.
:
:Let me suggest another idea. There are many men who do not want the
:19th
:repealed. And what I've learned is that they do not want it repealed
:because they don't want to be responsible.
:
:As long as feminism enforces women into the workforce, men can play and
:children can be raised by the state. As long as feminism promotes "free
:love" the more that men are not bound to responsibilities.
:
:The strain of men has been as weakened as women's due passage of the
:19th.
:Some men are really liking it this way. They can play perpetual victim.
:
:I've met far too many men like this in CA to not know what I'm talking
:about in this regard.
:
:One vote per household. And I don't care how that household is
:composed or
:comprised, owned or rented. Private residence.
:
:I will fight for the respect of private property. And the above will
:ensure that. At least until we go, as a nation, stupid again.
:
:Another way? <g> I'm looking for the return of MEN to match my
:mountains.
:
:
:Don't see too many. There's a few. Here on this list are some. Some
:on
:talk radio. Some in other sectors. They have begun to arise. And they
:should never be frightened by some screaming, nasty femme. Ugly is
:ugly.
:And some of these women are downright ugly in spirit. But then, so were
:the Nazis. So were the Bolsheviks. So was Carrie Nation. So ugly and
:scarey, that men devised the term coyote ugly. And double coyote ugly.
:But back then there was a lot more room for men to hide from Carrie's
:famous axe.
:
:Where now do men go?
:
:The men and women of Wyoming had it straight -- they were protecting
:private property from being taken from them. The suffragettes of NY
:absconded this issue. They were thieves themselves. Usually married to
:the most wealthy of men; and their personal agenda was to get even
:wealthier through some lies.
:
:Best,
:
:...Alia
:
:
:
:
:Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
:Before you buy.
B
fathersm...@usa.net
angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com (Angilion) wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:35:11 GMT, kav...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > rebbl...@aol.com (Rebbletoon) wrote:
> >
> >> I see http://fathersmanifesto.org/19th.htm is up on
> >http://www.crank.net --
> >> rated "Crankiest".
> >
> >And in two catagories!
> >Hate mongering and bizarre. I guess they really have John Knight
> >pegged, don't they?
>
> the All Men Must Die website and the SCUM Manifesto?
>
> A clear sign of popular sexism, IMO.
>
We are greatly honored to be hated by such evil and wicked witches,
spelled with a capital B.
Furthermore, we are in first place on N.O.W.'s hit list, the infamous
Trish Wilson and Liz Gates must have medical specialists standing by
whenever they utter our name, and we have been elevated to the highest
echelons of feminist hatery by being accused of -- DA, DA!!
Being NAZIs!
It's so comforting to know that blind dumb feminists are so completely
out of arguments that they have no other options than to call
us "NAZIs"!!
What more could we ask for? This is the ultimate! Isn't it );
John Knight
fathersm...@usa.net
kav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <20000821230212...@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
> rebbl...@aol.com (Rebbletoon) wrote:
>
> > I see http://fathersmanifesto.org/19th.htm is up on
> http://www.crank.net --
> > rated "Crankiest".
>
> And in two catagories!
> Hate mongering and bizarre. I guess they really have John Knight
> pegged, don't they?
> >
>
> --
> K.
WOW! Two categories!!?? This is great. This is even better free
advertising than having your name listed in the phone book--ALL FOR
FREE, to top it off!!
John Knight
> A reason to take the vote from women
> By Diana West
>
> Scripps Howard News Service
> http://www.bouldernews.com/opinion/columnists/26ewest.html
> August 26, 2000
>
> Before I explain why women's suffrage should go the way of the Susan
> B. Anthony dollar, let me tell you a story.
>
> One evening last December, 29-year-old Katherine Prudhomme was
> driving by a television station in Derry, N.H., where Al Gore was to
> hold a town meeting. Prudhomme, a wife, mother and machinist by
> training, stopped by to ask if she could attend. Although she wasn't
> on the list of "randomly selected" guests, Prudhomme was admitted by
> a lady at the front desk, who vouched for her to Secret Service
> agents. Prudhomme took her seat.
>
> She had a question she wanted to ask the vice president.
>
> Something you should know about Prudhomme is that she calls herself a
> "rape survivor." But she is more than a "survivor," which, while
> implying an enduring will, does not connote the interest Prudhomme
> continues to take in penal matters.
>
> In a recent interview, Prudhomme discussed some of the work she has
> done counseling sex offenders, while keeping an eye on the parole
> board decisions that affect them. Little wonder, then, that when
> Juanita Broaddrick told her terrible, and, in my opinion, convincing
> story of the rape she says she suffered at the hands of then-Arkansas
> Attorney General Bill Clinton to NBC's Lisa Myers, Prudhomme was
> particularly aggrieved.
>
> That story was what Prudhomme wanted to ask Gore about. "When Juanita
> Broaddrick made the claim, which I found to be quite credible, that
> she was raped by Bill Clinton, did it change your opinion about him
> being one of the best presidents in history? And do you believe
> Juanita Broaddrick 's claim? And what did you tell your son about
> this?" she asked the vice president.
>
> With this trifecta, Prudhomme broke ground the national press corps
> still fears to tread. Gore, meanwhile, seemed suddenly not to know
> where he was.
>
> "Well, I didn't know what to make of her claim, because I don't know
> how to evaluate that story, I really don't," he began.
>
> He went on to say that he hadn't seen the interview ("Well, which -
> what show was it on?"); that he thought there had been "so many
> personal allegations" against Clinton that "enough was enough;" and,
> as for his own son, he would "never violate the privacy of my
> communication" with a family member - major speeches on family
> illness, injury and death apparently excepted.
>
> He further stated that "whatever mistakes (Clinton) made in his
> personal life" - as if rape is a mistake - "are, in the minds of most
> Americans, balanced against what he has done in his public life as
> president." And Mussolini made the trains run on time. Here we see
> Gore the apologist, or, as Prudhomme says Broaddrick once described
> him to her, Gore "the enabler" - villainous roles that link him to
> Clinton's villainous deeds.
>
> Now Prudhomme has sought comment from the First Enabler. Last
> weekend, she traveled to Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign
> headquarters in Manhattan to present Mrs. Clinton with a tape of the
> Broaddrick interview in case she, too, had missed it. Accompanied by
> a band of leaflet-passing supporters, Prudhomme gave a short,
> impassioned speech on 7th Avenue, concluding with one question for
> Mrs. Clinton: Do you believe Juanita Broaddrick? She is still waiting
> for an answer. Mrs. Clinton, it seems, is too busy trolling for votes
> - particularly women's votes.
>
> This week took Mrs. Clinton to Rochester, N.Y., where - what do you
> know? - she toured Susan B. Anthony 's home, "invoking the legacy of
> the suffragists sic3/8 at every turn," according to the New York
> Times, even making an appearance with a 99-year-old former
> suffragette. One wonders what that dear old thing would - or could -
> make of the Broaddrick story, Gore's evasion and Mrs. Clinton's
> silence.
>
> And what of the rest of us? Are voters, particularly women voters,
> even aware of the case's significance?
>
> It is no secret that, having been enfranchised for 80 years, women as
> a group haven't exactly covered themselves in quiz-kid glory when it
> comes to their grasp of national politics. In fact, there is what the
> Annenberg Public Policy Center earlier this year called a
> quantifiable "gender gap in political knowledge." And it's worse than
> the political scientists thought. It's one thing not to know
> anything. But it's another to be conned out of one's vote by Al and
> Tipper Gore's gruesome lip-lock on the podium of the Democratic
> National Convention.
>
> Nonetheless, that kiss and the goopy speech that followed seems to
> have gotten Gore a passel of votes. Female votes. All too many gals
> suddenly decided Al Gore was "caring" and "sincere" - reason enough,
> in my book, to strip us all of our franchise.
>
> Excepting, maybe, women like Katherine Prudhomme.
>
> --
> Why do you think they call it the SELECTIVE service?
fathersm...@usa.net
Best,
...Alia
fathersm...@usa.net
> rebbl...@aol.com (Rebbletoon) wrote:
>
> > I see http://fathersmanifesto.org/19th.htm is up on
> http://www.crank.net --
> > rated "Crankiest".
>
> And in two catagories!
> Hate mongering and bizarre. I guess they really have John Knight
> pegged, don't they?
> >
>
> --
> K.
I would suggest that you download and read this excellent paper which
proves that it is the woman voter, and NOTHING else, which created our
current totalitarian state, except that the paper also proved another
thing: it's impossible for women to understand it.
However, get a man friend to do this for you and then explain what it
means.
Only then can you get your head out of the sand and raise this
discussion out of the gutter.
John Knight
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.taf?
22317&_UserReference=A91BA8F76D97D9A539AC5988
How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage
Change the Size and Scope of Government?
John R. Lott, Jr. and Larry Kenny 1
It is not really surprising that this welfare state should breed a
politics not of “justice” or “fairness” but of “compassion,” which
contemporary liberalism has elevated into the most important civic
virtue. Women tend to be more sentimental, more risk-averse and
less competitive than men—yes, it’s Mars vs. Venus—and therefore
are less inclined to be appreciative of free-market economics, i n
which there are losers as well as winners. College-educated
women—the kind who attend Democratic conventions—are also
more “permissive” and less “judgmental” on such issues as
homosexuality, capital punishment, even pornography.
Irving Kristol, “The Feminization of the Democrats,”
The Wall Street Journal (September 9, 1996): p. A16
Citing marriage as “a very important financial divider,” the
American Enterprise Institute's Doug Besharov suggests more
married women did not vote for Dole because of a widespread sense
of societal insecurity: “It is not that they distrust their husband, but
they have seen divorce all around them and know they could be
next.” The Polling Company's Kellyanne Fitzpatrick is categorical:
“Women see government as their insurance.” (Perhaps significantly,
of the 24 million individuals working in government and in semi-
governmental
non-profit jobs, 14 million—58 percent—are women.)
The Richmond Times Dispatch, December 5, 1996
For decades we have known that women vote differently than
men. In the presidential elections from 1980 to 1996 the gender
gap—the difference between the way men voted and the way
women did—was: 14 points in 1980, 16 in 1984, 15 in 1988, 5 in
1992, and 17 in 1996 (Langer, November 8, 1996). According to
Voter News Service election day exit polls, if men alone could have
voted in the 1996 presidential election, Robert Dole would have
been elected president by carrying 31 states. We know that the
1 University of Chicago Law School, and University of Florida
Department of
Economics.
fathersm...@usa.net
According to the Census Bureau, there were a total of 23,100,000
households which held 401Ks, with an average value of $12,985, which is
a TOTAL of less than $300 billion, which is a pittance compared to the
$1,300 billion in consumer debt alone.
If everyone sold their 401Ks to pay of their debts, they would still
have $1,000 billion [read: one trillion dollars] in consumer debt,
$4,206 billion in mortgage debt, and $5,700 billion in public debt.
This is the short list. All of the other debts could double those
figures.
http://fathersmanifesto.org/debt.htm
Before women became the majority voter, Americans had ASSETS [read:
more money in the bank than they had debts]
Now that there are 11% more women voters than men, Americans have DEBTS
too huge to even imagine that their grandchildren could ever survive,
much less pay them off.
John Knight
OhSojourner
<snip>
>Furthermore, we are in first place on N.O.W.'s hit list, the infamous
>Trish Wilson and Liz Gates must have medical specialists standing by
>whenever they utter our name, and we have been elevated to the highest
>echelons of feminist hatery by being accused of -- DA, DA!!
> Being NAZIs!
>It's so comforting to know that blind dumb feminists are so completely
>out of arguments that they have no other options than to call
>us "NAZIs"!!
>What more could we ask for? This is the ultimate! Isn't it );
>John Knight
1. No surprise, and 2. So what? I'm sure the Grand Dragon of the KKK wouldn't
care for the proposals of radical feminists, either. "Radical vs. Radical" --
sounds like something right out of Mad Magazine. Snarf!
Of course, nobody needs to be a radical or a member of N.O.W. to see the
bigotry in your proposal.
As a single, property-owning, taxpaying female who bases my vote on practical
and economic issues, I wouldn't go for it either, natch. It's overly
simplistic thinking to lump two halves of the population into broadly-painted
generalizations without accounting for individual circumstances, the changing
environment and economy, etc. You just as well might suggest that only those
who score well on logic tests ought to be allowed to vote, but the fact of the
matter is that our Constitution first and foremost has outlined certain
freedoms which are supposed to be guaranteed to each and every citizen of the
U.S. -- no matter their IQ or their rationale quotient -- even if the
ramifications could spell a potentially less efficient economy.
Question: would you think the vote of this woman:
http://www.edventure.com/bios/esther.html
-- someone who achieved perfect scores on her SATs and was a Harvard grad -- is
less important than the vote of male hoodlums who smash beer bottles in the
street?
...I thought so. Well, nice to waste your time anyways.
Max Burke
If women (or any other 'segment of society') doesn't have the political
power of the 'vote' then they can bear no political or social responsibility
for the society they live in....
Women dont deserve the 'right' to be absolved of their share of social
responsibility for the society created with the right to vote....
IOW deny women the vote then you deny them their share of social
responsibility for the society they live in....
[CNN] Stat.....
In the 1996 Presidential election a *huge* 38% of Americans exercised their
constitutional right to vote, whereas most other democratic societies
average a 71 - 93% voter turn out....
Compared to other democratic societies the American voter is the most
apathetic.....
----------------
# The American voter will defend to the death their right to vote, but most
often will vote to do something else when the time to exercise that right
comes around.....
--
mlvburke@re*pl*ce.co.nz
Replace the obvious with ihug to email.
Visit My Photography Gallery at :
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~mlvburke/
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <8oihu4$plb$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>, "Max Burke"
<mlvburke@re*pl*ce.co.nz> wrote:
> Yes.....
>
> If women (or any other 'segment of society') doesn't have the political
> power of the 'vote' then they can bear no political or social responsibility
> for the society they live in....
>
> Women dont deserve the 'right' to be absolved of their share of social
> responsibility for the society created with the right to vote....
>
> IOW deny women the vote then you deny them their share of social
> responsibility for the society they live in....
>
> [CNN] Stat.....
>
> In the 1996 Presidential election a *huge* 38% of Americans exercised their
> constitutional right to vote, whereas most other democratic societies
> average a 71 - 93% voter turn out....
>
> Compared to other democratic societies the American voter is the most
> apathetic.....
Max! You've hit it right on the head. Why bother to get one's ass off the
sofa and vote, when there's a re-run of Seinfeld that you haven't seen on
tonight.
> ----------------
> # The American voter will defend to the death their right to vote, but most
> often will vote to do something else when the time to exercise that right
> comes around.....
I for one think that the problem lies in that the parties and candidates are
so arrogant that they will not allow a 'no confidence' vote on any ballot,
and most voters are too ignorant to write that in, so they don't bother even
showing up.
Deb.
Bobbie Dean
:Yes.....
:
:If women (or any other 'segment of society') doesn't have the political
:power of the 'vote' then they can bear no political or social
:responsibility
:for the society they live in....
:
:Women dont deserve the 'right' to be absolved of their share of social
:responsibility for the society created with the right to vote....
:
:IOW deny women the vote then you deny them their share of social
:responsibility for the society they live in....
:
:[CNN] Stat.....
:
:In the 1996 Presidential election a *huge* 38% of Americans exercised
:their
:constitutional right to vote, whereas most other democratic societies
:average a 71 - 93% voter turn out....
:
:Compared to other democratic societies the American voter is the most
:apathetic.....
:----------------
:# The American voter will defend to the death their right to vote, but
:most
:often will vote to do something else when the time to exercise that
:right
:comes around.....
But is that so bad. If people don't want to vote, then don't make
them. That just makes my vote worth more!
:
:
Bobbie Dean
Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
:----------
:In article <8oihu4$plb$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>, "Max Burke"
:<mlvburke@re*pl*ce.co.nz> wrote:
:
:
:> Yes.....
:>
:> If women (or any other 'segment of society') doesn't have the
:> political
:> power of the 'vote' then they can bear no political or social
:> responsibility
:> for the society they live in....
:>
:> Women dont deserve the 'right' to be absolved of their share of social
:> responsibility for the society created with the right to vote....
:>
:> IOW deny women the vote then you deny them their share of social
:> responsibility for the society they live in....
:>
:> [CNN] Stat.....
:>
:> In the 1996 Presidential election a *huge* 38% of Americans exercised
:> their
:> constitutional right to vote, whereas most other democratic societies
:> average a 71 - 93% voter turn out....
:>
:> Compared to other democratic societies the American voter is the most
:> apathetic.....
:
:Max! You've hit it right on the head. Why bother to get one's ass off
:the
:sofa and vote, when there's a re-run of Seinfeld that you haven't seen
:on
:tonight.
:
:> ----------------
:> # The American voter will defend to the death their right to vote, but
:> most
:> often will vote to do something else when the time to exercise that
:> right
:> comes around.....
:
:I for one think that the problem lies in that the parties and candidates
:are
:so arrogant that they will not allow a 'no confidence' vote on any
:ballot,
:and most voters are too ignorant to write that in, so they don't bother
:even
:showing up.
:
:Deb.
But I'd rather they not go if they don't feel strongly about either
the issues or the candidates. And in a way, they are voting.
Besides, it makes my vote worth more!
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <xiting-2C5D39....@news.sirinet.net>, Bobbie Dean
<xit...@sirinet.net> wrote:
I don't know if I agree with you there. It seems a vote of "No Confidence"
would tell the parties that they aren't putting the best candidates forward
to the final election. Look at the choices the electorate has now. Do you
honestly think the chosen candidates in either party represent that party's
best? Gore? Bush?
> And in a way, they are voting.
> Besides, it makes my vote worth more!
Yeah, that's true.
fathersm...@usa.net
No, wrong, our Constitution said no such thing. It said no such thing
partly because wiser men than us like Thomas Jefferson saw the futility
in women voting:
"Were our State a pure democracy . . . there would yet be excluded from
their deliberations . . . women, who, to prevent depravation of morals
and ambiguity of issue, should not mix promiscuously in the public
meetings of men." Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval
(Sept. 5, 1816), in 10 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 45-46, n. 1 (P.
Ford ed. 1899).
It is an *amendment* to the Constitution which gave women the vote, and
it is the *amendment* which is going to be repealed, partly because it
is in violation of most fundamental principles in the Holy Bible:
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in
childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire
will be for your husband, and he will rule over you", Genesis 3:16
You claim, falsely, that you "vote on practical and economic issues",
and then turn right around and prove that you are a LIAR in the same
PARAGRAPH by saying that you wouldn't support the repeal of a failed
amendment "even if the ramifications could spell a potentially less
efficient economy".
It is this fuzzy headed "reasoning" from women voters which got this
country into the quagmire we're in now. You could care less what the
facts are--you only care about your "opinion".
Thanks for the excellent demonstration for why the 19th is going to be
repealed.
fathersm...@usa.net
Bobbie Dean <xit...@sirinet.net> wrote:
> In article <8o7pfu$o94$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fathersm...@usa.net
> wrote:
>
> :THE BIBLE AND THE FEMINIST
> :Since a Christian must look in the Bible to find what Christ taught,
> :one, to be intellectually consistent and honest must accept the Bible
> :as accurate in order to be a Christian. If the Bible is not accurate,
> :and just a book written by a bunch of men who made it up to satisfy
> :themselves, then Christianity is a fraud and you must reject it.
There
> :is no other honest alternative.
> Ok - no problem. I agree with you there.
>
> :With that as our starting point, let us see what the Bible says about
> :women, men and the church. We start with instructions written to the
> :church in Corinth, and what the role of women was to be in church
> :services:
> :Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
> :unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as
> :also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask
> :their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the
> :church. 1 Corinthians 14:34,35.
>
> So - we already established that this was a bunch of men writting
> things to satisfy themselves. Oh - you really believe this stuff?
>
> the rest snipped - nausea would set in if someone had to read it
again.
>
> B
> Remember - Usenet isn't like life - it is often worse! ;-)
>
AMERICAN 12TH GRADERS SCORE LOWER THAN AMERICAN 8TH GRADERS
To add insult to injury, there was no subject in which American 12th
graders scored higher than American 8th graders scored in General Math,
while the 12th graders in most other countries scored higher. Some
countries' 12th graders scored as much as 91 points higher where
American 12th graders scored as much as 76 points lower. It's
impossible to believe that US education could be this bad by accident.
It amounts to statistical evidence of an intentional effort to destroy
the country by destroying the education of our youth.
In Geometry, 12th graders in Cyprus scored 42 points higher than their
8th graders. They scored 35 points higher in Australia, 23 in
Denmark, 4 in France, 11 in Greece, 23 in Lithuania, 13 in Russia, and
1 in Switzerland.
American 12th graders scored 76 points lower than American 8th graders
in Geometry.
In Advanced Math, Greek 12th graders scored 26 points than their 8th
graders. 12th graders scored 4 points higher in Australia, 18 in
Denmark, 25 in France, 2 in Canada, 67 in Lithuania, 53 in Russia, and
21 in Switzerland.
American 12th graders scored 45 points lower than American 8th graders
in Advanced Math.
In Calculus, 97 points in Cyprus, 6 in Denmark, 27 in France, 50 in
Greece, 41 in Lithuania, 25 in Russia, and 12 in Switzerland.
American 12th graders scored 42 points lower than American 8th graders
in Calculus.
In Physics, 11 in Greece, 35 in Cyprus, 2 in Australia, 40 in Denmark,
16 in Latvia, 70 in Sweden, 91 in Norway, 33 in Germany, 40 in Russia,
and 5 in Slovenia.
American 12th graders scored 63 points lower than American 8th graders
in Physics.
In General Science, 35 in New Zealand, 4 in Lithuania, 23 in Canada, 13
in South Africa, 17 in Australia, 5 in Germany, 30 in Denmark, 85 in
Iceland, 41 in Netherlands, 16 in Sweden, 15 in Austria, and 71 in
Norway.
American 12th graders scored 10 points lower than American 8th graders
in General Science.
In General Math, 12th graders in South Africa scored 11 points higher
than their 8th graders, 8 in Lithuania, 28 in New Zealand, 10 in
Australia, 10 in Switzerland, 10 in Canada, 6 in France, 6 in Austria,
54 in Sweden, 71 in Iceland, 73 in Denmark, 44 in Netherlands, and 52
in Norway.
American 12th grader scored 37 points lower than American 8th graders
in General Math.
In Modern Physics, 6 points in Australia, 35 in Denmark, 49 in Germany,
15 in Latvia, 84 in Norway, 26 in Russia, and 52 in Sweden.
American 12th grader scored 36 points lower than American 8th graders
in Modern Physics.
AMERICAN GIRLS' LOWER THAN IF THEY JUST GUESSED
There were questions which required only that a student remember a math
or physics principle, and questions that required students to solve
problems using those principles. Most of them were multiple choice
questions with 4 or 5 choices. If students guess on a series of 4
choice questions, they will get 25% of them correct, and if they guess
on a series of 5 choice questions, they will get 20% of them correct.
Once adjusted for multiple choice guesses, American 12th grade girls
demonstrated that they remembered an average of half of the math and
physics principles on the test. But their aggregate score on both math
and physics questions which required those principles to be applied to
problem solving was zero percent. Of these problem solving questions,
on 7 of the 20 multiple choice physics questions and on 4 of the 16
multiple choice math questions, they correctly answered fewer questions
than if they had just guessed. Such consistently wrong answers cannot
be explained by sheer probability theory. For example, question K10
ANGLE INSCRIBED BY FIGURES INSIDE A SEMICIRCLE had 4 possible answers,
so 25% of students guessing on the question would have guessed
correctly. But only 9% American girls correctly answered this
question, 16% fewer than if they had just guessed. American boys
didn't do well on this question either, with only 33.7% correct
answers, but the 8.7% more correct answers that they got than if they
had just guessed is infinitely greater than zero percent.
None of the average international scores for any of the math questions
for girls followed this pattern. Adjusted for guesses, the average
international score for girls for all of the math problem solving
questions was 14.5%, compared to 1.9% for American girls. Because the
error was plus or minus 3%, a score of 1.9% is a demonstration of zero
problem solving skills for American girls, compared to at least 11.5%
for girls internationally.
The international math scores for all boys was lower than if they had
just guessed on only one question, which is the above question, on
which they scored 3% lower. This can be explained entirely by the plus
or minus 3% error. Their average score on these questions was 18.3%,
which is 3.9% higher than the international girls' score.
http://fathersmanifesto.org/timsssummary.htm
fathersm...@usa.net
The trends are what is important.
It is WOMEN who are voting for "gun control laws", not men.
Men oppose "gun control laws" for lots of reasons, not the least being
that it is stupid, immoral, and expenseive to pass a law violating the
Constitution without first amdending it.
Women could care less about the immorality of this.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Rampant government spending demanded by female voters is what
led
> to
> > > > the totalitarian government programs which destroyed our
original
> > free
> > > > enterprise system.
> > >
> > > Oh, bullshit. Voting is one small part of a large economic
picture.
> > > Factors like fuel, like world trade, like unions and wages, like
> > > accident costs, like permit costs, and rising costs of raw
materials
> > > have more effect on free enterprise than the female vote.
> >
> > The major factor in the increased costs of EACH of those items you
> > detail is the increase in taxes.
>
> No, there is no major increase in taxes on union dues. There is no
> major increase in taxes on accident costs. There are no major
increases
> in taxes on raw materials, and you have yet to prove that only the
> female vote is responsible for the rise in taxes. No men have ever
> voted for an increase in any taxes in the 20th century?
Men pay 115% of federal taxes, because women as a group get back $100
billion more in credits and "earned income credits" than they pay in
taxes.
It is women who constitute 11% more of the vote who are voting to spend
money which they never paid into the IRS, and they are voting it for
them selfish SELVES.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > In other words, while we blame politicians for all of these
> > > > totalitarian and unconstitutional laws, it is female voters (who
> are
> > > > 11% more of the voters than men) who are demanding
> these "government
> > > > services".
> > >
> > > In other words, you don't know what you are talking about. Once
> > again,
> > > a large percentage of the eligible population in the United States
> > does
> > > not vote. This is the only Indisputable fact in this whole post.
> If
> > > men were really concerned that the female vote was damaging, you
bet
> > > there would be more of them voting.
> >
> > This is a completely nonsensical statement. It is a fact of life
that
> > women can always outnumber men at the polls, if for no other reason
> > than there are 8% more women than men of voting age.
>
> Oh, even you can't be this obtuse. It is not a fact of life that
women
> outnumber men at the polls simply because there are more women than
> men. It is a fact of life that only those adults who have registered
> to vote can vote. You don't just walk in the door and vote. It IS a
> fact of life that neither men nor women register or vote in the
numbers
> that the population suggests that they should be voting in, simply
> because both men and women are too apathetic to vote.
> You're arguement is silly at best.
Another reason that women shouldn't be voting. Not only are there more
women than men, but a higher percentage of women now have voting rights
than men because of all the FEMINIST programs which remove the vote
from men.
If men were the majority voter, men wouldn't be working 42 days of each
year just to pay the taxes which fund the welfare which is paid
exclusively to blacks.
>
> No country has
> > ever achieved a 100% voting record, so your suggestion that a higher
> > percentage of men than women could vote is a red herring--it has
never
> > worked that way because it can't.
>
> Sure it can. All you have to do is motivate men in greater numbers to
> vote. Motivate men, and leave women to be apathetic, and you have
more
> men voting than women.
> Helloooo!
Yeah, and we could have green tea on the dark side of the moon, too.
All we need to do is figure out how to get there. It is physically
IMPOSSIBLE to have a 100% voter turnout.
> >
> > Should we sue women voters for "discrimination" against women?
> > American women voters have been the majority voter for 3-4 decades
> now,
>
> PROVE IT. Show me the numbers of voters, from a voter registration
> this time, that show that women vote more than men do.
"Prove it"? You've got a brain. This is common knowledge. If you
need "proof" now, it's probably because you you're either too lazy or
too stupid to follow a url
http://www.fec.gov/pages/Genderto.htm
>
> > which means that, if they REALLY trusted women, they could have
> > installed 100% women politicians by now. Why are less than 10% of
> > elective offices held by women? Why is such a high percentage of
the
> > few women who have been elected quietly removed from office and
> > replaced by men--BY WOMEN VOTERS?
>
> By voters. Period. You don't know any more than anybody else, what
> people are voting for in a secret ballot. Which is exactly the way it
> should be.
> --
> K.
No, by WOMEN voters. In 1996 there were 14.7% more women voters than
men voters.
You CANNOT blame men for "discriminating" against women politicians
when it is WOMEN who decided the elections.
oops, I forgot--feminists CAN and DO blame men anyway, for everything.
fathersm...@usa.net
> > kav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <8nemga$cin$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > fathersm...@usa.net wrote:
> > > This is a completely nonsensical statement. It is a fact of life
> that
> > women can always outnumber men at the polls, if for no other reason
> > ever achieved a 100% voting record, so your suggestion that a higher
> > percentage of men than women could vote is a red herring--it has
never
> > worked that way because it can't.
>
> http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm
>
> Once again, of course it can. Check the statistic for 1996, only 49%
> of the eligible poplutation voted. If we have a popluation of 100,
(to
> use math that even you can understand) and 60 of those people are
> women, why, that means 40 of those people are men.
> We have 49 people who actually voted, but we have no idea if 20 of
> those voting people were women, and 29 were men, but this certainly is
> a resonable possibility. If this is true, then your statement above,
> (that just because we have more women means we have more women voters)
> must be false. Do you finally get it?
> Check out the statistics--they are dismal for the voting population of
> this country. In some national elections we only had one third of the
> adult population who voted.
> 'Course it is a relief to know that we'd probably have to vote to take
> the vote away from women, and you can't get anybody to vote now, so
> women are probably pretty safe.
> It's not like you're going to stop acting like a proctologist's dream,
> and start convincing more men to vote. It's easier to be the
crackpot,
> and actually achieve nothing, isn't it John?
> --
> K.
This was nice feminist scholarship. It would probably get you a Ph. D.
in our once fine universities.
But you flunked this course, because you left out the most important
information, which is dishonest. American women are 2% more of the
population than men. But there are 9.1% more voting age women than
voting age men. For reasons mentioned in the previous post, in 1996,
there were 14% more registered women voters than registered men
voters. And because men can't always get off work to vote as easily as
women can, there were 14.7% more women voters than there were men
voters.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/Genderto.htm
The apathy by men voters is women voters being able to outvote men in
gender issues, which doesn't happen in countries where only men vote,
where up to 80% of the eligible voters vote.
Women became the majority voter in the US in 1966 and it's been
downhill for our society ever since, in every way you can measure it.
John Knight
ps
Since the 1960s:
Fatherlessness octupled to 48% and feminists can't even detect a
problem.
Divorce doubled to the highest rate in the world.
Murder tripled to one of the highest rates in the world.
Murders resolved decreased from 92% to 64%.
The dollar declined by three quarters (per Consumer Price Index), and
by ten fold by the gold standard (from $38/oz to $380/oz).
More was spent on welfare than the value of every Fortune 500
corporation and every acre of farm land, combined.
Autos supplied by U.S. manufacturers declined from 60% to 20% of the
world market.
Prison inmates increased ten fold to a rate five times China and South
Africa, making American men one third of the men in the world behind
bars.
Sexual assault convictions increased ten fold to two thirds of the
world's convictions.
DNA proved that one third of convicted men were innocent.
Suicide by men increased to five times that by women.
Government spending doubled to 42 cents of each wage dollar, while it
remained at 24 cents in Japan
The average body weight of an American increased 29 pounds.
Since the 1970s:
GDP per worker decreased two thirds by the gold standard
Public Debt increased 9 fold to $5.9 trillion, consumer debt increased
to $1.2 trillion, and housing debt increased to $3.9 trillion.
The U.S. became the largest debtor nation in world history with an
average net worth per household of a *negative* $77,000.
Interest payments on the debts increased to greater than the gross
savings rate of 15% of GDP for the first time since the Great
Depression, yet Japan continued to save 33% per year with no debts.
Gross savings decreased from $11 trillion to zero as Japan's increased
to $22 trillion.
36 million babies were aborted.
The "drug war" precipitated a 45% increase in cocaine use.
Violent crime increased 560%, illegitimate births increased 419%, and
single-parent households increased 3000% (source: The Guardian).
Criminal Justice System expenditures increased ten fold to $360 billion
and now exceed national defense by $100 billion.
The trade deficit, once in the black, increased to $173 Billion in the
red
Drunk driving arrests increased five fold to 1.6 million per year and
the rate of men behind bars for DUI exceeds the total incarceration
rate for all crimes in many countries.
The motor vehicle fatality rate increased from 30% lower than Germany's
to 45% higher.
Health services costs increased eight fold to 14% of GDP even though
many nations with 4 year longer life expectancies spend only 6% of GDP.
The paperwork required to meet government regulations in health care
consumes 3% of GDP.
Alcohol consumption decreased 18% which costs 35,000 lives/year.
SAT scores declined 98 points and the US is DEAD LAST in more TIMSS
subjects than any other country.
The amount of time PER DAY that children watch TV increased from 5
hours to 7 hours.
US banks in the Top 40 World Banks declined from 22 to 1(with assets of
$120 billion) as the number of Japanese increased to 24 (with assets of
$5,000 Billion).
The number of lawyers increased to 60 times that of Japan as the number
of engineers declined to less than a quarter of Japan.
The ratio of manufacturing employees to government employees declined
from 2.5:1 to less than 1:1
fathersm...@usa.net
wrote:
>
> > In article <0Iln5.31880$NH2.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,> >> In article <8nka75$s3h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, fathersm...@usa.net
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <Uhcn5.31241$NH2.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> >> > "Deborah Terreson" <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >> > it is a part of the problem, that it is a MINOR part.
> >> >
> >> > In other words, SMHs are 50-90% of the cause of our current
social
> >> > pathologies. IF TV plays a role, it is only because children in
> > SMHs
> >> > aren't being properly disciplined, are watching the wrong type
of TV
> >> > programming, and are thus the reason our TV programming is so
poor
> > in
> >> > the first place. Even in that event, you should note that
> > eliminating
> >> > SMHs in the first place would completely eliminate TV as a
factor,
> > even
> >> > if it is one.
Our high accident rate may also be due to the increase in the number of
SMHs. Or, it might be just because such a high percentage of American
women drive.
Per Traffic Safety Facts' "Vehicle Miles of Travel, 1975-1996"
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/www/cfm/library/rpt_info.cfm?
index=Trends:Occupants&recordid=0 Americans drove passenger cars
1,478 billion miles in 1995.
Per the "Early Results Report" of the Nationwide Personal
Transportation Survery http://www-
cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/index.shtml men drive 65.3% or 965 billion
and women drive 513 billion of those miles.
Per Traffic Safety Facts' "Drivers Involvement in Crashes" from the
FARS data base http://www-
fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/www/cfm/library/rpt_info.cfm?
index=People:Drivers&recordid=0 male drivers were involved in 2,418,799
fatal and injury crashes and female drivers were involved in 1,701,043,
for a total of 4,119,842 drivers in approximately 2,059,921 accidents.
The accident rate per one million miles driven for men is 2.5 and for
women is 3.32 (33% higher).
Per the NHTSA http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/economic/ecomvc1994.html
the economic cost of motor vehicle crashes in 1994 was $150 billion.
The higher probability that women will have an accident contributes to
an increase in the accident rate for men. To determine exactly how
much higher the accident rate for men is because of women drivers it is
necessary to calculate the probability for both men and women to have
an accident. If we let Pm be the probability that a man will have an
auto accident, and Pf that a woman will, then we have two equations and
two variables. The total probability that a man will have an accident
is the sum of his probability of having a single driver accident, the
square of this probability to represent a two driver accident involving
another man, and the Pm times Pf to represent a two driver accident
involving a woman:
(Pm + Pm2 + PmPf) x 965,000 million miles driven = 2,418,799 accidents
Pm + Pm2 + PmPf = 2.5
The equation for women is similar:
(Pf + Pf2 + PmPf) x 513,000 million miles driven = 1,701,043 accidents
Pf + Pf2 + PmPf = 3.32
Pm = (3.32 - Pf - Pf2)/Pf
(3.32 - Pf - Pf2)/Pf + (11.0224 -6.64Pf - 5.64Pf2 + 2Pf3 + Pf4 )/Pf2 +
3.32 -Pf -Pf2 = 2.5
3.32Pf - Pf2 - Pf2 + 11.0224 -6.64Pf - 5.64Pf2 + 2Pf3 + Pf4 + 3.32Pf2 -
Pf3 - Pf4 = 2.5Pf2
3.32Pf + 5.82Pf2 = 11.0224
Pf = 1.087 = Probability that a woman will have an auto accident
Pm = 0.213 = Probability that a woman will have an auto accident
Pf = 5.1 x Pm
If all drivers were men who drove the 1,478 billion miles which are
currently driven by both men and women, the total accident rate would
be 0.26 accidents per million miles, for a total of 380,480 accidents:
(Pm + Pm2) x 1,478,000 = 380,480 accidents
If all drivers were women who drove the 1,478 billion miles which are
currently driven by both men and women, the total accident rate would
be 2.271 accidents per million miles, for a total of 3,352,945
accidents:
(Pf + Pf2) x 1,478,000 = 3,352,945 accidents
If only men drove today, accidents would decrease from 2,059,921 to
380,480 per year, a reduction of 81%. If only women drove, accidents
would increase from 2,059,921 to 3,352,945 per year, a 63% increase and
there would be 8.8 times as many accidents than if only men drove.
Women drivers are thus responsible for $121.5 billion of the $150
billion annual economic loss and 36,450 of the 45,000 lives lost each
year to auto accidents.
fathersm...@usa.net
"Max Burke" <mlvburke@re*pl*ce.co.nz> wrote:
> Yes.....
>
> If women (or any other 'segment of society') doesn't have the
political
> power of the 'vote' then they can bear no political or social
responsibility
> for the society they live in....
>
> Women dont deserve the 'right' to be absolved of their share of social
> responsibility for the society created with the right to vote....
>
> IOW deny women the vote then you deny them their share of social
> responsibility for the society they live in....
>
Are you joking? Women have a "share of social responsibility"?
Where?
According to the Census Bureau
In spite of all
the hoopla in the media about how much women earn now, The Census Bureau
still shows that fathers earn 82% of family incomes, and women only
18%. If
denigrating men about how much they earn is fashionable, then why
aren't feminists denigrating the women who, if they had to live on
their incomes
alone, would have you living in caves.
http://fathersmanifesto.org/familyincome.htm
In spite of all the hoopla about violent men, the NIS-3 Study shows
that 78%
of child murders are committed by mothers or step-mothers, 20% by
step-fathers or boyfriends, and 2% by biological fathers. In other
words,
mothers are 39 times more likely to murder innocent, helpless children
than
the biological fathers you believe "aren't that many good men". How
about these "socially responsible women"
knocking the mothers who KILL children, for a change, rather than
accusing
husbands of being "violent" for "giving the woman the silent treatment"
which the feminists in Burbank now claim is "spousal abuse"?
http://fathersmanifesto.org/nis3.htm
99.9% of the recipients of Nobel Prizes, honors awards, sports events,
and
the leaders in Olympic events are men, and less than 0.1% are women.
Why
don't these "socially responsible women" say "there just aren't that
many good [wo]men" and knock those women who
score 42% lower than men in simple Olympic events like Springboard
Diving?
http://fathersmanifesto.org/menare.htm
Because women as a group get back directly from the IRS more than $100
billion in tax credits than they pay in as taxes, women are net
non-contributors to the federal tax base, which means that men must pay
115%
of federal taxes. Why don't they complain that "there just aren't that
many good
[wo]men [taxpayers] out there"?
http://fathersmanifesto.org/menpy115.htm
American boys did terrible on the TIMSS study. Only 25% of them
correctly
solved math and science problems. But that was infinitely as many as
American girls who solved those problems correctly, because ZERO
percent of
them were able to do that. If feminists believe that "there just
aren't that many
good men out there" because 75% of them couldn't solve those problems,
then
they must believe this about 100% of the women.
http://fathersmanifesto.org/timss.htm
And, of course, if they think that citizens with an average of 22.8
billion
brain cells are poorly equipped to deal with the world, then they must
REALLY
have it in for those with only 19.3 billion. I mean, what could a
citizen
do if they are shy 3 1/2 BILLION brain cells, eh?
http://fathersmanifesto.org/sex.htm
John Knight