Carol Ann and Marg join the Patriarchy (only kidding! :-)
m...@primarycolor.com
These are quotes from my files that show deep down, that Marg
and Carol Ann think like Patriarchal, victorian women. Gentlemen,
you may to save these quotes for future reference...
(message IDS pointing to the original pages included)
Here Marg and Carol Ann show that at conception, a child is created.
Marg even talks about a woman sheltering her "child":
Marg Petersen
<5t2b7c$88u$1...@kira.peak.org>
Why should he? Has HE gestated it? Has HE spent 9 months sheltering
and providing nourishment for it? Has HE just gone through birth?
I'm perfectly willing to *allow* him some rights to his child, but
she still (at that point in time) has done a whole lot more for the
child than he has and thus has *preferred* custodyat that point.
<5t28qs$2it$1...@kira.peak.org>
Nope, sorry, since it took TWO to co-create it, it takes TWO
to support it. What IS fair and reasonable would be for BOTH
to gestate it, but that ain't gonna happen. :-)
Carol Ann Hemingway <5l0f5o$8...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
>Men and women are equally responsible for conceiving children--it is a
>direct 50/50 split.
Agreed!
Carol Ann Hemingway <5jdjrq$c...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>
Demanding that women be just as responsible for the children
they co-create is what the law states.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is primary care? Let's let Marg and Carol Ann talk about good
old-fashioned Patriarchy:
Marg Petersen <5udsli$c6v$1...@kira.peak.org>
>So, your reply does not address the issue at hand. And, What is the
>definition of the primary caregiver? Do you limit caregiving to blowing
>noses, taking temperatures, and cooking food?
It isn't MY definition of primary caregiver; it is the family
courts' definition and yes, it includes all of the above and more.
Carol Ann Hemingway <8727220...@dejanews.com>
A man who starts on his six pack and watches reruns of startrek is not
likely to be considered the primary parent if the woman is feeding,
bathing and reading to her infant while poppa snoozes on. If you snooze,
you lose; it's as simple as that. Of course, a SAH mom is going to
accrue more of that while the man works, and she will most likely be
considered the primary parent.
------------------------------------------------------------
"Over there! Over there! The yanks are coming, the yanks are here!"
What is national service? Apparently, Carol Ann thinks it's society
expecting women to make and care for babies:
Carol Ann Hemingway <5v025f$9...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
>4) Finally, "penis credits" or "vagina credits" aren't metered out
>according to the faults of mother nature, but according to previous
>discrimination and present bias in society. Veterans have suffered bias
>due to society, women have to take up their argument with Mother Nature.
It all depends on whether we want to honor those who
make war, or those who give life. It's a values thing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What more can "I" say? :-)
Mark Sobolewski
"You cannot con an honest man."
"The best way to catch a criminal is to give her enough rope to hang
herself."
"The easiest way to expose a fool is to let her have her way."
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Sean C
The Human Resources Committee of the Patriarchal Conspiracy, Inc., regrets
to announce that the applications for employment of Marg Peterson and Carol
Ann Hemingway have been rejected in compliance with our new Affirmative
Action program. We will be hiring a jackass and a baboon instead, as these
animals have previously been passed over in hiring decisions, and appear to
be better qualified anyway.
Sean Conlon
--
Remove SPAMFREE from e-mail address to send e-mail.
____________________________
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
It is discouraging to try and penetrate a mind like yours. You ought to get
it out and dance on it. That would take some of the rigidity out of it.
Mark Twain
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <8739154...@dejanews.com> m...@primarycolor.com writes:
>
(edit)
>
> It all depends on whether we want to honor those who
> make war, or those who give life. It's a values thing.
----------
Giving birth to children does not negate the co-contribution
of men, without whom the child COULD not exist. It is still
just as important to value the time, effort and pain women
go thru in childbirth (and deaths) just like the deaths that
men have historically met in battle. Without the fighting
of men in battle there would be no America; without the wil-
lingness of women in childbirth, there would be no one to
fight the battle; you boys didn't arrive here alone, and
we're no longer willing to give you penis credits for your
vain glory.
Lefty
>
m...@primarycolor.com
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) writes:
>In <8739154...@dejanews.com> m...@primarycolor.com writes:
>> It all depends on whether we want to honor those who
>> make war, or those who give life. It's a values thing.
>
> of men, without whom the child COULD not exist. It is still
> just as important to value the time, effort and pain women
> go thru in childbirth (and deaths) just like the deaths that
> men have historically met in battle. Without the fighting
> of men in battle there would be no America; without the wil-
> lingness of women in childbirth, there would be no one to
> fight the battle; you boys didn't arrive here alone, and
> we're no longer willing to give you penis credits for your
> vain glory.
Men who choose national service are not entitled to "abort" during
the middle of battle even though the danger to their bodies is
obvious. Are you sure you want to continue comparing the two?
Besides, women gestate for the same reason that weapons contractors
make guns: For their own interests. If women have no OBLIGATION
or REQUIREMENT to gestate (or continue to provide "primary care")
then it's not service.
That is... unless you want to claim that society does have an
interest in making sure women gestate to term......? :-)
See you at the pro-life rally! :-)
Mark Sobolewski
Val
Anyone who compares childbirth with going to war, has obviously never
been to one.
Val
Per wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:22:36 -0600, m...@primarycolor.com wrote:
>
> >These are quotes from my files that show deep down, that Marg
> >and Carol Ann think like Patriarchal, victorian women.
>
> >Marg Petersen
> .
> ><5t2b7c$88u$1...@kira.peak.org>
> > Why should he? Has HE gestated it? Has HE spent 9 months sheltering
> > and providing nourishment for it? Has HE just gone through birth?
> > I'm perfectly willing to *allow* him some rights to his child,
> .
> It's interesting that a feminist is willing to "allow" a
> father some rights. Obviously she does not believe in equality if the
> man has to have his rights "allowed" by a feminist.
> Perhaps Marg could gain a better understanding of the concept
> of rights, basic as they are to our civilization. Rights are something
> you are guaranteed. They do not flow from some other member "allowing"
> you your rights.
> It's also interesting to contemplate that most of our rights
> derive from men putting their lives on the line and undergoing agony
> sometimes greater than that of childbirth. I wonder how Marg would
> feel if someone should posit that we'll "allow" her a few rights even
> though she didn't undergo the agony attendant on giving birth to them.
I say take all these feminists out in a field and throw blood all over
them, then release rabid dogs.
Mark Sobolewski
In article <5v7sk5$c08$1...@kanga.accessone.com>, J Shearer <@accessone.com> wrote:
> > It's also interesting to contemplate that most of our rights
> > derive from men putting their lives on the line and undergoing agony
> > sometimes greater than that of childbirth. I wonder how Marg would
> > feel if someone should posit that we'll "allow" her a few rights even
> > though she didn't undergo the agony attendant on giving birth to them.
> >
> boys went out and played war" crap reminds me of the "scam" male lions have
> pulled on the female pride: "you let us eat the meat YOU caught...FIRST...
> and we'll protect OUR cubs from the other male lions." Yes, I'm glad men
> (some men--certainly not ALL
How do you know it's a scam? As usual, feminists criticize arrangements
that they know nothing about.
Many human women enjoy being financially supported by a Patriarchal husband.
Heck, more prefer that arrangement than the career woman finding a
"sensitive" type male to stay at home. Yet feminists claim that society
"oppressed" women by expecting this of them.
Maybe these lionesses are the same way: They like the strong, maucho lion
and are willing to put up with his asshole attitude of not washing the
dishes and watching football all day. :-) :-) :-)
The bachelor lions? Maybe they don't want to join "society" when all
that is waiting for them is paying "taxes" out of their hunt for
free daycare while the female lionesses watch Oprah. Or paying
"cub support" for cubs they have no choices over.
It's ironic because humans are imitating nature. In guettos where
welfare moms get state funding and poor men are "deadbeat dads",
things are literally reverting back to the wild. Men cannot rejoin
society because their driver's licenses have been taken away and
they cannot get a decent job to pay the rent, much less a job to
pay rent AND child-support. Women then have to date powerful strong
men to protect themselves from the "bachelor" lions roaming out in
the wild...
Maybe that's why the Patriarchy has existed for so long: Because
flawed as it is, it works better than feminism (the welfare state.)
Mark Sobolewski
Per
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:22:36 -0600, m...@primarycolor.com wrote:
>These are quotes from my files that show deep down, that Marg
>and Carol Ann think like Patriarchal, victorian women.
[...]
>Marg Petersen
.
><5t2b7c$88u$1...@kira.peak.org>
> Why should he? Has HE gestated it? Has HE spent 9 months sheltering
> and providing nourishment for it? Has HE just gone through birth?
> I'm perfectly willing to *allow* him some rights to his child,
.
.
It's interesting that a feminist is willing to "allow" a
father some rights. Obviously she does not believe in equality if the
man has to have his rights "allowed" by a feminist.
Perhaps Marg could gain a better understanding of the concept
of rights, basic as they are to our civilization. Rights are something
you are guaranteed. They do not flow from some other member "allowing"
you your rights.
John Reinhagen
Also sprach Sean C:
>The Human Resources Committee of the Patriarchal Conspiracy, Inc., regrets
>to announce that the applications for employment of Marg Peterson and Carol
>Ann Hemingway have been rejected in compliance with our new Affirmative
>Action program. We will be hiring a jackass and a baboon instead, as these
>animals have previously been passed over in hiring decisions, and appear to
>be better qualified anyway.
You can't fool me, Sean. You're trying to sneak Marg and Carol into the
Patriarchal Conspiracy -- and in the thinnest of disguises.
(Hey, someone was gonna say it.)
JCR
--
"Why should anyone hoodoo me, old Hein Huss? I am so inoffensive.
Whoever tried would surely die, of shame and remorse."
-- Master Jinxman Hein Huss dissembles his immense skill at magic.
from "The Miracle Workers", by Jack Vance
J Shearer
J Shearer
m...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) writes: > In article <5v7sk5$c08$1...@kanga.accessone.com>, J Shearer <@accessone.com> wrote:
> > > It's also interesting to contemplate that most of our rights
> > > derive from men putting their lives on the line and undergoing agony
> > > sometimes greater than that of childbirth. I wonder how Marg would
> > > feel if someone should posit that we'll "allow" her a few rights even
> > > though she didn't undergo the agony attendant on giving birth to them.
> > >
> > Pretty dim response, Per. This "You only have freedom,etc., because we
> > boys went out and played war" crap reminds me of the "scam" male lions have
> > pulled on the female pride: "you let us eat the meat YOU caught...FIRST...
> > and we'll protect OUR cubs from the other male lions." Yes, I'm glad men
> > (some men--certainly not ALL
>
> How do you know it's a scam? As usual, feminists criticize arrangements
> that they know nothing about.
===================================================================
Mark, I've read a lot of history, and am an ex-"Army Brat", so I have taken
an interest in war and its ramifications. My opinion that the lion thing
is a "scam" is merely a snotty remark...but I HAVE noticed that male lions
seem to do a lot of lying around "watching Oprah", rather than catching din-
ner.
To be realistic, I am aware that the other reason male lions are use-
ful is that they are big enough to take on the lions' main enemy, the
hyenas. (Female hyenas, BTW, are larger than male hyenas.) But...it does
seem ... "interesting" ... that male lions spend MOST of their time lazing
about. That's just how it worked out, of course. Obviously lions don't
have the brains to consciously run a "scam" on the females.
As for war, I think there's something of a "scam" going, on the non-
combatant population...and I think this comes down from early on...8000
BCE, if one believes Rianne Eisler (author of _Chalice and the Blade_).
In the early days of "warrior kings", the warrior class took unto itself
all sorts of goodies: loot, slaves, women...IOW, the best to be had. I
think that this attitude--that "warriors" are better than everyone else--
is what is being promulgated in this ng, by several men. And, let's face
it: being the warrior, being Upper Class, means that they get the spoils,
and have a vested interest in continuing warfare. It was a way of life to
men in the old times.
Obviously, this "warrior-ism" is no longer the prime "career"choice
for healthy young males. But, the attitude persists. Politicians have
reason to resort to war (" War is a continuation of politics by other
means." --Clausewitz.) War is a useful tool, for keeping other men in line,
for gaining territory, for enforcing one's economic/political system. The
"Little Wars" --Panama, Granada, the Gulf War-- show that most clearly.
Vietnam was fought for 2 reasons: oil and anti-Communism. America was in
no danger of being invaded--12,000 miles across the Pacific--by Vietnamese
in Sampans. It was an Imperialist war, fought by the Americans for control
of the many oil leases in the South China Sea. The Ruling Class cynically
sent 55,000 American men to die for the sake of their oil revenues.
So, Mark, I don't buy your "women should remain second-class citizens
just because we aren't sent out to die for the Rich." Occasionally, a war
is forced upon us...usually, in American history, our rulers have decided
to shake sabres at the "fuzzy-wuzzies" (note: British racist term for the
North Africans they were engaged in a Colonial War with.)(I.e., sarcasm.)
Do you see why I refer to this whole subject as a "scam"? Jan
========================================================================
> Many human women enjoy being financially supported by a Patriarchal husband.
> Heck, more prefer that arrangement than the career woman finding a
> "sensitive" type male to stay at home. Yet feminists claim that society
> "oppressed" women by expecting this of them.
===================================================================
Mark, you have a strange idea of how most Americans live. Only about 1/7
of us are still able to manage the "one works, one stays home" lifestyle.
The others--except for a tiny percentage (1-2%) who are in the Ruling Class
--are two-worker families, single mothers, etc. "Society" (i.e., the
Capitalist Ruling Class) is oppressing ALL of us!! One of the ways it has
kept men in line is by giving them WOMEN to exploit! Well, Mark, that's
coming to an end. Now you'll just have to work WITH women to change this
obnoxious situation! Jan
========================================================================
> Maybe these lionesses are the same way: They like the strong, maucho lion
> and are willing to put up with his asshole attitude of not washing the
> dishes and watching football all day. :-) :-) :-)
=========================================================
Har, har. Female lions don't THINK about "strong macho" males...they just
go with the one who wins. And they probably think "war" is as stupid as
most women do. Females have little to gain from war. Unlike men. Jan
=======================================================================
> The bachelor lions? Maybe they don't want to join "society" when all
> that is waiting for them is paying "taxes" out of their hunt for
> free daycare while the female lionesses watch Oprah. Or paying
> "cub support" for cubs they have no choices over.
=========================================================
Ha.... This bull would ALMOST be clever...if it weren't so totally incorrect
and such utter right-wing cant. Jan
=========================================================================
> It's ironic because humans are imitating nature. In guettos where
> welfare moms get state funding and poor men are "deadbeat dads",
> things are literally reverting back to the wild.
========================================================
Do I detect the stink of racism here? Of course I do. Not only are you
an anti-woman right-winger, you're also a racist!! Why am I not surprised?
Jan
=================================================================
Men cannot rejoin
> society because their driver's licenses have been taken away
===<Huh? For drinking?>===========
> and they cannot get a decent job to pay the rent, much less a job to
> pay rent AND child-support. Women then have to date powerful strong
> men to protect themselves from the "bachelor" lions roaming out in
> the wild...
==============================================================
Ah! The "Anthromorphic Theatre" for Lush Rimjob lovers! Jan
=====================================================================
> Maybe that's why the Patriarchy has existed for so long:
==============================================================
Oh, I wouldn't call "9,000 years or so" very long. "Matrilineal egalitar-
ianism" would probably be a more descriptive term, for the 1.5 million years
or so of "Prehistory". Jan
====================================================================
Because
> flawed as it is, it works better than feminism (the welfare state.)
==============================================================
Mark, the scores are not in yet. Feminism, BTW, does not equate with the
so-called "welfare state". And, BTW, the Ruling Class has things set up so
THEY get butt-loads of corporate welfare!! Many, many TIMES what a poor
single mother gets!! She may get $600/mo., while Chase Manhattan is get-
ting ...oh, I hesitate to guess. 6 trillion, maybe? Guess where the money
to pay off the National Debt (most of which was built up by the Vietnam
War, and Ronnie Ray-Gun) goes? Banks, mostly. Look it up. Jan
=========================================================================
>
> Mark Sobolewski
Leslie
> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) writes:
> >In <8739154...@dejanews.com> m...@primarycolor.com writes:
> >> It all depends on whether we want to honor those who
> >> make war, or those who give life. It's a values thing.
> >
> > Giving birth to children does not negate the co-contribution
> > of men, without whom the child COULD not exist. It is still
> > just as important to value the time, effort and pain women
> > go thru in childbirth (and deaths) just like the deaths that
> > men have historically met in battle. Without the fighting
> > of men in battle there would be no America; without the wil-
> > lingness of women in childbirth, there would be no one to
> > fight the battle; you boys didn't arrive here alone, and
> > we're no longer willing to give you penis credits for your
> > vain glory.
>
> Men who choose national service are not entitled to "abort" during
> the middle of battle even though the danger to their bodies is
> obvious. Are you sure you want to continue comparing the two?
Men may become conscientious objectors. They may desert the military.
They may move to another country to avoid going into the military.
Does this mean men have choices too?
Leslie -- who thinks comparing child birth with the military is a bit far
fetched, but what the heck.
>
> Besides, women gestate for the same reason that weapons contractors
> make guns: For their own interests. If women have no OBLIGATION
> or REQUIREMENT to gestate (or continue to provide "primary care")
> then it's not service.
>
> That is... unless you want to claim that society does have an
> interest in making sure women gestate to term......? :-)
>
> See you at the pro-life rally! :-)
>
> Mark Sobolewski
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
--
********************************************************************
Charlie Kester
Lenny Schafer wrote in article ...
>John Reinhagen <wr...@savageoasis.fc.net> wrote:
>: Also sprach Sean C:
>
>: >The Human Resources Committee of the Patriarchal Conspiracy, Inc.,
regrets
>: >to announce that the applications for employment of Marg Peterson and
Carol
>: >Ann Hemingway have been rejected in compliance with our new
Affirmative
>: >Action program. We will be hiring a jackass and a baboon instead, as
these
>: >animals have previously been passed over in hiring decisions, and
appear to
>: >be better qualified anyway.
>
>: You can't fool me, Sean. You're trying to sneak Marg and Carol into
the
>: Patriarchal Conspiracy -- and in the thinnest of disguises.
>
>
Lenny, I don't think your comment is funny.
But I've been told in another thread that
judging men by their penises is funny.
When I suggested changing the story
so that it was women and their breasts
who were competing, and asked if it
would still be funny, the answer I got
was "Sure, why not?"
So I guess your joke is acceptable after all...
(but I'm still not laughing)
charlie
(Remove NOSPAM from address to reply by email.)
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <schaferE...@netcom.com> Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com>
writes:
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>: In <8739154...@dejanews.com> m...@primarycolor.com writes:
>: >
>: > It all depends on whether we want to honor those who
>: > make war, or those who give life. It's a values thing.
>
>: Giving birth to children does not negate the co-contribution
>: of men, without whom the child COULD not exist. It is still
>: just as important to value the time, effort and pain women
>: go thru in childbirth (and deaths) just like the deaths that
>: men have historically met in battle. Without the fighting
>: of men in battle there would be no America; without the wil-
>: lingness of women in childbirth, there would be no one to
>: fight the battle; you boys didn't arrive here alone, and
>: we're no longer willing to give you penis credits for your
>: vain glory.
>
>
>
>-lenny
------------
From what I know of a turkey's logic, Lenny, one with
"downs syndrome" would only be an improvement, but then
who better than you to understand how a turkey lives.
Lefty
>--
m...@primarycolor.com
J Shearer <@accessone.com> wrote:
> m...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) writes:
> To be realistic, I am aware that the other reason male lions are use-
> ful is that they are big enough to take on the lions' main enemy, the
> hyenas. (Female hyenas, BTW, are larger than male hyenas.) But...it does
> seem ... "interesting" ... that male lions spend MOST of their time lazing
> about. That's just how it worked out, of course. Obviously lions don't
> have the brains to consciously run a "scam" on the females.
I was making a cute remark too. :-) I still think I made valid points
about human societies.
> As for war, I think there's something of a "scam" going, on the non-
> combatant population...and I think this comes down from early on...8000
> BCE, if one believes Rianne Eisler (author of _Chalice and the Blade_).
> In the early days of "warrior kings", the warrior class took unto itself
> all sorts of goodies: loot, slaves, women...IOW, the best to be had. I
> think that this attitude--that "warriors" are better than everyone else--
> is what is being promulgated in this ng, by several men. And, let's face
> it: being the warrior, being Upper Class, means that they get the spoils,
> and have a vested interest in continuing warfare. It was a way of life to
> men in the old times.
For the most part, war has been a fool's game for most men. Most men
are poor draftees who don't share in the spoils. Upper class women
happily support war because they share in the spoils. Women vote to
continue war and the selective service system as it exists today.
In some cultures (such as Viking), warriers were kind of middle class
farmers who looted other countries as their "night" job. :-) But they
are the exception. For the most part, war has been conducted by
the rich using the poor as cannon fodder.
One point I would like to make is that war, whether for noble, hopeless,
or wrong reasons wasn't to the male combatants personal benefit most
of the time. When women gestated, they were reproducing. That's a very
serious personal benefit. When men died in war (or even took risks)
it was for someone elses benefit.
> Obviously, this "warrior-ism" is no longer the prime "career"choice
> for healthy young males.
UNTRUE!!!
Military service in the last 30 years has become especially lucrative
for highly skilled pilots and lower class men and women who want a nice
job with reasonable risk. Thank our friend: Mr. Nuke for that. Because
of nukes, wars only occur between us and weaker powers. We don't fight
people with nukes because, after all, neither of us can "win" a conflict.
In fact, if nukes weren't so... dangerous I would suggest giving
EVERYONE one of them. Then conventional war would be obsolete.
> So, Mark, I don't buy your "women should remain second-class citizens
> just because we aren't sent out to die for the Rich."
The holocaust was on the history channel last night. When jews were
machine gunned down, you know what the female partisian fighter said
in bushes while she watched?
"Oh my god! They're killing women and children!!!"
Does that sound like women enjoy second class status to you? That when
men are killed that it's somehow less wrong?
> Occasionally, a war
> is forced upon us...usually, in American history, our rulers have decided
> to shake sabres at the "fuzzy-wuzzies" (note: British racist term for the
> North Africans they were engaged in a Colonial War with.)(I.e., sarcasm.)
>
> Do you see why I refer to this whole subject as a "scam"? Jan
No argument from me there.
> > Many human women enjoy being financially supported by a Patriarchal husband.
> > Heck, more prefer that arrangement than the career woman finding a
> > "sensitive" type male to stay at home. Yet feminists claim that society
> > "oppressed" women by expecting this of them.
>
> Mark, you have a strange idea of how most Americans live. Only about 1/7
> of us are still able to manage the "one works, one stays home" lifestyle.
And you can thank feminism for that.
But if there is 1/7 that can afford that lifestyle, it's usually women
who enjoy it. So much for women being an oppressed class...
> The others--except for a tiny percentage (1-2%) who are in the Ruling Class
> --are two-worker families, single mothers, etc. "Society" (i.e., the
> Capitalist Ruling Class) is oppressing ALL of us!! One of the ways it has
> kept men in line is by giving them WOMEN to exploit! Well, Mark, that's
> coming to an end. Now you'll just have to work WITH women to change this
> obnoxious situation! Jan
And how do you propose to do that? To create a society comprised of
single mothers getting quota jobs with white males paying high taxes
and living in cardboard boxes?
No thanks. I would rather live as a bachelor lion. :-)
> > Maybe these lionesses are the same way: They like the strong, maucho lion
> > and are willing to put up with his asshole attitude of not washing the
> > dishes and watching football all day. :-) :-) :-)
>
> Har, har. Female lions don't THINK about "strong macho" males...they just
> go with the one who wins.
HEHEHEHE. And maybe human women are the same way. Ever think of that?
> And they probably think "war" is as stupid as
> most women do. Females have little to gain from war. Unlike men. Jan
You sure know a lot about what goes on in lionesses heads... Are you
their elected spokeswoman? :-)
> > The bachelor lions? Maybe they don't want to join "society" when all
> > that is waiting for them is paying "taxes" out of their hunt for
> > free daycare while the female lionesses watch Oprah. Or paying
> > "cub support" for cubs they have no choices over.
>
> Ha.... This bull would ALMOST be clever...if it weren't so totally incorrect
> and such utter right-wing cant. Jan
Oh, and you discriminating against white males on the presumption that
they are all privileged oppressors isn't racist cant?
> > It's ironic because humans are imitating nature. In guettos where
> > welfare moms get state funding and poor men are "deadbeat dads",
> > things are literally reverting back to the wild.
>
> Do I detect the stink of racism here? Of course I do. Not only are you
> an anti-woman right-winger, you're also a racist!! Why am I not surprised?
Please show where the above statement is racist. Please remember that
"guetto" is not a racist or even derogatory term according to proper
English.
Besides, aren't laws discriminating against white males racist?
> Men cannot rejoin
> > society because their driver's licenses have been taken away
> ===<Huh? For drinking?>===========
I WISH! _That_ would make sense. Nope. The state has started
to meddle with people's driver's "privileges" for failure to pay
child-support.
You know, the same "privileges" that men denied women: The right to travel
or own property? Thanks for bringing that little rule back. Maybe
someday... women will be denied the right to travel and own property
under regulations drawn up for child-support enforcement....
the neat thing about rights is that when you deny them to someone else,
they often deny you the same rights later...
> > Maybe that's why the Patriarchy has existed for so long:
>
> Oh, I wouldn't call "9,000 years or so" very long. "Matrilineal egalitar-
> ianism" would probably be a more descriptive term, for the 1.5 million years
> or so of "Prehistory". Jan
9000 years is pretty long considering that after 30 years, feminism
cannot survive without continuing to raise taxes and harm working class
people.
> Because
> > flawed as it is, it works better than feminism (the welfare state.)
>
> Mark, the scores are not in yet. Feminism, BTW, does not equate with the
> so-called "welfare state".
HAHAHAHAHA!
I'll let the facts speak for myself on answering that.
> And, BTW, the Ruling Class has things set up so
> THEY get butt-loads of corporate welfare!!
I disagree with corporate welfare just like you.
> Many, many TIMES what a poor single mother gets!! She may get $600/mo.,
>while Chase Manhattan is get-
> ting ...oh, I hesitate to guess. 6 trillion, maybe?
No argument from me. Both are leeches.
> Guess where the money
> to pay off the National Debt (most of which was built up by the Vietnam
> War, and Ronnie Ray-Gun) goes? Banks, mostly. Look it up. Jan
And this is going to be solved by paying women to breed children into
poverty?
At least I can walk through a bank without being robbed. Try doing that
in a single mom neighborhood. :-)
Leslie
In article <5v8u7t$qv1$1...@texas.nwlink.com>, "Charlie Kester"
<cke...@NOSPAM.nwlink.com> wrote:
I agree with you Charlie. Although I posted a rather stupid joke last
week about male body parts, I generally don't think those comments/jokes
are all that funny. Reading it rather than hearing it often changes the
perception too.
Leslie
--
********************************************************************
Pat Winstanley
In article <5v7fke$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Val
<val...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>> Besides, women gestate for the same reason that weapons contractors
>> make guns: For their own interests. If women have no OBLIGATION
>> or REQUIREMENT to gestate (or continue to provide "primary care")
>> then it's not service.
>>
>> That is... unless you want to claim that society does have an
>> interest in making sure women gestate to term......? :-)
>>
>> See you at the pro-life rally! :-)
>
>been to one.
What, never been the one giving birth?
Quite correct! Nobody who hasn't been through childbirth could possibly
know what it's like...
... it's just as well the memory of the pain fades a little with time,
otherwise nobody would give birth twice!
Incidentally, no man is required to serve in the US armed forces, never
mind go to war on the front line, at the moment, and hasn't been since
around the time of Roe v Wade... no conscription since 1973... no man
aged about 40 or under now has been conscripted into the US military.
Most women aged under 40 have been through childbirth...
Stop whinging! Men have the easy part of it!
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
m...@primarycolor.com
Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>Anyone who compares childbirth with going to war, has obviously never
>>been to one.
>
>What, never been the one giving birth?
>
>Quite correct! Nobody who hasn't been through childbirth could possibly
>know what it's like...
>
>... it's just as well the memory of the pain fades a little with time,
>otherwise nobody would give birth twice!
>
>Incidentally, no man is required to serve in the US armed forces, never
>mind go to war on the front line, at the moment, and hasn't been since
>around the time of Roe v Wade... no conscription since 1973... no man
>aged about 40 or under now has been conscripted into the US military.
>Most women aged under 40 have been through childbirth...
>
>Stop whinging! Men have the easy part of it!
Perhaps it's feminists who should have some cheese with their whine.
www.fedstats.gov says that the rate for childbirth deaths in the
U.S. is _3_ women dead per million in the population. That comes
out to about 375 women dead per year due to "COMPLICATIONS OF
PREGNANCY, CHILDBIRTH, AND THE PUERPERIUM"
57,000 men died in Vietnam. Women will have to die from childbirth
until the year _2114_ at this rate just to catch up from year
1963 when the Vietnam conflict started. (Assuming, of course, that
another major conflict does not arise where young men will again be
conscripted to die in government service.)
What about 19th century childbirth morality rates? I'm still looking
for those. In the meantime, here's some entertaining reading
from http://www.voiceofwomen.com/midwife.html
"That women did die in childbirth was clearly a factor of poverty,
nutrition, and urban growth. As more and more people lived closer
and closer together without the benefits of sanitation and with
minimal standards of personal hygiene (at least in the West),
death and disease flourished. Women were more likely to die due
to the perpetual state of germ warfare than because of difficulties
inherent in the birthing process. Presumably, those who were poor,
sick, and ill-fed succumbed to death; the physical demands of
pregnancy and childbirth were more a catalyst for, than a direct
cause of, their inevitable fate.
Though things were gloomy in urban Europe, particularly England,
they were less gloomy in the colonies. This is recounted in A
Midwives Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard Based On Her Diary
1785-1812, written by a midwife and healer who practiced in New
England in the 1700s. Ballard had excellent birth statistics, and
reported delivering breech and multiple births as a normal process.
Clearly, it seems, when factors of disease and poor nutrition were
minimized, the actual physical process of giving birth put very
few women at risk."
Let me repeat the end of that last sentence (all caps)
"... THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL PROCESS OF GIVING BIRTH PUT VERY FEW WOMEN
AT RISK."
SMotter
Val <val...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<5v7fke$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> > >> It all depends on whether we want to honor those who
> > >> make war, or those who give life. It's a values thing.
> > >
> > > of men, without whom the child COULD not exist. It is still
> > > just as important to value the time, effort and pain women
> > > go thru in childbirth (and deaths) just like the deaths that
> > > men have historically met in battle. Without the fighting
> > > of men in battle there would be no America; without the
wil-
> > > lingness of women in childbirth, there would be no one to
> > > fight the battle; you boys didn't arrive here alone, and
> > > we're no longer willing to give you penis credits for your
> > > vain glory.
> >
> > the middle of battle even though the danger to their bodies is
> > obvious. Are you sure you want to continue comparing the two?
> >
> > make guns: For their own interests. If women have no OBLIGATION
> > or REQUIREMENT to gestate (or continue to provide "primary care")
> > then it's not service.
> >
> > That is... unless you want to claim that society does have an
> > interest in making sure women gestate to term......? :-)
> >
> > See you at the pro-life rally! :-)
> >
> >
> > -------------------==== Posted via Deja News
====-----------------------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
>
> been to one.
> But they do know how it feels to have their head up their ass. :)
Whats
SMotter
SMotter
m...@primarycolor.com wrote in article <8739368...@dejanews.com>...
4 October 1997 on the Mall Washington D.C. Stand in the Gap. PK.
Whats
SMotter
>
Val
Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> In article <5v7fke$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Val
> <val...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >> make guns: For their own interests. If women have no OBLIGATION
> >> or REQUIREMENT to gestate (or continue to provide "primary care")
> >> then it's not service.
> >>
> >> That is... unless you want to claim that society does have an
> >> interest in making sure women gestate to term......? :-)
> >>
> >> See you at the pro-life rally! :-)
> >
> >been to one.
>
>
> Quite correct! Nobody who hasn't been through childbirth could possibly
> know what it's like...
>
> ... it's just as well the memory of the pain fades a little with time,
> otherwise nobody would give birth twice!
>
> Incidentally, no man is required to serve in the US armed forces, never
> mind go to war on the front line, at the moment, and hasn't been since
> around the time of Roe v Wade... no conscription since 1973... no man
> aged about 40 or under now has been conscripted into the US military.
> Most women aged under 40 have been through childbirth...
>
> Stop whinging! Men have the easy part of it!
>
> "http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
No women are forced to go thru childbirth, either.
And though there is no draft, a lot of the men who went with me to
Desert Storm had enlisted looking for a way to pay their way thru
college. Their bust....
Marg Petersen
In article <schaferE...@netcom.com>,
Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>John Reinhagen <wr...@savageoasis.fc.net> wrote:
>: Also sprach Sean C:
>
>: >The Human Resources Committee of the Patriarchal Conspiracy, Inc., regrets
>: >to announce that the applications for employment of Marg Peterson and Carol
>: >Ann Hemingway have been rejected in compliance with our new Affirmative
>: >Action program. We will be hiring a jackass and a baboon instead, as these
>: >animals have previously been passed over in hiring decisions, and appear to
>: >be better qualified anyway.
>
>: You can't fool me, Sean. You're trying to sneak Marg and Carol into the
>: Patriarchal Conspiracy -- and in the thinnest of disguises.
>
>
>I doubt it. Probably more like the animals have nicer looking tits.
>
>What, Me Crude?
>-lenny
>--
Yes, lenny, you are.
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
Marg Petersen
In article <341e5632...@news.idt.net>, Per <pe...@idt.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:22:36 -0600, m...@primarycolor.com wrote:
>
>>These are quotes from my files that show deep down, that Marg
>>and Carol Ann think like Patriarchal, victorian women.
>[...]
>
>>Marg Petersen
>.
>><5t2b7c$88u$1...@kira.peak.org>
>> Why should he? Has HE gestated it? Has HE spent 9 months sheltering
>> and providing nourishment for it? Has HE just gone through birth?
>> I'm perfectly willing to *allow* him some rights to his child,
>.
>.
> It's interesting that a feminist is willing to "allow" a
>father some rights. Obviously she does not believe in equality if the
>man has to have his rights "allowed" by a feminist.
Please, per, put the emphasis where it belongs; on *willing*.
I have NO jurisdiction whatsoever to allow anything.
> Perhaps Marg could gain a better understanding of the concept
>of rights, basic as they are to our civilization. Rights are something
>you are guaranteed. They do not flow from some other member "allowing"
>you your rights.
Well, let's see, possession is 9/10ths of the law, until we had
DNA testing there was NO provable way for a man to say that a
child was his or not. By law, (and science) we (society) *allow*
men the rights to their own children. By the way, interesting
that YOU of all people make such a comment based on your (other)
statements about MEN *allowing* women the vote. Interesting as
I said. :-)
> It's also interesting to contemplate that most of our rights
>derive from men putting their lives on the line and undergoing agony
>sometimes greater than that of childbirth. I wonder how Marg would
>feel if someone should posit that we'll "allow" her a few rights even
>though she didn't undergo the agony attendant on giving birth to them.
Hmmm, that might preclude YOU and a whole lot of other men who
made no such sacrifices. Also interesting that you, a man, feels
that he has any idea whatsoever of the agony of childbirth. But
then, those such as you do seem to have humungous egos.
Marg Petersen
In article <redhawk2-ya0240800...@news.mindspring.com>,
Sean C <redh...@SPAMFREEmindspring.com> wrote:
>
>The Human Resources Committee of the Patriarchal Conspiracy, Inc., regrets
>to announce that the applications for employment of Marg Peterson and Carol
>Ann Hemingway have been rejected in compliance with our new Affirmative
>Action program. We will be hiring a jackass and a baboon instead, as these
>animals have previously been passed over in hiring decisions, and appear to
>be better qualified anyway.
>
Why thank you! I cannot imagine a better group to be rejected
from. However, I am currently not in need of another JOB as I
am already quite gainfully employed (at a very nice salary,
thank you), and am not looking to change jobs at this time. I
am quite certain that your *new* job hirees quite fit the bill
(for what you were looking for). I consider that I would NOT have
been qualified for such positions.
Marg
[who's *boss* is the sweetest FEMINIST male I've ever met]
Paul A Laird
Paul Robbins wrote:
>
> Per wrote:
> >
> > On 11 Sep 1997 04:38:29 GMT, J Shearer <@accessone.com> wrote:
> >
> > >pe...@idt.net (Per) writes: > On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:22:36 -0600, m...@primarycolor.com wrote:
> > .
> >
> > >> It's interesting that a feminist is willing to "allow" a
> > >> father some rights. Obviously she does not believe in equality if the
> > >> man has to have his rights "allowed" by a feminist.
> > >> of rights, basic as they are to our civilization. Rights are something
> > you are guaranteed. They do not flow from some other member
> > "allowing"
> > >> you your rights.
> > >> derive from men putting their lives on the line and undergoing agony
> > >> sometimes greater than that of childbirth. I wonder how Marg would
> > >> feel if someone should posit that we'll "allow" her a few rights even
> > >> though she didn't undergo the agony attendant on giving birth to them.
> >
> > >Pretty dim response, Per.
> > .
> > Really? Then let's check your comprehension:
> > .
> > > This "You only have freedom,etc., because we
> > >boys went out and played war" crap reminds me of the "scam" male lions have
> > >pulled on the female pride: "you let us eat the meat YOU caught...FIRST...
> > >and we'll protect OUR cubs from the other male lions."
> > You take an example in which men take the risks, do the work,
> > make the sacrifice. Then you switch it to an example of female animals
> > doing the work, and say it's wrong for the males to come in and share.
> > I guess you don't realize how much you put your foot in it
> > that time.
> > .
>
> My observation on this is that both Lefty and Marg spend a great deal of
> time defending the present system and precious little time on how it
> might be changed so that it no longer "oppresses" women. Maybe that darn
> old patriarchy ain't so bad on women after all. It seems to me the men
> here want to do the changing. Why is that, when everything is to our
> benefit?
>
> Paul R
Having spared with the highly inferior Lefty, I can tell you the reason
she has not given any ideas on how to change the system is that she #1,
sees nothing wrong with the current system, and #2, has never had an
origianl thought. Paul L
Per
Paul Robbins
My observation on this is that both Lefty and Marg spend a great deal of
Cici in Texas
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:19:38 +0100, Pat Winstanley wrote:
>In article <5v7fke$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Val
><val...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>> Besides, women gestate for the same reason that weapons contractors
>>> make guns: For their own interests. If women have no OBLIGATION
>>> or REQUIREMENT to gestate (or continue to provide "primary care")
>>> then it's not service.
>>>
>>> That is... unless you want to claim that society does have an
>>> interest in making sure women gestate to term......? :-)
>>>
>>> See you at the pro-life rally! :-)
>>
>>Anyone who compares childbirth with going to war, has obviously never
>>been to one.
>
>What, never been the one giving birth?
>
>Quite correct! Nobody who hasn't been through childbirth could possibly
>know what it's like...
>
>... it's just as well the memory of the pain fades a little with time,
>otherwise nobody would give birth twice!
>
>Incidentally, no man is required to serve in the US armed forces, never
>mind go to war on the front line, at the moment, and hasn't been since
>around the time of Roe v Wade... no conscription since 1973... no man
>aged about 40 or under now has been conscripted into the US military.
>Most women aged under 40 have been through childbirth...
>
>Stop whinging! Men have the easy part of it!
>
>Pat Winstanley
At least until the shooting starts . . .
"Oh it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and chuck 'im out, the brute!
But it's 'thin red line of heroes' when the guns begin to shoot.
Rudyard Kipling
Cici in Texas
(Remove * from email addresss to reply)
Mark Sobolewski
god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
> Well, let's see, possession is 9/10ths of the law, until we had
> DNA testing there was NO provable way for a man to say that a
> child was his or not.
And there was also no provable way to get a man to pay for a woman's
gestation choices...
> By law, (and science) we (society) *allow*
> men the rights to their own children.
If you want to get technical, yes, all "rights" are allowed under the law.
As Caesar said: "Take a garrison with you. It makes Caesar's word legal." :-)
> By the way, interesting
> that YOU of all people make such a comment based on your (other)
> statements about MEN *allowing* women the vote. Interesting as
> I said. :-)
Considering that men DIED to protect their country and PAY for
child-support, he has a point.
Men EARNED their rights. Nobody handed them to us.
> > It's also interesting to contemplate that most of our rights
> >derive from men putting their lives on the line and undergoing agony
> >sometimes greater than that of childbirth. I wonder how Marg would
> >feel if someone should posit that we'll "allow" her a few rights even
> >though she didn't undergo the agony attendant on giving birth to them.
>
> Hmmm, that might preclude YOU and a whole lot of other men who
> made no such sacrifices.
Nope. But we do have a duty to go through the sacrifices if they
should be needed.
Why should women get any credit for something they can walk out of
at any time? How many men are allowed in the middle of battle to
say: "This is threatening to my life! I didn't sign up for this!" :-)
If you wnat to equate gestation with national service, that's wonderful.
So then... when are you joining pro-life? :-)
> Also interesting that you, a man, feels
> that he has any idea whatsoever of the agony of childbirth.
I have an idea. I had my wisdom teeth pulled out. It was very painful.
Like gestation, my elective surgery was my own decision. Do I get
any pity points for having it done? :-)
> But then, those such as you do seem to have humungous egos.
I think we are entitled to them.
Providing financial support for children is far more difficult than
simple gestation. Since men are so good at doing that (and women
are so LOUSY at it) I think we have a right to squawk.
Go ahead. Tell women to visit the sperm bank and gestate a million
kids. But without our financial support, the kids would mostly
starve to death.
Otherwise, why are feminists constantly trying to push their child-care
costs, care, and medical needs on the taxpayers, men, and even third
parties such as their employers? Men are called "deadbeats" if they
try such a thing!
Mark Sobolewski
Marg Petersen
In article <ms-120997...@ip-55-094.sna.primenet.com>,
Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
>> Well, let's see, possession is 9/10ths of the law, until we had
>> DNA testing there was NO provable way for a man to say that a
>> child was his or not.
>
>And there was also no provable way to get a man to pay for a woman's
>gestation choices...
Absolutely! That is WHY (both reasons) society *contracted*
for these things; paternity AND child support. However, today
we don't need to rely on *contracts* alone for either.
>> By law, (and science) we (society) *allow*
>> men the rights to their own children.
>
>If you want to get technical, yes, all "rights" are allowed under the law.
>As Caesar said: "Take a garrison with you. It makes Caesar's word legal." :-)
Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar.
>> By the way, interesting
>> that YOU of all people make such a comment based on your (other)
>> statements about MEN *allowing* women the vote. Interesting as
>> I said. :-)
>
>Considering that men DIED to protect their country and PAY for
>child-support, he has a point.
ANd women DIED to continue the species and PAID for their
surviving by raising said children. ANd your point is?
>Men EARNED their rights. Nobody handed them to us.
And women have EARNED their rights as well. By the way, have
YOU served in the military Mark? If not, when are YOU going to
earn those rights that you have and wish to deny others?
>> > It's also interesting to contemplate that most of our rights
>> >derive from men putting their lives on the line and undergoing agony
>> >sometimes greater than that of childbirth. I wonder how Marg would
>> >feel if someone should posit that we'll "allow" her a few rights even
>> >though she didn't undergo the agony attendant on giving birth to them.
>>
>> Hmmm, that might preclude YOU and a whole lot of other men who
>> made no such sacrifices.
>
>Nope. But we do have a duty to go through the sacrifices if they
>should be needed.
Ahhhhh, how *noble* of you. Well, dear, I have *already* made
MY sacrifices. WHen can we expect the same of you?
>Why should women get any credit for something they can walk out of
>at any time? How many men are allowed in the middle of battle to
>say: "This is threatening to my life! I didn't sign up for this!" :-)
Hmmmm, I daresay that women (most of them) are not *able* to
walk out of the MIDDLE of gestating either, nor in the middle
of giving birth.
>If you wnat to equate gestation with national service, that's wonderful.
>So then... when are you joining pro-life? :-)
Just as soon as ALL men are required to serve, dear in order to
keep the rights they already have. Not until then. By the way,
I have NEVER been anti-life, but you most certainly seem to be,
at least WOMEN's life.
>> Also interesting that you, a man, feels
>> that he has any idea whatsoever of the agony of childbirth.
>
>I have an idea. I had my wisdom teeth pulled out. It was very painful.
Ahhh, poor baby. Believe me, it ain't nearly as bad. Try it
without any pain killer and *maybe* you'll get close. Course,
teeth pulling is over far more quickly than childbirth. Have YOU
thanked your mother today? You should.
>Like gestation, my elective surgery was my own decision. Do I get
>any pity points for having it done? :-)
Nope, keeping your teeth or having them pulled out was/is of
absolutely NO benefit to society in any way that I can see it.
Course, you may have a different opinion, considering your ego.
>> But then, those such as you do seem to have humungous egos.
>
>I think we are entitled to them.
Hahahahahahahaha. Since when? You? Don't make me laugh.
>Providing financial support for children is far more difficult than
>simple gestation. Since men are so good at doing that (and women
>are so LOUSY at it) I think we have a right to squawk.
Well, I'm not about (unlike you) to state that one is more
difficult than the other. However, since I have done both
(unlike you), I would expect that I have a wee bit more
experience with both. I'd say that BOTH are difficult in
their own ways and both have benefits in their own ways.
As to your comment that women are lousy at providing financial
support for children, well, let's just say that we all know
what a raving loon as well as sexist bigot you are. Your
comment is quite typical and expected.
>Go ahead. Tell women to visit the sperm bank and gestate a million
>kids. But without our financial support, the kids would mostly
>starve to death.
I have never told women to do any of the above. Talk about
straw men. You, Mark are the poster boy of straw. Note I
did NOT say straw man.
>Otherwise, why are feminists constantly trying to push their child-care
>costs, care, and medical needs on the taxpayers, men, and even third
>parties such as their employers? Men are called "deadbeats" if they
>try such a thing!
Yadayadayadayadayada. Same old story line. Booooooooring.
>Mark Sobolewski
Marg
Pat Winstanley
>Providing financial support for children is far more difficult than
>simple gestation. Since men are so good at doing that (and women
>are so LOUSY at it) I think we have a right to squawk.
Gestation is (in some ways) easier than providing financial support.
What you seem to forget is that the woman has to do *both* if there is
to be a child at all, wherever the child lives after birth.
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Pat Winstanley
In article <5va3no$7...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Val
<val...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>>
>> In article <5v7fke$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Val
>> <val...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>> >> Besides, women gestate for the same reason that weapons contractors
>> >> make guns: For their own interests. If women have no OBLIGATION
>> >> or REQUIREMENT to gestate (or continue to provide "primary care")
>> >> then it's not service.
>> >>
>> >> That is... unless you want to claim that society does have an
>> >> interest in making sure women gestate to term......? :-)
>> >>
>> >> See you at the pro-life rally! :-)
>> >
>> >Anyone who compares childbirth with going to war, has obviously never
>> >been to one.
>>
>> What, never been the one giving birth?
>>
>> Quite correct! Nobody who hasn't been through childbirth could possibly
>> know what it's like...
>>
>> ... it's just as well the memory of the pain fades a little with time,
>> otherwise nobody would give birth twice!
>>
>> Incidentally, no man is required to serve in the US armed forces, never
>> mind go to war on the front line, at the moment, and hasn't been since
>> around the time of Roe v Wade... no conscription since 1973... no man
>> aged about 40 or under now has been conscripted into the US military.
>> Most women aged under 40 have been through childbirth...
>>
>> Stop whinging! Men have the easy part of it!
>>
>> Pat Winstanley
>
>No women are forced to go thru childbirth, either.
>
>And though there is no draft, a lot of the men who went with me to
>Desert Storm had enlisted looking for a way to pay their way thru
>college. Their bust....
Fair enough. They chose to enlist to get the benefits taking the risk of
battle would bring them. Nobody forced them to!
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
m...@primarycolor.com
From: Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk>
>Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> writes
>>Providing financial support for children is far more difficult than
>>simple gestation. Since men are so good at doing that (and women
>>are so LOUSY at it) I think we have a right to squawk.
>
>Gestation is (in some ways) easier than providing financial support.
>What you seem to forget is that the woman has to do *both* if there is
>to be a child at all, wherever the child lives after birth.
Oh? And teenage women who gestate children and then go on welfare
have _ever_ done "both" (generated an income AND gestated children?)
Gestation is an "easier" way to generate an "income" in the following
ways:
1) It's not subject to market conditions (earning an income very
often is dependant upon the availability of "work" that pays income.)
Welfare dollars are gathered by taking away money from hard
working middle and blue collar families through taxation. Maybe
that's why those gals aren't all that popular... :-)
2) It doesn't require any special skills (Most people are capable
of having sex, eating food at home all day, and changing diapers.)
The true success of sexual reproduction is that it's been done
for the past million years by unskilled labor. :-) :-) :-)
3) It's a _safe_ job. (375 women die a year of childbirth related
complications in the U.S. (3 per million women) More _taxicab_
drivers die each year than women through childbirth.
-----
Where am I going with all this? I'm not just bashing stay-at-home
moms. On the contrary, this post is a reply to Marg and Carol Ann
who proclaim that women, through gestation, don't need men or
society to tell them what to do.
I'm showing quite clearly that society and men don't need women
as much as they need us. There are always lots of women out there
willing to gestate children whether we want them to or not.
Why should I _pay_ for mice in my garage when I have plenty of
them for free? :-)
m...@primarycolor.com
god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) writes:
>Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>>Considering that men DIED to protect their country and PAY for
>>child-support, he has a point.
>
>ANd women DIED to continue the species and PAID for their
>surviving by raising said children. ANd your point is?
My POINT is that men have problems too. We are not asking for
special privileges unless we perform the duties ourselves.
If a woman has a DUTY to bear children for society, I'll grant
you her dying for it is a sacrifice. Men had duties too.
Men still have duties.
>>> Hmmm, that might preclude YOU and a whole lot of other men who
>>> made no such sacrifices.
>>
>>Nope. But we do have a duty to go through the sacrifices if they
>>should be needed.
>
>Ahhhhh, how *noble* of you.
Nope. It's a LEGAL obligation. Nobility has nothing to do with it.
Gestation children _isn't_ a legal obligation. Kapish?
>Well, dear, I have *already* made
>MY sacrifices. WHen can we expect the same of you?
ANYTIME! Any time a war breaks out, society may draft me if it
sees fit.
>Hmmmm, I daresay that women (most of them) are not *able* to
>walk out of the MIDDLE of gestating either, nor in the middle
>of giving birth.
You are clearly getting desperate. The legal right to walk out
exists and you know it. You are only making yourself look
bad by trying to waffle.
>>If you wnat to equate gestation with national service, that's wonderful.
>>So then... when are you joining pro-life? :-)
>
>Just as soon as ALL men are required to serve, dear in order to
>keep the rights they already have. Not until then. By the way,
>I have NEVER been anti-life, but you most certainly seem to be,
>at least WOMEN's life.
All men _are_ required to serve _as the government calls them_.
Do you understand that simple sentence?
You are fully anti-life when it's in a woman's interests.
It's interesting that you ask for credit for women not killing
their own unborn children. I drove to work today and didn't
kill every pedestrian that crossed in front of my car. Do I
deserve a medal? :-) :-) :-)
>>Like gestation, my elective surgery was my own decision. Do I get
>>any pity points for having it done? :-)
>
>Nope, keeping your teeth or having them pulled out was/is of
>absolutely NO benefit to society in any way that I can see it.
>Course, you may have a different opinion, considering your ego.
On the contrary, having my wisdom teeth pulled was probably of
much more benefit to society than a welfare mom having a baby
to collect more welfare bucks.
I was back at work the following monday generating an income
for myself, work for my employer, and taxes for the government.
Society doesn't need children born into poverty. Many family
planning clinics will tell you that preventing children born
into poverty is a benefit to society.
Just because something _hurts_ doesn't make it a benefit to society.
You are free to chop your own arm off and whine on this newsgroup
about the pain. (Well, you would have to type with one hand. :-)
But that doesn't mean you doing society any favors...
>As to your comment that women are lousy at providing financial
>support for children, well, let's just say that we all know
>what a raving loon as well as sexist bigot you are.
Gee, where did "free day care" "free medical care" "child-support"
and "alimony" come from? Or am I making all those terms up
out of my head?
>>Go ahead. Tell women to visit the sperm bank and gestate a million
>>kids. But without our financial support, the kids would mostly
>>starve to death.
>
>I have never told women to do any of the above. Talk about
>straw men. You, Mark are the poster boy of straw. Note I
>did NOT say straw man.
If you think that's a straw man, so be it. I was making my
point. So far, you haven't done much to disprove it.
>>Otherwise, why are feminists constantly trying to push their child-care
>>costs, care, and medical needs on the taxpayers, men, and even third
>>parties such as their employers? Men are called "deadbeats" if they
>>try such a thing!
>
>Yadayadayadayadayada. Same old story line. Booooooooring.
Also the truth. I'll take the boring truth over feminist fantasies
anyday.
Carolyn Jean Fairman
Followup just to alt.feminism
<m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) writes:
>>Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>>>Considering that men DIED to protect their country and PAY for
>>>child-support, he has a point.
>>
>>ANd women DIED to continue the species and PAID for their
>>surviving by raising said children. ANd your point is?
>
>My POINT is that men have problems too. We are not asking for
>special privileges unless we perform the duties ourselves.
Sure you are. You (I'll be more polite than you ever are, Mark, MOST
MEN) are asking for the special privilege of being assumed competent
because you are male in many areas and especually those which confer
proestige. Many men ask that they be assumed as sex to contain the
competent humans for many tasks. When a man screws up, the whole sex
demands the special privilege of being assumed still competent,
whereas as judged from the people who post here, men view 1 woman
messes up as All Women Cannot Do This. This is a variant of the whine
that unqualified women are being allowed to work in jobs where men
deserved the priviledge, since, of course, No men have ever been
unqualified and even when there are obvious examples, that has no
bearing on all other men.
>If a woman has a DUTY to bear children for society, I'll grant
>you her dying for it is a sacrifice. Men had duties too.
>Men still have duties.
Women still have duties, to their children, to their jobs, and to
society. Just as many men fail at these things, sure some women do
too.
[snip]
>>Well, dear, I have *already* made
>>MY sacrifices. WHen can we expect the same of you?
>
>ANYTIME! Any time a war breaks out, society may draft me if it
>sees fit.
And yet you always demand the special priviledge of blaming all and
only women for this problem, when all and only men are the ones
determining who is drafted and all and only men have RULED, within the
miltary that women will not be permitted into combat spots.
[snip]
>>>If you wnat to equate gestation with national service, that's wonderful.
>>>So then... when are you joining pro-life? :-)
>>
>>Just as soon as ALL men are required to serve, dear in order to
>>keep the rights they already have. Not until then. By the way,
>>I have NEVER been anti-life, but you most certainly seem to be,
>>at least WOMEN's life.
>
>All men _are_ required to serve _as the government calls them_.
>Do you understand that simple sentence?
Well, it is wrong so perhaps that is the problem. Men age 18 to 26
are required to register with selective service. Past 26 you cannot
be drafted unless all the men (with a few women, now) in the
legislature and the man who is President change that.
>You are fully anti-life when it's in a woman's interests.
>It's interesting that you ask for credit for women not killing
>their own unborn children. I drove to work today and didn't
>kill every pedestrian that crossed in front of my car. Do I
>deserve a medal? :-) :-) :-)
A fetus isn't a child be definition, Mark. Typical emotional pull at
pathos by the anti-choicers.
Aren't you arguing for choice for men in serving or no serving? Why
deny that choice to women? And why aren't you arguing with the *men*
who force men and not women to register and who __deny__ women combat
roles?
[snip]
>Society doesn't need children born into poverty. Many family
>planning clinics will tell you that preventing children born
>into poverty is a benefit to society.
Then why does the Religious Right, the major and most well funded
opposition to choice, destroy access and education about
contraception? Many of the anti-choice people are also opposed to
birth control (just tell them not to do it, these people spout, and
they, like, won't! <LOL>) and please note that **planned parenthood**
clinics are bombed and harassed by anti-choicers, when these clinics
are the best source of inexpensive contraceptives...
[snip]
>>As to your comment that women are lousy at providing financial
>>support for children, well, let's just say that we all know
>>what a raving loon as well as sexist bigot you are.
>
>Gee, where did "free day care" "free medical care" "child-support"
>and "alimony" come from? Or am I making all those terms up
>out of my head?
Where did free schooling and education come from? How interesting
that you ignore that good idea, as good as free medical care and free
day care, when no hijacked by conservatives and religious folks trying
to sell their agenda to the kids in school.
Or do you think public schools were never a good idea, serve no good
and generally ought to be turned over to business that already abused
and misused people to make a quick buck and maximize profits for the
CEO's....?
And that taxes only ought to be used for corporate welfare and not for
helping the poor folks or the folks in the middle, only the upper
reaches of the obscenely rich? It's where we are heading because of
people like you sneer at the idea of free daycare or subsidized
medical care and scapegoat the poor.
[rest snipped]
--
18 Oct '96, the phrase "You Play Like a Girl" ==If equality is viewed
took on an entirely different meaning-American ==as a loss, what does
Basketball League inaugural game. GO LASERS! ==that tell you about the
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~cfairman/ ==previous situation?
GJP
Paul Robbins wrote:
> Per wrote:
> >
> > On 11 Sep 1997 04:38:29 GMT, J Shearer <@accessone.com> wrote:
> >
> > >pe...@idt.net (Per) writes: > On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:22:36 -0600, m...@primarycolor.com wrote:
> > .
> >
> > >> It's interesting that a feminist is willing to "allow" a
> > >> father some rights. Obviously she does not believe in equality if the
> > >> man has to have his rights "allowed" by a feminist.
> > >> Perhaps Marg could gain a better understanding of the concept
> > >> of rights, basic as they are to our civilization. Rights are something
> > you are guaranteed. They do not flow from some other member
> > "allowing"
> > >> you your rights.
> > >> It's also interesting to contemplate that most of our rights
> > >> derive from men putting their lives on the line and undergoing agony
> > >> sometimes greater than that of childbirth. I wonder how Marg would
> > >> feel if someone should posit that we'll "allow" her a few rights even
> > >> though she didn't undergo the agony attendant on giving birth to them.
> >
> > .=====================================================================
> > >Pretty dim response, Per.
> > .
> > Really? Then let's check your comprehension:
> > .
> > > This "You only have freedom,etc., because we
> > >boys went out and played war" crap reminds me of the "scam" male lions have
> > >pulled on the female pride: "you let us eat the meat YOU caught...FIRST...
> > >and we'll protect OUR cubs from the other male lions."
> > .
> > You take an example in which men take the risks, do the work,
> > make the sacrifice. Then you switch it to an example of female animals
> > doing the work, and say it's wrong for the males to come in and share.
> > I guess you don't realize how much you put your foot in it
> > that time.
> > .
>
> My observation on this is that both Lefty and Marg spend a great deal of
> time defending the present system and precious little time on how it
> might be changed so that it no longer "oppresses" women. Maybe that darn
> old patriarchy ain't so bad on women after all. It seems to me the men
> here want to do the changing. Why is that, when everything is to our
> benefit?
Old lefty-lu and other entitlement hungry women took another hit yesterday when the governor of CA
wouldn't sign a bill restoring life-time alimony. People are catching on that treating women as
being irresponsible/victims is not always good.
Of course on the other hand......if they force women to work in CA then more tax revenue will be
generated.
Hmmmmmmmm!!!!!!1
Greg Palumbo
>
>
> Paul R
GJP
Pat Winstanley wrote:
> In article <ms-120997...@ip-55-094.sna.primenet.com>, Mark
> Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> writes
> >Providing financial support for children is far more difficult than
> >simple gestation. Since men are so good at doing that (and women
> >are so LOUSY at it) I think we have a right to squawk.
>
> Gestation is (in some ways) easier than providing financial support.
> What you seem to forget is that the woman has to do *both* if there is
> to be a child at all, wherever the child lives after birth.
That is the way it is in the UK???? Here in the US you may be
politically correct, but you are wrong. I would guess you are wrong in
the UK also. Even though the US is presently experiencing the largest
drop of people on welfare rolls in history with welfare caseloads falling
by 3.1 million people between January 1993 and April of 1997, there are
still 11 million people or 4 percent of the population on welfare. The
welfare roles are typically occupied by women or women and children.
There is no law in the US that makes these women financially responsible
for themselves of their children.......unless they are a NCP. That is
they don't have to pay back the money they are given.
Get educated PAT!!!!!
Greg Palumbo
>
>
> Pat Winstanley
> "http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
hil...@viewgraphics.com
##Considering that men DIED to protect their country and PAY for
##child-support, he has a point.
In article <5vb09f$fpt$1...@kira.peak.org>,
Marg Petersen <god...@kira.peak.org> wrote:
>ANd women DIED to continue the species and PAID for their
>surviving by raising said children. ANd your point is?
Can we discuss risk factors?
The probability of a woman to die from child birth
is 1:10,000 and falling. And early screening can predict most
of the high risk cases. The probability of a man to die in a
"police action," Vietnam style is 50,000/125,000,000 = 1:2,500.
Guess which risk is treated more seriously and gives a group
of people a much better treatment in custody & support issues.
(And we did not even talk yet about the difference between a
risk that you take voluntary and a risk that you take because
you were drafted to the army.)
m...@primarycolor.com
Welcome back Carolyn.
cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>>My POINT is that men have problems too. We are not asking for
>>special privileges unless we perform the duties ourselves.
>
>Sure you are. You (I'll be more polite than you ever are, Mark, MOST
>MEN) are asking for the special privilege of being assumed competent
>because you are male in many areas and especually those which confer
>proestige. Many men ask that they be assumed as sex to contain the
>competent humans for many tasks.
Please show where they have proposed laws that say this. The only
people complaining against equal protection for everyone, including
white males, seem to be feminists...
>When a man screws up, the whole sex
>demands the special privilege of being assumed still competent,
>whereas as judged from the people who post here, men view 1 woman
>messes up as All Women Cannot Do This. This is a variant of the whine
>that unqualified women are being allowed to work in jobs where men
>deserved the priviledge, since, of course, No men have ever been
>unqualified and even when there are obvious examples, that has no
>bearing on all other men.
While that situation did exist at one time, men also had to face
the scary prospect that if they WEREN'T useful at a task to
earn an income, they were essentially useless and disposable.
And if you think about it, that's rather scary. All a woman has
to do to be "accepted" is have a womb and not look like the bride
of frankenstein (and I am very sympathetic to women who can't meet that.)
For men, life is one of continuous competition. Many of them can't
cut it and for some of them, it can literally be a death sentence.
So yes, I agree: The system sucks. When feminists suggest REALLY
changing the system rather than just giving quota jobs to women,
I'll start taking it seriously.
>>If a woman has a DUTY to bear children for society, I'll grant
>>you her dying for it is a sacrifice. Men had duties too.
>>Men still have duties.
>
>Women still have duties, to their children, to their jobs, and to
>society. Just as many men fail at these things, sure some women do
>too.
But women have the CHOICE to have children. Men do not have the
option of refusing to sign up with selective service.
And feminism is working to dump women's duties on other people thru
taxation. When men don't pay child-support and the taxpayer has
to pick up the tab, they are called deadbeats. When feminists suggest
it, it's called "progress."
>>>Well, dear, I have *already* made
>>>MY sacrifices. WHen can we expect the same of you?
>>
>>ANYTIME! Any time a war breaks out, society may draft me if it
>>sees fit.
>
>And yet you always demand the special priviledge of blaming all and
>only women for this problem,
I'm not blaming _anyone_ at that point. I'm merely pointing out that
being a man isn't all fun and games oppressing people. :-)
I am irked that feminists claim that women were oppressed by men
when they enjoyed many protections at the expense of men. If you
want to propose solutions, great. But don't get up on a victim
soap box and expect me to buy it.
>when all and only men are the ones determining who is drafted
Please think before you post. Women comprise 52% of the electorate.
(and a majority of older senior citizen voters). Nothing goes
on that they don't allow.
>and all and only men have RULED, within the
>miltary that women will not be permitted into combat spots.
Please read my post on military harassment. You may find that you
and I have a lot in common.
>>All men _are_ required to serve _as the government calls them_.
>>Do you understand that simple sentence?
>
>Well, it is wrong so perhaps that is the problem. Men age 18 to 26
>are required to register with selective service. Past 26 you cannot
>be drafted unless all the men (with a few women, now) in the
>legislature and the man who is President change that.
And women over 70 aren't out there gestating kids either. :-)
When I say "all men" I mean that all men have been legally subject to
selective service registration and the risk of draft at one time
or another.
You have already conceded that it's wrong for the state to use men's
bodies as cannon fodder. Let's just agree to agree and not nitpick, ok?
>>You are fully anti-life when it's in a woman's interests.
>>It's interesting that you ask for credit for women not killing
>>their own unborn children. I drove to work today and didn't
>>kill every pedestrian that crossed in front of my car. Do I
>>deserve a medal? :-) :-) :-)
>
>A fetus isn't a child be definition, Mark. Typical emotional pull at
>pathos by the anti-choicers.
Please read the original post on this thread. Marg is the one who
defines women providing "childcare" for fetuses in the womb.
Marg wants credit for women carrying "children" to term.
Men "co-create" children at conception and so on.
Essentially, Marg and Carol Ann seem to be saying that a fetus
ceases to be human when women want to kill it. While they may
have a legal right to that position, it's not very attractive
or popular. Most people just haven't THOUGHT about the abortion
logic. Many women I know that have thought about it agree that
some consistent standards need to be set.
>>Society doesn't need children born into poverty. Many family
>>planning clinics will tell you that preventing children born
>>into poverty is a benefit to society.
>
>Then why does the Religious Right, the major and most well funded
>opposition to choice, destroy access and education about
>contraception?
I agree! I think the pope is an IDIOT for being against welfare reform
for fear that the number of abortions will increase. 40 years ago,
he would have fought tooth and nail AGAINST welfare for single
motherhood. He essentially has been duped and blackmailed into
becoming a liberal and doesn't even realize it.
>Many of the anti-choice people are also opposed to
>birth control (just tell them not to do it, these people spout, and
>they, like, won't!
Marg and Carol Ann have told men that if we don't want to be forced
into fatherhood after conceptoin, just not to have sex.
What's good enough for the goose...
><LOL>) and please note that **planned parenthood**
>clinics are bombed and harassed by anti-choicers, when these clinics
>are the best source of inexpensive contraceptives...
The contraceptives are probably not very effective if so many
women need abortions and/or gestating children into poverty. :-)
_MY_ personal choice has been to only sleep with women I have agreed
to marry or settle down with if children result. If I don't like a woman,
I don't sleep with her.
Nobody told me to do that. It always just made sense to me.
>>>As to your comment that women are lousy at providing financial
>>>support for children, well, let's just say that we all know
>>>what a raving loon as well as sexist bigot you are.
>>
>>Gee, where did "free day care" "free medical care" "child-support"
>>and "alimony" come from? Or am I making all those terms up
>>out of my head?
>
>Where did free schooling and education come from? How interesting
>that you ignore that good idea, as good as free medical care and free
>day care, when no hijacked by conservatives and religious folks trying
>to sell their agenda to the kids in school.
When I was young and trying to get on my feet after leaving home,
I had to pay school taxes ($500) when my income per month for
less than $500.
It was not helpful at all.
Many poor people who are childless are already straining to make
ends meet and become a member of society. If they only want 2 kids
or even none at all, how are they going to be helped paying
taxes so that a single mom can stay at home all day and send 10 kids
to medical school?
>Or do you think public schools were never a good idea, serve no good
>and generally ought to be turned over to business that already abused
>and misused people to make a quick buck and maximize profits for the
>CEO's....?
Yeah, you're right. People should be misused by government bureaucrats.
:-)
:-) :-)
I agree that a minimum education is a good idea. But I think that
most of the childcare costs should be borne by the parents for
population limitation more than anything else. California has a
water shortage problem. Do we really want to give people money
for breeding children into poverty?
>And that taxes only ought to be used for corporate welfare and not for
>helping the poor folks or the folks in the middle, only the upper
>reaches of the obscenely rich?
Of course. We need to have rich people oppressing us.
Come on! I'm against corporate welfare for EVERYONE. Heck, most
of the corporate welfare is for democratic buddies. They have
been the ones squawking as the republicans have *gasp* cut
corporate welfare and taxes.
>It's where we are heading because of
>people like you sneer at the idea of free daycare or subsidized
>medical care and scapegoat the poor.
Poor "deadbeat" dads are already scapegoated as the cause of all
our ills. Many of them are too poor to pay yet they lose their
driver's licenses making it impossible for them to pay even if
they wanted to.
Feminists don't mind holding men responsible for their actions.
I'm just suggesting equality for women.
Mark Sobolewski
J Shearer
noS...@super.zippo.com (LEMURS 'R' US) writes: > On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:52:26 -0600, m...@primarycolor.com expounded:
> [...]
> ->
> ->2) It doesn't require any special skills (Most people are capable
> ->of having sex, eating food at home all day, and changing diapers.)
> ->The true success of sexual reproduction is that it's been done
> ->for the past million years by unskilled labor. :-) :-) :-)
>
> Reproduction requires almost no skill or training of any sort...every
> type of plant and animal on the face of the earth can do it.
>
=======================================================================
Honey, it ain't the reproducing that takes skill--it's raising a human being
to ADULTHOOD that's hard. (I notice a lot of the guys here haven't made
it yet.) Jan
======================================================================
> -- Don't look for Lemurs, as the cost of --
> -- our coupons prohibits the use of them --
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <5vadd9$ar6$1...@gte1.gte.net> Paul Robbins <prob...@dbintellect.com>
writes:
(edit)
>My observation on this is that both Lefty and Marg spend a great deal
of>time defending the present system and precious little time on how it
>might be changed so that it no longer "oppresses" women.
-------
Every day changes are being made that lead to more equal
treatment (less oppression) of women. I am all for up-
grading any system, but whatever we choose will have to
comply with the constitution, which means that it won't
be altered on the backs of women. In that regard, the
14th amendment protects us the same way it protects you,
so, if you have any particular plan that DOES comply
with equal protection, feel free to let us all know.
Maybe that darn
>old patriarchy ain't so bad on women after all. It seems to me the men
>here want to do the changing. Why is that, when everything is to our
>benefit?
>
>Paul R
---------
Change doesn't necessarily lead to less oppression, but
enforcing the 14th amendment does. :]
Lefty
Mark Sobolewski
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> Every day changes are being made that lead to more equal
> treatment (less oppression) of women.
You're so right! Every day the voters vote for such things as 209.
Isn't democracy wonderful? :-) Change is a good thing! :-)
> I am all for up-
> grading any system, but whatever we choose will have to
> comply with the constitution, which means that it won't
> be altered on the backs of women.
Nope. You just want it altered on the backs of men (and you brag
about men giving up their "privileges" all the time.)
Yet when men talk here about SAH mothers having to go out and
FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THEIR CHILDREN like men have for the past zillion
years of so, you start talking about preserving patriarchal arrangements...
> In that regard, the
> 14th amendment protects us the same way it protects you,
You're so right. I don't support SAH fathers living off of alimony
and using their lack of job skills as an excuse to avoid financially
supporting their children.
There. I'm being fair. Can we all go home now? :-)
> so, if you have any particular plan that DOES comply
> with equal protection, feel free to let us all know.
"The state shall not discriminate, nor grant preferences..." :-)
I think the VOTERS already let you know. :-)
> Maybe that darn
> >old patriarchy ain't so bad on women after all. It seems to me the men
> >here want to do the changing. Why is that, when everything is to our
> >benefit?
> >
> Change doesn't necessarily lead to less oppression, but
> enforcing the 14th amendment does. :]
THANK YOU for that little admission. :-)
Mark Sobolewski
Pat Winstanley
In article <341d76e9...@snews.zippo.com>, LEMURS 'R' US
<noS...@super.zippo.com> writes
>On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:38:18 -0600, m...@primarycolor.com expounded:
>
>->
>->god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) writes:
>[...]
>->>Well, dear, I have *already* made
>->>MY sacrifices. WHen can we expect the same of you?
>
>If your referring to reproducing, that's always in one's own self
>interest, and can never be considered a sacrifice - just the opposite.
How is it *always* in one's own self interest?
Are you not aware that some women cannot break out of the cyle of
producing a baby a year for 5 or so years? Have you never heard of
marital rape?
What about a woman who doesn't feel in the least bit maternal and is
really more interested in a career, but her husband wants kids and wants
to be the SAH parent caring for those kids. Who has to gestate those
kids?
Like Marg, I've done my bit in perpetuating the race. I've done (and am
doing) the work of raising the kids so that they too will perpetuate the
race.
What have you done so far?
If you are under the age of about 40 you have NOT been forced to risk
your life in battle. You may be so forced in the future, in which case
you will catch up with those of us who have already *volunteered* to
risk our lives and health in order to produce workers who will pay
(through their taxes) for YOUR old age pension and healthcare. Or you
may, like some, have already volunteered and been in battle, in which
case you are in the same position as any woman who has endured pregnancy
and childbirth.
In this country, and yours, women do not have the choice of serving in
battle (with a very few exceptions such as fighter pilots). They are not
allowed to do so. Even when they are perfectly capable and willing.
I'm beginning to wonder whether the reason women aren't allowed "in the
trenches" is so that men can use their battle experience (that the women
are barred from getting) as airmiles! Until women are allowed to even
volunteer for the 'trenches' women cannot be blamed for 'letting' the
men fight in their stead.
How can you possibly blame women for NOT fighting when they are not
ALLOWED to fight?
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
John Reinhagen
Also sprach J Shearer:
>Mark, I've read a lot of history, and am an ex-"Army Brat",
Such credentials.
>so I have taken
>an interest in war and its ramifications.
Well, let's see what you know, then.
>My opinion that the lion thing is a "scam" is merely a snotty remark...
An unexpected bit of honesty -- but wait for it, folks, wait for it...
>but I HAVE noticed that male lions
>seem to do a lot of lying around "watching Oprah", rather than catching din-
>ner.
Ah, there it is. I knew it was coming.
Tell me, how has your experience as an Army brat and a student of history
prepared you to make this particular statement?
I certainly hope you're not trying to slip in an invalid analogy to human
males there. Goodness knows you'd need a lot more evidence before you made
such a connection -- openly and honestly, that is.
<snip lots of talk about lions -- doesn't this belong on some other
newsgroup?>
> As for war, I think there's something of a "scam" going, on the non-
>combatant population...
Phaahahahaha!
So that's the result of your studies? Wow. What depth and clarity of
understanding this conclusion reveals!
Try reading Fussell's _Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second
World War_. Or Gustav Hasford's not-so-fictional _The Short-Timers_. Or
any of a number of *real* books on *real* war. Then come back and tell us
all how the combatant population has it so good.
JCR
--
"Why should anyone hoodoo me, old Hein Huss? I am so inoffensive.
Whoever tried would surely die, of shame and remorse."
-- Master Jinxman Hein Huss dissembles his immense skill at magic.
from "The Miracle Workers", by Jack Vance
Cici in Texas
On 12 Sep 1997 00:12:00 -0700, Mark Sobolewski wrote:
>god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
<snip>
>> Also interesting that you, a man, feels
>> that he has any idea whatsoever of the agony of childbirth.
>
>I have an idea. I had my wisdom teeth pulled out. It was very painful.
>
>Like gestation, my elective surgery was my own decision. Do I get
>any pity points for having it done? :-)
Only a few, unless you got dry sockets. I've done both (wisdom teeth
-- with dry sockets -- and labor), and as bad as the wisdom teeth bit
was, it wasn't a patch on labor. As to delivery, I couldn't say -- I
never got that far. What I get for trying to give birth to half-grown
children, I guess.
Besides, last I heard, there wasn't any such thing as 'natural
wisdom-teeth pulling' where you went to classes to learn how to endure
the procedure without drugs. ;-> I guess all that huffing and
puffing would tend to get in the dental surgeon's way.
Now, if you'd ever had a kidney stone, you'd get a full complement of
pity points. Women who have done both say that the kidney stone was
every bit as bad as having a baby -- even a bit worse, since there's
never a pause in the pain. Of course, if you go to the hospital with
a kidney stone, they'll give you Dilaudid . . . but if you go to the
hospital in labor, they just tell you to BREATHE!
Mark Sobolewski
In article <5vdlkn$s9v$2...@gte1.gte.net>, cclovis@gte*.net (Cici in Texas) wrote:
> Besides, last I heard, there wasn't any such thing as 'natural
> wisdom-teeth pulling' where you went to classes to learn how to endure
> the procedure without drugs. ;-> I guess all that huffing and
> puffing would tend to get in the dental surgeon's way.
That's just it: Women choose these procedures for their own reasons.
If I went to the dentist and refused for religous or personal reasons
to have pain killers, nobody would feel sorry for me.
Do you understand the concept: _elective_ procedures?
> Now, if you'd ever had a kidney stone, you'd get a full complement of
> pity points. Women who have done both say that the kidney stone was
> every bit as bad as having a baby -- even a bit worse, since there's
> never a pause in the pain. Of course, if you go to the hospital with
> a kidney stone, they'll give you Dilaudid . . . but if you go to the
> hospital in labor, they just tell you to BREATHE!
If it's so bad, just don't have sex and get pregnant! Or get a late
term abortion! (It's easy. Feminists say that once you start sawing
off the kids head, they stop crying. :-)
Cut me a break! You are wanting pity points for something women
back out of everyday. If you want sainthood for not killing your own
children, don't ask me. :-)
Mark Sobolewski
Mark Sobolewski
Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >But women have the CHOICE to have children. Men do not have the
> >option of refusing to sign up with selective service.
>
> conscription scrapped, how many men have been called up to serve in the
> military? How many women have been forced into pregnany?
>
> Women don't have the option of avoiding rape (and ensuing pregnancy if
> any).
> Men don't have the option of avoiding having their names on a list.
>
> (I'd rather be man, thanks).
Women _DO_ have the option (even with most pro-lifers) to abort
pregnancies due to rape or incest.
Perhaps this is a good time to remind you that we are discussing
LEGAL matters here. Society does not condone rape. Society however,
allows selective service.
> Women, if pregnant, have the option of aborting the pregnancy.
> Men, if called up, have the option of refusing to serve.
Completely untrue. They may apply for consciencous objector status,
but it may be denied. Even if it's granted, they will have to work
for the federal government in a civilian position.
If you want to equate pregnancy to national service, then you are
essentially make a pro-life argument. That's the point I have been
making: That Carol Ann, Marg, and now even yourself support
Patriarchal positions when they suit you.
Maybe that's why the Patriarch has been around for so long, eh? :-)
> (Both pretty much on a par, I'd say - nasty choice/outcome either way if
> the person is unwilling, unready, unprepared etc).
You are free to believe so. Does feminism need victim status THAT badly
that you have to completely warp reality to fit your agenda?
> These days women risk their lives more than men do when you are
> comparing forced pregnancy to forced conscription.
Thank you for talking about "these" days:
At the rates of deaths from war and pregnancy respectively, women will
have to die from childbirth at the current rate until the year
2114 just to BREAK EVEN from the men who died since 1963 in the Vietnam
war. That doesn't include, of course, men who died during training
and in sporatic conflicts such as Haiti, Africa, and the Middle East....
Mark Sobolewski
Pat Winstanley
In article <8741015...@dejanews.com>, m...@primarycolor.com writes
>>>If a woman has a DUTY to bear children for society, I'll grant
>>>you her dying for it is a sacrifice. Men had duties too.
>>>Men still have duties.
>>
>>Women still have duties, to their children, to their jobs, and to
>>society. Just as many men fail at these things, sure some women do
>>too.
>
>But women have the CHOICE to have children. Men do not have the
>option of refusing to sign up with selective service.
For about the past 25 years, since abortion was legalised and
conscription scrapped, how many men have been called up to serve in the
military? How many women have been forced into pregnany?
Women don't have the option of avoiding rape (and ensuing pregnancy if
any).
Men don't have the option of avoiding having their names on a list.
(I'd rather be man, thanks).
Women, if pregnant, have the option of aborting the pregnancy.
Men, if called up, have the option of refusing to serve.
(Both pretty much on a par, I'd say - nasty choice/outcome either way if
the person is unwilling, unready, unprepared etc).
These days women risk their lives more than men do when you are
comparing forced pregnancy to forced conscription.
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Pat Winstanley
In article <ms-130997...@ip-55-054.sna.primenet.com>, Mark
Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> writes
>Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >But women have the CHOICE to have children. Men do not have the
>> >option of refusing to sign up with selective service.
>>
>> conscription scrapped, how many men have been called up to serve in the
>> military? How many women have been forced into pregnany?
>>
>> Women don't have the option of avoiding rape (and ensuing pregnancy if
>> any).
>> Men don't have the option of avoiding having their names on a list.
>>
>> (I'd rather be man, thanks).
>
>pregnancies due to rape or incest.
>
I didn't say they didn't (though I would dispute that all women have
that option in practical terms). I said avoiding *pregnancy*!
>Perhaps this is a good time to remind you that we are discussing
>LEGAL matters here. Society does not condone rape. Society however,
>allows selective service.
>
Society condones *pregnancy*, whether intentional or not.
>> Women, if pregnant, have the option of aborting the pregnancy.
>> Men, if called up, have the option of refusing to serve.
>
>Completely untrue. They may apply for consciencous objector status,
>but it may be denied. Even if it's granted, they will have to work
>for the federal government in a civilian position.
>
And, are they sent to the front line to risk their lives in a civilian
position?
>If you want to equate pregnancy to national service, then you are
>essentially make a pro-life argument. That's the point I have been
>making: That Carol Ann, Marg, and now even yourself support
>Patriarchal positions when they suit you.
>
>Maybe that's why the Patriarch has been around for so long, eh? :-)
>
>> (Both pretty much on a par, I'd say - nasty choice/outcome either way if
>> the person is unwilling, unready, unprepared etc).
>
>You are free to believe so. Does feminism need victim status THAT badly
>that you have to completely warp reality to fit your agenda?
>
Who's warping reality?
The reality is that for about the last 25 years there have been NO
conscriptions to the US military, either female *or* male!
>> These days women risk their lives more than men do when you are
>> comparing forced pregnancy to forced conscription.
>
>Thank you for talking about "these" days:
>
Yes...
>At the rates of deaths from war and pregnancy respectively, women will
>have to die from childbirth at the current rate until the year
>2114 just to BREAK EVEN from the men who died since 1963 in the Vietnam
>war. That doesn't include, of course, men who died during training
>and in sporatic conflicts such as Haiti, Africa, and the Middle East....
>
So you promptly talk about a different era and think by doing so you
have destroyed my point.
Apples and Oranges and strawmen come to mind! :-)
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Paul A Laird
Cici in Texas wrote:
>
> On 12 Sep 1997 00:12:00 -0700, Mark Sobolewski wrote:
>
> >god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> Also interesting that you, a man, feels
> >> that he has any idea whatsoever of the agony of childbirth.
> >
> >I have an idea. I had my wisdom teeth pulled out. It was very painful.
> >
> >Like gestation, my elective surgery was my own decision. Do I get
> >any pity points for having it done? :-)
>
> Only a few, unless you got dry sockets. I've done both (wisdom teeth
> -- with dry sockets -- and labor), and as bad as the wisdom teeth bit
> was, it wasn't a patch on labor. As to delivery, I couldn't say -- I
> never got that far. What I get for trying to give birth to half-grown
> children, I guess.
>
> wisdom-teeth pulling' where you went to classes to learn how to endure
> the procedure without drugs. ;-> I guess all that huffing and
> puffing would tend to get in the dental surgeon's way.
>
> pity points. Women who have done both say that the kidney stone was
> every bit as bad as having a baby -- even a bit worse, since there's
> never a pause in the pain. Of course, if you go to the hospital with
> a kidney stone, they'll give you Dilaudid . . . but if you go to the
> hospital in labor, they just tell you to BREATHE!
>
> (Remove * from email addresss to reply)
I have had the glorious joy of having kidney stones twice in my life.
The first time, my FEMALE doctor refused to do surgery, to give
medication, nor to try sound wave therapy. I passed two stones so large
I bled for three days after they passed.
The second time, two years later, I had a male doctor. He gave me some
very good pain medication and blasted the suckers with sound waves. They
passed with minimal discomfort and no bleeding. Paul L
Cici in Texas
On 13 Sep 1997 12:32:01 -0700, Mark Sobolewski wrote:
>In article <5vdlkn$s9v$2...@gte1.gte.net>, cclovis@gte*.net (Cici in Texas) wrote:
>> Besides, last I heard, there wasn't any such thing as 'natural
>> wisdom-teeth pulling' where you went to classes to learn how to endure
>> the procedure without drugs. ;-> I guess all that huffing and
>> puffing would tend to get in the dental surgeon's way.
>
>That's just it: Women choose these procedures for their own reasons.
>If I went to the dentist and refused for religous or personal reasons
>to have pain killers, nobody would feel sorry for me.
No, but they might think you were nuts.
>Do you understand the concept: _elective_ procedures?
Of course. Do you understand the concept of mocking a silly analogy?
>> Now, if you'd ever had a kidney stone, you'd get a full complement of
>> pity points. Women who have done both say that the kidney stone was
>> every bit as bad as having a baby -- even a bit worse, since there's
>> never a pause in the pain. Of course, if you go to the hospital with
>> a kidney stone, they'll give you Dilaudid . . . but if you go to the
>> hospital in labor, they just tell you to BREATHE!
>
>If it's so bad, just don't have sex and get pregnant! Or get a late
>term abortion! (It's easy. Feminists say that once you start sawing
>off the kids head, they stop crying. :-)
Oh, gross . . . that is SO sick.
Besides, it's a bit late even for an EXTREMELY late-term abortion in
my case -- my kids are teenagers. Somehow I just can't imagine a jury
accepting a defense of "reproductive freedom" when the kid is already
sixteen . . .
>Cut me a break! You are wanting pity points for something women
>back out of everyday.
Pity points? Not me. I was poking fun at the concept, but I guess I
didn't poke hard enough.
>If you want sainthood for not killing your own
>children, don't ask me. :-)
>
>Mark Sobolewski
Well of course not, you're not the Pope . . . unless there's
something you're not telling us, hm? Should I be addressing you as
"Your Holiness?" Does the College of Cardinals know that you're
playing on Usenet? ;->
Cici in Texas
Cici in Texas
On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 00:28:02 -0700, Paul A Laird wrote:
>Cici in Texas wrote:
>>
>> On 12 Sep 1997 00:12:00 -0700, Mark Sobolewski wrote:
>>
>> >god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> Also interesting that you, a man, feels
>> >> that he has any idea whatsoever of the agony of childbirth.
>> >
>> >I have an idea. I had my wisdom teeth pulled out. It was very painful.
>> >
>> >Like gestation, my elective surgery was my own decision. Do I get
>> >any pity points for having it done? :-)
>>
>> Only a few, unless you got dry sockets. I've done both (wisdom teeth
>> -- with dry sockets -- and labor), and as bad as the wisdom teeth bit
>> was, it wasn't a patch on labor. As to delivery, I couldn't say -- I
>> never got that far. What I get for trying to give birth to half-grown
>> children, I guess.
>>
>> Besides, last I heard, there wasn't any such thing as 'natural
>> wisdom-teeth pulling' where you went to classes to learn how to endure
>> the procedure without drugs. ;-> I guess all that huffing and
>> puffing would tend to get in the dental surgeon's way.
>>
>> Now, if you'd ever had a kidney stone, you'd get a full complement of
>> pity points. Women who have done both say that the kidney stone was
>> every bit as bad as having a baby -- even a bit worse, since there's
>> never a pause in the pain. Of course, if you go to the hospital with
>> a kidney stone, they'll give you Dilaudid . . . but if you go to the
>> hospital in labor, they just tell you to BREATHE!
>>
>> Cici in Texas
>I have had the glorious joy of having kidney stones twice in my life.
>The first time, my FEMALE doctor refused to do surgery, to give
>medication, nor to try sound wave therapy. I passed two stones so large
>I bled for three days after they passed.
Gross. Shoulda tried Lamaze.
No, seriously, I hope you reported her to the county and state medical
society. That is NOT the medically accepted standard of care, and if
she were any kind of a doctor, she'd have known that. Unfortunately,
some doctors (especially those who have graduated within the last ten
years) are so freaked out about even the remotest possibility that a
person *might* be a drug addict engaging in "drug-seeking behavior"
that they will not prescribe narcotics even when they are OBVIOUSLY
medically indicated. (My private opinion is that these doctors have
never been in serious pain, themselves.) Believe it or not, there are
some doctors who will limit the narcotic intake of terminal cancer
patients enduring hideous pain, lest the patient become 'addicted.'
For God's sake, who CARES if they get addicted? Unfortunately, one
sees this most often with patients who have no private health
insurance and are forced to fall back on the public health system,
where they are pretty much at the mercy of whichever doctor they get
assigned to, no matter how incompetent that doctor may be.
(Whoops, you punched one of my buttons. Sorry.)
>The second time, two years later, I had a male doctor. He gave me some
>very good pain medication and blasted the suckers with sound waves. They
>passed with minimal discomfort and no bleeding. Paul L
Now, *that* is the accepted standard of care for kidney stones. When
I was in the hospital recently, the doctor took one look at the amount
of blood showing up on the urinalysis and ordered 50 mg of Demerol IV
without a second glance. (I could have kissed him.) In the next
breath, he ordered an IVP to check for stones -- turned out there
weren't any, although his opinion was that I had probably had one and
passed it. I didn't care, I was just thankful to not be in so much
pain any more. Fortunately, there are still many doctors around who
understand the concept that suffering is *real* and that they have the
power to alleviate it.
Seriously, that first doctor screwed you over big-time -- there are
times when whistle-blowing is needed, and that was definitely one of
them!
Cici in Texas
Halifax
Carolyn Jean Fairman wrote:
> >My POINT is that men have problems too. We are not asking for
> >special privileges unless we perform the duties ourselves.
yes, we ARE demanding special privleges, and we always have. To deny
that is the basic tenant of feminism. We demanded to be let into VMI
and the Citadel, 2 recent examples. As a result, the physical AND
academic requirements have been lowered. Thus males will never again be
given training (either mental or physical) that they need, merely so
that women can "feel good" about ourselves. So much for military
preparedness.
Additionally, the women at Aberdeen comitted prostitution (climbing out
of barracks to go screw their DIs.) They were allowed to call
"prositiution" - rape afterwards. Bullshit, don't even bother to tell
me that men are treated fairly.
Additionally, until the day women are legally "equal" to sign up for the
draft and become instant cannon fodder in another war, keep your trap
shut about our "equality" - We have it all over men. I am a former
female Marine saying this, by the way. I doubt you've ever been in
military service.
>
> Sure you are. You (I'll be more polite than you ever are, Mark, MOST
> MEN) are asking for the special privilege of being assumed competent
> because you are male in many areas and especually those which confer
> proestige. Many men ask that they be assumed as sex to contain the
> competent humans for many tasks.
That is a feminist sexist and hate remark against men, which shows up
your true colors for what they are. Men have never seen the day when
they scream to be allowed to do something - screw up - then start
bawling "but I'm just GIRL". Men aren't allowed to become "instant
children" when it is convenient.
When a man screws up, the whole sex
> demands the special privilege of being assumed still competent,
> whereas as judged from the people who post here, men view 1 woman
> messes up as All Women Cannot Do This.
More sexist stereotyping and lies from feminazis.
This is a variant of the whine
> that unqualified women are being allowed to work in jobs where men
> deserved the priviledge, since, of course, No men have ever been
> unqualified and even when there are obvious examples, that has no
> bearing on all other men.
Ditto my above reply.
>
> Women still have duties, to their children, to their jobs, and to
> society. Just as many men fail at these things, sure some women do
> too.
Only men aren't allowed "instant child" status and walk away scot-free
from their duties or failures thereof. Women do - daily.
> >
> >ANYTIME! Any time a war breaks out, society may draft me if it
> >sees fit.
Oh no, we're going to treat you EQUALLY and draft you "just in case" the
Pres needs some cannon fodder - JUST LIKE MEN ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO
NOW.
>
> And yet you always demand the special priviledge of blaming all and
> only women for this problem, when all and only men are the ones
> determining who is drafted and all and only men have RULED
Oh no little sis, women are in the Congress and Senate now, stop blaming
men....
, within the
> miltary that women will not be permitted into combat spots.
>
>
> Well, it is wrong so perhaps that is the problem. Men age 18 to 26
> are required to register with selective service. Past 26 you cannot
> be drafted unless all the men (with a few women, now) in the
> legislature and the man who is President change that.
If needed you CAN and will be drafted past age 26 - unless you are an
"only son" and even then, if needed, you go. Women don't have to worry
about this....yet.
>
>
> Aren't you arguing for choice for men in serving or no serving? Why
> deny that choice to women?
How can one deny to women what women have always had?!?
And why aren't you arguing with the *men*
> who force men and not women to register and who __deny__ women combat
> roles?
It isn't men "denying" women combat roles - as was evidenced by Desert
Storm and ANY ship deployment - pregnancies go up in DROVES right
before, and with all the birth control that is available (and evidenly
utilied before) it appears that women are more than willing to use human
babies to "opt out" of their duties. Men don't have this easy out.
>
>
> Then why does the Religious Right, the major and most well funded
> opposition to choice, destroy access and education about
> contraception?
Why not? Like women are using it? Women have been told, and proven,
that babies bring cash. I think cutting off the cash flow would do more
for "pro-life" movement than outlawing abortion.
Many of the anti-choice people are also opposed to
> birth control (just tell them not to do it, these people spout, and
> they, like, won't! <LOL>) and please note that **planned parenthood**
> clinics are bombed and harassed by anti-choicers, when these clinics
> are the best source of inexpensive contraceptives...
What's the difference between killing pro-choicers and killing babies?
None.
>
>
> Where did free schooling and education come from?
Feminists, along with this they are demanding pay for being a mother in
the first place. (like you didn't know this LOL)
How interesting
> that you ignore that good idea, as good as free medical care and free
> day care,
It isn't a good idea when women deliberaly fuck and have kids to get
it. Take the kids away from them, place the kids with a RESPONSIBLE
family and allow the kid free care - but NOT the woman. Put her ass out
to work.
when no hijacked by conservatives and religious folks trying
> to sell their agenda to the kids in school.
Oh, like forced "volunteerism" (read slavery) and forced socialism is
better? Pulezzze.
>
> Or do you think public schools were never a good idea, serve no good
> and generally ought to be turned over to business that already abused
> and misused people to make a quick buck and maximize profits for the
> CEO's....?
Are you an idiot? Public education is merely the indoctrination of
american children into Socialism - Public school is for the Gov't, you
twit - NOT a "CEO". It is Hilteresque "Get to the parents thru the
children". Obviously, they got to you. You don't even have the ABILITY
to think for yourself.
>
> And that taxes only ought to be used for corporate welfare and not for
> helping the poor folks or the folks in the middle, only the upper
> reaches of the obscenely rich?
Taxes are used for the elite democrates (your "obscenely rich) While
pandering the phrase "It's for the CHILDREN!!", they managed to
implement new taxes that provided the gov't even more free cash flow.
It never WAS intended for the children - it was ALWAYS intended for the
Democratic "elite" now housed inside the beltway.
It's where we are heading because of
> people like you sneer at the idea of free daycare or subsidized
> medical care and scapegoat the poor.
Why don't you stop USING the poor to help finish off the WORKING CLASS
of this country? As long as poor people are encouraged to fuck like
bunnies with a promise of free cash - the working class' backs will
continue to be broken paying for it - and the majority of the $$ will be
kept by the democratic "elitists" inside the beltway. God, you are SUCH
an idiot - another "lemming to the sea".
Pat Winstanley
In article <341C36...@VANet.com>, Halifax <Hal...@VANet.com> writes
>> >
>> >ANYTIME! Any time a war breaks out, society may draft me if it
>> >sees fit.
>
>Oh no, we're going to treat you EQUALLY and draft you "just in case" the
>Pres needs some cannon fodder - JUST LIKE MEN ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO
>NOW.
Rubbish!
No man has been conscripted for about 25 years in the US!!!
Or do you mean that just because a man joins a list he is cannon fodder?
Show me the man who has had to serve in the military in the last 25
years just because his name and address is on a list that says he is
eligible to be called up.
Show me ONE!!!
Do you sign a list to be eligible to vote?
Does anyone FORCE you to vote?
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Mark Sobolewski
In article <5vgar5$cnm$1...@gte2.gte.net>, cclovis@gte*.net (Cici in Texas) wrote:
> On 13 Sep 1997 12:32:01 -0700, Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> >That's just it: Women choose these procedures for their own reasons.
> >If I went to the dentist and refused for religous or personal reasons
> >to have pain killers, nobody would feel sorry for me.
>
> No, but they might think you were nuts.
>
> >Do you understand the concept: _elective_ procedures?
>
> Of course. Do you understand the concept of mocking a silly analogy?
Yep. Comparing childbirth (reproduction that many people want to do anyway)
with military service and selective service _IS_ silly.
> >If it's so bad, just don't have sex and get pregnant! Or get a late
> >term abortion! (It's easy. Feminists say that once you start sawing
> >off the kids head, they stop crying. :-)
>
> Oh, gross . . . that is SO sick.
>
> Besides, it's a bit late even for an EXTREMELY late-term abortion in
> my case -- my kids are teenagers. Somehow I just can't imagine a jury
> accepting a defense of "reproductive freedom" when the kid is already
> sixteen . . .
It _IS_ sick. It's also true. Same thing goes for crack babies,
fetal alcohol syndrome, and unborn-children harmed by cigarette smoking.
Those babies are the primary beneficiaries of "feminist care" for children...
> >If you want sainthood for not killing your own
> >children, don't ask me. :-)
> >
> Well of course not, you're not the Pope . . . unless there's
> something you're not telling us, hm? Should I be addressing you as
> "Your Holiness?" Does the College of Cardinals know that you're
> playing on Usenet? ;->
I disagree with the Pope on many things.
Mark Sobolewski
Marg Petersen
In article <ms-140997...@ip-55-076.sna.primenet.com>,
Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Perhaps this is a good time to remind you that we are discussing
>> >LEGAL matters here. Society does not condone rape. Society however,
>> >allows selective service.
>> >
>> Society condones *pregnancy*, whether intentional or not.
>
Nope, sorry, you're quite wrong. Anti-abortion laws (apart
from them being VERY recent), merely *forced* pregnancies to
continue. Society, on the other hand, even WITH legal abortion,
supports and condones pregnancies as of being some benefit to
society. I know that YOU, personally, don't see any benefit
to children being born, but then, that's just you. Others have
a few more brain cells.
>Please read the subject line. Do you "GET IT" yet? :-)
Yes, I get it just fine but you apparently don't.
>> >> Women, if pregnant, have the option of aborting the pregnancy.
>> >> Men, if called up, have the option of refusing to serve.
>> >
>> >Completely untrue. They may apply for consciencous objector status,
>> >but it may be denied. Even if it's granted, they will have to work
>> >for the federal government in a civilian position.
>>
>> And, are they sent to the front line to risk their lives in a civilian
>> position?
>
>Most anti-abortion laws offer exemptions in cases of the women's
>life being in danger (in fact, I don't know of any proposals that
>do not make this provision.)
>
>Are you sure you want to continue comparing childbirth to national
>service? :-)
Yes, I do believe that I would, and do. I believe that people
make their contributions to the society in which they live (as
well as personally benefiting from those contributions), and IF
going to war is considered to be a "contribution", then so is
giving birth. That you would prefer to reward and praise only
one sex for their contributions says a whole lot about your
attitudes toward, in particular, the contributions that women
have made. I have *nothing* against rewarding those who have
served in the military, none whatsoever. However, I do believe
that others have made just as beneficial contributions and
received absolutely NO reward for doing so whatsoever. In fact,
from some, they receive only scorn. (Such as from you.)
>> The reality is that for about the last 25 years there have been NO
>> conscriptions to the US military, either female *or* male!
>
>There certainly have been no "female" conscriptions because no mechanism
>exists whatsoever for them to occur. It's like us talking about men
>dying from childbirth, it's a silly arguement.
No, it isn't because we COULD change women's involvement (conscription)
in the military, but there seem to be a whole lot of people who refuse
to allow that. (You being one, I expect). And yes, if a man were to
become pregnant and die from that, he would have my utmost sympathy.
>> >> These days women risk their lives more than men do when you are
>> >> comparing forced pregnancy to forced conscription.
>> >
>> >Thank you for talking about "these" days:
>>
>> >At the rates of deaths from war and pregnancy respectively, women will
>> >have to die from childbirth at the current rate until the year
>> >2114 just to BREAK EVEN from the men who died since 1963 in the Vietnam
>> >war. That doesn't include, of course, men who died during training
>> >and in sporatic conflicts such as Haiti, Africa, and the Middle East....
>> >
>> So you promptly talk about a different era and think by doing so you
>> have destroyed my point.
>
>I LIVED through that era. Many men who are 19 today are still living
>in it. Can you guarantee to them that a war will not occur where
>they may be forced to die for their country while you gals just
>sit on your buttskys? :-)
Awwwww, now poor Markie is afraid that he will have to "go to war."
Gee, and I thought you wanted all those bennies? :-) Course, why
bother actually going to war for them when all you have to do (in
your opinion) is wave your penis in everyone's face and claim
penis credits for what *other* men have done. Gee, thanks so much!
And no, *I* can't personally guarantee anyone that a war won't
happen, but I expect that if one does, women too will go to war.
I don't think that anyone will be able to stop them, THIS TIME.
Course, that doesn't mean that I want to have a war just to prove
a point to YOU, of all people. But, you know, a little *support*
for those women who, today, wish to serve in the military and
at the FRONT LINES, might just open a few myopic eyes to the
fact that IF indeed, we are going to sacrifice our young men we
need to sacrifice our young women too. If there ever IS another
draft (I pray to the Goddess nightly that we never need one), then
I will be right there *insisting* that my daughter as well as my
sons be eligible for that draft. Now, I don't expect that you
will believe me, whatever. But that IS what I will do!
>> Apples and Oranges and strawmen come to mind! :-)
>
>On the contrary,
>
>It's feminists who are the ones claiming that child-birth is a social
>benefit and similar to national service. Do you think I'm smart enough
>to make this up on my own? :-) :-)
No, I don't. Argumentative, yes, but not smart.
>You gals stepped in that minefield all by yourself. Don't blame me.
No minefield at all. See, women don't mind being expected to
serve their countries. Just get the hell out of their way so
they can!
>Mark Sobolewski
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
Mark Sobolewski
Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Perhaps this is a good time to remind you that we are discussing
> >LEGAL matters here. Society does not condone rape. Society however,
> >allows selective service.
> >
> Society condones *pregnancy*, whether intentional or not.
Society most certainly did: They were called anti-abortion laws.
Please read the subject line. Do you "GET IT" yet? :-)
> >> Women, if pregnant, have the option of aborting the pregnancy.
> >> Men, if called up, have the option of refusing to serve.
> >
> >Completely untrue. They may apply for consciencous objector status,
> >but it may be denied. Even if it's granted, they will have to work
> >for the federal government in a civilian position.
>
> And, are they sent to the front line to risk their lives in a civilian
> position?
Most anti-abortion laws offer exemptions in cases of the women's
life being in danger (in fact, I don't know of any proposals that
do not make this provision.)
Are you sure you want to continue comparing childbirth to national
service? :-)
> The reality is that for about the last 25 years there have been NO
> conscriptions to the US military, either female *or* male!
There certainly have been no "female" conscriptions because no mechanism
exists whatsoever for them to occur. It's like us talking about men
dying from childbirth, it's a silly arguement.
> >> These days women risk their lives more than men do when you are
> >> comparing forced pregnancy to forced conscription.
> >
> >Thank you for talking about "these" days:
>
> >At the rates of deaths from war and pregnancy respectively, women will
> >have to die from childbirth at the current rate until the year
> >2114 just to BREAK EVEN from the men who died since 1963 in the Vietnam
> >war. That doesn't include, of course, men who died during training
> >and in sporatic conflicts such as Haiti, Africa, and the Middle East....
> >
> So you promptly talk about a different era and think by doing so you
> have destroyed my point.
I LIVED through that era. Many men who are 19 today are still living
in it. Can you guarantee to them that a war will not occur where
they may be forced to die for their country while you gals just
sit on your buttskys? :-)
> Apples and Oranges and strawmen come to mind! :-)
On the contrary,
It's feminists who are the ones claiming that child-birth is a social
benefit and similar to national service. Do you think I'm smart enough
to make this up on my own? :-) :-)
You gals stepped in that minefield all by yourself. Don't blame me.
Mark Sobolewski
Blair Zajac
In article <5vg3rp$s...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
"THELAIRDS$"@worldnet.att.net wrote:
snip
>
>I have had the glorious joy of having kidney stones twice in my life.
>The first time, my FEMALE doctor refused to do surgery, to give
>medication, nor to try sound wave therapy. I passed two stones so large
>I bled for three days after they passed.
>
>The second time, two years later, I had a male doctor. He gave me some
>very good pain medication and blasted the suckers with sound waves. They
>passed with minimal discomfort and no bleeding. Paul L
Is there a moral to Paul's posting that a male would be better off not
going to a female doctor?
--
Zajac says, 'Laws are like paper money -- they are only valid as long as
people have faith in them.'
Paul Robbins
Cici in Texas wrote:
>
> On 13 Sep 1997 12:32:01 -0700, Mark Sobolewski wrote:
>
> >> Besides, last I heard, there wasn't any such thing as 'natural
> >> wisdom-teeth pulling' where you went to classes to learn how to endure
> >> the procedure without drugs. ;-> I guess all that huffing and
> >> puffing would tend to get in the dental surgeon's way.
> >
> >If I went to the dentist and refused for religous or personal reasons
> >to have pain killers, nobody would feel sorry for me.
>
> No, but they might think you were nuts.
>
> >Do you understand the concept: _elective_ procedures?
>
> Of course. Do you understand the concept of mocking a silly analogy?
>
> >> pity points. Women who have done both say that the kidney stone was
> >> every bit as bad as having a baby -- even a bit worse, since there's
> >> never a pause in the pain. Of course, if you go to the hospital with
> >> a kidney stone, they'll give you Dilaudid . . . but if you go to the
> >> hospital in labor, they just tell you to BREATHE!
> >
> >term abortion! (It's easy. Feminists say that once you start sawing
> >off the kids head, they stop crying. :-)
>
> Oh, gross . . . that is SO sick.
>
> Besides, it's a bit late even for an EXTREMELY late-term abortion in
> my case -- my kids are teenagers. Somehow I just can't imagine a jury
> accepting a defense of "reproductive freedom" when the kid is already
> sixteen . . .
>
> >back out of everyday.
>
> Pity points? Not me. I was poking fun at the concept, but I guess I
> didn't poke hard enough.
>
> >children, don't ask me. :-)
> >
>
> Well of course not, you're not the Pope . . . unless there's
> something you're not telling us, hm? Should I be addressing you as
> "Your Holiness?" Does the College of Cardinals know that you're
> playing on Usenet? ;->
>
Of course, Cici, there are times I'm reminded of Bill Cosby's quote: "I
brought you into the world, I can take you out." Especially when those
hormones start pumping. I have two teenage nieces that I love dearly,
but right now I'm waiting for them to turn back into human beings again.
Still love them, mind you, but I find myself reminding myself of all
those sayings about what love really is, like "Love is patient, love is
kind..."
Paul R
m...@primarycolor.com
god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
>Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>Nope, sorry, you're quite wrong. Anti-abortion laws (apart
>from them being VERY recent), merely *forced* pregnancies to
>continue. Society, on the other hand, even WITH legal abortion,
>supports and condones pregnancies as of being some benefit to
>society.
If you want to argue that going through with pregnancy is a social
benefit, then getting an abortion is an anti-social act. It's just
following the logic...
"Pregnancies" are not all a benefit to society even if we accept
your arguement. Pregnancy alone doesn't result in childbirth if
all the women in question get abortions. :-) The only people who consider
ALL *childbirths* a social benefit (including into poverty) tend to be
Roman Catholics such as the Pope or Mother Theresa. And they are
pro-life for that reason.
Marg, I would hate to take you out to Black Angus. You would
probably order EVERYTHING on the menu and go home sick. :-)
You can't have every logical position in every way. They all have
their associated advantages and disadvantages. Either decide
whether you're a feminist or a patriarchal supporter.
>I know that YOU, personally, don't see any benefit
>to children being born, but then, that's just you. Others have
>a few more brain cells.
I never said that there wasn't a benefit to children being born.
I just said that society shouldn't have to reward people for things
they are expected to do anyway.
I consider it a benefit to society to clean my kitchen, work for a
living, keep my car in SAFE operational condition, and clean my
cats' barf (especially the latter :-)
I don't expect a medal because they are all my own PERSONAL
responsibilities and duties anyway. Are you one of those kids that
expected your mother and father to pay you for cleaning your own
room? :-)
>>Most anti-abortion laws offer exemptions in cases of the women's
>>life being in danger (in fact, I don't know of any proposals that
>>do not make this provision.)
>>
>>Are you sure you want to continue comparing childbirth to national
>>service? :-)
>
>Yes, I do believe that I would, and do. I believe that people
>make their contributions to the society in which they live (as
>well as personally benefiting from those contributions), and IF
>going to war is considered to be a "contribution", then so is
>giving birth.
I'm just going to sit back, smile, and let others quote the above
text whenever you claim that society should keep it's "hands" off
women's bodies... :-)
>That you would prefer to reward and praise only
>one sex for their contributions says a whole lot about your
>attitudes toward, in particular, the contributions that women
>have made. I have *nothing* against rewarding those who have
>served in the military, none whatsoever. However, I do believe
>that others have made just as beneficial contributions and
>received absolutely NO reward for doing so whatsoever. In fact,
>>from some, they receive only scorn. (Such as from you.)
You spend a great deal of your time justifying benefits such as
child-support and alimony for women. You are now going to
claim that women are "unrewarded"? :-)
You must REALLY think I'm stupid. :-)
>>I LIVED through that era. Many men who are 19 today are still living
>>in it. Can you guarantee to them that a war will not occur where
>>they may be forced to die for their country while you gals just
>>sit on your buttskys? :-)
>
>Awwwww, now poor Markie is afraid that he will have to "go to war."
>Gee, and I thought you wanted all those bennies? :-)
It's not a matter of whether I'm afraid or not, I would have no choice.
The bennies are just a carrot. If the bennies were so great, they
wouldn't need to draft me. :-)
>Course, why
>bother actually going to war for them when all you have to do (in
>your opinion) is wave your penis in everyone's face and claim
>penis credits for what *other* men have done. Gee, thanks so much!
If I'm going to have to pay "penis penalties" for things other men
have done (affirmative action) then I don't see any reason why
the penis credits shouldn't be applied. (Did you ever get a gas
bill and find that they had only given you debits but no credits? :-)
What angers you is that when ALL the credits and debits are added up,
men contribute FAR more than they have taken. We ought to get
affirmative action jobs with you gals bringing us free coffee all
day for what we have done. :-)
Oh, and I take it with cream and sugar, sugar. :-) (I've always
wanted to say that. :-)
>If there ever IS another
>draft (I pray to the Goddess nightly that we never need one), then
>I will be right there *insisting* that my daughter as well as my
>sons be eligible for that draft. Now, I don't expect that you
>will believe me, whatever. But that IS what I will do!
Marg, I don't take this all personally. I'm not going to question
your sincerity.
I have made suggestions for how women can get more long term respect
in the military. Please read them and comment.
>>It's feminists who are the ones claiming that child-birth is a social
>>benefit and similar to national service. Do you think I'm smart enough
>>to make this up on my own? :-) :-)
>
>No, I don't. Argumentative, yes, but not smart.
Why thank you. :-) If I'm smart enough to figure this out, then
Joe and Jane Six Pack are next.
>>You gals stepped in that minefield all by yourself. Don't blame me.
>
>No minefield at all. See, women don't mind being expected to
>serve their countries. Just get the hell out of their way so
>they can!
It's kind of funny seeing a feminist argue for national service and
social responsibility from women.
Until now, all we have ever read has been a woman has a right to kill
her baby (and society should keep it's mouth shut), a woman has a
right to become a single mom (and dump her childcare bills on
society), and a woman has a right to leave the kitchen if she pleases
and to hell with what her kids want. etc. etc. etc.
Now we see a different side. June Cleaver is rising from the grave.
I'm not sure whether I should welcome her or run for the nearest
Stephen King bookseller. :-)
Marg Petersen
In article <8743471...@dejanews.com>, <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
>>Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>>Nope, sorry, you're quite wrong. Anti-abortion laws (apart
>>from them being VERY recent), merely *forced* pregnancies to
>>continue. Society, on the other hand, even WITH legal abortion,
>>supports and condones pregnancies as of being some benefit to
>>society.
>
>If you want to argue that going through with pregnancy is a social
>benefit, then getting an abortion is an anti-social act. It's just
>following the logic...
>
>"Pregnancies" are not all a benefit to society even if we accept
>your arguement. Pregnancy alone doesn't result in childbirth if
>all the women in question get abortions. :-) The only people who consider
>ALL *childbirths* a social benefit (including into poverty) tend to be
>Roman Catholics such as the Pope or Mother Theresa. And they are
>pro-life for that reason.
Well, there seem to be quite enough children being born to keep
the human species going, however, if ALL pregnancies were to end
in abortion, then we would have aproblem eh?
>Marg, I would hate to take you out to Black Angus. You would
>probably order EVERYTHING on the menu and go home sick. :-)
>You can't have every logical position in every way. They all have
>their associated advantages and disadvantages. Either decide
>whether you're a feminist or a patriarchal supporter.
Gee, when have feminists EVER NOT been child friendly? Oh, I
know, in *your* philsophy. Well, dear, let me explain it, yes
I can be a feminist and believe in a woman's right to an
abortion and at the SAME time, I can also be supportive of a
woman who wishes to continue her pregnancy to term with or
without the father's approval. Gee, someone who believes in
the right of a woman to *choose*! What a concept ! But
obviously, one that is too far beyond your meager brain cells.
>>I know that YOU, personally, don't see any benefit
>>to children being born, but then, that's just you. Others have
>>a few more brain cells.
>
>I never said that there wasn't a benefit to children being born.
>I just said that society shouldn't have to reward people for things
>they are expected to do anyway.
Ah, I see, so women ARE expected to give birth. And MEN, are
they also EXPECTED to go to war? Then why in heavens name
should THEY get any benefits for doing what society expects
them to do anyway. :-)
>I consider it a benefit to society to clean my kitchen, work for a
>living, keep my car in SAFE operational condition, and clean my
>cats' barf (especially the latter :-)
>
>I don't expect a medal because they are all my own PERSONAL
>responsibilities and duties anyway. Are you one of those kids that
>expected your mother and father to pay you for cleaning your own
>room? :-)
No, but I bet YOU were. And you're just annoyed that no one
will pay you now.
>>>Most anti-abortion laws offer exemptions in cases of the women's
>>>life being in danger (in fact, I don't know of any proposals that
>>>do not make this provision.)
>>>
>>>Are you sure you want to continue comparing childbirth to national
>>>service? :-)
>>
>>Yes, I do believe that I would, and do. I believe that people
>>make their contributions to the society in which they live (as
>>well as personally benefiting from those contributions), and IF
>>going to war is considered to be a "contribution", then so is
>>giving birth.
>
>I'm just going to sit back, smile, and let others quote the above
>text whenever you claim that society should keep it's "hands" off
>women's bodies... :-)
I said, a *contribution*, I didn't say it was *mandated*.
>>That you would prefer to reward and praise only
>>one sex for their contributions says a whole lot about your
>>attitudes toward, in particular, the contributions that women
>>have made. I have *nothing* against rewarding those who have
>>served in the military, none whatsoever. However, I do believe
>>that others have made just as beneficial contributions and
>>received absolutely NO reward for doing so whatsoever. In fact,
>>>from some, they receive only scorn. (Such as from you.)
>
>You spend a great deal of your time justifying benefits such as
>child-support and alimony for women. You are now going to
>claim that women are "unrewarded"? :-)
Yes, they are and I do.
>You must REALLY think I'm stupid. :-)
Yes, I do.
>>>I LIVED through that era. Many men who are 19 today are still living
>>>in it. Can you guarantee to them that a war will not occur where
>>>they may be forced to die for their country while you gals just
>>>sit on your buttskys? :-)
>>
>>Awwwww, now poor Markie is afraid that he will have to "go to war."
>>Gee, and I thought you wanted all those bennies? :-)
>
>It's not a matter of whether I'm afraid or not, I would have no choice.
>The bennies are just a carrot. If the bennies were so great, they
>wouldn't need to draft me. :-)
Yeah, well I would bet that you would be unwanted at any rate.
>>Course, why
>>bother actually going to war for them when all you have to do (in
>>your opinion) is wave your penis in everyone's face and claim
>>penis credits for what *other* men have done. Gee, thanks so much!
>
>If I'm going to have to pay "penis penalties" for things other men
>have done (affirmative action) then I don't see any reason why
>the penis credits shouldn't be applied. (Did you ever get a gas
>bill and find that they had only given you debits but no credits? :-)
Well, that IS my point. Men have claimed (and are still doing so,
as you are a prime example of), "penis credits." Therefore, if
that's the case, then women most certainly deserve penis credits.
>What angers you is that when ALL the credits and debits are added up,
>men contribute FAR more than they have taken. We ought to get
>affirmative action jobs with you gals bringing us free coffee all
>day for what we have done. :-)
Not! And I dare say that the credits and debits come out about
EQUAL, dear. But then, a woman hater like yourself would see
it differently of course.
>Oh, and I take it with cream and sugar, sugar. :-) (I've always
>wanted to say that. :-)
Well, I DO make a good cup of coffee, but I also know a few
poisons that are fast acting and not noticeable. You might
not exactly like your "cup of java".
>>If there ever IS another
>>draft (I pray to the Goddess nightly that we never need one), then
>>I will be right there *insisting* that my daughter as well as my
>>sons be eligible for that draft. Now, I don't expect that you
>>will believe me, whatever. But that IS what I will do!
>
>Marg, I don't take this all personally. I'm not going to question
>your sincerity.
Yes, I know that you don't and that is the pity of it. It is
all just a game to you when it is real life for others. You're
a waste of air.
>I have made suggestions for how women can get more long term respect
>in the military. Please read them and comment.
>
>>>It's feminists who are the ones claiming that child-birth is a social
>>>benefit and similar to national service. Do you think I'm smart enough
>>>to make this up on my own? :-) :-)
>>
>>No, I don't. Argumentative, yes, but not smart.
>
>Why thank you. :-) If I'm smart enough to figure this out, then
>Joe and Jane Six Pack are next.
>
>>>You gals stepped in that minefield all by yourself. Don't blame me.
>>
>>No minefield at all. See, women don't mind being expected to
>>serve their countries. Just get the hell out of their way so
>>they can!
>
>It's kind of funny seeing a feminist argue for national service and
>social responsibility from women.
Yeah, well if you'd open your eyes, you'd see a whole lot of them
who feel the same way. Course, that would go against your agenda
of painting women with the worst brush strokes you can possible
come up with. It's no FUN if you admit that women can be and ARE
responsible, just about as often as men are.
>Until now, all we have ever read has been a woman has a right to kill
>her baby (and society should keep it's mouth shut), a woman has a
>right to become a single mom (and dump her childcare bills on
>society), and a woman has a right to leave the kitchen if she pleases
>and to hell with what her kids want. etc. etc. etc.
NO ONE is allowed to kill a born infant. A fetus is another story.
I refuse to debate this issue with you (or anyone). It is a fait
acomplait as far as I'm concerned and men, in particular, have NO
business sticking their noses in this particular issue. And yes,
a single woman can go ahead and bring her child to term if SHE
wishes to and society will help her out if that is necessary. ANd
yes a woman has the right to leave the kitchen if she pleases (just
as men have always done), and to hell with what *anyone* else wants.
>Now we see a different side. June Cleaver is rising from the grave.
>I'm not sure whether I should welcome her or run for the nearest
>Stephen King bookseller. :-)
What June Cleaver? I am a feminist. I am a married woman. I
have given birth to and raised 3 children. I have worked outside
the home. If that is too difficult for you to comprehend, then
I feel really sorry for you.
Blair Zajac
In article <5vcfs9$bna$1...@kanga.accessone.com>, J Shearer <@accessone.com> wrote:
>noS...@super.zippo.com (LEMURS 'R' US) writes: > On Fri, 12 Sep 1997
11:52:26 -0600, m...@primarycolor.com expounded:
>> [...]
>> ->
>> ->2) It doesn't require any special skills (Most people are capable
>> ->of having sex, eating food at home all day, and changing diapers.)
>> ->The true success of sexual reproduction is that it's been done
>> ->for the past million years by unskilled labor. :-) :-) :-)
>>
>> Reproduction requires almost no skill or training of any sort...every
>> type of plant and animal on the face of the earth can do it.
>>
>=======================================================================
>Honey, it ain't the reproducing that takes skill--it's raising a human being
>to ADULTHOOD that's hard. (I notice a lot of the guys here haven't made
>it yet.) Jan
>======================================================================
Haven't there been statements made to the effect that 80% of the caregivers
are women?
If so, then Jan is saying is that as a whole a lot of them are failures.
m...@primarycolor.com
god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
>Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>>"Pregnancies" are not all a benefit to society even if we accept
>>your arguement. Pregnancy alone doesn't result in childbirth if
>>all the women in question get abortions. :-) The only people who
consider
>>ALL *childbirths* a social benefit (including into poverty) tend to be
>>Roman Catholics such as the Pope or Mother Theresa. And they are
>>pro-life for that reason.
>
>Well, there seem to be quite enough children being born to keep
>the human species going, however, if ALL pregnancies were to end
>in abortion, then we would have aproblem eh?
To bring the debate back to Roman Catholics: I have an associate
whose a Jesuit who has an interesting perspective on this issue:
He feels that because feminists tend to get abortions while
stay at home "obedient" Christian mothers just squeeze the kids
out, that it's only a matter of time before feminism goes the
way of the dinosaur.
So yes, I have to agree with you: If feminists want to all get
abortions, then I guess that's just the way it is. Go ahead,
encourage feminists to get abortions. :-) Call our bluff! :-) :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
>>Marg, I would hate to take you out to Black Angus. You would
>>probably order EVERYTHING on the menu and go home sick. :-)
>>You can't have every logical position in every way. They all have
>>their associated advantages and disadvantages. Either decide
>>whether you're a feminist or a patriarchal supporter.
>
>Gee, when have feminists EVER NOT been child friendly?
I quote from the end of your article:
>yes a woman has the right to leave the kitchen if she pleases (just
>as men have always done), and to hell with what *anyone* else wants.
"To hell with what *anyone* else wants..." that speaks for itself.
>Oh, I know, in *your* philsophy. Well, dear, let me explain it, yes
>I can be a feminist and believe in a woman's right to an
>abortion and at the SAME time, I can also be supportive of a
>woman who wishes to continue her pregnancy to term with or
>without the father's approval.
The above isn't much of an ideology. It seems to be "girls
just want to have fun" type of lifestyle. Do they even bother
teaching this in women's studies courses? I would think that
girls could learn the same thing at a drunken frat party.
>>I never said that there wasn't a benefit to children being born.
>>I just said that society shouldn't have to reward people for things
>>they are expected to do anyway.
>
>Ah, I see, so women ARE expected to give birth.
Are they? Has abortion been outlawed in the last few days? :-)
I agree: I phrased that badly. I could just as easily have said:
"things they do anyway."
>And MEN, are they also EXPECTED to go to war?
Nope. If they were "expected" to, there wouldn't be a need to
create a law FORCING them. Society "expects" people to watch TV,
have a good time at the beach, and drive over 65MPH. Society
creates LAWS to force people to act DIFFERENTLY than expectations...
>Then why in heavens name
>should THEY get any benefits for doing what society expects
>them to do anyway. :-)
Society EXPECTS men to NOT sign up unless they are FORCED to.
That's why a draft and registration system is in place.
Women are not being "forced" to live up to expectations because
the expectations are rather _low_.
>>I consider it a benefit to society to clean my kitchen, work for a
>>living, keep my car in SAFE operational condition, and clean my
>>cats' barf (especially the latter :-)
>>
>>I don't expect a medal because they are all my own PERSONAL
>>responsibilities and duties anyway. Are you one of those kids that
>>expected your mother and father to pay you for cleaning your own
>>room? :-)
>
>No, but I bet YOU were. And you're just annoyed that no one
>will pay you now.
?!?!?!?! YOU are the one with that position. You're losing it.
>I said, a *contribution*, I didn't say it was *mandated*.
EXACTLY. You know the difference after all.
Quit playing dumb. I now know that YOU know the difference.
>>You spend a great deal of your time justifying benefits such as
>>child-support and alimony for women. You are now going to
>>claim that women are "unrewarded"? :-)
>
>Yes, they are and I do.
You are entitled to this opinion. You are free to believe in Santa
Claus and the Easter Bunny too if it makes you feel any better.
You are now reduced to openly denying easily observed facts.
You have lost this debate. All the rest is just me having fun with ya.
>>It's not a matter of whether I'm afraid or not, I would have no choice.
>>The bennies are just a carrot. If the bennies were so great, they
>>wouldn't need to draft me. :-)
>
>Yeah, well I would bet that you would be unwanted at any rate.
OOOOOH! She's aiming for the eyes! :-)
>Not! And I dare say that the credits and debits come out about
>EQUAL, dear. But then, a woman hater like yourself would see
>it differently of course.
Well THANK YOU for admitting that. I suppose there is no need
now to "level the playing field." :-) :-) :-)
So when did you become a 209 supporter AS WELL AS a pro-life
activist? :-) :-) :-)
Keep shooting at random, Marg. Your foot just keeps getting in the way...
>>Marg, I don't take this all personally. I'm not going to question
>>your sincerity.
>
>Yes, I know that you don't and that is the pity of it. It is
>all just a game to you when it is real life for others. You're
>a waste of air.
I was really trying to be nice there. Could you put down the
pepper spray for a moment? (or at least use it on my steak?) :-)
>NO ONE is allowed to kill a born infant. A fetus is another story.
>I refuse to debate this issue with you (or anyone). It is a fait
>acomplait as far as I'm concerned and men, in particular, have NO
>business sticking their noses in this particular issue.
Hey, if you want _credit_, you have to accept duty. If you don't
want us "sticking [our] noses" in this issue, stop trying to
get us to pay for it.
>And yes,
>a single woman can go ahead and bring her child to term if SHE
>wishes to and society will help her out if that is necessary.
It seems that society helping women out is a common thing nowadays.
(Maybe that's why taxes are so high. :-)
Pat Winstanley
In article <bzajac-ya02408000...@news.tcsn.net>, Blair
Zajac <bza...@tcsn.net> writes
How's that?
Are you suggesting that 80% of kids grow up to be failures?
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Paul Robbins
Blair Zajac wrote:
>
> In article <5vg3rp$s...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> "THELAIRDS$"@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >
> >I have had the glorious joy of having kidney stones twice in my life.
> >The first time, my FEMALE doctor refused to do surgery, to give
> >medication, nor to try sound wave therapy. I passed two stones so large
> >I bled for three days after they passed.
> >
> >The second time, two years later, I had a male doctor. He gave me some
> >very good pain medication and blasted the suckers with sound waves. They
> >passed with minimal discomfort and no bleeding. Paul L
>
> Is there a moral to Paul's posting that a male would be better off not
> going to a female doctor?
>
> Zajac says, 'Laws are like paper money -- they are only valid as long as
> people have faith in them.'
>
> bza...@tcsn.net
Maybe the first doctor read some of his posts on the Net and disagreed
with what he had to say.
Just a thought.
Paul R
Per
On 11 Sep 1997 21:18:25 -0700, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen)
wrote:
>In article <341e5632...@news.idt.net>, Per <pe...@idt.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:22:36 -0600, m...@primarycolor.com wrote:
.
>>>These are quotes from my files that show deep down, that Marg
>>>and Carol Ann think like Patriarchal, victorian women.
.[...]
.
>>>Marg Petersen
.
>>> Why should he? Has HE gestated it? Has HE spent 9 months sheltering
>>> and providing nourishment for it? Has HE just gone through birth?
>>> I'm perfectly willing to *allow* him some rights to his child,
.
.
>> It's interesting that a feminist is willing to "allow" a
>>father some rights. Obviously she does not believe in equality if the
>>man has to have his rights "allowed" by a feminist.
.
>Please, per, put the emphasis where it belongs; on *willing*.
>I have NO jurisdiction whatsoever to allow anything.
.
Rewriting history again, Marg? In your original comment, you
yourself placed the emphasis on *allowed.*
.
>> Perhaps Marg could gain a better understanding of the concept
>>of rights, basic as they are to our civilization. Rights are something
>>you are guaranteed. They do not flow from some other member "allowing"
>>you your rights.
.
[...]
.
>By law, (and science) we (society) *allow*
>men the rights to their own children.
.
Heck, there you go again. Emphasis on *allow.*
But this is precisely the problem with fathers' rights. They
are sometimes "allowed" but rarely guaranteed.
.
> By the way, interesting
>that YOU of all people make such a comment based on your (other)
>statements about MEN *allowing* women the vote. Interesting as
>I said. :-)
.
I think you're rewriting history, again, as I don't think I've
ever phrased it that way. I DID note that men created the right to
vote and then gave women that right. So today you have a guaranteed
*right* to vote. Yet you consider yourself magnanimous if you *allow*
fathers some rights.
.
>> It's also interesting to contemplate that most of our rights
>>derive from men putting their lives on the line and undergoing agony
>>sometimes greater than that of childbirth. I wonder how Marg would
>>feel if someone should posit that we'll "allow" her a few rights even
>>though she didn't undergo the agony attendant on giving birth to them.
.
>Hmmm, that might preclude YOU and a whole lot of other men who
>made no such sacrifices.
.
I served in the military.
.
> Also interesting that you, a man, feels
>that he has any idea whatsoever of the agony of childbirth.
.
Delivery is done mostly in hospitals today. Soldiers who die
do so in the middle of swamps and jungles where there is no convenient
saddleblock when their legs are blown off.
.
-----
A giant eunuch Jesus? "Patriotic" human sacrifices? Cosmic patterns
striking a convention of feminists? Gloria Steinem getting down with
Satan? What's it all about? It's about MONDO FEMINISM!
Learn the truth, if you dare. See the MONDO FEMINISM Page at
http://idt.net/~per2/mondofem.htm
Marg Petersen
Good for you. Congratulations. You then are entitled to those
*bennies* you received from doing so. Women are not entitled to
such.
[snip]
> Delivery is done mostly in hospitals today. Soldiers who die
>do so in the middle of swamps and jungles where there is no convenient
>saddleblock when their legs are blown off.
Hmmmm, perhaps you haven't heard of the growing number of women
choosing homebirths? And just what that has to do with the
individual risks that individuals take is beyond me.
Mark Sobolewski
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> In <34236c8b...@news.idt.net> pe...@idt.net (Per) writes: \
> > Delivery is done mostly in hospitals today. Soldiers who die
> >do so in the middle of swamps and jungles where there is no convenient
> >saddleblock when their legs are blown off.
>
> to how many women give birth.
According to fedstats.gov, about 375 women died in the U.S. last year of
complications due to pregnancy.
536 men died in the gulf war. 200 men died on the USS Stark. 157 men
died in Lebanon. In the major conflicts, the numbers get bigger:
57,000 men dead in Vietnam.
Stating that no men died in a war recently is like saying that no
women died yesterday of childbirth complications (a very realistic
possibility since the numbers are so low). It's a misleading,
academically dishonest statement. It proves NOTHING.
> The thing you simply cannot
> avoid is that more women have, in fact, died from the
> complications of childbirth, than men have died in wars.
On the contrary, I have posted NATIONAL statistics that are very specific
about deaths from childbirth complications in this country. You are the one
avoiding the issue below:
> Women don't get veteran's benefits.
Because reproduction is a personal choice. If you want gestation
to be national service, then join the pro-life movement...
I don't care if a MILLION women die from childbirth complications today.
If you gals want to bungee jump and die too, it's still not national
service.
You know that's the main point. Go ahead, keep trying to distract us
with irrelevant points. It won't work.
> Many of those women
> who died did so without benefit of pain relivers, histori-
> cally. Even dying soldiers got morphine.
If you believe that morphine was freely available during the civil
war and that men died painlessly, then you are sadly mistaken.
Summation:
I have posted statistics and mid-wife accounts from this century and
the 18th suggesting that deaths from the _physical_ act of childbirth
have been wildly exaggerated in this country. You have not posted
anything otherwise.
Certainly childbirth in the 19th century could be considered national
service when marriage and childbirth were forced upon women.
However, as you say, comparing apples and oranges can be hazardous. :-)
Reproduction is considered a right and women are more than happy
to engage in it regardless of whether society wants them to or not.
(Welfare motherhood.) In fact, society is trying to discourage
teen pregnancy. Are teenage girls who act in defiance of society's
desires perforing a service?
Those are questions you have not adequately addressed. I don't expect
you to do so in the near future.
Mark Sobolewski
Mark Sobolewski
Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Blair Zajac <bza...@tcsn.net> writes
> >Haven't there been statements made to the effect that 80% of the caregivers
> >are women?
> >
> >If so, then Jan is saying is that as a whole a lot of them are failures.
> >
>
> How's that?
>
> Are you suggesting that 80% of kids grow up to be failures?
>
> Pat Winstanley
80 Percent is an intersting number. http://www.cnn.com recently
reported that 80% of teenage boys in Washington D.C. (our state
capital) have been wards of the criminal justice system (either
on parole or in prison.)
Will money solve the problem? Well, consider this: D.C. spends 10,000
per student on K-12 education. That's a quarter million dollars per
classroom per year. It has the highest taxes for a city in the country.
Hurrah for liberalism and single motherhood!
Mark Sobolewski
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <34236c8b...@news.idt.net> pe...@idt.net (Per) writes: \
(edit)
>.
> Delivery is done mostly in hospitals today. Soldiers who die
>do so in the middle of swamps and jungles where there is no convenient
>saddleblock when their legs are blown off.
---------
Of course, how many men today have that happen compared
to how many women give birth. The thing you simply cannot
avoid is that more women have, in fact, died from the
complications of childbirth, than men have died in wars.
Women don't get veteran's benefits. Many of those women
who died did so without benefit of pain relivers, histori-
cally. Even dying soldiers got morphine.
Lefty
stevengh...@worldnet.att.net
that they have neglected thier health,sanity,and social interaction to
support some women whose only contribution to society is to be an
incubator for mans offspring.
Pat Winstanley
In article <ms-170997...@ip-55-097.sna.primenet.com>, Mark
Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> writes
>Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Blair Zajac <bza...@tcsn.net> writes
>> >Haven't there been statements made to the effect that 80% of the caregivers
>> >are women?
>> >
>> >If so, then Jan is saying is that as a whole a lot of them are failures.
>> >
>>
>> How's that?
>>
>> Are you suggesting that 80% of kids grow up to be failures?
>>
>> Pat Winstanley
>
>80 Percent is an intersting number. http://www.cnn.com recently
>reported that 80% of teenage boys in Washington D.C. (our state
>capital) have been wards of the criminal justice system (either
>on parole or in prison.)
>
What - 80% of *all* teenage boys have been in prison or on parole?
Really?
>Will money solve the problem? Well, consider this: D.C. spends 10,000
>per student on K-12 education. That's a quarter million dollars per
>classroom per year. It has the highest taxes for a city in the country.
>
>Hurrah for liberalism and single motherhood!
>
>Mark Sobolewski
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Marg Petersen
In article <ms-170997...@ip-55-097.sna.primenet.com>,
Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>
>I don't care if a MILLION women die from childbirth complications today.
Yes, Mark, we know that.
>Mark Sobolewski
Charlie Kester
On 18 Sep 1997 02:22:23 -0700, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen)
wrote:
>In article <ms-170997...@ip-55-097.sna.primenet.com>,
>Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>>
>>I don't care if a MILLION women die from childbirth complications today.
>
>Yes, Mark, we know that.
>
>>Mark Sobolewski
>
>Marg
Out of all the things in Mark's post, you choose to snip and
respond to this?!? Marg, some of us have threaded newsreaders
and can plainly see that you are ignoring 99.9% of what he wrote.
Please respond to the statistical arguments he raised,
or have the good grace to admit that he's made the stronger
case.
charlie
Per
On 17 Sep 1997 20:09:04 -0700, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen)
wrote:
>In article <34236c8b...@news.idt.net>, Per <pe...@idt.net> wrote:
>> I served in the military.
.
>Good for you. Congratulations. You then are entitled to those
>*bennies* you received from doing so. Women are not entitled to
>such.
.
Feminism keeps reminding us of three things about pregnancy:
One, it's a personal choice.
Two, it's a matter of her privacy.
Three, it's about a woman controlling her own body.
Obviously, it's a private, personal choice. Why should you get
military-style benefits reserved for people who serve their country
rather than themselves? A soldier doesn't have a choice about obeying
orders, doesn't have privacy, and certainly doesn't have the right to
control his body when his body can be ordered about in accordance with
the military will.
And by the way, women do get benefits of a sort -- medicaid
for poor women, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the Womens,
Infants and Childrens programs, and welfare. You should know that
entitlement programs make up the largest sector of our budget, more,
in fact, than the military.
>[snip]
>
>> Delivery is done mostly in hospitals today. Soldiers who die
>>do so in the middle of swamps and jungles where there is no convenient
>>saddleblock when their legs are blown off.
>
>Hmmmm, perhaps you haven't heard of the growing number of women
>choosing homebirths? And just what that has to do with the
>individual risks that individuals take is beyond me.
>
>Marg
-----
Charlie Kester
>In article <34236c8b...@news.idt.net>, Per <pe...@idt.net> wrote:
>> Delivery is done mostly in hospitals today. Soldiers who die
>>do so in the middle of swamps and jungles where there is no convenient
>>saddleblock when their legs are blown off.
>
>Hmmmm, perhaps you haven't heard of the growing number of women
>choosing homebirths? And just what that has to do with the
>individual risks that individuals take is beyond me.
>
>Marg
Homebirth is now the equivalent of a firefight in the jungle?!?
Marg, you're getting more surreal with each new post you write...
m...@primarycolor.com
god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
>Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>>
>>I don't care if a MILLION women die from childbirth complications today.
>
>Yes, Mark, we know that.
_WHO_ _CARES_ even if it's true? What POINT are you trying to make?
Go ahead, put it in your .sig if you want to. It doesn't disprove
the points I have made. (I shall not bother repeating them because
both you and I know you have already lost. You just won't admit
it publicly.)
m...@primarycolor.com
Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> writes
>>> Are you suggesting that 80% of kids grow up to be failures?
>>>
>>reported that 80% of teenage boys in Washington D.C. (our state
>>capital) have been wards of the criminal justice system (either
>>on parole or in prison.)
>>
>
>What - 80% of *all* teenage boys have been in prison or on parole?
>Really?
Ok, they were talking about men between the ages of 18 to 35.
Book me Dano! :-) :-) :-)
_50%_ of young men in D.C. are wards of the state at this period
in time. (Parole or incarceration.)
I recently visited D.C. I walked around the mall and some of the
sights (and went to a wedding in North Virginia) I did not go to
old-town D.C. Taxicab drivers recommend you not even WALK TO YOUR
hotel at night in D.C. You should take a cab even if your destination
is a 5 minute walk away...
Paul A Laird
Home births still account for less than 10% of all births. I agree there
is no equivalence with a military battlefield. When was the last time a
shell from a 60 inch gun landed in your family room? Paul L
Paul A Laird
Chris Palazini wrote:
>
> On 17 Sep 1997 21:48:00 -0700, m...@primarycolor.com (Mark Sobolewski) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Because reproduction is a personal choice. If you want gestation
> > to be national service, then join the pro-life movement...
> >
> > service.
> >
> > You know that's the main point. Go ahead, keep trying to distract us
> > with irrelevant points. It won't work.
>
>
> On 18 Sep 1997 02:22:23 -0700, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
>
> > In article <ms-170997...@ip-55-097.sna.primenet.com>,
> > Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >I don't care if a MILLION women die from childbirth complications today.
> >
> > Yes, Mark, we know that.
>
> you willfully ignore the diktat of feminist rationale. This is
> why Ms. Petersen will vigorously expose you -- through out-of-
> context quoting and specious evasiveness -- for the misogynist
> she fervently wishes you to be. I wonder, does fervent wishing
> lead to bed-wetting?
>
> :: Chris ::
Nope, it leads to wrinkles, gray hair, and PMS. Paul L
Paul A Laird
Charlie Kester wrote:
>
> On 18 Sep 1997 02:22:23 -0700, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <ms-170997...@ip-55-097.sna.primenet.com>,
> >Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>I don't care if a MILLION women die from childbirth complications today.
> >
> >Yes, Mark, we know that.
> >
> >
> >Marg
>
> Out of all the things in Mark's post, you choose to snip and
> respond to this?!? Marg, some of us have threaded newsreaders
> and can plainly see that you are ignoring 99.9% of what he wrote.
>
> Please respond to the statistical arguments he raised,
> or have the good grace to admit that he's made the stronger
> case.
>
> charlie
The "snip & clip" trick is one used by Lefty and Marge quite frequently.
If one does not take time to check out what was really said one could
side with them. The very immoral act of this type of "referencing" has
been used against Marge, and she is quite vocal about its unfairness
then. Wonder why it is okay now? Paul L
Marg Petersen
In article <342240b0...@news.nwlink.com>,
Charlie Kester <cke...@NOSPAM.nwlink.com> wrote:
>On 17 Sep 1997 20:09:04 -0700, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <34236c8b...@news.idt.net>, Per <pe...@idt.net> wrote:
>
>>> Delivery is done mostly in hospitals today. Soldiers who die
>>>do so in the middle of swamps and jungles where there is no convenient
>>>saddleblock when their legs are blown off.
>>
>>Hmmmm, perhaps you haven't heard of the growing number of women
>>choosing homebirths? And just what that has to do with the
>>individual risks that individuals take is beyond me.
>>
>>Marg
>
>Homebirth is now the equivalent of a firefight in the jungle?!?
>Marg, you're getting more surreal with each new post you write...
>
>
Thank you.
Pat Winstanley
In article <8746035...@dejanews.com>, m...@primarycolor.com writes
>
>Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> writes
>>>> Are you suggesting that 80% of kids grow up to be failures?
>>>>
>>>80 Percent is an intersting number. http://www.cnn.com recently
>>>reported that 80% of teenage boys in Washington D.C. (our state
>>>capital) have been wards of the criminal justice system (either
>>>on parole or in prison.)
>>>
>>
>>What - 80% of *all* teenage boys have been in prison or on parole?
>>Really?
>
>Ok, they were talking about men between the ages of 18 to 35.
>Book me Dano! :-) :-) :-)
>
>_50%_ of young men in D.C. are wards of the state at this period
>in time. (Parole or incarceration.)
>
>I recently visited D.C. I walked around the mall and some of the
>sights (and went to a wedding in North Virginia) I did not go to
>old-town D.C. Taxicab drivers recommend you not even WALK TO YOUR
>hotel at night in D.C. You should take a cab even if your destination
>is a 5 minute walk away...
Wow!
Remind me not to visit Washington with my sons when we take a trip to
the US... I'd rather like to take both of them home with me instead of
leaving one in prison!
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
m...@primarycolor.com
>>>Really?
>>
>>Ok, they were talking about men between the ages of 18 to 35.
>>Book me Dano! :-) :-) :-)
>>
>>_50%_ of young men in D.C. are wards of the state at this period
>>in time. (Parole or incarceration.)
>>
>>I recently visited D.C. I walked around the mall and some of the
>>sights (and went to a wedding in North Virginia) I did not go to
>>old-town D.C. Taxicab drivers recommend you not even WALK TO YOUR
>>hotel at night in D.C. You should take a cab even if your destination
>>is a 5 minute walk away...
>
>Wow!
>
>Remind me not to visit Washington with my sons when we take a trip to
>the US... I'd rather like to take both of them home with me instead of
>leaving one in prison!
That's not going to happen. We have something called presumption
of innocence in this country. People are not judged guilty because of
their skin color or gender, except of course, in affirmative action
programs. :-)
Seriously, a visit to D.C. is fun for about two days. The museums
and sights on the mall are absolutely first rate. After that,
you should hit "colonial" virginia and look at the civil war
battle sights (although you probably are already used to seeing
lots of old historical battlesights in Britain. :-)
May I recommend Orange County? We have excellent surf (at least
during hurricane watch for the next two days :-) and almost NO
shark attacks. :-) :-) :-)
Marg Petersen
In article <8740852...@dejanews.com>, <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>Also the truth. I'll take the boring truth over feminist fantasies
>anyday.
>
>Mark Sobolewski
And the fact that you consider ONLY what you believe in as truth
is particularly sad; sad for those you interact with, sad for those
around you and sad for you.
altavoZ
Are you suggesting that 80% of kids grow up to be failures?
altavoz:
That 80% matches the female sole custody rate .
Pat , where did you get all that vile hatred for men ?! It must
be eating your heart out , if you have one .
Mark Sobolewski
god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
> And the fact that you consider ONLY what you believe in as truth
> is particularly sad; sad for those you interact with, sad for those
> around you and sad for you.
>
> Marg
Marg, it's FRIDAY! Lighten up!
Doo... doo doo, doo doo ... doo doo doo doodoo
Don't worry! Be happy!
TGIF! :-)
Mark Sobolewski
Marg Petersen
In article <8744325...@dejanews.com>, <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
>>Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>>>"Pregnancies" are not all a benefit to society even if we accept
>>>your arguement. Pregnancy alone doesn't result in childbirth if
>>>all the women in question get abortions. :-) The only people who
>consider
>>>ALL *childbirths* a social benefit (including into poverty) tend to be
>>>Roman Catholics such as the Pope or Mother Theresa. And they are
>>>pro-life for that reason.
>>
>>Well, there seem to be quite enough children being born to keep
>>the human species going, however, if ALL pregnancies were to end
>>in abortion, then we would have aproblem eh?
>
>To bring the debate back to Roman Catholics: I have an associate
>whose a Jesuit who has an interesting perspective on this issue:
Why just Roman Catholics. I am a feminist and yet I am neither
catholic nor protestant.
>He feels that because feminists tend to get abortions while
>stay at home "obedient" Christian mothers just squeeze the kids
>out, that it's only a matter of time before feminism goes the
>way of the dinosaur.
>
>So yes, I have to agree with you: If feminists want to all get
>abortions, then I guess that's just the way it is. Go ahead,
>encourage feminists to get abortions. :-) Call our bluff! :-) :-)
>:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Women will get abortions whether you like it or not. It has
always been so. And yes, I encourage women to get abortions
IF they want to do so. I also encourage those who wish to
continue their pregnancies to term, to do so. Your argument
is a straw man, and I DO mean man.
>>>Marg, I would hate to take you out to Black Angus. You would
>>>probably order EVERYTHING on the menu and go home sick. :-)
>>>You can't have every logical position in every way. They all have
>>>their associated advantages and disadvantages. Either decide
>>>whether you're a feminist or a patriarchal supporter.
>>
>>Gee, when have feminists EVER NOT been child friendly?
>
>I quote from the end of your article:
>>yes a woman has the right to leave the kitchen if she pleases (just
>>as men have always done), and to hell with what *anyone* else wants.
>
>"To hell with what *anyone* else wants..." that speaks for itself.
Yup, it is left (as it should be) to the individual (man or woman)
to do as they see fit. You didn't ask me, nor did I respond to,
anything about whether or not *I* believed they should behave in
one manner over another.
>>Oh, I know, in *your* philsophy. Well, dear, let me explain it, yes
>>I can be a feminist and believe in a woman's right to an
>>abortion and at the SAME time, I can also be supportive of a
>>woman who wishes to continue her pregnancy to term with or
>>without the father's approval.
>
>The above isn't much of an ideology. It seems to be "girls
>just want to have fun" type of lifestyle. Do they even bother
>teaching this in women's studies courses? I would think that
>girls could learn the same thing at a drunken frat party.
Contrary to your opinion, I've never taken a "women's studies"
course, nor been to a drunken frat party.
>>>I never said that there wasn't a benefit to children being born.
>>>I just said that society shouldn't have to reward people for things
>>>they are expected to do anyway.
>>
>>Ah, I see, so women ARE expected to give birth.
>
>Are they? Has abortion been outlawed in the last few days? :-)
>
>I agree: I phrased that badly. I could just as easily have said:
>"things they do anyway."
That is correct. And so too is fighting (ie. war), things that
*some* men will do anyway, just as *some* women will give birth.
So?
>>And MEN, are they also EXPECTED to go to war?
>
>Nope. If they were "expected" to, there wouldn't be a need to
>create a law FORCING them. Society "expects" people to watch TV,
>have a good time at the beach, and drive over 65MPH. Society
>creates LAWS to force people to act DIFFERENTLY than expectations...
You know Mark, men have in the past, *volunteered* to go to war.
Not ALL of them had to be forced to do so. Now that's not
necessarily a good thing OR a bad thing (historically), however,
it IS a fact. So, we should *only* give benefits now to those
who are *forced* to go to war and NOT to those who go willingly?
Hahahahahahah!!! You really ARE a nutcase.
>>Then why in heavens name
>>should THEY get any benefits for doing what society expects
>>them to do anyway. :-)
>
>Society EXPECTS men to NOT sign up unless they are FORCED to.
>That's why a draft and registration system is in place.
No, the draft was instituted because not *enough* (or so the
government felt) men signed up willingly. Or perhaps they were
afraid that not enough would. Do you honestly believe that in
today's world, IF we had another war there would not be enough
men AND women to willingly sign up to defend their country that
a draft would *have* to be instituted? Sad that you believe that.
>Women are not being "forced" to live up to expectations because
>the expectations are rather _low_.
So YOU say, Mark. Your expectations of women are low because
you consider what women DO to be *low*. And you claim to NOT
be a misogynist? Phehhhh!!!!
>>>I consider it a benefit to society to clean my kitchen, work for a
>>>living, keep my car in SAFE operational condition, and clean my
>>>cats' barf (especially the latter :-)
>>>
>>>I don't expect a medal because they are all my own PERSONAL
>>>responsibilities and duties anyway. Are you one of those kids that
>>>expected your mother and father to pay you for cleaning your own
>>>room? :-)
>>
>>No, but I bet YOU were. And you're just annoyed that no one
>>will pay you now.
>
>?!?!?!?! YOU are the one with that position. You're losing it.
No, dear, YOU said it, I didn't. You claimed that was how *I*
was. I'd say that since the idea came from your befuddled brain,
that it was more than likely your *own* opinion and attitude,
not mine.
>>I said, a *contribution*, I didn't say it was *mandated*.
>
>EXACTLY. You know the difference after all.
>Quit playing dumb. I now know that YOU know the difference.
>
>>>You spend a great deal of your time justifying benefits such as
>>>child-support and alimony for women. You are now going to
>>>claim that women are "unrewarded"? :-)
>>
>>Yes, they are and I do.
>
>You are entitled to this opinion. You are free to believe in Santa
>Claus and the Easter Bunny too if it makes you feel any better.
And you just wish to believe in male privilege and superiority
and patriarchal advantages.
>You are now reduced to openly denying easily observed facts.
>You have lost this debate. All the rest is just me having fun with ya.
Well, then, if that's the case, sayonara. I hear there might be
a mission to Mars soon. Why don't you "take a hike?" :-)
>Mark Sobolewski
Marg Petersen
In article <34216A...@worldnet.att.net>,>> On 18 Sep 1997 02:22:23 -0700, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ms-170997...@ip-55-097.sna.primenet.com>,
>> >Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>I don't care if a MILLION women die from childbirth complications today.
>> >
>> >Yes, Mark, we know that.
>> >
>> >>Mark Sobolewski
>> >
>> >Marg
>>
>> Out of all the things in Mark's post, you choose to snip and
>> respond to this?!? Marg, some of us have threaded newsreaders
>> and can plainly see that you are ignoring 99.9% of what he wrote.
>>
>> Please respond to the statistical arguments he raised,
>> or have the good grace to admit that he's made the stronger
>> case.
>>
>> charlie
>
>The "snip & clip" trick is one used by Lefty and Marge quite frequently.
>If one does not take time to check out what was really said one could
>side with them. The very immoral act of this type of "referencing" has
>been used against Marge, and she is quite vocal about its unfairness
>then. Wonder why it is okay now? Paul L
Excuse me. Are you denying that Mark said the above? Has it ever
occurred to you (or to anyone else) that I was SO incensed by his
remark that I simply felt that there was nothing else that I
considered worthy of saying to him? Nah, it couldn't be that,
now could it because I'm a woman and a woman will *always* talk
to a man no matter how vitriolic he becomes. And you'd much rather
(it does fit your agenda now doesn't it) to assume that I had other
ulterior motives. In answer to your comment (which is also NOT
worthy of a response but I will give it just this once), NO, I had
NO intention of doing any sneaky tricky dicky "snip & clip" in order
to impress. I was incensed and enraged as I believe, any decent
human being would be at Mark's comment; taken in context or without.
It (and he) disgust me beyond words. That is it! No more. You
want me to leave the group? Fine, I'm gone. After this post, I
am unsubscribing from ALL newsgroups. You can ALL fry in hell for
all I care and you deserve it.
J Shearer
altavoZ <alta...@mail.idt.net> writes: > Are you suggesting that 80% of kids grow up to be failures?
***************************************************************
Altavoz, what rock did you slither back out from under? YOU are the one
with a problem, IMHO. Pat has never, to my knowledge showed ANY "hatred
for men." You, on the other hand, show all sorts of hatred for women in
every post you make. Why do you bother to visit this ng--just have to spew
your venom, eh? Jan
*******************************************************************************
Pat Winstanley
In article <3421FF...@mail.idt.net>, altavoZ <alta...@mail.idt.net>
writes
>Are you suggesting that 80% of kids grow up to be failures?
>Pat Winstanley
>
>
>altavoz:
>That 80% matches the female sole custody rate .
Maybe... but what about the kids who grow up in intact families - that
figure apparently includes them? How come most of them are crims too?
Kids growing up WITH their dad around!
The figure quoted was af *all* kids, not just kids from lone parent
families.
Pat Winstanley
"http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html"
Charlie Kester
OK, Marg, so you score some easy rhetorical points with your
indignation over Mark's casual use of the words "I don't care". But
you STILL haven't responded to his statistical arguments --- or to the
fact that his "I don't care" wasn't an expression of anti-woman
feelings. It was a way of saying that the number of women dying from
childbirth complications is *irrelevant* to the argument he was
making. Anyone with a threaded newsreader and access to his
whole message can verify that. Despite what you say, context
*is* important.
So please, stop being evasive or puffing yourself up in righteous
indignation. Respond to the argument by disproving his statistics,
or by showing the relevance of deaths during childbirth.
charlie
Larry Rogers
Unfortunately, Marg wasn't one of them.
Larry
Marg Petersen wrote in article <5vqrsf$qfs$1...@kira.peak.org>...
:In article <ms-170997...@ip-55-097.sna.primenet.com>,
:Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
:>
:>I don't care if a MILLION women die from childbirth complications
today.
:
:Yes, Mark, we know that.
:
:>Mark Sobolewski
:
:Marg
:
:--
Paul A Laird
Marg Petersen wrote:
>
> In article <34216A...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Paul A Laird <"THELAIRDS$"@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Charlie Kester wrote:
> >>
> >> On 18 Sep 1997 02:22:23 -0700, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>I don't care if a MILLION women die from childbirth complications today.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, Mark, we know that.
> >> >
> >> >>Mark Sobolewski
> >> >
> >> >Marg
> >>
>
> --
> Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
> god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
> "At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
No, only saying you took one phrase in a fairly long post and made it
appear that was his point. It wasn't. You used that phrase highly out of
context and attempted to make other people believe he aaid something he
did not say. You have complained vociferously in the past about those
who use that tactic with you. Why then do you believe it OK to use
against him. I read his entire message. You deliberately tried to
mislead others with your clip & snip. That was unfair and, IMHO,
immoral. Paul L
m...@primarycolor.com
god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
> Excuse me. Are you denying that Mark said the above? Has it ever
> occurred to you (or to anyone else) that I was SO incensed by his
> remark that I simply felt that there was nothing else that I
> considered worthy of saying to him?
I never denied it Marg. Heck, I don't even care that it's taken out
of context. I can beat you with one hand behind my back. It's not
difficult.
> Nah, it couldn't be that,
> now could it because I'm a woman and a woman will *always* talk
> to a man no matter how vitriolic he becomes.
Guys! Now she's crying like A GIRL! Don't you all just feel bad?
Hey, you gals got mean on the playground too. Carol Ann used the phrase
penis credits to describe men simply wanting credit for their national
service and duties.
> And you'd much rather
> (it does fit your agenda now doesn't it) to assume that I had other
> ulterior motives.
Oh, and you never accuse US of having ulterior motives? You never accuse
per of being a white male supremicist without proof? Or me for that
matter? Or most white men?
> In answer to your comment (which is also NOT
> worthy of a response but I will give it just this once), NO, I had
> NO intention of doing any sneaky tricky dicky "snip & clip" in order
> to impress.
I'll confess and admit that this _whole thread started_ with me
posting clips from Marg and Carol Ann justifying Patriarchal privileges
for women and how these positions devalue their feminism positions.
That's why I'm not going to whine about the snip and clip. I play
with the big boys so I don't mind getting bruised. You just don't
handle yourself so well Marg. May I suggest that you relax this weekend?
> I was incensed and enraged as I believe, any decent
> human being would be at Mark's comment; taken in context or without.
> It (and he) disgust me beyond words. That is it! No more. You
> want me to leave the group? Fine, I'm gone.
You can almost hear her stomoping her little feet! :-)
Nobody asked you to leave Marg, but if you want to say so for your
victimhood status, go right ahead. Be a good victim and run away.
> After this post, I
> am unsubscribing from ALL newsgroups. You can ALL fry in hell for
> all I care and you deserve it.
I can hardly wait to see if you have the guts to do this. :-)
I've had difficult weeks in my life too. I hope you have a good weekend
and relax a little. Really.
Blair Zajac
In article <5vt4ek$2ac$1...@kira.peak.org>, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg
Petersen) wrote:
snip
> You
>want me to leave the group? Fine, I'm gone. After this post, I
>am unsubscribing from ALL newsgroups. You can ALL fry in hell for
>all I care and you deserve it.
>
>Marg
>
Well, Marg made my day! Lefty could do the same.
--
Zajac says, 'Laws are like paper money -- they are only valid as long as
people have faith in them.'
Paul A Laird
Ohhhhhhhhhh, I'm scared. (deep, unending sarcasm) Paul L
Chris Palazini <cp...@earthling.net> wrote in article
<3428ac22...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>...
> Paul, Ms. Petersen condemned you to fry in hell for taking her
> to task on her ultra-selective quoting. As you can see, she's
> blown her stack, and it's all your fault. Prepare to get
> pitchforked judiciously by the NOW representative in the red
> underwear -- after all, you deserve it; Ms. Petersen
> said so.
>
> :: Chris ::
>
>
>
Charlie Kester
On 20 Sep 1997 04:31:44 GMT, "Paul A Laird"
<THEL...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
But Marg doesn't really believe in Hell!
She told me so when I asked her what it might be like in the
afterlife when women confront all the babies they've aborted.
I guess what Marg meant is that, if there is a Hell, it must be
reserved for enemies of the feminist movement. This Hell
surely exists, and many divorced men are currently living in it.
charlie
John Reinhagen
Also sprach Lenny Schafer:
>Charlie Kester <cke...@NOSPAM.nwlink.com> wrote:
>: On 18 Sep 1997 02:22:23 -0700, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen)
>: wrote:
>: >In article <ms-170997...@ip-55-097.sna.primenet.com>,
>: >Mark Sobolewski <m...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>: >>I don't care if a MILLION women die from childbirth complications today.
>: >Yes, Mark, we know that.
>: respond to this?!?
>This is Marg's attempt to change the subject, dodge the issues. Her
>response is an ad hominem against Mark. Destroy Mark and she might be
>able to destroy his argument, too.
>
>It's a sign of her weak position.
Of course, her recent hissy-fit and withdrawal is an even better sign of the
weakness of her position.
And deceptive snipping is quite common among Marg's pals. Look at Carol
Hemingway's posts and you'll see what I mean. Stacy Alexander goes even
further -- she edits the quotes to suit her purposes.
One down, several to go.
Let's get crackin'.
JCR
--
"I feel like a sad old man with a boiled owl in my stomach..."
-- Jim Woodring, "Invisible Hinge"
Paul A Laird
I think I'd rather be the King of Cracks than the Queen of Crackpots, your
highness! Paul L
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<6023e9$5...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>...
> -------
> Another lack of argument from the king of the cracks!
>
>
> Lefty
>